Suggestions for President Trump's UN Speech -- Immigration, Iran and North Korea, the EU, and Christian Values

AS WE WAIT FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UN SPEECH ON TUESDAY, THERE IS A LOT OF REAL NEWS THINK ABOUT. Some of it is even good news. • • • MEXICO IS NOW HAPPIER WITH TRUMP. TheHill reported on September 10 about an interview with Mexican Ambassador to the United States Gerónimo Gutiérrez, who says relations between his country and the Trump administration have improved substantially in the last few months. Gutiérrez told TheHill : “My own view is that we’re in a better shape now than when we started early this year. It’s no secret that we have had our share of difference with the Trump administration. Those differences are public, they’re known. What both sides have strived for is to find common ground within those differences. One of the positive things about what has been built over the past six to eight months is the fact that both sides believe the other guy is honestly trying to reach a deal on different aspects of the relationship." Ambassador Gutiérrez said there are “very clear red lines for both sides. One for us is clearly the issue of the wall, or paying for the wall. But once those red lines are clear, we understand better each other’s priorities, we do try to find common ground.” • Mexico is sensitive to Trump's immigration enforcement policies because roughly 5.6 million of its citizens are undocumented immigrants living in the United States. According to Gutiérrez : “It’s very clear for us being the Mexican government that it’s really up to the United States, its institutions and its people to determine what type of immigration system is best for the United States.” But, Gutiérrez added that it's Mexico's duty to protect the interests of its citizens in the United States, and so Mexico has chosen not to stay in the sidelines in the DACA debate since it is a domestic issue for Mexico as well as for the US. Gutiérrez said Mexico has vowed to lobby Congress for passage of a bill enshrining into law the program's benefits, while providing legal assistance to DACA recipients who wish to remain in the United States : “At this stage, at least, we’re engaging directly with legislators to try to express our point of view....DACA represents an important inflection point that calls for an increase in more active engagement with Congress, but it’s not as if we’re changing our whole approach." While the defense of so-called “Dreamers” -- DACA recipients and other undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children -- has put Mexico in an uncomfortable positio. Critics argue that if Mexico truly valued Dreamers, it would be fighting to take them back. Gutiérrez said : “It’s not that we don’t want them back. It’s that they have made a life here since they were children. I think there’s a difference. [Dreamers are] basically like any other children in the United States. By this time it’s very likely that they have jobs, that they are, some of them, married, they may even have a kid or two that was born here in the US, they might even have a small home, a mortgage, a dog and a car. Would it be easy for them to return?” • Gutiérrez said Trump's tweets -- often aimed at Mexico -- serve a different political purpose than official lines of communication, but Mexico has no choice but to take them seriously : “Obviously, I think it would be unwise not to treat any public expression of the President of the United States seriously. He is the President of the United States.” • Gutiérrez said the public perception of the bilateral relationship “is somewhat distinct from what is actually going on,” but admitted the two governments share the blame for that : “Something that both sides have mishandled is we have not probably done a very good job in informing our constituencies. Why is it important, the relationship? Why is it better to work together? Why are we doing X or Y thing?” Being self-critical, there’s a need to address that. People would be inclined to have a better opinion of Mexico in general if they were better informed by ourselves about what we do with the United States.” • Still, Gutierrez admitted the relationship faces pressing challenges, including the future of NAFTA. The negotiators finished the second round of talks in Mexico City in early September, and will reconvene in Ottawa on September 23. Gutiérrez told TheHill : “Relatively soon we’ll find ourselves dealing with the more complicated issues, the [trade] deficit, Chapter 19, rules of origin. There’s where we’ll see a little bit more stress.” Gutierrez recognized that negotiations on the more difficult issues have the potential to terminate the 25-year-old trade deal : “Are we ready to live without NAFTA? Yes we are. Do we think that’s the best option? Not necessarily.” • Still, Gutiérrez said the bilateral relationship, despite its difficulties, is a top priority for the Mexican government : “We have had our own share of difficult pills to swallow. We believe that unless something extraordinary happens, the relationship between the United States and Mexico is really for the long run. That’s why we will try to put less attention to the daily narrative that goes on about the US-Mexico relationship and try to focus more on achieving the goals that we have set forth, but that doesn’t mean that there are not limits.” • It's good to know that Mexico is getting the hang of America under President Trump. Now, if the Ambassador would only tell his President that allowing Mexicans to pour across the border into the US is not a great way to bolster friendly relations. • • • IRAN'S NUCLEAR THREAT IS ALWAYS WITH US. American Thinker's Keyvan Salami wrote on Monday : "North Korea’s latest nuclear test has caused a significant stir in regards to Iran and the heading of this regime’s nuclear program. There are those who believe the Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was a successful agreement and are suggesting a similar path vis-à-vis Pyongyang. Others, however, believe Iran is in the same path as North Korea and the JCPOA is providing Teheran an opportunity to complete its research on nuclear weapons. And there are also voices expressing grave concerns about Iran’s intentions being far more dangerous than North Korea's and considering Teheran having a nuclear bomb being gravely more lethal than Pyongyang." Salami says Iran’s nuclear program is more dangerous than North Korea's for several reasons, even though they share the same goal of having nuclear weapons as a means of maintaining their regimes in power. But, the Iranian nuclear program is more dangerous because NK’s posture is of a "defensive nature to keep its rule intact. Teheran, on the other hand, has a strategy of aggressiveness...exporting its 'revolution' and meddling in other countries, in order to safeguard its regime back home. Therefore, Teheran needs this ultimate weapon to continue its expansion and warmongering, whereas North Korea’s goal is preserving its power at home -- it doesn’t have eyes set abroad." Salami notes that since Iran "officially considers Damascus its strategic depth and has dispatched a conglomerate of troops and proxy forces to fight in Syria," this makes Iran far more dangerous than North Korea. And, because Iran lies in the Middle East, "such a regime becoming a nuclear power will launch a nuclear arms race amongst neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey. As a reminder, Japan and South Korea do not seek nuclear weapons and enjoy the protection of the US nuclear umbrella. This is why we are not witnessing Seoul and Tokyo taking measures to pursue nuclear arms in response to Pyongyang’s six nuclear detonations." In addition, Salami points out Iran's "massive" oil and gas resources that give it enormous budgets to pursue its nuclear and ballistic missile ambitions, whereas, "a lack of finances is a major dilemma for North Korea, leading to the latter selling nuclear and missile technology to the former." • Salami says that Iran is advancing its nuclear objectives despite the nuclear deal, JCPOA, even though "advocates and opponents can put forward a variety of arguments regarding the nuclear deal and its role. What is obvious, however, is that the JCPOA has not only failed to halt Iran’s nuclear program, in fact it has provided significant support in this regard." While CPOA advocates claim Teheran must not be further pressured or placed under new sanctions as such measures may push Teheran to abandon the deal altogether, Salami says : "Teheran is the main party in need of this pact and no measures will lead to its exit. Ali Akbar Salehi, chief of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, specifically explained Teheran’s viewpoint. 'If the United States pulls out of the agreement, but the rest of the countries stay committed -- namely Britain, France, Germany, China, and Russia -- then Iran would most probably stick with the commitments to the agreement,' he said in an interview with Germany’s Der Spiegel." This is true, according to Salami, because the JCPOA gives Iran the opportunity to continue its research without any major hindrance. Salami says : "rest assured Iran will abandon the deal when its research leads to obtaining nuclear weapons." Iranian Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi recently said that Iran can enrich uranium within five days if the US imposes more sanctions on Iran. He claimed Iran could even achieve 20% enriched uranium in five days -- a level at which it could then quickly be processed further into weapons-grade nuclear material : "If we make the determination, we are able to resume 20 percent-enrichment in at most five days," Salehi told state broadcaster IRIB. A week earlier Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced in the Iran Parliament that Iran could abandon its nuclear agreement with world powers "within hours" if Washington imposes any more new sanctions : "If America wants to go back to the experience of imposing sanctions, Iran would certainly return in a short time -- not a week or a month but within hours -- to conditions more advanced than before the startof negotiations." In an August 22 interview on Iran's IRINN TV, Salehi revealed that his people had poured cement into a few external pipes at the Arak nuclear reactor in order to fool international inspectors, but had not disabled its core. "If we want to, we can start enriching uranium to 20% within five days, and that is very significant," said Salehi. Israel Times agrees, saying : "Indeed, this is very significant. The question is whether or not Western powers see it as such." • Keyvan Salami sees the path taken by the UN and the international community with Iran as somewhat similar to that with North Korea in the 1990s. Although Pyongyang’s objective of obtaining nuclear weapons differs from Teheran, "Kim Jong Un took advantage of the negotiations and the agreements made to buy time and produce the bomb he needed. This mistake must not be repeated with the illusion that the JCPOA will rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran has continued to strive to obtain nuclear weapons and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to procure ballistic missiles as means of delivery for its nuclear warheads. Iran is an unstable regime with no social base and has remained in power thanks to crackdowns and exporting crises abroad. Obtaining nuclear weapons would complete its agenda of domestic crackdown and foreign crises....viewing Iran’s nuclear program according to the JCPOA framework will lead to another case of the world being deceived, and the central banker of international terrorism obtaining nuclear weapons. Therefore, a comprehensive policy is needed to restrain Iran while targeting this regime’s regional meddling, holding it accountable for human rights violations, and placing all military and non-military sites under inspection." • In this vein, Israel Today wrote on Monday that a top Iranian general this week again threatened to destroy Israel, saying the Jewish state's demise would come even sooner if it didn't keep quiet about the nuclear deal Teheran signed with Barack Obama. Israel Today quoted General Abed Al-Rahim Musawi, who, according to the Iranian Tasnim news agency, said : “Israel should stay quiet and count the days until its death. Its smallest mistake will result in its destruction.” Three weeks ago, Musawi stated firmly that within 25 years, Israel would no longer exist. In his latest remarks, the general sought to clarify that "this doesn't mean Israel will have the full 25 years to live." • • • JEAN-CLAUSE JUNCKER AND THE EUROEPAN UNION. American Thinker published a fine piece by Alew Alexiev on Monday, titled Juncker's State of the Union, or How Not to Move Europe Forward.And; of course, Europe and the future of US-EU relations is alwas close to the top of the list for any American President, Sonald Trump included. Alexiev, commenting on Jean-Claude Juncker’s state of the European Union speech last week, noted thatt he staidly 'conservative' and restrained German economic weekly Wirtschafts Woche said the following: “Today the chief of the European Commission gave a great speech...a speech full of great nonsense.” That undiplomatic language was juxtaposed against the European Parliament's standing ovation for Juncker and his speech. Alexiev called "the cheap EU triumphalism and prescriptions peddled by Juncker...at best, inappropriate, and at worst, a recipe for disaster." Lije all EU leaders, Juncker teumpeted the economy of the EU, with its 0.5% growth -- far behind US growth of 3% in the second quarter of 2017. Alexiev says : "The actual economic situation is far worse, especially for the countries of the southern tier. Italy, the largest of them, now has a GDP lower than when the Euro was introduced in 1999. Youth unemployment is and has been for years nothing short of scandalous, with 44.45% in Greece, 38.6% in Spain, 35.5% in Italy and 23.45% even in France. And this with banks teetering at the precipice, zero interest rates, and the Central Bank buying tens of billions of private bonds with public money in brazen disregard of Article 123 of the EU charter. All the while keeping zombie banks artificially alive for a while longer and thus guaranteeing a longer-term stagnation a la Japan." Alexiev labels Juncker's economic prescriptions "wrong and harmful. He wants to get all EU members into the Eurozone at a time when it is abundantly clear that this is exactly the wrong approach. If any proof is needed, it’s enough to compare the sad state of Greece, a Eurozone member, with that of Poland, the GDP growth champion of the EU, which is not. It is high time for EU mandarins to realize that with vastly divergent levels of economic development and governance quality in the EU, taking away the tried and true method of regaining competitiveness through currency devaluation has been a disaster. This is unlikely to happen under Juncker, though it is a hopeful sign that no EU government has endorsed his views to date." Alexiev then focuses on traditional EU priorities that are given very little attention in Juncker’s extensive speech : "Two are especially noteworthy -- global warming and migration. On the former, Juncker is anything but loquacious. Following the “collapse of ambition in the US,” he said, “Europe will ensure that we’ll make our planet great again.” No details, no flights of fancy, no poetic license. And it is easy to see why. It is now clear that Germany, the poster child of virtue on global warming, will fail to meet its solemn pledges on CO2 reduction in both 2020 and 2030. In fact, the only thing it can reliably promise is greater CO2 emissions from lignite usage." Similarly, Juncker has little to say about the migrant crisis that "threatens to overwhelm the EU and create a permanent fault line between Eastern and Western Europe, except the meaningless boast that those “fleeing from persecution can find refuge” in Europe. It is a very dishonest claim because, with the exception of Turks fleeing Erdogan’s Islamist lawlessness, the vast majority of migrants are fleeing poverty rather than persecution. If, as Juncker claims, 720,000 of them have been given asylum, the EU has thereby created a new right to better life that will sooner or later have disastrous consequences for the old continent. • President Trump has allies in Europe, not in Paris or Berlin but in Warsaw and Budapest and Prague. These countries see through the German hegemony card and want none of the bombast and edicts about migrant quotas or joining the Eurozone from Juncker and the EU elites who chose him to be EU Commission president. Jean-Claude Juncker is in his last term as president of the European Commission and there is no clamor to have him back. He was, rumor says, chosen simply because Chancellor Merkel was determined not to select then British Prime Minister David Cameron's choice. It says a lot about Juncker's insipidity that earlier this year, after Trump offered his opinion that others might follow Britain out of the EU, Juncker threatened to lead a campaign to get Ohio and Texas to secede from the United States. Alexiev cynically says "It seems like a worthy goal for a man of his considerable talents." • There is a great empty center in Europe that a strong and practical US President could fill to America's and Europe's advantage. New French President Emmanuel Macron was touted as the new EU messiah when he was elected in May, but his imperial leadershipo by edict and decree is tantamount to a red flag to every French citizen. The French are not people to be bossed around -- and clearly not by a 39-year-old political neophyte who seems to prefer pronouncements about how he will do what he wants, no matter who opposes him. The trade unions -- they are the best-organized and largest unified social and political force in France -- are now calling for strikes. Some will begin this week. That is how President DeGaulle was finally ousted for good. To paraphrase yesterday's quote from Hamlet, "something is rotten in the state of France," and it seems to be President Macron. we can only hope that somebody loyal to President Trump is watching events in Europe and France and forming strategies for the President to consider. • • • WESTERN CULTURE AND CHRISTIANITY. It is astounding that most countries that owe their culture and ethical foundation to Christianity have turned on it and are willing to give all other religions the benefit of their tradition of religious tolerance while bashing Christianity, the religion that created religious tolerance. American Thinker published an article last week that noted this effort to remove Christinaity from the public sphere. It pointed to the recent antics in the US Senate judicial nominee Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's nominee for the 7th Circuit Court, was questioned by Democrat Senators Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin about whether her Catholic faith would be an impediment to her as a judge. Questions ranged from "Do you consider yourself an 'orthodox Catholic'?" from Durbin to Feinstein's comments: "I think in your case, Professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern." The article also noted the United Kingdom example of Jacob Rees Mogg, a devout Catholic and Conservative member for North East Somerset, who advocated his position against abortion and same-sex marriage, apparently breaking a taboo in Britain, that led to his abuse -- primarily from the media -- and his being called a "bigot," not a Catholic, and that also brought calls for him never to be allowed to serve in high public officer. • The modus operandi of this campaign is to target anyone who doesn't hold "modern" Progressive views, says American Thinker : "anyone who espouses the unacceptable teachings of Christ or challenges the Progressive view of acceptable Christianity must be removed from public life, because he represents a danger to the Western world's cherry-picked view of Christianity. Today, Western civilization tries "to create an idea of universal human values devoid of Christian roots." Progressives reject and condemn Christian teachings that don't fit with Progressive views. Moral relativist thinking has succeeded to the point that we live in a sort of moral free-for-all society that has cast out what used to be the West's consensus that Christian ethics were its underpinning. This has led to the banishment of God, replacing Him with the individual human who has become a god. And, we see all around us the damage this has wrought on society. As American thinker put it : "Thus, order (order of the soul and order of the government), the principal preoccupation for conservatives necessary for our society, is being undermined as our society removes Christianity from public life. When we remove Christianity, we remove the framework of order that allows for ordered liberty and justice to exist." • So, we hope that President Trump will speak about Christian values, reminding the UN when he speaks on Tuesday that without these underpinnings, the West is decaying and cannot continue to support the rest of the world with even a glimmer of the ethical humanism that used to be its identifying characteristic. • • • DEAR READERS, President Trump will be making his first UN speech as President on Tuesday. Some of the topics he will address may include the global and European immigration crisis, Iran and North Korea's renegade nuclear programs, European political and economic mess, and the value of Christianity for world order and the peaceful cooperation of all people. Undoubtedly, President Trump will also remind the UN that continuing to bash both America and Israel will only increase the American people's sense that it is a worthless talking club for the world's Globalist Progressives. If the UN has learned anything about Donald Trump, it is that he is a plain speaker. So, the General Assembly should be prepared for blunt criticism and straightforward advice. He will probably remind them that making America Great Again and America First are their only hope for continuing their talking club at US expense -- because Trump is likely to remind his listeners that the US pays an outsize 22% of the UN's overall budget and 28% of its peacekeeping funds. The General Assembly may also hear Trump tell them that the status quo that has long ignored or scorned US leadership and values, combined with a so-called global economy that works for China and India, but not the United States, has got to change. We will hear it all on Tuesday. Be sure to tune in.