Getting Real about Mexico, Illegal Immigrants, Palestinians, the Progressive Agenda, and the Wall

SECURING AMERICA'S BORDERS IS NOT AN EASY JOB. Not for President Trump and not for the US Border Patrol agents who are on the front line every day. • • • THE SOUTHERN BORDER IS TOUGH WORK BECAUSE IT'S BIG BUSINESS. For Mexican cartels, drug smugglers and human traffickers. Their bottom line is directly tied to the amount of drugs, humans, and other contraband they can push over the border into the United States. Ask Art Del Cueto. He gave an interview to Charlotte Cuthbertson of Epoch Times last Sunday. Del Cueto is a Border PAtrol agent stationed near Yuma, Arizona, by the US-Mexico border. He told Cuthbertson how he had arrested a Mexican national who had illegally crossed the southwest border in the Tucson, Arizona, sector. Cuthbertson tells the story : "Del Cueto said the man told him, 'You guys as Americans are weak with your laws, and we love it.' 'I laughed at it,' Del Cueto said. 'I’m sitting there going, how ironic is this that I’m explaining to a Mexican national how his country’s laws are tougher than ours and he turns around and just tells me, ‘Well, it’s not my fault you guys are weak. You guys need to toughen up.’ ” • Cuthbertson relates a long list of encounters with illegals on the southern border : "On June 24, in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas, Customs and Border Protection agents at a vehicle checkpoint discovered an illegal alien underneath the sleeper compartment of a tractor trailer unit. They also found 31 bundles of marijuana weighing over 230 pounds total, along with five pounds of cocaine hidden in the cab. On the same day, at a different checkpoint, agents stopped a tractor trailer that was hauling several vehicles. They discovered 18 illegal aliens within three of the vehicles. On June 19, in Del Cueto’s sector, a 6-year-old boy was found in the middle of the desert by Border Patrol agents. He was wandering alone in the 100-degree heat, according to a Customs and Border Protection report. 'All he had in his pocket was a little note, and it had his mom’s name and his mom’s phone number, and he was just pretty much placed over the fence into the United States from his uncle in Mexico,' Del Cueto said. 'This is in the middle of nowhere. It’s crazy. What if we wouldn’t have been there to find this child?' ” • The 'what ifs' pile up for Border Patrol agents. They not only deal with human smuggling and crime on the border, but now they’re being attacked by some of the nation’s politicians and liberal activists. Del Cueto, who has been on the Border Patrol for 15 years and is the vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, says : “They make it a race issue, it’s a race issue to them....We don’t arrest based on race. We arrest people that break the law. People like these movie stars that think it’s fun to be on TV and attack immigration laws that they don’t know nothing about...nobody really wants to hear the reality of what’s going on.” Del Cueto told Cuthbertson that Border Patrol agents deal every day with adults and children who claim to be related but are not. The smuggling organizations know there is a high chance that adults with children will be released into the United States after a brief period of detention -- usually no longer than 20 days. “So we have to be very, very inquisitive when we question these people,” Del Cueto said. He said he has questioned many minors after apprehending them and asked if they were related to the adult accompanying them. He said the minor might, at first, say it is their parent, then after being questioned, they would say it’s their uncle. After more questioning, they might say he’s from the same village. “And you keep pressing the issue and they would turn around and they’d say, ‘You know what, I just met him on the road,’” Del Cueto said. “These individuals that are out there protesting and attacking Border Patrol agents specifically, they don’t realize that we conduct investigations and sometimes these investigations take time,” he said. “So when we are separating the adults from these children, a lot of times what’s happening is we’re saving these kids and taking them out of harm’s way.” • • • DHS HELPS UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen says most minors currently in detention crossed the border illegally as unaccompanied minors : “The vast, vast majority of children who are in the care of Health and Human Services right now -- 10,000 of the 12,000 -- were sent here alone by their parents. That’s when they were separated. So somehow we’ve conflated everything, but there’s two separate issues. Ten thousand of those currently in custody were sent by their parents, with strangers, to undertake a completely dangerous and deadly travel, alone. We now care for them.” • Cuthbertson states that in fiscal year 2017, Homeland Security saw 46 cases of children being used fraudulently by adults crossing illegally. In the first five months of fiscal 2018, 191 such cases have been reported. Neilsen says that since this time last year, the number of unaccompanied minors crossing illegally has increased by 325%, while family units have jumped by 425%, according to Nielsen, who satates : "Since 2013, the United States has admitted more than half a million illegal immigrant minors and family units from Central America -- most of whom today are at large in the United States." • Del Cueto told Cuthbertson he gets asked all the time by the media and activists how he would feel if it was his child being separated from him. “And the only answer I can truly come up with is, I would not be the type of parent that would expose my child to an environment where she could die through the desert. I would not impose my child into an environment where I’m handing her over to a smuggling criminal organization that could hurt her, that could put her in the trunk of a vehicle, that could molest her,” he said. "It is difficult because you see what these parents expose their children to, without caring at times." Del Cueto told Cuthberson about the family that dropped the 6-year-old over the fence and into the desert alone, asking : “I mean, who does that to their child? It’s frustrating for us and it bothers us because these are the kids that people in America are now attacking us for and saying, ‘Hey, give that child back to the mom. You took that child. No, I didn’t take the child from the mom, the mom chose to put a kid in danger, and if a United States citizen would do the exact same thing, we would be screaming on all the social media about how horrible this mom is. Border Patrol is the one that’s assisting these people and helping them and making sure that they’re OK.” Del Cueto said activists complain that tighter border security would force people to cross the border illegally in more dangerous and remote areas. His answer is this : “Well, it’s supposed to be harder for them. Right, that’s what we’re trying to do. We’re not supposed to simplify it.” • • • PROGDEMS CALL FOR ABOLISHING ICE. President Trump told Maria Bartoromo on Sunday in a long Fox interview about growing Democratic calls to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency : "I hope they keep thinking about it because they're going to get beaten so badly. You know, ICE -- these are the guys that go in and take MS-13, and they take them out, because they're much tougher than MS-13, like, by a factor of 10. You get rid of ICE, you're going to have a country that you're going to be afraid to walk out of your house....Because you are going to have a country that's crime-ridden." • The NYPost says : "As more Democrats join the parade of liberal pols calling for the end of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, President Trump is pushing back. “To the great and brave men and women of ICE, do not worry or lose your spirit,” he tweeted Saturday. “You are doing a fantastic job of keeping us safe by eradicating the worst criminal elements. So brave!” The anti-ICE message is becoming a liberal litmus test since new Dem darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset victory over Queens power broker Representative Joe Crowley. Upping the ante, Trump tweeted that all law enforcement is in the Democrats’ crosshairs. “Next it will be all police,” he posted. “Zero chance, It will never happen!” • And, said the NYPost, the President revisited the explosive immigration controversy, tweeting : “When people come into our Country illegally, we must IMMEDIATELY escort them back out without going through years of legal maneuvering. Our laws are the dumbest anywhere in the world.” • Of course, the ProgDems don't see it that way. But just what way they do see it is up for grabs. Even BuzzFeed noticed on Tuesday : "The Democratic Party is suddenly dealing with an internal conflict over how to handle one of the agencies responsible for enforcing the country’s immigration laws: leave it be, seriously reform it, or shutter it entirely. The debate over abolishing the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is pitting potential future party leaders against the Democratic old guard and against one another, as the party tries to find a winning message and platform against President Donald Trump. 'I think the focus should be on President Trump’s hard-line immigration policies, and not on ICE,' Texas Representative Henry Cuellar, a relatively moderate Democrat, told BuzzFeed News on Monday. He noted the agency is just in charge of enforcing the administration’s policies, and said the calls to abolish ICE are 'dangerously misguided.' " • But, two Democrat House members are drafting legislation that would create a commission to “redesign and restructure” the agency. “Where we really come down to is, you need to start over,” Wisconsin Representative Mark Pocan, who is working on the bill with Washington Representative Pramila Jayapal, told BuzzFeed News. “The President has broken ICE so badly that their brand is damaged beyond repair.” Senators Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, both seen as potential 2020 presidential candidates, support abolishing ICE. Warren on Saturday called for “replacing” ICE with something more effective, and last week Gillibrand told CNN “you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it, and build something that actually works." Senator Kamala Harris of California told BuzzFeed : “I think there’s no question that we’ve got to critically reexamine ICE and its role and the way that it is being administered and the work it is doing, and we need to probably think about starting from scratch." Harris is another ProgDem 202 contender. • Just what does ICE do that is so distressing to ProgDems?? ICE is charged with enforcing “federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety.” It was established in 2003, and while immigration is its “largest single area of responsibility,” it is also in charge of stopping a range of other illegal activity, including “human smuggling,” and preventing terrorism. That doesn't sound so drastic, does it??? • And, President Trump was quick to point out that very thing. He tweeted Senator Warren : "@WhiteHouse.@SenWarren, why are you supporting criminals moving weapons, drugs, and victims across our nation’s borders? You must not know what ICE really does. Here is a link to help you out: https://www.ice.gov/best." • However, Washington Representative Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told the media last week : "We need border security, OK? I’ve heard there’s some people out there saying we should get rid of ICE. That’s kind of like Republicans saying we should get rid of the IRS. We need immigration enforcement, though not like this. ICE does not have to do what President Trump is telling them to do.” And, nutty Nancy Pelosi is calling for an “immediate and fundamental overhaul” of ICE, whereas, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for “reform” last week, but reportedly noted that ICE has “functions that are very much needed.” The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, a Democratic group, circulated talking points on the subject that were provided to BuzzFeed News by a senior Democratic aide and first reported by the Daily Beast, show that the CHC criticizes the agency, but argues that abolishing ICE “without changing President Trump’s disastrous, underlying immigration policy will not solve the problem.” • • • THE NEW MEXICAN PRESIDENT WON'T HELP THE US BORDER PATROL. Mexico’s new president has said that he isn’t afraid of a fight, but after being elected president of Mexico, he will have to fight with Donald Trump. Andrés Manuel López Obrador -- AMLO as he is called -- swept to an overwhelm victory in Sunday’s election. Winning with 53.8% of the vote, AMLO, a populist, brings the Left to power in Mexico after a century of rule by the Right. It begins a new era in Mexican politics that could have profound implications for Mexico’s domestic and international policies -- and obviously for its relationship with the United States. Lopez Obrador’s projected final margin of victory is predicted to be the largest in Mexico’s recent electoral history. His opponents conceded before any actual results were released. Obrador’s National Regeneration Movement -- a political group known as Morena founded by Obrador in 2014 -- also garnered significant victories in congressional and gubernatorial races, according to exit polls. It is still unclear whether Lopez Obrador’s party and its allies will win sufficient seats to hold an absolute majority in Mexico’s Congress. • The BBC reported on Tuesday that Obrador, and US President Trump have already spoken on the phone. During the campaign, Obrador often used confrontational language when referring to Trump but struck a more conciliatory note in his victory speech, saying he would seek "friendly relations." Trump said earlier that he looked forward to working with Obrador. Trade and migration disputes have strained US relations with Mexico, but, in a tweet on Monday, Obrador, 64, said that he had spoken with Mr Trump for half an hour, adding : "I proposed exploring a comprehensive agreement on development projects which will create jobs in Mexico, and with it, reduce migration and improve security." Obrador highlighted the "respectful" nature of the conversation, having previously pledged to build a relationship of "mutual respect" with the US. BBC's Will Grant wrote that the phone call message is very much in keeping with Obrador's focus on providing ordinary Mexicans with decent jobs, something he repeated often during the campaign. Trump said the two leaders had spoken about the potential for a separate trade deal between their countries. • The new Mexican president-elect, who will be sworn in on December 1, has said he will make tackling corruption his top priority, a given because of the exhaustion with the widespread corruption, violence and impunity toward the law in Mexico. Obrador said about corruption : "We are absolutely convinced that this evil is the main cause of social and economic inequality, and also that corruption is to blame for the violence in our country. No-one involved in corruption will be spared, not even "brothers-in-arms." Mexico is perceived as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, according to Transparency International, which ranked it 135 out of 180 states last year, with 180 being the most corrupt. • On combating Mexico's record levels of violence, much of it related to drug cartels, Obrador said he would have daily meetings with his security cabinet. During the election campaign, dozens of office-seekers were slain, mostly candidates for local posts in provincial areas where organized crime holds sway. Police were out in force on Sunday throughout the nation. • Obrador also tried to reassure the business sector, saying there would be no nationalization, private business would be respected and taxes would not be raised. • On social policies, he promised to double pensions for the elderly as a first step to reducing the country's disparate income levels. Some opponents have expressed fears that his leftist and populist policies could damage the already sluggish economy. • Obrador was born to a family of shopkeepers on November 13, 1953, in the rural community of Tepetitán, in southern Tabasco state. He was elected Mexico City mayor in 2000, and lost in the presidential elections in 2006 and 2012. This time, he ran under a three-party coalition led by "Morena." The self-styled anti- establishment figure has now ended the dominance of the PRI and PAN parties he called the "mafia of power." • What is sure is that Mexico will change if Obrador has his way. He ran on an anti-status quo message that overwhelmed similar vows of “change” from the presidential aspirants from more traditional parties. His promises include increasing social welfare payments to the poor and elderly, providing scholarships to the young and reviewing various projects of the current government, including energy and education reforms and the construction of a new Mexico City airport. The LA Times says : "Lopez Obrador’s fiery rhetoric has clearly drawn many supporters, but his candidacy has also stoked deep concern among many who view him as a potential autocrat and as an unreconstructed leftist who could wreck an already shaky economy." In the wealthy Mexico City enclave of Bosques de las Lomas, one voter who didn't vote for Obrador, told the LA Times : "He wants to turn Mexico into Venezuela. He wants to take Mexico backward to a situation where the poor won’t be rich and the rich won’t be rich either," adding that many in this neighborhood of lush haciendas tucked behind high walls were nervous about what will happen to the economy under Lopez Obrador. • • • POMPEO TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT-ELECT. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will travel to Mexico on July 13 to meet with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador. TheHill reports that the State Department and the Mexican Foreign Ministry announced the trip on Tuesday. Pompeo will also meet with Mexican Foreign Affairs Secretary Luis Videgaray Caso. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said : "Secretary Pompeo will reaffirm the partnership with Mexico to combat transnational criminal organizations and also the opioid epidemic. He will also discuss efforts to enhance trade, curb irregular migration and manage our shared border." IS THERE A NEW POLITICAL REALITY IN MEXICO ABOUT IMMIGRATION? Foreign Affairs tried to answer the question in a Tuesday article by Andrew Selee, who says that the Trump administration emphasis on stopping illegal border crossings from Mexico is both working and has been implemented in a period of low attempts by illegals to cross into the US. Selee says : "What makes this sudden attention to the border so unusual is that there are now fewer people trying to cross illegally than at any time since the early 1970s, for two reasons. Not only has Mexico ceased to be the source of most migrants trying to cross the border but it has become a largely effective buffer against the newest migration flows from Central America." • That is a huge set of facts, but let's try to deal with them. • The Palm Springs Desert Sun newspaper published an article on Monday that stated : "While people fleeing southwestern Mexico have for years crossed into the US, since January, migrant shelter operators in Tijuana say they have seen a pronounced increase in families from the states of Michoacán and Guerrero seeking asylum. The asylum seekers tell similar stories of violent criminal gangs who have become more brazen in recent months. Practically all of them recount stories of extortion, kidnapping or murder....Michoacán and Guerrero have been consistently and unrelentingly violent for more than 10 years, said Everard Meade, director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego. In March, the US State Department listed Guerrero and Michoacán as two of five Mexican states to which US citizens should not travel. In Guerrero, armed groups operate independently of the government, according to the State Department advisory. Recently, Pepsi closed its distribution center in Guerrero amid drug gang extortion demands, according to the AP. The company's decision came months after Coca-Cola closed its distribution center, also in Guerrero." The Desert Sun quotes Marla Conrad, a coordinator with the Kino Border Initiative, a Catholic-run group that operates two migrant shelters in Nogales, Arizona : "Unlike in Tijuana, most of the 150 families who've arrived in Nogales since May are from Guatemala." • In its own way, the 'refugee' flight to the southern US border is reminiscent of the flight of Syrians in the period through 2015 -- terrorized and fragile civilians seeking help for their families. But, just as the Syrian refugee flight led to a mass movement toward Europe of economic migrants and young unaccompanied men with jihadist-terrorist connections, the flight of Central American and Mexican refugees has become a highway for Mexican cartels that transport drugs and M-13 gang members and traffick human beings accross into the US for mega-profits. • Volunteers maintain a list of asylum seekers outside Tijuana's El Chaparral port of entry -- people from Central America, AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST seeking asylum. There are persistent but hard to substantiate rumors that Iran is transporting jihadist terrorists from the Middle East to South America and helping them move north through Venezuela to the US border. • As for the size of the illegal entry problem, the latest data from US Customs and Border Protection reported last week show a 37% increase in attempted crossings from February to March, and a 203% increase over March, 2017. Border-crossing attempts from Mexico rose sharply in March after falling to a historic low last year under the Trump administration -- reaching an all-time low last April, a phenomenon many top DHS officials dubbed the "Trump effect," over the President's tough stance on immigration, including increased deportation efforts. • • • WILL OBRADOR MAKE A DIFFERENCE? With the election of Obrador, the status quo could soon change. Obrador says he does not want Mexican immigration policies to be merely an extension of US enforcement policies. DHS estimates that today it successfully detains a far greater percentage of unauthorized border crossers than ever before. Mexicans once constituted almost all of the undocumented immigration flows, but today they make up less than half because of better economic conditions at home in Mexico and the significant sums of money that Mexican immigrants living in the US sent back to their families and home communities. Over the past five years, migrants from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, three of the region’s poorest and most violent countries, have constituted the majority of unauthorized US border crossers. Although some of these migrants make it to the US border, an even larger number do not. Foreign Affairs calculates -- based on Migration Policy Institute data -- that the Mexican government may have deported more people to Central America than the US government since 2014, the year that the significant Central American migration flows started. • So, Mexico itself is increasingly becoming a country of asylum for Central Americans, receiving 8,656 applications last year from nationals of those three countries, up from 1,769 in 2014. And there is some evidence, though most of it still anecdotal, that increasing numbers of Central American migrants are staying in Mexico rather than trying to cross into the United States. • Mexico is becoming more like Turkey, whose role vis-à-vis Europe is to stop and house migrants. In addition, there are now a million US citizens living in Mexico, either the children of Mexicans who have returned to their parents’ home country or Americans who have moved to Mexico to pursue either job opportunities or a comfortable retirement. All of this, says Foreign Affairs, gives the US two alternatives -- continue to criticize the Mexican government for not doing enough to stop Central American migrants on their way through Mexico before they reach the US border and pressure it to do more, or try to engage the new government of Mexico in a joint strategy that looks at Central American migration flows more comprehensively. That would have to include a willingness from US authorities to help the Mexican government develop its immigration system by expanding asylum capacity and further professionalizing immigration enforcement to meet international standards. It would also have to include efforts to create integration programs for those Central Americans who choose to stay in Mexico and a renewed effort with regional partners through the failed Alliance for Progress to help El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras develop their police and judicial institutions to rein in gang violence, as well as generate some measure of economic development. • • • US POLICY TOWARD ILLEGALS AND THE PALESTINIANS. American Thinker's Lauri B. Regan wrote on the 4th of July that : "The Democrat, left-wing media, and progressive activists’ current freak-out over what is at least a decade-long crisis on our southern border is not just hypocritical....It mirrors the liberal response to, and furthering of, inflammatory and intentionally misleading narratives regarding Palestinian refugees. Both crises represent the politicization of cultural and ethnic tragedies that seek to blame a strong horse for the wrongs of the true perpetrators of crimes against humanity. And both crises serve as winning strategies for leftist political operatives seeking absolute power. Palestinians are portrayed as victims of an all-powerful government infringing on their human rights, notwithstanding their culpability and that of their 'elected' leaders. Similarly, Democrats are using illegal immigrants as tools to demonize Republicans, intentionally fueling their ongoing war against conservatives with the specific goal of influencing the midterm elections. Arab governments have exploited Palestinians for decades in their never-ending quest to annihilate Israel....Democrats similarly purposely avoided numerous opportunities for immigration reform including when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House under Obama." Regan says : "Since its formation in 1949, the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA), mandated with providing humanitarian aid to Palestinian refugees, has grown into a bureaucratic monstrosity that sucks money from donor nations to feed its 35,000 mostly Palestinian employees. It supports Palestinian terrorism through coordination with Hamas, indoctrinates Palestinian children to commit jihad against Jews, and allows its facilities to serve as weapons depots.... Palestinians are the only refugees with their own UN agency. That agency is the only refugee organization that does not work for integration, resettlement and assimilation of its refugees into host countries....Our own government is now feeding a similar conglomerate in states across the country. Southwest Key Inc., a Texas not-for-profit, received half a billion dollars this year to house migrant children. It has received $1.5 billion over the past decade for the 'Unaccompanied Alien Children Program.' The CEO of Southwest earned almost $1.5 million in total compensation in 2016 while his wife earned almost $300,000 as its VP in 2015. This is how government bureaucracies form and welfare programs are established....Bleeding hearts bemoan the migrant children, ignore their crimes and accompanying health issues, and champion the facilities in which the children are housed. In Westchester County, the feds have set up migrant housing in which most Americans could only dream of living. Gyms replete with weight rooms and indoor swimming pools, cell phones, medical care, and top-notch education..." For Regan, the Palestinian and illegal immigrants into the US are both "portrayed atrocities with no end. Liberals perpetuate the narratives. Just as many Latin American countries do not wish to rectify their economic, social, and political calamities leaving citizens few choices but to attempt an escape, Arab countries and Palestinian leaders do not wish to address the struggles facing Palestinians. Deported illegals return again and again until finally jailed for serious crimes; liberals form sanctuary cities to protect them. Palestinian refugees seek a right of return while blowing up buses and restaurants; the UN passes resolutions condemning the Jews. Trump suggests building a wall; he is labeled a tyrant. Netanyahu builds a fence; he is accused of running an apartheid state. Both leaders strive to protect their citizens. Liberals wish to perpetuate victim classes as a means to attain power." For Regan : "When Trump asks why everyone screaming about the poor immigrant children ignores the children murdered by MS-13 gang members, liberals have no response. When the UN, Arab nations, and Western progressives single out Israel for demonization while ignoring the untold numbers of innocent Israeli civilians murdered in terrorist attacks, they fail to recognize this as blatant anti-Semitism....The Palestinians have their Nakba; the Democrats have their Resistance." • • • DEAR READERS, Obrador told his supporters after the election : “We will respect everybody but we will give a preference to the humble and forgotten." President Trump has consistently singled out Mexico and Mexicans for withering criticism on issues of free trade, drug trafficking and illegal immigration. And, it may be that as president, Obrador will be less deferential to Washington than his predecessors. How his presidency will play out in US-Mexico relations remains to be seen. • TheHill's Rafael Bernal wrote on Monday that preliminary election results show that Obrador won among voters outside Mexico, in the first Mexican election to feature significant voting opportunities for expatriates. ExPats voted for Obrador by a ratio of almost 3-to-1 over the runner-up. That, says TheHill, is a sign that Mexicans living in the US are expecting him to fulfill his promises to protect migrants from the actions of the Trump administration. • President Trump said after his election night phone call with Obrador that he believes Obrador “is going to try and help us with the border.” But Obrador has repeatedly criticized Trump’s push for a border wall -- instead, saying that illegal migration could be better addressed with economic development programs that help lift Mexicans out of poverty. “Those that want to leave and emigrate, let them do it by choice, not because of necessity,” López Obrador said in his victory speech at the historic Zócalo plaza in Mexico City on Sunday. • That sounds very much like a call for expanded US-Mexican cooperation for economic development in Mexico. And, that could in the mid-term decrease somewhat the flow of Mexicans into the US. But, it offers nothing to stem the tide of migrant marchers who are heading from Central and South America, and from Africa and the Middle East, northward through Mexico to the US southern border. That will need to be a different discussion with different goals for US-Mexico cooperation in the minefield issue of the full range of illegal immigrants -- from real asylum seekers to traffickers to drug cartels to terrorists -- using Mexico as the transit route to the US. This is an issue in which Obrador will find himself, very much like German Chancellor Merkel, trying to protect his newly-won position as the de facto leader of Latin American Leftist governments and groups who will push him to keep the transit route open, while the US undoubtedly will make economic development cooperation contingent on Mexico closing its own southern border to northward marching illegals. • The art of the deal will be front and center on both sides of the southern border. But, one thing should remain constant. Build the Wall. American Thinker's Colin Flaherty said on Tuesday : "Among the fashionable [Mexican] public officials and academics, scorn has been the ruling emotion for decades....The new president declares he is a socialist, but he will be hard pressed to show how his new socialist policies are at all different from the old socialist policies that govern so many parts of Mexican life. That's what we said about Venezuela, come to think of it....But at least admitting they are socialists has the added benefit of sticking a finger in the eye of their terrible neighbors to the north -- who everyone knows ruined Mexico by stealing a good chunk of the country in 1848. Anyone who reads the daily papers in Mexico is reminded of that 157-year-old treaty every day : for most of the country, the national slogan and curse remains "Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States." We can even hear it today from Mexican nationals and their descendants in the US who glorify La Raza at the expense of their adopted country." Oh, and by the way, says Flaherty, "Americans are still waiting for any kind of public display of support for those who died on 9/11. Mexicans largely ignored it, when they were not supporting it behind closed doors at their local universities." Flaherty says something not reported elsewhere : "The newly elected president, Andrés López-Obrador, was gleeful during the election when he told his compadres they should all move to America, illegally. His encouragement along with his pro-poverty policies will set the stage for another tsunami of illegal immigration....the new president of Mexico is encouraging his countrymen to invade the United States. Not with guns and soldiers, but with campesinos and huaraches. It's a bitter and hostile act that we should treat as such." For Flaherty : "Mexico is run by a collection of drug cartels and other violent outlaws. This collection of criminals has killed thousands of public officials, policemen, and reporters -- all in the name of preserving a criminal status quo that no one even feels like pretending does not exist anymore. They even write songs glorifying them." • Assuming that even half of what Flaherty says is true -- and most of it certainly is true -- President Trump cannot build the Wall fast enough.

On the 4th of July, Justice Scalia Talks about the Constitution, and Senator Cruz Should Do His Duty and Be Available for the Supreme Court

THE FOURTH OF JULY, JUSTICE SCALIA, AND A MESSAGE FOR SENATOR TED CRUZ. The Fourth of July, when Americans celebrate their Declaration of Independence, may seem a strange time to discuss the Constitution, but not if we consider the two documents as the late and lamented Justice Antonin Scalia did. • • • WITHOUT THE CONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS IN DANGER. Justice Scalia once said : "Every tin horn dictator in the world today, every president for life, has a Bill of Rights. That’s not what makes us free; if it did, you would rather live in Zimbabwe. But you wouldn’t want to live in most countries in the world that have a Bill of Rights. What has made us free is our Constitution. Think of the word ‘constitution;’ it means structure.” • In a speech titled "Judicial Adherence to the Text of Our Basic Law : A theory of Constitutional Interpretation," given at the Catholic University of America on October 18, 1996, Justice Scalia said this about "interpreting" the Constitution : "At the end of this long process, this great evolution from stuffy old originalism to an evolutionary constitution, we arrive at the point where the meaning of the Constitution, the most important part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, is decided upon by the very body that the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect you as an individual against -- namely, the majority. That seems to me the inevitable demonstration that the only sensible way to construe a constitution is the way you construe statutes. What did its words mean when they were adopted? I think we depart from the traditional view of the Constitution at our own risk." In his speech, Justice Scalia said : "The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, giving the constitution the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated." But, said Scalia, it has nothing to do wit "intent" : "You will never hear me refer to original intent, because I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the Framers of the US Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words. I do the same with statutes, by the way, which is why I don't use legislative history. The words are the law. I think that's what is meant by a government of laws, not of men. We are bound not by the intent of our legislators, but by the laws which they enacted, laws which are set forth in words, of course." • Justice Scalia noted that the originalist approach ot the Cosntitution was predominant until about 40 years ago : "Everyone said that the Constitution was that anchor, that rock, that unchanging institution that forms the American polity. Immutability was regarded as its characteristic. What the Constitution meant when it was adopted is what it means today, and its meaning doesn't change just because we think that meaning is no longer adequate to our times. If the Constitution's meaning is inadequate, we can amend the document. That's why there's an amendment provision in the Constitution." And, added Scalia, it is not just lawyers and judges who decide what the Constitution meant : "It's ultimately the American people who are concerned. What do the people think this document is, and what do they think it means?" • Justice Scalia used a great example to prove his point -- the 1920 adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment, which guaranteed women the right to vote. Here is Scalia's explanation : "As you know, there was a national campaign of 'suffragettes' to get this constitutional amendment adopted, a very big deal to get a constitutional amendment adopted. Why? Why did they go through all that trouble? If people then thought the way people think now, there would have been no need to add the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In 1920, there was an equal protection clause, right there in the Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment. As an abstract matter, what in the world could be a greater denial of equal protection of the laws in a representative democracy than denial of the electoral franchise -- the right to vote -- to women or to any other group of adult citizens with sound minds. The suffragettes could just come to the court and say, 'This is a denial of equal protection,' and petition the US Supreme Court to invalidate all state laws denying the franchise to women, to declare such laws to be violations of the Federal Constitution and therefore unconstitutional and null and void. Why didn't the suffragetters take this course of action? Because they didn't think that way. Equal protection could mean that everybody has to have the vote. It could mean that. It could mean a lot of things in the abstract. It could have meant that women must be sent into military combat, for example. It could have meant that we have to have unisex toilets in public buildings. But does it mean those things? Of course, it doesn't mean those things. It could have meant all those things. But, it just never did. That was not its understood meaning. And since that was not its meaning in 1871, it's not its meaning today. The meaning doesn't change." • Then, Scalia expands to explain that : "There have been a lot of reasons why you could deny the vote, not only on the basis of sex, but also on the basis of property ownership. On the basis of literacy. Denying the electoral suffrage on any or all of these bases was never regarded as a denial of equal protection. And since it never was, it isn't. That's how the people in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries thought. An amendment to the US Constitution had to be drafted, proposed, and ratified in order to give women the right to vote. Now you know that wouldn't happen today. You know that the issue today would be resolved in the US Supreme Court. People would come to the court and would say, 'The equal protection clause should mean this, and therefore it does mean that. Never mind what it originally meant.' " • "People who adopt a bill of rights," says Scalia, "know that societies not only evolve, they also rot. And they are worried that future generations may not have the integrity and wisdom that they do, so they say, 'Some things we are going to freeze in, and they will not change.' But no, the contemporary generation does not see it that way, and will not have it that way. With all this development, away from originalism, that has occurred within the past forty years, we believe, the Supreme Court believes, and, worst of all, the American people believe, that...the whole Bill of Rights, the whole Constitution, 'reflects the evolving standards of decency of a maturing society.' Or, to put it more simply, the Constitution means what it ought to mean. Not what it did mean, but what it ought to mean. And so, what comes with all of this sophistry? All sorts of rights that clearly did not exist at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights exist today. It's plain absolutely plain, that the right to an abortion was not thought to exist in 1791 or at the time that the post-Civil War amendments were adopted, since there were laws against abortions in all the states. It's absolutely plain that there was no right to die, since there were laws against suicide. And you can go right down the list." • Justice Scalia warns us : "This is not, I caution you, a Liberal versus Conservative issue. Conservatives are fully as prepared as Liberals to create new rights under this evolutionist theory of the Constitution. During its 1995-1996 term, the Supreme Court created a big brand new right that the Liberals like, when it held in Rohmer vs. Evans (1996) that a state could not, by state constitutional amendment, prohibit its local sub-units from providing special treatment on the basis of homosexuality. Liberals like that one. But during the same term, in fact within weeks of it, I believe, the Court also said that there is a federal constitutional right, which my copy of the US Constitution doesn't reflect, not to have an excessive jury verdict. We struck down excessive punitive damages. Now there have been excessive jury verdicts for over 200 years. Nobody ever thought that it was a federal matter, that it violated the Federal Constitution. Punitive damages are no different in that respect from excessive compensatory damages. So it's not Liberal/Conservative. It's the modernist view versus the traditional view of the Constitution. It should not be thought, although it is often argued, that this new way of looking at the Constitution is desirable because it promotes needed flexibility. That's the argument you sometimes hear....The argument is as follows : 'The Constitution is meant for a living society. If it could not grow and evolve with the society, it would become brittle and snap. You have to provide the flexibility.' This is a very plausible argument. It sounds wonderful, until you start to think, 'Now, wait a minute. What is the real motive of these people who want to chuck away the old, original constitution? Is it really flexibility that they're looking for?'....Existing law authorized capital punishment. If you wanted to abolish it, you needed to get a change in the law. Regarding capital punishment, I have sat with three colleagues on the Supreme Court who think that capital punishment is unconstitutional, even though the Constitution mentions capital punishment. The due process clause -- a clause you're all familiar with -- provides : 'No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law...' What do you think the drafters of the clause were talking about? They were talking about the death penalty. And elsewhere in the Constitution, it says you shall not be sentenced for a capital crime without a grand jury indictment. What do think the drafters were talking about? They were talking about the death penalty, clearly approved in the text of the Constitution. For the constitutional evolutionist, or modernist, it doesn't matter what the text of the Constitution says. For the modernist, everyday is a new day. And so, the death penalty, which might have been constitutional in the past, may very well be unconstitutional today. Now does that produce flexibility? Under the original disposition, if you wanted to have the death penalty, you enacted a law authorizing it. If you didn't want it, you repealed the law authorizing it. That's flexibility." • So, Justice Scalia rejects the modernist view : "These people who go around talking about the need for growing and bending are uttering nonsense. What these people want is to impose a view of things on the whole so- ciety from coast to coast, and it is most quickly and most effectively done through the Constitution. And the easiest and quickest way to get something into the Constitution is to get it done via judicial interpretation. Rather than go the slow, difficult, and troublesome route of getting a constitutional amendment drafted, formally proposed and ratified, persuade the highest court in the land to interpret the Constitution so broadly and loosely as to enable it read the desired policy into the Constitution.....What happens if the Constitution is, rather, a sort of an empty bottle that contains the aspirations of the society, just all sorts of wonderful aspirations, the precise content of which is quite indeterminate? Today, the Eighth Amendment ban against 'cruel and unusual punishment' may mean the death penalty is ok, but tomorrow it won't mean that. 'Due process of law,' whatever that means will vary over time, the due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments meaning one thing today and something else tomorrow. We're so in love with these abstractions, and, in the future, the Supreme Court shall decree for us what these abstractions mean....I'm not very good at determinating what the aspirations of the American people are. I am out of touch with the American people....If you want somebody who's in touch with what are the evolving standards of decency that reflect a maturing society, ask the Congress to make the relevant decisions. And of course that's the way it's done in the United Kingdom. The Parliament says what the English Constitution consists of." • Scalia asks a hard question of the constitutional evolutionists : "And what you have to ask the non-originalist law professor or whoever else is a non-originalist, 'what do you propose?' What does a judge consult, if not the original understanding of the text? What binds the biases of a judge? What prevents the judge from simply implementing his own prejudices? What is the standard? And the fact is, I have never heard of a non-textual standard that had a snowball's chance in hell of ever being adopted by more than two people. If not the original understanding of the text of the Constitution, what are you going to use as a standard? The philosophy of Plato? Natural law? The philosophy of John Raule? Public opinion polls? What do you want to use? If you don't take the words of the Constitution and what they were originally understood to mean, what is the standard? The answer is, there isn't any standard....So, the personal opinions and prejudices of the judges become the standard. What else are you going to use?" • And, Justics Scalia states that change is easy : "In the long run, non- originalism triumphant and rampant is the death knell of the Constitution. As I suggested earlier, the whole purpose of the Constitution is to prevent a future society from doing whatsoever it wants to do. To change, to evolve, you don't need a constitution. All you need is a legislature, as well as a ballot box. Things will change as fast as you want. You want to create new rights and/or destroy old ones? A legislature and the electoral franchise are all that you need. The only reason you need a constitution is because there are some things which you don't want a majority to be able to change. That's my most important function as a judge in the American legal system. I have to tell the majority to take a hike. I tell them : 'I don't care what you want. The Bill of Rights says you cannot do it.' Now, if there is no fixed absolute, if the Constitution evolves to mean what it ought to mean today, what makes you think the majority is going to leave it to judges to decide what the Constitution ought to mean? The people comprising the popular or legislative majority will do that only if they think the decisions of the courts will be supportive of their particular interests, values, and opinions. If there are no fixed legal standards, if the justices on the Supreme Court are supposed to tell us what are the evolving stand- ards of decency that reflect a maturing society, a majority of the people and its political leadership will look for judges who agree with the majority as to what the Constitution means. And so we will have the absolutely crazy system in which we conduct a mini-plebiscite on the meaning of the Constitution every time we select a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Isn't that what's already happening? Does it make any sense?" • • • A MESSAGE FOR SENATOR TED CRUZ. Justice Scalia also once said : "The genius of the American constitutional system is the dispersal of power. Once power is centralized in one person, or one part [of government], a Bill of Rights is just words on paper.” Scalia said the most profound and significant departure from our nation’s constitutional structure and the principle of federalism protecting the states from federal power came in 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, providing for the direct, popular election of US Senators. Before, state governments appointed US Senators : “What a difference that makes. When you have a bill that says states will not receive federal highway funds unless they raise the drinking age to 21, that bill would not pass. The states that had lower drinking ages would tell their Senators, ‘You vote for that and you are out of there.’ That has all changed. You now have Senators who have no connection to the state government, never been in state government and some of them have never been to the state.” Although many view this as a positive, democratic change, Scalia contended it removed a key plank of the constitutional structure the framers put in place to protect federalism and state interests, loosening the responsiveness and accountablity of Senators that, prior to the 17th amendment, had to answer to the states. Scalia says the trend toward using constitutions as lawmaking documents has increased in recent years as special interests have learned to insert 'pet projects' into constitutions : “A constitution is about setting structure; it is not about writing the preferences of special interest groups.” In fact, Justice Scalia says the less done to the Constitution, the better : “A constitutional convention is a horrible idea. This is not a good century to write a constitution.” • And that brings us to Senator Ted Cruz. The retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy provides another opportunity to appoint a justice like the late Antonin Scalia, an originalist who believed that the words of the Constitution should be interpreted as written by the Founders in the context of the time in which they were written. Because of the number of Supreme Court seats likely to be vacated during President Trump's term of office, the most importance consequence of President Trump’s election will the transformation of the Supreme Court and lower courts into conservative and constitutional bastions of freedom. This is what makes Trump's choices so important. President Trump has proven more conservative in thought, word, and deed than anyone could have imagined. Nominating Neil Gorsuch was proof of Trump's understanding of the importance of recreating an originalist Supreme Court majority. Ted Cruz’s name was not on the current list to replace Justice Kennedy becuase Cruz thinks he is more importnat in the Senate. Perhaps, in the short-term view of things. But, how much more important would be Senator Cruz's contribution to the safeguarding of the Republic as a Supreme Court Justice. Incalculably more importnat. • Trump warned during the campaign that the Second Amendment was under attack, and there was no better defender of the Second Amendment than Ted Cruz. He would be a worthy replacement for the late Justice Scalia, with whom Cruz helped save the Second Amendment in the momentous Heller decision. On Scalia’s passing, Cruz stated : “As liberals and conservatives alike would agree, through his powerful and persuasive opinions, Justice Scalia fundamentally changed how courts interpret the Constitution and statutes, returning the focus to the original meaning of the text after decades of judicial activism. And he authored some of the most important decisions ever, including District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized our fundamental right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms. He was an unrelenting defender of religious liberty, free speech, federalism, the constitutional separation of powers, and private property rights. All liberty-loving Americans should be in mourning." • What few people know -- and the media won’t repeat -- is that Ted Cruz was a prime mover in getting Heller, in which Scalia wrote the majority opinion, before the Court and decided in favor of gun rights, ruling that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right and that the word “militia,” as the Founders intended, meant the “whole people” of the United States. If Heller had gone the other way, our gun rights would have been thrown on the ash heap of history. Cruz told CNN : "I represented 31 states in the Heller case, which upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms. You know what Barack Obama's position is? That there is no individual right to keep and bear arms whatsoever under the Constitution....Hillary Clinton, for example, has said she will put Supreme Court justices on the court who will overturn Heller. And if Heller is overturned....there were four justices who said that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms whatsoever, that it is only a collective right in the militia, which is fancy lawyer talk for a nonexistent right....If Hillary Clinton gets one more Supreme Court justice, what it would mean is, the Supreme Court would say you and I and every individual American have no constitutional right under the Second Amendment at all, and either the federal government or a state government could make it a crime to possess a firearm." • There are those who suggest Cruz would turn down a SCOTUS offer made directly bu Preszident Trump. Cruz, the argument goes, may not want to be just 1 of 9, but right now he is just 1 of 100. Would he pass up a chance to safeguard the Constitution or a generation or more in favor of having his bills die in committee? Would the United States and the Constitution be better off with a Justice Cruz? Yes. We need to deliver the message to both the President and to Senator Cruz -- that there are times when 'wants' must give way to 'duties.' The safest, best choice to replace Justice Kennedy is Senator Ted Cruz. • Time is short. Tweet or email both of them today. And then celebrate America's Independence Day with a happy heart.

Merkel Faces Coalition Immigration Revolt while Islam Focuses on Europe, Iranians Riot against the Regime, and Israel Helps Syrian Refugees

THE REAL NEWS TODAY COMES FROM GERMANY, IRAN -- AND ISRAEL. It all has lessons for America. • Reuters' headline on Monday morning labeled it "Chaos in Merkel's coalition after Seehofer dangles resignation." What is going on? • • • EU MIGRANT DEAL LEADS TO GERMAN POLITICAL CRISIS. Last Friday, after 9 hours of negotiating well into the night, the EU's 27 member state leaders announce they had reached an agreement on migration. Although the number of migrants arriving in Europe has fallen by 90% since their 2015 peak, the fallout of the 2015 influx has created a political crisis between and within EU member states. The new populist government in Italy -- where, until Italy refused to let migrant boats dock two weeks ago, most migrants had landed if they made it across the Mediterranean -- demanded that the rest of the EU take “concrete steps” to share its burden (and was prepared to veto any deal if they did not), and anti-immigration leaders in countries such as Hungary and the Czech Republic rejected even the idea of automatic quotas per member state for illegal immigrnats and asylum seekers. In Germany, which took in more than a million migrants in 2015, Merkel’s conservative Bavarian coalition partner threatened to shut the border to migrants who had applied for asylum elsewhere in the EU, a move that could trigger the collapse of Merkel's government and mark the end of the EU’s passport-free Schengen zone. Even Chancellor Merkel had said migration could “decide the fate of the EU.” • What was agreed last Friday? Here's the Guardian's report : "Like many EU deals, this was a carefully but vaguely worded fudge to satisfy divergent views. It stopped well short of decisively solving the problem, but may have raised enough of a platform to build on. Satisfying Italy, member states agreed to send rescued migrants on EU territory to 'control centers' across the bloc -- at locations still to be decided, and only in countries that volunteered to have them. There, 'rapid and secure processing' would sift economic migrants from refugees with a potential right to asylum, 'for whom the principle of solidarity would apply.' Appeasing some of the central Europeans, no relocation measures would be compulsory. Leaders also backed plans, broadly agreed by all members, to tighten the EU’s external border, give more money to countries such as Turkey and Morocco to help prevent migrants leaving for Europe, and set up processing centers in countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Niger and Tunisia. And in an apparent lifeline for Merkel, the accord said governments should 'take all necessary internal legislative and administrative measures' to stop refugees and migrants crossing Europe’s internal borders. • Italy's prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, said the deal meant that Italy was “no longer alone.” Merkel said the deal was “a good signal” but much still needed to be done, and France’s Emmanuel Macron said it was an important step which had delivered a “European solution and cooperation.” More importantly, a senior politician from Merkel’s rebellious Bavarian coalition partner, the Christian Social Union, said “something has moved in the right direction,” and Matteo Salvini, Italy’s anti-immigration interior minister, said “real progress” had been made. The Guardian said : "The deal, and whatever actions eventually follow, is not enough to heal Europe’s deep political divides over migration -- but for the time being, at least, it may be enough to paper over the cracks." • That was a bit premature. On Monday, the Guardian was reporting about the German political crisis, reporting : "The future of Germany’s coalition government is hanging in the balance after the country’s interior minister reportedly announced his intention to resign over a migration showdown with Angela Merkel. Horst Seehofer, who is also leader of the [Bavarian] Christian Social Union, on Sunday night offered to step down from his ministerial role and party leadership in a closed-door meeting in which he and fellow CSU leaders had debated the merits of the migration deal Merkel hammered out with fellow European Union leaders in Brussels. But with CSU hardliners believed to have tried to talk the combative interior minister into staying, a press conference was postponed until Monday, with Seehofer seeking to go back to Merkel in search of a final compromise. At a 2am media conference, Seehofer said he had agreed to meet again with Merkel’s party before he made his decision final. 'We’ll have more talks today with the CDU in Berlin with the hope that we can come to an agreement,' Seehofer said. 'After that, then we will see.' ” • German Chancellor Angela Merkel is battling for her political future as she tries to negotiate her way out of her 2015 policies that opened Europe's doors wide to an unprecedented influx of illegal immigrants. The UK Daily Express wrote on Monday : "Angela Merkel is fighting for her entire political future this week after her most senior minister threatened to resign over her EU migration deal -- a move which could trigger the collapse of her shaky coalition and leave Germany facing yet another election....Mr Seehofer said the deal was affecting the “credibility” of his role as party leader and warned he saw 'no alternative' but to turn back some migrants at the German border. This could see Mr Seehofer deliver on his threat to close Germany’s borders to migrants -- a move which could forces Mrs Merkel to sack him, triggering the collapse of her three-month-old government as well as the EU's Schengen zone of free travel. Should Angela Merkel’s government crumble, it could pave the way for a dissolution of parliament and new elections in Germany, which in turn could embolden the rise of far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD)." • Seehofer; as interior ministr, has the right to direct immigration actions, but he is answerable to Chancellor Merkel. The dispute is about whether to turn back migrants at the German border who have registered elsewhere in the European Union. EU law requires migrants to seek asylum in the first EU country they enter. Most migrants arrive in Italy, or now Spain, but often state their desire to go on to Germany or other northern EU countries to seek asylum. Seehofer and his CSU reject this approach, which would cause a continuing influx of migrants into Germany. Merkel was cornered last month when Seehofer threatened to defy her wishes and order police to turn back asylum seekers unless she secured a broader EU deal on distributing migrants more evenly. That led to the Friday EU meeting and deal. • Chancellor Merkel emphasized her willingness to corporate with the CSU in an interview with German broadcaster ZDF on Sunday, stating : “I share the CSU’s aim of on the one hand reducing the number of immigrants being brought to Europe by smugglers, and on the other hand I also share the view that asylum seekers can’t simply choose which country they want to go to. The sum of all we've agreed is equivalent to what the CSU wants -- that's my personal view, but the CSU must decide for themselves. It is also sustainable and in accordance with the European ideal. Europe is slow, and we aren't yet where we want to be. In my view Europe will be held together, otherwise free movement could have been in danger." • Meanwhile, Spain’s maritime rescue service on Sunday picked up 160 people from five boats that were crossing the dangerous Strait of Gibraltar from northern Africa. The rescue service said 57 migrants were rescued from three boats on Sunday morning and brought ashore in Tarifa, at the southernmost tip of the Iberian peninsula. Another rescue vessel took 103 people to Algeciras, a large port city to the east. The number of people reaching Europe by the so-called western Mediterranean land and sea route to Spain has surpassed boat arrivals to Italy this year, after the new Italian govenrment closed Italy's ports to migrant boats. • • • WHAT HAPPENS IF MERKEL'S GOVERNMENT FALLS? If Seehofer resigns and his replacement, undoubtedly from the CSU, continues an adversarial approach, it would threaten to bring an end to the historic alliance between Merkel’s party, the Christian Democratic Union, and the Bavarian CSU, pushing the Chancellor’s coalition government to the brink of collapse. • The Guardian reports : "After the EU last week hammered out a vague accord on migration, promising to set up secure centres to process the asylum claims of people rescued in the Mediterranean, Merkel drew up her own raft of measures to tighten controls on the influx of migrants to Germany and presented it to her sceptical, conservative coalition partners. Seehofer threatened to turn away any asylum claimants already registered in another EU country unless Merkel came up with a solution by Sunday night. Merkel set out fresh measures to calm the row, but Seehofer reportedly voiced his dissatisfaction with the plans at his meeting with fellow CSU party leaders. The interior minister complained in Munich that he had engaged Merkel in a 'conversation with no effect' about his plan to turn away asylum seekers already registered in other EU countries, the sources said. According to sources cited by newspaper Die Welt, Seehofer directly contradicted the Chancellor, who insisted in a TV interview [the ZDF interview] on Saturday night that the deal she had hammered out in Brussels amounted to the same end result as the unilateral steps envisioned by the Bavarians." • The CSU faces regional elections in October and has pressured Merkel for weeks to get tough on immigration and asylum because it fears being beaten at the polls by the anti-immigrant, anti-Islam Alternative for Germany (AfD). BUT, Merkel fears that if Germany closes its borders, it will set off a chain reaction that destroys Europe’s border-free travel zone, regarded by the EU as one of its greatest achievements, as well as a linchpin of jobs and prosperity. Merkel says she has struck deals with 16 other countries for them to take back already-registered asylum seekers. But central European nations including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia deny any such agreement. “Germany has not addressed us and I will not sign this agreement,” said Czech prime minister Andrej Babiš. “No negotiations have taken place between the Czech Republic and Germany on this question.” • The Guardian says : "While most analysts expect Merkel to survive the clash with the CSU, it is unlikely to be the last occasion on which the sister party seeks to distance itself from a chancellor it sees as too centrist for its own supporters." • Deutsche Welle wrote an article on Monday to explain what happens if Horst Seehofer resigns. DW states : "Germany's Basic Law (constitution) doesn't make a distinction between voluntary resignation and dismissal for federal ministers, meaning that Seehofer must ask Merkel to be dismissed. Should Seehofer ask to be dismissed, Merkel cannot make the call by herself. She would need to propose the move to German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who would then be the one to dismiss Seehofer from his interior minister post....Should Seehofer decide to leave his post, his Bavarian party would then need to propose a new candidate from their ranks to be the next interior minister. If, however, the party no longer wants to stay in the governing coalition, they could also pull all of their ministers out of Merkel's Cabinet, thereby ending the government's majority in the Bundestag, Germany's lower house of parliament....If the CSU no longer wants to stay in the coalition, there are several possible scenarios, none of which look particularly promising for Merkel : Minority government. Merkel's CDU -- and the SPD, if they agree to it -- could attempt to continue ruling without a majority in parliament, but they would need to continually seek partners in the opposition in order to pass legislation, as a majority is required. During the lengthy talks to form the current coalition, Merkel said she'd rather call for a new election than opt for a minority government, meaning she won't likely be keen on taking this route. Forming a new coalition. The CDU and the SPD could also start searching for a new coalition partner to fill the gap left by the CSU. They could possibly strike a deal with either the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP) or the environmentalist Greens. However, Merkel's seat as chancellor would likely be up for grabs during negotiations. Voting out Merkel. The technically legal but unlikely third option could see Merkel facing a vote of no confidence in the Bundestag. Should the CSU abandon the CDU, there would technically be a majority in parliament against the chancellor. However, the other parties would need to also simultaneously propose a new candidate -- an unlikely option considering the divides between them. New elections. Should Merkel's government break down, this could pave the way for the dissolution of parliament and new elections in Germany. The process to call for new elections is complicated, but it's an option that Merkel previously said she prefers to ruling in a minority government. Should President Steinmeier decide to dissolve parliament, a new election would have to take place within 60 days." • Amalysts seem to be betting that Merkel will survive this crisis and continue to lead Germany and, de facto, the EU. But, the immigration issue has seriously weakened Merkel both at home and in the rest of the EU, and she seems determined ot take the middle ground position that immigrants must be admitted into th EU if they arrive, and that their status and final destination will be resolved by negotiation -- among EU states many of whom are obviously unhappy with Chancellor Merkel's immigration policies. It is not a stablilizing vision for the EU future. • • • MOSLEM MIGRANTS ALREADY IN THE EU ARE ORGANIZING. Gatestone Institute's Judith Bergman wrote an article on Monday titled "Europe : The Vision is an Islamic State." Europe will still exist, writes Bergman, "but, as with the great Christian Byzantine Empire that is now Turkey, will it still embody Judeo-Christian civilization?" She cites a Dutch government report published in June showing that Moslems in the Netherlands are becoming more religious. The report, based on information from 2006-2015, is a study of more than 7,249 Dutch nationals with Moroccan and Turkish roots. Two thirds of the Moslems in the Netherlands are from Turkey or Morocco : "According to the report, 78% of Moroccan Moslems pray five times a day, as do 33% of Turkish Moslems. Approximately 40% of both groups visit a mosque at least once a week. More young Moroccan women wear a headscarf (up from 64% in 2006 to 78% in 2015) and large majorities of both groups eat halal (93% of Moroccan Moslems and 80% of Turkish Moslems). 96% of Moroccan Moslems say that faith is a very important part of their lives, whereas the number is 89% for Turkish Moslems. The number of Dutch Moroccan Moslems who can be described as strictly adhering to Islam has increased from 77% in 2006, to 84% in 2015. For Turkish Moslems, the numbers have increased from 37% to 45%. There are few secular Moslems -- 7% among Turkish Moslems, 2% among Moroccan Moslems." • The report points out that : "In Denmark, the trend of Moslems becoming more religious was apparent as early as 2004, when a poll showed that Moslems were becoming more religious than their parents, especially 'young, well-educated and well-integrated women.'....A more detailed Danish poll from 2015 showed that Moslems had become more religious since a similar poll taken in 2006....Brian Arly Jacobsen, a sociologist of religion from the University of Copenhagen, was surprised by the results. 'With time we would expect [that Moslems] would become more like the rest of the Danes, who are not particularly active in the religious sphere,' he said. Jacobsen thought that a possible explanation might have been the 20-30 new mosques that were built in the decade preceding 2015." • Bergman says : "The trends expressed by these polls are corroborated by studies and polls showing that many Moslems in Europe want to live under sharia law. According to a 2014 study of Moroccan and Turkish Moslems in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Sweden, an average of almost 60% of the Moslems polled agreed that Moslems should return to the roots of Islam. 75% thought there is only one interpretation of the Koran possible, and 65% said that Sharia is more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live. A 2016 UK poll showed that 43% of British Moslems 'believed that parts of the Islamic legal system should replace British law while only 22% opposed the idea.' In a 2017 study, which included a poll of 400 Belgian Moslems, 29% said they believe the laws of Islam to be superior to Belgian law, and 34% said they 'would definitely prefer a political system inspired by the Quran.'....The more than two million predominantly Moslem migrants that have arrived in Europe in recent years are only reinforcing the trend of growing Moslem religiosity on the continent. A 2017 study of predominantly Afghan asylum seekers in the Austrian city of Graz showed that the asylum seekers, mostly men under the age of 30, were all in favor of preserving their traditional Islamic values with 70% going to the mosque every Friday for prayers. The women were even more religious, with 62.6% praying five times a day, notably more than the men (39.7%). In addition, 66.3% of the women wore a headscarf in public. Half of the migrants said that religion now plays a larger role in their daily lives in Europe than it did in their native country, and 51.6% of the interviewees said that the supremacy of Islam over other religions was undisputed." • The tendency of many Moslems to become more religious once they arrived in Europe was also on display in a new documentary series, "False Identity," by Arabic-speaking Israeli journalist Zvi Yehezkeli, who went undercover to report on the activities of the Moslem Brotherhood in Europe and the US. In Germany, he encountered two young Moslems from Syria, who came to Germany via Kosovo, where they received help from a "British Islamic organization." They had left Syria as secular Moslems, but on the way to Germany they lived for a year in Pristina, Kosovo, where, according to Yehezkeli, "Moslem Brotherhood organizations are active in helping refugees while turning them into devout Moslems. Ahmed and Yusuf arrived [in Germany] already praying five times a day." Ahmed said : "When I left Syria, mentally I felt more relaxed. The Islamic charity organization played an important role in this. Look, the first time you meet them they start helping you. You sit, you stare at them, they pray in front of you and here I am a Moslem, studied the Quran, yet don't pray. Suddenly I find myself alone asking, Why shouldn't I pray like all others?" Yehezkeli asked them what their dream is. "The vision is an Islamic state -- Islamic society," said Yusuf, "Moslems will prefer sharia rule. But the vision for twenty years from now is for sharia law to be part of Germany, that sharia will be institutionalized in the state itself." • Bergman notes that as Moslems in Europe are becoming more religious, European Christians are becoming less religious. Bergman points out a study of young Europeans, aged 16-29, published in March and based on 2014-2016 data, whose author is Stephen Bullivant, a professor of theology and the sociology of religion at St Mary's University in London. Bullivant concluded : "With some notable exceptions, young adults increasingly are not identifying with or practicing religion...Christianity as a default, as a norm, is gone, and probably gone for good -- or at least for the next 100 years." The study notes that between 70% and 80% of young adults in Estonia, Sweden and the Netherlands categorize themselves as non-religious. Between 64% and 70% of young adults consider themselves non-religious in France, Belgium, Hungary and the UK. The most religious youths were to be found in Poland, where only 17% of young adults defined themselves as non-religious, followed by Lithuania with 25%. • It does not paint a positive picture for European Christianity as it faces an increasing flow of Moslems who are bringing Islam with them and hoping to install it as the key in European culture. Given young Europeans' lack of a religious identity and the vacuum left by the departure of Christianity from the lives of the majority, we have to wonder how sturdy their ability will be to withstand such attempts at replacing Europe's Judeo-Christian civilization? It is also a warning for the United States, where Christianity is still strong, but Msolem enclaves are growing in number and in their demands for sharia law in their communities. • • • HAVE IRANIANS HAD ENOUGH OF THE AYATOLLAHS? The Epoch Times and many other media outlets have been reporting about the protests in Iran. But, Epch Times wrote on Monday that an alleged Iranian government agent on the back of a motorcycle fired a rifle at protesters in Iran. The shooting video was on Twitter. The protester in Khorramshahr was killed while allegedly peacefully demonstrating against water shortages, state oppression, and pollution. Epoch Times quoted a June 30 Alireza Nader tweet : " Regime forces have killed an #Iranian demonstrator in Khoramshahr, a city which bravely resisted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the war & now resists the dictator Ayatollah Khamenei." Epoch Times says that : "After the protester was killed, the protests turned to riots in a country where tensions and open demonstrations against the regime have been steadily building. Videos released between June 30 and July 1 show fires in the streets, regime forces firing at civilians, and growing unrest." Nader also tweeted : "Security forces belonging to Rouhani’s government shoot at peaceful protestors in Khorramshahr. Rouhanj is the 'moderate' the regime promised as his police now shoot, injure, & kill #Iranians." Epoch Times says videos of the situation show chaos in the streets of Khorramshahr, a city near the Iraq border in southwestern Iran. Babak Taghvaee, an author and journalist, wrote on Twitter that on the second day of protests in the city the regime’s security forces started brutal suppression of the protesters using machine guns. Here is Babak Taghvaee's tweet : "#BREAKING: 2nd day of protests against #Iran's Islamic Regime in the #Khorramshahr due to unavailability of drinking water. The regime's security forces have started brutal suppression of the protesters using machine guns. Regime ignored warning of Opposition Leader, #RezaPahlavi....Brave protesters in #Khorramshahr just started defending themselves by shooting at the terrorist #Basij militia & #IRGC Special Unit of #Iran’s Islamic Regime Police....#BREAKING: Protesters filmed one of the #IRGC's Special Unit Police bikers while was shooting at unarmed protesters using AK-103 assault rifle. Death of 2 protesters is now confirmed. #Iran's Islamic Regime is scared now. #IranProtests #IranStrikes pic.twitter.com/Wvrcwnkmco....#BREAKING: Brave protesters in #Khorramshahr just started defending themselves by shooting at the terrorist #Basij militia & #IRGC Special Unit of #Iran's Islamic Regime Police. They have armed themselves by AK-103 assault rifles captured from security forces. #IranProtests. pic.twitter.com/U580ECdz6h....Protesters were defending themselves via throwing stones at the security forces who had brutally suppressed their protest pic.twitter.com/0URo4Ralub." • Epoch Times also reported that Masih Alinejad, an Iranian activist and journalist for Voice of America, tweeted that people in Khorramshahr stood up to defend their city against Iraq, during the Iran–Iraq War. She stated : “During the Iran-Iraq war, people of Khorramshahr defended their city & country against invasion. Many of them died. Today, they were defending themselves against the Islamic Repub. Their own government opened fire on them. Their own government doesn't care about their problems. • On July 1, Alireza Nader tweeted : "Regime forces have killed an #Iranian demonstrator in Khoramshahr, a city which bravely resisted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the war & now resists the dictator Ayatollah Khamenei." Another video shows a large crowd walking, in an alleged protest in the southwestern city of Ahvaz. Taghvaee stated on Twitter that : “Iranians in several cities of #Iran have come to streets to protest against #Iran’s Islamic Regime due to brutal suppression of #Khorramshahr’s people in #Khuzestan, #Lorestan & #Isfahan provinces.” • Epoch Times says : "If the claims are true, then the incidents in Khorramshahr may have been a powder keg that set off an uprising that has long been brewing. The incident follows a series of similar protests that have been growing in size and frequency, and similar killings of protesters by the Iranian regime. Alireza Nader, a former RAND analyst, published a video of a protest on June 25 in front of Iran’s parliament building, noting that the narrator of the video claims there were at least 20,000 protesters : "Mass protest in front of #Iran’s parliament building. The narrator of the video claims there are at least 20,000 protesting near the parliament." In another tweet, Nader said that since December 2017, there have been similar protests in more than 110 cities in Iran. • The Iranian regime seized power in 1979 through a student revolution with communist undertones, stated the Epoch Times, "with influences from Soviet subversion and from socialist “Islamism” tied to the ideas of Sayyid Qutb, a founder of the Moslem Brotherhood. The 1979 Iranian Revolution overthrew Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, who died in 1980 while in exile in Egypt, ending the Persian monarchy, which had lasted for 2,500 years." • • • DO THE IRANIAN PROTESTS MEAN ANYTHING? American Thinker's Monica Showalter wrote on Sunday that most protests are meaningless because the brutal regimes the protesters are opposing ignore them and continue in their brutal ways. • BUT, says Showalter : "Iranians can protest till the cows come home, whether it's the truckers protesting artificial costs, teachers protesting theft of their pensions, villagers protesting mismanagement of water resources, kitchen-sink Iranians protesting the 131.15% inflation...according to inflation expert Steve Hanke, and locals always protesting corruption....Until now. Apparently the mullahs and their goon squads were in for a surprise when on Sunday, someone opened fire on them in Khorramshahr, 400 miles southwest of Teheran, as they rolled in to shut down a protest over locals getting poisoned by untreated water. It's an area with a large Arabic population out near the Iraqi border. The gunfire came back at them. Mowing down is now going two ways, and it's clear the regime is scared -- their official state media said the protestors only threw stones and garbage. Well, no. There's a spectacular, well-shot video on Twitter [Babak Taghvaee@BabakTaghvaee] [also see Twitter cites above], showing a protester firing back on the Iranian state goons, and it's starting to attract the notice of the news....Breitbart says four were killed. The mullahs are saying it was one. Gives you the flavor of the propaganda war going on, and the mullahs' desperate and failing effort to suppress the news. Scared they are, indeed. And this is likely to get worse." • Showalter says it was "just one person with a gun, and we have occasionally seen that sort of thing in both Cuba and Venezuela. It may mean nothing and go away. But the fact that the news is on it serves as a multiplier effect and is likely to encourage more action. That's different from what's going on in Cuba or Venezuela where such events are found only in local news briefs. Meanwhile, as we have reported here, there is a big conference of Iran democracy activists over in Paris and it's being closely watched by all sorts of Iranian exiles, as noted in the tele-presence of Albanians. You can BET the Iranians are watching, too." • Showalter says there is NO chance the Iranian regime will reform : "The only way these people are going out is on the sharp end of a meathook and they know it....A quiet retirement at home is out of the question for a leader who has done so much damage to so many people : The specter of prosecution would always loom....So all that remains to happen is either to endure the hellishness, or fight it. There's no democracy alternative in the middle. It looks like at least some Iranians have come to this conclusion too with this gunfire, and it may well mean that what's next will be bloody. The Green Revolution didn't work. Now with the mullahs refusing to reform and refusing to retire, the signs are there that Iran is now moving to a revolution that far from being green will see rivers of red." • And, Babak Taghvaee reports on his Twitter string that the Revolutionary Guard may be getting ready to directly take over the Iranian regime. Meanwhile last Friday, Newsweek reported that : "Power outages have hit Teheran this week as protests rocked the Iranian capital due to economic woes, which have seen the country’s currency fall rapidly in recent months. • The US sanctions are working. Under the impending threat of new US sanctions, the government has moved to ban more than 1,300 foreign imports that can be produced domestically. Traders have responded to the economic problems this week by staging large protests and shutting down their shops in Teheran’s Grand Bazaar. In another sign of increasing economic turmoil, Teheran was thrown into a blackout on Wednesday, Radio Free Europe reported. Officials blamed the problem on an overheated power grid. The country’s Energy Minister Reza Ardakanian has said electricity consumption has increased by 28% from a year ago, leaving the country’s infrastructure unable to meet demand." We should note that the Grand Bazaar is a huge center in Teheran, much more than a shopping mall, with schools, shops, worker associations, and such. It employs 600,000 people, so a protest is a big deal. President Trump is doing the right thing in applying sanctions pressure to the Iranian regime. • • • DEAR READERS, today, we end on a brighter note. Israel Today noted in an artilce on Sunday that : "More than 160,000 Syrian refugees have amassed near Israel's border on the Golan Heights. Despite being told their entire lives that Israelis are bloodthirsty and heartless enemies, they are now seeking shelter in the Jewish state amid a merciless onslaught by their own dictatorial regime and its Russian allies. Israel, of course, cannot permit an influx of so many refugees, especially from a nation still officially at war with it. But, the Jewish state is determined to do all it can to help these poor souls, including feeding and clothing them to the best of its ability. Over the weekend, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) sent 300 tents, 13 tons of food, 15 tons of baby food, 30 tons of clothes and shoes, and three pallets of medical supplies to the massive refugee camp taking form just over the border." Additionally, the Israeli military granted entry to six Syrians in dire need of emergency medical care. Four of them were newly-orphaned children who were wounded during indiscriminate aerial assaults by their own government. The IDF published a statement reading : "In a unique and complex medical operation by the Bashan Division, six moderately to severely injured Syrians were received and treated last Friday night, including four children. According to reports from the Syrian side, the families of the children were killed in bombings during the fighting in Syria, and the children were rushed to Israel to receive treatment." The children all received emergency first aid by IDF medics. Once stabilized, they were taken to a hospital in northern Israel. • The even better news is that the Syrian civilians being mercilessly bombed by their own regime and turned away by neighboring Arab countries are thanking Israel for showing kindness even to its enemies. The refugees began streaming to the border last week when the Syrian regime and its Russian allies began indiscriminate aerial assaults on their homes situated in some of the last rebel-held territory. Israel Today reports that : "Speaking to Israel's Ynet news portal, one Syrian refugee said he and his family felt hopeless after being turned away at the border with Jordan, which has already taken in over half a million Syrian refugees, and turned toward Israel as a last resort. They were pleased to find the Jewish state ready to help, despite the fact that Syria remains officially at war with Israel. 'We saw a very noble stance by the Israeli side, both by the aid that it sent and in its treating of the wounded,' the man, identified as Sa’id, told Ynet." • You won't find this story in US or European news coverage, but it is worth more than the biased news coming form western media because it shows how Israel not only seeks peace but works with goodwill to help those it wants to have peace with. Israel is not the war-mongering haertless regime that the UN and Israel's enemies would like the world to believe. It is the voice of compassion and peace in the Middle East.

Politics and Religion, Progressives and Protestants, the Pope and the President

THE YEAR IS HALF OVER -- A GOOD TIME TO REFLECT. A close friend wrote to me about a week ago about a particular event, but his message was much wider and matched my own recent thoughts about what America is and where we're headed. He wrote : "If or maybe when the United States of America ceases to exists as our Founding Father’s planned and foresaw while creating this great Republic with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, the Rule of Law, it won’t be from the lack of a solid base, the lack of connection to their efforts and teachings. It will be because of our blind sense of fair play and our blindness to who our enemies are and their willingness to win at any cost to anyone. It could be that we have already crossed the ‘failsafe line.’ Who knows." • There's something going on right now -- in the human psyche -- something that sees the need to think about fundamental ideas -- to wonder whether "fair play" is still the right political approach. I think it's a symptom of the violent and often unhinged clashes of ideas -- if they all rise to that honorable level -- that we are being bombarded by every day. • • • THE AMERICAN 'PROTESTANT ETHIC.' We used to call it the Protestant work ethic. It was a driving force to explain much of what happened in America from 1776 until 1932. The Protestant work ethic, the Calvinist work ethic or the Puritan work ethic is a concept in theology, sociology, economics and history that emphasizes hard work, discipline and frugality, which guide a person's actions in the belief that these Calvinist values supported by the Protestant faith generally, are keys to being a good Christian -- and politically, a good American. German sociologist Max Weber, in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904–05), argued that the Protestant ethic was an important factor in the economic success of Protestant groups in the early stages of European capitalism, because worldly success could be interpreted as a sign of eternal salvation. For many of us who grew up in mid-20th century America, the phrase "Pray as if everything depended on God; work as if everything depended on you" synthesized this Calvinist-Presybterian marching order for success here on Earth and later, an entry into Heaven. • And, as with most life-defining ideas, this one, learned as youngsters, has never left us. It cropped up in neon when I read a National Review article in early June titled "Off the Shelf : When WASPs Sting," by Michael Brendan Dougherty. In the article, Dougherty wrote : "I’ve been thinking about Protestantism lately. Not so much high-octane Calvinism, which in its present form is a pursuit for bookish men who quite like fractious intellectual argument....no, I’ve been thinking about something you might call 'elite Protestantism' or 'Mainstream Protestantism.' A number of things have conspired to remind me that what is often called Progressivism is a mutation of Protestantism." • THAT idea was a SHOCKER that caught me completely off-guard. We, whose Protestant work ethic has often led us to be political conservatives, do not identify with Progressivism. Not at all. What did Dougherty mean? He cites Michael Doran discussing the theological traditions inherent in debates about foreign policy -- William Jennings Bryan with a populist-Evangelical tradition of Jacksonian nationalism, and H L Mencken with an urbane, Mainstream Protestant or secular tradition of international cosmopolitanism. Doran says : "The Progressive persuasion conflicts with its Jacksonian counterpart in crucial respects. Though both accord the government a vital role in protecting 'the common, everyday fellow,' the deepest concern of the Jacksonian is individual liberty, whereas the Progressive focuses more intently on destroying inequality. The Progressive, moreover, is eager to embrace 'collective' initiatives, which in practice means government initiatives. Though some of these will pass muster with the Jacksonian persuasion, the Progressives’ embrace of centralizing government power, even when legitimated in terms of the interests of the common man, often appears as a threat to individual liberty. For the Jacksonian persuasion, the Progressive vision quickly turns into the oligarchy of experts....When it comes to foreign policy, Progressives are internationalist in outlook. The Jacksonian persuasion, with its roots in the divine mission of America, conduces to nationalism. It assumes, moreover, that a resort to arms to protect American liberty is a regrettable but inevitable aspect of the human condition. By contrast, Progressivism emphasizes universal human brotherhood, which it believes is within the capacity of humans to achieve. As a result, the Progressive persuasion tends to emphasize peacemaking more than it does vigilant self-defense. One pole of the Progressive spectrum is an idealistic pacifism. The other pole can be very militant, for it accords the United States an exceptional mission in the world. This mission, however, is not Andrew Jackson’s notion of keeping the flame of liberty alive until Judgment Day. The mission of America is, rather, to use its military and economic power to nudge the world toward universal brotherhood." • Dougherty makes his central point, quoting Jody Bottum's book "An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and Spirit of America" : " 'The new elite class of America is the old one : America’s Mainline Protestant Christians, in both the glory and the annoyingness of their moral confidence and spiritual certainty. They just stripped out the Christianity along the way.' The connection is almost stronger than he realizes. It is as if the spirit of this religious orientation operates within and outside the Mainline Church simultaneously. It is also hard not to notice how the moral, doctrinal, and political developments within Mainline Protestantism anticipate legal and political developments in the United States. The United Methodist Church was an early supporter of abortion rights. The Episcopal Church raised to bishop a man in a same-sex marriage in 2004, when most of even the left side of America’s political culture was still making a case for state-recognized civil unions. Bottum notes that the physical descendants of Jews and Catholics assimilate to America’s Progressive class today, by adopting its political outlook. They do so for the same reason many of their ancestors may have joined the Episcopal Church, to signal their membership in the mainstream of America life." • Dougherty goes on to discuss the sustainability of post-Protestant politics in the context of the loosening of the ties to the scriptural, theological, and liturgical life that created it. But, that was not where his article led me. • • • POLITICS AND RELIGION. My thoughts turned to the compatibility of religion and politics. Are they the two faces of the same coin, in America as in all of human history? Dougherty's conclusion led the way : "When capital-P Providence has been replaced with capital-P Progress, there needs to be some form of prosperity that testifies to the regenerate nature of the Elect who lead society. The basis of their leadership is their ability to provide broad-based prosperity, ever-increasing social peace, and personal flourishing. At some point it will be impossible to credibly blame dark reactionary forces for the latest social and economic calamity. And if there is anything history guarantees, it is a punctuated return of social and economic calamity." • If we hear the name Donald Trump in those words, it is because his name is there -- what is Donald Trump if he is not the personification of the American Protestant work ethic turning his 'pray and work' upbringing and massive personal financial success to the political arena?? • And, then, on Saturday, I read the usually drole Jonah Goldberg, who this week devoted his column in National Review to the very un-drole "Dogma." Goldberg wrote : "Every day I hear people say that one shouldn’t be “dogmatic,” or that their political opponents are dogmatists, or some such. But as I have written many times, everyone subscribes to all manner of dogmatic convictions -- and they should. People not dogmatically opposed to genocide, premeditated murder, rape, etc. aren’t brave and pragmatic free-thinkers. They’re sociopaths. The accumulation of dogma...is the process by which civilizations advance. In a state of nature, man is open to all possibilities if he can be convinced he will gain an advantage in a bid to survive. With no controlling moral authority beyond the basic programming of our genes, we were free to take the shortest route between any two points, so long as we believed it would work out well for us. Even after the Agricultural Revolution, civilizations defined morality largely according to what benefitted the rulers. Child sacrifice -- common around the globe for millennia -- seemed like a plausible way to get better crop yields, so why not go for it? Over time, though, the process of trial and error informed by reason and faith, we accumulated some conclusions about how society should operate. These conclusions became dogmas. Dogma is simply the word we use for settled questions we no longer want to reopen. Not all dogmas are good. Some are evil, to be sure : child sacrifice, slavery, etc. But the process of refining our dogmas is what makes us, if not human, then certainly humane. Conversely, the process by which we unthinkingly smash dogmas without understanding their function is the fastest route to barbarism. The Bolsheviks rejected the dogma of universal human dignity and slaughtered people with an abandon more closely resembling the Aztecs than anything resembling secular humanism." • Goldberg quotes GK Chesterton : "When [man] drops one doctrine after another in a refined skepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded." • • • CHESTERTON BRINGS THE TOPIC HOME. Religion -- or as Chesterton says, systems and finality -- ties people to consciousness, to human-ness, to order, to morality. • Nick Stirrett, a football coach and writer for Mic, published an article in 2011 about the relationship between Church and State. Stirrett calls the relationship "guarded and defined by skepticism," noting Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter explaining the necessity of “building a wall of separation between Church and State” to recent Supreme Court cases citing the First Amendment as a reason to prohibit everything from prayer in school to the public display of the Ten Commandments. Americans, says Stirrett, "have been cautious of the integration of these two influential institutions. Yet, while we guard this often blurry threshold, Americans create precarious mixings of religion and politics. Which begs the questions, how strict can this separation be? Is it possible? And, in the end, do we want separation?" • Of course, for us as for Stirrett, the topics that come immediately to mind today are abortion and same-sex marriage, "two social issues at the forefront of political debate. For many Americans, religious beliefs shape their opinions with regard to these issues; and, in-turn, during elections, voters align themselves with candidates who share their sentiments. According to a 2010 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 37% of all registered voters cite religion as the most influential factor when talking about same-sex marriage while the figure is lower for abortion at 28%. When congressional and local elections are sometimes decided by hundreds of votes, percentages this high can have a major impact....budget battle(s) over funding for Planned Parenthood is a testament to the effect these beliefs can have." • Stirrett highlights the role of "the pulpit' in bringing about "social change."According to Stirrett : "It is a mistake to slate religion as strictly polarizing and something to be ushered away from the realm of politics -- at least completely. Though not all shape their beliefs through a respective faith, for many religion does provide the foundation for morality. And while political decisions based entirely on religious convictions can be dangerous, so are decisions void of a moral compass. In the end, can we separate religion from politics? It seems a complex but natural relationship in which there can be mutual benefit. But, like most successful relationships it is hard work. There must be healthy debate, balance, and the ability to compromise. No one said it would be easy." • • • SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. The Jefferson letter Dougherty refers to was written on January 1, 1802, to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. Jefferson wrote : "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson was echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who had written in 1644 : "A hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." • "Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Jefferson's letter and used in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which reads : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Article Six of the United States Constitution also specifes that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This highlighting of religion was partly in answer to the Test Acts prevalent in the Colonies that required elected officials to be Protestant. • Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the US Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote : "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." In contrast to "separationism," the Supreme Court in Zorach v. Clauson upheld "accommodationism," holding that the nation's "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" and that government recognition of God does not constitute the establishment of a state church as the Constitution's authors intended to prohibit. So, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the US remains an ongoing subject of passionate debate. The Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine contains three central concepts -- no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. • Many early immigrant groups traveled to America to worship freely, particularly after the English Civil War and religious conflict in France and Germany. They included nonconformists like the Puritans, who were Protestant Christians fleeing religious persecution from the Anglican King of England. Despite a common background, the groups' views on religious toleration were mixed. While some such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island and William Penn of Pennsylvania ensured the protection of religious minorities within their colonies, others like the Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony had established churches. The Dutch colony of New Netherland established the Dutch Reformed Church and outlawed all other worship, though enforcement was sparse. • Because of the wide diversity of opinion on Christian theological matters in the newly independent American States, the Constitutional Convention believed a government sanctioned, that is, established, religion would disrupt rather than bind the newly formed union together. George Washington wrote a letter in 1790 to the country's first Jewish congregation, the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island to state : "Allowing rights and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it were by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." • Some scholars and organizations disagree with the notion of "separation of church and state," or the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitutional limitation on religious establishment. These critics generally argue that the phrase misrepresents the textual requirements of the Constitution, while noting that many aspects of church and state were intermingled at the time the Constitution was ratified. These critics argue that the prevalent degree of separation of church and state could not have been intended by the constitutional framers. Some of the intermingling between church and state include religious references in official contexts, and such other founding documents as the United States Declaration of Independence, which references the idea of a "Creator" and "Nature's God," though these references did not ultimately appear in the Constitution nor do they mention any particular religious view of a "Creator" or "Nature's God." • KEY in these arguments today are the competing theories about how to interpret the Constitution -- originalism as championed by Justice Scalia that takes the Constitution as written vs Progressivism that describe the Constitution as the Living Constitution serving as a guideline but not to be followed closely in the 21st century. YET, while sometimes questioned as possible violations of separation of church and state, the appointment of official chaplains for government functions, voluntary prayer meetings at the Department of Justice outside of duty hours, voluntary prayer at meals in US armed forces, inclusion of the (optional) phrase "so help me God" in the oaths for many elected offices, FBI agents, etc., have been held not to violate the First Amendment, since they fall within the realm of free exercise of religion. Relaxed zoning rules and special parking privileges for churches, the tax-free status of church property, the fact that Christmas is a federal holiday, have also been questioned, but have been considered examples of the governmental prerogative in deciding practical and beneficial arrangements for the society. The national motto "In God We Trust" has been challenged as a violation, but the Supreme Court has ruled that ceremonial deism is not religious in nature. • • • DO RELIGION AND POLITICS CO-EXIST IN SOCIETY? Mark Koyama, writing for the Hoover Institution last Tuesday, noted a quotation : "In the late fourth century, the Roman senator Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, a pagan, issued a plea for religious pluralism : 'We gaze up at the same stars; the sky covers us all; the same universe encompasses us. Does it matter what practical system we adopt in our search for the Truth? The heart of so great a mystery cannot be reached by following one road only.' ” Koyama says that : "Today, Symmachus’s words resonate. They appeal to our society’s fundamental liberal values. They are a statement of religious freedom. But these words failed to persuade Symmachus’s contemporaries. In Symmachus’s last years, the Roman state made paganism illegal. Not until the Reformation would anyone again put forward as eloquent a case for religious pluralism in Europe. Why did the case for religious liberalism fall on deaf ears? Why was religious compulsion so prevalent until modern times? Why did religious liberty eventually emerge in the West after around 1700? And what factors were responsible?" • Koyama states : "Numerous historians have documented the rise of the idea of religious liberty following the Reformation. Pride of place is often given to John Locke and his Letters Concerning Toleration....Locke’s arguments helped to shift the conversation against religious compulsion. By the mid-18th century, writers like Voltaire were satirizing the Catholic Church, and by the end of the century, elite opinion had shifted in favor of religious liberty." Koyama asks an interesting question : "Why were Locke...and Voltaire so much more persuasive than Symmachus? We argue that institutions were critical. The institutional environment of the late Roman empire and medieval Europe was simply not hospitable for religious liberalism. This changed in Western Europe, at first gradually, and then decisively following 1700. Prior to that time, religious authorities such as the Pope provided rulers with legitimacy. In return, rulers enforced religious conformity. It was a quid pro quo. A second plank in the political order were identity rules. These are rules that target the social identity of the parties involved, i.e., their religion, race, or language." Koyama reminds us : "For example, criminal procedures varied according to social status. In ancient Rome, the testimony of slaves was extracted under torture. In medieval England, commoners guilty of treason were hanged, drawn, and quartered, but the nobility were spared such a degrading punishment and simply beheaded. Churchmen enjoyed the benefit of clergy, exempting them from secular punishments for many crimes....In Europe, Jews were restricted from particular occupations, prohibited from hiring Christian servants, and sometimes forced to wear badges or hats to distinguish themselves. In the Middle East, both Christians and Jews paid special taxes and proselytizing to Moslems was punished by death. Why were identity rules so ubiquitous? One reason is that they were a cheap solution to the problem of political disorder. They are cheap to enforce because they leverage pre-existing social identities. They do not require a sophisticated bureaucracy to enforce." This mattered because of what Koyama calls "a lack of state capacity. In contrast to modern states that collect between one-third to one-half of GDP from citizens in the form of taxes, premodern states were small. Before 1700, European states seldom took more than 5-10% of GDP as tax revenue. What we think of as public goods such as schools were mostly privately provided. Until the Reformation, welfare provision was the responsibility of the Church. These planks reinforced one another. The weakness of premodern states encouraged reliance on religion as a source of legitimacy. The states were unable to provide the public goods that would provide an alternative source of legitimacy. Their weakness meant that they lacked the capacity to enforce general rules and hence tended to rely on identity rules to govern. In particular, they lacked the administrative and legal capacity to enforce general rules and legal equality." But, by the end of the 17th century, most European rulers realized that the costs of enforcing conformity outweighed the benefits. And, at the same time, European rulers were creating tax and administrative bureaucracies that meant they could dispense with many of the old institutions. Welfare and education did not have to be provided by churches. Identity rules were increasingly viewed as sources of inefficiency and injustice. This institutional transformation was crucial to the success of the classical liberal ideals of equality before the law and freedom of religion after 1750. And of course, the establishment of liberal modern states had consequences beyond religious freedom. It was part of a general transformation of society which helped to lay the foundations for the modern world. AND, it was the begining of the nanny state that conservative Americans chastize for repressing individual responsibility and independence • So, we may ask if the separation of church and state means that there is no religious dimension in the political society of the United States. Robert S. Wood, a leader and advisor to senior civilian and military officials of the US government, has argued that the United States is a model for the world in terms of how a separation of church and state -- no state-run or state-established church -- is good for both the church and the state, allowing a variety of religions to flourish. Wood says the freedom of conscience and assembly allowed under such a system has led to a "remarkable religiosity" in the United States that isn't present in other industrialized nations. Wood believes that the US operates on "a sort of civic religion," which includes a generally shared belief in a creator who "expects better of us." Beyond that, individuals are free to decide how they want to believe and fill in their own creeds and express their conscience. He calls this approach the "genius of religious sentiment in the United States." • But, modern states, like older ones, seem to need some form of shared ideology about the true and the good -- often called the "Moral Compass." In the US, this took the form of a kind of civil religion that was respectful of more traditional religions and made possible a fair degree of pluralism in other areas of life. Americans could be Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, a gentleman farmer, a day laborer, or a financier, but all believed in the American experiment of ordered liberty. • • • DO AMERICAN PROTESTANTS AND PROGRESSIVES AGREE? I suspect that argument will go on without a definitive answer for as long as there are Protestants and Progressives in America. • It raises the current set of issues -- basically religious in nature -- often shorthanded as "baking same-sex cakes" questions. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker who was opposed, for reasons of religious conviction, to baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple's marriage. It was a 7-2 decision -- rather unusual in its pulling together of both liberal and conservative Justices, who set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker -- while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can flat-out refuse to serve gay and lesbian people. The opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing justice in tight cases, and it focused on what the Court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against the baker. "The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. The Trump administration backed the baker, who was represented in court by a conservative Christian nonprofit organization. By wading again into what are seen in America as culture wars, the Justices had to confront recent decisions on both gay rights and religious liberty : a 2015 landmark opinion legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide and another 2014 decision affirming the right of some companies to act on their owner's faith by refusing to provide contraception to its workers. And, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had, last October, issued broad guidance to executive branch agencies, reiterating the government should respect religious freedom, which in the Justice Department's eyes extends to people, businesses and organizations. But civil rights groups were concerned the conservative majority on the court may be ready to peel back protections for groups with a history of enduring discrimination -- and predicted that giving businesses the right to refuse service to certain customers would undermine non-discrimination laws and hurt minorities. In the oral arguments before the Court last December, Justice Kennedy was bothered by certain comments by a commission member. The commissioner seemed "neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs," Kennedy said in December. • As American Thinker put it : "Demanding that the one person whose religious beliefs say that he should not support a gay 'wedding' do so when there are so many others to choose from is prima facie evidence that the authority is hostile to the person’s religious belief. A key aspect of modern law is that the state, businesses, and individuals must provide reasonable accommodations to people based on their religious beliefs. For example, allowing Moslems to pray during the work day. Now if the accommodation is too demanding, then it does not have to be provided; allowing a Moslem cashier at a liquor store to not ring up liquor purchases. But asserting that some other baker who doesn’t object to baking a cake for a gay 'wedding' provide a cake instead of forcing the one baker whose religious beliefs preclude his participation is a very reasonable and nonintrusive accommodation. After all, if an Orthodox Jew and a Catholic work at a business that is open on Saturday and Sunday, wouldn’t it be a clear sign of hostility if the owner refused to let them switch work days so that the Jew didn’t have to work on Saturday and the Catholic didn’t have to work on Sunday?" • • • ACCOMMODATION. This is one of the things the First Amendment has come to signify -- any government authority that rejects the reasonable accommodation of religious convictions or practices is clearly hostile to the person whom they refuse to accommodate and to the religious rationale that person is using to ask for an accommodation. • The First Amendment does not require every American to subscribe to gay-ness or to the LGBTQ agenda. What the First Amendment does require is that Americans should try to accommodate the LGBTQ community, except when religious conviction prevents it -- and then, only when there are alternative solution for the LGBTQ problem at hand. Declaring that 2% of Americans, the LGBTQs, have the unrestricted right to impose their beliefs on 72% of Americans, who are Christians, is clearly hostile to Christians AND to the First Amendment. Many Christians believe the Court should have ruled that a person’s religious liberty is not up for discussion given the clear wording of the First Amendment, BUT, the reality is that in America today, even in the Bible Belt, there is no shortage of individuals willing to provide every imaginable service for gay 'weddings.' So, why force one baker with strongly held religious convictions against gay marriage to provide the cake. It is what Wood called the "genius of religious sentiment in the United States....a sort of civic religion, which includes a generally shared belief in a creator who 'expects better of us.' • BUT, the Supreme Court answer for gay wedding cakes does little to help America with the question of abortion. It isn't possible to organize direct resistance in the pro-life cause because abortion is a private and secretive deed that does not require active participation by Christians who are opposed to it. The Supreme Court decided in favor of a woman's right to abortion in Roe vs Wade. The Progressive side of America now fears that another conservative justice -- to replace the retiring Justice Kennedy -- will un-do Roe vs Wade. Frankly, I will be surprised if that happens. I think the Court, if faced with the issue, will try to find an "accommodation" that preserves individual rights while not destroying Christian-based moral repugnancy to the idea of killing unborn children. That the Court will be trying to thread the needle in the dark is what makes me think the Justices, both liberal and conservative, will try to stay out of the argument and let federal and state legislatures wrestle with finding a solution to a nearly intractable problem. • • • DEAR READERS, the constant tug between religion and politics is fairly easy to manage in America, except when deeply held beliefs are involved. Abortion is the most deeply held of these beliefs. Yet, abortion is one issue on which President Trump -- the leader of the Protestant work ethic America -- and Pope Francis -- the leader of the Progressive world -- agree. Austen Ivereigh wrote recently in American Thinker that : "The world’s two most compelling populists, as we might call Trump and Francis, have more in common than some might admit -- their extraordinary capacity for connection, bypassing traditional methods; their defiance of convention, even their iconoclasm; or their delight in challenging existing elites on behalf of the people. Both seem energized by opposition. Politically, too, they share a distaste for globalism. Both, in the broadest sense, are nationalists. Pope Francis is no mere liberal....both the Pope and the President are critics of a neoliberal globalism that weakens local ties and benefits educated elites at the expense of the common man" and, says Ivereigh, this highlights their diametrically opposed visions of the world in other areas, for example, open or secured borders. According to Ivereigh : "That said, the kernel of the rift between the Pope and the President is ultimately religious....Pope Francis’s arch-critic, Raymond Burke, an American cardinal based in Rome, share(s) [with Trump] the conviction that “Christian culture" is engaged in a deadly rivalry with Islam....an enduring “clash of civilizations.” Pope Francis abhors this notion and rejects it at every turn. Religion, which is universal (because God is), can never be captured by a national culture; nor can true religion ever be the cause of terrorism and violence, accroding tothe Pope. Yet, Trump would say -- rightly -- that Americans are not opposed to immigrants, only to illegal immigrants who violate the innate American sense of Rule of Law, and to terrorists, lurking in immigrant groups, who seek to destroy America. • And, that brings us back to the question whether religion and politics co-exist in America. They certainly do. And, their co-existence shapes the national character and provides the tolerance that gives America a particular strength devoid of identity, or religious, tests. It is what separates Trump and the majority of Americans from the divisiveness of today's Progressive-Democrat radical notion that identity should be used to divide and control American politics. It is a poison that will destroy America if allowed to continue. It is what, at bottom, makes President Trump so important. He is fighting against the Progressive idea that rejects the constitutional truth that "All men are created equal." And, in that context, there is nothing similar about American Protestantism and Progressivism. But, that is a lesson that Americans are still learning. And, as Edmund Burke so correctly understood : "Example is the school of mankind, and he will learn at no other.”