Image taken from rock star Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ tweet depicting, apparently, Central American migrants as Joseph and his family fleeing to Egypt to escape the murderous King Herod.
“It is repugnant to me and astonishing to me that during Christmas…a time in which we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, a Jesus Christ who had to flee for his life with Mary and Joseph…Thank God there wasn’t a wall that stopped him [Jesus] from seeking refuge in Egypt. Thank God that wall wasn’t there, and thank God there wasn’t an administration like this or he would too have perished.”
– Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D, Ill.)
Would it be too much to ask to get through the Christmas season without some SJW lecturing me, and in the most strident terms, about my supposed Christian duty to welcome with open arms every single migrant who wants to come to the US for whatever reason? As the above quote from the Rep Gutierrez makes quite clear, yes it is.
The occasion for Rep. Gutierrez’ charming rant was a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee where Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was giving testimony. Gutierrez’ was in rare form in this hearing, calling Nielsen a “liar” and then proceeding to get up and walk out in high dudgeon during Nielsen’s response. If you have a strong stomach, you can watch Gutierrez’ whole sorry performance here.
On Christmas day, incoming Democratic Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posted a tweet depicting, apparently, central American migrants as Joseph and his family fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod. In her tweet she wrote, “True love is radical because it requires us to see ourselves in all people. Otherwise, it isn’t love. Love is revolutionary because it has us treat ALL people as we would ourselves – not because we are charitable, but because we are one. That is love’s radical conclusion.”
The Hill also notes that on Christmas, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, “Merry Christmas everyone – here’s to a holiday filled with happiness, family, and love for all people. (Including refugee babies in mangers + their parents.).”
But wait, there’s more.
Employing the rhetoric of Rome, this nominally Protestant congregation in Oklahoma recently gained nation attention with its display of a nativity scene surrounded by a chain link fence.
“Oklahoma Church Erects Fence Around Nativity scene to Protest Trump Border Policies” ran the New York Times headline from 12/21. A quick glance at the church’s Facebook page reveals a header that reads, “Love One Another. Every.Single.Other.” On the same page is the picture above
In another incident, St. Susanna Parish in Dedham, Mass. displayed a statue of the baby Jesus in a cage with three wise men gazing at him behind a barrier. The parish priest, Stephen Josoma, is quoted as saying, “Jesus was about taking care of one another. This is not the way to take care of one another.”
In case you were wondering, we’re not done yet.
Christ Church Cathedral in Indianapolis got in on the Christmas in July act this year when it set up a nativity scene behind a chain-link fence in protest of the Trump Administration’s migrant policies. According to an article in the Indianapolis Star, the cathedral’s dean and rector, the Rev. Stephen Carlsen, defended the unusual set up by saying, “I know what the Bible said, we’re supposed to love our neighbors as ourselves.”
“All you need is love,” sang the Beatles, and, it would seem, this group of politicians and theologians has taken them to heart. Their case can seem pretty daunting, too. After all, the Bible does command Christians to love their neighbors as themselves. How is that compatible with migrant detention centers and border walls? Are Christians who advocate border security, especially those deplorable types in flyover country, sinning when they seek to limit immigration in its various forms?
The short answer to that question is no, they are not sinning when they reject the unbiblical impositions laid upon them by confused clergymen and perplexed politicians. Let’s take a look at some of the fallacies in their thinking exhibited in the stories above.
The Flight to Egypt, When Did it Occur?
One very basic theological error on display in several of the quotes above is the linking of the flight to Egypt to the Bible’s account of Christ’s birth.
Although Scripture does not give a precise timeline, Matthew’s account suggests that the Magi’s’ arrival did not occur until some period, possibly as long as two years, after Jesus’ birth. One clue is Herod’s dreadful decree to put to death all the male children in Bethlehem two years old and under, “according to the time which he had determined from the wise men.”
This may surprise many people, accustomed as we are to take our ideas about the birth of Christ from Romanist inspired nativity scenes rather than from the Bible.
Properly speaking, the flight to Egypt is not part of the account of Jesus’ birth, and invoking it at Christmas is an error.
The logo for the US Conference of Catholic Bishop’s Migration & refugee Services organization links the group to the 1952 Apostolic Constitution Exsul Familia Nazarathana, which argued that the Joseph and his family’s flight to Egypt was the model for all migrants everywhere. If nothing else, Rome is systematic in its error.
Where Do They Get the Idea That Today’s Migrants Are Just Like Jesus?
One of the commonest bits of Romanist immigration propaganda is their attempt to link the flight to Egypt of Joseph and his family as recorded in Matthew 2 to the migrant crisis of today.
This linkage between modern migrants and the flight to Egypt can be traced back to a 1952 Apostolic Constitution by Pope Pius XII (aka Hitler’s Pope) titled Exsul Familia Nazarathana (the Émigré Family of Nazareth, hereafter, EFN), the first words of which are, “The émigré Holy Family of Nazareth, fleeing into Egypt, is the archetype of every refugee family. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, living in exile in Egypt to escape the fury of an evil king, are, for all times and all places, the models and protectors of every migrant, alien and refugee of whatever kind who, whether compelled by fear of persecution or by want, is forced to leave his native land, his beloved parents and relatives, his close friends, and to seek a foreign soil.”
I’ve written extensively about EFN in this space and do not intend to repeat a full treatment of this evil document here. For the moment, suffice it to say that the current day trend of associating migrants with Jesus family – as, for example, Ocasio-Cortez did in her tweet mentioned above – represents the propagation of Romanist immigration propaganda.
Neither Ocasio-Cortez nor Luis Gutierrez came up with this idea on their own. Rather, they are simply regurgitating the false teaching of the papal Antichrist.
Why Is It Wrong to Compare the Flight to Egypt to Today’s Migrants?
Rome’s assertion that the flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt “is the archetype of every refugee family…for all times and all places” has a certain surface plausibility, but closer examination reveals several problems.
First, at the time of Christ’s birth, both Judea and Egypt were part of the Roman Empire, so the flight to Egypt was not really the equivalent of crossing international boundaries as current migrants are doing.
Second, the scale of the migration is very different. Three persons moving from Judea or Galilee is not the equivalent of the massive numbers of today’s migrants attempting to move to Europe and the United States.
In order to compare apples to apples, one would need to look for an example of a mass exodus in Scripture. Interestingly, there is an excellent example of a mass exodus in the Bible, found, oddly enough, in the Book of Exodus. As we shall see below, there’s at least one good reason why Rome does not appeal to this passage.
Third, the Bible is silent on how Jesus’ family was supported while in Egypt. Historically, there was a large Jewish population in Egypt. Perhaps Joseph found work among his countrymen there that allowed him to support his family. Maybe they lived on the charity of others, or possibly God made some sort of miraculous intervention to take care of them.
What we can say for certain is that they did not go on the public dole, for that would have been theft.
But one little mentioned implication of Rome’s migration policies so dutifully spread by Romanists such as Gutierrez and Ocasio-Cortez and foolish Protestants such as the ministers quoted above, is the massive implied welfare costs to the citizens of the receiving nations.
In a rare moment of candor, Giulivo Tessarolo, the editor of Rome’s commentary on EFN, admitted that, “due to enormous financial implications, the phenomenon of emigration will find some relief only in the English-speaking countries.”
Even The Atlantic, a liberal publication inclined to favor the Ocasio-Cortez’ socialism, noted that her, “agenda is riven with contradictions.” One example of these contradictions cited by The Atlantic was her call for more permissive immigration policies while at the same time calling for expanded welfare benefits such as Medicare for all (no exception for migrants, regardless of immigration status) a universal guaranteed income (no exception for non-citizens) and tuition free higher education (again, no exception for non-citizens). As The Atlantic notes, these policies would have, “the cumulative effect of sharply increasing redistribution from the native-born nonpoor to low-income immigrant-headed households.”
It’s hard to see how such a policy could do anything but hasten the financial and social collapse of the United States. But while The Atlantic sees this as a contradiction, perhaps there’s another, darker way to interpret her policy prescriptions. Just maybe collapsing the system is the whole point. Perhaps the intent is to destroy what’s left of capitalism and freedom in America, and use the collapse to convince people that they’d be better off under a benevolent, socialist world government.
What’s Wrong With Globalism?
As John Robbins wryly commented somewhere, it seems that about the only thing many Protestants are protesting these days is Biblical Christianity. It’s bad enough to hear immigration rubbish from Romanists, I would expect no less from them. But to hear Protestants echoing their nonsense is, if not surprising these days, certainly disturbing.
In Genesis 11, the Lord confused the language of the men building the Tower of Babel, scattering them over the face of whole Earth. In his address on Mars Hill, Paul noted that the purpose behind this was, “so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him.”
God approves of nations, for it was he who created them. Now a nation in the Bible is not necessarily a nation-state in the modern sense of the term. A nation, (Greek ethnos) can be a term for what today we might call a people group. These people groups may or may not be expressed in political terms by a national government, but they are distinct groups having their own customs.
The modern international political order is called the Westphalian World Order (WWO), a system which resulted from the Protestant / Catholic conflict known as The Thirty Years’ War. The WWO is simply the application of the principles of the Bible to international relations. In effect, the WWO says that each nation-state has the right to run its affairs as the people see fit, while staying out of the business of other nation-states. Most people would call this common sense. Few understand that it took the Reformation and an enormous war to make it happen.
If the WWO is the geopolitical expression of Christianity, New World Order (NWO) globalism is the geopolitical expression of Satan’s masterpiece, the Babylonian Harlot, aka the Roman Catholic Church.
As one would expect, the Babylonian Harlot is hard at work rebuilding a globalist Tower of Babel and using mass, taxpayer subsidized immigration, migration and refugee resettlement as a battering ram to break nation-states and fold them into its planned Satanic system of world government.
Does the Bible Call Christians to Oppose All Immigration?
The short answer is no, the Bible does not prohibit immigration nor does it call Christians to oppose all immigration, refugee resettlement and migration.
That said, the Bible does oppose the sort of weaponized, welfare supported immigration, migration and refugee resettlement pushed by Antichrist and other globalists.
Infinite Claims Versus Unlimited Obligations
One of the curiosities of the way immigration issues are discussed is that there is a premise, usually not explicitly stated, but strongly implied, that immigrants, migrants and refugees have an unlimited claim on the goods of the citizens of the host nations, while the citizens have an unlimited obligation to meet those claims.
This wicked assumption really gets to the heart of the massive ethical failing of the immigration stance of the Roman Church-State: It is based on theft.
To quote John Robbins, “Giving is the voluntary transfer of property title by one party to another, without receiving title to other property in return. (That is why government charity is a contradiction in terms: Government forces taxpayers to fund the welfare programs. There is no voluntary transfer of property titles.) If one receives title to property in return, one has traded; one has not donated. (If one takes property from the person who possesses title to it without his consent, one is stealing) (Biblical Principles of Giving, 2004).
Rome justifies this theft using an unbiblical principle called the Universal Destination of Goods (UDG). The UDG states that need is the ultimate and only moral title to property. If a man has more than what he needs (who determines what one needs is an interesting question), it’s right and just for the man who lacks what he needs (again, who determines this?) to take from the one who has the surplus goods. Think of it as Rome’s version of the famous Marxist dictum, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
So if someone from Honduras “needs” a better job, a nicer place to live or medical care that he can’t get in his native country, it’s okay for him to sneak into the US illegally and take these things. Further, the citizens of the US have no moral basis to object to his actions as the illegal alien was only taking what he needed from those who already have more than they need.
This monstrous notion rests on Rome’s erroneous teaching that, originally, the Earth was given in common to all men. Those who have more than what they need have taken more from the common property of mankind than they are entitled to, so it’s right and just for those who lack what they need (again, subjectively determined) to take it back from those who have a surplus.
The Biblical doctrine of property teaches that the ownership of all the Earth was given by God to Adam, who then passed his property to his children as he saw fit and so on and so forth down to the present day. In other words, the economic system present from the dawn of creation was capitalism (the private ownership of the means of production) not communism as Antichrist falsely teaches.
As Christians, How Are We to Fight?
In Paul’s famous metaphor in Ephesians chapter 6, the apostle lists out the Christian’s armament. Paul notes a number of defensive weapons – the breastplate of righteousness and the shield of faith, for example – but he notes only one offensive weapon: “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”
If Christians are to have any hope of stopping the mouths of the dupes of the Antichrist Roman Church-State such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Luis Gutierrez and Stephen Carlsen, they must fight as Christians. That is to say, they first must believe the Word of God, the 66 books of the Bible. Second, they must have the wisdom and the courage to apply it properly, so that they refute Rome’s nonsense.
But what does this look like? One of the best models for the unflinching application of the Bible to a contemporary political situation is John Knox’s First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, published in edited form by the Trinity Foundation as The Place of Women.
Knox’s essay is easily is one of the most politically incorrect works ever written. That’s true in our day, immersed as it is in the unbiblical philosophy of feminism, but it was also true in Knox’s time as well. He easily could have lost his life for what he wrote, even though, and perhaps especially because, he articulated an unpopular truth.
In our own day, John Robbins wrote numerous essays that applied the teaching of Scripture to vexing political and economic issues to devastating effect. To get a sense of his work, read, for example, Conservatism: An Autopsy, The Ethics and Economics of Health Care,Truth and Foreign Policy, and
The Religious Wars of the 21st Century.
Closing Thoughts
The cure, as someone once noted, must go at least as deep as the disease. At this stage in its history, the rot in the social fabric of the once Christian West has gone so deep as to be, perhaps fatal.
God alone knows if he intends to save us from the gathering night of civilizational collapse. But whether he intends a new Reformation for us or a shocking decline and fall, it is the duty of all Christians, be they in the West or anywhere else, to consistently, accurately and boldly apply the Word of God to all of life, including the disciples of economics and politics.
But back to the idea of the cure needing to go at least as deep as the disease, for far too long Rome’s bogus teachings about immigration have gone unchallenged. They are consistently presented to the world by Romanists, wanna-be Romanists, and those ignorant of their source, as Christian, when, in fact, they are anything but.
It is high time for Christians to apply themselves to the good work of using the Scriptures, what Paul called the weapons of our warfare, to pull down Rome’s lying intellectual strongholds, including its destructive myths about mass migration, immigration and refugee resettlement.
As Christians, this is our call. This is our duty. Quit ye like men. Be strong.
Lux Lucet 
Leave a Reply