No! To Open Borders-St Thomas Aquinaseditor
Every nation has the right to distinguish, by country of origin, who can migrate to it and apply appropriate immigration policies, according to the great medieval scholar and saint Thomas Aquinas.
In a surprisingly contemporary passage of his Summa Theologica, Aquinas noted that the Jewish people of Old Testament times did not admit visitors from all nations equally, since those peoples closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than those who were not as close.
Some antagonistic peoples were not admitted at all into Israel due to their hostility toward the Jewish people.
The Law “prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews,” the scholar noted, such as the Egyptians and the Idumeans, “that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation.”
Citizens of other nations “with whom their relations had been hostile,” such as the Ammonites and Moabites, “were never to be admitted to citizenship.”
“The Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity,” Aquinas observed.
In his remarkably nuanced commentary, Aquinas also distinguished among three types of immigrants in the Israel of the Old Testament.
First were “the foreigners who passed through their land as travelers,” much like modern day visitors with a travel visa.
Second were those who “came to dwell in their land as newcomers,” seemingly corresponding to resident aliens, perhaps with a green card, living in the land but not with the full benefits of citizenship.
A third case involved those foreigners who wished “to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship.” Even here, dealing with those who wished to integrate fully into the life and worship of Israel required a certain order, Aquinas observed. “For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations.”
“The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst,” Aquinas logically reasoned, “many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”
In other words, Aquinas taught that total integration of immigrants into the life, language, customs and culture (including worship, in this case) was necessary for full citizenship.
It requires time for someone to learn which issues affect the nation and to make them their own, Aquinas argued. Those who know the history of their nation and have lived in it, working for the common good, are best suited to participate in decision-making about its future.
It would be dangerous and unjust to place the future of a nation in the hands of recent arrivals who do not fully understand the needs and concerns of their adoptive home.
When facing contemporary problems, modern policy makers can often benefit from the wisdom of the great saints and scholars who have dealt with versions of the same issues in ages past.
Aquinas’ reflections reveal that similar problems have existed for centuries—indeed, millennia—and that distinguishing prudently between nations and cultures doesn’t automatically imply prejudice or unfair discrimination.
Sometimes, it’s just the right thing to do. Source
It seems that St Thomas Aquinas has left himself open to being labelled “racist”.
Certainly, one of the most common criticisms of those of us who voted to leave the EU, is that we have encouraged “racism”. What do you think?
“In other words, Aquinas taught that total integration of immigrants into the life, language, customs and culture (including worship, in this case) was necessary for full citizenship.”
That’s exactly what isn’t happening in the UK. People from different races and nationalities are bringing their own language, customs and culture with them and keeping them for use in everyday life. That makes me wonder why they want to live here. It’s like a Scotsman from the Highlands or Islands in England wearing a kilt all the time and talking Gaelic to other Scots – why not just stay at home? I hasten to add that I’m not saying “go home” to foreigners who have settled here, but I hope it is allowed to express a view about the ones who don’t want to integrate in matters like dress and language, at least. I may be wrong to say that, but it’s what I think, and in the spirit of this blog, I am just raising the question.
I didn’t know St Thomas Aquinas had said what he said about immigration, so I have learned a lot from that article. It’s just amazing to think that someone who agrees with him could be branded a racist.
I quite agree with you, and find it a dreary sign of the times that you seem to be concerned that your view is unacceptable. It isn’t, and you are entitled to it; it’s just common sense.
I agree that it’s only common sense to think that open borders don’t work, but it isn’t taken that way in our society. If you say a word that signs you are not “on message”, the PC message, then you’re racist. I tend to avoid joining in conversations on the subject in case I get the short end of the stick from the liberals who don’t see any problem and just keep saying “the NHS would fold up without immigrants” and “they make a wonderful contribution to our society” etc! It’s so predictable, LOL!
What we see today with immigration is the old pagan Rome scenario of no borders, no national sovereignty (other than the new Rome, the EU) and no distinctive cultures. Everything is a mish-mash of cultures and customs with specific enclaves of national identities forming in every country causing utter confusion, divisions and fear. In addition, this open borders system is flooding smaller nations like Britain with numbers that cannot possibly be sustained in the long term. National provisions like health and benefits are overwhelmed with it.
The people who are pushing this new Tower of Babel situation know exactly what they’re doing. They know the common sense arguments against such mass migration but the end game is to bring everyone under their domination utterly subject to their godless system and rule of law.
Donald Trump is being criticised as anti-Muslim, a racist, etc., just because he wants to do the common sense thing and delay access for immigrants to the U.S. until they have been thoroughly vetted. These orchestrated protests around the world (and they are orchestrated) would have him welcome every Muslim without distinction without even applying the most basic checks on who’s entering his country. It is now estimated that around 5000 Jihadists entered Europe because of this liberal madness. It is absolute insanity! What the protesters are actually saying is “we don’t care how many terrorists you let in with the crowd, just as long as you don’t appear racist”.
The upshot of it all is that it’s a mad world without God. I long for the world of St. Thomas Aquinas to return and for Christian Europe to be restored to sanctity and sanity. In the meantime, good on Donald Trump for his courage in the face of the screaming liberal mobs.
Well said I totally agree with every word. What surprises me is why the majority of the population of the country cannot see how their country is being changed beyond recognition.
It maybe is because if people don’t see the truth in God. Then God blinds them to what is happening in the world?
I agree, and Athanasius has said it much better than I could.
Watching the way the media are obsessed with the new President of America, seeing everything he does as bad, is just amazing. Who wouldn’t want to vet people coming into the country in this day and age with terrorists who are so full of hate that they are willing to blow themselves up in order to destroy others, especially Americans.
They are playing the “Islamaphobia” card for all it’s worth but I heard a very accurate line in a film the other day, when a law officer was being accused of anti Muslim bias and he replied “We’re not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but all members of Al Quaeda are Muslims” and he then said that if these acts were being carried out by Norwegian Lutherans, they would be looking for blonde, blue-eyed Lutherans! LOL!
The article about St Thomas Aquinas is very clear. How anybody could find fault with the common sense approach of wanting to know who is coming into their country and then expecting them to integrate with everyone else, beats me.
““We’re not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but all members of Al Quaeda are Muslims” and… if these acts were being carried out by Norwegian Lutherans, [the authorities] would be looking for blonde, blue-eyed Lutherans!”
It’s ridiculous that anyone who objects to high levels of immigration are regarded as racist or xenophobic. I do wonder why people who want to live in ghettos where they speak the language of their country of origin and dress as per their country of origin want to live here at all. Muslims say their dress code is not religious but part of their national culture, so why bring it to a foreign land? I don’t know about Hindus, but I’m guessing they’re the same.
“Donald Trump is being criticised as anti-Muslim, a racist, etc., just because he wants to do the common sense thing and delay access for immigrants to the U.S. until they have been thoroughly vetted.”
It’s absolutely shocking that the courts have over-ruled the new President on the vetting of people coming into the States. If they’re struck with a major terrorist attack, on their own heads be it.
I think they’re trying to force another election and in a way I hope they succeed. It could be Jeremy Corbyn Mark Two – Trump would win again, with a greater majority! I’d love to see the reaction of the liberals then!
That is exactly what I think they are trying to do – force another election (or at least get Trump to resign or in whatever other way is open to them, get rid of him) but – like you – I believe he would be re-elected on an even bigger mandate. I really do., Bring it on!
Turns out that the judge who put a stop to Trump’s vetting process has been fostering Asian children for decades and used to do Pro Bono work for a legal company on the part of Asian migrants. But they say this history didn’t colour his decision, it was all done in strict accordance with the law. Aye, right!
“Aye right”… right enough!
“We’re not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but all members of Al Quaeda are Muslims”
And you could equally say: “Not all Trump supporters are white supremicists, but almost all white supremicists are Trump supporters”.
Seriously, though, I do find it interesting that people are trying to find a theological justification to support someone who quite clearly wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the US and who subsequently asked his buddy Giuliani to find a way of making this legal.
Perhaps a different question would be why he saw fit to tweet about an attack in the Louvre by someone daft enough to brandish a machete amidst hordes of armed guards and in an area heavily patrolled by armed police and soldiers, found time to try to bully a department store into continuing to stock his daughter’s handbags and assorted overpriced tat, and could tweet about a round of golf he’s playing, yet seems to have no time to comment on the terrorist attack in Quebec that saw 6 people shot in the back as they prayed. An insight into Trump’s priorities?
It is also interesting to see the pious vigorously defending a person who boasted about grabbing women by the genitals on meeting them for the first time when he was 59. Dirty, lecherous old man is the description that springs to mind, not exactly a role model for Christians.
Your post could have been written by any news hack. Try thinking for yourself, instead of parroting the PC line. It’s fun. Try it. Oh and “almost all white supremicists” (patent nonsense) isn’t quite the same as “all Muslims” (fact). Think about that one.
You – like the rest of the PC brigade – are very keen to stay on the side of the PC “Islam is a peaceful religion – we want Muslims to have free rein; whatever they want, I want…”
I’m not of that mind(less)set. Islam is a false religion. False religions offend God. I’m more concerned about offending God than about offending Muslims. That’s not to say I am “attacking” Muslims; I’ve met quite a few in my life, and all very nice people. I was in regular email contact with one very nice Muslim gentleman for quite a while after he contacted me via our website. We lost touch but I like him and I would email him in a heartbeat if I had two minutes to myself. His name is Muhammed, by the way, and he knows that I believe his religion is a false religion. I think he prefers me to say that rather than join the mindless majority who just want to be seen to be PC. You’ll know the type.
Now, I’m passing over the rest of your mish-mash comment to touch on the one thing you failed to mention – the Mexican border wall. I wonder if you left that little hot potato to one side (just as the media have gone quiet on it) because you/they know that there is already a huge fence along that border, never mentioned in all the baloney posturing about the wall before the election, a fence not quite finished, built, I believe, by President George Bush. I think it makes sense – rather than finish the fence at silly cost – to replace it with a wall, which would be much more cost effective and generally more effective at controlling the border. Just a (non-PC) thought. But, hey, Andrew, how come George Bush got away with building that fence? WOW! Was he sneaky, or what? What, doesn’t he like Mexicans? What was all that about, then?
Finally, your nasty concluding remark about Trump’s misbehaviour with women, for which he must be as sick apologising as I am sick hearing the apologies, reminds me of another person, castigated for her bad living and “not exactly a role model for Christians”…. (Saint) Mary Magdalen. Shocking; just think, she even got a mention in the Gospels! To WHAT is the world coming?
In any case, nobody has presented Donald Trump as a role model for Christians. Catholics don’t TAKE “role models” from the Protestant communities, no matter how nice or how well-intentioned, no matter their selfless contributions to the poor and needy and other humanitarian work etc. But, as the first ever non-politician to take such high office and to actually follow through on his election promises (there’s a first) I am delighted to support the Trump presidency.
I notice you make no mention of his pro-life achievements so far, only weeks into office. Who cares if the alternative president, Hillary Clinton, would have continued the massacre of unborn babies up to and including birth? Who CARES? Who cares that she boasts and laughs (on video – Google) about having got a self-confessed rapist of a 12 year old girl out of prison, with time served after two months, all by suppressing evidence? Who CARES? As long as we don’t get a man who is not afraid to speak his mind, follow through on his pro-life promises and take steps – however unpopular – to minimise the risk of Islamists entering the country and bombing their lovely western “liberal” democracy out of existence.
Gimme a break.
An ad hominem attack in the first paragraph. Followed by a straw man argument in the second. Impressive.
Then for some unknown reason you criticise me for not raising the question of the planned border wall. There were a number of things I didn’t mention, so it is unclear why you raise this one.
My closing comment about Trump was not “nasty”, but simply referrring to his own words. It is interesting that people are criticised for being unfair to Trump when they are simply reporting the incoherent and offensive nonsense he utters/tweets. In the case of these comments, regardless of his subsequnt apology, I do think they speak volumes about the way he regards women.
True, I did not mention his “pro-life achievements”. And it is true that he is now in the pro-life camp. As with most issues, he has held various positions over the years – perhaps it would be overly cynical to suggest his change of mind was related to winning the evangelical vote.
Perhaps as regards your closing comment, you could be more specific on the extent to which people from the countries subject to Trump’s ban have carried out bombing or other attacks in the US (excluding of course the Bowling Green massacre). Perhaps also commenting on why, if this the justification, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt are not on the list.
Where do you stand on the abortion issue?
I made NO ad hominem attack. I said your post could have been written by an news hack, an observation based on the FACT that your posts was one lengthy contribution to political correctness.
Straw man argument? You mean you DON’T agree with the majority in the UK and USA (if we believe the media) that “Islam is a peaceful religion”? Really? You’re THAT independent minded? WOW!
His own words? You mean Donald Trump called himself a “dirty lecherous old man”? WOW! again, I’ve missed that.
No, (not that his motivation matters, as long as lives are saved) but I think you will find that his conversion to being pro-life resulted from seeing images, learning the facts, etc. about the unborn child. But then, why take the charitable view when you can follow the PC crowd?
As for your closing challenge – I get it. Trump should wait until terrorists from the countries on the “temporary restricted list” carry out an attack BEFORE he conducts his security check. Well, I must admit, in all honesty…
I didn’t think of that!
One person’s ad hominem is another’s insult I suppose.
Compare what you wrote, “Islam is a peaceful religion – we want Muslims to have free rein; whatever they want, I want…” with what your subsequent response, “ou mean you DON’T agree with the majority in the UK and USA (if we believe the media) that “Islam is a peaceful religion”?” Somewhere the bit about free rein and whatever they want got lost.
As regards your closing comment, if he is concerned to keep out likely terrorrists, he would do better putting Saudi Arabia on the list, for example. If he is concerned about people being shot in the US, more effective would be to focus on toddlers with access to guns, who actually killl more than do terrorists.
If you cannot take the cut and thrust of discussion without seeing ad hominem attacks around every remark, then better not to blog here. I do NOT “insult” people in my responses, although I am forthright in debate. That is partly because I do not have the time for the prevarications which mark the “tactful” debater, anxious to not offend and to be all things to all men and women, and partly because I prefer straight talking myself. But I certainly do not seek to insult anyone and since I try never to take offence myself, I perhaps make the mistake of presuming that quality in others.
I don’t know why Saudi wasn’t on the list. I’m not defending each and every decision of President Trump – I’m just not jumping on the media bandwagon to call him the bogey man at every turn. And I DO like his non-politically correct approach, the fact that he is not afraid to face up to reality – unlike his predecessor who didn’t even keep his promise to close Guantanamo Bay detention camp where inmates are held indefinitely without trial, and sometimes tortured.
The fact that Trump has defunded the evil Planned Parenthood and thus saved countless innocent lives, should be sufficient for any Catholic to support him in principle, and argue other issues on their merit.
I’m not jumping on any media bandwagon since I’m quite capable of listening to what he says and tweets.
In overall terms I have to say I come to rather different conclusions. You may admire his non-political correctness when he calls Mexicans rapists, boasts about sexually assaulting women, expresses his full support for torture, denies climate change (and wants to reverse efforts to tackle it) to mention just a few of his views, but I see bigotry, misogyny, ignorance and disregard for human rights.
I also have some concern about having a President of the US so insecure that he uses every opportunity to boast about how wonderful he is, how many people turn up to express their adoration of him (or not, as it turns out), and is prepared to lie so readily to bolster his ego.
He won on a minority vote due to the rules of the Electoral College, which he described only 4 years ago as a “disaster for democracy” (one point I can agree with). But instead of accepting that, he claims he won by a huge margin and dreams up some story about 3 to 5 million fraudulent votes cast against him. Quite extraordinary self-delusion.
He should have the humilty to realise that most people didn’t support him, perhaps reflect on his falling popularity, and understand that he should make an attempt to govern on behalf of all Americans, not just his core supporters.
” I see bigotry, misogyny, ignorance and disregard for human rights.”
That’s what you want to see – that’s why. He has already shown that he has immense regard for human rights, defunding the evil Planned Parenthood and trying to increase security to save lives.
You seem to have missed the placards that read “Women for Trump” (even “Gays for Trump”) and that’s because, as editor has pointed out ad nauseam (no offence!) you are very politically correct, and see what the left wing media want you to see and think.
The dig about the voting system is disingenuous. We have one UKIP MP although 4 million people voted UKIP and we often get a government we didn’t vote for due to our stupid system. So, why suddenly do voting systems become an issue when Donald Trump gets elected?
I presume you are a Catholic so I am totally mystified that you are obviously angry that Hillary lost to Trump, instead of thanking God.
Would you be good enough to direct us here to any statement or utterance by President Trump or his Administration that says he wanted to “ban all Muslims” from the US.
I don’t think we’re particularly interested in the liberal interpretation of what Trump’s Executive Order indirectly insinuates. No, just a plain old quote from the President or his Administration saying directly that he wants a total ban on all Muslims entering the US will do fine. You made the declaration that this is about banning all Muslims, now you have to support that declaration with solid indisputable evidence. Please and thank you.
The other stuff you mention is just recycled liberal muck, not worthy of extended conversation between intelligent people. However, if you’re in the mood for real moral outrage, then perhaps a conversation about the Clinton abortion and war-mongering programmes? Or is it that the murder of innocents by abortion and unjust war don’t spark your moral outrage to quite the same degree as a groper of women does? If so, I’m afraid your moral priorities leave a lot to be desired.
On 7 December 2015 Trump publically called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”. He said it in speeches and it was on his website. Seems clear to me.
Although in the best traditions of political debate you have challenged me to prove a point I never argued, namely that he said this in his capacity as President.
And, unlike you, I do think the terrorist attack in Quebec is “worthy of extended conversation between intelligent people”. But we will have to agree to differ on that point.
Would you tell us what YOU would do if you were President Andrew; how would YOU deal with the terrorist threat from Islamists?
The point is he has not articulated a ban on Muslims as President. His Executive Order was merely a more intense vetting of Muslims coming from seven declared Muslim-populated danger zones. I can’t see any problem with that, it’s common sense.
Well, he didn’t manage to convince the Court on that point, not helped by his very clear statements prior to the election, nor his request to Guiliani to make a Muslim ban legal in some way.
But you seem to contradict yourself when you say that the order was indeed in relation to Muslims. Since the order clearly introduced a ban this seems to undermine your point somewhat.
You ignore the facts that there is already a very strict vetting process in place, that the order covered green card holders returning home (subsequently amended, but only under pressure).
And you still don’t explain why the order applied to countries from which there have been no people involved in terrorist attacks in the US, whilst it does not cover countries from where there is a clear and documented far greater threat.
Finally, and since you chose to raise the point about moral priorities, it is rather surprising for a Christian to be quite so comfortable about an indefinite ban on refugees from Syria.
“The ban did not apply to certain visa types, nor to religious minorities fleeing religious persecution from those countries – for example, Christians.
Syria is the only one of these countries specifically named in Mr Trump’s order. The others derive from a 2015 Obama-era statute listing “countries of concern” for terrorism to be excluded from the US’s Visa Waiver Program.
In itself, the decree is surely just sending a message that the President is protecting his nation. It’s not so different from what Obama did when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months – that’s six by the way, not three – in 2011. That’s the Obama who also referenced the same seven countries identified by his successor as sources of terror. (Meanwhile 40 Muslim countries are unaffected by Trump’s order.) But back then there was little dissent.
And had the current order been more carefully drafted or less chaotically implemented things could have been the same.”
I’m curious about your attacks on Trump. Would you have preferred Hillary Clinton to have won the election?
Except, of course, that Obama did not ban visas for refugees from Iraq for 6 months, although I do understand that facts don’t actually count for much now, even if cut and pasted from the Telegraph.
Clinton was a weak candidate, although of course she still won the popular vote by a not insignificant margin.
I would put the question back to you. Given Trump’s views on women, human rights, torture, climate change, to mention but a few, I’m curious why there is so much love for him on what is a Christian internet blog.
Well, there are plenty of sources reporting, with documentation,that Obama did ban Iraqi refugees for six months
You make the mistake of thinking there is “love” for Trump on this Catholic blog. It’s not about “love” its about the least bad candidate, and Killary Clinton was easily the worst candidate.
As for climate change – sorry, am not a believer. The climate changes naturally and if it weren’t for the fact that scientists can’t get funding unless they subscribe to the nonsense about humans causing climate change, more would come out and say so. It’s a load of nonsense. So, I’m 100% with Trump on that and hope he doesn’t cave in on the issue.
As for my own fair gender – I wish they’d stop bleating about Trump’s unpleasant and uncouth remarks and behaviour. They wanted to be one of the lads, let them take the consequences. Real women, not half-dressed and promiscuous, don’t find men mistreating them in that way. I always find men courteous and sensitive. I actually believe I’d find Donald Trump the same. I say that having watched him with other women, such as his wife and Kelly his spokeswoman. I doubt if either of them would put up with the kind of behaviour you seem to think is his normal way of interacting with women instead of some uncouth off the cuff talk with other men. Maybe you think the President of America has to be perfect, not flawed in any way. Just as well Killary Hillary didn’t win then – she was much more than a “weak candidate”, she’s an amoral woman, with a very crude tongue in her head. When a (male) bodyguard wished her good morning when she was First Lady at the White House, she replied “Go and F**** yourself.” Didn’t hear the left wing media reporting that during the campaign, alongside Donald’s anti-women reports.
Donald won fair and square and it’s time the media gave him a fighting chance. They are so bigoted and biased against him, that I wouldn’t be surprised if he is driven from office quite soon. So much for democracy, then, LOL!
” I always find men courteous and sensitive.”
Lucky you. I have to search them out with sniffer dogs to find them at all – they run for the hill as soon as they see me coming! As one who is well known to be slim, glamorous, highly intelligent etc etc, I am, it goes without saying, kidding!
Seriously, I agree wholeheartedly with your comment, especially your observations about feminist types. Drive me crazy with their demands to be treated like men and then when they ARE, they moan themselves silly. “Gerra”… I always say… “GRIP!”
I’m the very essence of gentlemanly sensitivity and courtesy. I’m humble, too, so what are you talking about “sniffer dogs”. I’m cut to the bone, and as you know there’s not much cutting to do to get to my bones!!
Well, you said it… I mean, it’s well known that you are so thin that your toothpick is jealous of you!
And just for the fun of it, here’s a great joke about a thin man…
A LARGE, well established, Canadian lumber camp advertised that they were looking for a good lumberjack.
The very next day, a skinny little guy showed up at the camp with his axe, and knocked on the head lumberjack’s door. The head lumberjack took one look at the little man and told him to scram.
“Just give me a chance to show you what I can do,” said the skinny man.
“Okay, see that giant redwood over there?” said the lumberjack.”Take your axe and go cut it down!”
The skinny man headed for the tree, and in five minutes he was back knocking on the lumberjack’s door. “I cut the tree down,” said the little man.
The lumberjack couldn’t believe his eyes and said, “Where did you get the skill to chop down trees like that?”
“In the Sahara Forest,” replied the puny man.
“You mean the Sahara Desert,” said the lumberjack.
The little man laughed and answered back…
“Oh sure, that’s what they call it now!
It’s the way I tell ’em 😀
Very good joke, I’ll take a note of that one.
As regards my build, what can I say except that you can’t fatten a thoroughbred. I am blessed to be exactly the same build and weight today that I was when I was 20, and that’s despite my 8 bars of chocolate a day. Oh, and I should mention that my blood pressure and blood sugar levels are text book.
Eat yer heart out!
“Eat yer heart out”
I just did!
If you’re using Breitbart as a source of information, you really do need to get out more, and sharpen up your critical faculties.
Editor: you’ve obviously missed the fact that the left-wing Huffington Post cite Brietbart… You’ve given yourself away big time now anyway. Only left wing sources will do, they’re the ones with the truth machines. Yeah right. Oh and, by the way, I notice you don’t actually comment on the content of the Brietbart report… Speaks for itself.
As to your other points:
Climate change is established science, not a belief.
Editor: Says who? Oops! A climate change scientist, of course, silly me. I was about to say “go and look for a dissenter” but I forgot for the moment that they tend to be marched out of science conferences and generally silenced, so instead, use your common sense. The forecasters can’t get the weather right for the next two days half the time, so I’m not insulting my intelligence by worrying about the weather centuries ahead, assuming there will BE centuries ahead.
“Real women, not half-dressed and promiscuous, don’t find men mistreating them in that way.” A quite extraordinary statement on many levels, not least since you haven’t the faintest idea who Trump is referring to. And a 59 year old self-described leading businessman and person of great intelligence wanting to be “one of the lads”? That’s just pathetic, in the true sense of the word.
Editor: what is pathetic is the way you twist and turn words rather than deal with the issues.
Donald won fair and square, because of the electoral college, agreed (ironic given that his view of that system only 4 years ago, but it wasn’t helping him then so understandable). But he didn’t win the popular vote and in my view would do himself many favours if he didn’t try to pretend he actually did if it weren’t for all those mythical illegal votes (the Pence inquiry on this seems to have gone a bit quiet of late). He’s the one keeping the result a live issue – the adults accept that’s democracy, like it or not, and have moved on.
Editor: didn’t I say somewhere along the line that none of us is arguing that Trump is perfect? Did you WATCH the video of Hillary Clinton boasting and laughing about suppressing evidence in order to get a rapist (of a 12 year old girl) out of jail, home and free? Not one word or action of Donald Trump comes anywhere close to the evil of that scandalous dereliction of legal duty. She makes Pontius Pilate look like a saint. But, like all trolls, you ignore the facts that you want to ignore and just press on with your daft attacks, flailing about all over the place. Gerragrip! You never once commented on that video – not once. Speaks volumes, given your monotonous commentary on Donald Trump’s every word and alleged action.
As for giving a fair chance, I don’t know if you are old enough to remember the birther consipracy thoery that criticised Obama’s right to be President from the outset? Trump took the lead in that – was he trying his best not to be bigoted and biased and to give Obama a fair chance? I somehow think not.
Editor: Obama? What a joke! You seem to be on the side of anybody and everybody but Trump. I repeat. None of us here has extolled Trump’s virtues, treated him as a saint (as happened with Obama) but he is a heck of a lot better than the alternative – who was much more than merely a “weak candidate” as you described her. Jings! Imagine her as leader of the so called “free world”. In no time at all, there’d be no babies left alive.
Trump is more than happy to dish it out in spades, but finds it difficult to be on the receiving end. There is a difference between running your private companies set up with Daddy’s money, where nobody dares to question you, and running the US as President. There are checks and balances, there is a legal system, it is not run according to the whim of the President. Welcome to the grown-up world of politics, Donald.
Editor: you really do hate the man, don’t you. Take your hate and your politics elsewhere. We’re not remotely interested. I think that’s a kind of grown up way of saying “get lost” – no offence intended, of course 😀
Go watch a video of a baby being aborted and then come back and tell us about your favouring of Obama and Clinton over Trump.
“Climate change” is a myth to raise taxes, “human rights” is the name given today to a programme of suppression of the rights of God (legalised sexual perversion, baby killing, etc.), “views on women”, no idea what you’re on about (you’ll have to tell me what Trump’s views are on women because a lot of women voted for him).
It’s not love we have for Trump on this blog, it’s respect for his honesty. Trump is a breath of fresh air from the liberal destroyers of our Christian culture, he speaks honestly and he does what he promises. You liberals absolutely hate him for that and it is so obvious. The media can’t even hide their fury now.
““Climate change” is a myth to raise taxes.”
And there was I thinking you would quote Trump and say “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive”. Perhaps it’s both, if you are happy to ignore the science.
““human rights” is the name given today to a programme of suppression of the rights of God”
How is being opposed to the torture of people not found guilty of anything (and therefore innocent) in any way at all suppressing the rights of God? I think we must read a different Bible.
“It’s not love we have for Trump on this blog, it’s respect for his honesty.”
His honesty? You really do seem to have lost your critical faculties.
Look Andrew, this is not a politics blog. We are discussing the fact that a prominent, some would say THE most important Doctor of the Church, has written convincingly about immigration and demonstrated that being opposed to mass immigration is NOT un-Christian.
You have taken us down the media “Love to Hate Trump” road and we have had enough of it. The fact that you hate Trump and prefer Crooked Hillary is your business. Just don’t come on here and lecture us on the subject.
Either comment on the topic or risk your posts being deleted from now on.
Not a “risk” – I WILL delete anything that is not directly addressing the points made by St Thomas Aquinas as from now.
You and I both know that the 9th circuit court in the U.S. is notoriously liberal. Trump was never going to get a fair hearing with those judges. And it turns out that the judge who originally put the brakes on Trumps National Security measure has been fostering children from the Middle East for decades and used to give his legal services free to an organisation defending illegal aliens from the Middle East. It is so transparent what’s going on.
And by the way, the judges never once referred to the Constitutional law cited by Trump in support of his Executive Order. You’re not telling me that these men were remottely interested in justice. This was a liberal political ploy by Trump haters, and they care nothing for the security of their country.
Please Andrew, don’t insult my intelligence with any more of your liberal rubbish. I’m sitting watching the hatred against Trump on the news channels every day. Anyone with an IQ higher than a house plant can see what’s happening.
“Anyone with an IQ higher than a house plant can see what’s happening.”
I know that’s true for sure, because even I can see it… 😉
“Please Andrew, don’t insult my intelligence with any more of your liberal rubbish”
“Anyone with an IQ higher than a house plant can see what’s happening.”
Where any discussion with the far right leads.
Again, Andrew, troll like, you ignore the issues raised (and answered) by Athanasius, and resort to nastiness instead. Nobody here is “far right” but since you appear unable to distinguish religion and theology from politics, you have fallen into the language of the politics of left and right – I have noted it in more than one of your posts.
It seems clear now that you are not interested in the topic of St Thomas Aquinas/open borders, and so I’m forced to the conclusion that you are a troll.
It’s a very bad day indeed when liberals are quite content to leave routes open for Jihadists to enter their nation with ill intent rather than upset the Muslim community with strict vetting procedures.
In every corner of the globe these terrorists are active, seeking to cause carnage amongst the populations of unsuspecting peoples. All of them bar none claim allegiance to Islam and declare their evil actions to be directly in line with the teaching of the Koran. So clearly, whether people like it or not, the global terror threat is an Islamic one that must be met with appropriate screening of all immigrants adhering to Islam. This is common sense that even every right minded Muslim must surely approve of. But as far as I can tell it’s not the legal, law abiding Muslims who are reacting to this common sense practice, it’s the mad liberals, the authors of national and international lawlessness and chaos.
Well said, Athanasius.
And it is notable that the family featured on the news who had been affected by the travel restrictions (not bad) and then allowed in after legal efforts, were NOT Muslims, but Christians. This was mentioned only once in a news broadcasts and thereafter the impression was allowed to be given that they were Muslims. Dishonest media and useful (outraged) idiots – deadly combination.
Wotcha make of this folks from “Who am I to Judge”..?
I noticed that when the visa restrictions were lifted in the U.S. the media concentrated their filming at airports on women, children and older men, the aim being to impress upon minds that these poor innocents were suffering under that bad man Trump. They deliberately avoided filming all the young Muslims flooding in from those seven countries on the hot list.
We don’t have news media in the West now, it’s all just liberal propaganda for the daft hippies and people who don’t think for themselves. What was it G. K. Chesterton said? Oh yes, that only dead fish flow with the current.
“Was it G.K. Chesterton who said: only dead fish flow with the current.”?
Not sure. It was either Chesterton or me. Can’t remember which of us said that, but could be either 😀
> It’s a very bad day indeed when liberals are quite content to leave routes open for Jihadists to enter their nation with ill intent rather than upset the Muslim community with strict vetting procedures.
Fear of an aggressive people is one aspect of liberal ineptness. Another is that liberals cannot fathom how to deal with Islam, so they pretend it is something it manifestly is not – i.e. a system susceptible to liberal propaganda. Islam does not co-opt foreign philosophical influences, it eviscerates them. Leftists cannot comprehend this – they are modern-day polytheists, after all, inclined to endlessly asking “What is truth?” without making a sustained effort to discover the answer. Anathema to them are the words “Ecce homo” – here is the Man. Here is the Truth.
And are we not the Infidel ?
The Center for Immigration Studies, citing information from a 2016 U.S. Senate hearing, said 72 of the 580 people found guilty of terrorist acts in the U.S. were from the seven countries (total population: 220 million) named by Trump.
* Iran (pop: 82 million) – state sponsor of terrorism, home to 4 of the terrorists
* Iraq (pop: 38 million) – ISIS stronghold, home to 19 of the terrorists
* Libya (pop: 6 million) – ISIS stronghold, home to 2 of the terrorists
* Somalia (pop: 12 million) – al-Qaeda stronghold, home to 20 of the terrorists
* Sudan (pop: 40 million) – state sponsor of terrorism, home to 1 of the terrorists
* Syria (pop: 17 million) – ISIS stronghold, home to 7 of the terrorists
* Yemen (pop: 25 million million) – al-Qaeda stronghold, home to 19 of the terrorists
Do the countries these murderous terrorists hail from happen to be 99% Muslim? Really? Imagine that – what are the odds?
Well put. But it seems the liberals don’t care how many terrorists come to the U.S. as long as the global strategy to eliminate all borders stays on track.
Yep but was not 9/11 not carried out by Saudis and they are NOT on the list, how can that be ?
The seven countries were initially identified as “countries of concern” under the Obama administration (Congress also identified these countries). Travel restrictions in place under the Obama administration were expanded into a 90-day ban under Trump.
The countries in question
(1) have governments that are overtly hostile to the U.S.,
(2) have collapsed into chaos and are effectively terrorist-run states,
(3) lack the infrastructure that makes it possible to readily vet people on their home soil (this lack of infrastructure renders futile American efforts to determine the identity of individuals).
None of those criteria apply to the Saudi government.
To your point, the executive order specifically invoked the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City, and many of the terrorists that conducted those attacks were Saudis. Perhaps if the previous administration had included Saudi Arabia in the list of “countries of concern,” then the current administration would have banned immigrants from there as well.
Except the Saudi have oil and lots of dosh!
Thought you might be interested in this video of Col. Fletcher Prouty discussing the real nature of oil (the topic starts at about 11:30, the rest is a general introduction, which is fascinating in itself, but not about oil):
Thank you for that, another one for my memory bank and folks wonder why I am a skeptic! Again we see absurdity in speech with the example of Fossil Fuel. Is it any wonder that the public can be bounced in to wars, extra taxation for Global Warming?
Thank you for that video. Very revealing indeed!
And the same old players are out there…funny how old Rockefeller is over a 100 and Kissinger pushing that now as well..No sign of the deadly Altzheimers, Parkinsons or the big C…wonder what keeps them going eh? As my granny used to say “The De’ils good to his ain”!
The Saudis are not having it all their way – in the past four months they’ve deported nearly 40,000 Pakistani workers over terror fears and security concerns. This is in addition to the 243,000 Pakistanis deported between 2012-2015.
Extreme vetting strikes again.
Here is a short video clip, anyone fancy seeing this in Buchanan St Glasgow or Princes St Edinburgh. The Police officer was remarkably restrained. The point is the young migrants have NEVER known any rule of law and apply their “culture” only as “they” know.
No, I certainly would NOT want to see that in Glasgow, or anywhere else. And yes, the officer was very restrained. Those thugs should have been charged with attempted murder, whether migrants or natives, politically correct or not, in the eyes of the PC brigade.
Anarchy now, BUT France is now going to relax laws and allow Police to open fire in self defence in such a situation where obviously their life is at risk.Tourism in France is less than it was due to terrorism and the Eiffel Tower is turning in to a fortress to protect tourists.
Comments are closed.