Debunking Cardinal O’Malley’s Position on Illegal Immigration

February 16, 2017

In the wake of President Donald Trump’s two recent Executive Orders to limit immigration from terror-associated countries, last week Cardinal Sean O’Malley sent a letter to parishes underscoring the church’s support for immigrants and refugees. The previous week, on Feb 2, he convened a private meeting of top politicians and Muslim lImage result for debunk
eaders
at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross to express solidarity with Muslims. BCI thinks it’s high time for Cardinal O’Malley to quit making emotional arguments and accept facts and reality.

He said, “Although many Americans are frustrated by a broken immigration system and others are fearful of the threat of terrorism…I believe that most people in this country recognize that we are a nation of immigrants and that we have an established history of assimilating people of different languages, religions, ethnicities into the magnificent mosaic that is America.”

We have a history of doing this–when the people want or wanted to adopt the core values of America, which was founded as a Christian nation. What should be done for immigrants whose intentions are evil?  Cardinal O’Malley implies we should just let them all in anyway.  He needs to look at the facts.

  • According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 72 terrorists have come to the U.S. from the countries covered in the Trump travel ban since 9/11.
  • In 2016, the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born
  • 2,996 Americans were killed by Radical Islamists in the 9/11 attacks.
  • Since 9/11, an additional 145 Americans have been killed in 50 separate acts of deadly Islamic terror or Islam-related honor killing in the United States.  They are described in detail in this article and inventoried in this article.  Hundreds of mass murder plots have been thwarted or botched.
  • Illegal immigrants pose a danger on the roads: About 4.5 million illegal aliens in the U.S. drive on a regular basis, many without licenses or insurance or even the ability to read road signs written in English, The New York Times reported. In Arizona, 63 percent of cited drivers have no license, no insurance, and no registration for the vehicle, and 97 percent of them are illegal aliens. According to this article, of the 188,380 deportations of illegal aliens in one recent year, 23 percent had committed criminal traffic offenses, primarily driving under the influence. Rep. Steve King of Iowa has estimated that illegal alien drunk drivers kill 13 Americans every day.
  • Many immigrants entering the country illegally have a criminal record in the U.S.: In 2010, the Border Patrol reported that 212,000 illegals were caught in the Tucson, Ariz., sector alone, and as many as 30 percent of them already had a criminal record in the U.S.
  • Many illegal alien convicts have been arrested multiple times: A Government Accountability Office study of 55,000 illegal aliens found that they were arrested at least 459,614 times, averaging about eight arrests per alien. About one-quarter of them had 11 or more arrests.
  • In this recent piece by a former Muslim refugee, “Trump’s Immigration Ban Was Clumsy But He’s Right About Radical Islam” the author cites Pew research data in support of the ban.  “In a survey of Muslims who believe Sharia law should be official national law in their country, three-quarters of Pakistanis and almost half of Bangladeshis and Iraqis think that those, like me, who leave Islam should suffer the death penalty. More than 80 percent of Muslims in Pakistan and around two-thirds of Muslims in Bangladesh and Iraq regard Sharia law as the revealed word of God. Only tiny fractions would be comfortable if their daughters married Christians. Only a minority regards honor killings of women as “never justified.” More than a quarter of Bangladeshi Muslims, 13 percent of Pakistani Muslims and 7 percent of Iraqi Muslims think suicide bombings in defense of Islam are often or sometimes justified.

    People with views such as these pose a threat to us all, not because those who hold them will all turn to terrorism. Most will not. But such attitudes imply a readiness to turn a blind eye to the use of violence and intimidation tactics against, say, apostates and dissidents — and a clear aversion to the hard-won achievements of Western feminists and campaigners for minority rights. Admitting individuals with such views is not in the American national interest.

Pewsitter has written an open letter to the USCCB on Immigration with 5 questions for bishops who support illegal immigration, including the following:

  • Does the leader of a country have the right to prudentially limit immigration to that country?
  • If so, is it not Mr. Trump’s duty as President of the U.S. to make a prudential judgment as to what is an appropriate restriction? If, as Cardinal DiNardo and Archbishop Gomez have specifically noted, we must “screen vigilantly for infiltrators who would do us harm”, what about his order is problematic, and upon what moral reasoning?
  • Another frequently condemned item is the building of a wall on the southern border. An explanation of why such a wall is immoral would be helpful. The doors of our churches have locks, some of them have fences around them, and even part of the Vatican has walls. Jesus spoke of thieves coming in the night, and of the owner who would have taken precautions against housebreaking. Is the building of any wall on the border of any country morally wrong, or merely prudentially ill-advised?
  • During the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century, millions of immigrants came to the United States via Ellis Island. At this time, American immigration restrictions were very tight: immigrants were subjected to health inspections, questions about their beliefs, and their job prospects; some went before a board to answer more detailed questions, while others were held in detention, or quarantine. Would the bishops disagree with imposing such requirements on today’s immigrants?

Cardinal O’Malley, how would you respond to these questions and the factual data?  Just let everyone in because it feels good to be nice guys?

Advertisements

Why Catholics Should Vote for Trump

November 7, 2016

Sunday Masses across the country found most parishioners not getting any pastoral advice on how to vote with a properly formed conscience. In the Archdiocese of Boston, parishioners heard or saw a letter from the Vicar General on why we should vote “No” on the question of whether to legalize marijuana in the commonwealth, but not a peep about how to even think about the choices for major elective office, including pro-abortion politicians who could damage society for generations by appointing pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court!  Is that cowardice on the part of bishops like Cardinal O’Malley, or willful negligence?  Either explanation is BAD.

For those who have friends or family members still on the fence about whether they will vote at all, or not sure who to vote for, we are pleased to share this excellent video homily, which we think you should share with every Catholic you know.  It’s called, “Catholics Forbidden to Vote Hillary” but it also answers the important question, “Could or should Catholics Vote for Donald Trump.”  The answer is a resounding, YES!

The video runs about 13 minutes.  In case you don’t have time to watch the whole thing, here are a few excerpts:

In the last debate, this is the first time in any presidential election that there is a major candidate who aggressively insisted they would advocate abortion in most extreme circumstances.  Hillary Clinton advocates and will aggressively pursue abortion of children up to and including the time of birth–as a child is about to be born into this world, that its life can be snuffed out in the birth canal. What a monstrous position!  It is nothing short of diabolical. It is a demonic position.  And for the first time in history, we have someone who would be president arguing and insisting on this practice.

On the other hand in that same debate, in the first time in history of presidential elections in the U.S., we had a candidate who openly and aggressively insisted that he would do what he could to roll back the Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion (Roe v Wade) and he would appoint solidly pro-life candidates to the Supreme Court.

What a contrast on this single most important political issue that we face at this time!

So, can someone in good conscience, can a Catholic in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton?  Absolutely not!  There is not enough money in this world to buy my vote for her, and not enough tortures on the face of the earth to force me to vote for anyone who advocates the positions that Hillary Clinton holds fast to.

Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for Trump, or should a Catholic vote for Trump?

Mr. Alan Keyes, former ambassador and presidential candidate, took the position in a recent local debate that as a Catholic, we should all will the reign of Christ the King on earth.  I agree. In first lesson of this Mass, St. Paul tells us that our citizenship is in heaven, and we await the fullness of His kingdom. We should will — even now in Christ’s absence on earth — that the reign of Christ be found here and now on earth.  Christ’s Church should advance as the one true religion on earth.

That means that ideally our elected and appointed officials should not just tolerate the Catholic Church but do whatever in their power to support the Catholic religion. Of course, under present circumstances and even circumstances of decades past, that ideal hasn’t been possible.  Is it feasible, practical , and possible we can elect candidates who will do precisely that?  The fact is that while we have had a few candidates over the decades, we’re never had that as a President. Even the “Catholic” JFK made clear from the get-go that no one from the Catholic Church would guide his presidential decisions.

Fact is, while we want the will of Christ to the maximum, practically speaking, the reality is is we don’t have candidates who share that vision.

So, may we vote for someone who may not fully share that vision? The answer is YES, certainly!

Does Trump fall within those individuals on the ballot for whom a good Catholic in good conscience could or should cast their vote?  The answer is YES.  Answer is yes.  Can a good Catholic vote for Trump?  Yes.  Should a good Catholic vote for Trump?  Yes.

Given his stated position on protection of unborn and right to life and given the position of his main opponent, Hillary Clinton, who advocates murder of children even as they are being born, YES, Trump is a moral choice.

It is not a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. Catholic simply may not choose someone who is evil.  In this case, we have the principle of double-effect.  Trump may not be many of your 1st choice candidates, or 2nd or 3rd or 5th or 50th. But we have what we have, and there are only 2 candidates who can feasibly  win this election—Trump and Clinton.

Donald Trump is a moral choice—for what he stands for on the life of the unborn.  On other matters on which people could disagree—personal choices, personal behavior—those are covered in the double effect. We would seek to elect him, cast our vote for him, not because we support or endorse his personal flaws and failing, or even some lesser issues we might not agree with.  In casting a vote for him, the primary effect we seek is a good one: it is for the good he has promised, namely scaling back the murder of children by abortion, and it is to preclude a woman who holds a demonic position regarding unborn children from getting to the  highest office in the U.S.

Mr. Ferrara in that same discussion even went so far as to say it might be a moral imperative to vote for Donald Trump, given the alternative. He cites the comparison going back decades into the last century, when Pope Pius XII insisted, in order to slow the spread of Communism,  that Catholics given the opportunity to vote were morally obliged to vote for candidates who would oppose the spread of Godless communism, even acknowledging those candidates might be flawed and imperfect, but morally acceptable.

“The exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave responsibility…” Pope Pius XII 1946 AAS 38, 187. When there was a threat to the Church in Italy through the Communist party in 1948, Pope Pius XII said, “That in the present circumstances it is strictly obligatory for whoever has the right, man or woman, to take part in the elections. He who abstains, particularly through indolence or from cowardice, thereby commits a grave sin, a mortal offense.” AAS 40, 119

So can and should a Roman Catholic vote for Donald Trump in the upcoming election? The answer is YES.  Absolutely!  And I intend to cast my vote for him.

*       *      *      *

Two more thoughts from BCI here.  St. John Paul II said, “The promotion of the culture of life should be the highest priority in our societies…If the right to life is not defended decisively as a condition for all other rights of the person, all other references to human rights remain deceitful and illusory.” Denver Archbishop Samuel Aquila recently said, “..the direct killing of innocent human life must be opposed at all times by every follower of Jesus Christ. There are no legitimate exceptions to this teaching.”  Then there is the clear threat to religious freedom for all of us with a Clinton presidency.

Pope Pius XI in an encyclical to Mexico in 1937 said: “Thus a Catholic will take care not to pass over his right to vote when the good of the Church or of the country requires it.” Firmissimam constantiam, March 28, 1937, AAS 29, 189.

If you’re a faithful Catholic, you can’t sit this one out. You must vote for the one viable candidate, Trump, who has promised to scale back the evil of abortion and prevent the diabolical destruction promised by Clinton if she gets into office. Feel free to share this anywhere you wish.


Priest: “You might not have a church to go to if you don’t vote the right way in November”

October 27, 2016

Yes, we’re been on break for a while, and just felt like it was time to come off hiatus to weigh in on the upcoming election.  Friends and family members talking about not voting at all–or in some cases actually voting for Hillary–represent a most disturbing situation.  Here’s some food for thought from LifesiteNews

NAPLES, Florida, September 23, 2016 (LifeSiteNews)—We are at a “precarious moment in our history” when churches must speak truth to power or risk the loss of a lot more than their tax statuses, former Ave Maria Law School chaplain Father Michael Orsi said in a blistering speech at a National Day of Remembrance for Aborted Children event on September 10.

Orsi said, “For too long, pastors and churches have been bullied into believing that they can say nothing political from the pulpit,” said Orsi. The regulation that is used to silence them “was a piece of spite work” against non-profits that had opposed President Lyndon Johnson, he said.

“Let me remind you: the Bible is a political document,” the priest said. “The prophets, including John the Baptist, and Jesus, lost their lives because they spoke the truth to power.”

“The Constitution is quickly being destroyed,” warned Orsi, and “unless the right choice is made in November, we may not have a court that is fair and balanced in its interpretation of the Constitution.”

“Too many of the pastors—too many, practically all—in Germany refused to speak against national socialism,” continued Orsi. “And look [at] the result: millions of Jews, pastors, priests, homosexuals, gypsies all lost their lives because everyone was afraid. What are you afraid of, a couple of bucks? Your tax-exempt status? What’s that going to do to you? Your churches may be closed anyway, because if a certain party gets elected, this certain party said, if the churches do not agree with our interpretation of women’s reproductive rights, they’ll just have to change their doctrine.”

“If a certain party gets elected, I can assure you what kind of judges are going to be on those appeals courts,” he said. And those judges will be charged with deciding whether the government may force churches and religious institutions to pay for abortion, contraception, and abortifacient drugs, he noted.

Furthermore, “I’m not going to vote for a candidate who decides that we can redefine the meaning of marriage,” proclaimed Orsi. “Our opponents believe once they destroy the family, once they destroy the churches, they can re-create society in their own image and their own likeness. That, my friends, is not just political. That is diabolical. Get it straight, for crying out loud! The devil is in this!”

“We are in a battle for the soul of America,” he said.

“Somehow, [Christians] have come to buy the story that you cannot be political in church,” said Orsi. “Let me tell you right now, oh yes, you can, and oh, yes, you better be. Because you might not have a church to go to if you don’t vote the right way in November.”

.

 


MA Primary: Who to Vote For?

March 1, 2016

Friends and family members have all been discussing the conundrum of who to vote for today if you are a faithful Catholic, political conservative, or both.  Here are quick thoughts from BCI.

First, we assume none of our readers would vote for anyone on the Democratic ticket, so we focus on the Republican candidates.  BCI is voting for Ted Cruz.  Here is why:

Donald Trump strikes BCI as nothing but a con-man.  His Trump University was nothing but a scam, as described here, that swindled people out of thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. And in the same way he scammed people with Trump University, he is fooling people into believing he is a conservative. This excellent article from The Federalist, “I’ll take Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump” explains why Trump would be a disaster for conservatives if he is the nominee or elected president.

“If we must have an enemy at the head of government,” Hamilton said in exasperation, “let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible.”

In other words: Better to lose to a true enemy whose policies you can fight and repudiate, rather than to a false friend whose schemes will drag you down with him. This is a painful choice, but it also embraces realism while protecting the possibility of recovery in the future. The need to live to fight another day is why conservatives should adopt a Hamilton Rule if, God forbid, the choice comes down to Hillary and Trump.

Hillary Clinton Is Despicable, But Trump Is Worse

My hands almost could not type those words, because I think Hillary Clinton is one of the worst human beings in American politics. She has few principles that I can discern, other than her firm conviction that she deserves the Oval Office for enabling and then defending her sexually neurotic husband. She lies as easily as the rest of us breathe. She has compromised national security through sheer laziness at best, and corrupt intent at worst. If elected, she will enrich Wall Street and raid the public coffers while preaching hateful doctrines of identity politics to distract America’s poor and working classes.

Morally unmoored, emotionally unstable, a crony capitalist of the worst kind, Trump will be every bit as liberal as Hillary.

But Trump will be worse. Morally unmoored, emotionally unstable, a crony capitalist of the worst kind, Trump will be every bit as liberal as Hillary—perhaps more so, given his statements over the years. He is by reflex and instinct a New York Democrat whose formal party affiliation is negotiable, as is everything about him. He has little commitment to anything but himself and his “deals,” none of which will work in favor of conservatives or their priorities.

His judicial appointments will likely be liberal friends from New York. His Great Wall of Mexico will never be built, and employers will go right on hiring cheap labor and outsourcing jobs, just as Trump does with his made-in-Mexico suits. His China Smoot-Hawley Tariff will never be implemented. His administration, led by a vulgar, aging man-child who is firmly pro-abortion, who jokes about having sex with his daughter, and brags about his wealth, will hurt the poorest and most vulnerable among us—including the unborn.

Trump Will Tar Conservatives Forever

Trump, of course, will dissemble and whine about all these eventual failures. His fans will excuse him, as they do now, but they have short attention spans and will vanish in later midterm elections and future presidential contests. His white nationalist supporters, clinging to him like lice in the fur of an angry chimp, will shake their fists along with him for a time, until they too eventually slink away. By 2020, his core constituency will be a tiny sliver of what’s left of the white working class, pathetically standing at the gates of empty factories they thought Trump would re-open.

Conservatives can recover from four, or even eight, years of Hillary Clinton. We might even flourish.

More to the point, after four years of thrashing around in the Oval Office like the ignorant boor he is, voters will no longer be able distinguish between the words “Trump,” “Republican,” “conservative,” and “buffoon.” He will obliterate Republicans further down the ticket in 2016 and 2020, smear conservatism as nothing more than his own brand of narcissism, and destroy decades of hard work, including Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

Conservatives can recover from four, or even eight, years of Hillary Clinton. We might even flourish: remember, President Obama’s cult of personality—to which Trump’s mindless fan base bears more than a little resemblance—sacrificed more than 900 Democratic seats and a passel of governorships on its altar over the past seven years. President Obama won two elections and the Democratic Party lost hundreds. If Trump’s victory means this kind of “winning,” conservatives should want no part of it.

Our Long-Awaited Goal Was Right There for Us

In the end, a Trump administration will not only avert the first chance at unified Republican government in years, but will finish off the conservative movement itself. Indeed, it is a bitter irony that some of Trump’s blind followers are willing to declare defeat at the moment of impending victory, when a complete GOP takeover of all elected branches could finally overcome the obstruction of divided government. Trump’s voters are willing to “shake up the status quo”—whatever that means—by putting an ignoramus at the head of a party and a movement he’s actually trying to destroy.

So, once Trump is clearly removed from the list, we are left with Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. By many indications, Marco Rubio has betrayed conservatives. This memo by conservative icon, Phyllis Schlafly describes how, “Rubio traded shamelessly on the affection and trust conservatives had placed in him. His deceptions about his immigration bill rivaled and exceeded Obama’s claims about disastrous Obamacare.”

We are voting our conscience and going with Ted Cruz.  That is what BCI thinks.  What do you think?


%d bloggers like this: