The Trinitarian and Unitarian View of Jesus

The Trinitarian and Unitarian View of Jesus

Thomas Allen

Omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence are attributes of God. Did Jesus possess these attributes? While Trinitarians answer “yes,” Unitarians answer “no.”

According to Trinitarians, Jesus was God, but to Unitarians, God was in Jesus. While Trinitarians maintain that Jesus was divine, infinite, and absolute, Unitarians maintain that he was human, finite, and dependent.

Although both believe that Jesus had two natures, human and divine, they perceive the union of the two natures differently. However, both hold that Jesus was one person.

Since the consciousness of one person is a single consciousness, Jesus could not simultaneously be all-knowing and not all-knowing, all-powerful and not all-powerful, and everywhere and not everywhere. Moreover, he could not be dependent on God for all things and not dependent on Him for anything. Consequently, either Jesus was God united to a human soul as Trinitarians claim, or he was a human soul united with God as Unitarians claim.

If Jesus were God, when he spoke, he spoke as God. Thus, when he used the personal pronoun “I,” he spoke as God. The Council of Chalcedon, which proclaimed that Jesus had two independent natures and wills, declared that whenever Jesus spoke, he always spoke as God the Son and never as a mere human.

However, Unitarians claim that when Jesus spoke, he spoke as a finite man. Therefore, when he used the personal pronoun “I,” he spoke as a finite being and not as the infinite Being.

Unitarians view Jesus as a human who was intimately united with God and was in perfect union with the indwelling God. Jesus was a man like all other humans, yet he was at one with God and was filled with God. He was the image of the invisible God and the firstborn from the dead and, thus, the firstborn of the new creation.

To support their claim that Jesus is omnipresent, Trinitarians cite Matthew 18:20 (“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”) and Matthew 28:20 (“teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”). An omnipresent being is everywhere simultaneously and eternally. He fills every atom, particle, void, wave, graviton, photon, etc. — even in hell. No place, thing, entity, etc. exists where he is not. Thus, being everywhere and in everything all the time, an omnipresent being cannot move. To where can he move? He is already there. Moreover, if he moves, a place or whatever exists without his presence, and he ceases to be omnipresent. Jesus moved; therefore, he was not omnipresent. (According to Revaluation, even Jesus’s spiritual body moved.) If he were omnipresent, he would be with one who has gathered in his name and where no one gathered in his name. Just as a radio wave can be in many places simultaneously, so may Jesus be in many places at the same time, but such presence is not omnipresent. What Matthew 28:20 shows is that God gave Jesus the ability and power to be with his followers, his church. To be with them does not require him to be omnipresent.

To support their claim that Jesus is omniscient, Trinitarians cite Matthew 16:21 (“From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.”) Knowing his destiny and purpose does not make Jesus omniscient. Jesus acknowledged that he was not omniscient when he said, “But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.” (Matthew 24:36) According to Revelation, Jesus in his heavenly body did not know the timing of the events of the end time; God gave it to him (Rev. 1:1: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;”). Thus, Jesus was not “God in the flesh” as the Trinitarians assert, but he was a man approved of God or pointed out to us as Peter so stated in Acts 2:22 (“Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know;”).

(The Biblical quotations are from the American Standard Bible. The King James Version and some other translations omit the phrase “neither the Son” in Matthew 24:36. However, this phrase appears in the best manuscripts. Anyway, the parallel verse, Mark 13:32 [“But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”] contains this phrase. Moreover, all the translations listed at Bible Gateway, including the King James Version, contain this phrase. For some reason, Trinitarians do not cite Mark 13:32 as proof of Jesus’ omniscience.)

To support their claim that Jesus is omnipotent, Trinitarians cite John 11:38-44, which describes Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. If raising a person from the dead is proof of omnipotence, then Peter and Paul are omnipotent. Peter raised Tabitha from the dead (Acts 9:36-42), and Paul raised Eutychus from the dead (Acts 20:7–12). 

As shown above, Trinitarians and Unitarians have significantly different views of Jesus. While Trinitarians see him as omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God, Unitarians see him as the perfect, sinless man fully approved by God, his Father. 

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More religious articles.

Wilson on the Yankee

Wilson on the Yankee

Thomas Allen

In The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma (Columbia: Stonewell Publishing, 2016), Clyde N. Wilson describes the Yankee and explains how and why Yankees are the cause of nearly all of America’s problems. What follows is a synopsis of his book.

Before 1850–1860, Southerners were considered the norm in America, and Yankees were considered abnormal and a peculiar people. Following Lincoln’s War, Yankees became the norm, and Southerners became abnormal and a peculiar people. Moreover, Yankee propaganda has been so effective that most Americans now believe that the Yankees are the real founders of America and its institutions.

Philosophically, Southerners followed, and many continue to follow, the Jeffersonian branch of the Founding Fathers, which was the majority, while Yankees followed, and continue to follow, the Hamiltonian branch, which was the minority. Jefferson and his followers advocated the dispersal and decentralization of political and economic power. Consequently, they promoted a small, limited government, free markets, and free trade. Thus, the Jeffersonians believed “that the federal government was one of specific and limited authority explicit in the Constitution.” (p. 78) On the other hand, Hamilton and his followers advocated the concentration and centralization of political and economic power. Consequently, they promoted a powerful central government and a mercantile economy with government-business partnerships. Accordingly, the Hamiltonians considered “the federal government as a tool, the powers and activities of which were to be stretched and expanded at every opportunity, and the Constitution as a spring-board of power that was to be reinterpreted at will.” (p. 79) (For more on the differences between Jefferson and Hamilton, see “Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen.)

Yankees, who seek power and plunder, dominate the Northeast (New England, New York, and New Jersey), the Upper Midwest (Wisconsin, Michigan, northern Illinois, northern Indiana, and northern Ohio), Minnesota, and the Pacific Coast (California, Oregon, and Washington). However, many people in the North are not true Yankees, although many have been Yankeefied. (Unfortunately, many Southerners have also been Yankeefied.) True Yankees are descendants of the Puritan New Englanders (and the fugitives of the failed Revolution of 1848, who were easily grafted into Yankeedom).

(Fugitive socialists, communists, anarchists, and other radicals who fled Europe following the failed Revolution of 1848 reinforced the Yankees. Mostly, they settled in the Upper Midwest, where Yankees dominated. These fugitives wanted revolution and national unification — Yankee goals. Their ideology melded well with the Yankee ideology.

Likewise, most of the nineteenth-century immigrants settled in the North. As they knew nothing about American history, the political system, and the founding, they were easy victims of Yankee propaganda that persuaded them to support the Yankee agenda.)

According to Wilson, Yankees can be recognized by “their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around.” (p. 1) Additionally, Yankees are noted for their “fanaticism, and desire to lord it over the rest of us Americans — politically, economically, and culturally.” (p. 13) They are also known for their “pushiness, religious hypocrisy, and sharp trading.” (p. 19) “The Yankees are contemptuous of good manners, boastful, ever ready to cast away traditions for the newest idea, and see making money as the chief object of life. Equality and majority rule for them should determine everything — in society and culture as well as before the law.” (p. 20) If they can make money oppressing poorer citizens, they will oppress the poor. Making money is of utmost importance to Yankees. (One may notice the similarities between Yankees and stereotypical Jews.)

Yankees believe that their manners and customs are more enlightened and their intelligence and culture are superior. While extolling charity, they are parsimonious. Although they are (or were) religious fanatics, they are blackest-hearted hypocrites. “They are agitators and schemers, braggarts and deceivers, swindlers and extortions, and yet pretend to Godliness, truth, purity and humanity.” (p. 74) Before Anglo-Saxons became persona non grata, Yankees saw themselves as Anglo-Saxons, with all their virtues, and as superior to everyone else. All other Americans were lesser people. Southerners were the most depraved and had been corrupted and enervated by slavery — and even today, most still have this view of Southerners. Yankees consider themselves to be the only Americans who matter. Furthermore, they believe that they are the only real Americans.

Although Yankees have abandoned everything good in their religion, they are still convinced that “they are the chosen saints whose mission is to make America, and the world, into the perfection of their own image.” (pp. 1-2)

When the United States were formed under the Constitution of 1788, Yankees “regarded the new federal government: as an instrument to be used for their own purposes. “ (p. 5) However, Southerners saw the United States as a union of mutual cooperation.

Moreover, Yankees gave America the concept or doctrine of “the shining City upon the hill.” From a Christian perspective, this doctrine is heresy. Yet it has been the guiding force behind the bipartisan foreign policy of the United States. As a result, the United States seek to remake the world into the image of Yankeedom and to turn every human into a Yankee.

Throughout the decades, Yankees have sought to eradicate various evils from the United States. These evils include “liquor, tobacco, the Catholic Church, the Masonic order, meat-eating, [and] marriage.” (p. 10) Today, except for prohibition and possibly Masonry, they still want to rid America of these evils. Out of Yankeedom have come Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, John Humphrey Noyes free-love colony, the first feminist convention, prohibition, socialist experiments, abolitionism, and John Brown and his terrorism.

Yankees turned education “from creating good men and women to creating obedient tools.” (p. 26) Using the Republican Party, Yankees sought to create an educational “system on the statist, militarized models of Europe.” (p. 28) A “federally-controlled, universal, compulsory public schools were needed” (p. 39) to keep Blacks where they belonged — in the South.

Also, the United States have had two modes of warfare: the Southern mode of Washington and Lee and the Yankee mode of Grant and Sherman. The Southern mode “emphasizes skill, enterprise, and courage in achieving objectives with an economy of force and strives to keep warfare as honourable [sic] as possible.” (p. 27) In contrast, the Yankee mode “relies on marshalling [sic] overwhelming materiel to crush a weak opponent, heedless of the cost in life and taxes, and rewards its commanders appropriately.” The Yankee mode is “self-righteous and recognizes no ends except boastful triumph.” (p. 27)

Yankees are notorious for spewing slander and hatred toward Southerners because Southerners are the greatest obstacle to Yankee domination. They hate Southerners because Southerners oppose the pride and profits of the Yankees. Southerners, led by Jeffersonian and Jacksonian republicans, defeated the New England leadership and mostly thwarted the advancement of the Yankee agenda of controlling the United States until 1860, after which they gained control of the country and still control it.

Moreover, the South stood in the way of the Yankee vision of the American Union, i.e., “powerful unified ‘nation’ with a unique holy mission.” (p. 86) Therefore, the South had to be conquered and turned into subservient provinces, preferably without Southerners.

Furthermore, Yankees cannot tolerate contented people. That is another reason that Yankees hate Southerners, who are generally contented. This has been a primary reason that Yankees tried to genocide Southerners with Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction (both the First Reconstruction and the Second Reconstruction).

Another reason that they hate the South is that “Yankees have no civilization — only money and ideology.” (p. 15) However, the South has a real culture about which books, poems, and songs are written. Yankeedom does not.

Nevertheless, Yankees need the South and Southerners. Without them, Yankees would wither away for the want of someone to abuse and to feel superior to (see “Yankees Need the South” by Thomas Allen).

Since the ratification of the Constitution, and even before, Yankees have caused most of America’s problems. They are descendants of New England Puritans. Puritans settled in New England and began erecting “a shining City upon the hill.” This City would be an example for all mankind of a superior society. After they abandoned Christianity, the Puritan Yankees not only kept their overdeveloped righteousness, but they also exaggerated it.

With Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction, “[t]he North sought to convert a Union made for brotherhood and mutual benefit into a ‘nation’ which they would dominate in their own interest.” (p. 59) This goal they accomplished. From the beginning of the union formed by the Constitution of 1788, Yankees have been working to achieve this goal. From the beginning, Yankees “opposed every good measure under the U.S. government and clamoured [sic] for special privileges for themselves.” (p. 59). Until recent decades, Yankees have been proponents of high tariffs on imports to force Americans to buy Yankee-manufactured products. Thus, they increased their wealth by reducing everyone else’s standard of living.

The South was preventing Yankees from perfecting the American people, i.e., forming them into the image of a Yankee. Therefore, the South had to be conquered and Southerners genocided.  By the 1830s, “many Yankees were discontented people looking for something or someone to blame for the uneasiness they felt as their society suffered through religious breakdown, industrialisation [sic] with its accompanying dislocation and periodic unemployment, and a flood of non-Anglo-Saxon, non-Protestant immigrants.” (p. 70) Consequently, they blamed the South and slavery for their problems. After all, Yankees knew that “Southerners were an alien, lazy, violent people, lacking the sober virtues of Northerners.” (p. 70)

(For more on Yankees, see “The Yankee,” “The Puritan Yankee,” and “Cusson’s Description of the Yankee” by Thomas Allen.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social articles.

A Comparison of Two Factions

A Comparison of Two Factions

Thomas Allen

Below, two major factions in America are compared. Do you relate more to Faction X or Faction Y? To find out, take the following test.

1 X: Adheres to the idea that the Constitution is an agreement among the people of the several States that means what it says (strict constructionism).

Y: Believes that the Constitution is an instrument that the people who control the federal government use and manipulate to achieve their goals; a living Constitution.

2 X: Adheres to federalism and constitutionalism — States’ rights and the constitutional separation of powers.

Y: Adheres to consolidation and centralization — consolidating all power in the federal government.

3 X: Maintains that “we the people” of each State, acting independently, are the final judges of the limits of the federal government.

Y: Maintains that the federal government, via the Supreme Court, is the final judge of the limits of the federal government.

4 X: Believes that the country should be a federation of independent republics.

 Y: Believes that the country should be a consolidated national empire.

5 X: Considers the United States as a means for mutual cooperation.

Y: Considers the United States as a means for their own prosperity.

6 X: Supports a small, weak central government.

Y: Supports a large, strong central government.

7 X: Adheres to the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave the country.

Y: Adheres to the Constitution that Lincoln gave the country. (For the difference, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

8 X: Places individual liberty above the government.

Y: Places the government above individual liberty.

9 X: Values liberty more than equality.

Y: Values equality more than liberty.

10 X: Opposes federal intervention in local affairs.

Y: Supports federal intervention in local affairs.

11 X: Supports freedom of speech and favors open discussion even for people with whom he disagrees.

Y: Opposes freedom of speech and open discussion for people with whom he disagrees.

12 X: Adheres to the United States being a genetic country (a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country).

Y: Adheres to the United States being an exceptional, propositional, creedal country (unlike many countries today and historical countries that believed that they are or were exceptional, i.e., God’s gift to humanity, the United States really is God’s gift to humanity)

13 X: Sees the history of the United States as much more than the history of New England.

Y: Sees the history of New England as the history of the United States.

14 X: Promotes ruralism (rural areas and small towns are superior to cities and can exist and prosper independently of cities).

Y: Promotes urbanism (cities are superior to rural areas and small towns, which exist to provide resources to cities).

15 X: Adheres to localism and States’ rights.

Y: Adheres to nationalism.

16 X: Is skeptical of progress in the urbanized Puritan form.

Y: Admires and promotes progress in its urbanized Puritan form.

17 X: Holds to agrarianism and commercial capitalism.

Y: Holds to financial and industrial capitalism.

18 X: Maintains that social interactions are more important than economics.

Y: Maintains that economics (acquiring as much wealth as possible by any legal means, even if they are unethical) is more important than social interactions.

19 X: Prefers paternalism with leaders who devote themselves to selflessly promoting the welfare of the people: noblesse oblige.

Y: Prefers modern capitalism derived from Puritanism, i.e., rationalism, equality, and material productivity.

20 X: Supports aristocracy in the original sense of the word: “rule of the best,” i.e., a government led by the most virtuous or capable citizens.

Y: Supports democracy with its concomitant mediocre and demagogic leaders.

21 X: Supports free trade.

Y: Supports protective tariffs (a form of corporate welfare).

22 X: Advocates free markets and opposes corporate welfare.

Y: Advocates subsidization of business, agriculture, etc., and other forms of corporate welfare.

23 X: Favors decentralized banking.

Y: Favors centralized banking and currency manipulation.

24 X: Supports low taxes and little or no debt.

Y: Supports high taxes and high debt.

25 X: Favors little or no standing army.

Y: Favors a large standing army.

26 X: Personalizes war: People cause death and destruction; therefore, justifying war as a self-respecting response to a threat.

Y: Abstracts war: War, not people, causes death and destruction; therefore, rationalizes war as a noble crusade and vilifies the enemy. 

27 X: Finds the killing of women and children abhorrent and reprehensible.

Y: Accepts the killing of women and children if it is done in the name of human rights, democracy, equality, American righteousness, or something else that he considers noble.

28 X: Promotes a foreign policy of neutrality and nonintervention.

Y: Promotes a foreign policy of empire-building and meddling in the affairs of other countries.

29 X: Practices true diversity by leaving countries alone to develop themselves.

Y: Wants to make the world in the image of the Puritan Yankee.

30 X: Adheres to traditionalism.

Y: Adheres to progressivism.

31 X: Promotes a monoracial society.

Y: Promotes a multiracial society.

32 X: Favors morality, ethics, honor, and the idea of the gentleman.

Y: Favors abstract moralism and Puritanism.

33 X: Sees himself as guided by self-interest, vanity, lust for power and wealth, fear, and fickleness.

Y: Sees himself as governed by the highest motivations rather than the flaws of lesser humans.

34 X: Views and accepts society as it really is.

Y: Views society as it should be and proceeds to try to change it to meet the ideal (his opinion of what the ideal society ought to be).

35 X: Wants to be himself.

Y: Needs to feel superior to others.

36 X: Lets people live the life that they want to live if they do not trespass against others or common decency; wants to be left alone; believes in live and let live.

Y: Has a compulsion to force people to live the way that he (Y) wants them to live, which is usually in the image of Y, i.e., to manage other people’s lives — for their own good, of course.

37 X: Prefers honor to utility.

Y: Prefers utility to honor.

38 X: Values patriotism (love of one’s land and people) and places it above nationalism.

Y: Values nationalism (love of power and the desire for empire) and places it above patriotism.

39 X: Believes in deontology (actions based on duty, obligation, and universal moral rules; individual-centered [focusing on individual rights and duties]).

Y: Believes in utilitarianism (actions based on their consequences [the greatest good for the greatest number]; society-centered [focus on resource allocation and outcomes]).

40 X: Sees Yankees as the country’s, even the world’s, biggest problem.

Y: Sees Southerners as the country’s, even the world’s, biggest problem.

If you agree with “Faction X” 32 or more, then you relate to traditional, unreconstructed Southerners, the Jefferson-Calhoun philosophy, and the typical Democrat before the populists captured the Democratic Party in the 1890s. If you agree with “Faction Y” 32 or more, then you relate to the typical Northerner, especially the Yankee, the Hamilton-Lincoln philosophy, and the typical Republican ever since 1854, and the typical Democrat since the end of Cleveland’s presidency. However, if you agree with “Faction X” less than 32 times and with “Faction Y” less than 32 times, you may suffer from dissociative disorder — at the very least, you are inconsistent.

This test is probably best applied to others than oneself. Although they may act or think like Y, many will select X for themselves because they like to see themselves as possessing the more noble characteristics of X.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Francis’s Solution to the Race Problem

Francis’s Solution to the Race Problem

Thomas Allen

In “Prospects for Racial and Cultural Survival,” American Renaissance, March 1995, Samuel Francis presents his proposal for the survival of the White race in the United States. He rejects the “restoration of white supremacy in the political and legal sense that obtained under slavery or segregation.” Nonwhites residing in the United States should have equality of legal rights. However, Whites should be supreme in a cultural sense.

Francis identifies three things that Whites must do to regain their country and culture. First, “Whites must formulate a white racial consciousness that identifies racial and biological endowments as important and relevant to social behavior, and their own racial endowments as essential to the continuing existence of Euro-American civilization.” This formulation does not exclude other ethnic, religious, regional, or other identities, or require individuals to “yield to the collective category of race.” It means recognizing racial realities and racial-biological endowments necessary for certain kinds of human behaviors. That is, Whites possess innate political and civil characteristics necessary to make Europe and America economically and socially successful, and connate intellectual characteristics necessary for science and scholarship. Other races lack these characteristics.

Francis writes, “Racial consciousness means that we add recognition of biological and racial factors to our traditional concepts of human nature and modify both our biological and non-biological conceptions of what man is, as evidence and reason dictate. . . . But the formation of white racial consciousness does mean that whites would recognize themselves as a race and their racially based behavior as legitimate, and hence it would mean the end of tolerance for nonwhite assaults on white people and the norms of white civilization.” Thus, the norms of American society before the Civil Rights Era would be the legitimate and dominant norms. Racial guilt would end.

Second, “whites must counter the demographic threat they face from immigration and nonwhite fertility and whites’ own infertility.” Consequently, nonwhite legal immigration must be halted, and all illegal immigrants must be deported. Also, many recent legal immigrants should be repatriated. Moreover, subsidizing the birth of nonwhites through welfare programs needs to stop. Furthermore, Whites should be encouraged to bear more children.

Third, “Whites must correct the political and legal order to end the political power of nonwhite minorities and their white anti-white allies.” Therefore, all affirmative action and civil rights legislation need to be abolished. Moreover, “the federal governmental superstructure that entrenches minority power” needs to be dismantled. Furthermore, States and local governments should be allowed to govern without interference from the federal government. Additionally, private institutions should be allowed to function independently of the government.

Francis concludes:

Whites and nonwhites would enjoy equality of legal rights in the sense of those fundamental rights listed in the very first Civil Rights Act of 1866: “the inhabitants of every race . . . shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property, and shall be subject to like punishment . . . and no others.” . . . [E]quality of legal rights, equality before the law, does not mean political equality, the right to vote, or the right to hold political office, let alone social and economic equality, nor the “right” to attend the same schools, to serve on juries, to marry across racial lines, to serve in the armed forces, to eat at lunch counters, to ride on buses, to buy a house or rent a room or hold a job, to receive welfare, to be admitted to colleges and universities, to take academic degrees or to be promoted.

Individually, States could decide which of these rights to grant nonwhites, but the federal government would not. “[T]he only legal rights that either the U.S. or state governments would be required to recognize and enforce equally would be those Blackstonean rights of personal security, personal liberty, and property mentioned above.” 

Then Francis gives a brief discussion of what is needed to achieve these goals.

If the United States fail to implement Francis’s recommendations or something similar to them, they will go the way of South Africa, where Whites are open game for nonwhites because Whites are no longer humans.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues.

Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas

Thomas Allen

Mark Paoletta writes an excellent article about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: “What Makes Clarence Thomas Great,”  Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture,  June 2026, pages 12–15 (https://chroniclesmagazine.org/view/what-makes-clarence-thomas-great/#comment-63457). He presents Thomas as a strict constructionist, i.e., he interprets the Constitution literally and narrowly, limits the federal government’s powers to those explicitly and clearly granted in the text, and declares that all powers not expressly enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people unless the Constitution expressly denies such powers.

According to the article, Thomas claims that the Constitution is color-blind. He errs; it is not. White men wrote it for Whites and only for Whites. The Preamble tells us so.  (“We the People of the United States . . . to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Who are “ourselves” and “our posterity”? They are the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and their descendants, all of whom are Whites.) Also, the author, Charles Pinckney, of Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the US Constitution (“the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States”),  said, “At the time I drew that Constitution, I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could ever have existed. . . .” (For proof that the Constitution was written for Whites, see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?,” “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’,” and “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen.)

If the Constitution were color blind, the Fourteenth Amendment, which was illegally and unlawfully ratified, would not be needed except to disenfranchise Southerners. Moreover, the Congress that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment also adopted a segregated school system for the District of Columbia. Obviously, this amendment was not intended to require school integration. That is why the Supreme Court based its school desegregation decision more on sociology and foreign policy than on the Constitution. (For more on the Fourteenth Amendment, see “Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States,” “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’,” and “Before and After” by Thomas Allen.)  The constitutional rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) and Brown v. Board of Education (school desegregation) should have held that education is a State matter; the Constitution grants the federal government no authority over public education, except in the District of Columbia and the territories.

Moreover, if Thomas were a strict constructionist, he would not apply the first nine amendments, the Bill of Rights, of the Constitution to the States. Through the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court applies most of the Bill of Rights to the States via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the incorporation doctrine was not discovered until about a generation and a half after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, obviously, the drafters and ratifiers of this amendment did not intend for it to be used to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. (The constitutions of each State have their own bill of rights.) Since Thomas applies the incorporation doctrine, he is an inconsistent strict constructionist. 

In District of Columbia v. Heller (the Second Amendment confers an individual right),  Thomas, who supported the ruling, acted as a strict constructionist because the ruling applied to an agency of Congress but not to the States. However, in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, Thomas, who supported the ruling, applied the Second Amendment to the States, which was contrary to strict construction. These rulings illustrate Thomas’ inconsistency as a strict constructionist.

Furthermore, when he rules against federal laws that discriminate against Whites, he is a strict constructionist. When he rules against State laws on segregation, integration, or discrimination, he is not a strict constructionist. Such issues are reserved for the States or the people thereof under the Tenth Amendment. For the most part, Thomas, unlike most other Supreme Court Justices, is a strict constructionist.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More political articles.

Four Members of Lincoln’s Cabinet

Four Members of Lincoln’s Cabinet

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 four members of Lincoln’s cabinet: William Seward, Montgomery Blair, Salmon Chase, and Edwin Stanton.

William Seward

William Seward (1801–1872) was Lincoln’s Secretary of State from 1861 to 1865. He remained President Andrew Johnson’s Secretary of State until 1869.

As part of the anti-Masonic movement, Seward helped form the Anti-Masonic Party in 1828. Later, he became a Whig, and as a Whig Senator, he wanted the United States to annex Canada.

Although he knew about John Brown’s raid on Harper's Ferry beforehand, he lied and claimed he did not learn about it until after it happened.

Though the first choice of the abolitionists for the president of the Radical Republicans at the 1860 Republican Convention was Salmon Chase, they also supported Seward, who was the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president.

Further, he opposed the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson.

Montgomery Blair

Montgomery Blair (1813–1883) was Lincoln’s Postmaster-General from 1861 to 1864. Among Lincoln’s cabinet, he was the most adamant in supporting resupplying Fort Sumter, which precipitated Lincoln’s War.

Also, Blair raised money for John Brown’s defense after his failed raid on Harper’s Ferry.

After Lincoln’s War began, Blair urged Lincoln to confiscate the estates of slave owners loyal to the South and to use the money from the sale of these estates to pay slave owners loyal to the North for their manumitted slaves. (Congress later enacted a law authorizing the confiscation of slave owners’ estates, but without compensating slave owners who emancipated their slaves. This law followed the fourth plank of the Communist Manifesto.)

Salmon Chase

Salmon Chase (1808–1873) was Secretary of the Treasury in President Lincoln's cabinet from 1861 to 1864. As Secretary of the Treasury, he supported and implemented the National Banking Act (for more about this act, see “National Banking System” by Thomas Allen) and the issuance of greenbacks (for more about greenbacks, see “The U.S. Note, 1862 – 1879" by Thomas Allen).

Chase began his political career as a radical. He was a leader of the Liberty Party and the Anti-Slavery Society. (The Liberty Party was an abolitionist party. As its name implies, the Anti-Slavery Society promoted the abolition of slavery.) Also, he helped form the Free Soil Party in 1848 and became a Senator for Ohio the following year, serving until 1855. (The Free Soil Party opposed expanding slavery into the western territories and supported preserving them for White settlers). Later, the Free Soil Party merged into the Republican Party, and Chase became the Republican Governor of Ohio from 1856 to 1860. As the governor of Ohio, Chase embraced John Brown and expressed his support for Brown. 

Additionally, Chase was part of the conspiracy to submerge the Know-Nothing Party into the Republican Party. (The Know-Nothing Party opposed immigration, especially Roman Catholic immigrants. It officially became known as the American Party.)

In 1860, the Radical Republicans promoted him as the Republican presidential candidate until he declared his support for Lincoln. In 1868, he sought unsuccessfully the presidential nomination for the Democratic Party.

After Lincoln’s War, he wanted to keep the Southern States from returning to the Union with full voting power to prevent the Radical Republicans from losing power. However, since this plan failed (it was replaced with disenfranchising many Southerners), he toured the South soliciting the Negro vote for the Radical Republicans.

In 1864, Lincoln appointed Chase as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, where he served until 1873. As Chief Justice, he ruled against the greenback, which he had promoted when he was Secretary of the Treasury. The Court ruled that the greenback was constitutional, i.e., the US government can lawfully issue legal tender paper notes, which was contrary to the understanding of the drafters of the Constitution (see “Constitutional Money” by Thomas Allen).

Edwin Stanton

Edwin Stanton (1814–1869) was Lincoln’s Secretary of War from 1861 to 1865. When Johnson succeeded Lincoln as President, Johnson fired Stanton.

Stanton was a member of President Buchanan’s Southern Rights Cabinet. Some accused him of supporting the secessionists before he joined the Radical Republicans and became Lincoln’s Secretary of War.

Like many abolitionists, Stanton supported secession until the Southern States seceded. Then, he became a Unionist. Blair and others noted Stanton’s complete lack of character.

Stanton was a close friend of Adam Gurowski. Gurowski was a student of Hegel and participated in the Polish rebellion against Russia. Also, he was a Fourierist and promoted Fourierist socialism. (As defined by Merriam-Webster, Fourierism is “a system for reorganizing society into cooperative communities of small self-sustaining groups.”) Later, he became a Russophile and promoted Russia as the head of a Pan-Slavic empire. Stanton was well aware of Gurowski’s background. Moreover, Lincoln feared Gurowski would assassinate him. 

These four men could easily be part of any post-World War II cabinet. Little philosophical differences exist between them and most other post-World War II cabinet officers.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More historical articles.

Rhode Island’s Nullification

Rhode Island’s Nullification

Thomas Allen

Recently, Rhode Island enacted a law prohibiting US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from operating near polling places in Rhode Island. Naturally, many people strongly object to this Rhode Island law. Some even urge the arrest of the legislators who voted for the law, the governor who signed the bill into law, and any State and local official who attempts to enforce it.

Unfortunately, Rhode Island enacted this law not because it thought ICE was acting unconstitutionally in enforcing the immigration laws. Likely, it enacted the law as a protest against President Trump. Nevertheless, regardless of its motivation, does Rhode Island have the right to nullify a federal law and its enforcement?  Under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave the country, the answer is “yes.” (Nowhere does the Constitution deny this right to the States, and therefore the Tenth Amendment reserves it for the States. Also, Article IV, Section 4 guarantees this right.) However, under the Constitution that Lincoln gave the country, the current Constitution, the answer is “no.” (States  have only those rights that the federal government condescends to allow them.)

Whether a State can nullify a federal law within that State depends on whether a State is sovereign. If a State is sovereign, it has the right to decide for itself whether its agent (the federal government) is complying with the compact (the US Constitution) of which it is a member. Consequently, Rhode Island has the right to determine the constitutional limits of the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. If a State finds that the federal government is acting unconstitutionally, it not only has the right, but also the duty, to nullify or otherwise intervene to prevent such unconstitutional acts or actions. At least this is true if sovereignty resides in “we the people” of each State independently of all other States, as Jefferson and nearly all the other founding fathers claimed. However, if, like Lincoln, the opponents of Rhode Island’s interposition believe that a State does not have this right, then the States are not sovereign, and sovereignty resides in the oligarchs who control the federal government. Like Lincoln, they seem to believe that States have only those rights that the federal government condescends to grant them. (The Lincoln Constitution reduces the States to administrative districts of the federal government. [Lincoln’s War was not a war between the States; it was a war  against the States.])

(Vermont nullified a federal law that was clearly constitutional merely because it disliked the law. Not only did it nullify the law, but it also authorized the arrest and jailing of any federal agent trying to enforce it. [See “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen.] However, Vermont was acting under the Constitution of the Founding Fathers and not the Constitution of Lincoln [For the differences between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.])

Opponents of nullification argue that federal courts should resolve the issues between a State and the federal government. However, this is an extremely poor solution. Being part of the federal government, federal courts are not impartial arbitrators between the States (the creator) and the federal government (the creation of the States). (See “Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution” by Thomas Allen.)

If a State lacks the right to nullify a federal law, it is not sovereign. If it is not sovereign, it does not have a republican form of government, although it may have a governmental structure that appears to be republican. 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 form of government.

Furthermore, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees that each State has a republican form of government. Thus, if a State lacks sovereignty, the Constitution is being violated. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” and “Republican Form of Government” by Thomas Allen.)

Would the people who oppose Rhode Island enacting a law that interferes with the enforcement of the federal immigration law also oppose a State interfering with the enforcement of a federal law that they despise and urge the arrest of State officials for enacting and enforcing such a law? They would if they are consistent and believe, as Lincoln did, that the United States is a consolidated national empire instead of a federation of sovereign nations, as nearly all, if not all, of the Founding Fathers thought. (See “False States’ Rights” by Thomas Allen.)

Personally, I disagree with Rhode Island on this immigration issue and believe that federal agents have the right to apprehend illegal immigrants at polling places. However, that is an issue for “we the people” of Rhode Island, as represented by their legislature in this instance, to decide, and not for me, the federal government, or anyone else to decide.

(For more about States' rights, nullification, and the Constitution, go to https://tcallenco.weebly.com/political.html.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Muslims and Jews

Muslims and Jews

Thomas Allen

The host of a radio program to which I listen harshly condemns Islam as a vile, evil, satanic religion and Muslims as vile, evil people. Also, he condemns woke Protestantism, which, unfortunately, includes most of today’s mainline denominations. However, I do not recall him ever condemning woke Judaism, although evidence suggests that Jews are behind much of the apostate corruption of Christianity. What follows are emails that I sent him with some modifications and additions.

If I understand him correctly, he says that the Jews did not kill Jesus. If so, he is calling Paul a liar (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15). Here, Paul expressly states that the Jews killed Jesus. Also, Peter says that the Jews killed Jesus: Acts 2:36, Acts 4:10, and Acts 5:30.  In his reply, he states that the Jews did not do the deed (his reply is given below). They may not have been the ones who physically hung Jesus on the cross, but they terrorized and manipulated the Romans into doing the deed for them. Regardless, both Paul and Peter give the Jews the credit for killing Jesus rather than the Romans. (See “Who Killed Jesus” by Thomas Allen.)

Islam may be as evil as the host describes it: more evil than sin. The nefarious acts of Muslims in Europe support his claim. (However, since most of these aliens are nonwhites, could their motivation be race and not religion?) Even more iniquitous are the acts of the European leaders, who are surely disciples of Lucifer. They let, even encourage, Muslim males of military age to enter their countries in vast numbers. Not only do they allow these Muslims to destroy European cultures, rape European women, and commit other hideous crimes, but they also protect them while they do these despicable acts, and they also arrest those who object to what these Muslims are doing.

Nevertheless, when I hear the host’s description of Muslims, I think of Jews. Muslims may be liars, connivers, thieves, killers, destroyers, etc. So are Jews — even more so. (This misbehavior has caused many countries to expel Jews throughout history; they did not expel them because of their religion.) The difference between the two is that, because of their small numbers, Jews manipulate others, like Americans, to do their killing and conquering.

Moreover, which Jews are we talking about? (1) The descendants of the Old Testament Israelites, especially Judah, i.e., Jews with all of their chromosomes coming from the Old Testament Israelites, of whom few, if any, exist today. (2) The people of Persia who became Jews for fear of the Jews at the time of Esther. (3) The Edomites or Idumaeans, who accounted for a large percentage of the Jews in Judea and surrounding areas during the time of Jesus. (4) The Ashkenazim, who originated in Europe (or in the Khazar Khaganate, as some claim) and who account for most of the Jews today. (5) The Sephardic Jews of the Iberian Peninsula. (6) The Mizrahi Jews of the Middle East and North Africa, who are a mixed breed of people. (7) The Jews of the Khazar Khaganate. If the Israelites are God’s chosen people, only the first group qualifies. The others are either amalgamated mongrels or not descendants of the Israelites. (There are people who call themselves Jews but are not [Revelation 2:9 and 3:9].)

Furthermore, if Islam is a satanic religion, so is Judaism. If it were not, why would Jesus call the Pharisees children of the devil: John 8:44? Today's Judaism is a direct descendant of Pharisaic Judaism.

Anyway, one’s religious book (the Koran) teaches that Jesus is a great prophet. The other’s religious book (the Talmud) teaches that Jesus is a blasphemer, a sorcerer, and a bastard. Which is more compatible with Christianity?

Additionally, at the behest of Jews, the US House of Representatives adopted a definition of antisemitism that outlaws the New Testament (the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023). (See “Christian Zionists” by Thomas Allen.)

Peace will not exist in the Middle East until one of two things happens. One, Israel ceases to exist or is reduced to insignificance. Two, all the Muslims and Christians who live in Egypt east of the Nile, in Jordan, in Lebanon, in Turkey south of the Euphrates, in Syria west of the Euphrates, in Iraq west of the Euphrates, in Kuwait, and in northern Saudi Arabia leave their homes and let the Jews have their lands. (Does Israel have a right to all the territory that I name? Israel claims that it does. It claims all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates — from the river to the river.)

In closing, although I despise the acts of many Jews, such as Soros, I do not hate Jews. I wish that they all would come to Christ and receive his saving grace.

Replies

First reply: “Then you are calling God a liar. I have zero time with people of a Hitler mindset [sic]. Goodbye.” My comment: Although I cite several Bible verses, I did not mention God, the Bible, or theology, so how and where did I call God a liar? At worst, I described the stereotypical Jew as he described the stereotypical Muslim. Apparently, he considers today’s Jews as God’s chosen people (I always thought that Christians are God’s chosen people), although they act like Satan’s chosen people — especially the Zionist Jews in Israel. As for Hitler, I see Hitler and his followers as similar to the way this radio host sees Muslims: very evil people.

Second: “People make a big mistake when they claim God broke has [sic, His]  promise to the Jews. I’m sorry you feel the way you do, but this unprecedented rise in anti-Jewish sentiment is of biblical proportion. God’s promise is eternally binding, if it isn’t then neither is His promise of salvation to the Gentile. The Church did NOT replace God’s chosen, we were grafted onto that tree. I apologize for bring [sic, being[ so curt in my prior email. This morning has been physically rough on me, plus I just went through a pile of typical writings from leftists. As to my point about the Jews not being the one to kill Jesus, my point is they were not the ones who did the deed. While they wanted Jesus gone, because He was a threat to their corrupt institution, it was the ‘institution’ not the actual people who were threatened. That is still the issue to this day; a corrupt leadership. I always remind people of the word ‘Remnant.’ That is true among both Christians and Jews.” My comment: Although I do not know for sure, he seems to agree with those Christian Zionists who believe that Jews are saved merely by being Jews and without believing in Jesus for salvation. Moreover, are the Jews who live in Israel today the Jews to whom the promise was made? There are Jews, and there are Jews. Today, many people call themselves Jews, but are not Jews. (See my comment above on what Jews we are talking about.) Moreover, how can antichrist be God’s chosen people? In 1 John 2:22 and 4:3,  John writes that those, including and especially Jews, who deny that Jesus is Christ and do not confess Jesus Christ are the antichrist. (Since Muslims deny that Jesus is Christ and do not confess Jesus Christ, they are also antichrist.) Furthermore, most of the rise in anti-Jewish sentiment comes from Israel acting like a bully, Jews manipulating leaders, especially in the United States, to support Israel’s hostile and bullying actions, Jews promoting the suppression of freedom of speech in the United States (Muslims are doing likewise, but they have not been as effective), and other nefarious acts of Jews.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Aryans Compared with Melanochroi

Aryans Compared with Melanochroi

Thomas Allen

The two races, more correctly, species, of humans most commonly confused are Aryans and Melanochroi. Many people lump the two together as Caucasian, which makes Caucasian a poor racial name that leads to confusion.

Aryans are also known as Whites, White Caucasians, Europeans, and Homo albus. Aryan racial types include Nordics (a.k.a. Cymric, Aryans, Teutonics), East Baltics (a.k.a. East Europeans, Orientals), Alpines (a.k.a. Celts, Celto-Slavs, Ligurians, Arvernians, Cymric), Mediterraneans (a.k.a. Iberians), Dinarics (a.k.a. Adriatics, Illyrians), Armenians (a.k.a. Assyrians, Anatolians), Southern Mediterraneans (a.k.a. Northern Hamites, Libyans, Atlanteans, Libyo-Teutonics), Pamiri, Northern Semites (a.k.a. Northern Arabs, Chaldeans), Iranians (a.k.a. Irano-Mediterraneans), and Indo-Afghans. In the Eastern Hemisphere, Aryans are the predominant people in Europe, Lebanon, Syria, northern and central Iraq, Iran (except Khuzistan, the coastal regions, and Baluchistan), eastern Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, northwest India, western Kashmir, Maghreb coast, Tunis, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica.

Melanochroi are also known as Brown Caucasians and Homo brunus. Melanochroic racial types include Saharan-Hamites (a.k.a. Moors, Saharan-Berbers), Eastern-Hamites (a.k.a. Ethiopians), Egyptians, Orientals (a.k.a. Arabs, Southern Arabs), Indo-Iranians (a.k.a. Hindus), and Dravidians (a.k.a. Asiatic Negroes, Melano-Hindus). In the Eastern Hemisphere, Melanochroi are the predominate people in and around the Sahara Desert (central and southern Morocco, central and southern Algeria, Mauritania, northern Mali, Niger, northern Chad, and southern and central Libya), Egypt, eastern Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, the Arabian peninsula, southern Iraq, Khuzistan, the coastal regions of Iran, Baluchistan, central and southern Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.

Physical Description

Skin color

Aryan: light with reddish or pinkish tones; reflectivity of 50–64 percent, Luschan’s Hautfarbentafel of 1–17 (except 4–6).

Melanochroi: light yellowish brown to reddish brown to dark brown; reflectivity of 23–41 percent, Luschan’s Hautfarbentafel of 18–29.

Hair color

Aryan: varying in color from dark brown to light brown, light chestnut, reddish brown, flaxen; relatively high frequency of blondness; grays early.

Melanochroi: dark brown to black.

Head hair

Aryan: soft; fine texture; wavy or straight, sometimes curly; elliptic cross-section; tendency to baldness.

Melanochroi: curly or fizzy in the Hamitic branch; straight or wavy in the Indian branch.

Facial hair

Aryan: often highly developed.

Melanochroi: moderate beard development; some full, some scant.

Body hair

Aryan: medium to strong development.

Melanochroi: usually scant.

Face

Aryan: orthognathous; middle region of the face projects rather strongly, but cheekbones and jaws are not prominent; relatively narrow with slight cheekbones and few or no angles; typically oval in outline.

Melanochroi: orthognathous; elongated, oval; jaws not projecting.

Forehead

Aryan: straight to slightly sloping; medium to high.

Melanochroi: high.

Eyes

Aryan: corners at one level.

Melanochroi: straight, almond-shaped.

Eye color

Aryan: brown, but many with green, grey, light blue, and dark blue.

Melanochroi: light brown to dark brown or black.

Eyelids

Aryan: fold of eyelid weakly developed; conjunctiva bluish to pearly white.

Melanochroi: —

Nose

Aryan: leptorrhine; narrow with fairly high bridge; long axes of the nostrils are placed in an almost straight line from back to front.

Melanochroi: generally prominent; straight or arched; round at the points; delicate nostrils.

Lips

Aryan: medium to thin; do not project.

Melanochroi: medium or thick; some thin; never protruding.

Mouth

Aryan: —

Melanochroi: moderate size.

Teeth

Aryan: microdont; small to medium; mildly and uniformly concave upper incisors on the lingual side.

Melanochroi: white; regular; a little projecting.

Chin

Aryan: medium to strongly developed.

Melanochroi: fairly prominent; often pointed.

Ears

Aryan: medium size; relatively narrow and long; lobule does not hang low.

Melanochroi: —

Head shape

Aryan: all three types (dolichocephalic, mesocephalic, and brachycephalic) are widespread.

Melanochroi: dolichocephalic, some mesocephalic; oblong; round-domed skull.

Body characteristics

Aryan: mesomorphy; upper arm and leg generally longer than lower arm and leg; legs and torso medium to long in length; legs shapely and full; in women legs stout and in apposition when standing; buttocks sometimes with a slight over-development of fat; long sitting height.

Melanochroi: ectomorphy; slender; symmetrical; legs shapely with calves well developed.

Female breast

Aryan: generally hemispherical; small areola.

Melanochroi: hemispherical.

Feet and hands

Aryan: feet small to large, well arched; hands small to large.

Melanochroi: feet small with high instep.

Stature

Aryan: average to tall.

Melanochroi: average to below average; some tall.

Reference

Allen, Thomas Coley. Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1999.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More anthropology articles

Taxation and Voting

Taxation and Voting

Thomas Allen

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 129 –131, G. Manigault  explains why suffrage needs to be limited to people who pay a minimum amount of direct taxes:

The colonies quarrelled with the mother country because they were taxed by its parliament in which they were not represented, “No taxation without representation!” This sounds like a safeguard to one’s rights; yet it is but a half truth, valueless and deceptive until you add the suppressed half to it. “No representation without taxation!”

Government is a necessary agency. Society cannot do without it. But it is a costly and burdensome agent; and moreover one whose powers have often been grossly abused and perverted from their true objects. Yet its powers must be entrusted to some person, or persons, or class of persons. The only class of persons to whom the ultimate control over the government can be entrusted with reasonable hope of good results, is that which furnishes the means of supporting the government, and feels the burden of its costly maintenance. This class are the tax-payers, the holders of visible, tangible property, which cannot hide itself from taxation. This class has a direct and obvious interest in watching the government and the officials who administer its powers—in checking extravagance and enforcing economy and honesty in government expenditure; for they furnish the means. They have every motive for watching that the operations of government are directed to the protection of the rights and the redress of the wrongs of individuals, and the safety of the community — and not perverted to purposes for which it was not created. For this class have not only personal and social rights, like other people, but they possess vast acquired and vested rights peculiarly apt to suffer from the neglect or abuses, or perversion of government; rights, on the protection and security of which the welfare and civilization of the country depend. This class may be very numerous, or may consist of comparatively few, according to the circumstances of the particular country. But in every civilized country it forms but a minority, and usually a small minority of the people in it. Yet their right to be intrusted with the ultimate control over the government and its officials will not be hard to see when we have considered two other suppositions. 1st, That of one man being the imposer, collector, and expender of taxes. 2nd, That while the property-holders pay the taxes, those who hold no property and pay no taxes, should impose them. Do not say that this is an impossible case. But it is certain to prove a ruinous arrangement. These imposers of the taxes have no motive for enforcing on the government economy and honesty in its expenditures. They may become interested in its extravagance, its dishonesty, and in the perversion of its powers. Is not this what has happened in the United States? 

The individual States originally had in their political organization this safe-guard against the extravagance, dishonesty, and perversion of their governments. We believe that in every one, certainly in nearly all of them the franchise was limited to the freeholder, a basis of political power wide enough to secure attention to the protection of the personal and social rights of every citizen, choice enough to secure that all who ultimately controlled the government and its officials, should have a direct interest in preserving that government from corruption, and the perversion of its powers. Accordingly these State governments were, for many years, efficient without becoming burdensome or corrupt.

Thus, when the privilege of voting and holding public office is limited to people who pay a minimum amount of direct taxes, governments are frugal and prudent. They are limited and kept within tight bounds. As a result, liberty is protected and flourishes. However, when suffrage is nearly universal as it is today, governments grow without bounds, taxes become exceedingly burdensome, debts explode to unpayable heights, and liberty fades.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen

More political articles.

Review of Christian Race Realism

Review of Christian Race Realism

Thomas Allen

Below is a review of Christian Race Realism (Sacra Press, 2025) by Michael Spangler. I found this book to be a disappointment primarily because of its weak Scriptural arguments. Yes, he shows that the human races are real and important. However, beyond that, he mostly agrees with the Christian racial nihilists. My review of this book is posted on Amazon. 

The Achilles heel of all race realists, whether they claim to be evolutionists or, especially, creationists, is monogenesis: All humans are descendants from the same set of parents, i.e., Adam and Eve or their evolutionary equivalent. Until they abandon monogenesis for polygenesis, which the Scriptures support, they are doomed to fail.

Spangler is a monogenist and an evolutionist who disguises himself as a creationist.  Although he shows that the human races are real, he claims that they change over time. Consequently, they are only temporarily real; eventually, they will transition into another race. That is, today’s Aryan (White) and Negro (Black) races will morph into a different race within a few centuries or so. Likewise, the other races will change into different races. Accordingly, human races are malleable, which conflicts with Jeremiah 13:23 (See “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” by Thomas Allen). By claiming that today’s Negroes are descendants of Ham, who was an Aryan, he supports the mutability of the races, which is evolution. (To fit the typical biblical theory of the advocates of a young-earth and universal flood, like Spangler, Ham’s descendants have had to have evolved into Negroes within a few generations. If their theory is true, why have we not witnessed one race changing into another race during the last several millennia?) Thus, he is an evolutionist, although he asserts that he is a creationist.

One of the several errors that Spangler makes concerns Ruth. He claims that she was a Moabite by ethnicity. She was not. She was ethnically an Israelite who was born in Moab (See “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Analysis of ‘How did all the different ‘‘races” arise (from Noah’s family)?’” by Thomas Allen.).

Although he opposes interracial marriages, he does not consider miscegenation a sin (See “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Claiming that miscegenation is not a sin is another one of his errors. However, he does claim that using poor judgment is a sin, and marrying outside of one’s race is using poor judgment.

Review

Spangler argues that the various human races are real, hence race realism. The primary target of his argument is the Christian race nihilist (my term, not his). Christian race nihilists believe that human races are social constructs and, therefore, do not exist biologically, or that human races do exist but are irrelevant. 

Spangler supports his argument with Scripture, nature (physical attributes, language, culture, morality, religion, intelligence, and location), and history. He does a much better job of supporting his position with nature and history than with Scripture, which is pathetic. Nevertheless, he does show that the Scriptures treat the races as real and important.

Since Spangler’s arguments promoting race realism are directed primarily at Christian race nihilists, his Scriptural arguments should have been extremely strong, but, alas, they are weak and often agree with the Christian race nihilist. Like Christian race nihilists, Spangler is a creationist-evolutionist (to use an oxymoron), i.e., kind after different kind, like beget unlike. Also, like them, he is somewhat of a Lamarckian. One of his major problems is that he cannot free himself from the orthodoxy of all humans having a common ancestry. 

Additionally, Spangler discusses the confusion caused by the term “race.”  Among other things, it can mean all mankind, one of the major biological divisions of humans, an ethnicity, or a nationality. Thus, “race” is an almost useless term. At times, he seems to succumb to this confusion.

Spangler discusses interracial marriages in some depth, but he avoids the Scriptural condemnation of miscegenation. Instead, like Christian race nihilists, he does not consider miscegenation a sin. Nevertheless, he shows that God is a segregationist and is not an egalitarian.

Furthermore, Spangler gives an excellent explanation of the difference between civil rights and natural rights. Most civil rights granted in the last several decades have been detrimental to the common good.

Also, Spangler explains that discrimination and prejudice are not inherently sinful. He urges praising and protecting racial differences.

Spangler offers several recommendations. (1) Race realists should read books and articles on race. (2) Race realists should defend race realism; he provides advice about how to do it. (3) He calls for completely destroying the idol of egalitarianism and repenting of the notion that races are not real and unimportant, etc. (he provides a long list of things for which Blacks and Whites need to repent). (4) People should honor their extended family, i.e., their race (the fifth commandment). (5) People should not marry outside of their extended family. He explains why. (6) Children should be taught race realism, its importance, and the importance of segregation. (7) He offers advice on several political issues: immigration, crime, segregation, employment, suffrage, and self-defense. (8) Ministers and the church should teach race realism.

Although Spangler is a race realist, he seems to want to compromise with the Christian race nihilists. Unnecessarily, he concedes many points to them rather than rebuke them.

Nevertheless, Spangler is right about one thing: Race realists must be telling the truth. If they were not telling the truth, why do they cause race nihilists, especially Christian race nihilists, to go into hysterics? After all, race realists have no power or influence in the church or government.

In conclusion, Spangler does show that the various human races are real rather than social constructs. They are important in the eyes of God, and, therefore, should be important in the eyes of man. Unfortunately, he does a mediocre job of proving that Christian nihilists are incorrect Scripturally.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution

Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution

Thomas Allen

In “When State Resistance Meets the Constitution,” January 30, 2026, Benjamin Osborn (https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/when-state-resistance-meets-the-constitution/) discusses the protest against federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota. Correctly, he argues that the protestors are acting unlawfully when they attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws. Additionally, neither the governor nor city officials have any legal authority to actively interfere with federal enforcement. All that they can do legally is to refuse to aid in that enforcement. However, his argument rests on Lincoln’s unhistorical concept of the Union, and a nationalist, rather than a federalist, perspective of the Union, where the federal government is all-powerful, and the States are impotent. This analysis discusses Osborn’s disdain for States’ rights and federalism and his admiration of federal tyranny.

Osborn rejects the notion that a State has the right, duty, and authority to nullify any federal act that it, i.e., “we the people” through their legislature or special convention, finds unconstitutional. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States" by Thomas Allen.) If a State nullifies a federal act that it finds unconstitutional, that act is void in that State, i.e., does not exist in that State. Nullification is a reserved power under the Tenth Amendment. (See “Nullification and Interposition” by Thomas Allen.) Moreover, the way that the country was founded and the Constitution was ratified not only implies that nullification is lawful, but it also makes it a fundamental principle. Therefore, if any federal agent attempts to enforce a nullified act, he is violating the Constitution and his oath of office.

Before 1861, States could do what Vermont did to the federal fugitive slave law. Not only did Vermont nullify it, but its nullification also authorized the use of force to prevent the enforcement of the fugitive slave law. (See “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen.) If he were consistent, Osborne would oppose what Vermont did. 

Unfortunately, Lincoln’s War ended that option. Now, we have what is occurring in Minnesota. (See “Blue Cities’ Response to Deporting Illegal Immigrants” by Thomas Allen.)

Osborn claims, “The Founders designed a system in which states retain meaningful sovereignty, but that does not include veto over federal execution.” For a State to have meaningful sovereignty, it must be sovereign. As a sovereign, it is and has to be the final judge of compliance with any contract that it voluntarily enters into, such as the US Constitution. Thus, it is the final judge of the constitutionality of all acts of the federal government. In other words, before a State can be sovereign, it has to have the right, duty, and power to nullify any federal act that it finds unconstitutional and the right and power to enforce the nullification, including jailing any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law, as Vermont did when it nullified the fugitive slave law (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States" and by Thomas Allen).

Osborn cites the Supremacy Clause and argues that any law enacted by Congress and not vetoed by the US Supreme Court is constitutional. He is mistaken. The Supremacy Clause applies only to laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution. Only those laws are constitutional; all other federal laws are unconstitutional. Should the creators, the States, or the creature, the federal government, decide if a law is made pursuant to the Constitution? Osborne claims that the creature decides. (He is a true Lincolnian.)

Originally, the purpose of the Supremacy Clause was to ensure that unconstitutional laws were not supreme or binding. Only federal laws implementing the specifically delegated powers of Congress were constitutional; all other laws enacted by Congress were unconstitutional.

Now, the federal government uses the Supremacy Clause to ensure that federal laws and treaties have precedence over State laws and State constitutions except in the few instances where the federal courts have declared the federal law unconstitutional. No longer do federal laws have to be made pursuant to the Constitution, i.e., be constitutional, to have precedence over State laws. (See “Four Poisonous Clauses” by Thomas Allen.) Osborn supports this usurpation of the federal government.

If a State disagrees with a federal act, it “may litigate, protest, and seek political change.” Osborne’s solution of litigation means that he supports letting the federal government decide the limits of its power; that is what litigation means, as it will occur in federal courts.

(To use an analogy, if Osborn [a State] and I [the federal government] have a dispute, he should not object to my wife [the federal courts] deciding the dispute. One branch of my marriage would be as impartial in deciding a dispute involving another branch of my marriage as one part of the federal government is impartial in deciding a dispute with another part.)

Osborn cites James Madison’s explanation of interposition. He is correct: Governors lack the authority to nullify. However, proponents of nullification claim that “we the people” of each State, through their State legislatures, do have the authority to nullify federal laws that they find unconstitutional. (Being a nationalist at heart and desiring a strong federal government, Madison, unlike Jefferson, is not the best supporter of States’ rights and nullification. His approach to nullification lacks teeth and results in failure, as the Southern States proved in the 1950s and 1960s. [See “A Nullification That Failed” by Thomas Allen.])

Osborn writes, “The American system channels disagreement into courts, elections, and legislation.” Of course, he means federal courts and federal legislation. State courts and legislatures have only those powers that the federal government allows them. They certainly have no power or authority to interfere with the federal government, no matter how tyrannical, despotic, and unconstitutional it becomes.

Osborne is a strong proponent of making the States, which created the federal government, slaves of their creator. He implies that States have only those rights and privileges that the federal government concedes to give them. He is a strong proponent of federal supremacy and States’ subservience, which is tyranny and contrary to the very foundation of the Constitution — at least the Constitution of 1788, although not of the Lincoln Constitution, which is our current constitution. (For the difference between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?”) Based on this article, Osborn prefers America after Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment to America before them. (See “Before and After” by Thomas Allen.)

A primary reason that the country is in the turmoil that it is today is that no State has nullified any of the multitude (probably more than 85 percent) of the unconstitutional federal acts. Today, political power is centralized and concentrated in the federal government. States’ rightists’ political solution to America’s crisis is the decentralization and dispersal of political power, of which nullification is an important part.  (The major cause of America’s problems is moral decay.)

Personally, I believe the federal government has the constitutional authority to enforce naturalization and immigration laws by arresting people who are in the country illegally and deporting them, although some of the tactics being used may not be legal or constitutional. However, the constitutionality is something that "we the people" of each State need to decide for themselves.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.