The Unbreakable Polish-American Bond Four decades of rule by Communists didn’t shake our admiration. By Piotr Wilczek

Mr. Wilczek is Poland’s ambassador to the U.S.

President George H.W. Bush once said: “Poland should be strong and prosperous and independent and play its proper role as a great nation in the heart of Europe.”

Poland has lived up to those words. On Thursday, as an active member of NATO and the European Union, Poland hosts President Trump on his second international trip.

This visit will demonstrate the unbreakable bonds between Poland and the U.S. and address the challenges facing our neighborhood and the broader Euro-Atlantic community.

Polish-American relations are thriving, and for good reason. Poland has been a reliable partner to the U.S. since our democratic transformation. In the Middle East we answered America’s call for action, deploying more than 40,000 Polish military personnel to Afghanistan and Iraq.

With instability just beyond our borders, we welcome the deployment of U.S. and other NATO troops to our region. Thanks to the decisions made at the 2016 Warsaw NATO Summit and bipartisan support in Congress, Poland now hosts thousands of U.S. military personnel, as together we train to be ready to meet any threat.

Poland also continues to be a security provider. We understand that solidarity is our strength. From the 2% of gross domestic product we spend on defense to our contribution of F-16s to the fight against ISIS, Poland continues to approach NATO membership and our alliance with America not as a handout but a commitment that must be honored every day.

As President Trump declared recently, we must all take our defense and security obligations seriously. No one understands this better than Poland. That’s why President Andrzej Duda announced that Poland will further increase its defense spending, to 2.2% of GDP by 2020 and 2.5% by 2030.

President Trump’s visit indicates that the new U.S. administration is taking the challenges of our region and their global ramifications seriously, and is steadfastly committed to strengthening NATO’s collective defense.

America’s renewed interest in our region is also visible in last month’s delivery of American liquefied natural gas to Poland. Central and Eastern Europe have long been dominated by an energy monopoly left over from the Cold War era. We no longer have to be victims of geopolitics. Thanks to the newly constructed LNG import terminals on the Baltic coast and a system of interconnected pipelines, LNG delivered by ship to Świnoujście, Poland, can be transported throughout our region and beyond. These terminals allow us to exert greater energy independence, and we look toward our American partners for continued LNG gas exports.

The need to reassert our region’s influence is the underpinning of the Three Seas Initiative, a forum that includes 12 countries from our neighborhood. President Duda and his Croatian counterpart, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, have invited Mr. Trump to meet with leaders from the Adriatic, Baltic and Black Sea region.

Modi and Netanyahu Begin a Beautiful Friendship The Indian premier’s visit marks a diplomatic coming of age for India and Israel. By Tunku Varadarajan

When you hear the prime minister of one country tell his counterpart from another that their nations’ friendship is “a marriage made in heaven, but we are implementing it here on earth,” your first reaction is likely to be: Get this man a new speechwriter! Yet, had you been following Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Israel visit, which concludes Thursday, you’d understand that those words, spoken by Benjamin Netanyahu, were euphoric and not cloying.

Mr. Modi’s visit to Israel is the first by an Indian prime minister in the 70 years since India’s independence. The countries have had diplomatic relations for a quarter-century, but no Indian premier considered visiting Israel for fear of upsetting India’s Arab allies—and thereby, its supply of oil—as well as its sizable Muslim population, for whose political leaders Israel has always been anathema. India also turned its back on Israel as a result of its commitment to a dishonest “anticolonial” foreign policy—that of nonalignment—under which it was kosher to berate the Israelis for being colonial interlopers on Palestinian land.

In truth, India and Israel have long done clandestine business. Israel helped India with weapons in its war with Pakistan in 1965. India returned the favor in 1967 when it gave Israel spare parts for its Ouragan and Mystere fighter planes. Mossad and RAW—the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s intelligence agency—worked closely for many years before diplomatic relations began in 1992. Israel played a key role in helping India win its war with Pakistan in 1999, with its supply of Searcher-1 drones. These enabled India to detect, and destroy by air, Pakistani troops entrenched in mountain fastnesses.

India has reciprocated diplomatically, particularly since the election of Mr. Modi’s nationalist BJP government in 2014. New Delhi has abstained in recent United Nations resolutions critical of Israel, remarkable for a nation that has had a near-perfect record of anti-Israeli voting at the U.N. There is every indication, now, that these abstentions will turn into votes in Israel’s favor.

The Israelis see Mr. Modi’s BJP as an Indian version of the Likud Party, and they are not wrong. The parties and their leaders share a determination to yield nothing to Islamist terrorism. The uninhibited warmth between the two prime ministers has been on full display on Mr. Modi’s visit—as of this writing, the two men have embraced each other five times in 24 hours. A new fast-growing breed of chrysanthemum was unveiled by Israeli agronomists. Its name? The Modi.

The florid stuff aside, this visit marks a diplomatic coming of age for India and Israel: India because it has now shed the last of its dead skin of nonalignment. Remarkably, India is the only major power that can claim to have excellent relations with every country in the Middle East. CONTINUE AT SITE

The U.S. Specializes in Comebacks The country has been deeply divided before, but it always manages to pull itself together. Karl Rove

The Continental Co ngress approved it on July 4, but it was July 6 before the Declaration of Independence was printed in a newspaper, namely the Pennsylvania Evening Post (“price two coppers”). So if our forbearers celebrated the nation’s founding over several days, I can stretch the holiday, too—marking it not at home but in Europe, among friends of America who are mystified by what is happening in the United States.

Many do not understand why the world’s most powerful man acts on childish impulses and tweets ugly messages aimed at critics. Nor can they fathom why the world’s oldest political party has twisted itself into mindless opposition—“resistance,” as it’s styled by the extremists who now call the tune for Democrats.

This picture is not reassuring for a world that counts on American leadership. Our anxiety at home is mirrored in the anxiousness of our foreign friends. Still, we’ve been here before. America has appeared broken in the past yet recovered its vigor, creativity, prosperity and leadership.

While researching for my book on the 1896 election, I was taken aback at the quarter-century dysfunctionality of Gilded Age politics. In the five presidential elections before 1896, every winner received less than 50% of the vote. In two contests, the new president took an Electoral College majority but came in second in the popular vote. In a third race, the president came in first in the Electoral College and popular vote, but only by 9,467 ballots nationwide, a 0.02% margin.

There were two years with a Republican president, House and Senate; two years with a Democratic president, House and Senate; and 20 years of divided government in which little was accomplished because the two parties not only had deeply conflicting ideas about policy but were still fighting the Civil War.

After Republicans narrowly captured the House in 1888, Democrats responded by refusing to answer roll calls, thereby denying a quorum to conduct business. This went on for months until, after another fruitless vote, Speaker Thomas Reed directed the clerk to show as present every Democrat on the floor who refused to answer the roll call. All hell broke loose as Democrats attempted to bolt, but Reed had ordered the doors barricaded. Only one member—a Texan—escaped, pummeling a sergeant-at-arms and kicking out door panels to make good his escape.

When the House later debated Reed’s action, another Texas congressman rose and asked fellow Democrats to “order me to remove this dictator” from the podium by force. The speaker ruled him out of order and moved on. The offended Democrat was so angry that during the rest of the debate he sat in front of the podium, methodically sharpening his Bowie knife on his boot heel for hours in an attempt to menace Reed.

Yet along came a new president, elected in 1896, William McKinley. He broke the gridlock, restored the country’s confidence, and ushered in an America Century. Many of us have seen this in our lifetime as Ronald Reagan restored the nation’s spirit when he reversed the decline of the 1970s.

Trump’s Putin Test The Russian will interpret concessions as a sign of weakness.

Donald Trump thinks of himself as a great judge of character and master deal-maker, and that could be a dangerous combination when the President meets with Vladimir Putin for the first time Friday during the G-20 meeting in Germany. The Russian strongman respects only strength, not charm, which is what Mr. Trump will have to show if he wants to help U.S. interests abroad and his own at home.

The meeting comes amid the various probes of Russian meddling into the 2016 election, and Mr. Trump’s curious refusal to denounce it. There’s no evidence of Trump-Russia campaign collusion, nor that Russian interference influenced the result. But the Kremlin’s attempt was a deliberate affront to democracy and it has done considerable harm to Mr. Trump’s Presidency. Mr. Trump should be angry at Mr. Putin on America’s behalf, and his apparent insouciance has played into Democratic hands.

The irony is that on policy Mr. Trump has been tougher on Mr. Putin than either of his two predecessors. Over Kremlin objections, the U.S. President has endorsed Montenegro’s entry into NATO and new NATO combat deployments in Eastern Europe. He has approved military action against Russian ally Bashar Assad in Syria even after Russian threats of retaliation.

The White House was also wise to visit Poland a day before he meets Mr. Putin. In Warsaw on Thursday he can reinforce traditional American support for Polish freedom and assert his personal and public support for NATO’s Article 5 that an attack on one alliance member is an attack on all.

Perhaps most important, Mr. Trump has unleashed U.S. oil and gas production that has the potential to weaken Mr. Putin at home and in Europe. The Russian strongman needs high oil prices and wields the leverage of natural-gas supplies over Europe, and U.S. production undermines both.

Yet Mr. Putin will be looking to see if he can leverage Mr. Trump’s desire for better U.S.-Russia relations to gain unilateral concessions. One Kremlin priority is easing Western sanctions for the invasion of Ukraine and President Obama’s December 2016 sanctions for its election interference. The Russian foreign ministry is in particular demanding that the U.S. let Russia reopen compounds in Maryland and New York that Mr. Obama shut down.

Mr. Trump will be tempted to oblige because the compounds are ultimately of no great consequence, but the political symbolism of reopening them would still be damaging if the President gets nothing in return. Mr. Putin still denies any Russian election hacking, and to adapt Michael Corleone’s line to Carlo in “The Godfather Part II,” he should stop lying because it insults our intelligence. Mr. Trump should at least follow French President Emmanuel Macron’s precedent and issue a face-to-face public rebuke unless Mr. Putin apologizes.

President Calvin Coolidge’s Address on the 150th Anniversary of U.S. Independence Day ****

Thanks to my friend Andrew Bstom who unearthed this gem….rsk

Calvin Coolidge, 30th POTUS, Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 5, 1926

“The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.”

Fellow Countrymen:

We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. That coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the 4th day of July. Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgment of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.

Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well-seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience

It is not so much, then, for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.

It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event. The world looks upon them, because of their associations of one hundred and fifty years ago, as it looks upon the Holy Land because of what took place there nineteen hundred years ago. Through use for a righteous purpose they have become sanctified.

It is not here necessary to examine in detail the causes which led to the American Revolution. In their immediate occasion they were largely economic. The colonists objected to the navigation laws which interfered with their trade, they denied the power of Parliament to impose taxes which they were obliged to pay, and they therefore resisted the royal governors and the royal forces which were sent to secure obedience to these laws. But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that which characterized the Old World. Life in a new and open country had aspirations which could not be realized in any subordinate position. A separate establishment was ultimately inevitable. It had been decreed by the very laws of human nature. Man everywhere has an unconquerable desire to be the master of his own destiny.

We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.

The Continental Congress was not only composed of great men, but it represented a great people. While its Members did not fail to exercise a remarkable leadership, they were equally observant of their representative capacity. They were industrious in encouraging their constituents to instruct them to support independence. But until such instructions were given they were inclined to withhold action.

FIFA Supporting Terrorism? by A. Z. Mohamed

At least five highly regarded non-governmental organizations — Palestinian Media Watch, NGO Monitor, the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies, UK Lawyers for Israel and the New York-based Lawfare Project – have enumerated the many and varied ways in which [Jibril] Rajoub – the secretary-general of the central committee of PA President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah faction, the chairman of the Palestinian Olympic Committee and the head of the Supreme Council for Sport and Youth — has violated FIFA’s own Code of Ethics, “by promoting and glorifying terrorism; inciting hatred and violence; promoting racism; and preventing the use of the game of football in order to build a bridge for peace.”

In July 2012, while addressing the launch of the first Forum for Arab women sports journalists, Rajoub referred to Jews and Israelis as “Satans” and “Zionist sons of bitches,” adding, “Normalization with the occupation is impossible, impossible, impossible, with no exceptions…”

Rajoub is a serial violator and must be expelled from the organization. Swift action needs to be taken to oust Rajoub, and pressure should be put on the PA to replace him with a chairman whose passion for sports and sportsmanship is greater than his thirst for blood.

In an ongoing effort to “kick terrorism out of football,” various research organizations have submitted joint and separate complaints to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) about the behavior of the Palestinian Football Association (PFA) and its president, Jibril Rajoub.

At least five highly regarded non-governmental organizations — Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), NGO Monitor, the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies, UK Lawyers for Israel and the New York-based Lawfare Project — have enumerated the many and varied ways in which Rajoub — the secretary-general of the central committee of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah faction, the chairman of the Palestinian Olympic Committee and the head of the Supreme Council for Sport and Youth — has violated FIFA’s own Code of Ethics, “by promoting and glorifying terrorism; inciting hatred and violence; promoting racism; and preventing the use of the game of football in order to build a bridge for peace.”

An extensive PMW report highlights Rajoub’s exploitation of his various roles in the world of sports to cultivate a terrorist mind-frame among Palestinian youth and incite to murder of Jews and Israelis. A stark example — particularly for the head of the Palestinian Olympic Committee — was Rajoub’s attendance at, and stamp of approval for, a boxing tournament honoring the terrorist who planned the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. The official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, headlined the August 9, 2010 report: In the presence of [Jibril] Rajoub – successful conclusion to the Second Palestine Boxing Tournament for youth and men in Hebron.” The item itself read:

“The tournament [was] held at the Shari’ah School for Boys in Hebron, and was named by the Palestinian Boxing Association after Martyr (Shahid) Ali Hassan Salameh, the ‘Red Prince.'”

In July 2012, while addressing the launch of the first Forum for Arab women sports journalists, Rajoub referred to Jews and Israelis as “Satans” and “Zionist sons of bitches,” adding, “Normalization with the occupation is impossible, impossible, impossible, with no exceptions…”

Is Radical Islam Horrifying the West into Paralysis? by Giulio Meotti

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s refugee policy was not a masterpiece of humanitarian politics; it was dictated by the fear of television images spread all over the world.

Even the suffering of our enemies disturbs us, in the humanitarian culture of the West. We are therefore increasingly amenable to policies of appeasement, censorship and retreat in order not to have to face the possibility of such horribleness and actually having to fight it. That is why radical Islam has been able to horrify the West into submission. We have paralyzed ourselves. We censor the cartoons, the graphic photos of the terrorists’ victims and even the faces and names of the jihadists. The Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, are not publicity-seekers; they are soldiers ready to kill and die in the name of what they care about.

Images, as in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, are published only if they amplify the West’s sense of guilt and turn the “war on terror” into something more even more dangerous than the jihad causing the war. The result is to erase our enemy from our imagination. This is how the “war on terror” has become synonymous with lawlessness throughout the West.

September 2015. Thousands of Syrian migrants crossing the Balkan route were heading toward Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel was on the phone with Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, talking about a number of measures to protect the borders, where thousands of policemen were secretly located along with buses and helicopters. De Maizière turned for advice to Dieter Romann, then head of the police. “Can we live with the images that will come out?” de Mazière asked. “What happens if 500 refugees with children in their arms run toward the border guards?”

De Maiziére was told that the appropriate use of the measures to be taken would have be decided by the police on the field. When de Maizière relayed Romann’s response to the Chancellor, Merkel reversed her original commitment. And the borders were opened for 180 days.

“For historical reasons, the Chancellor feared images of armed German police confronting civilians on our borders,” writes Robin Alexander, Die Welt’s leading journalist, who revealed these details in a new book, Die Getriebenen (“The Driven Ones”). Alexander reveals the real reason that pushed Merkel to open the door to a million and a half migrants in a few weeks: “In the end, Merkel refused to take responsibility, governing through the polls.” This is how the famous Merkel’s motto “Wir schaffen das” was born: “We can do it.”

According to Die Zeit:

“Merkel and her people are convinced that the marchers could only be stopped with the help of violence: with water cannons, truncheons and pepper spray. It would be chaotic and the images would be horrific. Merkel is extremely wary of such images and of their political impact, and she is convinced that Germany wouldn’t tolerate them. Merkel once said that Germany wouldn’t be able to stand the images from the dismal conditions in the refugee camp at Calais for more than three days. But how much more devastating would images be of refugees being beaten as they try to get to Austria or Germany?”

Merkel’s refugee policy was not a masterpiece of humanitarian politics; it was dictated by the fear of television images spread all over the world. In so many key moments, it is the photograph that dictates our behavior: the image that dishonors us, that makes us cringe in horror.

False Black Power? A new book dispels the myth that blacks need political power to succeed. Mark Tapson

Obama’s ascension to the White House was the culmination of the black struggle to attain the pinnacle of political power. But decades of that obsessive focus on black political advancement has not yielded the results that civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson promised. Even after eight years of Obama, racial gaps in income, employment, home ownership, academic achievement, and other measures still exist, and many civil rights leaders both new and old– including Jackson – explain that by pushing the self-serving narrative that blacks in America are still the victims of systemic racism, and that continuing to pursue political power is the answer.

Jason L. Riley, a Wall Street Journal columnist and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, disagrees. The thrust of his slim but significant new book, False Black Power?, from Templeton Press, is the politically incorrect conclusion that black “political clout is no substitute for self-development”:

The major barrier to black progress today is not racial discrimination and hasn’t been for decades. The challenge for blacks is to better position themselves to take advantage of existing opportunities, and that involves addressing the antisocial, self-defeating behaviors and habits and attitudes endemic to the black underclass.

Riley argues in False Black Power? that the left’s politically useful argument of white oppression serves only the interests of the people making it, not blacks themselves, and that “black history itself offers a compelling counternarrative that ideally would inform our post-Obama racial inequality debates.”

Mr. Riley, also the author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed, consented to answer some questions about the book via email.

Mark Tapson: When America elected its first black president there was widespread hope that he would accomplish everything from healing our racial divide to slowing the rise of the oceans. What was the actual legacy for American blacks of eight years of Barack Obama?

Jason Riley: It was a decidedly mixed bag for blacks. They saw racial gaps widen in poverty, homeownership and household incomes, for example. The black jobless rate did improve toward the end of Obama’s second term, but it was quite a wait. Black unemployment didn’t fall below double digits until the third month of his seventh year in office. But my broader argument is not that Obama failed to narrow these kinds of racial divides but that the civil rights strategy has failed. Since the 1960s, the focus has been on pursuing black political power—electing more black officials—in hopes that the black socio-economic gains would rise in concert. Obama’s presidency was both the culmination of that strategy and more evidence of the limit of that strategy.

MT: What do you think about the claims of many black voices, from Colin Kaepernick to the Black Lives Matter leaders, that blacks in America are under the thumb of an entrenched system of racial oppression?

JR: I find that sort of thinking politically expedient but overly reductive. If racism explains racial disparities today, how were blacks able to make the tremendous progress we saw in the first half of the 20th century? During the Jim Crow era, when racism was rampant and legal–and black political clout was minimal–racial gaps in poverty, income, educational attainment and other measures were closing. In the post-60s era, however, and notwithstanding landmark civil rights victories and huge increases in the number of black elected officials, much of that progress slowed, stalled or even reversed course. Racism still exist, but its existence doesn’t suffice as an explanation for today’s racial gaps. I think other factors—mainly culture—play a much bigger role.

MT: Why do today’s black leaders, from Al Sharpton to Ta-Nehisi Coates to Michael Eric Dyson, perpetuate a victimhood among American blacks instead of empowering them with the story of black triumph over adversity in the post-Civil War, pre-civil rights era?

JR: I can’t say for certain because I don’t know those individuals. But I do know that the grievance industry is a lucrative one. But I will say that the left’s victimhood narrative helps Democrats get elected and keeps civil rights leaders relevant.

MT: Over fifty years since Daniel Moynihan’s controversial study of the black family, why is it still so taboo to suggest, as you do in your book, that there is a “strong connection between black poverty and black family structure”?

JR: Political correctness has played a role. Being called a racist still stings. I cite a couple of black sociologists in the book—William Julius Wilson and Orlando Patterson—who have chided their fellow social scientists for ignoring the role that ghetto culture plays in black outcomes. For politicians, you can win a lot of votes by telling black people that white racism is the main cause of all their problems and that government programs are the solution.

MT: Can you expound on why the sharp rise in violent crime in the inner cities seems to coincide, as you write, with the increase of black leaders in those same cities?

Colleges: Islands of Intolerance The insanity never ends — and it’s not likely to get better. Walter Williams

Is there no limit to the level of disgusting behavior on college campuses that parents, taxpayers, donors and legislators will accept? Colleges have become islands of intolerance, and as with fish, the rot begins at the head.Let’s examine some recent episodes representative of a general trend and ask ourselves why we should tolerate it plus pay for it.

Students at Evergreen State College harassed biology professor Bret Weinstein because he refused to leave campus, challenging the school’s decision to ask white people to leave campus for a day of diversity programming. The profanity-laced threats against the faculty and president can be seen on a YouTube video titled “Student takeover of Evergreen State College” (http://tinyurl.com/yah2eo3p).

What about administrators permitting students to conduct racially segregated graduation ceremonies, which many colleges have done, including Ivy League ones such as Columbia and Harvard universities? Permitting racially segregated graduation ceremonies makes a mockery of the idols of diversity, multiculturalism and inclusion, which so many college administrators worship. Or is tribalism part and parcel of diversity?

Trinity College sociology professor Johnny Eric Williams recently called white people “inhuman assholes.” In the wake of the Alexandria, Virginia, shooting at a congressional baseball practice, Williams tweeted, “It is past time for the racially oppressed to do what people who believe themselves to be ‘white’ will not do, put (an) end to the vectors of their destructive mythology of whiteness and their white supremacy system. #LetThemF—-ingDie”

June Chu, dean of Pierson College at Yale University, recently resigned after having been placed on leave because of offensive Yelp reviews she had posted. One of her reviews described customers at a local restaurant as “white trash” and “low class folk”; another review praised a movie theater for its lack of “sketchy crowds.” In another review of a movie theater, she complained about the “barely educated morons trying to manage snack orders for the obese.”

Harvey Mansfield, a distinguished Harvard University professor who has taught at the school for 55 years, is not hopeful about the future of American universities. In a College Fix interview, Mansfield said, “No, I’m not very optimistic about the future of higher education, at least in the form it is now with universities under the control of politically correct faculties and administrators” (http://tinyurl.com/y7qadxlz). Once America’s pride, universities, he says, are no longer a marketplace of ideas or bastions of free speech. Universities have become “bubbles of decadent liberalism” that teach students to look for offense when first examining an idea.

Who is to blame for the decline of American universities? Mansfield argues that it is a combination of administrators, students and faculties. He puts most of the blame on faculty members, some of whom are cowed by deans and presidents who don’t want their professors to make trouble. I agree with Mansfield’s assessment in part. Many university faculty members are hostile to free speech and open questioning of ideas. A large portion of today’s faculty and administrators were once the hippies of the 1960s, and many have contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the values of personal liberty. The primary blame for the incivility and downright stupidity we see on university campuses lies with the universities’ trustees. Every board of trustees has fiduciary responsibility for the governance of a university, shaping its broad policies. Unfortunately, most trustees are wealthy businessmen who are busy and aren’t interested in spending time on university matters. They become trustees for the prestige it brings, and as such, they are little more than yes men for the university president and provost. If trustees want better knowledge about university goings-on, they should hire a campus ombudsman who is independent of the administration and accountable only to the board of trustees.

Freedom and Tyranny: The Meaning of Independence Day A reflection amidst the barbecues and fireworks and the paeans to patriotism. Bruce Thornton

The Fourth of July is not just another day off from work. Nor is it just the celebration of our country’s birth, the bold act of the Colonists in challenging the world’s greatest power and creating a government based on freedom and self-rule. On this day 241 years ago the delegates to the Second Continental Congress adopted a document that laid the foundations of the American political order. Sadly, the meaning of the Declaration of Independence has been lost, and the order it created eroded by progressivism.

One of the greatest statements of political philosophy occurs in the preamble to the Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ––That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .

Government is a creation of the sovereign people who must consent to its forms and functions. It is thus accountable to the people, and exists primarily to protect their rights, especially freedom, that precede government. These rights are the “unalienable” foundations of our human nature, and come from a “Creator” and the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” They are not gifts of the powerful or any institutions that an elite of wealth or birth create to serve their interests. They cannot justly be taken away by any earthly power, but they can be limited and destroyed by tyranny.

Central to these rights is freedom, which implies self-rule as well as the scope to pursue “happiness,” the actions and behaviors, the way of living that achieves a good and virtuous life suitable for a human being possessing reason and free will. To secure the freedom of the individual requires political liberty expressed through a government of laws and institutions that reflect the collective consent of the people, and whose agents are chosen by the citizens or their representatives, and thus are accountable to the people.

A little more than a decade later the Constitution formalized the structures of governing that would protect this ideal. Recognizing that human nature is flawed and subject to “passions and interests,” and fearful of power’s “encroaching nature,” the framers separated, checked, and balanced power through federalism and mixed government. James Madison in Federalist 51 famously expressed the assumptions lying behind a form of government designed for the “preservation of liberty”:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Given a fallen human nature, power must never be allowed to be concentrated into an elite of any sort, for neither birth, wealth, nor wisdom can guard against the destructive excesses of power. Defend the people’s ordered liberty, equality of opportunity, and equality under the law, and the freedom of all will be protected.

This is the American creed, the set of ideas assent to which makes one an American­­––not blood, or soil, or any mystic “identity” exclusive of others and claiming a natural superiority over them.

The bulk of the Declaration, however, is a catalogue of the despotic acts of George III, whose “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” justified the rebellion against Britain. The word “tyranny” here is not used casually: it is a technical term from political philosophy going back to its beginnings in ancient Athens. Tyranny is the opposite of liberty and equality, for it makes power the instrument of the self-aggrandizement of the few at the expense of the many. As Aristotle wrote, tyranny is “arbitrary power . . . which is responsible to no one, and governs all alike, whether equals or betters, with a view to its own advantage, not to that of its subjects, and therefore against their will. No freeman willingly endures such a government.” A tyranny is diametrically opposed to the ideas set out in preamble to the Declaration.