RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14894/swedes-are-fleeing

As a consequence of taking in so many migrants within a relatively short time span, not only during the extraordinary migration crisis in 2015 but generally in the years 2012-2017, municipalities are fighting high unemployment, a rise in child poverty and rising social welfare expenditures, according to Jim Frölander.

“I have tried to defend Malmö,” Emma Zetterholm said, “But the more time passes and you notice that there is no improvement, you eventually lose your resilience”.

“As a parent, you become angry, desperate… The result is that those who can, and can afford it, move…. To a quieter part of the country or abroad. Those who do not have the same opportunities [to move] remain where they are. It’s devastating…” — Former Minister of Labour Sven Otto Littorin, who now lives and works in Dubai, on Facebook.

“About 13 percent of the population in Sweden experience problems in their own residential areas with crime, violence or vandalism. It is one of the highest proportions in Europe.” By comparison, the other Nordic countries were placed among the countries with the lowest percentage of the population who experience such problems….” — Statistics Sweden, April 25, 2019.

Swedes are on the move. Problems in many municipalities are prompting Swedes to leave for other areas with fewer socioeconomic problems. The issue has recently gained the attention of the Swedish mainstream media.

Take the small, picturesque town of Filipstad (population 10,000), for example. Swedish television recently made a documentary about the town, which finds itself in both a financial and an existential crisis. “We are experiencing a population exchange. You can think of that what you want… But it is simply a statement of fact that this is actually what we are going through and we have to deal with it”, Jim Frölander, integration manager in the Filipstad municipality, says in the documentary. Between 2012 and 2018, 640 native Swedes left the town, and 963 foreign-born people moved into the town. Those leaving are people of working age (20-64), which means that the municipality’s tax revenues are shrinking, exacerbating town’s financial crisis.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14946/wobbly-on-iran

Iran has, indeed, seen its economy crumble, inflation and unemployment soar, and its oil exports rapidly fall to under 200,000 barrels a day from more than two million.

In short, through a combined policy of military restraint and economic pressure, the Trump administration has shifted the entire discussion on Iran.

No longer is preserving the JCPOA the issue, but rather jettisoning it and perhaps starting over. No longer is the use or abuse of American military power the focus of debate, but rather Iran’s terrorist activities — not just against America and Israel — but against the entire world’s energy sources.

Since the Islamic Republic of Iran was created in 1979, the regime in Tehran has been at war with the United States and its allies, revealing itself to be an expansionist nation, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and having “blood lust for its enemies.”

The 2015 signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — which Iran did not sign — and otherwise bafflingly known as the “nuclear deal with Iran,” was falsely claimed by its supporters in the West to prevent the ayatollah-led regime from obtaining nuclear weapons, even though its most salient feature was its “sunset clause” enabling Iran to have as many as it liked in just a few short years. As the Israeli government repeatedly warned, the JCPOA actually “put Iran on a glide path” towards a nuclear-weapons capability.

Furthermore, the Iranian government refused to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect sites at which there was suspected nuclear activity for military purposes. It was not until the Israeli Mossad retrieved a trove of documents from a warehouse in Tehran in mid-2018 that concrete evidence of such activity was shown.

https://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-tragedy-of-communist-china/90852/

Communist China’s 70th anniversary, with its spectacle of violence against demonstrators for democracy in Hong Kong, is a moment to mark a profound truth: There is no difference between political liberty and economic liberty. They cannot be separated, nor can one be put before the other. It turns out that economic liberty and political liberty are the same thing — warp and woof of the fabric of freedom.

This became evident in Asia in the 1970s, when our defeat in Vietnam ushered in an era in which the so-called non-aligned nations began to assert themselves. Their conceit was that communism and capitalism were both bad. So non-aligned countries set up authoritarian regimes pursuing Western style development by focusing on business. They delayed political freedom until, in theory, they could afford it.

That theory, though, was upended in those Asian lands where democracy managed to emerge — Japan, Free Korea, and the Free Chinese Republic on Taiwan. It wasn’t easy; real democracy almost got defeated in, say, South Korea and took some time to emerge in, say, Taiwan. Eventually, though, the countries that chose multiparty democracy, freedom of religion, and the rule of law emerged as winners.

This was always recognized in America — and not just by Republicans. One of the clearest expressions of it was given by President Carter. That was in May 1977, when he spoke at Notre Dame. Said the 39th President: “The great democracies are not free because we are strong and prosperous. I believe we are strong and influential and prosperous because we are free.”

By then, though, that truth was already being betrayed. That started in the United Nations. Free China was one of its founders and — with America, Russia, Britain, and Free France — a permanent member of the Security Council, with full veto powers. Yet on a motion of one of the world’s worst tyrannies, Albania, the UN in 1971 gave China’s seat to the communist camarilla.

Nixon’s trip to Peking followed. Then President Carter, at Free China’s expense, and with Congress providing the hechsher, formally recognized the communist regime. This was challenged in the Supreme Court by Senator Goldwater. The justices took the case, but refused to hear arguments, and ordered a lower court to dismiss Goldwater’s claim as non-justiciable.