Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Pope Francis scolds President Trump for Jerusalem, refugees. Pope Francis is wrong.



Pope Francis scolds President Trump for Jerusalem refugees Pope Francis is wrong

On Christmas Day, Pope Francis used his immense reach to go against two of the most important policies President Trump has initiated. First, he pushed for a two-state solution with a divided Jerusalem, a reference to President Trump’s move to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Then, he told the nations they must help migrants “driven from their land,” a not-so-veiled attack on the President’s stance on accepting more refugees.

I’m not a fan of the President, but the Pope’s attacks were flat out wrong. Of all the things I can oppose the President on from his incessant push for massive infrastructure spending to his penchant for petulance at any given moment, the two things I wholeheartedly support are his intended actions on Jerusalem and unchecked immigration. I may not like how he’s going about performing these two important tasks, but I love that he’s performing them. That’s much more than can be said of every other recent president.

Before I get into why the Pope is wrong, let’s talk about one potential criticism against him that I will not invoke. Some would say the Pope and all other religious leaders should stay out of the worlds of policy and governance. While the separation of church and state is a noble and fundamental aspect of modern society, there’s a difference between the church (or any other religious institution) getting involved in government and individuals of religious recognition expressing their views. We do not want a theocracy (until the one true King and Priest returns), but one of the concepts that’s been spreading through Washington DC and other secular world capitals is the notion that faith has no place in politics. I’ll go into much greater detail about why that’s impossible in a future article, but as a teaser, let’s take into account that “science-driven atheists” have a faith of their own that pervades the political world, so even a lack of faith is, in itself, a religious belief that influences leaders and representatives. Again, more on that in the future. For now, let’ simply dismiss the notion that the Pope or any other religious leader is somehow supposed to stay out of politics. They can’t and shouldn’t.

With that said, let’s look at the Pope’s criticisms:

Pope Francis Christmas Message Takes Aim at Trump Over Jerusalem Move, Immigration Francis called for Israel and Palestine to be separate, independent countries, and for the world to take better care of millions of migrants “driven from their land”—two subtle hits at President Donald Trump in the pope’s annual Christmas address.

Speaking in St. Peter’s Square in Rome, the Pope indirectly addressed Trump’s decision last week to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a controversial move that many—including the more than 120 nations that backed a United Nations resolution on Thursday—believe will undermine the so-called “two-state solution.”

Rather than make this one long article, I’m turning it into three. In the other two articles, I individually tackle the Pope’s assertions that America in general and President Trump in particular must change his policies on migrants and Jerusalem.

Helping migrants “driven from their land”

The easy message for the Pope is to condemn anyone he believes should be letting in more refugees. He was talking directly about America in his Christmas Day speech, though he fell short of blaming us.

The harder message is one that proposes sustainable solutions. That message is never spoken by world leaders because it requires more effort than they’re willing to exert. Pointing at America and telling us to do something about it is much easier than pulling together a coalition of nations to put real effort into fixing the situation. Even the United Nations, whose job is allegedly to address situations like these, are much more interested in condemning an embassy move than helping millions of people in dire need.

Real solutions aren’t easy, but they’re achievable as I noted in one part of this short article series:

Solving the refugee crises does not require open borders need, more than anything else, safety and stability. The vast majority did not wake up one morning and decide they wanted to become Americans, Germans, or Australians. They woke up to war and were displaced by it. Many open border proponents, and apparently the Pope, would like for us and other western nations to give these refugees a “good life” with our version of safety and stability. This has been demonstrated time and time again to be a huge mistake that affects the host communities and the refugees themselves. There’s no need to go into the effects in the host communities. You either hear the stories or ignore them. What’s not often considered is the “better life” the refugees are going to be treated to by putting them into our culture.

For some, it’s better. They embrace it. We’ve heard plenty of stories about migrants and refugees who came to our country under duress before assimilating and doing great things in their lives. These are highlighted by the media and rightfully so. However, there are many more who are placed in western cultures and either have a hard time assimilating into it or attempt to assimilate those around them into the culture they’re bringing with them.

The Pope wants help in the form of bringing in more refugees. The real solution is to help nations that are more culturally aligned and that have the potential for infrastructure to support an influx. Nations in the Middle East, east Africa, and southwest Asia are much closer culturally to those affected by the Syrian crisis. Bangladesh is a good destination for Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, but they need a great deal of assistance from the international community. In every situation where refugees are seeking new homes, there are better places to send them than to the United States or other western nations.

Dividing Jerusalem in a two-state solution

The other big news from the Pope’s address is his call for a two-state solution and the dividing if Jerusalem. This is the common talking point for world leaders today. It seems they are unified in pushing this as the only way to find peace, ignoring the fact that peace negotiations haven’t worked for decades before President Trump declared recognition of a united Jerusalem as Israel’s permanent capital.

It’s time for the Pope and everyone else to stop. They continue to push a narrative in hopes that it will stick. In many ways, it has. Most of the world seems to agree. They act as if this international pressure will push Israel to change their stance.

They act like Israel will someday have suicidal leaders because doing what the world wants could easily lead to many radical Muslims’ end goal of wiping Israel completely off the map:

Stop trying to make a split Jerusalem happen. It’s not going to happen. the Pope and the rest of the world want to do is split Jerusalem. They may or may not realize that doing so sets up Israel for the same type of attacks they’ve faced in the past when Muslim nations had the strategic advantage to do so. In a nation the size of New Jersey, it’s utter insanity to expect them to shrink their barely defensible borders and allow a Palestinian state to be the proxy for their enemies. That’s what this really comes down to when all the rhetoric is put aside.

I’ve often wondered if the world’s hatred for Israel is so strong, they push for a two-state solution and a split Jerusalem because they know it could lead to the destruction of the Jewish state. Today, America and Israel are essentially alone. There are others reportedly starting to embrace sanity, but the majority of the world seems bent on Israel’s eventual downfall.

Final Thoughts

The Pope holds tremendous influence over much of the world. It’s within his rights to express his views, but it’s also his responsibility to make sure his views are aligned with what’s best for the world. For better or for worse, he can change hearts and minds. If he’s going to use that power to promote solutions to major problems, it’s important that his solution are properly conceived and attainable rather than being “new world order” talk tracks.

Christian, husband, father. EIC, NOQ Report. Co-Founder, the Federalist Party. Just a normal guy who will no longer sit around while the country heads in the wrong direction.

Continue Reading


  1. Kevin Dickson

    December 26, 2017 at 10:22 am

    How exactly is TRUMP to blame for the fact that millions of Muslims and Africans can’t stop killing each other long enough to feed themselves?

  2. Phillip

    December 26, 2017 at 9:45 pm

    Anti-pope Bergoglio is a south American communist stooge. He is not the pope of the Catholic Church. Benedict remains as Pope despite his desire to abdicate. His abdication was illicit according to Canon law. You cannot retire to be more spiritual and let someone else run the day to day. Sorry Ratzinger!
    So, whatever this Peronist assclown Bergoglio spews out of his dimwitted piehole, is solely the words of a dime a dozen wannabe dictator of any run of the mill banana republic from south america.
    Fuck bergoglio to hell and fuck his minnions like the embezzling pos maradiraga!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

In a violent world, it’s time to do the right thing “for the children”



In the never-ending assault on liberty, Progressive Democrats and Republicans often resort to using children as a type of political cover for their otherwise unpopular agenda. We are witnessing this right now as they work to dismantle the Second Amendment following the Florida high school shooting.

But let’s face it; who can say “no” to an agenda when it’s “for the children?”

Clearly, this ploy has paid huge dividends for big-government Progressives. One need look no further than the recent budget negotiations where the obsolete Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was renewed for 6 years. Or the recent suggestion to use Social Security to finance big-government’s newest entitlement—Ivanka Trump’s Paid Family Leave.

Quite honestly “for the children” has been so successful that I’ve decided to adopt it myself. While Progressives use it to destroy freedom, I will use it to defend the Constitution.

For example, as I mentioned earlier, Progressives are using the Florida tragedy to void the Second Amendment to keep children safe. But I will defend gun rights because it’s the only way we can keep them safe. Unarmed Americans in gun-free zones will only lead to more tragedies like Florida, not fewer.

Additionally, I will defend the First Amendment “for the children.” What future awaits the next generation if liberty is destroyed due to being raised on political correctness and spending their time in safe-spaces?

In fact, I will defend the entire Constitution “for the children.” What future will the next generation have if tyranny replaces freedom?

I will also fight for the Convention of States‘ goal for a balanced budget amendment “for the children.” What kind of future will they have if they are forced to pay for our fiscal irresponsibility? And I will fight to end abortion “for the (unborn) children,” because they are deprived of even having a future when they are deprived their right to life.

While there will certainly be more issues to fight for, it’s time to get ready America. The Strident Conservative is going to be more strident than ever because, after all, it’s “for the children.”

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His politically incorrect and always “right” columns are featured on,, and

His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Let’s Just Say It: The Socialist-Left Doesn’t Really Care About Protecting Children.




The Socialist Left cares more about gun confiscation than any common sense ideas that will really protect kids.

Once again, we are witness to the nation’s Socialist-Left blithely assuming the unearned mantle of moral superiority because they supposedly care for ‘the children’. Allegedly ‘objective’ journalists are falling all over themselves to promote a nascent campaign to destroy our common sense civil rights to the exclusion of steps that will really ‘Do Something’.

It is not without a hint of irony that the nation’s Socialist-Left does not care about children before they are born.  But soon after they become a precious commodity that must be protected at all costs – including everyone’s fundamental human rights. Those who are merely a cluster of cells or some other humanity denying pejorative in the womb, suddenly become children to be exploited for political gain upon their full emergence into the world.

Gun Control Doesn’t Work – If it did, Chicago would be the safest city in the nation.

Before the nation’s Socialist-Left is celebrated by the world with the laurels protector of children par excellence, shouldn’t we check their alleged solutions as to whether they work? For if gun control doesn’t work, then they are merely setting up next the mass murder tragedy, and for another round of attacks on our civil rights.

Examine their much ballyhooed utterances over the past few days: The national socialist left is promising a little temporary safety exchange for a mere pittance of our essential liberty. Of course, if they are pressed on the point, they will respond with some sort of meaningless boilerplate about cutting down the carnage. Even so, such vague promises are hardly worth the loss of liberty it would entail.

So what are we getting for the low-low cost of our freedom? How do their ‘solutions’ fair in the real world? Do they actually protect people? Or do they make the situation worse – far worse?

Well, we already know that very much like it’s tyrannical half-sister socialism, Gun control doesn’t work. Just ask the good people of Chicago or Caracas whether or not depriving the innocent of their means of self-defence will protect them. Parenthetically speaking, if gun control actually worked in some mythical Utopia, we would be hearing it about 24/7. This fantasy world doesn’t exist, but there are other steps that can be taken to save at least one life – and isn’t that the standard by which such things are measured?

Commonsense steps that will really protect children and their Civil Rights.

There have been plenty of suggested initiatives that will help reduce these terrorist attacks, from containing the contagion by reducing the killer’s media profile to providing better security. Not to mention restoring basic discipline and a moral underpinning to our children, or simply letting people defend themselves getting rid of the insanity of so-called “Gun Free” zones.

But instead of discussing steps that will actually work, the Socialist-Left ridicules them.  Or they insanely advocate we go further in removing God from the public square or decree them to be a redirection from their real obsession.

The Takeaway

To be perfectly blunt about it: The most disgusting aspect of this whole cycle is that it won’t do a thing to protect children and we will be back here doing the very same thing in a few weeks or months. That is what is sickening about this whole affair, and just crediting the Socialist-Left with just a modicum of basic intelligence will show that they know this as well.

To the nation’s Socialist-Left, getting to their ultimate goal gun confiscation is far more important than the lives of children they supposedly want to protect. They care more about depriving people of the means to resist [how’s that for a word?] to their Marxist tyranny than everyone’s safety, and they are willing to climb over the bodies of children to get there. If the nation’s Socialist-Left really cared about protecting children they would advocate what works instead of what brings them power.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Media: Please stop bringing Fame to mass murderers with the Gratuitous use of their Names and Imagery.




It is time that we stop glamorising killers with unnecessary media fanfare    #NoFame4Killers

Saying that the Socialist-Left wants a certain level of violence to push gun control will always result in a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Still, it’s hard to shake that conclusion when it comes to the idea of refusing to bring fame to mass murderers. Studies have shown that these killers inspire others to copy their horrid acts, so it’s only logical that cutting down their media exposure would help alleviate the problem.

Proving the point is the report in the Miami Herald that: There have been threats of violence at 12 U.S. schools, at least, since Fla. Shooting, Including an arrest of a high school student who threatened ‘Round 2’ of Florida Shooting as reported at

Consider a 2015 study from researchers at Arizona State University and Northeastern Illinois University reported in the PLOS journal, concluding that:

We find significant evidence that mass killings involving firearms are incented by similar events in the immediate past. On average, this temporary increase in probability lasts 13 days, and each incident incites at least 0.30 new incidents (p = 0.0015). We also find significant evidence of contagion in school shootings, for which an incident is contagious for an average of 13 days, and incites an average of at least 0.22 new incidents (p = 0.0001).

To make it perfectly clear, we are not talking about keeping this information secret or censoring the media. The data should be available in certain places in the media – a dispassionate recitation of the facts of the crime, to keep conspiracy theories and other such nonsense at bay. But there is no logical reason to make a mass murderer famous for the sake of clicks or ratings.

Nor is this a call for government intervention, this is more like a “gentlemen’s agreement” (or gentlewoman’s as the case may be) to stop gratuitously promoting these killers. It’s about denying fame to cowardly murderers who are the worst of the worst, nothing more, nothing less.

Consider that the experts in the field have detailed the extensive planning and preparation these mass murderers that proceeding through five distinct phases. This article published in detailed these stages: 5 phases of the active shooter: A tactical reload

1. Fantasy Phase
2. Planning Phase
3. Preparation Phase
4. Approach Phase
5. Implementation Phase

Are we to believe that the “Columbine effect” doesn’t factor in these stages?
In addition, are we to believe that in the Left’s magical “Gun-Free” Utopian fantasy land, that criminals of this type wouldn’t find alternative methods of mass murder?

Both sides of the political aisle have championed this have idea. It was extensively discussed on the Glenn Beck Radio program: Logic and Reason Needed, As well as the publication ‘Mother Jones’.  While we loathe to link to them, they did offer some useful tips to alleviate this deadly problem:

Report on the perpetrator forensically and with dispassionate language. Avoid terms like “lone wolf” and “school shooter,” which may carry cachet with young men aspiring to attack. Instead use “perpetrator,” “act of lone terrorism,” and “act of mass murder.”

Minimise use of the perpetrator’s name. When it isn’t necessary to repeat it, don’t. And don’t include middle names gratuitously, a common practice for distinguishing criminal suspects from others of the same name, but which can otherwise lend a false sense of their importance.

Keep the perpetrator’s name out of headlines. Rarely, if ever, will a generic reference to him in a headline be any less practical.

Minimize use of images of the perpetrator. This is especially important both in terms of aspiring copycats’ desire for fame, and the psychology of vulnerable individuals who identify with mass shooters.

When both ends of the political spectrum agree on something that is so basic and eminently obvious, everyone should take notice. But then again, maybe there are those who really want a certain level of violence, who would prefer to tilt at the windmill of gun control and never really solve anything.






Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.