The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How To Live Under An Unqualified President by John Piper


Send them to CA where they will be welcome if they vote Democratic and then they can immediately get on welfare!


OK, I confess I am an immigrant. I left the UK in 1975 to escape from socialism when Harold Wilson became prime minister and announced that my children - I had four at the time - were not really mine to educate but rather their education was the responsibility of the state. I now find that the socialist governments in both Alberta and Ottawa want to indoctrinate all children into their way of thinking and life, e.g. by making it hard or impossible for Christian schools to exist. That’s just one example.

When I immigrated to Canada I had to prove, by means of a police report, that I was law-abiding. I had to prove that I had sufficient education and skills to support myself and my family. I had to show that I had a job to go to. In other words, I was vetted and rightly so. It certainly wasn’t an open door policy but I didn’t think for one minute that I was being badly treated.

I would respectfully suggest that the US is well within its rights, legally and morally, to similarly control immigration. I understand that immigration is encouraged, but also that it must be legal, along the lines of Canadian policy. There is a process to be legally followed and tens or hundreds of thousands of would-be immigrants are abiding by the process, patiently waiting their turn. Activists, many funded by millionaires who never open their gated estates to any would-be immigrant, along with those who might profit from drug-smuggling, child prostitution and similar atrocities, try to circumvent the law for their own nefarious ends. That is the reality that Donald Trump is trying to fight, rightly so in my opinion. The left-wing media and politicians in the States are unwittingly, or even wittingly, doing there best to destroy all that is good about America.

On an other completely different subject - except that it is also about Canada - I’m going to talk about so-called global warming, climate change or whatever is the latest term used by left-wing alarmists. Canada possesses the longest unprotected coastline in the planet, unprotected because we are down to our last floatable warship, the others all being reduced to scrap or in dry docks for whatever repairs can keep them functionable. So, as a sovereign country, we find ourselves totally dependent on the United States for our defense. What business do we have, therefore, to lecture the US on policies it deems are best for the US? None!

Finally, the following chart may be of interest, again since we In Canada proudly host far more polar bears than the US or any of the socialist countries in Europe. It would appear that Al Gore’s predictions of a total demise of polar bear populations were false, along with all the other doomsday scenarios that continue to be proclaimed by alarmists.

The chart (dated 2017) indicates that, despite Arctic ice extent dropping 38% since 1979, the polar bear population has increased by 16%. Global warming, presumably, is the culprit for forcing polar bears to reproduce at an unprecedented rate.

But a good solution to combat climate change is surely the forcing of unsightly wind farms on every windswept moor in the countrysides of the world? Not really.


Eagles are not the only victims. Smallwood also estimated that Altamont killed an average of 300 red-tailed hawks, 333 American kestrels and 380 burrowing owls annually – plus even more non-raptors, including 2,526 rock doves and 2,557 western meadowlarks.In 2012, breaking the European omerta on wind farm mortality, the Spanish Ornithological Society (SEO/Birdlife) reviewed actual carcass counts from 136 monitoring studies. They concluded that Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines [are killing 6-18 million birds and bats yearly.

Extrapolating that and similar (little publicized) German and Swedish studies, 39,000 U.S. wind turbines would not be killing “only” 440,000 birds (USFWS, 2009) or “just” 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats (Smallwood, 2013), but 13-39 million birds and bats every year!

However, this carnage is being covered up by self-serving and/or politically motivated government agencies, wind industry lobbyists, environmental groups and ornithologists, under a pile of misleading studies paid for with more taxpayer money.

Well, that’s enough of a rant for today. I fail to understand why it is that nobody, especially governments of all stripes, steadfastly refuse to engage in serious debate about global warming/climate change. Are they afraid of finding out that the gazillions of dollars being spent in a thankless and meaningless battle are simply being totally wasted for no good reason? At least, the few good citizens of Paris are not afraid to venture their opinions.


Thank you, Dave. As I will become a formal New Catechumen, of the EO - OCA branch in Janurary…and an current attendee, in the RC RCIA program…someone told me, that the OCA Club President (AKA Chief Priest), blesses the members motorcycles - once a year. So I can become an official, patched-in member - with a blessed motorcycle to boot. But I really don’t think, he blesses zombies. Pity!


These are all political talking points. But to be certain, if an immigrant comes into a new country, one of three things will happen…
1 they will find work and better themselves, from where they were
2 they won’t find work and will have to be helped
3 they won’t find work and desperation will set in leading to who knows what

The vetting process of ALL countries are designed to control that flow of immigration, and it is a good thing.

We can look at immigration (as a country) as a good thing that brings new blood and ideas into our nations or we can see it as a catastrophe.

All countries should protect their boarders. But also be understanding to those fleeing persecution or hard times. The problem in the US comes when hard working folks (who many are barely making it through the day themselves) are presented with a situation of a mass of bodies deciding that ‘we don’t like where we live and your country looks better, so here we come.’ Many have visions of US citizens loosing work or having to pay for immigrant health care when they can’t afford their own.

It is a tough situation. But once again, much of it is political.


I love the quote from Bill Clinton’s 1995 State of the Union, above. And the Party was all for it.
He got a standing ovation!!


That’s probably the bottom line and politicians know how to peddle fear to their ends.


Hum! Something about the land down under, from today’s BBC news. Is Australia becoming a “police state”?

Perhaps instead of singing:

This is the dawning, of the age of Aquarius.

We will be singing:

This is the dawning, of the age of Australia.

And we will all, be singing the chorus

Where’s the sunshine?


Yes it is the good ole’ conservative cringe of our politics down this way… the ruling party are on the nose so they are deflecting from all their troubles to what they see as their strong suit, i.e., anti-immigration and terrorist rhetoric — and our rednecks love it; BUT after years of lies the general populous are finally seeing through it, and in all likelihood the pack of lying hyenas will be thrown out at the next election… and that can’t come soon enough.


9/11 wasn’t rhetoric.
But I digress. The pro-open-border Dems at least have their priorities right (sarcasm): prayer spaces for Muslims, but not for Christians.


I guess I touched a raw nerve, did I Gabey? Or are you simply unwilling to accept the philanthropy of the Canadian Government and many Canadian people at the time that Vietnamese escapees needed help in order to survive?

What you have written about Canada “hiding behind an American curtain” and “not having any military” is absolute nonsense. Did Canada lack military when its soldiers participated in WWII against the axis nations? Why did the U.S.A. enter the war so late? Did they have no military at an earlier time?


Just to try to get to the crux with the “immigration issue” in America. The main issue is that 180 million people in the Western Hemisphere want to come to America according to Gallup. I bet if we officially had open borders then tens of millions of Africans would get on wooden boats and try to cross the ocean plus you would have traffikers taking them here for a fee.
So perhaps half a billion people would try to get here and America as we know it would be gone. So perhaps some people in Canada and Australia and the political left might call Americans who oppose open borders or constructive open borders as “fear mongers” or “racists” , but to me having a smart legal immigration system with border security is common sense 101.


I found this quote today interesting!

Your imagination is your preview of life’s coming attractions.-- Albert Einstein


Just wait until Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4) cuts lose!

And as a public service - to forum members…here are zombie dating sites. And they appear to be made, for a general audience.:


Well Steve, I am not sure why you’re saying this. Is anyone in this forum advocating open borders?


Well…taking in all who come, feeding and housing and health care for as long as it takes - without limit of the numbers? - seems pretty open to me.
Here’s my argument:
1.[quote=“Paidion, post:1808, topic:6062”]
people can be kept in temporary locations under supervision, and supplied with the necessities of life, until such time
Suppose we made that our policy, and published around the world. Does anyone here believe that a caravan of a few thousand would even be a blip on the radar, compared to the millions that would come, with the guarantee quoted above? Not all at once, but by what - by the tens of thousands? For free shelter, free food, free medicine? Yes they would come. Who could blame them? Who else would take them?

  1. And each one should be vetted, unless you are a person that thinks letting in people with horrific criminal records or terrorist ties - which has been proven, you can look it up - is worth the risk to American citizens. Or your citizens, if you choose to help with the burden.
  2. How long would vetting take? I mean, we’re not talking Swiss citizens or upright Australians here; we’re talking citizens of countries that don’t even keep records, or if they do, they are very spotty about it.
    For each 10,000 in a ‘wave’ of immigrants, perhaps 1-2 years for vetting. Or more. And all the time, we are letting more waves in.
  3. How big are the facilities for shelter and food etc going to have to be? Who is going to help us pay for it all?
  4. Will there EVER come a time - even for saintly Canada - to say 'Enough? Who is to say when?
  5. And we KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE, that if we set the ‘detainess’ loose in our country (‘catch and release’) with their promise to come back after vetting is done - they WlLL NOT.

So, I think the idea is somewhat crazy.

Really - who will tell us when you think the USA has done enough? 12-20 million illegals here now - how many more?
Australia - up for a few million, on the above conditions? Canada - a few million?
Would any of you take 5 million of our illegals right now, today?? Where is your compassion? Are you petitioning your government? If you can find Macron -talk to him and suggest it.
I’m sorry for the argumentative tone - but that’s what you are throwing this way, so it’s coming back to ya.

" A Serious Look at Canada’s Immigration Policies

Immigration Watch Canada is an organization of Canadians who believe that immigration has to serve the needs and interests of Canada’s own citizens. It cannot be turned into a social assistance / job-finding program for people from other countries. It should not be a method to suppress wages and provide employers with an unending supply of low-wage labour. It should never be a social engineering experiment that is conducted on Canada’s mainstream population in order to make it a minority. **


Since the current topic - or subtopic - is immigration…I think EVERYONE should hear, this important talk:


It’s about numbers & I mean unsustainable numbers of penniless uneducated hungry desperate people. There are secondary issues like crime,drugs,human trafficking, etc but the main issue is numbers.


Yes Dave, the Dems mostly claim they are not for open borders but can we get anything coherent from them helping border security?


Yes, Steve. But folks MIGHT want to hear, from the good professor - and his zombie ideas! :slight_smile:

But, anyway. In statistics, you must establish a cause and effect relationship…between one or more variables…rather than just a correlation relationship…see if the statistics are reproducible…see what the sample population is…Etc. Etc. I do know a “little bit” about statistics! :wink:

And I can always ask, the Deacon from my Eastern Orthodox Church. He does have a PhD in psychology. And works with statistics, at the University of Chicago. He knows a “little bit” about statistics also.


I don’t follow you re statistics in this illegal immigration issue. It’s primarily an issue of overwhelming numbers of poor,hungry,uneducated people who will break down our welfare subsidy network by sheer numbers. It seems black and white to me but if you want a cause it’s economics and the effect will be bankruptcy of America.


Wow, I have not been called Gabey for… well, since I was living at home. Mom used to call me that, same with Grandma. Great times. Yes, you impinged upon a nerve, but I’ll recover… :smile:

Or are you simply unwilling to accept the philanthropy of the Canadian Government and many Canadian people at the time that Vietnamese escapees needed help in order to survive?

No, I fully accept that Canada, along with many other countries have done some great things for all humans. It is interesting that you mentioned one example to bolster the idea that Canada is just superior with immigration. They might be, but I don’t think so and I’ll tell you why.

Canada has only one neighbor, and it isn’t poor. It really isn’t feasible to think that your country has dealt with a situation like this. Sure, people can fly in, boat in, etc… However, the logistics of such a thing, and expense, make it so that you don’t have to deal with large herds of people, unless you want too.

A boat takes money, lots of money, whether it be fuel, the boat itself, etc… So the idea that hundreds of ships could end up at one of your ports is really not probable. Flying is even more expensive, and of course, can’t carry the numbers that a boat can. So, what I am saying is that Canada doesn’t have have to deal with large amounts of people trying to sneak into their country. You just can’t compare what Canada has to deal with the United States. It just isn’t a fair comparison.

I’d also add, that if the idea of turning a caravan of people away makes your country mad, I would suggest you ask your government to take these people. Seriously - You can point the finger and say “America should take these people in!” but in the end, it isn’t your country, it is ours. So do the next best thing, either extend your assistance to these people, or become an America citizen and vote to change America and how it handles this situation. But, gloating about your superiority and then pointing the finger of shame at America is really just a chicken move. It is all show, with nothing to back it up.

What you have written about Canada “hiding behind an American curtain” and “not having any military” is absolute nonsense. Did Canada lack military when its soldiers participated in WWII against the axis nations? Why did the U.S.A. enter the war so late? Did they have no military at an earlier time?

I was using hyperbole. Of course Canada has a military. But it is a very small military. Very small. I doubt it even ranks as a top 20 in the entire world. There is nothing wrong with Canada having a small military, except that it is unique to them and their situation. Once again, they have how many neighbors? One! And who is that neighbor? Jolly Good USA. We got your back guys, so you really only need something tiny. This, again, is unique to your nation! It isn’t like anyone can do this. You have a super powerful ally/neighbor, whom even if you want to compete with, you couldn’t (militarily, speaking). So why would you? Hence, the small military.

This small military results in a massive amount of extra wealth that your nation can spend on great things like:National Health Care, Education, Social Services, etc… American could do this too, but it would have to reduce its spending. This is where I break ranks with others in this thread - I would be more than OK with the USA cutting National Defense a flat 50% and filtering a chunk of those funds into education and social services. We have, very clearly, the largest military in the world by a massive margin. We could cut it, and still be #1. So, we should.

I am not sure what WW2 has to do with this? That is great that Canada joined WW2. Yes, USA was a bit reluctant to get into the war, and only when it impacted us directly. That said, we came up and turned the tide of that war. But, I don’t understand what that has to do with their tiny military now? 1.1 million people from Canada assisted in WW2, roughly 10% of their population. 16 million people from USA served in the war, roughly 12% of our population. Before declaring war, we certainly were assisting Great Britain behind the scenes. Sure, we didn’t commit our people to the physical aspect (front lines) of the war as early as Canada did, but in the end, we lost about the same amount of casualties per capita.