RUTHFULLY YOURS

On May 14, President Obama said that the two-state solution is “vital” for peace between Israel and its Arab population. Furthermore, in a Huffington Post interview dated March 21, the President reiterated his belief that, “A two-state solution is the only way for the long-term security of Israel, if it wants to stay both a Jewish state and democratic.”

The question is why anyone is still talking about a two-state solution? After all, no one person or body has succeeded in imposing or implementing this “solution” to the satisfaction of all parties, even going back as far as the 1937 Peel Commission, when it was first suggested that the Mandate for Palestine could be divided into two states for two peoples. And if we can all agree that the two-state solution hasn’t worked, one might reasonably ask whether the two-state solution is really the “only” solution available toward the resolution of what Ruth Wisse calls “the Arab war against Israel and the Jews.”

Supporters of Obamatrade won in the Senate by selling the idea that Fast Tracking would strengthen American power. They cited a letter signed by several former defense secretaries which claimed:

There would be harmful strategic consequences if we fail to secure these agreements. In both Asia-Pacific and Atlantic, our allies and partners would question our commitments, doubt our resolve and inevitably look to other partners.

Unfortunately, these defense secretaries did not understand the economics of trade deficits. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), the first deal that Obama is negotiating, would actually accelerate the destruction of U.S. power by growing our massive trade deficits.

Trade Deficits and Power

It is clear at this point that TPP would increase U.S. trade deficits. Amendments to combat mercantilist currency manipulation were narrowly rejected in the Senate because TPP backers argued that U.S. insistence on ending currency manipulation would lead others (e.g. Japan) to scuttle the deal. Instead, TPP will enable currency manipulation, the chief technique used by mercantilist countries to expand their trade surpluses and our trade deficits.

The basic contention of mercantilism (the strategy of running intentional trade surpluses) is that maintaining a favorable balance of trade leads to an increase in national power. Hence, running a trade surplus is a means to the end of increasing national power and wealth, while running a trade deficit undermines these. There is nothing new in this contention. It is expressed in the Bible in Deuteronomy (15:6):

Thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt rule over many nations but they shall not rule over thee.

Mercantilist governments buy foreign currency (as part of their currency manipulations) and then they lend that currency to foreign nations. In this way they gain trade surpluses and power. We analyzed the economic reasons why trade deficits undermine national power in our recently published book Balanced Trade.

The Only Way Hillary’s Democratic Competition Can Defeat Her Which Democrat presidential candidate has the guts to call Queen Hillary a liar?

You’ve probably noticed a few intrepid souls have stuck their toes in the Democratic Party 2016 presidential race to contest the coronation of Queen Hillary. So far they’re not doing too well. According to the Real Clear Politics averages, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders is running at 8.8% and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley at a stupendous 0.8%. (Two-thirds of them must have been at his announcement in Baltimore last week.) O’Malley’s even 1 percent behind Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chaffee, who hasn’t announced yet. He’s supposed to take the plunge on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the Queen rules at 63.6%. The one who’s doing the best against her at 12.5% is that house -flipping squaw Elizabeth Warren, who claims not to be running and is a full 51.1% behind anyway.

So things look pretty bad for Sanders, O’Malley and, potentially, Chafee, and, oh yes, again potentially, Jim Webb, all of whom seem to be prepared to engage in a tedious bidding war for who has the most extreme progressive policies. That will get them virtually nowhere — and if by some chance some idea catches fire, Hillary can co-opt it in ten minutes. She may lose a few points here and there (she’s even losing them now) but she’ll end up cruising to the nomination anyway.

The indictment of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert provides a good opportunity to weigh in on a subject that is especially apt for a blog called “Ordered Liberty”: over-criminalization. It is one that has gotten a good deal of attention on the right and the left — even bringing Rand Paul and Al Sharpton together, notwithstanding their disagreements on most everything else.

The ever-more sweeping regulation of human activity and concomitant diminution of liberty are elements of the “democratic despotism” problem foreseen by Alexis de Tocqueville, as Roger Kimball eloquently observes (see, e.g., here).

Students of the criminal law learn early on the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum — i.e., conduct that is wrong in and of itself (e.g., murder, theft) versus conduct that is considered wrong only because we have chosen to legislate against it. The structuring of cash transactions is an excellent example of the latter.

“Black Lives Matter.” At first blush, it seems difficult to imagine anyone taking issue with the obvious, self-evident truth articulated by those three simple words. But when we peel away the veneer of deception, we find that Black Lives Matter (BLM) is in fact one of the most destructive, hateful, racist movements in living memory. Founded by a core group of revolutionaries who detest the United States and revere the nation’s most devoted radical enemies, BLM is, at its essence, an ideological reincarnation of the Black Panther [2] movement that flourished in the Sixties.

Black Lives Matter was established [3] two years ago in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman, the “white Hispanic [4]” who was tried for murder and manslaughter vis-à-vis the 2012 killing of Trayvon Martin. According to BLM, Zimmerman’s act was but a microcosm of the “virulent [5] anti-Black racism” that “permeates our society” and continues to exacerbate [6] “the deep psychological wounds of slavery, racism and structural oppression.”

The president’s dangerous release of almost 100,000 criminal illegal aliens.

For patriots knowledgeable of the Immigration & Nationality Act, such as immigration judges, ICE attorneys, and litigators who fight for greater immigration enforcement like myself, the day President Obama told the American public he would “re-prioritize” the statute’s mandatory removal provisions was one of astonished disbelief that still endures.

Nowhere in the Act did Congress give the President the authority to “re-prioritize” illegal alien and criminal alien-removals. The INA is a deterring statute and it’s been continuously amended to better deter illegal immigration since it was originally enacted in 1952.

As the results of the 2012 and 2014 “executive actions” show, re-entries and recidivism among convicted criminal aliens (legal and illegal aliens convicted of crimes) has spiked and, as a result, we’re pushing deeper and deeper into immigration anarchy. Unsurprisingly, Obama’s lawlessness is leading to ever greater lawlessness.

While Americans yawned through another weekend, watching television or playing catch with their kids, the greatest human rights violation in our nation’s troubled history took place in the sky above Chicago.

Tahera Ahmad, a Muslim chaplain at Northwestern University who has participated in MSA and ISNA events, and gotten her photo taken with Obama, was denied an unopened Diet Coke.

“Muslim Chaplain Tahera Ahmad Denied Diet Coke,” NBC News blared. “I Can’t Help But Cry,” the CNN headline declaims. “’No Diet Coke for you’: Islamophobia at 30000 feet,” bleated The Guardian.

“Outrage after United Airlines refuses Muslim woman Diet Coke,” the Mirror chimed in.

The Diet Coke crisis was upon us. Islamists called for a boycott of United Airlines and #unitedfortahera became a trending hashtag as random idiots denounced racism and commiserated with the horror of being denied a Diet Coke and pledged not to fly United until they actually need to use their airline miles.

Notable & Quotable: The Russian Threat to Nato Lithuania and Poland ask for permanent U.S. military bases to fend off an aggressive Putin.
Reporter Niels Lesniewski writing online for Roll Call, May 29:

Officials in Lithuania and Poland told Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin they’re concerned enough about the threat posed by Russia that they want to host U.S. military bases.

The Illinois Democrat traveled to the two NATO member states, as well as to Ukraine, during the Memorial Day break, meeting with officials in the three countries. Durbin told reporters Friday he met in Lithuania with the country’s president and prime minister, as well as members of Parliament.
“They went so far to say they want the United States, if they will consider it, to put in a permanent military base in Lithuania, which I thought was an interesting request,” Durbin said.

At a subsequent stop in Poland, Durbin said he heard similar sentiments from officials there, including from representatives for Polish President-elect Andrzej Duda.

Fabius talks tough about inspections, but he’s fallen in line before.

The Iranian nuclear talks are resuming with the June 30 deadline approaching, and right on time here come the French talking tough. If history repeats, however, our Gallic allies will take a hard line right up until they agree to whatever President Obama wants.

“The best agreement, if you cannot verify it, it’s useless,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told our Journal colleagues in an interview on Monday from Nigeria. “Several countries in the region would say, OK, a paper [has been signed] but we think it is not strong enough and therefore we ourselves have to become nuclear.” He no doubt means Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and perhaps Egypt and the Gulf Sunni Arabs.

Ubiquitous but opaque. Powerful but unaccountable. Ostensibly public spirited but relentlessly mercenary. Often shamed but unshakably shameless. Let us count the ways in which the Clinton Foundation resembles the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, better known as FIFA.

Last week we learned that FIFA had made a donation to the Foundation in the range of $50,000 to $100,000. But for the Clintons that kind of money is hardly worth mentioning, so the suggestion of some sort of unseemly financial linkage between the two organizations is doubtful. You don’t get to roll with Bill, Hill or Chelsea for less than seven figures.

We also learned that the “Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee,” tasked with organizing the forthcoming World Cup in the Arab kingdom, gave the foundation as much as $500,000, while the Qatari state itself gave up to $5 million.