Muslim Enclaves (Training Camps) in the United States of America

6/22/18 – CHEYENNE, WY

By: Frank H. Tryon, Jr. Captain U.S. Navy (Retired) and Anthony J. Sacco, JD.

Did you know that there are between twenty-two (22) and thirty-five (35) Muslim enclaves in the United States? I bet you didn’t, because given the present attitude of our liberal media and others within the American society, not much coverage has been allotted to this depressing happening.

Did we hear you asking, “Where are these places?”  As of September 2015, the most up-to-date figures available, these enclaves or “training camps” were located in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. That’s eighteen of our fifty states.

It gets worse. In 2006 the Gwynn Oaks Muslim Residential Development group established an informal enclave in Baltimore. In 2004 in Little Rock Arkansas, the local planning commission, blinders firmly in place and drooling over the prospect of additional tax revenue, granted authorization to build an internal Muslim enclave which includes a Mosque, a school, and twenty-two homes.

Was there a public outcry about this sort of thing around the country? The residents of Baltimore and Little Rock should have been concerned. So should the people of the eighteen other states. Why? Because within these “enclaves” or training camps, their leaders could conceivably impose and enforce Islamic (Sharia) law.

On May 20, 1940 the United States Supreme Court, in Cantwell v. Connecticut, ruled unconstitutional a Connecticut statute that required individuals making door-to-door religious solicitations to obtain a state license. The Court stated that the free exercise of religion encompasses two concepts:  the freedom to believe, and the freedom to act.  While the “freedom to believe” is absolute, the “freedom to act” is not and should not be. A good decision regarding our right of freedom of religion, with the passage of time and changing circumstances, it has become one of those examples of “unintended consequences.” Since many Muslim jurists believe that a Muslim cannot fully discharge all his obligations under Sharia law while living in a non-Muslim area, the establishment of these “enclaves” provides areas where a duel system of law can be operational, and the United States Constitution (the Supreme Law of our country) could be subordinated to and ignored by Sharia law. This is happening even now in places like Dearborn MI. Also these areas provide a fertile ground for the establishment of a “state” religion, which is forbidden by our Constitution.

Additionally, these enclaves provide a way for Muslims to avoid assimilation into the American culture. Assimilation, which has been the basis of America’s “melting pot” for immigrants who come here from all over the world for as long as we have been a country, has been under attack for perhaps seventy-five years by liberals and others who do not believe in that concept. And here’s another troubling thought: the Arkansas enclave receives foreign financial support from “Islam 4 the World” in Sharjah, one of the United Arab Emirates. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine why that means trouble, considering the title itself.

And if the above facts were not enough, many, if not all, of these “enclaves” provide paramilitary training to their residents.  FBI documents obtained by the Clarion Project, a Washington, D.C. based organization founded in 2006 which has been involved in the production and distribution of such films as Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against The West, and The Third Jihad, which we have been posting about for at least a year, show a propensity for encouraging violence against anyone Muslims of America’s  leadership considers an enemy of Islam.



Author Rod Dreher, [who has been one of the only mainstream journalists to look closely at the infiltration of violent Islamist ideology in the United States], Warns the Christian Bishops About their Plan to Dialogue With Islamists.

6/14/18 – CHEYENNE, WY.

BY: Frank H. Tryon, Jr. and Anthony J. Sacco, JD.

On February 16, 2016, posted an article entitled “Catholic Bishops Plan ‘Dialogue’ With Islamists.” The article highlighted Catholic Bishop Robert McElroy of the Diocese of San Diego, speaking at a conference called “Deepening Inter-Religious Dialogue and Community Alliances” at the University of San Diego.

Also at that conference, and representing the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was Sayyid Syeed. The ISNA has previously been named as a front organization of the Muslim Brotherhood and an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal trial of the Holy Land Foundation in 2008. That trial established that the Foundation was funding Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s branch in Palestine.

The remaining paragraphs of this blog have been taken directly from Breitbart’s article because that article accurately and directly tells the U.S. Catholic Bishops to OPEN THEIR EYES AND KNOW WHO THEY ARE DIALOGUING WITH.

“Author Rod Dreher, then with the Dallas Morning News, has been one of the only mainstream journalists to look closely at the infiltration of violent Islamist ideology in the United States of America. Dresser went head-to-head with Sayyid Syeed at an editorial board meeting of the Dallas Morning News. Dreher writes, ‘When I had the opportunity to ask a question, I told Dr. Syeed that his sentiments were laudable, but if ISNA really stood for peace and tolerance, why did it have on its board . . . and then I rattled off a list of board members and their direct connections to Islamic extremism. Up to that point, Dr. Syeed had been polite and professorial. But at that point, he dropped his mask. He literally shook his fist at me, said this was an inquisition worthy of Nazi Germany, and that I would one day ‘repent.’ I told him mine was a fair question, and that I would appreciate an answer. I didn’t get one. But I had learned an important lesson about how groups like his operate: by evading legitimate queries, and browbeating journalists into retreat by calling them bigots and persecutors.”

Dreher then describes a relentless effort by Muslim operatives to get him fired. One of his Dallas Morning News colleagues actually had to have body-guards while he was reporting on the Holy Land Foundation trial. During the Holy Land Foundation trial, a document was presented as evidence by prosecutors that lays bare what many see as the game plan of Muslim efforts to turn the United States into a Muslim country. Exhibit GX3-85 is an 18-page “Explanatory Memorandum” that was found by FBI agents in a raid on the home of an Islamist’s house near Washington DC. As Dreher explains, “It lays out the Muslim Brotherhood’s (Ikhwan) plans to take control of the American Muslim community, to embed itself in civil society, and ultimately prepare the way for a sharia state.” From the document: The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a “Civilization-Jihadist” process with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.”

In an exclusive interview, Dreher told Breitbart News, Christian-Muslim dialogue is important and necessary, but Christians had better enter into it knowing exactly whom they’re dialoguing with, and what their Muslim dialogue partners stand for. Sayyid Syeed is not the man he presents himself as, nor is the Islamic Society of North America what so many well-meaning Christians think it is. ISNA is a Muslim Brotherhood front group, one whose leaders are highly practiced in the art of saying one thing in public, and another thing in private. They depend for their effectiveness on the ignorance of Western audiences about their ideology and their roots in radical Islam, and on the craven fear a certain kind of American — and a particular sort of churchman — has of looking Islamophobic. [To date the reports of the Bishops reflect the concept of “Mirror Imaging”. That is, the Bishops see their Muslim counterparts as the Bishops see themselves – as truthful, holy individuals, intent on establishing sincere and peaceful relationships.] The term “Islamophobic” was developed by brotherhood groups to help their progressive allies look away from evidence of Islamic radicalism, and to instead smear conventional critics of orthodox Islam as demented and crazy. Dreher says a precondition of talks between the Catholic Church and Muslim groups, has to be honesty, and a willingness to confront painful truths on both sides.

If the Catholic bishops have done their homework on Sayyid Syeed and his organization, then their discussion may well be a combative one, but at least it will be illuminating. But I don’t expect this to happen, not at the San Diego event, or at any event. Far too many Christian leaders really [do not] want to know about the ideological roots, beliefs, and actions of Muslim-American leaders. Dreher insists and other reporters should underscore that Syeed and his colleagues do not speak for all American Muslims, but are leaders of radical Islam, which has insinuated itself into the American Muslim community. “They don’t speak for all American Muslims, of course, but they are the ones given a platform by Catholic leaders and others,” Dreher said. “Insofar as these closeted radicals are the only dialogue partners available, it can still be useful to talk to them, but for the sake of the truth, not to say the souls of those martyred by radical Islam, bishops and other Christians should go into these meetings with their eyes wide open and their tongues untied,” Dreher said.”[1] [1]; accessed 5/29/2018.

The Dangers of Mirror-Image Thinking.

NOTE: This article, written by an extremely intelligent individual,  describes mirror – imaging, a concept that Frank H. Tryon, Jr., and I have been referencing in our series of articles about the dialogue currently in progress between Christianity and Islam. Mr. Burns’ article is quoted in its entirety. However, I have added a few comments of my own to his article, in order to better connect it to the current world situation.

Many difficulties of our current public discourse are pervaded by one relatively simple yet devilishly persistent cognitive difficulty. This is especially evident with current discussion regarding the conflict between [Islam and Western Civilization] Israel and Hamas.

Many Westerners, in particular Americans [citizens of the United States], appear to have difficulty understanding and internalizing the differences between Western society and others [Muslim societies]. When trying to relay personal anecdotes about my experiences when travelling or even just discussing current events, I have often found the understanding of others to be critically lacking in basic context.

There is a problem in conceiving how, despite many similarities, other cultures can be so strikingly different. Some people are open to the new information. “Oh, well I’m glad I don’t live ‘there’ then!” being an example response to a newly revealed unpleasant fact. For some, however, such a realization is undesired, even a painful or jarring experience. Others refuse to have such an experience to begin with.

When facts presented in an honest attempt to inform and sway opinions are condemned as ‘racism’ and ‘bias’ , you are likely dealing with someone of such a stripe. For many there is a sort of blind faith that all people are basically the same. That the assumed homogenous body of humanity is not only generically the same but more specifically the same in a presumed inherent goodness. A personal belief in, and therefore desire to conclude towards, and find, a general equivalence between people and things in the world can be a severely exacerbating factor. Frequently those of such persuasions label any contrary, non-relativistic or equivalence based, view as ethically flawed. These are, at core, people whose worldview rests upon the ideas of relativism and general equivalence.

The cognitive difficulty in action here is neither new nor unknown.  It has simply been taken to extremes.

In the intelligence profession it is known as ‘Mirroring’. This is the faulty base assumption by the analyst that the subject in question thinks the same or similarly to themselves. The faulty, inaccurate nature of analysis conducted with this type of thinking has been self-evident over time in the intelligence community despite the relative ease that many people have in falling into this cognitive trap, so much so that it is a fundamental aspect of analyst training to stress the avoidance of such analytical pitfalls.

There is a simple reason for the precision with which the Intelligence community, as a profession, has come to be able to recognize the various sources of errors in their judgment such as ‘Mirroring’, whereas public and political types typically do not. The Intelligence community isn’t just spinning fantasy. The predictions and analysis that are created based on intelligence are qualitatively measured products. Predictions, to put it mildly, can be inaccurate. To put it another way, they can get people killed by being the basis of further incorrect decisions.

Accuracy therefore is extremely important and desired. Hence even the concept of ‘Mirroring’ and teaching analysts to avoid it.

Easier said than done, of course.

But why is this important?  What really does this misconception of the subject of analysis result in?  In other words, why should you care?

Because the political left of our society is attempting to dogmatically enforce the same misconception in general society today.

An analyst, or in our case a thinker in general, can at times struggle, or not, to separate his own thoughts, reactions, and feelings regarding a subject and its genuine factual context. Separating his own thoughts and views from his desired goal of achieving deeper point-of-view empathy with the subject and attempting to predict what the decision-making process of the subject will be. One’s own view, if allowed, can often preclude a deeper and more genuine understanding of a subject from within its own perspective and context. It can cause the observer to fail to recognize and factor elements of the situation and their significance that he refuses to acknowledge or see the genuine relevance thereof.

This deviation of judgment from fact and reality is the cause of dangerous inaccuracies.

Make no mistake — the risks of such a fundamentally flawed understanding of the world situation by society at large are not less, but greater, than those posed by the intelligence analyst. This stems from the simple fact that the scope of impact and decision-making between the two is so vastly different.

Take the example of the intelligence analyst. If his misjudgment could result in the deaths of a team of soldiers sent on a mission due to that faulty intelligence, what greater wrongs can be wrought by our society at large by exercising such flawed decision-making?

A war conceived in faulty understanding is only one of the more immediate and mild possibilities which occurs to me.

How much worse to call the just the unjust, or the unjust the just? To condemn a noble ally and instead coddle and give aid and comfort to an avowed enemy?

And yet our public discourse seems increasingly dominated by relativistic and equivalence based thinking and rhetoric. We as a people would be well advised to confront this nonsense and do away with it. It has long since begun to introduce the same inaccuracies of judgment and decision-making into our body politic.

How can such people who refuse to even acknowledge the differences between people or groups then be trusted to make accurate or reliable decisions? How can we entrust our national interest throughout the world to such obviously shoddy thinkers and decision-makers?

We should not.

And is there any greater example of such extreme failings in judgment as the public discourse regarding the conflict between Islam and the West? Or between Israel and Hamas? The differences between these latter two groups should be immediate and obvious to one who was simply willing to see them.

One is a democratic country of Western societal norms and values that respects life, liberty, and the individual. The other is a terrorist organization that doesn’t have any of these norms or value any of these things.

One is a terrorist organization that specifically targets civilians, uses human shields, and literally throws candy in the streets to their children over the murder of the children of their self-declared enemies.

The other, simply put, isn’t.

And what of the so-called dialogue which is taking place between Christians and Islam? Between the Catholic Church and Muslims? Are the Bishops engaged in mirror-imaging?

There is no moral, social, or cultural equivalence to be found here. Only someone whose worldview rests therein, who emotionally ‘needs’ to see such equivalence there, will find it. Because it does not stand before even a passing scan of the basic facts available. ‘Mirroring’ out of obvious if deep seated emotional desire for it to be so, plain and simple.

Don’t hesitate. [We must] Call faulty judgment and an incomplete grasp of the situation what it is. [It is important to the continued health of Western Civilization in the face of the Islamic threat that we recognize it and all its implications, for what it is; the third attempt in History by Islam to conquer the World for Allah.]

The future of our society, and how we make our future decisions, is at stake every time. Do not allow the left to be comfortable in their moralistic condemnations and hypocritical relativistic thinking.  It must not be normalized or accepted.  Instead normalize in yourself, and then in others, a complete disdain and willingness to confront such ridiculously shoddy thinking wherever you find it.

Christian-Muslim Relations in the United States: Reflections for the Future?

By: Frank H. Tryon, Jr. (Captain, U.S. Navy, retired). Anthony J. Sacco, JD contributed to this blog.

5/22/18 – CHEYENNE, WY:

In December 2003 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) published an article written by John Borelli, who earned a Doctorate in History of Religions and Theology from Fordham University in 1976. The article is entitled Christian-Muslim Relations in the United States.

The article, a longish piece sub-titled Reflections for the Future After Two Decades of Experience, begins with these sentences from Nostra Aetate 3) 1: “Over the centuries many quarrels and dissensions have arisen between Christians and Muslims. The Sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding for the benefit of all men; let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values.”

In the article Mr. Borelli makes several statements which raise questions in my mind and which I am going to explore in these few paragraphs.

To start with, that first sentence is a gross understatement which ignores the Muslim goal of conquest of the entire world for Allah. It may qualify for the number one position on a list of the gross understatements of all-time.  

Then Borelli says this about Christians and Muslims in the United States “. . . we fundamentally agree on the nature of peace and justice and the essential need of all to work for peace and justice.”[1] Based on my fundamental knowledge of Islam I think that the above statement is probably true as long as we are agreeing with the Muslim concepts of peace and justice.  But the Muslim concept of justice comes from Sharia law, while our concept of justice comes from Natural Law and is explicitly expressed by the ideas of our Founding Fathers in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, and our legal system as developed for centuries by the British Common Law.

Another point: Mr. Borelli says “we will offer our criticisms of one another when we believe there is a violation of integrity of faith in God.”[2]  While I don’t know what that means, I do know that the two Muslim organizations the Bishops are dialoguing with are very closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal in the United States is . . . “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”[3]  To me this is a “violation of integrity of faith in God”.  Since we are a nation founded on God’s “Natural Law,” any movement with a stated goal of destroying the United States from within (and thus God’s Natural Law) must come from a place where there is no “. . . faith in God.” And thus “no integrity of faith in God.”

But wait. If there is not a faith in God, can there be a violation of integrity of faith in God?  Hmm.

Mr. Borelli goes on to say that the points of consensus he enumerates earlier in his article, “. . . suggest some steps for the future in relations between Christians and Muslims, but also express a sentiment or spirit for building a culture of dialogue between Christians and Muslims. “[4] OK, but he does not explain how we do this in a spirit of love and trust with a people whose stated goal is “destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions?”[5]

Borelli does not explain this obvious problem. I guess he and the Bishops should be warned against “mirror imaging,” that is, viewing their dialogue partners as they view themselves.  Also, maybe he and the bishops need to consider the Muslim concept of “taqiyya;” that is, lying to an enemy in order to advance the Islamic ideal.  It seems to me that both concepts apply here.


[1] Borelli, John,  Christian-Muslim Relations In The United States, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,  p. 2. available at

[2] Ibid, p. 2.

[3] Center for Security Policy: Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 Explanatory Memorandum, The General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America: “Unlike in the Middle East, where HAMAS’ Gaza operation confronts Israel kinetically and constantly, inside the U.S., the preferred method thus far has been “civilization jihad” – the stealthy, subversive use of infiltration, subversion and deception to pursue the destruction of the pillars of American society ‘from within.’ By posing as ‘moderate’ Islamic alternatives to the vicious violence of the likes of al Qaeda, the Islamic State or Taliban, the U.S. Brotherhood front groups have enjoyed remarkable success in advancing this agenda.”

[4] Borelli, op cit., p. 2

[5] Center For Security Policy. Op Cit.

The Catholic-Muslim Dialogue Examined. What is its Purpose?

By: Captain Frank H. Tryon U.S. Navy, Retired, and Anthony J. Sacco, JD.

CHEYENNE, WY. May 20, 2018:

Last week Frank came across an article in the January 10, 2017 Catholic Spirit by James Martone, a Catholic News Service writer, entitled “Catholic-Muslim dialogue opens to support Islamic American Communities”.  The article states “The regional dialogues – mid-Atlantic, Midwest and West Coast – have been effective in creating a better understanding among Muslim and Catholic leaders on a theological level . . . ” said Anthony Cirelli, associate director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

That statement struck Frank as absolutely astonishing.  Why? Because two of the organizations with whom the Bishops are dialoguing, are the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA).  Both of these organizations are very closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and that organization has declared the United States an ENEMY.

Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan specifically states that their goal is to destroy the United States from within.  In his position with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, (USCCB), how can Mr. Cirelli not know the background of the organizations with whom the Bishops are dealing?  If he does know the background, then almost certainly, he and the Bishops are giving legitimacy to the Muslim Brotherhood in its effort to destroy the United States from within.

Mr. Martone does go on to say later in the article, that Catholics who read Catholic media were more likely to view Muslims unfavorably than those who did not read Catholic media.  Martone reveals what he believes is a priority of the Bishops, with this quote from Mr. Cirilli: “The bishops’ priority at the moment is to listen to (Muslims’) concerns, their fears, their needs . . . and so discern how we as Catholics can help them achieve their goals of full participation in their communities.”

Could it be that those who read Catholic media know the background of the ICNA and ISNA and are aware of the strategic goals of these Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups?

We have a question for Mr. Cirilli: “Please ask the Bishops about their concern for legitimizing these groups and their goals, and how their dialogue is facilitating the ICNA and the ISNA  and the Muslim Brotherhood’s  goal of destroying the United States from within.”

That would be one of our MAJOR concerns. But we are not Muslims, and therefore our concerns are not important in this process of dialoging that the Catholic Bishops have undertaken. Right?


Should the Catholic Bishops be Dialoging With the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)?

5/1/18 – By: Frank H. Tryon and Anthony J. Sacco

The Islamic Circle of North America is an organization that is modeled on the Jamaat-e-Islami and its Pakistani offshoot, Jamaat-Al-Islami. The latter was founded on principles laid down by Maulana Mawdudi. Mawdudi was an Islamic philosopher and theologian who, before his death in September 1972, taught that every social order in the whole world needed to be reformed and restructured to conform to the ideals and principles of Islam.

Was he correct? The Charter of the Islamic Circle of North America supports Mawdudi’s teaching. It says in part:

“The goal of the ICNA shall be to seek the pleasure of Allah                                                   through  the struggle for Iqamatud-Deen (establishment of the                                                 Islamic system of life as spelled out in the Qur’an and the                                                           Sunnah of Prophet Mahammad.”

The Charter then interprets this goal to mean,

“Not only it ensures the Divine pleasure and success in the                                                    hereafter, but also, its establishment provides the best system of                                              life for proper solution of all worldly problems, and righteous and                                          progressive reconstruction of individual and collective life. Iqamat                                          of this Deen implies that this Deen should be sincerely and exclusively                                  implemented in all aspects of human life.”

Further, paragraph 6 of the ICNA by-laws says,

“6. It shall be the duty of the Ameer (the leader of the ICNA) to b:                                        Consider achieving the goal of ICNA as his primary obligation.”

These written statements of goals and responsibilities are clear. And one need not look far to find that the ICNA is reported to be directly connected to the Muslim Brotherhood and encourages its members to deceive people in its proselytizing campaign to help fulfill their goal. The ICNA and the Muslim Brotherhood have the same goals: the establishment of Islam by the use of terrorism. It may have been this knowledge which prompted the government of Egypt to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood some years ago.

So, have our Bishops read the ICNA Charter and by-laws? It would seem that they should do so prior to any further “dialogue,” especially if  Robert R. Reilly, author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind, and a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council is correct when he states that our Bishops are really uninformed about Islam.

And since they are uninformed. they tend to use mirror imaging when dealing with Muslims. That is, they tend to view others as they view themselves. And they also tend to disregard the Taqiyya, a Muslim tactic of lying for the purpose of gaining the upper hand over an enemy.

If the Bishops do not understand their Muslim counterparts, then these meetings between them, both nationally and locally, serve the Islamic goal by providing an undesirable platform for legitimization of an organization that has been investigated by the FBI, and is well-known for its ties to terrorism.

Given the above goal and primary responsibility of ICNA’s leaders, it would seem that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has no useful purpose in conducting these “dialogues.” If the USCCB continues this process, it seems that to avoid being taken advantage of, it is essential that the Bishops need to be aware of Islam’s (ICNA’s) objectives; i.e. the establishment of Islam around the world, and they should at least realize the harmful appearance these meetings are creating in the minds of other Christians.





Is The President’s Plan to Send The National Guard to the Border “Morally Irresponsible and Dangerously Ineffective?”

4/19/18 – Cheyenne, WY: By Captain Frank H. Tryon, U.S. Navy, Retired.

Last week I came across an article in the Catholic News Service reporting that the Bishop of El Paso and the Bishop of San Antonio were criticizing President Donald J. Trump’s decision to send the National Guard to help secure our Border with Mexico.  In fact El Paso’s Commission on Migration said the plan was “morally irresponsible and dangerously ineffective.”

Why is our President’s plan to strengthen our border security “morally irresponsible” and the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) “dialoguing” with the Islamic Society of North America and the Islamic Circle of North America, both of which are very closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, a designated terrorist organization, morally upright?

What are the leaders of the Catholic Church in this country thinking?  I used to believe the Bishops were very well educated, sound thinking people who believed in “truth, justice, and the American way”.  However, their failure to recognize the terrorist roots of their dialogue partners, whose goals seem to be to open our borders to drugs, gang members like MS-13, and human trafficking is astonishing. The “dialoging” partners  have, for years, been making it easier for illegal immigrants, many of them criminals, to flee their own countries, cross our borders, and take advantage of the benefits of the United States that are paid for by honest, hard working, tax-paying citizens.

This leads me once again to conclude that the Bishops are suffering from what William Kilpatrick, in his excellent September 25, 2017 article in Crisis Magazine, called “the normalization of delusional thinking.”

Where was the Bishops’ opposition to the National Guard on the border when President George W. Bush sent the “Guard” to the border in  2006 for “Operation Jump Start,” or when President Barack Hussein Obama sent the “Guard” to the border in July 2010 for “Operation Phalanx?”

The only other explanation for the opposition to this absolutely lawful, precedented, and necessary reinforcement of the Border Patrol is that this is another incipient and disgraceful move to overturn the election of 2016 and oppose the Administration of Donald Trump by either getting him impeached and thrown out of office or to force him to resign.

Do our Bishops believe, along with the people who don’t like Trump inside the Beltway, that it’s offensive that he won? Did they also want Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Socialist/so-called Progressive? Do they want President Trump gone and his presidency over, despite the many great things he’s already done for the nation?

Why is this step to defend our borders and protect the citizens of this country considered “morally irresponsible?”