Weather or Not

Severe Outflow by R. Edwards

Immigration, the Right Way

by Leave a Comment

With regard to immigration, I’m all for it, when done the one and only right way: the legal way. Hey, I married an immigrant — who strongly agrees with me. Her family brought so much greatness to this country, from rescuing over 10,000 flying raptors, to designing the bore that drilled the Eisenhower Tunnel and being on the team that engineered I-70 through Glenwood Canyon, to creating amazing websites used by scientists, churches, small businesses, and me, to helping to raise my children. That is American greatness personified and made real for generations to come…by members of just one family of immigrants. Nobody, I mean nobody, can accuse me of being “anti immigrant.” The very idea is outlandishly ridiculous, and I’ll laugh anyone out of the building for even suggesting such.

We need, and should encourage, merit-based legal immigration, especially of STEM people who can contribute tangibly and with deep legacy to our longstanding scientific, engineering and military preeminence as a nation. I’ve known (and broken bread with) more legal immigrants and legally staying visa holders of all races, creeds, and backgrounds than most folks pontificating behind their own keyboards ever will meet.

My father, a member of the “working poor” economic class that a lot of open-border advocates falsely claim to support, was very nearly killed by an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk, and suffered in great pain for many months afterward. So yes, this is personal, and I have a horse in this race. You bet I do, and I’m not ever backing down from that, for any reason. His legacy does, and must, matter.

Regardless of any statistical twisting of crime numbers, this fact is absolutely and unequivocally indisputable: illegal-alien crimes are not committed if they are not here. Simple as that. Period. Fact. That means less crime occurs in absolute numbers, without illegal immigration. It also means what happened to my dad wouldn’t have, those people killed (yes, I have a list) would be around, numerous raped women wouldn’t have been dealt that unspeakable trauma, and a lot of cars and other personal property still would be with their rightful owners.

Cabbage, eggs, pork rinds, or TVs would cost more? So what. They already have skyrocketed anyway, for unrelated reasons. I am more than willing to put my money where my mouth is and pay more for stuff, if I know for sure that it was farmed, shipped, manufactured, or packaged by citizens, or those in the process of legal citizenship. Again, I even married a legal immigrant and am forever blessed to have done so. Are illegal-immigration advocates willing to put their money where their mouths are and host them in their own homes? Based on the actual results so far among politicians and people I know, clearly not. Hypocrites.

This ideal also does not excuse any abuses committed in the process of border control. Bad apples in any arm of law enforcement (which are a tiny minority) should be dealt with by judges and juries. However, do not throw the baby out with the bath water. If your car’s radiator hose springs a leak, do you chuck the car? No. You fix the leak or replace the hose, and drive on. And regardless of highly publicized, isolated incidents in viral videos posted by a shrill, extremist faction of self-appointed freeze-frame lawyers, civilized societies contain a critical mass of mature people who support both enforcing the law and rooting out bad apples. Yes, both can be done.

In some quarters, you’ll see messages (often citing hastily Googled-up, cherry-picked Bible verses way out of context) to the effect that disallowing or enforcing against illegal immigration is “un-Christian.” That is false teaching and emotional manipulation. Do not fall for it.

In his current job as House Speaker, Mike Johnson has done some things I like and some things I don’t (caving in to both his own party and the other on a few important debt-related, individual-liberty and government-transparency issues, mainly). Yet he’s on the mark here with this piece, written during the Biden administration and reposted yesterday, on why having borders and enforcing them not only does not violate Biblical Christian precepts, it *upholds* them. A remarkably well-done essay, for a politician.

In fact, I was going to post one from an ordained minister and Bible expert I follow; but this is actually better written and more clearly organized. Again…surprising, but sometimes that happens, even to me. 🙂 It does uphold the sanctity of the overarching idea behind border control and enforcement, and properly outlines the role of government from practical and Biblical perspectives.

Do not be misled by fake, shallow and/or non-Christians offering false teaching!

—————–
THE CHRISTIAN CASE FOR BORDER SECURITY
by Mike Johnson

Despite the insistence of the progressive Left, people of all religious faiths should support a strong national border—and Christians CERTAINLY should. Critics are fond of citing particular Bible verses out of context to claim that Christians and Jews are being “unfaithful” if we oppose their radical open borders agenda. It has become increasingly important for us to set this record straight.

Perhaps the verse most often cited by the Left is Leviticus 19:34. Whether they know it or not, that passage happens to be from the instructions Moses delivered to the Israelites when they were on their journey through the wilderness in Sinai, before they reached their own Promised Land. The verse reads as follows: “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” (KJV)

CONTEXT IS CRITICAL
It is, of course, a central premise of Judeo-Christian teaching that strangers should be treated with kindness and hospitality. We are each called to love God first and to love our neighbors as ourselves (Deut. 6:5, Lev. 19:18, Matt. 22:36-40, KJV). However, that “Greatest Commandment” was never directed to the government, but to INDIVIDUAL believers.

The Bible teaches that God ordained and created four distinct spheres of authority— (1) the individual, (2) the family, (3) the church, and (4) civil government—and each of these spheres is given different responsibilities. For example, while each INDIVIDUAL is accountable for his or her own behavior (e.g., Exodus 20), the FAMILY is commanded to “bring up children in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4) and “provide for their relatives” (1 Tim. 5:8). The CHURCH is commanded to make disciples and equip people for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:11-13), and the CIVIL GOVERNMENT is established to faithfully uphold and enforce the law so that order can be maintained in this fallen world, crime can be kept at bay, and people can live peacefully (Rom. 13, 1 Tim. 2:1-2).

To be properly understood, anytime a command is given in Scripture, one must first determine to WHOM that command is directed. For example, when Jesus taught us as His followers to practice mercy and forgiveness and to “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:38-40, KJV), He was not giving that command to the government. To the contrary, when government officials ignore crime, they are directly VIOLATING their responsibilities before God.
Indeed, the civil authorities are specifically charged to do justice, to ”bear the sword,” and to serve as “the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:1-4, KJV). As the Bible warns: “When a crime is not punished quickly, people feel it is safe to do wrong.” (Ecc. 8:11, TLB)

Read in its context, the passage in Leviticus 19 makes perfect sense. Showing love and kindness to a stranger was not a command given to civil government, but instead to individual believers. That same principle is emphasized in the New Testament. When Jesus spoke of embracing, caring, and providing for “the least of these” (E.g., Matt. 25:31-40), His instruction was given to His disciples, and not the local authorities.
The Bible is clear that Christians should practice personal charity—but also insist upon the enforcement of laws (like our federal immigration statutes) so that “every person is subject to the governing authorities” and “those who resist incur judgment” (Rom. 13:1-2).

BORDERS ARE BIBLICAL

Many on the Left today, and even some at the highest levels of our government, consider themselves “globalists” who envision a utopian world order where there are no borders between countries at all. Their fantasy will simply never be realized, and their basic premise (that man is inherently good and perfectible on his own) is the opposite of the Biblical truth that man is fallen and in need of redemption that is available only through salvation in Jesus Christ.

The Bible speaks favorably and consistently about distinct nations of people (see, e.g., Gen. 18:18, Num. 32:17, Psalm 67:2, Matt. 28:19, Rev. 5:9, 7:9, NIV), and about borders and walls that are built to guard and secure people, property, and jurisdictions (see, e.g., Deut. 19:14, 27:17, 32:8, Acts 17:26, NIV). When Nehemiah heroically led the Jewish remnant to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem after their enemies had destroyed those walls, he was doing the noble work of God (Neh. 1-6, NIV).

Maintaining a secure border is not an offensive measure, but a wise, defensive one to prevent chaos and safeguard innocent life. As Rev. Franklin Graham once summarized, “Why do you lock your doors at night? Not because you hate the people on the outside, but because you love the people on the inside so much.”

THE CURRENT CATASTROPHE

Right now, because of 64 deliberate policy choices and executive orders of the Biden Administration, America is facing an unprecedented humanitarian and national security catastrophe at our open southern border. More than 10 million illegal aliens from around the world have entered the U.S. since Joe Biden became President, the majority of whom are single, military-aged men. Among them are countless violent criminals and more than 300 suspects on the terrorist watchlist. Cartels are making billions trafficking young women and unaccompanied minors, and many are suffering unspeakable abuses along the way. The Fentanyl that China and the cartels have pushed into the U.S. has become the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18-45.

As the peril increases and communities across our country become more and more overwhelmed with the crushing financial burdens of managing the influx of illegals, American citizens (and even a few Democratic governors and mayors) are finally demanding a return to sanity. America has always been a haven for people legitimately seeking asylum from danger in their home country, but we must insist they pursue a course of legal immigration and not simply ignore our laws.

Of course, the President of the United States must be the first to uphold our laws. Every citizen should insist that President Biden immediately use the eight broad statutory authorities he has right now to secure our borders and stop incentivizing illegal immigration. Among his most important executive authorities is 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), which empowers a President to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” if he “finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

AN AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN RESPONSE

Due in large part to our Judeo-Christian foundations and the deep religious heritage we enjoy in this country, America is the most benevolent nation in the world—by far. However, we cannot maintain that strength and generosity if we surrender our own safety and sovereignty. Preserving law and order and securing our borders should not be partisan issues, but matters of common sense. These are certainly responsibilities fully authorized by the Bible—and expected of us by God.

Any time liberals attempt to bolster their “open borders” agenda by citing Scripture out of context, they should be kindly corrected with the facts (2 Tim. 2:24-25). Christians are called to love unconditionally, serve selflessly, and defend the defenseless. We are also called to stand for, and work to ensure, just government. Justice and mercy are not mutually exclusive pursuits. To the contrary, God specifically requires His people to practice both (Micah 6:8). Despite the unfounded claims of the Left, supporting a strong national border is a very Christian thing to do. The Bible tells us so.

Charlie Kirk’s Murder, Response and Legacy

by Leave a Comment

As somebody who was born four floors above and four years after JFK’s murdered body was rushed into the ER in futility, who was immersed in knowledge of his assassination throughout childhood, and who has studied it extensively, along with the killings of RFK and MLK, I know a bit about political violence. We seem to be back into that sort of terrible era again with two attempts on Trump, a couple of state-legislator killings by a sicko in Minnesota, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk last month. [This occurred on my flight to Hawaii for Kilauea Episode 33…more on that later.]

Charlie leaves behind a lovely young widow, Erika, and their two little kids, all because some deranged radical didn’t like his ideals. Must it be this way?

Political violence is evil, absolutely intolerable, and has no place in civil society. Disagreements and grievances should be aired through rational debate and discussion, with logic, reason, facts, and the humility that comes with not having all the answers. That is a nonpartisan statement.

So far, I’ve seen posts from men, women, people of different faiths, nationalities, backgrounds and appearances, mourning the loss of Charlie Kirk. Let their voices ring truest—none I’ve read yet more well-written under intense personal grief than Dennis Prager’s (below), who knew Charlie as a brilliant mind, faithful servant of God, and also, husband and father to a young family.

As an American, as a Jew, and as Dennis, I am devastated at the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The truth is, as I write these words, I can’t believe I am writing them. I am in the denial stage of mourning. As an American, we have lost the most articulate spokesman for America and its unique value system—a country founded to be free, based on Jerusalem and Athens, the Judeo-Christian value system and the Greek emphasis on logic and reason. Charlie was a uniquely gifted individual who, in his teens, created the largest movement of young Americans committed to preserving and growing America and its ideals. He tirelessly went from campus to campus, from Oxford to Utah, dialoging with any student who wished to debate him. Using his vast reservoir of facts and his exceptionally speedy and articulate mind, he gave them what seemed to be unlimited amounts of time, and then calmly eviscerated all their anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Judeo-Christian positions. I watched an inordinate number of these exchanges and thanked God that Charlie Kirk was there to do this work. America’s youth in particular have lost a moral and intellectual leader, one who would, perhaps, have one day become their president. As a committed Jew, I thank God regularly that a non-Jew, a committed Christian, became one of the few great public spokesmen on behalf of Israel and the Jewish communities outside of Israel. Few Jews could match Charlie’s knowledge and eloquent arguments on behalf of those two entities.

As Dennis, I have lost a very close friend. Charlie repeatedly visited me in the various hospitals that I have been in since November 12 of last year, when I suffered a catastrophic fall which has left me paralyzed. When members of the nursing staff heard that Charlie Kirk was visiting me, my room became the most popular one in the hospital. Charlie brought me the manuscript of his forthcoming book arguing that everyone—Christians as well as Jews—should observe Shabbat, the Jewish Sabbath, just as he and his family had begun to do from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. It is a measure of our close relationship that he dedicated the book to me. His brilliant exposition of these arguments provide clear evidence for the non-necessity of a college education for most young Americans.

My heart breaks for his young widow, Erika, and for his two children, who have lost as great a man and a father as children can have. And for Charlie, who did not live to see them grow up. For one of the first times in my 20 years with my wife, Sue, I have seen her sob uncontrollably. The Prager home is in deep mourning, as are the homes of countless Americans. The loss to us personally and to the country generally is immeasurable.

Commentator Ivyonna Corrine had a brilliant post too, which I’ll also reproduce below, corrected for punctuation and grammar:

It’s wild to me how quick people are to slap labels on Charlie Kirk without actually knowing what he stands for. He’s been called racist…but where is the evidence? Go back through his years of speaking at college campuses, podcasts, interviews, debates, you won’t find him using racial slurs, degrading a race, or promoting hate. Not once. What you will find is him debating issues like immigration, education, the economy… and culture. Those are policy discussions, NOT racism.

Calling him racist because you don’t like his politics is lazy. It waters down the meaning of the word and takes away from the fight against actual racism. If someone truly believed he was racist they would be able to show proof. But they can’t, because it doesn’t exist. All they have is name calling.

He’s had thousands of open conversations on college campuses with people of every background, and guess what? The majority of those exchanges end with respect, even if they disagree. He’s been called sexist, but why? Because he’s pro life? Because he believes men and women are different? Having a conviction about protecting unborn children or recognizing biological differences doesn’t make you sexist. It means you are willing to stand for life and truth even when it’s unpopular.

He’s been called homophobic/transphobic, but again, where’s the proof? Saying “men can’t become women” is not hate on his part. It’s biology. Protecting kids from being pushed into irreversible decisions isn’t hate. It’s compassion. He has debated LGBTQ+ issues face to face without name calling, without hate, with facts.

He’s been called a fascist/Nazi, which is honestly laughable. Fascism silences speech. Charlie has spent his entire career defending free speech. Nazis took away rights, and Charlie advocates every day for the protection of rights in the Constitution. The comparison doesn’t even make sense.

He’s been called a bigot or accused of spreading hate, but what is hateful about encouraging young people to think critically, question government, and protect their freedoms? If you actually listen, he debates respectfully, and even when people scream at him he holds himself fully. That’s not hate, that’s self control.

And he’s been accused of spreading misinformation, but here’s the thing: every time people try to “fact check” him, the debates usually end with the person walking away because they can’t answer his questions. He brings data, statistics and constitutional backing. That’s not misinformation, that’s inconvenient truth.

At the end of the day, Charlie Kirk was not racist. He was not sexist. He was not hateful. He was bold. He was outspoken. And he was unafraid to say the things that needed to be said in a world where people get canceled for speaking how WE FEEL and the truth. He’s allowed his thoughts, just as in America you are too. So if you’re going to label him at least label him correctly: unapologetically American.

Let voices like these drown out those demonic cackles of celebration sprinkled over social media. The overtly diabolical celebrators are obvious. Block and move on if it helps, but do pray for the expulsion of their demons.

Perhaps more insidious are the passive-aggressive folks—some even labeling themselves as fellow Christians—who assigned Charlie such wholly unfounded labels as Ivyonna covered, based on weak and out-of-context interpretations and assumptions, but not actual hard evidence, who haven’t read his literature nor seen multiples of his videos, who talk often about tolerance, love, kindness and empathy without showing those qualities toward Christian conservatives, and who are showing two faces.

When people reveal themselves from behind the mask of virtue signaling and faux tolerance and “empathy”, pay attention. Observe, be watchful, and pray for them. A mask of kindness and empathy, hiding a mindset of the very opposite, reveals itself in such times as these. Charlie wasn’t perfect. None of us are free of sin. That includes me. I certainly recognize sin when I see it, and I see a lot of stones being cast Charlie’s way from behind those “kindness and empathy” facades.

To all fellow conservatives/libertarians who are infuriated, feeling helpless in the face of this and other recent violence, tempted to lash out: I get it. This enrages me as well. But remember who Charlie followed: Jesus. And remember how Charlie both followed and set a great example in taking obvious risk to go into hostile atmospheres to engage through dialog and ideas. Never resort to true hate (not the same as the false equivalency of hate and disapproval continually posited by the left), destruction or retaliation in kind. Be better than those psychopathic ghouls and mouth-foaming zealots of the left who readily could be found celebrating or rationalizing evil, across social media in the days following the killing. They need urgent psychological treatment, and most of all, they need to find the Lord, who ultimately will be the final judge of all events and people.

Finally, for 50 years, I’ve read and watched great speeches by political figures from antiquity through the men on Mount Rushmore, to Churchill, Reagan and beyond. This, from Utah Governor Spencer Cox, has come out of nowhere to take its place among the very best, not only for the transcribable text, but for the raw and unvarnished sincerity plainly apparent behind the wise words. For context in posterity, I linked not just to the video, but a local news story containing it.

We all could do well to heed. As I’ve stated in some recent comment: Freedom of speech under threat of violence is not freedom at all.

Rest in Heaven, Charlie. We can honor his legacy, and that of other nonviolent agents of change like MLK and Jesus, by fighting bad ideas not with violence and destruction, but with better ideas.

The Sound of Freedom: An Important Movie

by Leave a Comment

Elke and I made a somewhat belated run up to Moore yesterday to watch Angel Studios’* important film, The Sound of Freedom, directed and co-written by Mexican filmmaker Alejandro Monteverde. We strongly recommend it.

Sound of Freedom poster
Sound of Freedom poster

The film is compelling and mostly well-acted, taking us from Tegucigalpa to Calexico, Cartagena, Bogota, and rebel-held strongholds of the southern Colombian mountains, following a suspenseful journey to rescue a large group of sex-trafficked kids. This includes two separated Honduran siblings in particular, the little brother saved while being smuggled across the border from Mexicali. With him, the lead character becomes especially bonded, and promises and becomes determined to find and save the sister at all costs, at great risk to his own life. The overall feel was part Miami Vice, part (insert your favorite hostage-rescue thriller here).

As such movies go, just on script and flow alone, The Sound of Freedom is only a little above average. But because the subject matter is so serious, compelling and important, and based on real events, its overtly stated goal of raising awareness is solidly justified. Crime statistics don’t come close to representing the scale of the problem either, because so much of it is unreported, underground, and extraterritorial to U.S. enforcement efforts. Some unknown amount also has remained hidden right under our noses, both in the streets and in illegal loci for wealthy “customers” (think Epstein Island).

The Sound of Freedom is based on the real-life story of an ICE child-trafficking investigator, Tim Ballard, portrayed by Jim Caviezel, whose investigations were cut off by the bureaucracy due to perceived poor cost/benefit ratio, just as he was about to drill deep enough into a child-trafficking ring to blow it up. Unwilling to let the older sister of the siblings continue to be a slave for a pedophilic drug lord, Tim resigned from ICE, then teamed up with a reformed drug kingpin and Colombian law enforcement to carry out the mission anyway.

Other than the ugly but decidedly real-world topic (and some violence) possibly being too intense for preteen children, I don’t see what possibly could be controversial about this movie, or the fundamental premise it makes of ending child trafficking and enslavement. It’s hard to balance realistic portrayal of this hideous problem with “showing too much” or being gratuitous, but I think they pulled it off well. The struggle to stop pedophilia and prostitution of children should be a universally agreed noble cause across the entire political spectrum — except to the sickos doing it and those covering for and enabling them.

The film is conspicuously apolitical: no mention of any political party or politicians by name whatsoever, and just a generic mention (in a positive way) of Congress in the end statements, using footage from the real Tim Ballard’s testimony to get more international cooperation on fighting the evil scourge of child trafficking.

* The movie is five years old but only came out this month. Despite being finished in 2018, the movie’s distribution deal was somehow passed off from 20th Century Fox to Disney, who shelved it (why?), until the filmmakers bought the rights back. They ultimately went with Angel Studios, producers of the multiseason Jesus and Disciples series, The Chosen. Only after Angel could crowdsource enough money to market and distribute the film, was it released. It’s strange that a film that has done so well had to follow such a convoluted path to theaters.