Fly illegal aliens to Belize for re-entry to Mexico

The problem is how to stop the Mexican illegals who are caught and “deported” into Mexico, but they simply turn around and walk right back across the same border into the USA – often hours later. They are doing this over and over and over again with impunity – and we don’t even catch them all.

How many do stop this once and for all?

Apparently Belize maintains good relations with the USA and allegedly we have built some sort of military base there.

So here’s the plan: when the illegal aliens get captured along our Southern border, we don’t return them where they came from – we fly them in prison-planes to our secure military camp in Belize, and from there we promptly bus them north to the Hondo river, at which point we frog-march them at bayonet point north across the international bridge and back into Mexico.

(A 7 hour flight to Belize at $400 per head is much easier than taking them to Belize the long way by busing them to a Texas port followed by a slow boat ride down to Belize because that would cost us 9-10 days of providing them with room and board).

Once those Mexicans find out they are stuck in the middle of no where and are 2,000 miles away from the US border, they won’t be coming back.

Just keep this program up for a few years and watch the illegal crossings crawl to stop.


Council of Toledo allowed a wife or a concubine

Now that marriage has been perverted into a bizarre institution by the godless civil authorities, it is time we revisit the concept of the “concubine” – a genuine Christian wife except ‘married’ privately without involving the state.

CONCUBINAGE.—The relation between the sexes which was denoted by this word had, under the legal system with which the early Church was brought into contact, a twofold character. There was (1) the connexion, temporary, depending on caprice only, involving no obligations, concubinage in the modern sense, not distinguishable ethically from fornication. But there was also (2) a concubinatus recognised by Roman law, as in the Lex Julia et Papin Poppnea, which had a very different character. Here the cohabitation was permanent, and involved therefore reciprocal obligations, and, although it did not stand on the same level as a connubium, and did not entitle the issue of the union to inherit as legitimate, it was yet regarded, somewhat as a morganatic marriage is in Germany, as’ involving no moral degradation. In dealing with this last form, Christian feeling was divided between the fear of recognising what might seem a half-marriage only on the one hand, and the desire to sanction any union which fulfilled the primary condition of marriage on the other. The question was complicated by the fact that, for the most part-, these unions were contracted with women who were slaves or foreigners, and therefore not injenuae, and that consequently to have placed them on a level with connubia, would have been to introduce a mesalliance into the succession of respectable or noble families. Cases where the man who kept the concubina had a wife living, though sanctioned by the lax morality of Roman society, admitted, of course, of no question, and were denounced as adultery (August. Serm. 224). Where the man was unmarried the case was different. The Apostolical Constitutions, on the one hand (viii. 32), authorised the admission to baptism of such a slave-concubine belonging to an unbeliever, if she were faithful to the one man with whom she lived. If Marcia, the concubine, first of Quadratus, and afterwards of Commodus, who is known to have favoured the Christians, had ever been one of them, it must have been by virtue of some such rule. The case of a Christian who had a concubine was somewhat more difficult, and the equity of the Church’s judgment was disturbed by considerations of social expediency. If she was a slave he was to get rid of her, apparently without being bound to make any provision for her maintenance. If she were a free woman, he was either to marry or dismiss her (Ajxst. Constt. viii. 32). So, too, at a later date, we find Leo the Great treating this dismissal of a mistress followed by a legal marriage, not as a “duplicatio conjugii,” but a “profectus honestatis(Epist. 92; ad Rustic., c. 5). {It may be questioned, however, which class of concubines, the Illicit or the legalised, are here contemplated.} In other instances, however, we trace the influence of the wish to look upon every permanent union of man or woman as possessing the character of a marriage in the eyes of God, and therefore in the judgment of the Church. Thus Augustine, speaking of a concubine who promises a life-long fidelity, even should he cast her off, to the man with whom she lived, says that” merito dubitatur utrum ad percipiendum baptismum non debeat admitti” (De Fide et Oper. c. 19).{It is interesting to note, In this lenity of Judgment, the Influence of a tender recollection of one with whom Augustine, before his conversion, had lived in this relation, and who on parting from him made a declaration that she would live with no one else. (Corny, vi. 15.) She was apparently a Christian (“vovens tibi,” sec Deo) and Monica, though she wished her son to marry and settle respectably, does not seem to have condemns! the union as sinful, and adopted Adeodatus, the issue of the connexion, into her warmest affections.} The first Council of Toledo [397 A.D.] went even farther, and while it excluded from communion a married man who kept a concubine, admitted one who, being unmarried, continued faithful to the one woman with whom he thus lived (1 C. Tolet. c. 17). The special law forbidding a Jew to have a Christian wife or concubine (3 C. Tolet. c. 14), implying, as it does, the legitimacy of the latter relation, where both parties were Christians, shows, in like manner, that it was thought of as ethically, though not legally, on the same level as a connubium.

The use of the word concubina as a term of reproach for the wives of the clergy who were married, was, of course, a logical deduction from the laws which forbade that marriage, but the unsparing use made of it, as by Peter Damiani and Hildebrand, belongs to a somewhat later date, than that which comes within the limits of this book. [E. H. P.]

» » » »

T H E other Case, which has been matter of Doubt, is concerning the State of Concubinage, which in the common Acceptation is a Matter of such ill-Fame, that it seems a Wonder to many to hear of any Allowance made to it in the civil Law and ancient Canons. But they made a Distinction anciently in this Matter, as the Jews and Patriarchs of old did, among whom there was one fort of Concubines which was permitted, as differing nothing from a Wife, save only that she was not married with all the Solemnities and usual Forms that the other was. And this sort of Concubines the ancient Canons received both to Baptism and the Communion. The Rule in the Constitutions about this Matter, is given thus: A Concubine that is a Slave to an Infidel, if she keep herself only to him, may be received to Baptism ; but if she commit Fornication with others, she shall be rejected. A like Decree was made in the Council of Toledo concerning the Admission of Persons to the Communion: If an Christian who has a Wife; have also a Concubine, let him not communicate. But if he have no Wife, but only a Concubine instead of a Wife, he may not be repelled from the Communion, provided he be content to be joined to one Woman only, whether Wife or Concubine, as he pleases. Now the difference betwixt such a Concubine and a Wife, as learned Men have observed [y], was not that the one was truly married, and the other not; but in the different way of their being married. For she that was called a Wife was married publickly, and with great Solemnity, and Instruments of Dowry, and other Ceremonies which the Civil and Canon Law required ; but she who was called a Concubine, was one married in a private way, without the Solemnity which the Law required: But they both agreed in these three Things: 1. That they were unmarried Persons before. 2. That they obliged them selves to their Husbands to live in conjugal Chastity, and in Procreation of Children, and be joined to no other. 3. And that they would continue faithful in this State all their Lives. Now this sort of Concubines, being in the nature of Wives married without the Formalities required in the Civil Law, were not reputed guilty of Fornication, though they wanted the Privileges, Rights and Honours, that the Law allowed to those who were called Legal Wives: And therefore they were admitted to Baptism without any further Obligation, in case the Husband was an Heathen. But if the Husband was a Christian, the Rule in the Constitutions made a little difference. For if he had a Concubine, he was obliged to dismiss her, and marry a lawful Wife if his Concubine was a Slave; and if she was a free Woman, he must make her a lawful Wife; otherwise he was to be cast out of the Church. And so in the Decrees of Pope Leo [a]; . Christians who had only Concubines, were obliged to dismiss them, and they were Slaves, unless they would free them, and lawfully endow them, and give them a publick Marriage as the Laws required. And in this these Decrees seem to differ from that of the Council of Toledo, which allows a Concubine to cohabit in private Wedlock without any Ecclesiastical Censure. St. Austin [Augustine] reckons this Case one of those dubious and difficult Points which cannot easily be determined. But he inclines to think a Concubine of this kind might be admitted to Baptism, because her Case differs much from that of a professed Adulteress, who could never be admitted to Baptism, whilst she lived in the practice of so flagrant a Crime 3, but the other Case, he thinks, is a matter which the Scripture has no where so positively condemned, but rather left in Doubt, as many other such Points and Questions, which the Church in her Prudence must decide by the best Skill she had to determine such difficult Questions. I have represented the Sense of the Ancients upon this Point as clearly as I could, because it has occasioned some ill-grounded Censures of the Ancients, and of Gratian’s Canon-law (which is only copied from them) in some Modern Authors; as if they had allowed such Concubines, as we commonly call Harlots, to be baptized without giving Signs of Repentance: Whereas, we fee, this Matter was not so crudely delivered by them, but considered and determined with several necessary Cautions and Distinctions.

» » » »

see also, Female Ruin and this

Woman judge does coup d’état

Judge Colleen defies President Trump’s Constitutional role as Commander and Chief: the arrogant woman demands that the Department of Defense start recruiting transgenderite soldiers by January 1, 2018 !

Trump: “Jesus isn’t the Son of God, But We Are”

Start at 6:30 he says “for Christians” Christmas celebrates the birth of “our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (which is good), but then he says it all began 2,000 years ago with a “mother, a father, and their baby son” WRONG !!!

Mary was a virgin. Jesus is the Son of God, not the son of Joseph.

Then Trump says “all humanity” “no matter what their beliefs” “each one of us is a child of God” [@7:45]

So Jesus is just a human born child, Joseph is his father, and the special people are all humanity, no matter what they believe, each human being is a “child of God”. Bah!

What an ignorant statement!

This Trump guy claims to have a high IQ and yet he can’t even remember the most basic precepts of Christianity.

Jesus is the virgin-born son of God. Humanity is fallen and corrupt. Those that don’t believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, don’t know God, they are unsaved, and they will die in their sins and go to hell forever.

Apostate Negro Church

Blasphemous stupidity:


All hell about to break loose: Trump stepping into Jerusalem quagmire

This could quickly turn into a real disaster!


US President Donald Trump is reportedly planning to announce in the coming days that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and is giving serious thought on how to fulfil his election campaign pledge to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The Bible says that the earthly city of Jerusalem is spiritually called “Sodom” and that in the last days it will become a “cup of trembling” and that all who burden themselves with it shall be “cut in pieces“.

The news outlets are declaring the bind that Trump is in – will he break his campaign promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem? will he “soften the blow” to his “supporters” by making some empty fig-leaf type declaration?

I don’t think Trump’s supporters actually care that much about triggering World War 3, which is what this might do. They wanted a president who cares about solving problems in the USA, not creating problems in Israel.

Will the 10 year tribulation start this month?

Prince Harry’s sheboon girlfriend


Rachel “Meghan” Markle . . .  life imitating art

  • She’s a nigger
  • She’s an actress-whore who performs many sex-scenes
  • She’s divorced and a cheater
  • Long list of ex-boyfriends
  • Her first husband was a Jew
  • She’s a childless old maid and already wrinkled
  • She’s 3 years older than he is
  • She’s a Roman Catholic and likely converted to Judaism
  • Her family is a jumble of alcoholic losers, bankrupts, and violent criminals
  • She grew up in a broken-home with divorced parents
  • Her father is a Jew who worked as a grunt in Hollywood, filed for bankruptcy and now lives in Mexico.
  • Her mother is 100% LA nigger-slut ‘therapist’ and ‘yoga instructor’
  • She’s worse than a ‘commoner’ – she’s hopelessly low-class
  • She’s not a U.K. citizen, not even a Commonwealth citizen
  • She’s naturally repulsive looking, lot of cosmetics to get her slutty look
  • Members of her own family have described her as a ‘shallow social climber’ and ‘pushy’.
  • She’s a liberal SJW feminist

What a snub this is to all the beautiful young English ladies – all of them rejected so that their eligible prince could marry an old foreign brown person.

While they are betrayed, this arrangement secures an alliance with all the dirty unchaste non-christian mud-people of the world. All the mingled people with funny names no longer need to feel like outsiders: Obama and Meghan have grasped the brass ring on their behalf.

Undoubtedly Harry has been advised strongly against this doomed arrangement, but it seems perfectly fitting with the general rot and decay of everything else these days.