February 5, 1917: Immigration Act of 1917 Passed

Sunday, February 5, AD 2017


Some issues are perennial in American history.  A century ago Congress overwhelmingly passed the Immigration Act of 1917 over President Wilson’s veto.  It established an Asiatic Barred Zone from which new immigrants were excluded.  Chinese were already excluded under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.  Japanese immigration was limited under the Gentleman’s Agreement of  1907.  The law required immigrants over 16 to be literate either in English or their native language.  Among the categories of immigrants banned were”alcoholics”, “anarchists”, “contract laborers”, “criminals and convicts”, “epileptics”, “feebleminded persons”, “idiots”, “illiterates”, “imbeciles”, “insane persons”, “paupers”, “persons afflicted with contagious disease”, “persons being mentally or physically defective”, “persons with constitutional psychopathic inferiority”, “political radicals”, “polygamists”, “prostitutes” and “vagrants”.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to February 5, 1917: Immigration Act of 1917 Passed

  • I’m not a lawyer. Of course, the lying media didn’t report it. What Article in the Constitution? What chapter/verse of what US law did the so-called judge cite to place the bogus stay?

  • Holy Macro Safire! It would appear that the Immigration Act of 1965, which was quietly signed into law by LBJ, another lousy president, completely reverses things, so that eveeryone from alcoholics to vagrants on the above list now have priority to enter America.

Jihadis Welcome

Saturday, October 17, AD 2015


It often seems to me that most Catholic clerics could care less about the ordinary Catholics they are supposed to be shepherds of.  Case in point:  mass immigration of Muslims.  I wish I could say that Robert Spencer is wrong, but his observation of the feckless policy of the Catholic Church in this country regarding Muslim immigration is on target:


The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is calling for the U.S. to take in 100,000 Syrian refugees this year alone.

The Conference shows no sign of knowing or caring that the Islamic State said last February that it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. Or that an Islamic State operative recently boasted that, among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had entered Europe. Or that the Lebanese education minister said there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country.

Or that 80% of the migrants who claim to be fleeing the war in Syria aren’t actually from Syria at all, or that German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said the Islamic State is sneaking into the country with the refugees and is active in the refugee camps. Why would these “refugees” think they had to present themselves to Europe, which has welcomed the refugees, with false pretenses unless they had nefarious intentions?

Meanwhile, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is, as Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch points out, “NOT advocating to save the persecuted Christians of Syria through this program.” Instead, bishops such as Robert McManus, Kevin Farrell, Jaime Soto, and others are moving to silence those who speak about the Muslim persecution of Christians, and about the Islamic doctrines mandating warfare against and subjugation of Christians.

Continue reading...

33 Responses to Jihadis Welcome

  • And let us lay down our guns to a troubled lame duck. Poor president can’t stand the school shootings ANY longer!

    Smells bad doesn’t it!

    Why the Department of homeland security purchased billions of ammo…(?)


    Barack Hussein Obama…
    a name that will go down in infamy!

  • Philip, they are getting neither my rifle nor my Rosary nor my Bible except from my cold dead hands. I am proudly a clinger to gun, Rosary and Bible. Remember the Mexico of Plutarco Elias Calles. Remember the Maccabean brothers and their Seleucid overlords. My motto is: Long live Christ the King.

  • Paul.
    Viva Cristo Rey!
    If my blood is shed for the greater glory of God Almighty so be it.
    What is sixty years compared to eternity?
    The blood of many a martyr has produced countless conversions for Jesus Christ.
    From St. Steven to present day Christian’s being murdered by Isis, in their trust of God many have and will come to the splendor of Truth.

    Protecting one’s family is righteousness.
    If jihad Jim storms in he will be met with resistance.

  • Regarding our porous borders and the casual attitude both this administration
    and the USCCB have towards border security, I have but one question: why are
    we keeping up this playacting at ‘security’ at airports now? If the federal government
    is going to throw in the towel and let drugs, refugees, ISIS-masquerading-as-refugees,
    and who knows what else slosh over our increasingly fictitious borders, then why
    must someone’s grandmother still take off her shoes, be patted down, and submit to
    having TSA photograph her naked? Why the scrutiny for us, but not for them?
    It’s almost as if we citizens were the ones they were afraid of.

  • The US Government should cut off all funding for any Catholic entity. The Church built schools, hospitals, colleges, churches, orphanages and operated them all without a dime from Uncle Sam.
    The USCCB can deny Catholic history at its own peril. Pelayo, Rey San Fernando, Charles Martel, Queen Isabel the Catholic, Don Juan of Austria and Jan III Sobieski showed how to deal with Islam. The USCCB is weak.

  • Penguins Fan.

    You are right!
    Cut it all off.
    They are weak.

  • Again, I’m glad that years ago I stopped giving $$ to the US bishops.
    Don’t you people understand? These are the least of your brothers. They hate you. They rape young boys. They mutilate female genitals. They behead Christians. They murder bomb innocents. They fly jumbo jets into tall buildings.
    Makes you wonder: on whose side are they?
    They say you can’t go around kicking in doors and rounding up 11,000,000,invaders. But, they would kick down 83,000,0000 Americans’ doors to take away your arms.
    The only response to such uber stupidity: “Screw you.”

  • “Catholic bishops in this country, and to a large extent around the world, are wedded to an imaginary world in which the magic word “dialogue” solves all problems. ”

    Ever notice those who preach “dialogue” the loudest are the ones least likely to actually practice it? When comes to issues like immigration and capital punishment or similar matters, the bishops are about anything BUT dialogue!

  • This policy reflects the notion following Vatican II,
    which was promoted throughout The Catholic world
    that all religions are equal. I believe they called it
    ecumenicalism, or one world religion. The old bigoted
    principle of the one true Church which offended the
    anti-Catholic political left as a supremacist world
    view had to die with Hitler and Mussolini.
    Of course, some Christians will suffer a violent death at the
    hands of the Mohammedans for the grievous sins of
    the old intolerant church during the Crusades. Nevertheless,
    Christians will have to accommodate the Mohammedans
    as the world moves forward to the realization of the
    international left’s dream of a one world religion.

  • In France, one frequently hears the neologism, « beurgeoisie » ; from the Verlan « beur » = arabe, it refers to the growing number of successful, middle-class people of North African descent, people like Mustapha Ourrad, copy editor of Charlie Hebdo, killed in the massacre of 7 January 2015.

    One thinks of Fadela Amara, a Muslim, who when she was Secretary of State for Urban Policies described fundamentalism as something clung to by a minority through ignorance and isolation in ghetto communities that will vanish when they are given better opportunities of intellectual enlightenment and of acquiring elementary knowledge in history and the sciences. “For this generation,” she declared, “the crucial issues are laïcité, gender equality and gender desegregation, based upon living together in harmony throughout the world, and not only in France” She hailed the Jules Ferry laws, making education at every level free, obligatory and lay.

    Again, there was the vigorous defence of the headscarf ban in schools by another Muslim woman, Rachida Dati, as Minister of Justice (garde des Sceaux): “the laïcité of state schools is not restricted, in the case of pupils, to respect for their freedom of conscience: it imposes a duty of restraint on pupils in their behaviour, since they find themselves in a place pertaining to the public sphere. Pupils’ freedom of conscience, which is an internal freedom, in no way gives them ‘the right to express and manifest their religious beliefs’ in educational institutions, for that involves external acts which improperly introduce religion into the public domain of the school.”

    Then, there are grass-roots activists, like Sihem Habchi, of the Muslim women’s movement, « Ni Putes Ni Soumises » [Neither Sluts nor Door-mats]. In a forceful attack on “multiculturalism” she has demanded “No more justifications of our oppression in the name of the right to be different and of respect toward those men who force us to bow our head.” She opposes state support for religious schools, citing the Law of 9 décembre1905: the Republic does not “recognize, salary or subsidise any cult.”

    There is a dialogue taking place and extremist voices are by no means themost prominent.

  • Well there goes the theory that they only care about immigrants to fill the churches that have been emptied by their laxity and bringing of the faith down to level of the world.

  • Fish rot from the head down, but free nations rot from within their very own bowels.
    Freedom and a lot of the faith both appear constipated these days.

  • These idiot bishops who want these Muslim immigrants so badly should be forced to move out of their houses in nice neighborhoods, and plopped into one teeming with Muslims! That might make a large number of them go Charles Martel in a hurry!

  • Sometimes I think the virtue of Prudence gets lost in the shuffle of our good intentions.

  • What do you expect when a Catholic Pope kisses the Koran; and yet people claim he is a Catholic saint and a “great” one at that?
    Now who is fooling who?
    The same Catholic pope went further and prayed that St. John the Baptist should protect the heretical religion that is Islam.
    Now what do you call that?

  • The Sephardic Jews can go to Israel, but where do the Christian Arabs and Africans go who are being brutully persecuted? For the US – the persecuted should enter first. All others stand in the long line.

  • BTW not a single muslim will be served except by the blood of the Lord Jesus, and faith in his saving power.

  • “Christians will have to accommodate the Mohammedans as the world moves forward to the realization of the international left’s dream of a one world religion.”…based on the human being, man, as being infallible and infinite. In other words, Jesus Christ, Whom we have crucified. Our lady of Victory, pray for us. Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us. Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.

  • “The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is calling for the U.S. to take in 100,000 Syrian refugees this year alone.”
    The let the USCCB take them into their homes,…and the capital murderers. Equal Justice.

  • Cpola, would you please give it a rest? You have a grudge against John Paul II. He has faced judgment for his sins. John Paul II restored the Most Holy Name of Mary to the Church calendar after Paul VI suppressed it in “honor” of Nostra Aetate.
    Cpola, did you live in Poland during WWII?
    I thought not.

  • From Spencer’s concluding sentence:
    “As the bishops enrich themselves off the flood of refugees pouring into the United States, they can congratulate themselves that no one, not even the “flock” they have betrayed, will hold them accountable for what they have done.”

    Plenty of us have about had it with their wishy-washy ways on life issues, the over-emphasis on non-citizens when many of us are in dire straits and cannot receive help from our own Church, and especially so on the acquiescence to the ACA, which has financially ruined many a regular pew sitter. (Not to mention the lack of backbone on fighting the contraceptive mandate! Ugh!)

    Other than not contributing (which I cannot currently do anyhow), how does one, or the flock, “hold them accountable”?

  • I agree with Penguins Fan. Pope St JP II made a mistake in kissing the Koran. That said, I wish Francis were half the Pope that JP II was. I pray that JP II may be declared a Doctor of the Church.

  • cpola: On the page that you suggested was this statement “It has been prophesied, that if the desecration of the Sunday after Easter Sunday, by the demonic devotion brought forward by an impious female, is not repented of, the sword of Justice will not depart from Rome and its environs.” I take it that the impious female is St. Faustina and the demonic devotion is Divine Mercy Sunday. That page is unreal.

  • How is St Faustina impious? Never mind. I don’t want to know. I read too many lunatic ravings from liberal progressives without going so far the other way that I will have come full circle to insanity. PS, I love my Divine Mercy Diary. It ain’t the Bible, but it’s tons better than anything I have ever written. 😉

  • Paul, I don’t know. That was a quote from popeleo13.com. The author is very anti-St. Pope John Paul II, esp about the possibility of him being named a Doctor of the Church.

  • Saint Pope John Paul II the Great!
    cpola…He faced down the oppression of the communist party in Poland, the ark I believe it is called, a church that was against the law.
    Polish faithful brought in stones from country land and erected this Church despite threat’s from govt. He WAS NOT AFRAID!
    Kissed a Koran. Big fricking deal.
    Look at the Life of this man!
    Shame on you cpola.

  • The Koran says Jesus did not die on the Cross.
    The Koran says Jesus did not resurrect from the dead.
    The Koran says Jesus is NOT the Son of God.
    Now why would a Catholic Pope kiss such a book?
    How can any Catholic regard such a pope as a saint?
    The veneration of the Koran by a Catholic Pope is blasphemy that cries to Heaven for vengeance. And that day is coming.
    We shall all be witnesses.

  • cpola.

    If Saint Pope John Paul II the Great fruits are rotton because he kissed the Koran, then the hundreds of thousands of people he helped into Holy Catholic Church are rotton too, according to your logic.
    Go suck an egg!

  • Cpola’s fixation on the kissing of the Koran is tiresome. The Church faithful has to put up with Kasper, Marx, Daneels and others of their ilk and cpola keeps dragging up John Paul II and the Koran.
    Please go away. Nobody here is impressed with you.

  • “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a convert, and when he becomes a convert, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.”
    (Matthew 23 v 15)
    Phillip, I rest my case for now. But I will not rest till I see the eyes of faithful Catholics opened to the lies of the past 50 years.

  • Great cpola, aka “The De-Evangelist.”
    Maybe your opinions will help to cease the increase in vocations to the priesthood.
    Maybe you’ll turn potential converts away from Holy Church. Maybe you’ll get your eternal rewards, and wonder why YOU are in the smoking section.
    Much to ponder.

  • Many many people made the mistake of identifying Islam as a religion of peace, even as a great religion. The relativistic malaise of the twentieth century certainly sickened the Church along with the rest of the world. B16 tried to call out Islam and got smacked down hard.

    I guess John Paul 2 did a lot of wonderful things, but also made some mistakes about Islam, the extent of sexual sin in the priesthood and probably ecumenism.. God rest his soul.
    Even though he was a very holy man, I do think many mistakes were made during the time of JP2 pontificate,
    The credibility of the Church in naming saints took a big hit with the naming of John 23. Made it all look political…no miracles that I know of.
    I don’t agree with cpola, but know he has a right to his opinions and to express them.

  • Guest said
    From Spencer’s concluding sentence:
    “As the bishops enrich themselves off the flood of refugees pouring into the United States, they can congratulate themselves that no one, not even the “flock” they have betrayed, will hold them accountable for what they have done.”
    ….anyhow), how does one, or the flock, “hold them accountable”?
    I wonder that too,Guest. maybe Canon lawyer Peters knows if we laity have any recourse?

The Old Issue

Thursday, November 20, AD 2014


“Here is nothing new nor aught unproven,” say the Trumpets,
“Many feet have worn it and the road is old indeed.
“It is the King—the King we schooled aforetime !”
(Trumpets in the marshes—in the eyot at Runnymede!)

“Here is neither haste, nor hate, nor anger,” peal the Trumpets,
“Pardon for his penitence or pity for his fall.
“It is the King!”—inexorable Trumpets—
(Trumpets round the scaffold at the dawning by Whitehall!)

.     .     .     .     .

“He hath veiled the Crown and hid the Sceptre,” warn the Trumpets,
“He hath changed the fashion of the lies that cloak his will.
“Hard die the Kings—ah hard—dooms hard!” declare the Trumpets,
Trumpets at the gang-plank where the brawling troop-decks fill!

Ancient and Unteachable, abide—abide the Trumpets!
Once again the Trumpets, for the shuddering ground-swell brings
Clamour over ocean of the harsh, pursuing Trumpets—
Trumpets of the Vanguard that have sworn no truce with Kings!

All we have of freedom, all we use or know—
This our fathers bought for us long and long ago.

Ancient Right unnoticed as the breath we draw—
Leave to live by no man’s leave, underneath the Law.

Lance and torch and tumult, steel and grey-goose wing
Wrenched it, inch and ell and all, slowly from the King.

Till our fathers ‘stablished, after bloody years,
How our King is one with us, first among his peers.

So they bought us freedom—not at little cost
Wherefore must we watch the King, lest our gain be lost,

Over all things certain, this is sure indeed,
Suffer not the old King: for we know the breed.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to The Old Issue

  • I cannot remember a President doing so much damage as this guy is doing.

  • People rather like a king.

    As Walter Bagehot explains, “The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is
    an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they
    hardly anywhere in the world understand any other. It is often said that
    men are ruled by their imaginations; but it would be truer to say they are
    governed by the weakness of their imaginations. The nature of a constitution,
    the action of an assembly, the play of parties, the unseen formation
    of a guiding opinion, are complex facts, difficult to know, and easy
    to mistake. But the action of a single will, the fiat of a single mind, are
    easy ideas: anybody can make them out, and no one can ever forget
    them. When you put before the mass of mankind the question, “Will you
    be governed by a king, or will you be governed by a constitution?” the
    inquiry comes out thus — “Will you be governed in a way you understand,
    or will you be governed in a way you do not understand?” The
    issue was put to the French people; they were asked, “Will you be governed
    by Louis Napoleon, or will you be governed by an assembly?”
    The French people said, “We will be governed by the one man we can
    imagine, and not by the many people we cannot imagine.””

  • “The issue was put to the French people; they were asked, “Will you be governed by Louis Napoleon, or will you be governed by an assembly?” The French people said, “We will be governed by the one man we can imagine, and not by the many people we cannot imagine.””

    You have got to be kidding MPS. That plebiscite was a complete fraud, and no wonder. At least Napoleon I had military skill, which Napoleon III completely lacked.

    Marx, for once, was right on the money with Napoleon the Sawdust Caesar:

    “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidière for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851 for the Montagne of 1793 to 1795, the nephew for the uncle. And the same caricature occurs in the circumstances of the second edition of the Eighteenth Brumaire.”

  • Let’s put this crap in numerate perspective. The numbers of illegals they won’t (cannot deport 5,000,000, in any case) send packing is greater than the numbers of jobs “created” since this rodent began tearing apart the nation in 2009.

    The so-called executive order is bu!!$#!+ and GOP-baiting. (Orwell) “Politics are essentially coercion and deceit.” Pay back taxes! Don’t make me laugh . . . Register? Not receive medicaid, public schools, welfare? Like Gruber, this useless, inexperienced dolt thinks we are effing idiots.

  • ” He shall break his judges if they cross his word;
    He shall rule above the Law calling on the Lord.

    He shall peep and mutter; and the night shall bring
    Watchers ‘neath our window, lest we mock the King—

    Hate and all division; hosts of hurrying spies;
    Money poured in secret, carrion breeding flies.

    Strangers of his counsel, hirelings of his pay,
    These shall deal our Justice: sell—deny—delay.

    We shall drink dishonour, we shall eat abuse
    For the Land we look to—for the Tongue we use.

    We shall take our station, dirt beneath his feet,
    While his hired captains jeer us in the street.

    Cruel in the shadow, crafty in the sun,
    Far beyond his borders shall his teachings run. ”

    In a land where the right to abomination and injustice is promulgated, such as a mother killing her baby, or forbidding innocence in the name of education and advertising, or behaving like bullies, or using the sound of gunfire as music on car sound systems, or denying the existence of or reference to something out of this world, it is good to remember what the coming Sunday celebrates.

  • Barack Hussein Obama gave a rather good speech that will appeal to all liberal progressives and social justice Katholycks. The examples he used were heart-rendering. He even twisted around the Scripture passage about welcoming the stranger to justify overruling Constitutional process. I could not help but think that the Devil knows Scripture, too, so why not his spawn? This man lifts his face up against both Constitution and Scripture. The example of King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel chapter 4 comes to mind.
    I have always liked the first part of Cicero’s speech against Catiline recently used so eloquently by Senator Cruz. I quoted it to my father during the Watergate scandals some 40 plus years ago when as a high school student I was translating Cicero for the first time. My dad was a country boy with only an 8th grade education and unlike his son, had no knowledge of Latin or Greek, Calculus or Physics, but he remained ever wiser that his son and he saw immediately the parallel with modern politics. Perhaps because he read his Bible nightly and devoutly prayed with ever greater frequency as he aged, he was able to see things that today’s American citizenry cannot see.
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia? Nihilne te nocturnum praesidium Palati, nihil urbis vigiliae, nihil timor populi, nihil concursus bonorum omnium, nihil hic munitissimus habendi senatus locus, nihil horum ora voltusque moverunt? Patere tua consilia non sentis, constrictam iam horum omnium scientia teneri coniurationem tuam non vides? Quid proxima, quid superiore nocte egeris, ubi fueris, quos convocaveris, quid consilii ceperis, quem nostrum ignorare arbitraris?
    O tempora, o mores! Senatus haec intellegit. Consul videt; hic tamen vivit. Vivit? immo vero etiam in senatum venit, fit publici consilii particeps, notat et designat oculis ad caedem unum quemque nostrum. Nos autem fortes viri satis facere rei publicae videmur, si istius furorem ac tela vitemus. Ad mortem te, Catilina, duci iussu consulis iam pridem oportebat, in te conferri pestem, quam tu in nos [omnes iam diu] machinaris.

  • a king is one thing, a tyrant is another.

  • Paul W. Primavera.

    I like your fathers wisdom.
    He in turn would say how pleasing and proud he is to have a son like you.
    Blessings Paul.

  • As Walter Bagehot explains, “The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it,

    Somehow, MPS, we’ve managed with republican institutions in this country for 400-odd years, Walter Bagehot’s wisdom notwithstanding. Come to think of it, they’ve managed in Canada and in the Antipodes with parliamentary institutions with regard to which the monarch treads very lightly.

    If people fancy a monarchy, it’s because Elizabeth manifests so many virtues (and leaves the expression of political viewpoints to confidential discussions with the prime minister).

  • You have got to be kidding MPS. That plebiscite was a complete fraud,

    One might remark also that European publics keep passing up opportunities to restore monarchies (Roumania, Bulgaria, and Serbia being the most recent examples), in spite of the congenial quality of the political life in those countries which have them.

  • “I cannot remember a President doing so much damage as this guy is doing.”

    I am convinced that every bit if it is on purpose.

  • “Let’s put this crap in numerate perspective. The numbers of illegals they won’t (cannot deport 5,000,000, in any case) send packing is greater than the numbers of jobs “created” since this rodent began tearing apart the nation in 2009.”

    These illegals have limited places they can go in our societies. 1. Crime, courts, jails, etc. 2. Low paying jobs bringing the wages even lower for Americans and those who have come here legally. 3. Public schools, hospitals, colleges, universities, nonprofits, etc adding an additional pull on already overloaded systems 4. Highly skilled jobs that would have been taken by Americans and/or other legal immigrants 5. Democrat party voters to keep their subsidies coming 6. Government jobs/contract which recruit/mandate employment of/contractual work of/to minorities before white males.

    “The so-called executive order is bu!!$#!…” “Pay back taxes! Don’t make me laugh . . . Register? Not receive medicaid, public schools, welfare? Like Gruber, this useless, inexperienced dolt thinks we are effing idiots.”

    I agree in part. He is inexperienced in what matters. He knows that whole entire demographic of the US population are effing idiots. He also knows that he will get completely away with this because those in charge of the RNC are “effing idiots” who don’t care what the truth is or what damage is done as long as they can push their liberal leaning agenda through The Republican party. He is also taking steps to destroy our economy, national sovereignty, & constitutional republic–with malice and forethought. He knows exactly what he is doing & is acting on purpose.

  • Refuse the illegal invaders citizenship. There, they cannot VOTE, apply for benefits, etc. etc.

  • “Refuse the illegal invaders citizenship. There, they cannot VOTE, apply for benefits, etc. etc.”

    Technically, they cannot vote or apply for benefits.

    In reality they vote & receive govt benefits with predictable regularity. II have had personal experience in ministering to illegals here in our state through the church, and in this state they are given benefits no matter what anyone says. I have also worked in elections over the last several decades & can guarantee that voter fraud takes place regularly in this state–though Iniave never witnessed an illegal being allowed to vote. Also, the following link is relevant to the topic of illegals being allowed to vote:


  • Refugees from tyranny or escapees from responsibility to grow their nation into a Republic? Abortion has decimated our population of innocent individuals who bring Justice. These illegal deserters from the work of patriotism and education take the form of victims, but, in reality, they are deserters from civilization, refusing to build their own country into Republics of freedom, civil rights, love of neighbor and/or acknowledging the sovereign person.
    These illegal refugees are abandoning their neighbors in need, deserting their work to establish the civil rights and freedom for their state, and refusing to acknowledge “their Creator”. The illegal immigrants come to America as though Americans are the only human beings created and endowed with unalienable rights. The illegal immigrants have the same gifts and unalienable rights as Americans. The illegal immigrants come here to absorb our prosperity wanting to give nothing in return.
    It is not amnesty, until they have earned amnesty. It cannot be diplomatic immunity because they have not been invited as diplomats or welcomed as refugees. They can only be described as illegal invaders, mercenaries and potential trouble makers as Barbara Gordon has explained.

King Obama

Thursday, November 20, AD 2014



In Federalist 69 Alexander Hamilton responded to the criticism that the Presidency under the proposed Constitution established an elective monarchy which would be a perpetual threat to American liberties:


Hence it appears that, except as to the concurrent authority of the President in the article of treaties, it would be difficult to determine whether that magistrate would, in the aggregate, possess more or less power than the Governor of New York. And it appears yet more unequivocally, that there is no pretense for the parallel which has been attempted between him and the king of Great Britain. But to render the contrast in this respect still more striking, it may be of use to throw the principal circumstances of dissimilitude into a closer group.


The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable. The one would have a qualified negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an absolute negative. The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of declaring war, and of raising and regulating fleets and armies by his own authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the sole possessor of the power of making treaties. The one would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appointments. The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies. The one can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin. The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church! What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism.


One can only imagine what Mr. Hamilton and the other Founding Fathers would make of this:

According to a senior Democrat familiar with the plans, Obama will announce on Thursday that he is providing temporary protections to up to 5 million undocumented immigrants. His orders will make up to 4 million undocumented immigrants eligible for temporary protective status and provide relief to another 1 million through other means.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to King Obama

  • Sorry Mr. Franklin, we couldn’t keep it.

  • Our tax dollars pay for this. This cannot be put on the ballot? If Obama wants these illegal immigrants as constituents, he ought to pay for them out of his own pocket.

  • David Burge – “American voters repudiated in historic landslide 1-0 vote.”

  • Oh but wait Mary De Voe…where is your compassion for these poor? (sarcasm) Where are these children going to sleep eat or receive health care? (sarcasm)

    This is the tidal wave of social justice from the left that see’s a baby seal as sacred yet an unborn human baby as blob of tissue. Now what?

    I agree with you. Michelle Badrock and Uncle Joe can personally fund these immigrant’s. Or, respect the rights of the legal voters!

  • My compassion for the poor begins with the virtue of Justice (no sarcasm) and praying for Divine Providence to care for them. (Truth)

  • This action shows not only deep contempt for the Constitution and the Congress, but also the American people.

    Obama’s spent his life in and among subcultures where a systematic appreciation of ordinary people is not to be found. His grandparents might have attempted to impart it, but Stanley Dunham was so confused as to how to proceed with his grandson that he thought spending time with Frank Marshall Davis and exporting his grandson to a random liberal arts college would be salutary.

    You recall that Edmund Morris — not a bien pensant, really, but a man who had spent his adult life among the word-merchant element — could not make sense of Ronald Reagan. Reagan gave him a brief and explicit précis of interpretive tools – “my life’s an open book”, and Morris was still baffled. For people who manipulate words and images for a living, a man as straightforward as Reagan cannot be who he appears to be; everyone just has to be a poseur (but they cannot figure out what the pose was concealing).

    We’ve had some accomplished men in the White House. Then we have men whose principal accomplishment has been cadging and holding political office (Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Bilge Clinton, and BO being examples of that). There’s little doubt Nixon and Ford could have done something else and been someone else; both had military service, Ford had 10 years practicing law in a city of middling size in a firm he himself formed with Phillip Buchan, and Nixon still had enough left upstairs to return to law practice after a 17 year hiatus (electing to go back into politics because the law bored him). Roosevelt, Truman, and (arrgh) Clinton had at least spent time superintending public agencies. As for Kennedy, you cannot take the man’s bravery away from him, nor is oratorical skill. The man sitting in the White House now has to be the most bogus character who has ever sat there. His adult life since 1985 has consisted of waste of time positions in political eleemosynaries, of patronage jobs handed him, and of clever marketing. That’s pretty much the same deal with his wife, whose vital $300,000 a year position at the University of Chicago hospitals was eliminated when she vacated it.

    Not only was he not taught the value of ordinary people, simply assessing his own life honestly would be very painful. The contempt keeps reality at bay.

  • King Obama. Daniel 4:28-33:
    28 All this came upon King Nebuchadnez′zar. 29 At the end of twelve months he was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30 and the king said, “Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?” 31 While the words were still in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, “O King Nebuchadnez′zar, to you it is spoken: The kingdom has departed from you, 32 and you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field; and you shall be made to eat grass like an ox; and seven times shall pass over you, until you have learned that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.” 33 Immediately the word was fulfilled upon Nebuchadnez′zar. He was driven from among men, and ate grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair grew as long as eagles’ feathers, and his nails were like birds’ claws.

  • “The contempt keeps reality at bay.”


  • Obama, as president, does not decide for any citizen how much charity, the citizen, in good conscience, has the ability to donate. Since Obama refuses to identify the citizens’ conscience as a valid indicator of charity, he must behave like lord of the world.

  • Amnesty announced. Champagne bottles popping heard at USCCB. The Constitution wept.

  • How the word “discretion” is used….
    It used to imply a particularity. Singling out a case for a different reaction than what had been expected. Looking at exceptional cases and applying a discretionary judgment.
    You could look at one case details and say, I will decide not to prosecute.
    NOT to look at millions of cases, where the identities of the person are not even known and applying a discretionary judgement en masse.

  • Art Deco wrote, “For people who manipulate words and images for a living, a man as straightforward as Reagan cannot be who he appears to be; everyone just has to be a poseur (but they cannot figure out what the pose was concealing).”
    One recalls Prince Metternich’s remark, when informed of the death of Talleyrand – “I wonder what he meant by that.”

  • Another aspect of this lawlessness is the abdication by 95% of the media to ACCURATELY report the difference between the “tweaking” of a duly passed law by Congress by Presidents Reagan & Bush & the impatient unilateral action of this emperor. Shame on the presidents “water carriers” in the media!

  • Agreed. Some of the Fast and Furious e-mails Judicial Watch has managed to pry out of the Department of Justice are revealing as to what the pr flacks for the Regime expect of the major media. They expect them to act like Democratic operatives with bylines, and by and large they do. They do not have the budgets to do much anymore, but by and large they’re not motivated, which is why Sheryl Atkisson is out of a job. As recently as 1998, the print media (while biased) were not shills of the Democratic Party and broke inconvenient stories (per Brent Bozell, television news was already suborned at that time).

  • What follows has been read into the Constitution by the President. So long as nothing is done, he does have the powers he has usurped and this is de facto the new law of the land.

    Article VIII

    Notwithstanding any Power granted in Article I above or in Article III above, in time of declared emergency or crisis, all Power shall be vested in the President and officers duly appointed by him, said Power including, but not limited to, all legislative powers, all judicial powers granted herein, and all powers reserved to the States or to the people under Amendment X hereto. The President alone is vested with the Power to declare an emergency or a crisis. In an emergency or crisis, the President and his duly appointed officers shall, as deemed necessary by the President, suspend any and all rights protected under Amendments I – XXVII.

    Guy McClung, San Antonio

  • Malone (Connery) from the movie, “The Untouchables”, “And ‘then’ what are you prepared to do?”

  • Obama has chosen to introduce millions of illegal aliens into our country, our towns, our schools, our hospitals, our neighborhood, our charity, into our personal space and our privacy; into our countenance without our permission, our invitation, and our informed consent. Entering into a sovereign person’s privacy and personal space without his welcome, his permission, his invitation is assault and battery.
    As constituents of the President, all citizens are spoken for by the President. If we cannot agree with what the president is doing we actually remove ourselves from citizenship to protect ourselves. So, now Obama owns the whole America without the citizens. and any citizen who chooses to remain will have his personal space violated and his countenance assaulted.
    As far as the Catholic Church goes, after tithing, the Church must pay the bill.

  • “de facto the new law of the land.” must be ratified by three quarters of the states. The states have un-ratified Obama’s new law of the land.

  • Seen at Zero hedeg: “Me the People . . .”

    La republique c’est moi!

  • “Malone (Connery) from the movie, “The Untouchables”, “And ‘then’ what are you prepared to do?”

    “01:47:33 Your Honour, the truth is that Capone is a killer and he will go free.

    01:47:39 There is only one way to deal with such men, and that is hunt them down.

    01:47:44 I have. I have forsworn myself. I have broken laws I swore to defend.

    01:47:49 I am content that I have done right. That man must be stopped, you must…

    01:47:53 I’ll be the judge of what I must do, Mr Ness.”

    Thus far this country has avoided that. Obama is setting some terrible precedents that may eventually some day produce a whirlwind.

  • I told people Osama (misspelled on purpose) was like this before he was elected president the first time. So no one can blame me because “I told you so!” Nothing this man could do–short of lining us up on the White House lawn & executing us with a firing squad–would shock me. There are no words for how angry his actions make me. We are no longer a constitutional republic.

  • “Thus far this country has avoided that. Obama is setting some terrible precedents that may eventually some day produce a whirlwind.”

    Do what? We are in the middle of the whirlwind right now! Check out how many violent crimes are carried out by illegals in this nation.

Illegal Immigration and the Church

Wednesday, July 9, AD 2014





I admit to some puzzlement as to why the Church in this country is so stridently in favor of illegal immigration.  The Church in America being in favor of legal immigration I can understand, with so many Catholics tracing their ancestry to the waves of immigrants from Europe in the 19th and early 20th century.  But until the day before yesterday in historical terms the Church was never in favor of illegal immigration.  I think much of it tends to be that many of the powers that be within the Church in this country tend to favor the political left in most contexts.  They are embarrassed that fights over abortion,  gay marriage and religious liberty aligns the Church with political conservatives.  Being in favor of illegal immigration allows these clerics to align with political forces they find much more congenial.  Jack Cashill at The American Thinker gives us a case in point:



Motives, however, are rarely as simple as money. On the question of the church’s motives, one local Catholic explained how the noisy “peace and justice” cliques within the church seized a new opportunity to lure the Church leftward. As she explained, these cliques were attempting to negate the rightward drift of practicing Catholics on life issues by elevating workers’ rights to a comparable status. In the 2000 election, she noted, they tried the same tactic with the death penalty. 

The problem for the P&J crowd is that the Catholic Church considers abortion “always morally evil” — “murder” in fact — but has no official position on immigration, legal or otherwise. One can read all four gospels and every encyclical ever written without encountering a single “undocumented immigrant” swimming across the River Jordan. Serious Catholics treat the hierarchy’s showy preference for immigration issues over life issues as some sort of Job-like test of their fidelity.

I had absolutely no intention of saying anything at the press conference. But with the woman’s lucid argument still resonating in my head, I could not resist the urge to inject a note of realism into the Q & A happy talk that followed the speeches.

“Bishop,” I blurted out, “what do you say to those Catholics troubled by your alliance with these left-leaning groups given their historic affection for abortion rights?”

The Bishop looked at me as if I had just peed on his shoe. “What are you talking about?” he scoffed. As respectful as I try to be to my Catholic clergy, I did not appreciate the public dissing. “Let me tell you what I mean,” I answered and elaborated in more detail what I had already said.

“This isn’t about left or right,” he finally answered. “This is about justice.”

“Bishop,” I smiled, “May 1st? International Worker’s Day?”

I had expected the other reporters to give me the evil eye, but they did not. My question seemed to remind them of the role that reporters used to play, “Bishop,” said the next fellow. “You keep saying that the Church is supporting immigration. Isn’t this really about illegal immigration?”  I did not have time to listen to the answer. I had a 12 o’clock appointment across town, and I had already spent $9.00 on parking.

A few months later the unions repaid the Catholic Church for its support in a way that left me feeling much more insightful than I actually am. The Los Angeles Times summarized the issue succinctly enough: “California’s leading union organization, bucking organized labor’s long-standing neutrality on the issue of abortion, is for the first time taking a strong stand in favor of abortion rights.” 

Specifically, the union asked its 2.1 million members to reject Proposition 85. This initiative would merely have required abortionists to honor the standards of ear-piercers and aspirin dispensers and get parents’ permission before going to work on their daughters.

Spearheading the union assault on parental rights was none other than Dolores Huerta, star of the press conference I had attended at the Cathedral. As the Times noted, Huerta, “a Roman Catholic,” had persuaded a pro-choice group to put its many interns to work passing out pro-abortion propaganda to the union delegates before the vote was taken. The union support proved crucial in defeating Prop 85 by a narrow 53 to 47 margin.

Said Tod Tamberg, an Archdiocesan spokesman, “It doesn’t preclude us from working together on those areas where we do share common concerns.” The “it” in question is the union’s decision to sanction what the church considers to be murder. In the battle for the Hispanic soul, the Church hierarchy had already surrendered, and God only knows why.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Illegal Immigration and the Church

  • “I was a criminal and you welcomed me.”

    “I was a murderer and you welcomed me.”

    “I was a thief and you welcomed me.”

    Shaw 7:9

  • Said Tod Tamberg, an Archdiocesan spokesman, “it doesn’t preclude us
    from working together on those areas where we do share common concerns.”
    The “it” in question is the union’s decision to sanction what the Church
    considers to be
    So, if I follow Mr. Tamberg’s line of thinking, the Church should avert Her eyes
    and lend support to any group with whom “we share common concerns”.
    I’d ask Mr. Tamberg and his fellow travelers: if NAMBLA sought the Church’s
    help setting up a program of, say, mentoring inner-city youth, would Tamberg
    likewise urge the Church to ignore Her revulsion and give the group Her
    support? And if not, Mr. Tamberg, then why not?
    I would agree that there are all too many in the US Church’s administration who
    are more interested in using Her infrastructure and public presence to further
    their own political ends– even when those ends are contrary to the Church’s.
    What can we do about it?

  • “What can we do about it?”

    By protesting it and calling the purveyors of this type of malarkey out each and every time. Too many times Catholics simply suffer in silence when “professional Catholics”, ordained and unordained, use the Church as a hobby horse for their cause du jour.

  • “professional Catholics”,

    Amy Welborn described them thus: steeped in “bored out of their minds careerism”.

  • Immigration has been a ‘theological issue’ from the time of the Exodus and giving of the Torah. They did not use the word ‘immigration’ but instead, ‘resident alien’. Now that can embody many categories today, it certainly encapsulated those Canaanites, etc who still lived in Israel [as the Native Americans do with us today]. Rahab and her family were a prime example of this-and became the forebear of King David, Solomon and Jesus Christ Himself [see Matthew 1.1-18]. It encapsulated those who migrated into Israel for many reasons-famine, etc. as we see in the Moabitess Ruth, who again became the forebear of David and the Lord Jesus. Justice was to be done with and for them for Israel themselves had once been ‘aliens’ in Egypt (as had the Patriarchs at various times).

    Archbishop Kurtz, the present head of the National Bishop’s Conference recently wrote a pastoral letter to his own diocese which is instructive. I believe. In it he called for immigration reform within the law. That’s the way to go IMHO. Make legal immigration, one that does not split families etc ‘easier’ [now the exact dimensions of what that means is way beyond my pay scale and I presume each person in here has their own position on the matter] However, I know that at least one wing of my ancestry from Ireland landed in New York long before Ellis Island was set up and working. They certainly did not have papers when they arrived. I have a sense they were lucky to be walking off the boat. At that point, the Irish men were met at the docks by reps of the Democratic Party offering to help them at least get a meal etc. They were also met by the military who needed ‘able body’ men to enlist in the US Army to fight in the Mexican-American War [Somehow my male ancestors did not get into that war, they would later fight in the Civil War].

    A major issue at the moment of the illegal immigration is the failure of Mexican, Central and some Latin American countries to establish justice within their own borders. Some are still ‘banana republics’ where oligarchies rule and the rest suffer destitution. They do little or nothing for their citizens, and now with the drug cartels do nothing to protect their citizens from these new ‘mafiosa’.

    There should be and is a way, although I also know that it is complex, through this whole problem of ‘immigration’. I can tell you that the solution is not to do anything. Another solution is not to make this a liberal/conservative issue as tempting as that may be. Socialism in Cuba and now Venezuela is not working. Liberation theology in its ‘politicized’ [social class based and open to acts of violence] is dying or dead. Thanks be to God. However, the Church [and I mean from the Pope on down to all of us] cannot collude either with ‘the status quo’ in these ‘banana republics’ or in the byzantine politics of liberal and conservatives in America. “You shall not oppress the resident alien” still holds.

  • Don, you’re right about the illegal alien thing being used to draw the Church leftward. But you know, helping these criminals will backfire on the Church. This idiocy will tick off all the Non-Catholics in this country and turn many of them into Anti-Catholics. And also, what guarantee do we have that these ‘immigrants’ will be good Catholics or good citizens? They’re already criminals by virtue of being illegal aliens. News story after news story shows these people tend to be drawn into other illegal and criminal activities, and reports over the years show that even many legal south of the border immigrants tend to drift away or outright leave the Church for Evangelical sects a few years after they come here. Our fearless leaders need to do some serious rethinking of their immigration policies before they do even more damage to the Church and our country.

  • ‘You shall not oppress the resident alien’ still holds.”

    But the right and duty of the State to set reasonable limits on immigration also still holds.

  • Milton Friedman said, “You can have a welfare state or open borders, but not both.”

    About 92 million Americans (ages 16 to 64) are unemployed or no longer looking for work – lowest labor force participation rate in decades.

    God Almighty has not altered the laws of supply and demand, nor has He willed the necessary, immediate globally-huge expansions in the Earth’s exploitable resources, jobs, and capital assets.

    The mendacious Messiah has been unable to save the American middle class even despite $7 trillion in added national debt and the FRB printing $3 trillion (most of which went to Wall Street, special interests, crony-capitalists, et al).

  • Some Catholics and evangelical Christians are beginning to feel like resident aliens in their own country.
    Ruth did cross the Jordan from Moab. She accepted the Torah and abided by the laws and customs of Israel.
    When we find ourselves in a hole, the standard advice is to stop digging. And dithering. Closing the border and severely limiting new applications for even legal immigration until we can get a hold on it. O for leadership that pleases God!
    People who are here and cannot be immediately turned back will just have to be converted! to pro life, law abiding Catholic capitalists! 🙂

  • “But you know, helping these criminals will backfire on the Church. This idiocy will tick off all the Non-Catholics in this country and turn many of them into Anti-Catholics.”
    I was thinking this on the way home just a few minutes ago. If reports of a January job memo are to be believed (the gov’t looking for logistics companies to bus massive amounts of people throughout the country), then perhaps this was part of the plan all along–to divide the Church internally. The bishops and priests may be all for keeping these people here (many are in fact children), but vast numbers of laity are not, including many who are regular contributors to the collection plate.
    For my part, I’m at a loss as to what to do about this. I don’t see any good answer to this problem.

  • “When we find ourselves in a hole, the standard advice is to stop digging. And dithering. Closing the border and severely limiting new applications for even legal immigration until we can get a hold on it.”

    I think even 10 years would be a great advance down the road of assimilation. We could maintain the one million legal immigrants per year with no trouble. Currently we have 37,000,000 legal immigrants in this country which is the highest in our history. The number of illegal aliens is anyone’s guess. I think the best estimate is between 12-15 million, overwhelmingly from Mexico and Central America, with a net 700,000 each year, which I expect to decline due to the birthrate of Mexico and Central America rapidly declining.

  • to paraphrase from The Incredibles, if everyone is an American, no one is an American.

    What does it mean to be an American citizen? Do citizens have claims on their government that differ from the claims of non-citizens?

    In a way, it seems that Sister Walsh wants our earthly government to act as the Body of Christ. But who is suffering from the heresy of Americanism, then?

  • Don

    When I read the source documents on Catholic Social teaching I see a lot of good common sense.

    When I hear or read the Social Justice advocates I really wonder how they got here from there.

    Perhaps I got through grad school with zero reading comprehension skills. Or not.

  • I think the difference Hank is because those who claim to be champions of the SJ teaching of the Church often seize upon only a part of it, rather than attempting to understand and implement the entire teaching.

  • Good answer Donald.

  • I don’t know about others but it seems at least from reading Shea and some others, some Catholics believe importanting a bunch of mexicans will end up making this country more Catholic.

    Stephen Dalton, this article may be of some interest to you.

    After reading it I’m ready to compromise: Let’s seal up the border so that people can’t come north, AND guns can’t go south.

  • Nate, I read the article you linked to, and I agree with you, seal the southern border, and I’d add, revive Operation Wetback, and send every illegal back to Mexico!

  • Bear with me, folks, as I tell a little story.
    My wife is a Filipino immigrant. It will be another two years before she can become a citizen. She had to fight tooth and nail to get this far. Her children in the Philippines (she is a widow) find it next to impossible to get a visa to visit her here in the United States. We even considered me taking a job at new nuclear build in the United Arab Emirates (they are building five new 1500 MWe APR-1000 reactors – super System 80+ pressurized water reactors originally designed by Combustion Engineering – Obama wouldn’t think of a useful project like that here in the US, but I digress) because it would be easier for her children to visit her there in a Muslim country than to visit her here in the post 9-11 People’s Demokratik Republik of Amerika.
    I once worked with an Iraqi nuclear engineer and a Nigerian nuclear engineer at a former place of employment. Both had to go through hell and back to get here into the United States. The Iraqi man had a devil of a time getting his wife over here. He and his family are devoutly Catholic and he used to attend apologetic sessions that I ran as religious education training at a local parish. The Nigerian girl (also Christian but not Catholic, and by the way drop dead gorgeous in addition to having a better brain in her head than I have in mine) had no hope of bringing her parents here. Both were freaking great engineers. If either had been Muslim or Mexican, then the Obama Administration would have welcomed them with open arms.
    Indeed, if you’re a Mexican drug lord or welfare recipient or a Muslim protected under liberal diversity, then you get a free pass under the Obama Administration, whose enforcement of the law selectively favors criminals and indolents and anti-Christian religions. and is biased against those (especially Christians) who actually work, produce something for a living, and pay taxes. I have seen it happen with my own eyes. My legal immigrant wife worked two jobs before she married me just so that she could make ends meet and not go on state assistance. The idea was abhorrent to her. She would make a bad Democrat. (Fortunately, she has since been able to quit the night job.)

  • It’s curious that Mexico suddenly decided to relax security on its southern border to allow immigrants of all ages from Ecuador, Honduras, and Guatemala to illegally enter into, and then pass through, sovereign Mexican territory.
    Why didn’t Mexico halt the progress of these immigrants at its southern border by denying them access to Mexico or by deporting those who successfully breached Mexican border security?
    This American border crisis appears to be a well coordinated international effort which does not pass the smell test.

  • I agree with Slainte on this. Strange the very tough southern border of Mexico lets all this huge number of people through.
    Slainte said “This American border crisis appears to be a well coordinated international effort which does not pass the smell test.” It seems an almost unavoidable conclusion to me.

  • Slainte & Anzlyne said: “I agree with Slainte on this. Strange the very tough southern border of Mexico lets all this huge number of people through.
    Slainte said ‘This American border crisis appears to be a well coordinated international effort which does not pass the smell test.'”

    I agree with both of them.

  • My daughter attended an all girls Catholic school. There were no illegal in that school. Why isn’t the Catholic church educating the illegal? Why does the taxpayer need to pick up the tab. The Catholic church should put its money where its mouth is and pay to send every illegal to a Catholic school. They are so much better than public schools and illegals deserve a good Catholic education at the expense of the Catholic Church

We Agree About There Being Shame Sister

Tuesday, July 8, AD 2014




Sister Mary Ann Walsh, press flack for the Catholic Bishops of  our country, has written a column entitled Busloads of  turned back immigrants, an image of shame, in which she attacks all Americans foolish enough to think that the immigration laws of our country should be respected.  Go here to read it.  Here is her column with my commentary:

Sometimes a picture says it all.

Consider the 1963 picture of fire hoses and snarling police dogs in Birmingham, Ala., used against African-American students protesting racial segregation. Surely not our civil servants at their best.

Yep, Sister, we get it.  Those who do not agree with you on immigration are racist bigots.


Or the 1972 picture of the little girl in North Vietnam running terrified and naked with burning skin after South Vietnamese planes accidentally dropped napalm on Trang Bang, which had been occupied by North Vietnamese troops. The world then saw how war could hurt children.

I think the world already understood that Sister. Kim Phuc, the girl in the picture, tired of being used as a symbol by the Communists, converted to Christianity, and later was granted asylum by Canada.

“Now, in 2014, we see citizens of Murrieta, Calif., turning back buses of women and children headed for a federal processing center, a day after Mayor Alan Long told them to let the government know they opposed its decision to move recent undocumented immigrants to the local Border Patrol station.”

Undocumented immigrants?  Do you mean illegal aliens Sister?

The first two images helped turn the tide when they awakened U.S. citizens to a shameful tragedy. We know the aftermath. The U.S. Congress 50 years ago passed civil rights legislation to guarantee basic human and equal rights for minorities that civil rights workers fought (and some died) for. We pulled out of Vietnam, a war we could not win.

The persecution of the Catholic Church in Vietnam, the million put in Communist re-education camps, the summary execution by the Communists of at least 100,000, the 900,000 boat people, do you regard that Sister as an acceptable result of the American people “awakening to a tragedy”?  I think for some people the year will always be 1968. Judging from the “social justice advocacy” page of Sister Mary Ann Walsh’s order, go here to view it, I’d say that their views have been frozen in amber since that time. 

We now await a moral conscience moment in the welcoming of children and others escaping the violence in such countries as Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Parents and children from these countries have made the difficult decision to leave their homes and have endured dangerous journeys to cross the U.S.-Mexican border. They risk it because the possible horrors of the treacherous migration, such as trafficking, abuse and even death in the desert, still look better than possible death by gang violence at home.

Actually Sister, I agree with you that we await a moral conscience moment, but I think that was provided by the American protestors, sick at the mass violation of their immigration laws, with the active collusion of their government.  The ills of Central America will not be cured by the parents of Central America paying $12,000.00 a head to Coyotes who then transit Mexico by bribing Mexican officials, with kids in tow subject to every type of exploitation.  This farce came about because the Obama administration sent a signal south of the border that they were no longer going to face the enforcement of the immigration laws.  Now the Catholic Church in this country, that has faced persecution from the Obama administration, joyfully links arms with this same administration in giving a one fingered salute to every American who believes in the rule of law in regard to immigration.   

Continue reading...

35 Responses to We Agree About There Being Shame Sister

  • Individually we have some very fine bishops. Put ’em together and they spout absolute nonsense.

    I have had it with the illegal immigration and its supporters, among the loudest of who is the USCCB. Their support of unchecked mass immigration from our neighbors to the South of the US border is nothing new but they are growing more obnoxious about it.

    The solution is to get Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador out of poverty. That would require capitalism, and the Big Boss in Rome – who is from a country that is just as much a basket case as any Central American nation – doesn’t like capitalism.

  • The bishops have good intentions but they just don’t see the whole picture. Someone commented on another post that the pope needs to begin to read something besides left wing publications and I think the bishops just don’t get the solid informational input they need. I think they are surrounded by staffs that are Very liberal and have been in their positions for years. Like these lost-in-the-70’s nuns.
    Also there is this idea that Jesus was a refugee ( to Egypt as a baby) so all refugees should be welcomed. Very far from any correlation to the events of today.

  • Genesis 19:1-11 is the story of the townspeople of Sodom trying to force their way into Lot’s home. Hospitality for the stranger does not mean opening your doors to criminals.

  • Put them all up in the rectories of the churches.

    Let’s see who the real bigots are.

  • The “rule of law” includes international conventions to which a state is a party. The US is a state party to the 1967 Protocol to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
    Article 31 provides: “The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.” [Art 1, “A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”]
    Article 33 provides: “”No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”

  • It is ludicrous to call these illegal aliens refugees MPS and international treaties are subject to the provisions of the US Constitution. However, if the people of Scotland feel tender towards the plight of people in Central America, I would be willing to contribute a $1,000.00 towards a fund set up to ship a few million “undocumented immigrants” to bonnie Scotland!

  • MPS said: “The ‘rule of law’ includes international conventions to which a state is a party. The US is a state party to the 1967 Protocol to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
    Article 31 provides: ‘The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.’ [Art 1, ‘A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.’]
    Article 33 provides: ‘No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion'”

    Super info MPS! However, this is not the reasoning being used by the liberals like Nancy Pelosi for allowing the entry of illegals in mass into the US.

  • Donald wrote: “It is ludicrous to call these illegal aliens refugees MPS and international treaties are subject to the provisions of the US Constitution. However, if the people of Scotland feel tender towards the plight of people in Central America, I would be willing to contribute a $1,000.00 towards a fund set up to ship a few million ‘undocumented immigrants’ to bonnie Scotland!”

    I will contribute to the cause as well! 🙂

  • People go to Hell for lying too, Sister.


    Shame and refugees? That’s the samea as rationalizing a (violent) home invasion by claims of refugee status. And, shame on you for trying to protect your life and property.

  • “A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

    I missed it. What persecution of race, religion, nationality or membership in a particular social group or political opinion is going on with these illegal aliens? What can countries of the world, who collectively take in fewer immigrants than the U.S., do to correct these abuses in these illegal aliens’ home countries?

  • Philip

    That is the definition. If any individual does not satisfy it, then they cannot properly be described as refugees or claim Convention rights.

    Again, a refugee must claim asylum in the first place of safety they reach, so a refugee from Central America, who had passed through Mexico would have to show why they did not claim refugee status there and could, quite properly be returned to that country.
    Indeed, Mexico is a signatory to the more generous 1984 Cartagena Declaration that defines refugees as including “Persons who flee their countries because their lives, safety or freedom have been threatened by generalised violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order.”
    It is possible some of those who do not qualify under the 1951 Convention could claim asylum in Mexico under the Cartagena Declaration.

  • So it seems from this they are not refugees.

  • Since the illegal immigrants are not refugees, then, they are running from building schools, hospitals and modern infrastucture for their countries, and Sister Mayanne Walsh is an enabler in helping the illegals abandon their own native land.

  • If you think this Sister is an off the wall leftist about this ‘immigration crisis’, go here and see lunacy unleased! http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/07/remember-when-3.html

  • A decent Director of Media Relations for any organization would only publish
    such an op-ed piece with their job affiliation in its byline if and only if
    he had his employer’s approval.
    Sr. Walsh could have published her opinion piece under her own name and left
    it at that. Instead, she’s made sure to invoke her employer, the USCCB, which
    implies that her opinions somehow reflect those of the US bishops. In her
    Religion News piece, I saw no disclaimer to the contrary.
    If her commentary is not, in fact, the official position of the bishops of the USCCB,
    then it was unprofessional for her to flash her connection to her employers and,
    in effect, put her words in their mouths. If it is, in fact, the official position of
    the USCCB, then both parties should say so and remove all doubt.
    I’m guessing Sr. Walsh deserves a trip to the woodshed.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour, it is well documented in the U.S. print media that Mexico is far less ‘welcoming’ to Central Americans compared with the U.S. Rates of violence against them is far higher than in the U.S. Given this it is hard to see how Mexico could possibly be the ‘safe haven’ international law requires it to be for asylum.

  • Just imagine: if these were busloads of embryonic stem cells, you’d all be crowing for billions in aid and legal protections. What utter hypocrites. “Pro-life,” my backside.

    Shame on you calling yourselves “Catholics.” LOL. Very telling this site puts “American” before Catholic.

  • “Just imagine: if these were busloads of embryonic stem cells, you’d all be crowing for billions in aid and legal protections.”

    We are against anyone killing unborn kids. We are against killing illegal aliens also. If you can detect any hypocrisy in that, have a blast.

  • Damien,

    Here’s a bit from John Paul II on World Migration day in 1996. He does talk about the problems of illegal immigration and the duty to help individuals as well as to address the root causes of such migration. He also talks about preventing illegal immigration idependent of addressing its causes – this because it is wrong to do so illegally. He also talks about deporting illegal immigrants if the situation dictates its need.

    “2. Today the phenomenon of illegal migrants has assumed considerable proportions, both because the supply of foreign labour is becoming excessive in comparison to the needs of the economy, which already has difficulty in absorbing its domestic workers, and because of the spread of forced migration. The necessary prudence required to deal with so delicate a matter cannot become one of reticence or exclusivity, because thousands would suffer the consequences as victims of situations that seem destined to deteriorate instead of being resolved. His irregular legal status cannot allow the migrant to lose his dignity, since he is endowed with inalienable rights, which can neither be violated nor ignored.

    Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. The most appropriate choice, which will yield consistent and long-lasting results is that of international co-operation which aims to foster political stability and to eliminate underdevelopment. The present economic and social imbalance, which to a large extent encourages the migratory flow, should not be seen as something inevitable, but as a challenge to the human race’s sense of responsibility.

    3. The Church considers the problem of illegal migrants from the standpoint of Christ, who died to gather together the dispersed children of God (cf. Jn 11:52), to rehabilitate the marginalized and to bring close those who are distant, in order to integrate all within a communion that is not based on ethnic, cultural or social membership, but on the common desire to accept God’s word and to seek justice. “God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35).

    The Church acts in continuity with Christ’s mission. In particular, she asks herself how to meet the needs, while respecting the law of those persons who are not allowed to remain in a national territory. She also asks what the right to emigrate is worth without the corresponding right to immigrate. She tackles the problem of how to involve in this work of solidarity those Christian communities frequently infected by a public opinion that is often hostile to immigrants.

    The first way to help these people is to listen to them in order to become acquainted with their situation, and, whatever their legal status with regard to State law, to provide them with the necessary means of subsistence.

    Thus it is important to help illegal migrants to complete the necessary administrative papers to obtain a residence permit. Social and charitable institutions can make contact with the authorities in order to seek appropriate, lawful solutions to various cases. This kind of effort should be made especially on behalf of those who, after a long stay, are so deeply rooted in the local society that returning to their country of origin would be tantamount to a form of reverse emigration, with serious consequences particularly for the children.

    4. When no solution is foreseen, these same institutions should direct those they are helping, perhaps also providing them with material assistance, either to seek acceptance in other countries, or to return to their own country.”

  • To Damien, embryonic stem cells are not people.

    Try getting your head out of your “backside.”

  • give unto to Caesar what is Caesar’s. In other words do not break the law. This silly sob sister should obey scriptures

  • Human life is to be respected and protected from the moment of conception until natural death

    This is the Gospel of Life, Evangelium Vitae

  • And it can be respected and protected even if one deports individuals. This is Church teaching.

  • “Honor thy Father and Mother” is interpreted as obeying civilian laws, too.

  • Philip,

    There is a Church teaching on deportation???? Serious not sarcastic question-but waiting for the answer

  • See point 4 in my post above. From John Paul II. Individuals can be sent to another country or returned to their country. Not worded as deportation but a rose by any other name.

  • Sister Mary Ann Walsh and President Obama appear to have much in common.
    In 2008, President Obama addressed Berliners and disclosed his vision of a new world order:
    “….That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.
    The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down….”
    Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/obama-s-berlin-speech-a-world-that-stands-as-one-a-567920.html
    I suspect that President Obama was referring to sovereign nation states, the laws and constitutions that govern them, the national boundaries that define them, and the borders that separate them as the “walls that divide us from one another” which must be torn down.
    Progressive global proponents of Equality (of outcome) are well disposed toward international laws (conventions and treaties) which promote cooperation, assistance, equal treatment of global citizens, and porous borders. They unequivocally reject the laws of many sovereign nations (ie. the U.S Constitution) which secure borders and protect the nation’s citizens whom they view as an entitled and privileged few. A self described “citizen of the world” (see, link above), President Obama assured the international community in 2008 Berlin that global concerns, not sovereign issues were his priority.
    The President’s priorities are evident in his open border policy and voluntary compliance with the “1967 Protocol to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees”, of which the U.S is a signatory. While he honors and enforces international treaties and conventions, he declines to enforce sovereign U.S laws relating to border security and immigration which laws remain on the books, and in effect, yet are intentionally rendered impotent by political will.
    We live in a nation where our elected representatives pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. So while it is true that the U.S Constitution is the supreme law of the land; it is also true that many progressive elites in Washington view it and our entire tradition of Ordered Liberty as an historical anachronism from which they have evolved. Equalite trumps Liberte for these progressives; and enforcement of international treaties trumps enforcement of the constitutions and laws of sovereign nations.

  • Thank you Slainte. Nationalism is the offender now on the world stage. National interest is right out.
    The idea of our world with no borders is frightening because there would be top down authority from Somebody- WHO would that be?
    No subsidiarity, and everything would be gray.

  • Botolph asks, “There is a Church teaching on deportation???? Serious not sarcastic question-but waiting for the answer”
    “Whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportations, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children[arbitrariae incarcerationes, deportationes, servitus, prostitutio, mercatus mulierum et iuvenum]; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury.” – Gaudium et Spes 27
    Of course, the sense in which “deportation” is being used is not clear from this merely passing reference. In International Law, such as the 4th Geneva Convention and the Genocide Convention, it is used in the sense of forced resettlement of populations or “ethnic cleansing.”
    Also, neither the English nor the Latin text makes clear whether “arbitrary” governs only “imprisonment” or “deportations,” too. It is not a document in which one should expect the precision of a legal text; we are not dealing with Ulpian or Papinian here.
    I merely cite it quantum valeat, without pretending to expound it.

  • Slainté
    Opposition to national borders interrupting the free movement of capital, labour and goods can be traced all the way back to Bright and Cobden, the Manchester School and the Anti-Corn Law League in the early 19th century and it was part of the quarrel between Légitimistes and Orléanistes in France, the former representing the landed interest and the latter the commercial and industrial interests.
    Commodore Perry’s expedition to Japan and the Opium Wars in China show the willingness of the Great Powers to compel foreign governments to open their markets to foreign competition.

  • slainte: There are no walls in legal immigration. All people may apply.

  • Mary DeVoe writes: “There are no walls in legal immigration. All people may apply.”
    That is true Mary but our elected representatives ultimately seek a flat world where sovereign boundaries and borders are eliminated, thus negating any application process to regularize one’s immigration status within an integrated world.
    An incremental step to a borderless world was realized by establishing regions and common markets globally (ie, the North American Union, the European Union, the Asian Union) which gradually, over time. will likely be merged into a centralized global union with an integrated world government, currency, system of laws, etc.
    This process started some time ago by intentionally weakening sovereign borders worldwide in favor of regional borders and favorable trade arrangements.
    You may recall the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and then the NAFTA Super-Highway (implemented by President George Bush II’s administration) which extended from Mexico to Canada. The NAFTA superhighway was later renamed “the Trans-Texas Corridor” by one of its more vocal supporters Texas Governor Rick Perry.

    http://humanevents.com/2006/06/12/bush-administration-quietly-plans-nafta-super-highway/ and
    Republican and democrat leadership are united in their initiation of policies to tear down walls that divide…unfortunately that appears to include sovereign nations like the USA which must be relegated to the ash heap of history to advance Change.

  • Obamnesty is a disaster for blacks and current hispanics living in Americs.

  • Slainté

    Actually, one could see the EU the other way: as essentially protectionist, to safeguard jobs and food production against Third World competition, both for social and strategic reasons.

    The other objective, starting with the Franco-German Coal and Steel agreement, was to make national economies inter-dependent to lessen the possibility of war.

  • MPS, It seems at times that we may be retrogressing…moving back in time while forgetting the valuable lessons of history which alert us to the dangers of coalescing and concentrating power in the hands of the few. Where does one who legitimately dissents from oppressive governmental policies or other abuses flee for exile in an integrated global world order and an operative surveillance state?
    Those who are the most powerless, the least among us…the peasants… have always suffered most profoundly when concentrated power structures devolve into tyranny…and this inevitably happens.
    Lord Acton noted the effects of our fallen and unchanging Human Nature when he opined, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” One notes that he made this comment in the 1800s when religion informed morality and curbed some of the excesses of our fallen nature by informing ethical conduct in many. While there are exceptions, of course, we appear to be a far less religious, moral, or ethical global population. Thus, one wonders what code of civility will inform those who are charged with governing and managing a global power base responsibly.
    You will recall the concentrated power structure of the Ancien Regime in France, and the abuses perpetrated by those who willfully injured and took advantage of the powerless just because they could. You will also recall the pain and humiliation of the French peasants who stood naked before an aggressive and powerful landed aristocracy against whom they had no recourse.
    History repeats itself and the abuses of the past will replay unless appropriate safeguards securing liberty for all are preserved. How does one dissemble concentrations of power held by a distant and unelected international body which will (and perhaps already does) constitute global governance? The founding fathers of the U.S got this component of governance precisely right…power must be curbed and checked lest it destroy.
    As to the benefits of the European Union…in Ireland during the 70s and 80s, I observed large and happy (my mom also used the term “jolly”) families; my relatives raised their own cows, sheep, chickens, grew their own food, baked their own bread, cut turf in the bog, enjoyed a fag or ciggie with a pint and a half-one. Families were extended with many generations living together and spending time chatting with neighbors and friends in favorite tea shops or pubs…of which there were many. The Irish of that time in the West were not wealthy people, but they were thrifty, went to church regularly, and bicycled and motored on very narrow and bumpy roads designed for one motor car. They were self sufficient and mostly content.
    Since the European Union…families are smaller; abortion has been legalized; fewer attend church; even fewer grow their own vegetables or bake their own bread…these products are imported from other EU nations. Cutting turf is likely to be made illegal in deference to EU environmental concerns, Many cannot afford to patronize restaurants or pubs due to the high prices of food and drink. The national economy has been destroyed by the government’s decision to guaranty an incalculable bank debt to save the accounts of investors, many of whom are from other EU countries. The roads, however, have been greatly widened and modernized by EU investment schemes…but with so many unemployed in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse, few can afford the spiraling cost of petrol to drive on the new roadways made possible by the EU. Bicycling however, is still a viable alternative and there are very few bumps on the new roads. : )
    IMHO, a decentralized governing structure is better than a centralized one; and sovereign nations are more worthy alternatives than regional or global power structures…..oh as to the UN and the EU’s efforts to decrease the numbers of wars…recall Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, and the Russian incursions into her former republics.

How Will They Manage Without Their Cheap Serfs?

Wednesday, February 26, AD 2014

8 Responses to How Will They Manage Without Their Cheap Serfs?

  • Social Justice!

    The bosses running the dem party want sure votes and cheap labor because its easier to control dependents (illegals take jobs from other poor people of color . . .).

    The bosses running the rump gop (and the WSJ) want cheap labor and don’t give a tinker’s dam about anybody/anything else.

    Kiss goodbye the middle class.

    Social Justice!

  • Cheap labor is nothing compared to slave labor. Many illegal immigrants are cheated of their pay for their labor and have no recourse without revealing themselves. A citizen may apply to the Division of Labor on the state level. An illegal cannot. Justice would require that all persons coming into the U. S. be registered and receive the same treatment as citizens receive. This would curtail criminal behavior among employers.

  • As Victor Davis Hanson puts it,
    Does the liberal congressman or the Washington public advocate mow his own lawn, clean his toilet, or help feed his 90-year-old mother? At what cost would he cease to pay others to do these things — $20, $25 an hour? And whom would he hire if there were no illegal immigrants? The unemployed African-American teenager in D.C.? The unemployed Appalachian in nearby West Virginia? I think not.
    As a general organizing principle, “mow your own damn yard, clean your own damn toilets, watch your own damn kids” works pretty well for families, and whole neighborhoods… The time and effort keeps you grounded and aware, although I do understand some families at some times will need to hire out help.

  • “Cheap” was redundant. By definition all serfs are cheap. 🙂

  • I recall a story told by Harry Truman. Truman had mowed his own lawn as a Senator from Missouri until he entered the White House. After retirement Bess Truman wanted him to go back to mowing. Harry told her he was too old, but she insisted. So he got up on Sunday morning and began to mow the lawn while his neighbors walked past on the way to church. “Harry, aren’t you going to church?” each asked, to which he replied “No, the Boss wants the lawn mowed.”

    Harry got his hired lawn mower after that.

  • If it was one of the old push non-powered lawn mowers that I first cut my teeth on, I don’t blame Truman for wanting to pay someone else to mow his lawn. Those gave me a rugged workout in my teens!

  • Mexico sends most illegal immigrants. Mexico booming and most Mexicans have home to go back to. We need to put legal residents to work.

    These people promoting retention are destroying the countries involved, America and Mexico especially. Vote them out.

  • Get those 30-year-old “children” off their parents’ couch and insurance and into the hotels and lawns to do some honest work. Their college degrees might enable them to push harder and clean faster.

Class and Amnesty

Friday, January 31, AD 2014




Usually forgotten in the debates over illegal immigration is the class aspect.  A good example of this is why the House  GOP leadership embraced amnesty yesterday.  For Democrats an embrace of amnesty is obvious:  more Democrat voters down the road based on current voting patterns.  The reason why Republicans would agree to such a plan brings out the class dimension.

I can only imagine the amount of money the Chamber of Commerce and other pro-illegal alien groups must be throwing at the House GOP leadership for them to embrace amnesty, a policy hated by almost all rank and file Republicans.  Go here to read about the plan proffered by the GOP leadership which is barely disguised amnesty for illegal aliens.  The desire of many businesses for a continuing stream of illegal aliens from south of the border, drawn by the lure of eventual legalization, as occurred with the 1986 amnesty, is a betrayal of our own native workers at a time of high unemployment.  Senator Jeff Sessions (R.AL) explains this largely ignored aspect of the immigration debate:

Once again, we have  the same recycled talking points—crafted, it would appear, with the help of the same consultants and special interests. Each time, the talking points are followed by legislation that fails to match the promises—legislation that, at bottom, ensures only the amnesty and not the enforcement. The leadership talking points look like an attempted repackaging of the tired Gang-of-Eight-style formula that has been proposed, rejected, and re-proposed for years. It is no surprise then that Senator Schumer and former Speaker Pelosi are so encouraged by these developments. But while Democrat leaders and interest groups appear satisfied, this document was not voted upon by the GOP conference and clearly does not represent the consensus of Republican members. Is it not time we pushed aside the stale proposals stitched together in concert with the same lobbyists, and asked what is in the best interests of the hardworking American citizen—and the nation?

In three fundamental respects, the House leaders’ emerging immigration proposal appears to resemble the Senate plan: it provides the initial grant of amnesty before enforcement; it would surge the already unprecedented level of legal lesser-skilled immigration to the U.S. that is reducing wages and increasing unemployment; and it would offer eventual citizenship to a large number of illegal immigrants and visa overstays.

Rank-and-file House Republicans are the last line of defense for working Americans. Now is the time for rank-and-file House Republicans to claim the leadership mantle and to say, firmly: our goal is to transition millions of struggling Americans from welfare and joblessness to work and rising wages. The President has not only dismantled enforcement but has delivered for a small group of special interests and CEOs by forcing through the Senate legislation that drastically surges the future flow of new immigrant workers competing against unemployed Americans. There is a reason why these increases are never mentioned in the slick ads and radio spots: the American people reject them. Americans earning under $30,000 prefer a reduction to an increase in current record immigration levels by a 3-1 margin. Republicans have the chance to be the one party giving voice to the real-world concerns of the everyday worker whose wages have been flat or falling for more than 10 years.

House leaders should support—not ignore—the immigration officers pleading for help. They should stand with—not against—unemployed American workers. And they should expose—not join—the President’s campaign to pass an immigration plan that will hollow out our shrinking middle class.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Class and Amnesty

  • “The class aspect of the immigration debate is usually ignored, but it is real and biting. Elites get cheap servants and businesses get workers willing to take rock bottom wages. ….”

    This would be a great bulletin insert. IMO there could be one little addition and that is :
    “Ordinary American citizens get to compete for lower paying jobs with people who are not citizens ”

    As we know from the life of St. Paul, citizenship matters.

  • The Democrats and liberals want more 100%-state dependent voters and warriors for the class wars.

    The Republicans and Wall Street//Chamber of Commerce want less stuff for media lying and cheap labor.

    The middle class gets it in the end.

    Remember, everything them social justice guys say is pure feces of the male of the bovine species.

    Bend over. Here it comes again.

  • “Hey, the President has all-time low favorability ratings, and the configuration of the House and Senate just about guarantees that the GOP adds to its majority in the House and pickup the majority in the Senate. What can we do to completely stop our momentum? I got it! Let’s put all of our efforts behind something that most of the public doesn’t care about, and those that do represent a large chink of our base, and they absolutely oppose it. Cha-ching!” – Well overpaid GOP consultant.

  • I guess as an attorney you are accustomed to reading statements with an eye to discovering what the enunciated language allows the other guy to do to your client. I did not see the salient points of the statement as such where you see them

    Reince Priebus in particular has conducted himself in recent days in a manner that should induce the Republican National Committee to remove him from his position ASAP.

  • I wonder if the bishops of the US, because of the humanitarian concerns, have considered meeting and working with the bishops of Mexico (and Central America) to find ways of improving life where the people are, that they might be salt and leaven and “bloom where they are planted”.
    The poorest and the most needy don’t get to emigrate. The bishops put pressure on government in this country, but what about going to the roots of the desire to emigrate illegally, at great cost and in great danger.
    Right now some Church leaders in the US and in central America provide the language and the philosophical framework for socialism. They don’t give the people the linguistic framework for capitalism, although, they at least seem to recognize the benefits to be gained here in this economy.
    As the pope speaks about capitalism he may also want to speak about its obvious benefits- people are voting with their feet, even if they words/philosophy given them by their political and religious leaders may be marxist, they are moving toward capitalism as fast as they can.
    It would be great if the bishops could throw some effort into educating front line priests and people to be able to articulate conservativism. …. and (continuing my dream) these immigrants who are now going to become citizens would become the kind of Catholic Americans Gov. Cuomo etal. dread.

  • Roger Simon, “A Modest proposal for Immigration Reform: Illegal immigrants, assuming they have lived here for a decent period of time and have not committed a felony, can have amnesty, but they can NEVER be allowed to vote. They can do anything else that is legal, but if they want to vote — or run for office or practice law in our country, as just happened in California — they must return home and go through the normal immigrant application process, however long that may take until they have citizenship.”

    Here’s my Modest Proposal for Preventing Illegal Invaders From Being a Burthen to Their Neighbors and America, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick: Put a bounty on them.

  • Ok explain to me this legal status that is Not Citizenship . I don’t get it. Is there ant meaning or I privilege attached to being citizen . Why become a citizen ?

    Pay taxes?

  • Americans earning under $30,000 prefer a reduction to an increase in current record immigration levels by a 3-1 margin. If this is true, and Jeff Sessions is a guy who does his homework, why is this not on the lips of every Republican who steps in front of a camera? How on God’s green earth would that simple statement get spun away from them by the media in 2014?

  • If this is true, and Jeff Sessions is a guy who does his homework, why is this not on the lips of every Republican who steps in front of a camera? How on God’s green earth would that simple statement get spun away from them by the media in 2014?


    It does not register with them because they only converse with people drawn from a narrow circle.

  • tamsin,

    Art Deco is being charitable.

    Cheap labor!

    Evidently, the rump, professional GOP is in bed with the Chamber of Commerce and the monied interests.

    They fear and loathe the tea party, in particular, and conservatives, in general. That’s one reason they keep their imbecilic mouths shut about the Obama/Holder/IRS wars on conservatives and the American way of life.

  • Y’all realize that many voters believe our Catholic bishops pump scamnesty because they wish to fill the pews and collections baskets, yes?

  • Perhaps the GOP would make more headway toward a sensible immigration policy if it could do a better job of explaining why unchecked illegal immigration is bad for EVERYONE — not just U.S. citizens, but illegal immigrants themselves (who place themselves in a situation where they can be perpetually exploited by employers and by the federal government) and Hispanics in general (who are subject to constant suspicion of being illegals even when they are not). It does not necessarily have to be framed as an us-vs.-them issue, although I suppose that’s just how politicians operate.

  • In addition, I think the Church would be wise to make a distinction between the general human charity and respect due to all people, which of course would include immigrants regardless of their legal status, and the rights of U.S. citizenship, which are NOT due to everyone but only to legitimate U.S. citizens.

    It’s one thing to say that the Church should welcome everyone to attend Mass and receive the sacraments, or that its members should voluntarily offer food, clothing, shelter, etc. to a family in need without having to check their immigration status first. It’s something else entirely to argue that federal and state governments should make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens for purposes of voting or for other benefits or privileges that are funded by taxpayers (e.g. holding driver’s licenses or receiving Medicaid or TANF).

    There’s also the fact that many, perhaps most, illegal immigrants use fake or stolen Social Security numbers — often assigned to them by the persons who arrange for their passage to the U.S. — to obtain jobs; this can lead to all sorts of headaches for the persons who legitimately hold that SSN and constitutes a form of theft.

    As for the “rule of law” argument, I’d say as I have for years, that it would be better to have a more liberal legal immigration process and consistently enforce it than to have a process that is strict on paper but which is enforced selectively or not at all.

  • The virtue of Charity is an issue of the human soul and one’s private conscience. The crime here is that the government has taken over the virtue of charity and demands obedience from the people and the bishops are campaigning that the government should oversee amnesty. Immigration is under the control of the government but amnesty is not.

Coming Soon to a Mall Near You?

Friday, September 27, AD 2013

18 Responses to Coming Soon to a Mall Near You?

  • As I understand it, the terrorists who did this crime were Muslim. And while the news media did report about this attack, the fact that the perpetrators were Muslim is glossed over or hidden, and the similar attacks occurring daily against Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic and Protestant Christians – again perpetrated by Muslims – are studiously ignored. These Islamic fanatics are torturing and murdering women and children daily, especially if they are Christian or Jewish, and ignoring the plight of the victims is consistent with how the main stream media treats the torture and murder of the unborn by liberal progressives. Indeed, liberal progressives and Islamic fanatics are so different that they are the same.

    PS, Not all Muslims are so inclined. I have worked with a few throughout my career, and those with whom I worked were invariably honest, hardworking and respectful of the beliefs of others.

  • We find good and bad in all religions. The problem with Islam currently is that it contains within it not insignificant groups dedicated to performing atrocities like this on a regular basis. Our feckless immigration policy, dating all the way back to 1965,
    blithely views this hard fact of life with cold indifference, as we set about setting the stage for a permanent low level, I hope, war of religion in this country.

  • Because Obama!

    Say there are 1,000,000,000 muslims on the planet. If 1% are violently inclined, that’s 10,000,000. If 99% of the world-wide violently inclined are finance/logistics/overhead, then there are 100,000 fell killers arming, planning, training, and waiting for the whistle to go off.

    Do the math. There are 300 to 600 mass-killers in the US. The variables are when and where.

  • Listening to Robert Spencer on “Catholic Answers,” the problem is more than groups within a religion creating violence. There is a leg of Islam stool which advocates violence; it’s a tenet of the faith. According to him, we should be led to believe Islam is essentially a religion of peace because some, the non-violent Muslims, choose not to adhere to every aspect of their faith.

  • The problem with Islam is that unlike Taoism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, etc., the Islamic scriptures – the Koran – does advocate and command violence against and dhimmitude of non-Muslims. Not all Muslims are like that. Perhaps not even a majority are like that. But it is the one single religion that officially requires forced subjugation if not death of those who do not adhere to its tenets, and that is the fundamental problem.

    Yes, there will always be evil people in any religion, even the Catholic Church, but the amount of evil perpetrated by such individuals pales in comparison to what Islam has done, and the official Scriptures of such religions forbids such violence, contrary to the Islamic scriptures.

    Again, that doesn’t mean all Muslims are bad. It just means that when the basis of a religion is bad, then one can and should expect bad results. What happened at this Mall in Kenya and what continues to happen to Christians in the Middle East is far more than simply bad. Soon, as the title to this post indicates, it may happen here in the US as liberal progressives welcome more and more intolerant Muslims under the guise of tolerance and open mindedness, and that may be how God allows us to be punished for our licentiousness, hedonism, paganism and atheism. God does not change. He punished Israel with the Assyrians and Judah with the Babylonians. It is not inconceivable that He may punish (or allowed to be punished) America with Islam. God is Holy and He demands Holiness.

  • So how does this end? Can the theology of violence be removed from Islam? Is it too ingrained in the faith to be removed? Can it be removed while sparing the pride of its followers? Or, is it a cross we must live with until the end of time?

    I don’t see how it can remain and Muslims live peacefully with others. It’s really sad to see so many people, a civilization that did well before Islam, be dragged down by calls for violence and hate.

  • Islam has been around for almost fourteen centuries. The willingness of its adherents to have peaceful relations with non-Muslims has varied wildly based upon time and place. However, no majority Islamic state has ever existed where non-Muslims enjoy civic equality, leaving lip service aside, with Muslims. Such states developed among majority Christian populations only with the greatest difficult and are relatively new historically speaking. Whether Islamic peoples can ever produce such states is very much an open question and the historical record is not hopeful, to say the least.

  • “So how does this end?”

    By Jesus Christ triumphing over satan, death and hell. It ends with the conversion of Muslims to the Faith once delivered unto the Saints. We were commanded to go forth, preach the Good News, and Baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. For too long we have lived under the false gospel of live and let live, your religion is as good as mine, let’s all just co-exist. There is no co-existence with the devil and the violence of Islam is diabolical. It takes the Cross to defeat Islam. That’s how it ends. No Islam. No Buddhism. No Taoism. No Hinduism. They are all false. Only Christianity is the fullness of Truth, and far from being arrogant or self-assured, we should work out our salvation in fear and trembling for our Lord is a Holy God.

  • It would be interesting to see how much campaign money is being donated to anti-2nd Amendment groups and candidates by Islamists. I know the sources must be domestic but the ways to funnel funds are many and difficult to expose.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “no majority Islamic state has ever existed where non-Muslims enjoy civic equality”

    Turkey under Ataturk? Kemalism was heavily influenced by the French concept of laïcité and the complete separation of l’éspace public (the sphere of the state and its administration) and l’éspace privé (the sphere of civil society)

  • True MPS, and as we see today that concept is coming under increasing attack in Turkey. Additionally, Atatuk’s reforms took place under a very repressive regime and only after most Christians, Greeks and Armenians, had been driven out of Turkey, those who were not butchered. Turkey for the Turks was also a motto of Ataturk. The largest minority group, the Kurds, have long had a hate-hate relationship with the government of Turkey. Modern Turkey is 99.8% Islamic, if one includes in that figure people who profess no religion but were raised in the Muslim faith.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote “Turkey for the Turks was also a motto of Ataturk.”

    Indeed it was and that is instructive in itself.

    The Arab revolt against Turkish rule was matched by a Turkish revolt against Arabic influence – From adopting the Roman alphabet and the replacement of Shari’ah law with the Swiss Civil Code and the Italian Penal Code to such apparently trivial matters as banning the fez and the veil and changing the Adhan from Arabic to Turkish. The dissolution of the Dervish orders recalls the dissolving of the Congrégations in France and sprang from similar anti-clerical sentiments

    In short, national solidarity trumpted religious solidarity, symbolized by the abolition of the Caliphate.

    The Pan-Arabism of the Ba’athist parties and the secularism of the PLO, at least in its origins, reflect a similar tendency.

  • Which is proving in our day to be a rather week reed against a resurgent Islam. In any country with a majority Islamic population I would never bet, long term, against Islam. I do not think muslims in the mass will follow the secular path blazed by the Christian West, and in some ways I can understand why they would not. This century will witness a clash of civilizations to mirror the clash of secular ideologies of the last.

  • “I do not think muslims in the mass will follow the secular path blazed by the Christian West”

    They do seem to have become stricter of late.

    When I was a schoolboy, the Aga Khan and Prince Aly Khan were familiar figures at Longchamp and the ladies of their entourage always wore Western dress. He was Imam of the Nizan Ismailis and the first President of the All-India Muslim League. No imam would permit that today, or allow them to take his arm.

    The same was true of Ex-King Farouk of Egypt and his party, whom I saw taking tea at the Negresco in Nice; I suppose I was about eight (1953-4)

    Then again, the two female Muslim cabinet ministers in the Sarkozy government, Rachida Dati and Fadela Amara were enthusiastic supporters of the headscarf ban in schools [« l’affaire du foulard »] and, in their speeches, constantly stressed laïcité, gender equality and gender desegregation.

  • Most Islamic violence happening today is being perpetrated by Sunni/Wahabbist also called Salafist Muslims. A look at Saudi Arabia shows what to expect from them. Absolutely no tolerance for other religions and (as they call us) infidels. Both Al quaida and the Taliban fall into this most fundamentalist form of Islam. There are many active Jihadist groups throughout the world. Their desired form of government is theocracy governed and Sharia law. For America to attempt bringing Democracy to these people (Operation Iraqi Freedom) is Oxy-moronic. Christ’s words “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” doesn’t work with them. It’s all for Allah. The Wahabbist form of Islam is not only a threat to Christians and Jews but to other Muslims who don’t conform to their fundamentalist beliefs. The spread of this extreme form of Islam should be a concern to all who don’t want a return to 15th century Arabic governance.

  • Pingback: Children don’t Belong in a Cry Room and Neither do You - BigPulpit.com
  • After reading the description of the cruel violence, my first thought was of the Reavers from Firefly.