***Note: The transcript below has been provided at the request of our listeners. However, please understand that this has been transcribed from a live talk show, therefore the wording has been kept “as is” so it may not read according to normal written standards.
Well today is President’s Day. The banks are closed. Congress is at home. So far so good, right? But what will members of Congress face when they hold their town meetings in their districts? That may not be so good. We’re going to discuss what Obama linked activists have in store for congressional town hall meetings as they are lining up to protest President Trump and his immigration policies and intimidate primarily Republican members as they speak in their districts. Now in addition, we’re going to focus on the matter of immigrants today. Specifically the issue of what’s called refugee resettlement. A multi billion dollar Barack Obama boondoggle.
We’re going to discuss the purpose of the refugee settlement, the cost of it, the participants in this costly and controversial program, and to help us in these discussions, we’re going to welcome our special guest Leo Hohmann. He’s an investigative reporter and news editor for Worldnet Daily, and he’s the current managing editor of Triangle Business Journal in Raleigh, NC. He’s also the author of Stealth Invasion, Muslim Conquest through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad. With that I’m going to welcome you to today’s program. I’m Sam Rohrer joined today by Gary Dull and Isaac Crockett, a previous guest on our stand in the gap today program. Of course, our special guest Leo Hohmann. Well, Gary Isaac and Leo, we have a lot to cover today on this program. With God’s help, we’re going to bring some clarity to this issue of immigration.
On Friday of last week ladies and gentleman, with our guest IQ Al-Rassooli we discussed in a cursory fashion an article by Paul Sperry in the New York Post entitled How Obama is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency. Because of President’s Day and Congress being back home in their districts this week, Barack Obama’s plan to sabotage the Trump administration. We’ll see an extended strategy I think as we can see it take place. We’re going to talk about that and what a prior president, Barack Obama, is actually doing here beginning on President’s Day and then going forth.
Now a second article by Paul Sperry, again investigative reporter for the New York Post, which appeared over the weekend has this title “Obama Linked Activists Have a Training Manual for Protesting Trump.” Let me read from that just a little bit as I set this up here for today, and then I’m going to go to Gary here for the first question. But from this article, it starts out by saying this, an Obama tied activist group training tens of thousands of agitators to protest President Trump’s policies plan to hit Republican lawmakers supporting these policies even harder this week when they return home for the congressional recess and hold town hall meetings and other functions.
Organizing for action, OFA, a group founded by Obama and featured prominently on his new post presidency website is distributing a training manual to anti Trump activists that advises them to bully GOP lawmakers into backing off support for repealing Obamacare, curbing immigration from high risk Islamic nations and building a border wall. I’m going to stop right there, but this is a very very sinister group, led by the President. Gary, let me go to you first here because we did comment about it a little last time. This article and others states the fact that there are over 250 offices associated with OFA organizing for action overseen by the former president. Over 32,000 engaged activists. There are training sessions that are being planned, have already happened as well, with stated purposes that include disrupt, mobilize, intimidate and with goals that include bringing down the Trump administration. Gary, just in simple terms, does this sound to you like normal free speech first amendment issues?
Gary Dull: No. Actually to me Sam it sounds like anarchy, rebellion, divisiveness, immaturity, hatred and irresponsible action from a former president. Does that get to the point?
Sam Rohrer: I was going to say can you add anything to that Gary, you know, because in reality I don’t know how else you can comment on that.
Gary Dull: No.
Sam Rohrer: Let me go to you on this now. If you can, because Leo, you’ve done a lot of writing on this. Gary just summed up, I mean, it made it a little bit of a humorous thing there, but I reality this is serious business when a former President is actually extensively engaged with efforts to change the landscape of America. Now, doing these things that are happening as a result of Organizing for Action. In addition, Leo, I’m going to ask you this, but this is another piece from this article from what they’re saying. “They are distributing a training manual to anti Trump activists advising them again to bully lawmakers and to these issues as I just said, curbing immigration, repealing Obamacare, and building a border wall.” That’s what they’re trying to oppose. Leo, what is the common thread that includes keeping Obamacare, keeping open the conduits to high risk Islamic nation immigrants, and keeping open a border? Why are these the main issues that these individuals, that Gary said is anarchists, and I say they are too. Why are they focusing so much on keeping these things open and in place?
Leo Hohmann: Well, you know, well first of all Gary just one quick correction. I mean, Sam, one quick correction. At the outset of the show you said I was the current managing editor of Triangle Business Journal. That was actually back in the 1990s. I just wanted to set that straight. I didn’t want somebody to hear that and then accuse me of putting out a false resume. Okay. I’m currently news editor at Worldnet Daily. But yeah, that is a very good question Sam. You know there’s several common threads. I think first of all what we’re looking at is the whole idea, the Marxist idea of collectivism. The border, open borders policy invites the world in.
We see that most of the people coming in are coming from either socialist or Islamic countries, which as you know have a high degree of statism where the state controls everybody’s life from day to day. Those people come here with similar socialistic ideas and expect our government here to be a nanny state, and to take care of their every need. The same thing goes for Obamacare. That’s just another ripple effect of this type of mentality. Whether it be the Islamic totalitarian system or the social Communist totalitarian system that’s the common thread there is collectivism. Where we are responsible, the government is responsible for making sure that everyone is taken care of from cradle to grave. The third thing that I would say shares commonality is open borders, unfettered Islamic immigration. We are looking more and more, as Gary said, at a prospect ahead of us with anarchy.
Sam Rohrer: In this segment, we’re going to move now specifically into the matter of refugee resettlement and to help Isaac and Gary and I do that, we’re going to now welcome again officially Leo Hohmann. As he said, he is the news editor of World Net Daily, has written a book on Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration And Resettlement, Jihad and a leading authority on this matter or refugee settlement. With that, let me go and set this up here for us for the segment.
At the heart of Barack Obama’s wide open immigration policies which are focused primarily … we say that primarily because really it has, the numbers indicated primarily on Islamic refugees. This entire program has been referred to as refugee resettlement. By and large, and I want Leo, to ask you this, but I believe it also clearly ties in with this whole issue of sanctuary cities that you have written a lot about and there are also billions of dollars, borrowed dollars I say by the way because this debt has gone up under this last president enormously, but borrowed dollars to actually grease the skids of the resettlement program. Let me start specifically with this question to you. You’ve written exclusively on the topic of refugee resettlement, or not extensively, not particularly and only but you certainly have built this out. Give us in your opinion a quick history of when this refugee resettlement program began and who started it. Was it Barack Obama? Did it begin beforehand or if it began beforehand, what did Barack Obama do to change it?
Leo Hohmann: Oh my goodness. Yes, it began well before Barack Obama. The problem is that nobody had ever heard of it until Barack Obama started upping the ante. This program has been going on in its current form since the late seventies, early eighties. We’ve always taken in refugees but after the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed it was after that that we started putting our refugee program under the auspices of the United Nations and letting the United Nations pick more and more of our refugees until now it is like 95% of the refugees coming here from overseas have been hand selected by the United Nations, UNCHR, High Commissioner for Refugees.
The current Secretary General of the UN, Mr. Antonio Gutierrez, who is a leading socialist from the socialist party in Portugal … He actually headed up the Socialist International for several years and in 2005 he became head of the UNCHR, High Commissioner for Refugees. Now he’s been after serving in that post for over a decade. He’s been promoted to Secretary General at the beginning of this year, this January. Yes, the program initially started with us taking a lot of refugees from communist Southeast Asia, Vietnam, Cambodia then later Russia, Cuba. You know we were rescuing people from communist dictatorships, but it morphed more and more into a program that was an Islamic population shift in overdrive.
It’s to the point now where half of the refugees we take in, just under half of all the refugees we take from around the world every year are Muslim. That’s about … Let’s see we took in 85,000 last year and about 40,000 of them were Muslim. You can see how that is … And that was a record number by the way, last year under Barack Obama. But this trend has been continuing, has started really since the days of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan especially started taking in more Muslim refugees from the country of Afghanistan. He called them Freed Fighters because they were fighting the Soviets.
Then President Bush, the first Bush took in some from Iraq after the first Iraq war. It’s just like every president since then has taken in a larger share to the point where under President Obama we took in 40,000. That’s just from the refugee program. Muslims come the the US under other programs as well. That is sort of the history. We are taking in a total of about 130,000 per year on all immigration programs, greencard … Those are mostly greencard permanent residents coming from Muslim countries, 130,000 per year. At least that many more come every year on temporary visas, student visas, work visas, fiance visas, entrepreneurial visas. Oh and then there’s something called the religious visa where we’re actually bringing in hardcore Sharia, militant Sharia imams from the Middle East under the religious visa program.
Speaker 3: Wow, Leo this is just frightening to hear all this and I think it’s so important for all of our listeners to understand what is happening but as important as it is to understand what they’re doing, I guess the question in our minds or at least my mind is why. Why are they doing this? Why has this major effort been put into place to bring in these large numbers of Muslims from dangerous countries?
Leo Hohmann: Well you have to look at it in perspective. The United States is a large country. It’s a country of immigrants. We’ve been called the melting pot by other countries. You have countries like Sweden that are much smaller and have gone on a similar immigration multi-cultural diversity binge, but it’s affecting them much faster. Sweden is a country of 10 million people, so if they bring in a million Muslims over a period of 20 years, that’s going to have an astounding, fast and noticeable impact right away. We’re seeing that now in Sweden over the last few years. It’s become the rape capital of Europe, which it had been one of the most peaceful countries in the world. Now they have gang violence and out of control rape.
Now in America it’s going to be much slower because we’re a country of 350 million people and we have 3.3 million Muslims. Now you may say that’s a lot of Muslims, and it is compared to 20 years ago when we had maybe a million, but in a country of 350 million, that is still a relatively very small percentage. You’re talking 1% of our population, whereas in Sweden it’s approaching 10%.
It is going to be gradual and it is going to take a while for this country to be completely Islamized but under Barack Obama the Muslim community achieved much more influence than its numbers would indicate that it should have. He invited the Muslim Brotherhood right into the federal government, to advise him in posts at the Homeland Security Department, Department of Justice and various immigration agencies. So they accumulated a lot of political capital and influence during that time.
Gary Dull: You know, Leo, and I appreciate you mentioning that because we’ve emphasized that a lot here in the program, the Muslim Brotherhood and how it has been allowed to infiltrate into positions, high positions in Washington DC. But you know in addition to those 40,000 Muslims who are being brought in through the refugee program I understand that there are also something like 260,000 Muslims per year entering into the United States of America in addition to those 40,000. Is that correct?
Leo Hohmann: No that is the total grand combined total, 260,000.
Gary Dull: Of Muslims?
Leo Hohmann: Yeah.
Gary Dull: Of Muslims.
Leo Hohmann: That includes refugees and all the others. It includes permanent and temporary. Permanent is about 130,000 per year.
Gary Dull: Right.
Leo Hohmann: The other half are coming in as we said as students, as preachers, as entrepreneurs. You know the local convenience store down the street from you is probably owned by an Indian or a Pakistani and there’s a good chance he could be Muslim. They’re here on an entrepreneurial visa.
Gary Dull: Sure.
Leo Hohmann: The imam at your local mosque is here on a religious visa and so the list goes on, yeah.
Gary Dull: Well I know a Muslim who’s come to Christ a number of years ago. He said that his family actually came into this country … Of course he eventually came to Christ, but he said that he actually came into this country as a mosque planter as it were. You know as Christians we talk about church planters. But they actually came in to establish mosques throughout the United States of America. Of those other 200,000 plus, beyond the refugees who are Muslims coming into this nation, we have no idea the impact that they are having here upon our country and the question that I have to you really is where are most of these people being resettled throughout this nation of ours?
Leo Hohmann: That’s a good question. You know they’re not just being resettled as originally was happening in major gateway cities like New York, Chicago, Miami, LA. No, these people in recent years are increasingly likely to be coming to small town America. I would say over the last 10 years or so, they have been increasingly coming to places like Owatonna, Minnesota. You know I couldn’t place that on a map. Could you?
Gary Dull: No.
Leo Hohmann: And Rutland, Vermont. You know Owensboro, Kentucky and just sort of middle America places like that. Fort Collins, you know, Colorado and what we find that a lot of these smaller cities and towns that are getting these refugees have in common is that they have meat packing plants nearby.
Sam Rohrer: We’re going to continue now with the discussion on refugee resettlement. Before I get going here on this section, Leo, and ask you the specific questions of who’s involved, you made a comment in the last segment that I just want to find out if there’s anything interesting about it here. That is that you said if you have a meat packing place close to you a lot of the employees are probably Muslims. Gary texted me during the break and actually suggested that there’s a lot of meat packing places around him and he finds that to be true. Is there anything significant about that or is that just a coincidence?
Leo Hohmann: It’s no coincidence. I’m not suggesting that all the employees at a meat packing plant are going to be Muslim, but I am suggesting that they will be present, especially if it is owned by an international conglomerate. A lot of the meat packing facilities in our country, like so many other industries, have been internationalized over the last 20 years. With that internationalization, that globalization, brings foreign workers and more likely to be employed. It seems like that’s what I’ve found in my research. It’s not only meat packing plants, food processing plants in general should be looked at. Chobani yogurt for instance operates the world’s largest yogurt plant in Twin Falls, Idaho. Low and behold, 30% of their workforce at that plant are refugees.
What we found out is that this started under the Clinton presidency. Bill Clinton had some friends in the meat packing industry, and he brought some refugees over from Eastern Europe and they ended up being employed in the meat packing plants. This grew under President George W. Bush. As you may recall, President George W. Bush actually conducted some raids on meat packing plants and arrested a good many illegal immigrant workers at these plants. They were from Latin America like most of our illegals are.
In response to that, the meat packing industry, which had already become addicted to cheap foreign labor, making use of these illegals coming in from Mexico and Central America, they needed a quick fix to replace some of these illegals that were suddenly being arrested at their plants under George W. Bush, and so what they did is they went full force into recruitment of refugee labor. This is completely legal as opposed to the illegals coming across the border from Latin America. The refugees coming in are here at the invitation of the US Government. They were able to change out their Latin American illegal workforce with a Middle Eastern, more Middle Eastern looking and North African, so to speak, looking refugee workforce that was completely legal.
Sam Rohrer: Interesting. That brings us right into the next question I wanted to go to next is that this has been happening as you said under a couple of administrations, clearly sped up under the Barack Obama Administration, but they can’t do this on their own. I want to walk now into this issue of who is helping them. Lots of money, I’ve seen numbers in the billions of dollars. You have too. You may have more up-to-date numbers even what I’ve looked at. Who is and how is the process used? In other words, what entities out there, organizations, have actually risen to this challenge and are the ones that are being utilized most by the Barack Obama Administration particularly in the placement of these refugees across the country? I think it may be surprising, but name a couple of them if you could.
Leo Hohmann: It’s the same agencies that have been used by President George W. Bush and President Clinton and President George Herbert Walker Bush and President Reagan for the most part. There are nine resettlement agencies in this country, and they have a nice, tidy, little agreement, a contract with the government that makes them a lot of money every year in which they resettle the refugees, they do the governments work for the government for a price, and they are actually paid per head for every refugee that they bring into this country.
Six of the nine resettlement agencies, also called VOLAGs, volunteer agencies, six of the nine have religious affiliations. They’re affiliated with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which works through Catholic Charities and other groups, you have Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which works through Lutheran Social Services and other myriad Lutheran groups. You have World Relief, which is an arm of the National Association of Evangelicals, you have Episcopal Migration Ministries, and you have the Hebrew Immigrant Aide Society just to name a few. There are three others that are secular in nature, such as the International Rescue Committee, but these nine groups have exclusive contracts with the government. It’s called a public-private partnership or PPP, in which we’ve heard a lot about those in other areas of our economy but not so much in refugee resettlement.
Gary Dull: Leo, I’m just wondering, and I’m glad that you brought this up as to some of the organizations that are working with bringing these refugees in and so forth, but can you provide some information on how much money has actually been spent on this over the years? In addition to that, how much money has been laundered through some of these primary conduits for refugee resettlement, such as the Catholic Charities and World Relief and World Vision and so forth?
Leo Hohmann: Yeah. That’s a good question, Gary. Let’s just take a look at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops which operates through Catholic Charities primarily. If you look at their Form 990 for 2014, which is the most recent data we can find, they brought in a total of $85 million. That was their total revenue. Seventy-nine million of that, 97%, came from government grants, and so that tells you that even though they refer to themselves as Catholic Charities they’re really not a charity at all because as you and I would think of a charity we would think of a religious organization passing the hat around the church and sort of gathering up donations from its members, at least that’s how I think of a charity, it operates through donations. This charity operates through government grants. There’s numerous ways they can bring in federal money, but basically the more refugees they bring in the more revenue they collect from government.
Gary Dull: Isaac I’m sure has a question, but I want to follow up on that if I may. In light of the fact of what you’ve explained, number one are they breaking the IRS code when they do that, and then secondly could this be traced back to the faith-based initiatives that were started in the early 90s under George W. Bush to a degree?
Leo Hohmann: That is a good question. I’m not a tax accountant, so I will pass on the first question. I do believe these agencies predated George W. Bush, so I don’t know that we could rack it up to his particular faith-based initiative. Faith-based initiatives were not all that new. I think he popularized the term and expanded it into other areas. These six of the nine have a long history of working with the government that predates George W. Bush.
Sam Rohrer: Isaac, you’ve got a question?
Isaac: Yeah. Question on that then, Leo. As we look at this, if 90% of their budget is really coming from the government, I guess leading up to the Obama Administration pushing these people in, are these really Christian principles that are governing these organizations or is it more sinister, more like the Obama Administration that’s bringing the refugees in?
Leo Hohmann: I believe that when these agencies started out they probably did have a very strong Christian motivation for what they do. They still couch their programs in religious terms. They quote a lot of Bible verses to justify what they’re doing, treating the stranger with love and reaching out to the stranger in the country and welcoming the stranger, that you will just see that repeated ad nauseam in a lot of their outreach.
Over the years as they have expanded like so many, like so many let’s face it, Christian organizations, I can think of Christian universities that started out on fire for God and over the years became more distant from their original mission, I think it’s the same with these organizations including World Relief, which used to be a wonderful organization that focused on evangelizing and missionary work. That’s the other part of this program that is sinister and proves to me that it is sinister and not all lollipops and balloons like they say. They agree as part of this contract that we spoke of earlier with the government, they agree not to proselytize or evangelize the refugees, and so here you have them reaching out with one hand to accept government money and with the other hand pulling back what they used to do as far as outreach in missionary zeal refugee.
Sam Rohrer: Wow, Leo. Boy, I’m going to pick up a little bit on the other side when we come back after that break because it’s almost the principle is if, if you begin taking government money is it going to deter you in the mission. You made that statement and I think we’ve seen it happen a lot.
Sam Rohrer: As we conclude the program today in this final segment on refugee resettlement, we’ve talked about a number of things. Work got started, it actually predated Barack Obama, he definitely has upped the ante in this, he spent a lot of money. We’ve talked about where these refugees are coming from and the numbers of them. We also in the last segment, then, Leo Hohmann you identified the names of certain organizations like Catholic charities, world relief, certain Lutheran organizations. But effectively, six of nine you cited were religious-based entities who’ve lined up to take federal money. And as you’ve said, by so doing, actually have agreed not to proselytize, which means not share the Gospel with the people who come in. Which is an extraordinarily ironic thing.
I want you to confirm what you said in that regard and what I’m asking you is this: is the receipt of the money by these organizations, by the contract, the grant monies that come under the PPP arrangements: do they have as a part of it a condition that upon the receipt of the monies, they in fact do not proselytize, therefore share the Gospel with these refugees when they come in? Is that what you’re saying?
Leo Hohmann: 100 percent, yes. I’ve got it documented in my new book, Stealth Invasion. I’ve got the actual webpage from the US State Department, which describes this agreement documented in the footnotes and they 100 percent must agree to this clause, not to proselytize, evangelize, share the Gospel, whatever you want to call it, with the refugees that they serve.
Sam Rohrer: Leo, that is an astounding statement. Because just recently, World Relief, as an example, sent a letter to the president and the vice president, open letter in the Washington Post, condemning the president for his limitation immigration policies. And they started out that letter by saying “We as pastors and church leaders, in the fulfillment of our mission to reach out and help the poor and the refugee, do embark effectively on this,” and they chastised the president for limiting that.
But you are stating that in the execution of their mission, they already compromised and agreed not to share the Gospel with the very people they say they are intending to help. That is an astounding, astounding thing.
Leo Hohmann: That’s why it’s so deceptive. If you read that letter, that open letter, if it’s the one I’m thinking of that you’re referring to, the 100 evangelical leaders signed, you’ll see nowhere in the text of that letter anything about spreading the Gospel to the people that they serve. It’s all about feeding and clothing and loving, which is an important part, but it is not to be the only part of our outreach to the non-Christian world.
What they’re doing is they’re playing on emotions of God-fearing, well-meaning Americans without telling the whole truth, they’re telling half the truth. Yes, to help feed and clothe these people. And you could argue they don’t even do a great job of that, but that’s a whole nother topic.
But they’re not telling the other side of the story that a Christian would want to know. That is, are you sharing the Gospel with these people?
Sam Rohrer: Gary, I’m sure you’ve got a question, you want to follow up on that, before I want to go to Isaac at the end here, I want to ask him as a millennial pastor, what he would say to those who were listening, from a millennial perspective on this regard, Gary, because my overall question is really, is the president gonna be successful at what he’s doing?
Gary Dull: Well you know, I think he’s going to be working hard on that. And my question is, with over 32,000 mostly professional activists aligned with OFA, that is the Organizing Faction, 25,000 more being trained in March and then being led by Barack Obama from his DC bunker, as it were, just a couple of miles from the White House. Are we going to be able to avoid physical conflict on the streets of America.
Leo, I’ve said all along, and Sam will confirm this. I think that we may be heading for a civil war, and that really concerns me. What are your thoughts on that?
Leo Hohmann: I unfortunately think that you are spot on the target there, Gary. It’s very sad, because what I think we are going to see happening, is that we are going to be increasingly polarized and divided. Conservatives are gonna see the hysteria from these left-wing people, and the media taking their side, and making it look like everyone in America is against Donald Trump, knowing that “hey, I’m for Donald Trump, my neighbor’s for Donald Trump, my family’s for Donald Trump, his policies, so why is the media making it look like everybody’s against them.”
And then you may see them get out in the streets. Or we could also see some of the left-wing, I believe our side will be peaceful if we get out in the streets. But there’s always provocateurs out there, and I believe there could be a provocation of either violence on behalf of police, where police get provoked into cracking down a little harder than they may need to, then that would be used to cast Donald Trump, “Oh see, he is a fascist dictator, he is trying to bring us into a fascist system.” When it was all provoked by their people to begin with.
Or you could see a provocation with our side out on the streets. I’m very worried about this, indeed.
Sam Rohrer: Leo, in just 30 seconds here, if you could at this point, where does the greatest hope lie? Obviously we know the message of Jesus Christ and the Gospel is what changes hearts, and that ultimately is what is needed. But from the standpoint of a human perspective, where is the greatest hope for an awakening to occur in America relative to these things, it’s obviously not out of government, where do you think it’s from?
Leo Hohmann: I really do believe that the greatest hope lies with our pastors, and that they would wake up and start teaching their flocks about Islam, and how the revived reawakened Islam is not just something over there to be worried about and the occasional terrorist attack over here, it is a dynamic culture change that we’re about to witness before our eyes. And our children and grandchildren will see the fruits of it if we don’t stand up and be counted as Bible-believing Christians and be out there as Christians, just as the Muslims are out there as part of the Islamic faith. We can’t hide our light any longer, it’s too late for that.
We really must stand up, we must take our faith seriously. This is what happened in Europe. Europe became a post-Christian society after World War II, and that’s what opens the door to Islam. They will rush into the vacuum.