Jesus’s Refugee Status Biblically Examined

As per the norm, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) said some pretty stupid stuff, on Christmas no less. Apparently it’s not beneath her to ineffectively use baby Jesus as a pawn to advance her leftist immigration policies. Below is her first tweet. Try to figure out where she went wrong.

AOC Christmas Tweet

Her “including refugee babies in mangers + their parents” inclusion was obviously a direct reference to Jesus. Given that it was a Merry Christmas tweet, it’s pretty unambiguous what her message was. She believes that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were refugees at the time of Christ’s birth and those who oppose her particular position on immigration now would have opposed Jesus, Mary, and Joseph then due to our “anti-immigrant” policies. So, is she correct? Were Jesus, Mary, and Joseph refugees at the time of Christ’s birth? The answer is no. Nice try, AOC.

Luke 2 gives the historical context for why they were traveling from Nazareth to Bethlehem.

2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

Does this sound like a family fleeing persecution? Verse five states clearly that “He (Joseph) went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.” Joseph and his family were lawfully following the decree put in place by Caesar Augustus to participate in the census. Joseph and Mary were being responsible citizens of the Roman Empire by following the law. This flies in the face of the unlawful approach to immigration policy that AOC has fervently adopted. If AOC would have read and prayed on this scripture with more attention to detail, she would have noticed the political example that it gives to law-abiding citizens.

Of course, I was far from the only one to notice the Biblical ignorance. Once she started getting slammed with Tweets about her theological ignorance, she then Tweeted out something else to try to save some face. Unfortunately for her, she tweeted out an article that didn’t directly address the Nativity story at all.

AOC Christmas defense tweet

Without notice, AOC redirects her followers from Luke 2 to Matthew 2, where the story changes from the Nativity story of Christ’s birth to shortly after the birth of Christ. Matthew 2:13-14 states, “13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” 14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”  AOC’s slight of hand transition from referring to Jesus as a “refugee baby in a manager” to depicting Jesus and his family as refugees hitting the road to Egypt to avoid murder without historical context is dishonest. Within the historical context of Matthew 2, Jesus and his family were refugees.

I don’t expect her to know all the fine nuanced details of the Bible. I honestly don’t. However, if you’re a public figure in a congressional seat at a federal level and you misuse the Christian texts to advance your political agenda, I think everyone with a voice should call you out. Many people, like me, who have spent many years studying theology and politics, shake our heads at the level of ignorance someone like AOC has for the level of office that she holds. It’s bad enough that the first tweet was as historically flawed as it was but to follow up it with content that didn’t support or clarify her first claim and deceptively redirected her followers to a period of time where Jesus was a refugee is not appropriate for someone in her position. It makes you wonder whether she bothered to read the article, yet even more bothersome a prospect, whether she’s even bothered to read the Gospels.

As Christians, we should always extend grace whenever possible to a non-Christian’s lack of knowledge of the Word. However, we should also keep in mind that people in positions of power wield greater influence. When someone like AOC spreads misinformation, it’s important to correct the misinformation publicly. Was AOC wrong about baby Jesus in his manger being a refugee? Yes. Her second tweet redirected her followers to a different part of the Bible where Jesus was a refugee following the nativity story. Both tweets should be addressed as much as possible to help people understand the Biblical story of Christ better but also to help people come to grips with the reality that supporting a strong immigration policy isn’t equivalent to saying your position on immigration would have killed our newborn Savior.

This sort of politicking is irresponsible, immature, and deceptive. AOC was attempting to tug at the theological heartstrings of her Twitter followers to win support for her side of the immigration debate. Misusing Christian history at Christmas is immoral and should be condemned. Going into the new year, we should strive to be authentic in all that we do. While we should accept the reality that we’re imperfect, we should proudly strive to be as Christ-like as possible in our approach to life.

Wall Derangement Syndrome

I hate to speak about this issue so close to Christmas but it must be addressed because people are acting like lunatics over it. In typically leftist fashion, they’ve framed the argument in such a way that supporting the advancement of a border wall would automatically make you a racist. The other irony behind the leftist opposition to the wall is that they’re suddenly concerned about fiscal responsibility. Let me understand this correctly, leftists are righteously fighting the war against President Trump’s five billion dollar wall because of their dedication to fiscal conservatism and racial tolerance? Color me skeptical, particularly when leftists are consistently campaigning for policies that would virtually bankrupt this country further. To get some perspective on how little five billion dollars is by comparison to the largest financial liabilities America presently needs to pay, check out our national debt in real time.

Unless Trump is planning on spray painting racist epithets on the side to insult would-be border-hoppers, this wall is not racist. Walls are constructed by sovereign countries to protect their land from unwelcome guests. It’s not a hard concept to comprehend even if you disagree with the building of the wall. Border walls have been used throughout history as an effective measure to promote security for those contained within them. Attaching racism as the motive of the wall would denote that all border walls everywhere are racist by their very existence, which is an absurd proposition. The reason racism is being claimed in this case is because President Trump is the one pushing for it and leftists will vehemently oppose President Trump by any means necessary.

It wasn’t that long ago where bigshot leftists like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer and many other mainstream Democrats supported a border wall as an effective measure to, in Obama’s words, “help stem the tide of illegal immigration.” What changed between the time where Democrats were in support of this policy and now? President Trump. President Trump has changed the political atmosphere in this regard because his primary campaign promise was to “BUILD THE WALL!” Leftist Democrats see this moment as an opportunity to deny him this one chance to get the wall built and essentially secure the Democrats a huge win going into the 2020 presidential election. Trump’s base will be disheartened that he couldn’t deliver what he promised and the Democrats will be victorious in denying Trump what he campaigned on. Their opposition to Trump’s wall isn’t fueled by a legitimate concern about the wall’s effectiveness. There is no disputing that the wall would be effective in helping “stem the tide of illegal immigration.” The leftist opposition is fueled by politics. If leftists can deny Trump a huge political win, they are more likely to be successful in 2020 in the Presidential election.

This is a sad reality. Leftists are more concerned with their own political advancement by obstructing good policies rather than concern themselves with the benefits that good policies would have on their constituents. The leftist opposition is failing to provide a legitimate reason for why their opposition is grounded in reason and evidence. They’ve failed to show adequate evidential justification for why they generally used to support a border wall and now adamantly reject it. They’ve not refuted the abundance of evidence showing that walls are effective in securing sovereign borders. Historically, border walls have shown to be largely effective in their design. We’ve seen examples of this in San Diego where their sector of the border wall reduced infiltrations by 95%. Similar results were found in Israel and their border wall alongside the West Bank. Are the leftists going to go out on a limb and call Hungary, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Austria, Greece, Spain, and Norway racists for developing border walls to “stem the tide of illegal immigration” from Middle Eastern refugees?

The United States has an obligation to its citizens, as a sovereign nation, to provide protections from those within the wall. We must have a secure border so we can better regulate who enters our country for the purposes of safety. America has been a nation of immigrants and we will continue to allow for people to immigrate to America. However, America has the sovereignty to closely monitor who we welcome and how we invite them in. America has no obligation to globally invite every member of earth into its borders. There are national security, cultural, economic, legal, and political implications on America if immigration were mishandled. That is why a strong border allows us the foundation to begin conversations about how to handle the present day illegal aliens presently within America and how to handle those that cross the border illegally in the future. Without the border, we can’t substantively have discussions about any of these other solutions.

The Case for “Merry Christmas”

As I’ve made it clear in past writings, I’m a strong orthodox conservative Christian. I say “Merry Christmas” to everyone during the Christmas season at risk of potentially offending someone who might prefer being wished a “happy holidays.” Something as pure and wholesome as celebrating Christmas has been under attack for decades by the left for its alleged lack of inclusivity. While a very large majority of Americans celebrate Christmas as a national and/or religious holiday, many still find themselves on the fence about whether they should say “Merry Christmas” or “happy holidays”. I assure you that the benefits of wishing Merry Christmas to someone far outweigh the negative consequences.

Prominent Jewish conservative figurehead Dennis Prager of PragerU lays out why the “war on Christmas” isn’t a mere fabrication of the paranoid conservative mind. As Prager rightly points out, leftists are campaigning for the secularization of America as a whole. That’s why they strive to secularize traditional Christmas greetings because they understand how culture is impacted through deceptively changing language. Slowly removing Christmas from the vocabulary of the culture will result in a more secularized culture. I have friends who don’t identify as Christians yet happily celebrate Christmas because it is an embedded American tradition. Like Dennis Prager, they celebrate Christmas because it’s recognized as an American holiday while not celebrating it as a holy day. At the same time, Prager doesn’t disregard the religious significance of the holiday to Christians. He recognizes the sacred meaning of Christmas among those that claim a Christian worldview.

Allowing the incremental secularization to chip away at how Christmas is viewed and celebrated would be a great disservice to our country. Christmas is a period of time where reflection, giving, love, and reconciliation are often present in our minds. For Christians, the theological significance of Christmas plays through our hearts and minds as we read through the nativity story in the gospels. We all seem to find something to be thankful for when the story of Christmas is present in our lives. The term ‘holiday’ doesn’t carry the same weight as ‘Christmas’ because it doesn’t have the same transcendent meaning.

Disguising ‘Merry Christmas’ with ‘happy holidays’ at the same time of year we always wish people a ‘Merry Christmas’ is a leftist ruse. People who attempt to claim that wishing someone ‘Merry Christmas’ is insensitive to the minority of people who don’t celebrate Christmas fail to recognize the importance and permanence that Christmas has played on a global scale for much longer than they’ve been alive.

Since leftists typically campaign on the basis of “tolerance”, you’d think that tolerance would be charitably extended to the majority of individuals who enjoy the Christmas season and would like to be wished a “Merry Christmas.” Sadly, the limit of tolerance is breached the moment opposition is encountered in too many instances. For the leftist, it would be tolerant to remain politely neutral and not say anything other than “thank you” when someone kindly wishes them a ‘Merry Christmas.’ I’m sure many leftists do behave in this way but there are those that campaign against Christmas fervently enough to cause the switch from ‘Merry Christmas’ to ‘happy holidays.’

The case is simple. The only reason ‘happy holidays’ is a thing is because of Christmas. We know that ‘happy holidays’ is a code word for ‘Merry Christmas.’ It’s time to take the mask off this secularized terminology and start fully embracing Christmas again by wishing our family, friends, neighbors, and strangers a “MERRY CHRISTMAS” again.

 

 

Are Leftists Champions of Tolerance?

People of all political backgrounds find that polarization is exhausting and stressful. The Pew Research Center found, “more than one-third of social media users are worn out by the amount of political content they encounter, and more than half describe their online interactions with those they disagree with politically as stressful and frustrating”

I entirely agree. It’s exhausting. I’ve had my fair share of political discussions (a charitable way of phrasing it) that result in a fruitless outcome. You end up asking yourself, why the hell did I participate in this discussion at all? Is all this ideological division affecting the way we interact with each other personally? An interesting survey conducted by Dartmouth suggested that these political divisions have been socially adverse for students. As it turns out, leftists aren’t nearly the champions of tolerance they claim to be. In the survey,

“… undergraduates were asked if learning that another student had political beliefs opposite from their own would affect a range of possible interactions with them. Forty-two percent of respondents said that knowing this would make them less likely to befriend them, while 54 percent said it would make no difference. More than two-thirds of student respondents (70 percent) said they would be less likely to consider dating someone with opposite political beliefs from themselves. About a third (30 percent) said learning someone had opposite political beliefs would make them less likely to trust the person. The influence of personal politics does not permeate academics as much; only 19 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to study with someone with opposing political views, and for “working on class projects with them” it was 18 percent. Overall percentages like these mask sizable partisan differences — Democrats were consistently more likely to indicate conflicting politics negatively affect potential relationships. While 82 percent of respondents who identified Democrats say they would be less likely to date someone with opposing political beliefs, only 47 percent of Independents and 42 percent of Republicans said the same. Similarly, 55 percent of Democratic respondents said opposite political views would make them less likely to befriend another student, compared to 21 percent of Independents and 12 percent of Republicans.”

Republicans were roughly twice as tolerant when it came to dating and befriending individuals of opposing political viewpoints. That’s a revealing takeaway. On a more anecdotal level, Will Witt of PragerU interviewed Democrats about their willingness to befriend Republicans followed by interviewing Republicans about their willingness to befriend Democrats. Sadly, these interviews reinforced the findings of the survey conducted at Dartmouth. Political intolerance is virtually one-sided and is largely rooted in leftist ideology.

When conservative commentators, such as Ben Shapiro, have to enter universities with a safety team so that he may safely deliver his lecture, leftists should begin to question the message they’re promoting. If they want to appear tolerant, they shouldn’t affirm the tactics of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, some segments of the mainstream media (MSM), LGBT activists, etc… when they weaponize their resources to ruin the lives of those that disagree with them.

I could go on ad infinitum with examples of how conservatives have been treated uncharitably in our modern culture by leftist activists. Voicing conservative opinions are unpopular, even among conservatives sometimes, because they grind against the accepted cultural norm. Nobody wants to publicly affiliate themselves with conservative thought for fear of blowback from friends and family. That is how we know tolerance is not a trademark of the left. They’re championing conformity, not tolerance.

Stupid People Are a Protected Class

The title of the article may seem a little “clickbaity” but I’m not performing an act of misdirection to deceive you into reading an article totally unrelated to the title. I promise. Stupid people have become a protected class. It is discourteous to tell someone they’re stupid and I wouldn’t encourage someone to call someone stupid nor would I personally call someone stupid. What I mean is that people saying and doing stupid things are more tolerated now than ever.

Modern young Americans happily and unquestioningly accept stupid theories as reality. For instance, the intersectionality nonsense has practically engulfed college campuses across America, confusing the hell out of most reasonable people. Everyone is racing to be the most offended possible at any given time by attempting to claim victimhood status in as many “oppressed” groups they can claim membership to. These same people jump at the opportunity to aggressively protest conservative Ben Shapiro by calling him a racist, homophobic, Nazi. They fail to see the irony behind protesting a small-framed Jewish conservative who lectures about the importance of free speech, individual liberty, civil rights, and limited government. They obviously aren’t historically informed enough to understand what Hitler would have done to Ben Shapiro if he had been given the opportunity. In preparation for a typical Ben Shapiro lecture, leftist student organizations establish “safe spaces” to protect students from the exposure to spooky new conservative ideas. Without this safe space bubble, they’d obviously feel “triggered” and they’d be forced to deal with a different point of view. I haven’t even begun to speak of all the security Ben Shapiro is required to have as protection against those triggered into violence. Otherwise known as Antifa.

Many celebrities have taken on their own personal tale of playing themselves as political activists, but unfortunately they don’t have smart people writing their scripts and they come off sounding like idiots. Unlike the students that find themselves coloring in a corner of a warm safe space, celebrities find themselves protected by the media who support every stupid syllable that comes out of their overpaid mouthes. Leftist “journalists” seem to be willing to overlook the innumerable political follies the leftist celebrity culture makes in an attempt to make their celebrity friends sound sophisticated. They’re unwisely perceived as our betters by those who enjoy their theatrical talents. While Tom Hanks, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Julianne Moore may be excellent performers, they’re nothing more than an extension of the DNC that use their cultural clout to influence citizens to vote blue. For that, celebrities will always have the favor and protection of the DNC.

Stupidity has become so common that it’s challenging to point it out any longer. Everyday there is a headline that sounds so moronic that you tend to shrug your shoulders and disregard it as another one of those realities that you have no control over. To a large degree, that’s correct. I can’t do anything about the imbecile that said “Baby, It’s Cold Outside!” is about “rape culture” or the moron that dug up Kevin Hart’s jokes from a decade ago to make his life difficult today. These people are obviously miserable souls in need of a good kick in the ass, but their idiotic comments only gained traction because people gave them the attention they were seeking. Nobody truly cares what Kevin Hart said a decade ago and nobody cares about what SJW believes about “Baby, It’s Cold Outside!” The only people that mildly care are likeminded leftists that have weaponized these pieces of information to advance a destructive agenda.

In the generations before mine, nobody would have thought to discuss such menial topics. I’d be discussing problems that were actually problems. These stupid issues I noted above are contrived by SJW types that still live in their parent’s basement because they have no real problems of their own. They’re permanently stuck with a victimhood leftist mentality because their college professors convinced them that America is an evil imperialist country that strategized every decision prior to and after its founding with malicious intent. These are the young adults chanting, “Feel the Bern”, demanding free healthcare, education, housing, and jobs are everyone with no rational explanation about how to pay for it. We’re seeing the first of this generation become elected into congress through Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who, I’m convinced, couldn’t pass a United States citizenship test.

By not holding ourselves to a higher standard, we settle for stupid. Settling for stupid gets you representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Let’s allow ourselves the freedom to call stupid out when we see it rather than tolerate it like a drunk uncle at Christmas.

The Leftist’s Deceptive Language

Words should have real meaning. As controversial as it may be to a leftist, it is a reality that shouldn’t be denied. Altering broadly accepted definitions of basic words for political purposes is a weapon the left has successfully wielded against their opponents with great success. The real beneficiaries of these alterations are few and the consequences have devolved a culture into a state that is accepting of behaviors considered barbaric and backward by any standard definition. I’ll examine three examples to demonstrate what I mean.

The biggest and most vital threat to our society is the trash heap the pro-abortion movement has left the English language in. A human is now a ‘clump of cells.’ The killing of an unborn child is now a ‘right.’ They embrace the term ‘reproductive rights’ rather than ‘abortion’ because the latter sounds too ‘murdery.’ They cloak their language to soften the emotional blow and hide their moral misdoings. After all, they call it ‘pro-choice’ because they want to convince you that this choice is morally equivalent to choosing whether to purchase chocolate or vanilla ice cream. Meaning, they are trying to deceive you into thinking there is no moral weight behind killing a child by veiling their language with softened words and launching emotionally driven campaigns that attempt to convince you that the unborn aren’t humans worthy of protection.

Transgenderism is another delusion-riddled campaign aimed at deceiving society through the means of changing language. Their contention is that gender and sex aren’t biologically linked to any meaningful degree. They contend that you can determine your own gender based on your feelings while sex is a biological attribute. Factually speaking, gender is not malleable and is inextricably connect with your sex. Your DNA is established at conception, which determines the sex of the child. Each sex has physically and emotionally distinctive attributes that make them unique. This has always been the case for thousands of years since the beginning of human civilization, and no biological or psychological change has influenced a marked change in the makeup to our species to make our gender evolve in a manner the LGBT community would have you believe. While there is no doubting the fact that a very small number of individuals suffer with gender identity struggles, enabling their delusion isn’t wise, loving, or helpful. If you broadly enable delusion enough, society will begin to accept delusional behavior as a norm. That’s what we’re seeing within this movement where well-intentioned people are being berated for calling someone the wrong pronoun. LGBT advocates find themselves in the position of calling conservatives, “homophobes”, “transphobes”, and the like for not agreeing with their behavior. This has silenced particular businesses and prominent cultural icons and bullied them into unneeded disingenuous apologies for the sake of appearance. These social justice warrior LGBT types use deceptive language to lure in young naïve college students into artificial sympathy but many eventually work their way into a role as an apologist for their cause by participating in their same shameful tactics.

A case can be made for the abolishment of state run marriages entirely because some feel that the government has no place being involved in a personal relationship between two consenting adults. However, the same-sex marriage crowd pursued the “right” to marry harder than any heterosexual couple could ever imagine. Since it was determined that states must allow same-sex couples to marry in 2015 in the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision, we are now left with a dramatically different definition of marriage. Marriage was defined as the covenant between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation within the confines of a long-term monogamous relationship. Everyone within the family is the beneficiary of this union. The male is domesticated by settling down with a long-term monogamous female partner. Both partners are bound together in life by having a child together. Both mother and father can bring up the child in a complementarian fashion because mothers and fathers are intrinsically unique in the value they bring to the parenting process. These factors are not present in any other definition of marriage. Unfortunately, since the Obergefell v. Hodges was decided, the LGBT movement has since felt empowered enough to call everyone a homophobe who doesn’t affirm their lifestyle.

These are three examples, of many, that illustrate why precise language matters. Language is attached to concrete realities. Obviously, language can be altered. The consequences of changing semantics could be societally catastrophic if done so in a frivolous and unwise manner. In this case, those doing the word manipulations care not for the confusion their deception causes or the evil that results. It’s driven to heighten the success of their intended political goal. We must fight for using our language responsibly and hold society accountable for the meanings of the words they are using.

Is Political Ridicule Justified?

Anyone who personally knows me knows that I have a pretty off-color sense of humor. I’m not afraid of crude jokes or crass language. My mother cussed quite a lot. It wasn’t a big deal. For the most part, nobody scoffed when the “F” word was used so I never thought it was an egregious sin. Also, most of the kids I hung around with talked like truck drivers and told the dirtiest jokes I’ve ever heard so this type of socially provocative behavior never made a negative impact on me (that I know of.) You can say that I became desensitized to it from an early age.

In an age where people are so over-the-top outraged by everything, should Christian conservatives consider eliminating political ridicule, even when communicated in a playful manner, from their communication practices entirely? Leftists have made a killing on being artificially outraged over everything, which has led me to more thoughtfully examine this question. Let’s look at the definition of ‘ridicule’ first:

the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior.

Within the definition, there is a sense that ridicule can exhibit the use of disrespect. We must ask ourselves, is that necessarily wrong? Should all treatments of all political ideologies be worthy of respectful treatment? Is the individual who protests my “pro-life” shirt by proudly shouting obscenities in my face while wearing a Planned Parenthood shirt and a giant pussy hat atop their head worthy of having their ideas free from merciless ridicule? In my opinion, their ideas should be mercilessly ridiculed and beat to within every inch of their pathetic existence. Facts, reason, and persuasion are all one needs to cleverly ridicule a triggered Leftist.

Many fail to make the distinction between ridiculing an idea versus ridiculing a person (i.e. ad hominem.) Some ideas are so absurd that it’s challenging not to ridicule them! In the process of doing so, the adherents of these views feel personally attacked because they are so committed to an idea that they actually identify as the idea. For example, transgender individuals are grotesquely offended when you dismiss or ‘ridicule’ the idea that there are only two genders because they find their identity within the transgender movement. This is why identity politics are becoming increasingly dangerous. Many have exchanged their personal identity for a group identity and live in accordance to the political norms of whatever that group may be. This is partially why we see so many people artificially outraged. It’s not because there was a legitimate reason to be outraged, but because the whistle was sounded by the leader of the group which signaled the rest of them to express their outrage via the closest social media outlet they can access.

For this reason, it’s becoming increasingly clear that most of the outrage expressed online is a mere fabrication made to advance a political agenda. The average conservative ridicule made against any of the dozens of absurd positions found within the DNC charter are warranted because they don’t personally cut against the character of the creator of the idea. They are directed at the content of the idea. That’s how ridicule should be used because ridicule can be a very powerful rhetorical tool. I occasionally see an argument about how we should play nice and not devolve into accepting ridicule as a vehicle for dialogue. I disagree. Some ideas and situations are so absurd that ridicule is a perfectly appropriate response. Obviously, I wouldn’t suggest resorting to ad hominem attacks but as I mentioned before, there is a responsible way to creatively ridicule ideas that generate interest in how truly stupid leftist ideas really are.