How to Politicize Christmas

"Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday linked the Christmas nativity story to the plight of refugees, referencing "refugee babies in mangers" and their parents."

Her exact words: 

Joy to the World! Merry Christmas everyone - here’s to a holiday filled with happiness, family, and love for all people. (Including refugee babies in mangers + their parents.)

Let's get the facts straight. Mary and Joseph and Jesus were not refugees. They were citizens of the state of Israel under the domination of the Roman Empire. They had been commanded by Caesar Augustus to register, along with all the other citizens of the empire, for a census, probably for the purposes of taxation (Luke 2:1-3). 

They did not leave their own country. Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem to register there for the census because Joseph was a blood descendant of King David, whose home town was Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-5).

Because Bethlehem was so crowded, lodging was difficult to come by. Mary gave birth to her son and placed him in a manger because there was no room for them in the kataluma (2646), which probably refers to the guest room of a home. Most homes were divided into two – the living quarters and the animal quarters. The home in which they stayed had no guest room available in the living quarters, so Joseph and Mary and the baby Jesus spent the night in the animal quarters of their guest home (Luke 2:6-7).

To be sure, Jesus was born in exceedingly humble circumstances. But Joseph and Mary were not refugees. 

To use the Christmas Story to promote the global Marxist mantra of open borders in all countries is a completely dishonest perversion of the truth. But since when have Marxists been careful to tell the truth? 

If Marxism were true, all those Central American refugees would be high-tailing it to the south to live in Venezuela!

Fund the Wall!

Border Wall: AFP/Getty Images

Various members of the Senate were singing Christmas carols as they rolled out a stop-gap measure to fund the government for another three months. But one thing was missing. There was no funding included for a border wall.

Apparently the State Department has $10 billion to spare for foreign aid (translate foreign bribery) to Southern Mexico and Central America. But no one can find even a paltry $5 billion for a border wall to defend our own country. Truly amazing!

I don't know about you, but I do not want anyone breaking and entering my home. And I don't want anyone breaking and entering my country. With impunity and blessing and financial aid and promised citizenship!!!

If the truth were known the Democratic Party as a whole, and many non-conservative Republicans are frankly interested in a country and a world with no borders at all. If a nation cannot control its borders, it ceases to be a nation. 

And frankly, that is what the leftists want. They are Global Marxists. Their dream is for a utopia in which there is a world government with no borders, and one in which they have dictatorial control. There will be a "new normal" of just above subsistence level incomes with everything run by the all-powerful, all-wise state. And since these Global Marxists will be running the show, they will have all kinds of perquisites that the unwashed masses, Hillary's "Basket of Deporables," will never gain.

Donald Trump has promised, then wavered, and now promised again, not to sign the funding bill that the Senate has passed unless it includes $5 billion to fund the border wall. And if he doesn't sign the Senate's bill, the government will shut down. 

I say, "Fund the Wall - or shut down the government!"

Is President Obama really interested in the welfare of America?

I remember when then Senator Barack Obama was campaigning for President. Someone in the audience asked him if he were aware that, by lowering taxes, he would actually increase revenue flowing into the U. S. Treasury, and decrease the deficit. His reply was both astounding and revealing, and I paraphrase: "That is of no concern to me. I am more concerned about fairness."

What that told me was that he was more interested in taking money from one group of citizens and transferring it to another group of citizens than he was in improving the financial health of the country. His view put into shoe-leather the political / economic philosophy of Karl Marx: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." In short, President Obama is a Marxist, though few dare to be that honest about him.

Five days before his inauguration early in 2009, President-elect Obama made an ominous prediction. He said, "We are five days away from beginning the fundamental transformation of America." He wasn't kidding. Having watched and listened to Mr. Obama for over six years now, I have become convinced he is a global Marxist. Not content merely with national socialism, the President is systematically pursuing global socialism, in my opinion.

His global socialism can be seen in  his approval of allowing hordes of illegal aliens to cascade into our country. He makes a token show of enforcing the borders, but his policies encourage a flood of illegals. And why? you ask. Well, if one is a global socialist, he wishes to redistribute the wealth of America to the disadvantaged masses of Latin America. What better way than to allow them to flood across our borders, their well-being subsidized by over-burdened American taxpayers.

From the President's perspective, it is unfair that Americans should have it so good. It is morally incumbent upon Americans, whether they agree with the idea or not, to have their wealth transferred to the poor of the world.

President Obama's global Marxism can also be seen in his response to the Ebola outbreak. Where past policy and common sense would dictate that we should close our borders to all visitors from infected countries, that is not the President's policy at all. One can almost hear him reasoning to himself, "Why is it fair that poverty-stricken African nations have Ebola and Americans do not?"

So the President's political and economic philosophy, it seems to me, is not directed toward "What is good for America?" Rather, it is directed toward, "How can I best advance the cause of global Marxism?"

I am neither the first, nor the only American to think this. Thomas Sowell, who can hardly be accused of being a racist, has written an interesting article. It is entitled, "Obama's Priority: NOT Protecting Americans."

Here is his assessment of the President's refusal to bar infected Ebola carriers from entering the US:

At a minimum, it suggests that he takes his conception of himself as a citizen of the world more seriously than he takes his role as president of the United States. At worst, he may consider Americans’ interests expendable in the grand scheme of things internationally. If so, this would explain a lot of his foreign policy disasters around the world, which seem inexplicable otherwise.

As we move closer and closer to the end of the President's second term, I suspect we will see more and more decisions and policies that will help answer the question, "Is President Obama really interested in the welfare of America?" He would insist that he is, of course. I suspect I will differ with him.