Compassion For Whom?

When it comes to writing about migrant issues, most authors write sympathetically about the migrants, while showing almost complete disregard for the populations called upon to support them. 

While I can have compassion for migrants, immigrants and refugees, what about my fellow Americans?  Are they not much more my neighbors than someone from Guatemala?  Do they not deserve my consideration and compassion?

What about Americans who lose their jobs or have their wages lowered because of increased competition from illegal immigrations?  Am I not to be concerned about them?

What about Americans who are raped, killed, and murdered, by those who have no legal standing to be in the United States?  Am I to turn a blind eye to the suffering of the victims and of their families?

It's amazing how little concern the Roman Church-State and the political, intellectual, and business establishments have for the serious plight of large swaths of the American population, some of whose problems are the direct result of the failure of government officials to provide even a minimum level of enforcement of American immigration law, while at the same time presuming to lecture Americans about their lack of compassion for foreigners.

News flash for those concerned about foreign migrants.  Americans are real people too, and they have real problems and legitimate concerns that deserve real attention.

Charity, as they say, starts at home.

Isn't It Racist To Reject Mexican, Guatemalan and Honduran Migrants?

Although SNL doesn't directly call "racist" those concerned about current US immigration laws, it does seem to make allusions to this idea in various places throughout.  On the other hand, it is fairly common for people to invoke the term "racist" when it comes to anyone who questions the reigning immigration orthodoxy that has done so much damage to this country.  As such, it seems good to discuss the race issue here.  .

If you go back and read through all twelve posts in this series so far, you will find that nowhere does this author bring up the issue of race as a reason to oppose mass, taxpayer subsidized immigration, migration and refugee resettlement. 

The reason for this is, in truth, that the ongoing migrant crisis in the United States and in Europe is only superficially about race.  But playing the so-called "race card" very much works to the advantage of the Roman Church-State and others who are fostering the migrant crisis, because it allows them to define their opponents as evil people and shut them up, or at least prevent their arguments from being taken seriously. 

Much more than being about race, the migrant crisis is about economics and politics.  Even more fundamentally, the migrant crisis is about the theological ideas that support the economic and political philosophy of the Roman Church-State and other globalists who have an interest in creating and sustaining the migrant crisis.

To put it another way, the migrant issue is first and foremost about ideas, ideas which are completely unrelated to race.

Throughout Scripture, the consistent message on economics and politics is capitalism and limited government.  Rome, on the other hand, is all about socialism and tyranny.  And it is this conflict - the conflict between the Protestant economics and politics of liberty and those of Romanist tyranny - that is really the issue at hand when it comes to the migrant crisis.

The Primacy of Ideas

Immigration is one of the more difficult and scary topics to treat, perhaps especially if you're a Christian.  Even so much as raising the meekest question about the wisdom of bringing millions of welfare migrants into the US is enough to get you called nasty names.  This, in itself, is enough to discourage many writes from broaching the subject.

So how has this author managed to overcome his fear of being called nasty names?  By realizing that the charge of racism is really a red herring designed to put people off the scent.

The proper focus of any criticism of immigration is the philosophy that underlies the errant policy.  In any system of thought, theory comes first, then practice.  If one can refute the foundational theory, he also refutes the practices that are built upon it.

In the case of Rome, its migrant initiatives are built on the unbiblical idea of the Universal Destination of Goods.  God did not give the world to mankind in common as the Romanists would have you believe, he gave it to man severally, beginning with Adam who was owner of the whole world and who passed on his property to his children, who passed it on to their children, and so on and so forth down to the present day.

The correct Biblical view of property holds that ownership, not need, is the only moral title to property.  Apart from taxation to support the legitimate, Biblical functions of government or fines levied as punishment for a crime, the state is not to take property from its citizens.  Further, the owner's use of his property, so long as it is lawful, is not to be interfered with by the state. 

The economic and political ideas taught in Scripture overthrow Rome's false teaching on these subjects.  Since  the Universal Destination of Goods contradicts the teaching of the Bible on property, it is false doctrine and is to be rejected.  And if the Universal Destination of Goods is to be rejected, so too is Rome's migrant policy which is built upon it.

The key to cracking Rome's arguments for mass, taxpayer subsidized, nation breaking immigration policies is to focus, not on people, but on Rome's badly flawed economic and political ideas.

The Abject Failure of American Protestant Churches to Teach Christians About the Identity of Antichrist

When reading through Romanist documents such as SNL, I am struck, in the first place, by just how remarkably evil these writings are.  But in the second place, I'm also struck by the fact that American Christians have almost no idea of the depths of the evil arrayed against them in the person of the pope and the organization of the Roman Church-State. 

Beginning over a century ago, American Christians - an I mean even Christians who would call themselves Bible-believing conservatives - have been subjected to a propaganda campaign telling them that Roman Catholics are Christians, Rome is a Christian church and the pope is their friend, their brother in Christ and a critical ally in the culture war.

All of these teachings are false.

Rome is the greatest enemy of Jesus Christ there is on earth.  The Roman Church-State is Satan's masterpiece, an organization that has managed to bamboozle, so it would seem, even the elect into thinking it a true church of Christ, all the while presenting a false Christ who teaches a false faith-works gospel which saves no one.

Or ask yourself, Christian, when was the last time you heard a Protestant preacher preach about the papal Antichrist?  If you are like most 21st century American Christians, the answer is never.

By way of example, consider the Refugee and Immigrant Ministry Resources page from the Presbyterian Church In America's (PCA) website.

The PCA is America's largest conservative Presbyterian denomination, but its Refugee page encourages members to click on links, not only to the USCCB (highlighted above), but also to Church World Service, an uberliberal, very political, anything but Christian organization (also highlighted).

Why, Oh, why is a putatively conservative Presbyterian church sending its sheep into the arms of Antichrist?!  How is it possible that they have so little discernment?

Another, related problem is the failure of Protestant scholars to critically examine Rome's teaching on migration.  In the experience on this writer, it is almost impossible to find any sound criticism of the Church-State's immigration program from a fellow Protestant. 

In fact, this author is aware of only one other writer who has bothered to critique SNL, a pastor from Wisconsin name Ralph Ovadal.  You may read his 2006 article here.

How is it possible for the professing Protestant church to be almost completely missing in action over the past twelve years on this crucial issue, all the while Rome is hard at work promoting its false ideas? 

For my part, I'm ashamed at the sorry state of Protestant commentary on immigration.  Brethern, it's high time that we got in the fight.

In Closing

When undertaking to write a series such as this, I find that, generally speaking,  I have multiple reasons for choosing a topic.  Such is the case for my decision to write once again on immigration.

In the first place, it's a subject that interests me.  Writing is hard work, and if one is to write consistently well on a subject, a certain amount of native interest is a necessary condition. 

Second, it's an important topic.  For a number of years now, immigration quite rightly has been one of the greatest areas of concern to voters.  Presidents and congressmen come and go, as do many of their policies.  But immigration is forever.  A nation's immigration policy has permanent effects upon the country.  If its immigration policy is a bad one, one that serves the interest of a few while harming those of the general population, those permanent effects will be for the worse for that nation's future. 

Third, immigration policy is an opportunity for Christians to separate themselves from the evil ideas and practices of the Babylonian Harlot Roman Church-State and her Antichrist papal head.  The apostle Paul enjoined Christians to mark those who cause divisions and offenses and avoid them.  In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul commanded the believers to, "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."

As Christians we are called to mark, to expose and to avoid the doctrines of false teachers.  And as there is no greater false teacher than the Antichrist papacy, so too is it of utmost importance to mark, to expose, and to avoid his false teachings in every area, including in matters of immigration.  Given how much is riding on the issue of immigration, the need to observe Paul's injunction in this area is even more critical than in many others.

Which leads me to my fourth reason for writing this series, which is to hopefully encourage others to do their own research and writing on the topic of Rome's evil immigration policies.  In my experience, the vast majority of the little written by Protestants on immigration is really just warmed over ideas taken from the writings of the bishops and popes of Rome.

Brothers, this is not how things should be.

As Christians, we should be thought leaders in this area.  Instead we find ourselves shamefully begging intellectual bread from the table of Antichrist.  This has got to stop.

Finally, I write what I do because I'm a patriot.  The Lord has blessed us with this wonderful country, but I fear we do not appreciate what we've been given and find ourselves very nearly at the point of losing it.

As a Christian, I realize that this world is not my home, that I'm a stranger and pilgrim on the earth. 

But even so, Christians are called, as were the exiled Jews in Babylon, to pray for the peace of the city.  For in the peace of the city, we, as they did, will find peace. And as was Daniel, so too are Christians called to provide Godly counsel to that end.

It is this author's prayer that this series of articles will contribute to that cause.

(To be continued...)         

We seek to measure the interests of all parties in the migration phenomenon against the guidelines of Catholic social teaching and to offer a moral framework for embracing, not rejecting, the reality of migration between our two nations.

- USCCB and the Catholic Bishops of Mexico in Strangers No Longer

Over the past three weeks (please see here, here and here), this author has examined in some detail the document Strangers No Longer (SNL), authored jointly by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and  their counterparts in Mexico.  The main purpose of SNL, as the quote at the top of the page indicates, is to bring to bear the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church on the issue of migration between Mexico and the United States. 

The three preceding posts on SNL represent my attempt to demonstrate some of the serious, antichristian ideas in the document.  To that end, I have analyzed the errors in three broad categories, noting that SNL is 1) a Marian document, 2) a socialist document, and 3) a globalist document. 

After considering the express and implied propositions found in SNL, it is this author's conclusion that the ideas put forth by the bishops in SNL are not only harmful to the people of the United States, but destructive to the point that they imply the end of the United States as an independent nation.  Further, it is this author's contention that the implied collapse of the US is not some accidental by-product of the ideas found in SNL, but actually one of the bishops' intended effects.     

That said, today I would like to turn my attention to a few additional issues in SNL.  These are issues that may not fit neatly into one of the three categories listed above - Marian, socialist, and globalist -  but which nevertheless are worthy of commentary.

Birthright Citizenship    

In paragraph 67, the bishops write, "Family unity also is weakened when the children of immigrants are left unprotected.  In the United States, birthright citizenship should be maintained as an important principle in U.S. immigration law."

This author could not disagree more vehemently.  Birthright citizenship as it is practiced in the US represents a gross cheapening of American citizenship and is an outrageous abuse of the American people.  Birthright citizenship is an enormous scam.

Earlier this year, and in a previous series on immigration, I explained that, according to the Bible, there are two, and only two legitimate ways for someone to acquire citizenship:  1) Be the child of parents, at least one of whom is a citizen, and 2) By taking an oath of allegiance, which in the US means taking an oath of allegiance to the Constitution.

Why do I say this?  For a longer version of the answer, please see here.  The shorter version runs this way.  According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, "The visible church...consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children" (WSC XXV.1). Baptism is the means by which the party baptized is admitted into the visible Church (WSC XXVIII.1). Baptism - that is to say, the sacrament indicating one's membership in the visible church - is to be administered to two classes of persons:  1) Infants descending from parents, either both, of but one of them, professing faith in Christ and obedience to him 2) adults who make a profession of faith in Christ of obedience to him (Westminster Larger Catechism, 166).  

To put these ideas in less formal language, baptism is a sign of one's membership in the visible church, and that sign is administered to the infants of at least one believing parent and to adults who profess their faith in Christ. 

To put it still another way, one becomes a member of the visible church (n.b. I do not say one is saved, only that one becomes a member of the visible church) either by being born to parents, at least one of which is a member of the visible church, or by an outward profession of faith as an adult. 

So much for church membership.  But what does this have to do with national citizenship?  In my opinion, quite a lot.  For the same God who ordained church government also ordained civil government.  Because of this, the Bible's definition of church membership can be applied with equal force to the question of determining who's a citizen. 

Translating the language of the Westminster Standards into the language of civil government, we can say that the Bible's teaching on the question of who is properly to be considered a citizen is as follows:  1) Adults who have taken an oath of citizenship and 2) the children descending from parents, either both, or at least one of whom, is a citizen. 

On this analysis, it is no more appropriate to call a child born on US soil to non-citizen parents - their immigration status notwithstanding - an American citizen than it would be to baptize, and declare a church member, an infant born to unbelieving parents on church property.

Throwing Shade on the Border Patrol

The document points the finger at the US Border Patrol as being as an abusive group, the agents of whom "perpetrate abuses and who are not held accountable by the U.S. government.  As back up, the authors of SNL argue that only a few of the reported cases of reported abuse by the Border Patrol led to government prosecution.

One problem here is that SNL refers to a 2001 report by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network.  Given the report was produced by an agency of the Roman Church-State, it is fair on those grounds alone to question its honesty.

By way of example, a recent article on the Catholic Answers website titled "Is Sex Abuse a Catholic Problem?" concluded, unsurprisingly, that, no, the rate of sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church is comparable to that found in other organizations, including Protestant churches.  Citing the John Jay report, the article concluded that, not only were the number of sexual abuse cases no more than those found among Protestant ministers, but there actually were fewer.

What the article doesn't tell you is that the John Jay report, according to the report's Executive Summary on page 3 of the report, was "authorized and paid for by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops." 

So, at least if we're to believe Catholic Answers, a report bought and paid for by the USCCB concluded that, compared the competition, Roman Catholic priests are no more likely, and perhaps are less likely, to abuse children, and further, we're supposed to accept the report's findings at face value.

Sorry, but with such recent headlines as this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this floating around, color me skeptical. 

And if it's fair to question the Church-State's bought and paid for report on the Church-States obvious and serious problem of child abuse, it's also fair to question their reporting on abuse by the US Border Patrol, an agency whose activities Rome very clearly despises, if for no other reason than the agency's efforts prevent Rome from inflicting even more damage on the US than it already does.

The Implied Costs of SNL's Recommendations

The bishops wax grand eloquent on the rights of migrants and the obligations of receiving nations to take care of them.  Noticeably absent from SNL is any discussion of the costs associated with the bishops recommendations.  

According to paragraph 33, the bishops, having examined the Social Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, deduced five principles, "which guide the Church's view on migration issues."

For example, Principle II teaches that, "The Church recognizes that all the goods of the earth belong to all people."  As has been mentioned elsewhere, the is an expression of a Thomistic principle known as the Universal Destination of Goods (UDG).  In short, the UDG states that need to the only moral title to property.  If someone needs your supposedly surplus property, he has a right to take it.  The UDG is one of the key philosophical principles underlying the Church-State's incompetent political and economic teachings.

The UDG also underlies what the Church-State says about national borders.  According to the Church-State, nations have the right to control their borders until the pope says they can't. 

The church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth .  More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows (36, emphasis mine).

But while the Church-State is quick to lay obligations on the United States, more to the point, while the Antichrist pope and his henchmen in the USCCB and the Conference of Mexican bishops are quick to lay enormous tax obligations on the American people, they are coy about the costs of their program, never quite getting around to mentioning them. 

The only honest assessment of the costs of Rome's migration demands this author has seen from a Roman prelate come from the pen of Giulivo Tessarolo, editor of Rome's commentary on Exsul Familia, the 1952 Apostolic Constitution on Migration by Pius XII.  There, Tessarolo wrote, "due to the enormous financial implications [of Rome's demands on behalf of migrants], the phenomenon of emigration will find some relief only in the English-speaking countries" (13). 

Of the Pharisees Jesus remarked, "[T]hey bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers" (Matthew 23:4).  In like fashion, the bishops, cardinals and popes of Rome love to go on and on about their compassion for the poor of the world, but they want you to foot the bill. 

The Matthew 25 Argument

The bishops invoke Matthew 25 to bolster their argument.  They write,

St. Matthew also describes the mysterious [the bishops here, as is their wont, misapply the term mysterious] presence of Jesus in the migrants who frequently lack food and drink and are detained in prison (Mt. 25:35-36).  The "Son of Man" who "comes in his glory (Mt. 25:31) will judge his followers by the way they respond to those in need:  "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brother of mine, you did for me: (Mt. 25:40).

Though they don't quite get around to saying it outright, the implication behind the bishops' argument is that, if you don't support their program, you're one of the goats on Jesus left hand, whom he sends to hell for their refusal to give to those who were hungry, thirsty and in need.

Sounds convincing, right.  Well, not so fast.  There's a principle of Biblical interpretation known as the analogy of Scripture, or the term I prefer, comparative exegesis, which is found in Westminster Confession of Faith I.9.   So just what is comparative exegesis?  The Westminster Confession reads, "[W]hen there is a question about the true and fell sense of an Scripture...it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

Jesus very clearly enjoins his disciples to be generous and help those in need, but what did he have in mind?  Was Jesus thinking, as the bishops seem to be, of welfare state handouts, the money for which is forcibly extracted from taxpayers by the government and distributed to those deemed in need, or did Jesus have something else in mind?

Consider the parable of the Good Samaritan found in Luke 10 and ask yourself where did the Samaritan get the funds to pay for his charitable act?  Did he go demand his neighbors cough up the money to reimburse him for the cost of the bandages and oil.  Did he demand the state pay for his transporting the wounded Jewish man on his donkey, or for the cost of the inn, or for the delay the whole affair caused him? 

Of course not.  The Samaritan fully bore the costs of his good deed. 

Christian charity is always and only about giving of one's own resources, not one's neighbors. 

Forcing others to pay for one's charitable work is not Christian charity at all, it is theft.  And theft is condemned in the Eighth Commandment.

For this reason, the bishops appeal to Matthew 25 to bolster their case for international socialism (theft), is not only wrong, but is itself a sin, in that it makes them guilty of misinterpreting, misapplying, and perverting the Word of God, which is a violation of the Third Commandment (Westminster Larger Catechism, 113). 

Rome loves to lecture people about welcoming the stranger, but deliberately blurs the important distinction between Christian private charity, which is always voluntary, and the sort of welfare state socialism promoted by its migrant policy.  They are very different things.  

(To be continued...)

The Vatican called on Monday for sweeping reforms of the world economy and the creation of a ethical, global authority to regulate financial markets...The Vatican called for the establishment of a "supranational authority" with worldwide scope and "universal jurisdiction" to guide economic policies and decisions. Such an authority should start with the United Nations as its reference point but later become independent and be endowed with the power to see to it that developed countries were not allowed to wield "excessive power over weaker countries. "Vatican urges economic reforms, condemns collective greed" - Reuters, 10/24/2011

One of the great frustrations this author has with the way news is covered is the abject failure of the press - and by the press, I mean both the mainstream legacy news organizations as well as the alternate, independent journalists who do their work on blogs, YouTube channels and podcasts - to relate the various political activities of the Roman Church-State to its overarching goal of establishing a new version of the Holy Roman Empire, this time one worldwide in scope.

Now when one begins talking about the push for world government, it's not uncommon to be charged with "fear mongering" and "pushing conspiracy theories." But Rome's lust for world government, while certainly a conspiracy, is perhaps the least secret, most openly admitted conspiracy in history. Many people suppose that, if the Vatican really did want world government, you'd have to go looking for proof in some musty, dusty ancient codex buried deep in a monastic library in some exotic location.

The truth is that proving Rome's desire for world government is, as they say, like shooting fish in a barrel.

Take, for example, the passage quoted at the top of this post. It's from a 2011 Reuters article about a new document issued by the Pontifical Council For Justice And Peace, the full title of which is Towards Reforming The International Financial And Monetary Systems In The Context Of Global Public Authority (emphasis mine).

Far from hiding its desire for one world government, the Vatican comes right out and says it. In fact, it's actually shocking to this author just how open Rome is about its goal.

Writing in the American Conservative, columnist Rod Dreher, a man who apparently is, or at least was, unaware of Rome's power lust, expressed his own shock at the Vatican's comments. He noted,

Lord have mercy. What was once only in the febrile prophetic imagination of Jack Chick and Hal Lindsey is now a press release from the Vatican. A friend (who is not Evangelical) writes:

This is going to FREAK the evangelicals out. But it makes me wonder what the heck is going on in the minds of these Vaticanites! Don't they have a clue how the world will preceive (sic) this? One world authority?? Really?

Count me with the Evangelicals. It freaks me out too, and will freak out many Orthodox Christians (Dreher was raised Methodist, converted to Roman Catholicism in 1993, and in 2006 converted to Eastern Orthodoxy) I bet it has the same effect on not a few Catholics as well. Maybe Malachi Martin wasn't such a conspiracy freak after all...

Dreher got it exactly right. His comments are remarkable, if for no other reason than they are the clearest example this author has seen of a big name columnist actually understanding the plain language of the Vatican and the implied worldwide tyranny of its words. But while Dreher nailed it at first, it appears that someone got to him. For in an apparent addendum to his original article he to some degree walked back his original comments. He wrote,

OK, let me take a second stab at this thing.

First, I don't think there's anything intentionally malicious about this document. It does not have magisterial authority, so it doesn't set out the Church's authoritative teaching on faith and morals. No Catholic is required to believe any of this.

News flash for Rod Dreher, the Pontifical Council's document says nothing new about Rome's lust for world government. It simply represents a reiteration of many, similar calls, both direct and by implication, made by the popes of Rome. As such, Dreher's shock at the Vatican's statement really is a commentary about his ignorance of Rome's long standing powerlust. The Vatican wasn't saying anything new in 2011 that hadn't been said many times before, or since for that matter. It's just how Antichrist rolls.

As proof of this, consider what John Robbins wrote in the chapter titled "World Government" in his 1999 book on the political and economic thought of Rome, titled Ecclesiastical Megalomania, "What the Roman Church-State accomplished on a small scale during the Middle Ages is what it desires to achieve on a global scale in the coming millennium" (187).

To back up his claim, Robbins quotes Gaudium et Spes, one of the major documents to come out of the Second Vatican Council.

It is our clear duty, therefore, to strain every muscle in working for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent. This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of a universal public authority acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power to safeguard on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights (emphasis mine).

Now ask yourself, is there any significant difference between the 2011 statement from the Pontifical Council calling for a "supranational authority" with worldwide scope and "universal jurisdiction" and what was said the Gaudium et Spes in 1965? There's none apparent to this author.

This demolishes Dreher's argument that Catholics are not required to believe the statements from the Pontifical Council calling for world government. Unless, of course, Dreher wants to argue that Catholics are not required to believe Gaudium et Spes when it too calls for a "universal public authority." I doubt he's willing to do this.

By now you may be asking yourself what any of this has to do with the migrant caravan. It may appear that I've gone off on a bit of a tangent and forgotten the purpose of this post.

Far from it. I brought up the world government stuff to set up my main point. You see, Rome takes a multipronged approach to bringing about world government. Just as it attempted to use the public's anger about the 2008 financial crisis to further its goal of establishing a "supranational authority with universal jurisdiction," in like fashion it uses immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement as the means to the same end.

Although Rome's call for world government in Strangers No Longer (SNL) is muted by comparison to what one finds in Gaudium et Spes and the 2011 document from the Pontifical Council, nevertheless the idea is clearly implied. Let's take a look at it.

SNL is a Globalist Document

Several times in SNL, the USCCB and the Mexican bishops attack the idea of the nation state.

Paragraph 30 of SNL directly quotes the explicitly globalist Exsul Familia Nazarethana
(EFN), the 1952 Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII which has been called the Church's Magna Carta for Migrants. For my earlier comments on this remarkably evil document, please see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The bishops write,

While recognizing the right of the sovereign state to control its borders, Exsul Familia also establishes that this right is not absolute, stating that the needs of immigrants must be measured against the needs of the receiving countries:

Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people, the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this...

Pope John XXIII placed limits on immigration, however, when there are "just reasons for it." Nevertheless, he stressed the obligation of sovereign states to promote the universal good where possible, including an obligation to accommodate migration flows. For more powerful nations, a stronger obligation exists (emphasis mine).

Basically, the bishops and the Roman Church-State are saying that, the United States and other independent nations have the right to control their borders, until we say they can't. Then they have to listen to the voice of the Holy Mother Kirk and acknowledge their obligation to provide sustenance - i.e. rob their citizens - for as many migrants as we say they have to.

To put this another way, the nation state is no longer the highest civil authority. Rather, the Church is. Or to put this still another way, the Woman Who Rides the Beast is calling for world government with itself in the driver's seat and able to order mere national governments around, the expressed will of the electorates of those nations notwithstanding.

In the 2013 book On "Strangers No Longer", a collection of essays celebrating the 10th anniversary of SNL, Mark Ensalaco whined about the fact that politicians actually were listening to the voice of their constituents rather than to the bishops. He complained, "The bishops appealed for a civil debate about this urgent matter to no avail. It was as if their words fell mainly on flinty ground or among thorns where they withered in the white heat of politics or were strangled by politicians' worldly concerns about their electoral prospects (251).

What offends Ensalaco so much that he denigrates it as "politicians' worldly concerns about their electoral prospects" (187) would better be called elected officials simply doing the job they were put in office to do. But then, it's not surprising that a representative of the tyrannical Roman Church-State would be offended at the idea of elected representatives who actually represent the wishes of their constituents. Quite obviously, he prefers the Roman system where when the Pope says "jump," the only proper response is to ask, "How high, your Holiness?"

It is difficult to communicate to the reader the full extent of Rome's visceral hatred for independent nation states that refuse to confirm to its will, but perhaps the following quote may give him some sense. Writing in his papal bull Zelo Domus Dei in reaction to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, a treaty that permanently curtailed Rome's ability to meddle in the internal affairs of the allied nations and established the modern world order, Pope Innocent X raged, calling the provisions of the treaty, "null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane, empty of meaning and effect for all time" (Larry Jay Diamond; Marc F. Plattner, Philip J. Costopoulo (2005). World religions and democracy, 103).

Now why didn't Innocent X tell us how he really felt about Westphalia?

Innocent X's epic rant on the Treaty of Westphalia must be understood in light of how the popes of Rome view themselves and their Church. According to Rome's teaching, the papacy has a triple power, being "the father of kings, governor of the world and Vicar of Christ." To such an exalted being, one simply does not say "no." And when he says you have an obligation to take in migrants and pay their freight, well, it's not yours to question why.

Diamond, Plattner and Costopoulo continue,

The Church tended its enmity well into the nineteenth century, when it condemned international law as a "Protestant science" [for once, the Church is actually right about somthing; the creation of  a humane system of international law that respects the territory and the property of the citizens of nation states is one of the great political achievements of the Reformation] and censured the works of the Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius, often considered the intellectual godfather of international law.

Westphalia drew the Church's scorn because it inflicted a mortal wound on the Respublica Christiania, the vision of society that the Church carried forward from medieval Christendom (103).

When the bishops demand in SNL that the United States - the US is the special object of scorn in SNL - accede to their arrogant demands to accept as many migrants as the bishops think right, they are not doing something novel, rather, they are simply bringing to bear Rome's megalomanical, medieval mindset on the modern problem of Mexican migrants coming to the United States.

Rome continues its assault on the Westphalian World Order it began in SNL paragraph 30 (cited above), repeatedly stating there are limits to the authority of national governments to control their borders. And this while Rome never mentions any such limit on its own power.

The church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth [Question: How does the Church determine when this is the case?]. More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows [First, nations don't feed their residents, the citizens feed themselves by the product of their own labor; Second how is Rome's declaration that wealthy nations have "a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows" different from the Marxist doctrine of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?] (36).

The Church recognizes the right of a sovereign state to control its borders in furtherance of the common good [What about the state's obligation to, as Paul put it, "punish evildoers and praise the good?" While this is the Biblical purpose of government, Rome's collectivist notion of "the common good" is put forth as the civil magistrate's reason for being.]. It also recognizes the right of human persons to migrate so that they can realize their God-given rights. These teachings complement each other. While the sovereign state may impose reasonable limits on immigration, the common good is not served when the basic human rights of the individual are violated [Obviously, Rome does not consider the right to property as a "basic human right," since it advocates national governments taking property from their own citizens and bestowing it upon its favored migrants] (39).

By now, I hope the reader has a sense of just how contemptuous Rome is of the concept of independent - specifically independent of Rome's control - national governments. Rome pays lip service to the authority of national governments, but, in the end, their authority extends only so far as the bishops, cardinals and popes of Rome say it does.

Closing Thoughts

While nowhere in Scripture are church officers given control over national governments, the Bible does speak about a false church that assumes such prerogatives. That false church in Revelation 17 is called Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and of the Abominations of the Earth. In contrast to the true church of Jesus Christ, the Bride of Christ, this false church delights in fornication and is drunk with the blood of the saints.

In the opinion of the reformers and of this author, Mystery, Babylon the Great is none other than the Church of Rome. As Rome reigned over the kings of the earth in the first century, so she wishes to do so in the 21st.

In the view of this author, SNL lays  the intellectual groundwork for Rome's attempt to break the United States both financially and, by flooding the historically Protestant US with migrants loyal to Rome, culturally as well.  This is the same playbook Rome is using to break the historic nations of Europe, the only difference being the European migrants are largely Muslim.

Once Rome has destablized the US and the nations of Europe by making them financially insolvent and politically ungovernable, it will take little effort to absorb them into a new, globe spanning Holy Roman Empire. In the opinion of this author, this is precisely Rome's end game for the migrant crisis.

(To be continued...)