Tuesday, August 26, 2014


One of the things I’ve found most refreshing about Catholic culture is the understanding of the importance of modesty.

Though each woman may have different ideas about exactly what it means to be modest, there is a general agreement that putting forth some level of conscious effort to avoid looking like a backup dancer in a Snoop Dogg video is a good thing. And it’s fascinating to see the effect that it has on women’s interactions with one another.

When I was in my 20s, I worked at a startup company where there were no standards for appropriate dress. Over time, an unspoken tension developed among the females of the office. Sally from marketing showed up to a board meeting in a startlingly short skirt, then Jane the office manager started wearing shirts with lower and lower cuts. Kelly the analyst would turn heads when she breezed through the break room in jeans so tight they looked like they were sprayed on. And this kind of thing didn’t just happen in the office where I worked; though I wouldn’t have used this term to describe it at the time, immodesty was rampant in the culture of women who worked in that particular industry during the high-tech boom.

And whether or not this was the intent, wearing revealing clothing always came across as a power play, and even sometimes as an act of aggression against other women who were wearing more reasonable attire. The effect of all of this was that the female friendships in these social circles were always on rocky ground.

It’s a fact of human nature that women are judged by their physical appearances more than men are, and therefore it’s easy for a feeling of competitiveness to arise in this area. When a girl would arrive at the office wearing a tight little outfit that commanded everyone’s attention, there was an unmistakable—though unspoken—feeling that a competition had been initiated. Even among the women who couldn’t care less about engaging in office beauty contests, who even pitied the scantily-clad girl for drawing the wrong type of attention to herself, there was a vague feeling of resentment that she had tried to initiate this “game” in the first place. All of these interactions remained below the surface, but they were very much present.

To describe how it felt to be a woman in that culture, imagine if men walked around displaying their annual incomes on name-tags. To allow no-holds-barred competition in an area where men are particularly sensitive to judgment would inevitably poison their relationships with one another. And so it is with women.

Discussions about the benefits of modesty tend to focus on preserving the dignity of women and respecting men who are seeking chastity. Those are great points, but I think that the impact that it has on relationships among women is a huge benefit that is too often overlooked.

The other day I saw a group of young adult women chatting after a meeting at church. They were about the same age as I was when I worked at that startup, and seeing them brought back memories of that time. In contrast to the culture I remembered, all of these girls looked beautiful and stylish while observing some basic ideas about modesty—and the effect was that there wasn’t that vibe that some of them were trying to be the center of attention with their dress, unlike back in my career days. It made me smile to see how well this system works. For women to embrace modesty is to declare a truce with one another. They can still aim to look nice, but mutual agreement on of reasonable standards of dress draws the boundary lines so that it doesn’t break out into a distracting competition.

Let me hasten to add that when I say that I’m now in social circles that value modesty, I don’t mean that we show up with pitchforks and torches at the house of any women who dare to wear skirts above the ankles, or that it’s something that is ever discussed at all (the occasional internet flare-up aside).

I’m referring here to some basic ideas about how to dress that are so deeply embedded in this subculture that I doubt the average Catholic woman even realizes she’s doing anything different than women in some segments of society. As I’ve seen it practiced, embracing modesty isn’t about following a specific clothing checklist or mistaking fashion choices for holiness. Rather, it’s just a decision that women make, mostly in the back of their minds, not to make their bodies the center of everyone’s attention. It’s a small gesture, but the impact is striking. It brings an air of peace to a gathering of women that you just don’t have if a couple of gals have shown up in tiny tank tops and super-short shorts.

It’s as if we simply say to one another, “I won’t show up in hot pants to your barbecue, you won’t wear a cleavage-bearing dress to my wine tasting, and we’ll all have a lovely time.”

Friday, August 15, 2014


Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) recently introduced a bill in the Senate titled the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2014. Its purpose is “to prohibit governmental entities from discriminating or taking an adverse action against a child welfare service provider on the basis that the provider declines to provide a child welfare service that conflicts, or under circumstances that conflict, with the sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions of the provider.”

Here are the headlines that followed:

“Some Conservatives Would Rather Keep Kids in Foster Care than Let Gays Adopt Them”

“New ‘religious freedom’ adoption bill criticized as being anti - LGBT”

“Religious freedom bill could spur adoption discrimination”

“GOP bill would give adoption agencies the right to discriminate against same-sex couples”

And the list goes on. It’s no mystery what the liberal media think about this issue.

In recent years, some religious child welfare providers who believe that children deserve to be placed with married mothers and fathers have lost government funding and have shut down because of laws requiring them to serve the lesbian, gay, bi and transsexual (LGBT) communities,despite their contradicting religious convictions. In Illinois, unmarried heterosexual couples and homosexuals may legally adopt children and become foster parents, leading to the discontinuation of the Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Rockford’s adoption services. In Washington D.C. a similar adoption program was shut down due to another law that requires religious organizations serving the general public to provide services to homosexuals regardless of religious beliefs. Comparable cases are found in California, Massachusetts, and all across the nation—cases which offer a choice between sincere religious beliefs and punishment under law, or compliance and the forsaking of religious conscience.

Interestingly enough, LGBT adoption agencies exist all across the nation, and this bill does nothing to discriminate against their clients or services. The bill would protect the religious liberty of those adoption agencies already functioning under religious organizations while respecting the right of alternative agencies to equally serve whomever they like. Unfortunately, it may not be equality that is at stake here. Perhaps those in favor of these laws are not interested in alternative programs that respect LGBT communities and religious liberties. Perhaps they want to force religious organizations to change their beliefs—at any cost.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) state on their website that “equality is not the finish line. Simply removing discriminatory laws from the books should be the bare minimum of what we seek. The ultimate prize is not equality—it’s justice. We need laws that address the obstacles that we face as a community, instead of treating us exactly the same as everyone else. … Think about this for a moment. What would it look like if we weren’t content with simply making sure that our youth are not beat up in school? Instead, what if schools were required to teach about LGBT history?”

Clearly no one should be beaten up at school or mistreated for any reason. But when does one group’s concept of justice become injustice for another group? The situation in Massachusetts, California, Illinois, and D.C. is one such example. In those places, the government refuses to contract with religious organizations that are unable, due to sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions, to provide a child welfare service that conflicts with those beliefs or convictions. Thus ends their “long and distinguished history of excellence in the provision of child welfare services.”

While some child welfare services are closing shop in order to maintain their religious standing and comply with government regulations, a small group’s concept of justice has become an injustice for large religious organizations with hundreds of dependent children.

LGBT issues are constantly exaggerated in the media as if in an effort to rekindle the legacy and thrill of the civil rights movement, and to smear conservatives as bigots for not agreeing with all of their tactics.

According to a Gallup Poll , U.S. adults estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian.

But reality contradicts popular estimates.

Starting in 2013, the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS)—an organization charged with monitoring the nation’s health since 1957—included questions in its survey to ascertain the identity component of the sample adult’s sexual orientation. The results were significant.

NHIS reports that 96.6% of adults identified as straight, only 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% identified as “something else,” or stated that they didn’t know the answer or they didn’t answer.

That is a world of difference from the 25% that American adults have been led to believe.

With more accurate data now provided by the NHIS, Americans ought to be better informed and able to go about solving discrimination issues in a more personal, effective, and equal way. Must 1.6% of the population insist that religious institutions forsake their deeply held convictions while alternative options for child services already exist? The NHIS findings ought to raise many red flags as the government overreaches into the lives of the large majority of Americans on the pretext of protecting those who might be discriminated against.

Jace Gregory is an intern at Accuracy in Media’s American Journalism Center. For any inquiries, please e-mail info@aim.org.

    Share This

Wednesday, July 30, 2014


Many young people, especially the anti-social, dislike classical music so much that it can be played to discourage them from intimidating, harassing and robbing.

This experiment has been successful over many years in countless locations.

The earliest occurrence was in the mid-1980s, when Canadian outlets of 7-Eleven played easy listening and classical music to disperse teenagers loitering outside. After that, companies from McDonald's to Co-op, transport authorities, housing estates and shopping malls around the world have employed this method.

In the UK, the first to do so was the Tyne-and-Wear Metro system in 1997, following Montreal’s underground system in Canada.

Other British transport providers, including the much bigger London Underground, imitated the scheme. The most effective deterrents were anything sung by Pavarotti or written by Mozart.

Across the pond, whether at New York's Port Authority Bus Terminal, La Guardia, Newark International and John F. Kennedy International airports, and Pennsylvania Station; at Portland, Oregon, light-rail stations; in Seattle's parking lots; or in Anchorage, Alaska, Town Square, classical music has helped even against crimes like drug dealing.

Same in Australia and New Zealand. In Queensland, it reduced vandalism and graffiti.

The evidence seems plentiful. Why, then?

The simplest explanations, in the time-honored scientific tradition of Occam's razor, should be considered first.

Teenagers, especially those with uneducated ears, don't like classical music, and they think it's not "cool" to be seen by their peers listening to it.

Still other explanations are in the nature of classical music itself. Much of it conveys a sense of order, symmetry and beauty, that conflicts with the disorder and ugliness in the minds of hooligans.

Musicologist Giovanni Bietti explains that Beethoven -- who was convinced that music could make a great social contribution -- Mozart and Haydn had a rational image of music, which is why in their works the initial contrasts are always resolved through the rules of composition, giving order to thoughts. This discourages those who don’t accept the rules.

Enza Ferreri is an Italian-born, London-based Philosophy graduate, author and journalist. She has been a London correspondent for several Italian magazines and newspapers, including Panorama, L’Espresso, La Repubblica

Tuesday, July 22, 2014


Vatican Radio) “It is shameful that Christians are being rejected, expelled and diminished”, writes the leader of the Chaldean Catholic Church Patriarch Louis RaphaĆ«l I Sako in a letter addressed to people of good-will across Iraq’s multi-religious, multi-ethnic society ahead of an Islamist deadline to minorities in Mosul to submit to Islam, their rule or die.
During his Sunday Angelus Pope Francis told the persecuted Christians of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul that he was with them in solidarity and appealed for aid for these people who have been “stripped of everything“.
Thousands of Iraqi Christians have fled Mosul to Sunni Kurdish areas up north after the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) threatened to kill them if they don't convert to Islam or pay tax. Extremists of the al-Qaeda-inspired group began implementing their threats by burning a 1,800 year old church in the city.
Yet in whta the Patriarch described as a sign of hope, Muslims from the capital Baghdad reached out in solidarity to their Christian brothers and sisters, joining them at the end of Mass on Sunday for a special service in the Church of Mar Girgis. Many bore signs that read “I am an Iraqi Christian”.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says that the persecution of Iraqi Christians who have been driven from their homes in Mosul could constitute a crime against humanity.
In his letter Patriarch Sako writes: “It is obvious that this would have disastrous consequences on the coexistence between the majority and the minorities, even among Muslims themselves, in the near and long term. Hence, Iraq is heading to a humanitarian, cultural, and historical disaster”.
Below the full text of Patriarch Sako’s letter, english tanslation courtesy of AsiaNews
To the people of conscience and good will in Iraq and the world,
To the voice of the moderates, our Muslim brothers and sisters in Iraq and the world,
To all concerned about the continuation of Iraq as a nation for all its citizens,
To all leaders, thinkers, and human rights activists,
To all defenders of the dignity of the human person and the freedom of religions,
Peace and God's Mercy
The takeover of the Islamist jihadists of Mosul and their announcement of an Islamic state, and after days of composure and anticipation, the situation had turned negative on the Christians of the city and surrounding areas. The first signs of this reversal were the kidnaping of the two nuns and three orphans who were released after 17 days, We were encouraged by this development and we considered it a glimmer of hope, and a breakthrough. Only to be surprised by the latest developments,   the Islamic state issued a statement calling on Christians openly to convert to Islam, and either pay Jizya without specifying a ceiling, or leave their city and their homes, with their clothes only, without any luggage, and issued a "fatwa" that the homes will become the property to the Islamic state. They have marked the letter "N" on the homes of Christians for "Nazarenes"!!! As they have marked on the homes of Shiites with the letter (R) for "Rejectors". Who knows what is holding in the coming days as the laws of the Islamic state is based on what they claim to be the Sharia law, including the redefinition of identities on the basis of religion and sectarianism.
These requirements offend Muslims and the reputation of Islam, which says "you have your religion and we have ours," and "There is no compulsion in religion", and it is in contradiction of a thousand and four hundred years of history and a lifetime of the Islamic world, and coexistence with different religions and different peoples, east and west, respecting their beliefs and living in fraternity. The Christians  and in particular in our East, and since the advent of Islam, have shared together sweet and bitter memories, their bloods were mixed in defense of their rights and their land, and together they built, cities, civilization and heritage. It is shameful that Christians are being rejected, expelled and diminished. It is obvious that this would have disastrous consequences on the coexistence between the majority and the minorities, even among Muslims themselves, in the near and long term. Hence, Iraq is heading to a humanitarian, cultural, and historical disaster.
Therefore we call unto them, a warm, brotherly, urgent and serious call, and we appeal to our fellow Iraqis who support them to reconsider their strategy, and respect the unarmed innocent people, of all ethnicities, religions and sects. The Quran commands respect to the innocent,  and does not call to seize the property of people forcibly, it calls on helping the widow, the orphan, the destitute and the defenseless, and even recommend to help the seventh neighbour. We also call on Christians in the region to adopt rationality and acumen, and calculate their options well and understand what is planned for the area, and come together in love and think through together and in solidarity to build confidence in themselves and their neighbours, gathering around their church, being patient, enduring and praying until the storm passes. 
+ Louis Raphael I Sako

Monday, July 21, 2014


For the first time in 1,600 years, Mass is not being said in Mosul: an ancient culture has been wiped out in a matter of weeks. It's a war crime that, strangely, no one seems to want to talk about.
Mosul is the second-largest city in Iraq and the place where many Christians believe Jonah was buried. Since the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis) rode into town, their faith has been forced underground. Bells have been silenced, the hijab enforced with bullets. Tens of thousands fled after being offered an unattractive choice: convert, pay a religious tax, or be put to the sword. The levy was unaffordable. According to one local news agency, Isis troops entered the house of a poor Christian and, when they didn’t get what they wanted, the soldiers raped the mother and daughter in front of their husband and father. He committed suicide out of grief.
Having driven away the worshippers, the Isis fanatics are now trying to extinguish the physical legacy they left behind. A centuries-old church has been burned to the ground; Jonah’s tomb has been desecrated. Isis wants to create the Islamic equivalent of Year Zero, a brave new world with no evidence of Christianity, women’s rights, democracy or even that most subversive of instincts, human pity.
It might seem like this revolution has nothing to do with us in the West, but that's more than a little naive. The genocide of local Christians did not begin with Isis but with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the conflict, there were 1.5 million “Chaldeans, Syro-Catholics, Syro-Orthodox, Assyrians from the East, Catholic and Orthodox Armenians” in the country – living, of course, under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, but living nonetheless. Today, their number has dropped to just 400,000. Religious violence peaked in the first four years of the invasion and then declined dramatically after the US-led surge. There was a hope that President Nouri al-Maliki would live up to his initial promise to protect religious minorities. But the rise of Sunni opposition to the Shiite regime in Baghdad sparked a second phase of persecution against Iraqi Christians.
Over the border came Isis, a particularly virulent strain of Islamism previously incubating in Syria’s civil war. Bashar al-Assad’s refusal to surrendered power in Damascus has destabilised the region yet further (the use of gas weaponry has a tendency to court opposition) and his own Christians have found themselves trapped in the middle of an internecine Islamic bloodbath: it was one year ago in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa where Isis first experimented with its instruction to “convert, pay a tax or die”. The Syrian patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church has estimated that perhaps 25 per cent of his country’s 2 million refugees are Christian.
The West’s direct intervention in Iraq created Hell on Earth for its Christian citizens, while the West’s lack of action in Syria (out of deference to its failings in Iraq) has permitted a regrouping of Islamist forces and the opening of a second front against Christians. The lesson is: “either leave other countries alone or, if you must intervene, do so with consistency and resilience”. The consequences of going in, messing things up and then quitting with a weary shrug are terrible for those left behind.
Yet, having been so intimately involved in the collapse of Iraq, the West is now bizarrely silent about events in Mosul. The streets of London fill with thousands marching against Israel’s military operation in Gaza; the West rails mightily against the Russian separatists in Ukraine. But of Iraq there is nothing. Why?
It could be that no Westerner wants to return to Iraq, that politicians fear that even discussing the country will lead voters to fear yet another invasion and yet another bloody occupation. Or it could be that we feel embarrassed about the very idea of Christians as a persecuted minority. The reporter John Allen argues that Westerners have been trained to think of Christians as “an agent of aggression, not its victim” - so we're deaf to pleas for help. That opinion is supported by Ed West in an excellent e-book, and its consequences have been condemned by religious leaders here in the UK. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has compared the suffering of Middle East Christians with Jewish pogroms in Europe and reminded everyone of the words of Martin Luther King: “In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” It would indeed be awful to think that the West might remain silent as violence rages purely out of a failure to recognise that Christians can be victimised, or out of a reluctance to cast aspersions on certain brands of Islam. It would make this the first genocide in history to be tolerated out of social awkwardness.
The West’s response to Mosul is worthy of contempt: if we won’t speak out for Christians, who will? But any disgust at our own moral cowardice should be balanced by admiration for the Iraqis who continue to bear witness to their faith in a land that moves closer and closer to outlawing it. Their resilience illustrates the difference between fundamentalist Islam and Christianity: the former is a religion of killers, the latter is a religion of martyrs. And for those of us who share the faith of the thousands fleeing Mosul, Jesus's own sacrifice offers hope – a reminder that victory is guaranteed for those who endure: "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." Whatever your faith, please pray for the Christians of Mosul

Wednesday, July 02, 2014


In Jesus’ time, the smallest homes of the very poor might be little more than a square, stone structure covered with a whitewashed sort of stucco. There would typically be one larger multipurpose room and a smaller back room for the animals. Some houses in hilly regions were partial cave dwellings, built up against the limestone rock face, perhaps with the front section built onto it. The traditional site at the house of the Annunciation in Nazareth seems to have employed this strategy. However we need not conclude from this that Joseph and Mary were destitute. Many homes employed the “hillside strategy” that made use of hollowed out caves. Such structures were easy to build and there was a certain natural coolness to them.

Another sort of house, also common among the working poor and typical village-dwellers, was one built around a central open court with small rooms opening onto it. (See the drawing at the upper right; click the picture for a larger view). This kind of building had the advantage of needing only short beams for the roof structures, since the central court had no roof. The open concept retained the coolness by allowing air to move freely through. Cooking could also be done in the open central court, when the weather permitted.

If the family had some animals, they were often kept in part of the house at night.

Families, sometimes including several generations, tended to live under one roof and had little or no privacy.

The roof was of real importance in everyday life. It was a flat roof with just enough slope to drain off the rainwater. Rainwater was carefully collected into cisterns or large containers, for in the more arid climate of the eastern Mediterranean every drop of water was precious. The roof of the house was flat and sturdy, enabling people to venture up on it. Since the roofs were used so often, the law of Deuteronomy required guard rails to be installed to prevent falling.

The roof areas in effect provided an open second floor. On the roof, tools would often be stored, laundry would be put out to dry, and people would often gather to talk, especially in the evening. Scripture also speaks of it as a place to retire and pray. In the evening when it was cool, people sat and talked, and in the better weather would often sleep there. The climate of the Mediterranean provides a rather perfect setting for this at most times of the year. Some also placed tents and other coverings on the roof.

Except for the roof structures, which included wood timbers, the basic building material in Palestine was stone. The limestone provides excellent building material and as the stones were fashioned into a wall, they would be coated with a flat, fixed stucco-like material and smoothed over. Foundations were dug with great care as Jesus also said to build upon rock rather than sand. The mortar was used to bond the stone that was made of clay mixed with shells in potsherds.

As for the structure of the roofs, wooden trusses were necessary, since the roof would be used as a kind of second floor. Then a kind of wattling or firm lattice of straw mats would be covered over and smoothed with hard clay. Yearly repairs were made just prior to the rainy season. Most of the inner doors were narrow; only the door facing the street was wider and had a hinged door that could be secured.

In poorer homes the floor was simply pounded earth. The more affluent might have pebbles or baked clay tiles. Wooden floors could be afforded only by the very wealthy.

Only the very wealthy could afford to have water piped to their houses. Ordinary people went to the well or spring-fount, or perhaps a local stream, and collected water with skins, jars, and all kinds of pitchers. Some larger towns did have conduits or aqueducts that brought the water to certain public areas. The washing of clothes was done away from the main house lest water run back in.

Generally there was no need for a lot of heating, except in the cooler months of the year. Most of the houses therefore had no fireplaces. If it did grow cold, there were charcoal braziers where small fires would be kindled.

Lighting was not very abundant. Small oil lamps were used. It will be recalled from above that much time was spent out-of-doors so interior lights were less necessary.

Furniture was extremely simple. The chief object in the home was the chest. There were chests for provisions and chests for clothes. For the poorest families, chests doubled as tables. Since clothing was simple, there was little need for many different sets or changes of clothing, and thus there was less need for numerous chests and the sorts of insanely large closets many have today.

Most moderately well off families did have a low table at which to recline and eat. People in this region and time reclined on their left elbow and ate with their right hand. Sitting on chairs at higher tables to eat was rare.

The kitchen as we know it did not exist. In small houses cooking was done out back on an open fire or in a fire pit. Utensils were kept in a chest. In larger houses the courtyard might be the place of the cooking fire and kitchen items were kept in a storeroom.  Only the largest homes had a dedicated area with a fiery oven.

Bedding was rolled out on the floor; the bed as a piece of furniture off the floor, as in our homes today, was largely unknown at that time except among the very wealthy. Family members stretched out on mats, covering themselves with their own cloaks. Many slept on the roof in the warmer months.

Many even smaller houses seem to have had a bath of some sort. The ancient Jews were conscientious about cleanliness and saw it as related to holiness and ritual purity. The usual bath (often called a mikveh) was narrow and one stepped down into it. Bathing was for hygiene to be sure, but there were also ritual baths that the Jews took. In the Holy House in Nazareth, a mikveh is located in or near the house and adjacent to the carpenter shop of Joseph.

Latrines were more likely outhouses and were situated away from the main dwelling. They may have been shared facilities between several domiciles, depending on the size and layout of the town or village. There is an excerpt in the Torah in which Moses instructs the ancient Israelites to ”build your latrines outside the camp.” It further states, “When you go to the toilet, take a paddle or a shovel with you and use the toilet and then cover it up,” suggesting that some sort of lime was thrown in after the use. Other directions about latrines were that they should be located in discreet, private locations. Certain archeological digs have uncovered the presence of latrines that consisted of a pit dug into the ground and of an enclosed, roofed chamber; basically an outhouse.

It was a simpler time to be sure, but still with all the basic needs of a home.

Thursday, June 19, 2014


LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - The United States has changed indelibly in the past six years, since the election of Obama. The American people are more policed, more monitored and watched than ever. Meanwhile, the government itself, from the IRS, to the BLM, to various federal agencies are now overpowered and virtually unaccountable.

With an amazing exception-the U.S. Border Patrol is being overwhelmed by an adversary they cannot fight, and instead have no choice but to love. Our borders are being overwhelmed by a human wave, made of children, many of them unaccompanied by their parents.

What is happening to our country? And why are our borders being overrun? According to the U.S. Border Patrol, almost 50,000 unaccompanied children have recently crossed the border.

Fifty thousand unaccompanied children.

In addition to these children the state of Texas has seen 35,000 illegal immigrants per month crossing the border. Immigrants report that so many people are so desperate to cross that rates human smugglers charge have skyrocketed from $100 per person to over $1,000.

Women regularly risk rape, enslavement, and even death to be smuggled by human traffickers into the United States. Victims report unsanitary conditions, little or no food and water, and a variety of other complaints related to their treatment -and that's just what they receive at the hands of U.S. authorities after suffering worse during their travels.

Immigrants are coming from Central America, a few displaced by local violence and poverty, but many are coming because Obama and his "posse" have successfully spread an insidious lie in Latin America which is not being reported by the media.

The immigrants largely believe that they, children in particular, will not be deported, but instead allowed to stay. In other words, they have been led to believe that children, in particular, will be granted automatic amnesty.

What Obama has done is place hundreds of thousands of people, possibly millions, on human trafficking trade routes into the United States where they will contribute to crime, violence, and overwhelm infrastructure and services. This makes Obama the smugglers best friend, an ally to human traffickers. It also makes him an enemy of federal enforcement agencies and taxpayers. It's an offense to humanity to permit the spreading of false rumors.

We can bomb faraway countries with ease, use drones to blast people to oblivion at a word, but apparently we can't reach people in Latin America with the truth that America's borders aren't open.

How do we know people think these things? The Border Patrol itself is reporting that hordes of illegal immigrants are actually waiting to be picked up after crossing into the United States. Whereas before these people would flee and avoid the law, they now expect agents to pick them up and give them documents which will allow them to stay in the U.S.

This is the result of a campaign of deception spread by the Obama administration, human traffickers, and badly misinformed people. Obviously, someone is selling a rumor and the people are buying, so much so they send their own children unaccompanied across the border.

Consider what NBC News, a stanchly liberal media outlet revealed:

"We're having to provide them baby formula, diapers, medical treatment," said Raul Ortiz, the Deputy Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector, which monitors 312 miles of riverbank, "It pulls at every agent that's exposed to this, it pulls at our heartstrings," said Ortiz. "We have kids at home, so there is a lot of sympathy and empathy for what they're going through."

And Breitbart had this to say:

On last Sunday's Al Punto program, a mother whose son was detained by the U.S. Border Patrol said that her son made the trek from Honduras to America because he believed the Obama administration would not deport him. Illegal immigrants have been flagging down border patrol agents to receive what they believe are "permits" to indefinitely remain in the United States. Though the "permits" are actually documents requiring the illegal immigrants to show up at immigration hearings, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) said that many have already been skipping these hearings and that there was "no way" that most of the illegal immigrants who are given the "permisos" will show up to their scheduled hearings.

Of the Obama administration, in case you had any doubt they've not put the welcome mat out is saying this, as reported by Breitbart:

"The Obama Administration has made it very clear that it will use any resources available to do "what's in the best interest" of each migrant child. While that rhetoric sounds well-intended, it makes the U.S. a magnet for everyone in the world who not only needs a helping hand, but for everyone who needs to be fully sustained."

President Obama has invited a human invasion of the United States and rather than combat the crisis by fighting the rumors in Central America and securing the border, he is allowing tens of thousands of people per month into the country. SO many people are entering that instead of deportations, illegal immigrants are given summons to appear in court, then flown to other states and released at bus stops. This effectively makes the Border Patrol part of the Obama apparatus to flood the country with illegal immigrants.

This is coupled with his promises to provide these people with everything, all while U.S. citizens go hungry and homeless, a quarter of whom are children.

Via Breitbart: "Reacting to what has been labeled a "humanitarian crisis," U.S. taxpayers are providing the illegal immigrants with housing, food, education, health care, recreation, vocational training, family unification, and even legal council. In the face of providing such amenities to the migrants, there are hundreds of thousands of  U.S. citizens--including families and children--who remain without a home or food."

All these people of course will be future voters. Only a fraction will appear at their hearings, and only a sliver of those will be deported. The Obama invited invasion is successful.

This is not how it should be.

These people, coming to the United States, must be treated with great respect and mercy, for they are people. However, the Border Patrol is not trained or equipped to house thousands of children in humanitarian facilities, look after their education and change their diapers. Yes, they are expected to change the diapers of unaccompanied babies.

Even the New York Times complained in a recent op-ed that social services in that state were being overwhelmed by the recent influx.

While we must treat these people well, give them asylum when they require it, and look after their needs while they are here, we also have a solemn obligation to defend our borders from human traffickers and terrorists. At a word, the president could secure our borders. Every state has a national guard, we have an army that is coming home from war. In an emergency we could post reinforcements that can assist the border patrol and help to dispel the rumor that immigrants will be given a free pass into the country.

Obama is a media wizard, so he could certainly buy media in Latin America and tell people to stop sending their children into our country. Warn them of the dangers of human trafficking. All these evils could be stopped.

But they're not because our politicians, starting with Obama, profit from this illicit trade in human beings. They get plenty of political traction during election years from this issue.

Illegal immigration is not a problem in many countries because they deal with the problem directly. It is a problem in the United States because it's a profitable problem. Only the taxpayers pay.

So the question remains. What is Obama playing at?

Whatever the answer may be, it's not in your best interest, nor in the interest of those coming into this country illegally.

We forget that the Western half of the Roman Empire collapsed in 476 AD because it was overrun from the north. Great civilizations are destroyed from within, a result of corruption and strife. The Obama administration is creating just these problems in our country today. We shouldn't be surprised to see the host of evil and ills that come as a result.