Told Ya So: Newsmax Is Controlled Opposition And Lara Logan Is Right About Satan And Borders

Eric Bolling is a Lecherous Hack Working For Grifting, Lecherous Hacks, Lara Logan Deserves Better And So Do You

The New Christendom Daily is FREE for all to read BUT my work here and on The CRUSADE Channel Talk Radio Channel is completely, listener and reader supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber and supporting this vocation of mine. You can also make a 1 time Donation in ANY AMOUNT, here. God bless and Our Lady of Walsingham keep you!

Lara Logan appeared on Eric Bolling’s show on Newsmax and in response to Bolling’s followup question when Lara dared to claim, correctly, that what we are witnessing right now is a “spiritual battle” and that…wait for it…. SATAN is involved!!

[DeceptiCON, fake conservative, peanut gallery gasps] “Oh, nooooo, not that!!!

Yes, THAT.

“This is a spiritual battle,” she said. “I am a firm and solid and immovable believer in God. And I believe that God wins. I believe that good is greater than evil, and I believe that the fallen angel otherwise known as Satan doesn’t get to prevail in this world. God believes in sovereignty, a national identity, of the sanctity of family and all the things that we’ve lived with from the beginning of time. And he knows that the open border is Satan’s way of taking control of the world through all of these are people who are stooges and his servants. And they may think that they’re going to become gods. That’s what they tell us. you’ve all known Yuval Noah Harari and all the rest of them at the World Economic Forum. You know, the ones who want us eating insects, cockroaches, and that while they dine on the blood of children? Those are the people, right? They’re not gonna win. They’re not going to win.”

This then spurred the controlled opposition hacks at Newsmax to cast Lara into the Lake of Not Welcome on MSM Fire.

Newsmax condemns in the strongest terms the reprehensible statements made by Lara Logan and her views do not reflect our network. We have no plans to interview her again.

Wow. Throw in with the Pedo-Sex Cult of Death much?

Lara Logan is in good company with her statements here and deserves lionization not condemnation, please reach out to her and support and pray for her, she has entered a fray from which material reward is devoid, trust me, I know.

But how can I say she is correct, logically, politically, morally and spiritually?

First Saint Thomas (read the entire text on the subject of The Old Law and citizenship, here). From Jerry Salyer’s, 2018 Crisis Magazine essay on the subject of border’s and invaders Salyer wrote.

The point is that once upon a time citizenship was heavily laden with status and significance; it meant something. Now it has become much more inclusive, but at the price of having been radically devalued. It has been reinvented as if it were a romanticized Costco membership, much as marriage has in our time been reinvented as a romanticized hook-up. Sentimental rhetoric about Ellis Island notwithstanding, the truth is that no mere bureaucratic ruling can transform a foreigner into a full-fledged American, anymore than it could turn two men into husband and wife.

Those who find this last claim objectionable are advised to look to Summa Theologiae I – II, Q. 105, Art. 3, wherein St. Thomas Aquinas discusses citizenship by way of ancient Israel. Under the Law, says Aquinas, whenever foreigners wished to be admitted into complete fellowship with the Israelites, “a certain order was observed”:

For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Politics III, 2).

The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.

One more point from Salyer.

Getting back to Aquinas, it should be noted that while he brings up Aristotle’s Politics, he goes further than the Aristotelian passage by considering, and then condoning, the making of distinctions with respect to national origin. For although in exceptional circumstances “it was possible by dispensation for a man to be admitted to citizenship on account of some act of virtue,” for the most part among the Israelites it was only

in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews (viz., the Egyptians among whom they were born and educated, and the Idumeans, the children of Esau, Jacob’s brother), that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation; whereas others, (with whom    their relations had been hostile, such as the Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be admitted to citizenship; while the Amalekites, who were yet more   hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity, for it is written (Ex. 17:16): “The war of the Lord shall be against Amalec from generation to generation.”

We see that historical ties conferred upon certain incoming peoples easy access to citizenship—“easy” by ancient standards, that is—while other peoples were to be permanently excluded, and still others not merely excluded but regarded as being in a state of longstanding enmity. Thus there is an extraordinary contrast between Aquinas’s remarks and the outlook of Catholics [Newsmax et al] offended by the Trump administration’s quarantine of terror-ridden Islamic countries.

What is the logical argument contra Salyer and Aquinas? There isn’t one and there isn’t a spiritual argument either which is why Newsmax and its brainwashed viewers must not be challenged to think upon the subject. Saint Paul had no issue with warning his readers that a war against demons was afoot and that they must take up the mantle.

For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.

Now little Jimmy Madison from the famous “The Virginia [nullification] Convention of 1799-1800” where Virginia contemplated leaving the new Union over the infamous Alien part of the Alien and Sedition Act. The central point is there is a distinction between what is considered an alien friend or an alien enemy. A border crosser who has the intention of flouting the invaded country’s law and, per Jefferson, “eat out their substance”, is doing Satan, the author of Original Sin’s, work. To wit:

The distinction between alien enemies and alien friends, is a clear and conclusive answer to this argument. Alien enemies are under the law of nations, and liable to be punished for offences against it. Alien friends, except in the single case of public ministers, are under the municipal law, and must be tried and punished according to that law only.

This argument also, by referring the alien-act to the power of Congress to define and punish offences against the law of nations, yields the point that the act is of a penal, not merely of a preventive operation. It must, in truth, be so considered. And if it be a penal act, the punishment it inflicts, must be justified by some offence that deserves it.

Offences for which aliens, within the jurisdiction of a country, are punishable, are first, offences committed by the nation of which they make a part, and in whose offences they are involved: Secondly, offences committed by themselves alone, without any charge against the nation to which they belong. The first is the case of alien enemies; the second, the case of alien friends. In the first case, the offending nation can no otherwise be punished than by war, one of the laws of which authorizes the expulsion of such of its members, as may be found within the country, against which the offence has been committed. In the second case, the offence being committed by the individual, not by his nation, and against the municipal law, not against the law of nations, the individual only, and not the nation, is punishable; and the punishment must be conducted according to the municipal law, not according to the law of nations. Under this view of the subject, the act of Congress, for the removal of alien enemies, being conformable to the law of nations, is justified by the Constitution: and the "act," for the removal of alien friends, being repugnant to the constitutional principles of municipal law, is unjustifiable.

I highlighted the parts in bold that apply directly to Lara Logan, my and others e.g. Jerry Salyer’s claim that citizenship has a meaning and sovereign countries not only have the right define it they have a right and a duty to defend it for the benefit of their citizens.

Lara, hi, it’s The KingDude, tell them “thank you”, you are better off without them AND you are 100% correct. How do I know that? Saint Thomas Aquinas says you are correct AND, this is the one that no one other than I will cite, James Madison and the Virginia Convention of 1799-1800, says you are correct!