Open Borders advocates playing with Pandora’s Jar

As the ancient myth goes, that über-doofus Pandora really screwed things when she busted open Zeus’s wedding present. Goofy chick just couldn’t keep well enough alone.

Quicker than Sonny Corleone could say “Badda-boop, badda-beep, badda-bang“, Pandora released the following evils upon humanity;

  • Old age
  • Sickness
  • Insanity
  • Pestilence
  • Vice
  • Passion
  • Greed
  • Crime
  • Death
  • Theft
  • Lies
  • Jealousy
  • Famine

Much like Pandora, liberals present-day either don’t think things through to their logical conclusion, or are under the misconception that actions don’t have consequences.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the Loony Left gets their wish — no more border control.

Now it’s time for the next obvious sequential step — we have the moral obligation to “spread around the wealth” as Barack Obama once famously proclaimed.

According to who specifically are we Americans under any type of “moral obligation” to spread our nation’s wealth to those here not only illegally, but also for those considered poor?

I’ll tell you who they are;

  • The liberal media
  • The liberal politicians
  • The liberal acedemics
  • The liberal clerics

I’ll even give examples. As self-admitted liberal Peter Beinart of The Atlantic magazine wrote in the summer of 2017 edition;

Entry to the United States is, for starters, a boon to immigrants and to the family members back home to whom they send money. It should be valued on these moral grounds alone.

Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity.

Then there’s the everything medical and health news service MedicalXpress.com in regards to Obama’s Affordable Care Act, and the opinions of Associate Professor Patricia Illingworth (medical and business ethics, as well as health policy and bioethics and the law) and Professor Wendy E. Parmet (health, disability and public health law) both of Northeastern University;

Calling it a “moral obligation” and a “global public good,” Illingworth and Parmet suggest that healthcare is a human rights issue, and that extending coverage in the U.S. to non-citizens could actually alleviate both the cost and care burdens on everyone. In fact, the researchers co-authored a book on the subject, The Health of Newcomers: Immigration, Health Policy, and the Case for Global Solidarity, that ties together their expertise—Illingworth, professor of philosophy and fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard University; and Parmet, the Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law.

And as penned by Adam Lee of the religion-centered Patheos;

On a first pass, it’s hard to see what argument could be made against open borders. Shouldn’t travel be a basic human right? (It is, according to the United Nations.) Why shouldn’t I, or any human being, be able to move freely and to live wherever I choose? It strikes me as indefensible – another form of segregation, really – to say that there are some parts of the planet where I can never go, just because of where I was born.



OK, I get it. Free everything to whoever is categorized as poor or low income. So who exactly are the poor and low income people of the world that have a right to everything American?

According to a report by the Pew Research Center regarding personal income across the globe, per person;

  • Poor (living on $2 or less daily)
  • Low income ($2.01-$10 a day)
  • Middle income ($10.01-$20 a day)
  • Upper-middle income ($20.01-$50)
  • High income (more than $50)

Keep in mind that globally a “poor” singular person is a yearly income of no greater than $730.  ($2 a day X 365 days per year = $730).

Again, according to Pew, this is the percentage of who falls into which category;

  • Poor – 15%
  • Low income – 56%
  • Middle income – 13%
  • Upper middle – 9%
  • High income – 7%

According to the Pew global guide, a single person who subsists on $33.26 is nearly smack-dab in the middle of the “upper middle income” category. Annually, that person makes $12,140.

Know what else the total of $12,400 is? It’s the Federal Poverty Line. So as far as the world is concerned, their upper middle income is our poverty-stricken.

But back the status of the world’s less fortunate. The total percentage of the world that makes less than the American Federal Poverty Level (the poor, low income, and middle income according to Pew) comes to 84% of the human population of planet Earth.

The global population is approximately 7,613,100,000. Eighty four percent of that total is 6,395,004,000

Forget about the 1,500 “caravan” of wannabe illegals from Central America.

You ready for almost six and a half billion?

Tucker Carlson Proves Trump’s “Sh_thole Countries” Comment

Computer engineer or cardio-vascular surgeon? You make the call.
Computer engineer or cardio-vascular surgeon? You make the call.

Never let it be said that Tucker Carlson doesn’t have a flair for words.

In a breaking story, The Washington Post is in full melt-down mode over President Trump’s comments in a meeting regarding immigration from El Salvador, Haiti and yet unnamed African nations, The Donald supposedly let loose with;

“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?”

Now quite done pissing people off, the President then queried as to why America isn’t bringing in “more people from countries like Norway.”

Enter The Tucker.

Never one to shy away from pearl clutchers or professional snowflakes, the Fox News opinion-meister took to Twitter with a cold slap of reality directly in the face of the perpetually offended;



Francis slams Trump’s Christianity, ignores Obama’s infanticide

The U.S. flag and a crucifix are pictured in an illustrative photograph. Pope Benedict XVI in a talk to a group of visiting U.S. bishops Jan. 19 echoed the bishops in their concerns over extreme secularism and threats to religious freedom in America. (CNS photo/Mike Crupi, Catholic Courier) (Jan. 19, 2012) See POPE-US Jan. 19, 2012.
The U.S. flag and a crucifix are pictured in an illustrative photograph. Pope Benedict XVI in a talk to a group of visiting U.S. bishops Jan. 19 echoed the bishops in their concerns over extreme secularism and threats to religious freedom in America. (CNS photo/Mike Crupi, Catholic Courier) (Jan. 19, 2012) See POPE-US Jan. 19, 2012.

In a none too subtle swipe, Pope Francis has openly questioned the Christianity of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, as reported by Britain’s venerable BBC on Feb. 18, 2016. Finishing a six-day visit to Mexico, the South American Jesuit told the press “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian.”

For his part, Trump responded with, “For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith.” While campaigning ahead of the GOP South Carolina Presidential Primary, he also stated, “[The pope] said negative things about me. Because the Mexican government convinced him that Trump is not a good guy.”

Curiously, during a state visit last September between Francis and Barack Obama, there was nary a mention from Francis regarding Obama’s past opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) while he was an Illinois state senator early in his political career. In a 2008 report, LifeSiteNews.com noted, “Barack Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, actively opposed a state version of the BAIPA during three successive regular legislative sessions.  His opposition to the state legislation continued into 2003 – even after NARAL [National Abortion Rights Action League] had withdrawn its initial opposition to the federal bill, and after the final federal bill had been enacted in August 2002.”

According to Douglas Johnson, NRLC [National Right to Life Committee] spokesman, “in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion – even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language…” As cited, in 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) was first introduced to the United States Congress. This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that “any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal ‘person’ for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion.”

Testifying before the US Congress in 2000 was Jill Stanek, a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, who saw firsthand what happened to children who survived the abortion procedure. “Stanek relates the story of how one night she saw a nurse bringing a baby to the soiled utility room to die, because the parents of the child did not want to hold it. The other nurse also did not have the time to hold the child. ‘When she told me what she was doing I couldn’t bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone,’ says Stanek. ‘And so I cradled and rocked him for the forty-five minutes that he lived.'”

Stanek also stated in her testimony to Congress that she also had previously appeared before an Illinois State Senate Committee, a Committee on which Barack Obama sat. “Barack Obama,” she says, “was unmoved, and actually opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.”

According to the official teaching of the Catholic Church regarding abortion is actually quite clear, especially concerning the the very basic right of being considered “a person”; “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

Another part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church Francis may have missed was the quite unambiguous passage regarding immigration; “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”

Aussie senate candidate; ‘No More: Mosques, Sharia law, Halal, Muslim refugees’

29598d3125dec0399d788adfdc2dc465

With the Australian nation still rocked by last week’s Islamic jihadist murder of a law enforcement office worker in broad daylight, a Federal Senate candidate is leaving little to the imagination where she stands on allowing more Muslim refugees into her nation. As reported by the News Corp Australia news network on Oct. 8, 2015, and also by the Agence France-Presse via Yahoo!7 News (of Sydney, Australia) on Oct. 6, 2015, candidate Pauline Hanson has come right out and said it: No more Muslims.

Continue reading “Aussie senate candidate; ‘No More: Mosques, Sharia law, Halal, Muslim refugees’”

Gov. Jindal: Slam door to Islamic jihadists seeking entry into United States

BobbyJindalKennerMcCain2008

With more than a few conservatives looking for a potential 2016 presidential candidate who will advocate a tough stance against international terrorism, specifically violent Islamic jihadists seeking a world-wide caliphate, those same right-leaning voters may have found their man. As reported by NewsMax.com on March 18, 2015, and also by The Daily Caller news portal on March 17, 2015, Louisiana’s Republican Governor Piyush “Bobby” Jindal is leaving little doubt exactly where he stands on allowing, or in Jindal’s case – not allowing, avowed Muslim radicals the opportunity for American citizenship.

Continue reading “Gov. Jindal: Slam door to Islamic jihadists seeking entry into United States”

German Muslims Angered at Insinuation that Muslims are Easily Angered

The right-of-center think tank The Brookings Institute and International Policy Council has made note on Feb. 6, 2014 that during a meeting between German government officials and influential leaders of the nation’s rather large Muslim minority, the scheduled topic of gender equality quickly went off the rails when the followers of Mohammed took offense to the possibility that there just may a connection between Islam and forced marriages.

Continue reading “German Muslims Angered at Insinuation that Muslims are Easily Angered”