My colleague Freddie Marinelli has written extensively about the issue of illegal immigration. Today, I'd like to shift the focus to the Vatican and the opposing views that Pope Francis has versus the prominent Vatican Cardinal Robert Sarah.
As you may know, Pope Francis has repeatedly criticized President Trump, without mentioning his name, about the wall that the President and his supporters want to build in the Southern Border. Never mind that the Vatican itself has a wall protecting the Pope and his staff - the hypocrisy would be laughable, if the issue wasn't so serious.
But the Pope may find himself now in the opposite side of the Cardinal, who in his new book "Evening Draws Near and the Day is Nearly Over", which Europeans seem to be devouring, insists that it is wrong to "use the word of God to promote immigration". He adds that it's better "to help people flourish in their culture than to encourage them to come to Europe".
But wait until you hear what else Cardinal Sarah said last week in an interview:
"Is this what the Church wants? [The Church should not support] this new form of slavery that is mass migration".
Finally someone exposing mass immigration for what it truly is: slavery!
I have thought for a long time that in the US Democrats NEED an underclass to retain power, and illegal immigration gives them exactly that. An underclass that would guarantee these voters would elect them into office for as long as they remain illegal. Yes, I know - illegals are not supposed to vote. But who are we kidding? Their votes already count. We know that.
But you see, these illegals can only be slaves to the Democrats for as long as they remain illegal. The minute they become Americans, opportunities start popping up, and with those opportunities comes prosperity...and with prosperity, people tend to lean conservative. So it is a MUST to ensure these illegals NEVER become Americans if Democrats are to USE them as their permanent underclass. Let's not forget that Obama, during his first 2 years in office, had the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate... and what did he prioritize? Amnesty? Nooooo... Obamacare. So these immigrants can never become Americans if they're to belong in the Democrat plantation.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not promoting amnesty here. Far from it. I'll get to the Bible in just a minute, but I first want to make sure that it's clear that Amnesty can only make matters worse, as the influx of illegals would never stop. But my main point, for any potential illegal reading these lines is this: the Democrats WANT you to be poor, marginalized, illegal and illiterate. Because the minute you open your eyes, you will see them for who they are: plantation owners.
But let's go back to Cardinal Sarah's remarks. He's absolutely right about what he's saying: mass migration is a form of slavery.
But what does the Bible say? Why would any religious leader have anything to say at all about immigration, one way or the other?
Well, because the Bible speaks about it. For those of us, Christians, who believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, what the Bible says or doesn't say is important.
What does the Bible say?
It says three very important things:
a) We must accept foreigners... but not any kind of foreigners. God commands us to accept only those foreigners who are willing to accept His laws. In essence, we can only accept LEGAL immigrants:
Leviticus 18:26: "You must obey all my decrees and regulations. You must not commit any of these detestable sins. This applies both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you."
In other words, legal immigrants are expected to become productive members of society, which is not what the Pope or the Left promote.
b) We must help immigrants. Exodus 23:9 says "you must not oppress foreigners. You know what it's like to be a foreigner, for you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt". So helping immigrants is a mandate, but letting them rip us off is not. And enslaving them is definitely a no-no.
c) We must assimilate immigrants - so crucial to understand. Abraham circumcised not just the members of his family, but his servants, who were not part of the Covenant. (just as a side note, "servants" in the Bible means "workers", not slaves. There is no such thing as slaves owned by Godly people in the Bible. Godly people were slaves in antiquity, but God's people were not allowed to own slaves). Foreigners in Israel were expected to contribute to the success of the nation. Obeying the laws, paying taxes and becoming productive members of society is a must for all immigrants.
In sum, God gave us explicit limits to our acceptance of strangers. They shouldn't be enslaved, like the establishment in Europe and Democrats in America want. But they must do their part.
"You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the LORD your God"
Don't forget to sign up for our free weekly newsletter!
There is a new research poll from the Pew Research Center that asked citizens from 27 different countries if they would want more, less, or about as many immigrants coming in as they do now. There was not a single country in which the majority of the people wanted more immigrants.
Now, I know that there are considerably more countries in the world than just 27, so I can’t exactly say that not one country in the world wants more immigration, but of the ones surveyed (including Germany), not one of them wanted more.
According to Pew Research Center: “Across the countries surveyed, a median of 45% say fewer or no immigrants should be allowed to move to their country, while 36% say they want about the same number of immigrants. Just 14% say their countries should allow more immigrants.”
In other words, across all the countries surveyed, 45% said they wanted less or no immigration, 36% were okay with current levels, and only 14% said they wanted more immigration.
I won’t list all 27 countries because that’s not necessary, but some of the important ones to look into are countries like Greece, where 82% said they wanted less or no immigration, 15% about the same number, and only 2% wanted more. That is quite telling of the situation in Greece.
Hungary is similar in that 72% say they want less or no immigration, 22% say they want the same number, and only 2% say they want more. Of European nations, Spain was more evenly split, with 30% wanting less or no immigration, 39% wanting the same number as current levels, and 28% saying they want more.
Of Asian nations, Indonesia most strongly did not want more immigration, with 54% saying they want less or no immigration, 31% saying they want the same number and only 8% saying they want more.
In Japan, it’s a little more interesting. Only 13% say they want less or no immigration compared to 23% who say they want more immigration. That’s the only country where there are more people who want more immigration than there are people who want less or no immigration. However, a vast majority, 58%, say they want current levels, so that still means the majority does not want more immigration. And I can understand why there are more people who want more immigrants than there are those who want less because their birth rates have been on a dive for decades now and need a solution. Immigration could provide such a solution.
Israel stood at 73% wanting less or no immigration, 15% wanting current levels and 9% wanting more immigration. This makes sense considering the constant danger they are under thanks to Hamas (and shame on the U.N. for not even condemning their terrorist attacks. I mean, seriously, not even condemn them? If they don’t want to do anything about it, that’s bad, but they won’t even acknowledge the terror Hamas causes? That’s even worse).
At any rate, Russia also overwhelmingly wants less immigration, with 67% saying so, while 23% say they want current levels and only 7% want more.
As far as the U.S. goes, it’s a little bit closer. 29% say they want less or no immigration, with 44% saying they want the same numbers, and 24% saying they want more. Still a majority of wanting less or the same, but closer than I’d like.
Now, according to Breitbart, “When Americans get to choose how many immigrants they want added a year to the U.S. population, about 6-in-10 favor a national immigration policy that admits anywhere between 500,000 to zero immigrants a year.” This is important to note because the U.S. takes in about 1.5 million legal immigrants a year, so 60% say they would want to drop those numbers by more than a million. Of course, that poll was from early 2018, so I do not know if there has been much of a change (and I would expect at least some), but still.
Now, here’s the thing. The Pew Research Center did not specify whether or not they are talking about legal or illegal immigrants, which makes a world of difference. I think Pew is largely talking about immigration in general, legal or illegal, so it’s hard to discern how many citizens in each country surveyed supported less legal or illegal immigration, but I suppose that doesn’t matter all too much.
Most people either want less or current levels of immigration. This still indicates that people largely reject mass immigration plans like the U.N.’s “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” which would really be anything but. It would not be safe and would definitely not be orderly. And unfortunately, it definitely would be regular.
But returning to the poll numbers and not discerning between legal or illegal immigration, I would personally be okay with current levels of LEGAL immigration. In my opinion, if you pay your dues, wait your time, and go through the process the right way, there really should not be any reason to deny you access into the country. Such a process tends to include vetting to make sure the country does not allow someone with a criminal past or gang affiliation to enter the country. As long as there are no problems there, I see no reason to deny anyone entry into the country through legal means.
Of course, I could be biased considering I was once a legal immigrant (and now naturalized American) myself, but I feel that this is a sound and logical argument.
However, the kind of immigration reduction I want here is illegal immigration. I want a wall at the southern border and I still believe Trump can do just that.
So if I were asked the same question by Pew Research Center, I suppose I would answer that I’m okay with current levels, unless it is specified that it includes illegal immigrants. If it does include illegals, then I would definitely want less immigration (not zero immigration altogether, but significantly less. Zero illegal immigrants).
So that is the biggest problem I have with the Pew Research Center on this. They do not specify. They ask if people want more, less, none or same numbers of immigration. They don’t specify regarding legal or illegal immigration.
And that’s something that really bothers me. Honestly, every time a Leftist cries over the “poor immigrants” at the border, I get ticked off. There is a very clear difference between a legal and an illegal immigrant and whenever the Left IGNORES that difference, it annoys me to no end.
I am a LEGAL immigrant (well, a U.S. citizen now, but you get my point). Me and my family went through the process the exact right way, paying our dues, waiting our time, doing everything by the book. So I dare any Leftist lunatic to rope me in with an illegal. We are not the same.
My family loves this country. Illegals want to take advantage of her, coming in, taking government paychecks, and illegally voting for people who will implement the same disastrous policies that plundered their countries of origin. I wonder where they would go if America fell to socialism and it were virtually no different from other Socialist Latin American countries.
I just hope we never get to that situation. But returning to the poll, it does tell me something in particular: most people reject the globalists’ dream of mass migration.
Globalists foolishly believe everyone agrees with them, or at least a vast majority do, with a few odd-jobs disagreeing for no good reason apart from their supposed racism and bigotry. Reality is far different. On the issue of immigration, they are soundly rejected. And in France, they are also being rejected on climate change policy, to some extent.
Of course, there’s not a single globalist that could care even a little. Like I said in the article discussing France’s own rejection of immigration, globalists are not held accountable for the chaos they sow. They answer to no one but themselves. 99.999% of the world could hate them and they couldn’t care less, with the 0.001% being themselves.
They are not elected representatives. They are global communists. Still, I am definitely glad to see many of these countries rejecting an influx of immigration as much as they do.
Again, it also comes down to legal or illegal immigration, but the rejection of mass migration comes along with these results all-the-same.
Now, the Pew poll also talks about emigration, where people leave those countries, and people also think that’s a problem, but it largely has to do with the fact that emigration happens largely in regards to jobs aka outsourcing and things like that. Not really a part of the conversation for this article, but I felt it was important to note if you were looking into the actual poll.
But that is entirely a tangent that has pretty much nothing to do with the topic of this article. Like I said, I am glad to see such numbers, and I completely understand why the Japanese would be more willing to increase immigration than to reduce it.
“But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Taking our attention outside of U.S. polls, surveys and studies, let’s take a look at a poll from France, where Macron is facing fire due to proposed carbon tax hikes to “combat” climate change which are resulting in higher gas prices and is seeing a 26% approval rating, a new low in his presidency.
But this poll does not really touch upon people’s view of Macron or even the carbon tax. It has to do with immigration and how it affects multiple aspects of the country.
According to Le Point, a French news source reporting on the poll, “58% of French people consider negative the role of immigration in general, and the trend is found in almost all the themes declined: growth (54%), future of the country (55%), identity of the country (58%), respect for secularism (61%), social cohesion (64%), or security (66%).”
If that paragraph read a bit weird, that is because the original page was in French and I had Google translate it to English, so the phrasing of some things will seem a bit odd.
Basically, what that said is that 58% of French people consider immigration in general to be a negative, with increasing majorities believing immigration is bad for the future and identity of the country, social cohesion and national security among other things.
The Le Point article continues: “More broadly, 64% believe that welcoming additional immigrants is not desirable, as many illegal immigrants regularly arrive in Europe, and that the migration issue is likely to be important in the public debate before the European elections of May 2019.”
According to the poll, 71% consider that economic migration gives way to employers pulling down wages.
Now, this being a French news source, I suspect that the French people largely mean illegal immigrants, not simply those who legally enter the country and reside in it. However, they could also be talking about legal immigrants as well. I won’t leave that possibility off the table.
Why? Because immigration CAN hurt the economy. If immigrants, legal or illegal, enter the country and live off of government welfare, then they are taking from the economy and not giving anything back. If immigrants enter the work force and earn enough not to rely on the government (which could be difficult for multiple reasons), then they are not a liability, but an asset to the economy.
If the majority of French people believe immigrants are hurting the economy, it might be because said immigrants in general might not actually be in the work force and contributing to the economy. Granted, this is a poll that says the French believe this to be the case, not something that proves this to be the case, but the people might believe this for a reason.
Of course, something else that might be hurting the economy is the fact that France has a 45% tax rate on income (as opposed to the tax brackets here in the U.S. that range from 10% to 37% depending on your income) and that Macron is proposing raising taxes on carbon, thus raising gas prices, for the purposes of fighting a hoax of a problem, but immigration could also be something to point out.
Now, allow me to get to what I consider to be the best part of the poll. Still within the topic of immigration, 63% are in favor of abolishing the Schengen Agreement, which is an agreement that established free movement of persons across borders within the European Union. The abolition of such an agreement would restore national borders and would allow European countries within the Union to have a say in who they allow into the country.
In other words, 63% of French people support having national borders and having the national government have authority over migration into the country.
Now, that number should, according to common sense and reason, be far higher. It simply makes no sense for the EU to have control over an individual country’s borders, forcing them to take people they might not want to take in. But that’s just globalism for you. Globalism, at the end of the day, is global communism. It’s unelected officials deciding how the world works.
It’s for this reason that so many people in Great Britain voted to leave the EU (although May and other pro-EU hacks managed to completely sabotage that). It’s partly for this reason that Italians voted into power a populist, not a globalist. And it’s clear to me that the people of France might be heading back towards nationalism.
Let me remind you of two survey items in the poll: future of the country and identity of the country. Both were issues in which a majority (55% and 58% respectively) felt that immigration was harming them. Globalists don’t care about the future or identity of an individual country. These are people who are against borders in general. They don’t care about what people in an individual country think. They don’t care what people think in general! They are unelected. They have no reason to please anyone but themselves. They have no accountability for the chaos they sow.
And they are so far up their own behinds they think they can just bully people around without any push-back. Well, the French people seem to be really pushing back here. Sure, this topic is largely about immigration, but there are underlying topics of conversation within this poll alone.
The French people in this poll might signify the start of some major push-back against globalism. These people clearly care about their own national identity, which is something nationalists care about, not globalists.
They care about their own country’s well-being, whereas globalists only care about an individual country so long as that country plays ball and serves as an asset to the globalists and their agenda.
So this, combined with the fact that Macron’s approval rating stands at a record low of 26% for him, and I can’t help but see at least some push-back against globalism and globalists like Macron.
Of course, I could be wrong and this could really not mean a whole lot at the end of the day, but I can’t help but notice these sorts of things and remain optimistic with good reason.
Now, since this is largely a conversation about immigration in general, I wonder how the Left would react to seeing this sort of thing. Would they call the French racists? I wouldn’t put it past them to do that.
In fact, the very source where I got this information, Le Point, wrote that “this survey illustrates the hostility of a French population that has integrated a large number of immigrants for decades, a phenomenon that has contributed to the transformation of society, all in a weak national economic context.”
Thinking that immigration has negative effects on the economy is apparently considered “hostile” now. Le Point also repeats that word later on when talking about economic migration, saying: “But [the French] are hostile to economic migration,” before sharing the percentage of people who say that it allows for employers to drive wages down.
So the very source that’s reporting on the poll has some negative things to say about the French people who feel this way. As a result, were this to be talked about by any American mainstream source, I could imagine that source also having negative things to say, though would perhaps go further than simply suggest this is a “hostile” attitude.
“Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Back in August, I wrote an article that detailed the fact that only 25% of Democrats would support abolishing ICE after the illegal immigration debate heated up once again and somehow was hurting Trump to a degree.
While I do not necessarily have any news surrounding Democrats’ support of abolishing ICE, I do bring some news surrounding Latino voters’ views on ICE. And they don’t look good for Democrats.
A recently released poll by NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Telemundo found that, of 300 interviewees who were registered Latino voters, 36% would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports abolishing ICE compared to 33% who would be more likely to vote for such a candidate.
26% said there was “no difference” either way and 5% said they were “not sure”.
Now, the poll doesn’t just focus on this one item. The poll is actually quite extensive, for example:
But perhaps most interestingly, though not necessarily shocking:
So we really should take everything in this poll with a grain of salt. This is a relatively small sample size, with only 300 registered Latino voters being surveyed.
But there are a number of things to take away from all this. Primarily, while the vast majority of Latino voters understand socialism and despise it, they do not recognize it in Democrats… somehow. Despite the fact that they do not like socialism at all, they still seemingly hold a negative view towards Trump and the GOP and would prefer the Democrats to win in November.
So what this poll tells me is that there is a severe lack of knowledge out there for Latinos. Now, don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying Latinos are stupid. Ignorance and idiocy are two different things. People can cease being ignorant simply through learning and acquiring knowledge. However, people can’t cease being stupid even with knowledge.
It’s clear to me that these Latino voters understand that Capitalism is good and Socialism is evil. They are not stupid. However, they are ignorant if they still prefer Democrats over Trump and the GOP. They do not recognize that the Democrats would only bring about the same kind of Socialism that they despise and some might even had fled from.
Regardless, that is a topic for another time. Right now, I want to focus on the fact that even within the same poll that has Latinos adamantly rejecting Trump and the GOP, Latinos also report being less likely to vote for someone who would support abolishing ICE.
It’s this sort of inconsistency that leads me to take everything this poll says with a grain of salt, even the things that are positive in my eyes. Latinos prefer Obama over Trump, the Dems over the GOP, all the while supporting Capitalism over Socialism and keeping ICE over abolishing it?
Taking aside the fact that this is a poll from an MSM source, this poll does not seem very consistent and might not be entirely credible.
However, the fact that the poll shows Latinos favoring ICE and being less likely to vote for a candidate that would support abolishing it speaks volumes, regardless of credibility.
I can understand if the poll wanted to skew certain things to make Trump and the GOP look bad and like they are about to get kicked out of Washington. I don’t know how many of the registered Latino voters are Democrats compared to Republicans. But I would be naïve to assume there is no overlap of Democrat voters in an MSM poll. However, I won’t speculate further.
All I’m saying is that it is remarkable that, despite many of the other things the poll shows, the voters would prefer ICE stay than be abolished. That goes against many other things the poll indicates and the Democrats claim. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ran, among other things, on the promise of abolishing ICE. Upon her upset victory over Joe Crowley, other Democrats picked up on some of the things she was saying and moved farther Left, also calling on ICE to be abolished.
Now, as I said at the beginning of the article, support for abolishing ICE has dropped off massively since Ocasio-Cortez’s victory even within Democrats. So perhaps I should not be so surprised that Latinos tend to have a more favorable view of the agency. But that’s not what has me intrigued. Frankly, it’s not that surprising.
For the most part, registered Latino voters are legal immigrants (though I don’t know if there were any illegals who were considered “registered voters” in the poll or actually are “registered voters” as illegal as that is, but I won’t speculate further on that issue… for now). Legal immigrants tend to not have positive views on illegal immigrants.
You see, legal immigrants go through the process the right way. They (we, since I am a legal immigrant and now proud U.S. citizen) pay what needs to be paid, wait the amount of time that needs to be waited, sign and complete all the forms that need to be signed and completed, and overall go through the extensive process of attaining legal status to immigrate and become a legal U.S. resident.
Illegals basically crap all over that.
So, when legal immigrants such as myself see what illegals are doing and the preference they receive from the Democrats, we tend to not like that. Now, I do realize the poll shows Latinos prefer Democrats over the GOP, but as I insinuated, that’s relatively questionable right now.
When we see a government agency properly enforcing the immigration laws we ourselves were subjected to, we tend to like that. No one should be able to come here through illegal means and those that do should immediately be considered criminals. And don’t tell me that’s harsh. If you break the law, you’re a criminal. If you break immigration law, you’re a criminal. Simple as that.
This is a view that, from what logic and seemingly data from an MSM poll, most legal immigrants share. So what has me surprised is not that registered Latino voters seemingly marginally support ICE. What has me surprised is that the MSM poll would show that.
Either way, I would imagine the MSM would focus more on the numbers that help reflect their narrative that a blue wave is incoming and inevitable than to focus on the fact that Latinos would be less likely to support a candidate that wants ICE abolished or the fact that Latinos tend to despise Socialism and prefer Capitalism.
But regardless of what the fake news media has to say, they have given me no reason to believe what they say on multiple occasions.
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It’s a compilation of the week’s articles and easy access to our online store delivered straight to your inbox. All you have to do is click on the box on the right, type in your e-mail address, click on the subscribe button and you’re good to go. No money to be paid, no data to be shared apart from your e-mail address, no hassles.
What do you figure is the Left’s worst nightmare? Aside from Trump, that is? I imagine their worst nightmare, or at least one of their worst nightmares, would be a specific demographic of voters leaving their mental slave plantations in droves.
Among these demographics are Hispanics, whom the Left believes belong to them in vote and in mind. The Left, in a rather racist way, somehow believes that all Hispanics hate Trump and that all Hispanics want open borders. That we want more of our “hermanos” and “hermanas” (brothers and sisters, if you didn’t know) flooding this country, building more and larger Hispanic-only communities and changing this country fundamentally from an English-speaking, liberty-loving nation to a Spanish-speaking, welfare-delivering nation. Basically, the Left believes that we want to turn America into Mexico or any other Latin-American country.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I will get back to this topic momentarily. Right now, I want to share with you the approval ratings for Trump. According to a recent Harvard/Harris poll, President Trump’s approval rating overall sits at a strong 47%, with the main driver for these great numbers being a fantastic 10% rise in Trump approval among Hispanics.
These numbers almost certainly come from the fact that Hispanic unemployment rates are at historic lows and the fact that according to another poll by Economist/YouGov, only 20% of Hispanics support the Obama-era policy of “catch and release”, where instead of detaining people and families crossing the border, they are instructed to report to a hearing at some point in the future, which most people never attend. According to that poll, 64% of Hispanics support the policies we are using now and even the ones we had before under Trump. That is to say that 64% of Hispanics support either detaining the families together or separating the parents from the children.
Surely, these are devastating numbers for the Left. The only reason they pressed Trump so hard about the separation of children at the border is to virtue signal and pretend they are friends of Hispanics. They are not.
They are only friends to illegal immigrants. To those who will vote for them in elections if they can get away with it or if they can make it legal, which is an unconstitutional proposal.
They are only friends to those who are willing to vote for them or rather, who are suckered into voting for them. They pretend to be friends of Hispanics, friends of African Americans, friends of gay people, but the minute any one of them deviates from the slave plantations of Leftist thought, they become the enemy of the Left.
Whenever they see a conservative black man or woman, they have no problem calling them the N-word. Whenever they see a conservative Hispanic, they have no problem making racist remarks. Whenever they see a conservative gay person, they have no problem throwing the F-word at them.
The reason for this is that they have the mentality that these demographics all belong to the Left. They believe black people must vote Democrat, despite the fact that Democrats have gone to war to keep them slaves. They believe Hispanics must vote Democrat for the simple fact that Democrats want open borders and want to bring in more Hispanics. They believe gay people must vote Democrat because they were the ones who fought against the Christian belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
The Left fundamentally believes that all non-white people belong to them. It’s the same old pre-emancipation mentality that they hold. And whenever one of us escapes their plantation, they attack us and call us traitors to the “cause” or traitors to our demographic. They do this to conservative women too.
But when you get down to it, just what is that “cause”? Why are we “traitors” to our demographic? Is that “cause” the cause of turning America less white? First of all, good luck with that. According to a 2017 census, 76.6% of the population in America is White, with African Americans constituting 13.4%, Native Americans 1.3%, Asians 5.8% and Hispanics 18.1%. Second of all, what purpose does it serve to make America less white?
To the Left, making America less white means making America more Leftist and liberal. Again, the Left believes they own the non-white vote. If they can make most of America non-white, that will somehow translate into making America more Leftist.
Everything they do is about race, isn’t it? They’ve demonized white people to the point the New York Times has hired an anti-white racist to their editorial board who wishes to see white people go extinct. The Left simply can’t let go of their racist heritage. It’s in their DNA to hate other people for the slightest deviation in what they consider acceptable.
Now, I promised I would return to the topic of the Left believing Hispanics want to turn America into Mexico or another Latin-American country. As I said, nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because then what would be the point of leaving those countries for America? What would be the point of spending a lot of hard-earned money to legally move to the United States (which, considering currency differences, is quite difficult) if the objective is turning the U.S. into the “s**thole” we just came from?
My parents and I, for a long time, wanted to come to the United States. Not for the ridiculous purpose of turning it into Argentina (where we’re from) but for the purpose of experiencing life in the land of opportunity. For the purpose of eventually living the American Dream. For the purpose of living in a free land where the Constitution is a set of rules for the government, not the people. Where the government has a basic set of rules of what it can do with and to people. Where it can’t shut down anyone’s free speech, take away anyone’s right to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property.
We wanted to live in a country where the government won’t destroy the economy to the point that it defaults and has to confiscate the money of its citizens (which is literally what happened a little before we left Argentina). We wanted to live in a country that is prosperous. In a country where its economic system is built to lead to prosperity.
Why would we (Hispanics) want to turn America into the countries we left? So it’s really not that surprising to see Hispanics from, say, Cuba, be so adamantly against socialism and communism. They know what those things are, know how bad they are and know that they escaped from it and do not want to experience it again, despite how much these numb-skulls say it is different from how it used to be.
This is why I am not surprised that legal Hispanic Americans are not too fond of illegal immigrants. We do things the right way. We do things legally. They don’t and yet, they still get priority? Not that we want to be prioritized or compensated or anything. But it makes no logical sense to reward the breaking of the law.
I am also not surprised that more and more Hispanics are coming to approve of Trump’s job. He has done far more for the Hispanic and black communities than any Democrat ever has. Although, considering the Democrats fought to keep black people as slaves, they didn’t set the bar too high.
“And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.”
WARNING, THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS MATERIAL NOT SUITABLE FOR YOUNGER AUDIENCES.
On Thursday, the Washington Post reported that Trump made a very outrageous comment about countries like Haiti, El Salvador and African countries. The Post reports that unnamed sources – specifically, “several people briefed on the meeting”, aka people who weren’t even there – informed the Post that President Trump asked: “Why are we having all these people from s**thole countries come here?”
The President denies that he used such a derogatory term to describe these countries, saying: “The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used. What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made – a big setback for DACA!”
“Never said anything derogatory about Haitians other than Haiti is, obviously, a very poor and troubled country. Never said ‘take them out.’ Made up by Dems. I have a wonderful relationship with Haitians. Probably should record future meetings – unfortunately, no trust!”
And in classic Trump fashion, he managed to turn it around on the Democrats by saying: “The Democrats seem intent on having people and drugs pour into our country from the Southern Border, risking thousands of lives in the process…”
And while ignorant Leftists come to the defense of Haiti and the aforementioned countries, they manage to, in a sense, destroy a liberal argument: “these immigrants should be here because the countries they come from are very bad and dangerous.”
Stephen Colbert defended these countries by saying “They’re not s**hole countries… Donald Trump isn’t their president.” Insinuating that the United States is a s**thole because Trump IS our president.
If they indeed are not s**holes, then it should be ok to send these people back, right? Why would anyone be opposed to sending these great people back home if those countries are far better than ours? Shouldn’t we be merciful and compassionate people and help these immigrants return home?
Whether or not Trump used that word to describe these countries hardly matters. The meaning behind the reported comment is truthful: these countries are horrible.
According to World Atlas, Colombia is the 7th most dangerous country in the world. Sudan is 6th, Nigeria 5th, Congo 2nd and the Central African Republic is the most dangerous country in the world.
According to the UK Independent, Jamaica is the 18th most dangerous country in the world. South Africa immediately follows it at number 17, Guatemala at 16, Chad at 15, Mali at 13, Honduras at 9, Kenya at 8, Egypt at 7, Venezuela (Bernie’s favorite country) at 6, Nigeria at 5, El Salvador (well, look at that) at 3 and Colombia at number 1.
Many other sources often name the same countries, albeit in a different position. HIV/AIDS cases are the worst in many of these countries but that’s just one of their many problems.
If you don’t think those countries are s**holes, you don’t have a functioning brain.
Meanwhile, Trump is also reported to have insisted we take more immigrants from places like Norway. According to World Atlas, Norway ranks 14th among the world’s SAFEST countries.
Now, even though Trump says that he never said anything derogatory about those countries, the comment was still not racist in any way.
He reportedly said the COUNTRIES are s**holes, not the people. And the stats do indeed show that the countries are, in fact, s**holes.
It makes no sense to defend them because to defend them means to lie about them. But the funny thing is that they’re only now defending them simply because of what Trump reportedly said.
Jason Cone, USA executive director of Doctors Without Borders, said earlier this week: “The US is sending Salvadorans back to one of the most violent places in the world, and putting them at risk of death”.
If a country is considered one of the most violent places on Earth and puts its own people at risk of death by just being there, then it’s a s**hole country.
If a country is totalitarian and its people often try to escape via raft (I’m, of course, talking about Cuba), then that’s a s**hole country.
If a country is so poor that its people are forced to eat their own pets just so they don’t starve to death, then it’s a s**hole country.
Truth be told, most other countries on Earth are total s**holes. And unfortunately, some countries are beginning to turn into s**holes themselves. The massive refugee “crisis” threatens to turn the U.K, Germany, France and other European countries (or really any country that takes in these “refugees”) into Muslim s**holes. And yes, many Muslim countries are among the most dangerous countries in the world in the very sources I used earlier in the article.
I didn’t want to have to use that bad word so much, but even CNN is unapologetic about using the word. One host even wrote the word to describe who Trump is. He even attacks the President for reportedly having used the word.
Funny how he forgets that Joe Biden once said that Obamacare was a “big f**ing deal”. The Democrats even sold a t-shirt with the abbreviation for that description: “Health Reform is a BFD”.
It’s also funny how he forgets Dick Cheney once told Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy to “go f**k yourself.”
Or that Barack Obama used many, and I mean MANY expletives in his book: Dreams From My Father.
No, since it’s Trump, it’s only bad if HE says it. And it’s not even confirmed that he actually said it, at that. Multiple “celebrities” went on twitter to attack the President, many of whom used the very same word to describe him.
Funny how they all think Trump’s a s**hole, but still likely think very highly of Meryl Streep’s “God”: Harvey Weinstein. You can add Hollywood to the list of s**tholes in the world. I won’t throw all of California under that description since it’s really just the coastal cities that are garbage. There were a good number of counties in California that voted for Trump in 2016, so I won’t attack the whole state, even though its Governor is complete Leftist garbage.
Regardless, all of these places are actual s**holes that I would never dream setting foot on. I’ve lived in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. I was too young to properly remember Argentina and Brazil, but I remember Mexico pretty well. While the area I lived in wasn’t a complete s**hole (Mexico City), it is when you compare it to the places I’ve lived in in the States… except maybe Portland, Oregon.
Maybe they’re on par. Although, it’s important to establish that not every single place in those cities is awful. Downtown Portland is a complete garbage-fest (I’ve grown tired of using the same bad word over and over again), but the rest of the city wasn’t really bad. Downtown Portland is where the freaks are, but the rest of the city isn’t too bad. Liberal, sure, but not too bad.
But while I can stand living in such a place, I would never dream of travelling to any of the aforementioned dangerous nations. I might be interested in places like Norway now, but I would never go to South America again, except maybe Chile, the only South American country in World Atlas’ top 25 safest countries on Earth, even though it sits at number 24. Even the U.S. is not on that list, largely due to Obama and the Democrats.
Still, I end with my main point: the countries mentioned in the immigration meeting with lawmakers, with the exception of Norway, are total s**holes.
And even though the MSM won’t feel sorry whatsoever for using the word, I will apologize for using it myself, especially to the extent that I did. Not that I never curse, it’s just that it doesn’t feel right to curse this much.
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!”
On Thursday, September 14th, the social media world exploded when reports came in (through the MSM) that Trump, Schumer and Pelosi reached a deal that would protect “Dreamers” and exclude the building of a wall.
Schumer and Pelosi, after their dinner with the president, released the following statement: “[We] agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides.”
If you read this alone, you’d think Trump caved on the Wall. But you have to remember exactly who is giving this statement. The Left will always lie when it benefits them. They’ve been trying to separate Trump from his supporters, and saying that Trump caved on the Wall is an attempt at doing just that.
And it worked for a bit. I saw plenty of conservatives be enraged at Trump on social media, when only one side (the b.s. liberal side) was given. On Thursday morning, Trump tweeted out: “No deal was made last night on DACA”. Trump also said, later in the day, that the three came “fairly close” to reaching a deal that would require “massive border security”.
Then, while traveling to Florida to assess the damage of Hurricane Irma and helping the victims, the President said: “Ultimately, we have to have the wall. If we don’t have the wall, we’re doing nothing.” He said that having the wall was “vital” and even called out Republicans who would “become the obstructionists” if the wall weren’t to be funded.
Now, I don’t know about you, but if the last couple of years is anything to go by, I’d trust what Trump says over what the MSM or Schumer and Pelosi said happened. If we don’t trust them when they say that Russia hacked the election or that Climate Change is happening and it’s our fault, why would we trust them when they say they’ve made a deal with the president? Particularly when he says that no deal was made in the end?
I’ve seen plenty of people on social media explode, saying they want the Wall and that we NEED the Wall. And I agree, but you have to realize that Trump never took the Wall off the table. He said no deal was made, so why trust the Left over him on this particular issue?
And Trump isn’t the only one to push back on what the Democrat leaders said. Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted: “While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to.”
Like Trump, I’d trust HER more than any other news source on things the President does.
Now, Trump HAS softened his views on the Dreamer issue. Tweeting: “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!” Another tweet read: “They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own – brought in by parents at young age.”
This garnered one particular “Trump supporter” to attack the president. Ann Coulter tweeted: “’Put a fork in Trump, he’s dead’” and “At this point, who DOESN’T want Trump impeached?” Really? He softens his position on this one issue and you’re ready to put him in the guillotine? Ready to impeach him? Now, I won’t react too much towards Coulter’s tweets, since this isn’t the first time she’s thrown a tantrum over Trump doing something she didn’t like. She’s not a supporter, she’s simply trying to get attention and clicks to her page. That’s it.
The problem with that is that you come across as not being able to choose a side. You’re either FOR the President, therefore with conservatives, or AGAINST him and therefore with the Left. Megyn Kelly was against Trump and alienated her conservative audience. The Left never liked her. Conservatives no longer like her, so now her only audience is Never Trump traitors over at NBC, where her ratings are about what you’d expect when not a lot of people like you.
So it makes no sense to want to throw out Trump over THIS. He’s not saying he’s giving the Dreamers citizenship so they can vote for Democrats. He’s not giving up the Wall. In fact, he’s literally said he’s STILL going for the Wall. And he’s not going to sell out the country.
He will, however, try to get things to happen. Republicans are among the worst kind of scum on the Earth and won’t help Trump with anything. Democrats are willing to work with Trump if they get a little something in return. They’ve already done this with the debt ceiling, which wound up not meaning too much while also helping those affected by Hurricane Harvey with the “Hurricane Harvey Relief” part of the deal.
With the DACA issue, he’s willing to soften his position, but these people are somewhat different from other illegals. These DACA people were brought into the country through illegal means. But that’s at least a little bit more understandable than someone crossing the border on his own. It’s easy to know what we want with illegals that cross the border and exploit the country’s system. It’s a little bit more difficult knowing what you want when this involves people who were BROUGHT into our country and don’t know anything else outside of it. And it’s not exactly fair or even humane to flat out kick them out when they are not the ones at fault.
Now, there are different kinds of DACA children. Some of them were shipped by their parents from a foreign country. And some simply came here with their parents.
So, you have to take different measures with the different circumstances. Here’s what I propose:
First, the children shipped by their parents. I can understand parents wanting what’s best for their children, but a 6 or 7 year old is simply not going to do much better in this country without his/her parents. Could you imagine being that young, being in a foreign land where you don’t know the language, don’t know where to go and don’t know what to do, forced to live with a relative you barely know? It’s a horrible nightmare. So those children should be shipped back to their parents, because it’s better to be with people who love you somewhere not as good as the U.S. than being on your own, scared out of your mind in the best country in the world. At least at that age.
Children aren’t like adults. Adults will be better able to get by in a foreign country than a child would. So, they go back to their parents.
Finally, those who came here with their parents illegally. Well, this one’s the easiest. Send them all back. Each of them is breaking the law, and the child’s parents are teaching him/her that it’s OK to break the law on occasion. No child should be taught to break the law unless it’s a law that goes against God or the Bible. But border laws don’t go against God or the Bible. It’s not good for children to be taught that they can break the law if they will benefit from doing so.
But to return to the whole “Trump caved” issue, let’s not overreact. And let’s certainly not pay attention to what the Left says when Trump himself hasn’t given his side of the argument. We’ve never trusted the Left on anything else, why would we do it this time?
“For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”
As you know, last week President Trump rolled back Obama's 2012 Executive Order that granted special treatment to illegal immigrants who came to America as children. Those 'children' are now in their 20s and 30s, therefore old enough to know right from wrong.
I myself am an immigrant. I too had dreams - dreams of my home country, Argentina, to one day do something different, better and highly unusual for any country in Latin America: RESPECT THE LAW. Argentina has had all sorts of issues - political and economic - for the simple fact that they refuse to respect the law they themselves enact. In some ways they operate like the Deep State in the US - there's a set of rules for the common people, and then there's another set of rules for people like Hillary Clinton.
But when I was young, I didn't see America's Deep State. Argentina has a deep state of its own, and it's what's ruined the country. When I was young, I dreamed about coming to America, because of its RULE OF LAW. I was tired of the special privileges that the ruling class had in Argentina and I wanted a fair shot at life and prosperity. You can't have that when taxation eats up most of your income and rules change overnight, putting you always at risk of being out-of-compliance in some aspect of what you do. It's by design, in case you're wondering. The deep state everywhere in the world wants to keep you on your toes and have the ability to arrest you or fine you as they wish.
Now, since my desire was to take a break from the disaster that is Latin America, I wanted to come to a place where rules didn't change overnight, and I could have some certainty that any legal action I would take or could be taken against me would be dealt with by the magistrates according to the law.
Sure, this was all long before that baker in Colorado was condemned for denying a wedding cake to a gay couple...
But in any case, at the time in the early 2000s, long before you could be condemned for not wanting to violate your faith, America was a decent country. America was a country where you could do whatever you wanted, as long as it was legal. In Argentina you could also do whatever you wanted, as long as you didn't get caught.
Never in a million years did I consider coming to America ILLEGALLY. NEVER!
And I had a child when I came here, who was 13 at the time. We waited, we planned and we did everything in a legal manner, because what I wanted more than anything was RULE OF LAW. And I wasn't going to expose my OWN CHILD to breaking the law. No way!
These 'dreamers' are not kids. And I would like to ask them what their dreams are, because clearly the rule of law isn't one of them.
There are many reasons why people come to America - GREED is one of them. When you're willing to break the law - or keep breaking it if your parents were the ones putting you in this position - then, where does it end? Where do you draw the line? Are you willing to STEAL? To KILL? You're already breaking the law, so what truly brings you here? The answer is...money, of course.
Prosperity is a top priority in these "dreamers'" minds. Not that there's anything wrong with prosperity. But when you're willing to break the law for money, then you're greedy. And there's no telling how far you're willing to go for money.
Dreamers have a CHOICE. They could continue breaking the law or they could just do the right thing: go back home and start a new, legal, process to come to America.
Dreamers remind me of Michael Corleone in 'The Godfather'. Michael (played by Al Pacino) was a member of a family of mobsters, with the Godfather, Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) at the helm. With no fault of his own Michael was BORN into a family of criminals. And he kept telling his girlfriend Kay (Diane Keaton) that he wanted nothing to do with the family business. This went on until Vito was the target of a murder attempt.
What happened next?
Michael had a CHOICE.
What did he choose?
To finally join the family and continue ... breaking the law.
Obviously the movie, which was produced in leftist Hollywood, tries to justify Michael's decision as the 'natural thing to do' when your father's life is at stake. It tries to tell you that you would do the same thing as Michael did - assassinate the Chief of Police who had attempted to kill his father. The movie really doesn't leave the viewer an option - but the truth is we ALL have options. If you want to learn right from wrong, you don't watch The Godfather - you read the Bible.
The Godfather is an interesting movie that not only shows the choices human beings face - it also shows the DEEP STATE at work. After all, the Godfather owned Senators, Chiefs of Police, journalists, etc. etc. The godfathers of the world used to be called mobsters. We now call them LOBBYISTS. But this is a topic for another article.
Dreamers face the same types of decisions. They have a CHOICE. Either they join their families in continuing breaking the law, or they do the right thing.
They've CHOSEN to break the law.
As an immigrant myself, now a proud US Citizen, I find it disgusting that the Left would play down the importance of respecting the law.
But then again, the Left hardly ever respects the law. Look at ANTIFA, or Hillary, or Bill Clinton. The Left and the Constitution can never be reconciled.
Dreamers should do the right thing. Like Jim Carrey's character, lawyer Fletcher Reed, yells at one of his clients over the phone in the movie 'Liar Liar', after his client got arrested again: STOP BREAKING THE LAW!
'You must obey all my decrees and regulations. You must not commit any of these detestable sins. This applies both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you'
President Trump recently announced that he plans to join two Republican senators to unveil legislation that would optimize legal immigration for our country. What do I mean by this? Well, first, I have to explain what the new system will be like. According to the AP, “(The new legislation) would seek an immigration system based on merit and jobs skills instead of family connections.” In other words, priority is placed for immigrants that can help the American economy over those with lower skill levels who would not help the economy nearly as much as their higher-skilled counterparts.
This new system would make immigration far more competitive and would ensure that highly-skilled and qualified workers get priority to enter the country and, in their own small ways, help Make America Great Again. Now, this new system doesn’t completely limit those with lower skill levels from entering the country.
According to the AP, “Some immigrant advocates have criticized the proposal, saying that slashing legal immigration would hurt industries like agriculture and harm the economy. ‘Our system is broken, but the response should be to modernize it, not take a sledgehammer to it’, said Jeremy Robbins, executive director of New American Economy, a group of business leaders, mayors and others backed by former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg that advocates for comprehensive immigration reform.”
Yes, there would be limits for low-skilled workers from entering the country, but it doesn’t flat out deny them entry. They would still, eventually, be able to enter the country (legally) and participate in the agriculture industry. So, this wouldn’t hurt the economy. In fact, it HELPS it by bringing in more highly-skilled workers. It makes businesses better, the market more competitive, and raises people’s wages. Not to mention that, if businesses improve, there will be more jobs to fill and more people to get jobs. So this plan also helps create jobs!
But one thing I want to point out, real quick, is that quote by Jeremy Robbins. “Our system is broken, but the response should be to modernize it, not take a sledgehammer to it.” This guy, being part of a group of people backed by liberal mayor Michael Bloomberg, probably thinks “modernizing it” entails making it more “progressive”. In other words, he wants to do what every other liberal wants to do with immigration: let everyone and their grandmother into the country, regardless of who they are, what they have done in the past, and how skilled or good they are.
Mr. Robbins probably just doesn’t want to prioritize highly-skilled workers because it would mean that he’d actually HAVE TO WORK WITH THEM! Let me explain: some time ago, George Clooney wanted to leave his England estate and move back to his home in L.A. because he deemed living in that England home “too unsafe”. And this, of course, is after Europe made the mistake of accepting insane amounts of Syrian refugees into their countries. He doesn’t want his family so close to those people (with good reason), but he’s still an advocate for open borders in the U.S.
What am I getting at here? He knew his family would be safe from those refugees in their L.A. home, since it’s away and properly separated from most of the common people, like you and me. He wanted to STAY AWAY from them, but he still wants open borders. He knows very well that, regardless of whether we have open borders or a wall, he and his family won’t be affected all too much by the resolution. But if he thought that they would, indeed, be affected, he would back out of advocating for open borders.
He LEFT ENGLAND BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS UNSAFE, LARGELY AS A RESULT OF THE OPEN BORDERS! My point is that, because he wouldn’t be affected by the illegal immigration issue, he sides with the Left. But if he is affected, he moves his family somewhere safer. Jeremy Robbins likely is no different. He doesn’t want immigrants that are of high-skill and high intelligence in the country, he wants dumb, low-skill workers to do menial jobs. How do I know this? HE’S A LIBERAL, THEY ALL WANT THAT BECAUSE THEY ALL THINK THEY’RE BETTER THAN EVERYONE AROUND THEM!
Liberals don’t want high-skill workers to work alongside of, they want low-skill workers whom they can order to clean their toilets, clean their house and do landscaping around their homes. They don’t think they should have to work alongside someone that shouldn’t be in their same level. No liberal wants smart immigrants. Because smart immigrants aren’t as likely to vote Democrat. How do I know this? I’m a smart immigrant. And I would never vote Democrat in my life.
The Left fears a few things: smart women, smart black people, and smart immigrants (particularly Hispanic immigrants). The reason why is because it’s difficult to b.s. smart people into voting Democrat. They say they want more women in Congress and positions of power, but hate Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin with all their hearts. They say they want racial equality, but disliked Ben Carson and completely hated Herman Cain. They say they want Hispanics to succeed, but despise Ted Cruz (and would despise me, if I ran for office).
Point is: the Left HATES conservative minorities, not just because they’re conservative, but because they think they should own the minority vote, regardless of what kind of minority you’re talking about. And high-skilled immigrants often times translates to intelligent immigrants. And intelligent immigrants don’t typically depend on the government and the Democrat party to do anything for them, so they don’t feel they owe anything to the Democrat party.
And that very thought, that an immigrant doesn’t depend on the Left for anything and doesn’t owe anything to them, scares the absolute hell out of them.
And Trump wants to help those who are of high-skill and of high quality who want to come into this country. So, the Left opposes that. The Left doesn’t want high-skill and high quality workers. They want SLAVES!
“And do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.”
You may have heard that border crossings have dropped by 40% since Trump took office. You may also know that Univision’s Jorge Ramos said the ‘Trump effect’ is causing ‘fear stronger than any wall’. For someone like me, who came into this country legally and have never broken the law (anywhere in the world, I must add) this is good news.
Not long ago I met with a Venezuelan CEO of a weight management company which fundamentally serves the Hispanic community in the US. He told me that the community is vastly scared of Trump. I didn’t say anything, but I thought ‘I’m Hispanic and I’m not afraid of Trump. Why would they be?’ Then, of course, the obvious response: I’m a US Citizen now and I have never been in this country illegally.
Who is this CEO doing business with?
Possibly the same people that Jorge Ramos serves: illegal immigrants.
I have to admit that what brought me to this country initially was better opportunities. But never in a million years would I have entered this country illegally just to earn more money than in Latin America.
The one point my fellow Hispanics need to understand is that money cannot be the driver of our decisions. There’s still right and wrong in this world and breaking the law just to make a little bit more money makes you no better than a CEO who breaks the law to make a lot more money. Think of Enron or Bernie Madoff. The only difference between Madoff and the illegal Hispanic community is the AMOUNT of money they’re after – but the motivation to break the law is the same.
What is the first commandment in the Bible?
Exodus 20:3 reads ‘you shall have no other gods before me’
That means we cannot worship anybody or anything above God. When you worship something, like money, or someone above God, that’s when you get into trouble.
Think about it this way: when you prioritize smoking, or drugs, or money or sex in your life, you’re more likely to get hurt. God’s commandments are not meant to hold us back, but rather to protect us from harm. Like when parents teach their children not to run around a swimming-pool. It’s the same principle – God is protecting us.
One of the most attractive qualities of America is its rule of law. There’s no other country in the world like America in this respect. If your intentions are to break the law in any way, you have to expect some level of punishment.
My fellow Hispanics: what you’re teaching your children is that anything goes. You’re teaching them that the end justifies the means. Don’t be surprised if your children take breaking the law up a notch and begin stealing or… worse. You’re a role model to them. The end never justifies the means.
I lived in different countries before coming to the US. In all of them I always tried to assimilate. I bought a Brazilian flag when I lived in Brazil, and the Mexican flag when I lived in Mexico. I tried to learn and communicate in Portuguese, I tried to learn Mexican words and use some of their mannerisms.
The problem with the Hispanic community is that most of them don’t care to assimilate – they don’t learn English and naturally they themselves put limits to their potential by virtue of refusing to learn the language.
Since their priority is money, they don’t really care to learn the language, or to learn US history or even politics to at least try to understand who really is undermining their future – it’s the left, of course. Here in America as well as in their home countries, the left is on a mission to keep people poor.
Hispanics, for the most part, would call themselves Christians. They should follow what Scriptures say about their obligations when they’re immigrants: they should respect the law.
You must obey all my decrees and regulations. You must not commit any of these detestable sins. This applies both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...