Ron Paul asks: Will US Military Confront Migrants at Border?

The media reports that some 14,000 people are marching from Honduras through Guatemala through Mexico to the US. They are supposed to arrive just in time for the US election in early November. Is this a political stunt? A genuine mass migration? What are the factors that may have led to such an event and what should we do about it? Troops on the border? Tune in to today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

66 thoughts on “Ron Paul asks: Will US Military Confront Migrants at Border?”

  1. While I like Ron Paul a lot, he’s talking about this migrant caravan in detached political terms, so I could only watch up to 4:33 before my own anxiety got the better of me. My problem is, I live on a small ranch about 35 miles from the Mexican border. We do get occasional illegal migrants through here, so what scares me is what this caravan might do if it crosses the US border. This is a very personal fear, for my own safety and that of my family. I personally don’t believe Trump is going to stop them, although I’d be very happy if he did. And I’m worried if these migrants spread out once they cross the border, I myself could get that frightening knock on the door. Oh sure they just want food and water and rides and this and that. But meanwhile, you and your family are a prisoner to their will. I’ve been there. If I knew that were going to happen, I’d leave the state for a few days.

    What also scares me is the dearth of information on the internet. I can find nothing on Twitter or anywhere else saying where the caravan is now at this moment, October 23 6:25 Mountain Time. Is the information being censored? The last position I see for the caravan is where they crossed from Guatemala into Mexico on Mexico’s west coast. A more current position might tell me whether they are headed to the east coast toward Texas or up the west coast toward Arizona, or somewhere in between. Does anyone know?

    I believe this caravan is part of the destruction of the life of the 99.99%, which the powers that be—globalist NWO CFR Bilderberg clan—are perpetrating worldwide for their own benefit.

    1. I partly answered my own question. According the LA Times (if to be believed) the caravan is currently stopped in Huixtla, about 20 miles north of Tapachula where they first entered Mexico from Guatemala. Huixtla is a small crossroads town. The crucial question is whether the caravan takes the northwest highway or the northeast highway out of Huixtla. Also BTW, some people are tweeting that a similar caravan in the past disbanded before reaching the US border, and that this will probably happen again. I certainly hope so. Thanks for posting this Ron Paul video.

    2. “I believe this caravan is part of the destruction of the life of the 99.99%”

      Yes, because people going where they damn well please without asking for your permission first is a conspiracy to kill you.

    3. It’s so we can get socialism and cheap labour here. And an end to the Constitution.

      In Soviet America, war is good. Have you considered moving, btw? Real estate is headed down in price; good time to sell maybe.

  2. I, too, must part ways with the gentle and honorable Dr. Paul.

    The so-called caravan is, in fact, an announced, organized and well-financed invasion. Its mostly male participants are preparing women and children as human shields to be deployed at the border.

    If ever there were justification for use of our mostly-misused military, here it is. How to use it is, I admit, problematic.

    As far as I’ve thought it through: Let the women and children in and then slam the gates shut. (Oh, and when the males have been repelled, usher the women and children to the exits.) The military has all kinds of non-lethal ordnance at its disposal. Use it. Bean bags, rubber bullets, tear gas, etc. (although the latter is reputed to be proscribed in warfare).

    How much have readers of this site and similar ones read of sonic cannons and microwave weaponry developed or under development for our military for use against “domestic insurrection”? Trot it out and use it to repel foreign invaders, if you can’t shoot them.

    The trouble is, the powers that be will not want such exotic devices deployed and used on others, because they don’t want to draw any attention to the fact that they were developed for use on us.

    The best hope here is that the remaining distance is so long and daunting that many, if not most, of the invading horde will give up from sheer exhaustion and deprivation, and melt into the Mexican countryside, villages and cities.

    1. Since the US Constitution forbids the federal government to regulate immigration and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids the use of the military to enforce domestic law, any order to the US military to confront the “caravan” constitutes mutiny under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and any officers so ordering should be arrested by their troops pending court martial, and shot if they resist.

      1. The US Constitution forbids the federal government from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. (Well, it does!) Suppose some invaders from the south choose to come here armed. Some, undoubtedly, will be. Once over the border, will those not be protected by the Second Amendment? After all, due process of law within our borders is not restricted to US citizens. I suppose the invaders–armed or not–should simply be let in as they arrive, so that domestic immigration law can be applied to them, i.e. the no-win eventuality we’re facing now.

        If someone breaks into my home without my permission, I will immediately respond with armed defense. If I see him coming, I will stand in my doorway ready to apply the latter, hoping he sees and changes his mind. I will not admit him and then politely ask him to report to someone who will then determine if he has a right to be there.

        We have a Department of Defense, which includes five branches of military services all–by definition–tasked with defending the US. Are you saying they can do that only from thousands of miles away, from places where they are presently so wrongly and unconstitutionally deployed? What better, entirely justifiable, use of our armed services is there than protecting and maintaining the integrity of our borders and the real estate within them, along with protecting from invasion the legitimate citizens who live there?

        What’s coming our way is not a matter of domestic law until its participants are standing on US soil. It is a planned, intentional invasion. Not a surprise attack, but aggression for us to see coming, recognize for what it is, prepare for and stop before it becomes a matter of domestic law.

        Sad to say, I suppose that defense against it will be entirely up to armed civilians, until they are arrested for doing so.

        1. People going where they want to go without your permission isn’t an “invasion.”

          It’s just people minding their own fvcking business and expecting you to do the same.

          Which, I admit, does seem to be too much to ask of many.

          1. Mr. Knapp, I would like to go into your house and make myself comfortable. Since I intend to mind my own business and–therefore–apparently don’t need your permission, would you be so kind as to post your home address in reply?

            BTW, nice classical Roman touch in the spelling of your bad word, above.

          2. I’ll take that as a “No” from you. (And I really intended to mind my own business!)

          3. You have the right to determine who can, and cannot, enter your own property. You DO NOT have the right to determine who can, and cannot, enter MY property. If I own land on the southern border, or a road that crosses the southern border, you have no right to tell me I can’t allow an “illegal” immigrant to cross the border to enter my property or be transported via my road further inland. If you pointed a gun at me, or directed the federal government to do so, threatening me with violence if I did not obey you, you would be violating my property rights. I support individual sovereignty, not national sovereignty.

          4. Wow! Some of you people live in la-la land for reals. Move to a country with no borders if you don’t like our immigration laws .
            Oh yeah! Except no such country exists. Morons.

        2. The US military can certainly repel an invasion. Knapp is arguing that invaders are “immigrants”. By that logic, when the US builds bases and essentially conquers foreign polities, it is simply “immigrating”…

          1. ‘Knapp is arguing that invaders are “immigrants”.’

            That is quite a bizarre statement. Thomas Knapp explicitly states that immigrants are not invaders, while it is you who explicitly equate the two.

          2. Troops moving in military formations with military objectives are “invaders.”

            Guys looking for jobs plucking poultry, picking tomatoes, or landscaping lawns are not.

          3. That’s quite the bizarre statement. I said Knapp labels invaders as immigrants. I explicitly label invaders as invaders, which is indicative in the word, “invader”, a different category from “immigrant”.

            If you draw two circles, one circle is for category “invader” and the other for “immigrant”. It’s quite simple really.

          4. OK, so label some invaders as invaders, then. The last time I recall the US being invaded at all was during World War Two when the Nazis landed a few troops by submarine to act as saboteurs. The last time the US was invaded by any large force was circa 1863, and before that the War of 1812.

            Groups of non-troops traveling for non-military purposes, even if they do so without your permission, are not “invaders” any more than you’re an invader when you cross a city limit to go shopping, a county line to go to work, or a state border to visit Disney World.

      2. This has nothing to do with immigration, so your post is absurd.

        It’s an invasion, and the military must repel the invaders.

        1. Well, yes, it’s an “invasion” if words mean whatever you happen to want them to mean, whenever you happen to want them to mean it.

          Otherwise, it’s just some people moving without asking for your permission.

          1. Except that people taking your stuff IS theft.

            That would include you taking other people’s stuff, too. Including my stuff, to fund your dream of having people abducted or killed for crossing gang turf lines.

          2. The US government gang protects some freedoms. Those will be lost if new gangs are allowed in. And yes, the warring will continue either way, likely get worse if the US goes full “ideological nation” as the Neocons wish, as the Soviet Union was.

          3. The “new gangs” are the gangs that took over central America with John Kelly’s , and the US banksters help, driving people out of their own lands.

          4. I’m against such meddling… But I don’t see how destroying the US by becoming an authoritarian Latin society rectifies such deeds. I guess such would be nice for a Bush or a Rockefeller, but my family’s not so rich. We’d be ground into the underclass; maybe some of us would land on top. One needs more than intelligence and ability; Latin oligarchs murder one another. I’m not that sort of person.

          5. Filling the US with unskilled workers who vote for socialism and authoritarianism does matter.

            A primary problem with Latin societies is the extreme wealth divides. Why destroy the middle class here?

          6. Even assuming that some of the “caravan” immigrants might eventually 1) become citizens and 2) decide to start voting, what makes you think there’s any higher rate of support for socialism and authoritarianism among them than among native-born Americans. In the 2016 presidential election, more than 90% of those who voted voted for socialism and authoritarianism. It’s not like a few thousand more immigrants are some kind of tipping point.

          7. Right, so anti-immigration is just more GOP voter suppression, glad you admit it. Refugees showing up at the border is how it’s done legally, as it always has been.

          8. I suppose it could turn into “voter suppression” eventually.

            Right now, it’s exactly the opposite: It’s a “Get Out The Vote” tactic. The Republicans are trying to scare their base off its ass and to the polling places.

          9. Don’t suppose the GOP could scare it’s base enough to get off their asses and pick strawberries…..

          10. Voter suppression is when oligarchs flood the US with illegal foreigners, because American citizens don’t support their authoritarian grabs for wealth, power and war.

          11. According to the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution, there’s no such thing as an “illegal foreigner.”

            Your philosophy is strange. It amounts to “destroy anything that looks like America was supposed to be, in order to keep it looking like it never has.”

          12. No such thing as an illegal foreigner? Only whites could become citizens originally, set by the federal government which didn’t even grant Amerindians citizenship with the 14th (Coolidge had to step in later). Originally citizenship was set at the state level, but the 14th changed everything. Now we’re a single state, the United Empire State. And the world shakes in terror as the empire has its way with it, because no borders under globalism.

            It’s not a matter of ideals. It’s a matter of resisting tyranny. Tyrants tend to import foreigners (including as mercenaries), because the oppressed natives hate them.

            There is clearly a problem with US conservatism post-WWII. US conservatives love the idea of stomping the rest of the world into dust, feeling the rush of superiority, power, etc. It’s a problem. I dunno how to explain to them that the empire doesn’t serve their interests.

            But the only argument for open borders is that the US machine, US society, would break down, become dysfunctional and divided, as a result of the growing diversity in the US. We could become similar to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, with heavy divisions and high corruption. And this change would render the US machine weak and broken.

            However, I live here. I’d rather dismantle the US empire without destroying US society itself.

          13. Immigration is not naturalization.

            The Constitution (Article I, Section 9) forbade the federal government to interfere with immigration prior to 1808. After that, it would have taken a constitutional amendment to create such a power (Amendment 10), and no such amendment has ever been proposed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

            The argument for open borders is this:

            – The US had officially open borders until 1882

            – The US had very light attempts to control the borders until after World War II (you didn’t even need a passport to enter the US until 1947).

            – The attempts since then to control the borders have been completely unsuccessful and always will be. The US has 95,500 miles of border and coastline. If every man Jack in the US military and every domestic law enforcement officer was assigned to NOTHING but “border security,” the borders would still be open.

            So, we have the choice between:

            – Open Borders; or

            – Open Borders plus a police state built on the stump-stupid idea that something other than Open Borders is possible

            I prefer my open borders without the side of police state.

          14. Regarding US open borders, the US has never made sense after the 14th. However, individual states also passed laws hindering entry of blacks into their borders. I’m referring to Northern states. And they hindered blacks already within their borders. My point: Borders were not fully open then. And obviously the South was famous for welcoming visitors but not immigrants (not even white immigrants). That and our poverty are likely why we received far fewer immigrants until more recently. Today, states lack such rights. And the US is settled; there are no more lands to steal. What made the US so wonderful relative to Europe is the lower population density. Today, the US is full. And secession is also fine by me; I have no need to be part of a self-important empire.

            There’s need for a bit of a police state to monitor visiting foreigners, ensuring they exit when appropriate (visas expire). And employers must be made to hire only Americans, or other legal foreigners (who should be relatively few and skilled). E-verify can help with the latter, if fully implemented and enforced.

            If I want to conquer Kurdistan, I might flood it with immigrants. Eventually the native Kurds would be overwhelmed by the new people, and the overall population would be too divided to resist me. Old Kurdish traditions would be ignored by the immigrants, and the immigrants would be united against the natives, with the ideal (for me) being to unite them into a new people who lack traditions and are thus docile, ready to be moulded as serves my interests and also open to corruption, unwilling to resist my corruption. Such is the US today.

            And maybe since the Kurds are Marxists, I should use a different people. The Pashtun-dominated Taliban perhaps. I know little about either group, but my point stands.

          15. “What made the US so wonderful relative to Europe is the lower population density. Today, the US is full”

            In your imagination, perhaps.

            In reality,

            Population density of Macau: 20,027 per square kilometer

            Population density of Germany: 232 persons per square kilometer

            Population density of France: 124 per square kilometer

            Population density of the United Kingdom: 272 per square kilometer

            Population density of the United States: 33 per square kilometer

            Of 255 countries for which Wikipedia records population density, 190 of them have higher population densities than the United States.

          16. Also, the primary colonizing euro powers that invested in colonization were societies which had stripped their timber, soil, and easy mineral resources, expanding to acquire more. Like locusts.

          17. Why fill up with people? Why not enjoy the space? The carrying capacity of the dry US West is surely less than that of Germany. There’s plenty of water in my state, but we’re full of people.

          18. You keep coming up with this “we” thing. There is no “we” that owns all of that land.

            You and the average immigrant in the caravan have a lot in common. Both of you want to run his life.

          19. Means vs ends. I want a realistically free end. You want an unrealistic free means that leads to an authoritarian end.

          20. What’s so “unrealistic” about the way things have been in most places, for most of history, including the United States when it was at its most generally (albeit with ugly exceptions) free?

            Your recommended ends and advocated means are both authoritarian death cultism.

          21. Nowhere has been so open. Historically people would war to keep out invaders. Amerindians tried to drive out settlers, and America hasn’t been so fully open.

            One of the more immediate results is decreased wages, wider wealth gap. This leads to calls for government redistribution. Similarly, automation is reduced, which prevents an increase in productivity.

            If illegals enter, then there’s risk of illegal activity, including the exploitation of those illegal entrants, which encourages a criminal culture.

            And if migrants come to vote, then they tend to vote for socialism and fewer freedoms, eg. no gun rights, no speech rights.

          22. Immigration is not invasion.

            “Borders” and “national sovereignty” as we know them have existed for less than 400 years (since the Peace of Westphalia). Historically people went where they damn well pleased, including to and in the US entirely until 1882, substantially until 1947, and de facto to this day.

            There’s no problem “if illegals enter,” since under the Supreme Law of the Land there’s no such thing as an “illegal.”

            Migrants only get to vote if they become US citizens. Which, as of last year, was at a rate of less than 1/5th of new US citizens produced by being born here.

            You advocate actual current authoritarianism in the name of combating hypothetical future authoritarianism. Which is stupid to begin with, but even more stupid when it turns out that the numbers wouldn’t work even if your basic theory did.

          23. “Why not enjoy the space?”

            Why not allow immigrants to enjoy the space? Do you think that, by virtue of your birthplace, you have more right to enjoy what America has to offer than a foreigner does? What happened to the concept of freedom of association? I would not forcibly prevent you from NOT associating with an immigrant. All I ask in return is that you do not forcibly prevent me from associating with an immigrant. Are property rights and freedom of association somehow un-American?

          24. “The carrying capacity of the dry US West is surely less than that of Germany.”

            There are oceans of water on both coasts. The problem is that the production and distribution of fresh water is controlled by the State, rather than the market. Free up the market, and whatever distribution of water and population was most desirable would materialize. Resource shortages are caused by socialism and fascism, not by population.

          25. “Filling the US with unskilled workers who vote for socialism and authoritarianism does matter.”

            The US is already filled with workers, skilled and unskilled, who vote for socialism and authoritarianism. You wish the federal government to impose an “ideological test” on immigrants? Isn’t that morally equivalent to a religious test, and wouldn’t such a thing be totalitarian in concept and nature?

            Just a side note: I do not see any evidence that immigrants would vote for tyranny any more than native born citizens. Most of the “proof” offered by the xenophobes for this hypothesis is that immigrants heavily favor Democrats. Since when did Republicans support liberty? It makes perfect sense to me that immigrants would favor Democrats, as Democrats are rhetorically less hostile to immigrants than Republicans generally are. If self described advocates of liberty would defend the rights of immigrants as vociferously as they do medical marijuana users and raw milk producers, believe me, there would be noticeable explicit support for liberty by immigrants.

      3. I’ve read the military could assist with logistical needs and surveillance, etc. I’m pretty sure there will not be any mutiny talk, much less the real thing. One of the main characteristics of DC since 9/11 has been no one is held responsible for anything.

        1. Oh my God. There are people this minute walking down the street past my house!! I’d better go out and fire some warning shots so they damn well know not to come into my living room! Sigh.

      4. Bullshit Marcus!! since when was the military not meant to prevent invasions of our country with? what the f*** is wrong with you people?

        1. The last tie the US was invaded by a substantial force (the Army of Northern Virginia) was 1863. The last time I’m aware of even a small invasion was World War II, when a German sub dropped off some saboteurs.

          A bunch of guys looking for jobs plucking poultry and picking tomatoes aren’t “invaders.” In fact, they’re your economic benefactors.

          And “our immigration law” is very simple. It’s called the US Constitution, and it forbids the US government to regulate immigration.

    2. “organized and well-financed invasion.”

      Just like Californians peacefully crossing the California/Nevada “border” to gamble in Reno and Las Vegas is an “invasion”? How does this differ in principle?

      Yes, this is a property rights issue. If I wish to house, transport, heal, educate, employ, or otherwise associate with an “illegal” immigrant, using my own property and resources, it is none of your damned business, and it is certainly no business of your precious socialist federal government.

      Your support for State tyranny based on an irrational xenophobia will not “Make America Great Again,” it will reduce it to moral equivalence with all the other despotic tyrannies of human history.

  3. Americans, shut the fuck up and open your borders. You owe those immigrants, those refugees. You owe them safety, shelter and food. Because you voted terrorists and warmongers into your white house, including Dronald Trump whim thousands of mental health experts have warned us against since he’s mentally unstable, dangerous, inspiring violence and unfit for office (also read “The dangerous case of Donald Trump, 27 psychiatrists assess a president” by Dr. Bandy Lee). Because you did nothing to hold the terrorists and warmongers you voted into office accountable and did nothing to prosecute them so they would get life without parole and justice would be served.

    Because you allowed your evil terrorist US government to do the following to those immigrants/refugees:

    – Started endless wars based on lies, including all the lies about so-called weapons of mass destructions

    – Planting puppet dictators in their countries

    – Arming and training ISIS and other terrorists in their countries

    – Siding with terrorist countries like Israel and Saudis Arabia and selling them for several million dollars worth of weapons

    Israel the terrorist state:

    – Torturing human beings in prisons like Guantanamo Bay

    – Killing dozens of thousands of people, including little children and infants with drone strike

    – Asssassinating or exiling whistleblowers who exposed corruption, war crimes, and illegal mass surveillance by your evil terrorists sacrificing their lives for the American people’s liberties and freedoms and to end mass killings of people abroad with drones and bombs… like Assange, Manning, and Snowden

    – Bombing homes in their countries

    – Destroying crops in their countries

    – Destroying the economy in their country.

    – Destabilizing the middle-east and other countries/regions around the world

    – Let Trump’s Ice kidnap children, snatch them from their parents, put them in cages, put them on powerful psychiatric drugs that kept them dizzy & stressed & sleepy, and leave them with some pedo to “take care of them”, some of those children as young as 6 months old to 6 years old!

    Because of Trump and his Ice which should be abolished immigrant children are not only being ripped away from their parents, locked up in cages, and drugged, but they are also raped and molested by pedophiles and Trump campaign worked closely with a convicted pedo:

    – Abusing everyone through American Corporatocracy, American greed, American imperialism, American exceptionalism, American superiority complex, yet some braindead idiot continue to claim that “USA is the best shit on the planet”



    Take some damn personal responsibility, Americans, prosecute the terrorists and warmongers in your white house, open the borders, stop denying justice, safety, shelter, and food to the immigrants/refugees that your evil terrorist US government has wronged in so many way and that YOU have wronged through your stupidly voting the terrorists and warmongers into your white house and the seat of the presidency (George W. Bush, Barack Obomba, Killery Clinton, Dronald Trump, etc).

    The US is the biggest terrorist, along with its favorite allies, the terrorist states of Israel and Saudis Arabia.

    As one of my fellow Canadians said and I couldn’t agree more with him because he’s telling it like it is:

    (Quote on quote) “Immigrants are NOT Rapists and Murderers

    How many sanctuary cities are in the USA?

    Incredibly, there are over 200 sanctuary cities in the United States that ignore federal law when it comes to prosecuting illegal immigrants. And you know what? In many cases these cities have a lower crime rate than the ones who are not.

    As a matter of fact, it goes even further when you are calling “FRAUD” on these people who Fear Monger their way around, stating that Immigrants are a DRAIN on our Welfare System and the Economy.

    Especially in Canada, this is NOT THE TRUTH. Yet in the USA it is even more of a FRAUD to even claim that.

    The Illegals work for wages that the average American would not even THINK of working for, and they pay Taxes. Yes they pay TAXES!

    They pay taxes not only through their tax on goods at point of purchase, but also in income tax, when in reality, they would be due a HUGE refund at the end of the year for, which they RARELY collect! So the tax money just goes directly into the coffers of the Government.

    The goods you buy would be PLENTY MORE EXPENSIVE if the workers were legal and getting a decent wage and benefits. That is simply a FACT. The Borders, and discriminating against people simply because of the line they crossed (the Elite Line, drawn by the Elite) made them in fact (as your Masters of your Cage call them) illegal.

    Just because YOU are forced to pay taxes and YOU are forced to have documentation in your Cage, does not mean it is RIGHT or something you should fight for! Quit being a “Slave to the Elite” and singing their songs! The borders are NOT for your benefit. They are there as the walls of your Cage, giving your rulers a right to regulate and Tax YOU.

    Yet with that being said, I would like to turn to Canada for a moment and the discussion of Refugees coming here.

    First of all, they are Refugees because of an “Illegal War Crime” which Canada was involved in. Whatever you wish to believe of ISIS, it is none of our Canadian Concern! We do not have “so called terrorism” rampantly going on in Canada, and there was and IS no reason for our Military to be 1/2 way across the World killing people and destroying peoples homes and businesses.

    We did NOT declare War! We were NOT ASKED by Syria to come into their Country and bomb. Syria is no threat (imminent or otherwise) to Canada, and to BOMB there is an International War Crime :( IT’S THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, FOLKS!!! >:(

    “The greatest purveyor of violence on earth is my own government (the US government) – MLK Jr.

    One of many good reasons to impeach Trump is this as someone pointed out:

    (Quote on quote) “It is easy to take over a country. First you tell people they are under attack, then you blame the peacemakers for being too weak to protect them. Then you offer to protect the people from the fears that you created. This works in any country be it a democracy or a dictatorship. We can’t let it happen here in the US.” (End quote)

    Trump has blown a fuse and lost his damn mind:

    Mental health experts on Trump (must watch videos):

    Wake the fuck up, America! Listen to the thousands of mental health experts who are on a duty to warn and are warning you against Trump again and again and again, wake the fuck up and impeach him before the consequences become too dire to reverse.

    There is nothing Trump could do that his rancid base wouldn’t excuse, because like I said, in their delusional mind he was supposedly “anointed by God to save Murica” and Right-Wing Fundies really need some professional help big time.

    The Far-Right is just as dangerous as the Far-Left if not more…

    An immensely angry Canadian woman fed up with the lack of government accountability in the US.



    I’m a Centre-Left Progressive or Centre-Leftist, a survivor of Right-Wing-Fundamentalism, a Progressive Christian (I’ve been a Progressive Christian for over 6 years now), an Egalitarian Anti-Feminist, an advocate for the philosophy of non-violence and restorative justice (and I find MLK Jr. and Gandhi to be very inspiring), and bisexual, and I don’t apologize for any of it, in fact I’m proud of what I am and what I stand for.

    I expose three of the most toxic, harmful and destructive ideologies in the history of humanity.

    Right-Wing Fundamentalism:




    As fundies die off, the religious left grow:

    The ultimate guide to debunking right wingers’ insane persecution fantasies:

    “Why you can never reason with Fundamentalists” (Fundamentalists on both “sides”; that is, Right-Wing “Christian” Fundamentalists and militant/radical evangelical Atheists):

    It’s time to stop calling Fundamentalists “Christians”:

    Here’s a few words of wisdom from an Atheist Youtuber:

    “Why should the extreme radical fundamentalists get to commandeer the term Christian and why should atheists help them to do so? It only reinforces the extremists’ idea that they’re the “only true Christians” and gives them an excuse to ignore what moderates and liberals say. The sooner the extremists realise they are actually in a small minority and don’t have a monopoly on Christianity, the sooner they’ll stop trying to force their agenda on every other member of society. Things like the whole gay marriage debacle will be a thing of the past because they will realise that they’re not gonna force their religion onto those who don’t wish to follow it.”


    The Right-Wing Fundamentalists’ false doctrine of “eternal torture” exposed:

    Would you allow a police officer to tell your child that he/she will be burned in fire as punishment? Don’t allow a religious leader to do it, either. That. Is. Abuse.

    See those videos on this topic:


    Exposing the Right-Wing Fundamentalists’ insane irrational belief in “the end times”:


    “There is incessant debate about it: have theists or atheists historically caused more suffering and death? When you add up the numbers, opposing Stalin with Torquemada, the Chinese Revolution with the Crusades, have atheists or theists killed more, tortured more? And was Hitler a theist or an atheist, anyway?

    Here’s a better question: who cares?

    Suppose Hitler was an atheist. Suppose Stalin tortured and killed more people than all of the theists put together. What implications follow for atheism as a whole? None — few atheists are even remotely like Hitler or Stalin. Suppose Hitler was a theist. Suppose the Crusades resulted in more suffering and death of innocents than the actions of all atheists combined. What follows for theism as a whole? Nothing — the majority of theists are nothing like Hitler and despise the Crusade mentality.

    Theists and atheists who spend their time trying to denounce the other side by arguing that “tyrant W was an atheist,” “racist murderer X was a theist,” “insidious philosophy Y presumes there is no God,” or “destructive dogma Z is based on the Bible,” are typically engaging in a classic act of bigotry — the demonization of an entire class of highly varied people on the basis of the actions of a few extremists. In the process, they insult and polarize the good people on each side, and trivialize the comparatively minor, yet still dangerous, elements within.

    Those theists who consider atheism the root of all evil should consider: would they rather have in power an atheistic secular humanist, who is “for the defense of basic human rights, including the right to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,”1 or would they prefer to have in charge a theist like The Order’s Glenn Miller?

    Similar considerations apply for atheists. Ought an atheist really choose an atheistic latter-day Stalin, who would gladly initiate a bloodbath if he could, over a theistic pacifist who would rule with a gentle and tolerant hand?

    Is theism or atheism inherently dangerous? No. Both are consistent with intolerance and violence, but neither one has intolerance and violence as a “logical conclusion.” There are those who embrace hate and violence for religious reasons, and those who embrace them for secular reasons. Likewise, there are those who reject hate and violence for religious reasons, and those who reject them for secular reasons. And in fact, the vast majority of theists and atheists share common basic moral attitudes towards their fellow men and women.

    We need to transcend the divisive rhetoric set forth by radical theists and atheists, those who would condemn the entirety of religion or secularism on the basis of the actions of a few in the past, present, or future. We need to acknowledge the common moral ground that most theists and atheists in fact share today, and band together against our common enemies, the small, extremist, insidious elements that exist on both sides of the fence. We may disagree with one another about what is true, and to some extent about what is good, but most of us can, and need to, stand together against bigotry, intolerance, and violence.

    So, was Hitler an atheist or a theist? As long as he wasn’t typical of either side, I could care less what he was.”


    (Quote on quote) “Why I am a Progressive Christian

    Someone laid out 10 reasons why Progressive Christianity is a more preferred position for him, as a Christian, but this list particularly resonates with me, and I probably could not have written this any better myself, about myself. Many Christians here have asked me rather point-blank, “Why are you a Progressive, and not Conservative?” As if Conservatism is somehow a default position for Christians to take. I’ve always said that Jesus would never be a Conservative, at least not the way it has become known today. Compassion is my main reason. We are expected to follow Jesus, to be like Jesus. Love is the basis for Christianity, and I do not see much in modern conservatism that has anything at all to do with love or compassion.

    So here goes:

    1. I want to associate with people who are respectful and treat others, even their opponents, with basic human decency and civility.

    Too many conservative leaders have become increasingly disrespectful to the point of being rude, crude and mean-spirited. It’s become impossible to ignore — from Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., shouting “You lie!” during the president’s State of the Union address to Donald Trump reaching historic lows with name-calling, crude insults, genital braggadocio, and violent rhetoric.

    2. I can’t support regressive thinking that longs for a time when life was worse for nearly everybody.

    Whether you like President Barack Obama or not, former religious right activist Frank Schaeffer told the ugly truth about contemporary conservatism: It has carried out a vicious “slow motion lynching” of our first African-American president. Today’s conservatives have been undermining voting rights for minorities, vilifying immigrants, and scapegoating LGBTQ people. One simple word in Trump’s campaign slogan — “again” – harkens back to a time of deep discrimination against everyone who doesn’t look like or pray like me.

    3. I won’t be pandered to or manipulated based on religious self-interest or bigotry.

    Today’s conservatives support a frightening array of proposals that go against our Constitution’s call for “equal protection”: banning people from entering the country based on religion, mass surveillance of communities based on religion and creating registries of people based on religion.

    4. I am drawn to policies that support conquering poverty, not perpetuating it.

    When I began to understand the complex causes and conditions that trap people in poverty, I better understood the need for quality education, nutrition, health care, child care, occupational safety, fair pay, racial equity, and public transportation. I became increasingly drawn to leaders who work to reduce poverty by reducing teen pregnancy, addiction, family breakdown, domestic violence, gangs, mass incarceration, and untreated mental illnesses. In short, the more I became committed to poverty reduction, the more I saw how conservatism keeps people trapped in poverty.

    5. I cannot support the massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the rich.

    Conservatives often complain that Progressives and Liberals want to transfer wealth, but the fact is, for decades conservatives have supported a massive transfer of wealth to those who need it least. They have long promised that if we just help the rich through tax cuts, deregulation, and undermining worker rights, the benefits would “trickle down” to the rest of us. When I was younger, I was naive enough to believe this kind of voodoo economics, but with age I’ve come to see that all that actually trickles down is a toxic slurry of pollution, unemployment, crumbling infrastructure and economic inequality that is pummeling Americans, regardless of race or religion.

    6. I have grown so tired of being misinformed and manipulated about abortion.

    Here are the facts: Abortion rates went up under former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, then down under Bill Clinton, remained level during George W. Bush and have fallen about 13 percent during the Obama administration. There were 29 abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44 in the Reagan years, and the number has dropped to 16 today. As evangelical-born writer Rachel Held Evans has said, CRIMINALIZING ABORTION ONLY REDUCES ITS SAFETY, NOT ITS INCIDENCE (IT INCREASES MATERNAL DEATH RATES WHICH MEANS MORE DEATHS WHICH IS NOT PRO-LIFE).

    The conservative culture war on abortion has failed. Its “baby-killer/women-hater” rhetoric has polarized and paralyzed us for decades. IF WE WANT TO REDUCE ABORTION (PRO-LIFE), WE MUST FOCUS ON POLICIES THAT HAVE PROVEN TO DO SO: BETTER EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, AND WAGES — WHICH IT TURNS OUT, ARE POLICIES THAT ALSO IMPROVE WOMEN’S LIVES AND STRENGTHEN FAMILIES.

    7. I care about the health of the earth.

    My faith leads me to support environmental policies that build a cleaner, more sustainable and ultimately more profitable future. When I hear conservative candidates talk about shutting down the Environmental Protection Agency and getting rid of government regulations that protect the environment, I wonder how many more Flint-style water crises there will be, how many more Gulf oil spill disasters there will be, how many more inches (or feet!) the sea will rise, and how much national and global instability will result. I’m no fan of big government, but conservatives argue for shrinking government to a size that it can no longer hold big business accountable as it plunders our one and only beautiful planet earth for short-term profit and long-term disaster.

    8. I won’t feed terrorism.

    Too few conservatives seem to understand the simple strategy of terrorism: use inexpensive, unpredictable, and highly visible attacks to instill fear among rich and powerful nations to entice them to bankrupt themselves financially and morally through endless and unwinnable wars. When conservatives advocate for “bomb the hell out of them,” “waterboarding” and “carpet-bombing” strategies to beat terrorism, they are foolishly marching us right into the trap the terrorists have set. Progressive Christians and Progressive Muslims are fed up with Conservatives who feed and fuel terrorism.

    9. I am sincerely concerned about Trump’s base.

    A good friend of mine, a Trump supporter, said this to me the other day: “Whatever you think of Trump, white men like me feel like we’ve lost a lot. We’re everybody’s whipping boy. We’re tired of being disrespected. Trump gets that.” I think there are millions of Americans, many of them white and working class, who feel like my friend. Their jobs were shipped overseas. They’ve been hurt by an economy that aggregates wealth at the very top. They’ve fallen between the cracks of a dysfunctional Congress so divided that it gets next to nothing done. Sadly, beyond stirring them up with angry speeches, once Trump gets what he wants from them — their vote — he’ll leave them even worse off and therefore angrier. We need actual policies that will help them build a better future, not vain promises about returning to the past.

    10. I believe in the power of love, not the love of power.

    I understand that millions of Americans are pumped up by Trump’s talk about being tough, his “punch him in the face” bluster, his disgust with a free press, and his glib praise of dictators and torture. But my faith leads me to see true greatness in service and true power in love, self-control, and neighborliness — not domination, reactivity, and revenge. Trump’s love of power may have served him well in business and entertainment, but in political leadership, it will be his Achilles’ heel, and his reactivity and lack of humility will make him chaotic and dangerous.

    Not only that, but supporting a crude, angry, unaccountable and self-indulgent leader sets a terrible example for our children and grandchildren. And if conservatives reward Trump with a victory, can you imagine what the next generation of conservative politicians will be like?

    Listen, I don’t always agree with everything that goes under the label of progressive (though I agree with a lot of it), and progressives need to be more effective at communicating and implementing their best ideas. But I cannot support any party or candidate — local, state, federal or presidential — characterized by mean-spiritedness, bigotry, unfairness, carelessness toward the poor, funneling wealth to the richest, undermining abortion reduction, destroying our fragile planet, playing into the hands of terrorists, exploiting the anger of suffering people, and being driven more by the love of power than the power of love.

    Any one or two of these reasons would have been sufficient to lead me away from voting conservative. All of them together make me a consistent and passionate Progressive voter in this election, win or lose… not in spite of my Christian faith, but because of it.

    To all who come from the conservative evangelical heritage, I would say this: Your pastors, parents, or radio/TV preachers may not grant you permission to break up with conservatism, but you have it anyway.

    Permission is granted by your conscience.” (End quote)

    I couldn’t agree more with this guy. It’s because of those reasons and so much more that I am a Progressive Christian.

    Why I am a NON-EVANGELICAL Christian, and let me add this, there are many non-evangelizing types of Christians, who prefer to “preach” more by example, than by words (I agree with the author of the article because she’s right on this one):

    According to this, only 13.1% of Christians are evangelicals (that means about 90% of Christians, most of which are Progressives and Liberals by the way, prefer to “preach” more by example than words):


    Judaism and Right-Wing Fundamentalism have nothing to do with Jesus’ teachings, they are poison for the soul, and they are cancers on society:

    Many Christians leave Right-Wing Fundamentalism every year and today the vast majority of Christians (like 95% of Christians) are Progressive. The Right-Wing Fundamentalists are a dying breed, their bullshit will die with them, and their descendants are ashamed of them.

    I’m a Centre-Left Progressive or Centre-Leftist, a survivor of Right-Wing-Fundamentalism, a Progressive Christian (I’ve been a Progressive Christian for over 6 years now), an Egalitarian, an advocate for the philosophy of non-violence and restorative justice (and I find MLK Jr. and Gandhi to be very inspiring), and bisexual, and I don’t apologize for any of it, in fact I’m proud of what I am and what I stand for.

  4. Why are these people moving ? We dont have to look any further than the White House Chief of staff, John Kelly. Former commander of the US Southern Command, board member of what used to be called the School of the Americas. He oversaw the takeover of central American countries by right wing militant drug lords, willing to do US bidding. The thugs made their countries unlivable, yet, profitable for the right people. This migration is headed exactly where it should be, the source of the problem.

    1. I’m not even surprised.

      The US American people vote terrorists, warmongers, and war criminals into office and into their white house then refuse to take personal responsibility for it, refuse to prosecute the criminals they voted into their government, and refuse to see to it that justice is served for all these crimes against humanity. Then they wonder why people in other western countries, and in middle-eastern countries don’t like them. It’s pitiful.

Comments are closed.