RUTHFULLY YOURS

European political and media elites have been quick to hail the election of Van der Bellen, who campaigned on a pro-immigration, pro-EU platform. They seem to believe his razor-thin win validates their uninterrupted pursuit of European multiculturalism.

Meanwhile, European elites have expressed relief at Norbert Hofer’s defeat. Their reactions would indicate that they unaware that they are largely responsible for the rise of anti-establishment parties in Austria and other parts of Europe.

“Europe has been polarized for years by misguided policies pursued by the old major parties, not only in Germany but in many European countries. The fact is that it must be our task to preserve freedom, democracy and the rule of law across the continent. And the policy of open borders does exactly the opposite.” — Frauke Petry, Alternative for Germany party.

Norbert Hofer of the anti-immigration Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) has been narrowly defeated in his bid to become Austria’s next president.

Alexander Van der Bellen, former leader of Austrian Greens party, won 50.3% of the vote, compared to 49.7% for Hofer. The margin of victory was 31,026 out of nearly 4.5 million votes cast.

European political and media elites have been quick to hail the election of Van der Bellen, who campaigned on a pro-immigration, pro-EU platform. They seem to believe his razor-thin win validates their uninterrupted pursuit of European multiculturalism.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders is using his popularity and name recognition to support the VoteLeave campaign, which encourages UK citizens to vote for a British exit from the European Union next month — a “Brexit.”

In a conversation with The Sunday Telegraph, Wilders — known for his euro-skepticism and his criticism of Islam — explains that if Brits seize this chance to take back their sovereignty, they could inspire many other EU members to do the same:

Like in the 1940s, once again Britain could help liberate Europe from another totalitarian monster, this time called “Brussels.” Again, we could be saved by the British. If people see that a country can leave, and the lights do not go out, there is not a war, and a country does not go bankrupt, but even flourishes. If Britain proves that this theory can become a reality, it would have an enormous effect.

Although Wilders has consistently been portrayed as an “extremist” and a “racist xenophobe” by the media, the Party for Freedom leader is becoming less controversial. He has not softened his tone — voters are simply siding with him. He now represents a large segment of the Dutch and even the European electorate:

Not so long ago, Mr. Wilders acknowledges, such dreams of a populist revolution would have remained just that — dreams — but as in America, where Donald Trump has caught the establishment flat-footed with his brash appeal to discontented grassroots, Europe’s populists are suddenly ascendant.

Nationalist populism is taking over in Europe as it appears to be doing in the United States with the rise of Donald Trump.

Ahmet Davutoglu was a typically Islamist prime minister, except that even his secular rivals admitted that he was an honest man — not corrupt at all. In contrast, Binali Yildirim, who is designated to be the next prime minister, has a different story to tell.

There are suspicions about how the Yildirim family has run its business arm.

Yildirim will leave foreign policy to Erdogan and his inner cabinet exclusively. He will devote most of his time to his number one task: putting together a parliamentary majority, either by horse-trading or by snap polls, in order to introduce the executive presidential system his boss so passionately craves.

Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, the choice of Turkish President and would-be Sultan Recep Tayyip Erdogan for loyal servant in 2014, stepped down with words that were bitter but not resentful: he will always remain loyal to the sultan, party and “dawa” – the Islamist political cause.

After having been chosen by the Sultan as his first Grand Vizier, not knowing he would have to quit barely 20 months later, Davutoglu read out his government’s program in parliament on Sept. 1, 2014:

“One of the most important prerequisites to sustainable stability in the Middle East is to find a just, comprehensive and viable solution to the Palestinian dispute…. Turkey’s efforts for an end to the human tragedy in Palestine, achievement of sustainable peace in the region and support for the unity government in Palestine will continue on…. Any progress in the process of normalization of ties with Israel, which began after Israel apologized in 2013 for the Mavi Marmara attack, will not be possible unless Israel stopped its military strikes on Gaza and removed restrictions [on Gaza].”

As is almost always the case in Turkish political Islam’s inner roads of intrigue and power struggles, Davutoglu’s fierce pro-Palestinian, anti-Semitic, pro-ummah, neo-Ottomanist dreams failed to keep him afloat in a sea of sharks: his own comrades. On May 5 he announced his decision to take the party leadership to an extraordinary general convention where “he would not run for party chairman and prime minister.”

“Why,” I said to the woman next to me, “is this flag there? Is that not the ISIS flag?”

The half-full banquet hall, divided into the men’s side and the women’s side, admitted about 100 attendees. A black flag with white script was on display, on both the screen and on the podium. “Why,” I said to the woman next to me, “is this flag there? Is that not the ISIS flag?” The woman, later identified as Naeema, said it was not, and called her son, one of the organizers, to address the question. It seemed difficult for him, too; he went off to look for someone else more knowledgeable to the help with the problem. Naeema explained that the writing was different. “I can read Arabic,” I said. No one could be found to answer the question.

As the event started late, Naeema began a conversation. We talked about our origins and how long we had been in Canada. She said she had been here 40 years, so I asked about the disconnect between enjoying 40 years of democracy, yet trying to end it. I mentioned a book published by Hizb-ut-Tahrir:

“Democracy is Infidelity: its use, application and promotion are prohibited.”

“الديمقراطية نظام كفر، يحرم أخذها أو تطبيقها أو الدعوة إليها”

Naeema said she was not qualified to debate the topic, but that democracy had done nothing good for people, so she and other believers would follow the rule of Allah. Reflecting on the Muslim Brotherhood’s year in power in Egypt, I asked if she were prepared to have a dictator claim to be Allah’s spokesman even if he abused the power. She said she had never thought about it like that, but, again, that she was not qualified to debate the topic. As the conference began, the conversation stopped.

The culture of entitlement is so well entrenched that handouts, which see the minority that pays taxes subsidising those who do not, have morphed into “rights” impossible to wind back. Given that the battle is lost, fiscal conservatives should focus instead on reducing impediments to growth
As intractable budget deficit after budget deficit forebodes national ruin and frames the forthcoming election, there is no shortage of fiscal conservatives complaining that the Government has failed to cut spending. Maybe I have missed it but I can’t recall one that has actually set out and quantified exactly where material expenditure cuts should be made and can feasibly be made. When it comes to specifics there is empty space. Why? The answer is simple. It is just too darn hard.

In 2013 the Centre for Independent Studies established its TARGET30 campaign with the objective of fashioning a public debate that would lead to a reduction in general government spending (federal, state and local) from around 35% of GDP to 30% in ten years. This is a laudable objective. But, predictably, no progress has been made or is remotely in sight.

The bulk of the growing expenditure burden is in the areas of health, welfare, pensions and education, which account for an estimated 60% of federal government spending in 2015-16. It is all electorally inviolable. Certainly new promises (of the reckless Gillard kind on Gonski, hospital funding and the NDIS) should be resisted. But once a program is in place it is all but impossible to make cuts.

Too many people are now getting some benefit or other. Added to this, the culture of entitlement is so well entrenched that handouts, which involve a minority of the population (predominantly the despised ‘rich’) subsidising the maintenance and lifestyle of the rest, have morphed into rights. Short of some cataclysmic overturning of the existing order this will not change. In fact, it will become akin to a law of nature.

Ask yourself, if Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher failed to stem the growth in entitlement spending, as they did in a less far-gone age of dependency, what chance has anybody now?

The question then becomes what to do, if you believe – unlike left-green politicians living in their own delusional world – that growing debt will eventually lead to national ruin. The only feasible answer is to boost economic growth to pay the bills. Sure keep on fighting the good fight to contain spending but understand that this is largely whistling in the wind and that any solution will predominantly lie on the supply side of the economy.

In 2012 a former New York Times reporter named Patrick Tyler published an invidious book called “Fortress Israel,” the point of which was that the Jewish state is a modern-day Sparta whose “sabra military elite” is addicted to war.

“Six decades after its founding,” Mr. Tyler wrote, Israel “remains in thrall to an original martial impulse, the depth of which has given rise to succeeding generations of leaders who are stunted in their capacity to wield or sustain diplomacy as a rival to military strategy.” Worse, these leaders do this “reflexively and instinctively, in order to perpetuate a system of governance where national policy is dominated by the military.”

Israel’s reflexive militarists are at it again, though probably not as Mr. Tyler imagined. Last week, Moshe Ya’alon, a former army chief of staff and a member of the ruling Likud party, resigned as defense minister following ructions regarding the appropriate role of the military in political life. In his place, the prime minister intends to appoint Avigdor Lieberman, a right-wing political brawler whose military career never went higher than corporal rank.

The spat between the prime minister and Mr. Ya’alon began in late March, after an Israeli soldier named Elor Azariah shot and killed a Palestinian man who was lying wounded and motionless on the ground after trying to stab another soldier. Sgt. Azariah is now standing trial for manslaughter and faces up to 20 years in prison. Video of the killing suggests the wounded Palestinian was no threat to the soldiers when the sergeant put a bullet in his head.

The killing has been emphatically—and rightly—condemned by Israel’s military brass. But Israelis also have little sympathy for Palestinians trying to stick knives into their sons and daughters, and Messrs. Netanyahu and Lieberman have offered expressions of support for Sgt. Azariah and his family, to the applause of the Israeli right and the infuriation of senior generals. As often as not in Israel, military leaders and security officials are to the left of the public and their civilian leadership.

If that were the end of the story, you might have a morality tale about Mr. Netanyahu’s political instincts. Or you might have a story about the high ethical standards to which Israel holds itself. What you don’t have is anything resembling a mindlessly belligerent “sabra military elite” that wants to kill helpless (though not innocent) Palestinians to protect its own.

But that isn’t the end of the story. At a ceremony marking Holocaust Remembrance Day earlier this month, Yair Golan, Israel’s deputy chief of staff, compared trends in Israeli society to Germany in the 1930s. When Mr. Netanyahu rebuked him—correctly—for defaming Israel and cheapening the memory of the Holocaust, Mr. Ya’alon leapt to the general’s defense and told officers that they should feel free to speak their minds in public. Hence his ouster. CONTINUE AT SITE

Barack Obama announced the lifting of the U.S. arms embargo on Vietnam on his visit to Hanoi on Monday, marking an important milestone in America’s rapprochement with its old adversary and its broader pivot to Asia. The decision also sends an unmistakable signal to Beijing’s leaders that their efforts to bully its neighbors have backfired.

Hanoi has reason to be deeply uneasy about Chinese intentions. Beijing has reclaimed land on disputed rocks in the South China Sea and created military bases that threaten its neighbors’ claims. In 2014 it placed a deep-sea oil exploration rig within Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone, leading to a maritime standoff between the two navies.

Vietnam’s top leader, General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong, visited the White House in July and called the U.S. a force for regional stability. His concerns over militarization of the South China Sea and freedom of navigation refute Beijing’s claims that the U.S. is stirring trouble in the region.

Vietnam’s military, while dwarfed by China’s, is still the most formidable in Southeast Asia. It garrisons 23 of the shoals in the disputed Spratly Islands, as compared to China’s seven, and can offer the U.S. and its allies access to the deep-water naval base at Cam Ranh Bay. But first both sides have to prove that this relationship will be stable and lasting.

Washington has already allowed the sale of arms related to maritime security, including six Defiant 75 fast-response boats for Vietnam’s coast guard. But Hanoi wants to reduce its reliance on Russia for advanced weaponry and forge closer military ties with the U.S. CONTINUE AT SITE

A top Iranian commander has claimed that the Islamic Republic had the ability to destroy Israel “in less than eight minutes,” according to comments offered on the same day that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that Iran would continue to build its ballistic missile arsenal in defiance of U.S. demands.

“If the Supreme Leader’s orders [are] to be executed, with the abilities and the equipment at our disposal, we will raze the Zionist regime in less than eight minutes,” Ahmad Karimpour, a senior adviser to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp’s al-Quds Force, was quoted as stating, according to regional reports.

The threat comes as Khamenei declared in a speech Monday that U.S. “cries” over Iran’s ballistic missile program will not alter the regime’s behavior.

“They [the U.S.] have engaged in a lot of hue and cry over Iran’s missile capabilities, but they should know that this ballyhoo does not have any influence and they cannot do a damn thing,” Khamenei was quoted as saying during a speech Monday in Tehran, according to Iran’s state-controlled media.

“Jihad still exists,” Khamenei added “Great Jihad means not abiding by the enemy whom we are fighting; not abiding by enemy in economy, politics, culture and art is the great Jihad.”

The Supreme Leader said the United States is the source of all hostility in the region.

It’s another case of the silence of the shams, as the usual suspects for decrying discrimination clam up when Islam is involved. Reuters reports:

A group of 51 Muslim states has blocked 11 gay and transgender organizations from attending a high-level meeting at the United Nations next month on ending AIDS, sparking a protest by the United States, Canada and the European Union.

Egypt wrote to the president of the 193-member General Assembly on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to object to the participation of the 11 groups. It did not give a reason in the letter, which Reuters saw.

Samantha Power, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, wrote to General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft and said the groups appeared to have been blocked for involvement in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy.

“Given that transgender people are 49 times more likely to be living with HIV than the general population, their exclusion from the high-level meeting will only impede global progress in combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic,” Power wrote.

Israel has proven itself a hotbed for technology. From being a force to be reckoned with in the cybersecurity sector, and a leader in the with nanotechnology it should’t be surprising that the country is also an innovator in the medical devices field.

In late 2015 Steven Schoenfeld, founder and chief investment officer of BlueStar Global Investors LLC, a New York-based firm that specializes in the Israeli capital markets told the Globe and Mail that “Israel, for 30, maybe 40, years has been a leader in basic medical research. They have some of the best practical operating hospitals and research hospitals in the world. They have pioneered all sorts of techniques. The speed of innovation from laboratory to practice is strong.”

In a 2015 study from Israel’s ministry of industry, trade and labour, the country had 725 medical device companies in operation that were leading the country’s growth in the medical devices field. Driving the country’s position in the medical devices field is “a lot of willingness to experiment which doesn’t tend to exist in other societies,” Guy David, a professor of healthcare management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School said.

Medical device companies in Israel benefit from several options including government support. As MDDI Online highlights, the country’s Office of the Scientist, now the Innovation Authority, provides financial support for research and development programs in all technology fields. The government provides support through incubator programs, which is geared at attracting global expertise to support local start ups.

Likewise, in being a hub for technological innovations, medical technology companies operating in Israel also benefit greatly from medtech giants looking at the country’s enterprise sector for “innovative engineering and medical talent” MDDI Online reports. That said, many established medical technology companies like Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ), Becton Dickinson (NYSE:BDX)

and GE Healthcare (NYSE:GE) are active in Israel’s medical space, with several even setting up local research and development centers within the country.
Finding funding in Israel for medical devices

For early-stage medical device companies, finding funding in Israel can sometimes be a challenge, as with any market. That said, companies looking for funding do have several options available to them.

Angel investing is quite prevalent in Israel. MDDI Online writes that angels are likely to be successful serial entrepreneurs who bring added value to companies. Likewise, companies always have the venture capital and public market routes to take. And of course, acquisition.