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

Although the mainstream media (MSM) is firmly committed to the proposition that that the entire world has the right to immigrate to the US at taxpayer expense, conservatives have increasingly raised their voices in opposition to this practice.


This installment of Immigration, Citizenship, and the Bible (ICB) is an attempt to examine various conservative arguments for immigration reform in light Gordon Clark’s Scripturalism, the system of thought that asserts the Bible and the Bible alone is the Word of God and is the textbook to prepare the man of God for every good work, including the good work of immigration reform.

My critique of conservatives is presented here in the form of a review of Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster by Peter Brimelow.

Continue Reading »



President Trump sigs the executive order for the border wall, 1/25/17.

Well, one full week into the new Trump administration, and, despite all the hyperventilating from the snowflakes, it appears that the world indeed has not come to an end.  Who knew?  So what shall we say about this surprising state of affairs?  Let’s find out. 

Build That Wall

Ask any Trump supporter, or for that matter any Never-Trumper, what he thinks the candidate’s most important campaign promise was, and I suspect many, if not most, respondents would say “Build that wall!” This, of course, refers to Trump’s promise to build a roughly 1,900 mile long border wall between Mexico and the US to prevent illegal immigration across the nation’s southern border.

It’s an audacious plan. And one that has outraged the entire establishment, everyone from Pope Francis, to the progressive secular left, to the RINO Republican right, to the former president of Mexico. Some observers have tried to argue that Trump didn’t mean he intended to build a literal wall. All that was just talk, you see. It was promise to fire up the base, which would soon be dropped when the realities of governing set in.

Well, apparently Trump was entirely serious about what he said, as Wednesday “he signed executive orders instructing construction of a wall on the southwest border, a crackdown on so-called sanctuary cities and directives that would make effectively every undocumented immigrant a priority for deportation,” as the Huffington Post reports.

Continue Reading »

Well, that didn’t take long. The last echoes of the inaugural balls had scarcely faded when the first protest march against Donald Trump hit the Washington Mall. I refer, of course, to the Women’s March on Washington which took place on January 22, 2017, the day after Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States.

Beloved by much of middle America, reviled by the elites, from the very beginning of his presidential campaign Donald Trump has been a figure almost impossible to ignore.

It was not my intention to write about Saturday’s protest march against Trump. But the sheer size and radical nature of the event held in Washington and mirrored at other sites throughout the nation cries out for commentary.

Continue Reading »

See the article “Immigrants fear changes in U.S. policy” using this link  http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/01/08/immigrants-fear-changes-us-policy/96322318/

U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts during inauguration ceremonies at the Capitol in Washington

Newly sworn in President Donald Trump shakes the hand of Chief Justice John Roberts, 1/20/2017.

In case you haven’t heard, we had this little thing called a presidential inauguration this week. It seemed like a pretty big deal. So for that reason, and the fact that my alternative was leading with a story on Davos, the annual Dr. Evil convention held in Switzerland, it seemed good to me to kick things off this week with a word or two about the Trumpocalypse.

Mr. Populist Goes to Washington

For generations, the Democrats were the party of the little guy, the blue collar worker, the poor. They were the idealist revolutionaries manning the barricades against the oppressive establishment.

The Republicans? Well, they represented The Man. You know, like the top hat bedecked fellow with the monocle from Monopoly. The one who just can’t wait to overcharge you for rent in his hotel on Park Place.

But now in 2017 you can say goodbye to all that.

With his remarkable campaign and unlikely victory in the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump has sent shockwaves through the establishments in both political parties. It is now the Democrats who are the defenders of the New World Order globalist establishment, the representatives of the bi-coastal elites, the champions of privilege.

And the Republicans, it is they who have become the party of the common man.

Maybe there really is something republican about the Republicans beyond just the name. After all, it was the Republicans who fought off the South’s attempt to break up the republic during the Civil War. And today it is the Republicans – not the establishment Republicans, but the rank-and-file conservatives within the party – who have been most effective in defending the sovereignty of American republic against the globalists pushing for world government.

And while I don’t count myself as a populist – populism is a mish-mash of often contradictory ideas intended to benefit the little guy; as a Christian, I believe in limited government, the rule of law, and private property – I’m certainly a lot more comfortable with President Trump than the Wicked Witch of the West the Democrats tried to foist on us.

Continue Reading »



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

Among the more frustrating aspects of the immigration debate is that, at least as far as immigration and related issues are discussed in the mainstream press, it is not a debate at all.


In general, reporting on immigration issues takes the form of a lecture, in which proponents of keeping and/or expanding the current immigration/refugee/aslyee/migration system are posited as the defenders of all that is just, right and holy, heroically fighting against nativist, racist, xenophobic bigots who complain that current immigration laws do not serve the interests of the American people.

This sort of reporting often has a Kantian undertone to it, by which I mean that in many cases immigration to the US is explicitly or implicitly presented as, on the one hand, a right to which is due to the entire non-American population of the world, and, on the other hand, a duty owed by American people to them. The notion that US immigration policy should serve the interests of the American people – a point that Donald Trump explicitly made part of his immigration platform – is considered beyond the pale of polite discussion. Further, anyone so foolish as to attempt to argue that the interest of the American people should be considered when making immigration policy is immediately scorned and dropped into Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” from which there is no escape.

There is a second annoying aspect of the immigration debate, the tendency of immigration proponents to commit the informal logical fallacy known as appeal to pity. An appeal to pity is where one argues that you should accept his conclusion, not because of any sound logical reasoning requires that you accept it, but because you feel sorry for him. One example of this sort of argument runs, “If this man is given the death sentence, who will take care of his children?” (Norman Geisler, Come, Let Us Reason, 96). And how many times have we heard this sort of thing from immigration enthusiasts? “You can’t deport X, because you’re breaking up X’s family!” But feeling sorry for someone is not a sound basis for making immigration policy. For example, one can always reply, “Yes, but X should have considered the possibility of deportation before electing to enter the US contrary to American immigration law. No one made him violate the law. He chose to do so. Therefore, the breakup of his family is his own fault.”

Continue Reading »


“An Ohio State University student posted a rant shortly before he plowed a car into a campus crowd and stabbed people with a butcher knife in an ambush that ended when a police officer shot him dead, a law enforcement official said.” Thus read the headline on the NBC News website on November 28, 2016.

That same day, CBS ran a story titled “What’s known about the OSU attack suspect Abdul Razak Ali Artan”. According to the article, “A Somali-born Ohio State University student plowed his car into a group of pedestrians on campus and then got out and began stabbing people with a butcher knife Monday before he was shot to death by a police officer.”

As it turned out, the November terrorist attack at OSU was a relatively minor example of what has become an all too common pattern of violence by Muslim immigrants and refugees throughout the US and Europe. In the case of the Ohio State attack, the only death was that of the attacker himself. But sadly, this is not always the case.

The Ohio State attack makes a good lead in to the discussion of what I have termed the “refugee racket” for several reasons.

First, it strikes close to home. OSU is located in Columbus, Ohio, about 90 miles up the highway from where I live. It’s bad enough to read about Islamic violence in faraway places. But it hits home all the more when it’s in your backyard.

Second, the attack fits a larger pattern of refugee violence in the West.

Third, there is a direct connection between the OSU attacker and Catholic Charities, by far the largest taxpayer funded refugee resettlement organization in the US.

Continue Reading »

%d bloggers like this: