Are You Guilty of Being a Real Leader?

“Real leaders are not called to lead up consensus they are to mold consensus, and without a doubt, this will create enemies.”

When you see a leader taking a stand and, as a result, his life is threatened, gets dumped by his sponsors, condemned by the establishment “politicians” and taken out of context by the state-controlled media, you have to understand that he is not one that is going along to get along, but rather is a genuine leader. This, in many cases, is the identifying characteristic when it comes to what a leader looks and acts like. And real leaders are what is needed in America (Rev. 5:5).

What is a leader?  Often, when making a new contact, I will first vet them before allying myself (Amos 3:3).  After all, there is a huge difference between a public person and a leader.

For example, I had a very well-known preacher come to stay out at my place, but before having him come out I went and vetted him to see what his enemies were saying of him (John 15:17-18).  Lo and behold, I discovered he had many unlawful and un-American enemies attacking his ministry. He was leading, not asking permission to do so. At every turn, he seemed to be in trouble for standing up for righteousness and the laws of our republic (Matthew 5:10; Luke 6:22-26).

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Bradlee Dean Luke 22-27

In contrast, how many of today’s self-positioned leaders, regardless if they are preachers, patriots or conservatives, are as worthless as the ones whom they complain about? After all, they have a reputation to keep up (Philippians 2:7-9).  They go along to get along. They don’t offend anyone because they do not stand for anything; and if they were to have enemies, someone might think ill of them for actually taking a stand for what is right.  Of course, they cannot have that (Gal. 6:12).

In the conservative movement (today’s conservatives are yesterday’s liberals), for example, you have a bunch of men who are no more than paper tigers.  They play the politically correct game as long as it is safe enough for them to hide behind their computers and get away with whatever it is that they write.  Because they live under a false pretense, they are too spineless to actually fight for what they say that they love (2 Timothy 4:7; Jude 1:3).

As a matter of fact, when it comes to the fight, which is the furthest thing from their minds, they say, “Let someone else do the fighting,” demonstrating their lack of integrity.  They love their country so much that their degree of sacrifice is going to another fruitless conference to be seen and talk.  Of course, it goes no further than talk (Matthew 15:8).

They hide behind a title, watching the game of life and telling everyone how they are to live their lives, but not applying it to themselves (Jeremiah 9:3; Malachi 2:2).  Hypocrites!

Search out your favorite patriot, preacher or conservative and see what they stand for. If there is no opposition, it means they are not standing.

What of the women? I am not here talking about the women that are laying it down, doing what the men ought to be doing. I high five these brave and classy women such as Pamela Geller, Brigitte Gabriel, Katherine Albrecht and others.

I am talking of the conservative women, which you can find everywhere but where they ought to be, and with someone else except who they ought to be with. These conservative women act like little 15-year-old cheerleaders who did not get their fill of attention in high school.  Now they have brought it into adulthood. To them, the fight for liberty is some sort of fashion show fantasy. The sad fact is that everyone sees them for what they are; and that is “little, immature, snotty girls” who never grew up mentally, but are trapped in the body of 50 or 60-year-old woman.

These women love the limelight so much that everything is sacrificed, including their families.  This is all for the opportunity to be seen by men (Matthew 23:5).  They love their titles too, and don’t forget to add them to their names when they are out in public. Apparently these women do not have the right people around them that actually love them enough to tell them to grow up and raise their families (Titus 2:4-5).

Do a search on these worldlings and you will find nothing that proves the contrary to what I am saying.

Herein lies the problem with the America we know.  These profess to be one thing.  Yet, in reality, they are the opposite. They are no different than what they complain about (1 Kings 18:21).  In short, these people are the problem (Philippians 3:18).  They contend that they want peace in a world that is at war with what they profess to believe in, but they do not go to war to have it set right (John 16:33).

These self-positioned leaders fail to understand that men follow courage and not titles (Mark 8:27).  They believe that it is their position to be served rather than being the ones who are to serve (Luke 22:27).

Bradlee Dean is an ordained preacher, heavy metal drummer, talk-show host of the Sons of Liberty Radio, and speaks on college and high school campuses with his ministry, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International. @BradleeDean1

A Call to Formally Label ISIS Attacks on Christians, Yezidis as Genocide

Genocidal intent can clearly be seen in Islamic States ideology and mission to purge their possessed territories of every man, woman and child deemed to be an unbelieverClick To Tweet

Abigail R. Esman | IPT News

Christian genocideThey buy and sell the women, using them as slaves. They kidnap children, even infants, and detonate them as bombs. As the Islamic State tightens its grip on Syria and Iraq, the horror of its atrocities reaches unimaginable depths. And what remains of Christianity in the Middle East is dying, massacred through the torture, displacement, and murder of an entire population.

Now, former Congressman Frank Wolf, R-Va., is calling on the U.S. government and the United Nations to declare the rampage a genocide. “Genocidal intent can clearly be seen in Islamic State’s ideology and mission which is directed toward the creation of a global caliphate that has been purged of every man, woman, and child deemed to be an ‘unbeliever’ through either forced conversion or death,” Wolf, now a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, a Christian human rights group, wrote last week in a letter to President Obama. “In Iraq, this has manifested most clearly in the insurgency’s actions against Christians and Yezidis. They have been killed, tortured, kidnapped, raped, sold into slavery, and forcibly removed from their territorial homeland.”

Indeed, the stories coming out of Syria and Iraq about the plight of religious minorities there are more than soul-searing: they nearly defy credibility in their hideousness. A cover story in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, for instance, describes the abduction of a 3-year-old girl from her mother, and the separation of captives into “healthy” and “infirm” groups, a gesture chillingly reminiscent of the Holocaust. Often, there is a third group, comprised of women, soon to be sold as sex slaves.

Other reports are equally gruesome. The children born to these captured women, Wolf wrote, who are repeatedly raped by ISIS soldiers, and raised “to conform to the insurgency’s interpretation of ‘pure’ Islam.”

“ISIS has kidnapped and forcibly transferred the children of Christians and Yezidis, including children as young as seven months,” Wolf added. “Reports indicate that these children are being intimidated and brainwashed in order to create the next generation of radical insurgents.” For this reason, “it is imperative that the issue be brought immediately before the Security Council and that a declaration of genocide be made.”

Wolf’s entreaty stands on solid research, including a report based on interviews 21st-century Wilberforce conducted with 75 people in the region. The report quotes one Christian leader: “This is not just the end of Christianity, but the end of our ethnicity who have lived here for thousands of years.” And a priest now living in Beirut told theTimes, “We’re afraid our whole society will vanish.”

The Yezidi community – or what remains of it – is of particular concern, having been nearly decimated in 2014. Tens of thousands of Yezidis were driven from their homes by ISIS militants, and forced onto Mt. Sinjar, where hundreds of men were killed and women were brutally and systematically raped. According to the Wilberforce report, “Approximately 700 girls were held, including a 7-month-old who had been kidnapped from her family to be raised by IS. The girls were separated according to eye color, and members of IS were allowed to choose the young women according to personal preference.”

The persecution of Christian and other minority groups by the Islamic State has, in fact, been described as “genocide” by any number of civil rights groups already, and the UN stated in a March report that IS “may have committed” genocide. President Obama also referred to genocide in draft legislation requesting the use of force against ISIS this past February.

But both the Obama administration and the U.N. have fallen short of issuing a formal accusation of genocide under the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment for the Crime of Genocide. Such a declaration could potentially permit the use of military force (if approved by the UN Security Council), said Antonia Chayes, a professor of international politics and law at the Fletcher School.

“Current support for U.S. bombing in Syria is based on collective self-defense invoked by Iraq,” Chayes told me. “But the additional declaration of genocide could possibly add weight to arguments for military force placed before the UN Security Council.”

For now, Wolf has proposed a six-point plan, which would include creating an oasis for religious minorities in the Nineveh Plain; support of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s “efforts to build a context of civil discourse, freedom of religion, human wrights protection and the inclusion of all minorities; education assistance for displaced Christians and Yezidis; and investigations and the prosecution of the Islamic state for crimes against humanity and genocide.”

These are heroic goals, and certainly worth striving for. And Wolf is right that the United States can and must take a leading role.

But will it make any difference?

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.



Warren Buffett And Elon Musk To Spark A Lithium Boom

320px-Nissan Leaf 012The age of electrification across the transportation sector, the solar panel revolution, and Tesla’s battery gigafactory are igniting a battle for the cheapest battery. That will transform lithium into a boom-time mineral and the hottest commodity on the energy investor’s radar. It has been easy to take lithium for granted. This wonder mineral is the backbone of our everyday lives, popping up in everything from the glass in our windows to our mountains of electronics.

And while investors have long appreciated the steady rise in demand for this preferred mineral, the number of new applications continues to multiply. Smart phones, tablets, laptops, and other consumer electronics demand more lithium. But the largest driver for future lithium use will be in electric vehicles and home batteries for solar panels. That has lithium on the verge a boom for which supply can no longer be taken for granted.

Not since the shale boom have we seen a market transformation of such significance. Lithium has long been used for a variety of mundane purposes, and while the variety is spectacular—with applications in everything from glass, ceramics and greases to a line-up of industrial process—it has flown under the radar for most investors.

Supply has always largely managed to keep pace with steadily rising demand for lithium, and while the mineral is slated for growth with or without the ‘battery explosion’, Tesla’s gigafactory will spark a phenomenal spike in demand that will be no less exciting than the shale boom.

Not only will battery gigafactories change an already attractive lithium demand picture, but the suppliers themselves will change, making way for newer entrants—with more foresight and better technology–that will provide some of the best investment opportunities in the sector.

The lithium story cannot be told without first telling the Tesla story. Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) is developing a cheaper line of electric cars for release later this decade, and to achieve this it is constructing a $5-billion gigafactory to build 500,000 electric cars with the objective of lowering the cost of batteries by at least 30 percent.

Moreover, around one-quarter of the plant’s capacity may be for Tesla’s stationary storage business, which also sells backup batteries for homes, businesses and utilities—all fueled by lithium.

According to Tesla’s brainchild, Elon Musk, demand for stationary storage batteries has skyrocketed to the point that an expansion of the gigafactory may have to be considered before it is even built.

Musk is eyeing a “complete transformation of the entire energy infrastructure of the world to completely sustainable zero carbon,” and what he’s talking about here is lithium-battery production on a mind-blowing scale. Tesla is planning to produce more lithium-ion batteries in this factory than in the entire global marketplace combined.

Lithium—the lightest and most versatile of the metals—is the backbone of this exploding battery market. Lithium is already a key part of our everyday lives, but as batteries become the rule of the day in a new global energy picture, demand for lithium is soaring—and we are only at the beginning of this curve.

Battery manufacturers across the board are moving to lithium because it has the highest electric output per unit weight. And nowhere will this demand soar more than with the production of hybrid, plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles used by everyone from Toyota (NYSE:TM), Honda (NYSE:HMC), Nissan (NYSE:NSANY), Renault (EPA:RNO), and Mitsubishi (NYSE:MSBHY), to Ford (NYSE:F), Chevrolet and GM (NYSE:GM). And of course Tesla Motors. Without lithium, there will be no gigafactory. In fact, this factory alone will need 15,000 tons of lithium carbonate a year just to get started.

We are on the edge of a profound competition over batteries as Tesla drives down lithium-ion battery production costs, lowers the benchmark and increases cost competition. The response will be new entrants to this market, and competing battery gigafactories.

Tesla’s competitors will make this one of the biggest battles of the century—a battle the entirely depends on lithium supply. Tesla’s biggest rival will likely be Build Your Dreams (BYD), the Chinese automaker backed by Warren Buffet. Already, BYD is building electric buses on American soil and has global gigafactory ambitions. By the end of the year, according to Reuters, BYD should have 10 GWh of battery production capacity, which it expects to increase to 34 GWh by 2020 with a new factory in Brazil—about the same capacity as Tesla’s.

Other Tesla rivals rushing to the battery production scene will be iPhone manufacturer Foxconn and LG Chem, which is already one of the top three battery makers. Samsung is also hot on the trail, having just acquired Magna’s battery production division.

According to Credit Suisse, the lithium industry is “poised for significant volume growth,” which could lead to shortages of supply. As a result producers of lithium are set to enjoy significant earnings throughout the decade.

Even before Tesla’s gigafactory – and its rivals – entered the picture, global lithium consumption had doubled in the decade before 2012, driven largely by its use in lithium-ion batteries for cell phones and power tools. Then electric cars hit the scene in earnest, further boosting demand for lithium, while Tesla’s gigafactory is expected to use up as much as 17 percent of the existing lithium supply, according to Fortune magazine, citing Goldman Sachs.

For investors who are just catching on to the lithium battery revolution, the best way to play the game is to look past the traditional lithium producers. In this boom scenario, investors will be looking at companies with the lowest market caps, solid management and highly prospective deposits.

Currently, lithium is not traded as a commodity; rather, it is managed through a kind of oligopoly situation where there are three or four major suppliers globally and they have rather successfully managed supply and demand for lithium over the past decades. Because of this, everything is priced on a contract basis.

“The problem is that these three or four major suppliers have been responsible for supply and demand but they are not going to be able to meet new demand for lithium,” Dr. Andy Robinson, a Ph.D. in Geochemistry and the COO of Pure Energy Minerals (OTMKTS:HMGLF), told

As Robinson points out, however, not all lithium is equal. It’s sold in different types for different prices. For instance, lithium carbonate sells for around $6,000 per ton and is used to make some of the materials for new battery technology. However, many of the new battery technologies—particularly those used by Tesla—use lithium hydroxide as the starting material, which trades at around $2,000 more per ton than lithium carbonate.

And lithium found in salty water, or brines, is by far the most cost effective. According to Dr. Robinson, “brine is the best way to produce lithium because it’s so cheap, as nature has done all the hard work in rendering the lithium into a form that is easy to extract from the ground. All you have to do is drill a few wells and pump the liquid brine.”

Furthermore, there are only a few places in the world where lithium is present at high enough concentrations in these salty brines and the most famous is in the Atacama Desert, in the “Lithium Triangle” of Bolivia, Argentina and Chile. Supply here is threatened by corruption and politics, making it difficult to capitalize on burgeoning demand.

When Tesla’s gigafactory comes online, everyone will be looking for cost-effective lithium sources closer to home, which brings us full circle to the state of Nevada, where Pure Energy Minerals has the only potential future brine resource in North America. The only other brine resources are located in China, are much smaller and are controlled by Chinese companies.

Lithium is increasingly the tech of choice for battery banks across the board, and when Tesla’s gigafactory is producing batteries one year from now, the winners in this emerging battery boom will be those behind the lithium, and those following the brine.


By James Stafford of

Trumped-Up Charges: Where is the Righteous Outrage?

Summary: The media attack Donald Trump for telling the truth about America’s problems. Yet they ignore the outrageous and tragic scandals of Obama and Hillary, including their embrace of Islamic terrorists, use of IRS against political enemies, and decimation of the American economy. THE TIME FOR CITIZENS TO SPEAK UP IS NOW!

Over the last few weeks, the bought-and-paid-for media have been presenting Donald Trump and his outspoken, truthful comments as outrageous.   These “Trumped-up” charges are ridiculous. All the Donald has done is point out what mostly everyone knows: Emperor Barack has no clothes. (Spare us the thought.)

Indeed, Trump was correct regarding his comments about Mexico and the millions of seedy, violent, and criminal characters who cross the southern border. In terms of illegal immigration, this summer is at least on par with last summer. Unknown “refugees” flood into the USA via Mexico; and through a federally-funded program, we accept Muslim refugees from countries which are notoriously anti-American. As Trump courageously pointed out, we take very few Christian refugees from the Middle East.

The Media’s Double (Non-)Standard

Despite their infatuation with Trump, for years the media have ignored the truly outrageous, tragic, and unbelievably dark record of Barack Hussein Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.

Where has the media been on these topics?

  • The Obama administration made the U.S. an explicit ally of the world’s most notorious terrorist group in the world, the Muslim Brotherhood. They did this to overthrow governments in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia – governments who were previously allied with the United States.
  • There is an ongoing Christian genocide across the Middle East and North Africa. Obama and Hillary created this when they orchestrated the Arab Spring and sided with terrorists. Millions have been slaughtered in scenes reminiscent of the Holocaust. The West’s cultural heritage that has stood for millennia is being destroyed by apocalyptic Muslim psychopaths.
  • In Benghazi, due to this alliance with Islamic terrorists, four Americans were killed in what was almost certainly a bungled effort to kidnap Ambassador Christopher Stevens and swap him for the Blind Sheikh. This was organized by Obama, Hillary, and then-Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.
  • 75% of military casualties in Afghanistan have occurred under Obama.
  • The IRS and tax code have been weaponized against the citizenry. Lois Learner was directed by Valerie Jarrett and George Soros to use the tax code against political enemies, i.e. normal, patriotic Americans. Conversely, the IRS has allowed Obama’s friends (Soros foundations and Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as CAIR) to operate tax free and without any scrutiny whatsoever.
  • The Clinton Foundation has been proven by Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel to be an international, multi-billion dollar fraud, facilitating money laundering and fueled by bribes. Due to their political connections and extraordinarily deep corruption, these criminals have so far been allowed to operate freely. At least on par with Enron, this bogus charity is a modern day BCCI and the operators belong behind bars, not in the White House.
  • The economy is in ruin. The industrial infrastructure has been knee-capped by the EPA, which is forcing power plants and factories to close or move abroad. There are 93 million Americans out of the labor force. The $18+ trillion of debt may never be paid off. There’s a stock market bubble that’s ready to go POP!

If you think for a second that the administration, including Obama himself and the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, aren’t guilty of several counts of treason, think again. The evidence is overwhelming.


Now add in that the Constitution is in tatters and that America’s traditional allies don’t trust us anymore. Our standing in the world, among our friends, is at an all-time low.

We should all praise and thank Donald Trump for his big mouth and his unapologetic stance. He’s broken the fever of political correctness. It is time to take advantage of the moment.

For justice, we the citizens must talk about the scandals above and force them into the 2016 conversation!




The vital importance of America’s immigration and inspection laws.


Michael Cutler | Front Page Magazine


Recently Bill O’Reilly interviewed Senator Chuck Grassley about Kate’s Law, legislation currently being drafted in the United States Senate to address the issue of sanctuary cities and the unlawful reentry of aggravated felon aliens who had been convicted of committing felonies prior to being deported from the United States. That law was prompted by the murder of Kathryn Steinle, a 32-year-old woman alleged killed by an illegal alien from Mexico, Francisco Sanchez, who had been previously convicted of seven felonies and had been deported five times.

During the interview O’Reilly said that he thought it was a “no brainer” for criminal aliens to be prosecuted if they unlawfully reenter the United States after deportation.

However, O’Reilly, dismissively stated that he had no problem with “law abiding illegal aliens” who are “simply” working in the United States. Pairing the phrase “law abiding” with the term “illegal aliens” is an oxymoron. How can a person who violated our nation’s most fundamental laws that were enacted to protect national security, public safety and the jobs of Americans be considered “law abiding”?


The immigration system must have integrity


The immigration system must have integrity. Local authorities must never have the discretion to unilaterally decide which immigration detainers should be honored and what should be done with aliens who are encountered, but must leave those decisions to federal authorities.

Our immigration laws were enacted to achieve the primary goals of protecting national security and the lives of innocent people while also protecting the jobs of American workers. This is as reasonable and commonsense as a homeowner looking through the peephole of the front door to make certain that strangers with malevolent intentions not be given access to their homes.

While it is routinely claimed that there are about 12 million illegal aliens present in the United States today, the actual number is likely a multiple of that number. Foreign workers, both legal and illegal, have a common goal: They seek to send money home. Each year our economy loses a minimum of $125 billion in remittances. That number may actually be as high as $200 billion. When the multiplier effect is taken into account, the remittances alone account for more than the annual increase in the U.S. national debt. This is without considering wage suppression of American workers and the flat-out displacement of American workers, who, through no fault of their own, go from being tax-paying middle class working consumers to members of the increasing number of Americans who live below the poverty line, suffering the personal consequences this brings and causing them to rely on costly economic safety net programs, further hammering the U.S. economy.

As an INS agent I was far happier arresting aliens engage in violent crime and, indeed, I spent half of my 30 year assigned to narcotics investigations at the Unified Intelligence Division of the DEA and subsequent promotion to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force where I worked closely with the DEA, FBI, ATF and other federal and state law enforcement agencies. However, while we all feel empathy for illegal aliens fleeing poverty in their home countries, the current situation is unsustainable for the United States in many ways. Today the “American lifeboat” is overcrowded and close to capsizing.


American lifeboat is close to capsizing



The United States spends billions of dollars each year to conduct the inspection of people seeking to enter the United States and cargo being shipped to the United States.

By making his statement mentioned above, Mr. O’Reilly created a very dangerous impression that will likely influence the millions of viewers who watch his program — that our immigration laws are relatively minor and violations of those laws are insignificant in the scheme of things.

Nothing could be further from the truth. His cavalier pronouncements are dangerous.


Terrorists can’t hurt us if they can’t get in



Consider the first paragraph found in the preface of the The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

I would love to ask Mr. O’Reilly and those who share his mistaken belief that violations of our immigration laws are so insignificant that illegal aliens can still be “law abiding” the following questions:

Would you be okay with ending the inspections of passengers and cargo arriving on international airline flights from around the world?

Would you feel comfortable having flights from Paris, France; Bogota, Colombia; Karachi, Pakistan; Lagos, Nigeria and Kingston, Jamaica pull into gates at the airport next to the domestic arrivals and permit the passengers on those international flights to disembark, grab their bags and head for a taxi without speaking to a single CBP (Customs and Border Protection) official?

Would it be okay if they did not carry any reliable identity documents such as passports?

If, as I expect, Mr. O’Reilly would find this proposal disturbing then he needs to get real about the true importance of our immigration laws and those who would circumvent the inspections process conducted at ports of entry or otherwise violate those laws.

Aliens who run our borders are trespassing. As I have previously noted in earlier commentaries, on October 14, 2014 CBS News reported, “Mayor De Blasio Heads to D.C. For Meetings On NYC Security And Counter-Terrorism.” According to the report, Senator Schumer, the leader of the “Gang of Eight” who has been the strongest advocate for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, has proposed federal legislation that would impose a maximum jail sentence of five years for anyone trespassing on a nationally recognized landmark or critical infrastructure. Here is an excerpt from that article:

While individuals like this (trespassers) may have meant no harm, their acts put commuters and first responders at risk,” Schumer said. “They also inspire copycats who may have much more evil plans in mind.”

Critical infrastructure is defined by the Patriot Act as systems and assets so vital to the U.S., that the incapacity or destruction to them would have a debilitating effect.


When stunts like this occur, the New York City trespassing law has a maximum of one year and it’s often three months,” Schumer said. “That’s not enough punishment to deter this behavior. It’s time to change that.”


Routine immigration enforcement essential for national security



My July 10, 2015 opinion piece for The Daily Caller, “Sanctuary Cities: No Peace And No Justice.” addressed the true importance of routine immigration law enforcement as being essential for national security and as a means of combating the threat of terrorism. To bolster my argument I provided an excerpt from the 9/11 Commission Report. In that article I introduced the 9/11 excerpt this way:

Aliens who run our borders are trespassing and we have no way of knowing why they actually evaded the inspections process conducted at ports of entry by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors. We may find it all but impossible to know their true identities and therefore knowing if they are fugitives from justice in another country, perhaps wanted for crimes of extreme violence. We don’t know if they are involved with criminal or terrorists organizations.

Consider this excerpt from Chapter 12 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Looking back, we can also see that the routine operations of our immigration laws-that is, aspects of those laws not specifically aimed at protecting against terrorism-inevitably shaped al Qaeda’s planning and opportunities. Because they were deemed not to be bona fide tourists or students as they claimed, five conspirators that we know of tried to get visas and failed, and one was denied entry by an inspector. We also found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who or what they claim to be-and ensuring routine consequences for violations-it could potentially have excluded, removed, or come into further contact with several hijackers who did not appear to meet the terms for admitting short-term visitors.

Our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system’s inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. These weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.

An important observation is in order. The last sentence of the above excerpt states that [t]hese weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.” The report was published more than a decade ago. Today, executive orders issued by the administration, coupled with the sanctuary policies of towns, cities and states across the United States, have not simply rolled back the gains that had been made, but have created many more vulnerabilities in the immigration system than were present on September 11, 2001.

On September 23, 2014 FrontPage Magazine published my article, “‘Sanctuary Cities’ or ‘Safe Havens’ for Terrorists?” In this article I focused on numerous terrorists who gamed the immigration benefits program to acquire lawful status ranging from political asylum to lawful immigrant status and even United States citizenship.

O’Reilly is not the only television personality to make presumptions that may be well-intentioned but nevertheless mislead our fellow citizens and, consequently, our political leaders.

Think of how many times the celebrity “journalists” are quick to offer their opinions about how it is “reasonable” to provide lawful status to a heretofore illegal alien who has been living illegally in the United States for a specific period of time, such as 5 years, 10 years, etc.

This perspective may resonate with the television audience as the panelist on the program smiles into the camera with that knowing look of confidence. Generally most of the others on the panel will readily agree, calling such an approach “reasonable and commonsense.”


No difference between 5 days and 5 years



Reality is often far different from hypotheticals. Because the number of applications would number in the millions — more likely tens of millions — there would be no face-to-face interviews and no field investigations. No record of entry is created when aliens run our borders. This is an invitation to massive fraud. Adjudication  Officers will face extreme pressure to approve nearly all of the applications to keep up with the onslaught of applications. It only takes minutes to approve an application but may well take hours if not days to deny a single application.

The bottom line: If you believe that an illegal alien who claims to have entered the United States 5 years ago should be given lawful status — given the reality of such a situation — you had better be willing to provide illegal aliens who ran our borders 5 days ago lawful status because it will be all but impossible to verify when these individuals actually entered the United States.

Undoubtedly aggravated felon aliens must face significant enhanced penalties for unlawful reentry after deportation, as compared with aliens who have no criminal convictions. As I have noted in many of my articles, more than 30 years ago I worked with then Senator Al D’Amato to create the law that is currently on the books that calls for a maximum of 20 years in prison for such aliens who are deported and then unlawfully return. Non-criminal aliens who are deported and return unlawfully face a maximum of two years in prison.

On June 26, 2015 Californians for Population Stabilization posted my commentary, “Prosecutorial Deception: The $21 Billion DHS Betrayal.”

I began my article with the following:

On June 17, 2015, the House Subcommittee on National Security and the Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits and Administrative Rules, conducted a joint oversight hearing concerning “A Review of the President’s Executive Actions on Immigration.”

DHS Inspector General (IG) John Roth testified at this hearing along with the directors of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services). Those agencies, as well as CBP (Customs and Border Protection), all operate under the aegis of DHS (The Department of Homeland Security).

Roth’s prepared testimony disclosed his concerns about how the administration has “addressed” the immigration crisis in the United States – by implementing executive orders to inhibit immigration enforcement personnel from doing their jobs. He noted that for each of the past two fiscal years, ICE, CBP and USCIS, collectively, received approximately $21 billion. The obvious question is: “What we are getting for that huge expenditure of money?”

In his candid testimony, John Roth made it clear that the failures of the administration to enforce the immigration laws and the implementation of executive orders, public safety and national security were compromised. Here is a key passage:

DHS also does not collect other prosecutorial discretion-related data that might help immigration efforts. For example, DHS would benefit from capturing information regarding aliens who are granted prosecutorial discretion and later commit a crime or pose a threat to national security and public safety.

National security and public safety are similarly seriously compromised when when law enforcement officials on the city or state level refuse to honor detainers and refuse to notify the federal immigration authorities about aliens who have been arrested.

On March 21, 2012, the Huffington Post published an extremely disturbing article that was entitled: “Peter King: Iran May Have ‘Hundreds’ Of Hezbollah Agents In U.S.”

The basis for the Huffington Post article was a hearing that was conducted that day by the House Committee on Homeland Security that is chaired by Congressman Peter King of New York, the topic of the hearing was, “Iran, Hezbollah, and the Threat to the Homeland.”

Here is how the Huffington Post article began:

Iranian-backed Hezbollah agents, not al Qaeda operatives, may pose the greatest threat on U.S. soil as tensions over Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program ratchet up, according to the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

“As Iran moves closer to nuclear weapons and there is increasing concern over war between Iran and Israel, we must also focus on Iran’s secret operatives and their number one terrorist proxy force, Hezbollah, which we know is in America,” said New York Rep. Peter King at a Wednesday hearing of his committee.

The hearing, which featured former government officials and the director of intelligence analysis for the New York Police Department, follows a foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., and testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in late January that Iran’s leaders are “more willing to conduct an attack inside the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

Opening the hearing, King said, “We have a duty to prepare for the worst,” warning there may be hundreds of Hezbollah operatives in the United States, including 84 Iranian diplomats at the United Nations and in Washington who, “it must be presumed, are intelligence officers.”

On January 9, 2002 CNN posted a report, “Another hijacker was stopped for traffic violation” that noted that a number of the 9/11 terrorists had been stopped by police officers when they committed motor vehicle law violations days before the attacks of 9/11.

Local law enforcement agencies must work in close cooperation and coordination with ICE and other federal law enforcement agencies. In the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 much was made of the failures of the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies that failed to communicate, share information and work cooperatively. Police departments are important in combating not only crime but terrorism.

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Thomas “Tip” O’Neill famously remarked that all politics is local. In point of fact, all law enforcement is also, as is our war on terror.

On September 11, 2001 international terrorists launched an attack against the United States of America and its allies around the world. Yet, their attacks impacted local buildings in lower Manhattan, the Pentagon and the field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Many local and state police departments are quick to snap up the money that the federal government provides to combat terrorism. There is no such thing as a “free lunch.” These local and state law enforcement agencies are indeed elements in our ongoing “war on terror” and need to conduct themselves appropriately and perhaps spend some time reviewing “The 9/11 Commission Report” and the companion document, “The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel.”

Where the loss of human life is concerned, there are no “do-overs.”


Front Page Magazine



Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue. He hosts his radio show, “The Michael Cutler Hour,” on Friday evenings on BlogTalk Radio. His personal website is

Refugee Resettlement: The Lucrative Business of Serving Immigrants

James Simpson | Capital Research Center

Summary:  Surveys of Americans show mixed views on immigration issues, and yet for the Left all immigration is good, no matter what laws or legislatures say.  Major donors on the Left, which normally champion every kind of government regulation, support immigration without limits, and a number of large nonprofits reap not only private funding but millions of tax dollars in the resettlement business.  Most Americans have never even heard of the programs that disburse these monies in their name.  This report sketches the landscape and tracks the money flows.

Left-wing campaign to overwhelm America

Left-wing grant-makers have embarked on a campaign aimed at overwhelming America with unprecedented levels of immigration. These foundations underwrite a universe of liberal organizations that are devoted to bringing in ever more people from all over the world, and the organizations’ motives include money. These groups, known as “Volunteer Agencies” (VOLAGs), don’t just receive private dollars from liberal foundations; they also are richly rewarded with your tax dollars when they collaborate with federal government agencies.

Every year, the U.S. government allows approximately 1 million immigrants to establish legal permanent residence in the U.S. This includes people from countries that represent a national security threat to the U.S. About 140,000 emigrate lawfully from majority-Muslim countries and an even greater number do so from the communist countries that still remain –including Cuba and China– more than two decades after the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Far more immigrants come to America illegally.  Last year, almost 140,000 youths and families were welcomed into the U.S. after illegally entering the country through the Southwest border.

But these numbers aren’t high enough to please the foundations that will be profiled in this study.

The Refugee Program

There is another category of newcomer that most Americans have overlooked while our country is distracted by the wave of illegal immigration. This group is having a profound impact on the complexion of our society and is rapidly rising to the level of national security threat.

The group to which I refer are refugees from countries with bloody conflicts. Approximately 3.9 million Syrians have fled civil war and are holed up in refugee camps in surrounding countries. To date, only 700 have been resettled in the U.S., but this may change. On May 21, 14 U.S. senators signed a letter urging President Obama to expand the refugee program to allow 65,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. by the end of 2016. This would require either a dramatic increase in the current 70,000 annual cap on all refugees, or a policy decision that would force persons from other countries to take a back seat to Syrians.

Because of the chaos in Syria, it will be virtually impossible to vet these people, according to the FBI. How many will be members of ISIS or some other terrorist group? Since ISIS members may already be here; there is little doubt more will come.

A plethora of special programs allow persons into America outside the usual immigration process, including “diversity” visas, the refugee program, asylum seekers (asylees) and their families (“follow to join”). Refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan have their own special program, Special Immigrant Visas (SIV). The table on this page shows the latest data from these various programs.

Additionally, special programs allow about 20,000 Cubans and Haitians to emigrate to the U.S. annually, with the same benefits received by refugees and asylees. There is even a “Rainbow Welcome Initiative” that funds a nonprofit contractor (Heartland Alliance International, LLC) to meet the special needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) refugees and asylees.  Government funds 87 percent of the $10 million nonprofit. CEO Sid Mohn makes $330,000 per year in pay and benefits according to Heartland’s 2014 tax return. Combined, the top four officers receive about $850,000 per year—almost all on the taxpayer.

Finally, in 1991, the government created “Temporary Protected Status” to grant legal status in the U.S. to Salvadoran illegal aliens and others fleeing war or natural disaster in Central America. Currently, over 300,000 TPS aliens in the U.S. are entitled to all the benefits of other legal permanent residents. While they are supposed to be “temporary,” TPS enrollees simply re-enroll when their status expires. Most have been here since the 1990s.

In December 2013, the Obama administration announced an in-country refugee program for Central American Minors (CAMs) that allows persons under 21 years of age from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador direct travel to the U.S. While those countries tragically suffer from high crime and poor economic conditions, merely being a member of an afflicted population does not raise a person to the definition of “refugee.” By offering this status, the Obama administration is deliberately expanding the definition, an action that has been called a “rogue family reunification program.”

Major Foundation Supporters

Primary funding for the VOLAGs comes from the federal and state governments. But many secondary immigrant/refugee advocacy and assistance organizations are supported by wealthy state and national foundations whose assets total tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars. Most of these well-established foundations are the Left’s primary source of support outside government. Below is a sampling of noteworthy radical-Left foundations supporting the immigrant/refugee effort.

Bauman Foundation: Grantees include a who’s who of the radical Left. Director Patricia Bauman is a trust-fund leftist, also involved in other major radical left operations such as Catalist, which J. Christian Adams has called “Obama’s database for fundamentally transforming America,” Democracy Alliance, and the Brennan Center for Justice.  She also advises J Street, the Soros-created Astroturf pro-Palestinian “Jewish” group. (The Bauman Foundation had 2014 net assets of $84 million; for more, see Foundation Watch, December 2014.)

Ford Foundation: Financed creation of the open borders movement and multiculturalism in the 1960s.  Funded creation and growth of the radical Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), which spawned the DREAM Act concept, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which gave us Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor. It is credited with turning the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) from a conservative group that helped Hispanics assimilate into just another radical leftist Hispanic grievance group. Ford’s impact on immigration activism cannot be overstated. (2013 net assets, $12.1 billion)

Gill Foundation: Founded by software billionaire Tom Gill, who along with Pat Stryker, another Colorado-based billionaire, provided most of the funding for the “Colorado Miracle” which turned the then-solidly Republican state Democrat blue in the 2004 and 2008 elections. Their effort was dubbed The Blueprint by authors Rob Witwer and Adam Schrager (who wrote a book with that name), and in 2005 it provided a template for the secretive left-wing funding cabal known as the Democracy Alliance. Gill supports Welcoming America organizations in Colorado, Tennessee, and Oregon. (2013 net assets, $234.4 million; for more on the Colorado Miracle, see Organization Trends, July 2013.)

Open Society Institute/Foundations: Through his philanthropies, anti-American hedge fund manager George Soros funds hundreds of radical nonprofits and causes. Soros is a major open borders advocate. From 2010 to 2013, Soros’s Open Society Institute provided $1.7 million to the National Partnership for New Americans (OSI 2013 net assets, $953.7 million). Soros’s Foundation to Promote Open Society had net assets $2.5 billion in 2013. The Soros Fund Charitable Foundation had 2013 net assets of $280 million. The Baltimore Open Society Institute (a.k.a. Alliance for Open Society International) had 2013 net assets of $2.4 million.

Public Welfare Foundation: A well-connected, long-established D.C.-based fund, PWF generously services a who’s who of the radical Left, including the Tides Center, ACLU, Van Jones’s Color of Change, the Marxist newspaper In These Times, the radical-left Economic Policy Institute, the Blue Green Alliance (which is the renamed Apollo Alliance, a shady group of labor, environment, Democratic Party representatives who wrote Obama’s stimulus), the Center for American Progress, and many more. (2013 net assets, $488 million) PWF president Mary McClymont previously served as board chair for the Migration Policy Center, national director for legalization at the Migration and Refugee Services of the U.S. Catholic Conference, president and chief executive officer of InterAction, the largest alliance of U.S.-based international development and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations (dedicated to the U.N.’s Sustainable Development agenda), various positions with the Ford Foundation, and trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. She is the co-founder of Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees; chaired the board of the Migration Policy Institute; and served on the boards of Physicians for Human Rights, Amnesty International, the Advisory Committee of Elma Philanthropies Services, and the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid, U.S. Agency for International Development. Currently, she serves on the board of the Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers and the advisory board of New Perimeter, a global pro bono initiative of the law firm DLA Piper.

NEO Philanthropy: Formerly called Public Interest Projects, NEO spent $15.7 million in 2013 to “promote strongly aligned and effective immigrant rights organizations working to advance immigration policy and reform; immigrant civil engagement and integration; and defense of immigrant rights.” This includes Alabama Appleseed ($50,000), Arab Community Center ($100,000), Border Action Network ($125,000), Border Network for Human Rights ($390,000), CASA de Maryland ($270,000), Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition ($360,725), Comunidades Unidas ($15,000), Welcoming America ($89,000), TIRRC ($469,000), Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition ($210,000) and many others. Board member Patricia Bauman is the director of the Bauman Foundation. (NEO 2013 net assets, $19.6 million)

New World Foundation: Established in 1954, NWF operates as a national community foundation, bragging that “our grantmaking programs have become collaborative funds.” Its goal: “build a progressive new majority for America…” Board member Don Hazenis is the former publisher of Mother Jones and the current editor of AlterNet and the Independent Media Institute, both far-Left media organizations. NWF president Colin Greer joined the secretive Soros machine, Democracy Alliance, in 2014. NWF board chairman Kent Wong is director of the UCLA Labor Center, vice president of the California Federation of Teachers, and a former SEIU attorney. Board member Sofia Campos, when a UCLA undergraduate, taught that school’s first “Undocumented Student Experience” seminar and organized with the California DREAM Act, the federal DREAM Act, and the Right to Dream campaigns. She serves as board chair of United We Dream, “the first and largest network of undocumented immigrant youth.” (2013 NWF assets, $29 million)

Unbound Philanthropy:  Claims it is dedicated to “Welcoming newcomers. Strengthening communities.” Its mission is to“transform long-standing but solvable barriers to the human rights of migrants and refugees and their integration into host societies.…” Grant recipients include the National Immigration Forum, National Immigration Law Center, American Immigration Council, Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, Media Matters, Tides Foundation, the radical-left Southern Poverty Law Center, and Hillary Clinton’s favorite think tank: the Center for American Progress. Unbound financed the pro-refugee propaganda film Welcome to Shelbyville.  Since 2008, Unbound has provided at least $2.4 million to the International Rescue Committee (IRC), and its net assets in 2013 were $141 million.

Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program: Vanguard offers customers donor-advised funds, which allow customers to channel donations to organizations of the donor’s choosing, although in practice directors of donor-advised funds often recommend organizations and initiatives to support. Donor-advised funds are also often used by foundations that wish to mask their money flows to controversial grantees. Thus Vanguard has been the conduit for extensive support of immigration “reform” groups like Welcoming America. It provided over $22 million to the International Rescue Committee between 2005 and 2013. (2014 net assets $4.5 billion)

Y&H Soda Foundation: Says its mission is to support “nonprofit and Catholic organizations committed to the full participation and prosperity of the underserved in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties,” which are located in eastern San Francisco Bay. Y&H Soda has provided $155,000 to welcoming projects in California since 2011; it has also funded numerous other local immigrant organizations, including the International Institute of the Bay Area (IIBA), which has its own “Immigrant Voices” program. The most prominent is East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, which claims to be “the largest affirmative asylum program in the country,” representing over 500 asylum applicants per year. Through the Tides Center, Y&H has supported the Arab Resource and Organizing Center.  AROC provides legal and refugee/asylum application assistance to Bay area Muslims. Y&H donated about $500,000 in 2012 to its various immigration projects.  (2013 net assets, $129 million)

Reynolds legacy: The Mary Reynolds-Babcock Foundation and the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation of North Carolina are legacies of the Reynolds Tobacco and Aluminum fortunes, and both fund radical-Left agendas and organizations throughout the U.S. The Babcock Foundation, for example, has provided funds for numerous Welcoming America sponsors. (2013 assets, $182.4 million; Z. Smith Reynolds was profiled inFoundation Watch, June 2013)

Tides Foundation: The notorious Tides is a pass-through fund which launders money for wealthy donors who want to support radical causes without being identified. R.J. Reynolds’ granddaughter, Nancy Jane Lehman, co-founded Tides in San Francisco along with New Left organizer Drummond Pike (2013 net assets, $142.3 million). Its sister organization, the Tides Center, was directed for years by ACORN founder and director Wade Rathke (2013 nets assets, $68.2 million). Tides Center lists “support to resettle displaced Iraqi refugees” and to combat “inhumane immigration policy…” among its 2013 activities.  Related organizations include the Tides Network (2013 revenues, $13.7 million), Tides, Inc. (2013 net assets, $432,000), and Tides Two Rivers Fund.

Arca Foundation: This left-wing donor, based in Washington, D.C., features prominently in the radical Left’s immigration agenda. Founded by Nancy Susan Reynolds, who was Nancy Jane Lehman’s mother and R.J. Reynolds’ youngest daughter, it funds such groups as the Tides Foundation, Center for American Progress, Demos, Media Matters for America, the Soros-created Jewish Astroturf organization J Street—which poses as a Jewish group but advocates the Palestinian cause—and the National Iranian American Council, which Robert Spencer calls “the Mullah’s Mouthpiece.” (2013 net assets, $55.7 million; profiled in Foundation Watch, October 2011)

Refugee Resettlement Cash Cow

Refugee Contractors


The federal government pays nine primary national contractors to resettle refugees and asylees. These voluntary agencies or VOLAGs are listed below with their initialisms:

  1. CWS: Church World Service
  2. ECDC: Ethiopian Community Development Council
  3. HIAS: Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
  4. IRC: International Rescue Committee
  5. LIRS: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services
  6. CC/USCCB: Catholic Charities/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
  7. USCRI: U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants
  8. EMM: Episcopal Migration Ministries
  9. WRI: World Relief Inc.

There are 350 federal subcontractors in 190 cities, all affiliated with the nine main refugee VOLAGs, but cataloging them is beyond the scope of this paper.

Amounts awarded by the federal government to these 9 contractors since 2008 are shown in the table on page 5. These data are likely incomplete, because the contractors are often listed under more than one name or the name has been entered incorrectly.

Because they are non-governmental organizations (NGOs), they can and do lobby for advantageous changes to immigration law and build allies in Congress and the bureaucracy, all fertilized by an open spigot of taxpayer dollars. While six of the nine contractors are affiliated with religious groups, the false notion that they are charitable organizations just doing the Lord’s work needs to be corrected. They are federal contractors, relying on the government for most, and sometimes all, of their income. This is big business. They do the government’s bidding, whether it honors religious principles or not.

Furthermore, the denominations represented all promote left-wing policies. Many reflect the “Social Gospel” i.e. the effort to marry socialist ideas with Christian doctrine begun by “Progressives” at the turn of the last century. Many are directly or indirectly connected to communists and communist ideas like so-called “liberation theology,” which was a KGB creation according to former Romanian intelligence chief Ion Pacepa in his book Disinformation.

VOLAG Profiles

Church World Service: CWS is a subsidiary of the National Council of Churches, which was formed in 1950 from the Federal Council of Churches, which was often accused of being a communist front group. The Federal Council was one of the early promoters of social gospel. That tradition was carried forward by the National Council of Churches, where socialist ideology found a natural home.

NCC president Jim Winkler is a typical radical leftist. He called for impeachment of President Bush in 2006. He co-chaired the board of Healthcare Now! with Steelworkers’ president Leo Gerard, who advocated violence against tea partiers, and the socialist Quentin Young. Young was Obama’s personal physician for 20 years and his mentor on single-payer healthcare.

In addition to revenue streams from government, Church World Service has received funding from Soros, Ford, Tides, the Vanguard Fund, and many others.

Catholic Charities/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: These nominally Catholic organizations are the largest VOLAGs, with hundreds of offices spread throughout the country. They are prominent members of the open borders/amnesty movement. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) is “the domestic anti-poverty program of the U.S. Catholic Bishops” and a grant-making vehicle of the USCCB. It was founded in Chicago in 1969 with the help of radical organizer Saul Alinsky, specifically to fund Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. CCHD has been a radical leftist funding vehicle ever since, giving millions to ACORN, the radical training school Midwest Academy, and others. The Industrial Areas Foundation, where a young Barack Obama was trained in “community organizing” with financial support from the Chicago Archdiocese, receives the largest percentage of CCHD grants of any CCHD grantee.

President Obama had this to say about CCHD:

I got my start as a community organizer working with mostly Catholic parishes on the Southside of Chicago that were struggling because the steel plants had closed. The Campaign for Human Development helped fund the project and so, very early on, my career was intertwined with the belief in social justice that is so strong in the Church.

USCCB founded the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., a $7 million subsidiary which assists illegal aliens based on “the Gospel value of welcoming the stranger.” It aggressively promotes amnesty, believing that “all goods of the earth belong to all people. When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.” USCCB has 270 field offices in 47 states. Board members include Donald D. Taylor, president of the extreme-left union UNITE HERE!

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society: HIAS describes itself as a “major implementing partner of the United Nations Refugee Agency and the U.S. Department of State.” HIAS claims to be the oldest refugee resettlement agency in the world. It provides pro bono legal services for asylum applications and removal hearings. Services include “Filings with USCIS, Representation at Asylum Interviews (Credible Fear Interviews, Reasonable Fear Interviews), Representation before the Immigration Court, Representation before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and Federal court appeals.” HIAS lists its values as “Welcoming, Dignity and Respect, Empowerment, Excellence and Innovation, Collaboration and Teamwork, and Accountability.”

HIAS President Mark Hetfield is credited with transforming HIAS from a small agency focused on Jewish immigrants to “a global agency assisting refugees of all faiths and ethnicities.” Donors include Vanguard and Tides Foundation.

International Rescue Committee: IRC is run by British Labour Party politician, David Miliband. His brother, “Red Ed” Miliband, Labour’s pick for prime minister, lost in the United Kingdom’s most recent election. Miliband’s father was a hardcore Marxist. While Miliband distanced himself from his father’s extremist views, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. As environment minister in Tony Blair’s Labour government, David Miliband turned global warming into a primary policy agenda, seeking to make all private homes “carbon neutral” and requiring nanny-state compliance inspections. He warned British citizens that having “energy inefficient homes” would become “painful” for them.

Miliband advocates raising the refugee cap above 70,000 and resettling 65,000 Syrians in the U.S., despite the impossible task of vetting them all for possible terrorist ties. Miliband earns a cool $500,000 for his “rescue” work.

IRC and Miliband have friends in George Soros, the Clintons, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power. Among its other support, IRC has received $1.2 million from George Soros’s philanthropies and $2 million from the Ford Foundation over the past decade.

World Relief Inc.: Initially founded in 1947 as War Relief of the National Association of Evangelicals to address humanitarian needs of post-war Europe, it was renamed World Relief in 1950. WRI is the largest evangelical refugee resettlement agency in America. It serves in “education, health, child development, agriculture, food security, anti-trafficking, immigrant services, micro-enterprise, disaster response and refugee resettlement.” In fiscal 2014, WRI dedicated about 62 percent of program revenues ($32 million) to resettling and providing extended services to 13,508 refugees and legal assistance to 11,000 immigrants. In keeping with Obama’s “Welcoming” agenda, WRI has submitted its contribution in the form of a free PDF, “Welcoming the Stranger.” (It is available at

World Relief obtains 70 percent of its funding through government contracts. Private foundation supporters include the Vanguard Charitable Foundation, Mustard Seed Foundation, Soros Fund Charitable Foundation, Pfizer Foundation, Global Impact and many others.

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service: LIRS has been involved in refugee resettlement for decades. Its most recent publicly available IRS filing lists 17 Lutheran and many unrelated facilities nationwide receiving refugee resettlement grants from LIRS. Both HIAS and Catholic Charities are listed as grant recipients, so apparently these organizations cross-pollinate. In addition to refugee resettlement, LIRS has been actively involved in processing what the immigration industry calls UACs (unaccompanied alien children).

LIRS CEO Linda Hartke served as chief-of-staff to former U.S. Rep. Chester Atkins (D-Mass.) in the 1990s.  She later took positions with Church World Service and on National Council of Church’s board of directors. Her most recent post was director of the Geneva-based Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance. Hartke wants LIRS to help create “communities of welcome” for illegal immigrants and refugees. She earns $228,000 in pay and benefits, according to IRS filings.

U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants: USCRI formed as the International Institute in 1911, a brainchild of the YWCA, and became a VOLAG in 1977. Today, USCRI has 29 partner offices in 23 states dedicated to the needs of refugees and immigrants. It receives about 90 percent of revenue from government contracts. USCRI takes credit for inspiring the Obama administration’s new Central American Minors program.

President and chief executive officer Lavinia Limón typifies the revolving door among VOLAG leaders. Limón served as the director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement during the Clinton administration. She then moved to the National Immigration Forum.  Limón earns about $300,000 per year as CEO, according to USCRI tax filings.

Episcopal Migration Ministries: Officially known as the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church USA, EMM invokes the “welcoming” mantra by listing its first order of business as welcoming services. “Episcopal Migration Ministries’ affiliate partners provide refugees with the information and services they require to thrive in their new communities within just months after arriving.”

EMM does not provide nonprofit tax returns so the proportion of its budged received from government is not known, but since 2008, EMM has received $105.2 million from the federal government for its refugee/immigrant work.

Ethiopian Community Development Council: The smallest of the VOLAGs, ECDC received $16.3 million from government contracts in 2014, 93 percent of its total revenues. In addition, ECDC has received donations from the Open Society Institute, Komen Foundation, the United Way, Tides Foundation, even Citi Foundation (CitiBank), and others.

ECDC testified before Congress last year that the Unaccompanied Alien Children crisis could “lead to the demise of the refugee resettlement program as we know it.” This was primarily a funding concern, given that virtually all of ECDC’s revenue comes from government contracts.

ECDC provides a wide variety of services to refugees, and is involved in other contractual services as well, for example Small Business Administration microloans for new minority businesses.


All these groups like to discuss issues of immigration in terms of pure altruism, generosity, and welcoming the stranger. For some reason, they rarely if ever mention the possibility that politicians may have self-interested motives for supporting high levels of immigration with little oversight. Much less do the groups mention that they themselves have found that by generously welcoming strangers to our land, they can receive bountiful subsidies of tax dollars that underwrite hefty salaries for persons who claim to act only from the most selfless motives.

Capital Research Center

James Simpson is an economist, businessman, and freelance writer. His writings have been published in Accuracy in Media, American Thinker, Big Government, Washington Times, WorldNetDaily, FrontPage Magazine, and elsewhere. This article was based on a short book by Simpson, The Red Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America, published last month by Center for Security Policy Press.