Archive for September, 2016


Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Last week in Part 3 of this series, we looked at Donald Trump’s immigration reform proposals. This week, the focus will be on Hillary Clinton’s immigration stance.

As you may recall, the verdict on Trump’s immigration reform proposals was mixed. Some of his ideas were quite good – 1) his statement that American immigration policy should be set up to benefit all Americans and 2) his call to end birthright citizenship – can readily be reconciled with Biblical political theory. On the other hand, some of his ideas fell short of the mark – 1) Trump’s signature issue, his call to build a wall all along the US-Mexico border, and 2) his eVerify program, a proposal that would, in effect, create a national biometric ID card, requiring anyone looking to get a job to show “his papers” to prove he was eligible to work in the US.

An analysis of Hillary’s immigration plan will require a different approach than the one I used for Trump’s. Because her immigration proposals are so uniformly bad, realistically there is no way to break her ideas down into the categories of “good” and “bad” ideas.

In short, her immigration program is an unrelieved disaster that, if enacted, will go a long way to transforming the US into a third world country, while forcing ordinary Americans to foot the bill for the privilege. Or to put it another way, her immigration policy could well have been crafted by prelates of the Roman Church-State, whose destructive immigration policies she has largely adopted as her own. In fact, the only real difference between Mrs. Clinton’s ideas on immigration and those of Rome is that she doesn’t bother with trying to justify them, as the Romanists do, by twisting the Scriptures.

The following critique will be based upon Mrs. Clinton’s immigration platform as stated on her campaign website here.


Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »


Image from the riots in Charlotte, NC.

Another week. Another race riot. I realize putting it that was seems to trivialize what is a very serious situation in Charlotte. But really, this whole Black Lives Matter burnin’ down the house routine got old a long time ago.


And to make matters worse, there are reports indicating that the majority of those arrested in connection with the Charlotte riots aren’t even from North Carolina let alone from the local Charlotte area. As the spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police told CNN,

This is not Charlotte that’s out here. These are outside entities that are coming in and causing these problems. These are not protestors, these are criminals.

We’ve got the instigators that are coming in from the outside. They were coming in on buses from out of state. If you go back and look at some of the arrests that were made last night. I can about say probably 70% of those had out-of-state IDs. They’re not coming from Charlotte.

According to a Washington Times
report, “For all its talk of being a street uprising, Black Lives Matter is increasingly awash in cash, raking in pledges of more than $100 million from liberal foundations and other eager to contribute to what has become the grant-making cause du jour.”

And among the biggest donors to the cause is, you guessed it, none other than George Soros himself, who is said to have given $33 million in grants to the cause.

During the Ferguson riots, the genesis of the Black Lives Matter movement, the UK’s Daily Mail reports that Soros’ money, “was reportedly funneled into keeping up numbers of protesters in the community over a period of months by bringing in outside activists.”

Soros has repeatedly shown himself willing to sow discord if he believes it benefits his pet causes.  Are we seeing a replay of this in Charlotte?


Read Full Post »


Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Immigration, long an issue in American politics, has in the past year been moved from the back to the front burner. This is due in no small part to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, who has placed immigration reform at the very center of his platform.

In Trump’s case, the most notable reform proposals are 1) his promise to build a wall along the entire border between the US and Mexico and have Mexico pay for it, and 2) his pledge to step up the deportation of illegal immigrants, that is, to forcibly those individuals who are in the country in violation of US immigration law. You can read his full immigration platform here.

Donald Trump – The Good

On Trump’s campaign website under the heading “Immigration Reform That Will Make America Great Again” are listed “three core principles of real immigration reform.” They are:

  1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.
  2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.
  3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

I would like to being the discussion of Trump’s immigration stance by taking up point number three. For though it is the third “core principle” listed, it is the most noteworthy of the three.

Usually when the subject of immigration comes up, any logical thought is quickly swallowed up in a fog of altruistic sentimentality replete with buzz words such as “nation of immigrants,” “give me your poor,” “the Statue of Liberty” and “Ellis Island.”


Read Full Post »

Well, we had quite a week this past week. Crooked Hillary became deplorable Hillary became collapsing Hillary. The tide bad economic data kept rolling in. There was more evidence (as if we needed any) that there is very little of Christianity left in our nation’s mainstream culture.

Deplorable Hillary

For someone who’s always seemed to lack a sense of humor, Hillary managed to inject a healthy dose of LOL humor last week with her “basket of deplorables” speech. Based on her comments, about 25% of the US population qualified for deplorable status due to their, drum roll please, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia and/or whateverophobia.

For my part, I’m glad she said what she said and don’t think she should take back any of it. I rather enjoy it when people speak their mind. At least we know where we all stand. In that regard, it’s a bit like Obama’s “‘bitterly clinging to their guns and religion” comments a few years back. Hillary was trying to gain SJW street cred with her LGBT friends and Barbara Streisand. And who am I to deny her such an honor?

Of course, this is a bit self-serving on my part. After all, I find her lying, war-mongering, Saul Alinsky loving, oligarch schmoozing, feminist, anti-American, crony capitalist, charity fraudster self to be not a little deplorable, and, as I would like to preserve my right to say so, I’m more than willing to grant her free rein to bare her soul to the world.

It was the very next day that Hillary collapsed like the twin towers at the 911 ceremony in New York. We can only hope that her campaign does likewise.

As a closing thought on the Hillary, I believe that while it is necessary to point out her many lies, appalling record as Secretary of State, and ideological unfitness to serve as president, it is not sufficient. There are many outlets capable of doing that. As I have pointed out elsewhere, as a Christian I must also object to the idea of a woman president. Period. As Isaiah tells us, female rulers are a sign, not of a healthy society, but of a ruined nation. Only by pointing out this rather unpopular point can a Christian writer be said to have done his job with respect to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.


Read Full Post »


Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).


“…America is a dying nation. I tell the Mexicans when I am down in Mexico to keep on having children, and then to take back what we took from them: California, Texas, Arizona, and then to take the rest of the country as well.”

    — Paul Marx, Roman Catholic priest

It would likely come as a surprise to many Americans, even to Evangelicals who really should know better, just how hostile the Roman Church-State is to what they believe is just the common sense concept of national sovereignty.

But in truth, what is widely considered a matter of common sense, “the idea that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers” (“Westphalian sovereignty“, Wikipedia),” is really a product of the Protestant victory in the Thirty Years’ War years war that concluded with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

This Westphalian Order has always been a focus of hatred for the globalists in the Roman Church-State, who work constantly to hasten the day when all the nations of the world bow the knee to the authority of the See of Rome, as had been the case in Europe up until Westphalia.

For proof of this, consider the words of a recent document issued by Rome,

Conditions exist for going definitively beyond a “Westphalian” international order in which States feel the need for cooperation but do not seize the opportunity to integrate their respective sovereignties for the common good of the peoples” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Towards Reforming Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority).

The problem, as Rome sees it, is that sovereign nations states are too concerned with pursuing their own self interest and are not focused on the “common good.” Now the term “common good” is one of those buzzwords one often finds in Romanist documents. But what does it mean? In short, it is a collectivist fiction of Romanist political theory by which Rome attempts to justify governmental intrusion into the lives and liberty of ordinary people (see paragraphs 1907 and 1908 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church). As John Robbins explains it, “The common good becomes the reason for extensive government intervention into the economy” (Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 159).

According to Rome, the common good requires extensive provision by government for the “needs” of the people.

Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1908).

This paragraph, which easily could have been written by Karl Marx, is essentially a call for unlimited government. And since governments, in the eyes of Rome at any rate, are not doing an adequate job on their own of taking from each according to his ability and giving to each according to his need, Rome would like to “go beyond the Westphalian order” and move the nations toward world government, with itself at the very pinnacle of power.

But how does can this be done? How is it possible for Rome to overturn Westphalia and bring back the good old days of the Holy Roman Empire? Broadly speaking, the sovereignty of nation states must by undermined to make way for its New World Order. And one of the most effective ways Rome has for undermining nations states is by encouraging mass immigration/migration, especially into the historic nations of the West.


Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

For a few months there I wrote a series of weekly posts I called This ‘n That dealing with various stories from the week that was. Over the summer I abandoned that format for a weekly podcast. Well, I plan to keep the podcast going, but I thought I restart the weekly review post as well under the updated name The Week in Review.

I know, I know, that’s not really the most imaginative title in the world. But I think it’s certainly appropriate for the subject matter. So, without further ado, let’s get started…

They Just Don’t Get It

The Washington Post and the liberals who love it just don’t get it. They can’t figure out why Mrs. Clinton isn’t totally dominating the presidential race and let show their frustrations in a story titled, “Democrats wonder and worry: Why isn’t Clinton far ahead of Trump?” According to the article,

With Election Day less than two months away, Democrats are increasingly worried that Hillary Clinton has not built a formidable lead against Donald Trump despite his historic weaknesses as a national party candidate.

The piece goes on to quote former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle saying, “Generally, I’m concerned, frankly…all the things that Trump has done, the numbers should be far more explicitly in her favor, but they’re not.”


Read Full Post »


Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Of all the issues roiling Western electorates, immigration may well be the most emotional. Proponents of mass, government subsidized third-world immigration see themselves as compassionate promoters of the social justice and the common good. On the other hand, those who stand in opposition to the immigration policies currently popular among Western elites see their way of life under attack.


Here is the United States, Donald Trump won the Republican presidential nomination largely on the strength of his tough-on-illegal-immigration-stance. Trump has galvanized support by rejecting amnesty for those who have violated US immigration law, promising instead to deport them, especially those who have been convicted of other crimes while in the US. He also has indicated that he wants to make it harder for those in the country illegally to obtain jobs, to significantly restrict Muslim immigration and, most notably of all, to build a wall along the US-Mexico border to stanch the flow of illegal border crossings from Central and South America into the US.

While Trump’s stance has won him widespread support among rank-and-file Republicans, the Republican party leadership, Democrats and the overwhelming majority of those in the mainstream press quickly become apoplectic when it comes to anything Trump related, especially when it comes to his immigration stance. One of the most extreme offenders in this regard is The Huffington Post, which lends a serious and dignified tone to the immigration debate by placing the following paragraph at the bottom of every column it runs about the Republican nominee:

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims – 1.6 billion members of an entire religion – from entering the U.S (Links in the original).

And the HuffPo is hardly alone. According to the New York Times, it is Trump, not the reporters and pundits who write about him, who is responsible for “testing the norms of objectivity in journalism.”


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: