Posts Tagged ‘Immigration’
Radio Lux Lucet, Ep. 22: The Migrant Caravan is Here
Posted in Radio Lux Lucet, Uncategorized, tagged Immigration, Radio Lux Lucet on December 9, 2018| Leave a Comment »
Mexico, Mass Migration and the Example of Moses Part 8: The Caravan Cometh
Posted in Immigration, Roman Catholicism, tagged Antichrist, Exsul Familia, Immigration, Mexico Mass Migration and the Example of Moses, Politics, Pope Francis, Roman Catholic Social Teaching, Roman Church-State, Rome and Immigration, Strangers No Longer, Universal Destination of Goods, Westphalian World Order on October 21, 2018| 2 Comments »

While a candidate, Mexican president elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) promised to defend the right of everyone in the world to migrate to the United States. The migrant caravan making its way through Mexico appears to be a down payment on that promise…and AMLO hasn’t even taken office!
The pope, more than anybody else, has driven the migrant crisis in Europe…The Catholic Church is one of the worst instigators of this open borders policy.
– Steve Bannon, Former White House Strategist, June 2018
We interrupt this program…
When thinking about what to write for this week’s post, it was my intention to continue with my series on the 2008 financial crisis. But with the embarrassment of riches in the news just begging for a Scripturalist commentary, sometimes I find myself, as did the dog in the movie Up, saying “Squirrel!”
The squirrel, in this case, is the news of the Honduran migrant caravan slowly wending its way through Central America with the goal of arriving in El Norte. the United States.
Many commentators have speculated about the origins of the caravan. While it appears to have mysteriously sprung up almost overnight, given its size and the apparent organization, not to mention its timing near the November mid-term elections, it is difficult to believe that the caravan is a spontaneous uprising.
Among conservatives, it is fairly common to blame the United Nations and George Soros for instigating this latest attack on the United State’s southern border.
Donald Trump has tweeted that the fault lies with the Democrats and their lax approach to border security.
One financial commentator I follow has suggested, if I understand him correctly, that the migrant caravan was organized by financial interests in the federal government to give the Trump administration the excuse to borrow more money to fund the construction of the proposed southern border wall with Mexico. In the opinion of this financial commentator, the federal government must borrow cash into existence in order to pay the interest on the existing government debt. Deficit spending on the wall is one way of doing this.
While this suggestion is not as off the wall (pun intended) as it may seem, it is not my intention to explore it here today.
In fact, it’s not my intention to do a deep dive consideration of any of the popular theories about the source of the caravan’s organization and funding. It may well be that some, or even all, of the above suggestions are correct. It is not my purpose here to rule out any of them. But what I will say is that, even if they are true, none of them are adequate, for they fail to identify what is almost certainly the single most important sponsor of the caravan: The Roman Church-State.
It is the studied opinion of this author that the principal cause of the migrant crisis in Europe and in the United States, what Pope Francis has called a ‘sign of the times,’ is the Social Teaching and political activism of the Roman Church-State under the direction of its Antichrist popes.
Mexico, Mass Migration, and the Example of Moses Part 7: Rome and the Enormous Lies of Exsul Familia
Posted in Immigration, Roman Catholicism, tagged Antichrist, Economics, Immigration, Mexico, Migration, Politics, Property, Roman Catholic Social Teaching, Roman Church-State, Rome and Immigration, Universal Destination of Goods, Westphalian Sovereignty, Westphalian World Order on August 5, 2018| 5 Comments »

Mexican president elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador believes that mass migration to the United States is the right of all North Americans and all people throughout the world. Further, he promised to defend that right. So where did Lopez Obrador get such a strange idea? From the teachings of the Roman Church-State, of course.
“As much as I respect Cardinal (Timothy) Dolan and the bishops on doctrine, this is not doctrine. This is not doctrine at all. I totally respect the Pope and I totally respect the Catholic bishops and cardinals on doctrine. This is not about doctrine. This is about the sovereignty of a nation.”
These are the words spoken by former Trump administration Chief Strategist Steve Bannon in a 60 Minutes interview from September 2017.
Bannon continued, adding “And in that regard [concerning immigration]they’re [the bishops, cardinals and pope] just another guy with an opinion.
From his comments, we can gather that Steve Bannon makes a sharp distinction between the authority of the Roman Church-State on matters of doctrine, on the one hand, and its authority when it comes to immigration, on the other hand. According to Bannon, bishops, cardinals and popes speak with authority on doctrine. But in political matters, at least as far as immigration is concerned, they are confined to merely giving their opinion, which carries no more weight than that of any other Tom, Dick or Harry.
This is a fairly common opinion among Americanized Roman Catholics, particularly ones who favor limited government and free markets, but at the same time wish to be seen as remaining loyal to a Church that despises both.
But is it true that the pronouncements of the Roman Church-State on matters of immigration, migration and refugee resettlement are merely the opinions of private men?
Better yet, let’s put the question another way. Let us ask, In the eyes of the bishops, cardinals and popes of the Roman Church-State, are their pronouncements on immigration merely their private opinions, as Steve Bannon says, or are they official teachings of the Church which are binding on all?
So far in this series, we have looked at two enormous lies promulgated by Rome in the 1952 Apostolic Constitution Exsul Familia. In Part 5, we looked at how Rome’s doctrine of the universal destination of goods – the universal destination of good is Rome’s false teaching that God gave the world to men collectively; in other words, Rome teaches that communism, not private property, was the original economic order of creation – and how Rome used that false teaching to justify not only its push for the mass migration of individuals from poor nations into rich nations, but its assertion that the taxpayers of the rich receiving nations have an obligation to absorb the costs associated with this mass migration.
In Part 6, we looked at another implication of the universal destination of goods, the destruction of national sovereignty. In Exsul Familia, Pope Pius XII claims that although the sovereignty of the state must be respected, “[it] cannot be exaggerated to the point” where migrants are denied access to land within its territory. Left unstated but implied is the idea that migrants also have a claim on the host nations’ social welfare system.
This means, in effect, that no matter how much the citizens, legal residents and taxpayers of the host nation may complain to their government officials about the financial and social hardships created by mass migration, government officials have an obligation to ignore them and proceed full speed ahead with the migration program.
Who decides when enough is enough? Who is it that has the final say in whether a nation is exaggerating its sovereignty or not? The pope, of course. After all he’s the father of kings, the governor of the world and the vicar of Christ.
Today, we shall consider a third enormous lie of Exsul Familia, the megalomaniacal claim of the popes to have the right to impose their unscriptural economic and political ideas on the nations of the world.
Mexico, Mass Migration, and the Example of Moses Part 6: Rome and the Enormous Lies of Exsul Familia
Posted in Immigration, Roman Catholicism, Uncategorized, tagged Immigration, Mexico, Migration, Politics, Property, Roman Catholic Social Teaching, Roman Church-State, Rome and Immigration, Universal Destination of Goods, Westphalian Sovereignty, Westphalian World Order on July 29, 2018| 5 Comments »

Mexican president elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador believes that mass migration to the United States is the right of all North Americans and all people throughout the world. Further, he promised to defend that right. So where did Lopez Obrador get such a strange idea? From the teachings of the Roman Church-State, of course.
This week we continue our look at Exsul Familia, Pope Pius XII’s 1952 apostolic constitution which has been called “The Church’s Magna Charta for Migrants.” This exposition was inspired by the recent remarks of then Mexican presidential candidate, and now president elect of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who, during his presidential campaign, promised to defend the right of every person in North America, indeed, every person in the world, to migrate to the United States.
Lopez Obrador’s comment struck at least one writer as not only a slightly bizarre campaign promise, but an actual invasion threat toward a neighboring sovereign state.
But as strange as Lopez Obrador’s comments were, he didn’t arrive at his statements on his own. Rather, his belief that everyone has a right to migrate to the United States, regardless of the cost to American taxpayers, is one implication of the Roman Church-State’s doctrine of immigration, migration and refugee resettlement as set forth most completely in the afore mentioned apostolic constitution Exsul Familia.
Thus far, we’ve looked at what an apostolic constitution is – according to a number of Roman Catholic source, apostolic constitutions are the most authoritative of all papal documents, outranking even papal encyclicals in importance – and have begun to examine the erroneous foundational economic doctrine that undergirds all of the Roman Church-State’s claims that mass, taxpayer funded immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement are consistent with Christian teaching. That doctrine is called the universal destination of goods. The universal destination of goods holds that when God created the world, he gave it to humanity in common, that is to say, collectively. In other words, Rome believes in original communism.
But God did not give the Earth the men to men corporately. As John Robbins notes, “God, holding ultimate ownership of the Earth, gave it to men severally, not collectively. The argument for this may be found in the words of the seventeenth-century Christian thinker, Robert Filmer” (Ronald Sider – Contra Deum). Contrary to Rome, the original economic order was not communism, but private property. To put it another way, the Bible teaches original capitalism. Lord willing, I shall present a more complete case for this in a future installment. Readers who admire the work of John Robbins, as does this author, will be interested to know the basis for my argument for original capitalism is Dr. Robbins 1973 doctoral dissertation, The Political Thought of Sir Robert Filmer.
But for this week’s installment, I would like to show another implication of Rome’s evil doctrine of the universal destination of goods, tyrannical world government.
Mexico, Mass Migration, and the Example of Moses Part 5: Rome and the Enormous Lies of Exsul Familia
Posted in Immigration, Roman Catholicism, tagged Immigration, Mexico, Migration, Politics, Property, Roman Catholic Social Teaching, Rome and Immigration on July 22, 2018| 3 Comments »

Mexican president elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador believes that mass migration to the United States is the right of all North Americans and all people throughout the world. Further, he promised to defend that right. So where did Lopez Obrador get such a strange idea? From the teachings of the Roman Church-State, of course.
Last week we looked at the Roman Church-State’s theory of property and found that Rome does not look at private property the same way most Americans, even Americanized Roman Catholics, do.
If you were to ask a typical American, regardless of his religion, the basis for his claim to own an item, he’d probably say something like, “Because I paid for it.” That is to say, he believes he has rightful title to a piece of property – a bottle of water, a car or a house – because he lawfully purchased it from the previous owner. This is the correct answer, but probably not for the reason many people think.
If you were to press someone on this point, asking him why the fact that he purchased an item means he rightfully has title to it and enjoys the rights of ownership – to hold, to use, and to dispose of it – at some point you’ll probably be told it’s just common sense. But this is incorrect.
The historic American, and Western, view of private property is not the product of common sense, but of a Biblical view of economics and politics that was re-discovered at the time of the Reformation in the 16th century. In short, the Biblical theory of property is that when God created the world, he gave it to men severally, that is to say, individually. All private property can be traced back to Adam, to whom God gave the entire world as a possession. Adam passed title to this property on to his sons and so forth. This process of selling or ceding one’s property to another has continued down to today. In Scripture, private property, not collective ownership, is original. And just as the whole human race is descended from Adam, so too are all property rights. Lord willing, we’ll take a closer look at the Biblical theory of property in a future installment.
Rome, on the other hand, has a theory of property derived not from Scripture, but from the mistaken belief that when God created the world, he gave it to mankind collectively. In place of the Bibles teaching that private property is original, Rome posits an original communism. This original communism is referred to at times as the “community of goods,” or, as the popes of Rome like to call it, the Universal Destination of Goods.
Roman Catholic Social Teaching is willing to accommodate private property up to a point. For Rome, private property is a convention of what they call positive (man made) law. But when things get serious, natural law trumps positive law. And natural law means the Universal Destination of Goods.
What the Roman Church-State argues is that since the original condition of the world was the possession of all things in common, the ultimate an only moral title to property is, not that one paid for a good or service, but need.
If you have a large house, a full refrigerator, and a nice savings account, and I have none of these things but need them, then Rome argues that because all things originally belonged to all men in common, I have the right to take what I need from you. If necessary, the civil authorities can be called on to do the taking on my behalf. This is the purpose of the modern welfare state, which itself is largely the creation of the Roman Church-State, in a nutshell: To take property from those who have a surplus (at least in the eyes of the Church) and give it to those who need it.
This is not stealing, argues the Church, because, “need is the moral criterion for the rightful and lawful possession of property: Whoever needs property ought to possess it. Need makes another’s goods one’s own. Need is the ultimate and only moral title to property. Neither possession, nor creation, nor production, nor gift, nor inheritance, nor divine commandment (with the exception of Roman Church-State property) grants title to property that is immune to the prior claim of need” (Robbins, Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 32).
As we shall see below, the Church’s unbiblical notion of original communism is central to its program of promoting mass, taxpayers subsidized immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement.
Mexico, Mass Migration, and the Example of Moses Part 4: Rome and the Enormous Lies of Exsul Familia
Posted in Immigration, Roman Catholicism, Uncategorized, tagged Economics, Exsul Familia, Immigration, Migration, Refugees, Roman Catholic Economics, Roman Catholic Social Teaching, Roman Church-State, Rome and Immigration, Universal Destination of Goods on July 15, 2018| 3 Comments »

Mexican president elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador believes that mass migration to the United States is the right of all North Americans and all people throughout the world. Further, he promised to defend that right. So where did Lopez Obrador get such a strange idea? From the teachings of the Roman Church-State, of course.
Have you ever stopped to think about your property? Specifically, have you ever considered the question, By what right do I own anything?
Since this is a blog post, you’re probably reading these words on some sort of electronic device. Maybe you’re using a smart phone or a tablet or a desktop or laptop computer. So let me ask my original question to you in a little different way, By what right do you claim ownership of the electronic device you’re using to read this post?
Suppose you’re reading this post on your tablet. Perhaps you’d say to me, “I own this table, because I went to the store and bought it.”
Okay, but let’s take that back another step and ask this question, By what right did the store sell you the tablet? You may say to me, “Well, the store bought it from an electronic wholesaler.”
But then that raises a further question, Where did the wholesaler get the right to sell the tablet to the store where you bought it. “From the manufacturer or course,” you may reply.
Alright, so how did the manufacturer rightfully get the parts to assemble the tablet? “The manufacturer bought them from a supplier,” you may retort.
This is really becoming tiresome, I know. But still, I can’t help asking, Just where did the parts supplier get the materials, the silicon for example, to manufacture the integrated circuits that are essential to making your table work?
“Well, quite obviously, the parts manufacturer bought the silicon from a silicon supplier,” you would answer.
“Very well,” I’d reply, “but let me ask you this, Since the base materials for silicon metal used to make your device’s integrated circuits are gravel and items such as coke, coal and wood chips, where did the supplier of silicon get the right to use these items?”
“They bought them from gravel and coal miners and from suppliers of wood products,” would likely be you answer.
Alright already. So where did the gravel miners, the coal miners and the suppliers of wood products get the right to use the land from which they took the raw materials?
“Naturally, they bought the land from Old MacDonald, who figured he could do better by selling his land to the coal miners than spending the rest of his life raising chickens and cows and pigs.”
Okay, okay, okay. Lest this become overly wearisome for the both of us, let me ask just one last question. Where did Old MacDonald get the title to his farm in the first place?
“Well, I guess he bought it from the previous owner, maybe it was the bank or some other farmer.”
But, BUT, BUT!…No, I’m not going to go there. I promised that would be the last question, and I’ll keep my word.
I hope, though, that this somewhat annoying line of questioning has raised your curiosity about the issue of ownership. Just how is it that we can claim the right to own something? Is it even possible to rightly claim ownership, that is, the exclusive right to use and dispose of a particular good or service, or should we all be collectivists holding all things in common?
Now you may be thinking at this point, “Steve that’s all very interesting, but just what on earth does any of this have to do with your main point of refuting Exsul Familia, Rome’s position paper on immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement?
The short answer is, quite a lot. Let’s take a look at it.
Mexico, Mass Migration, and the Example of Moses, Part 3: Rome and the Enormous Lies of Exsul Familia
Posted in Economics, Immigration, Politics, tagged Antichrist, Immigration, Mexico, Roman Catholic Social Teaching, Rome and Immigration on July 8, 2018| 2 Comments »

Mexican president-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has pledged to defend the right of all migrants from the Americas and from everywhere else in the world to live in the United States at taxpayer expense. Where does he get the idea that everyone in the world has a right to migrate to the US, and the concomitant notion that US taxpayers are obligated to pay for it all? From the teaching of Rome’s Antichrist popes, of course.
Writing in his essay The Trinity Manifesto – A Program for our Time, John Robbins made the important point that, “The trouble with the professing church is not primarily in its practice, but in its theory. Christians do not know, and many do not even care to know, the doctrines of Scripture. Doctrine is intellectual, and Christians are generally anti-intellectual. Doctrine is ivory tower philosophy, and they score ivory towers. The ivory tower, however, is the control tower of a civilization. It is a fundamental, theoretical mistake of the practical men to think that they can be merely practical, for practice is always the practice of some theory. The relationship between theory and practice is the relationship between cause and effect. If a person believes correct theory, his practice will tend to be correct. The practice of contemporary Christians is immoral because it is the practice of erroneous theory. It is a major theoretical mistake of the practice men to think they can ignore the ivory towers of the philosophers and theologians as irrelevant to their lives. Every action that the practical men take is governed by the thinking that has occurred in some ivory tower – whether that tower be the British Museum, the Academy, a home in Basel, Switzerland, or a tent in Israel.”
In last week’s post I began my critique of Exsul Familia, Pope Pius XII’s 1952 apostolic constitution on migration. This week is a continuation of that post, so you may be wondering why I’ve elected to preface this week’s post with an extended quotation from John Robbins about the relationship between theory and practice. After all, Robbins said nothing about immigration this quote. Why, then, is it relevant?
It is relevant for this reson, as Robbins points out in his essay, practice is always the practice of some prior theory. Theory comes first, then practice. Always. If we begin with correct theory, our practice will tend to be correct. But if our theory is wrong, so too will be our practice.
In the first post in this series I quoted then Mexican presidential candidate, and now president elect, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) as saying he would defend the right of migrants from all the world to settle in the United States. This is an extraordinary statement and seems obviously wrong on the surface. By what possible right does the presidential candidate of a foreign country dare to claim that he will defend the rights of migrants to settle in a foreign country? What business is this of his? The short answers are, he doesn’t (have the right), and it isn’t (his business).
Nevertheless, AMLO thinks otherwise. So what is the intellectual theory behind his promise to defend the right of migrant in the world, regardless of the wishes of the American people, to move to America and to make material demands the citizens of that nation? It is my contention that, knowingly or not, AMLO is simply echoing the immigration, migration, and refugee theory of the Roman Church-State, which theory is set forth most clearly in Pope Pius XII’s apostolic constitution Exsul Familia.
As I mentioned last week, Exsul Familia is a tissue of enormous lies. Refuting the pope’s arguments in Exsul Familia necessarily means that all claims built on that document, including those of AMLO, also are refuted.
With this in mind, let us begin the task of exposing the many, enormous lies of Exsul Familia.
Radio Lux Lucet
Radio Lux Lucet
The Bible alone is the Word of God.
A Scripturalist (Clarkian) podcast about Christian theology, politics and economics.
- Follow Lux Lucet on WordPress.com
Articles of Interest
Blogroll
Intellectual Ammo
Archives
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- August 2014
- June 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
Categories
- A Christian View of Men and Things
- Abortion
- Book Review
- Creationism
- Culture
- Economics
- Feminism
- Financial Markets
- Foreign Policy
- Immigration
- Knox Seminary
- LGBT
- New Perspective/Federal Vision
- Philosophy
- Politics
- Prepper
- Radio Lux Lucet
- Roman Catholicism
- Scripturalism
- Scripturalist Short Takes
- The Reformation
- The Week In Review
- Theology
- This 'n That
- Uncategorized
- Videos