Ummah (Islamic community) distribution map according to Pew Research. (from here)
Ummah (Islamic community) distribution map according to Pew Research. (from here)

POLITICALLY CORRECT? WHAT’S THAT ALL ABOUT? — PART 1 was supposed be the first of four posts. However, because this is a blog, I write what I want, and I write what passion drives me to write. So I can get sidetracked onto a different topic easily enough, but there is this strange thing. Sooner or latter passion usually brings me back with even greater force to the topic from which I got sidetracked. In this case, that passion belongs to Donald Trump. Hence I will wrap up what was to be a four-part series with this post.

What is modern America’s primary failing? We don’t study the Bible; we are losing the advantages of our Christian heritage. Therefore, we have a difficult time discerning between honest men and women and demagogues.

What is the difference between honest leaders and demagogues? Demagogues scratch our itching ears. Honest leaders strive to speak the truth, perhaps even out of their love for their neighbors. Thus, when we have an election, to vote for the right person we must first seek to be honest with ourselves. We must discern between what we want to believe and the truth. What has happened repeatedly to Donald Trump is a case in point. The demagogues have charged The Donald with being politically incorrect.

What is the latest example of the Donald being politically incorrect? Donald Trump is now calling for an end to all Muslim immigration into the United States.

In a written statement late Monday afternoon, the Trump campaign said the Republican frontrunner wanted a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” As backing, Trump cited a controversial six-month-old survey from the right-wing Center for Security Policy finding that one-quarter of U.S. Muslim respondents believed that violence against Americans was justified as part of global jihad and that a slim majority “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” (from here)

Predictably, the establishment immediately charged the Donald with extremism. Of course, that included the RINOs.

Condemnations from Republicans quickly followed. Jeb Bush tweeted that Trump had become “unhinged.” John Kasich said Trump’s “outrageous divisiveness” was more reason why he was “entirely unsuited” to be president. Senator Lindsey Graham, a long-shot Republican rival, tweeted that Trump had “gone from making absurd comments to being downright dangerous with his bombastic rhetoric.” (from here)

In fact, as The Washington Times reported the criticism was international (Donald Trump defiant as Muslim ban draws widespread condemnation), but when The Donald stood his ground his rankings went up in the polls (here). What is politically correct may be what our elites demand, be it is not what many of us want.

Think about that constant refrain.

The terrorists have hijacked Islam. Most Muslims are not terrorists.

What happens if a Conservative starts to explain what the Koran says? Don’t we get told the Koran is like the Bible and the Bible says bad things too? Don’t we get told this by people who have never read either Koran or the Bible? So how do the politically correct know what they are talking about? How do they even know which people are the true followers of Islam? They don’t. They have no way of knowing whether the radical Islamists represent the true spirit of Islam. Afraid Muslims will hear, they may also not care to tell us what they really think.

When The Donald proposed to ban immigration from Muslim nations, the PC crowd raised the hue and cry that such discrimination based upon creed is unconstitutional. It isn’t. If it wanted to do so, Congress could exclude immigrants based upon their creed. However, our leaders cannot be trusted to discriminate based upon creed. So we probably don’t want to do that. Hence Senator Rand Paul offered up another option.

The Senate overwhelmingly rejected an amendment offered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)last week that would have suspended visas to the U.S. from “high risk” countries until new enhanced security processes are in place.

Paul’s amendment would have designated 33 countries as “high risk” and placed moratoriums on refugee resettlement and visa issuance to nationals from those countries until the Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Director of National Intelligence certify and new processes to identify security risks.

The 33 countries included: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia,Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and the Palestinian Territories. (continued here)

As stupid as it sounds, our political elites refuse to restrict immigration. Period. No matter what! Hence their charges against Trump are just a smoke screen.

So why are our political elites so adamantly determined to keep our borders open and admit hordes of immigrants? The obvious answer is money. If you have capital assets in the United States, cheap labor makes those assets more profitable. For the sake of short term profit, our elites have deliberately chosen to ignore is the longcost to our country. We risk extreme violence, violence of the sort much of Europe may soon experience on a massive scale. In fact, at this point our elites may just be terrified of pissing off the Muslims in Europe.

What are the stakes? To help us appreciate what a full blown clash of cultures looks like, in the The Next King Phillip’s War James Atticus Bowden takes us back to 17th century America.

The King Philip’s War (1675-1676) was the bloodiest war – per capita – in America. Twice as many casualties as a portion of the population than our American Civil War (a.k.a. The Recent Unpleasantness)! Seven times more bloody that WW II – FYI – for all “Greatest Generation” fans. Consider what happened and could happen again. (continued here).

Instead of hordes of people from a primitive culture settling into a more advanced society, the Stone Age Indians tribes in the New England area had to contend with English Pilgrims and Puritans. Inevitably, the local Indians and the Pilgrim/Puritan coalition clashed, and the Indians lost their lands and their way of life.

In retrospect, because the blood thirst of both the Indians and the Englishmen they fought is nearly forgotten, we now pity the poor Indians. Yet for the sake of our children it is also important we remember the lesson. The Pilgrims and the Puritans never had any intention of assimilating and becoming Indians. Yet, had it been feasible, there are some advantages to the life of hunter-gatherer. The Pilgrims and the Puritans had to work very hard, and the life of a hunter-gatherer was a bit easier, but the Pilgrims and the Puritans had not come to the New World to be Indians. They had come to be Pilgrims and Puritans.

Now the United States is being settled by Peoples from all over the world. Because of their associations with rabid terrorism, Muslims from the Middle East rank as the most strange and difficult immigrants. Hence, we have politicians calling for a stop of immigration from countries with terrorists, principally Muslim lands.

However, terrorism is only the visible tip of the problem. Unlike previous legions of immigrants, many recent immigrants have either entered the United States illegally or they have overstayed their visas (also illegal). Therefore, we have millions of people in our country who have no right to be here. Weirdly, we are even giving many of these people welfare and free public services. Unfortunately, their connections to and their loyalty to the United States is dubious at best. Given the continuing rate at which such people are arriving, we should expect many of these people will not assimilate. Instead, as the Pilgrims and the Puritans did in the 17th century, they may insist upon retaining their own culture and allegiances to the nations from which they came. They made even insist upon their own laws, like Sharia. Hence, when Donald Trump speaks about immigration, people listen.

Other Examples of Political Incorrectness

The are three big areas where political correctness tends to become an issue, discrimination based upon race, sex, and creed. The example above relates to discrimination based upon creed.  What about race and sex?

Here is an example of political correctness running amuck based upon racial discrimination.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid on Thursday blasted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for uttering what he called “racist ideas” from the bench of the nation’s highest court.

Scalia on Wednesday suggested it’s possible that some black students would benefit from being at a “slower-track school” instead of the University of Texas’ flagship campus in Austin, where Scalia suggested some of those students are “being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.” Scalia made the comment while the court heard arguments in an affirmative action case. (continued here)

Scalia’s crime? He questioned whether “affirmative action” is “good” racial discrimination. Given that the government is generally not suppose to discriminate based upon race, sex, or creed…… Is it possible that Democrats would also rather not talk about the quality of the intercity public schools that so many blacks attend?

Here is an example of political correctness running amuck based upon sexual discrimination. The subject is a December 3, 2015 article from the Center for Military Readiness (CMR).

Yesterday, President Barack Obama and Secretary Carter overruled the best professional advice of the U.S. Marine Corps in matters involving life, death, and national security.  Secretary Carter also broke his own promise to base his decision on the quality of scientific research behind the military services’ recommendations. (continued here)

For as long as human beings have fought in organized, military units, armies have deliberately excluded women. Has combat changed that much? That is the point of the CMR article. In spite of the desires of so-called feminists, women and men remain different, and sensible people cheer that difference. Why? Well, there is the pleasure of sexual intercourse, but there is also something far more serious, the greatest honor that any human being might have.

Most of us have the opportunity to bring one or more babies into the world. When we watch our children grow, we can love them and show them how to love, or we can set them adrift and go about our personal business. If we do what we are supposed to do, we can live life with a clear conscience. As we watch our children grow, we can also learn things about ourselves we would otherwise never know. And we will have a family who will care about us and help us hold ourselves together as the years pass.

For it is in giving that we receive. — Francis of Assisi

When we have children — when we each give the people in our families what they need — we must discriminate based upon sex. Sometimes even our government has no choice except to discriminate based upon sex.

Other Views

Who really needs our help?


For more posts in this series please see OF TWISTED WORDS => FEMINISM.


  1. Good stuff as always Tom. Just my two cents on the parts about women in direct combat units. I will be brief, and many will not like this and will call me a rights stealing dinosaur. Oh well.

    Look, the military is NOT about individual rights. It’s about defending our nation. Sometimes the rights of an individual to do certain things takes second chair to the accomplishment of the mission. The simple facts of biology show that, like it or not, the average woman is not as suitable for combat as the average male.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @Wally Fry

      Thanks for the comment and the compliment.

      There is also the problem of “good order and discipline.” What woman in her right mind would want to be in foxhole with just any guy who happens to be there. What commander wants to contend with the problem of maintaining discipline in a unit where men and women must share foxholes?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Well good point. The truth is if you put the opposite sex together in the right circumstances and their will always be the normal sexual tension. That is just fact. And a foxhole is not the place for that. As you said…good order and discipline. I have actually dealt with this issue as a commander of a company size unit, and it is challenging.


        1. I was an Air Force officer working in space ops. I had charge of bunch junior officers that included young women in an office environment. No real trouble, and the woman I worked for was sharp. When I went to Alaska on a year long remote assignment, however, I realized sending young men and women away from family and friends, even where there barracks that look like college dorms, is just asking for trouble. Put women on a crowded navy ship or deploying them with infantry or armor units is just stupid.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. I suspect that the foxhole aspect may be as much cultural as anything else; the Israelis seem to have overcome this. Nevertheless, it is as was pointed out a “social experiment” for the US to engage in, and that is not the business of our defense forces.

          The “average man” versus “average woman” may also not be strictly applicable, since it requires above-average capabilities these days. The percentage for women will be much less than that for men, but once one has met those criteria, this should not matter. The criteria, however, must be strictly enforced — and these days, they are being relaxed even for males out of concern for their “self-esteem.” Bad idea.

          I had a seventeen-year-old cousin who could dead-lift more than 400 pounds; with appropriate training, I’d put her up as a soldier against anyone. But Krystal was far from typical, though in many ways she was the sort we need.

          Nevertheless, something else matters more, in my estimation. The enemy we face, now, is so vehemently poisonous in their treatment of women that female soldiers captured by them would pose a greater than usual threat. Not just among the troops themselves, though it would be bad, but in how this is portrayed in the States.

          Anti-war protesters will have a new flavor of ammunition, and the media will lap this up and re-broadcast it, turning the stomachs of Americans against the fight. At one time, it would have enraged them, to the jihadists’ peril. But now we have an increasing (and increasingly vocal) contingent of pro-jihadist apologists, on campus (as both students and professors), in the media, and in government. The result will be very harmful to our already near-hamstrung efforts to defend ourselves against this enemy.

          We have combat aircrews containing females already, and have had for some time. This decision should be made by their command chains, and the soi disant Commander-in-Chief needs to listen to people who know what they’re talking about. Most commanders have strongly recommended against the move, for all these reasons as well as troop morale. But the harm to troop morale seems to be, in President Obama’s eyes, a feature rather than a bug. He aims to discourage enlistment.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


        3. “The criteria, however, must be strictly enforced — and these days, they are being relaxed even for males out of concern for their “self-esteem.” Bad idea. ”

          Agree totally

          And your points about women in Muslim countries. Very valid

          Ponder on this Keith if you will. And I speak here as a person who actually understands what it takes to conduct warfare. It simply doesn’t matter how high tech we get in our warfare..ultimately wars are won by the person standing on top of the real estate in question..meaning ground infantry troops. If we want women serving in that area, then we have a problem. The physical standard cannot ever be negotioated without real risk to people. The vast majority of women cannot meet a reasonable unchanging standard for the job. So, end result, some social experimenter sets a standard for representation of women equal to their representation in society, when that if far higher than could ever meet the physical standard. Poof, there goes the physical standard.


        4. I have a post on affirmative action under construction now, tied to your comment among other things. It will go up after the Jihadist War which is slotted for tomorrow.

          As an aside, it’s not just infantry, as you know. The Jordanian man burned to death by ISIS was a pilot.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 2 people

        5. Keith, I look forward to that! I suspect we see eye to eye on that subject to tell the truth. And yeah, that’s true about the pilot, that was about as awful a thing as I had ever read about.


    2. Amen, Wally. The mission of the U.S. military is not to be a career program for women (or anyone else). The ideologues in charge can pretend that there are no differences between men and women if they want to, but putting women into combat will lead to decreased effectiveness and an increase in battlefield injuries and mortality. I guess if you’re a feminist you consider that an acceptable price to pay for achieving equality (defined as interchangeability) for women, but normal people will disagree.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Well said, and thanks. I was on active duty for 7 years, so I am not speaking in a vacuum about this. Our military’s job is to defend us..period. To protect our rights…some might have to give up some of theirs.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. This five-minute video will give you a sense of how that spread came about. It also contrasts this against the Crusades, on the same map.

      Now we have a widespread population of Muslims, more than a billion and a half of them. These do not divide neatly into “moderates” and “jihadists.” For one thing, you have Vladimir Lenin’s observation: “One man with a gun can control a hundred men.” But even this is an oversimplification; in this case, the one man with a gun is also telling a good story using the same sacred texts that the hundred men adhere to.

      I’m writing more about this now.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Send the link to Obama.He brought up the Crusades at the National Religion Conference.

        I think he needs to be a little more objective and remember he is supposed to represent the interests of the USA and not “the world order.” interests.

        Regards and goodwill blogging.


        1. Wish he would be truthful and come out with what is agenda really is. In other words, what red line is he unwilling to cross when he tip toes around issues, never daring to reveal what is really on his mind.

          In other words, he is a antonym of Donald Trump..

          Regards and goodwill blogging.


      2. That’s a great video. Most people have no idea. We play up the Crusades, but somehow we allow ourselves to forget that most of the Middle East and North Africa was Christian. We gloss over Islam’s role in slavery, and the contributions of Islam to the Dark Ages — oh that was the Vikings fault.


  2. Thanks for a mention in this post. I wish they would pass a law to make everyone in Congress write a minimum two hundred word report to reply to your post and state where they stand and why on each issue..

    What is really making me boil is all the rhetoric of the elite Congress by stating “that is not who we are..” So if we become a victims, what we really are is, “collateral damage.”

    We “are” fools for continuing to trust our elite politician’s folly. Folly based on the non results of their failed policies and involvement in the Mid East, as well as immigration policies in the US. .

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. There is so much wisdom in your post, Citizen Tom, but I’ll just address this one part, “Scalia suggested some of those students are “being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.”

    That is not racist, that is actually kind. To suggest the opposite is very elitist. Many men of all races benefit a great deal from trade schools and mentorships and you can make a heck of a lot more money as a plumber than you ever will as an unemployed liberal arts major with a ton of student loans.

    When it comes to women a similar thing is happening, in the way so many are being directed into STEM fields, as if they are obligated, as if they shame feminists by not following that path. The problem is many women really want families, children, and to work in fields that tend to attract us, teaching, nursing, not because we are oppressed, but because these things make many of us happy! That is terribly un-politically correct to say and yet so many women now in their 40’s have multiple degrees and are rather desperately pursuing fertility treatments, because they were taught to set aside what was in their heart, what they truly desired all along.

    Some women really are destined to STEM fields just as many black men are destined for college, the problem comes when we designate the politically correct path for all groups, based on what we perceive to be disparities, inequality. That is a terrible violation of individual rights, and ironically, rather dismissive of diversity.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Although I’m as lily white as they come without being albino, I can easily sympathize with black students who get accepted via affirmative action to schools where they are less qualified than their fellow students of white and asian ancestry. I spent three and a half frustrating, exhausting years of my youth trying desperately to graduate from a college that I was, strictly speaking, not qualified to attend. (It’s a long story; it had to do with my father having decided what school I was going to, and pulling some strings to get me accepted.) I was out of my league from the get-go, and my time in college was mostly miserable. I would surely have been far better off at a lower-tier school where I could have done well and not been constantly struggling with feeling of inferiority and inadequacy, not to mention to strain of trying to keep up the pretense of being smarter than I really was.

      When it comes to colleges and universities that are obsessed with racial “diversity” (the new euphemism for affirmative action, which was itself a euphemism for quotas), there’s a largely insurmountable problem: Since black students are less likely to graduate from high school than white students (who are less likely to graduate than asian students, but that’s another story), and less likely to have attended a high school with rigorous academic standards, the pool of potential black college students is already rather constricted. The most highly-qualified — high IQ, high GPA, high scores on SAT/ACT, etc. — get skimmed off by the most prestigious schools, who offer them nice scholarships to lure them to their campus and beef up their supply of minority students to an acceptable level. That leaves the less highly-qualified black students for all the other schools, who then must compete for the best ones available, but often have to lower their admission standards in order to nab the requisite number of black students to achieve their cherished “diversity” goals. This is not my opinion; it is fact, and it’s been demonstrated repeatedly. The black students on many diversity-obsessed campuses have been held to a lower standard for admission than the white and asian students. Some black students manage to do well in spite of it, but many are out of their depth, just as I was out of my depth at the college I attended. That’s a big reason why the dropout rate is higher, and the graduation rate lower, among black students at colleges and universities than among white students.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. If Lyman Beecher had had his way, my ancestors would never have come here and America would have been freed from the threat of a hated religious and ethnic minority. But hey, let’s judge all of Islam based on Salafists just like we judge all of Christianity on Presbyterians.

    The trouble with bringing Christians from the Middle East here is that they are too religious for the left and too foreign for the right. As Ted Cruz pointed out, they just don’t support Israel enough to be Christian in his book.


    1. @mastersamwise

      Thanks for demonstrating what this post is about.

      Am I afraid of people who think terrorism is a good way to spread their religion? Yes. Rabid terrorists almost make me as fearful as when Congress and/or the Virginia General Assembly is in session.

      There are lots of people who fear terrorists. Take one look at the Middle East. You want that chaos here? That’s nuts!

      There is such a thing as a civil society. Without people who honor and respect each others rights, there can be no civil society. To have a civil society, we have to indoctrinate our children to honor and respect each others rights. We don’t do a great job of that here (Consider your own words.), and they don’t seem to do it at all in most of the Middle East. In fact, much of the world doesn’t indoctrinate their children to honor and respect each others rights.

      However, what makes the Middle East and Islamic society especially chaotic is that in many place they teach violent jihad. They believe in jihad, and that’s a problem tolerance cannot solve.


      1. Perhaps a respect for rights as you put it is not taught because the current American notion of rights is relatively new and largely contained in the Western hemisphere.

        If our culture and values are indeed stronger than others by virtue of they being “right” then would it not follow that any other culture or values system would subject themselves to our own, thereby making the fear of coming chaos irrational? This was, ironically, the argument of Lyman Beecher. He believed, along with the other nativists, that the Irish Catholics would take orders from Rome and would seek to make America a subject of the Pope. Is this not the same as saying that Muslims will come here, change our culture, and turn America into an Islamic state?

        Fear is a powerful tool. With fear, a people can be led to believe that any single group should be banned. What will we sacrifice for “security?” And if we do end up sacrificing for security, will we have respected the rights of others and deserve our own liberty and security?


        1. @mastersamwise

          They say the pen is mightier than the sword. Perhaps that is because it because men work and fight for ideas.

          History is filled with examples. The Bible is 66 books written by about 40 people. Adolf Hitler wrote a book. Karl Marx wrote. What an angel supposedly told a certain “prophet” others recorded.

          For the sake of Jesus, the apostles spread the Gospel at the cost of their lives. For the sake of earthly glory, the Nazis set Europe aflame. For the sake of Utopia, the Communists worked millions to death. For the sake of paradise and tens of virgins, too many Muslims have died and will die in order to kill kaffirs. How many of today’s Muslims? Which Muslims? I don’t know. I just see what is going on in the Middle East, and I don’t want any of those killers here. I also don’t see how it helps anyone, especially the Muslims we already have in this country, to import people from countries where significant percentages of the population think killing us will earn them a place in paradise.

          We already have enough Americans who are suspicious of Muslims, even those who have proven themselves to be good citizens. When neither you or I or anyone else has a good way to screen immigrants from countries known to have terrorist groups, it is lunatic to let people from those countries immigrate to this country. All that is likely to do is entirely justify the bigotry you self-righteously claim to oppose.

          You want to address that problem? No. You just want to imply that I am a bigot. On the other hand, you want us to believe you are such a brave and generous soul. Instead of spending other people’s money and risking other people’s lives, why don’t you spend your own money and risk your own life? If you want to help the refugees in the Middle East, then go to the Middle East.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Let us be perfectly clear. I do not imply you are a bigot. I merely point out that the fear of immigrants is not a new thing for America. Just as modern America fears which Muslim is going to turn radical, so did industrial America fear which Irish would subject the country to shameless Popery.

          It is certainly difficult to screen the refugees but, as the FBI director ACTUALLY said, it is harder than it was when we accepted Iraqi refugees. It is not impossible. In dealing with the refugees, how much liberty are we willing to sacrifice, how much life are we willing to sacrifice in order to have our security? Where does it end? With Muslims? With Catholics? With Jews? Who is the next group?

          On the other hand, seeing as I volunteer for my local refugee office in my diocese AND maintain my readiness in the event my unit is activated for deployment…again.


        3. @mastersamwise

          Perfectly clear? That you are almost never.

          This is your first comment where you actually made an attempt to address the issues. Formerly, your comments were about Lyman Beecher and irrational fears.

          You worry about discrimination? Fine. Let’s not discriminate. Makes me happy. We are having enough trouble digesting the new immigrants we already have. I am sick and tired of pressing one for English, and I don’t look forward to the day when I have to press two. I don’t care if some fat cats wants cheap labor. Not controlling our borders is both stupid and reckless. So let’s stop all immigration. Don’t mind visitors, but I do think it is about time we enforce our visa rules and made people go home when their visas expire.

          Question. How does not allowing people from countries where there is a known terrorist threat to immigrate to the United States cause any American citizen any loss of liberty? Won’t we all suffer a far greater loss of liberty if the Obama administration cannot properly screen out the terrorists? And the Obama administration cannot properly screen out the terrorists. They don’t have any reliable information to put in a database, and you know it.You can’t be that dumb.

          We have been lucky. The hordes coming across our southern border just want a better life. Whether they want become Americans is debatable, but at least those people are not bringing some kind of suicidal world-conquering ideology with them. Europe is not so lucky. In the near future, that place is very likely to descend into chaos, once again.

          You volunteered? Good. Then you are not a complete hypocrite. That still doesn’t give you the right to volunteer everyone else. We volunteer ourselves, not other people.


        4. “Formerly, your comments were about Lyman Beecher and irrational fears.” Yes, they were. Nothing I said before even remotely contradicts what I have said now. Fear, as a wise man once said, leads to anger, anger to hate, and hate to suffering. While Lucas is a poor philosopher, even a child can say something erudite sometimes.

          I think what you define as “clear” is a detailed account of proposed policy. You say I have not been clear until now and the only thing that changed was my proposal for dealing with the problem. If I constantly and primarily concerned myself with the practical considerations first, I would effectively reject philosophy. In other words, the top down approach, in terms of human sciences, is the only rational one. Therefore, I will always begin with the theological, then the philosophical, and then, if it is actually necessary, mention something about the political. If one understands the sciences in this way i.e. with all other sciences extending from theology, I really do wonder why everyone thinks the solution to the problem is more politics.

          I think that, emanating from a person’s right to life, each human person has the right to seek a better life elsewhere if the conditions in their native land make it impossible for them to flourish.

          I think it is the hieght of American hypocrisy to claim this high minded and noble set of “values” when we seem perfectly willing to ignore them when it is convenient. I think it is the hieght of our arrogance that we claim this exeptionalism but don’t want to make the extra effort to live up to it. I find it the hieght of American decadence that we can sit here and bicker and argue about people being slaughtered but not lift a finger to help anyone because they aren’t the right type of person for our pocket books.

          I have said it before and I will say it again: All is vanity. “Defending the boarders” is vanity. “Welcoming everyone” is vanity. All of it is vanity. I volunteered to help and to fight because I wanted to reject the vanity of so-called “American” values. How am I a hypocrite? Because I actually take Jefferson’s words seriously? Ascribe to them an objective meaning? Live according to that meaning and rightly shame everyone else who vainly venerates empty words and platitudes?

          It is as if ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” only has significance to the areas you desire them to rather than being the all-embracing resolution for all human action whatsoever. Let America burn then. It will be for no other reason that her vanity.


        5. @mastersamwise

          To understand you I would have to read your read. Since your thinking is so disorderly, I guess I should be thankful I don’t have such a gift.

          Note I did not call you a hypocrite.
          Read carefully.

          Who is Lucas? Why do you go for advice to someone you call a poor, child philosopher?

          Let’s consider how you say you approach problems.

          In other words, the top down approach, in terms of human sciences, is the only rational one. Therefore, I will always begin with the theological, then the philosophical, and then, if it is actually necessary, mention something about the political. If one understands the sciences in this way i.e. with all other sciences extending from theology, I really do wonder why everyone thinks the solution to the problem is more politics.

          Generally, we make our best choices if we use an iterative approach.

          Creation is of God. It, everything, is His handiwork. We exist and live within the context of a material world. To understand the choices before us, we must first consider that context.

          If what we propose to do is impractical, even suicidal, it is the wrong choice. If what we propose gives us the best cost/benefit ratio, then we must consider what God thinks of our definition of costs and benefits.

          What is in our hearts speaks to us virtue as well as sin. Love is the ultimate virtue. Indifference is the ultimate sin.

          The Bible is the revelation of our Creator. Its study reveals us as we are. Its wisdom can guide our choices and help us determine how best to make them.

          The Bible does not bring us to a lofty height. It humbles us. It reminds us we are not God. We are not responsible for everything; we are only responsible for doing what we can do as well as we can do it.

          The Bible takes us back to what is concrete and real. Here we must ask ourselves: what can I do that most glorifies the One who made me.

          We are given ourselves to serve as the hands and feet of Christ. We are given spouses to love and to cherish. We are given children to love and help grow strong in the Holy Spirit. We are given communities of friends and neighbors to love and to serve. We are given a country — a government — to help us protect our family, friends, and neighbors.

          A country without secure borders is impractical. Just as a home where any stranger can walk in and take what he wants is not a home, a country without secure borders is not a country. It is not sovereign nation. It is simply a blot on a piece of paper that is soon marked as wilderness, wasteland, or badlands.


        6. “Then you are not a complete hypocrite.” Am I 50%-75% then?

          George Lucas. Even from the mouths of stuck up Hollywood directors, there can come some truth.

          “We exist and live within the context of a material world. To understand the choices before us, we must first consider that context.” If that were so, then wouldn’t it have made more sense for God to start the commandments and the rest of the Mosaic law with the material things first? But he did not. God, in his infinite wisdom, places himself before all other worldly considerations. It was indeed suicide for the Coptic martyrs not to renounce their faith before Daesh and yet their suicidal action was why they are exulted.

          If Love is the ultimate virtue, then it would follow that Pride is the ultimate sin. God is Love and any act of actual love is an actual–in the sense it is an action–manifestation of God since his actions are not separated from his attributes. Therefore, the opposite of it would be the loving of something other than God and the height of such misdirected love would need to be pride or the love of self.

          “The Bible does not bring us to a lofty height. It humbles us. It reminds us we are not God. We are not responsible for everything; we are only responsible for doing what we can do as well as we can do it.” If the Bible does not teach that mankind has been raised from corruption by the power of the Redeemer, then there is no resurrection of the dead. As for responsibility, man is entirely responsible for everything on this earth. Was it not man that was given dominion over all the earth? Was not Cain his brother’s keeper? We have been commanded through the Apostle John, “Be thou perfect as thy heavenly Father is perfect.” Some say this is impossible. Those who believe in a God who makes the blind see, the lame walk, the dead live, the barren fruitful, and brings forth the redemption of all mankind through a virgin should not believe anything is impossible for those who believe in such a God. This charge for perfection would indeed be difficult if we were bound to the earth. Rather, the Lord tells us, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness; and these things shall be added unto you.” True security and wisdom cannot be found in fences or plans, but in the Lord. We know what comes of those who trust in princes.

          When I wonder to myself what I would give for the goodness of God to prevail, I often think of Mary. She was the first disciple, the first one to believe in him and his teachings. Her humility in accepting Christ is the greatest act of submission to and belief in the will of God we have besides Christ. But it is at the cross, like all things in Christianity, that we find the true measure of Christian. There stands a woman before the child she raised, naked and broken and slowly choking to death. She accepted the Lord of Life so he could triumph over death. She accepted him and let him be handed over to death. It was her son. We cannot assume that she stood there, before his mangled corpse as it twitched with the last spasms of life, and said, “Yay! Death has been destroyed!” This was her son. Could I give up my own son like her who gave her God and her own son?

          We are given much, some more than others. But following in the footsteps of our Lord, imitating the example of his mother also, are we not called to constantly give of our very selves like Christ? If the greatest love we can show is to lay down our lives for another, than the lesser loves, our family, our nation, our possessions, all is to be, without reservation, at the service of God and our neighbor.

          Informed by these precepts, we must act accordingly. We were not given a prosperous nation to increase ourselves any more than Christ came to this earth for his own personal glory. Instead, every action, every movement, everything we say, do, think, feel, legislate, must follow the two greatest laws that surpass all laws. You shall love the Lord completely and love your neighbor as yourself. There is no room for lukewarmness or half measures. It is all or nothing. The Coptic martyrs knew this.

          Inspired by these precepts, we must not turn away the stranger out of fear lest we sin greater than Samaria. We must not neglect the poor lest we sin greater than Sodom. Ask Sodom and Gomorrah if God does not judge nations. Ask Israel and Judah if he does not punish a godless nation. Then recall these precepts. Recall that, if we seek the Kingdom in all we do, we cannot be in danger. If we practice false charity like a pharisee, enacting policy that helps only on the face without addressing the true issue, we are damned. If we peddle an insincere legalism like Shylock, screaming about our ducats until the law comes to take us away too, we are also damned. There is only one solution and has been the only solution this entire time, regardless of what the nation’s princes want to tell us so we can bow down to them in our arrogant vanity. It has only been this: Love one another as I have loved you.


  5. My only small thought on this discussion is that the term “politically correct”, at least in this context, doesn’t seem to impart much meaning. Frankly, I think Mr. Trump and a few of the other candidates are the ones hewing to political “correctness”, in that they are mining voter anxieties and telling potential voters very much what they want to hear. This seems to be politically rewarding for Trump and a few others, and hardly a liability. If polls are any indicator of eventual votes, Mr. Trump seems to be the most politically correct candidate out there these days.



  6. If we don’t get a grip on the current Muslim invasion of the United States, all the seemingly important issues such as ‘income inequality,’ ‘same-sex marriage,’ ‘the economy,’ Star Wars, abortion ‘rights,’ Obama-care, tax increases and acquiring the latest electronic devices will suddenly not be so important. I’ll bet even Geraldo Rivera would say ‘amen’ to that after he realized his daughter could have been murdered in Paris.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The establishment seems to have lost its collective mind. Why would any secular, much less Christian nation want to import mobs of young Muslim men?

      I can sort of understand how the political establishment thinks it can control the folks from south of the border. After all, Mexicans and people from further south don’t share an ideology that is counter to our own. On the whole, the main problem is that they are sending us their most poorly educated. Since these people don’t speak English, they are isolated from the rest of America and relatively easy to manipulate. To those who know how to exploit their presence, large numbers of difficult to assimilate Hispanics must seem like a gold mine.

      Muslims, however, come here sharing an ideology that is hostile to our way of life. Isolated by language, many will turn to their clerics for guidance, and many of those clerics think the West evil incarnate. At some point that cheap work force in Europe could easily become a screaming mob of holy warriors.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I genuinely think the migration of Islamists into America serve multi-faceted nefarious agendas of those facilitating said ‘migration.’ Examples are more gun control. Terror acts which will open the door for the same, albeit more intense government “protection” of the American people which we witness daily via the Patriot Act. An overwhelming of the entitlement and welfare benefits, thus breaking down the system, paving the way for a “new system.” The need for a single-payer health care system because of new dangerous diseases brought in from third-world nations and the inability to treat them. The forced one-party rule, etc. These are just a few of the insidious agendas on the horizon. IMHO.
        Thank you for your post Tom.

        Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

Oh Lord, It's Monday!

Understanding The Bible In A Way That Transforms You And Your World

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

The Way Online

Christian Insight Through God's Word

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Why be stagnant?


Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren


"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Professor Of Communication


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life



PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.


The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13


My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

The Life Project

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: