IS IT REALLY ABOUT BEING A GOOD SAMARITAN OR A SUCKER?

heartbleedHere some questions for commenters. What’s the issue? We have a bunch of Americans prominently displaying their hearts decrying the xenophobia of their fellow Americans. They tell us all about what the Good Samaritan and Jesus would do. What is their interpretation of scripture?  Apparently, they want open borders.

Those with their hearts prominently displayed excuse their position by pointing to the needs of the immigrants. They say nothing about the needs of America. After all, are we not a rich country? Are we not a nation of immigrants? How could open borders be a problem?

  • What makes immigration today different from the past BEFORE we had a BIG GOVERNMENT with humongous health, education, and welfare programs?
  • Are there reasonable alternatives? Can we help the world’s poor without bringing everyone and his uncle to the United States?
  • What are those with their hearts prominently displayed for all to see getting out of all those dirt poor immigrants coming to the United States. That is, are their motives as pure as they pretend?
  • What are the people opposed to unfettered immigration more scared of? Is it  immigrants or out-of-control government?
  • With respect to immigration, do Americans have any legitimate right to control immigration? That is, do non-citizens and citizen have equal rights under our Constitution?
  • How did we get into this silly mess?

Are you under the delusion that the men in black robes are always just? Do you think the lawyers who lead our nation are always thinking of our best interests? Read this =>Protecting consumers from swindlers

No. It not related to the subject at hand. It is just a great example of how professional politicians have rigged the system to line the pockets of their buddies.

Advertisements

41 thoughts on “IS IT REALLY ABOUT BEING A GOOD SAMARITAN OR A SUCKER?

  1. It can be really frustrating, Tom. One of your commenters objected because I said we had a right and responsibility to take care of our own “first.” All in good fun here, but I was thinking of my husband on payday,what if he went out and took care of everyone else first, what if taking care of his own was not a priority? I mean, his wife and kids are relatively well fed, shouldn’t he be spending his money on those who are truly hungry and surely deserve food and shelter more than we do? Wouldn’t that be more pleasing to Christ? I don’t think so, I think God takes care of His own and He expects us to do the same.

    As to Jesus Christ, I’m pretty sure He recognized the importance and value of of tribes, too. In Matthew 15 we have the faith of the Canaanite woman who says, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” It’s her faith that heals her daughter, her persistence, her humility, she is not suddenly adopted into the tribe, actually she is empowered by her own faith. If Christ and the disciples were not busy taking care of their own, there would be no crumbs falling from the table at all.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Stephen

      “I mean, his wife and kids are relatively well fed, shouldn’t he be spending his money on those who are truly hungry and surely deserve food and shelter more than we do? Wouldn’t that be more pleasing to Christ?” Yes I do, and it is. As I have said a thousand times–hyperbole of course–that which is not necessary to sustain us belongs to the poor.

      The woman begs for crumbs and Jesus grants her a place at the table.

      Like

    2. @insanitybytes22

      The Bible is actually unambiguous about this. In 1 Timothy 5:3-16, Paul counsels Timothy to make certain that if a widow has family that widows family takes care of her, not the church.

      What politicians do is buy votes. So that “take care” of people for the sake of their votes.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. These are great questions and I don’t have a lot of answers, but I would like to comment on the first question in the format of a “what if” situation. What if I wanted to destroy another country, and that other country had a great deal of “give away” items for people within it’s borders (citizens or not)? Wouldn’t the easiest way to financially cripple that country be to send millions of people from my own country over to take advantage of those “give away” items? I wouldn’t have to have a huge expensive military arsenal or army. I might even begin forcing my own people out. I’m not saying that this is indeed what is happening, but I do think that what I’ve described here is almost a type of war.

    Like

  3. Stephen

    1. “What makes immigration today different from the past, BEFORE we had a BIG GOVERNMENT with humongous health, education, and welfare programs?” Nothing unless you are a materialist.

    2. “Are there reasonable alternatives? Can we help the world’s poor without bringing everyone and his uncle to the United States?” This is the exact wrong way to look at it. The solution is not an either/or, it is a both/and. Comprehensive reform that is committed to true justice and the transcendental nature and dignity of man is the ONLY solution we can opt for and find any real success.

    3. “What are those with their hearts prominently displayed for all to see getting something out of all those dirt poor immigrants coming to the United States. That is, are their motives as pure as they pretend?” This is presuming that they they are pretending. Every man is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

    4. “What are the people opposed to unfettered immigration more scared of? Is it immigrants or out-of-control government?” Depends on who you ask.

    5. “With respect to immigration, do American have any legitimate right to control immigration? That is, do non-citizens and citizen have equal rights under our Constitution?” Yes and yes. Yes the US has the right to regulate its boarders according to justice. Yes non-citizens have the same rights as those enumerated in the Constitution because the Constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes the ones existing by virtue of their being human. In other words, if the rights enumerated in the Constitution are not individual rights that each man is endowed by God and Nature, then they are granted by the Constitution and therefore the State.

    6. “How did we get into this silly mess?” Good question.

    Like

  4. Tom,

    Many analogies have been made in the past 2000 years about the story of the Samaritan aiding the victim on the roadside.

    If I may add a contemporary analogy, the story would read as follows.

    A Samaritan (A)……………… was travelling through (B) ………….on a business trip to (C )……………

    Just before he was to cross a river (D) …………he found a victim of (E) ………………who had been robbed and beaten him because (F)
    ……………….

    Two other travelers (G)………………. that complied with (F)……… ignored him and crossed the river.

    The Samaritan (A)……………….. came to the victims aid and then dropped him off at an Inn located in the (G)…………..

    Then after discovering the victim .would receive better care than (H)………………,, , the Samaritan ( A) continued on his business journey which was to (I)…………………………………. more to maintain a (J)………………..than (C)…………………….

    The victim recovered and decided to remain at the inn and because ( G) …………….decided that he could obtain better care in (C) …………………than (K) ……………….,.

    So he victim decided to become an (G)……………………… and lived happily ever after.

    I will send you the ( Letter) Codes tomorrow. Perhaps, now that you are retired and have a lot of time on your hands, perhaps you want to first try and figure, as in a test, to identify the story characters on your own .

    If you want to do that, fill in the Code Blanks and send them to me as a reply and I will grade you.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Tom,

        Keep in mind the saying “in jest, there is truth.”

        Many analogies have been made in the 2000 years about the story of the Samaritan aiding the victim on the roadside.

        If I may add a contemporary one, the story would read as follows:

        A Samaritan (A)……………… was travelling through (B) ………….on a business trip to (C )……………

        Just before he was to cross a river (D) …………he found a victim of (E) ………………who had been robbed and beaten him because (F)……………….

        Two other travelers (G)………………. ignored him and quickly crossed the river because they were afraid they be would suffer the same fate, or, by doing so, they would risk being returned to (B)……………………

        The Samaritan (A)……………….. came to his aid and then dropped him off at an Inn located in the (C)…………..

        Then after discovering the victim would receive better care there than (H)………………, so the good Samaritan continued on his business journey which was to (I)…………………………………. more in order to to maintain a (J)……………….. than (C)…………………….

        The victim recovered and decided to remain at the inn and because ( G) …………….decided that he could obtain better care in (C) …………………than (K) ………………., were receiving.

        So he victim decided to become an (G)……………………… in (C),,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and lived happily ever after.

        The following are the ( Letter) Codes I promised to send you yesterday.

        Perhaps, now that you are retired and have a lot of time on your hands, perhaps you want to first try and figure, as in a test, to identify the story characters on your own .

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        A. Mexican businessman
        B. Mexico
        C. USA
        D. Rio Grande
        E. Banditos
        F. He was carrying drugs without first paying commission to a drug cartel
        G. Illegal immigrant(s)
        H. Mexican Hospitals
        I. Sell Mexican cheaper cost manufactured products
        J. Greater Trade Balance
        K. USA Veterans

        PS I had to modify the original version I sent you yesterday. That is why I am sending both the revised version and the Codes.

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        Reference Source

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan

        Like

  5. Tony

    There seems to be an inability here to deal tolerantly with nuance. Either it’s completely “open borders” or we close the borders completely. Either we give all our material goods to the poor refugee and deprive own family until they starve, or we keep everything selfishly to ourselves and let the poor be damned. Hyperbole aside, it would not seem that anyone here is claiming either extreme. So why must we mischaracterize the other side in such extreme terms?

    Xenophobia is defined as the intense or “irrational” dislike or fear of people from other countries. It is not “irrational” to give extra vetting to refugee victims of war torn countries who are fleeing the effects of a brutal clash between extremist ideologues and their mercilessly corrupt or authoritarian regimes. It is not “irrational” to have immigration and visa programs that recognize the complex economic and social benefits and detriminents in allowing termporary and permenant migration workers. On the other hand, it is “irrational” when we both ignore every economic downside and also sacrifice our most basic American and Christian values of compassion and plurality with blanket bans and draconian enforcement measures that disdainfully spit on our virtuous concepts of mercy and universal justice, as well as hurting our economy.

    We display immense naïveté to think that all our politicians, our “men in black robes”, or even all our clerics in “funny robes” are always wise and just. However, we succumb to a worse sort of blind cynicism when we viciously condemn our most important institutions with blanket recriminations that such institutional service is inherently selfishly motivated.

    Moral and practical black and white solutions obviously do not exist for these complex issues. Competing moral and material concerns quite obviously overlap. If you carefully read the message from the US Catholic Bishops, you will see that they recognize that unsecured “open borders” is just as immoral and impractical as completely closed borders and the cruel treatment of undocumented migrants. U.S. District Court Judge Robart also did not legislate a final ruling on the constitutionality of the president’s immigration EO. Judge Robart simply enjoined this incompetently drafted and implementmented EO until it could be argued on its merits (which the Trump administration is dragging its feet on, apparently so they can blame the courts while they try to remedy the numerous flaws of their knee-jerk neophyte effort).

    Justice is often the endless struggle to find incrementally more noble solutions among seemingly intractable problems of competing and conflicting virtues and vices. As I said before, what we and our democratic institutions are asked to do here is to rank order in priority certain material and moral goods, and then compromise between the intricate conflicts. This is just real life in a fallen world. Finding the most just solutions within our democratic institutions requires both expert knowledge and spiritual wisdom, neither of which seems to be held in much high regard in today’s age of emotivism.

    Individuals with such actual expert knowledge and real spiritual wisdom would condemn the absolutist remedies of either a blanket exclusion or a completely open border. Such knowledge and wisdom would also find the demagogic demonization of any nuanced opposition with wild recriminations of being liars and thieves as, to say the least, unhelpful to the wise resolution of the difficult issues at hand. Perhaps sometimes, however, the loyally screaming oppositional disagreement itself, rather than any practical and moral solution, is the real end game, in which case, then the real purpose is being served quite well here. With all due respect, is that the only real purpose here Tom?

    Like

    1. Xenophobia is a modern word packed with hyperbole and politics and designed to imply an intense hatred of foreigners with heavy racist overtones. It is not unlike another modern word, Islamophobia. Neither word is designed to farther intelligent debate, but rather to attempt to shame and silence the opposition. So, it is disingenuous for you to use words packed with hyperbole and emotionalism while at the same time accusing other people of having an inability to deal tolerantly with nuance.

      Here is a nuance for you to tolerate. America is not a land of refugees, we are a land of immigrants. An immigrant is someone who takes up permanent residence and culturally adapts to their new homeland. A refugee is someone forced to flee their own country. America has not only a right, but a responsibility to take care of our own, and to also have the humility to consider the possibility that what is best for the refugees themselves may not be citizenship in America.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Tony

        Ha. Insanitybites, if you carefully read what I wrote, then you will know that I said that the xenophobe’s fears and hatreds are “irrational”. I find nothing “irrational” in anything you said. In fact, I pointed out that exactly what you are pointing out is quite rational, and therefore by implication, not xenophobic. As I asked Tom, are you actually interested in debating nuanced solutions based on many concerns and values, many of which we share in common, or are you really interested in just disagreeing with anything that I write only for the purpose of disagreement?

        Like

        1. Well, it is mighty generous of you to grace me with not being either irrational nor xenophobic, especially in light of your having just said, “…it is “irrational” when we both ignore every economic downside and also sacrifice our most basic American and Christian values of compassion…”

          So I guess it is only “rationally” ignoring every economic downside, while sacrificing both basic American values and Christian ones, all while lacking compassion?

          Am I interested in debating nuanced solutions? I guess that all depends. Are the going to be more or less nuanced than your already obvious biases, hyperbole, and preconceived notions?

          As a side note, I find this to be an appalling definition of justice, “Justice is often the endless struggle to find incrementally more noble solutions among seemingly intractable problems of competing and conflicting virtues and vices.”

          That’s not justice, that’s capitulation and moral relativism. I’m not looking for a “noble” solution to conflicting vices and virtues, I think the guy with all the vices just needs to get off my planet.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. @insanitybytes22

          That’s not justice, that’s capitulation and moral relativism. I’m not looking for a “noble” solution to conflicting vices and virtues, I think the guy with all the vices just needs to get off my planet.

          Ouch!

          Can I stay? Pretty please!

          Like


        3. Tony, your position on this matter is similar to your position on school choice. There is no problem. Parents already have a choice. They can already send there children to a private school or home school. End discussion.

          As I just did with respect to school choice, I suppose I could illustrate your notion of a debate with respect to immigration, but that would be redundant. All people have to do is read your comments. The only option you offer is surrendering to the current situation.

          Am I mistaken? Did we elect Hillary, after all?

          Like

    2. Eight years of Obama, and I have to explain. Judges saying what Donald Trump did with his EO is unconstitutional and you making stuff up, and I have to explain?

      No. I don’t, and I am not going to pretend you are being reasonable. You are partisan Democrat, and I have no reason to pretend otherwise.

      No where do you actually discuss the merits of anything I have said. You just try to label what I have said as unreasonable and demagogic . And your side is so nuanced and expert. Like Obama’s foreign policy? Like his stagnant economy? Like the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

      If you want to actually discuss anything I have said, we can have a conversation. Otherwise, hyperbole aside, you have just used an awful lot of words to say I did not say anything worthy of your consideration. You may as well say: “Can’t we all get along and let Hillary Clinton take charge?”

      It is okay for you to say whatever nasty things you want about the Trump administration, but your precious judges…. Well, they are just helpless victims of the Trump administration? Where do you get this crap? Yeah! I know. Mainstream news. Sigh….

      The fact is — and you know it — we are not even coming close to operating our government the way the framers intended. Most of the budget goes into health, education, and welfare programs. Because those programs are unconstitutional, we have no sound way to check and balance the potential abuses. So the potential abuses have become actual abuses. You have to be blind not to see that. You do see, but you refuse to consider the matter. Why?

      Like

  6. Tony

    Insanitybites – I fear if your are not careful, you will hurt yourself in the gymnastics of feeling affronted. You don’t seem to be able to take “yes” for an answer. My whole argument above was that we should not do what you are saying we should not do. 😌

    As for this:

    “As a side note, I find this to be an appalling definition of justice, ‘Justice is often the endless struggle to find incrementally more noble solutions among seemingly intractable problems of competing and conflicting virtues and vices.’

    That’s not justice, that’s capitulation and moral relativism. I’m not looking for a ‘noble’ solution to conflicting vices and virtues, I think the guy with all the vices just needs to get off my planet.”

    Talk about “hyperbole”! If you think that the age-old Christian concept of balancing virtues and vices is a form of “capitulation and moral relativism”, then you may misunderstand the whole concept of moral relativism. What makes us all sinners is that we are vice ridden creatures to some degree or another. I don’t know about someone who has “all the vices”, but the last one that had no vices and perfect virtue suffered for our sins, died and resurrected over 2000 years ago. The rest of us sinners are balancing virtues and vices for the most noble alternatives. We try to be more virtuous considering the fact that universal virtues often compete with one another, and we try to be less vice filled considering the fact that we are inherently flawed sinners. I think you might agree with that, but I don’t know. Maybe not if you just want argue and play semantic games because you, like Tom, just enjoy being outraged. Funny, I didn’t take you for that kind of blogger though.

    Like

    1. @Tony

      I think you have God’s justice mixed up. I am certain you have mixed up God’s justice with the justice government provides.

      Never forget that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Because God requires justice, the punishment for our sins, death, had to be satisfied. So it is that Jesus died in our place on that cross. We cannot do what Jesus did either for ourselves or each other.

      So what happens when we forgive someone? Ideally, the person we forgive apologizes and provides restitution. More often than not when we forgive another sinner, we accept the harm done to us. We let God worry about justice. Vengeance belongs to the Lord.

      Forgiveness has little or nothing to do with the justice provided by government. Government just maintains order by doing its best to resolve our differences justly and impartially.

      Because it is often difficult to catch people who commit crimes, when the police catch a criminal that criminal has often already harmed many people. Government’s job is to lock up criminals so they cannot harm more people. Government’s job is also to make an example of those who seek rewards from crime. That provides a deterrent to crime.

      What about the people a criminal has harmed? If a criminal’s victims want to forgive him, it is up to them, but that does not mean the criminal does not belong in jail. When we forgive, we accept the fact that vengeance belongs to the Lord. Government has nothing to do with forgiveness or vengeance. Since government is not a person, it does not have the capacity to forgive. What government can do is maintain order.

      Like

  7. Tony

    “Eight years of Obama, and I have to explain. Judges saying what Donald Trump did with his EO is unconstitutional and you making stuff up, and I have to explain?”

    I can see why you are confused, but you are still confused on this Tom. I have tried to explain the simple legal and procedural ramifications, but you prefer to be outraged at judges simply because you want to be outraged at judges. Whatever floats your boat. It doesn’t make you a bad person. It just makes you sound ignorant about what has really happened in this case.

    “No. I don’t, and I am not going to pretend you are being reasonable. You are partisan Democrat, and I have no reason to pretend otherwise.”

    Well, first of all, I am not a “partisan” anything. It is not some blind tribal affiliation for me that requires absolute fealty to a dear leader as it appears to be for Trump supporters. I used to vote for mainstream Republicans until that party went batshit crazy during the Bush years. Now there is no such thing as a moderate Republican. They are an extinct species. Now that Trump is the head of the Republican Party I’m not sure that the Grand Ole Party even exists anymore. Now there is just this new creature that feeds on its own sense of victimization and institutional self loathing. I know that when you have run out of moral and practical arguments, it is your MO of last resort to simply label and dismiss, but you are far too smart to think that people are that uncomplicated. I tend to think that you are much more complex than even you give yourself credit for.

    “No where do you actually discuss the merits of anything I have said. You just try to label what I have said as unreasonable and demagogic . And your side is so nuanced and expert. Like Obama’s foreign policy? Like his stagnant economy? Like the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.”

    Tell me where I have characterized what “you” particularly have said as unreasonable and demagogic? Do “you” believe we should ban all migration to this country of any kind, whether permanent or temporary, from all countries, including business travel, student travel, tourist travel, etc. I think we both might agree that that is “unreasonable and demagogic”. On the other hand, do you believe that we should just open the borders wide to every criminal and terrorist that wants to be here? I think we also both agree that that too is “unreasonable and demagogic”. All that I was trying to say in my last post was that somewhere between these two “unreasonable and demagogic” extremes is a migration policy that is both more moral and more practical, and less “unreasonable and demagogic” than those two extreme alternatives. I have said numerous times that many of your practical concerns about criminals and terrorists make sense. I have also said numerous times that I agree with you that it is neither moral nor practical to save the desparate stranger just so we can starve and die ourselves. Here is what I actually said which you apparently did not read:

    ” It is NOT ‘irrational’ to give extra vetting to refugee victims of war torn countries who are fleeing the effects of a brutal clash between extremist ideologues and their mercilessly corrupt or authoritarian regimes. It is NOT ‘irrational’ to have immigration and visa programs that recognize the complex economic and social benefits and detriminents in allowing temporary and permenant migration workers.”

    Where we disagree is that Trump’s debacle of an EO does anything to address any of these moral and practical concerns. I doesn’t stop the terrorists that actually have threatened our country in the past – it only serves as a propaganda tool to make more of them. It doesn’t help our troops’ brave efforts to work with Muslims in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia to fight terrorist groups such as ISIS and authoritarian dictators such as Assad in their own countries – it just makes our soldiers’ jobs their harder and more dangerous. It does nothing to stem the flow or refugees or to relieve the burden of the humanitarian refugee crisis that our greatest allies are mostly shouldering – it just makes their situation more untenable. It is not only a demogogic solution to no known problem that only panders to our worst fears and hatreds, it exacerbates every practical and moral problem even more.

    You can’t be so blindly defaulted to Party loyalty and so blindly tripwired to immediate defensive accusation that you don’t see the obvious moral and practical flaws of this incredibly stupid, incompetently drafted and clumsily implemented EO. Perhaps you are, but please quit pretending that I am the one who is not addressing YOUR issues? You seem to just be ignoring the issues all together.

    The rest of your response is just deflection to your old bugaboos about big government and your usual paleo-telepathy with a deified notion of our Founders, all just so that you don’t have to deal with the moral and practical complexities of the issue at hand. Has your disagreement here really become so reflexively defense? That would be a shame. 😔

    Like

    1. @Tony

      You have disagreed with with me from the start. Supposedly Republicans have an extreme position. No. Of course, you don’t want amnesty. You don’t want the proper label for what you want. Amnesty is as about moderate as the wind in a hurricane. Call it what you will, but amnesty is what the Democratic Party wants.

      What I want is a merit based immigration system. What I want is to scrap health, education, and welfare programs. Do we want people coming to our country just because they think everything is free? It is happening, but you won’t even admit such problems exist. Instead, you just keep talking about the Good Samaritan. That’s not right.

      You have not addressed my concerns. You have never even tried. You have sidestepped my concerns, paying them lip service, just so you can attack Trump.

      Where we disagree is that Trump’s debacle of an EO does anything to address any of these moral and practical concerns. I doesn’t stop the terrorists that actually have threatened our country in the past – it only serves as a propaganda tool to make more of them. It doesn’t help our troops’ brave efforts to work with Muslims in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia to fight terrorist groups such as ISIS and authoritarian dictators such as Assad in their own countries – it just makes our soldiers’ jobs their harder and more dangerous. It does nothing to stem the flow or refugees or to relieve the burden of the humanitarian refugee crisis that our greatest allies are mostly shouldering – it just makes their situation more untenable. It is not only a demogogic solution to no known problem that only panders to our worst fears and hatreds, it exacerbates every practical and moral problem even more.

      All Trump’s EO was suppose to do is keep terrorists out until we can figure out a way to vet refugees from seven nations in turmoil. Trump said that, but you are demanding a solution before he has had any time to put one together. That’s absurd and you know it, but…. Why are you spouting such nonsense?

      Is it because you voted for Obama? Is it because Obama should have already had a solution in place? He did not have one. In fact, thanks to his leadership things in the Middle East have just gone steadily down hill. Perhaps Trump will reverse the decline and stem the flow of refugees out of the Middle East, but we are in a much weaker position than we were eight years ago.

      Like

      1. Tony

        “You have disagreed with with me from the start. Supposedly Republicans have an extreme position. No. Of course, you don’t want amnesty. You don’t want the proper label for what you want. Amnesty is as about moderate as the wind in a hurricane. Call it what you will, but amnesty is what the Democratic Party wants.”

        I don’t know what the Democratic Party wants – as important to that hierarchy as you must imagine that I am, they simply don’t confide in me. What the Catholic Bishops have asked is for “mercy”, but I suppose you can characterize in a way that makes it sound like murderers and rapists are getting off scot free if that eases your conscience. In Seattle, ICE recently arrested a 23 yr old young man whose parents brought him here illegally as a young child. He has committed no crime. At this point he is as culturally American as you and I, and as much a foreigner to Mexico as you would be. Is there no mercy in your heart for this young man?

        “What I want is a merit based immigration system.”

        I want to do the same. However, how do we measure “merit”. Does a refugee child have “merit”? Seems to me that Jesus measured the greatest “merit” by the “least of these”, or do you value people by some more materialistic standard?

        “What I want is to scrap health, education, and welfare programs.”

        And that’s not “extreme” in any traditional Republican sense?

        “All Trump’s EO was suppose to do is keep terrorists out until we can figure out a way to vet refugees from seven nations in turmoil. Trump said that, but you are demanding a solution before he has had any time to put one together. That’s absurd and you know it, but…. Why are you spouting such nonsense?

        Is it because you voted for Obama? Is it because Obama should have already had a solution in place? He did not have one. In fact, thanks to his leadership things in the Middle East have just gone steadily down hill. Perhaps Trump will reverse the decline and stem the flow of refugees out of the Middle East, but we are in a much weaker position than we were eight years ago.”

        And I voted for Reagan too because he was unlikely to do anything this stupid. Reagan surrounded himself with excellent people who had experience and competency. As I’ve explained, this EO does nothing but make our domestic and strategic security worse and our foreign policy more difficult. It is knee jerk pandering, poorly written and incompetently implemented. You really don’t have a credible argument that it makes us more secure, but because Trump did it, there is this need to follow in loyal lock step and spout the same party propaganda of panic and fear.

        Like

        1. @Tony

          How do we measure merit? We don’t know how to do that? Are you kidding? We go out and find the poorest, most brain-dead and helpless people we can, and then we put them on life support.

          This is what I am talking about. Out of one side of your mouth you say you don’t want an amnesty or open borders. Out of the other side of your mouth you fight the impositions of any conditions on immigration. As a practical matter you make debate pointless. You refuse to even recognize or discuss any problems except removing obstacles to immigration.

          It is one poor IMMIGRANT victim after another. Are any American citizens victims of illegal immigration or the lack of proper vetting for refugees? Any discussion of that? From you? Nope. All you want to do whine about immigrant victims. Meany xenophobes won’t let millions and millions of victims into our country.
          😦

          Is scrapping health, education, and welfare programs in any traditional Republican sense? Yes? When Abraham Lincoln was president, virtually none of those programs existed. They were not legal then, and nothing has changed in the Constitution that makes them legal. The context, however, is immigration. Giving illegal aliens or immigrants — non-citizens — access to our nation’s health, education, and welfare programs is plainly not right. You want those people here? Then what gives you the right to make people who don’t foot the bill?

          I disagree with your position on the EO. We have no way to vet the refugees covered by the order. You don’t know how to do it, do you?

          We also don’t have any reason to bring them here. The obvious solution is to have NATO set up safe zones and take care of them in those zones. We have the power to do it, and the movement of millions of people, even refugees, has military implication. It constitutes an invasion; it is just not the sort of invasion the requires us to shoot the invaders. We need to stop other people from killing them so they can stay in their own country.

          As it is Western Europe is fouling itself trying to absorb the refugees into the populations. Frankly, I am uncertain what motivated the lady running Germany. Stupid! Does she actually think those people are going to keep her socialist state afloat? Her own knew better. The German people did not want to accept all those refugees.

          What about the composition? That’s a mixed bag. Just as the people coming from south of our border tend to be mostly young men, mostly men make the journey by sea.

          http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

          Here we talk about the fibbing.
          http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2015/11/18/state-department-lied-press-syrian-refugees/
          Frankly, redstate is a bit mixed up.

          Here is a snope article. That’s an apolitical outfit too.
          🙄
          http://www.snopes.com/refugee-invaders-meme/

          As one might expect everyone and anyone tends to be anxious to escape a war zone. So I agree that photographs can be misleading. Our news media does mislead. Of that I have no doubt, but the problem is not the number of young men. The problem is their motivation for coming. Here is an example.
          https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-31/here-s-how-the-refugee-crisis-may-reshape-sweden-s-social-model

          Like

  8. Tony

    “How do we measure merit? We don’t know how to do that? Are you kidding? We go out and find the poorest, most brain-dead and helpless people we can, and then we put them on life support.”

    This piece of sarchasm says a good deal more than you intend. The talk here has been on how to supposedly use Christian ethics and scripture to devalue (Christian condemnation of those you deem lairs and thieves, and now I guess we good Christians somehow are supposed to condemn the poor, ignorant and helpless as well). The basic question, however, is how to use our Christian ethics to actually value people so as to judge who has “merit”. I am not saying that it is an easy thing. I fully recognize the practical limitations and that difficult material and moral choices must be made.

    However, you are pretending that I hold an extreme position which I do not hold in order for you to deflect from the overt cruelty that you appear to be endorsing. You say that we cannot let “everyone” into our country, and I agree. You say that you want a “merit” based system to screen people those we can afford to let in, and I agree. However, you imply here that the poor, the ignorant and the helpless don’t have “merit”, that we should not value them as much as others who apparently have some set of superior qualities.

    Perhaps I am mischaracterizing your “merit” system as you are trying to mischaracterize my position as being for completely open borders so I ask again: Does a refugee child have “merit” under your merit based screening system? It’s a simple question but your honest answer to it is important not only to this issue, but to every issue of how a Christian should use his or her Christian principles to “rank order in priority material and moral goods” in every aspect of our daily life, including our political life. You claim such great scriptural expertise, so tell us please how would Jesus judge the “merit” of those who would come to Him? What virtues does He value? How do we emulate Him in our judgements?

    Like

    1. @Tony

      Your immigration proposals all have big government behind them, and they all serve the blatantly obvious interests of the Democratic Party. There is nothing Christian about them. They just have the stench of corruption.

      What you want is not just impossible, it is clearly evil. It comes down to a fight over the control of our nation’s government. It has almost nothing to do with helping refugees.

      Christian charity is voluntary, not forced. Christian charity doesn’t involve threatening people with fines and jail time. Christian charity involves donations and volunteers. The sort of charity the Democratic Party wants is for people who worship the state.

      Is merit difficult to define? Not particularly, but just like anything defined by a committee of politicians, merit looks pretty weird by the time they are done with it. The point is that we don’t want foreigners in our nation who are just here for mischief or to collect welfare. If someone is going to stay, they need to speak English and be self supporting.

      You want to know how cynical politicians can be? Many of the counties around DC do everything they can to zone out low-income housing. That’s basically anything smaller than a single family dwelling. Why? The cost of providing services to the low income folks with children is greater than the taxes they pay. Businesses and homebuilders, of course, don’t see much point in locating their businesses in counties with high property taxes. That’s one reason, perhaps the major one, why those with lower incomes usually have longer commutes.

      When you get government involved, things get more complex, not less.

      You want bible verses. See https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13&version=DRA

      The search is based up the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) of the Bible. The original translation goes back to the 16th Century. See => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible.

      The Catholic Church produced the Douay–Rheims Bible to counter the Protestant Reformation. This 1899
      version still uses the word charity in place of love. Charity = love. Love and charity must be voluntary. Otherwise, what results is just a vile perversion.

      2 Corinthians 9:6-15 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+9%3A6-15&version=DRA) speaks of the cheerful giver. You may wish to read it.

      Like

    2. @Tony

      By the way, there a subtlety in the way the Douay–Rheims Bible translates the original manuscript. That’s probably related to the fact there are different words for “love” in Greek. Not sure whether Whatever the reason the the word “love” appears many more times than the word “charity”. Charity best translates as agape love. => http://biblehub.com/greek/26.htm

      Like

  9. Tony

    Talk about a hiding your meaning behind a barrage of words. In order not to address the issue directly, you just send up the usual smoke screen of evil straw men, emotional non sequiturs and scriptural letter-of-the-law legalisms that you must know actually subverts “the spirit of the law” in the message of Jesus. However, even beneath all the smoke and mirrors and claims of victimization, your answer seems clear: In your own “merit based” migration entry system, where our government and only our government can prioritize who can migrate to our country, the refugee child is given no merit at all. The moral goods that Jesus taught us are to be given the highest value, under your “merit” system, have no absolutely priority at all – in fact they are to a disqualified. That kind of says it all don’t you think.

    Forgive me if I generalize too much brother, but this seems to be the fatal moral flaw and screaming inconsistency in claiming any Christian basis for many of your political harangues. Given how intelligent and well meaning I know you to be, I am surprised that you can’t see this. 🙂

    Like

    1. @Tony

      Generalize? Look at the number of words you have written, and it is all generalities. Amazing!

      The United States is small part of the world. We have 300 million people. There are over 7 billion people in the world. You get all bent out of shape because the guy you elected makes a mess out of the Middle East, and there is this refugee problem. “Ohhhh! People are suffering. When I voted for Obama, I didn’t expect that.” So we are suppose to take in who knows how many refugees from who knows where? And it is the Republicans fault because we cannot vet those people?

      We don’t have the resources to help all the world’s people. Should we give up? No, but the real solution is helping people to help themselves, not putting them on welfare in the United States. Yet that is the only solution you have offered, and you refuse to consider anything else. You and your stupid guilt trip!

      When there is a big accident, emergency rooms do something called triage. The head doc compares the number of injured with the resources he has available and set his priorities. Democrats politicians don’t do triage. They just giggle at the prospect of putting more people on welfare and tell us that is what Jesus would do. Meanwhile, they count the potential number of new voters. Grow up! That is the character of the clowns you are voting for.

      What Jesus would do? Well, I don’t see any evidence of a government-run welfare state in holy scripture. That’s why I have called what you are doing despicable. When you don’t even believe, your only argument is a word, “Jesus”. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

      Holier than thou I don’t claim to be. I have not tried to prove what Jesus would do. My argument is what you want to do does not work. It just creates a mess, and you have not even tried to prove otherwise. Apparently, even though you don’t believe Jesus was God, you still think there is some kind of magic in His name. If Jesus is magic word, it is because He requires a personal sacrifice. Bullying and burdening your neighbors with new taxes, stupid regulations, and swarms of kids in their children’s classroom who cannot speak English has nothing to do with Jesus.

      Are you prepared to make a personal sacrifice? Nope. You want to hand the problem to the god in which you do believe. Using the almighty power of government, you will bully and burden your neighbors with new taxes, stupid regulations, and swarms of kids in their children’s classroom who cannot speak English.

      Like

      1. “Are you prepared to make a personal sacrifice? Nope. You want to hand the problem to the god in which you do believe. Using the almighty power of government, you will bully and burden your neighbors….”

        Not long ago Tom, there was a movement afoot to bring in 2000 refugees to our tiny depressed area, with some 14% unemployment, a housing shortage, and endless poverty. The city council began advocating for the idea, the Catholic church got involved, service organizations. Business owners and working class people thought this was a crazy idea,like how are you going to pay for this,where will they live, where will they work? Immediately the idea came up that we could provide them all with free homes, a guaranteed income, gov grants, etc.

        People who were born here, people who have worked their entire lives and are still trying to buy a home were absolutely up in arms,outraged, positively furious. There’s never been any desire to help the locals or the poor we already have, but someone says the word “immigrant” and suddenly we’ve got housing, jobs,money……. love for our fellow man?

        Due to the potential for bloodshed, no joke, the idea has since been tabled. Somewhat. We’re still a sanctuary city obsessed with the rights of illegal immigrants, and we still don’t make the connection that a huge part of the drug trade that is completely destroying our community is actually being brought in by illegals. I don’t say that to imply everyone entering the country is running drugs or that I hate immigration, it is simply that for decades we have watched our community, our families, utterly devastated by this epidemic and our suffering falls on deaf ears when it comes to the political class, because all they can see is these poor, poor refugees whom they love far more than their own.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. @insanitybytes22
          Wish your little town was a happier place. Pretty part of the country. All I can say is keep praying for a revival.

          Bloodshed? We are close to warfare. The struggle in the executive branch with dissident Obama appointees and civil servants provides ample evidence of the divisions among us. Democrats have visions of blowing up the White House these days, and they made that obvious during their demonstrations in DC. Moreover, the obstructionism the Democrat power elite is unrelenting. The Democrats in the Senate stall constantly. Who knows when the Trump team will find the last of the EO bombs former President Obama left behind?

          I fear most of the Democrat political class just cynically sees immigrants as a way to get a permanent lock on power. Money? Why is that a problem? It is just the rich’s money.

          Of course, once high salary workers — not the rich — start getting taxed out the yin-yang, if they can, they just sell their homes and move. Then the businesses that remain (who can’t or won’t sell) slowly die off. The decay doesn’t begin to reverse itself until people finally come to their senses, if they do. Flyover country knows all about that.

          When my eldest was going to school in New Haven, CN, we use visit her by taking the train (Amtrak) from DC. One would expect the property near a rail line to have some value, and I suppose it did once — when our nation was still a manufacturing giant. Now much of the route is just vision after vision of urban blight.

          The national party almost certainly went into a state of shock when Hillary did not win. They thought they already had a lock on power.

          The Democratic Party rank and file? What explains them? They see the things the politicians promise them. Free this. Free that. Better salaries and benefits for union workers. Feeling good because their precious government is helping everyone and anyone. Yet somebody has to pay, and the number of people paying grows smaller and smaller where Democrats run the show.

          Just as the child pointed to the nakedness of the king strutting about with no clothes, Donald Trump pointed to the accomplishments of the Democratic Party. He shook the faith of people who might otherwise have believed the news media’s lies. Therefore, we have a little more time, perhaps, to bring our nation back from the brink of tyranny.

          Like

  10. Tony

    At the risk of beating this horse skeleton even more, I have one more question for you Tom: If no government welfare funds were involved, should desparate need then be a criteria for deciding who merits migration to this country or would it still be a disqualifier? In other words, let’s imagine that that you get your wish and the Republicans succeed in dismantling every social safety net and every public welfare program, even schools. Let’s say also that Americans are willing to sponsor these refugees and be responsible for these families in an effort to help them assimilate and be productive citizens. Given all that, should we as a Christian nation finally then give priority to the least of these?

    Like

    1. @Tony

      Before we created these big welfare programs, almost half of the immigrants who came here decided to go back home. It is not easy to adapt to another culture.

      Do you think me heartless because I am unwilling to support giving away what rightfully belongs to someone else? That is the sort of heartlessness you have tried to prove and you are still trying to prove.

      Was President Obama’s behavior kind and gentle and thoughtful and wonderful and …… when he encourage children to trek through Mexico and sneak across our border? Can you imagine what those kids went through to get here?

      For the most part I think private charities should be trying to help the poor in this country and around the world. When we let refugees into to this country, we should do so only because we have no other alternative, and it should be the responsibility of private citizens to help them. Charity is not a political problem. We don’t have the right to take what belongs to someone else and give it away.

      We have had plenty of other alternatives in the Middle East. Flooding this country with immigrants, especial the poor and Muslims when he could get them, was obviously Obama’s preferred alternative. I don’t pretend to know what drove Obama, but I saw little evidence he loves America. He was too busy trying to transform our country. For the worst as far as I could tell.

      Did you hear about the deal Obama made with Australia? He got the Australians to agree to give up some of their Muslim boat people from Indonesia in exchange for some of the Hispanics from south of our border. That’s the sort of crap that man did on his way out the door.

      Like

      1. Tony

        Ya Tom, I get that you dislike Obama and that you believe that Obama is somehow to blame for everything that is wrong in the world. However, that really has little to do with the answer to the question that I asked, now does it? It is not clear, but I will take from your second paragraph, however, that your answer is “no”.

        I can see how you might think that our charitable efforts could be more wisely spent, but if you use the force of government to ban an individual or a church from sponsoring a needy refugee, why is that not government regulation of private charity?

        I’m sure that you think the same of me, but it seems to me that your priorities are all wrong. You seem to be twisting your theology to prevent helping people based on what you consider the legalistic technicalities of scripture. The person suffering dire need must be sacrificed if government is in any way the vehicle for providing aid. Your brother can just die by the side of the road if the government is involved in helping him, sacrificed on the alter of some rigid ideological purity.

        Believe me, I share all your practical concerns about whether or not government is the best or most efficient vehicle for providing certain public goods. However, Jesus didn’t get too bent out of shape about paying taxes to a government with far more corrupt intentions than helping give people a leg up. I find it unfathomable to believe that He would find absolutely immoral a government that taxed those who are most well off so that “the least of these” are aided. As in so many parts of the Gospel where Jesus was accused of some technical violation of the hundreds of commandments in scripture, you seem to be forcing some concept of the letter of the law to fit your preconceived political ideology while at the same time sacrificing the spirit of the law in the process.

        Like

        1. @Tony

          I answered your question as I answered it. What you make of it I cannot control.

          Even in the best of times — before we created a gigantic welfare state, we made an effort to screen immigrants for disease and such things that would make their entry undesirable. The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide who enters the USA, not you or me or individuals in general, and that is just as well.

          I can see how you might think that our charitable efforts could be more wisely spent, but if you use the force of government to ban an individual or a church from sponsoring a needy refugee, why is that not government regulation of private charity?

          What you have effectively just advocated is open borders. You have a first amendment right to bring refugees into the country?
          😆

          I have not said what Jesus would do. I have refuted your nebulous argument that Jesus would want us to bring endless numbers of refugees into the country. Don’t we both know you would define the term refugee so loosely that a refugee is basically any poor person who wants to get into the USA? Wealthy, productive people, on the other hand, have to get into the country legally. How dumb can we get?
          🙄

          You disagree with my priorities? That’s a hoot! When did you bother to establish any? The party you vote for spends whatever money it can get its hands on. When you insist that government spends other people’s money on other people, the spenders waste lots of money. After all, our ever so highly ethical leaders are spending other people’s money on other people. Their donors have to get their cut somehow or another.

          I have argued that what you want to do is: stealing from your neighbors, costly to our communities and our nation, and harmful to the traditions of our people. Have I been legalistic? Yeah, I said that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to set up health, education, and welfare programs. I said judges should not lie and say the Constitution gives people who are not even in this country — much less citizens — rights under our Constitution. That’s real legalistic.

          What legalism involves is creating rules that ignore the spirit of the law. What have our health, education, and welfare program to do with the Constitution? What does deliberately recruiting hundreds of thousands of people so we can put them on welfare have to do with out Constitution? What does ignoring obvious security concerns have to do with our Constitution?

          All I have said is what you want to do is wrong, and the best you can do is use Jesus as an excuse for reckless stupidity.

          Like

    2. “At the risk of beating this horse skeleton even more, I have one more question for you Tom: If no government welfare funds were involved, should desperate need then be a criteria for deciding who merits migration to this country or would it still be a disqualifier?”

      Tony, a pastor I admire once spoke of the the need to understand the difference between a parasite and a protege. A protege is looking for a hand up and a new life, where as a parasite will simply drain you of all your resources and move onto the next target. You see this with addiction a lot, the need is awful, people are homeless, health issues, hungry, desperate need, and yet if we focus all our energy, resources, and attention on them, we often wind up neglecting those who would use our resources as a seed, who would serve to improve the community.

      It is heartbreaking,it is tragic to leave some behind, but it can be vitally necessary, moral, right.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Tony

        Insanitybites- I think I agree that it is an intractable dilemma of sorts.

        A devoted pastor, Reverend Rick, runs Operation Nightwatch in downtown Seattle. It is the resource of last resort for the homeless in Seattle to find a bed to sleep in for the night. Numerous churches in Seattle participate in feeding these hundreds of homeless before the indigent are bussed off to the shelters that are still offering scarce open beds. I remember once mentioning to Reverend Rick how normal most the homeless men and women appeared and then remarking that, there but for the grace of God, anyone of us could be down on our luck and out in the street. The Reverend raised his eyebrows a little at me, and (I thought at the time rather cynically) replied that one would not have to cut too deep beneath the surface of each one of these homeless to find that addiction problems and shiftlessness probably lead almost all of them to be here.

        Reverend Rick was rather coldly telling me that he had little patience with my rosy idealism about human nature. He was essentially saying that his transient flock of derelicts was no bunch innocent victims, and their suffering was mostly the result of their own self inflicted moral flaws.

        But Reverend Rick was also still there night after night, year after year, asking for nothing in return, neither a religious conversion nor a promise to rehabilitate. He did not scold and he did not preach or cajole. The Reverend just uncritically eased the suffering of the moment with the unconditional compassion of a meal and a bed.

        I’ve thought about that conversation with Reverend Rick a good deal in the years since. I can’t get it out of my head, and I’m not sure why. Your post above starkly brought it back to me again. I think it is because it somehow confronts some hidden weakness in my own soul, and I’m filled with a sudden sad sense of regret.

        I’m not offering it as a solution or some insight to the human dilemma that you confronted so sweetly with your post. I’d just like to know what do you think it means?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. @Tony

          Are parasites and proteges born or created? I suspect it is a bit of both. When we educate our children, if we do it properly, we help instill the love of God and the self-discipline they need to avoid the pitfalls and traps of which our lives are filled.

          What about the people of a rich society helping the people of a poor society? Look at the blacks in this country. First they were brought here as slaves and repeated generations were “instructed” in how to be submissive. Then they were “freed” to be second class citizens. Now many still remain second-class trapped on welfare generation after generation. Why is that?

          Like

        2. It’s tough, isn’t it? Love is a complicated thing. I truly believe some 90% of our problems are self inflicted. I know mine are. Sometimes we can’t see how our moral failings and issues bring trouble down on us, and there really is an enemy at work throwing sand in our eyes too, but ultimately we are the root cause of our own problems.

          I really am a rescuer, so I just want to save people, get them housing, fix their issues,but I have learned that we cannot save people from their own selves, in fact we can’t “save” people at all. Only God can do that. One of the hardest, most painful, most regret filled things I’ve had to do is to accept that some people are going to go right on making themselves miserable, and some people aren’t going to make it at all. Ever.

          It’s a pride thing for me, God Himself can’t save them, but I sometimes believe I should be able to step in and do what even God can’t.

          That’s some tough meat, but I’ve learned that it’s just not my call.

          Liked by 2 people

  11. Tony

    “Look at the blacks in this country. First they were brought here as slaves and repeated generations were “instructed” in how to be submissive. Then they were “freed” to be second class citizens. Now many still remain second-class trapped on welfare generation after generation. Why is that?”

    Bravo Tom! You have just reduced the African American struggle with hundreds of years of captivity and another century of suffering under Jim Crow down to the right wing cliche of the welfare queen, and just in time for Black History Month. Why on earth would they think that they need a WHOLE month to review that simple history anyway? 😒

    I don’t claim to understand it either and I appreciate the attempt, glib as it is, but do you think perhaps the struggle of the human soul with itself, with others and with the Almighty might just be a little more mysterious and complex than that?

    Like

    1. @Tony

      Bravo Tony! You just accused me of bigotry for the nth time – and skated by the obvious reason for the question. Meanwhile, you would have a surefire solution for the refugee problem (with lots of other people’s money) if bigots had not had their way.

      It seems your accusations of bigotry have become the sole purpose of our discussions. Got to find someone and some excuse to spout your disdain for the “right wing”. Meanwhile, we have Black History month, a racist occasion so guilty whites can make blacks feel good about themselves. And that patronizing crap is not racist?

      If people like you were not so race conscious we would not bother with such occasions. Blacks, would just celebrate their cultural origins the same way Germans, the Irish, Scots, Mexicans, Chinese, and so forth celebrate theirs. It is not as if the help the government provides is needed to have a party or to write and read history books.

      Anyway, I am hitting the sack. Hope you and the family are well. Love you, brother

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Tony

    Insanitybites – thank you for that thoughtful reply. I will have to think on it a while. Like my brother Tom (who I love to argue far too bitterly with sometimes, perhaps because we are so much alike), I often lack much introspection – often too full of myself I suppose. You’ve given me some tough meat to chew on for sure.

    I wonder who is worse off though – the derelict adict who is destroying himself out of weakness or the strong and ambitious hedonist who worships himself and all his amazing material things? I must admit, I sometimes see myself in both those famished hearts. And that is what confounds me in the end.

    I claim myself as an everyday pragmatist, but even I can see that many of these arguments on both sides are far too materially transactional. (Was Jesus’ sacrifice just a transaction with God on our behalf? Perhaps in some way, but it must be far more, indeed incomprehensibly more holy and mysterious than just that). I can rationalize with the best of them, especially with myself. But I just can’t rationalize away the faith enspired and eyes-wide-open daily grind of a Reverend Rick. It somehow inspires and defeats me at the same time, leaving me baffled.

    I think perhaps, Insanitybites that you know yourself a little better than I know myself though, or at least perhaps you struggle with your demons more than I do mine. You would not know it from here, I suppose but my ignorance humbles me often lately. Thanks again, please believe me, I will ponder your words here for a while.

    However, I think that that is all that I will have to say on this immigration topic unless something new comes up. I think that I understand the point of view here even though, based upon my own Christian principles and the previously stated principles of my church, I disagree with it. Despite Tom’s wanting me to be his ideological opposite number, pointing out the dogmatic fallacies on one side simply doesn’t make me a blind partisan for the other. I’m just not and I particularly get your many practical concerns.

    Thanks Tom for again allowing me your space here to disagree. I know that it must sometimes be painful. 😉

    Love and God bless.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s