Print 
PDF
NBC may be wishful thinking, but the President is holding a rally tonight "Out in the West Texas town of El Paso."
So is wanna-be president, one of a growing Democratic crowd, Beto O'Rourke, former Texas US Representative.
The rallies will happen at the same time in the same town. Neither the President or the wanna-be will probably visit "Rosa's Cantina," but both are looking for love in El Paso.
MSNBC is calling it a "face off" and "a duel near the border."
Be informed.
Out in the West Texas town of El Paso tonight...
In their attempt to cast the two events in El Paso tonight as a "gunfight in the OK Corral" or something akin to Marty Robbin's hit song, "El Paso," the news media is hyper about the "dueling" aspects of having the President and one of the dozens of Democratic possible presidential candidates---or soon to become candidates---competing with President Trump for the city's heart.
A New York Times featured a column titled, "Trump Does His Divisive El Paso Number."
It begins with this:
This tranquil city of bi-lingual trans border commerce is where lurid fantasy meets humdrum reality. President Trump will come here Monday, risking life and limb "at our very dangerous southern border", that "lawless" frontier facing a "tremendous onslaught." I can assure the President: He will be able to gaze at Mexico without breaking a sweat or putting his hairdo at risk.
The column continues downward from there claiming what the President said in his State of the Union address about El Paso being dangerous before the border wall was built through the area, and much safer now---with the wall---"is a lie."
The column says Trump's narrative about the need for a border wall is "a fear-stoking fable" that will be repeated tonight.
The Times column quotes "The incensed mayor, Dee Margo" saying, "The city's story [of reduced crime] is not a fence story."
US Representative Veronica Escobar, a Democrat, says, "Trump's wall obsession is his way of keeping a promise to the core of his base, many of whom are xenophobic some outright racist."
The article concludes by noting that "people on the border understand the benefits of binational flux. They see through Trump's chest-beating America First to its un-American core.
The press generally is bent toward O'Rourke even though he hasn't decided for sure whether he will run for the presidency.
The Hill reports that O'Rourke will join rally-goers to "show the country the reality of the border---a vibrant, safe, binational community that proudly celebrates its culture, history, diversity, and status as a city of immigrants."
Beto O'Rourke, a native of El Paso, says,
"While some try to stoke fear and paranoia, to spread lies and a false narrative about the US-Mexican border and to demand a 2000 mile wall along it at a time of record safety and security, El Paso will come together for a march and celebration that high lights the truth."
Highlighting the truth.
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton told "The Circus" on Showtime channel that Trump should not declare an emergency to build a wall along our southern border because there is "no national emergency at our border."
She said he couldn't even get the wall when his Republicans held the House. He can't get it now.
On Friday, the CEO of Gallup Poll, Jim Clifton, wrote an article based on their polling of 33 countries including Latin American countries and some in the Caribbean.
Gallup found that 27% said they wanted to leave their country permanently, and 35% said they want to move to the United States.
Gallup CEO wrote, "Open borders will potentially attract 42 million Latin Americans to the United States--legally or illegally.
With thousands of migrants moving toward our southern border as we speak, and 42 million Latin Americans wanting to come to the United States---legally or illegally--to most ordinary people, that is an emergency.
Are "many" of the people who support a border wall really xenophobic and/or racist?
The Wall has been labeled by Nancy Pelosi and other open border advocates as immoral. Ocasio-Cortez said Friday as she presented her "Green New Deal" that our current energy policies are "immoral."
And the far Left is regularly calling for a "reality check."
Everything that doesn't square up with the far Left progressive agenda is now considered "immoral."
Instead of a reality check, the far Left needs a "morality check."
On November 17, 2014, then President Obama began his march against national sovereignty, advocating for sanctuary cities and open borders.
I wrote about it at the time. This is some of what we wrote:
What does the Bible actually say about immigration? Is it anti-Christian, or anti-biblical to oppose the immigration ideology of the president [Obama] and his far left support?
Let's take a look at what the Bible says about immigration.
Genesis describes the division of mankind into nations and God's judgment of the act of rebellion at Babel when man tried to unify to usurp the role of God in human experience.
In Deuteronomy 32:8 God explicitly affirms His plan to divide "the sons of Adam" into nations. Acts 17:26-27 further affirms this concept that God created nations and He set boundaries among them so "they would seek after God."
There is a direct link between robust nationhood and godliness.
Isaiah 14:12 reveals that it is Lucifer (Satan) who weakens nations.
Our Founding Fathers clearly understood that Truth and devised a government structure around that Truth.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Christian prophetic writer, wrote,
"The disappearance of nations would impoverish us no less than if people were all made alike, with one character, one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, they are its generalized personalities..."
Israel was God's prototype for nationhood.
History is clear that when Israel experimented with multiculturalism---God did not bless them.
I am not suggesting races should be pure.
I am pointing out what Scripture actually reveals about nationhood and border policies. And it is a very different path than the president and the religious left are calling for.
Proponents of open borders and amnesty often cite Scripture they claim supports their ideology.
Often quoted is Leviticus 19:34 which commands Israelites to treat "strangers" (foreigners) as natives and to love them as you love yourselves.
Israel had an immigration policy. They most often referred to alien visitors as "sojourners," foreigners who came for a time, then left. A kind of Green Card policy.
While in the country, they were required to obey the laws---Numbers 9:14 and 15:16 and Leviticus 18:26 and 24: 22.
There was a legal structure to facilitate and accommodate this policy. And it was enforced.
Today illegals are flooding across our borders using false identification, demanding public services, and all the rights of American citizens.
And the president and the religious left somehow equate their obsession with accommodating these demands to the biblical model of compassion.
It is not related.
To advocate that we owe benefits as the basis of the Old Testament is to ignore the balance of obligation in the Old Testament law.
The biblical model creates national cohesion through the rule of law, not someone's politically motivated whim using compassion as the front.
The New Testament (Romans 13:1-7) justifies government on the grounds of maintaining order against lawlessness.
Amnesty promotes law-breaking by rewarding it.
The Old Testament offers no suggestion that a nation must open its borders, regardless of consequences, in order to be a compassionate nation.
Rather it calls on a nation to be a godly, responsible nation.
Neither does the New Testament teach such policies.
When the biblical model for immigration is breached, so-called compassion becomes permissiveness which ends in chaos and national destruction.
No nation can sustain an open border policy.
The religious left often quote Matthew 25 as a basis for amnesty, where Christ states, "I was a stranger and you invited me in" as a mark of righteousness and justification for open borders.
The description "stranger" does not denote an influx of foreigners, it is one person showing compassion for another person.
There is a clear difference between the actions of the state and the individual. Example: The state may take vengeance against evildoers (Romans 13:4). An individual may not (Romans 12:19).
While verse 32 mentions "nations" at the judgment, the focus of the chapter is on personal ethics and personal salvation. Eternal judgment in the Bible is an individual matter.
Also, Christ says that the recipients are His "brothers," the New Testament's term for Christians. Thus the passage deals with generosity among individual Christians, rather than a prescription for a nation's immigration policy.
In regard to amnesty. It is not compassionate to undermine the rule of law, which is exactly what the president has in mind and what the religious left is demanding.
There is a choice that is much more compassionate than this form of legislated, enforced "compassion" that considers no consequences and takes no responsibility.
Biblical compassion humbly considers the limits of what it can accomplish, then asks God for the miracles.
The religious left's form is at least arrogance (Matthew 4: 6,7), and at worst the cruelest form of opportunism.
There are those who advocate open borders simply for political gain---yet they wrap it in compassion. The actual objective seems to be to dilute the American electorate with unassimilated, easily manipulated voters.
Biblical Christians should not aid and abet this kind of scheme.
Amnesty advocates claim they are motivated by compassion. Why then do they always attempt to include some short cut to full voting citizenship, rather than viewing it as the privilege it is and requiring them to earn it through the proper channels?
Any inclusion of citizenship in the president's scheme will suggest political motives rather than pure charity.
Aside from compassion, another key Christian virtue is wisdom (Proverbs 1-3).
Rewarding a behavior is the best way of encouraging it. We are seeing the consequences of that folly in most all the moral issues of our day. Amnesty and the idea of open borders is no exception.
Voters are beginning to react to the left's constant attempts to weaken our nation for political advantage.
Nowhere is America more far left than Washington and Oregon. Specifically Seattle and King County and Portland and Multnomah County.
An attempt was made in this past election in Oregon to get voters to approve a driver's license for illegals so they "could drive to church and school."
The people strongly rejected the attempt, because they recognized it for what it was. This is a link to the AP story. It's informative.
God has blessed and prospered America, because our laws and policies have reflected His Truth.
Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.