Friday, December 9, 2016

Grace versus Government; Love versus Justice

I know I write hard stuff.  I don't always write it in the right spirit either, but even when I do it's hard stuff.  Even when I produce evidence I find that I'm accused of just personally feeling a certain way.  That is, I can give evidence that the Roman Church is totalitarian, wants to rule the world, engineers the bringing in of illegal aliens, and even with the best evidence, people, yes usually on the left, insist that I just hate Catholics.  It doesn't matter how often or clearly I say it's not about Catholics, it's about the institution, there's a mental set out there that's so fixed the information can't get through. 

The same of course with Islam.  Just as totalitarian, converted people by violence and murder, rules tyrannically.  You can quote from histories of Islam and still it's just you being somehow irrationally personally biased against Islam. 

I just encountered an enraged reaction to my complaints about illegal immigration, comparing the law that makes it illegal to Jim Crow.  It takes the breath away that an intelligent person can't tell the difference between a law for citizens and a law to keep out illegal noncitizens, an unfair law on the one hand and a necessary law on the other.  However, the same person then launched into an amazing litany of all the Marxist accusations made up against America since the sixties, so it's more of a case of the usual educational brainwashing than naivete. 

I've been thinking it's the concerted pursuit of evil for good and vice versa that is the worst thing about the time we live in;  but this is sort of a naïve version of that, and it's just as irrational and just as destructive and dangerous.  Because of such false sympathy, which I suppose is how they see it, we may soon have jihadist attacks as a regular thing in this country.  The illegal immigration problem will at least bring us down by crashing the economic system, but also by cultural incompatibility.  Another example of the naïve type is the people who are against the death penalty, somehow having no sense of the difference between innocence and criminality.  Staggering really. 

I sometimes wish I didn't think the thoughts I think, write the posts I write, because I don't see any good coming from it.  Those who already think the same way can share it but it's the people who don't who need to be reached.  I can tell myself it's the truth against the propaganda and deceitfulness of the Left, but if all it does is get them angrier and more irrational what good does it do?

There is this idea people have that Jesus wouldn't be for keeping people out of the country, that's not "love."  Same reasoning about the death penalty, it supposedly isn't showing Jesus' love to execute murderers.  I've said a lot about this recently, how it's really hate if it puts other people in danger.  There is a general concept involved though that should be spelled out:  Watchman Nee said it in answer to the people who call those who defend the head covering for women "legalistic"  -- He said we mustn't confuse God's grace with God's government.  It's a necessary and important distinction between different categories of God's working in the world, and people do confuse them all the time.  We are to cover our heads because of God's creation ordinance about the different roles of the sexes. 

Jesus' love never violates God's government.  Jesus love' did not rescind God's instruction to Noah that whoever sheds man's blood, by man must his blood be shed.  Of course the most venomous hatred is expressed against anyone who argues for God's government, while they are wrongly contending that you should be applying God's grace and love in those cases.  Another way to make the distinction is between grace and justice.  Justice doesn't become irrelevant because of God's offer of grace to sinners.  It is love to honor God's government and respect God's justice;  it is hate to dishonor them.

Some of the reversal of morality and values in this country was intentionally produced to destroy the country.  Yes, a real conspiracy.  I've posted some on the big foundations that rewrote textbooks to favor Communism and denigrate American history, which was investigated by a Congressional committee in the 50s, and is reported by Senator Dodd in an interview you can find at You Tube.  I'll have to collect all that information in another post when I can.

Deceiving America: Fake News

ot of us have known for a long time that the mainstream media are politically biased, that they whitewash their guys and their favorite political positions, and find all kinds of things wrong with their opponents.  They do it as if it's just factual news, including the occasional fact contrary to their opinion for effect.  This has been true for years and years and years.  The idea of neutral objective journalism that we used to take pride in has been gone a long long time.  And the bias is to the Left, in case anyone has any doubts.  But you'll even see misinformation claiming the press is biased to the Right.  It seems they will say anything.  And we've known it, most of us on the Right have known it.  It's depressing and demoralizing.  Where has America gone?

In this election season they pulled out all the stops to vilify Trump and give Clinton the whitewash treatment.  They put out fake polls and fake prognostics saying Trump had no chance to win.   I guess there are uncritical people who unfortunately believe such stuff.  Then what happens when they turn out to be wrong?  They double down on their attempts to deceive the public.  They accuse their opponents of putting out "fake news" when it's been their doing all along.

The alternative or independent media, such as Infowars, Drudge Report and Breitbart, were calling it like it is all along, so now the MSM has launched this attack on THEM, calling THEM "fake news."  What a scurrilous bunch.  Here's a page on the subject that Infowars just put out.

And on the excuse of "fake news" there are also rumblings about how those sites they've falsely called fake news should be shut down.  No shame about calling for outright censorship of other points of view.  Where has America gone?

It's gone to the Left, it's gone to lies and disinformation, it's gone to revisionist American history designed to discredit the nation in as many ways as possible, much of it aimed against the "evil" white man, and "Christians," making use of the weapons of Political Correctness, by calling us racists and so on; it's gone to manufactured destructive philosophies that are pushed on generations of university students, and for that matter on students at every level of American education.  Postmodernism is essentially an attack on basic morality.  The Jesuits couldn't have done a better job ....  or perhaps this IS their doing.

Talk shows like Rush Limbaugh's and some on Fox News try to keep the truth on the table, and of course they are ridiculed by the Leftists.  I'm afraid that some of us have seen it all happening but done nothing.  We haven't really known what to do.  Cry a lot I guess.  Hide from it, hope we'll wake up and find out it isn't really going on?  Some of us anyway no doubt.  One reason I make so much of the need to pray is that I don't pray enough myself. 

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Twisted "Christian love" is really hatred

In my previous post I was hoping to find a way to help the Muslim refugees that wouldn't put the nation in danger.  You can't love one neighbor while putting another in danger by that love, that would in fact be hating your neighbor.  This is of course what all the "sanctuary" churches are doing, hating Americans while "loving" illegal aliens. 

That's the Catholic churches.  Now I'm hearing that Methodist churches in Texas are turning themselves into sanctuary churches to accommodate the Muslim refugees, adding some teachings from Islamic sources to their sermons, turning their buildings over to the refugees, taking down crosses and other Christian symbols and effectively making them into mosques.  The scripture comes to mind that describes the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place."  That was first of all shown by the Protestant Reformers to refer to the Pope, who is the Antichrist who sits in the temple of the living God, the people themselves who identify as Christians.  But Islam in a Christian church fits only too well.

I suppose the Methodists think they are showing Christian love to the Muslims.   In fact this is the opposite of loving your neighbor.  It's not loving the Muslims because it keeps them in bondage to their false ideology, when they desperately need to hear the gospel of salvation by Christ.  And it is not loving your American neighbors because the ultimate aim of Islam is to convert or subjugate all nonMuslims and bring the entire world under "Allah." 

But we're seeing the reversal of Christian values all over the place these days, love for hate and hate for love, good for evil and evil for good.  Islam is an ideology that hates "infidels" even if many Muslims are peaceable at any given time.  I've read enough about Islam to know that it is a totalitarian ideology whose agenda is to rule the world.  That doesn't mean individual Muslims are pursuing that agenda, but they can become tools of their ideology in spite of themselves, by being indoctrinated in their mosques and in exclusively Muslim communities. 

So it is to me a really difficult task to figure out how to live out Christ's love to them.  I've often thought that missionaries to Muslim countries must start out with a mindset to possible martyrdom -- in fact the certainty of martyrdom -- certainly a well-developed dependence on Providence and a massive support group of prayer warriors, but first and foremost a willingness to die to get the gospel to the Muslims.  You would think that the refugee situation would make missionary work a lot easier, and I suppose it does in many ways, but not if we are obligated to bring great numbers of them into our country.

If they are already in the country then it seemed to me that churches and Christians should be sure they are not isolated in Muslim communities, have a chance to hear the gospel and receive genuine Christian love.  The idea would be to live out our Christian calling toward both Muslim and American neighbors, by reducing the threat of Islam if possible.  Christians have been responding to the refugee problem in many ways already.  Perhaps the most effective is the ministries that take Bibles to them in their refugee camps, to those who are hungry to hear it and there are many. 

Turning Christian churches into mosques, or Muslim-friendly deChristianized sanctuaries, is in fact hatred:  hatred of God, hatred of Christians, hatred of Americans, and hatred of Muslims.

Perhaps there are some Christians out there who are willing to do the self-sacrificial service I was contemplating in the previous post.   THAT would be loving Muslims.  But being a friendly resource is also a service, and a lot more feasible, as the email I received suggested. 

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

How about American churches take in Muslim refugees?

UPDATE:  Got an email from someone who has experience of Christians helping refugees in the country, but not by taking them in, and thinks that would be too much to ask.  I've posted the email at the bottom.

The idea of helping the Muslim refugees by Christians taking them into their homes came up in a forum discussion and it reminded me that some time ago I'd had a similar idea but abandoned it.  It would be a solution to the problem of bringing in people who remain strangers with an alien ideology that conflicts with American culture and is even hostile to us.  It would be a lot to ask, of course, I wasn't sure how feasible it would be, and since I couldn't do it myself it seemed wrong to push the idea on others.  But it IS a good idea if people could set themselves to do it.  And even I might be able to do it if someone helped me set up my place for it.

It could be set up through the churches, each adopting a certain number of Muslim families and individuals, and helping get them settled in the homes of congregation members who volunteer to do that.  With the whole congregation providing various kinds of support, the burden on the volunteer family would be a lot easier.  It would take a terrific commitment, you'd have to learn some of the language and customs and be able to explain things, while of course they would have to be learning English, and it could, even should, be a fairly lengthy stay. 

But isn't this a good idea if it can be worked out?  If they are to come into the country it is better that they connect as soon as possible with Americans in an intimate way, rather than be left to agencies and institutions and even wellmeaning counselors, or kept in communities of Muslims only.  Such agencies and other professional help would have to be involved too, but the important thing would be the daily interaction within the families.
UPDATE:  Got this email answering the post:
I have a friend ... who adopted a family from Syria. When they first arrived she spent time with them once a week to help them get settled in the country. This continued for quite awhile. She was a good resource and they still keep in touch. All that to say, I believe there were many Christians or churches involved in helping that group of refugees that came in
You pose having them live with a family from the church. I think that is a lot to ask anyone to do. We have had people live here over the years and it is a lot of work, both physically and mentally to have another family in the same home. You don't know these people at all and you may not even feel safe in your own home. Although many Muslims are peaceful, many actually might hate Christians. I think the idea is better to let them settle in their own home and be a support person, like my friend has done. She has shown Christian love and hospitality.

Sunday, December 4, 2016

A Sketch of Jesuitism

I mentioned in the previous post that John Adams had lamented the restoration of the Jesuits after years of being banished by the Pope and many European nations.   He uses strong language:  "a step toward darkness, cruelty, despotism [and] death. ,,. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of Ignatius de Loyola."  

Here's the whole quote, which I had to assemble from different websites that only quote part of it:
My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but it is supported by unquestionable authorities, [and] is very particular and very horrible. Their [the Jesuit Order’s] restoration [in 1814 by Pope Pius VII] is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, despotism, [and] death. … I do not like the appearance of the Jesuits. Shall we not have regular swarms of them here, in as many disguises as only a king of the gypsies can assume, dressed as painters, publishers, writers, and schoolmasters? If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of [Ignatius de] Loyola. Nevertheless, we are compelled by our system of religious toleration to offer them an asylum.
Today in America we hear only good things about the Jesuits.  If you pay attention you will find they are everywhere in positions of influence and power.  That is a rather disconcerting fact to anybody who knows anything about their history, recently acquired knowledge in my case, which I described in my post Waking Up Among Wolves.  It's a startling experience to say the least.  It's a bit of that history I want to quote here from J.A. Wylie's section on the Jesuits from his History of Protestantism.

He is writing this in 1881, when apparently the Jesuits were entering Scotland:
The influx into our country of an order of men whose principle is the negation of all principle, and whose moral code is the subversion of the moral law, forms, in the author's humble judgment, a source of no small danger to the nation. 
Cast out of all kingdoms for their execrable maxims and their treasonable practices, the Jesuits bestow themselves upon us....  They come to pursue in their new home the intrigues which drew upon them expulsion from their old... to be done to counteract the evils sure to arise from the presence of men who have always and everywhere been the disturbers of the public peace?  We can but expose their arts, and put the unwary on their guard...  
They call themselves the 'Companions of Jesus.'  The name is but 'the sheep's clothing.'  ...Their teaching is 'the doctrine of devils,' and their deeds are the work of 'Apollyon, the Destroyer.' ...  To humble and cripple our empire is a first object with the Jesuits at this hour.  'They aim... to subjugate and rule...'    
God raised up Britain and gave her greatness beyond the measure of all former empires.  For what end?  That she might subserve the interests of the Gospel, as embodied in Protestantism.  This is our first duty as a nation.  The neglect of it is our first sin, no matter what other duties we make ourselves busy about.  The laws of God's providence being what they are, we cannot retain our supremacy, or, it may be, even our existence, and neglect our great mission....
So now they've lost their supremacy, and if their Muslim population continues to grow, their existence will certainly also be threatened.  Once they come under Muslim rule, that's the end of Britain.  And the same thing is happening in Europe.  Don't they see it happening?  On the surface this doesn't suggest the machinations of the Jesuits, but a bit of knowledge of their history suggests that it would be strange if they weren't involved.  Just as the Vatican has been manipulating our southern border they have certainly been manipulating the politics of Europe toward the European Union which they expect to dominate.  And the Jesuits are their foot soldiers.  Jesuits trained Marx, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Fidel Castro, and a Jesuit probably wrote Hitler's Mein Kampf; an RC priest intentionally incited the Rwanda massacre in a series of radio broadcasts;  and the Vietnam War was called by some [Cardinal] Spellman's War, and in any case is properly understood to have been a Catholic-engineered war. [From the Publisher's Forward:  "It was all engineered by the Whore and her Jesuits."]   See any trends here? 

Resuming Wylie's The Jesuits:
The Jesuits were called into existence to stem and, if possible, roll back the tide of the Reformation.   Advancing over all opposition, this great religious revival, [the Reformation], not yet half a century old, had acquired a strength and a breadth truly amazing.  ...In a marvelously short period, the night... had been chased away, and a countless multitude of men, of cities, and of nations, were rejoicing in the light of the new day.  [At the end of its sweep through Europe, only two countries,] Italy and Spain, now remained with the Pope.
To repeat the point, the Jesuits dedicated themselves to destroying the Protestant Reformation. That's their whole reason for existence. Loyola saw his job as subjugating the entire world to the Pope after the loss of Europe to the Protestants. There is no reason to think their objective has changed. It was their aim when they made themselves advisers to the rulers of Protestant European countries and tutors to their children, and it's their aim from positions of power in America too, especially as teachers of the next generation in their universities.  They also eventually made themselves obnoxious enough to the Catholic countries to be thrown out of them. 
The Reformers went to the source of truth in the scriptures, and ...led Christianity forward into the light..; so, in like manner did the Romanists l... [disclose] to the world the blackness and deformity of Popery, and the tremendous destructive power that is wrapped up in it.  Loyola....  helped to this issue. 
In other words, Jesuitism has nothing to do with Christ or Christianity, and neither does the papacy; it's all a religion of the flesh aided by the demonic spirits, and not the Holy Spirit of God, just as is Islam and all the other religions of the world.  Over the centuries up to Loyola the Roman Church had been accumulating more and more pagan practices and superstitions and jettisoning the spiritual teachings of the Bible, torturing and murdering those who lived by the Bible instead of their man-made rules.  [This is spelled out in the book The History of Romanism.]  The Pope eventually ruled over the monarchies of the "Holy Roman Empire" of Europe.  After the Reformation the Jesuits became their agents of intrigue to destroy the "heresy" of Protestantism that had brought those monarchs out from under their rule, all in the attempt to restore the Pope over it all.  When the New World was being settled, Jesuits were sent to take the country for Rome.  The Protestants  who settled here saw their mission as preventing that from happening [this is explicitly stated in early documents].

As Adams is quoted to say above, the Jesuits are masters of all "guises," selected and trained to fit any calling known to humanity, for the purpose of furthering the power ambition of Rome while pretending to be something completely unrelated to Rome's interests.   It is a genuine conspiracy, not just somebody's "conspiracy theory."  Wylie lays out the methods of an amazing organization that is structured to place its members all over the globe, each chosen to carry out a particular mission of subversion of the people to Rome.  They excel at gaining the confidence of kings and presidents, as advisors and confessors, and as teachers of the young, and at plots to assassinate those they can't subvert.  The stories that confirm these things are in many books, in Wylie as well as others.  Today they have acquired even more trust and popularity and therefore more influence than ever. 

The Jesuits are particularly famous for their morality of defeating all morality by casuistic reasoning.  
Their Tomes contain a system of ethical and theological science such as the world never saw before, and such as it can never see surpassed or even repeated. Here are sophisms, prevarications, subtle distinguos, logical spells and incantations, pleas, justifications, and a vast variety of inventions wherewith if a man arm himself, and know to use them aright there is nothing which he may not do. He may change falsehood into truth, convert villainies into virtues, violate every precept of the Decalogue, and yet contract no guilt; commit the most abominable and monstrous deeds and yet suffer no pollution and feel no remorse; swear and yet not bind himself; in short, he can banish virtue and vice from the world....[Wylie goes on to spell out amusingly sarcastically many of their maxims, including three principal maxims that are too lengthy for me to copy and too complicated for me to paraphrase easily:  "The ends justify the means" is the first, followed by "Probabilism"  in which the "probability" that an action is moral or not is parsed out to absurdity until it is rendered acceptable no matter how clearly it violates commonsense morality;  and "Intention" by which any evil act may be made morally acceptable by simply directing one's intention elsewhere while performing the act.   You can commit murder with a clear conscience by simply meditating on something holy while committing the act. Or something like that.]
 Wylie gives examples of their reasoning as it is used to completely undermine each of the Ten Commandments and justify its exact opposite.
As regards the doctrine of sin, the Jesuits, while retaining the word, have taken away the thing.... As regards calumny [lying slander] a wide margin indeed is allowed.
[quoting from Jesuit writing] It was maintained in the public Theses of Levain, in 1645, that 'it is only a venial sin to calumniate and impose false crimes, to ruin their credit who speak ill of us.' 'That it is not any mortal sin to calumniate falsely, to preserve one's honor, is no doubt a probable opinion' says Caramuel, 'for it is maintained by above twenty grave doctors, by Gaspar Hutrado, &c., so that, if this doctrine be not probable there is hardly such in all the body of divinity.'
As regards promises, the Jesuit teaching provides that one may keep or break them as one has a mind.
'Promises oblige not,' says Molina, 'when a man hathg no intention to engage himself when he makes them ....
Sanchez has taught a doctrine which must administer great relief to all prevaricators.
It is permitted to use ambiguous terms, leading people to understand them in another sense from that in which we understand them ourselves.
...It is hard to say what limits the Fathers have put on homicide, murder, and assassination, or whether they have put any.
...By the universal consent of the casuists, it is lawful to kill our calumniator, if there be no other way of averting the affront.["Again"] ...Priests and monks may lawfully prevent those who would injure them by calumnies from carrying their ill design into effect, by putting them to death
Then there is a section on justifying killing "heretical" kings while claiming to abhor regicide.

Perhaps that is enough to give a general portrait of the character and mission of the "Society of Jesus." Oh, that reminds me, despite their name, it is Mary, not Jesus, they particularly honor.

Has some features in common with Islam, doesn't it?  The right to lie to "infidels" for instance, and the right to break treaties with "infidels," although they don't hedge these about with such complex rationalizations as the Jesuits do theirs.

Friday, December 2, 2016

Attention, President-Elect Trump: The Bill for Building the Wall Should be Sent to the Vatican

Here's an interview with an ex-CIA agent objecting to Trump's plan to curtail illegal immigration, on the ground that this would be keeping out members of the world's greatest monotheism, by which of course he means Roman Catholics.  Which the CIA would of course object to because they are basically a Roman Catholic organization, an arm of the Vatican.  Bet you didn't know that.

There's a book you can get that describes how the Roman Church interferes with and actively promotes the movement of millions of illegal aliens into the US:  American Democracy and the Vatican:  Population Growth and National Security, by Stephen D. Mumford which discusses many facets of population growth* but also the effect of illegal immigration in America.   It's an old book, published in 1984, already talking about the effects of massive illegal immigration that can only escalate if it is not stopped, so how far into it are we now?  The book is available at various places on the web, even free at Mumford's site.  Read Chapter 2 about how the Catholic Church is the main obstacle to doing anything about illegal immigration. 

Not just interfering with preventing it, "the Catholic Church actively encourages illegal Mexican immigration."  

It's tempting to copy out the entire chapter. Well, I'll copy some of it. Remember, this was written in 1984.
Our government is addressing itself to dealing effectively with this problem of illegal immigration ... those efforts are systematically negated by the posture of the Roman Catholic Church leadership, which has organized opposition to an adequate response to halt the invasion of illegal aliens. If the [RCC] were to withdraw from this political arena, most remaining opposition would be vitiated. During Pope John Paul II's visit to the United States in Octore 1979 he campaigned for the right of illegal aliens to migrate at will to the United States. He made his stand on this issue clear to American politicians and labor unions, the American Catholic hierarchy, the news media, and other sectors. It is estimated that over 90 percent of all illegal aliens coming into the United States are Roman Catholics. The [RCC] dpes mpt recognize national boundaries and national sovereignty. There is but one world -- a Catholic world -- and it has no boundaries.
The move to globalization we've been witnessing for the last few decades is a movement to tear down all borders. This is what the EU has been doing in the project to turn Europe into a Muslim enclave. The Left is the loudest advocate of tearing down borders, and the Left that propagandizes in favor of illegal immigration in the US and against Donald Trump's promise to erect a wall. But behind it all is the Vatican. The One World Religion Bible believers expect to emerge with the global government will most surely be headed by the Vatican. The prophesied Antichrist himself is very likelyt to be a Pope. It's amazing how this view of the Pope as Antichrist which was the conclusion of all the Protestant reformers has been suppressed over the last few centuries.  (The Pope may find a Muslim Europe hard to control in the end but for now the idea is to destroy it, and I'm sure they think they have some kind of deal worked out anyway.)

Also the underhanded work of the Catholic order of the Jesuits, which used to be hated and frequently expelled from European nations. Our second President John Adams wrote about the danger he saw coming when the Jesuits were again allowed to move freely. We've lost all this knowledge. Anyway, back to the chapter: (By the way I've been substituting [RCC} for the word Church because it's not a church, it's a monolithic totalitarian Antichristian political ideology that aims to rule to the world. No, rank and file Catholics know nothing of this and may even oppose much of the RCC's political activity. They need to wake up and join the fight against the papal monstrosity.)
The [RCC] created and maintains a nationwide network of centers devoted to locating and assisting illegal aliens to circumvent the immigration laws of the land. These centers have been described in widely distributed pamphlets and have been advertised on Spanish language radio stations. In one such spot an announcement aired on a station in our nation's capital, our former director of the Imkmigration and Naturalization Service urged illegal aliens to use these centers. One lengthy handbook in Spanish, El Otro Lado, a guide for illegal aliens states that assistance can be obtained from a church in any Catholic diocese, thus suggesting that all Catholic churches participate in the network.
The handbook also directs them to taxpayer-funded free Legal Aid for help in fighting deportation. The author of the book says that it's a felony to aid or harbor an illegal alien. Is this still the law or has our indefatigable anti-American Jesuit-run Left removed it? The book makes it clear that American Catholics for the most part oppose illegal immigration as hazardous to the economy. The chapter goes on detailing the many ways the Vatican manipulates American politics to promote illegal immigration and interfere with efforts to curtail it. The book is generally about the RCC's refusal to support any kind of population-limiting efforts across the world. This is of course doctrine-based but the goal is to flood the world with Catholics so that the Vatican can rule the world, as it once did the "Holy Roman Empire." I wish more people would become aware of the information that's out there about the subversive work of the Vatican against all nations, and especially the work of the Jesuits.  The information tends to be old because such information has been suppressed since early in the 20th century, but it's possible to find quite a bit of it.  I've listed many books on the subject in the right hand margin of my Catholicism blog.

Hillary chose a Jesuit for her Vice President, and much was made of his Jesuit training as something to be proud of. The Jesuits used to be known for their assassinations and manipulations of European kings, and especially for their twisting of morality to justify anything they want to do. Blaise Pascal wrote a satire of this characteristic. There is no doubt they are promoting such thinking in the schools where they teach. Bill Clinton was taught by Jesuits at Jesuit Georgetown University. They have the reputation for providing an excellent education. They also provide the undermining of morality -- "the ends justify the means" is big with them, as it is in the Rules for Radicals  concocted by Saul Alinsky, Hillary's mentor. All Machiavellian methods of acquiring power. They have no respect for free speech or anything American, they just want to run it all for their own purposes.

So, Mr. Trump, it's the Vatican you should send the bill to for the wall you are going to build. The Mexican President too, but primarily the Vatican.

* The book strongly endorses abortion as a necessary means to population control, and of course I oppose abortion as murder.  Other means of birth control have to be emphasized.  However, the Vatican opposes all of the effective ones, and it tends to be Protestants who use birth control methods and Catholics and Muslims who don't, so their populations are going to increase while Protestants decrease.  There are lots of problems involved in this, obviously.