Tell them, "Bu Shr. Nimen shr lao wai; wo shr dang-di ren" (vowels roughly as in Latin--it means "No, you're the foreigners, I'm the local guy."

Well, I'm of the mind that since the cocming of M'Shiach (Jesus of Nazareth, that's him), there is no need for a Temple with sacrifices, and that believing Gentiles as well as Jews (after all, that's who all the first Christians were) are part of "Israel"--the one who wrestles with God. Maybe the return of a large portion of the world's Jews to their ancestral homeland is a prelude to their mass conversion to Christ--certainly some of the men who wrote the Westminster Confession, to which Kirk ministers subscribed until not too long ago, believed such might be the case. To me, it's an open question which we won't know the answer to until after the fact. Yet even so, I note that the Israelis have been far better stewards of the land, have treated their minorities infinitely better than anyone in the Arab world, and are heirs of the early Zionists whose strategy was originally to buy land rather than simply drive people out. Hence, while a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist, I break with the Church of Scotland on this point.

In his dissent in Abington School District v. Schempp, Justice Lewis Powell warned of an "establishment of secular humanism". I'm glad to see some pushback. It's long overdue.

That's an insult to "white trash" and other poor folks.

I agree--unhappily.

So, Mr. Greenberg, do you want us to take sides in a civil war between two groups of our enemies? Neither side in Syria is attractive. Assad is a bloody dictator; even if Syria's minorities are not molested. Yet the Free Syrian Army is an amalgam of Qaida sympathizers, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Salafists--those wonderful apostles of peace, justice, and tolerance who brought us 9/11. I'd say that we have a liberal asylum policy towards Syrian Christians (and Jews, if there are any left) and let the two bands of thugs murder each other.

Your question is simple: the administration of "the most brilliant President ever" is downright stupid, incompetent, cold as a serial killer, or some combination of two or three of the above.

Also, I wouldn't point to the Holy Family's flight into Egypt as an example of "border crossing". Both Judaea and Egypt were under the Roman aegis in those days.

Well, as both an Evangelical and a former consular officer... Evangelicals are generally compassionate, caring people who respond with kindness to those who are kind to them. Also, we actually do prefer peace to war, even if we accept Augustine's Just War Theory more than we do Menno Simons' pacifism. These are the hooks liberals get into us. We would desperately like to believe that we can follow most political parties, and hence are too ready to accept the bones that either party throws to us. As for Amnesty, there isn't a country in the world that doesn't have rules about who gets in and who doesn't. Maybe, due to NAFTA, we could be more generous to Canadians and Mexicans than others, but we still have rules until everyone else also has open borders. I'd also say there are cases in which an illegal entrant (an innocent witness trying to get as far from a drug cartel as possible?) might be slapped on the wrist, fined, and told to fill out some papers to get some sort of status here. But we should still have rules. I'd also like to put in a word for LEGAL immigrants. I fear that one message that amnesty might send to numerous siblings of US citizens, adult sons and daughters of permanent residents, and the like is that they're fools for playing by the rules. Maybe we just ought to enforce some of the laws we already have rather than issue a blanket amnesty.

It isn't just Brits and other immigrants. A lot of native-born Americans are too PeeCee for their own good.