One of the interesting things we have seen in our immigration debate is the corruption of language.

Suddenly the words “Illegal immigration” is not allowed even though the person is clearly breaking the law thus doing something “illegal” and the law this person is breaking is the law on “immigration”

Suddenly a Somali immigrant who settles near St. Paul Minnesota who is on trial for terror becomes a Minnesota Man

But the most amusing term of the lot, the term that we heard over and over in the primary season and one I suspect we will run into a lot during the election year is “Path to legal status”.

To the speaker using the phrase the purpose is to differentiate position of the person using it from “Amnesty” which is entirely different but the reality is the actual purpose of this phrase is to keep the listener from understanding that a “Path to legal status” is in fact amnesty.

So problem, how do you explain to the person being spun by the words “Path to legal status” that this is in fact Amnesty.

My solution? The Doctrine of Purgatory.

For those not familiar with Catholic Doctrine Purgatory is the place the temporal cost is paid for sins whose eternal cost have been already been forgiven, it’s where a soul is perfected for heaven.

Once that cost is paid and the soul has reached that state of perfect love either by either by indulgences earned during life, prayers or indulgences offered by the faithful for them after death, or through the purification process of purgatory then the soul is ready for Heaven.

Is this not the same thing as the “path to legal status” promises?

A “Path to legal status” by definition earns that a person is not currently legal. So the person has violated the immigration law, and through a process that might involve the paying of a fine and back taxes, which can be paid by either the person or someone else, and/or the waiting for a period of time, they at last achieve full legal status.

Why is this important? because every single soul is purgatory, no matter if they spend a single hour or till the end of time in Purgatory, those souls are saved, they have accepted the cost Christ paid in blood for their sins and sought the mercy he offers for their offenses.

Thus the souls in Purgatory have received the Amnesty that Christ has given them.

And that what the Path to Citizenship is, no matter how large the fine, no matter how long the wait, in the end the person is forgiven for their legal offenses.

Thus the persons who have received a “path to legal status” have received amnesty that the government has given them.

No amount of linguistic trickery will change it.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – Trump or Hillary?  The Republicans must be very careful how they play this.  With news today that Clarence Thomas is pondering retirement, the fate of our nation could not be more in balance as we realize that the next president will have a major impact on the Supreme Court.

I was never a Trump supporter, never thought he was in it for the long haul, never thought anyone would take him seriously.  Well, here we are.

So many people I’ve talked to say, “I just can’t vote for Trump.  I’m staying home.”  That is a vote for Hillary.  I’ve also heard talk of a third-party run, a brokered convention, a total wrench in the process.  That, too, is a vote for Hillary.

With some polls reporting a Clinton over Trump lead in the polls, I again state, the Republicans have to be very careful how they play this.

My husband and I had a conversation with a young couple recently who are in their twenties – to young to remember many of the Clinton scandals.  “Well, she was a senator for New York, right?  And married to a president, right?  She’s got to be better than Trump!”

Oh, my, no.

We must educate the youth.

This article by Daniel Gallington at The Washington Times is a good place to start.  He lists many, but not all, of her egregious faults and reasons why she should never be allowed to run for office, much less get elected to the highest office in the land; first a series of problems:

  • The subject of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that led to the impeachment and disbarment of her husband
  • Took crockery, furniture, artwork and other items from the White House — had to return and/or pay for them.
  • Said “what difference, at this point, does it make” about four brave people killed in Libya as a direct result of her failure to protect them on the anniversary of 9/11.
  • Totally ignored the structure and rules for the handling of sensitive national security information.
  • Amassed a personal fortune with “speaking fees” and payments from private sector political donors and foreign governments into transparent “foundations” in obvious exchange for future political favor.

And then Mr. Gallington expounds on them:

After she and Bill left the White House [along with the furniture, crockery and art work they took with them] she simply punched her ticket with two more political gigs that were handed to her. Neither of which identify her as anything but an opportunist, saying and doing whatever necessary to perpetuate her “new” political career, this while biding her time until she could run for president — twice.

Her time as a senator from New York was purely a block-checking exercise to stay “relevant.” Best illustrating this is the question: Why didn’t they go back to Arkansas? Easy, returning to Arkansas would have been the political — and financial — end for them and they knew it. It’s the same reason the Obamas are not returning to Chicago. And in this context, look for an “Obama Foundation” that rakes in money and a series of Hillary-style political appointments for Michelle — after all, she flunked the Bar Exam too.

More than anything else, Hillary’s campaign is counting on the “newer” American voters to simply not remember her and Bill’s checkered political and legal past. Accordingly, we can expect a Republican campaign replay of the 1990s: Bill’s Impeachment, the Star investigation, Bill’s disbarment for lying, her Rose Law Firm partner going to jail — and on and on and on — as supplemented by her latest scandals: Benghazi, “speaking” fees and classified emails.

Read the whole thing.

Then educate those young whipper-snappers out there who need some assistance.  Be sure to cover Benghazi and Whitewater in some detail.

Trump is no dream candidate, trust me, but he’s the only chance we’ve got right now to save this country.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

I’d like to say I was shocked at this story at real clear politics:

In an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Attorney General Loretta Lynch says that on Monday, the FBI will release edited transcripts of the 911 calls made by the Orlando nightclub shooter to the police during his rampage.

“What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda,” Lynch said. “We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State].”

Or to rephrase it: We are going to censor any information that is not consistent with the approved narrative of the Democrat party in particular and the White House in particular.

When I read this the first thing that came to mind was something I saw at the National Press Club last week.

On a big screen when you come in there is a statement concerning Donald Trump’s decision to remove the credentials from the Washington Post meaning that while they can cover his events they don’t have the access that other members of the press do.

It was presented with the self righteousness of a group that does not hint that they can still cover the events and report on them, only on Trump assault on free speech, or that there is a reason why the press is often described as “Democrats with bylines”.

Now while one can debate this move by the Trump campaign maybe it’s just me but I’d say the suppression of the record on the 2nd most successful Islamic Terror attack on the United States homeland is something that the national press club might find objectionable.

So my question is this: Will the National Press Club put up a display objecting just as strongly to the censoring of the public record by this Administration on the 2nd most successful Islamic Terror attack on the US for all Americans as they will Donald Trump?

I suspect to ask the question is to answer it.