RUTHFULLY YOURS

A federal judge has refused to stop Texas from withholding the birth certificates of children born in the U.S. to mothers who are illegal immigrants. But he has also called for a full court hearing to determine if the civil rights of these newest U.S. citizens are being violated by the policy.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman’s ruling that the Texas Department of State Health Services can continue denying birth certificates to “undocumented” immigrant families’ U.S.-born babies if their identification doesn’t meet Texas standards “an important first step in ensuring the integrity of birth certificates and personal identity information.”

“Before issuing any official documents, it’s important for the state to have a way to accurately verify people are who they say they are through reliable identification mechanisms,” Paxton said in a statement his office released following Judge Pitman’s ruling.

The Texas Department of State Health Services refuses to recognize some forms of identification offered by illegal-immigrant families including the identification cards known as “matriculas consulares” that are issued by Mexican consulates.

Today’s undergraduates probably know little, if anything, about the cataclysmic movement in China known as the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. It began in 1966 before all of them (and even a great number of their professors) were born. This massive national crusade, instigated by Chairman Mao Zedong, was intended to create a pure communist man and woman, devoid of the constraints of materialism and personal ambition.

It started with the closing of the schools and the re-education of intellectuals and the bourgeoisie and ended up with years of incredible violence, taking millions of lives. The actual statistics are still a state secret, but a recent biography of Mao states “at least 3 million people died violent deaths and post-Mao leaders acknowledged that 100 million people, one-ninth of the entire population, suffered in one way or another.”

Boris Johnson got himself disinvited from several events in the West Bank this week. More’s the pity in a region that needs the sort of truth-telling with which the London mayor caused such a stir.

On a visit meant to boost trade ties with Britain, Mr. Johnson sought to reassure Israelis that the long-running boycott, divest and sanction movement against Israel in the West is not a majority position:

“I cannot think of anything more foolish than to say that you want to have any kind of divestment, sanctions or boycott against a country that, when all is said or done, is the only democracy in the region, is the only place that has in my view a pluralist, open society. Why boycott Israel?”

“And by the way,” he continued, “I think there’s some misunderstanding over here [in Israel] about it. The supporters of this so-called boycott are really just a bunch of corduroy-jacketed . . . lefty academics who have no real standing in the matter and I think are highly unlikely to be influential on Britain.”

This was too much for the Palestinian charities that pulled the plug on meetings with him later in the week. The Sharek Youth Forum canceled Mr. Johnson’s visit, describing his remarks as an “inaccurate, misinformed, and disrespectful statement” that “fails to acknowledge our very existence as Palestinians,” according to the Independent newspaper. Several other sessions were dropped as well.

Following the forced resignations of the President and Provost of the University of Missouri, demonstrations against campus administrators has spread across the country. Students — many of whom are Black, gay, transgender and Muslim — claim that they feel “unsafe” as the result of what they call “white privilege” or sometimes simply privilege. “Check your privilege” has become the put-down du jour. Students insist on being protected by campus administrators from “micro-aggressions,” meaning unintended statements inside and outside the classroom that demonstrate subtle insensitivities towards minority students. They insist on being safe from hostile or politically incorrect ideas. They demand “trigger warnings” before sensitive issues are discussed or assigned. They want to own the narrative and keep other points of view from upsetting them or making them feel unsafe.

Someone has to ask the question: is it ignorance or is it malevolence?

The U.S. State Department justifies hiding behind a claim that a new European effort at ethnic labeling for Israel is something other than an effort to force the Jewish State to capitulate to the world’s demand it welcome yet another neighbor Arab state committed to her end. And to claim that this latest European effort is merely a new consumer information initiative? Really?

You decide.

In the lead up to the announcement by the European Union that it would require ethnic labeling of Israeli goods made or produced beyond the so-called “Green Line,” reporters repeatedly peppered spokespeople for the U.S. government regarding the position it would take on this EU effort.

As of Tuesday, at the daily press briefing, spokesperson Mark C. Toner was completely unprepared to respond to questions about the government’s position. Instead, Toner repeatedly responded that yes, the U.S. is completely opposed to the “settlements” – Jewish communities situated in Judea and Samaria, the historic heartland of the Jewish people – but also, yes, the U.S. is opposed to boycotts.