Catholic woman finally realizes Christian and Catholic NGOs fund the entire illegal alien pipeline into America and have been doing so for decades

Welcome to reality, sister.

The enemy isn't just without. It's probably sitting next to you in the pew.

I started doing some more digging. The entire illegal immigrant pipeline, from the airports in Turkey and Dubai that are sending them to South America and Central America, to the Darien Gap, across the border and into our cities is being funded by Christian and Catholic NGOs. When you learn about the betrayal Catholic and Christian NGOs have been committing, for decades, to the rights and privileges granted by America, you will go mad.

The recent failed federal “border control” [sic] bill included almost $2 billion to religious organizations to “help migrants,” which often means helping migrants break the law. ... There are many organizations like this, taking money from their parishioners and the federal government and funneling it directly to illegal aliens. ...

Catholic Charities is a socialist terror organization working to undermine this country, subvert our “sacred democracy,” and diminish our citizens. It must therefore be defunded, prosecuted, and banned from operating inside the United States. ... They are helping our enemies execute a silent coup right under our noses, and use Christianity as a shield, an impenetrable force field, to deflect all criticism and examination. 

Peachy Keenan, here.

I don't think Keenan quite realizes, however, how this would be all but impossible to pull off from cash-strapped parish donations alone. These religious NGOs are not simply incestuous conduits for vast sums of taxpayer money. They directly embody the progressive Democrat immigration policy of native replacement.

As the Center for Immigration Studies recently reported, a United Nations-led “Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan (RMRP)” calls for more than 200 nonprofit groups to dole out $1.6 billion in cash debit cards, food, clothing, medical treatment, shelter, and even “humanitarian transportation” during 2024 to millions of U.S.-bound immigrants in 17 Latin American nations and Mexico. ... the administration of President Joe Biden is directly footing the bill for at least part of facilitating the most voluminous mass migration crisis in U.S. history, now in its fourth straight year ... more than 30 faith-based nonprofits among those UN NGO partners — representing Jewish, Lutheran, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholic, and nondenominational evangelical organizations — shows that the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have been mainlining taxpayer funds to these groups, which then distribute them to keep hundreds of thousands of migrants comfortably moving toward illegal U.S. southern border crossings.

More.

According to Forbes, the NGO Catholic Charities USA received $1.4 billion from government support compared with $1 billion in private donations [for 2022]. Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service reported more than $93.1 million in U.S. government grants in its 2021 financial statement, making taxpayer-funded grants more than 80% of its total support.

And that number would only climb as the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service would receive $182.6 million in grants in the fiscal year of 2022 from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Another NGO, Church World Services, reported more than $20.5 million in grant funds in its 2022 financial report, making more than 40% of its assets coming from taxpayers.

 Reported here.

 

Adam Tooze: Central bankers' hands were forced in 2010, the poor dears, they aren't the lords of easy money, no, they're its slaves, just like us

 Here, for The New York Times:

If you are worried about wealth inequality in the United States, then the solution is not to tighten monetary policy but to make structural changes to the country’s financial system, starting with the undergrowth of shadow banking. Serious taxation of wealth and capital gains would also push in the right direction.

It would no doubt help if onetime central bankers, rather than cycling in and out of private finance, spoke out seriously in favor of reform. They would be doing the public a service if they spelled out the way that their hands were forced by the current incestuous intertwining of public debt markets with hedge funds and the like. Ultimately, however, it is politics that must grasp the nettle of change.

In the current dispensation, it may be flattering for central bankers to be cast as maestros, but in practice they are less the lords of easy money than its functionaries.     

 

 

Central bankers cycle in and out of private finance raking in millions, Adam.

 

If anyone were serious about restructuring the country's financial system, the place to start would be by restoring the key missing feature of capitalism without which it doesn't really exist. It's called bankruptcy. 

Pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute's own data show just 0.15% of all abortions in the US are because of rape, incest, and life of the mother

92.3% are purely elective.

 

The Party of Violence desperately wants Election 2022 to be about abortion

 

Abortion Is Centerpiece of Dem TV Ads in 2022

 

Goldmacher & Glueck, NY Times

Right off the bat this story lies, as usual from The New York Times, by omission:

 In Michigan, Democrats took aim at the Republican nominee for governor almost immediately after the primary with a television ad highlighting her opposition to abortion, without exceptions for rape or incest. ...

Some abortion ads use the specific words and positions of Republican candidates against them. ... Some use Republicans’ unyielding stances on abortion to cast them more broadly as extremists.

The ad in Michigan actually says without exceptions for life of the mother, too, which is by itself a drive-by editing lie by "Put Michigan First".

A lie by insertion. Dixon never answered a life of the mother question that way, with "no exceptions".

You see how that works?

The New York Times sort of tells the truth about Dixon's position, which is no exceptions for rape and incest, but lies about the ad, which lies about Dixon's position by making her say something about the life of the mother which she didn't say.

Then later the former paper of record edges close to telling the truth about what's going on in the ad without actually telling you the truth about what's going on in the ad.

The chutzpah.

Democrats lie to you coming and going, and so does the New York Times, but I repeat myself.

Republicans, however, seem hopelessly, perennially, unequipped to counter this disinformation war. 

They're like deer in the headlights.

And when the Democrats spot them, they floor it.

 

Who ya gonna believe: Law & Order: SVU, or Ann Coulter?

 Ann Coulter, December 14, 2019, here:

. . . according to “Law & Order: SVU,” the main demographic with a sexual fetish for pre-pubescent Hispanic girls is: handsome, married American white men. ... Reviewing my years of research on child sex crimes, I see that this has happened NEVER. It’s kind of the opposite. I ended up with so many immigrant child rape cases for “Adios, America!” that most of them had to be left on the cutting room floor — or the book would have been twice as long. ... But for William Edward Ronca, there would not be a single confirmed case of a white man in the Western Hemisphere impregnating a girl 10 years old or younger. 

A report from the Inter-American Children’s Institute explained that Latin America is second only to Asia in the sexual exploitation of women and children because sex abuse is “ingrained into the minds of the people." ... Incest and child rape are not native American habits. Nor is child rape common in Spain. This isn’t genetic. Bestial behavior toward women and children is a hallmark of primitive, peasant cultures — the cultures we are importing by the million. The hallmark of civilized cultures is to arrest and imprison child rapists. But the brain-dead writers of “Law & Order: SVU” invent little stories to demoralize the defenders of civilization, so we can let the incest and child rape flow!

 

If 42% of your wealth comes from the stock market, YOU ARE AN IDIOT and deserve everything that's coming to you

 The is-is-ought fallacy in action.

In today’s environment, the notion that the stock market isn’t the economy doesn’t hold up anymore :

“In the last 20 years, we’ve had a financial economy that has grown significantly,” said Joseph LaVorgna, chief economist for the Americas at Natixis. “You could have argued a few decades ago that the stock market was not the economy, and that was very accurate. That is no longer the case today.” ...

Through the end of 2021, the share of household wealth that comes from directly or indirectly held stocks hit a record 41.9%, more than double where it was 30 years ago, according to data from the Federal Reserve. A host of factors, from the advent of online trading to stock-friendly monetary policy to a lackluster global economy, has made U.S. equities an attractive place to park money and earn nice returns.

Asset allocation is about diversification, and if 42% of your wealth is tied up in stonks, YOU ARE NOT DIVERSIFIED, no matter how diversified is the stock portion of your portfolio.

The Talmud had it right: One third in hand, one third in land, and only one third in business.

Be it then, as Sir Robert says, that anciently it was usual for men to sell and castrate their children, Observations, 155. Let it be, that they exposed them; add to it, if you please, for this is still greater power, that they begat them for their tables, to fat and eat them: if this proves a right to do so, we may, by the same argument, justify adultery, incest and sodomy, for there are examples of these too, both ancient and modern; sins, which I suppose have their principal aggravation from this, that they cross the main intention of nature, which willeth the increase of mankind, and the continuation of the species in the highest perfection, and the distinction of families, with the security of the marriage bed, as necessary thereunto. 

-- John Locke, First Treatise of Government

42 is not the answer to everything.

 

More than 90% of abortions are for reasons other than rape, incest, or life of the mother

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Rape and incest account for hardly any abortions 

 

Seven percent of women cited health concerns for themselves or possible problems affecting the health of the fetus as their most important reason in 2004, about the same as in 1987. 

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

 

And you know what "problems affecting the health of the fetus" means. The 7% figure hides a lot of Down Syndrome abortion and the like. 

None dare call it eugenics.

In 2013 Ilhan Omar let it slip that her father is also the father of her . . . husband

She has deleted the tweet wishing her father a happy Father's Day after being exposed by the imam of peace.

Ew. Just ewincest.

WaPo/Minneapolis Star Tribune can always be counted on to soft-peddle Democrat crimes, including tax fraud, marriage fraud, immigration fraud and incest by not using those words

The joke state which once gave us Gov. Jesse Ventura follows up with the punchline Rep. Ilhan Omar.

One important reason Brian Ellis lost to Justin Amash

You don't robocall Republican-inclined voters on election eve featuring a Democrat urging Democrats to cross over and vote for Ellis in the Republican primary, and then say you paid for it.

I don't think that endeared Republican-inclined voters to Ellis, who suspected there was no there there to begin with. Offering no alternative to radical libertarianism made Brian Ellis a lousy candidate. Who wants to vote for libertarian-light when you've got the real deal in Amash?

This seems to be all too characteristic of Republicans: they frequently portray themselves as moderate liberals, whether it's being for abortion in the cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, civil unions, DADT, smarter big government, or Heritage Foundation health care mandates.

Republicans need to figure out what conservatism is and whether they ought to believe in it. Until they do they'll continue to mistake libertarianism for conservatism. Even Nancy Pelosi is for "In God We Trust". Justin Amash is not.

Basel Capital Rules Reinforce Fascist Financialization Of The Global Economy

Robert Barone for Minyanville summarizes better than anyone else I have read the process whereby banking in partnership with government has grown out of all proportion to the real economy and throttled it, here:

Under all of the Basel regimes, "sovereign" debt is considered riskless.  Everything else has a varying degree of risk to it which requires a capital reserve.  Loans to the private sector have the highest capital requirements. ... The bias imparted with this sort of capital regime makes loans to the private sector unattractive, especially in times of economic stress where bank capital is under pressure.  But, it is in times of such stress that loans to the private sector are needed to create investment, capital spending, and jobs. ... Simply put, the banking model in the west now promotes moral hazard (banks making bets that are implicitly backed by taxpayers) and Too Big To Fail (TBTF) policies while it stifles private sector lending. ... Isn't it clear that the relationship between the US federal government and the banking system is unhealthy, perhaps even incestuous, to the detriment of the private sector?  That very same banking model is emerging in Europe with the emergency funding by the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) to recapitalize the Spanish banks and talk of a pan-European regulatory authority and deposit insurance.

What's missing from this otherwise penetrating analysis, however, is an appreciation of the extent to which banking has been redefined, particularly in the US as a result of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which finally overturned the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

Now companies as diverse as automobile manufacturers, investment banks, insurance companies and highly diversified multinationals like GE are deemed banking institutions which qualify for government TARP bailouts, FDIC protection, or preferred treatment at the Federal Reserve's discount window. Almost any big business that gets in trouble can now get "help" from the taxpayer by becoming a "banking" concern under the new definition of the rules, to the detriment of those trying to compete in our so-called free market.

Moral hazard doesn't extend now just throughout the traditional banking system, stiffing the disciplined, prudent smaller banks with high FDIC premiums to bailout the failures, it now effectively short-circuits the process by which an innovative small firm might grow one day to challenge GE's gargantuan share of the household appliance market, or in aircraft engines, nuclear reactors and the like.

As financialization of the economy deepens and grows, companies as they are with their relative advantages have those advantages locked into place, while those without market heft are frozen-out. Some people call this crony capitalism, others state capitalism. Almost any euphemism will do, it seems, the latest being venture socialism, which gets us closer to the truth.

In the end it's just good old-fashioned fascism from the 1920s. Obama absolutely loves it. George Bush practiced it. Bill Clinton signed it into law, with the help of Newt Gingrich.

But please don't call this stagnating, ossified, economy failed, free-market capitalism. Just like Christianity before it, you can't say something is a failure which isn't at all being practiced.

Sean Hannity's Libertarianism Is Stupid

The radio ad for Sean Hannity's program runs incessantly, featuring him saying, "Society doesn't need to put its seal of approval on the choices people make."

This in reference to same sex marriage.

He obviously doesn't appreciate how the government already puts its seal of approval on people's choices, and has done so for a very long time.

The most obvious social example is marriage itself, which receives a healthy tax preference in the form of the tax code's filing status "married filing jointly" . . . since the end of the Second World War! This isn't just a seal of approval. It's actually a financial encouragement to marry.

Or consider the child tax credit, which you aren't going to get without having children. With it, the government encourages the having of children.

Or the earned income credit, which you don't get unless you have some earned income. It's government's way of encouraging people who don't work at all to get a job and get work experience, on the assumption that they will move up the ladder eventually to positions which pay too much to receive the credit.

All of these things the government encourages to promote social stability in the form of nuclear families, home ownership, work, and population growth, all of which are essential to . . . tax revenue.

Giving same sex partners the same rewards as heterosexual unions ignores the fact that the former are naturally incapable of growing the population. Government has no interest in promoting the ineffectual.

"Be it then, as Sir Robert says, that anciently it was usual for men to sell and castrate their children, Observations, 155. Let it be, that they exposed them; add to it, if you please, for this is still greater power, that they begat them for their tables, to fat and eat them: if this proves a right to do so, we may, by the same argument, justify adultery, incest and sodomy, for there are examples of these too, both ancient and modern; sins, which I suppose have their principal aggravation from this, that they cross the main intention of nature, which willeth the increase of mankind, and the continuation of the species in the highest perfection, and the distinction of families, with the security of the marriage bed, as necessary thereunto."

-- John Locke

Greek Exit Could Expose Banking Ponzi in Italy

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard for the UK Telegraph, here:

The IMF said Italian bank exposure to the state is 32pc of GDP, including all forms of lending. ... Almost half of this is owed to foreigners. Italy's central bank owes a further €278bn in 'Target2' claims to peers in Germany, Holland, Finland and Luxembourg, reflecting capital flight.

Italy's former premier Romano Prodi said the EU risks instant contagion to Spain, Italy, and France if Greece leaves. "The whole house of cards will come down", he said. ...

The ECB's emergency lending may have made matters worse, encouraging banks to buy their own states' debt. It has led to an incestous inter-linkange of fragile banking systems and fragile sovereign states, each propping the other up. Many of the banks used ECB money to buy state bonds until they need to roll over their own debt. They are now nursing stiff losses.

Whatever Ann Coulter is, it isn't Conservative

Whatever Ann Coulter is, it isn't conservative.

At least since her endorsement of Hillary Clinton in 2008 we've had, on the other hand, some good clues about what she in fact is.

For example, she was willing to endorse Hillary Clinton and campaign for her were Hillary the candidate for the Democrats for president. The reason? Because Senator John McCain, the Republican, was determined to end the practice of waterboarding prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Now she has endorsed John McCain's one time nemesis from 2008, Gov. Mitt Romney. And Gov. Romney has just put his foot in it twice only days after winning the very same Florida primary McCain won four years ago, and shown us thereby that he isn't a conservative, either.

Proclaiming himself content with the social safety net for the very poorest Americans, Gov. Romney pledged on one day to expand it in the event it becomes inadequate to the task.

On the very next he announced his commitment to the federal minimum wage, and indexing it to inflation.

This is the same Gov. Romney Ann Coulter predicted would lose to President Obama, and therefore the Republicans had better nominate Gov. Chris Christie instead. Also the same Gov. Romney now endorsed by . . . Sen. John McCain.

Thus Ann Coulter is on record in support of a vigorous and muscular government, one which tortures prisoners of war, further entrenches entitlements which create a class dependent on the dole, and interferes in the free marketplace so that the unemployed, and especially the young, gather no useful work experience because employers cannot afford to pay large numbers of them the minimum wage.

In keeping with this unlimited government philosophy, Ann Coulter now defends RomneyCare in Massachusetts on the grounds that government compulsion is quite American:

States have been forcing people to do things from the beginning of the republic: drilling for the militia, taking blood tests before marriage, paying for public schools, registering property titles and waiting in line for six hours at the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to drive.

To the likes of Ann Coulter, "government is" evidently means "government ought."

Nevermind that conscription was resisted and unsuccessful from the beginning of the country. Fewer than 9 percent of Civil Warriors were drafted. The vast majority were volunteers. And volunteers alone comprise our Armed Forces today and have since 1973.

No one is compelled to marry, only to fulfill certain basic requirements if they choose to. Those who remain single aren't obliged to get blood tests. And those who cohabit forego them entirely without fear of the blood test police knocking down their doors.

Yes "we" pay for public schools, that is, we who own property, but the non-propertied classes do not. But no one forced me to buy a house which is taxed to fund schools.

It's in our interests to comply with government which clearly secures our interests, which is why we support property laws which guarantee clear title and oppose shortcuts which undermine them, like the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, a colossal assault on the most basic of all rights we look to government to safeguard but hasn't.

We also expect government to regulate banking to protect the integrity of our savings and of our currency, but it has done neither.  

And no, I didn't have a six hour wait at the DMV. I mailed my check and got my driver's license renewal in the mail. So what if the picture is four years old? But my mother killed the neighbor's prize sow with a car when she was 16, and never drove again. From then until she died at the age of 93 no one forced her to stand in line at the DMV to get a license she would never need.

To hear Ann tell it, we might as well castrate and sell our young, or even eat them because these things were said to be the custom once upon a time, as adultery, incest and sodomy manifestly ever are:

Be it then, as Sir Robert says, that anciently it was usual for men to sell and castrate their children, Observations, 155. Let it be, that they exposed them; add to it, if you please, for this is still greater power, that they begat them for their tables, to fat and eat them: if this proves a right to do so, we may, by the same argument, justify adultery, incest and sodomy, for there are examples of these too, both ancient and modern; sins, which I suppose have their principal aggravation from this, that they cross the main intention of nature, which willeth the increase of mankind, and the continuation of the species in the highest perfection, and the distinction of families, with the security of the marriage bed, as necessary thereunto.  -- John Locke

Is this the reason Ann Coulter is friendly with sodomites today? Because they exist? Or should Thomas Jefferson's advice to castrate sodomites carry more weight?

Did someone hit Ann Coulter with a rock? And is she now living under it? More than half of the country hates ObamaCare because it is compulsory.

The animus against compulsion is as old in America as the revolt against taxation without representation. And older still for refugees from religious compulsion.

If Ann Coulter were alive in 1776 with her present views she'd be a loyalist who would have ended up fleeing to Canada. And in 1861 she'd have gladly plunged the country into a war which killed hundreds of thousands of fathers and brothers because some South Carolinians killed a Union mule at Ft. Sumter.

Ann Coulter's way of thinking has a long pedigree. It's called tyranny.

Herman Cain's So-Called Abortion Flip Was Nothing of the Kind: He Clearly Endorsed Private Choice For Adoption, Not Abortion.

What it was was a poor attempt to entrap the still too trusting Herman Cain to make it appear that his position on abortion is incoherent.

The transcript of the controversial interchange shows Herman immediately grasped Piers Morgan's attempt to bait and switch when Herman TWICE interjects the comment "you're mixing two things," namely "bringing up the baby as her own" and "abortion."

The media and the left, like Ed Kilgore of The New Republic here, are hoping that if they repeat their lie enough that we'll all believe it.

Piers Morgan starts talking about abortion, and suddenly introduces a hypothetical about raising a child who was conceived in a rape "as her own":

MORGAN: Abortion. What's your view of abortion?

CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here's why --

MORGAN: No circumstances?"

CAIN: No circumstances.

MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates -- some of them qualify that.

CAIN: They qualify but --

MORGAN: Rape and incest.

CAIN: Rape and incest.

MORGAN: Are you honestly saying -- again, it's a tricky question, I know.

CAIN: Ask the tricky question.

MORGAN: But you've had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?

CAIN: You're mixing two things here, Piers?

MORGAN: Why?

CAIN: You're mixing --

MORGAN: That's what it comes down to.

CAIN: No, it comes down to it's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you're not talking about that big a number. So what I'm saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.

Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn't have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.

MORGAN: By expressing the view that you expressed, you are effectively -- you might be president. You can't hide behind now the mask, if you don't mind me saying, of being the pizza guy. You might be the president of United States of America. So your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.

CAIN: No they don't. I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.

MORGAN: That's a very interesting departure --

CAIN: Yes.

MORGAN: -- from the normal politics.

CAIN: Exactly.

There is absolutely nothing controversial here about Herman Cain saying a president has no business telling people to raise such a child as their own.

And Rick Santorum should be ashamed of himself for piling on.

Incidentally, Herman is correct about the relative rarity of the adoption question: statistics show just under 250,000 total children per year waiting to be adopted and adopted, in about equal numbers.

That's because our advanced civilization murders about 1,210,000 unborn children every year.

John Locke Believed in Neither Sodomy nor Same Sex Marriage

From the First Treatise of Government:

Be it then, as Sir Robert says, that anciently it was usual for men to sell and castrate their children, Observations, 155. Let it be, that they exposed them; add to it, if you please, for this is still greater power, that they begat them for their tables, to fat and eat them: if this proves a right to do so, we may, by the same argument, justify adultery, incest and sodomy, for there are examples of these too, both ancient and modern; sins, which I suppose have their principal aggravation from this, that they cross the main intention of nature, which willeth the increase of mankind, and the continuation of the species in the highest perfection, and the distinction of families, with the security of the marriage bed, as necessary thereunto.

"Their principal aggravation . . . that [adultery, incest and sodomy] cross the main intention of nature . . . with the security of the marriage bed, as necessary thereunto."

In other words, these sins are the enemies of marriage and the family.