DEFICITS AND DEBT LIMIT OPTIONS: SYDNEY WILLIAMS

“The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety

and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.”

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

A recent front-page article in The New York Times dealt with the fate of yellow-cab drivers in New York. The reporter, Winnie Hu, provided a heart-breaking look at those (mostly immigrants) who bought medallions at high prices before Uber and others entered the market, and who are now suffering from fewer riders and lower prices for medallions. She did not write of the role government played, in limiting the number of medallions, which artificially inflated their price and which helped cause the upsurge in unconventional competition. She did not write of creative destruction, where new technology drives out the old, and without which our economy and productivity would stagnate. And, she did not point out the options consumers now have – more competition and greater flexibility.

Governments are facing financial crises. Debt is high, and growing. Deficits are expanding. Yet, our infrastructure needs repair and/or replacement, and our defense needs are not being met. Eleemosynary institutions that rely on government support are facing hard times. There are many reasons for this situation, but the gist is that unionized government workers, entitlements, and the bureaucracies to support them, limit options. Mandatory spending on welfare programs has risen inexorably. Union demands, especially at the state and local levels are untenable. Revenues have not kept pace. The solution lies not in more taxes, but in more robust economic growth.

Demographics add to the problem. As a nation, we are aging. In 2015, 15% of the population was 65 and older, up about three percentage points from 2000. In 2030, that number, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is expected to be 21%. At the same time, the working-age population (18 to 64) is expected to decline from 62% to 58%. In other words, demands on government for retirement and health benefits will increase, while the number of working taxpayers decreases.

We can persist along the current path: borrowing more heavily, increasing taxes, and cutting “discretionary” spending, while increasing deficits and debt. Or we can try to extricate ourselves by changing direction: We can rein in mandatory spending (i.e. entitlements), temper union demands and employ tax and regulatory reform to let the economy grow more quickly.

Western contempt for China turns to panic : David Goldman

Economic boom continues with electronics industry domination and infrastructure growth through trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative

Not since the British garrison at Singapore surrendered to Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita in 1942 has Western opinion of an Asian power changed so fast. When China’s 2015 stock market bubble popped, prevailing Western opinion held that China’s economic boom would flame out in a debt crisis comparable to America’s subprime disaster of 2008 or the near collapse of Europe’s southern tier in 2013.

Now that China’s tradeable stock market has risen by 43% during 2017 in US dollar terms (with the MSCI-based ETF as a benchmark), Western opinion is melting up. Bridgewater, the world’s largest hedge fund, is raising money for a China investment vehicle. Bank of Americanow predicts Asian stocks will double in the present bull run. “Hedge Funds Used to Love Shorting China. Now, Not So Much,” declared a Bloomberg headline Sept. 12.

Bottom of Form

The same applies to Western evaluation of China’s standing as a world power. Graham Allison’s The Thucydides Trap, a plea not to oppose China’s strategic challenge to the United States, now sits on the desk of every senior staffer at the National Security Council courtesy of President Trump’s national security adviser, Gen. H.R. McMasters.

Allison puts America in the position of the “established power,” like Sparta on the eve of the Peloponnesian war of 431-404 B.C.E., and China in the position of the “emerging power,” like Athens, arguing that the rise of China is inevitable. Allison’s book has many flaws, as I try to show in the forthcoming issue of Claremont Review of Books, but it depicts a vibrant, technologically-driven Chinese economy.

It will shock Americans who have been told for years that China merely copies Western technology by stealing trade secrets, and for that reason alone Prof. Allison’s book fairly might be called the most influential book of the year.

Allison warns:

In the three and a half decades since Ronald Reagan became president, by the best measurement of economic performance, China has soared from 10 percent the size of the US to 60 percent in 2007, 100 percent in 2014, and 115 percent today. If the current trend continues, China’s economy will be a full 50 percent larger than that of the US by 2023. By 2040 it could be nearly three times as large. That would mean a China with triple America’s resources to use in influencing outcomes in international relations. Such gross economic, political, and military advantages would create a globe beyond anything American policymakers can now imagine.

A sense of resignation, if not outright defeatism, pervades the Trump White House where China is concerned. Washington is dependent on Beijing in the matter of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions; it has no military option as matters stand, and no appetite to undertake the formidable investments in ballistic missile defense that would be required to contain the North Korean threat.

Moral Equivalence in Charlottesvile Tom McCaffrey image By Tom McCaffrey

Violence is one of the “messy implications of fighting for liberation.” So say the Reverend Traci Blackmon and three other authors in a remarkable op-ed piece in the New York Times that ran in the wake of the recent events in Charlottesville. (NY Times, Sept 1, 2017)

The attitude of Reverend Blackmon and her fellow authors, all Christian ministers, can be summed up as follows: Violence comes with the territory. We don’t condone it, but we understand that it is unavoidable. If our efforts inspire some to commit violence, this will not prevent us from continuing our efforts, and it should not prevent others from joining us. At least our violence is committed in the service of a just cause, which is more than can be said for the right’s violence. (Reverend Blackmon is one of the founders of Black Lives Matter, whose efforts contributed, among other things, to the murder of five police officers in Dallas in July of 2016.)

”unconscious white supremacy”

In the Times piece, the authors complain that the media, and President Trump, have promoted “a false equivalency between groups that advocate white supremacy and those that seek to eliminate it,” as though we ought not condemn violence committed by both sides, since Antifa’s violence against white supremacists is somehow justified.

But what of “those who seek to eliminate” white supremacy? Are they really on the side of the angels, as Rev. Blackmon, et al, would have us believe? It all depends on what they mean by “white supremacy,” a term, it turns out, with two very different meanings.

Reverend Blackmon is one of over 200 signers, mostly Christian ministers, of the “Theological Declaration on Christian Faith and White Supremacy,” also issued in response to the events in Charlottesville. The Declaration refers to “the recent hesitation by the president of the United States in unequivocally condemning the clear exhibition of fascism and white nationalist sympathies in Charlottesville, as well as other long held manifestations of white supremacy such as white privilege and white normalcy. It seems that “white supremacy” does not refer just to the ideology of groups like neo-Nazis and the KKK. Its manifestations include “white privilege,” which must mean that most white Americans are white supremacists.

The Declaration goes on to refer several times to “unconscious white supremacy,” which hardly describes the thinking of genuine white supremacists. When the authors of this document use the term “white supremacy,” they are really referring to the dominant, “white” culture of the United States, especially America’s economic and political practices and institutions. And they are against this culture. “God’s abundance never exists in the context of hyper-individualized meritocracy,” they write. “Rather, it rises from the commons cultivated by cultures and systems of generosity, reciprocity, and profound integrity. The individualistic pursuit of prosperity distorts the good news of the Gospel itself.” (thedeclaration.net) In other words, capitalism bad, socialism good.

It is clear that the authors of the “Theological Declaration on Christian Faith and White Supremacy” aspire to a great deal more than the removal of Confederate monuments, which was the proximate cause of the trouble at Charlottesville. In their view, the American enterprise has been tainted at least since the Pequot Massacre at Mystic Connecticut in 1637. As Reverend Blackmon has said elsewhere, “The Fourth of July is a lie.”

These authors and their allies pose as opponents of racism, but what they really oppose is Americanism. And what they aspire to is the destruction of the “white,” individualist, capitalist culture that lies at the heart of Americanism. “We reject as false doctrine any teaching that the human vocation is to exploit land, people groups, or other nations for the amassing of wealth.” (thedeclaration.net) They agree with Karl Marx that capitalism, the one economic system based on voluntary cooperation among all parties, is immorally “exploitive” because it allows some to become rich while others do not.

Capitalism gives rise to inequality, which for the Left, is the greatest of all evils. If individual freedom, which is the necessary political foundation of capitalism, gives rise to inequality, then individual freedom must go—hence all the special laws in the name of “equality” for blacks, women, homosexuals, and transgenders, laws which diminish Americans’ freedom of association and other rights. If you want to know what a non-capitalist America would look like, imagine Obamacare-style regulation extended to the entire economy.

In response to the events in Charlottesville, President Trump said “We condemn in the strongest most possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides.” (Foxnews.com, Aug. 12, 2017) For condemning both the hyper-violent Antifa and the white supremacists—for speaking the plain truth, in other words, an egregious violation of the rules of political correctness—Mr. Trump was excoriated by the mainstream media. But, as I have shown above, a proper respect for the Republic would have required that he condemn both sides even if neither had resorted to violence.

Hurricane Heroes by Linda Goudsmit

On Friday September 8, 2017 Governor Rick Scott issued a mandatory evacuation order for all residents of the barrier islands on the west coast of Florida where my husband and I live. We anxiously monitored the trajectory of Hurricane Irma and watched with horror as the colossal storm gathered strength and unexpectedly veered west. On Saturday morning we left everything behind and drove north toward safety.

The drive north on I-75 was a most extraordinary experience. The northbound lanes inched forward packed bumper-to-bumper with evacuees in passenger cars seeking safety away from the storm. In stark contrast the southbound lanes had convoys of trucks – power companies, EMS vehicles, tree companies, huge semis filled with supplies – all driving toward the deadly hurricane. It was a stunning polarity.

We drove north for fourteen hours and the convoys never ended – there were thousands of trucks. Men and women of all backgrounds, races, ethnicities and political perspectives sacrificing their personal safety and comfort in common cause to rebuild what Hurricane Irma was destroying. It made me cry. These Hurricane Heroes are authentic American heroes – men and women driving into a lethal hurricane to rebuild shattered lives. Real heroes are builders.

It was inspirational to witness their dedication and commitment and I am overwhelmed with gratitude and admiration for how these Hurricane Heroes choose to live their lives. Natural disasters have a remarkable unifying capacity. When the water recedes and the debris clears America has a choice. We can choose to be builders like the Hurricane Heroes or we can choose to be destroyers.

Weeks before Hurricane Irma devastated the Keys and slammed into the west coast of Florida the tabloid mainstream media became obsessed with the destruction of symbols of American history. It began with Confederate statues. The smashing and/or removing of statues offensive to the snowflakes who found them deeply disturbing was reported and debated incessantly. In a pathetic display of audacity left-wing liberals and anarchist dressed up in camouflage and black ski masks asserted themselves by destroying statues. Obama’s anti-American resistance “fighters” manifested their faux bravery by shattering inanimate objects! Their counterfeit bravery is laughable in the real world of bona fide American heroes. Fake heroes are destroyers.

The Undercurrents Fueling Terrorism By Maj. Gen.Gershon Hacohen

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Despair and hope are the powerful forces that drive global terrorism. To better deal with this threat, the West must combine its counterterrorism efforts with harsher responses that will sow doubts in jihadists’ minds about their chosen path.https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/undercurrents-fueling-terrorism/

In the wake of the recent ISIS attack in Barcelona, experts on Islamic terrorism were called on, as they so often are, to explain the phenomenon. This time the experts pointed to a radical imam who had incited second-generation immigrants, organized a terrorist network, and spurred the perpetrators into action.

One major question remains unanswered: Why? Generations of academic researchers have delved and will continue to delve into this issue. In the meantime, it is worthwhile to review some of the factors necessary to deal with the phenomenon of terrorism on a practical level.

As far as the immediate operational aspects of security and thwarting terrorist attacks are concerned, the question of why has no practical significance. It is similar to saving a person suffering from a heart attack. In such an emergency, the saving of a life depends on a series of technical, efficient, and immediate actions, not on inquiries into primary causes of the disease. But once the situation has stabilized, a comprehensive examination of the precipitating circumstances is necessary. One’s way of life might need to change, and the question of “why did this happen?” becomes useful.

Dealing with the terrorist phenomenon similarly requires a two-pronged approach. The first is operational: the practical test of counterterrorism and security responses. The second is more theoretical: the examination of the full range of sociological, economic, and religious circumstances that drive this phenomenon.

Some say terrorism is fueled by the perpetrators’ sense of despair and alienation. To be sure, poverty and deprivation in many Islamic countries have prompted an emigration trend, and immigrant hubs often breed a sense of alienation. This is especially true among second-generation youths frustrated by the unbridgeable gap between their situation as immigrants and the established society around them.

But there is an additional hypothesis worth considering. Despair and alienation are not the only reasons for terrorism. Hope is also a motive.

Many times, it is precisely those who had hoped to integrate into affluent Western society who choose the path of terrorism. Some of the world’s most notorious terrorists, such as those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, studied at leading Western universities. At a recent international symposium I attended, I learned from a Malaysian researcher that in his country, it is mostly outstanding students with exceptional prospects who choose to join ISIS.

Projecting despair and alienation onto everything may blind one to the existence of other significant motives no less essential to understanding this phenomenon. Understanding others means understanding that they are not necessarily just like us. Besides security and prosperity, people also seek meaning. This is the crux of the humanistic debate: can one be content simply with the gospel of prosperity offered by the West?

The rational fundamentalist

This is where religious fervor, the kind the modern West does not know how to deal with, rears its head. In his book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, author Sam Harris discusses the challenge the Western world faces in the rise of religiously motivated terrorism. Harris argues that religion is an irrational factor – a “fountain of violence” – and believes it should be removed entirely from the political and public spheres.

The Emerging New World By Herbert London President, London Center for Policy Research

It is clear that the free exchange of opinion that once characterized university life is now being challenged. The avatars of social justice have arrogated to themselves the role of arbiter in the university curriculum. But it hasn’t stopped there. Now monuments of the past are being put through the probity of present standards as one statue after another is in jeopardy of tumbling. Here is a foreshadowing of a “new America”, one in which the evils of the past are to be redressed by the self-appointed czars of the moment.

Where this ends isn’t clear, but I have a strong belief that the revolutionaries in our midst are intent on altering the Constitution converting it into a Red Book of acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

After all, for many the First Amendment is in tatters already. Free speech no longer exists for unpopular speech or “hate speech,” even though it is precisely unpopular expression that the Constitution protects. Hate speech is loathsome, but it is protected speech precisely because any line drawn against it is arbitrary and subject to the will of the censors. Like many, I was appalled at the anticipated Nazi march through Skokie, Illinois (which never happened), but I defended the right of these barbarians to do so as First Amendment expression. As I see it, the danger of censorship was greater than the psychological damage of ugly expression.

For many Americans, the Second Amendment protecting citizens to bear arms must be modified or erased. In the minds of these revisionists guns are the problem fomenting violence in our cities. Despite the obvious point that a gun isn’t a weapon in the hands of St. Francis, but is dangerous if wielded by a felon intent on criminal behavior, gun baners rarely make distinctions.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that due process will accompany legal charges, indictments or the sequestration of property; in other words life, liberty and property cannot be arbitrarily denied without a legal process that assures the rights of the victim. However, at many universities the due process clause is only honored in the breach. It is often sufficient for an allegation of rape or sexual abuse to be made before the accused is found culpable. Reputations are sometimes destroyed on the basis of empty allegations, but kangaroo courts of this kind have proliferated throughout higher education.

The Tenth Amendment gives to the states the powers that remain without enumeration in the other Amendments. Hence education is one such area that accrues to the state governments. Unfortunately, teachers’ unions want to consolidate power through national organizations and have been pressing in recent years for authority to be vested in the Department of Education exclusively. It is a clear and undeviating attack on federalism which has central and state governments sharing power. For extremists, the mitigating influence of the states is unnecessary.

In the aggregate these reforms and reformers constitute a revolutionary force. Their goal is to shift the organs of national power. They intend to use the vulnerability of the moment to espouse a newly created nation from the political graveyard of the past. America’s Red Guard will determine what one can believe and what is unacceptable. The Color Guard will carry the black flag of revolution and the Founders will be interred for their regressive ideas.

Mass-Migration: The Tiniest Dose of Reality Hits by Douglas Murray

If you do not have control of your borders, with a meaningful set of immigration laws and the right to keep people out of your country, then you do not really have a country.

While the public wants their representatives to control their borders, politicians seem to see only political capital in running the other way. In part this is because there appears to be some kind of “bonus” to be achieved by looking welcoming and kindly, in contrast to the unwelcoming and mean things that borders now appear to represent.

By the end of August, it was estimated that almost 12,000 people had arrived in Canada through this route so far this year. It is a number that constitutes little more than an averagely busy week in Italy at any time over recent years. But even this comparatively tiny movement across an entire year has proven too much for Canada. At the end of last month, Prime Minister Trudeau told reporters: “For someone to successfully seek asylum it’s not about economic migration. It’s about vulnerability, exposure to torture or death, or being stateless people. If they are seeking asylum we’ll evaluate them on the basis of what it is to be a refugee or asylum seeker.”

Bombings and other terrorist attacks are now a common feature of life in modern Europe. On just one day (September 15, 2017), an improvised explosive device was placed on a London Underground train, a man wielding a knife and shouting “Allah” attacked a soldier in Paris, and a man with a hammer shouting “Allahu Akbar” badly wounded two women in Lyon. As the former Prime Minister of France and the present Mayor of London have put it, perhaps this is all just a price we have to pay for living in big cities in Europe in the 21st century: we have traffic congestion, great restaurants and terrorist attacks.

Of course, the public are all the time worrying about other things — not just whether all this is just a taste of something worse to come, but whether anything might be done to stop it. While our political leaders continue to view this as a narrow security-related question, the public can see that it is also a border-security and mass-immigration issue. Across the continent, poll after poll shows the European public continuously calling for migration into Europe to be slowed down. This plea is not due to some atavistic urge or distasteful racist instinct, but something that the public seems to intuit better than their politicians — which is that if you do not have control of your borders, with a meaningful set of immigration laws and the right to keep people out of your country then you do not really have a country.

Since the upsurge in Europe’s migration crisis in 2015, when Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel unilaterally decided to suspend normal border checks and turn an already existing flow of migrants into a tidal wave, politicians and the public have divided from each other over this issue. While the public want their representatives to control their borders, politicians seem to see only political capital in running the other way. In part this is because there appears to be some kind of “bonus” to be achieved by looking welcoming and kindly in contrast to the unwelcoming and mean things that borders now appear to represent.

Politicians such as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Canada have used the opportunity of Europe’s migration catastrophe to grandstand and present themselves as offering a different way. In the wake of Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric on building a wall along the US-Mexican border, Trudeau in particular has presented himself as the yin to Donald Trump’s yang. In January, when President Trump was sworn into office, Trudeau sent out a Tweet reading, “To those fleeing persecution, terror and war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength.” To which he added the hashtag, #WelcomeToCanada. In March of this year, in another clear response to the US President, Trudeau tweeted, “Regardless of who you are or where you come from, there’s always a place for you in Canada” — a tall order, given the existence of 7.5 billion people on this earth, many of whom are not already Canadian.

Scandinavia: Shift in Immigration Debate by Bruce Bawer

Until recently, the very notion that some European neighborhoods were “no-go” zones was vehemently dismissed by politicians and commentators on both sides of the Atlantic as a myth, a lie, a vicious right-wing calumny. But even as Swedish officials were denying the existence of such zones in their own country, they were secretly mapping them out and overseeing a police effort to liberate them.

The Sweden Democrats are on the rise because voters finally grasp the extent and significance of the damage their elites have been doing to their country — and the elites, both in the media and in government, are scrambling to snap into line in order to keep hold on power.

In some ways, the winds in Scandinavia may be turning, but it does not seem as if Stanghelle and his ilk are about to speak the whole truth about Islam, or to apologize for their inexcusable abuse of those who have.

Not long ago, Norwegian journalists were virtually united in representing Sweden, with its exceedingly liberal immigration policy and its strict limits on public discussion of the subject, as a model of enlightened thinking that deserved to be emulated. Meanwhile Denmark, with its far freer atmosphere of debate (remember the Danish cartoons) and more sensible border controls, was almost universally depicted in Norway as a deplorable hotbed of Islamophobia. That appears to be changing. As Hans Rustad of the alternative Norwegian news website Document.no noted recently, the term “Swedish conditions,” which some of us have been using for years to refer to the colossal scale of Sweden’s Muslim-related problems, is actually turning up these days in the mainstream Norwegian media — although the relationship of those conditions to Islam is still routinely underplayed, if not entirely avoided.

Until recently, Denmark, with its far freer atmosphere of debate and more sensible border controls, was almost universally depicted in Norway as a deplorable hotbed of Islamophobia. Pictured: A Danish checkpoint on the border with Germany, near Padborg, on January 6, 2016. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Case in point: on August 10, the daily Aftenposten ran a piece by Tarjei Kramviken about an official Swedish report stating that police, during the past couple of years, have been pursuing an organized campaign to “take back neighborhoods from criminals who have set up parallel societies.” But the attempt, the report admitted, has failed. Instead, even more such neighborhoods have sprung up, and the level of violence within them has become more common, more brutal, and more spontaneous. If a police car crosses the invisible border, it is pelted with rocks or bottles.

The neighborhoods in question are, of course, Muslim neighborhoods, and the criminals are Muslims. Although the persons in question are indeed criminals — they carry guns, sell drugs, commit burglaries, and break out into the occasional riot — the use of the word criminals seems somewhat euphemistic. We are not talking about some kind of Mafia that has moved into certain neighborhoods, taken them over, and terrorized the locals. The criminals are the locals. They are the young men who live there. Maybe not every last young man, but a high percentage of them. Some of these criminals, moreover, are mere children. One Stockholm cop told Kramviken about “five-year-olds who give the finger to the police and say nasty things.”

MY SAY: FORTY-NINE SHADES OF BLAME

In yesterday’s New York Times “Style” section Hillary Clinton was interviewed about her book and why she lost.

Her lament: ” This has to be called out for what it is: a cultural, political, economic game that’s being played to keep women in their place”

This from the lady that really kept women in “their place” by calling all her husband’s bimbo eruptions “nuts and sluts” and who played a political and economic game by lying, profiteering, and peddling uranium and other favors to adversaries.

The Unaccompanied Muslim Minor Refugee Terror Attack in London Daniel Greenfield

Last decade, Ronald and Penelope Jones were being feted for their work as foster parents. Now their suburban Surrey home was raided in an investigation into the train bombing in London.

The Joneses had won praise for fostering hundreds of children. But their growing interest in taking in refugees from Muslim countries turned their pleasant home with its wooden fences and green backyard into a ticking time bomb.

And that bomb may have gone off at the Parsons Green station leaving behind flash burns and horror.

Earlier, the Joneses had admitted that, “We’ve had a real mix of children from Iraq, Eritrea, Syria, Albania and Afghanistan.” The tidal wave of refugees from these countries has swept across Europe bringing terror and death.

Ronald Jones, 88, and Penelope Jones, 71, like so many well-meaning Westerners, had no idea what they were letting themselves in for until the police were hammering at their door. Now they themselves have been turned into refugees, seeking shelters with relatives, while the police search for clues to the latest terror attack.

The couple became interested in fostering “refugees” when the media barraged helpless listeners with sob stories of Syrian suffering. But while they spoke often of children, the actual migrants are adults.

At the center of the case is Yahyah Farroukh, a Syrian, in his twenties. Farroukh was no child.

Neighbors described a constant flow of traffic to the Jones home. The visitors wore the traditional Islamic clothing often associated with the Jihadists who are the core of the European terror threat.

Prayer mats were set out in the garden. And there were constant cell phone conversations.

Farroukh allegedly invaded Europe by taking a migrant boat from Egypt to Italy.

Another of the alleged Jones “refugees” is an 18-year-old Iraqi from Baghdad who had apparently been monitored by law enforcement. And may have even been previously arrested. A refugee charity allegedly helped bring him to the UK. And arranged to have him placed with the Joneses.

The Iraqi had overloaded even the endless generosity of the Joneses who reportedly found him troublesome and dangerous. And that must have taken some doing.

It was this Iraqi whom police may suspect planted the bomb at Parsons Green station. And when the bomb went off on a crowded train on Friday, the holiest day in the Islamic religion, the manhunt began.

The Iraqi refugee was arrested trying to buy a ticket to Calais.

Calais to Dover is the route that refugees take to penetrate the UK. The Joneses had spoken of one “boy” in their care who had “managed to get in a lorry travelling through Calais.”

The Iraqi refugee suspect had originally come through Calais, but now he was headed the other way.