An Intelligent Somalian

 Considering the massive fraud that has taken place in Minnesota recently in the U.S., primarily in the Somali community in Minnesota, and the persistent denials of any complicity by congresswoman Ilhad Omar, it's no wonder that the perception and reputation of Somalians has taken a major blow. The total tally of the money stolen in the fraudulent acts is in the neighborhood of $9-10 billion. Some of the programs that were to be funded by the stolen money not only leave the taxpaying public shaking their heads, it leaves hearts broken. Food for needy children and families, help and support for autistic children, you get the idea. And the stolen funds have been used to buy luxury cars and homes, international vacations, jewelry... It's beyond disgusting. Many of the depraved offenders have been caught, tried, and convicted. There are many more yet to be caught. All of the offenders are not Somalian, but the vast majority are. And the epicenter of the fraud is the district represented by none other than Representative Ilhad Omar, a Somali immigrant. Both the optics and the reality are obscene. 

Amongst what appears to be a group of immigrants with no conscience, morals or values is an example of a fine human being who happens to be quite intelligent. And who is also a Somali immigrant. After President Trump took the stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos to declare that Western civilization must defend itself from an existential attack, Somali-born activist and author Ayaan Hirsi Ali said, "Trump is right."

Trump shocked other politicians and leaders Tuesday night by declaring, "The West cannot mass import foreign cultures." The situation in Minnesota is a shining example of his point. "The explosion of prosperity, and progress that built the West did not come from our tax cuts. It ultimately came from our very special culture. This is the precious inheritance that America and Europe have in common. We share it, but we have to keep it strong. We have to become stronger, more successful, and more prosperous than ever. We have to defend our culture and rediscover the spirit that lifted the West from the depths of the Dark Ages to the pinnacle of human achievement." 

In response, Hirsi Ali said Trump is communicating a critical truth. "Trump is right, and I can't think of a more powerful platform than the President of the United States to say, 'Hey, you guys wake up.'"

As a child in Somalia, Hirsi was subjected to a severe form of female genital mutilation. Later in life, she fled the country to escape a forced marriage and served as a Dutch lawmaker. She is now based in the U.S. and uses her platform to advocate for women's rights, critique Islam and voice support for Western greatness. 

"I think every American and every European should know what the president is trying to say is that what made America and Europe great is there's a unique culture. If we don't understand the culture and we do not defend it, we risk losing it," she said. 

"The economy is very important. Military is very important. All these other aspects of government are extremely important, but more important than all of that is our value system. And it's our heritage. And it is our national identity."

Regarding Trump's critique of the Somali immigrant population's involvement in the massive Minnesota fraud scheme, Hirsi Ali said, "I wholeheartedly agree with the president. The president is right when he says Somalia hasn't even made it into a nation," she said. "Every attempt at building something, making something out of Somalia has always failed because of the clan code, because of Islam, because of Marxism. We've had all the bad ideologies, and, as Somalis, we've run away with them." Hirsi Ali went on to say the situation in Minnesota exposes a subversive agenda in the U.S. to transform it and to Islamize it using American institutions and the American vocabulary of civil rights. You see the Somalis exploit and extract the benefit system," she said. "They tell everyone, if you expose this, investigate it, object to it, stop it, you're racist. You're an Islamophobe. You are a bigot. 

"If we keep on doing what we are doing, getting huge numbers of people from the Third World to come and establish themselves in the United States and European countries and depend on welfare benefits, that is to take and take and never contribute, then we're setting ourselves up not only for failure. We're committing a cultural and national and political suicide."

To combat this she said European nations must follow the Trump administration's example in sealing their borders. She said the U.S. and Europe must also address their broad welfare systems, which she said, "Are just too expensive. We've got to force them to assimilate, or we've got to give them that choice and say, "If you don't want to assimilate into American society, then you will be denaturalized."

JD Vance put it this way: "It's not what we are fighting against, but what are we fighting for? What are we fighting to preserve? If you can't answer that question, then I think you are lost. And the European leaders are lost. And I think he is trying to help them find their way," she said. 

What a breath of fresh air your perspective is, Ms. Ali. Keep up the good work. 

Trump's Tariffs, Maybe He's not Crazy

 China has recently boasted that their trade surplus with the entire world just hit an all-time record of $1.19 trillion in 2025. But what China didn't boast about is their surplus with the U.S. declined by 22%. The reason: U.S. tariffs on Chinese exports average over 50%. 

China's consistent trade surplus is based on illegal trade policies, including currency manipulation, subsidies, and domestic market protection, that cost the U.S. and other countries jobs. Until last year the main loser has been the United States. China simply diverted subsidized exports to other countries with lower tariffs. 

But what about Trump's tariffs on exports from other countries? A tariff is a tax, a tax on consumers, importers, and on producers who use foreign-made components. By raising tariffs, which aren't based on any well-measured plan other than his resentments and whims, Trump presumably has wreaked serious, economic damage. According to the Yale Budget Lab, Trump's policies have raised the average tariff rate from about 2.4% in late 2024 to 17% by late 2025, the highest level in almost a century. Economic disaster, right? 

Maybe not. Herein lies an interesting economic mystery as well as perhaps a possible lesson for the next Democratic administration. That's a big ask, but we'll continue.

Currently, inflation is running below projections. In December, inflation was 2.7%. The November/December 2025 inflation numbers were the lowest since 2021. Tariffs have had surprisingly little effect pushing consumer prices up. Olu Sonola, head of U.S. economic research at Fitch Ratings wrote in a recent article, "Tariff pass-through to consumers has been much milder than anticipated." Yet revenue from tariffs has generated close to $300 billion in 2025, up from about $80 billion in 2024. At this rate 2026 will produce over $350 billion. 

So, who exactly is paying these taxes? The evidence suggests that most costs are being absorbed by foreign exporters or by domestic sellers accepting lower profit margins. Since the actual tariffs on different countries are a crazy matrix of different rates, producers have also become adept at shifting their supply chains to countries with relatively lower rates. 

There's a tendency to overstate the effect of tariffs on household costs since imports are only about 14% of GDP. In other words, there are no tariffs on 86% of GDP. And the high tariff rate on China skews the averages. Excluding China, the effective tariff rate for the rest of the world, adjusting for trade share and exempt categories, is not the average 17%. It's well below 10%. 

The chronic U.S. global trade deficit has been shrinking due in part to tariffs. The October deficit was $2.4 billion, down nearly 40% from September. The decline continued for November, the last month for which statistics are available. 

Some of this radical decline is the result of fluky factors such as an increased flurry of gold purchases and reduced pharmaceutical imports. There is also softening consumer demand, stagnant wages and high consumer borrowing. But the trend is real. 

A research study by the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank reviewed tariff policy and economic performance over more than a hundred and fifty years finds that higher tariffs actually correlates with reductions in inflation. That doesn't really seem logical, and the researchers don't have a comprehensive explanation. One likely reason is high tariffs, such as those enacted by Smoot-Hawley in 1930, reducing effective purchasing power (and demand) which restrains prices. 

This is by no means an endorsement of Trump's tariff policies. I was patently opposed to them when he introduced them, and I remain so. They were not the result of trade planning and industrial strategy, but more so his peevishness and desire for retribution. 

The one sensible exception is the high tariff on China. Even so, his overall China policy stupidly combines excessive export controls which reflect his penchant for cutting corrupt deals (remember the deal cut with Nvidia?...). A more strategically targeted tariff policy linked to domestic industrial policy would actually make a lot of sense. A prime benefit of well-targeted tariffs is they can a part of a well-considered plan to boost U.S. industrialization. Just because Trump loves tariffs doesn't necessarily make them flat-earth economics. He just doesn't know how to use them wisely. 

 The Arctic region is a strategic priority for the U.S.. It has been for a long time. Trump has pointed out that China, Russia, and possibly other U.S. adversaries are already active in the region and can threaten U.S. national security. He is also right in pointing out that not enough has been done to guarantee American presence and security in the Arctic and in Greenland. But that is not the fault of Denmark or Greenland. And "owning" Greenland isn't the answer to solving the problem. 

Past U.S. administrations had little interest in securing a foothold of any kind in Greenland. Trump could do so and he could do it without alienating or losing the support of fellow NATO allies. A 1951 treaty with Denmark, which was amended as late as 2004 provides all the legal basis the U.S. needs to structure an agreement to keep NATO allies like Denmark and others strongly supportive of any result. Past administrations walked away from using Greenland for security opportunities, Trump grasps its importance. 

For much of the Cold War, the U.S. had multiple military installations and as many as 6,000 troops there. Prior U.S. administrations, not Denmark, deprioritized Greenland, withdrew U.S. forces, closed bases, and ignored American security in the Arctic. The U.S. now has one base and approximately 150 troops in Greenland. This is a result of America's own decisions and actions. Denmark has maintained some installations America abandoned and can make any future arrangements needed to accommodate an increase in American forces. It has increased its own spending and presence in the Arctic, due to its own security needs, and partly because of American withdrawals. 

The Trump administration could develop a plan for securing the Arctic to include a larger military footprint. It could coordinate with Denmark to provide host-nation support. He could then go to Congress and seek funding to significantly expand America's military influence in the Arctic region. 

Trump's notion that the U.S. needs to "own" Greenland to establish its presence is misplaced. It is also not without problems. Seizing the territory of a NATO ally would undoubtedly cause a fracture and perhaps destroy NATO. NATO is also a strategic alliance the US needs. The NATO alliance has created the largest expanse of free, law-abiding, prosperous territory on earth, all of which is allied with the US. If the US were to become the party threatening the territory of a fellow ally, the alliance would be irrevocably damaged. 

If Denmark and the Greenlanders saw the U.S. as an eager ally as opposed to a hostile political takeover, US investments in Greenland would be welcomed, opening access to vast natural resources. Doing this as a security and business maneuver instead of a political move would avoid the wounds that a takeover would entail. 

Mugabe and Weaver; two peas in a Socialist Pod.

For those in other countries, American politics is a chaotic state of affairs at present, to say the least. A deepening chasm in political ideologies, cultural shifts, and there appears to be no end in sight. There was a time, not so long ago, that we all considered ourselves 'Americans', indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Immigration was hardly a topic of conversation. Ever. Not only has it become a common topic of conversation, it has become a national mess. As far as differing political ideology, there is a cohort in America, evidently quite a large one,  who believes that illegal aliens are due all the rights and privileges of American citizens. They often include criminal illegal aliens when it comes to legal protection. Mind-boggling, but here we are. 

Our political leftists are known for some wacky, unfounded and weird behaviors. The recent election of the Democratic Socialist Zohran Mumdani as mayor of New York City has brought some of the wildest and depraved leftist behavior the world has seen since Robert Mugabe governed Zimbabwe beginning in 1980. Best described as a Marxist/Socialist, Mugabe hated the country's once-ruling white minority. In his view of justice and reform, he authorized the seizure of white farms without government compensation. 

Mumdani's appointment of Cea Weaver as Director of the Mayor's Office to Protect Tenants has put on display behavior that mimics that of Robert Mugabe. My posts typically aren't that long, and intentionally so. But I could write an extensive missive describing the failures of Mugabe's misdeeds. While Weaver is promulgating a vision wherein "families, especially white families, are going to have a different relationship to property than the one we currently have."  Mugabe established that same different relationship as well, mainly being deprived of it. Weaver is enthusiastic about finding ways to shrink the value of real estate. Mugabe did it as well. From 2000 to 2001, commercial farmland lost about three quarters of its value. 

Summarily, Mugabe's transgressions resulted in the total collapse of Zimbabwe's economy, and hyperinflation that peaked at 79.6 billion percent. At this point, the daily inflation rate averaged 98 percent, meaning that inflation effectively doubled every 24 hours. 

The socio-economic consequences of private property expropriation were extensive and beyond damaging. It is also beyond disturbing that Cea Weaver's ideology and worldview so starkly resembles that of some of the most putrid and destructive people on earth.

Happy Holidays!

 I want to take this opportunity to wish all my readers the very best for this holiday season. To the Christians around the world, a very merry Christmas to you. May you have a joyous time with your family and friends. 

To others of all religions, Jewish, Buddhists, Islamist, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, Confucianists, Shintos, Baha'i's, I wish all the very best to all to you! 

May the new year bring happiness and prosperity to everyone! Thank you for being loyal readers of my blog. I promise to continue bringing you interesting and informative content through the coming year. If you have any suggestions or requests for a particular topic, please let me know. 

All the Best!

C Clayton Lewis

Nick Fuentes Has a Foothold...

 Younger audiences, especially Gen Z men, tend to gravitate toward online-first political figures for a mix of format, psychology, and context. Gen Z, for others like me who get a bit confused at the ages of the generations, are young people between the ages of 13 and 28. To give some insight into the mind-set of this age-coterie, let's take a look at a prime example; Nick Fuentes. Fuentes is a 27 year-old far-right political commentator and livestreamer who is the founder of the America First movement. He emerged in the late 2010's through online platforms, especially live video streams, where he blended nationalist rhetoric with provocative humor and confrontational tactics. 

Fuentes promotes a strain of white nationalism and Christian nationalism, while opposing immigration, feminism, and mainstream conservatism. He has made numerous statements widely criticized as antisemitic, racist, and misogynistic. His notoriety grew via livestreams and social media, though he has been frequently banned or restricted across major platforms for policy violations. Fuentes is a polarizing fringe figure, yet wielding significant influence within a narrow online subculture, but largely marginalized in mainstream politics. This, owing to sustained criticism, legal scrutiny around events, and platform bans. 

So, how does an uneducated, banal, bellicose young man come to occupy such a position of influence among his age group? What collection of circumstances blend and meld to make this possible? You may have heard detectives say, 'to catch a criminal, you have to think like one.' To understand the psyche of this generation, we have to get inside their heads. First, let's look at their media habits. Livestreams, memes, Discord chats feel personable and interactive. They provide real-time engagement and a sense of belonging, as opposed to passive consumption. Traditional conservatism still centers on TV, op-eds, think tanks, formats younger users rarely, if ever, seek out. 

There's a sense of rebellion against institutions. Gen Z has a tendency to distrust universities, legacy media, political parties, and corporations. Anti-establishment rhetoric feels transgressive, especially when it provokes bans or outrage. Deplatforming, which Fuentes is acutely familiar with, paradoxically increases credibility among audiences primed to distrust authority. Younger men, especially this age group, often feel economically deprived, socially sidelined, and opportunity-starved. Movements like America First offer:

• clear villains
• simple explanations
• a strong in-group identity

This contrasts with mainstream conservatism's abstract language about markets and institutions. Fuentes' style of rhetoric provides shock humor, irony and taboo language which feels riskier and more exciting, not to mention appealing, than policy debates. The line between politics and entertainment becomes blurred; controversy becomes content. Younger audiences raised on viral culture favor attention, not moderation. The online platforms they favor tend to push: highly emotional content, conflict-driven clips, and "us vs them" narratives. 

To be a part of this 'landscape', there is no need to read books, attend meetings, or understand policy. Online content can stimulate a feeling of being politically awakened. Traditional conservatism, on the other hand requires patience, historical knowledge, and gradual engagement. 

As Gen Z ages, many of these young idealists will shift their perspectives toward stability. They will come to appreciate policy over provocation. Careers and families will leave little time for online identity politics. Younger audiences aren't necessarily attracted to extremism, they're attracted to immediacy, identity and defiance. Figures like Fuentes meet those needs far more effectively than traditional conservatives, even if the appeal soon fades to an erstwhile fad. 

Can the Middle Class Be Saved?

 Achieving the trademarks of middle class life in America has become increasingly difficult, and there are no signs of reversals of that trend in sight. Life is constantly changing, as we all so well know. Life includes economics, politics, cultural shifts, socio-demographic changes, technology, and more. They're all changing. Literally, life around us is constantly changing, and there is little we can do about it. Actually, close to nothing. All we can do is buckle up for the ride. Sadly, I have to admit, this 'life ride' is for the most part not a fun experience. In fact, it can, and does get 'fierce and ugly'. 

Allow me to articulate. I'm a 'boomer'. Born in the early 50's, a few years after the end of WWII. Thousands of GI's came home and 'got happy' with the war's end, hence, my generation. The US emerged from the war economically dominant, with Europe and Japan rebuilding. Massive industrial expansion and high productivity were the hallmarks of the period. Government investment was strong in the areas of GI Bill benefits, infrastructure spending, housing affordability and assistance... Housing was cheap relative to income. Many, if not most families could live comfortable on one income. Mine did. College tuition was low. I attended a state supported university, world renowned today, tuition was $3 per semester hour (1972). These years, 1945-1965 are considered by many to be the golden age of the American middle class. Jobs were plentiful upon graduation, you literally had your choice, often multiple choices. For competent achievers there was nowhere to go but up. And, it's important to note that there was far less competition for those jobs than those of today. 

I bought my first house when I was twenty-seven years old. I can't even remember how many I've bought and sold in the years since. The economic and political conditions of the boomer years I suppose you could say created a perfect storm of sorts. Boomers have become the wealthiest generation in US history. Subsequent generations undoubtedly hold some feelings of disdain and contempt for this, but bear in mind, boomers didn't set the stage for these circumstances. In fact, there is no one party, group, previous generation, cadre, cabal or any collection of humans anywhere singularly responsible for this. It came to be through the unfolding events of history. Humans have an innate tendency to seek answers to  events both good and bad, as to 'why', and whose fault was this. Which is understandable and reasonable, yet the truth too often unfortunate. Why did conditions evolve to economically favor the boomers? There are answers, but they're buried in volumes of history. World history, not just the U.S. . Whose fault was it? Again, I refer you back to the volumes of history. 

Make no mistake, not all boomers are wealthy. The gains were not evenly distributed. Women, minorities, and non-college workers often did not receive full benefits. Deindustrialization hurt many working-class boomers late in life. Could this be a bit of deja-vu, staring into the barrel of the "AI" gun aimed at us currently?

We are not a socialist society. Our founding fathers, our forefathers, fathers, and the vast majority of people today have made the deliberate choice not to be. 250 years ago, our system of government was not framed to distribute wealth amongst the masses. It was designed to create opportunity. It was designed with provisions for  charity and welfare, yet sanctions work, ambition, and opportunities for self-improvement. Our system of government and laws is rooted in the empirical knowledge of the successes and failures of history. To them, at the time it probably seemed to be nothing more than common sense. Today, it seems genius. 

To reach what was considered "middle class" of the boomer generation has become "nigh impossible" for current generations. High home prices, the cost of education, raising children, medical costs, groceries, transportation, no facet of the cost of living has been untouched. The lack of jobs, competition of available jobs, wages, have pushed all the trappings of "middle class" out of reach for so many. Technology has advanced perhaps more rapidly than inflation and rising costs, but it too has become radically expensive. Bought an iPhone lately?... I can recall when a mortgage payment was about a week's pay. Now a week's pay won't buy most people the latest iPhone. We're a free market society and they're charging what the market is willing to pay...

One of the biggest influences of my life, to whom I was not related, but consider him to be a brilliant soul, once said to me as I was graduating from college, "Life is hard. It's only what you make of it."  Thirty some odd years later, the gravity of his words hit home. Fifty some odd years later, I still think about what he said. It was hard when I graduated from college, it was hard thirty years later, it's still hard today as a retiree. I have had the privilege of traveling and working all over the world. I have lived and worked in third world countries and developed countries. Yes, it's hard here in America. But there's nowhere else on earth that it's any easier. Not even close. There's still opportunity here, plenty of it. Young people have to be smarter and work harder. Strangely, I was told the same thing myself, fifty years ago. 

I often revert to analogies between life and baseball. In baseball, it's often said to aspiring young players "you've got to want it." I dont mean simply desire it, or long for it, you've got to constantly crave it in your core kind of want it. Success in life, and maybe even being 'comfortably middle-class' requires the same now. 

We are Sorry Hong Kong. Truly Sorry.

 The deadly apartment building fire that claimed 160 lives in Hong Kong recently has launched a debate over construction safety, lax regulatory enforcement, and the failures that allowed such a catastrophe to unfold. The city's leaders ordered an investigation into the cause of the fire and police have made several arrests of individuals  suspected of negligence. In the recent past, such steps would have been seen as the initial moves in a process of public accountability that would be scrutinized, debated, and grilled by an outspoken press, civic groups and elected representatives. But in the Hong Kong of today, the response to the tragedy reveals something more disturbing. The city now operates under a political setting indistinguishable from that of mainland China. The island country once known for free speech, civil society, and grassroots community activism has been replaced by a firm deference to Beijing determined to silence independent voices that dare to question the official narrative. 

The tragedy didn't only expose the weaknesses in building safety, it confirmed that Hong Kong was now governed by Beijing. Gone is the public debate criticizing fire code enforcement to demands for transparency about how aging residential towers are maintained. Scrutiny and compassion have been replaced with mandates and oppression. 

The Hong Kong National Security Law imposed by China fundamentally changed the city's political and legal landscape. This "law" was passed by the National People's Congress Standing Committee and inserted into Hong Kong's basic law. Hong Kong's legislature had no say in the matter. None.

The NSL, to say the least, is controversial. Terms like subversions and collusion are loosely defined, allowing wide discretion in enforcement. Peaceful political activity, journalism, or advocacy can fall under the law. Peaceful political activity? Like a protest? Wasn't that what was happening in Tiananmen Square in 1989? The entire world knows how that turned out...

Much of the direction of how the high-rise apartment fire is being handled is undoubtedly coming from the Office for Safeguarding National Security which is staffed by mainland officials in Hong Kong. And, of course, the law overrides local law if there is a conflict. Why even have local laws?...

One very interesting and, might I say peculiar aspect about the NSL is that it claims jurisdiction over any person anywhere in the world, even non-residents, for actions or statements about Hong Kong. Has China single-handedly decided to relinquish the entire world of right to free speech? Take it up with America, Xi, and lotsa luck.

Since the NSL took effect, pro-democracy groups, parties and organizations have been disbanded. Many activists have been arrested, jailed, or gone into exile. Elections have been restructured so only "patriots" approved by Beijing can run. Independent media outlets have shut down (most notably Apple Daily). Journalists, media outlets and NGO's now operate under self-censorship. Large-scale protests that were common before 2020 have effectively disappeared. 

The United States, the United Kingdom, the EU and others say the law violates the Sino-British Declaration. No surprise there. Several countries imposed sanctions, ended extradition treaties, or offered immigration pathways to Hong Kong residents. China rejects criticism, arguing the law restored stability and order. No surprise there either. 

The fire of the Wang Fuk Court high-rise towers was a tragedy of immense proportions. Authorities have detained people suspected of safety violations, including issues with fire alarms and construction materials. The fire has deeply affected the community and stirred public debate about building safety, regulatory enforcement, and emergency preparedness. Our hearts go out to the people of Hong Kong and those affected by this tragedy. 

Claudia Sheinbaum - A New Kind of Leader

 Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo was elected President of Mexico in October 2024. She is a scientist by training, originally studying physics, then earning a doctorate in energy engineering from the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Prior to becoming involved in politics, she authored over 100 academic articles and books on energy, environment, and sustainable development. Her technical background shapes how many see her governance style. 

Her scientific credentials give her credibility when dealing with climate, energy, and sustainability issues. She is seen as supportive of gender equality, women's rights, and social welfare initiatives. During her time as Mexico City mayor, she pushed for better public transport, environmental regulations, and social supports; blending technocratic and social-justice approaches. 

Since being elected president, she has become the first woman and first Jewish person to hold the office of President in Mexico. She has maintained strong public approval: at times reaching about 70%, which is among the highest for Latin American leaders in recent history. She has continued parts of the social-welfare and the state-centered economic approach associated with her predecessor, while integrating her science and environment-oriented background. She is often described as more measured and technocratic compared to the more fiery style  of previous leaders. She relies on data and policy over rhetoric. Her leadership will likely reshape how environmental, social, and urban policies are framed in Mexico, combining technical expertise with social priorities. 

There are several major challenges and controversies facing Sheinbaum's presidency. There are four major categories of concern. 

• High expectations and mixed results: Since taking office there has been a reported drop in homicides, some sources claim an approximate decrease of 32%. The overall picture still remains worrisome, though. Other serious crimes, especially extortion and disappearances continue to rise. 
• Cartel violence and "hot-spots": Certain regions, e.g. Sinaloa, Michoacan, have seen dramatic spikes in violence, including turf wars among rival factions and killings of public officials. 
• Systemic corruption and collusion risk: Critics and observers claim that tackling cartel power cannot succeed unless networks of collusion - which often reach into local governments, security forces, or even political allies are dismantled. 
• Public perception and fear: Even when official stats improve, many citizens still feel unsafe. Crime remains a leading concern and distrust in institutions remains high. 

Security isn't just a public safety issue, it affects investment, social stability, migration, and overall confidence in institutions. If cartels remain strong, they can erode governance and the rule of law. In spite of the progress she has made, Sheinbaum hasn't broken from the legacy of her predecessor, some institutional weakness and informal networks remain. The government's push for major judicial reforms has drawn significant criticism from oppositional parties, as well as international observers. Her administration inherited high public debts and structural problems, especially in the energy sector and social services. Addressing the debt while supporting social and security programs is going to be a tough balancing act. 

Without sustainable economic growth and structural reforms, social gains risk being ephemeral. Lack of investment can suppress many Mexicans in precarious labor, unemployment, and poverty, which in turn fuels social discontent and can even stoke the conditions for crime and instability. Public support and trust are key for democratic legitimacy and long-term stability. If people begin to feel the government is failing on security, justice or economic opportunity, popular discontent could grow potentially undermining her governance. 

Sheinbaum's success will require establishing a long-term vision, institutional overhauls, and transparency. She will have to dismantle the roots of corruption, build economic opportunity, strengthen judicial independence, and most of all, restore public trust. But if any leader in the recent history of Mexico has the mettle to pull this off, it's Claudia Sheinbaum. 

Captain Mark Kelly, Stand Down, Sir.

 If you live in America, you have no doubt seen or at least heard about the presumptuous video circulating on social media. The participants in the mentioned video included five other lawmakers, four US Representatives, one other senator and Senator Mark Kelly. Those six "spoke directly to members of the military" in the video, telling troops "you can refuse illegal orders." 

Here in America we have become somewhat 'accustomed' to weird behavior from members of Congress, at times. Weird behavior is OK, under most circumstances. This is a free country and there is certainly no law against "being weird." Of course, when it comes to members of Congress we expect a little more in terms of decorum. But even members of Congress have the same rights to free speech as every other American. 

The video in question though, is a patent exhibition of aberrant, arrogant and perhaps seditious behavior. For six members of the United States Congress to make a video and allow it to be circulated on social media while making blatant statements directly to members of our armed forces that it is acceptable to "refuse illegal orders" is nothing less than profane. Lesser adjectives cant even begin to describe such absurdity. 

What descries Captain Kelly's participation in this folly is his background and 'alleged' credibility. Captain Kelly has a distinguished military background. Make no mistake about it, active and retired military members such as Captain Kelly deserve the respect of every single American. All of them, including Captain Kelly certainly have my respect. His participation in this video and his statements however, deeply erode his credibility. Captain Kelly is a well-educated and highly intelligent individual. He is assumed to be capable of sound and reasonable judgment. His participation in this video brings that last assumption into question. 

Personally, I have blood-kin relatives who have given their lives in defense of our country. I have blood-kin relatives who have flown numerous combat missions, just as Captain Kelly has. None of those relatives ever had any doubt in their minds that every member of the military followed the chain-of-command, from the Commander-in-Chief on down. To do otherwise would lead to severe consequences. Captain Kelly knows this too. He knows it well. 

I thank you and commend you on your service to our country Captain. But regarding this matter, I suggest you stand down. If you choose to obfuscate your position and not atone for your statements, you should be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and be court martialed. Just like every other American, Captain Kelly, you must "keep it between the white lines" or suffer the consequences. 

If God showed up on your doorstep, would you recognize him?

 I'm a little hesitant to write about God, for a few reasons. One, I'm not an expert by any means, all I can do is offer my perspective. I've been wanting to do this for some time, because frankly, I think about God a lot. Two, Obviously, there are many religions in the world, each with its own unique interpretation of God. Theologians estimate there are 4,000 to 4,300 'religions' worldwide. This includes:

• Major world religions
• Indigenous and tribal religions
• New religious movements
• Localized folk beliefs
• Revived ancient traditions

Looking at the 'big picture', there are five major world religions:

• Christianity
• Islam
• Hinduism
• Buddhism
• Judaism

I'm not going to mention how many people practice each religion, because I don't think it really matters. Each one of us practices the religion we choose for personal reasons. Numbers are important to win elections, but not to validate religion. 

But this is not an analysis of religions. It's a chance to offer some of my thoughts and hopefully, to encourage you to think about your own thoughts about God.

To be fair, not everyone believes there is a God. Roughly 7% of the global population identify as either atheist or agnostic. If you include those who say they are not 'affiliated' with any particular religion, that number increases to around 16%. It's important to note that the 'unaffiliated' population worldwide is increasing. Data as recent as 2020 suggests that the number is about 24%. 

Most countries in the world allow for freedom to practice the religion of one's own choosing. Not all do. For the five major religions of the world, each has its own concept of God. They are not all similar by any means. 

Hinduism teaches that Brahman is the ultimate, infinite, formless reality; the source of everything. Brahman is not a "god" in the Western sense. It is the essence of all existence. 

Buddhism rejects the idea of a creator deity who made the universe or controls human destiny. There is no all-powerful God, there is no God who judges or saves, and there is no need worship a deity. Buddhism focuses on:

• understanding suffering
• ethical living
• meditation and mindfulness
• enlightenment
• understanding the nature of reality (impermanence)

In a word, Buddhism can be described as non-theistic. It is not centered around a god.

Islam definitely has one, single, absolute God; Allah. Allah is not a separate or different deity from the God of Judaism or Christianity. "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for God. Some of the key characteristics of Allah according to Islamic belief are, God is:

• One and indivisible
• The creator of the universe
• All-powerful
• All-knowing
• Merciful and compassionate
• Eternal
• Just and wise
• Not human and not part of creation

In Islam:

• God has no partners
• God has no children
• God is not incarnated as a human

A common misconception about Islam is Muslims do not worship Muhammad. It teaches that Muhammad is a prophet, not divine. God alone deserves worship. And associating partners with God is the greatest sin. 

Judaism, of course, also has a singular God. No Trinity, no incarnations, unique, absolute, and alone. The major difference in  Judaism from Christianity is the belief in the incarnation.

Now that we've had a look at how the five major religions of the world see 'God', we're going to shift to how Christians see God. Christianity is a cornerstone of western civilization. It, in some way influences practically every facet of life in the western world. Government, society, culture, education, the core values of humanity are based on Christian beliefs. 

Now, let's get to the point. Whatever religion one may practice, whatever one's concept of 'God' may be, we must ask ourselves, if God were in our presence, in whatever form He may be, would we recognize Him? This question is intended for believers, of course. But if you believe there is a God, and He were in your presence, would you recognize Him? Would you know if He were there? 

To answer that question, let's look at how some of the greatest thinkers in the history of humanity thought of it. Michelangelo was deeply religious. He attended Mass frequently, prayed daily, and considered his art a form of worship. Late in life, he wrote: "Neither painting nor sculpture will be able to any longer to calm my soul; my only hope now is turning toward God." 

Aristotle's God was an eternal, immaterial, unchanging source of all motion in the universe. Aristotle's God did not create the universe, did not intervene in human life, did not perform miracles, and did not answer prayers. The universe, like God, is eternal. Aristotle's view didn't quite fit with Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. 

Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he did believe in a type of divine order behind the universe. He rejected the idea of a God who intervenes, performs miracles, divine judgment, and prayer effecting events. He said plainly, "I do not believe in a personal God." He did believe the universe showed rational structure, mathematical beauty, and deep order. To Einstein, God is the laws of nature. 

Let's take a look at the man who developed the theory of evolution, which is somewhat antithetical to the belief in a single creator of all species, Charles Darwin. Early in his life, Darwin was a conventional Christian who believed that God designed nature, species were created by God, and nature reflected divine purpose. He even studied theology at Cambridge. During his midlife years, as he developed the theory of evolution, several issues challenged his earlier faith. Predation, parasites, disease and cruelty in nature troubled him deeply. He wrote, "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have created the Ichneumonidae (Darwin wasps) with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars." The death of his daughter Annie in 1851 devastated him and contributed to his loss of traditional Christian belief. He stated, "I think that generally... an agnostic would be the more correct description my state of mind." 

Stephan Hawking, the renowned physicist did not believe in a personal or creator God; he viewed the universe as fully explainable by the laws of physics and considered "God" only a poetic metaphor for the ultimate laws of nature. He once said, "There is no physical evidence of God, but I'm not going to rule it out."

Ultimately, each of us has to do the same as the great thinkers before us, come to our own conclusions. The unavoidable fact is there are limits to human knowledge. Whether there is a God, how, or in what form he may exist, and his role in our lives is up to each of us to determine. If, and when, we come to that conclusion, if God were to present Himself to us, say at our doorstep, would you know it was Him?...