• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Are we all "Sheeple" or "Content Wolves"

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Not sure who was watching the World Economic Forum in Davos.

One speaker advocated that farming, fishing needs to be outlawed.





Well now we have this story. Urban gardening has 6x the carbon footprint of commercial farming. Home gardening (presumably in the suburbs), as outlined in other stories has a carbon footprint 5x greater. So are they coming for your heirloom tomatoes, your pumpkin patch and your pickling cucumbers now? YES. YES they will be!

What wonderful timing for this study to be produced, the 'experts' at Davos, who want to control our every moment in life, say we are committing "ecocide" and that needs to be stopped. When will the wolves be pushed far enough, or are we all sheeple who will grumble among ourselves and then comply???


Hometown food 5x larger carbon footprint . . .


Carbon footprint of homegrown food five times greater than those grown conventionally

Mon, January 22, 2024 at 2:02 PM CST
Growing your own food in an allotment may not be as good for the environment as expected, a study suggests.
The carbon footprint of homegrown foods is five times greater than produce from conventional agricultural practices, such as rural farms, data show.
A study from the University of Michigan looked at how much CO2 was produced when growing food in different types of urban farms and found that, on average, a serving of food made from traditional farms creates 0.07kg of CO2.
The impact on the environment is almost five times higher at 0.34kg per portion for individual gardens, such as vegetable patches or allotments.







FULL STORY at the link above ^

Food from urban agriculture has carbon footprint 6 times larger than conventional produce, study shows

Preparing seedlings for planting at a collective garden in London, England. Urban food production spaces like this can provide numerous social and community benefits but require careful crop selection and management to cut the carbon footprints of cities. Image credit: Victoria Schoen Preparing seedlings for planting at a collective garden in London, England. Urban food production spaces like this can provide numerous social and community benefits but require careful crop selection and management to cut the carbon footprints of cities. Image credit: Victoria Schoen
A new University of Michigan-led international study finds that fruits and vegetables grown in urban farms and gardens have a carbon footprint that is, on average, six times greater than conventionally grown produce.
However, a few city-grown crops equaled or outperformed conventional agriculture under certain conditions. Tomatoes grown in the soil of open-air urban plots had a lower carbon intensity than tomatoes grown in conventional greenhouses, while the emissions difference between conventional and urban agriculture vanished for air-freighted crops like asparagus.
“The exceptions revealed by our study suggest that urban agriculture practitioners can reduce their climate impacts by cultivating crops that are typically greenhouse-grown or air-freighted, in addition to making changes in site design and management,” said study co-lead author Jason Hawes, a doctoral student at U-M’s School for Environment and Sustainability.
“Urban agriculture offers a variety of social, nutritional and place-based environmental benefits, which make it an appealing feature of future sustainable cities. This work shines light on ways to ensure that urban agriculture benefits the climate, as well as the people and places it serves.”
. . .​
Despite strong evidence of the social and nutritional benefits of urban agriculture, its carbon footprint remains understudied. Most previously published studies have focused on high-tech, energy-intensive forms of UA—such as vertical farms and rooftop greenhouses—even though the vast majority of urban farms are decidedly low-tech: crops grown in soil on open-air plots.
. . .
Three types of urban agriculture sites were analyzed: urban farms (professionally managed and focused on food production), individual gardens (small plots managed by single gardeners) and collective gardens (communal spaces managed by groups of gardeners).
For each site, the researchers calculated the climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions associated with on-farm materials and activities over the lifetime of the farm. The emissions, expressed in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per serving of food, were then compared to foods raised by conventional methods. . .

There are no facts and figures in this article. Just conclusions as determined by the writer(s). Having worked in both truck farms and home grown produce of my own, I fail to find agreement with the conclusions presented.

What is it about home grown that makes the carbon footprint higher? The factual premise of the article is not really stated.

Facts matter and without them, this article is just propaganda.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
There are no facts and figures in this article. Just conclusions as determined by the writer(s). Having worked in both truck farms and home grown produce of my own, I fail to find agreement with the conclusions presented.

What is it about home grown that makes the carbon footprint higher? The factual premise of the article is not really stated.

Facts matter and without them, this article is just propaganda.
The 'facts & figures' are in the referenced U of Michigan study, which is simply summarized in the article. You have to go to the study to get their 'facts' on how they analyzed all this.

LINK >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00023-3.epdf?sharing_token=bu57HYSEuf5uIL-lZ5L-0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0N-LlYQ9vCYuIp_pfSiuAlXFRgPgN-6w7Lt3YpFZEOyoAZlwMWojgKDe5g7qTMuxcsscgIsxETOOHs4rbvKfznTcdBUIKvOSkYnvp6LTJYQbAabhxH6tCQTGYkA1UT2jyc=

Meanwhile, the public school overlords in North Carolina are openly breaking laws and school boards are backing up the 'progressive' teachers who are experts in what young K to 4th Grade children should be taught about gender identity.

Parents are apparently upset.

The N.C. legislature is also apparently upset about these antics.

So again, are the parents going to continue to stand up as wolves or will they fall into the sheeple mode? And as we add schools abusing parental rights, anti-gardening, illegal immigration . . . etc etc to the list, when will we see full blown wolf mode?


Rogue North Carolina School Boards Choose Trans Activists Over Parents

While Republicans protect families, woke schools crusade for the far Left

Trans Rights
Several school districts are openly defying the new Parents’ Bill of Rights law in North Carolina, which had a Jan. 1 deadline for implementation.
One district went so far as to say the state cannot punish them for not complying. This sets up an election year fight, pitting radical leftist school boards on one side against parents and Republican legislators on the other. Time will tell if it gets as nasty as the Florida fight over what “progressives” deliberately misnamed the “Don’t Say Gay” law.
North Carolina’s legislature passed a commonsense Parents’ Bill of Rights law in August 2023, similar to that passed by the Florida legislature that proponents dubbed the “Anti-Groomer Bill.” The North Carolina law requires parental notification when students ask to be identified by a different name or pronoun at school, allows parents to review curriculum and textbooks, establishes age-appropriate limits on gender and sexuality instruction, and protects the rights of parents to address their concerns over what the district teaches to their children.
Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed the bill. The Republican controlled legislature then overrode his veto, making the Parents’ Bill of Rights the law of the state by a wide margin, and instilling the Jan. 1 deadline for compliance. Incidentally, Cooper also opposed another sensible education bill expanding school choice. When the legislature sent that bill to his desk, Cooper declared a state of emergency.
Former Buncombe County school board member Lisa Baldwin blasted the decision by districts to employ delay tactics on the required policies, telling Restoration News:
School boards must enforce school law, including the Parents’ Bill of Rights. Parents and citizens were met with resistance and anger from the Buncombe County Board of Education when they asked for full compliance with this commonsense law. I am disappointed in the school board’s irresponsibility and arrogance toward their constituents and the state legislature as they resist full implementation of the law in their Board policies. Rather than cast doubt on the Parents’ Bill of Rights, these radical actions of defiance by the Buncombe County Board of Education and the Asheville Board of Education have only further demonstrated why this important law was needed in the first place and just how disconnected these school boards have become from parents and basic common sense.
The Chapel Hill-Carrboro school board defied the Parents’ Bill of Rights by passing new policies in direct defiance of the law. In a Jan. 16 vote, the board “stood up for what’s right” with policies designed to cut out parents when their students ask to be identified by alternative pronouns instead of informing them. The board also refused to ban gender identity studies for kindergarten through 4th grade, while tasking administrators to come up with ways to “protect students and staff” over pronouns and gender-related name changes.
That’s right. The district wants to protect itself and its gender experimentation policies… from parents.
The State Senate Majority Whip Jim Perry (R) responded on X/Twitter, saying:
When we pass laws for society, we can’t prevent them from being broken, but we can provide appropriate consequences. School board members take an oath to uphold our State Constitution, and State Laws. There must be consequence for breaking laws, or moral hazard will rule the day. There would be no law and order or safety and security in our society without consequences.
I have spoken with several colleagues this morning. A supermajority voted for that legislation. I look forward to addressing this lawless behavior in the short session. This presents a great opportunity to see where others stand on law and order.

Bowing to the LGBTotalitarians

Other school districts have followed a similar path. The Asheville City Board of Education has taken steps to avoid “undue harm” to LGBTQ+ students from the new law, while stalling an actual vote. Board members and the board attorney repeatedly stated the new law conflicted with their “mission.”
Board chair George Sieburg said, “Understanding that the law as written will impact the LGBTQ+ community so deeply, we as a board want to be so deliberate about the language so as to limit its harm as much as possible.”
Notably, at the board meeting on Jan. 18, Sieburg denied public comment, except for two parents who spoke out against the “harm” done by the Parents’ Bill of Rights. According to local news reports, “The board elected to change language to simply refer to the law, rather than restate what board member Amy Ray said was harmful language written in the law.” Ray openly defied the legislature, saying any lawsuit against the district would have to “identify specific harm” resulting from the policy passed by the school board.
Instead, the Asheville pushed off any implementation of the law until its February meeting, daring the legislature to fight back. Chris Campbell, the board attorney, said the district is compliant, “other than the fact they haven’t finalized the policies yet.”

Democrats All In for Radical Gender Ideology

Activists from around the country have descended on North Carolina, as they did in Florida before. While most parents and voters support these laws, radical out-of-state activist nonprofits continue to organize protests while using inflammatory language to mischaracterize the law. One radical organization has listed North Carolina as the second-worst state, behind Florida, for LGBTQ+ students.
Other school boards, like the Orange County Board of Education, have passed watered-down policies they hope will escape the ire of the legislature, but don’t honor the spirit or letter of the Parental Bill of Rights.
These school boards in Democrat-run cities all share one thing in common: Utter disdain for the rights of parents who want an active role in the education of their children in public schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Thanks for the link.

Well, I read the supporting data. Which includes in its computations the "supporting structures" of a home garden Urban Agriculture.

Of course, this element is in-appropriate (at least in my view) because most of those structures exist for other purposed, like lawn mowers, supplies and yard tools. 100% Application to the production of produce is a bit unfair. And the scale difference between a barn and a shed to produced poundage of product is disparate in the extreme.

There is discussion about composting which did not, in my view, account for the total benefits of composting where in most garden and kitchen waste can be utilized instead of adding bulk ( and methane's) by filling landfills.
And then the very light and almost anecdotal references to carbon cost of transporting and distributions systems which are very Carbon intensive. Yet non-existent in most Urban gardening. At least they had the decency to mention air freighted produce which is an intense carbon burden.

That said all commercial agriculture products have intense use of carbon producing fuels and equipment.

Here is the concluding statement which shows this obvious and ,IMHO, intentional bias.
Using the SNOPE'S measuring stick I would say this article is mostly true at best. This because, throughout the article, it does admit omission of relevant data because they didn't have it available.

And yet they published conclusions upon which some civic leaders may well act.

UA has numerous benefits, but this study suggests that even low-tech urban farms and gardens have high carbon footprints. Our results show that today’s UA generally produces more GHGs than conventional agriculture, although this needs additional clarification in industrializing cities and in drier or warmer climates. High-production urban farms that focus on crops that are conventionally carbon-intensive (for example, greenhouse-grown or air-freighted) may offer one path to a more climate-friendly UA. Meanwhile, all UA sites must extend the useful life of infrastructure, reuse more materials, and maximize social benefits to become carbon-competitive with conventional agriculture. In other words, UA must be judiciously designed and managed to achieve climate goals. Next steps should include broader adoption of the best practices described, as well as a suite of future research that will help to expand and refine this list of best practices. Because of its critical social, nutritional and place-based environmental benefits, UA is likely to have a key role to play in future sustainable cities, but important work remains to be done to ensure that UA benefits the climate as well as the people and places it serve

NOTE:
Urban structures and plantings lockup carbon. Just saying.
Miost green houses pumpCO2 into their buildings to increase yields and do the same thing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Meanwhile back at the discussion about how much crap people are going to take before they act we only need to look at the European farmers.

Full story and lots of photos at the link:


Farmers protests in Europe bring France, Germany and Poland to standstill

The European Union is facing fresh chaos as farmers from member countries come together to block off major highways in a huge protest.

By Richard Ashmore, Senior News Reporter
16:45, Wed, Jan 24, 2024 | UPDATED: 19:10, Wed, Jan 24, 2024
Farmers protesting in France and set up lunch on motorway road signs
Baguettes and bottles of wine were placed on road signs as the protest brought traffic to a hault.
Angry French farmers have brought the nation to a standstill by blocking major roads with enormous convoys of tractors as they protest against what they see as excessive EU regulations and low wages.
Pictures from across France show roadblocks and street protests set up by agricultural workers who are up in arms as part of a rising tide of anger among agricultural producers across the European Union.
In a display of solidarity truck access has also been blocked to the port of Calais preventing the transportation of goods to the United Kingdom.
Farmers in Germany and Poland were also out protesting against the European Uninion. In Poland there are concerns about cheap imports from Ukraine flooding the market and about EU green policies.
The A16 motorway is also blocked at the level of access to the cross-Channel platforms without disrupting traffic in the Channel Tunnel at this stage, according to Eurotunnel.
In a sign that the protest movement was expanding in France, roadblocks were spreading in many regions, coming a day after a farmer and her daughter died when a car crashed into a protest barricade in the southwest.
Some staged a protest in Brussels, home to the EU's headquarters, where French farmers' union Rural Coordination called for a demonstration against the “ever-increasing constraints of European regulations and ever-lower incomes.”
France, the biggest agricultural producer in the EU, receives a total of 9billion euros (£7.6billion) a year in subsidies under the CAP, the Common Agricultural Policy, the largest share of any member state.
Veronique Le Floc’h, the president of Rural Coordination, said: "Today, when we see that all the farmers in France are gathering near roundabouts, blocking highways, putting tarpaulins on speed cameras: it shows they are fed up. It's a revolt."
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Sorry but I believe the digression was yours.
Anyway, back on topic, sorta....

I believe it was Stalin who made the farmers the Villans and shut them down. Putting out the lives of 30 million via starvation. To the point of your carbon footprint postings, it would seem to argue for the big industrial farms.

So which is it?

I believe the argument "wolves or sheep," should be as much about the messages given as much as the assets on the ground. Using "Carbon footprint" arguments as a fulcrum to leverage credence to their agenda is typical of the left when they cannot otherwise make an honest solid case.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has imposed new costs burdens on our family and corporate farms. So, I am confused about the message.

Which is it?
 
Last edited:

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I believe the argument "wolves or sheep," should be as much about the messages given as much as the assets on the ground. Using "Carbon footprint" arguments as a fulcrum to leverage credence to their agenda is typical of the left when they cannot otherwise make an honest solid case.
I believe the carbon foot print is one of many fulcrum points. Social justice is another when it proves to be injustice. Inflation is another when people can't afford food. And excess regulation just another tipping point. And sexualizing children and hiding it from parents is another. And violence in the streets, car jackings, smash & grabs, rampant shop lifting . . .

Looks like some people have turned to wolves....



‘Anti-European’ populists on track for big gains in EU elections, says report

France, Poland and Austria among nine countries where radical rightwing parties predicted to finish first

Marine Le Pen. president of the Rassemblement National, in Paris
Marine Le Pen, the president of France’s National Rally, in Paris last week. Photograph: Alain Robert/Sipa/Rex/Shutterstock
Populist “anti-European” parties are heading for big gains in June’s European elections that could shift the parliament’s balance sharply to the right and jeopardise key pillars of the EU’s agenda including climate action, polling suggests.
Polling in all 27 EU member states, combined with modelling of how national parties performed in past European parliament elections, shows radical right parties are on course to finish first in nine countries including Austria, France and Poland.
Projected second- or third-place finishes in another nine countries, including Germany, Spain, Portugal and Sweden, could for the first time produce a majority rightwing coalition in the parliament of Christian Democrats, conservatives and radical right MEPs.
The analysis should “serve as a wake-up call for European policymakers about what is at stake” in the election, said the political scientists Simon Hix and Kevin Cunningham, who co-authored the report for the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
The researchers said the implications of the vote were far-reaching, arguing the next European parliament could block laws on Europe’s green deal and take a harder line on other areas of EU sovereignty including migration, enlargement and support for Ukraine.
Domestic debates could also be affected, they said, bolstering the “growing axis of governments trying to limit the EU’s influence from within”: Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Sweden and, if Geert Wilders’ PVV heads its new government, the Netherlands.
The possible return of Donald Trump in the US and a right-leaning, inward-focused coalition in the European parliament could result in a rejection of “strategic interdependence and … international partnerships in defence of European interests and values”, they warned.
The projections showed the mainstream political groups in the parliament – the centre-right European People’s party (EPP), centre-left Socialists and Democrats (S&D), the centrist Renew Europe (RE) and Greens (G/EFA) – all losing MEPs.
The more radical Left group and particularly the populist right, including the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR) and far-right Identity and Democracy (ID), are set to emerge as the main victors, with a real possibility of entering a majority coalition for the first time.
Although the EPP looks likely to remain the largest group, retain its agenda-setting power and determine the choice of the next Commission president, the report argues that populists, particularly from the radical right, will have a greater say than ever before.
Their voices will carry most weight in several founding member states, the polling suggests, with Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy forecast to boost its MEP tally to 27 and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally on track to win a record 25 seats.
In Austria, the radical right Freedom party (FPÖ) is projected to double its total of MEPs to six, while in Germany the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) looks likely to nearly double its representation in the 705-seat parliament to 19.
Populist eurosceptic parties are likely to come first in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia, and second or third in Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden.
As a result, the far-right ID group is projected to gain up to 40 more seats, for a total of 98, potentially making it the third political force and opening up the possibility of a “populist right” coalition (EPP, ECR, and ID) with 49% of MEPs in the new parliament, the report says.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
The comfortable wolves in the European Union are no longer comfortable and the politicians are being thrown out of office.

Germany is at a tipping point, if the government stands, Germany's economy will continue to fail and the nation will swirl the toilet bowl before ultimately flushing away. The Dutch farmers/workers have seen success. French farmers are literally filling roads with dirt and shutting down the nation.

ANYTHING that opposed the "green new deal" is now considered 'far right' by the compliant media. Want to have a couple kids, that is far right. Believe in marriage, again far right. Germany requires farmers let 4% of their crop land sit idle, is increasing taxes on diesel, and requiring a 50% reduction in chemical fertilizer use, farming part of their land organically . . . but at the same time is asking farmers to produce more food! The German grain crops are some of the highest quality in the world, but Germany is now importing inferior Ukrainian grain.





Europe Erupts In Widespread Farmer Protests As Revolt Against 'Green' Policies Intensifies​

Farmers in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Belgium, Romania, and other countries across Europe are protesting radical leftist governments by obstructing major transport networks with tractors. This widespread populist movement is sweeping Europe at a time when over-regulation, taxes, and the climate change agenda threaten the livelihoods of not just farmers but working-class people and comes several months before the European election cycle kicks off in June.

Some countries hit hardest by protests have been Germany, Italy, Belgium, and France. Protests are expected to spread to Spain and Portugal.

On Tuesday, France's new prime minister, Gabriel Attal, promised farmers emergency funds and stricter trade controls on foreign products to guarantee fair competition.

However, that might not have been enough, as the farmer's union in France was unimpressed by concessions offered by the French government. They encouraged their members to continue the fight.

"I'm so proud of you," Serge Bousquet-Cassagne, head of Lot-et-Garonne department's farmer's association, told protesters in the south of Paris.

Bousquet-Cassagne said:

"You are fighting this battle because if we don't fight we die."
Meanwhile, Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin told local TV station France 2 that police were preparing to defend strategic areas of larger cities.

"They can't attack police, they can't enter Rungis, they can't enter the Paris airports or the center of Paris," said Darmanin, adding, "But let me tell you again that if they try, we will be there."
According to Armstrong Economics:

Farmers throughout the world have been protesting the increasing regulations on agriculture. The media is barely covering the story, and when they do mention it, they say that the farmers are protesting due to Russia blocking supplies from Ukraine. This is simply untrue. The farmers are protesting against over-regulation, taxes, and the climate change agenda that is making it increasingly difficult for them to make a successful living.
EU farmers' complaints are very basic:

  • Out-of-control energy prices (thank whoever blew up the Nord Stream).
  • Disastours carbon-cutting targets.
  • Overall inflation.
  • Bureaucracy from radicals in Brussels.
  • Ukrainian grain imports.
The demonstrations, which could soon consume Europe, come ahead of the June European Parliament elections.

Here are scenes on the ground as protests spread across Europe:














There are dozens more videos
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Any chance the content and comfortable wolves in America will wake up when they find out that Biden is sending US Tax Dollars to Central and South American countries, plus also giving non-profits millions of dollars, specifically to help the illegal aliens arrive at the southern border?

Here are a couple articles:



And this, a detailed analysis from an Immigration Group called the Center for Immigration Studies:



Biden Admin. Sends Millions to Religious Nonprofits Facilitating Mass Illegal Migration

A CIS examination of one subset of 200-plus NGOs helping a mammoth UN-led immigration assistance project reveals pass-through taxpayer funding of the worst mass migration in U.S. history

UN-provided debit cards issued to immigrants in Reynosa, Mexico, in late 2021.
AUSTIN, Texas — 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.
But suspicions that 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, can now be confirmed.
A follow-up CIS examination of the 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.
HIAS. A prime example is the self-described “Jewish American” nonprofit organization HIAS of Silver Spring, Md. (incorporated in 1903 as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), which has pledged $17.1 million in aid to immigrants in at least seven Latin American nations during 2024, the UN’s RMRP planning documents show. It turns out that in FY 2022, 47 percent of revenue reported by HIAS came as grants from government agencies, the majority from the State Department, but some also from the Department of Homeland Security, according to the group’s tax filings and other sources, with the balance coming from a mix of major corporate sponsors and other sources.
But there can be little question about the origins and purpose of at least some of HIAS’s $17 million pledge to the UN’s Latin America migrant trails project. Last year, the State Department’s PRM gave HIAS a $6 million grant for it, according to USAspending.gov, a database that tracks federal spending.
The first infusions of another $5.2 million State Department PRM grant to HIAS this year — explicitly for the UN endeavor in Latin America — started arriving in September 2023 with the last of it to come in September of this year, according to USAspending.gov.
All $11 million was earmarked to HIAS by the State Department's overseas refugee assistance programs for the Western Hemisphere, which the UN plan aims to support through “direct emergency humanitarian assistance such as food, non-food items, shelter, health, psychosocial support” in major migration transit countries like Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.
A UN “activity explorer” database of the participating NGOs shows that some $6.1 million of 2024’s HIAS commitment will go out as cash cards, cash vouchers, and cash in-kind services while most of the rest goes to humanitarian transportation, food, shelter, and various services.

Record Taxpayer Support of UN Spearheading Agencies

UN budget documents, federal grant-tracking databases, and other public sources show that the State Department’s PRM and USAID also have poured taxpayer money into at least the other religion-oriented NGOs that CIS selected for examination, including Catholic, Lutheran, and Seventh Day Adventist groups. The list of participating NGOs comes from the UN’s 2023-2024 Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan (RMRP), which lists more than 200 of the groups on p. 268.
The Center for Immigration Studies has exported that list here to make it available for further public study. Another 20 new NGO groups signed on for the coming year, although they are not readily identified.
But the State Department and USAID also sent historic volumes of cash to the Latin America project’s main United Nations overseers, which also pass that aid straight to migrants: the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization of Migration (IOM).
The State Department’s PRM and USAID have given IOM $1.4 billion in just the last 12 months, by far the most on record, according to USAspending.gov, a database that tracks federal spending. PRM is also the biggest donor to UNHCR, which is among 15 different UN agencies that will spread money and aid all along the migrant trails of Latin America. This is part and parcel of a State Department agreement to a “2023-2025 Framework for Cooperation” with the UNHCR to pay into the effort and to politically support its goals. The State Department openly acknowledges issuing guidance to field staff on budget and planning coordination for the Latin American effort, and it has turned over operation of major U.S. government policy initiatives in Latin America, such as an expansion of “refugee” centers and management of a no-interest “international travel loan” programs.
The State Department’s PRM, USAID, and UN agencies all see this straight-line pass-through of American taxpayer assistance with “multilateral organizations” as “social and economic protection and risk reduction” for vulnerable stateless people “forced” to flee home countries, as the 2023 PRM grant to HIAS put it.
“PRM promotes U.S. interests by providing protection, easing suffering, and resolving the plight of persecuted and forcibly displaced people around the world,” the State Department’s PRM website explains.
But a more critical interpretation of such direct Biden government infusions of taxpayer money — and operational closeness with the UN agency recipients — is that it hurts the country by easing the northward path for mainly economic immigrants who voluntarily make the journey knowing in advance that all of their basic needs will be provided for and that border policies virtually guarantee their entry and long-term stay.
The funding intervention raises the specter that Biden administration appointees in these government agencies, many hailing from NGOs like HIAS, engineered the catch-and-release policies that initially triggered the mass migration crisis in 2021, then arranged for taxpayer money to support the flows. (HIAS publicly lauded the 2021 nomination of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who served as a HIAS board member.)
Some Republicans have proposed legislation to halt U.S. funding of the UN agencies and their NGO partners, but short of illumination about how it all works, the legislation has gained no traction.
“This is a slap in the face to American taxpayers who foot the bill for this corrupt globalist institution,” Texas Rep. Lance Gooden said last year. “Republicans must condition UN funding and stop this taxpayer funded invasion immediately.”

In God They Really Trust

The UN has entrusted faith-based establishment NGOs with handling a lot of the $372 million in “Cash and Voucher Assistance” and “Multipurpose Cash Assistance” the broader endeavor will hand out to an estimated 624,000 migrants “in-transit” to the United States during 2024. That money is most often handed out, other UN documents show, as pre-paid, rechargeable debit cards, but also hard “cash in envelopes”, bank transfers, and mobile transfers that the U.S. border-bound travelers can use for whatever they want.
The Jewish group is hardly alone among faith-based NGOs essentially passing through U.S. taxpayer money to immigrants in just these ways.
Adventists. The Seventh-day Adventist Church’s “global humanitarian arm”, the Silver Spring, Md., Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA), plans to distribute more than $10 million, nearly 38 percent of it as cash and cash vouchers and the rest as food, shelter, and hygiene needs in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, and Peru.
ADRA received significant funding from USAID and the State Department from 2021-2023, nearly $51 million in 2021, $32 million in 2022, and more than $9 million in 2023 and two unspecified grants so far for 2024, according to USAspending. It’s unclear how much of that is earmarked for U.S.-bound immigrants in Latin America, but clearly some of it will be in 2024. Brazil and Honduras were among the top countries where ADRA spent money.
Organizations associated with the Catholic Church, collectively, move among the largest volumes of cash and other aid into the hands of U.S.-bound foreign nationals, more than $26 million. Three Jesuit-associated groups are to move some $5.3 million into immigrant hands, while the Catholic Commission for Social Justice sends out nearly $2 million.
Catholics. The highly visible Catholic Charities USA is not on the list of those working south of the border with this UN project, although the NGO and its many affiliate components receive tens of millions of dollars in federal awards to manage illegal immigrant transportation north from the border and resettlement activity in the United States interior.
But some 13 franchises of the nonprofit Caritas, whose website states that it is “inspired by the Catholic faith” and is “the helping hand of the Church”, will dole out $12.3 million to immigrants south of the border, much of it as cash and cash vouchers, the activity explorer search tool shows.
USAID and the State Department’s PRM have given more than $11 million to one of them, Caritas Brazil, since the mass migration began in 2021, including $3 million pledged through December 2024 “overseas refugee assistance programs for the Western Hemisphere” that include “food, non-food items, shelter, health, [and] psychosocial support”, USAspending shows here and also here.
By way of explaining its views on this aid, Caritas Switzerland, one of the most giving of the 13 franchises, says on its website that migration “globally across international borders in non-regulated forms ... represents a legitimate strategy of people to improve their lives”.
No matter that UN-member nations along the way don’t want this traffic coursing through their territories. Caritas is going to “cover basic needs, such as food, personal hygiene products, clean clothes, safe decent accommodation and subsidized transport”.
Other faith-based NGOs representing Christian denominations are well represented and also funded, in part, directly by the U.S. treasury.
Lutherans and More. In FY 2023, USAID awarded Lutheran World Relief a million-dollar grant for this year. The group would hand off about $181,000 supporting immigrants in Latin America.
USAID in recent years has given the nondenominational Boone, N.C., Samaritan’s Purse $29 million “for programs overseas”, albeit much of it for activities in Africa. But Samaritan’s Purse has pledged $718,513 to the UN project in Latin America.

About the Rest

The 200-plus NGOs are listed for their activities south of the U.S. border, although some, like HIAS, also support immigrants inside the United States whom they have already helped cross. The list of these groups do not include a burgeoning number of large and small NGOs that work mainly inside the United States providing, for instance, transportation into the interior as well as shelter, food, housing, and many other resettlement needs and wants.
This examination of some of the religion-oriented NGOs indicates probable Biden government taxpayer support for many more of the others. But pending further research, the extent of tax money diversion to them is not publicly known.
The UN plan lists 57 as “international NGOs” like HIAS and ADRA, but also 132 “national NGOs”, probably indigenous to foreign countries. Further investigation would need to determine whether the State Department and USAID send pass-through money to these. The plan also names a mysterious category of “Others” such as the Red Cross Movement and “academia”.
Language in the UN plan for Latin America in 2024 leaves no doubt that its architects in both the UN and U.S. agencies are in lockstep about one thing: aggressively expanding the ranks of NGOs working on the migration trails, which if logic follows, would portend even greater diversions of U.S. taxpayer money to support them.
 

bczoom

Super Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I was a wolf, hard core when I was in the Marines.
Now I'm old. I void physical conflicts but still don't take much shit.
If I don't like something or want to speak out, I'll "get 'er done".
Just recently,
County reassessment. They're numbers didn't work for me. I took them to a formal review and got an $80K+ reduction in my assessment.

We have a place in FL where I can see the back of a major retailer. Homeless people moved in and made a mess. Store manager wasn't interested in cleaning it up. We called corporate, it's getting cleaned and we got the personal cell phone of a VP who's going to make sure it doesn't happen again.

We had a sliding glass door installed recently. There's a whistling around it on some windy days. They believe it's a broken seal. They're going to fix it at no cost to me. That's around a $2,000 repair.
 

m1west

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
I was a wolf, hard core when I was in the Marines.
Now I'm old. I void physical conflicts but still don't take much shit.
If I don't like something or want to speak out, I'll "get 'er done".
Just recently,
County reassessment. They're numbers didn't work for me. I took them to a formal review and got an $80K+ reduction in my assessment.

We have a place in FL where I can see the back of a major retailer. Homeless people moved in and made a mess. Store manager wasn't interested in cleaning it up. We called corporate, it's getting cleaned and we got the personal cell phone of a VP who's going to make sure it doesn't happen again.

We had a sliding glass door installed recently. There's a whistling around it on some windy days. They believe it's a broken seal. They're going to fix it at no cost to me. That's around a $2,000 repair.
Im older now to, but still knows where the guy is that will kick ass if needed.
 
Top