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.

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

Marco Rubio whips out Bible verse that goes after the Florida recount debacle



Marco Rubio whips out Bible verse that goes after the Florida recount debacle

There are two prevailing opinions pertaining to the Florida election and subsequent recounts. Democrats generally feel like it’s good to “count every ballot” until they win, even if that means “finding” more ballots to add to their candidates’ tallies. Republicans have been fighting against the recounts despite that play coming across ingenuously to voters on both sides.

We should want every valid vote counted. The operative word there is “valid.”

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a Catholic, Tweeted a Bible verse that seemed apropos to the current debacle in Florida.

One might even say this draws in one of the favorite punching bags for Republicans, former presidential candidate “Crooked” Hillary Clinton. That wasn’t the intent, I’m sure, but it’s always fun to laugh at Hillary.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

3 reasons President Trump should offer Asia Bibi asylum



3 reasons President Trump should offer Asia Bibi asylum

There are certain political moves that can be considered “no-brainers” for anyone in Washington DC. Offering persecuted Pakistani Christian Asia Bibi asylum is one of them.

The drawbacks of doing so are few but potent. It would enrage hardline Muslims in the United States who may go after Bibi and her family, but that’s a risk she’ll face anywhere she goes. It would put US citizens and military personnel at greater risk than they already are when traveling abroad, especially in Muslim majority nations like Pakistan. Lastly, it would spark negative press against the President who would ask whether or not he would do the same for a Muslim in a similar circumstance.

All of those negatives are mitigated by three important positives.

  1. It goes against the bigotry narrative. Don’t get me wrong. Mainstream media and leftists will still try to paint the act of offering asylum to a persecuted Pakistani family as racist because she’s Christian. Thankfully, most Americans are smart enough to see through that false narrative.
  2. Pakistan won’t mind. If anything, their preference would be for America, which is already evil in the eyes of most hardline Islamic Pakistanis, to accept a burden that will only perpetuate a narrative that already exists.
  3. It’s the right thing to do. Any time the President of the United States can do the right thing, he should. Lately, there just haven’t been many opportunities to do so.

Every day that passes brings Asia Bibi and her family closer to the dangers that are closing in on them in Pakistan. They need to be taken in as soon as possible. Italy, Germany, and even Canada have offered to step up. The United States needs to do the same.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Why does the Left have the same agenda after they turned socialist?




Why does the Left have the same agenda after they turned socialist

What does it say about the Left when they admitted to the truth, but kept the same ideas?

There was a time when the nation’s Left vehemently denied being socialist. No one was supposed to state the obvious truth that their agenda bore a striking resemblance to communist ideas from ancient Greece. Nor were they to be compared to that expressed 500 years ago in Sir Thomas More’s work ‘Utopia’ [Published in 1516]

Even when it was obvious with admitted socialist Senator Bernie Sanders agreeing with the Democrats in most respects, the Leftists still denied reality. Such is the case that, lies, deception and denial are part and parcel of their usual tactics. They still persist in denying that they incessantly demanding gun confiscation, while demanding gun confiscation.

The Left’s miraculous transformation to the obvious.

Then a few years ago something truly miraculous took place, some polling data showed that those who were unfamiliar with the oppression and mass murder that is endemic to socialism began to warm up to it’s promise. By ‘warm up’ we mean that some fell for the prospect of free health care, free college, free housing, free money, etc. Never mind that those promises were as worthless as Obama’s oft repeated lie that one could keep your health plan.

Suddenly Bernie Sanders became a ‘rock star’, followed by a cascade of newly minted socialists. What once was verboten to admit became the in thing to be an up and coming communist. Almost overnight, Democrats of all stripes became admitting what has been obvious for decades, that they were Reds through and through. Yes, red is the true colour of the socialist-Left, but that story of yet again another deception will have to wait for another discussion.

Nothing changed in the Left’s national agenda, why?

Strangely enough, aside from a few cosmetic items, the nation’s Left has the same policy ideas they had before they admitted the obvious. Back when she was First Lady, Hillary Clinton spearheaded a drive for nationally socialized health care. This is now one of the Left’s biggest vote-buying schemes, and socialism’s biggest goodies. They can admit to its collectivist in nature now, but they denied it previously.

Back when they were trying to sell the disaster soon to be known as Obamacare, they had to avoid bringing up the topic of the term ‘redistributing wealth’ a staple of socialism if there ever was one. Such would also have to be the case with their promises of ‘free healthcare for all’ since money doesn’t grow on trees.

Liberty Control is the last of our examples being a vestige of every socialist regime. The collectivist ideologies have to rely on force to redistribute wealth as well as suppress any opposition when the glorious promises cannot be fulfilled. They can’t very well do this with an armed citizenry, thus one of their highest priorities is to grab those guns. The Left has been on this same little quest for years, incrementally edging closer and closer to their ‘firearms–free’ nirvana.

The Takeaway.

It should be patently obvious why the Left’s national agenda never changed from when they denied being socialists to admitting the truth of the matter. They were dyed in the wool socialists all along, they just couldn’t be honest about it, as is the case with everything else they do.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report




Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report