Obama Disrespects the Pope

What do Sister Simone Campbell, Bishop Eugene Robinson, and Mateo Williamson have in common? They were all invited by the White House to attend the welcoming ceremony for Pope Francis when he visits the United States for the first time.

Any problem with that? The Vatican thinks so because it doesn't want the pope to be seen as endorsing their positions. And what positions might those be? Well, Sister Campbell heads a group of nuns that support ObamaCare and its provisions for funding abortions and contraception, in violation of Catholic teaching. Bishop Robinson is the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an ex-spouse in a same-sex marriage. Mr. Williamson is a transgender activist.

Pope Francis is a loving and generous man, but I doubt he would want to be photographed embracing these three guests. But the real question for me is why President Obama would even want to put the pope in such a position. Now, I don't agree with Pope Francis on some things, such as his views on capitalism and climate change. But I have great respect for him as a Church leader and saintly man. He deserves to be welcomed as such by our president. Obama's secular views and opposition to traditional Christian values have no place here. He should, for once, set aside his political ideology and show a little class by disinviting Campbell, Robinson, and Williamson.

Germany Has a Problem

Europe is dying. That's what declining demographics tell us. It takes 2.1 live births per woman to maintain a stable population, and Europe's rate is 1.55. And Germany, in particular, is in the worst shape of all. A recent report tells us that Germany has surpassed Japan in having the lowest birth rate in the world; Germany's population decline has reached the point where it is irreversible.

Such a low fertility rate means that not enough babies are born to replace an aging population and to enter the workforce as they become of age. Right now there simply are not enough people in the labor force to support the country's pensioners and its massive welfare programs. In fact, the current percentage of people of working age (61%) is projected to drop to 54% by the year 2030. Having so many jobs available and so few people to fill them is good for Germany's unemployment rate, but bad for its long-term economic prospects.

Forced to confront this looming disaster, Germany is desperate for workers, and the only way it can get them is through immigration. That's why we're seeing Germany open its doors to Syrian refugees. It expects to welcome 800,000 this year alone and 500,000 each year thereafter. But while this massive immigration may add to the workforce, it brings with it a problem that is potentially much more serious.

The vast majority of refugees migrating to Germany are Muslims. And as we've seen in other countries like France and Spain, Muslim immigrants do not assimilate well in their new host countries. On the contrary, they form tight enclaves controlled by radical Islamists who discourage assimilation, enforce Sharia law, and promote jihadism. In some parts of Germany, they have even infiltrated school systems to protect Muslim children from being contaminated by local customs and values.

Radical Islamists know that there is more than one way to win a war, and in a Europe weakened by liberal policies and a declining birthrate, they are winning. We Americans, on the other hand, do not feel threatened by a potential flood of Muslim refugees on our shores; we are separated from Europe by an ocean, after all. No need to worry. Right?

Some Deal

 Well, it's a done deal. President Obama has enough votes in the Senate to defeat any attempt by the majority to override a veto on the Iran agreement. Not that it matters: Obama was going to get his way. Even with a rejection by Congress, which would not have carried the force of law, he would have acted unilaterally to approve the agreement. That's why he didn't qualify it as a treaty requiring approval by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

Obama views the Iran agreement as the second key to his legacy, the first being 

ObamaCare. But what kind of legacy will it be? ObamaCare is proving to be perhaps the worst piece of legislation ever enacted, and the Iran agreement ensures that Iran will have nuclear bombs and the missile system to deliver them, while the $150 billion it gets in sanctions relief will continue to fund terrorism around the world.

Now let's note the similarity and the difference between the two pieces of Obama's legacy. They are similar in that they were both achieved without the support of a single Republican in Congress. We can say with finality that Democrats own both. They are the Democrats' legacy as well.

But there's a difference. ObamaCare was approved by a Congress with a Democratic majority in both houses. The Iran agreement, on the other hand, is opposed by a majority in Congress. Moreover, all the public opinion polls show that the American public is opposed to it as well. There will always be a significant minority of naive and misguided Americans who will support anything this president does, even when his actions are illegal or unconstitutional. But in this case, the common sense of the American people shows through; they know a bad deal when they see one.

Americans aren't the only ones who recognize this as a bad deal. Tens of thousands of Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis, and others are seeking refuge in Europe to escape the inevitable carnage that will result from the free hand gifted to Iran by Obama. These hordes know that if they stay behind they face mass slaughter. There is no greater motivation than the prospect of extermination.

Israelis face the same prospect, but they are not moving. They will do whatever is necessary to survive. When war comes, as it surely will, Israel will have to go it alone as long as Obama is in office. The choice then is between a preemptive strike against Iran now, or hoping for renewed support from a new administration. Some choice.