Christ spoke about an unjust judge in Luke 18 where a widow lady sought justice from a judge who “feared not God, neither regarded man.” He was dismissive of her complaint. What did the judge have to worry about since he was a judge and she was only a widow lady; however, she kept appealing to him and sent the message that she would not cease but would continue to demand justice. Finally, the judge provided justice for her because she wearied him by her pluck, patience, and persistence.

If President Trump permits unelected judges to usurp his constitutional authority and obligation to make decisive decisions about national security then he has surrendered his authority thereby putting everyone in jeopardy and setting a dangerous precedent for future Presidents. Such results could have a catastrophic impact on our personal lives and our nation’s future.

Any U.S. President has one major responsibility–to keep Americans safe from enemies domestic and foreign. Every breathing, thinking person knows that Muslim terrorists have taken an oath to destroy us and set up a world caliphate. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto is: “Allah is our objective. The prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The U.S. military will be pleased to help them accomplish their “highest hope.”

Trump, seeking to secure our borders, issued a temporary pause in immigration from seven mainly Muslim nations and his order was struck down by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart. His decision was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Robart was brash, bold, and bigoted when he publically promoted Black Lives Matter rather than All Lives Matter! Therefore, his decision on the ban is no surprise.

We are told that the judges are simply interpreting the law not making political statements but no one really believes that except those who believe that Elvis Presley, Judge Crater, Jimmy Hoffa, and Amelia Earhart are sitting around on some Caribbean island drinking cold adult refreshments.

An attorney was quoted in the Los Angeles Times saying, “In our system of government, we should not abide the country’s most powerful executive official demeaning and disparaging the judiciary through personal attacks on a federal judge.” Evidently, the attorney is not familiar with historical confrontation between U. S. Presidents and federal judges.

Civilized people will show restraint, respect, and some reservations for all public officials; however, no public official, even a federal judge is sacrosanct. No one is exempt from being held accountable. The idea of judges being untouchable is fairly new.

President Lincoln, early in his first term, suspended the writ of habeas corpus (requiring an accused his day in court) in Maryland thereby legally justifying his arrest of thousands of private citizens who sympathized with the south. Eighty-four-year-old Chief Justice Roger Taney (pronounced Tawney) ruled that habeas corpus could be suspended, but only Congress could do it. In other words, the President was out of order! However, if the President’s suspension of habeas corpus was not legal then Lincoln was illegal in arresting and imprisoning at least 13,000 private citizens. The Columbia Law Review suggests that the number could have been 38,000 private citizens that Lincoln placed in military prisons!

John Merryman was a citizen of the state of Maryland and southern sympathizer who was accused of burning bridges and other destructive acts. He was arrested by military authorities and imprisoned at Fort McHenry. He was the first person arrested after Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and he was not released. Habeas corpus is protection of the meanest person from the mightiest person.

Merryman then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus and Chief Justice Taney ruled that Lincoln was wrong and ordered General Cadwallader to bring Merryman to court. The general, who worked for Lincoln, refused and the Court ordered a federal marshal to bring the accused and the general to court. Justice Taney issued a famous opinion against Lincoln’s actions and sent a copy to an angry and embarrassed Lincoln who ordered the arrest of the Chief Justice! The actual arrest did not take place but there was the threat from the President against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court!

While Lincoln was obviously wrong to attack federal judges, the incident supports the fact that judges are not unchallengeable, unaccountable, and unassailable. That’s still true today.

Moreover, William Matthew Merrick of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia was placed under house arrest because he did not support Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus.

But in the present case, President Trump is right, not wrong and he must prevail even with the U.S. Supreme Court; after all, they are only human and susceptible to ego, prejudice, fear, etc. It is past time for congress to set some perimeters as to what the court will hear. Article three, section two of the Constitution mandates that the Court’s appellate jurisdiction is given “with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” So, congress should inform the court that they will have authority in disputes between the states, disagreements between a state and an individual, treaties, etc. but some issues are off limits.

President Trump must prevail in this dispute and he should keep in mind Christ’s parable of the unjust judge and not give up–pluck, patience, and persistence will prevail.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

President Trump was trying to be correct, careful, but not callous by putting a temporary halt to refugees from seven Middle East nations. After all, his main responsibility is to keep America safe; and therefore, bringing thousands of Muslims who have no concept of democracy and, in fact, have a dedication to sharia law demands caution.

Left wingers, including many Evangelicals, are belching out anger, angst, and animus as they twist scripture to use against President Trump’s temporary pause of refugees. And let’s be honest, part of the Evangelical concern is based on money as mentioned above. The many religious groups that settle “refugees” in the U.S. are paid millions of dollars for their altruism. However, altruism is not altruism if there is a profit to be made.

Those religious groups include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, World Relief, Church World Services, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Episcopal Migration Ministries, the International Rescue Committee, and the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. When these groups send out a news release making their case for more immigration, they never mention that they receive $2,050 for each person they settle. Isn’t that an obvious conflict of interest? For sure, it is not full disclosure.

But it gets worse because all those religious groups must sign a federal waiver that they will not attempt to share the Gospel with the “refugees.” Wait a minute, I thought that was the basic reason all religious groups exist. No, in order to receive federal funds (your tax dollars), these groups agree they will not attempt to win refugees to Christ! It is illegal if they do, the cash will stop flowing. And practically all of the immigrants are Muslim, not Christian. But that’s another column.

But let me get to the twisting of Scripture by religious leaders as they try to convince shallow Christians to swallow the Evangelical ruse and permit unlimited immigration.

The senior pastor of Mosaic Church in Memphis said, “We were once the same kind of refugees. Our families come from similar situations.” No, many of these modern “refugees” chose to break the law and many come unvetted, uninvited, and unwanted to America. President Trump says that won’t happen anymore and for that he is castigated by the haters on the left.

I remind these “do gooders” (as opposed to those who do good) that the Bible often speaks of borders, borders that should be respected. All the major cities in the Ancient Middle East had massive walls, not to keep people in, but to keep gatecrashers from coming in uninvited.

These compromising Evangelical leaders are trying to drive a square peg into a round hole with a sledge hammer, but it simply won’t fit. The President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference Samuel Rodriquez opined, “It’s about our Christian faith. It’s about Matthew 25 and Leviticus 19. It’s about finding a way where we can reconcile Romans 13, ‘respecting the rule of law.’” No, Sam, like many Evangelicals, has to twist the Scripture like a pretzel to make it mean what it was never meant to mean.

My critics declare that I am unkind, unreasonable, even unchristian for opposing amnesty, open borders, and sanctuary cities; however, their charge is not based on solid reasoning or the Scripture. They twist the Scripture to make it fit their unreasonable, unconstitutional, and unbiblical demands.

We are told that the illegal immigrants are trying to escape tyranny and poverty so America should make room for them since we are a Christian nation. Does that mean that we must accept any number of aliens? Does it mean that federal officials are not obligated to carefully investigate everyone who wants to stake a claim in America? Almost all my critics and supporters of amnesty and unlimited immigration confuse what a person should do with what a nation should do and they twist the Bible to support their political position.

The Bible twisters almost always use Exodus 23:9 to support their cause of immigration, amnesty, and sanctuary cities; however they use a flawed hermeneutic to build their tenuous case. That verse commands, “Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” However, that chapter is dealing with an individual’s obligation to be gracious–not national guidelines for treatment of immigrants. Of course, those religious leaders who use that verse know what they are doing but are being dishonest to give credibility to a very shaky principle.

But that has nothing to do with illegal aliens. Fuzzy-thinking preachers neglect to tell their congregations that the Jews were in Egypt by invitation and were not trespassers. In fact, they were special guests as long as Joseph was alive and a friendly Pharaoh reigned. The Jews had not entered the land illegally as do modern invaders. The Jews were strangers in Egypt but not illegal aliens.

The preceding verses in Ex. 23 verify my contention about this being a personal obligation not a national policy. That passage warns the ancient Jews (and us today) that “Neither shalt thou countenance (give approval) a poor man in his cause.” Moses was warning us about showing favor to a person because of his condition, whether rich or poor. We are not to be swayed by our emotions but by justice. The ancient adage is, “Let justice be done, though the heavens should be dissolved.”

Leviticus 19:33 is also used wrongly: “And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.” Again, the preceding verses prove that God was giving instructions for personal conduct by warning them not to consume blood; not to get tattoos or pierce their flesh; not to prostitute their daughters; keep the Sabbath days; not to be involved with sorcery and fortune telling, etc. Then He warned them not to vex a stranger living among them. In fact, Moses went on to say, “thou shalt love him as thyself.”

These verses do not apply to the immigration issue even slightly. Illegal aliens purposefully choose to break our laws, even arrogantly demanding entrance into our nation expecting to be cared for upon their arrival. They are not sojourners or strangers but scoundrels (with a few innocent women and children) and are being encouraged to break our laws by many leftwing religious groups, even some Evangelicals.

Most of the “refugees” are plucked out of an alien culture known for being bellicose, backward, and brutal–never knowing or desiring democracy and the rule of law. They arrive in an American city without any input from the citizens who have built the homes, businesses, streets, churches, colleges, hospitals, etc.! Many aliens will no doubt become productive citizens while others will continue their backward lifestyle. Some are or will become terrorists and it only takes one to kill your family or bomb your church.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights issued a statement calling Trump’s temporary order to keep out immigrants from seven nations as “an attack on American values.” Say what! A bunch of lesbians speaking of American values is like an abortionist speaking about his love for children; an arsonist speaking of his commitment to fire safety; and an anarchist boasting of his desire for constitutional government.

The immigration issue, especially as it relates to Trump’s temporary ban, is proof that many religious leaders wear pantyhose, silk shorts, shirts with lace around the edge and sniff perfume from frilly handkerchiefs–and are shamelessly called men of God!

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Let’s not play around with this issue when lives are in the balance. Get serious and eventually ban all rocks, in all places, all weights, and all sizes. I mean if we save even one life, it will be worthwhile. I know the conservative bleating hearts will scream but they are mean, mad, and malicious people. Who cares what they think? They spend all their time clinging to their rocks as they read their Bibles, so who cares about them? They drive around town in their pickup trucks with a huge load of rocks in the bed. What does an honest person need with all those dangerous rocks?

All sane people know rocks are evil. Is it necessary to remind anyone of the use that rocks play in the religion of Islam? Children, especially boys, seem to have a tendency to throw rocks at other children, birds, cats, and other innocent animals. Rocks are evil and must be illegal.

Maybe not today, but soon America will be rock-less except for police, FBI, CIA, FEMA, IRS, BATF, military, security guards, celebrity bodyguards, senators, etc. Only the elite need rocks.

It may be difficult to ban all rocks since the National Rock Association (NRA) is such a powerful and heartless organization and all the rednecks belong to it. The (NRA) is getting rich from fees by selling memberships, coffee mugs, sweatshirts, etc. So we may have to ban the biggest rocks and eventually ban smaller rocks when another tragedy happens. You know, don’t let a crisis go to waste. We must take advantage of every situation to eventually take every rock away from every American. You know, a totally rock-less America.

For a while we will have to settle for getting rid of rocks incrementally, and to begin with, we can license all rock carriers. We can charge large fees for their license, the bigger the rock, the bigger the fee. This will also give us a list of all rock owners and their locations.

Arrest any person seen with a rock unless he has a permit to carry. Even then, the size and shape of the rock should be restricted. Some rocks are more dangerous than others. I remind the heathen out there that little David killed a giant of a man with a smooth rock but he had five rocks. It should have been illegal for him to have an excess of rocks. That is over-kill. The law must stipulate that no person can have more than one rock in his possession at any time. After all, why does a person need more than one rock? Such people are obviously up to no good and innocent lives are at stake.

Rocks should be registered as to size, weight, color, and sharp edges and kept under lock and key by rock owners. Of course, no felon or mentally unstable person should be permitted to possess dangerous rocks, so no politician can legally have rocks–Not too sure how small or large a prohibited rock should be but we’ll leave that small detail to the regulators. Surely we can trust them to be reasonable.

Until we can pass laws banning all rocks, we should go after all Rock Throwing Clubs where their sole purpose is to kill innocent and helpless creatures. Such clubs should be disbanded along with all Rock Throwing Ranges where they practice their rock throwing. After all, such activities are dangerous and will destroy a neighborhood. Also, none of those ranges did an environmental impact study before they were built so we can close them down without new laws! We should use any pretext to destroy the whole rock business.

Rock fanatics will resist these common sense suggestions and speak of never, never giving up their rock until it is pried from their cold, stiff fingers. Well, we can arrange that.

Ban all Assault Rocks Since Rocks Kill People!

If we can’t ban all rocks outright (especially assault rocks), we should make a big push to license every rock owner and have every rock listed in a national register. I mean, the authorities have a responsibility to know where the rocks are across the nation. Register and photograph every rock. Then, when the time is right, we can take every rock since we know where all rocks are located. As for now, we should not make a big deal out of confiscation since such talk makes rock owners froth at the mouth and it must be remembered that they own rocks and know how to use them. Many of them possess assault rocks! No sane person can justify a private citizen having such a weapon.

We can make an impact on the rock-throwing plague by forbidding rock shows where anonymous, often violent rednecks can buy, sell, and trade rocks with no control. That must stop. They do not have the right to trade in dangerous weapons that only special people should have.

Moreover, a background check must be made for all rock sales whether at a rock show or by a licensed rock dealer. And the information required must be extensive. Further information can be obtained from medical doctors since almost everyone goes to a doctor. The questions must be asked: “Do you own rocks and where are they kept? What is the size of each rock? Are they registered? Why do you have rocks in your home? Do children have access to those lethal rocks? Do the children throw your rocks, and if so, how often?”

Each major city might try a “Buy-Back Program” whereby rock owners will turn in their rocks for a pittance. Although we must be careful so that they don’t sell their trash rocks only to procure better, more lethal rocks. That happened in Australia where almost everything is banned including guns, knives, and swords, so maybe butter knives are next. The Aussies also discovered that when many brow-beaten rock owners sold their best rocks, those rocks were not destroyed as promised but ended up in the basements of some local police chiefs! Some wily Aussies also replaced inferior rocks with better, more dangerous imported rocks. We also don’t want people knowing that crime stats went into the stratosphere when many homes became rock-less.

In millions of American homes there are lethal rocks lying around accessible to small children. If we can’t ban and confiscate (for that’s what we want) those rocks (at this time) we must at least force rock owners to keep them out of the hands of innocent children. All rocks, of all sizes, must be in a rockbox with the key in a safe deposit box at the local bank. While some rock fanatics who cling to their rocks and their Bibles will think that extreme, if only one life will be saved it would be worth the small inconvenience. The law should stipulate that in event of a home invasion, the state would not be held culpable for the loss of life or property of the rock owner who had no time to procure his locked up rock. It is scandalous that many Americans have a rock or two beside their bed.

If kids see rocks that have been glamorized throughout American history as bringing safety and victory over foreign enemies and domestic terrorists, they will be tempted to take the rocks to school or a park with horrendous results. We have grown up seeing the Wild West glorified as a brave young marshal faces down the evil Miller gang and kills them all with his six rocks hanging from his belt. Such glorification promotes rocks as good and glorious, and great, even grand. That must stop.

My family has been a rock-collecting and rock-throwing family for many generations. My ancestors carried a few rocks to America on the Mayflower to protect themselves against the dangerous Native Americans. While having those rocks was contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Mayflower Compact, there was a perceived need for protection. I am ashamed of those rock-owning relatives. Maybe I can go on Oprah and express my regrets and remorse to get redemption.

My rock-carrying relatives were even at Concord and faced the Redcoats who came to confiscate the store of rocks at the local armory and to kidnap John Hancock and John Adams. Early the morning of April 19 the members of Pastor Jonas Clarke’s congregation who “had been trained for such a day” faced the British Redcoats all loaded down with lethal rocks. One of the Redcoats threw the first rock that reverberated around the world and the Americans responded with a volley of their own rocks. Many Redcoats and Americans were killed on the Village Green that morning with spent rocks all around their bodies. The Redcoats fled back to Boston being pelted by rocks all the way. The British had 273 causalities and Americans 95.

Rocks are important to American History but that fact should not be emphasized to young students. They should learn how evil rocks are. If the Americans at Concord had not been heavily armed, no one would have died. The rock supply along with John Hancock and John Adams could have been surrendered to the British while the Redcoats and Minute Men had a spot of tea on the village green and everyone would be safe and happy. And British.

Every generation of Americans kept a rock above the fireplace for family protection. Many Indians on the warpath felt the wrath of many family rocks. We have a violent history.

Now the Washington politicians are determined to eventually take away all rocks! If we are successful with banning rocks, we should then go after dreadlocks since a man strangled his girlfriend with dreadlocks. Dreadlocks are dangerous and should be banned.

After all, if one life is saved!