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.



  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

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as ‘sweetheart,’ prompting zero outrage



Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as sweetheart prompting zero outrage

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan referred to Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as “Sweetheart” as he addressed her during a speaking engagement on Sunday. He apparently caught his faux pas and immediately justified the remark, but at that point the moniker which many consider to be sexist or misogynistic had already been noted.

Nevertheless, it didn’t cause the stir one might expect. As a far-left progressive, Omar is known for being a feminist icon on Capitol Hill even though she hasn’t been in office for a full two months yet. As our EIC noted, the lack of a rebuke was because of the source, not because she now feels it’s okay to refer to her as “sweetheart.”

The statement came as Farrakhan was telling Omar she shouldn’t be sorry for the statements she made last week about Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish influence in Washington DC, particularly over Republicans.

In a world where consistency was still considered a virtue, followers of Omar would be wondering why she’s not expressing outrage over the belittling reference from a powerful man. But the world isn’t consistent and Farrakhan always gets a pass.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Man fined £1,000 for outdated sense of humor



Man fined £1000 for outdated sense of humor

Jonathon Van Maren, a contributor for LifeSiteNews, recently stumbled across an article in the UK’s Edinburgh News about a construction worker who was arrested for “pointing and laughing” at a biological male who was dressed as a female (transgender woman).

[Author’s Note: It is impolite and unkind to point and laugh at others. This article is not an endorsement of such behavior.]

As Van Maren explained, a construction worker named Graham Spiers was walking with a group of friends. The group pointed and laughed while passing a transgender individual who, suspecting that his appearance had become the subject of ridicule, telephoned the police.

Spiers was arrested five day later.

Sherriff Robert Fife scolded Mr. Spiers’s sense of humor and actions:

Transgender insanity: Police now jailing people for laughing at men in women’s clothes Robert Fife also piled on, informing Spiers that, “Your offensive comments were not funny at the time and are not funny now. Your children should grow up understanding gender differences and would be ashamed at your behavior that comes from a different era has no place in today’s society.” Fife then told Spiers that in addition to the cash he had to pay to the biological man for laughing at him, he also had to pay an additional fine of another five hundred pounds.

Graham Spiers was ordered to pay a total of £1,000 for his actions “from a different era,” 500 of which was paid to the complainant.

Of the actions by police and the court in this instance, Van Maren opined:

It is disgusting enough that law enforcement would arrest and charge someone for this triviality. That alone indicates that freedom in Scotland is truly dead. But the fact that law enforcement then lectured Spiers on being a throwback from a different age (that different era being about a decade ago, for the record) and telling him his children should be ashamed of him? And that Spiers was expected to cower and listen to this tongue-lashing from his betters so he could get re-educated and realize that men could now become women and that laughing at their attempts was forbidden by law? That should absolutely repulse any liberty-loving person and terrify everyone who values freedom.

My Take

Pointing and laughing at others is unquestionably unkind. I am repulsed at the thought of such outward meanness. However, that this behavior so would be considered illegal and result in one’s arrest is punitive at best, and is undoubtedly a waste a valuable time and resources. Furthermore, the punishment in this case is brazenly excessive.

This is yet another instance of big government run amok. The Founders knew the dangers of big government. It would be prudent of us to heed the Founders’ advice, lest we find ourselves in the position of Mr. Spiers: subjugated beneath the arbitrary boot of “benevolent” governmental authority.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The anti-MAGA hoax epidemic



The anti-MAGA hoax epidemic

There’s a trend that’s been quietly, consistently rearing its ugly head against the President of the United States and his supporters since before the 2016 election. We’ve seen it among unhinged journalists, virtue-signaling celebrities, and Democratic politicians. We’ve seen it manifest in the ugliest form of hatred – the common hate-hoax – and it’s doing more to divide America than the source of the perpetrators’ anger.

They hate President Trump. They hate the people who got him elected. The hate the idea of making America great again because as much of the MAGA agenda comes to pass, they’re learning they’ve been wrong the whole time. I know first hand. I’ve been proven wrong myself.

No, I’m not a hate-hoaxer, but I’ve been against the President to varying degrees for over three years now. Before he officially won the GOP nomination in 2016, I opposed him because I felt he would do too much damage while delivering only a moderate amount of good policies. He wasn’t as bad as John Kasich or Jeb Bush, but we had Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul as better candidates. Nevertheless, he won the nomination, prompting me to spend the final leg of the 2016 election without a horse in the race. I didn’t like the idea of Trump being President, but under no circumstances did I want Hillary Clinton to be President, either.

100% crowdfunded news. Please help.

After he won, I became a cautious but hopeful watcher. While we worked on alternatives to bring limited-government federalism to the forefront of local, state, and national politics, I took a case-by-case stance on the President himself. When he did well, I praised him. When he did poorly, I criticized him. This stance has remained until this day, though there have been times when I was more supportive or more critical, depending on the policy discussion of the day. Tax and bureaucratic cuts – good. Tariffs and bump stock bans – bad. The recent cave on the border omnibus – very bad. Most foreign policy moves (leaving Iran deal, leaving Paris accords, moving embassy to Jerusalem) – very good.

Unfortunately, it seems many on the left have been unwilling to recognize even the remotest possibility anything the President is doing is good. What’s worse is that some have been so aggressive in their desire to prove their point that they’ve pretended to be victims for the sake of getting their “victims’ perks” of love and affection from their peers while painting anyone wearing a MAGA hat as bigoted and hateful.

Thus, the anti-MAGA hate hoax was born and it’s been so prominent over the last two-and-a-half years, one must wonder how mainstream media and Democrats became so gullible that they fall for it every single time.

Andy Ngo at Quillette put together a comprehensive list of hate hoaxes that leftists have perpetrated to paint the President and his supporters as racists. It’s absolutely stunning when you see the magnitude of the hatred – THEIR hatred – that makes them willing to tell bald-faced lies just to prove the movement they oppose is as bad as they think it is.

I’ve had ideological disagreements with nearly every presidential candidate (let alone every President) since I became an adult. There’s nothing wrong with disagreement as long as one is willing to not be blinded in one direction or the other. There are plenty who blindly follow President Trump to approximately the same degree that supporters blindly followed President Obama. The herd mentality seems to have become the way of the political world in America for our last two presidents. But that blind devotion is simply an annoyance. The blind hatred that drives people to commit these hoaxes is far more dangerous.

It’s likely when the details are fully revealed regarding Jussie Smollett’s hate-hoax, it was driven more by a narcissistic desire to advance his career rather than pure hatred for the MAGA crowd or the President, but obviously the latter hatred played a role in his decision-making process. This type of action is never acceptable. We have enough outrage in America. There’s no need to manufacture even more for false reasons.

It’s time for the unhinged left to stop assuming every MAGA supporter is racist and start asking how the actions of those on their side of the political aisle drove massive amounts of people to support President Trump. Perhaps then, they’ll realize the hatred is coming mostly from them.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading



Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report