Support This Website! Shop Here!

Friday, June 08, 2007

Ann Don't Know Nothing

For years now, I have argued that the animus against Hispanic immigrants who cross the border without first asking permission from the Border Patrol was driven more by anti-Catholicism than it was by a concern about the lack of papers.

Now, Ann Coulter has taken the wraps off the facts and demonstrated that truth in spades. America is great because it is Protestant, and if it ceases to be Protestant, it will cease to be great.

Unlike Abraham Lincoln, the Republican who opposed and voted against the Mexican-American war during his tenure in Congress, unlike Ulysses S. Grant, the Republican President who said America's theft of Mexican territory was the only armed action he had ever been ashamed to be involved in, and unlike Henry David Thoreau, who wrote an entire book, Civil Disobedience, while serving jail time for refusing to pay taxes to support our illegal invasion of Mexico, Ann is fine with Protestant Manifest Destiny.

The main problem with illegal immigration isn't the illegal part, it's the Catholics.

The First Time
When President Polk declared war on Mexico in 1846, he claimed that "American troops had been shot on American soil." In fact, Mexican troops had fired on American troops that had deliberately violated disputed territory between Texas and Mexico. The Mexican province of Texas itself had been forced into rebellion by illegal American Protestant immigrants, who refused to abide by Mexican law and become Catholic, as was required of all settlers. Many of the WASPs also enjoyed holding slaves, even though this was outlawed by the Mexican constitution of 1824.

As an interesting sidenote, Sam Houston, the illustrious leader of the band of invading WASPs (the American version of killer bees), was actually on the run from his family at the time, trying to avoid having to financially support his wife and children in Tennessee. In short, he was sort of an early Bill Clinton.

When Abraham Lincoln demanded to know exactly what spot of American soil had been violated, the Democrats began an illustrious tradition: they ignored the question. Democrats supported the war because it held the opportunity of bringing in more slave states.

As a result, John Quincy Adams joined Lincoln and fourteen other Whigs in voting against the American invasion of Mexico. Though they lost the vote in the House by a wide margin, the Senate only approved the war by a single vote. The results were well-known - we successfully provoked a war and got the land we wanted.

The Second Time

Unfortunately, going to war against Catholics in order to grab Catholic territory was not a trait peculiar to Lincoln's generation of WASPs. The Spanish-American war fifty years later was nothing more than American interference in the internal affairs of Catholic Spain and her colony, Cuba, in order to gain still more land.

Journalists Joseph Pulitzer and William Hearst successfully inflamed existing Protestant opinion, that of the anti-Catholic Know-Nothing and Ku Klux Klan factions, through their stridently skewed journalism, with Hearst reportedly telling his photographers, "You supply the pictures, I'll supply the war." By the end of that war, Protestant America picked up Catholic Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.

The Third Time
But assaults against Catholics didn't stop there. Although the Spanish American War ended hostilities on August 12, 1898, with a peace treaty signed on December 10, the Catholic Philippines had already declared independence from Spain on June 12, 1898. Despite this, America had sent 11,000 occupying troops by August of the year.

We also insisted on "buying" the Philippines from Spain for $20 million in December. Then, we proceeded to start yet another war of pacification in that new Catholic territory by February 1899.

What was the provocation this time? Well, a Filipino man crossed San Juan bridge into US-occupied Manila. Not understanding English, he ignored an order to halt as he walked across, and was summarily shot by American troops. That's what those damned foreigners get for not understanding English.

President William McKinley, who had to look on a map in order to find the Philippines, would later describe the incident to reporters by saying "the insurgents had attacked Manila." A better description of the offense might be "walking while Catholic."

This war, never formally declared, limped on violently for years. As a result of the United States' inability to pacify the region, the U.S. imposed strict quotas against Filipino immigration. Asians were already barred from US citizenship by 1870, and any American woman who married an Asian automatically lost her citizenship. By 1934, the annual immigration quote for Filipinos was fifty (50).

Catholics Need Not Apply
We make up 25% of the population, we have supplied some of the greatest scientists the world has ever seen, we have surrendered our Faith through endless political compromise, staunchly supporting the American Protestant worldview for decades. Our thanks?

Get the hell out. This is America. Catholics who insist on being Catholic aren't wanted here.

70 comments:

Patrick said...

Hispanic Catholic values? Possibly in the Italian sense of "Catholic in identity but not in action". According to the CDC, every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women bore 92 children in 2003 compared with 28 children for every 1,000 unmarried white women, 22 for every 1,000 unmarried Asian women, and 66 for every 1,000 unmarried black women. Forty-five percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage, compared with 24% of white births and 15% of Asian births. Only the percentage of black out-of-wedlock births — 68% — exceeds the Hispanic rate. Seems to me that Hispanics are more American than Catholic when it comes to values.

Timothy said...

>"Forty-five percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage"

One shouldn't confuse a rate caused by persons seeking to avoid any contact with the government's marriage registration system with others who have no reason to avoid marriage registration. Big difference.

Olivia said...

This country was consecrated to the Immaculate Conception way back before the Constitution was signed.

Our Lady of America appeared in 1956 and gave a new mission for this great country. That mission was for the children of our country to lead the world by the purity of their lives. Not just Catholic children, although that is a good place to start, but ALL children.

Maybe the influx of Hispanics has some cultural ramifications that need "tweeking" but all cultures who have flooded this country have brought with them ramifications that needed "tweeking" before becoming mainstream.

If you would like to know more about Our Lady of America messages given in 1956 in Rome City, IN go to www.oltiv.org or www.ourladyofamerica.com for more info.

mamabird said...

I do not see any examples of stellar catholic values in the Hispanic community. They are cultural Catholics with a little 'c'. The women in particular, dress very scantily for mass, worse then even the laziest beach bopper and a are picking up on secular American values very quickly.

They are getting their tubes tied after baby number 2 and 3 just like protestants.

I just had my 7th child and went to register her to be baptized, and the Hispanic women in the office all laughed and joked in half English/ half Spanish about old fashioned I was to not have my tubes tied by now. The fact I get pestered at the Ob's office isn't bad enough, I get it from my church too!

Then they went on to have a conversation in front of me in all Spanish. That happens all the time. I think it's rude and has no place in church. I have to admit, my feelings get hurt by this behavior, because I have always tried to be open to friendships to the Hispanic women, yet I have been rebuffed on more occasions then I can count.

I live in a very heavily Hispanic area, where they are not even attempting to assimilate. They have their separate mass, separate prayer meetings, separate celebrations.....last year they had a cool Christmas program, but only for the Hispanic kids, not for non-Hispanic. I don't know Spanish...nor do my kids...but I know that all the people I saw there all knew English. They were being deliberately exclusive. And this happens all the time!

This is not the case with the Haitians. Father will speak English for the Homily, or parts of the homily in English. As a result the Haitians are assimilating beautifully.

When you go to a Spanish mass...the music is wonderful, but if your not in the 'community' you get ignored..Not in the Haitian mass.

We have one Hispanic priest, but he is only for the Hispanics, not for the non-Hispanics. I have never heard a sermon of his in English...

..and I'm sorry...that kind of division should not be in church!

Not to mention I have friends who have a little family farm along the Texas border, and their lives are a nightmare right now because of the violence going on over there.

I don't think that there should be any exclusively Spanish masses at all any more.

Why not just have them in Latin if it comes to that.

I think that as it is now, they cause division.

And as far as race goes...or racist goes...I'm not..definitely not!

I have American Indian, Welsh, Irish, African American and Italian in my genetic back ground.
I'm a classic American mutt.
..and no one ever puts that as a choice on applications!! It's like we don't exist or count.
And I'm Catholic...an American Catholic. We speak English for the most part in America.

These Hispanics, if they come here, should shed the old country and embrace their new country and BE American!!!

And start being faithful to the magisterium and wearing more modest cloths in church wouldn't hurt either.

just my 2cents.

Anonymous said...

I think Ann Coulter's article is being unfairly painted as anti-Catholic. The word "Catholic" comes up only once in an 18 paragraph article when she refers to work by Samuel P. Huntingdon. Her argument is against current immigration policies that discriminate against white Europeans. To paint her as anti-Catholic on the basis of this article is a very far stretch and uncharitable.

Anonymous said...

There is in this essay a vicious and ignorant slander against Gen Sam Houston, a courageous and principled statesman man who would have despised Clinton. Houston at the time of the Texian revolution had no children or wife in Tenessee; his adored child bride (pushed into wedding Sam, then Governor of Tenessee by her ambitious parents) despised Sam and said so on her honeymoon; the marriage was probably never consummated, and soon after the "honeymoon" a broken hearted Sam agreed to a divorce. He took to drink as a consequense of a broken heart, and went to Texas as a distraction from his emotional pain. Later he recovered from alcoholism, was married happily and had 8 children who all grew up to be a credit to him.

As president of the Republic of Texas Sam Houston petitioned the Pope to appoint a Bishop for Texas, which the Pope did. Sam was eccentric and often drunk, but he had a reputation for honesty and was always a gentleman where women were concerned; and though not Catholic, he respected the Church and fostered early missionaries because he valued Catholic civilizing influence. --

--amateur Texas historian.

Anonymous said...

There are holy ones and sinners found among Hispanic Catholics, as with all of us in the Church in the United States. But whether you like it or not, and some here who think themselves Catholics seem not to, Hispanics are part of the Church past, present, and future in this country and hemisphere.
Indeed, the use of statistics by others to denigrate Hispanics ignores the present fact that the Hispanic birth rate in the U.S. is still above the 2.1 replacement level, unlike certain other groups. In other words, while secularization has wreaked its damage on Hispanics as with everyone, Hispanics in the U.S. on the whole are still pro-life in practice as well as in cultural presentation.
As for loyalty to the Church and her Magisterium, perhaps some of us should read about the Mexican martyrs in the early 20th century and other Latin Americans (e.g. St. Alberto Hurtado of Chile) canonized and beatified in the last several years alone. Maybe they were the ones interceding for you before the Lord.
Certainly, Hispanic Catholics must strive for greater holiness, as should we all. Then again, German Catholics in the U.S. had to struggle for cultural and linguistic acceptance in the 19th century (go ahead and look it up) and so did others. Maybe there are those who would rather that Hispanic Catholics just "go away"...I hope they get nice thank-you cards from the groups seeking to poach us from the Church...and I pray for Mercy on your souls at the judgment.
Simply put: Hispanic Catholics are fellow Catholics, pointing to 500+ years of cultural presence in this hemisphere, and are a resource and treasure for the Church, as the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus just recognized. Bad enough when Ann Coulter spews her bile...how shameful when "Catholics" join her in contempt of those God has counted as His own and ours.
Que Dios les bendiga! God bless you!

Anonymous said...

Rogue priests like Arizona's Roger Mahoney are disgraces. Those who open the floodgates of our nation without restriction should be prosecuted for committing HIGH CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS against our Republic. Treason isn't Catholic. These front groups for the North American Union have got to stop. Google "amero" or NAU and learn what these "catholic" schills are about.

Anonymous said...

It is not the faith of any illegal immigrant that is a danger to this country. And for the moment since Mexicans are the largest percentage of illegal aliens in this county, our biggest complain is the disregard for the sovereignty of this country. A perfect example is of a USA Public School allowing the Mexican Flag to be put up and the US Flag turned upside down. Many Mexican immigrants want this to be come Mexico USA. Immigrants need to assimilate into this country. Become part of this country, not an extension of their own.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
While I agree Roger Mahoney may be a disgrace, He is not from Arizona. He is the Archbishop/Cardinal of Los Angeles, CA.
Joan

dp said...

I think it was Travis and not Huston who was the rotten husband and father.

Anonymous said...

Give me a break. This is not anti-catholic. I am a very conservative catholic and do not want this country destroyed culturally and finanacially by allowing an estimated 20 million illegals to now become citizens. Wake up this is about globalization and forming a one world government.

Anonymous said...

NO they ARE ILLEGAl criminals that have broken our laws willfully and full intent- if we do not uphol;d all our laws especiall for illegals having no right under the us constitution- then we have no laws open up ebery cell door in every prison and let everyone out-this is what you are really doing!!!! these illegals also refuse to RESPECT this country and its citizens even in the smallest of things like using OUR language and stop forcing their culture on us- theyu were not invited here-
read teddy roosevelts speech on Americaniztion of immigrants -it is so still applicable in todays society- if they want to rweap the benifits of this country then respect it enough to become american. our ancestors did- they had to first have a sponsor to come -a place to live a job and they had to learn to read and write and speak english to take their oath of citizenship in english and were very proud top do so-they wanted to american-thes ungrateful criminals don't they want to take our country over- they abando their own and use our resources what kind of ciotizen will that make- they fly their flags over our and put ours upside down- that is criminal!!!
they need to go back to their own countries and fix them like we are trying to do with america- STOP THIS GROSS TAKE OVER WE WILL NO LONGER BE AMERICA- WE WANT OUR OWN COUNTRY TO STAY AS IT IS SEPERATE UNQUIE AND IT OWN WE DO HAVE OUR OWN BORDERS LAWS AND CULTURE IF ANYONE COMES HERE THEY NEED TO ACCEPT THEM AND ASSIMILATE INTO THEM-RESPECT US AND DO IT LEGALLYOR GO BACK -ANY ONE WHO IS LEGAL BORN CITIZEN HER IF THEY BREAK THE LAW THEY MUST FACE PROSECUTION AND PAY THEIR DEBT-SO DIOE THESE CRIMINAL;S WHO HAVE NO RIGHTS HER GO HOME AND FIX YOUR OWN COUNTRY LEAVE US ALONE!!!

Anonymous said...

They are felons - get it.
It is not about immigration-we have policies in place to obtain citizenship- and there are thousands waiting to get in the country legally.
They are not immigrants -they are criminals
PS This is from a staunch Catholic

Teófilo de Jesús said...

A great many comments, some thoughtful, some completely emotional, a few bordering in the hysterical, and one or two completely bigoted.

I've written two OpEds so far on this subject which you may access on my blog, Vivificat!:

Illegal immigrants should be treated with dignity and respect and We will be judged on how we respect others.

Our fears are giving way to hatred. We have to become conscious of this before we are consumed by it.

-Theo

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Point of order - illegal immigrants are not felons since entering the country without proper papers is not a felony.

It is a civil offense along the same lines as failing to keep your grass mowed or failing to put lids on your trash cans.

I have written several articles on immigration. See Running the Numbers
for one analysis of the illegality of illegal immigration.

Maryanne said...

I am a devout Catholic. I truly believe that all human being have dignity and were made in the image and likeness of God. But humans have a free will and not all use it in the way God would like. I am against illegal immigration regardless of who commits it. Laws cannot be broken without penalty. To allow it says that anyone can commit a crime and then use an excuse to avoid punishment. That will result in chaos as we now have with illegal immigration. Not to mention the crime and identity theft that has recently come to light. All illegal immigration must be stopped.

Anonymous said...

I am a Catholic and can only agree with Ann Coulter. America would be far different if Catholics from Spain, etc. prevailed, and for the worse governmentally. Obviously Great Britian had the premier governmental advances of the time (don't forget GB's Catholic history, too, though). To paint anything Coulter said as anti-Catholic is ridiculous. Unfortunately the immigration debate has revolved about one side painting the other as racist if you want protection from unbridled immigration and amnesty. These are not intellectual arguments. Impacts on what America is are.

Anonymous said...

I think what Ann was trying to express about Catholics was specifically in reference to the uniqueness of our nation as being born out of a more or less Protestant mileu. Could the democratic ideal have emereged out of - let's face it - what is essentially an autocratic and hierarchical system? The idea of the priesthood of the individual believer in protestant thought fits in with a democratic worldview much more than a Catholic obedience to the church hierarchy. I would never go so far as to claim that Catholics cannot live and participate in a democratic system, but I'm not so sure that Catholocism could have produced our system of government. Ann is definitely skating on thin ice as far as her culturally imperialistic attitude. Certainly Protestants have much to learn from Catholics as well. I think we just need to keep in mind that this is someone who earns her living by getting people all fired up...

Steve Kellmeyer said...

What no one takes into account when considering Catholic Faith and how it relates to democracy is the principle of subsidiarity.

The Catholic Church in America has always been heretical, thus its failure to acknowledge subsidiarity, and its emphasis instead on clericalism.

Catholic subsidiarity is perfectly in accord with democratic principles. Catholics in the US don't know this because they've never gotten a straight catechesis in the Faith

Anonymous said...

Dear Amateur Texas Historian,
I detest revisionist history, too.
Jeannie

Anonymous said...

The notion that fear and loathing of the Hispanic influx stems from their Catholicism is ridiculous.

It is rather that their culture is being forced down our throats. You can't make a phone call to any institution without hearing dial one for English. Every other immigrant group arriving here learned our language - English. Like the Latinos, they scrimped and saved to come here for new opportunities. Unlike Latinos, they did it through legal channels. Unlike Latinos, it was a proud day in the lives of previous immigrants when they became American citizens. Most Latinos have no interest in citizenship in the United States.

They take jobs that Americans don't want? No they take jobs in kitchens and gardening and fast food businesses that Americans then cannot get.

I cannot speak about the Catholicism of most new immigrants. I can speak about what I, as a "conservative" Catholic have witnessed in my own parish. We welcomed them with open arms. We made a place for them in our parish. Now, it is we we are the "stranger." The English speaking population has virtually been pushed out the door.

Feast day Masses are "bi-lingual" which translates to 80% Spanish. They are held only on the vigil of the Feast because that is when the Spanish generally have their evening Mass. The Spanish have prayer groups in the evenings. We do not because there is "no room at the inn."

They have Adoration on First Fridays and Saturdays - with loud music and dancing, I might add. The English speaking population has a half hour on Wednesday mornings when most people are at work. We were given a schedule of other Churches we can attend if we want to go in the evening.

Our second English Mass on Sundays was moved back because the Latinos have a huge hot breakfast every Sunday after their Mass and there is nowhere to park. Despite the move, there is still no where to park as they stay for hours.

We have a little gathering once a month with some stale donuts. And we get the bums rush.

They have health fairs with free health testing and healthy foods. We have nothing. When I asked about it I was told that anyone could come. Yes. I suppose so. If you know about it and if you speak Spanish to understand what's going on there.

Our parish has a youth group. They go on retreats and trips. It is for Latinos only.

We had a marriage retreat. For Latinos only. I noted that most of the couples there weren't actually married.

We have a parish mission in Haiti where we built a Catholic school and provided a generator and continue to send food and clothing. Not good enough for the Latinos. They had to start up their own mission in Cartagena. They give nothing to the Haiti mission.

They have a huge El Senor de Los Milagros group that takes in donations from all over the world for prayers. Not a cent goes into the parish coffers.

Even our first Holy Communion children suffer. The English speaking ones are abuot 7 years old. The Latinos make theirs when they are much older, for the most part, if at all. The Masses are forced bi-lingual events. The children are cross-eyed because they don't understand Spanish. Mention this and you're called racist.

Their "musicians" who don't know how to play their instuments and don't seem to care were given new equipment to the tune of over $7,000. Their gigantic speakers decorate the area next to the tabernacle and the baptismal font. When the English speaking musicians - who are trained professionals - needed to replace the broken microphones, they had to buy them themselves.

We are not one Church any longer. We are now a two Churches - if you count the few remaining English speaking parishioners who haven't yet fled to parishes where they can pray in their own language - English.

I agree. If we're going to introduce other languages let it be something that no one understands because, like the new Latino immigrants, we're too lazy and stupid to learn it. Latin.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Sounds like the Latinos have a great community and the gringos don't.

That's not unusual - Hispanics, especially the campesinos who tend to cross the border via sneakers and coyotes, are very, very family oriented, very tight-knit.

American Catholics aren't. We are offended by them because they have their priorities right.

The clash between Catholic cultures is not the first - the Irish and the Germans literally fought it out parish by parish in the Midwest during the 1800's.

Now the gringos and the Hispanics are repeating the pattern. The Hispanics will win because they don't contracept and abort as much as we do.

Get over it.

c matt said...

Many Mexican immigrants want this to be come Mexico USA. Immigrants need to assimilate into this country. Become part of this country, not an extension of their own.

You mean exactly the same way the original Texas was taken from Mexico and became Texas USA?

I'd find this all rather amusing if real people weren't being trampled in the process. But then, demography is destiny. In or out of wedlock, the birth rates speak for themselves. So while the WASPS continue to abort, contracept and Beemer themselves into oblivion, the "other" (whether that "other" is the Catholicism, Mexican, Latino, or whatever) will continue to take over by simply filling the void.

Get used to it.

Laws cannot be broken without penalty.

So laws requiring you to abort any pregnancy after the second child is born must be followed simply because it is the law?

The idea of the priesthood of the individual believer in protestant thought fits in with a democratic worldview much more than a Catholic obedience to the church hierarchy.

Which is precisely why any nation built upon that principle is doomed to the same fate as Protestantism itself - endless division and disintegration.

WHO HAVE NO RIGHTS HER [sic]

THis may be asking too much, but you might want to actually read the Constitution of the US, of which you seem so proud, but seem to know so little. The Constitution does not just apply to citizens, but many of its provisions (in particular, ones regarding the rights of accused persons, to which you appear to allude) apply to PERSONS, regardless of national origin or current immigration status. So yes, contrary to your assertion, they do have rights here.

Anonymous said...

Yes there is undeniable an element of know-nothing anti-Catholicism in some of the anti-illegal immigrant movement. That element can also be found in efforts to proselytize in Mexico and the rest of Latin America as well as among aliens in the U.S. Why be offended by that and attempt to smear the legitimate concerns of those who oppose illegal immigration by implication when in the long run the Church throughout all of Latin America is in peril?

JG- said...

She makes more references to the Catholic Church and its developing "corrupt practices such as papal indulgences" in her March 21st column:
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=175

Anonymous said...

People truly amaze me.Why don't we just let the other billions of people who want to come to the country enter too? That's what the globalist want. I care about people, but we can't help them by letting them all come to the U.S. At some point they have to help themselves and take control of their own country. Open your eyes people this is being planned out by globalist. They are doing this in every westernized country. And I believe there are many posters who are employed by these people to support these ideas, either that are they are just plain ignorant. Ron Paul 2008 inforwars.com

Anonymous said...

Patrick implies that Latino women are more promiscuous than others because they bear more children out of wedlock.

Perhaps they simply fail to abort as many.

Michael said...

Sorry, we can't take being Catholic to mean that we have to side with predominately Catholic countries in everything. Nor do we have to accept your assertation that America is nothing but a bunch of greedy, cigar smoking "wasps". And, like other posters have noted, Mexico is not the stainless ideal republic of Catholics. It is a nation with a corrupt government and an extreme amount of crime. We as Catholics shouldn't accept people who disregard our nation's laws and then expect to be rewarded, simply because they were likely baptized Catholic. We have a right to enforce our laws, period. If the people who break the laws are buddhists, enforce them. If they're protestant, enforce them. If they're fellow Catholics, then tough luck, they have likewise broken the law.

We have every right to restrict immigration, even when the majority of people in question are Catholic in name. And, hate to break it to you, but we can also have wars against mainly Catholic countries that are perfectly justified (ex: in WW1, we sided against Austria, a Catholic empire, but we were clearly in the right). In the case of the Mexican-American war, you cannot with any sense of logic, describe the incident that started the war as US soldiers "deliberately violated disputed territory between Texas and Mexico" and then fail to recognize that (being that it was a dispute) we recognized the area as our territory. We had just annexed the newly independent Texas, and the Mexicans, though they had been defeated, still did not even acknowledge defeat, and came back. Let your readers do the math. When the mexican soldiers showed up and shot American soldiers, it was indeed on American soil.

The counter-insurgency was just to kill Catholics, eh? Why, then, did the US not seek a policy of annihilating all of those "walking Catholics"? Or why did we not try to exterminate all Mexicans when the Marine Corps had free reign of much of the country?

You fail to mention other questions, such as why our apparently inherent anti-Catholicism aquiesced when we defended France against Germany, or when we defended the Catholic croatians against the Serbians? The list of problems with your theories goes on and on...

To so strenuously try and paint all of history in this lense of catholic vs anti-catholic is just bad history, and an insult to Catholics with intellectual integrity. To state that those who support enforcing our laws do so because they hate Catholics is just stupid.

Anonymous said...

Catholic ? what Catholics >
all we see in our turd world nabe is a bunch of overweight females,immodestly dressed speaking spanee,dragging kids around and using fraudulently obtained foodstamps "offa" a NY state general benefit card.
same in Church--overweight immodestly dressed women.
catholic ?
how ?
yeah.......i know--"judge not lest ye be judged" but WE do have spiritual laws and morality and on top that---basic city/state laws concerning fraud,illegal entry etc.
--------
imothy said...
>"Forty-five percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage"

One shouldn't confuse a rate caused by persons seeking to avoid any contact with the government's marriage registration system with others who have no reason to avoid marriage registration. Big difference.
-----
seeking to AVOID blah blah blah --
you gotta be kiddin' me.
and just why are THEY avoiding the gubmint system.....their welfare would be cut off ?
-------
coulter's simply FED UP with the current socialistic form of counterfit Catholicism,the same as millions of pre vat2/antiliberation catholics etc.
why IS the caTHolIC hierarchy giving all this lip service/endorsement to ILLEGALS ?
they're not CONTRIBUTORS .

Anonymous said...

theO says
Teófilo de Jesús said...
A great many comments, some thoughtful, some completely emotional, a few bordering in the hysterical, and one or two completely bigoted.

I've written two OpEds so far on this subject which you may access on my blog, Vivificat!:

Illegal immigrants should be treated with dignity and respect and We will be judged on how we respect others.

Our fears are giving way to hatred. We have to become conscious of this before we are consumed by it.

-Theo

-------------------
you want to talk about RESPECT ?
how about a most basic RESPECT OF A NATION'S laws ?
what gives THEM the right to simply walk on over to the USA,work tax free
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand
collect welfare,enroll their kids in our tax funded schools,
and use medicaid and our emergency rooms,birthing rooms ,operating rooms etc
then get food stamps and WIC ?
please ,please explain how WE are supposed to respect unlawful and fraudulent behavior
especially in the light that WE had to pay to exit our countries of origin,have medical clearances and PAY fees to enter and get naturalized here,had to PROVE that we were here legally, that our children were here legally or were born here and IMMUNIZED to enter ANY SCHOOLS----and we would never,ever get one thin dime from the USA....and bygawd you better learn/SPEAK english and WORK and PAY TAXES.
Now you please explain HOW we're supposed to RESPECT the LAWLESS.
you are either very misguided,brainwashed or braindead.
---------
posted anon. due to not wasting the time for this nonsense.

Jordan Potter said...

Whew! They all came out of the woodwork for this one, didn't they! And most of them don't have the courage to use their real names or the patience to type a pseudonym. . . .

"Could the democratic ideal have emereged out of - let's face it - what is essentially an autocratic and hierarchical system?"

You wouldn't be referring to Protestant England, would you? England in the 1500s and 1600s was about autocratic and hierarchical as you can get, and yet the U.S. "democratic ideal" traces back precisely to that culture. So it seems to me that if an unhealthy Protestant culture could produce what many think of as the democratic ideal, then an unhealthy Catholic culture should be able to do the same.

If you'd like to see some good examples of Catholic advocacy of "the democratic ideal," you probably could do worse than to read Machiavelli's learned discourses on the Roman Republic (everyone is familiar with his "The Prince," which may not have been meant to be taken seriously, but few know of his obviously sincere republican discourses) or some of St. Robert Bellarmine's writings on political theory.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Micheal, I never said Mexico is a stainless steel ideal. Its government has historically been just as anti-Catholic during the 20th century as America was.

Yes, it's government is corrupt and it has quite a lot of criminals. But America has more people in prison per capita than any other nation on earth, and has long had that distinction, so let's not pretend Mexico is worse than us.

No, Catholic baptism doesn't mean people can get away with law-breaking. But the laws being broken here are less serious than a speeding ticket in terms of the hierarchy of federal, state and civil law. No one seems to want to recognize that.

Yes, we have a right to restrict immigration, but racism and anti-Catholic bigotry aren't very serious reasons.

Sure, Protestant America, Protestant Britain and Orthodox Russia fought the coalition of Protestant Germany and Catholic Austria. But what were the reasons?

A Muslim Serb shoots the Catholic successor to the Austrian throne, so Germany invades France. That's a good reason for America to get involved?

Actually, if it weren't for American involvement, WW I would undoubtedly have been much shorter with a decent negotiated truce and therefore no WW II. We were pushed into that conflict by Britain for no particularly good reason.

If you think the Mexican-American war was justified, you are thereby disagreeing with at least three Whig/Republican presidents who lived through it: John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.

Maybe your opinion is superior to theirs, but I doubt it. All three say you are completely wrong.

And why didn't the US kill more Catholics? For the same reason the KKK didn't lynch/shoot every Jew, Catholic and Negro in the South, or for the same reason Germany didn't start the death camps until AFTER 1940.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to start total genocide, and most people don't have it. That doesn't mean the KKK was really just a bunch of nice guys who have been misunderstood.

Your problem is simple: no sense of history, American, Catholic or anyone else's.

Anonymous said...

As a recovering Catholic, I guess some people just don't get it. The Church leaders are only interested in power and money, PAY,PRAY, and OBEY. Latinos come from countries where opression is the norm, they will still listen to the hypocracy of Church leaders who sin, lie and cover it up. So the non hispanics will continue to be pushed out and ingnored in the parishes they built until they wise up and drop their contributions. If you are under the dilusion of Catholic support of democracy, read the 19th century encyclicals of several popes against our American form of government. America was never founded by Christian men anyway. All but one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were MASONS. LOL The Church has since the time of Constantine been in bed with corrupt governments whenever possible. Why do you thing most Spanish speaking countries are in such bad shape? Corruption from both Church and State. I speak Spanish but I am not Hispanic and while I love the language and culture, English should be the language of schools, work, government, and if you still want it, Church.

William said...

Dear Sir: The real issue is Mexico. You never mention this! The "root cause" of illegal immigration is Mexico. I have spent much time there on business. In my experience, it is much more corrupt than anything in the US. Mexico has troops on it's Southern border stopping all illegal immigration from Central America into their country, while at the same time encouraging their unemployed to sneak into the US. I live in Orlando and have been told many times here by Latinos that they will not speak English and they expect us to speak Spanish to them. They will not assimilate! They want their own schools, churches, language, etc. Crime has dramatically increased. Many of our city welfare systems are now closing because the illegal's are overwhelming them. It is not a pretty situation here. Your article was very good but very narrow. You very much need to look at the total situation. Obviously you did not!!!

Anonymous said...

The citizens of the United States appear unaware that their nation will be assimilated by a union with two socialist nations by 2010. Unenforced immigration laws and the trans-Texas international corridor are steps toward the North American Union, aka "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)" signed by Bush. Some of the Catholics posting here are either completely ignorant of global strategies or, as someone mentioned, shilling for the Pro-Amnesty lobby and are simply disingenuous.
The shame-shifters out there who want to provoke those who support the enforcement of current laws with race baiting or anti Catholic baiting, or Coulter slamming--you "don't know nothin."

Steve Kellmeyer said...

William

I was an atheist for ten years before coming back into the Catholic Church. I am fully conversant with the arguments against the Church - I used to use them myself, actually.

But I discovered that I was wrong and the Church was right. That discovery made me angry as hell for several years, but I couldn't get around the facts. Believe me, I tried. I'm reconciled to it now, and can demonstrate to you why She's always right.

Sadly, in order for you to accept the demonstrations, you have to acknowledge the problems in your life. I've found that the refusal to do this is the major obstacle, since the proofs are logically irrefutable.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

As for the "global strategies" towards world government, I am aware of those arguments - indeed, some of the foundations for this historical approach are laid out in my book "Designed to Fail: Catholic Education in America."

We already have a world government that is essentially similar to the union of states created by the Articles of Confederation in our own American history. I'm not a fan of world government, but it's a creation of man, so it isn't going to last very long. In that sense, I'm not too concerned about it.

Jordan Potter said...

"If you are under the dilusion of Catholic support of democracy, read the 19th century encyclicals of several popes against our American form of government."

"Democracy" is does not begin and end with "our American form of government," so you have not established your point that Catholicism is opposed to democracy. Quite of lot of Catholics and Popes think otherwise, but I guess they are under a "dilusion" (dilution?).

Frankly, the more I learn about "our American form of government," the more convinced I am that when it finally completely falls apart (it's more than halfway there already) it won't be easy to shed a tear about it.

Anonymous said...

Jordan: You said "when it finally completely falls apart (it's more than halfway there already) it won't be easy to shed a tear about it." Yes, we do have our faults, but, please tell us a current world system that is superior and why it is better than our system.

jayne said...

Look. I'm all for charity and helping the poor. We are a Catholic family that is 100% faithful to the Church. Further we happily make sacrifices so I can stay home with the children (we live on one income); homeschool; tithe 10%; and remain open to life--despite the hardship involved.

And as a Hispanic Catholic, I have to take issue with your article.

No doubt America has a history of anti-Catholicism. Growing up in a South Texas city near the border I saw much of this--racism and bigotry against my religion. But I will say that I saw it from both sides (my husband is Caucasian).

I will say that I do not see a more Catholic culture within the Hispanic community compared to other Catholic ethnic groups. In fact, many of the ex-Catholics I know with some of the loosest morals happen to be Hispanics.

The "family" values that open border proponents are constantly touting just don't impress me. I do not see exceptionally well-behaved children. Since their culture sees fatherhood only in a providing sense, w/out much involvement or leadership with raising little ones especially, the mothers become overwhelmed with household chores (the culture gawks at the idea of a man helping around the house). The wives in turn become somewhat permissive and abusive when their children’s behaviour becomes more than they can bear (I mean this verbally, as well since shouting at your child is not disciplining). Result? Many of the kids are just as bratty as other kids.

I do not see meek, family-oriented mothers (read mambabird's comments); they use contraception (rather than NFP) like non-Catholics. And the machismo attitude so prevalent in Mexico is not uncommon here (my own grandfather had three families). I'm not saying ALL Hispanic families are like this. But there is a pattern.

And I DO understand about anti-Catholicism. But I don't think this is the issue with the immigration bill.

We are SICK of being taxed to death. We are sick of paying welfare for people who go to emergency rooms because doctors expect *gasp* payment. Our hospitals are being shut down. My insurance has gone through the roof and I can barely afford for one of my 4 children to get sick (and my hubby has a good job and "good" insurance--we are just part of those who are bearing the brunt of those who do not pay their bills). 2 BILLION (in Texas) dollars pay for children of Hispanics in the schools with all of their programs (as a taxpaying homeschooler I am REALLY offended by this).

All we want to do is raise our children. Higher taxes due to entitlements might limit my ability to do this. I don’t want to be forced out of my home just to help put food on the table. I want to be the one raising my kids—not some daycare. And I want to homeschool. Finally, we do not want to limit the number of children we will have because some else’s kid needs bilingual education through 6th grade.

Like I said, we give to charity. And I think people confuse charity with higher taxes to Uncle Sam (in the name of the poor). Many of us would not agree with tax paid abortions or birth control.

Finally, forgive me if I am indignant over someone coming to this country and DEMANDING money, housing, etc. (on their terms) while spitting in the face of us who pay their bills. They do this when they carry their Mexican flag, refuse to assimilate, look at all white people as the enemy (reverse racism), and badmouth my beloved country.

Good Catholics? Hardly.

mphussle said...

"Your problem is simple: no sense of history, American, Catholic or anyone else's." Actually, Steve, I have a degree in history, (and a degree in Theology) from Franciscan University of Steubenville. So I've got a pretty good sense of history, American, Catholic AND anyone else's.

“I never said Mexico is a stainless steel ideal. Its government has historically been just as anti-Catholic during the 20th century as America was.” Not just as, Steve. More anti-Catholic. Are priests and religious banned by law from wearing their habits in public in the US? Is there some separate category for religious missionaries to get a visa in the US that makes it ten times harder and a hundred times more expensive than any regular visa-seeker? Because that’s the way it is in Mexico.

"And why didn't the US kill more Catholics? For the same reason the KKK didn't lynch/shoot every Jew, Catholic and Negro in the South" The KKK didn't have the capability- we did, and yet did not even attempt it. That would imply a lack of desire.

"America has more people in prison per capita than any other nation on earth, and has long had that distinction, so let's not pretend Mexico is worse than us." That doesn't mean we have more crime, just that we do something about it, as opposed to letting criminals such as drug/arms/human smugglers run rampant.

"Yes, we have a right to restrict immigration, but racism and anti-Catholic bigotry aren't very serious reasons." Nor are they reasons at all. There are plenty of Catholic latinos on the border patrol and in the Minute Men project who can attest to that.

"A Muslim Serb shoots the Catholic successor to the Austrian throne, so Germany invades France. That's a good reason for America to get involved?" A tenth grader knows that's not why we got involved, and a tenth grader could see that that was a feeble attempt to deflect my point that we in that case sided against a Catholic country with full justification. By the way, Steve, the Serbs aren’t muslims. Nor was the assassin, Gavrilo Princip, of the Black-Hand Pan-Slavic organization. Serbs are generally orthodox or atheists.

"Actually, if it weren't for American involvement, WW I would undoubtedly have been much shorter with a decent negotiated truce and therefore no WW II. We were pushed into that conflict by Britain for no particularly good reason." Wow. Just… wow. The fact is, the war was in a hideous and murderous stalemate until the American expeditionary force arrived. Once we got involved, the war was over with fairly soon. And I wasn't aware of the fact that the British forced us into the war by sinking our merchant ships... that whole German U-boat disguise was a pretty good trick, huh? Obviously we favored the British, and it's easy to see why the Germans attacked us, but attack us they did, and thereby the Germans forced us into the war.

"If you think the Mexican-American war was justified, you are thereby disagreeing with at least three Whig/Republican presidents who lived through it: John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant. Maybe your opinion is superior to theirs, but I doubt it. All three say you are completely wrong." Well, Thomas Aquinas would've said I'm completely wrong about the Immaculate Conception, too, but let's face it, I would be right. I suppose, however, that your opinion is superior to everyone else's who supported the war? Or certainly your opinions are superior to anyone who feels we ought to enforce our laws, against Catholics or otherwise?

Your problem, Steve, is simple: no sense of intellectual integrity, no sense of guilt about misrepresenting history, and no sense of humility when dealing with those who disagree with you.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

I've got graduate degrees in both disciplines as well (history and theology, the latter from FUS). So what? I wouldn't hire half the people who graduate FUS to teach theology, nor would I give a dime for a lot of history grads.

On the other hand, I know several people who don't have any degrees in anything yet know more history and/or theology than I do. Don't wave your degrees - give me reasons to believe you.

Yes, Mexico had a violently anti-Catholic government. Is it better to have a non-violent anti-Catholic government? I don't see why.

The US manages to hold up as "examples" to us Catholic politicians (including JFK) who repudiated the Faith in order to get and hold power. We export more condoms, abortifacients and porn than the rest of the world combined. We, along with the British, INVENTED eugenics.

All in all, being shot for believing, as Fr. Miguel Augustin Pro did, is a much better way to live and die than following Ted Kennedy's example. I'd say Mexico was not nearly as effective in its anti-Catholicism as the US, precisely because it IS more overt about it.

"The KKK didn't have the capability (to kill all the Jews/Catholics/blacks)- we did, and yet did not even attempt it. That would imply a lack of desire.

No, it implies that we would rather have other people do our dirty work. For instance, FDR refused entry to Jews fleeing Europe, even though he knew what was happening over there and the US was one million under quota. We've always avoided overt attacks, choosing subversive undermining instead. I don't see how that makes us better.

That doesn't mean we have more crime, just that we do something about it, as opposed to letting criminals such as drug/arms/human smugglers run rampant.
Oh, please. Consider the number of people on death row alone who have been found innocent through DNA evidence - and those trials get a lot more scrutiny than John Q getting jailed for marijuana possession.

There is no evidence that we are better at locking up criminals than other societies. We have more crime than most other first world countries: more rapes, murders, thefts, etc.

I will grant you that Ferdinand's assassin was Orthodox, not Muslim. Apart from that, my earlier reply stands, and you've done nothing to prove it in error (see below).

The fact is, the war was in a hideous and murderous stalemate until the American expeditionary force arrived. Once we got involved, the war was over with fairly soon. And I wasn't aware of the fact that the British forced us into the war by sinking our merchant ships...

It would help if you bothered to read a little naval history first.
Try this link to Britannica for starters

The Germans were torpedoing BRITISH ships that had Americans on board. We held Germany accountable for killing neutral Americans who were on enemy ships, even though Germany had specifically warned all neutrals away from the areas of naval blockade to Britain, i.e. WE were violating neutrality and Wilson knew it.

And how were the Germans supposed to avoid attacking unarmed ships when the British built Q ships - warships disguised as unarmed ships - specifically to attack German U-boats?

Wilson was itching for a fight, just like Hearst and Pulitzer had a few decades before.


Well, Thomas Aquinas would've said I'm completely wrong about the Immaculate Conception, too, but let's face it, I would be right..
For an FUS grad, you sure don't know your theology. Aquinas denied the IC only because he couldn't come up with a good way by which it would happen. Duns Scotus came up with a way Aquinas hadn't thought of. Aquinas was a smart enough man to recognize good reasoning in others (thus his baptism of Aristotle), so you are simply wrong in your assertion.

I would agree with you if you were right, or if you even gave a reason why you might be right.

So far, you're coming up mostly empty.

Jordan Potter said...

"in that case sided against a Catholic country with full justification"

No we didn't. We had no valid reason to get involved in the First World War at all. In any case, justified or not, we entered the war on the side of the bad guys. The war was provoked by a Serbian assassin, and Austria-Hungary inevitably responsed by declaring war -- nobody else who entered that war had any truly just cause to do so, and when we entered the war, we botched it by joining the enemies of Austria-Hungary and screwing up the face of Europe. For all our trouble, what we got was an even worse war a generation later -- at least we were on the right side that time, even though we failed miserably to abide by the laws of just war (but then so did pretty much everybody else in that conflict).

mphussle said...

“For an FUS grad, you sure don't know your theology. Aquinas denied the IC only because he couldn't come up with a good way by which it would happen. Duns Scotus came up with a way Aquinas hadn't thought of. Aquinas was a smart enough man to recognize good reasoning in others (thus his baptism of Aristotle), so you are simply wrong in your assertion” Again, feebly trying to distract from the main point, this time by taking a stab at me. Obviously, stating that Aquinas was wrong and that I (standing on the other side of so much development in theology) would be right about the Immaculate Conception was demonstrating that great minds can be wrong, and there is nothing shocking or disconcerting about disagreeing with people of great note. Case in point, disagreeing with the presidents you listed.
“It would help if you bothered to read a little naval history first….The Germans were torpedoing BRITISH ships that had Americans on board. We held Germany accountable for killing neutral Americans who were on enemy ships, even though Germany had specifically warned all neutrals away from the areas of naval blockade to Britain, i.e. WE were violating neutrality and Wilson knew it.” Believe it or not, I’ve read a bit of history myself. Let me tell you why you are wrong, and demonstrate that I am not just coming up empty. The Germans did far more than just kill Americans who happened to be on British ships. After the sinking of the Lucitania, Wilson announced that America was “too proud to fight” and merely called on Germany to lay off cruise ships. However, Germany later picked up their attacks again, not only on British shipping and cruise ships, but also against AMERICAN merchant (ie., civilian) ships and other targets.

German offenses directly against the United States prior to our entry into the war:
-German sabotage of Black Tom in Jersey City, NJ
-Explosion at Kingsland (Lyndhurst, NJ) resulting from German sabotage
-The Zimmerman telegram, a German proposal to Mexico to attack the United States in exchange for lands lost to the US, in order to prevent the US from being able to intervene in Europe.
-The sinking of SEVEN American merchant ships by German U-Boats

Please note that it took all of this to convince Wilson, the one “itching for a fight” to ask Congress for a declaration of war. Compare this to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, a single attack which precipitated a massive response in the Vietnam war. And by the way, we weren’t violating neutrality by continuing to trade, as we continued to attempt to trade with Germany also, though the British blockades were more successful at stopping us from entering the North Sea (though they did so without killing us, which may have helped our decision to help them and not the Germans).

“Yes, Mexico had a violently anti-Catholic government. Is it better to have a non-violent anti-Catholic government? I don't see why.” Not had, Steve. Has. The laws restricting priests, religious and missionaries are still on the books. I know because my sister and brother-in-law are missionaries there.

“The US manages to hold up as ‘examples’ to us Catholic politicians (including JFK) who repudiated the Faith in order to get and hold power. We export more condoms, abortifacients and porn than the rest of the world combined. We, along with the British, INVENTED eugenics.” You say the US holds up examples as if it as some official government mandate. Really, what you should be saying is that we as Americans have failed to elect solid Catholic politicians. Does that make American Catholics anti-Catholic then? And as far as the export of condoms, abortifacients and porn, I would ask how much of the rest of the world you’ve seen. In Europe, you cannot go ten feet in any city without being assaulted with obscene posters, billboards, fliers, magazines, displayed openly on every street corner. In Rome itself, within eyesight of St Peter’s, there is more pornography and sexual immorality on display than you will see in public places in the US. Moreover, the eternal city has reached Zero Population Growth: the women of Rome, and for that matter most of Europe, are on average simply not having children. They are aborting (or using contraceptives) to an extent unheard of in the US. The United States, as ridiculous as it may sound, is by far more devoutly Christian, more moral, than the historic home of Christendom. In fact, the common conception of Americans among many Europeans is that we are radically devout Christians- sort of puritanical cowboys.

And as far as the claim that the US and the UK invented eugenics, I will not deny that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and Nazi-sympathizer, was an American. What I will contest is any implication that this was taken up by the American people or government, as it was by the Germans, the Italians, the Soviets, the Serbs (who killed some of my own European relatives in a concentration camp). To put us on that level, or to suggest that our wars are out of an intention to kill Catholics is simply wrong. If you have a graduate degree in history, you should know that making such heavy accusations is not acceptable in this or any other academic field. It is wild editorializing, and not professional of a historian.

“Consider the number of people on death row alone who have been found innocent through DNA evidence - and those trials get a lot more scrutiny than John Q getting jailed for marijuana possession.” And this argument proves what? The numbers proven innocent are slim, and the fact that we even bother to look through DNA evidence after the fact is a credit to our justice system. It is a consideration that would be unlikely to be given effort in a third world. You can say that the fact that our jails are more full means we have more crime, but I would simply point you to the towns directly across the Rio Grande, where police are beaten in shootouts with drug cartels. I would then point you to the deserts, where the “coyotes” shoot at our national guardsmen and border patrols who would dare try and stop them from crossing the border. Why do you suppose there aren’t similar battles in Eagle Pass, Texas, as there are a couple miles away in Piedras Negras, Mexico? Why do you suppose the Mexican Army never gets shot at by American criminals sneaking south? Why do you suppose that in the US, large percentiles of the police are not currently on the payroll of criminals? Again, I submit that these facts, coupled with fuller prisons, suggest that the United States is simply more aggressive in taking on criminals than the corrupt governments of Mexico and other countries. Countries that continue to export people our way so as to face less risk of popular unrest and real governmental change.

What we should want for our fellow Catholics is that they have justice within their own countries; that they have the resources to pull themselves up by. We should not therefore desire that they go ahead and break our laws, feel that they are the exception to the rule of law, and then feel that they can demand to be rewarded for so doing!

Steve Kellmeyer said...

I demonstrated that great minds can be wrong, and there is nothing shocking or disconcerting about disagreeing with people of great note. Case in point, disagreeing with the presidents you listed.

NO, my friend, YOU missed the point. Aquinas was wrong on the IC only because he couldn't come up with an esoteric line of reasoning.

YOU are disagreeing with at least four great minds (John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant and Henry David Thoreau), who LIVED THROUGH THE EXPERIENCE. One of them even fought the war in question.

That's akin to saying, "Yes, I know you SAY you were raped, but I - who heard the alleged rapist's description a few years ago, and wasn't within a thousand miles of the event - know you are mistaken."

Believe it or not, I’ve read a bit of history myself.

No, actually, I don't believe you have.

mphussle said...

“No, actually, I don't believe you have.” Way to go, Steve. Way to keep a professional debate up, and keep it on the subject itself. What happened to “show me why you are right”? Do you not have anything in the way of proof, actual history to cite? Because responding to my actual citing of historical facts with what is essentially a “na-uh, you’re dumb” response doesn’t speak well of your argument.

“NO, my friend, YOU missed the point. Aquinas was wrong on the IC only because he couldn't come up with an esoteric line of reasoning.” And brilliant mind that he was, he was still therefore mistaken. He was ultimately wrong on the IC, no matter what his reasons for not realizing it were. Great minds can be wrong.

“YOU are disagreeing with at least four great minds (John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant and Henry David Thoreau), who LIVED THROUGH THE EXPERIENCE. One of them even fought the war in question.” And therefore, I suppose that all of the other minds at the time (you know, those ones that agreed with the war, including many who fought in it) were only mediocre minds at best then. And why? Because they disagreed with your current stance, of course. People like Robert E. Lee, Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson, Braxton Bragg, George Meade, George McClellan, William T. Sherman… no, their experience in actually fighting the war must be of less note, because they didn’t oppose the war. Their opinions couldn’t have counted for anything.

“That's akin to saying, ‘Yes, I know you SAY you were raped, but I - who heard the alleged rapist's description a few years ago, and wasn't within a thousand miles of the event - know you are mistaken’." Well, I know of at least one well known case (the Duke lacrosse “rape” case) where that is perfectly accurate. Girl claimed to be raped. Anyone who expressed doubt was called a racist and reminded they weren’t there. But the guys were innocent. My point? Sometimes the people who were there are still, ultimately, wrong.

If you have any real argument, and not just another insult for me, that would be wonderful. I'm sure it would inspire more confidence among those who read your blog.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Look, son (or daughter, as the case may be), I'll make this short.

In re WW I: you haven't addressed the problem of Britain's illegal Q boats, which made attacks on passenger shipping inevitable, including attacks on neutral shipping. You haven't considered that we violated our neutrality early on, which is why Germany engaged in acts of sabotage against us and sent the Zimmerman telegram. It wasn't like they randomly chose to attack us - we had already chosen sides and everybody knew it.

In re the Mex-Am war: Yes, you can bring forward names of people who fought the Mex-Am war but didn't publicly protest against it. Bravo. I notice most of the names you bring forward also had no problem with the slave-holding which helped initiate the war. I wonder why they didn't publicly protest it? Hmmm... there's a puzzler.

Look, you're a nice guy and all, you are just clueless. Anyone who can claim with a straight face that American eugenics was never as bad as Germany's is just out of touch with reality. The only difference between German eugenics and American-English eugenics is
1) We invented eugenics
2) We've gone a lot further with it than Hitler ever did.

Bringing forward the Duke rape case is a non sequitor. In the case of the Mexican-American war, several of the rapists themselves were accusing themselves of having done the deed. You say they were wrong. Whatever.

It's clear at this point that debating this in a comment section is pointless. There's not enough room and you aren't well-informed enough to accomplish the task. So God bless, and read more.

I re-iterate - you may have read some history at some point, but you've never understood it.

mphussle said...

By the time we had chosen to favor the English, the German army was executing civilians in Belgium. We knew it. Perhaps our favor of Britain could also be said to be (shocker) out of out own national interest, which is more in line with England surviving than Germany conquering. That sure is evil and conniving.

Yeah, some of the people I listed later fought for the confederacy (although the other half were Union generals, friend). But if their being pro-slavery precludes them from being noteworthy like Grant or Lincoln, then it also precludes Washington, Jefferson, and many other founding fathers whose view of "manifest destiny" is central to the argument.

To claim that we are worse than the Nazis themselves is heinous. And if you go with the abortifacients as eugenics argument, I remind you that Europeans to this day use the practice far, far more than we do.

You have twisted history to try and meet the absurd claim that we have immigration laws to keep Catholics out. You've had many other Catholics (some Latinos) on here repudiate that, and when your use of history is questioned, your response is based more on insults and vitriol than honest debate.

Since there is no room on your blog (or alongside your ego) for debate, I submit to your other readers that you have an extreme, unrealistic view of history, and that you are unwilling to permit anymore honest debate that might erode your facade of expertise.

Anonymous said...

This post was a bunch of nonesense. I used to live in a heavily Mexican neighborhood in New York. These criminals don't assimilate at all. They don't even want to be American. Their only concern is to make some money and ship it back home. Half of them become Pentecostals anyways and the other half are for all intensive purposes Pagans with some Catholic trappings. How are they Catholic? Are Mariachi masses Catholic?

I say get rid of these criminals. In NYC they are trying to destroy the remaining Irish and Italian neighborhoods. The last thing this country needs are more of these undesireables.

Patrick said...

Really, when it comes down to it, whether the war was justified or not is irrelevant. Today, both the countries of Mexico and the United States of America recognize the border by treaty. There is no dispute. That's all there is to know. That is the legality of the issue today. There are no quibbles about it. Agreed upon international treaties are what solidifies and justifies all state boundaries. That's the law, both countries agree, get used to it.

As far as anti-Catholic immigration issues, it could be argued that allowing any Catholic into the U.S. is anti-Catholic. This is especially true when you track the secularist rates of 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants from any nation. Like most modern countries, the U.S. is the antithesis of what a christian country stands for and it affects Catholics just as much if not more than other christian religions. No matter how much Catholic dumping you do in a country, this doesn't change.

However, if we could get the countries individual bishops conferences to begin taking stances on issues like the handful of bishops in this country have on certain topics, then real change could begin to become Catholic and not catholic. If they do not stand up for what is right, individuals taking a stand will have little chance of making a relevant impact on the greater society.

girlnextdoor said...

Ann Coulter doesn't seem the least bit anti-catholic is this post of hers


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter032102.asp

Jordan Potter said...

"Today, both the countries of Mexico and the United States of America recognize the border by treaty."

On the level of law, it is officially recognised, but there is a social phenomenon or "mood" known as irredentism, where a nation remembers the loss of territory and continues to regard that territory as rightfully theirs. On the social level, I think a lot of Mexicans do not in fact recognise the morality or legality of our seizure of about a third of their territory as a result of the unjustifiable war we started with the sole intent of stealing their land. For citizens of the U.S., most of whom have no historical memory, the Mexican-American war may as well have been 5,000 years ago. For a lot of Mexicans, it may as well have been last year.

As for your claim that American culture corrodes the faith of Catholics who settle here, that is true, but no culture is impervious to the Gospel. Catholic immigrants are an indispensable leaven in our culture, even if most Catholics have been and are being de-evangelised by our sick culture.

c matt said...

The only difference between German eugenics and American-English eugenics is
1) We invented eugenics
2) We've gone a lot further with it than Hitler ever did.


One more very significant difference is that the US has convinced its victims of genocide to accept it voluntarily as a positive good - in fact, they have done such a good job of convincing the intended targets of its rightness, that members of their own race have bought into it.

I think you may be missing Steve's point about the differences in American vs. Mexican anti-Catholicism. The Mexican version is more overt, therefore clearly identifiable; the American version is much more subtle and therefore more likely to succeed. That is, the American one is more sophisticated. You can keep the name "Catholic" as long as you change its substance. But we are not going to hold a gun to your head to make you change it; rather, we are going to offer you better business connections, life in better neighborhoods, etc. Sort of the "flies with honey" strategy. That is one reason the forced "assimilation" causes me some cringing - assimilate to what, exactly? I certainly don't want immigrants, legal or otherwise, committing violent crimes. It would be good for them and us if they could speak English. But what else? Do we want them to "assimilate" to the priesthood of the individual believer? Individual conscience uber alles, regardless of the quality of formation of that conscience? That choice and change are good, regardless of the object or substance of the cahnge or choice? That individual freedom = the ability to do what you want, when you want? Happiness = physical pleasure, consumption, amassing of trinkets? These are very strong cultural currents in the US of A.

Patrick said...

No good purpose can be served by holding the past hostage. Irredentism is a failure of a people. It was this type of politics that led to WWII and the fall of its German supporters. This was the thinking that several times in history left the Jews without a homeland, in lands that were hostile to their way of life. This is no longer the thinking of Europe, even though every nation in Europe could use it to fall back on if they so desired. People only look backwards when they have no future to look forward to.

Anonymous said...

If we are such great Americans then we should stay in our country and not invades others.

Rob Huck said...

Steve, the problem isn't religion, it's language. When our ancestors came here, they learned English. My great-grandfather came here in 1893. Once he learned English, he forbad anyone from speaking a word of German in his house. You couldn't even say "Gesundheit". I wish he hadn't done that. It would have made my German classes in college a lot easier, but he did.

I think the Latinos will eventually assimilate, but for whatever reason it'll take 2 or 3 generations longer than it did with Irish or Italian or Chinese. There's already ample evidence that 2nd and 3rd generation latinos prefer English to Spanish.

Unfortunately, the liberals promote Spanish as a way to keep Latinos in the ghetto and keep them dependent on government welfare and hence keep them dependent on liberals.

Case in point - I used to work with a man born in Cuba whose family came here when he was about 10. He speaks English wonderfully and married an Anglo. His kids do not speak Spanish at all. However, because he had a Spanish last name, the local school district wanted to put his kids in Spanish-only classes. This was ludicrous and it took two weeks to get them into regular classes. They didn't speak Spanish but the liberals insisted they knew what was best and the kids' parents didn't.

Also, if the immigration backlash is anti-Catholic, why are the pro-immigration forces (President Bush notwithstanding) overwhelmingly liberal? Liberals hate the Catholic church even more than most Evangelical Protestants.

BTW, you were right on your comments on subsidiarity. It perfectly compliments the ideals of federalism and I wish more politicians would promote it.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Rob,
You are right - there are people actively trying to prevent assimilation. And it may well be the case that large numbers of Hispanics aren't particularly interested in assimilating.

Will this change the United States? Sure.

But, as I pointed out in the previous article, even at its worst, the level of change imposed by Hispanic immigration is not going to be larger than the level of change imposed by industrialization and post-industrialization.

Immigration is really just one more economic change in the landscape.

The only difference between it and, say, the introduction of computers is that we know something about Hispanic culture (both good and bad) before it hits us, whereas we didn't really know anything about what the factory or the computer would do to us.

But, like the factory and the computer, complaining about it isn't going to stop it. Demography wins. Hispanics win. They're the only ones having babies.

If irredentism is a sign of hopelessness (and I think Patrick is right - it is), so is contracepting and aborting babies. Personally, if we're going to be hopeless, I prefer irredentism. It's killed far fewer people.

Patrick said...

I think there is a great misunderstanding about Mexico somehow being a whole lot different from the U.S. Apparently the point of the very first comment post was missed. Some perspective from Human Rights Watch: "Abortion is a crime in Mexico. At the same time, all jurisdictions establish some exceptions for the general criminalization of abortion, and all penal codes permit legal abortion for rape survivors."
"In 2003, the Autonomous National University of Mexico (UNAM) published a study estimating that approximately half a million girls and women undergo abortion (both legal and illegal) every year in Mexico. In 2005, UNAM updated its study, concluding that the previous figure had seriously underestimated the prevalence of abortion and that the annual number of abortions in Mexico was closer to one million. This would constitute approximately 30% of all pregnancies in a year. An estimate published by the Latin American Center on Health and Women (Celsam) concluded in 2004 that the annual number of abortions was between half a million and 850,000. Meanwhile, government figures dating from 1995 estimate that only 100,000 clandestine abortions are carried out each year." CBS had a news story that had figures of 100,000 alone that came to the U.S. for abortions. Like the U.S., a tangled history and increasing prosperity has led to a secularism that has destroyed a country that truly believed it was moving in the right direction. The Catholic church, which once held the society to a stricter code of morality, refuses to step up in a large enough role to combat the evils in our society. So goes the U.S., but don't let anyone think for a moment that Mexico is definitely not in step as well.

Pat said...

"If irredentism is a sign of hopelessness (and I think Patrick is right - it is), so is contracepting and aborting babies. Personally, if we're going to be hopeless, I prefer irredentism. It's killed far fewer people."

Apparently the guy who runs this blog thinks that if we surrender the southwest to Mexico(after all, thats what irredentism refers to)there won't be anymore abortions or contraception. We, ladies and gentlemen, are the cause of everyone else in the world aborting their babies.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

When spouting statistics on abortion, keep in mind that such estimated statistics are often grossly in error. For instance, we know that statistics that pointed to a high rate of illegal abortion in the US were entirely fabricated during the push to legalize precisely because the people behind that push wanted to create a false sense of the real.

Given the enormous pressure within "institutes of higher learning" and the Mexican government itself in favor of legal abortion, it is not unlikely that similar manufacturing of statistics is going on there.

Further, my point that irredentism is preferable to contraception/abortion does not indicate that one is the cause of the other. However, it is the case that the US has always exported contraception and abortion to Mexico and other countries - they aren't exporting it to us.

Pat said...

And I think that if anybody goes back and reads the Ann Coulter editorial that sparked this whole thing, they'll see that first off, she only used the word "Catholic" once, and that the context of the article wasn't really about bashing Catholics. It draws a valid analogy: if liberals believe that Iraqis are realistically incapable of adopting american democracy and our more stable way of life, then why do they believe that people from Mexico and other less stable countries are realistically going to suddenly adapt to our society and culture?

It's not about bashing Catholics. Its about recognizing cultural differences that have led to our more stable society. And there are northern european Catholics too (the Irish, for example), so it's not all about Catholic vs Protestant.

I think you would agree that if millions and millions of Americans were to emigrate to France and Italy to live and work, that it would drastically and negatively affect their cultures. The same would be true if Russia became overwhelmed with Indian immigrants (these are theoreticals of course). Those countries would all be perfectly valid in having concern for the preservation of their cultures. Why is it so terrible for us to feel the same way?

I'm Catholic and I too recognize that there are far more drug cartels, marxist revolutionaries and far less jobs, far less stability in latin american countries (that are traditionally Catholic in name at least) than here in the US. It does not offend or contradict Catholicism to prefer that my society's rule of law not be trampled on.

Pat said...

Let me add that I'm not suggesting a negative cultural affect results/would result from any immigration from Mexico or anywhere else. American culture in many ways results from the mixture and co-adaptation of all kinds of cultures. But done in massive numbers, illegally, and in a way that exhibits resistance to assimilation, it's a big problem with valid concerns for preserving our culture as well as the rule of law.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

I am not particularly interested in preserving a culture that legally murders one out of three children in the womb, that treats contraception with the reverence due the Eucharist or that produces a porn video every eight minutes.

Maybe Mexico's culture is worse, but I've really seen no evidence that it is. I don't see how Hispanics can possibly degrade us more than we have already degraded ourselves.

In short, I'm not proud to be an American, because I am not sure it is free.

Patrick said...

Between the obvious stats and the comments from people with first hand experience with this issue, we can see that although Mexico is no worse than the U.S., it certainly is little better. I would imagine that it has as much to do with U.S. influence as the state of the christian world at large. The only region of the world that has shown a positive Catholic direction in the last few decades are a few countries in Africa, but even there Catholics contend with "catholics."

Patrick said...

Interesting fast fact: per the Vatican, between 2004 and 2005, Asia had a priest increase of 3.8%, Africa 3.6%, and Europe and the Americas had negative half of one percent each. Those places are the real future of the Catholic church.

Striking Iron said...

"In short, I'm not proud to be an American, because I am not sure it is free."

Would you be willing to post that on your main page?

Striking Iron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve Kellmeyer said...

Striking Iron,

Yes, I am willing to post that on the main blog. Read the article "American Freedom."

Aunty Belle said...

"Unenforced immigration laws and the trans-Texas international corridor are steps toward the North American Union, aka "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)" signed by Bush. Some of the Catholics posting here are either completely ignorant of global strategies..."

Ya'll, this is true. I wrote on the same topic. Sources for this info are abundant.

Steve, you say you are unconcerned for a global government because it is of man, and will pass quickly, and that we have a form of it already--but sober analysis is clearly a wake-up call.

We may have a form of it, but we do not have what it will soon be unless we resist it--and that globalized hegemony will be virulently anti-Catholic--I mean, systematically anti-Catholic.

If you are unconcerned about this global hegemony since it will pass, why be concerned about immigration struggles that are equally man-made and will also pass?

Catholics in the US have not been good Catholics, nor good witnesses to the faith, for the most part, since JKF was elected. Instead, they sought to emulate him when he sold his faith for power and prestige.

Two other points:

Perhaps you do not intend it, but you sound as if you're a German apologist--excusing Nazi genocide and justifying German attacks on US people and ships. There is no parity on the matter of US "genocide" with what Nazi Germany did.

The genocide of abortion and contraception that the USA now has was also practiced by Stalin's Russia and Germany long beforehand (Of course, Hitler only directed it against non-aryans) ...and now all of Europe and Japan....the USA is no worse, no better, than these nations on the matter of abortion.

As for Margaret Sanger being American--only as an accident of geography--she described herself as a *globalist* (see point above. ) Her 1932 Plan for Peace included this gem: "In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace."


It was Germany and Russia that practiced systematic genocide against a specific group of people.

Second, Mexico has an obligation to care for its own people. You cannot
privilege a particular ethnic group's immigration over those who lawfully immigrate.

The bishops of Mexico have a moral obligation and a theological imperative to teach their people to be lawful --meaning they cannot violate the laws of their neighboring country. Imagine for a moment the homilies Americans would have from US bishops if vast numbers of American Catholics sneaked into Mexico to take advantage of the goodies due only to citizens?

Illegal immigrants take what is in justice the benefits due to those who have earned them: They create a huge burden on a city's hospitals and schools that in turn deprive others of what is justly theirs--the term for this is theft. It is not defensible morally.

Mexican Catholics who are in truth and practice living the Catholic faith -- as opposed to cultural Catholics-- are as dismayed by this uncatholic attitude that is held by many Mexicans as most of us are.

Finally, my remarks are not anti-Mexican or anti-Catholic (I am an orthodox Catholic) but pro LEGAL immigration. Illegal immigration is not as harmless as failing to cut one's lawn, Steve--it steals necessities from legal citizens.