Posts Tagged ‘Donald Trump’

RLL Picture

Read Full Post »

nicholas maduro

Nicholas Maduro, who at least for today is President of Venezuela.

“…Large protests all across Venezuela today against Maduro. The fight for freedom has begun!”

    – Donald J. Trump

“To end the Maduro regime with the minimum of bloodshed, we need the support of pro-democratic governments, institutions and individuals the world over.”

    – New York Times Editorial, January 30, 2019

Much is made of the current acrimony in American politics. Trump supporters can’t stand Nancy Pelosi, and the SJW’s in the orbit of the Democratic party detest the very mention of Trump’s name.

What is more, the longest government shutdown in American history just ended with a temporary cease fire between the White House and Congressional Democrats over funding for the border wall.

America is a house divided, so we’re told. Quite obviously, the cold American civil war some have written about is ready to explode into a real civil war. Right?

Well, not so fast. It seems there’s more unity, at least among the American establishment, than one would gather from watching the evening news.

Want proof? Just consider the two quotes above, one from a recent Tweet by President Trump, the other from today’s New York Times editorial page.

Some may find the agreement between Trump and the Times surprising. After all, the Donald and the Times have pretty much been locked in a state of verbal warfare ever since the New York billionaire declared his candidacy in the summer of 2015. Trump is the Yin to the Times’ Yang, how is it possible for them to agree on anything?

And yet, they do.

In this case, they both believe in America’s exceptional right to decide who the leader of a foreign country will be.


Read Full Post »

american gothic


“In a short while, I will sign a bill to open our government for three weeks.”

– President Donald J. Trump


Today’s post is the third and final installment of this series titled The Wall, The Donald and the Democrats, the purpose of which has been to analyze the debate over the border wall.

This post was written last weekend, before President Trump’s decision to temporarily end the government shut down without first securing funding the border wall.

This is a deeply disappointing development from the perspective of those, this author included, who had hoped, for once!, that the Republicans would stand up to the Democrats and actually do something about border security.

Perhaps the wall still will be built, but I’m less optimistic today than I was before Trump’s announcement on Friday 1/25 when he indicated that he was bringing the government shut down to a temporary end.

But even if the wall is built, Trump’s decision to fold on the shut down raises an important question. Namely, even if the wall gets built, will the political price be so high as to strip it of all benefit to the American people?

The word is that Jared Kushner is floating the idea of giving green cards to the DACA recipients. Who knows, Kushner may even offer them citizenship. If either of these two options occurs, then we’re right back to the same situation where we’ve been in the past: The Democrats get the immediate benefit of new Democratic voters via immigration amnesty while Republicans get promises – promises which somehow never seem to materialize – of future border security.

In other words, once again Lucy will have tricked Charlie Brown by pulling the football away.


Read Full Post »

american gothic

“President Trump, I have news for you: your wall won’t work.”

    – Gavin Newsom, Governor of California

“We believe CNN declined a report from KUSI because we informed them that most Border Patrol Agents we have spoken to told us the barrier does in fact work.”

    – San Diego TV station KUSI

Last week we started our look at Donald Trump’s proposed wall along the US-Mexico border and addressed a couple of objections to it. This week’s post will further examine the arguments for and against the idea.

Do Walls Actually Work?

On Sunday, November 25, 2018, Fox News reported that “Hundreds of migrants try rushing toward California port of entry, as Trump threatens to close entire border.” The article went on to quote Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen saying that some of the migrants “attempted to breadh legacy fence infrastructure along the border and sought to harm CBP (Customs and Border Protection) personnel by throwing projectiles at them.”

Here’s some footage of the event:

In pretty dramatic fashion, the “legacy fence infrastructure” along the border between San Ysidro, CA and Tijuana put a stop to the migrant border rush.

Contrary to the naysayers, walls do work.

This wasn’t the only time the migrants – the same people whose virtues the MSM can’t lecture Americans enough about – attempted to force their way into the US.

On January 2, 2019, Breitbart ran a headline that read “Border Patrol: ‘Violent Mob’ Attacked Agents, Attempted to Push Minors Over Barbed-Wire.” According to Breitbart, “The migrants gathered at the San Diego sector of the United States border with Mexico on New Year’s Eve tried to force their way over the barrier. When turned back by Customs and Border Patrol agents, some in the group started throwing rocks and attempted to push children over the barbed wire atop the barrier.”

Lovely. Just the sort of folks we all want as neighbors.

But the big takeaway, apart from exposing the criminal mob mentality of many of the so-called migrants – invaders is a better term – is that one again, the walls held.

I think I’m starting to see a pattern.

Could it be that Gavin Newsom’s real fear is not that Trump’s wall wouldn’t work, but that it would, and all too well?


Read Full Post »

american gothic

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi as American Gothic, a parody of their rebuttal of Donald Trump’s Oval Office address on January 8, 2019.

“A wall is an immorality. It’s not who we are as a nation.”

– Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

“He [Donald Trump] has made clear he will hold parts of the government hostage for a petty campaign pledge — that’s all it is.”

– Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

Another post on immigration. Can you believe it?

Contrary to what it may seem it’s really not my intention to turn Lux Lucet into a full time immigration blog. There are other things going on in the world that deserve attention, a fact of which I am fully aware. And yet I find myself time and again drawn to write about this topic. So just why is that? Why would I focus on immigration as opposed to some other, worthwhile topic such as foreign policy, a refutation of feminism or the ongoing economic problems of the United States,

In the first place there’s the matter of immigration’s intersectionality. Yes, I’m stealing a term from the feminists here. But in spite of the its rotten origin, it’s not a bad way to describe a topic that brings together so many different issues. The topic of immigration, migration and refugee resettlement is exceedingly broad. Depending on the focus, economics may be at the forefront. At another time, politics. Then there’s geopolitics or international relations. Then a matter of supreme importance, the longstanding conflict between Protestantism and Romanism, of which conflict between the Protestant Westphalian World Order and the Romanist New World Order is but one aspect.

In the second place, immigration is a topic crying out for sound, Biblical commentary. Very little has been written in recent years by Protestants on immigration. And what little has been written is, in general, of very low quality. For the most part, instead of actually looking at what the Bible says about immigration, Protestants have been content to let Roman Catholic scholars do their thinking for them. As a result, most “Evangelical” commentary on immigration sounds as if it could have been written by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). This disgraceful situation must needs be rectified. My writings on immigration are my own small contribution to this end.

Third, immigration has been weaponized by the globalists, and poses a serious threat to the continued existence of the independent nation states of the world, first and foremost, the ancient nations of the West. Mass, taxpayer subsidized immigration, migration and refugee resettlement is the globalists’ sledgehammer which they intend to use to break the historic nations of the West and to roll the shattered remnants into their hoped for, world spanning superstate. God approves of nations, for he formed them with his own hand. As Paul said in his Mars Hill sermon, “He [God] has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on tall the face of the earth.” And why did God do this? Paul does not leave us in the dark. He said, “so that they [the nations of men] should seek the Lord.” But the globalists? They want to drag us all back to wicked Babel.

The fourth reason I’d give you for spending so much time on immigration is that, quite simply, I find the topic endlessly fascinating. Why that is, I can’t tell you other than to say that immigration commentary is a work to which God has called me. I had a conversation with a Clarkian friend last week, who reminded me of the important point that it is Christ himself who is our only teacher. That was the central point of Augustine’s treatise De Magistro,
On the Teacher. What we learn, ultimately, isn’t up to us. It’s up to Christ who teaches each man what he wants him to know. My interest in, and knowledge of, the immigration issue is, in the final analysis, what Christ has taught me from his Word.

One word of caution is warranted here. Lest anyone suppose that I’m boasting when I say Christ has taught me, I make no claims for myself that are not true of everyone else. Whatever any of us knows, he knows because Christ has taught him. As John notes in the first chapter of his Gospel, “Christ is the light who lightens every man coming into the world.” If you know something, if you have a gift or a talent for something and take delight in it – whether than gift is academic, athletic, artistic, skill in some trade, etc. – it is Christ who gave that to you.

So there you have it, the reasons why I write so much on immigration.

Now I told you all that, just so I could have a good excuse to tell you my thoughts on the Wall, the Donald and the Democrats. So let’s have at it.


Read Full Post »

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions caused something of a stir last week with his comments on the Trump Administration’s new Zero-tolerance policy for those illegally crossing the US’s Southwest border with Mexico. In his June 14 speech in Fort Wayne, Indiana, Sessions said, “I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God had ordained them for the purpose of order.”

The reaction from some quarters was not, shall we say, appreciative of the Attorney General’s remarks. On June 15, the Indianapolis Star ran an article with the headline “Sessions cites Roman 13 to defend Trump’s immigration policy, raises Christians’ ire.”

One of the disapproving Christians cited by the article was Mike Mather, identified in the piece as the senior pastor at Broadway UMC in Indianapolis. He is quoted saying, “It was terrible…If you read the first 11 chapters of Romans, you get a pretty good idea of what the context of that community was. If you read (Chapter) 12, you see love is supposed to be the guiding force. (Sessions) didn’t read on very far.”

But the hits don’t stop with just one minister. The Rev. Dr. Rob Saler compares Sessions to Nazi era Lutherans who he says supported Hitler based on the passage quoted by Sessions.

But it’s not enough for the Indianapolis Star to suggest Sessions is a Nazi sympathizer. The article also quotes history professor John Fea saying that supporters of Southern slavery also quoted Romans 13 to support their slave holding. The hint here seems to be that Sessions, himself a Southerner, is also a supporter of slavery.

Wow. Jeff Sessions is obviously a very bad man. Not only does he hate immigrants together with their children, but he’s a closet Nazi and wanna be slave holder to boot. And we know this, because he applied Romans 13 to people who flout US immigration law by entering the country illegally through the Southern border with Mexico.

What, then, shall we say to these things? In the first place, this piece once again lays bare the obvious hatred the mainstream media has for regular Americans and the elites’ contempt for their legitimate concerns about the deleterious effects mass, illegal immigration is having on the United States.

As far as the Indianapolis Star (and the USA Today network of which it is a part) is concerned, only Klasmen and Nazi Brownshirts would cite Romans 13 in any context that would support government actions against illegal immigration, especially the Trump Administration’s Zero-tolerance policy on the Southern border instituted in April. In more formal terms, the article commits the informal logical fallacy know as the ad hominem abusive argument.

Second, when it comes to Christian commentary on immigration, only those who support tax-payer funded, mass third-world immigration, migration and refugee resettlement are considered worthy sources. The article cites one minister, a seminary administrator, and a professor at a (at least nominally) Christian college, but no one of like authority who might beg to differ. The article does cite Sarah Sanders, identified in the article as a conservative Christian, making a somewhat vague statement in support of Sessions, but that’s it.

Third, the Star’s article also lends implicit support to the sinful practice of ecumenism. Not content with brining forth liberal Christian religious authorities to call Sessions bad names, the Star also links to a joint statement released by the Office of Government Relations of the apostate Episcopal Church endorsed by a rainbow coalition of “diverse religious organizations” which includes representatives from Islam, Judaism, various liberal Protestant churches, and of course, the Antichrist Roman Catholic Church-State.

Christians are not to yoke with unbelievers, not in marriage nor in ecumenical political statements. Yet the Protestant individuals and organizations who at least name the name of Christ (n.b. I do not say these people are Christians, only that they name the name of Christ) and who lent their name to this joint statement have joined in ministry with unbelieving Muslims, Jews and Roman Catholics. This is a sin in the eyes of God.

Fourth, as is the case with so many pieces in the mainstream media on immigration, the Indianapolis Star’s article is really an extended appeal to pity, which is another informal logical fallacy to go along with the ad hominem abusive argument noted earlier.

The chief objection critics have in the article to Zero-tolerance policy of Sessions and the Trump administration is that is separates children from their parents. For example, in the joint statement mentioned above, we read that the Zero-tolerance policy is wrong, among other reasons, because it, “[tears] children away from parents who have made a dangerous journey to provide a safe and sufficient life for them.” Further, we are told, this separation is, “unnecessarily cruel and detrimental to the well-being of parents and children.”

Now let’s stop and think about this for a moment. Yes, it’s a sad thing that children and parents are separated by the legal system. For my part, I don’t know if this is the best way to handle things or not.

But the article simply assumes, without ever proving, that it’s wrong for the legal system to separate children from their parents. But is that the case? Is it necessarily wrong for the civil magistrate, in the course of carrying out his God-appointed duties, to separate parents and children?

People, including American citizens, are put in jail all the time for various crimes. Do those objecting to the separation of the children of illegal immigrations from their parents also object to jailing rapists and other violent criminals? After all if a father robs a bank, or commits rape, and goes to jail as a result, he’s separated from his children. Is that the fault of the legal system, or is that the fault of the father who committed the crime of robbery?

But one could extend this argument. If it’s wrong to jail parents who commits actual crimes from their children, it’s also wrong to execute anyone who’s a parent for committing the crime of murder. After all, to do so permanently separates the children from their parents.

In truth, we could take this argument to the next step and say that it’s wrong to fine a parent who commits a crime, for levying a fine on a parent will to some degree affect the children. It might even create a separation if the parent no longer can afford to feed, clothe and house the children. It may be that they have to go stay with relatives for a time, thus separating children from the parents.

And why stop with separation? If we follow the logic of those who are so incensed at Sessions about separating children from parents, one could make the case it’s always and everywhere wrong to punish a parent for any crime in any way, because to do so necessarily entails that harm of some sort will accrue to their children.

Fifth, not content to blame Sessions, the Trump Administration and, by extension, any American voter who’s grown weary of his country overrun by illegal immigrants, of having to support them from his tax dollars, and of being lectured by his “moral betters” when he dares to object to any of this, the article absolves the law breaking parents of any responsibility for the plight of their children.

Somehow none of the religious authorities cited in the piece ever quite get around to stating the obvious truth: If the parents had not elected to engage in dangerous, illegal behavior, their children would not be in a detention center. Or to put it more bluntly, the blame for the children being behind bars lies with the irresponsible parents. Not with Jeff Sessions. Not with Donald Trump. And not with the American people.

Sixth, the abuse of the term “love” is evident in this article. Pastor Mike Mather is quoted as saying “If you read [Romans] 12, you see love is supposed to be the guiding force. …(Sessions) didn’t read that far.” Apparently, Mather thinks it’s loving to be soft on illegal immigration and unloving to enforce American immigration law.

But if that’s the case, what would Mather have to say to the family of former Indianapolis Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson, who was killed earlier this year by a “twice-deported Guatemalan illegal immigrant” named Manuel Orrego-Savala? At the time of the crash, Orrego-Savala was allegedly driving drunk on Interstate 70 near Indianapolis.

Or what would he say to the family of David Kriehn from Noblesville Indiana (near Indianapolis)? Mr. Kriehn was killed by Mexican illegal immigrant Elizabeth Vargas-Hernandez while driving on I-465, the Indianapolis beltway. As with Orrego-Savala, Vargas-Hernandez was charged with drunk driving. She also was cited for driving without a license.

Perhaps Mather could explain to the grieving families of these two individuals how their loved ones were lovingly killed as a result of the loving immigration policies favored by he and his pals.

Seventh, “love” is equated with socialism. “Romans 12 includes the line, ‘Contribute to the needs of God’s people, and welcome strangers into your home.’ Those versus, Mather said, seem to run contrary to the policy Sessions was defending,” whines the article.

The simple answer to this nonsense is no, they don’t. Note that the passage quoted, Romans 12:13, speaks not about general charity, but about charity toward fellow believers, “Contribute to the needs of God’s people.” A better translation of which is, “contributing to the needs of the saints,” found in the New King James Version. A second point here that must not be overlooked is that this passage is talking about private charity, not the public dole. It is honorable and pleasing in the sight of God when Christians help one another with their needs by giving of their own time and financial resources. But speaking as he does, Mather leaves one with the impression he’s okay with the welfare state and believes that the government has a Christian duty to take money from American citizens and give it to foreigners who come into the country illegally. The proper word for this is not love. The proper word is theft.

There’s more that could be said here, but I think this is a good place to stop. But before I do bring things to a close, I would like to challenge my fellow Protestants to think more carefully about immigration than they have in the past. I mentioned above that one of the problems with the article in the Indianapolis Star is the lack of Bible-believing Christians cited in the piece. But in truth, this is not completely the fault of the Star.

One thing I’ve noticed in researching the immigration issue over the past two years is the thunderous silence on the subject from conservative Protestants. Either they have nothing to say, or what they do have to say is little more than an echo of scholarship derived from work done by prelates of the Roman Church-State, the devil’s masterpiece. In truth, even if the Star has gone out of its way to find a Bible-believing Protestant to quote on the subject of immigration, it’s doubtful they could have found one with a studied, Biblical opinion to offer.

As Protestants, we need to do better.



Read Full Post »

Devin Nunes

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif. speaks with reporters outside the White House. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Among the biggest stories in the press so far this year has been the dust up over the FISA memo.

The memo is the work of the House Intelligence Committee and its Chairman Devin Nunes. For several weeks, Americans were treated to the suspense, not just concerning what was in this mysterious memo, but also whether it would be released to the public at all.

After two weeks of wrangling, the go-ahead to make the memo public finally was given by President Trump on Friday, February 2.

The memo, as it turned out, showed that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were less than forthcoming when they presented the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) with evidence to convince the court to authorize electronic surveillance of one of then-candidate Trump’s volunteer advisors, Carter Page.

The evidence supplied by the DOJ and the FBI to get the FISA warrant – the application was presented to the FISA court on October 21, 2016, just weeks before the presidential election – was a dossier put together by Christopher Steele, a former British spy. The dossier contained allegations about Carter page and Donald Trump. The ones concerning Trump were of a particularly salacious nature.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: