Monday, January 21, 2019

The Progressives’ Republic of Virtue - Joseph Klein

​
by Joseph Klein

Attacking America’s bedrock institutions to advance “social justice”.




Progressives want to radically transform America’s noble experiment in self-government, the securing of inalienable rights of the individual, and the rule of law within the structure of a constitutional republic. They prefer a model of an all-powerful government expanding its reach as necessary to bring about their evolving conception of a virtuous society. They use epithets such as “racist” and “bigot” to silence opposition to their leftist agenda and try to ruin the livelihoods of those who won't be silenced. When that does not work, progressives resort to “hate speech” codes enforced by sympathetic social media and college campus censors. 

The liberal media’s darling and possible candidate for the presidency, former Democrat Representative Beto O'Rourke, questioned whether the United States can “still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago.” That’s nothing new for progressives. They have been mouthing much the same thing for over a century, from Woodrow Wilson through Barack Obama and beyond. They believe that the Constitution is nothing more than an outdated document written by dead white males to protect their property interests.

President Woodrow Wilson, the progressives’ hero who was a blatant racist himself, urged that the Constitution be treated as a living document and that its core principle of checks and balances be discarded.  “No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live,” he wrote.

Barack Obama criticized the Constitution’s focus on “negative liberties” rather than saying “what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” Obama had in mind “the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”

In an op-ed column for the New York Times entitled “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution,” a progressive law professor, Louis Michael Seidman, wrote that “our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions” is to blame for “a dysfunctional political system.” In a law review article that he wrote in 2018, the professor defined progressivism today as “a modern political stance favoring an activist government that strives to achieve the public good, including the correction of unjust distributions produced by the market and the dismantling of power hierarchies based on traits like race, nationality, gender, class, and sexual orientation.”

Progressives are not content with tearing down the U.S. Constitution’s pillars of liberty to advance their idea of “the public good.” They also believe it necessary to delegitimize traditional Western religious beliefs and their adherents as evil vestiges of racism, sexism, and homophobia.

“Christians became moral renegades,” wrote Rachel Lu, a contributor at The Federalist, “because the mainstream culture shifted, leaving our beliefs ‘on the wrong side of history’ as progressives have envisioned it. We’re vilified for maintaining positions that have been embedded in the Christian tradition for centuries. If the dominant culture can change enough to permit this level of kulturkampf against an ancient Western faith, who can say how much further it might go?”

Totalitarian purges and persecutions in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries demonstrate how much further such enforced cultural transformation can go. Progressives like to think of themselves as too enlightened to go down such a destructive path. However, they mimic the dogma of the French Revolution’s Republic of Virtue that perverted the reasoned enlightened thought and political philosophy upon which the Founding Fathers had drawn for their own inspiration.

The Founding Fathers sought to preserve individual freedom of worship and practice while eschewing the establishment of any official state religion. French revolutionary zealots, on the other hand, sought to de-Christianize France as much as possible. Their secular belief, based on the slogan "Liberté, égalité, fraternité," was intended to replace religious beliefs. Temples of Reason took the place of churches, which were treated as the enemies of the Republic of Virtue.

Progressives today target traditional religious beliefs to make way for the dominance of secularism in all realms of American society. Moral absolutes of good and evil based on religious truths get in the way of progressives’ application of evolving cultural norms to define morality. In arguing for their belief in moral relativism, they seek to marginalize people of faith and interfere with their freedom of religion. Progressives use all instruments available to them to enforce their code of secular virtues.

For example, progressives are using activist courts to force Christian photographers and bakers to employ their expressive skills to celebrate same-sex weddings. An activist federal judge in Pennsylvania just blocked the Trump administration from implementing a rule that would have allowed employers to decline to offer contraceptive coverage in their health insurance policies on moral or religious grounds.

Progressives troll and slander people of faith on social media. A recent example is the vicious onslaught against Second Lady Karen Pence for daring to decide to teach art at a traditional Christian school in Virginia. One anti-religion progressive tweeted that “Karen Pence is an extremist bigot” and “a dangerous monster” who is “unfit to even be around kids, let alone teach them.” A fellow hater of religion replied that “exposing children to the toxic virus of religion before they are 21 should be considered child abuse.”

This anti-religion attitude has moved from social media to the halls of Congress. Nominees for federal judgeships have been lambasted for their personal religious views during Senate confirmation hearings. For example, Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Senator Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, quizzed Brian Buescher, President Trump’s nominee for the U.S. District Court in Nebraska, over his membership in the Catholic charity organization known as the Knights of Columbus. The senators were uncomfortable with some of the religious-based stances the Knights of Columbus organization has taken on such issues as same-sex marriage and abortion. They wanted to know if Mr. Buescher would resign from the Knights of Columbus once he is confirmed. Last year, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., went after another Trump nominee for the federal bench, Amy Coney Barrett, for her Catholic beliefs. “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern,” Senator Feinstein said. Evidently, these senators have forgotten that Article VI of the Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

The zealots of the French Revolution went after people who, in their minds, had strayed from the path of virtue and expressed impure thoughts favoring the interests of the rich and powerful propertied classes. The progressives of today likewise believe, in the words of Professor Seidman, that free speech “favors status quo distributions and, so, the rich and powerful.”  He added that “the free speech right tends to obstruct the realization of progressive objectives.”

It follows, therefore, that progressives must seek to enforce their own code of acceptable speech. Words deemed offensive to certain “oppressed” identity groups would themselves be considered acts of violence that must be suppressed. Anyone who crosses the line is subject to boycott, ostracism, vitriolic personal attacks online, firing and even physical assault.

Of course, progressives can hurl pretty much any epithet at Christians and Jews they want and get away with it. They hide behind the First Amendment. But, for example, when a public high school teacher simply declined, out of religious conviction, to use the politically correct pronoun for a self-identified transgender student, the teacher was fired. “I am being punished for what I haven’t said,” the fired teacher told a Virginia newspaper. After all, once you know the gender that someone identifies with, “if you continue to misgender them, that’s when you get into violent territory,” wrote a transgender activist.

During the French Revolution, the Enragés were a direct action group who advocated radical measures including violence to achieve social and economic transformation on behalf of the poor who constituted the bottom 90 percent of the population.

Today’s progressives are the 21st century’s version of the Enragés, without there being anything remotely close in the United States to the horrendous conditions that inflamed the rage of the French masses. Progressives wear their rage on their sleeves. Just recall those who disrupted the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, hounded senators at their homes, issued death threats, and then clawed at the Supreme Court doors when they did not get their way. Protesters in the third anti-Trump Women’s March this weekend held up signs with radical slogans such as “White Old Men…Extinction Nearing!” and “Pussy is God.”

There is little difference between today’s version of progressivism and democratic socialism. Both call for radical change in America’s government, economy and society in the service of “social justice” for the “oppressed.”

The New York Democratic Socialists of America  tweeted last year their core demands: "Abolish profit, abolish prisons, abolish cash bail, abolish borders." Its platform has moved to the House of Representatives in the person of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who was recently elected as a progressive Democrat congresswoman from New York. She is leading the charge for such radical ideas as confiscatory taxes, a rapid change-over to a fossil fuel free economy, government-run health care for all, and open borders. “I do think we are in a crisis of late-stage capitalism,” she claimed. Evidently, historically low unemployment, including for African-Americans and Hispanics, is a “crisis” according to the self-described radical Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

We are at the crossroads that Ronald Reagan foresaw nearly fifty-five years ago in his 1964 speech entitled “A Time for Choosing.”  He observed that “the full power of centralized government was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. Either we accept the responsibility for our own destiny, or we abandon the American Revolution and confess that an intellectual belief in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”

The progressives want our country to abandon the American Revolution and its legacy of constrained governmental power and the protection of individuals’ inalienable rights. In the progressives’ version of the French Revolution’s Republic of Virtue, border barriers are “immoral,” masculinity is “toxic,” all white persons in America are born “privileged,” due process depends on the racial or sexual identity of the accused and accuser, and biological sex is no more than an “oppressive” social construct.  Equality of outcome must be enforced through massive government action to redistribute wealth and control major sectors of the economy. All this does not represent the land of the free that many of us grew up in. Rather, we would be taking what Ronald Reagan described as “the first step into a thousand years of darkness.”


Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272612/progressives-republic-virtue-joseph-klein

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Iran and Israel are on a collision course - Yoav Limor

​
by Yoav Limor

 Israel will have to be extra careful not to step on Russian toes as it goes up against Quds Force commander Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

The past 24 hours show that Israel and Iran are on the brink of a direct military confrontation. First came the Israeli strike in Damascus, which triggered a missile launch toward Israel on Sunday afternoon. Sunday night and early Monday, Israel retaliated by attacking Iranian targets in Syria.

The Israeli strike that began the latest flare-up, which targeted Iranian assets in Syria, was highly unusual because it was carried out during the day.This suggests that the targets were of high value. Otherwise, Israel would have preferred to attack at night, when the risk of collateral damage and casualties is much lower.

The fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was visiting Chad when the attack took place only underscores the importance of those targets and the urgency involved. Just minutes after the strike, Israel's Iron Dome system intercepted a medium-range missile fired at the Golan Heights. The short interval between the attack and the retaliation suggests that someone was just waiting for an opportunity.

Since Syrian forces only fired surface-to-air missiles against the Israeli aircraft, it is safe to assume that some other entity fired the rocket toward Israel.

In February last year, Iran sent an unmanned aerial vehicle toward Israel that was intercepted just minutes after entering Israeli airspace. Israel retaliated by targeting several Iranian assets, during which Syrian air defense managed to down an Israeli F-16.

In the wake of that flare-up, Israel significantly increased its attacks on Iranian targets in Syria, even though it knew Iran was looking for revenge, which came soon. Iran fired 30 rockets, four of which hit Israeli territory without causing casualties or damage. Israel then launched a massive strike against dozens of Iranian assets in Syria, as well as against Syrian air defense forces. Since that escalation, Iran has chosen not to engage Israel directly.

In September, Syrian air defense shot down a Russian Ilyushin 20 military plane off the Syrian coast after mistaking it for an Israeli jet. In the immediate aftermath of that incident, Israeli action in Syria decreased significantly. But over the past several weeks, Israeli military action against Iranian targets has intensified. Netanyahu even took responsibility for those actions.

The latest tit-for-tat suggests Iran is no longer going to remain passive to Israeli action. It is safe to assume that the recent escalation is not over yet.

This is the first time that new IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi has had to deal with such an escalation. In this matchup with Quds Force commander Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Kochavi will have to be extra careful not to step on Russian toes.

It took months for Moscow to calm down after the incident last September, and now Israel and Russia have a more comprehensive mechanism for deescalation. Israel must make sure the arrangement with Russia remains strong, as it is of paramount importance.

Although it is unlikely that the latest escalation will not spiral out of control, the IDF is not going to take any chances and will most likely remain on high alert in the near future to prepare for any Iranian response, which could also come from various Iranian proxies, including Hezbollah.

So tension in the north will remain a constant fixture for the foreseeable future and might very well play a major role in the election campaign.


Yoav Limor

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/iran-and-israel-are-on-a-collision-course/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Trump’s Border Wall Deal Rebuffed by Dems - Matthew Vadum

​
by Matthew Vadum

Nothing is good enough for leftists who treasure an insecure border.





President Donald J. Trump extended an olive branch to Democrats on the weekend, conceding much of their immigration policy agenda in a bold longshot bid to move forward with building a southern border wall and ending the nearly month-long partial government shutdown but left-wing lawmakers rejected his overture even before he addressed the nation on TV on Saturday.

Trump’s address came after a particularly frosty week in Washington.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) informed the president he would be unable to deliver a State of the Union Address in Congress because the money wasn’t there to provide security. Trump countered by canceling a decadent junket Pelosi and other fat cat lawmakers had been planning overseas. At the eleventh-hour, while lawmakers and their guests were en route to a military airport to fly away, the president deprived them of the use of U.S. military aircraft.

Anticipating Democrat criticism, Trump said on TV, “walls are not immoral,” adding that a wall “will save many lives and stop drugs from pouring into our country.”

“This is not a concrete structure from sea to sea,” he said. “These are steel barriers in high-priority locations.”

During his speech the president focused on the perils presented by an open border, saying it provided a “very wide and open gateway for criminals and gang members to enter the United States.”

But if Congress were to accept his proposals, more immigration reforms could follow, Trump suggested.

“If we are successful in this effort, we will have the best chance in a long time at real, bipartisan immigration reform, and it won’t stop here, it will keep going until we do it all.”

Although Democrat lawmakers have previously voted to build a wall on the nation’s porous multistate border with Mexico, they hate Trump with unbridled animosity and refuse to give him any kind of political victory, especially when it comes to immigration. Democrats benefit from a regular flow of illegal aliens into the country and view the lawbreaking foreigners as an important political constituency to be courted and cultivated.

Their arguments against building the wall have become increasingly irrational and bizarre in recent days. It is now common to hear overwrought left-wingers describe the proposed wall, which would keep illegal aliens out of the country, as “racist” and “white-nationalist.”

The GOP-controlled House of Representatives voted 217 to 185 on Dec. 20 for a spending bill with $5.7 billion for the wall. The measure floundered in the Senate and the partial shutdown got underway Dec. 22. The Senate remains in Republican hands but the House is now controlled by Democrats.

The president’s negotiations with Democrats over the approximately $5 billion needed to begin construction of the border wall have gone nowhere –Democrats childishly refuse to show up for meetings with Trump at the White House— and the federal government continues to be partially shut down for lack of appropriated funds. Although pressure on Trump has been growing, the president has vowed to keep the shutdown going as long as it takes to secure funding for the wall.

But on the weekend Trump backed away somewhat from his hardline no-wall-in-exchange-for-amnesty stance and agreed to policies some of his conservative critics like author Ann Coulter and political base view as betrayals.

Trump said in exchange for $5.7 billion in wall construction funds he would back a three-year extension of protections for 700,000 individuals who came to the U.S. unlawfully as children and were shielded from removal under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Under any conventional reading of the U.S. Constitution DACA is plainly unconstitutional –it was created by Obama’s presidential fiat— but courts have ordered the Trump administration to keep it in operation.

As part of the package, Trump would also support extending the protection period for 300,000 recipients of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. TPS prevents the deportation of individuals in the U.S. from designated countries deemed unsafe to return to.

Under the deal, another $800 million would be allocated for drug detection technology to secure ports of entry, according to a Fox News summary. Moreover, 2,750 new border agents and law enforcement professionals would be hired, along with 75 new immigration judges to cut through a large backlog of asylum requests.

Trump’s proposals, which could be included in legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate this week, were praised by prominent Republicans.

Trump’s plan for DACA recipients and individuals covered under the TPS program are similar to what has previously been proposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Graham hailed the plan as “fantastic” on Twitter Saturday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) lauded Trump for what he termed a “bold solution” to re-open the partially shuttered U.S. government.

“Compromise in divided government means that everyone can’t get everything they want every time,” McConnell said. “The President’s proposal reflects that. It strikes a fair compromise by incorporating priorities from both sides of the aisle.”

Trump nemesis Mitt Romney, now the newly sworn-in junior GOP senator from Utah, praised the proposal.

“@POTUS has put forth a reasonable, good faith proposal that will reopen the government and help secure the border[,]” Romney wrote on Twitter. “I look forward to voting for it and will work to encourage my Republican and Democratic colleagues to do the same.”

Conservative talk radio host and Landmark Legal Foundation founder Mark R. Levin was enthusiastic about Trump’s new plan.

“I strongly support President Trump’s immigration proposal today[,]” he wrote on Twitter on the weekend. “[House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi & [Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer rejected it even before the president spoke to the nation & made his proposal. They’re radical know-nothings.”

Pelosi rejected the Trump plan before the president took to the airwaves.

The package is a “compilation of several previously rejected initiatives, each of which is unacceptable and in total, do not represent a good-faith effort to restore certainty to people’s lives.”

“It is unlikely that any one of these provisions alone would pass the House, and taken together, they are a non-starter,” she said. “For one thing, this proposal does not include the permanent solution for the Dreamers and TPS recipients that our country needs and supports.”

Schumer accused Trump of continuing to put “forward one-sided and ineffective remedies.” He said Trump should re-open the government first and worry about his political agenda later.

“It was the president who singlehandedly took away DACA and TPS protections in the first place," Schumer said. “Offering some protections back in exchange for the wall is not a compromise, but more hostage taking.”

Democrats are fine with allowing the border crisis to fester. Instead of offering the $5.7 billion Trump says he needs, they have offered a measly $1.3 billion for border security in general.

The stalemate over border wall funding continues and the federal government continues to be partially closed.


Matthew Vadum

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272623/trumps-border-wall-deal-rebuffed-dems-matthew-vadum

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



The screws tighten on China - Peter Skurkiss

​
by Peter Skurkiss

The Alpha Dog has bared his teeth to the Red Dragon, and others are finding the courage to step up.

A quick survey of news from around the world show the screws are tightening on China.

First, news broke that Chinese tech company Huawei is now likely to face a criminal probe for stealing trade secrets from T-Mobile. This case is the result of civil lawsuits files against Huawei, primarily one where a Seattle jury found the Chinese company guilty of misappropriating robotic technology from T-Mobile. Although the judgement was a modest $4.8 million, it set a precedent for the Justice Department to use Huawei's behavior that was previously outlined in civil lawsuits as a basis for possible criminal prosecution.

Second, Chinese trade negotiators have offered a deal to go on a six-year buying spree to ramp up imports from the U.S. with a combined value of over one trillion dollars over that period. This will, it is claimed, reduce the trade deficit to zero. So far, the Trump administration is cool to the offer for being not enough and not addressing the matter of intellectual property theft. Also, there is concern regarding what the Chinese might want to buy. Advanced technologies would be off the table. There is also constant concern about China keeping its promises. So for, the Red Dragon's record is not good.

Third, the U.S. campaign to shut Huawei out of Western markets took another step forward when it was reported that Germany is considering banning Huawei products from its coming 5G networks over security concerns. If Berlin follows though, it will be a major blow to Huawei and would affect 3G and 4G networks, too. Germany is one of that company's largest market outside of China with Dusseldorf being Huawei's European headquarters.
Fourth, the European Union has set trade restrictions on steel imports in the form of quotas on 26 steel categories with a tariff of 25 percent on imports exceeding those quotas. This move mostly affects China and is the indirect result of President Trump's 25% tariffs on steel imports. As Chinese steel finds it harder to get into the American market, China is looking to dump its excess steel capacity wherever it can. Europe is a plump target. This type of trade restriction could cascade to include any country with a steel industry. Not to do so would leave said countries open to being flooded by Chinese steel over-capacity, extinguishing their domestic steel industry. 

Fifth, Polish Internal Security agency arrested and charged a Huawei executive on suspicion of spying for China. Huawei is the top supplier of smartphones in Poland with over a third of the market. Huawei has denied knowledge of the activities of its employee and has fired him.

These are not unrelated events. Nor will this be the end of them. They're happening because of one Donald Trump. It's not that the president told the EU to restrict Chinese steel or called Poland to arrest the Huawei executive. Trump isn't micromanaging. What he's doing is more effective. Leading by example, he has initiated a paradigm shift in how others look at Chinese misbehavior. Prior to Trump taking strong exception to China's mercantile trade practices and intellectual property thefts, Chinese agents more or less skipped uninhibited throughout the West, picking up whatever goodies they could. A greased palm here, a bought politician there, and before you know it, hundreds of billions of dollars a year of intellectual property and technology was flowing into China.

Now that the Alpha Dog has bared his teeth to the Red Dragon, others are finding the courage to demand fairness in their China trade. There is no other way to look at the situation but to conclude that China's free ride is rapidly ending. This will force Chinese President Xi Jinping and the rest of his communist leadership to focus more on how to manage their country's astronomical debt, capital outflow, poverty, and upside-down demographic than trying to take America's position in the world.


Peter Skurkiss

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/the_screws_tighten_on_china.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



The world no longer fears Erdogan - Prof. Eyal Zisser

​
by Prof. Eyal Zisser

The leaders of the U.S., Russia, and Egypt know that when the Turkish president is challenged and his struggling economy is threatened with disaster, he submits. Erdogan's other enemies should take note.

In a tweet last week, U.S. President Donald Trump brought Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to his knees. In early January, when he announced his decision to pull U.S. forces out of Syria, the American president hailed Erdogan as someone who could fight and even defeat the Islamic State group on his own. Now Trump has decided to take a whack at Erdogan and put him in his place.

The Turkish president deserved the dressing down he received. Drunk with his success at breaking Washington's alliance with the Kurds in Syria, he threatened to pummel the Kurds, while other Turkish officials even threatened to "slaughter" them. In the eyes of Ankara, the Kurds are simply terrorists - worse than the Islamic State and Syrian President Bashar Assad - and  must be fought.

Trump's response to Ankara's brazenness was short to follow, and the president took to Twitter to warn Erdogan that he would destroy the Turkish economy if the Kurds were harmed. The next day, the Turkish lira lost about two percent of its value, and it could keep falling. We can assume the welfare of the Kurds wasn't the only purpose of Trump's tweet, and that he was looking for an opportunity to show Erdogan, not for the first time, "who's boss."

Like many statesmen before him, Trump came to the conclusion that Erdogan only understands the language of force. It turns out he was right: In Ankara, Turkish officials quickly lowered the flames. The last time the two leaders clashed, the Turkish president was also the first to blink. Three months ago, Trump imposed economic sanctions on Turkey after Erdogan refused to release an American priest who had been arrested and jailed there. Within a matter of days, the Turks let the priest go.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has also flogged Erdogan into submission. Four years ago, the Turks shot down a Russian fighter jet that had entered their airspace. At first, Ankara refused to apologize, but after Putin imposed painful sanctions on Turkish imports, and after Russian tourists stopped flocking to Turkish resorts, Erdogan quickly backtracked and dispatched a letter of apology to Moscow.

Turkey has also been put over the barrel by Egyptian President Abdel Fatah el-Sissi, who deposed previous president and Erdogan ally Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood – a kindred movement to Erdogan's own ruling party. The Turkish president incessantly lambasted el-Sissi and Egypt, and Cairo responded by severing diplomatic ties with Ankara.

The Egyptians, it appears, put absolutely zero stock in Erdogan. Last week, Cairo hosted an energy and natural gas conference to promote cooperation with Mediterranean countries that either have natural gas resources or intend to build pipelines to Europe. Israel was one of the guests of honor, along with delegations from Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority.

Only the Turks weren't invited, and the Egyptians took pains to ensure they would also have no part in the project to transfer natural gas from the eastern Mediterranean basin to Europe. The supply route, therefore, will pass through Cyprus, Greece and Italy – not through Turkey, as Erdogan wanted.

The willingness of Trump, Putin, el-Sissi and others to take swings at Erdogan is important to note, particularly in light of his reputation in Israel and in Europe as a powerful, even omnipotent, leader. These leaders know that Erdogan is toothless; that he's a paper tiger who is strong only against the weak, especially in his own country. And they understand that when he's challenged and his already struggling economy is threatened with disaster, he submits. This is an important lesson for all the Turkish sultan's enemies.



Prof. Eyal Zisser is a lecturer in the Middle East History Department at Tel Aviv University.

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/the-world-no-longer-fears-erdogan/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Gantz campaign videos stress bold diplomatic moves - Lilach Shoval, Yehuda Shlezinger, Daniel Siryoti, Danielle Roth-Avneri and Israel Hayom Staff

​
by Lilach Shoval, Yehuda Shlezinger, Daniel Siryoti, Danielle Roth-Avneri and Israel Hayom Staff

Former IDF Chief Benny Gantz features images of Israeli leaders who "made peace". Disingenuously suggesting that since Israel made an agreement with Sadaat, we can make an agreement with the PA too, as if the two situations are equivalent.





Former IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz's Israel Resilience Party has put out four campaign videos on security and defense issues.

Three of the four videos focus on Gantz's achievements as IDF chief.

The fourth, titled "I don't want a generation to live here without hope," stresses the need for leaders to strive toward peace. The video features including one of of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with former PLO leader Yasser Arafat; an image of former Prime Minister Menachem Begin with former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat; and an image of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin with King Hussein of Jordan. In the background, Gantz says, "It's no shame to long for peace; it's not shame to work toward peace."

Gantz goes on to say, "Do we want to send our children to battle for another 25 years? No. Might we have to do that? It looks like it. What will we tell them? That we didn't do anything? That we didn't try? … I don't want a generation without hope living here, when everything could be different."

The New Right party, recently founded by Education Minister Naftali Bennett and Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, formerly of Habayit Hayehudi, attacked Gantz over the campaign videos.

"Gantz has launched a campaign that brags about 'his successes' in Operation Protective Edge. Since we're talking about a life and death matter, about the future defense leadership of Israel, we have an obligation to present the truth: Benny Gantz fell asleep at the wheel when it came to the terror tunnels from Gaza, which also led to a terrorist catastrophe," the New Right said.

"We set out to destroy the tunnels not because of Benny Gantz, but despite Benny Gantz," the New Right added.

Social Equality Minister Gila Gamliel (Likud) said: "I watched the videos and I'm a little confused. Who was prime minister when Benny Gantz took out [Hamas terrorist Ahmad] Jabari, killed 1,300 terrorists, and struck 6,500 targets? … The Likud is responsible for the best security situation in the history of the state of Israel."

Joint Arab List chairman MK Ayman Odeh said, "It's lucky Gantz hasn't spoken until now, because the last thing we need are more campaigns that take pride in killing, destruction, and war. We've had enough of that."

Also Sunday, former Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman launched the campaign for his Yisrael Beytenu party.

Lieberman has adopted a tactic of attacking the haredi public, Netanyahu, and Hamas, all under the slogan "Simply doesn't care," which is attached to the targets of his criticism: "Simply doesn't care about the haredim," "Simply doesn't care about Hamas."

"We are very much in favor of Judaism, but not religious coercion," Lieberman said Sunday at a press conference.

Lieberman spoke out against Netanyahu: "He did a feint, which is how Qatari fuel is entering Gaza. No trip to Africa can cover up the disgrace of a sovereign state buckling to a terrorist organization. Netanyahu has failed on security issues. A leader who always caves in and gets confused probably isn't in the right place."

Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon's Kulanu party unveiled its own campaign slogan on Monday: "Why is Kahlon the only one looking out for your family?"

Kahlon is trying to position himself as a politician concerned with socioeconomic issues as MK Orly Levy-Abekasis' new party is nipping at Kulanu's heels in the polls.

In other election news, a new party representing the Ethiopian sector was scheduled to make its debut on Monday.

The party, headed by former MK and advisor to the prime minister on issues concerning the Ethiopian community Alali Adamsu, is called All Israel are Brothers for Social Equality.

The party platform focuses on containing racism and racial harassment; promoting equal rights for new immigrants; and activity to change the process of conversion to Judaism in Israel.

At No. 2 on the Ethiopian list is Prof. Michael Korinaldi, who has spent decades promoting aliyah by Jewish minorities from all over the world, including Ethiopian Jews.


Lilach Shoval, Yehuda Shlezinger, Daniel Siryoti, Danielle Roth-Avneri and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/2019/01/21/gantz-campaign-videos-stress-bold-diplomatic-moves/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Sunday, January 20, 2019

Jew-Hatred in the Democratic Party - Eileen F. Toplansky

​
by Eileen F. Toplansky

It is really time for the liberal American Jewish Democrat to acknowledge that blatant anti-Semitism has infected the Democratic Party.

It is really time for the liberal American Jewish Democrat to acknowledge that blatant anti-Semitism has infected the Democratic Party.

Nancy Pelosi has appointed Ilhan Omar to the House Foreign Relations Committee. Omar is viciously anti-Israel and is in favor of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. Omar has long been a harsh critic of Israel. In fact, in 2012 – just "a few days after Gaza-based Hamas terrorists had launched more than 150 deadly rockets into the Jewish state, prompting an Israeli military response – she tweeted that 'the apartheid Israeli regime' had 'hypnotized the world' in order to conceal its own 'evil doings.'"

In fact, the only apartheid in the Middle East comes from Arab countries and is clearly documented by Muslim reporter Khaled Abu Toameh, who regularly highlights the Arab apartheid against Palestinians.

Furthermore, "in 2016, Omar stated that she was in favor of completely divesting the University of Minnesota of its Israel bonds. The following year, she opposed a bill designed to counter economic boycotts targeting the Jewish state." In addition, "in 2018, Omar ran for the U.S. House of Representatives seat formerly held by Keith Ellison. Her campaign was supported by ... the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which held three fundraising events on Omar's behalf[.]"

Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy asserts that "the Democratic Party is increasingly anti-Israel and flirts, to be charitable, with anti-Semitism. Today we see the latest evidence of the character of what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls the 'New party.'"

Omar is not an anomaly. To wit, the Palestinian Rashida Tlaib is another newly elected Democrat who harbors intense hatred for Jews and Israel. Like Omar, Tlaib supports the BDS movement. Moreover,
[S]upporters of Tlaib's congressional bid included J Street, Michael Moore, and Linda Sarsour[.] By August 2018, Tlaib had raised more than $30,000 from Islamists affiliated with CAIR, MPAC, MSA, and MAS [all offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood].
After Tlaib narrowly won the Democratic primary on August 7, she draped herself in a Palestinian flag while celebrating with her supporters. In her victory speech, she promised to 'fight back against every racist and oppressive structure that needs to be dismantled.'
This is code for dismembering America and Israel and any Western country that wants to maintain basic freedoms. 

If she is to be judged by the company she keeps, it should be noted that "CAIR founder and CEO Nihad Awad congratulated Tlaib on her historic victory of becoming the first Muslim and Palestinian woman in the U.S. Congress." Moreover, "[a] notable attendee at Tlaib's swearing-in ceremony was the executive director and co-founder of Al-Awda, Abbas Hamideh, who has repeatedly: (a) stated his belief that 'Israel does not have a right to exist'; (b) equated Zionism with Nazism and the genocidal ideology of ISIS; and (c) voiced support for Hezbollah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, whom he regards as 'the most honorable Arab-Muslim leader of our lifetime.' Following the swearing-in ceremony, Hamideh posted to his Twitter account a photo of himself and Tlaib holding up a large painting of the newly elected congresswoman. He also attended a private dinner with Tlaib, her family, and a number of her friends and activists."

Not surprisingly, "[t]he press ... has not showed much interest in reporting on the attitude of either [woman] toward Jews." David Harsanyi writes, "Tlaib ... wants to cut aid to the Jewish state because supporting it 'doesn't fit the values of our country.'"

Let's be frank. It doesn't support the values of a jihadist-loving individual who seeks to demolish fundamental American values. Harsanyi further explains:
The writer David Steinberg identified 105 news stories written in the immediate aftermath of Omar's victory, and not a single one mentioned her belief that Jewry possessed mind-control abilities or that Israel was 'evil.' No one called on the Democratic party to distance itself from this rhetoric.
Now, it isn't inherently anti-Semitic to be critical of Israeli political leadership or policies. ... But Omar used a well-worn anti-Semitic trope about the preternatural ability of a nefarious Jewish cabal to deceive the world. ... Omar had a chance to retract, or at least refine, her statement. Instead, she doubled down. 'These accusations [of anti-Semitism] are without merit,' she claimed, blaming Jewish Islamophobia for the backlash. Omar even wants the U.S. to normalize relations with the Holocaust-denying terror-state of Iran[.] ... Omar's defenders will claim she's anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish. 'Anti-Zionism has been the preferred justification for hatred of Jews in institutions of education and within progressive activism for a long time. Now it's coming for politics. Democrats can either [refuse to accept it], or they can remain silent.'
It has become clear that many American Jews have substituted liberalism for their religion, and, as Raymond Domanico writes, "American Jews are fervent proselytizers for every "ism" – feminism, environmentalism, pacifism, redistributionism[.] It's not just that Jews can't distinguish their political friends from their enemies, or that Jews consistently promote non-Jewish values. Far worse, this reflex liberalism compels them to take positions adverse to their best interests."

But the handwriting has been on the wall, unconcealed and unashamed. There are Congressional representatives who are working to undermine the country and in the process use the powerful and dangerous prejudice of anti-Semitism. There is no disputing this; their words and their associations speak for themselves.

Ari Lieberman asks, "[W]hy have Democrats remained silent? Why have they not issued a full-throated condemnation of Tlaib's vile comments?" He maintains:
First, many Democrats suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, which prevents them from assessing serious matters, such as anti-Semitism, in rational terms. Tlaib is anti-Semitic to her core but because she is a Trump hater, she's given a free pass.
Second, fear is a powerful motivator and is effective at curbing dissent. Many within the Democratic Party are fearful of speaking their minds and challenging the new up and coming but still relatively small socialist contingent within the Democratic Party. The fascist left has been successful in drowning out voices of moderation.
Finally, the Democratic Party itself is metastasizing into an anti-Semitic body much the same way that Britain's Labour Party has. The British Labour Party, taking its cues from its party boss, Jeremy Corbyn, is rife with Judeophobia and hatred of Israel.
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in The Devil that Never Dies wrote that "anti-Semitic expression has exploded in volume and intensity. It has done so with classical tropes and with new ones, in long familiar forums and in recently invented ones."

So a shift has begun that does not bode well. Until the rank and file among Jewish Americans calls out the anti-Semitism of the Democratic Party, things will not improve, since clearly, the Democratic Party leadership remains mute and indifferent.

Jews of all stripes should recall that in April of 2014, Investor's Business Daily described how the "radical Muslim Brotherhood has built the framework for a political party in America that seeks to turn Muslims into an Islamist voting bloc." Consequently, "'Muslim voters have the potential to be swing voters in 2016,' said Nihad Awad in launching the benign-sounding U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, (USCMO) whose membership reads like a Who's Who of Brotherhood front groups. USCMO also aims to elect Islamists in Washington, with the ultimate objective of 'institutionalizing policies' favorable to Islamists – that is, Shariah law."

Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib's elections are no mere happenstance. Their success results from carefully coordinated steps "to wage a 'civilization jihad' against America" that explicitly calls for infiltrating the U.S. political system and "destroying [it] from within."

Eileen F. Toplansky can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/jewhatred_in_the_democratic_party.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Understanding Brexit in 2019 - Alex Alexiev

​
by Alex Alexiev

What motivated Brits to get the heck out of the European Union in the first place? Cucumbers had something to do with it.

To understand what's going on in the U.K. after the defeat of Theresa May in the Commons, one needs some background not only on what motivated the Brits to vote to leave the European Union, but more importantly what it is about the E.U. that they particularly dislike.

The first part of it is easy. The English, and it was they who provided the bulk of the "leave" votes, were simply tired of being told what to do by a European Commission that had not been elected by them or anybody else, for that matter. It was a simple matter of sovereignty, especially after the European Commission turned out to be nothing more than a proxy for a new German diktat after Merkel, without consulting anyone, opened the borders of the E.U. to two million Muslim migrants in 2015.

This may have been the proximate cause of the Brexit outcome, but the deeper reasons involve long held fundamental grievances that had been simmering over many years and finally boiled over. That had to do with the direction in which the E.U. is taking Europe. To put it simply, that direction is an unmistakably left-wing course aiming at the creation of a new union of European nations that lack individual sovereignty and are told what to do by their betters – a kind of democratic Soviet Union, which history tells us is not possible.

To be sure, there are many in the U.K. who share these objectives, from the increasingly socialistic left under Jeremy Corbyn to Scottish nationalists and a rabidly pro-E.U. mainstream press, but they are still a minority and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

How we got to that point from the fundamental beliefs of Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi, and Robert Schumann that economic interdependence would eliminate wars in Europe is another question, but suffice it to say that all three of these European political giants believed in competition and sovereignty, concepts that nobody in power in Brussels currently endorses.

So what are some of the ways in which Europe has taken a wrong turn that turns off the Brits? They are the same that discomfit traditional Europeans, who value their sovereignty and traditions, and the same that have given rise to the dreaded "populist" movements across the continent. There are way too many for a think piece to list, from prohibiting cucumbers that don't have the approved curvature to even more asinine regulations that only bureaucrats that don't have anything better to do can think of. Two deserve special mention because they are particularly egregious and affect everybody: global warming and GMO. 

Global warming is behind the European cult of renewable energy. This led in the E.U. renewable "champion" Germany to prices of kWh paid by households of 35 cents (2017) versus 11 cents in the U.S. and 22 cents in the U.K. How is it possible for German industry not to collapse at those prices? It is possible because the government makes the German consumer subsidize the industry at the cost of his own standard of living. It is a gigantic fool's errand that is now coming to an end. In 2019, many of the 29,000 highly touted wind turbines in Germany will be nearly twenty years old and will run out of subsidies, yet none of them is economically feasible without those subsidies, and they have to be shut down. To add insult to injury, Merkel's government has engaged in blatant collusion with Putin against Eastern Europe by claiming that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project is strictly "commercial." None of it has even remotely contributed to the avowed purpose of bringing down CO2 emissions, which have been rising since 2009.

Next, it is impossible today to walk into an E.U. supermarket without being assaulted on all sides by advertisements for non-genetically modified food – this at a time when non-GMO is rapidly disappearing because science has asserted itself in opposition. In the world's largest producer of seed stock by far, the United States, the percentage of non-GMO seed is already less than 10 percent and rapidly declining. The E.U., all-out propaganda notwithstanding, thus has a clear choice of going GMO or not growing food competitively. It is not difficult to figure out which side will win.

So which way is Brexit going to go? There are huge forces arrayed against following the British vote to leave. There are the E.U., determined to make sure that leaving is neither easy nor cheap, lest anyone else get the idea; assorted left-wingers dreaming of socialist paradise; and the slavishly like-minded press. They all hope for more of the same. On the other side, seemingly outnumbered, are those who were tired of not being represented, of being told what cucumbers to buy and of imminent doom if they were to dare defy the powers that be.

For the sake of the United Kingdom and, ultimately, Europe itself, here is hoping that on March 29, 2019, the E.U. will be one member less.

Alex Alexiev is chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org). He can be reached at alexievalex4@gmail.com.


Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/understanding_brexit_in_2019.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



The Vatican Surrenders to China - Lawrence A. Franklin

​
by Lawrence A. Franklin

The Vatican may learn the hard way that the Communist Chinese government does not honor its agreements.

  • The Vatican may learn the hard way that the Communist Chinese government does not honor its agreements. Beijing may attempt to extort even more concessions from the Vatican, just as the Chinese regime demands ever more surrender of sovereignty from western companies that do business in China.
  • It is also highly dubious that the Vatican will purchase peace by this pact: the regime will continue to persecute the Church. If the Communist regime is true to form, thousands more crosses will be taken down from Christian churches, especially in areas that have a high Christian population.
  • The courageous elders of Chinese Catholicism, who have endured decades of government persecution and regime efforts to divide the Church, may be seen by their flocks as having been bypassed by the Vatican. Many, if not most, Chinese Catholics are likely to view this agreement as a cynical political betrayal by the Vatican rather than a faith-based decision.
  • "In light of this dismal record, it seems that prudence and caution would seem to be the order of the day in Vatican negotiations with the totalitarians in charge in Beijing, at whose most recent Party Congress religion was once again declared the enemy of Communism." — George Weigel, Catholic author and political analyst.

With a recent agreement signed between the Vatican and China's regime, Pope Francis surrendered partial control of the Chinese Catholic Church to the Chinese Communist Party. Pictured: The Sacred Heart Cathedral in Guangzhou, China. (Image source: Zhangzhugang/Wikimedia Commons)

Pope Francis has surrendered partial control of the Chinese Catholic Church to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). His Holiness agreed to grant the Party considerable authority over personnel matters. After decades of refusing to give China the right to appoint Catholic bishops, as a condition for normalization of relations, the Vatican finally conceded to the regime's demand to allow the CCP a decisive role in the selection of bishops to head Catholic dioceses.

The Vatican's concession came despite the CCP's continued persecution of the unofficial, independent, underground Catholic Church in China. Yet the Vatican probably does not view this as a defeat but rather as a means to an end. The diplomatic hierarchy of the Catholic Church may be confident that the truth of its spiritual message will endure long after the CCP dissolves into the same historical trash bin as other totalitarian ideologies have done.

The Church's consenting to fold its independent political posture into the Chinese regime's Communist Party apparatus gives Beijing the authority to appoint bishops politically acceptable to the CCP. In granting China this right, the Vatican implicitly is recognizing the legitimacy of the regime's CCP instrument to infiltrate and control Roman Catholicism in China, which is the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA).

Pope Francis has also reinstated several pro-regime bishops whom the Vatican had once excommunicated because they willingly agreed to follow Communist China's directives, while forsaking their loyalty to the Church in Rome. Finally, the Holy See's bureaucracy also accepted Beijing's demand to reduce and restructure the Catholic Church's 137 dioceses across China.

This last Vatican concession may shred the religious authority of several bishops secretly appointed to some of these eliminated dioceses by Pope Francis and previous popes. For almost 70 years, after the CCP's successful takeover in China, Catholics have either attended churches approved by the government's Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association or churches aligned with the Vatican. Some Catholics even attend Mass in private homes to avoid surveillance by agents of the regime.

After a series of recent meetings between the Holy See and China's State Administration for Religious Affairs, Pope Francis dispatched a delegation in mid-December to meet with leading bishops of the pro-Vatican "Underground Church" and Chinese government officials. The delegation was ostensibly in China to pursue "practical steps" to implement the provisional agreement the Holy See had reached with China.

In reality, the Papal delegation may have been sent to China to make certain that the agreement's final implementation proceeded smoothly. The delegation included the Vatican's President-Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli. The Archbishop carried a document signed by the Holy See's Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin and by Cardinal Fernando Filoni, Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.

The delegation's Papal directive instructed at least two prominent Catholic bishops of the "Underground Church" to retire or share their official duties with bishops approved by the CCP. While the exact wording of the Holy See's letter remains secret, some Vatican observers, presumably reflecting the Pope's decision to reverse years of resisting Beijing's demands, cited a few reasons for giving in. First, the Church probably needs to eliminate confusion among Catholics in China over the schism between Vatican-approved and regime-approved bishops. Another possible reason for the Vatican's apparent flexible stance is that a Church-state compromise would be necessary to improve pastoral care for existing Catholic faithful. The decision by the Vatican not to publish the letter, however, may suggest that the regime is also demanding that the Holy See break relations with Taiwan before it can normalize diplomatic ties to China. This supposition is based on the character of Beijing's previous agreements establishing bilateral relations with other countries, including Panama. Other countries that cut ties to Taiwan in order to open up embassies in China include the tiny African country of São Tomé and Príncipe as well as El Salvador. The prerequisite that states desiring formal ties with China must first sever formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan rests on Beijing calls its "One China" policy.

Communist China considers Taiwan an integral part of China, and thus rejects Taiwan's claim that it represents the legitimate government of China.

The Vatican's public relations officers seem to have tried to put the best face on the agreement with Beijing. Gregory Burke, the recently resigned Director of the Holy See's Press Office, suggested that this pact with the CCP was designed to be pastoral, not political, implying that it would help unify Chinese Catholics. The Vatican, however, in a seeming effort to douse speculation, has refused to reply to inquires whether the agreement is a first step in establishing diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the People's Republic of China. About half of the 98 dioceses have no Vatican-approved bishops, thereby often leaving their parishes without clerics to administer to believers. It is clear from Beijing's anti-Catholic harassment campaign that the Communist Party leadership is determined to co-opt, if not destroy, the independence of the Church in China. Regime harassment includes the dispatch of internal security police to strip churches of their statues, and the removal of crosses from steeples. Sometimes bibles are confiscated if seen in public. Masses are often celebrated in private homes to avoid being monitored by the state. On one occasion in early 2018, an entire Catholic Church was demolished, prompting a street demonstration by parishioners.

Perhaps the Vatican might be privately concerned that the CCP's continued opposition could complicate evangelization efforts among the Chinese people. The Vatican's desire to reach an agreement with Beijing may also be, in part, a reaction to the regime's efforts to sow dissent in the Church by supporting the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association as an alternative church. With President Xi Jinping's endorsement, at the October's 19, 2018 Chinese Communist Party Congress, Beijing launched a "Sinicization" campaign to bring all religions in line with Chinese culture and values. This government tactic is probably designed to co-opt or to curb the growth of an independent Catholic Church, thereby enhancing Communist Party control of religion in China. One report alleges that Catholic evangelization of the Chinese people is stagnating in marked contrast to the rapid expansion of Protestant Christianity in the country. This disparity underscores the significance of Cardinal Filoni's presence in the Vatican delegation to China's Catholic Bishops: Filoni is responsible for the Vatican's worldwide evangelizing campaigns.

The Vatican's pact with Beijing is evoking a good deal of intense criticism from both leading Catholic intellectuals and human rights crusaders. Retired Cardinal of Hong Kong Joseph Zen bitterly critiqued the agreement as "an incredible betrayal," tantamount to giving "the flock to the wolves." The China Director of Human Rights Watch, Sophie Richardson, stated that "the Pope has effectively given Chinese leader President Xi Jinping a stamp of approval when the latter's hostility to religious freedom couldn't be clearer."

Even while Beijing and the Vatican were negotiating the future status of the Catholic Church in China, the Communist regime continued its pressure on the Underground Catholic Church to go along with its efforts to get the Vatican to comply with the state's wishes on the administration of the Catholic Church in China. The government harassed and arrested Bishop Joseph Guo Xijin during the years-long negotiations between the Holy See and China. During the talks, another Catholic prelate, 88 year-old pro-Vatican Bishop Peter Zhuang, was hauled before China's State Administration for Religious Affairs. Although Bishop Zhuang was released into the custody of a Vatican delegation, the event was held in the presence of Chinese Party officials, where he was coerced to retire in light of the Vatican-China deal.

Perhaps the true intention of the Communist regime was best characterized by Jesuit China expert at Santa Clara University, Father Paul Mariani, in December, 2018:
"The government has not given up its hope for control. They want the Church to be another tool of the state. That's common in China, across labor unions or NGOs — they all have to fall under the party at some level."
The Vatican may learn the hard way that the Communist Chinese government does not honor its agreements. Beijing might well attempt to extort even more concessions from the Vatican just as the Chinese regime demands ever more surrender of sovereignty from western companies that do business in China. These demands can include a requirement to form joint ventures with a Chinese company, with China holding a majority interest, the demand that all critical data be stored locally, and scrubbing any language to which Beijing objects.

It is also highly dubious that the Vatican will purchase peace by this pact: the regime will continue to persecute the Church. If the Communist regime is true to form, thousands more crosses will be taken down from Christian churches, especially in areas that have a high Christian population. In 2015, in Zhejiang Province, in the southeastern city of Wenzhou, where one in eight citizens are Christian, approximately 1,200 crosses were forcibly torn from their moorings.

The only likely benefit that the Vatican could derive from this Munich-style pact with the Chinese regime may be an official invitation to Pope Francis to visit China. That privilege, however, might well be outweighed by the potential harm for the future of Catholicism in China. The courageous elders of Chinese Catholicism, who have endured decades of government persecution and regime efforts to divide the Church, may be seen by their flocks as having been bypassed by the Vatican. Many Chinese Catholics, realizing that their hierarchy was reluctantly fused by the Vatican into a union with the state-controlled church, might retreat into private homes to attend Catholic services. Many, if not most, Chinese Catholics are likely to view this agreement as a cynical political betrayal by the Vatican rather than a faith-based decision.

The eminent American Catholic author George Weigel sums up the Vatican's past failed policies of negotiation with totalitarian regimes:
"In light of this dismal record, it seems that prudence and caution would seem to be the order of the day in Vatican negotiations with the totalitarians in charge in Beijing, at whose most recent Party Congress religion was once again declared the enemy of Communism."

Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve. He is also a practicing Catholic.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13577/vatican-catholics-china

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter