The American Spectator

A major difference in the worldview between the Western mind and the Middle Eastern mind is the approach towards authority. The Western mindset is well represented by René Descartes, a devout Catholic, who advised men to “Question everything.” This everything includes questioning the authority of the pope and the very existence of God. From the Middle Eastern mind arose Islam, which does not allow, let alone encourage, questioning of Imams, ayatollahs, or the existence of Allah. Submit or die is an oversimplification of their creed, but not brutally so. But with the internet and other global communications, a pure mind set is difficult to keep. The very Western idea of rebellion has blown on the wind and the seeds are finding root in Iran.

President Obama has been presented an opportunity to influence Middle East policy much in the same way President H.W. Bush was presented an opportunity by China’s Tiananmen Square uprising. For many reasons, President Bush did not capitalize on the opportunity to use soft diplomacy to show support for the Chinese youth. Understandably, he did not wish to be entangled in unnecessary hostilities, but subtle and consistent encouragement could have been provided without a direct confrontation. Our fearless leader is facing a similar situation. Bush, a man who depended heavily upon prudence and deliberation, was too lost in thought to take action. The One has already proven himself to be a backwards-looking president, continually sniping at his predecessor, so he maybe he has learned from Paré Bush’s mistake. That still leaves the question if Our Dear Leader has the courage to show support for the rebellion in Iran and exploit it.

Wisdom dictates that one calculates risks, but the same wisdom dictates that wasted opportunities are seldom repeated.
— I.M. Kessel

SOJOURN YOUR WAY ON BACK OUT OF THE USA
Re: Garry Greenwood’s letter (under “A Chance to Evangelize”) in Reader Mail’s The Right Stuff:

I assure Mr. Greenwood and the readers of TAS that the Catholic Church is hardly alone in its support for open borders and subverting the immigration laws. The most often stated justification is the Old Testament injunction to greet and welcome the stranger in our midst. In more modern language, that means showing “solidarity” with the poor and the marginalized and honoring the essential humanity of illegal aliens.

One can’t help but notice that it is strange that, for so many of those in the ministry who regard many of the central claims of Scripture as “problematic,” the specific verses regarding the “stranger in our midst” are carved in marble and an unambiguous in their meaning. One can’t help but suspect they simply looked for Biblical support for what they wanted in the first place — something they claim religious conservatives do. Our religious display an earnestness in these commands that give the most rock-hard fundamentalists a run for the money. Bad or inconsistent theology also calls their moral authority into question.

One should also note that, in regard to the alien, most of the Old Testament injunctions involve the requirement that he and his house is to keep the Sabbath. If an alien wishes to celebrate the Passover, he and all the males in his household were to be circumcised. Actual religious submissions to the God of Israel were not required of the alien; but the behavior required of the faithful also is required of the alien. And the law was to be impartial to both the alien as well as the native born Israelite.  

“Alien” in these cases involved those living in Israel who were not children of the promise.  

On the opposite side, the faithful are not to oppress the alien and, in fact, love him — extending food and clothing in his need. The sojourner passing through the country was to be treated in charity as well. But these leave the essential questions unanswered.

While we are to love the stranger among us, what has this to do with open borders? Where is the warrant to allow mass migration into the country? Where is it commanded that after they subvert the law to get here, we are required to allow them to remain here? Is the alien living among the Israelites or the sojourner passing through Israel to his destination really comparable to a person who sneaks into the country against its statutes?

I don’t blame those who are trying to come to America legitimately or unlawfully. I probably would do the very same thing. It is for this reason I believe in immigrant-friendly laws — laws which would apply to the Asian, Irish, African, Indian, etc. No quotas. Yet, I recognize that the government has a superior interest in knowing who and what is trying to come here. Along with immigration’s blessings, we also have received criminals and threatening, organized gangs. It is in the national interest that these should be resisted at our borders.
— Mike Dooley

EAGLES RISING

I’m trying to sidle across the aisle
But my sneakers are stuck to the floor.
The Left is out of my reach, I find.
My Conservative leanings are more

Compelling than any half-hearted grovel.
I can’t bow forward and bend the knee.
I’ve an old-fashioned reverence for freedom.
I’m trapped in Liberty.

My allegiance is unsophisticatedly simple
Nuance is beyond my pay grade.
I am not defined by how others see me.
My dues have been uncompromisingly paid.

Pundits would have it that I stand alone.
They are wrong, but they flap on at length.
Out of the corners of their eyes they see
The frightening vision of traditional strength.

Millions of us have been called on to choose
And find we can’t compromise.
The values that most of us understand
Are unstoppably on the rise.
— Mimi Evans Winship