March 25, 2017

May 15, 2015

The Episcopal Church: Undermining the USA from Within (and Betraying Christians)

In my previous post, I detailed the sordid story by which the Episcopal Church (USA) has gotten into the debt collection business. Refugees designated to migrate to the United States are advanced travel money by an arm of the U.S. State Department. They land here, and are placed in the hands of (among other agencies) Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM), which helps them relocate into specific communities, find jobs, and settle in. Then EMM sees that they repay their travel advances to the Government, and pockets one-quarter of its debt collection proceeds for its trouble.

It’s a nifty racket, and ensures that annually over $300,000 comes into the Episcopal Church’s coffers, to help with its bottom line.  Meanwhile, the U.S. Government reimburses EMM for all of its other refugee relocation expenses, to the tune of some $14 million annually.

Now [H/T: El Gringo Viejo], your Curmudgeon has been pointed to this illuminating video message, which tells “the rest of the story,” so to speak. It turns out that a good portion of the refugees EMM is assisting are not just any refugees, but are Muslims from some of the countries to which America has sent troops, bombs or both: Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and (soon) Syria. Listen to Ann Corcoran as she explains what she discovered:


As you see (at 1:29 and following), EMM is one of nine major Government contractors engaged in making money to bring in refugees from these war-torn countries, in which the United States has militarily intervened. Five others, along with EMM, operate under the aegis of major American religious denominations: the Church World Service (an umbrella organization), the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the evangelically connected World Relief Corporation.

So let us draw the big picture: civil war breaks out in Muslim countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Syria; the United States intervenes militarily; havoc and destruction generate innumerable refugees, most of whom (but by no means all) are Sunni or Shiite Muslims; well-meaning Christians and liberals in the United States want to resettle them in our country, and so partner with the U.S. Government in bringing them here.

The only criterion for their migration to the United States appears to be that they cannot remain in their own war-torn country—either because it does not want them, or because the situation is so unstable that no one can vouch for their safety or protection.

[UPDATE 05/15/2015: The one criterion of the State Department for refusing to include them in the refugee program is if they happen to be Christians:

Also inappropriate, it seems, is the resettling of the most vulnerable Assyrian Christians in the United States. Donors in the private sector have offered complete funding for the airfare and the resettlement in the United States of these Iraqi Christians that are sleeping in public buildings, on school floors, or worse. But the State Department – while admitting 4,425 Somalis to the United States in just the first six months of FY2015, and possibly even accepting members of ISIS through the Syrian and Iraqi refugee program, all paid for by tax dollars, told Dobbs that they “would not support a special category to bring Assyrian Christians into the United States.”

The United States government has made it clear that there is no way that Christians will be supported because of their religious affiliation, even though it is exactly that – their religious affiliation – that makes them candidates for asylum based on a credible fear of persecution from ISIS. The State Department, the wider administration, some in Congress and much of the media and other liberal elites insist that Christians cannot be given preferential treatment. Even within the churches, some Christians are so afraid of appearing to give preferential treatment to their fellow Christians that they are reluctant to plead the case of their Iraqi and Syrian brothers and sisters.

So now we have evidence that the “inclusive” liberals at 815 Second Avenue will not extend their sympathy to brother Christians, but only to Muslims and terrorists—because the Government will not fund the rescuing of Christians.]

But those same well-meaning Christians and liberals, who elected a President to bring the troops home before the invaded countries were stable, also did so on their strongly held belief that the people of those countries could never become a democracy, even with our aid and support. One has to ask: what change in character justifies those now assisting the Muslim refugees in thinking that once brought here,  they will fit in to our democracy? And would be preferable to, say, Assyrian Christians?

The communities to which the refugees are relocated have little or nothing to say about the process. Is it any surprise that a good number of the Muslim immigrants remain in enclaves of their own, and assimilate only to the degree necessary to qualify for jobs and welfare? And is it any surprise that some of them might harbor little good will for the country whose intervention they see as having uprooted them in the first place, and nurture the seeds for domestic terrorism?

It is not that Christians do not owe others a duty to provide refuge, assistance and support—they do. But who is monitoring the overall process, and its effects upon our country? The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? The State Department? The various liberal Church groups who use Government funds to help balance their books, and who leave the refugees to their own devices after they have been handsomely paid to settle them here? Give me a break. (Again, if there is any ongoing support of the displaced persons, it comes from local churches in the community, and not from the big denominations—they do only that for which the Government reimburses them.)

It is the little people, like Ann Corcoran above, who have the most concern for the integrity of their towns and communities that are impacted most severely by these unsupervised migration activities. Her blog, Refugee Resettlement Watch, is the place to get the most detailed and up-to-date information about what is going on. The stories there are all well-documented, and some are eye-popping (be sure to take note of this disclaimer). A good place to start is this Resettlement Fact Sheet. You would do well to keep yourself informed.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



Many thanks for your update on EMM, Mr. Haley.  It is shocking to learn that the US government is paying to resettle refugees who happen to share the religion and ethnicity of people waging war in their areas but refuses to assist refugees who are targeted specifically because of their Christian religion.  ECUSA should, in all conscience, refuse to deal with this program.  I hope, but I doubt, that ECUSA is offering Christian witness to these refugees.

[1] Posted by Katherine on 5-15-2015 at 10:15 AM · [top]

When, O when, are we going to call our muslim president a muslim, and at least insist that Christians receive fair treatment in our own country, along with the multitudes of Christian refugees from other countries?

[2] Posted by desertpadre on 5-15-2015 at 10:43 AM · [top]

This is no longer a Church but merely a political/social justice organization. Having written that, I still have acquaintances and friends in TEC.  I can imagine Jesus shaking his head and wondering…. what were they thinking? Don’t they understand my commandments?  To me that is the biggest problem with TEC leadership. They have inverted the importance of the two commandments (won’t discuss what they *do* the ten commandments…) . The first is to love God. The second is to love thy neighbor. These actions by TEC leadership fail from the perspective of both commandments. Epic FAIL! They will indeed pay for their actions one day.

[3] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 5-15-2015 at 11:49 AM · [top]

“When, O when, are we going to call our muslim president a muslim”

Never, at least in normal society we won’t.

[4] Posted by cueball on 5-15-2015 at 03:04 PM · [top]

Now now Cueball [formerly the commenter known as Ruauper, who was warned four times back in 09], let’s not troll the folks who sincerely believe that Obama is a Muslim.

And further—if you think *you* represent “normal society” or have a hope of being able to articulate such an entity, you’re smoking something powerful indeed.

No—you don’t hang out with “normal people” and I do very very little.

Even though we are both abnormal and hang out with abnormal people—and certainly not in such an entity as “normal society” we can agree on something. Obama isn’t a Muslim—that would require an all powerful being worthy of worship that is other than himself.

[5] Posted by Sarah on 5-15-2015 at 03:28 PM · [top]

If you play with the gov’t, you go by their rules. There is a touch of irony in that TEc does not agree with gov’t immigration policy in the first place, yet they want to be in this money game.

The pursuit of doing good uncritically (isn’t that something they teach in seminary)  also leads to unintended consequences. I can hear the TEc apologists now, “So a few terrorists get in… You have to accept the tares with the wheat right?”

[6] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 5-15-2015 at 04:04 PM · [top]

If our concern is about radical Muslims forming a fifth column within America, we should be less concerned with the immigrants themselves - most of whom will have a strong bias against the radicals who threatened them in their home countries - than with the Saudi-funded mosques and Islamic organizations in the US that will subvert and radicalize their children. Radical Islam as we know it could not exist anywhere in the world without the massive funding it receives from wealthy Saudis and other Gulf Arabs. Until that funding is cut off at its source, most other efforts to stem the tide of radical Islam are wasted.

[7] Posted by Roland on 5-15-2015 at 04:55 PM · [top]

Why don’t we bring the Mexico and have them cross the border illegally?  Then they will get benefits, tax refunds, and the right to vote!

[8] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 5-16-2015 at 03:33 AM · [top]

Islam is not simply a religion.  It is a religion covalently bonded with a form of government (sharia).  Inviting Muslims into our nation also invites a different form of government.
We make a mistake in assuming all religions can be invited into our nation with similar consequences.

[9] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 5-16-2015 at 08:45 AM · [top]


Now, now Sarah, let’s not get too agitated over what upset you some 6 years ago. While you believe I have no right to disagree with the myth a small group of people perpetuate about the birthplace of our President I’ll just repeat that I am of a different opinion. He was born in Hawaii, not Africa nor Indonesia nor any other place on this planet. Also I am under no obligation graciously agree with someone or some group who intentionally and fraudulently claim our President’s faith is something other than that called Christian faith.

In retrospect I could have defined “normal society” in different terms but after patiently wading through the remarks of A.S.Haley, et al, I feel certain I know who has been inhaling what to become in their estimation as “normal’. Then again, most of us are consider ourselves “normal” because we walk the streets, are not institutionalized or tagged as homeless.

TEC has been on a path of self destruction for many a year. They continue their efforts along these lines with great enthusiasm. However, I wish to point out that another band of wannabes are becoming just as disjointed in their reasoning as they careen down this roadmap of destruction. Haley, Corcoran and others quoted or referred to above are good examples of why they will help accomplish this mission of mutual self-destruction.

[10] Posted by cueball on 5-16-2015 at 09:41 PM · [top]

question  “[D]isjointed in their reasoning”, cueball [#10]?? Shall we “disjoint” your comment into its disparate branches of irrelevant non-sequiturs and arguments ad hominem?

In the first paragraph, you engage in the age-old art of ignoratio elenchi—throwing up a straw man (that has absolutely zero correlation to the main post) so that you can pat yourself on the back for knocking him down.

In your second paragraph, you award yourself the virtue of patience, while demonstrating the opposite defect of jumping to unwarranted conclusions—and incoherent ones, at that.

(How in the world is one supposed to parse “who has been inhaling what to become in their estimation as ‘normal’”?  How to identify with the claim “most of us are [sic] consider ourselves ‘normal’ because we walk the streets [but] are not institutionalized or tagged as homeless”?? Do we walk the streets because we consider that defines us as ‘normal’, or because, being not institutionalized, we are at liberty to do so? And don’t the homeless equally “walk the streets” because they, too, are not institutionalized? Ah, well—never mind.)

And in your final paragraph, you seem to agree with the theme of the post that TEC is well along on a path to self-destruction, but then diverge from that thought to claim, without rhyme or reason, that those (Haley, Corcoran, et al.) who point this out are equally bent on some sort of (mutual!) self-destruction. I can agree that a secular institution like TEC is perfectly capable of self-destructing, but I fail to see the logic in equating such an entity with individuals who call attention to its follies (and whom you, without any antecedent or exposition, gratuitously slur as “wannabes” of some sort).

Oh, yes—“jointed reasoning,” that. Maybe you’d like to try being on topic, for a change. ; > )

[11] Posted by A. S. Haley on 5-16-2015 at 10:59 PM · [top]

RE: “let’s not get too agitated over what upset you some 6 years ago.”

Neither agitated nor upset—merely noting it for the archives, since you—very oddly and inexplicably—changed your screen name.  ; > ) 

RE: “While you believe I have no right to disagree with the myth . . . “

Not at all—you have every right to troll—at blogs where you are allowed to, that is.

RE: “Also I am under no obligation graciously agree with someone or some group who intentionally and fraudulently claim our President’s faith is something other than that called Christian faith.”

I’ve no doubt that the President is a “Christian” as defined by Cueball—but then we don’t share the same faith or the same Jesus and I’m perfectly comfortable in your deeming President Obama a Cueball-Christian.

RE: “most of us are consider ourselves “normal” because we walk the streets, are not institutionalized or tagged as homeless. . . . “

Speak for yourself.

[12] Posted by Sarah on 5-16-2015 at 11:21 PM · [top]

I stopped trusting Church World Service in the 80’s.  I stopped trusting World Relief not long after.

[13] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 5-17-2015 at 07:11 AM · [top]

Its always interesting to see that there will be predictable responses to any comments made here that do not ascribe to the general thinking espoused by most commenters here. There’ll be discounting of the dissenter, ridicule of his position and inflexible, blind adherence to a position that invites opposition. It was once said there is no one so blind as those who can not see. That is a pretty apt description of the inflexibility that dominates discussion here.

Liberals on one side and the right wing on the other are determined to see that only their ideas prevail and that no accommodation will be tolerated other than their own. This leaves a large (but shrinking) group in the middle which neither group realizes are what will make or break TEC into something neither ever envisioned would come about. Those setting on the sidelines know full well the day will come when TEC self destructs they are left to pick up the pieces and rebuild a church, one that has the good sense to not repeat nor tolerate the power grabbing influence of er the Libs or the Righties

[14] Posted by cueball on 5-17-2015 at 02:06 PM · [top]

My, how moral equivalence can make one so above it all. :sniff:

[15] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 5-17-2015 at 02:14 PM · [top]

RE: “there will be predictable responses”

Well I should hope so since you’ve been a commenter since 2009!  ; > )

RE: “ridicule of his position”

Yes—ridicule will occur that’s true.

RE: “This leaves a large (but shrinking) group in the middle which neither group realizes are what will make or break TEC into something neither ever envisioned would come about.”

Not certain why you’re speaking of this group since you’re a rabid revisionist—you’re not a part of it and nor am I.

Regardless, the “moderates” won’t be doing much of anything, Cueball—as they never have in TEC.  They’ll merely stand around, wring their hands, and wish that both sides would Be Quiet. 

I give the libs—and the conservatives—credit.  Both groups *do* things.  And only one group will “pick up the pieces” when TEC gets to its natural set point of around 250K ASA.

[16] Posted by Sarah on 5-17-2015 at 03:15 PM · [top]

The Pew Study should be an indication of where we are.  Much comment has been made of the supposed decrease in Christians in the United States.  Do a little digging, however, and you will find it is almost all due to a collapse of the liberal mainline denominations, whose former adherents have either become Nones or have left for evangelical churches.  So that whole “Spirit is Doing a New Thing” thing has not turned out so well.

[17] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 5-17-2015 at 03:49 PM · [top]

Forgive me if this was noted above,  but GetReligion has done several posts on the Pew report,  bring out along the way that an overlooked fact is that while claimed Christian affiliation has dropped dramatically,  worship attendance has dropped only 2 points.  In other words,  nominal church members don’t care about the name anymore, but church goers still care.

[18] Posted by Words Matter on 5-17-2015 at 06:40 PM · [top]

Re: Obama’s religion. The claims that he is secretly a Muslim are obviously ridiculous. A recent National Review article compared Obama’s views to those espoused by his denomination, the United Church of Christ, and found a close correspondence. Progressives complain about the politicized religion of Evangelicals and Catholics, but they don’t seem to mind the overt politicization of the UCC or the fact that President Obama is enacting his denomination’s favored policies. They think mixing politics and religion is fine as long as it is their religion.

[19] Posted by Roland on 5-17-2015 at 06:41 PM · [top]

#18—In support of what you are saying, the Pew Foundation talks about the drop from 78 to 70 percent of those who “identify” as Christian.  An absurd figure.  If 70 percent, let alone 78 percent, of Americans were actually Christians, this would be whole different country.  TV, movies and other entertainment would be totally different, crime would only be a small percentage of what it actually is, and a lot of lawyers would be out of business.  My guess is that, in reality, only about 20-25% of Americans are practicing Christians.

[20] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 5-17-2015 at 06:48 PM · [top]

Re: the Pew Report.

Recent research showed that about half of Americans are uncomfortable going against what they perceive to be the majority view. To put it differently, they are unprincipled conformists. These are the people who can be persuaded to join lynch mobs.

Until recently, such people pretended to be Christians. They are increasingly pretending to be politically correct progressives because that is the view now portrayed as normative in the mainstream media. This will have little internal impact on traditional churches, apart from a decline in the number of lukewarm members. But it will affect the environment in which our churches operate, since these easily cowed conformists will now be voting against us instead of for us.

[21] Posted by Roland on 5-17-2015 at 06:54 PM · [top]

I think that Christianity is under attacked from illiberals, a term used by Kirsten Powers is her excellent new book The Silencing.  Demonizing people with opposing views is effective.

[22] Posted by Pb on 5-18-2015 at 12:32 PM · [top]

Pew is a reliable polling company and I wonder just what the results would be should they did a polling that focused on only those Episcopalians who left TEC. Supporters of a liberal or conservative bent would not be included because we are already aware of their stated positions.

Some questions to ask. Why did members of this group leave? To which church did they go? If they just withdrew from TEC with no intent to attend elsewhere what was reason for that action. What are the age groups of those who left? By age group did or did not they contribute the church. But above all what was the one most important reason they left?

I’m no pollster so I’ll leave it up to Pew to properly frame these questions or any others believed germaine to the issue. Also, it might be interesting to sample the middle group who still attend church as to the reasons they still attend.

[23] Posted by cueball on 5-18-2015 at 01:57 PM · [top]

Roland - Excellent posts in #19 and #21.  Most Americans (and people in general) are unprincipled conformists.  For a long time, western culture was driven by a Christian elite.  In our generation, the new cultural elite has become an intolerant, pagan, progressive cabal that has no foundational principles for its worldview.  Christian principles have guided our culture for a long time.  These principles can continue on auto-pilot for awhile but not forever.

Take the whole gay marriage thing.  Most people think that Christianity has been the great oppressor of women and that throwing off Christianity will liberate women.  These people don’t know that Christianity was the great liberator of women 1700 years ago, and that fundamental to that liberation was that both male and female were created in the image of God, and that this is one of the key reasons theologically why a marriage MUST be one man and one woman.  And today, people are throwing this foundation under the bus, but thinking they can hold on to the status of women.  Sure, for now I am sure they can.  But not for long, I don’t think.

How long will it take our culture to unravel?

[24] Posted by jamesw on 5-18-2015 at 02:02 PM · [top]

Some are asking why the Church (Anglican and Catholic) has abandoned the Christians in ISIS/jihadists path in the Middle East:  Some are asking why the Church has abandoned the Christians being persecuted in the Middle East:

[25] Posted by St. Nikao on 12-10-2015 at 07:17 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.