DELEITURAS

French wingsuit flyers recently completed an unbelievable stunt following a B.A.S.E. jump from the top of the Jungfrau mountain in Switzerland. Fred Fugen and Vince Reffet, known as the Soul Flyers, caught up with and flew into a plane in mid-air.  As part of their project A Door in the Sky, which they had spent several months training for by completing more than 100 test flights in Empuriabrava in Spain, the duo B.A.S.E jumped from the top of the Jungfrau, one of Europe’s highest mountains, and flew into a Pilatus Porter light aircraft in mid-air. Now that’s a different way to catch a flight.

 

With the supposed conclusion in hostilities in Iraq, Frederick Kagan, of the American Enterprise Institute, and Kimberly Kagan, president of the Institute for the Study of War, have outlined that we risk losing Iraq and how our early departure has not only seen an influx of sectarian violence, but an incremental rise in activity from Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AIQ).  This is part of a series of columns the couple have written concerning American policy in the region.  However, with the Middle East and much of North Africa erupting in a fury of anti-American protest and Mitt Romney slamming the president’s foreign policy – I’m sure we’ll see the Iraqi question present itself in the  upcoming presidential debates.

In terms of nation-building, Iraq is better than Afghanistan.  It has an existing infrastructure, most of the population is literate, and the people view Nouri al-Maliki as a legitimate leader.  Unlike Afghanistan – which has no infrastructure, a hopelessly corrupt government, and a population that is mostly illiterate.  An aspect that has impeded security forces/national army training.  Concerning corruption, we all know Karzai was stuffing ballots in the ’09 elections, but in the rural regions it’s overtly seen via the Afghan police forces.  The incidents of jailing without cause, beatings, sexual assault, drug peddling, and bribery are commonplace.  It’s a public relations nightmare since the police, in any country, are the intermediators between the government and the general population.  Given what has been done by the Afghan police – we shouldn’t be surprised that we’re not winning the hearts and minds of the people.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are tribal societies, which will always be a point on contention concerning fostering political cooperation, but tensions in Iraq seemed to have been temporarily ameliorated during the Sunni Awakening.  This coincided with 100,000 new recruits of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) being deployed into the field, which were able to bring Mosul, Sadr City, and Basra under government control.  Some of the ISF operations were executed with limited American ground support, with the exception of air cover and logistical information.

Basra was key since it’s Iraq’s only port.  It needs to be under government control. Mosul served as a critical nexus point for foreign fighters pouring into the country and housed a financial network that assisted the insurgency.  Sadr City contained weapons caches and the radical islamist elements, the Mahdi Army, needed to be rooted out.  It wasn’t easy.  Some 1,000 units of the fled during the Basra fight, but the ISF prevailed.  In the spirit of “clear, hold, and build,” Maliki announced a $100 million dollar reconstruction project for Mosul.

That was reported in the summer of 2008.  Iraq and met all but one of its benchmarks and George W. Bush’s surge – which was opposed by then-Senator Obama – was justified.  As Kagan wrote, ”the results have been dramatic. Enemy attacks fell from an average of 40 per day in the first week of May to between four and six per day in the following two weeks. Coalition forces have captured or killed the al-Qaeda emirs of Mosul, Southeast Mosul, Ninewah Province and much of their networks.”  Romney could say that with continued cooperation with the Maliki administration, a stronger Iraq could have emerged.

Now, Kagan, along with his wife Kimberly, penned another column in the current edition of The National Review that points out al-Qaeda’s resurgence in our absence.  this development running concurrently with Iran always watching and sectarian violence rising.

Violence is slowly rising again in Iraq. Measuring it precisely has always been difficult, and the end of intelligence-collection and -reporting by American military forces makes the task even harder. Nevertheless, two independent open-source databases show a significant increase in Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence since the departure of American forces in December 2011. Data from the Iraq Body Count website puts the number of average monthly security incidents from January through July (the last full month for which data are posted) at 369, compared with 328 for the same period in 2011 — an increase of 12.5 percent. And Olive Group, a private security firm that publishes detailed statistics of weekly violence in Iraq, reports that there were more than 120 security incidents per week for eight of 14 weeks from mid-June to the beginning of September. Incidents had exceeded 120 per week only three times in the previous 25 weeks (from December 2011 to mid-June 2012).

Additionally, “AQI’s front organization, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), has increased notably in the past few months, according to a report recently released by Sam Wyer at the Institute for the Study of War. Wyer found that ISI attacks killed at least 115 people in 20 cities in Iraq on July 23. A second wave of attacks, on August 16, killed more than 100 people in 19 cities. A third wave hit 18 cities on September 9, again killing more than 100.”

Concerning the resurgence of AIQ, Kagan wrote:

The resurrection of al-Qaeda [AQI] in Iraq is a consequence of America’s failure to negotiate a long-term military partnership of the kind that was envisioned when the Strategic Partnership Agreement was signed in 2008. U.S. enablers — combat troops in small numbers combined with the precision-strike capabilities of American aircraft and special forces — could have continued, in cooperation with Iraqi security forces, to keep the pressure on AQI. Their presence would also have sustained pressure on Maliki to keep Shiite militias in check.

Instead, the Iraqi political accommodation began to collapse as soon as American military forces departed. Maliki ordered Iraqi security forces to surround Hashemi’s compound on December 15 — the day that the Pentagon declared an official end to its mission. Maliki could not have done this had American trainers and advisers remained in Baghdad. Fears of a Sunni coup or a Shiite dictatorship could have been mitigated by the continued presence of American military forces, which all sides saw as impartial.

However, as the Syrian bloodbath continues, it should be noted that our withdrawal has prevented the Iraqis from protecting their airspace.  As such, “Iraq’s skies are a critical lifeline for the vicious regime of Bashar Assad, to whom the Iranian military is flying supplies, weapons, and advisers as he kills thousands of his own people in a desperate attempt to retain control of Syria. Iraq does not have air-defense systems. It does not have air-to-air fighters. Iranian aircraft that wish to pass through Iraqi airspace have only to do so, and the most Baghdad can do is lodge a protest.”

Mitt Romney could say that Obama’s withdrawal has been complicit in prolonging the bloodshed in Syria– as American fighters could have heavily curbed the amount of munitions and supplies that are propping up Assad.  While Obama may hit back and say that the Maliki administration demanded certain things which would have hindered American capabilities:

Michael Gordon paints a different picture in a recent New York Times article excerpted from The Endgame. As he explains it, the Obama administration did not begin negotiations for the extension of a military presence until June 2011, despite the well-known challenges of securing rapid deals in Iraq. The administration claims that it could not start negotiations before then because the Iraqi government had not yet been formed. But Gordon demonstrates how much the delay in the formation of that government resulted from the total failure of the Obama administration’s efforts to broker a political deal in Baghdad.

The president rarely injected himself into the negotiations and did next to nothing to, as Kagan put it, to smooth over tensions in the process.  Besides, the June 2011 announcement and an October meeting that same year – where Obama told Maliki we were out of there – the president remained in his ivory tower.  A low point in the annals American leadership.

The main point of contention in the talks was that “Obama wanted the Iraqi parliament to ratify whatever agreement was reached, despite the fact that Maliki had requested an executive agreement that would not be subject to legislative approval, and the lead U.S. negotiator, Brett McGurk, had recommended taking this approach. Maliki offered an executive agreement several times, Gordon notes, but the Obama administration stuck to its original demand.”

Kagan alludes that this intransigence was most likely due to the fact that Obama wanted out of the war and, unlike Gitmo, was going to honor the promise  to exit to appease the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party.  It’s intransigence that has cost lives.

While I don’t consider myself a neoconservative and consider their agenda a grand exercise in the overreach of American power –  we cannot deny the fact that a re-entrenchment of AIQ and the country being turned into an Iranian satellite would be disastrous.  While Iraq proved itself to have the potential to defend its territorial integrity, they’re still weaker than their ever belligerent neighbor to the east.  Forget Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Kagan wrote back in February of 2010 that”Iranian armed forces [have] violated Iraqi sovereignty on at least two occasions in 2009—U.S. forces shot down an Iranian drone in Iraqi territory in March 2009, and Iranian troops ostentatiously seized an Iraqi oil well in December 2009 as the Iraqis completed a round of international oil bids.”  The Obama administration did little, if anything, to forcefully counter these incursions.

Concerning Tehran’s politicking in Iraq, “Iranian officials, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Chairman of the Assembly of Experts Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, worked doggedly in 2009 to rebuild the coalition of the three major Iraqi Shiite parties that had run in 2005 as a bloc. That effort failed when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to join.”  Furthermore, ” the Iranians then actively but unsuccessfully lobbied for Iraq’s parliament to pass a closed-list election law in October 2009 in which the people could not choose particular candidates, seeking to increase their control of political parties and thus electoral outcomes.”  That’s not to say they’ve stopped trying to undermine the political leadership of Iraq. As we all know, Iran has the most to gain from a weak Iraq and that’s exactly what we gave them when we left prematurely.

As I mentioned above, I find nation-bulding to be a massive waste of American political and military resources.  As George Will noted, nations are organic entities that require generations to form.  The notion that American troops can accelerate the maturation process is absurd.  Yes, American troops provided a buffer that enabled socioeconomic development, but sectarian division remains deeply entrenched and the other obstacles inhibiting Iraq from developing into a strong state are going to be solve by the people – not American marines.  There is something to be said about keeping Hussein in power.  He kept Al-Qaeda out of his country and provided a counterbalance to Iran.  Yes, I’m for the pragmatic accommodation of dictators IF they serve our interests abroad.

However, given our situation, Iraq is more suitable for a favorable outcome in these nation building ventures than Afghanistan, but we should consider cutting down on these social engineering projects for the future.  Nevertheless, we cannot re-debate the past and we shouldn’t reignite the stale and sterile argument of why we invaded in March of 2003.  We went in – albeit on faulty intelligence – and we irresponsibly exited, leaving the country as ”an outlet for Iranian goods skirting sanctions. It is a launching pad for Iranian-backed terrorist groups looking for ‘plausible deniability.’ It is a critical line of communication between Tehran and its once-solid proxy in Damascus. It is again becoming a safe haven for one of the most lethal and determined al-Qaeda franchises in the world. That franchise, in fact, is now projecting terrorist operations into Syria in a way it was never before able to do. And Iraq is in danger once again of becoming a failed state.”  That’s the issue. Mr. President, is this ending the war responsibly as you’ve said – ad nauseum – during the 2008 campaign?

Geopolitically, Iran has always been close to Israel via Hezbollah since 1982 , but the weakening of Iraq via our exit has placed them closer.  Furthermore, the president has done nothing to curb Iranian encroachment other than offering some words of condemnation and threatening military action to prevent its nuclear capability.  That’s a rather effete response, which partially explains Netanyahu’s hesitancy to trust Obama.  I don’t blame him.

When foreign policy is discussed in the presidential debates, which will be featured on Oct. 11, 16, and 22, Mitt Romney needs to hit hard on the areas outlined by Kagan and others who’ve analyzed the tremendous vulnerability we have opened ourselves to by leaving Iraq.  Obama may have successfully placated the anti-war left of his coalition, but the potential consequences of leaving without an agreed security pact may see us re-invading the country, or at least sending in special forces, to rid ourselves of the re-entrenched Al-Qaeda elements.   In all, Kagan wrote that “it is essential for the U.S. to prevent al-Qaeda in Iraq from establishing a firm base from which to conduct and support terrorist activities throughout the region. It is equally important to prevent Iran from using Iraq as a staging area from which its militias can attack American interests and those of our regional allies. It is impossible to develop a strategy to contain Iran if Iraq is committed to a policy of supporting Tehran.”

This development, coupled with the Benghazi fiasco, are good points for Romney to highlight the lack of seriousness that is inherent in President Obama’s foreign policy.  He’s skipped almost half of his intelligence briefings and flew off to Vegas for a fundraiser one day after the Libyan attacks.  Are these the trademarks of a commander-in-chief?  Given that Romney has overtaken the president on the issue of  handling terrorism, the debates would be a good opportunity to expand on that claim.

• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has ties with Organize for Justice, a 501(c)(4) dark money group that trains progressive organizers across the country.
• Ocasio-Cortez serves on the board of Justice Democrats, the “sister organization” of the dark money group.
• Ocasio-Cortez once called dark money the “enemy of democracy.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has ties with a dark money group that trains progressive organizers on how to lead grassroots political campaigns across the country.

The group, Organize for Justice, is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, meaning it can raise unlimited sums of money without having to disclose the identity of its donors to the public.

Organize for Justice’s website states that it is the “sister organization” of Justice Democrats, the PAC that, according to corporate filings, Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff have held control over since December 2017.

Ocasio-Cortez has frequently decried the use of dark money in politics. During her primary campaign, she said dark money was an “enemy to democracy” and that it poses a “very real danger” of silencing grassroots candidates.

Organize for Justice was founded by former Ocasio-Cortez campaign volunteers in November, according to corporate documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. Justice Democrats’ executive director, Alexandra Rojas, also serves on the board of the dark money group.

In February, the group launched Movement School, a 10-week training program tasked with “incubating cohorts of highly skilled professionals to lead grassroots political campaigns across the country,” according to its website.

The dark money group doesn’t charge its participants tuition fees, according to a frequently asked questions page on its website. It requests graduates “prioritize working for campaigns that live the values of Movement School.”

Ocasio-Cortez tweeted her support for Movement School during its launch event in the Bronx.

Ocasio-Cortez’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Ocasio-Cortez has served on the board of the dark money group’s “sister organization,” Justice Democrats, since December 2017.

Her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, has also been a Justice Democrats board member since December 2017, and also served as the political action committee’s executive director until February 2018, according to his LinkedIn.

Ocasio-Cortez’s attorney told Snopes on March 8 that she left Justice Democrats’ board in June 2018, but, the PAC’s corporate filings with Washington D.C. currently list her and Chakrabarti as “entity governors” of the group.

Ocasio-Cortez never disclosed to the Federal Election Commission that she and Chakrabarti, who served as her campaign chair, controlled Justice Democrats while it simultaneously supported her primary campaign.

If the FEC finds that her campaign and the PAC were operating in affiliation, it could result in “massive reporting violations,” former FEC commissioner Brad Smith previously told TheDCNF.

Former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky said in a Fox News op-ed Sunday that he believes there’s sufficient evidence to “justify opening a criminal investigation” into Ocasio-Cortez’s alleged campaign finance violations.

Neither Justice Democrats nor Organize for Justice returned requests for comment.

 

by Jack Crowe

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell precipitously Monday afternoon, continuing a market correction that began Friday and interrupting consecutive months of uninterrupted growth.

The Dow began to crater Monday afternoon, falling more than 1,000 points during afternoon trading after initially rebounding from a smaller morning session drop. The drop came after a dramatic 666 point drop Friday, prompted by an aggressive bond sell off.

Widespread speculation that the Federal Reserve will soon raise interest rates, combined with looming fears of imminent inflation, likely sparked the selloff. The aggressive drop was received on Wall Street as a natural correction to the 1,900 point rise that occurred over the first 18 days of 2018 and the longer 8,300 point increase since President Donald Trump took office.

The Fed has signaled it will take relatively dramatic action this year to slow growth, perhaps raising rates as many as four times, totaling a full percentage point increase over 2018. The resulting market contraction has erased all gains made in the first month of 2018.

Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson headlines the action adventure Rampage, directed by Brad Peyton. Primatologist Davis Okoye (Johnson), a man who keeps people at a distance, shares an unshakable bond with George, the extraordinarily intelligent, silverback gorilla who has been in his care since birth. But a rogue genetic experiment gone awry mutates this gentle ape into a raging creature of enormous size. To make matters worse, it’s soon discovered there are other similarly altered animals. As these newly created alpha predators tear across North America, destroying everything in their path, Okoye teams with a discredited genetic engineer to secure an antidote, fighting his way through an ever-changing battlefield, not only to halt a global catastrophe but to save the fearsome creature that was once his friend.

The movie is loosely based on the 80’s arcade game by the same name (see below if you don’t remember that classic.)

“Rampage” also stars Oscar nominee Naomie Harris (“Moonlight”), Malin Akerman (TV’s “Billions”), Jake Lacy (TV’s “Girls”), Joe Manganiello (TV’s “True Blood”) and Jeffrey Dean Morgan (TV’s “The Walking Dead”); as well as P.J. Byrne (“The Wolf of Wall Street”), Marley Shelton (“Solace”), Breanne Hill (“San Andreas”), Jack Quaid (“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire”), and Matt Gerald (TV’s “Daredevil”). Peyton directs from a screenplay by Ryan Engle and Carlton Cuse & Ryan J. Condal and Adam Sztykiel, story by Ryan Engle, based on the video game Rampage.

Rampage opens in theaters April 20, 2018.

Oh, and if you don’t remember the classic Bally Midway video game – here’s a blast from the past.

In a startling response to rising drug violence, the citizens of Mexico are about to launch nationwide protests against their government and specifically their President, Felipe Calderon.

The final straw was the murder of Juan Sicilia, son of well-known author, Javier Sicilia. Javier was out of the country during the murder but upon his return issued a scathing call for protests.

We are sick and tired of you politicians… because in your struggle for power you have torn asunder the fabric of the nation. You have been incapable of creating the consensus that the nation needs to find unity.

At first, this seems a call-to-action, a push to finally crush the cartels with every resource; permission to do whatever is necessary to break the cartels. It is not.

Sicilia makes the case that the war on drugs needs to end. Negotiations should be held because Mexico has no interest in protecting the United States, the nation “”that is not helping us at all.”

Sicilia’s lash-out at the U.S. may be a response to the Obama administration’s program of allowing American guns to get into the hands of Mexican cartels in a misguided attempt to catch them holding those guns. Or perhaps, the inability of the U.S. to control its own borders. Either way, Sicilia is leading the Mexican people in a protest to tell their government that the only recourse they have is to give in to the Cartels; to negotiate.

This decision is a sea-change. Mexican citizens are clearing the way to turn Mexico into nothing more than a narco-state run by groups of drug-dealing thugs with no interest in the success of their people or an economy. All sense of national pride will disappear and Mexico will become a country with no culture, no national pride and no hope.

Currently, the groups are fighting each other more than the government, which has reduced their effectiveness. That will slowly change as territories are become fixed, connected to the primary loyalties of village or neighborhood. Eventually, a fully formed open source insurgency will emerge and the government might find itself only in command of the capital.

At that point, Mexico will be a hollow state. A government in name only. [1]

There are implications for Americans. An influx of desperate former-Mexicans and a National security nightmare.

First, if the government fails or cedes power to the outlaws, Mexican citizens will find it necessary to emigrate to  .. anywhere but there. The Caribbean or the United States.

Secondly, the lax border security on the U.S.-Mexican border will entice the newly-powerful cartels to take on the current weak leadership in the United States. Empowered by their newfound ability to get a sovereign government to bow to them, the drug lords will certainly believe they can get Californians, New Mexicans and Nevadans to wave a white flag.

Sources:
[1] “The Ongoing Medico Guerrilla War” – http://speedygonzalezesdeladea.blogspot.com/2008/07/ongoing-mexico-guerrilla-war.html

Sean Spicer talks about Donald Trump’s tweeting, his Inauguration crowd size, fake news, Melissa McCarthy’s impersonation of him, Anthony Scaramucci and more.

Last month, the National Review’s pseudoconservative editors (who, BTW, supported John McCain for reelection in 2010) and NRO blogger Veronique de Rugy (a scholar at the GMU’s Mercatus Center) launched another idiotic, ignorant attack on the Export-Import Bank and on the Boeing company (one of the Bank’s beneficiaries).

Why the Ex-Im Bank is needed, and why “free trade” policies like those de Rugy and the NRO advocate are suicidal, is something I’ve written about several times, most recently here, demonstrating how Britain lost her economic preeminence by embracing these “free trade” policies.

In short, the Ex-Im Bank is needed to level the playing field by loaning money to the buyers of American exports. This is because foreign countries heavily subsidize (not merely credit, but subsidize) their own exporters, thus undercutting the prices of their exports and rigging the playing field. At the same time, they impose steep tariffs and VAT taxes on all American products entering their markets.

The Ex-Im Bank is one of the crucial, absolutely needed tools to level the playing field.

But the free traders at the NRO, including its editors and Veronique de Rugy, don’t give up in their idiotic attacks on the Bank. In doing so, they’ve made some of the most idiotic, nonsensical claims I have ever heard on any issue, not just trade.

They falsely claim that the Ex-Im Bank hands out “subsidies”, which is patently false.

Subsidies are free handouts that don’t have to be paid back (and never are).

The Ex-Im Bank, OTOH, awards LOANS, which are quite different thing: they have to be paid back with interest. And in the Ex-Im Bank’s case, they always are. Last year, taxpayers made a profit of one billion dollars on that interest.

De Rugy also protests that Boeing is the largest beneficiary of Ex-Im Bank loans.

But Boeing does not receive a dime from Ex-Im. It is Boeing aircraft buyers that receive Ex-Im Bank loans.

Speaking of Boeing, it is America’s last surviving airliner aircraft maker. It is now locked in a life-and-death survival battle against the European aircraft maker Airbus, heavily subsidized by the governments of European countries, including Veronique de Rugy’s homeland, France (which begs the question: is de Rugy just plain stupid, or is she consciously advocating for a policy that would help Airbus kill Boeing?).

De Rugy asks why Boeing needs Ex-Im loans and whether it can’t simply make good aircraft that customers would want to buy.

But Boeing DOES make excellent aircraft, including the B737, the most popular medium-range jetliner in the world, and the B777, the longest-ranged plane in the world.

But making excellent products is not enough; they have to be cheap enough for customers to buy. And while Boeing receives NO subsidies from the US government whatsoever, its European rival Airbus is LAVISHLY subsidized by European governments, thus reducing Airbus aircraft prices and unfairly undercutting Boeing.

The WTO has found that EVERY SINGLE AIRCRAFT Airbus produces is illegally subsidized and has consequently found the European Union in violation of its obligation to stop such subsidies. Yet, neither the EU nor Airbus have complied or ever will.

The result: Airbus is currently winning over Boeing in the global arena, thanks to the lavish subsidies Airbus receives. In the 10 years from 2004 to 2013, Airbus has received 8,933 orders while delivering 4,824 aircraft, and Boeing has received 8,428 orders while delivering 4,458 planes.

Last year alone, Airbus received 1,503 orders while Boeing only received 1,355. From 2008 to 2013, Airbus has had a lead in orders in EVERY year except 2012.

Looking further back in time, since 2001 Airbus has had a lead (usually a large one) in orders in EVERY year except 2006, 2007, and 2012.

Recall what happened to the US civilian shipbuilding industry when Congress cut off aid to it: it collapsed, being killed by unfairly subsidized foreign competitors.

But according to de Rugy, the NRO’s editors, and idiot politicians like Sen. Mike Lee, America’s last surviving jetliner maker does not deserve support from the US government, even though Airbus is lavishly subsidized by European governments, and despite the fact that EVERY other major trading power in the world has an export-crediting agency like Ex-Im.

Which leads me to the final, and most ludicrous, claim de Rugy has made (on April 17th). It’s a statement that perfectly and completely reveals de Rugy’s and other free traders’ mindset.

De Rugy has stated that even though other countries credit and subsidize their industries and exporters, the US should not “pursue these self-destructive policies.” She asks:

“Does it make sense to pursue these self-destructive policies just because Germany, South Korea, Japan, and China do so?”

Self-destructive?

So according to de Rugy (and other free traders), supporting your own industrial base and exporters is “self-destructive”! ROTFL, you couldn’t make it up! ?

This statement perfectly reveals de Rugy’s and other free traders’ mindset and delusions.

In their warped world, supporting your own industry and your own exporters is “self-destructive” and suicidal; it’s far better to let them die, be killed by foreign competitors, and become dependent on other countries for the products you need. In the fantasy world of de Rugy and other free traders, imports are preferrable to exports and trade deficits are preferrable to trade surpluses.

In their fantasy world, it’s better to let your industrial base and your own exporters be killed by foreign competitors; you don’t need to make any things yourself, it’s better to import them (on borrowed money).

Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that what de Rugy is saying is utter nonsense.

EVERY country that ever became an economic powerhouse – including Germany, Japan, and China – did so by protecting and supporting its industry and exporters; by preferring trade surpluses over deficits, preferring exports over imports, and putting tomorrow before today.

The US was doing the same thing for all of its history until the 1960s – when the free traders took over.

Since then, 6 million good manufacturing jobs and over 55,000 factories have been lost, replaced by nothing. Real wages have not risen since the 1970s. Entire industries have died, and entire regions of many states have seen a crippling deindustrialization and permanently high unemployment.

NO country has risen to economic preeminence by indulging in free trade fantasies – and America won’t be the first.

But according to de Rugy, Germany, South Korea, Japan, and China are pursuing “self-destructive” policies by protecting and actively supporting their industry! LOL!

This would be strange news to these nations. Last time I checked, all of them had sizable annual trade surpluses with the US: Germany, to the tune of $60 bn a year; South Korea, $16.6 bn; Japan, $88 bn; China, $315 bn.

Also, their industries are thriving, while America is exporting its own industry and jobs overseas, mostly to China. Just who is pursuing “self-destructive” policies here?

And just who the hell is Veronique de Rugy to lecture the Germans, the South Koreans, the Japanese, and the Chinese? She’s just another ivory tower academic “economist” who has never worked a day in a real job, has never spent one day outside the purely theoretical academic world, and has never led anything, let alone built a great nation. Neither has any of her fellow academic economists.

These people have never accomplished anything, let alone built or led a great nation.

According to de Rugy, Germany (along with the other countries she’s targeted – SK, Japan, and China) is pursuing a “self-destructive policy.” Let’s see how it has worked out for Germany:

• It has the world’s fourth largest, and Europe’s largest, economy.
• Its industry is thriving and makes some of the finest goods in the world.
• It has an annual trade surplus of $260 bn, meaning it exports $260 bn more than it imports annually.
• It exports one-third of all it produces and is the world’s third-largest exporter.
• It is the world’s third-largest car manufacturer after China and Japan.
• It has an unemployment rate of only 5.3%, lower than even the official (i.e. fake) US unemployment rate of 6.3%.
• It has a balanced budget and is a country to whom other European nations turn for loans and aid.
• Its government is one of the leading stakeholders in Airbus, the largest planemaker in the world.

All of this achieved by a country the size of Montana, with only 80 mn people, one quarter of America’s population.

If this is a “self-destructive policy”, bring it on!

And SK, Japan, and China – the other nations targeted by de Rugy for her diatribe?

South Korea, with a population barely around 30 mn, is now among the 20 wealthiest countries in the world by overall GDP and has a healthy trade surplus with the US. Since the ratification of the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement, Seoul’s trade surplus with Washington has TRIPLED.

Japan’s trade surplus with the US last year, at $88 bn, was the largest trade imbalance ever seen between Japan and the US.

America’s trade deficit with China last year, at $315 bn, was the largest trade deficit EVER recorded in ALL HUMAN HISTORY between any two countries.

Such are the results of the “free trade” policies that de Rugy and other free traders advocate.

De Rugy, as usual, is blowing smoke out of her posterior and blathering nonsense about issues she knows absolutely nothing about. Shame on her, and shame on the NRO for giving her a forum to publish her garbage.

 

According to Pew Research, more U.S. households are renting now than at any point in the last 50 years. Erie Insurance shares a few tips to make the process of finding a new apartment a little less overwhelming.

1. Know what you’re paying for. There’s more to renting than just sending a check to your landlord once a month. Many landlords require a security deposit of one (or even two) month’s rent. Others impose an application fee for background and/or credit checks. Depending on where you’re renting, you may be responsible for certain utilities. If your complex has perks like an on-site gym and laundry, you may be required to pay an amenities fee. In addition to knowing what you’re paying for, understand what maintenance responsibilities you have. For instance, who is responsible for landscaping and/or snow removal?
2. Consider the parking situation. Parking options can range from designated parking lots to on-street parking. No car? Consider whether your potential new place is located close to bus or train lines.
3. Document the condition of the apartment. Do a walkthrough before you sign a lease and note any damage, documenting with photos. Otherwise, you could lose your security deposit at the end of your lease.
4. Ask if the apartment is pet-friendly. People love pets, but many landlords don’t because pets can cause damage. Where pets are permitted, renters are often required to pay a non-refundable pet deposit and an additional fee each month for the pleasure of Miss Kitty’scompany.
5. Know the length of your lease. Lease periods are generally one year and spelled out in the contract. However, always double check. Also understand whether your lease auto-renews and if it auto-renews for the same length of time, or if you have to notify your landlord of your intent to renew.
6. Get it all in writing. Conversations had in good faith should still be documented in writing, especially any variations from the standard agreement. This holds both you and your landlord accountable.
7. Ask if you can sub-lease. Sub-leasing can be very helpful in certain situations. Check with your landlord first—if he or she gives you the green light, look for someone responsible to lease your place.

Keeping these seven things in mind before you sign on the dotted line will help create a hassle-free renting experience.

Covington Catholic high school student Nicholas Sandmann is suing The Washington Post over its coverage of a January incident involving himself and Native American protester Nathan Phillips.

Attorneys for Sandmann filed the lawsuit Tuesday, accusing the Washington newspaper of engaging in a “modern-day form of McCarthyism.” The lawsuit also blames CNN and NBC, “among others,” for taking part in the smear, but it does not take direct legal action against those outlets.

“The Post wrongfully targeted and bullied Nicholas because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red “Make America Great Again” souvenir cap on a school field trip to the January 18 March for Life in Washington, D.C. when he was unexpectedly and suddenly confronted by Nathan Phillips, a known Native American activist, who beat a drum and sang loudly within inches of his face,” the lawsuit says.

“The Post ignored basic journalist standards because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented, biased agenda against President Donald J. Trump by impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the President,” the lawsuit continued.

The lawsuit asks for The Washington Post to pay Sandmann $250 million in damages, equal the amount Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos purchased the newspaper for in 2013.

Sandmann’s lawsuit comes less than a week after Greater Cincinnati Investigation, Inc., released the results of an investigation debunking early reports that the high schoolers yelled offensive or racist slurs and incited the confrontation with Phillips, Fox 19 reports.

“In truth, taking everything into account, our students were placed in a situation that was at once bizarre and even threatening,” Covington Bishop Roger Foys said in a letter released with the investigation’s results. “Their reaction to the situation was, given the circumstances, expected and one might even say laudatory.”

In the hours after the incident went viral, Sandmann and many of his classmates were condemned by the media for allegedly mobbing Phillips, as The New York Times described the incident in a headline.

The Covington Catholic boys and their families received numerous death threats from being burned alive to sexually molested.

In the days following the incident and after facts began to come to light, some of the largest names in media and pop culture began apologizing to the Covington boys for the role the accusers played in spreading false information.