Free Trade vs. Balanced Trade By Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman

During the 2016 presidential campaign, trade has become a major economic and voting issue. For decades both political parties, in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular, have supported expansion of free trade through trade agreements that reduce tariff rates. In contrast, Donald Trump has upended that politics, seizing the Republican nomination with the promise to renegotiate trade agreements so that they balance trade.

As a result, the two alternatives in this year’s election are free trade vs. balanced trade. These are not necessary mutually exclusive. Indeed, there have been periods of world history in which trade has grown more free without getting out of balance. Especially notable were the 1840-1870 and the 1950-1997 periods. Those were the two golden ages of globalization in which tariff reductions around the world greatly benefited and integrated the world economy.

But the 1840-1870 period was followed by a period, much like the present, in which world trade became more and more unbalanced. The European countries were experiencing worsening trade deficits and eventually had to choose between free trade and balanced trade. Those that chose to balance their trade through tariffs resumed their economic growth, while those that stuck with free trade continued to stagnate. The United States faces a similar choice today.

The U.S. economic growth rate has followed the U.S. trade balance downward, as shown in the following graph:

The slow U.S. economic growth rate of the last 17 years is unprecedented. From 1999 through 2015, the average U.S. growth rate was just 2.1% per year, as compared with over 3% for almost every ten-year period during the previous five decades. And the first two quarters of 2016 (not shown on the chart) have been even lower — just 0.8% and 1.1% growth. There are six primary reasons why trade deficits slow economic growth:

Decades After Oslo Accords, Peace Remains Elusive Relations between Israelis, Palestinians increasingly fraught; Peres’s work unraveling By Rory Jones See note please

Oh Puleez! May Peres rest in peace…the peace that his policies and appeasement made impossible. Oslo is unraveling because it was a sham. As soon as the ink was dry on the agreement, vermin Arafat began an uninterrupted terrorist spree that killed hundreds of civilians…in a pizzeria in Tel Aviv where the carnage included mangled strollers with babies, at a passover celebration in Netanya, in markets, on buses….thousands were injured…..rsk

TEL AVIV—More than two decades ago, Shimon Peres negotiated agreements that laid out steps toward an independent Palestinian state and peace with Israel. Today, upon his death at 93, the statesman’s life-defining work appears to be unraveling.

Problems with the peace process and the agreements known as the Oslo Accords are manifold. Israel and the Palestinian leadership can’t agree to meet for talks. The Palestinian national movement is divided between the two main factions, Fatah and Hamas, which vows Israel’s destruction. The international community can’t decide how to revive talks and reach a fully fledged peace deal.

“Only a dishonest man or woman would conclude that the Oslo process was a success,” said Aaron David Miller, vice president at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars and a former peace negotiator for the State Department during the Oslo negotiations.

Mr. Peres, who died early Wednesday morning, initiated and negotiated the Oslo peace agreements in the 1990s. In 1993, he flew to Oslo in Norway in secret to meet with Palestinian negotiators. That step led later that year to the famous handshake on the White House lawn between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat—an image that symbolized shared Israeli and Palestinian hopes to end decades of conflict. BLAH BLAH AND MORE BLATHER

Meet the Western Charlatans Justifying Jihad by Giulio Meotti

Why has the philosopher, Michel Onfray, become so popular among the French jihadists fighting in Syria and Iraq? Journalist David Thomson, a specialist in jihadi movements, explained that “Onfray is translated into Arabic and shared on all pro-ISIS sites.”

Onfray recognizes that we are at war. But this war, to him, was started by George W. Bush. He “forgets” that 3,000 Americans were killed on September 11, 2001. If you remind him that “ISIS kills innocent people”, Onfray will reply: “We have also killed innocent people.” It is the perfect moral equivalence between ISIS and the West. Barbarians against barbarians! With his moral relativism, Onfray opens the door to Islamist cutthroats.

The French intellectual Thomas Piketty, after the massacres in Paris, pointed at “inequality” as the root of ISIS’s success. Another well-known German philosopher, Peter Sloterdijk, claimed that the September 11 attacks were attacks were just “small incidents”.

Famous representatives of European culture also embraced Adolf Hitler’s dream. Their heirs now justify jihad as the ultimate punishment for Western freedoms and democracy.

After September 11, 2001, the cream of European intellectuals immediately started to find justifications for jihad. They evidently were fascinated by the Kalashnikov assault rifle, “the weapon of the poor”. For them, what we had seen in New York was a chimera, an illusion. The mass killings were supposedly the suicide of the capitalist democracy, and terrorism was the wrath of the unemployed, the desperate weapon of a lumpenproletariat offended by the arrogance of Western globalization.

SHIMON PERES, THE LAST OF ISRAEL’S FOUNDING FATHERS, DIES

SHIMON PERES, THE LAST OF ISRAEL’S FOUNDING FATHERS, DIES

Shimon Peres, the former president and prime minister of Israel, and in recent years the country’s elder statesman, died this morning at age 93, after suffering a severe stroke two weeks ago.

Peres was born in what was then Poland (now Belarus) and escaped to what would become Israel in the 1930s. His family that remained behind were murdered in the Holocaust.

For seven decades (since 1946 when Ben Gurion put Peres and Moshe Dayan in charge of making arms purchases for the Haganah), he held senior positions in Israeli military and political life.

His most important achievement (in my view) was his key role in helping Israel to gain a nuclear deterrence in order to make much less likely the possibility of a second Holocaust of the Jewish people. It is the nuclear deterrence that has helped allow Israel to take significant risks for peace in recent decades, moves that Peres was at the forefront of and for which he was awarded the Nobel peace prize.

Both U.S. President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton have confirmed they will attend Peres’ funeral in Jerusalem on Friday.

Holt’s Assist to Hillary By The Editors NRO

It turns out that working the refs is an effective strategy. Hillary Clinton glided through the first of the season’s three presidential debates on Monday night, thanks in no small part to moderator Lester Holt, who spent pretty much the entirety of his evening clearing Secretary Clinton’s way.

If Holt didn’t rappel into the debate Candy Crowley–style, it was because he didn’t need to. Antagonistic questions were directed toward one candidate and one candidate only. Donald Trump was asked about his tax returns, his role in promoting the birther controversy, whether he flip-flopped on the Iraq War, and what he meant when he said recently that Clinton does not have a “presidential look.” Clinton, by contrast, was not asked about her private e-mail server, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, or any one of the many topics about which voters have rightly expressed concerns. Instead, she was asked open-ended policy questions and permitted to dilate about renewable energy and the sundry misdeeds of George W. Bush.

The institutional slant of the media being what it is, the Republican nominee is always at a disadvantage when it comes to debate moderators, and should prepare accordingly. It was clear from his performance last night that Trump did not adequately prepare for what were entirely predictable lines of questioning; he also missed several opportunities to go on the offensive against a uniquely vulnerable opponent. Nonetheless, it’s not the job of the moderator to give either candidate a leg up; in fact, it’s the moderator’s job to do the opposite.

Unfortunately, Holt’s performance is the result of growing pressures in liberal media and political circles to treat Donald Trump as a candidate beyond the pale of public life, to deny him legitimacy as a presidential contender. We have our criticisms of Donald Trump, too. But his electoral fate should be up to the voters, not Lester Holt and his colleagues.

Hillary’s Debate Lies With her comments about crime, policing, and race, the candidate helps push a false—and dangerous—narrative. Heather Mac Donald

Hillary Clinton repeated her incessant lie last night that the criminal justice system is infected with “systemic racism.” Race “determines” how people are “treated in the criminal justice system,” she said. Blacks are “more likely [than whites] to be arrested, charged, convicted and incarcerated” for “doing the same thing.” Such a dangerous falsehood, should Clinton act on it as president, would result not just in misguided policies but in the continued delegitimation of the criminal justice system. That delegitimation, with its attendant hostility and aggression toward police officers, has already produced the largest one-year surge in homicides in urban areas in nearly a half-century.

Criminologists have tried for decades to prove that the overrepresentation of blacks in prison is due to criminal-justice racism. They have always come up short. They have been forced to the same conclusion as Michael Tonry in his book, Malign Neglect: “Racial differences in patterns of offending, not racial bias by police and other officials, are the principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned,” Tonry wrote. In 1997, criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen reviewed the massive literature on charging and sentencing. They found overwhelming evidence establishing that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism, explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately than whites and for longer terms.

To say, as Clinton did last night, that blacks are more likely to be incarcerated for doing the same thing as whites ignores the relevance of a defendant’s criminal history in determining his sentence, among other crucial sentencing factors. Just last week, an analysis of Delaware’s prison population presented to the Delaware Access to Justice Commission’s Committee on Fairness in the Criminal Justice System revealed that when juvenile and adult criminal records are taken into account, along with arrest charges and age, racial disparities in sentencing decisions are negligible to nonexistent.

Clinton also complained that “too many young African-American and Latino men end . . . up in jail for non-violent offenses.” In fact, the majority of prisoners in the U.S. are serving time for violent felonies. The enforcement of low-level public order offenses in New York City during the mayoralties of Rudolph Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg actually lowered New York State’s prison population by intervening in criminal behavior early, before it ripened into a serious felony. Even as misdemeanor arrests increased in the city, felony arrests and felony incarcerations dropped. The number of jail inmates and convicts under parole and probation supervision in New York City dropped as well. Hillary Clinton may think that low-level public-order enforcement (otherwise known as “broken windows” policing) is racist, but law-abiding residents of high-crime communities beg the police to enforce public-order laws because they know that out of street disorder erupts gun violence and other forms of predation.

Boko Haram Leader Pops Up Again After Purported Death By Bridget Johnson

The leader of Boko Haram is apparently pretty hard to kill.

Abubakr Shekau was reported to have been killed by forces fighting the Nigerian terror group in 2009, 2013, 2014 and 2015 — all followed by audio or video of the terror leader proclaiming he was still alive.

Last month, the Nigerian Air Force said they mortally wounded the terror leader in airstrikes.

On Sunday, Shekau released a new video declaring, “I am alive and healthy.”

“But you should know that were my days of living over, you wouldn’t have seen me here,” he added. “So many people live even when they are wanted dead, and so also people die when they should have lived. Prophet Muhammad had been tested with similar hatred because of the religion of Allah.”

He told the Nigerian government to “keep doing all your evil planning” and stressed “we are not sociologist, we are Quranists, and we follow the Hadith and those who came before us.”

“We are fools as people but the Quran is what is guiding us and that is why you couldn’t defeat us and we are sure of that.”

Shekau accused Nigerians of thinking “democracy is a religion” and said President Muhammadu Buhari is “worshipping cows.”

“What we believe in is the Quran and we do not know anything apart from that. Anytime we say Allah, all of you will not live in peace,” he said.

The terror leader warned the Muslim president, “Continue and see, one day you will not even be able to go to the toilet …but if you repent, then you are a brother. Repent and follow the Quran.”

Shekau added a dig at the 898-day Bring Back Our Girls campaign focused on the schoolgirls kidnapped by Boko Haram.

“People of Chibok, let me tell you today, you still have to prepare for a longer Bring Back Our girls campaign,” he said. “If you want your girls, bring back our brothers.”

FBI Docs: Hillary Deleted Nearly 1,000 Emails With David Petraeus By Debra Heine

A potentially explosive nugget from the FBI’s Friday document dump of investigatory notes from the Clinton email probe has been all but ignored by the media. And that is the revelation that Hillary Clinton deleted 1,000 work-related emails between herself and General David Petaeus from his time as the director of the United States Central Command.

Via the Washington Examiner:

In Aug. 2015, the Pentagon called the State Department and informed an unnamed official there that “CENTCOM records showed approximately 1,000 work-related emails between Clinton’s personal email and General David Petraeus.”

The FBI noted that “[m]ost of those 1,000 emails were not believed to be included in the 30,000 emails” that Clinton turned over to the State Department in Dec. 2014.

Hillary has long maintained that the emails her lawyers unilaterally deleted were personal emails pertaining to “yoga routines, family vacations” and other matters that had nothing to do with government. She repeated the same nonsense to Congress while under oath. In August of 2015, she signed a statement to a federal judge declaring “under penalty of perjury” that she turned over all work-related emails.

Now we find out that 1,000 emails between Clinton and General Petraeus were not turned over. This should be a bigger story. Petraeus started out as the leader of U.S. Central Command and then became the director of the CIA during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State, so not only were those emails obviously work related, they very likely were highly classified. The implications here are staggering.

But it gets worse. CONTINUE AT SITE

Schumer Has ‘Not Regretted’ Vote Against Iran Nuke Deal ‘a Single Day Since’ By Bridget Johnson

WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he’s never regretted — not “a single day” — voting against the Iran nuclear deal and ripped Mideast peace efforts that didn’t recognize the Palestinians’ true aims.

The senator likely to replace retiring Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as the leader of Democrats in the upper chamber even called for an education campaign that teaches Americans about the anti-Semitism and violent rhetoric contained in Palestinian children’s textbooks.

In his speech Sunday at the Israeli American Council National Conference in D.C., Schumer spoke forcefully against allowing the United Nations to “ever” impose terms for a Mideast peace agreement.

The senator mocked Iranian President Hassan Rouhani for claiming at the UN General Assembly that “Zionist pressure groups” were behind anti-Iran sentiment and legal action.

Schumer gave exaggerated air quotes to emphasize the “Zionist pressure groups,” adding, “I think he’s talking about us.”

To Rouhani, Schumer replied: “Look no further than your own borders. You’ve earned the condemnation of the United States and the world when you have the human rights record that Iran has… when you harass the U.S. Navy, when you export weapons to Hezbollah to rain down on civilians, when you conduct ballistic missile tests and write ‘Israel must be wiped out’ on side of the missile.”

“You earn the condemnation of every decent human being when there are homosexuals hanging from cranes in your cities. Oh, no: ‘Zionist pressure groups’ are not responsible for anti-Iran sentiments in the U.S., or rulings against Iran from independent judiciaries.”

Schumer received a standing ovation for reiterating his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal and stressing, “I have not regretted that vote a single day since.”

“Many of us who opposed the agreement did so because we did not believe that Iran would moderate, and from all early indications the Iranian regime is not moderating — not if it continues its nefarious behavior in the region,” the senator added.

He said Congress should renew Iran sanctions “immediately” to keep the regime’s feet held to the fire. “Keep the sanctions act in place. Strengthen it!” he declared.

Schumer called the global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel a threat to the Jewish state’s existence on par with the threat posed by Iran.

The senator recalled his college days fighting a “radical, militant, left-wing” Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)/Progressive Labor Party (PLP) anti-Israel alliance. Inviting the Israeli UN ambassador to come to Harvard to confront the SDS/PLP as anti-Semites, Schumer said, was one of his first political actions.

“Those who call for boycotts of Israel… are practicing, whether they know it or not, a modern form of anti-Semitism,” Schumer told the IAC crowd, stressing the BDS proponents’ goal “has nothing to do with this settlement or that settlement,” but “the elimination of the state of Israel.”

“We need to make that argument loudly and strongly and go against the BDS movement and call it for what it is — an anti-Semitic, not just an anti-Israel, movement,” he said.

He called for anti-BDS legislation in all states, like bills passed in New York and California.

While bad enough in the United States, Schumer emphasized that the BDS movement abroad is more virulent. “Europe has shown how anti-Israel and anti-Semitic the BDS movement really is,” he said. “Far-right parties are experiencing rebirth, and far-left parties like the Labour Party under Corbyn are increasingly anti-Israel. Terrorism and violence against Jews is on the rise, from vandalizing synagogues to the horrible attack on a Jewish grocery in Paris.”

“It is no wonder that last year France, home to the largest Jewish population in Europe, set a record for migration of their Jewish population to Israel. Unfortunately, anti-Semitism seems to be in far too many European homes.”

Schumer underscored that “when we look at foreign policy, we must remember one thing, as I have: the Jewish people can never put the fate of Israel in the hands of Europe in any way.”

On Mideast negotiations, Schumer said Palestinians must recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

He panned the suggestion that Israeli settlements stand in the way of a peace deal, reminding all what happened after Israeli forces evicted settlers from Gaza.

“What was the response of the Palestinian people? Rockets in Sderot three weeks later. Oh, no. It’s not the settlements that’s the reason there’s no peace.”

The Obama administration has consistently insisted that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are an impediment to the peace process. CONTINUE AT SITE

Stiffening the American Spine Denmark’s former prime minister exhorts Americans to resist retreat. ‘Leading from behind’ may work with grazing sheep. It doesn’t in wolf country. By Josef Joffe

When you chance on a book by a former NATO chief, your eyes glaze over. Please, not another “Whither NATO?” or a compendium of boilerplate, stitched together by a ghostwriter. Yet crack open “The Will to Lead” by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who also served as Denmark’s prime minister for eight years, and the glaze will vanish.

This book reads like a letter to an American friend, written by a “European classical liberal who has always counted on American leadership.” On the cusp of a new administration, this European doesn’t pine for yet another pledge of American allegiance. Instead he exhorts the U.S. “not to abandon its vital role as champion of freedom and guarantor of the global order.”

He sees the “global village” burning while its inhabitants bicker. So “we need a policeman to restore order; we need a fireman to put out the fire; we need a mayor, smart and sensible, to lead the rebuilding.” That sums up the role the U.S. ditched after World War I—and brilliantly reclaimed after World War II.

Why the alarm? Because, as Mr. Rasmussen writes, neo-isolationism, economic as well as strategic, is on a roll on both sides of the ocean. TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, is on the way to the morgue, as may be TPP, the Pacific version. Under Barack Obama, the U.S. has pulled out of Iraq while downscaling in Afghanistan. He has turned away from old allies in the Middle East, working hard to secure a nuclear deal with the theocrats of Iran. He has given the Russians an all but free ride in Ukraine and in Syria.

When Mr. Obama trumpeted the “audacity of hope,” he forsook the first rule of statecraft: It is better (and cheaper) to man the lines than to return. Being there deters; pulling out suggests indifference, if not an invitation to rivals. “Leading from behind” may work with grazing sheep. It does not in wolf country.CONTINUE AT SITE