Trump Left Me

Trump Left Me

Thomas Allen

During the 1960s, a common saying in the South was: ”I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; it left me.” Well, I did not leave MAGA Trump; he left me when he left MAGA. Trump promised he was going to be a peace president, but he has become a warmonger. Worse, he became a puppet of Israel. Now, he wants to make Israel great at the expense of American capital and labor. Thus, he has placed Israel before America. Furthermore, he is purging real MAGA people from Congress because they want him to make America great again instead of following the neoconservative foreign interventionism of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden.

Trump has made some great progress on domestic issues. He is solving the illegal immigration problem, reducing the influence of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusiveness), eliminating transgenderism, ending affirmative action and quotas, halting the global warming idiocy, and standing up for Whites, who have become second-class citizens in the country that they built.

Unfortunately, Trump has made almost no progress in draining the swamp. At least, he has not surrounded himself with neoconservatives and establishment conservatives as he did in his first administration. Instead, he has surrounded himself with Zionists, who place Israel’s welfare above America’s.

Additionally, Trump has failed to hold the FBI and others in the Justice Department accountable for abusing the law and to give the falsely convicted January-6 protestors justice, although he rightfully pardoned them.

In the realm of the economy, Trump has been mediocre. He was making progress on rebuilding the economy that Biden had destroyed. Now he has undone his work with his stupid and unnecessary war for Greater Israel’s imperialism. 

His war with Iran is only going to hurt the economy of the United States as it drives up energy costs, which drives up the cost of most products and services. Moreover, his war diverts resources from constructive to destructive ends, as it destroys both precious labor (lives) and capital.

Trump’s tariff program, a key component of his economic recovery plan, has focused on bullying other countries with tariffs. He claims that one purpose of his tariffs is to raise revenue. However, raising revenue is secondary. Forcing other countries to bow to his will is their primary purpose.

In addition to tariffs, Trump has continued the traditional governmental policy of picking winners and losers. With subsidies and other federal intervention, he is promoting his favorites, such as artificial intelligence.

Instead of his erratic bullying tariff program and favoritism, Trump should have started eliminating all the unconstitutional agencies and programs that regulate economic activity. (Most federal agencies and programs that regulate economic activity are unconstitutional.)

Excessive credit is the underlying cause of most economic problems. Rather than reducing excess credit, Trump is expanding it with the extravagant growth of the federal budget and resulting debt. Eliminating unconstitutional agencies and their programs (most federal programs are unconstitutional), reducing the armed forces to the level needed to defend America but small enough to thwart foreign interventionism, drastically cutting the budget, and paying down the debt would greatly improve the US economy in the long run. Such action would bring about a sustainable economic boom the likes of which the world has never seen.

However, his interventionist warmongering foreign policy guarantees a growing budget and more debt, which are devastating the American economy. By concentrating on making Israel great instead of making America great, he is undoing all his work to repair the damage that Biden did to the economy.

Unfortunately, in foreign affairs, Trump failed MAGA to the point of destroying it. When he sold his soul to Zionism and Israel and decided to make Israel great instead of America, he betrayed MAGA. 

Nevertheless, Christian Zionists love him and his war with Iran. They are praying that his war becomes a global nuclear war. They need such a war to accelerate Jesus’ return. Some Christian Zionists believe that Trump is the frontman to bring about a nuclear war to hasten Jesus' return. Other people suggest that he may be the Antichrist. (According to John, Jews are the antichrist.)

What has changed since his campaign, when he was promising to keep America out of war? Is it the urgency of his master, Israel, to destroy the largest resistance to Greater Israel? Is it the urgency of the Christian Zionist to quicken Jesus’ return?

Using Bush’s excuse to attack Iraq (if we don’t attack them there, they will attack us here), Trump attacked Iran (his narcissism prevents him from openly admitting that Israel is his master, and he does as it orders him). With only a puny air force and navy, how could Iran threaten the US? Trump must not think that the US Navy and Air Force can protect the United States from an almost nonexistent navy and air force. Moreover, if the United States were not acting as an imperial power with bases scattered throughout the Middle East, Iran would not have any American military or naval assets to attack.

One of Trump’s excuses for his war is to free the Iranians from an oppressive government. Many Iranians sympathize with America and oppose the Ayatollah. Will they continue to view America favorably after the United States kill many of their families and friends? Will they view America favorably after the United States turn their country to rubble and then seize control of Iran’s natural resources?

Trump campaigned as a peace president. He was going to end the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Gaza war and not start any new wars. He could have quickly ended both the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Gaza war by cutting off all aid to Ukraine and Israel. Instead, he continues to provide them with aid. Worse, he has sold his soul to Israel and Zionism and has made the United States Israel’s muscle thug who beats up any country that opposes Greater Israel.

At least Trump’s war against Iran has been good news for some people. Ambassador Huckabee, Senator Cruz, and most other Christian Zionists must be in rapture heaven (they believe that they will enjoy watching the mayhem from heaven because they will be raptured away before events get really bad). Additionally, warmongers like Senators Graham and Cotton are leaping with joy before Lucifer.

Besides attacking Iran to bring about regime change to suit Israel, Trump also attacked and executed a regime change in Venezuela. It seems that he wanted to capture the oil fields in Venezuela, which are the largest in the world, in preparation for his war for Israel against Iran. Most likely, he knew that petroleum exports from the Middle East would cease once the war started. (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. When all his shortsightedness, blusters, and erroneous predictions about the war are considered, he may not have known.) Major US oil companies are the chief beneficiaries of his Venezuelan regime change, since they will receive huge profits as the world’s oil supply drops by 20 percent.

Distinguishing between Trump’s foreign policy and the neoconservatives’ is difficult. Both seek regime change and hegemony centered around war.

Nevertheless, Trump has done some good in foreign affairs. He has removed the United States from many of the United Nations’ agencies and programs.

One of the most repugnant acts of Trump is trying to drive and even driving some of his greatest supporters, such as Representatives Tom Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene, whom he did force to resign, from Congress because they objected to his neoconservative policies of hegemony, regime change, nation-building, being the world’s police force, and making the world safe for Zionism. Instead of Trump meddling in the affairs of foreign countries, they wanted him to concentrate on domestic issues.

Trump wants to be thought of as America’s greatest president. If he had kept his promises of being a peace president, he might have become one of America’s greatest presidents. However, he abandoned his campaign promises and became a warmonger. Now, he may outdo Lincoln and become America’s worst president, especially if his war for Israel against Iran leads to the global greatest depression or a world war. (One person commenting on this remark noted that Trump will have to fail even harder to edge out Lincoln on the race to the bottom, which is true.) If Trump wants to be seen as the greatest president ever, he has failed and failed hard.

At the behest of Israel, Trump is sacrificing America on the altar of Zionism. Will Israel order its subordinate, Trump, to nuke Iran? If so, will Trump do what he has yet to do with Israel and show enough courage to say no, or will he obey his orders? 

By being a pawn of Israel, Trump may have delivered the control of the House and Senate in 2027 and the presidency in 2029 to the Democrats. Taking actions to return the control of the federal government to the Democrats is Trump’s greatest betrayal of MAGA. When the Democrats regain control, they will undo all the good that Trump has done and expand the bad that he has done.

(Here is the best comment that I have seen online discussing Trump attacking Iran. Like diabetes, there are two types of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome): TDS Type One: Trump can do nothing right; TDS Type Two: Trump can do no wrong.)

Comment

An anonymous person made the following comment, which summarizes my observations. Of course, Democrats are rejoicing over Trump’s ego, narcissism, and stupidity, and his sacrificing America for Israel, although they will also sacrifice America for Israel.

“We had a good thing, you stupid son of a bitch! We had an Al boom. We had a Supreme Court super majority. We had both branches of Congress. We had everything we needed to save America and it all ran like clockwork. You could’ve shut your mouth, played golf, and stole as much money for your family as you ever needed. It was perfect. But no, you just had to blow it up. You, and your debt to Israel and your ego. You just had to make Netanyahu the man! If you’d done your job, known your place, we’d all be fine right now.” (https://paulcraigroberts.org/are-americans-up-to-the-task-of-survival/)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Religious Thoughts

Some ReligiousThoughts

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are the wisdom of John, “person” as used in the Trinity Doctrine, “kind” meaning “species,” and the Catholic Church as a cult.

More Wisdom of John

I used to listen to a religious radio program hosted by John, whose last name I do not recall, and who died in 2012. He was a lay clergyman. He made two observations about people who claimed that God told them to do something. First, if any of these individuals ever heard God speak to them, they would likely be overwhelmed and drop dead from the shock and awe. Second, if God really was telling these people to do the things that they claimed He told them to do, then God must be suffering from schizophrenia (informal, figurative usage). He tells one person to do X and another person to do anti-X. That is, He tells one person to do one thing and another person to do the opposite. More than one clergyman has said, “One should be skeptical of people who claim that God told them to do something.” Many clergymen note that God ceased giving revelations in the first century AD; therefore, anyone who claims that God revealed something to him should be viewed with suspicion. (For more on the wisdom of John, see “Some Random Thoughts on Religion” by Thomas Allen.)

Person

Trinitarians use the word “person” in a technical sense instead of its common, everyday sense. To them, the Godhead is three “persons” yet one “person.” That is, they used “person” to mean one entity (or God) and three entities. To say that the three persons are manifestations of one person is Modalism. To say that the three persons are independent is tritheism.

Common sense and logic dictate that three persons (such as Peter, Paul, and Mary) are three distinct individuals or entities; they are not one person or entity. However, adherents of the Trinity Doctrine call common sense and logic heretics because three persons are one person.

When a Trinitarian explains the Trinity Doctrine, he must tread carefully between Scylla and Charybdis to keep from crashing on the rock of Modalism and being swept away by the whirlpool of tritheism.

Kind

Some “creationists” claim that the term “kind” in the Bible  corresponds to what modern taxonomists refer to as “family.” It does not mean species. 

These creationists advocate the “created-kind” theory. That is, for example, God created a cat kind from which all members of the cat family, Felidae, evolved. They deny the immutability of a species, i.e., “according to its kind” or “after its kind” — like begets like.

However, the Bible uses the term “kind” to refer to what modern taxonomists define  as “species.” According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, number 4327, “kind” means “species.”

Is the Catholic Church a Cult?

In “Revival of Early Christian Heresies: A Comparative Study of Early Christian Heresies and Mormonism,” Christian Jeo N. Talaguit gives two attributes of a cult: (1) "[a] cult . . . harbors an authoritative leader or governing body that can demand obedience from its followers due to its claims as divinely ordained” and (2) “[a cult advocates] the continuous revelation from God and mankind.”

The Pope is the authoritative leader who can demand obedience from his followers. Also, through the Pope and ecumenical councils, God continues to reveal doctrines that are not taught in the New Testament. Thus, God revealed the doctrines of the infallibility of the Pope, Mariology, and purgatory, among others. Since Protestants reject these Catholic doctrines, they are obviously heretics.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Before and After

Before and After

Thomas Allen

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment made fundamental changes to the United States and the Constitution of 1788. Although they did not alter the words of the Constitution that existed in 1860, the Constitution that was ratified in 1788, they changed their meanings. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment destroyed the fundamental principles on which the Constitution was based. Furthermore, it was illegally and unlawfully ratified (see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen).

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment slew the Tenth Amendment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court will occasionally resurrect it to give “we the people” of the States the illusion that they still have rights.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent, sovereign republics.[1] After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated national empire. (For the difference between Lincoln’s Constitution and the Constitution of 1788, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

Before 1860, most people who preferred a national empire to a federation of republics considered the United States as a federation of States and the federal government as having limited powers.

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment demolished the Jeffersonian tradition of States’ rights by which the people of the States were the masters rather than the servants of the federal government. Afterwards, the federal government became the master of all, and the people, other than the oligarchs, were reduced to servants, even slaves, of the ruling elite.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, most people viewed the Constitution as restraining the federal government and not the people. Even people who wanted little or no restraint saw the Constitution limiting their lust for power, which is why they had Lincoln and the Republicans change it. Afterwards, it no longer restrained the federal government; they gave it almost unlimited powers. 

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, people became citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. Afterwards, people were citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States. (Moreover, the United States ceased to be referred to in the plural [are] and became referred to in the singular [is].) Thus, citizenship was changed. Additionally, before, only Whites were citizens. Although a State could grant Indians and Blacks certain privileges of citizenship, they were not and could not be citizens. They were aliens.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, sovereignty resided in “we the people” of each State. Afterwards, sovereignty resided in the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Thus, the location of sovereignty was changed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the country was monoracial. The founding fathers said so (for proof, see “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen; also see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen). Afterwards, it was multiracial.

As a result of the Fourteenth Amendment, the descendants of the people who built this country, i.e., Whites, Aryans, are being genocided. In 1950, 89 percent of the population was White; by 2020, only 61 percent were White.

Between Monroe and Lincoln, many of the presidents and other political leaders favored a consociated national empire and, with one exception, would not have objected to what Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment did to the country. That exception was the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, all presidents, except for Cleveland, supported a consolidated national empire, where the States were no longer independent republics but were districts of the empire. Moreover, before World War II, nearly all would have objected to the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country.

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Thus, if right to vote for judicial officers of a State is denied to any eligible voter (male citizens 21 years old and older at that time), the number of Representatives in the House of Representatives shall be reduced in the proportion to the number of male citizens denied the vote to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Only in 21 States do the voters elect all judges. In the other States, the Supreme Court and most appellate court judges are appointed or selected by the legislature. Therefore, only the 21 States where all judges are elected should have representation in the House of Representatives.

Endnote

1. Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment voided the first part of Article IV, Section 2, which guarantees States a republican form of government. Only a sovereign can have a republican form of government; only a sovereign can be a republic. Therefore, a State must be sovereign to have a republican government. As a sovereign, a State, i.e., “we the people” of that State, has the right to decide if an act of the federal government is Constitutional. If a State finds that an act of the federal government is unconstitutional, it may nullify that act and prevent its enforcement in that State. Moreover, it may withdraw from the compact, i.e., secede. However, Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment stripped the States of their sovereignty, and, consequently, they denied the States the right to have a republican form of government. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Geneses the Beginning

Geneses the Beginning

Thomas Allen

The King James Version translates Genesis 1:1–5 as follows:

        1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Most other translations render verse one “in the beginning” like the King James. A few translate it “when God began to create the heavens and the earth.” Also, with one exception, Fenton’s translation, all translate verse five as “day.” Their difference lies in that some use “the first day,” as in the King James, while others use “day one.”

In The Holy Bible in Modern English (1903), Ferrar Fenton translates Genesis 1:1–5 as follows:

1 BY Periods GOD created that which produced the Solar Systems; then that which produced the Earth.

2 But the Earth was unorganised and empty; and darkness covered its convulsed surface; while the breath of GOD rocked the surface of its waters.

3 GOD then said, “Let there be light;” and light came. 

4 And GOD gazed upon that beautiful light; and GOD divided the light from the darkness. 

5 And to the light GOD gave the name of Day, and to the darkness He gave the name of Night. This was the close and the dawn of the first age.

Instead of using “in the beginning,” Fenton uses “by periods.” Instead of using “day,” he uses “age.”

To explain his use of “by periods,” he writes, “Literally ‘By Headships.’ It is curious that all translators from the Septuagint have rendered this word . . . B'reshith, into the singular, although it is plural in the Hebrew. So I render it accurately.”

Fenton’s translation of yôwm, which the King James translates as “day,” is also valid.  The word means day both in the literal sense of from sunrise to sunset or from one sunset to the next, or in the figurative sense of a space of time of unspecified duration, era, or age. For example, Genesis 2:4, “day” refers to the entire period described by the six days of creation in chapter one. (For more on “day” meaning “age,” see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Allen, pages 26-38.)

According to Unger, “in the beginning” could refer to a relative beginning rather than the original creation of the earth and universe. That is, it could refer to God’s creation of the earth at a much later period: God refashioned the earth at a later point in geological history.

About the days of creation, Unger writes:

If Gen 1:1 does not describe the original creation of the earth ex nihilo before the entrance of sin into the pristine sinless earth (Job 38:7), then the six days represent either (1) literal 24-hour days of re-creation, (2) literal 24-hour days of the divine revelation of re-creation to man, (3) or extended geologic ages or epochs preparatory for the eventual occupancy of man. Since the Genesis account itself is indecisive view (2) or (3) is possible, view (1) being sometimes assumed: untenable in an age of science. If Gen 1:1 describes the original creation of the earth out of nothing, and not the refashioning of an earth that suffered chaos in connection with the entrance of sin into the universe, then the six days represent the same possibilities, 1-3 as indicated above.[1]

Fenton’s translation solves much of the apparent disagreement between God’s word and God’s geology (see “Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth” by Thomas Allen). It eliminates the need to explain away geology that shows that the Earth is much older than 6000 to 10,000 years. It eliminates the need to try to fit the Earth’s ancient geologic history into a 144-hour week, i.e., six 24-hour days.  Moreover, it eliminates explaining away the paleontologic record as do the young-earth advocates by having it mostly created by a global flood about 4300–4400 years ago. (The geological record does not support such a flood.) Furthermore, it eliminates the need to explain away Chapter 1 of Genesis as myth or allegory to make it fit the Earth’s ancient geologic and paleontologic history. With his translation, most of the conflict between the Earth’s ancient geologic and paleontologic history and Chapter 1 of Genesis is eliminated. Additionally, the seventh day is described as God's day of rest; this day has not yet ended and, therefore, extends a long time.

Endnote

1. Merrill F Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960), p. 38.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Nationalization of Federal Elections

Nationalization of Federal Elections

Thomas Allen

Trump and many of his supporters advocate for the nationalization of federal elections. They want to require voters to prove citizenship with governmentally approved identification.  As support for their position, they cite Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, which reads, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” Using this clause, they argue that the federal government can establish the qualifications of voters in federal elections. To prevent confusion, most States will adopt the federal standards for State elections.

However, does the Constitution authorize the federal government to set qualifications for voters even in federal elections? The delegation only allows Congress to set the time, places, and manner of holding federal elections. Congress has set the time, and most States elect their State and county officials on that date. It can identify the locations of federal elections. Finally, it can describe the manner of election. That is, Congress can require or prohibit the use of paper ballots, machine-voting, etc., for federal elections. However, this clause does not authorize Congress to establish qualifications for voters.

If Congress could establish voter qualifications, there would have been no need for the Fifteenth Amendment (extended voting to Black males), the Nineteenth Amendment (gave women the vote), the Twenty-fourth Amendment (removed the requirement to pay taxes), and the Twenty-sixth Amendment (lowered the voting age to 18). Instead of going through the arduous process of amending the Constitution, Congress could have merely changed voter qualifications by statute. (Since presidents keep legislating through executive orders, the president could set the qualifications for voters with an executive order.)

Historically, the duty for setting voter qualifications rested with the States. If not, the Constitution would not have needed to be amended to establish national standards for voting qualifications.

The proponents of nationalizing federal elections argue that nationalization is necessary to prevent fraud. It is not. (In “Trump Calls to ‘Nationalize’ Elections. The Constitutional Solution Is Local,” February 5, 2026, Veronika Kyrylenko identifies many steps that States and local governments can take to reduce corrupt and fraudulent elections. She also discusses some major flaws in the proposed legislation; one is that it will become part of the federal government’s digital surveillance of Americans. [https://thenewamerican.com/us/trump-calls-to-nationalize-elections-the-constitutional-solution-is-local/?mc_cid=abab48bd20]) They claim that presenting some kind of federally approved identification to vote is necessary to prevent or at least reduce fraud, which is true. However, should the federal government undertake such action? If Trump succeeds in nationalizing federal elections, he will set a dangerous precedent that the Democrats will use to their advantage when they regain control of the federal government. They can amend the law to prohibit voter ID. Moreover, they can require that all federal elections be held by mail-in ballots and that only Democrats can count the ballots. If federal elections are nationalized, all federal elections can become as corrupt and fraudulent as the 2020 presidential election in Fulton County, Georgia. 

(Personally, I believe that requiring voter identification would reduce corrupt and fraudulent elections. However, the States should impose the requirement rather than the federal government. The more centralized voting becomes, the easier it is to corrupt.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Separation Versus Integration

Separation Versus Integration

Thomas Allen

After reading some of Martin Luther King’s works, I discovered that I, a racist bigot, have a much higher opinion of and more confidence in the American Negro than King did. King believed that Negroes were incapable of raising themselves without altruistic White aid. That is, King believed that Whites were solely responsible for raising Negroes from their unpleasant conditions; Negroes had no responsibility. Whites were to give Negroes everything, and Negroes were to take everything.

Like  Malcolm X and Roy Innis, I believe that Negroes are capable of raising themselves independently of Whites. Unlike King, who was an integrationist, they were separationists. Also, unlike King, who promoted the destruction of Negro culture and even the Negro race, they advocated the preservation and enhancement of Negro culture and the Negro race.

According to King, Negroes were blameless for their condition and, thus, had no responsibility for improving their condition. Whites were solely responsible for improving the conditions of the Negroes. However, under separation, Negroes have the primary responsibility for improving their conditions. Consequently, separation would have taught Negroes responsibility, independence, and self-reliance. It would have freed them from the slave mentality. Ironically, Jim Crow was teaching these lessons to Negroes and freeing them from the slave mentality until the civil rights movement killed Jim Crow. Unfortunately, under integration, most Negroes have failed to learn responsibility, independence, and self-reliance, and thus, the slave mentality continues to possess them.

If the country had followed the separationist road instead of the integrationist road, race relations would be much better than they are today. Now, race relations are so great that they are tearing the country apart.

Under separation, Negroes would know that what they have, they earned by their own efforts. Under integration, Whites have given Negroes much of what they have today. Consequently, Negroes do not know whether they earned what they have or whether they have been given what they have. Knowing that they earned what they have would give them more self-respect and the respect of others.

Moreover, under separation, the country would not have wasted trillions of dollars on the War on Poverty. (According to one study, the United States have spent more money on the War on Poverty than all other wars combined.)

Further, under separation, diversity, inclusion, and equity (equality of outcome and discrimination against Whites) would not have torn the country apart as they are doing today. (Ironically, inclusion destroys diversity. To be preserved, diversity requires segregation and separation. Inclusion requires integration and amalgamation.)

Another result of separation is that the White race would not be filled with self-hatred and the uncontrollable urge to genocide itself. Whites would not have opened the borders to third-world colonists, who are mostly Turanians from Asia and Latin America (Indians and mestizos) and Melanochroi from India, Pakistan, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Horn of Africa. Not only are these colonists destroying Whites, but they are also destroying Negroes.

Under integration, most Whites have become racial nihilists and practice the new morality of sacrificing the White race on the altar of humanity. Under separation, most Whites would have continued to practice the old morality of preserving, protecting, and promoting their race and would have become racial preservationists. 

Under integration, Negroes have become Black supremacists and practice the old morality. However, under separation, Negroes would have become racial preservationists while practicing the old morality.

Life in America under separation would not be a utopia. However, it would not be the dystopia that it has become under integration. Most likely, Negroes would have advanced further under separation than they have under integration. Under separation, their advancement would not have required bringing down the White race as has happened under integration. Moreover, wokeism would never have been born, and queerdom would have remained in the shadows.

Separation would have led to a society similar to that envisioned by Booker T. Washington. The races would be separated socially; little social interaction would occur between them. However, economically, the races would be interconnected; they would interact with each other economically.

Separation accords with God’s law, while integration rebels against God’s law.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States

Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are some of the founding principles of the United States. They are the relationship of church and state and the destructiveness of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Separation of Church and State

In “Religious Liberty and the Genius of the American Founding,” Imprimis (December 2024 | Volume 53, Number 12), Glenn Ellmers argues that America’s founders solved the problem of establishing the sacredness of the law while avoiding religious conflict and persecution. They combined human reason and divine revelation to establish religious liberty. (First, today, the country lacks reason. Second, whose religion is used to establish the sacredness of the law? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all claim to be descended from Abraham’s religion. Yet, they are incompatible with each other. Further, Hinduism, which is growing rapidly in the United States, is even more incompatible.)

The Founding Fathers recognized that people “are born into both a physical and moral world that” they did not create. American politics was built on this foundation. (Unfortunately, many American political, religious, academic, business, and other leaders have been diligently working to destroy this foundation.)

Next, Ellmers discusses the problems that the Founding Fathers solved. “First, they solved the split between piety and citizenship by supplying a common ground for morality.”  With reasoning, people can understand the difference between virtue and vice. Thus, “the law can enforce moral precepts that are acknowledged by both political and ecclesiastical authorities.” (What about vices that some religious authorities recognize as vice, but political authorities do not? Gambling is an example that some religious authorities condemn, but many political authorities do not. Through State-sponsored lotteries, some States use gambling as a source of revenue. This action prevents them from considering gambling as immoral, although some religious authorities do.)

“Second, this common ground of morality makes it possible to delineate in a clear way the political and religious realms.” Thus, “the separation of church and state becomes possible.” The Declaration of Independence’s “teaching about the laws of nature and nature’s God establishes a kind of political theology, a non-sectarian ground of legitimacy that makes the laws ‘sacred’ without getting the government involved in theological disputes about the Trinity, faith versus works, etc.” 

“Third, the Founders solved the problem of religious persecution. Because the government and the churches can agree on a moral code that is compatible with both reason and revelation, each can operate in its proper realm without intruding on the other.” Consequently, a religious test for office was prohibited. (Although no government today requires a religious test for office, some States in the early years of the United States did.)

(What happens if the law is used to protect immorality instead of prohibiting it? Abortion and sexual immorality, such as homosexual acts and miscegenation, are examples. Abortion and abortionists are protected in many States. Likewise, homosexual marriages and miscegenation are protected in all States. Yet, traditional Christianity condemns them as sins that should be legally prohibited. When the political realm [reason] conflicts with the religious realm [revelation], the political realm prevails, at least in this world, because it wields the rifles.

In spite of the separation of church and state, today, the political realm has chosen the religion of secular humanism as the state religion. When it conflicts with the other religions, the political realm [the government] nearly always sides with secular humanism.)

The Fourteenth Amendment

The  Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional because it is incongruent with fundamental principles of the Constitution that it amended. Not only was it ratified unlawfully and illegally, but it also violates at least three basic principles underlying the Constitution. 

(1) The Fourteenth Amendment usurped the sovereignty of the people of each State and gave it to the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent nations that were members of a federation. The federal government was their agent that attended to foreign affairs and a few domestic issues. It had no sovereignty. Accordingly, the Constitution of 1788 was a contract between independent sovereign republics, which created an agent, the federal government, to carry out specific and limited activities. The Fourteenth Amendment voided that contract and usurped all the sovereignty and powers of the States, the parties to the contract, and placed them in the federal government. Now, the States have only those powers that the federal government condescends to grant them. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment changed the United States from a federation of sovereign republican States to an empire.

(2) It changed the fundamental principle of citizenship. Before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, individuals were considered citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. After the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, individuals became citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States.

(3) (This one will really anger most people, especially conservatives and libertarians.) The Constitution was written by Whites, for Whites, and only for Whites. The Fourteenth Amendment changed the Constitution from being monoracial to being multiracial by making Negroes citizens. Consequently, it changed the United States from a White country for Whites only to a multiracial country (and all today's problems with nonwhite immigration). 

Consequently, because the Fourteenth Amendment is incompatible with the underlying principles of the Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional, courts should ignore it until it is repealed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent sovereign republics. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated empire.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Loofs on the Christology Views of the New Testament

Loofs on the Christology Views 

of the New Testament

Thomas Allen

In What Is the Truth about Jesus Christ? Problems of Christology Discussed in Six Haskell Lectures at Oberlin, Ohio (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), pages 177-184, Friedrich Loofs presents and discusses five points that show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views. Dr. Loofs is a professor of church history at the University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. His discussion of the Christological views of the New Testament follows.

[1] It is a view of vital importance to orthodox Christology that the historical Jesus is the preexistent Son of God. Do we find anything about this in the New Testament? Certainly many New Testament passages assert the pre-existence of Christ; that is, they assert or assume that Jesus did not begin to exist when his earthly life began. “O Father,” Jesus says in the high priestly prayer in the Gospel of John, “glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (John 17:5.) But where in the New Testament is this prehistoric, yea, this antemundane, Christ called the “Son of God”? Where are we told that he is as such begotten of the Father before the world? In the prologue of the Gospel of John, the pre-existent Christ is not called the “Son” but the “word,” and we are told that “this was in the beginning.” (John 1:1, 2.) Only one passage in the Pauline epistles might be suspected of referring to an antemundane birth of Christ. In Colossians 1:18 Paul calls Christ “the first-born of every creature.” But here the Greek equivalent for first-born only means that he was before every creature and above all creatures. Then the only remaining support of the later doctrine is Jesus’ title “Son of God,” which, as we all know, occurs very often in the New Testament. But in the New Testament it is applied to the historical Jesus, either with reference to his birth out of the Spirit of God, (Luke 1:35.) or because the Spirit came down upon Jesus at his baptism, (Mark 4:11.) or without reference to a date of its entrance because the Spirit of God lived in him, (Rom. 1:3.) or because Jesus was the Messiah, (Matt. 16:16.) or because he stood in a unique position of love toward God. (Matt. 11:27.) The term, “the only begotten Son,” too, only signifies what was mentioned last. For the Greek equivalent for “only begotten” does not mean anything else than unique or peerless. And it was not modern exegesis that first interpreted the term “Son of God” thus. In the first half of the fourth century Marcellus of Ancyra emphatically pointed out that in the New Testament Jesus is called the Son of God only after the incarnation, and not in his pre-existence. And the older apostolic fathers, the so-called first epistle of Clement, dating from about 95 A. D., and the Ignatian letters interpret the term “Son of God” in this manner only.

[2] It is easier to show, secondly, that the idea of the triune God, as dogmatized later, is foreign to the New Testament. We surely find the belief in the New Testament that God was in Christ, and that the Holy Spirit that lives in the single Christians and in the whole community is the spirit of God. That God the Father reveals himself also in the Son and in the Spirit, that is a conviction which is in accordance with the New Testament. But there cannot be the least doubt, nor can we alter the fact, that when  the New Testament speaks of “God,” it is thinking only of the one God whom Jesus called his Father and the Father of the faithful, too. This is shown without the shadow of a doubt by the apostolic greeting: “Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:2; II Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1.) And the case is not different throughout the New Testament. In the Gospel of John, in the high-priestly prayer of Jesus, we even read: “This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3.) Also the well-known prayerful wish of the apostle Paul: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all”(II Cor. 13:13.) points in the same direction. For the apostle does not speak here about three persons in the one God, but about the love of the one God, and in addition thereto, or better: in connection with it, of the grace of Jesus Christ and the communion of the Holy Ghost.

[3] It is easier still to show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views in a third respect. According to the  orthodox Christology, the personal subject, the supreme I, of the historical Jesus is the second person of the holy Trinity. Does the fact that Jesus prayed harmonize with this? Does the circumstance that he said to Mary Magdalene: “I ascend unto my Father and your Father and to my God and your God,” (John 20:17.) harmonize with it? We have seen, indeed, that the self-consciousness of Jesus surpassed the measure of a human self-consciousness. But can we deny that in the whole New Testament a human self-consciousness is the frame in which the inner life of Jesus first comes to our notice? His humility, his obedience, his trust in God cannot be interpreted differently. We shall discuss in the last lecture how this view can be reconciled with the fact that the frame of a human self-consciousness proves to be too strait to make the personality of Jesus intelligible. Here it will suffice to have shown that the orthodox Christology which considers a divine person as the personal subject in Christ does not correspond with the New Testament views. 

[4] The fourth point I wish to mention is, that the experiences of Jesus, like his self-consciousness, are at variance with orthodox Christology. Orthodoxy of all ages was worried by the fact that we are told of Jesus, with regard to his youth, that “he increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men.” (Luke 2:52.) Could this be harmonized with the assumption that the real subject of the historical Jesus was the eternal Son of God? Orthodoxy of ancient times considered these two statements as being harmonized by the assertion that the eternal Son of God grew, suffered, and died only according to his human nature. But who will deny that our very self itself is growing during our life? And certainly it sounds very forced to say that the Son of God, who by his own nature could never suffer, suffered nevertheless in his human flesh and in his human soul! Surely such forced constructions are quite foreign to the New Testament.

[5] Fifthly and lastly, I shall have to point out that in the New Testament Jesus, even after his exaltation, appears in such an organic connection with the human race as hardly to agree with orthodox Christology. Especially those very writers of the New Testament who most obviously do not assume that the life of Jesus was a purely human one viz., Paul and John make this very clear. For Paul the risen Lord “is the first-born from the dead,” (Col. 1:18.) “the first-born among many brethren.” (Rom. 8:29.) The faithful, in Paul’s opinion, are predestinated by God “to be conformed to the image of his Son as heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.” (Rom. 8:29 and 8:17.) Very similarly we read in the high-priestly prayer in the Gospel of John: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:16.)  and: “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; (John 17:24.) “that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, . . . that they may be one even as we are one; (John 17:21.) and “Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me.” (John 17:23.) In Revelation we find the same thoughts. Here the exalted Christ says: “He that overcometh I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father in his throne.” (Rev.  3:21) . . .  

These five points show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views. And those who are impartial enough to see this are thereby convinced that the old orthodox Christology cannot give us the correct interpretation of the historical person of Jesus.

More religious articles.

Trump’s Pardons

Trump’s Pardons

Thomas Allen

In a letter to the editor, Mr. S, who suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome, criticized Trump’s pardons. Like him, I find several of Trump’s pardons questionable. For example, Trump pardoned Larry Hoover, who was serving multiple life sentences for his crimes of leading the Chicago-based drug syndicate operating in at least 35 states, selling more than $100 million of drugs each year in Chicago alone. Also, Trump pardoned former Honduran president Juan Orlando, a drug trafficker, who was sentenced to 45 years for moving hundreds of tons of cocaine from his country into the United States. However, I fervently disagree with Mr. S about Trump pardoning the January 6 protestors.

Trump pardoning these drug kingpins shows that he is not warring against Venezuela because of narcotics. It is about oil, regime change, and imposing American hegemony. (As recent events have shown, narcotics were the excuse; confiscating Venezuelan oil, changing the regime, and making Lindsey Graham, who appears to be Trump's primary foreign affairs advisor, happy were the reasons.) Obviously, he is acting like a neoconservative. Many people voted for him because they thought that he opposed the neoconservative foreign policy, but he fooled them. Like most presidents in the last 100 years, Trump is a lying hypocrite. 

Letter

Mr. S and Democrats who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome distort Trump’s pardoning of 1500 political prisoners, the so-called insurrectionists of January 6, 2020.

The so-called insurrection that occurred on January 6 was the strangest in history. The insurrectionists showed up disorganized and without weapons. Moreover, the palace guards opened the doors and let them in. Some of the guards even escorted some of the insurrectionists around the building. If anyone were convicted of a crime, it should have been the guards.

If our Representatives and Senators thought that a disorganized, unarmed mob was trying to overthrow the federal government, why did they flee? Since they heavily outgunned the insurrectionists, why did they not stand and fight to save the government? Were they cowards? Did they believe that the federal government was not worth defending? Or, did they know that this was no instruction and, therefore, lied about it being one? At least one of these three options must be true. If they are cowards, they should not be in Congress. If they believe that the government is not worth defending, they should not be in Congress. If they have lied, they should not be in Congress. Consequently, none of these Representatives or Senators should be in Congress.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Jews’ and Lincoln’s Treatment of Negroes

 Jews’ and Lincoln’s Treatment of Negroes

Thomas Allen

The following are some comments on the Jewish treatment of freed slaves and Lincoln toward Blacks and slaves.

Jewish Treatment of Freed Slaves

In “We Thought They Were White,” Dontell Jackson discusses the prominence of Jews in the slave trade during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. He provides some interesting information about Jewish exploitation of Blacks during Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction:

Writing in the journal of his travels throughout the South in the mid 19th century, author Fredrick Law Olmsted noted: “There is a considerable population of foreign origin, generally of the least valuable class; very dirty German Jews, especially, abound, and their characteristic shops (with their characteristic smells, quite as bad as in Cologne) are thickly set in the narrowest and meanest streets, which seem otherwise to be mainly inhabited by negroes. . . . A swarm of Jews has, within the last ten years, settled in every Southern town, many of them men of no character, opening cheap clothing and trinket shops, ruining or driving out of business many of the old retailers, and engaging in an unlawful trade with the simple Negroes, which is found very profitable.” Similarly, Mark Twain commented: “In the U. S. cotton states, after the war, the Jew came down in force, set up shop on the plantation, supplied all the negroes’ wants on credit, and at the end of the season was the proprietor of the negro’s share of the present crop and part of the next one. Before long the whites detested the Jew.”

Civil War Union William Tecumseh Sherman on arriving in the South was astonished by the number of Jewish carpetbaggers and scalawags that he encountered operating in the Confederate states, saying: “I found so many Jews & speculators here trading in cotton and secessionists had become open in refusing anything but gold that I have found myself bound to stop it.” General Ulysses Grant wrote to the Assistant Adjutant General of the US Army on December 17, 1862, : “I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the specie regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by the Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officer at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department. But they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any woodyard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves, they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at a military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy at an agreed rate, paying gold.”

Lincoln on Blacks and Slaves

Abraham Lincoln is the most idolized President of the United States. Although he never freed any slaves and did not want to live among freed Blacks, he is known as the Great Emancipator and the forefather of racial equality. Furthermore, he is praised for saving the Union, although he destroyed the Union organized under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave the country and converted it into a consolidated empire primarily for the benefit of big business and big finance.

In “The Consolidation of State Power Via Reconstruction, 1865–1890,” Thomas J. DiLorenzo provides some interesting yet little-known information about Abraham Lincoln.

– Lincoln was a White supremacist and believed that the races should be segregated.

– As a supporter of African colonization, he wanted to repatriate freed slaves to Africa or send them to another country; they should not be allowed to remain in the United States as social or political equals of Whites. They certainly should not be allowed to settle in the territories because they were reserved for Whites.

– He married into a slave-owning family, and slave labor from the family’s plantation subsidized him and his wife.

– Lincoln supported the Illinois “Black Codes,” which restricted the trades and occupations of Blacks. (During Reconstruction, the federal government prevented Southern States from adopting such codes.)

– Moreover, he ordered Union officers to return runaway slaves to their owners and required his cabinet to sign a pledge to support the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution.

– When he was in the Illinois Legislature, he supported amending the Illinois Constitution to forbid the immigration of Blacks into the state. Also, when he was in the Illinois Legislature, he voted to deny blacks the privilege to vote. Further, he opposed Negro citizenship and opposed allowing them to serve as jurors or hold public office. Moreover, he favored taxing Blacks to help pay for schools for White children.

– As an Illinois lawyer, Lincoln defended slave owners, but he never defended a fugitive slave.

To DiLorenzo’s list, Clyde Wilson, in “Getting Right With Abe,” adds that instead of emancipating the slaves that his wife inherited, he sold them. Additionally, in “Erasing Black Confederates,” Wanjiru Njoya notes that Lincoln personally supported an irrevocable constitutional amendment, commonly called the Corwin Amendment, that protected slavery forever.

(For more on Lincoln’s attitude toward Blacks, see “Lincoln on the Negro Race” and “Some Nineteenth Century Thought on the Negro” by Thomas Allen.)

With their rapine, Jews, Yankees, and Republicans impoverished the South so severely that more than a century elapsed before Southerners and Southern Blacks recovered from the poverty caused by Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction. 

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Trump and Evangelicals

Trump and Evangelicals

Thomas Allen

Below is a letter to the editor that I wrote in response to another published letter on Trump and evangelicals. This person, whom I refer to as Mr. S, has written several letters criticizing Trump and evangelicals. Mr. S suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Also, he loathes evangelicals as much as he loathes Trump — perhaps, even more.  Some of my comments in brackets provide additional context for my response.

The Letter

Mr. S’s letter displays more prejudice toward evangelicals than evangelicals show toward brown people. Moreover, his letter speaks of love, yet it shows more hatred toward evangelicals and Trump than either shows toward brown people and foreigners.

If Trump ceases being a Zionist, he will lose the support of most evangelicals. Supporting Israel and Zionism is of the utmost importance to them. [Mr. S is convinced that both Trump and evangelicals hate brown people, and the primary reason that evangelicals support Trump is because he hates brown people. Much of his lengthy letter is filled with derogatory remarks about evangelicals.]

Unlike the justice that Biden appointed to the Supreme Court, who does not know the difference between a man and a woman, at least Trump’s appointments do. [Mr. S faults Trump’s Supreme Court appointments.]

Moreover, Obama and Biden were much more fascistic than Trump has been. [Like all good Democrats and left-wingers, Mr. S declares Trump to be a fascist. I would be surprised if he really knew what a fascist is.]

If Trump is trying to eliminate political opposition, he is just following Biden and other Democratic leaders. They came close to succeeding. By calling for the arrest of Democrats, Trump is just following Biden and the Democrats. They arrested and tried Trump and imprisoned many of his supporters. Moreover, Biden and the Democrats crushed the freedom of speech of their opposition.

All these Democrats yapping about Trump deporting illegals never remonstrated when Clinton and Obama were deporting illegals. Apparently, they do not object to deporting illegals; they only object to who is doing it.

When it comes to following the Constitution, Trump is in good company. No president since Coolidge has even attempted to follow the Constitution. Based on their actions, most have less understanding of the Constitution than the typical kindergartner. [Mr. S criticizes Trump for failing to follow the Constitution; however, I have never seen him criticize a Democrat for failing to follow it.]

All the Constitutional safeguards that Mr. S refers to ceased to exist with the Lincoln administration. As for the rule of law, it means no resistance to the Democratic Party's agenda under Obama, Biden, and whoever is the next Democratic president. The rule of law is whatever their arbitrary whim dictates. [Mr. S accuses Trump of abandoning the rule of law.]

In short, almost everything that Trump has done since he has been in office, Democrats have done before.

Nearly all of the founding fathers despised democracy and believed that it was one of the worst forms of government. H.L. Mencken wrote, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Allan Pinkerton

Allan Pinkerton

Thoms Allen 

In To the Victor Go the Myths & Monuments: The History of the First 100 Years of the War Against God and the Constitution, 1776 - 1876, and Its Modern Impact (Appleton, Wisconsin: American Opinion Foundation Publishing, 2016), Arthur R. Thompson provides some interesting information about Allan Pinkerton of the Pinkerton detective fame.

In Scotland, Allan Pinkerton (1819–1884) became a leader of the Chartists and formed the Glasgow Democratic Club. (Chartists were communistic revolutionists.) As a young man in Scotland, he was involved in radical activity and frequently disobeyed the law. Because of his involvement in the communist Chartist movement, he fled to the United States to avoid arrest.

In 1843, Pinkerton left Scotland and settled in Chicago, where he became the first police detective in Chicago. In 1850, in response to problems that various railroad companies were having that required a security system, Pinkerton partnered with E.G. Rucker to form Chicago’s first detective agency. A year later, the partnership dissolved, and Pinkerton provided the security for the railroads with his own agency, which became known as the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. Lincoln, who was an attorney for the Illinois Central Railroad, became a friend and patron of Pinkerton while he was providing security.

Since Pinkerton was a contact for John Brown, Brown was often a guest at Pinkerton’s house. Frequently, he disobeyed the law and aided and abetted the terrorist Brown. He aided Brown in his move to Kansas. After Brown’s arrest, Pinkerton developed a plan to free him. Disguised as a Southern planter, he learned the layout of the prison and concluded that he could not free Brown. Consequently, the plan never came to fruition. 

As a participant in the Underground Railroad, Pinkerton aided in moving escaped slaves to Canada. Furthermore, he was instrumental in creating the psychological basis for the events that brought Lincoln’s War into being. 

At the beginning of the war, Pinkerton became the Union’s main intelligence officer and helped form the US Secret Service. “As one wag of the day quipped, ‘While Pinkerton's right hand caught lawbreakers, his left hand broke the law.’” (P. 352.)

Pinkerton warned Lincoln that an assassination attempt would be made on him as he journeyed to Washington for his inauguration. As a result, Lincoln disguised himself and switched trains. However, no evidence existed that such an assignation attempt was planned — except in Pinkerton’s mind.

If he were alive today, Pinkerton would be a leading supporter and spokesman for the Democratic Party. His radicalism would have melded effortlessly with that of today’s Democrats.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

Blue Cities’ Response to Deporting Illegal Immigrants

Blue Cities’ Response to Deporting Illegal Immigrants

Thomas Allen

Several blue cities, cities controlled by Democrats, have become notorious for trying to prevent the apprehension and deportation of illegal immigrants. Instead of using the constitutional method to stop the enforcement of immigration laws, they prefer an unconstitutional approach. The political leaders of these cities support violent protests against federal agents attempting to apprehend illegal immigrants.

The constitutional approach is to have the State, i.e., the people of that State, through their legislature or special convention, find the federal immigration law unconstitutional and nullify or veto it in that State. Thus, the immigration law would no longer be valid in that State because it would not exist in that State. Any federal agent who tried to enforce the federal immigration law would violate the Constitution and could be subject to penalties. (See “Nullification and Interposition” by Thomas Allen.)

At least that is the way it would work under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave us. Under that Constitution, the people of each State were sovereign. As sovereigns, they decided whether the acts of their agent, the federal government, were contrary to the agreement (the Constitution) that they had entered into with the other sovereigns, i.e., the people of the other States.

However, Lincoln and the Republicans usurped the sovereignty of the people of the States and gave it to the oligarchs who control the federal government.

Unfortunately, today, the country operates under the constitution that Lincoln as furthered developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court gave it. Under the Lincoln constitution, States have only those rights that the federal government grants them. (For the difference between the Constitution of the Founding Fathers and Lincoln’s constitution, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

President Trump, most Republicans, many conservatives, and all Democrats, when they control the federal government, have little use for the Constitution of the Founding Fathers. They prefer the Lincoln constitution because it gives them more power and will ignore any nullification. Consequently, since the peaceful method of nullification is not available, blue cities are reduced to violence to try to stop the enforcement of what they perceive as unconstitutional laws. 

Nevertheless, the US Supreme Court allows city, county, and State officials to refuse to aid the federal government in the enforcement of federal laws. (A State may require local officials to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing federal laws.) However, they cannot actively interfere with the federal government enforcing federal laws.

(Personally, I believe that the federal government has the constitutional authority to apprehend and deport people who have entered the country illegally. However, that is a decision that the people of each State have the right to make for themselves.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The Wise and the Foolish

The Wise and the Foolish

Thomas Allen

In Matthew 25:1-13, Jesus gives a parable of ten virgins. Five virgins were wise, and five were foolish. (See the appendix for the text of this parable.)

The five wise virgins were prudent and future-oriented. If the bridegroom tarried, they had hoarded a reserve of oil to keep their lamps burning. As the story goes, they had to use their saved oil because the bridegroom arrived late.

The five foolish virgins were imprudent and present-oriented. Consequently, they had failed to save any oil for their lamps and, therefore, could not keep their lamps lit. As a result, they missed the bridegroom. (If a compassionate government following liberation theology existed then, it would have forced the wise virgins to give part, if not all, their oil to the foolish virgins.)

Clergymen understand this parable spiritually. Jesus is the bridegroom, whose arrival is unknown. The “oil” represents spiritual readiness and faithfulness. Like the wise virgins, Christians should always be prepared for the coming of Christ, whenever that is. Thus, they should be diligent in their faith, continuously seek to grow closer to God, and strive to live according to His will.

Nevertheless, this parable also has a practical, earthly explanation. Once, farmers would hoard part of their harvest to feed themselves until the next harvest. Foolish farmers failed to hoard enough and went hungry; thus, they depended on the charity of their neighbors to feed them. (According to an old saying, Southern farmers sold what they could not eat, and Northern farmers ate what they could not sell.) Likewise, wise people stockpile food and other supplies to carry themselves through natural and manmade disasters and lean times. Foolish people do not; they rush to stores just before the disaster strikes, only to find empty shelves. Sometimes, they have no warning and have to do without.

In the twenty-first century, this parable has been turned on its head. Now, the prudent are the foolish, and the imprudent are the wise. When a natural or manmade disaster strikes, the imprudent will steal the savings (food, water, money, or whatever) from the prudent, either directly or, more likely, through the government.

For example, according to a highly reliable source, following Hurricane Helene, the government stole food in the disaster area that the prudent had saved and gave it to the imprudent. (Some prudent people had their supplies washed away, but many who received the stolen goods were imprudent people. In any event, the government did not steal from the imprudent because they had nothing to steal.)

Thus, the prudent were foolish to sacrifice some of their resources to establish supplies of food and other necessities. Instead of using their resources to establish emergency supplies, the imprudent used them for present merriment, knowing that if disaster struck, the government would take care of them. Consequently, the imprudent acted wisely, albeit dishonestly.

When the prudent are penalized for saving, and the imprudent are rewarded for not saving, people eventually stop hoarding for future emergencies and disasters. When most people become present-oriented and do not hoard, their lack of savings causes enormous stress on charities, which, because of imprudence, receive significantly less support, and on governments.

(This reminds me of the story of the little red hen. Wanting to bake a cake, the hen asked the other farm animals to assist her. All refused. However, after she had baked the cake, all came to her and demanded their share. Never again did the hen bake a cake, and the other animals wondered why.)

Appendix

The following is Matthew 25: 1–13 from the World English Bible.

25 “Then the Kingdom of Heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3 Those who were foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil with them, 4 but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5 Now while the bridegroom delayed, they all slumbered and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a cry, ‘Behold! The bridegroom is coming! Come out to meet him!’ 7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 But the wise answered, saying, ‘What if there isn’t enough for us and you? You go rather to those who sell, and buy for yourselves.’ 10 While they went away to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast, and the door was shut. 11 Afterward the other virgins also came, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us.’ 12 But he answered, ‘Most certainly I tell you, I don’t know you.’ 13 Watch therefore, for you don’t know the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.