Christian Forums

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Oct 23, 2026 - 16:51:03Well, which is it?  Are the hospitals eating it or are we all paying for it?  It's one or the other.

As I said, hospitals eat the loss, but then raise prices for other services.  That's how it works. 

Quote from: Amo on Fri Oct 23, 2026 - 17:03:04Moving from one mess, to another.

Yep.  Lots of other nations spend a lot less on healthcare than we do, and get better results for their money.
https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/health-policy-101-international-comparison-of-health-systems/?entry=table-of-contents-health-outcomes
 

Not sure you'd like their systems, though.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Wed Oct 14, 2026 - 12:54:17We know that illegal aliens commit crimes at a much lower rate than do native-born Americans, which is why El Paso, Tx, with the highest proportion of illegal aliens, is also one of the safest American cities. 

We know that? That's proving to be a distortion of stats, wishful thinking, and left-wing propaganda.
https://cis.org/Report/Misuse-Texas-Data-Understates-Illegal-Immigrant-Criminality

Which kind of reminds me of a quote that some people attribute to Joseph Stalin -

"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything."

Also, even though El Paso is touted as one of the safest cities, many locals disagree and have for years, claiming property crimes are out of control and police don't even show up when they're reported or make a record of it, especially in high immigrant neighborhoods. Law abiding  immigrants are frustrated by the police inaction when they report crime. (My cousin and his wife have lived there for years, until he passed away 2 years ago)

BTW, I thought it was common knowledge that underreporting and manipulating crime rates is a common occurrence? It happens for both financial and political reasons.

Quote from: Rella on Sun Oct 11, 2026 - 09:16:58Those coming here from the south do not want to do it by the book.

And those who poured into our country, illegally, from the south, were not all from the south! Some came from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, China....         

Quote from: mommydi on Mon Oct 26, 2026 - 12:27:04We know that? That's proving to be a distortion of stats, wishful thinking, and left-wing propaganda.
https://cis.org/Report/Misuse-Texas-Data-Understates-Illegal-Immigrant-Criminality

I get that they disagree with Texas and Cato Institute statistics.  The argument is "well, where we don't know for sure, it must have been all illegal immigrants."   But no evidence supports that assumption.   

And it's not just Texas data (Texas is one of the few states that actually keeps this data).   It turns out that El Paso, with one of the highest percentage of illegal alien residents, is also one of the safest metropolitan areas in the United States.  The question is, "do we have any evidence showing that El Paso police in particular, and Texas police in general are covering up crime but only for illegal aliens?"

So why should illegal aliens be more law-abiding?   For one thing, it turns out that all groups of immigrants are more law-abiding.  In fact, legal immigrants are even more law-abiding than illegal immigrants, even as both are more law-abiding than native-born Americans.

It makes sense.  They are mostly coming here looking for work.  But whatever their purpose, the last thing they want is to get caught doing a crime, which would almost certainly get them deported.  Summers in high school and college, I worked railroad track gangs.  Back then, almost all of the guys working them were illegally-resident Mexicans.  Most were guys with families.   They could earn enough in a few months of labor to support a family for the rest of the year in Mexico.  One day, one of the machine operators didn't show up.  He was driving, committed a traffic infraction, and he was gone.   The others mentioned that they warned him about driving in the city.   

Yes, my sample was biased; all of them just wanted to work and make some money.   But the fact remains; it's in the best interest of illegal aliens to behave themselves and stay out of trouble.

Hence their lower crime rates.

Quote from: mommydi on Mon Oct 26, 2026 - 12:31:22And those who poured into our country, illegally, from the south, were not all from the south! Some came from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, China....         

That's right.  In fact, a large proportion of illegal immigrants are now flying in from Asia, rather than crossing our southern border.  India, China, Korea, and SE Asia are becoming the major issue.
https://thepostmillennial.com/illegal-immigration-from-asia-and-africa-triples-since-2022-214000-arrests-made-cbp

Quote from: The Barbarian on Mon Oct 26, 2026 - 12:58:21I get that they disagree with Texas and Cato Institute statistics.  The argument is "well, where we don't know for sure, it must have been all illegal immigrants."  But no evidence supports that assumption. 

As President Reagan once said, "There you go, again!"  For years, you've posted fake quotes here. It's exhausting. That is a textbook straw man fallacy. You fabricated a quote to make the study sound unreasonable so you could easily knock it down.
By placing your exaggerated summary in quotation marks, you're trying to trick the reader into believing it's a sloppy and flawed study not worth considering, which makes it easier for you to reject. The sad part is, you know you're doing it. STOP the shove-quoting! The actual point of the study, stated quite clearly, is there's a proven data lag and undercounting of illegals. It's not about guessing. I've called you out for misquoting and straw man tactics in the past, and I'll continue to call you out on it.

 

Quote from: mommydi on Tue Oct 27, 2026 - 17:51:46As President Reagan once said, "There you go, again!"

So let's see what President Reagan had to say about it...

And that's about all I have to say tonight, except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the ``shining city upon a hill.'' The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/farewell-address-nation

How could Reagan be so liberal?   Well, back in the 60s and 70s, it was conservatives who were pushing for more immigration and liberals who were deeply suspicious of a flood of new workers coming into the country.   Times change.

Let's take a look at sources from various political viewpoints:

A study of the 2016 election by the Brennan Center for Justice reviewing data for jurisdictions where some 23.5 million ballots were cast found just 30 cases of suspected noncitizen voting — or 0.0001 percent of the total votes cast.

A Washington Post review of conservative Heritage Foundation election fraud tracking found 85 cases in which noncitizens attempted to vote between 2002 and 2023 — a period during which 2 billion votes have been cast in federal elections.

The libertarian Cato Institute has also called the claims one of the "most frequent and less serious criticisms" relating to migration.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4939246-gop-claims-noncitizen-voting/

Compare my characterization with republican House Speaker Mike Johnson's own admission:

During a recent press conference, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) admitted to reporters that his claims about voter fraud were lacking concrete evidence.

"We all know – intuitively – that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections. But it's not been something that is easily provable," Johnson told reporters.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/10/mike-johnson-undocumented-immigrant-voting-bill/73646671007/

Quote from: The Barbarian on Tue Oct 27, 2026 - 21:25:24So let's see what President Reagan had to say about it...

And that's about all I have to say tonight, except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the ``shining city upon a hill.'' The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/farewell-address-nation

How could Reagan be so liberal?  Well, back in the 60s and 70s, it was conservatives who were pushing for more immigration and liberals who were deeply suspicious of a flood of new workers coming into the country.  Times change.

Let's take a look at sources from various political viewpoints:

A study of the 2016 election by the Brennan Center for Justice reviewing data for jurisdictions where some 23.5 million ballots were cast found just 30 cases of suspected noncitizen voting — or 0.0001 percent of the total votes cast.

A Washington Post review of conservative Heritage Foundation election fraud tracking found 85 cases in which noncitizens attempted to vote between 2002 and 2023 — a period during which 2 billion votes have been cast in federal elections.

The libertarian Cato Institute has also called the claims one of the "most frequent and less serious criticisms" relating to migration.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4939246-gop-claims-noncitizen-voting/

Compare my characterization with republican House Speaker Mike Johnson's own admission:

During a recent press conference, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) admitted to reporters that his claims about voter fraud were lacking concrete evidence.

"We all know – intuitively – that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections. But it's not been something that is easily provable," Johnson told reporters.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/10/mike-johnson-undocumented-immigrant-voting-bill/73646671007/

Yes, both liberals and conservatives or if you will Republicrats and Demlicans have a tie that binds them to mass immigration and or favorable actions regarding them. Which is the Vatican and or the UN or other international organizations which share her intended use of mass migrations as forms of asymmetrical warfare upon nations they wish to politically overthrow from within. Reagan worked very closely with the Pope and Vatican on many issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

Quoted info below from link above.

QuoteThe Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA or the Simpson–Mazzoli Act) was passed by the 99th United States Congress and signed into law by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized most undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the country prior to January 1, 1982. The act altered U.S. immigration law by making it illegal to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants, and establishing financial and other penalties for companies that employed undocumented immigrants.

Nearly three million people applied for legalization under the IRCA. Through the update in the registry date along with the LAW and SAW programs enacted by IRCA, approximately 2.7 million people were ultimately approved for permanent residence.

https://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/03/how-the-vatican-influences-us-policy/

Interesting quoted article below pertinent to the subject at hand, is from link above where article may be viewed in its entirety. Bold and underlined emphasis is mine.

QuoteInfluence of the Catholic Hierarchy on U.S. Policy Making

This chapter from our Chairman Dr. Stephen D. Mumford's book, American Democracy and the Vatican: Population Growth and National Security (1984) summarizes the seriousness of the Vatican's influence on U.S. policy making. The book is available at Kindle here and to read for free here.

Chapter 10: Influence of the Catholic Hierarchy on Government Policy

The Reagan administration is the most Catholic administration in American history. Yet few Americans are aware of this. Why all the secrecy? Why has this fact never been mentioned in the press, particularly in light of the Reagan agenda?

About 4 percent of Americans are of Irish Roman Catholic descent. Ronald Reagan's father was and his brother is Roman Catholic. The president has never been very active in any faith; however, all but two of Reagan's key appointees concerned with the national security/population growth control issues have been Irish Roman Catholics. They include: his three national security advisers, Allen, Clark, and McFarlane; CIA Director Casey; Secretary of State Haig; Health and Human Services Secretary Heckler; and Attorney-General Smith. One exception is Schultz, who is a Roman Catholic of German extraction; the other was Schweiker, not a Catholic.

What of other critical positions in the administration? At the cabinet level, other Catholics are Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan and Secretary of Labor Raymond Donovan. Also, Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court and Ann Gorsuch to the post of EPA administrator. Both are of Irish descent.

Since only 4 percent of Americans are Catholics of Irish descent, it would seem that this particular ethnic group is grossly overrepresented in the seats of power. The odds of this happening by chance are nil.

Making this disturbing is the makeup of the Church hierarchy. Although descendants of Irish immigrants to this country constitute only 20 percent of the nation's Catholics, the roots of American Catholic bishops are mainly in Ireland. They are unquestionably the most politically aggressive element of the Church. Their ethnic group was strongly favored by the person who put the Reagan team together. My concern is that this person was not Mr. Reagan. What makes this arrangement so troubling are the marked similarities between the Reagan agenda and the Vatican agenda.

The Vatican Agenda vs. the Reagan Agenda

Few Americans realize that the Vatican and Reagan agendas are, despite minor disagreement, virtually identical. Let us look at the record.

Table 1 shows the Vatican and Reagan Administration positions on twenty-four of the most controversial issues of the past three years. It is difficult to find a single example of disagreement between them. The president has made no secret of the fact that he calls on the pope for guidance in the governing of America. In chapter four, I have quoted his incredible statement before the National Catholic Education Association in April 1982: "I am grateful for your help in shaping American policy to reflect God's will...and I will look forward to further guidance from His Holiness Pope John Paul II during an audience I will have with him in June." After this one-hour private meeting at the Vatican on June 7, he said that the Catholic Church "pursues the same goals of peace, freedom, and humanity." Reagan added that he wanted the U.S. government "to work closely with the Church in Latin America...to prevent the spread of repression and godless tyranny." He also invited the pope to visit the United States again, saying, "There is a great need for such a visit." In May, they met in Alaska. In his March 8, 1983, speech before the National Association of Evangelicals, Reagan expressed himself in terms normally reserved for use by Catholic clergy: "I urge you to beware of the temptation...to ignore...the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to...thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong, good and evil." During a speech to a group of conservatives on February 18, 1983, Reagan made the statement that the attempted assassination of the pope was "an assault on God." Can it be that the president receives the words of the pope as if they were actually words or instructions direct from God?

On August 6, 1984, columnist Mary McGrory offered that Mr. Reagan comes on as more Catholic than the Pope:

QuoteCatholic issues seem to consume him.... Reagan's motivation now seems to be his inability to tolerate the "oppression of the Church" to which the Pope has attested.... John Kennedy may be smiling somewhere at the sight of an American president wrapping himself in the arms of Holy Mother Church.... By contrast, Reagan is going out of his way to show that with him there is no separation of church and state. He wants it known that there is a direct line between him and the Pope, that he seeks counsel from the Vatican City. Reagan took the extraordinary step of inviting the Pope's ambassador, Pio Laghi, to his Santa Barbara ranch for consultation on delicate foreign policy questions. [emphasis added]

In a prepared address to an ecumenical prayer breakfast attended by twelve thousand religious leaders and delegates to the Republican National Convention, Mr. Reagan challenged the constitutional premise of separation of church and state. "The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable, and as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related." A report on this speech stated that "his remarks put him squarely in the camp of the fundamentalist religious right," implying that this is not consistent with the Vatican camp. However, the Reverend Virgil C. Blum, president and founder of the Milwaukee-based Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, endorsed Reagan's church and state sentiments.

The truth is that Mr. Reagan is just giving his blessing to a reality. The Vatican has for decades ignored the constitutional premise of separation of church and state though this situation has worsened since the publication of the Pastoral Plan for Prolife Activities in 1975. Columnist Mary McGrory, in an article on the unprecedented challenge to the archbishop of New York by Governor Mario Cuomo, frankly stated that for a Catholic politician to publicly oppose the wishes of an archbishop is political suicide. She pointed out that Cuomo is the first Catholic politician to pick a fight with a prelate and that "it is the conventional wisdom that no politician wins in a fight with the Catholic Church."

The Major Difference Between the United States and Latin American Countries

The vast disparities between Latin America and the United States should not exist. Both were settled by Europeans at about the same time. Both are rich in resources. But where a democratic form of government grew out of the British experience, and among its North American possessions the principle of separation of church and state had been fostered, Latin America reflected the authoritarian Spanish and Portuguese conquest of the countries to the south. The nature of these settlements was particularly distinctive in regard to religion. Many in the North had come to seek religious freedom, which they guarded jealously, insisting on separation of church and state. In Latin America, the new land was explored for its wealth and for conversions to Catholicism. The modern Catholic Church adheres to this day to this prerogative, this close alliance of government and religion. It acts in this country as if it has a moral obligation to influence, in whatever way it can, issues that are at variance with Catholic priorities. The Catholic Church disregards the fundamental American concept of separation of church and state, claiming a "divine right" to do so. I am deeply concerned about this state of affairs as it concerns over population.

As a result of the Vatican's position and actions, our government is not dealing with the realities of overpopulation, including illegal immigration. Should the Vatican agenda be followed for even the next fifteen to twenty years, there will be no turning back for the U.S. The United States of North America will become a part of Latin America.

The Church and Divisiveness in America

Because the Catholic Church ignores the principle of separation of church and state, it is the most divisive force in America. The March 19, 1984, issue of U.S. News and World Report examined two secret Catholic elite religious societies in this country: the Knights of Malta with one thousand U.S. members who are prominent in government, business, or professional life and Opus Dei with three thousand members of widely varied backgrounds. The Knights of Malta organization dates back to the time of the Crusades; its members include some of our nation's most prominent Catholics: CIA Director William Casey; William Wilson; Vernon Walters; Senators Denton and Domenici; Alexander Haig; William Sloan; and William F. Buckley, creator and leader of Young Americans for Freedom, from which a large proportion of the Reagan administration team were drawn. Because many Knights and recipients of the Order's honors have worked in or around the CIA, critics sometimes suggest a link between the two. The CIA has been dominated by the Catholic hierarchy.

According to members, the order serves "as an international defender of the Church." In June of each year a ceremony is held in Rome for Knights of Malta which includes the "swearing of allegiance to the defense of the Holy Mother Church." Herein lies the problem for population growth control and its recognition as a national security issue. Population growth control seriously threatens the survival of the Vatican, as discussed in chapters one and four. Knights are committed to defending the Church. Only the most devout and obedient are invited to join the Knights and Opus Dei (which its detractors have compared to mind-controlling cults). If the Vatican has determined that population growth control threatens the Holy Mother Church, the members of these societies are obliged to counter this threat by thwarting the development of population growth control government policies and their execution. It is inevitable that the best interests of the Vatican and those of the United States are not always going to be the same. For this reason, no one can possibly swear complete allegiance to both and mean it. The acts and attitudes of the Knights of Malta in the Reagan administration seem to reflect this complete allegiance to the Catholic Church rather than to our country.

This deep conflict has serious ramifications for population growth control. As long as it exists, it is not possible to effectively deal with the population problem. The real population problem is not convincing people that they must have small families or delivering the family planning services to them. This we can most certainly achieve in just ten years for 95 percent of the world's population and at a price we can afford. The real population problem is this conflict between the needs of the Church and the desperate needs of humanity to control its proliferation.

Consider the intensity of the commitment of these secret society members as "international defenders of the Church." It is hardly a secret that one of the most important American advances in "defending the Church" by Catholic elitists was the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The activities of the CIA go far beyond intelligence gathering of an international nature. The CIA serves as an agency through which secret "assistance" to the Holy Mother Church can be provided by secret American society members acting as her defenders:

QuoteDuring the CIA's formative years, Protestants predominated.... Somehow, however, Catholics wrested control of the CIA's covert-action section. It was no coincidence that some of the agency's more grandiose operations were in Catholic countries of Latin America and the Catholic regime of South Vietnam.

For creating the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the wartime predecessor to the CIA, and this special arrangement with the Vatican,

QuoteGeneral William "Wild Bill" Donovan was decorated in July 1944 by Pope Pius XII with the Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Sylvester, the oldest and most prestigious of papal knighthoods. This award has been given to only one hundred other men in history, who, "by feat of arms or writings or outstanding deeds have spread the faith and have safeguarded and championed the Church."

Donovan did more to safeguard and champion the Church than any other American, and he was rewarded for his services with the highest Catholic award ever received by an American. No doubt, thousands of others have striven with their deeds for similar recognition........................

Decisions on Three Issues Which Would Allow a Rapid Expansion of Vatican Power in the United States

Three issues which will be decided upon in the next year or so could radically enhance Vatican power. The first is the creation of a constitutional convention. Few Americans realize that its creators are those people who served as front men for the creation of the Moral Majority. The actual creators are Catholics Richard A. Viguerie and Paul Weyrich. Most of the thrust is coming from the National Taxpayers Union (NTU). Its executive director was a leading anti-abortion activist. NTU bankrolled a tuition tax-credit initiative for Catholic schools in the District of Columbia in 1981.

The convention would be formed for the purpose of passing an amendment to balance the federal budget. But many experts believe that nothing would stop it from considering other changes in the Constitution. Such a convention has not been held since the writing of our current governing document in 1789. Already thirty-two states have voted to call this body to order—just two states shy of the thirty-four needed.

It seems clear that the institution standing to benefit most from this convention is the Roman Catholic Church. It could arrange for the rewriting of the Constitution in such a way as to provide tax support for Catholic schools, to ban all abortions, to put government-mandated prayer back in the schools, to ban government support for family planning, to legalize unrestricted immigration, to mandate intensified anti-communist hate propaganda, to eliminate support for the United Nations, and to reduce sharply First Amendment rights such as the right to criticize the Catholic Church. Award-winning columnist George Will, almost an official spokesperson for the Reagan administration, has already called for a reduction in First Amendment rights.

It is almost inconceivable that thirty-two of the thirty-four states have already voted for the calling of the convention without more media and public attention being drawn to this movement headed by NTU. No such effort has ever progressed with so little attention.................

Only the secretive hierarchy of the Catholic Church is capable of orchestrating such massive lobbying effort so quietly. No doubt it has used the political lobbying organization it set up to ban abortion—the Moral Majority—to achieve this near miracle. The convention movement should be a matter of great concern. It is certain to at least cause a constitutional crisis and considerable national divisiveness. The greater the divisiveness, the greater the political gain for the Catholic Church. Population growth control is certain to lose.

A second opportunity for government policy manipulation is through influencing the selection of Supreme Court justices by the reelection of Mr. Reagan to a second term. Of the six sitting pro-abortion justices, five are now more than seventy-three years old. Sandra Day O'Connor, a conservative and obedient Irish Roman Catholic, has been Reagan's only appointment thus far. If he is reelected, the odds are fairly good that he would have occasion to appoint four additional justices, and they could all be conservative and obedient Catholics just like his first selection. Then we would have a majority of the Court appointed with the same kind of "divine guidance" Reagan has been getting all along and have a Court no doubt responsive to the needs of the Vatican. This end is already within reach of the Church if Reagan is reelected.

The third opportunity for government policy manipulation comes with the continued influx of illegal aliens. John Tanton, chairman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and leading thinker on illegal immigration, summarizes the findings of studies of the beneficiaries by saying that the only Americans who benefit are business interests that employ illegals at low wages. That is all! In this country, 75 percent of Hispanics approve of illegal immigration control and of national identification cards. This is the group that the Catholic hierarchy said opposed control. (Of course, the Church was only speaking "on behalf of" Hispanics all along.)

No one benefits except some often unscrupulous business interests and the Catholic hierarchy (90 percent of all illegal aliens are Catholic). No illegal immigration control organizations ever mention opposition by the hierarchy—another example of the power of censorship.

If illegal aliens were comprised of other religious groups, we probably would have little illegal immigration control problems in the United States. How does the Church justify this blatantly anti-American activity of creating a sanctuary in America for Catholic illegal aliens from Latin America?

Officially one-quarter of the people in the Catholic Church in the United States are Hispanic. However, according to Church spokesman the Reverend Raymond G. Schutte, a Benedictine, in reality almost 40 percent of our country's Catholics are Spanish-speaking, and their number will rise to 50 percent by 1990—only six years from now—due mostly to illegal immigration. The justification:

QuoteThe principle [of sanctuary]...a part of Catholic canon law, which states: "A church enjoys the right of asylum so that criminals who flee from it are not to be removed from it, except in the case of necessity, without the assent of the ordinary or the rector of the church." Thus, when Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland welcomed four families into a church in December, he said he was only obeying the law of his church.

In greeting the refugees on the day St. Benedict the Moor Catholic Church became a public sanctuary, Archbishop Weakland said, "To many, the concept of sanctuary may seem to be one that Catholic tradition forgot since the Middle Ages. This is not true."

"Sanctuary is not really a way of avoiding justice," the archbishop added, "but a holy respite so that true justice can eventually be done."

Obviously Archbishop Weakland defies American law, placing the law of the Vatican, a foreign power, above American law. Of course, he has a "divine right" to do so, because the Vatican has sovereignty over the United States in matters of faith and morals, as we discussed before, and, of course, morals include illegal immigration since it enhances the power of the Church.

The real meaning of the hierarchy's interests in illegal immigration can be gleaned from a recent monograph on illegal immigration and national security. No doubt the most important ever published on this subject, it was written by Dr. George Fauriol and produced by Georgetown University's Center for Strategic and International Studies:

QuoteThe viability of the nation depends upon an informed electorate and the absence of deep cultural or lingual divisions among its people. Illegal immigration, to the extent that it fosters the establishment of communities of persons unable or unwilling to converse in English, can foster just such divisions. The problem of a large ethnic group repeatedly fueled by massive immigration—whether legal or illegal—detached from the main stream U.S. population by language and custom, "could affect the social stability of the nation," says William A. Henry, III. "The disruptive potential of bilingualism and biculturalism is worrisome: millions of voters cut off from the main sources of information, millions of potential draftees inculcated with dual ethnic loyalties, millions of would-be employees ill at ease in the language of their workmates."

According to a study prepared by the Twentieth Century Fund, bilingual education, on which the U.S. government spends nearly $200 million annually, does not assist in creating a better society, but just the opposite. "Anyone living in the United States who is unable to speak English cannot fully participate in our society, its culture, its politics," says the Fund's task force.

Unfortunately, an end to illegal immigration, and the curtailment of legal immigration to reasonable levels, may be perceived in the future as a threat by the beneficiaries of this growing political clout. Illegal immigration, to the extent that it fuels an increasing number of insular ethnic groups, becomes a tool with which to persuade government policymakers to look favorably upon the demands of ethnic organizations, which could include the maintenance of open borders.

The political implications of such activities have not received the attention or critical examination they deserve. The obligations of the U.S. government, to the citizens of this country, should not be determined by the number of petitioners before the government. By including illegal immigrants in the census, the U.S. government legitimizes the use of illegal immigration itself as a political tool for the advancement of certain interests in American society, which are certainly not without significant implications for the future of American democracy. The political use of illegal aliens has included attempts by certain states, particularly California, to make major efforts to register illegal aliens to vote. During the Carter administration, the Justice Department informally ruled that it saw no legal reason why illegal aliens could not vote even in federal elections!

Fauriol never mentions the Catholic Church. Yet, he could not be more on target if he were aiming at the Catholic hierarchy. The Vatican is the chief "beneficiary of this growing political clout." It obviously seeks the "use of illegal immigration as a political tool for the advancement of its interest in American society" at the expense of American democracy.

The Vatican promotes social and ethnic political power blocs in this country to foster divisiveness within American society. Then it uses these ethnic power groups—such as Poles, Irish, Mexicans, and Salvadorans—to manipulate U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Though an enormous influx of immigrants is required, the strategy is simple: divide and conquer.

The major support for bilingual education was the Catholic hierarchy. No doubt the Church recognized that bilingualism divides the country culturally and politically and destroys the critical linguistic cohesion. Yet it succeeded in getting $200 million per year in taxpayers' dollars to fund this activity—a sum equal to the entire U.S. population assistance budget!

The Vatican is not concerned about the best interests of the United States. Nor does it seem to care about the people in developing countries. Increasing the number of Catholics in the United States to increase their power in the United States, regardless of the expense to the Third World, is its major concern...............................

The hierarchy's claim that their interest in illegal immigration is a result of compassion for Third World peoples simply does not hold up under close scrutiny. Lust for increased political power in the United States more accurately reflects the Vatican's interest; increased numbers of devouted followers increase political power.

Recently the Vatican offered its own immigration bill after successfully thwarting the Simpson-Mazzoli bill. To introduce this bill they called upon Catholic Congressman Edward Roybal (D-California) who, coincidentally, is pro-abortion, pro-family planning, and pro-international population assistance—in short, a man who would be the least likely suspected of cooperation with the Church. This bill is a blatant attempt to maintain the status quo. The Roybal bill would:

*Amnesty [grant Permanent Resident Alien status] to illegal aliens who entered the U.S. prior to January 1, 1982.

*Amnesty children and spouses of legalized aliens who entered the U.S. after January 1, 1982, and were present in the United States at the time of amnesty.

*Ease the identification requirements for amnesty and provide several levels of appeal to applicants who are turned down.

*Allow amnesty applicants to work until final determination of their status.

*Eliminate the current exclusion of aliens likely to require welfare or other public assistance.

*Strike employer sanctions in favor of increased enforcement of Department of Labor wage and hour laws.

*Authorize $65 million for start up of a legalization program and for increased enforcement.

*Increase legal immigration by 100,000 a year for five years.

*Make it illegal for state and local police to hold illegal aliens for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

*Create another four-year immigration commission.

The tide will only be stemmed by a law that includes an unforgeable national identification card, severe employer sanctions for all employers, rejection of any liberal amnesty, and a vastly expanded Immigration and Naturalization Service. Any law without these provisions is doomed to failure, a fact well known by those who drew up the Roybal bill. Every item of this bill is designed to thwart illegal immigration control.

Where does Mr. Reagan and his administration stand on illegal immigration control? According to Texas Governor Mark White, in a speech to the seventh annual Conference on Immigration and Naturalization at the University of Texas Law School:

QuotePresident Reagan told the American people...he's serious about immigration control and a secure border. But at the same time, this administration has turned its back on its responsibilities to stem the tide of illegal immigration by refusing to adequately fund the Border Patrol to do its job.... They are reluctant to adequately enforce existing laws, which makes you question how actively they would enforce the new law.... I think it's time for the administration and the federal government to put some money where the mouth is.

The Reagan administration and the Vatican both stand for maintaining the status quo. This is not a coincidence.

The constitutional convention, Supreme Court appointments following a Reagan reelection, and the status quo on illegal immigration control all offer opportunities for quick gains in Vatican political power in the United States. However, just conducting "business as usual" is producing substantial gains.

Vatican Influence on Domestic and Foreign Policy-Making in the United States

................................................

Vatican Influence on Policies of Other Nations

..................................................


Vatican Population Policy Manipulations Seriously Threaten U.S. Security

.................................................

On May 25, 1983, U.S. Navy Lt. Cdr. Albert Schaufelberger, III, was slain in San Salvador, the first U.S. military man to die in the war there. Three days before his death, Schaufelberger was interviewed on Cable News Network (CNN) News. He had a powerful and profound message for America. "There is no military solution here in El Salvador. The country is overpopulated. Population growth must be stopped. There must be literacy programs and schools built and agricultural development and jobs created and health care. This is the only solution." Unfortunately, when Schaufelberger was killed, only CNN reported what this man had to say. The newspapers reported only on the intrigue surrounding his death. Schaufelberger's message, vitally important to the security of our country, went unreported.

In an August 30, 1983, Washington Post article, General Maxwell Taylor, U.S. Army Retired, stated in no uncertain terms that overpopulation is a serious threat to the security of the United States. Consider the following excerpts:

QuoteIrked by the charge of over-concentration on military aid. President Reagan of late has been demonstrating a greater interest in political, economic, and social conditions in El Salvador, which, unimproved, will tend to nullify the accomplishments of the military programs....

These nonmilitary obstacles to American policy have been often discussed by the press in recent months. However, in the heated debate over the merits or demerits of this policy, I have never heard mention of the existence of a seminal cause that is responsible, wholly or in part, for most of the difficulties being encountered by our officials. I refer to the overlooked factor: excess population and its consequences.

Since the warning of Malthus some two centuries ago, demographers, sociologists, ecologists, and thoughtful generalists have speculated as to the likely consequences of overpopulations and their future effects on the ecology, human society, national governments, and their interrelations in peace and war. Unfortunately, their conclusions over the centuries have had no visible effect on the present-day politicians, diplomats, and policy-makers in Washington responsible for our policy in Central America. So it is worth the time to consider how population growth may affect the policy they have adopted.

...Their hopelessness may be expected to express itself in domestic turbulence, frequent overthrows of government, and expanded migration to greener pastures beyond national boundaries....

The hard fact is that unchecked population growth alone creates problems so difficult and so costly to solve that the United States can never afford to take so ambitious a target. It is not merely that the regeneration of Central America is beyond any sum Congress is likely to appropriate for the purpose. We must remember that concurrently these same conditions that frustrate us in Central America today are present in virtually every other country in Latin America, many of which, like Mexico, Venezuela, and Brazil, are far more important to our national interests than Central America.

This list could be lengthened by adding countries in Asia and Africa which, because of their importance as trading partners, lessors of military bases, or formal allies, also deserve a higher national interest rating than Central America. Such funds as we have for foreign aid, if allocated with due priority, will be exhausted long before the basic needs of Central America can be met....

Such an appraisal should lead them to limit our objectives in Central America to something relatively modest, such as the restoration of order in war areas, an end to identified communist troublemaking, and the first steps of a realistic social-economic program in which aid for family planning would be a lead item.

Finally, we might hope that these future policy-makers would henceforth recognize overpopulation as a perennial enemy of our national interests throughout the underdeveloped world and consider it in their global planning.

Both unchecked population growth and illegal immigration threaten U.S. security. Former CIA Director William Colby, a Catholic, stated in 1978: "The most obvious threat to the United States is that there are 60 million Mexicans and there are going to be 120 million of them by the end of the century." Gordon J. MacDonald, retired deputy chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, recently stated, "Based on my experience in the Border Patrol, I must tell you that this tidal wave of illegal aliens poses the most serious long-term threat to the survival of the United States."

George Fauriol concluded his December 1983 monograph on illegal immigration with the following paragraph:

QuoteThe national security of this nation depends upon its domestic strength and international stability. This strength requires an ability to control national borders, the maintenance of an independent foreign policy, a prosperous economy, and a cohesive domestic politic environment. As this essay has attempted to outline, uncontrolled migration is undermining this strength. Unchecked immigration, whatever its impact on labor and wage rates, does not just affect the unskilled and marginal job market. Its impact, because of its sheer numbers and because of its illegality, affects the very fabric of American society, U.S. national security, cultural, political, and linguistic unity, economic well-being, and international standing.

It is undeniable that the thwarting of both population growth control and illegal immigration control by the Vatican seriously threatens the security of the United States. It is likewise undeniable that Americans and others who assist the Vatican in these activities seriously threaten the security of the United States.

The article was too long in its entirety to completely quote here. I will likely post it in its entirety in perhaps a couple of consecutive posts for any interested in the SDA topics under Roman Politics.

Quote from: Amo on Wed Oct 28, 2026 - 08:21:47The article was too long in its entirety to completely quote here.

If Christians bother you this much, isn't that a clue for you?

Quote from: The Barbarian on Wed Oct 28, 2026 - 10:23:24If Christians bother you this much, isn't that a clue for you?

Christians don't bother me, as I am one myself, though I do bother myself quite frequently. Christians that want to force their beliefs and practices on others, are of course a bother to non Christians, and Christians who do not believe doing so has anything to do with what our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ taught and exemplified alike.

Professed Christians who seek to do so through the political manipulations practiced by the evil one and his minions of this world, are treading upon dangerous ground. Involved in a mission our Lord never sent them upon, while employing the methods of the evil one Himself, might over right. Any professed Christians or not, who attempt to interfere with the God given rights of every human being to choose for themselves who or what they will worship if anything at all, are assuming prerogatives which antichrist and his minions alone would claim or exercise.

Our Lord proved that He would rather die by our hands, than force any of us to worship and follow him. Those who would or will presume to walk upon this forbidden ground, have set themselves up above the most obvious intents of God Himself. It will not end well for them.

Quote

The Declaration of Independence
 
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.........................................................

Nevertheless, I mainly posted the quoted article for what it says about immigration, the Popes and Vatican, and their ties to many politicians in our government. The rest is just bonus material concerning their involvement in much more than just the immigration
policies of this nation.

Quote from: Amo on Wed Oct 28, 2026 - 13:51:09Christians don't bother me, as I am one myself, though I do bother myself quite frequently. Christians that want to force their beliefs and practices on others, are of course a bother to non Christians, and Christians who do not believe doing so has anything to do with what our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ taught and exemplified alike.

Like forcing public schools to put up the Ten Commandments, but not material from other faiths?    We can agree that people who want that kind of government-enforced religion are not serving God.  And they certainly aren't very good Christians.

To those who fear church interference in politics, the pope affirmed, "It is a service not marked by imposition."

He repeated what he said in his recent encyclical, "Magnifica Humanitas": "When the church addresses anything concerning public life, she does so while respecting the proper mission of institutions and the legitimate responsibility of those who have received the mandate to legislate."

The church, he said, recognizes "the autonomy of earthly realities" and "the distinction between the ecclesial community and the political community."

For the United States, this means he affirms the separation of church and state and rejects Christian nationalism.
https://religionnews.com/2026/06/09/pope-leo-reveals-his-political-theology-in-spain/

Good to know that you and the Catholic Church are on the same page.