Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Obama, Bishops And Child-Trafficking

My colleague at Les Femmes has noticed that this massive immigration of children from locales south has all the stench of child-trafficking.  Oh, many nefarious purposes can be served with this sudden influx of immigrants:
  • Michael Voris pointed out that the Texas political landscape could be drastically altered
  • This is a perfect implementation of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
  • The bishops think they might increase their numbers in the churches, although these immigrants have historically become secularized in the US.
On Saturday, I proposed the possibility that the bishops who accepted grants from the government to facilitate the massive immigration are now complicit in child-trafficking.  Perhaps it wasn't their intention but they cannot now ignore what is transpiring before their very eyes.  Because it is quite possible that they are blind to the child-trafficking because of the grants, I'll call the grants what they most likely are - bribes.

The bodies of small children have been found on the shores of the Rio Grande after drowing therein.  We also hear that parents of girls about to be shipped here give their daughters contraceptives - in case they're raped on their way to the US.  What kind of parents, or government would expose their children to that risk of violence?  What kind of bishop is complicit and silent in the face of the kind of travesty to which Mexico and the Central American countries are inflicting upon their own children?  A bribed bishop?  Readers, if any of you think that's impossible, please explain your reasoning.

Another blogging colleague at Connecticut Catholic Corner has this to say about the Pope's remarks on illegal immigration.  Spot on.


  1. Accepting government money to care for children who are already inside the country doesn't make the bishops complicit in child trafficking. How would the bishops answer to Christ if they refuse to accept funds that will help care for the children. What good would come of refusing funds? As long as the government isn't tying the acceptance of funds to actions that go against Catholic doctrine, there is no reason to reject them.

    1. But they weren't already in the country at the time. These monies were granted in anticipation of a massive influx that has resulted in a number of deaths of kids in transit, as well as a deliberated overwhelming of US infrastructure.

    2. The Catholic Church in Texas has been ministering to illegal immigrants for years. The implication that funds granted 3 years ago were earmarked for a future known influx of immigrants is unsubstantiated. Even if it were true that the government anticipated the influx (which I doubt - there are too many uncontrollable variables - this wave of immigrants is a consequence of a number of factors occurring simultaneously), we can't assume the bishops knew about it and were willfully complicit. I see far too much conspiracy theory being promoted. It's disturbing when Catholics engage in promoting it and attempt to throw the bishops under the bus based on flimsy "evidence", i


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.