Via Consortium News, 

Last week, The New York Times published a full-page advertisement signed by 15 U.S. national security experts about the war in Ukraine. It was headed “The U.S. Should Be a Force for Peace in the World,” and was drafted by the Eisenhower Media Network.

While condemning Russia’s invasion, the statement provides a more objective account of the crisis in Ukraine than the U.S. government or The New York Times has previously presented to the public, including the disastrous U.S. role in NATO expansion, the warnings ignored by successive U.S. administrations and the escalating tensions that ultimately led to war.

The statement calls the war an “unmitigated disaster,” and urges President Joe Biden and Congress “to end the war speedily through diplomacy, especially given the dangers of military escalation that could spiral out of control.”

This call for diplomacy by wise, experienced former insiders — U.S. diplomats, military officers and civilian officials — would have been a welcome intervention on any one of the past 442 days of this war. Yet their appeal now comes at an especially critical moment in the war.

On May 10, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that he is delaying Ukraine’s long-awaited “spring offensive” to avoid “unacceptable” losses to Ukrainian forces.

Western policy has repeatedly put Zelenskyy in near-impossible positions, caught between the need to show signs of progress on the battlefield to justify further Western support and arms deliveries and, on the other hand, the shocking human cost of continued war represented by the fresh graveyards where tens of thousands of Ukrainians now lie buried.

It is not clear how a delay in the planned Ukrainian counter-attack would prevent it leading to unacceptable Ukrainian losses when it finally occurs, unless the delay in fact leads to scaling back and calling off many of the operations that have been planned.

Zelensky appears to be reaching a limit in terms of how many more of his people he is willing to sacrifice to satisfy Western demands for signs of military progress to hold together the Western alliance and maintain the flow of weapons and money to Ukraine.

Boris Johnson’s Role 

Zelensky’s predicament is certainly the fault of Russia’s invasion, but also of his April 2022 deal with the devil in the shape of then-U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Johnson promised Zelensky that the U.K. and the “collective West” were “in it for the long run” and would back him to recover all of Ukraine’s former territory, just as long as Ukraine stopped negotiating with Russia.

Johnson was never in a position to fulfill that promise and, since he was forced to resign as prime minister, he has endorsed a Russian withdrawal only from the territory it invaded since February 2022, not a return to pre-2014 borders. Yet that compromise was exactly what he talked Zelensky out of agreeing to in April 2022, when most of the war’s dead were still alive and the framework of a peace agreement was on the table at diplomatic talks in Turkey.

Zelensky has tried desperately to hold his Western backers to Johnson’s overblown promise. But short of direct U.S. and NATO military intervention, it seems that no quantity of Western weapons can decisively break the stalemate in what has degenerated into a brutal war of attrition, fought mainly by artillery and trench and urban warfare.

A group of anti-war US veterans – including a dozen former military officers ranked as high as general – published an ad in the NY Times calling to halt arms shipments to Ukraine and end the war with peace talks

They included this graphic of NATO military bases surrounded Russia https://t.co/SCeTYLseOB pic.twitter.com/m9Ntrnjrgs

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) May 16, 2023

An American general bragged that the West has supplied Ukraine with 600 different weapons systems, but this itself creates problems. For example, the different 105 mm guns sent by the U.K., France, Germany and the U.S. all use different shells. And each time heavy losses force Ukraine to re-form survivors into new units, many of them have to be retrained on weapons and equipment they’ve never used before.

Leaked Pentagon Document

Despite U.S. deliveries of at least six types of anti-aircraft missiles — Stinger, NASAMS, Hawk, Rim-7, Avenger, and at least one Patriot missile battery — a leaked Pentagon document revealed that Ukraine’s Russian-built S-300 and Buk anti-aircraft systems still make up almost 90 percent of its main air defenses.

NATO countries have searched their weapons stockpiles for all the missiles they can provide for those systems, but Ukraine has nearly exhausted those supplies, leaving its forces newly vulnerable to Russian air strikes just as it prepares to launch its new counter-attack.

Since at least June 2022, Biden and other U.S. officials have acknowledged that the war must end in a diplomatic settlement, and have insisted that they are arming Ukraine to put it “in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.” Until now, they have claimed that each new weapons system they have sent and each Ukrainian counter-offensive have contributed to that goal and left Ukraine in a stronger position.

But the leaked Pentagon documents and recent statements by U.S. and Ukrainian officials make it clear that Ukraine’s planned spring offensive, already delayed into summer, would lack the previous element of surprise and encounter stronger Russian defenses than the offensives that recovered some of its lost territory last fall.

One leaked Pentagon document warned that “enduring Ukrainian deficiencies in training and munitions supplies probably will strain progress and exacerbate casualties during the offensive,” concluding that it would probably make smaller territorial gains than the fall offensives did.

How can a new offensive with mixed results and higher casualties put Ukraine in a stronger position at a currently non-existent negotiating table? If the offensive reveals that even huge quantities of Western military aid have failed to give Ukraine military superiority or reduce its casualties to a sustainable level, it could very well leave Ukraine in a weaker negotiating position, instead of a stronger one.

Meanwhile, offers to mediate peace talks have been pouring in from countries all over the world, from the Vatican to China to Brazil. It has been six months since the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley suggested publicly, after Ukraine’s military gains last fall, that the moment had come to negotiate from a position of strength. “When there’s an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it,” he said.

It would be doubly or triply tragic if, on top of the diplomatic failures that led to the war in the first place and the U.S. and U.K. undermining peace negotiations in April 2022, the chance for diplomacy that Milley wanted to seize is lost in the forlorn hope of attaining an even stronger negotiating position that is not really achievable.

If the U.S. persists in backing the plan for a Ukrainian offensive, instead of encouraging Zelenskyy to seize the moment for diplomacy, it will share considerable responsibility for the failure to seize the chance for peace, and for the appalling and ever-rising human costs of this war.

The experts who signed The New York Times statement recalled that, in 1997, 50 senior U.S. foreign policy experts warned President Bill Clinton that expanding NATO was a “policy error of historic proportions” and that, unfortunately, Clinton chose to ignore the warning. Biden, who is now pursuing his own policy error of historic proportions by prolonging this war, would do well to take the advice of today’s policy experts by helping to forge a diplomatic settlement and making the United States a force for peace in the world.

* * *

TIMELINE

1990 – U.S. assures Russia that NATO will not expand towards its border “…there would be no extension of…NATO one inch to the east,” says US Secretary of State James Baker.

1996 – U.S. weapons manufacturers form the Committee to Expand NATO, spending over $51 million lobbying Congress.

1997 – 50 foreign policy experts including former senators, retired military officers and diplomats sign an open letter stating NATO expansion to be “a policy error of historic proportions.”

1999 – NATO admits Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic to NATO. U.S. and NATO bomb Russia’s ally, Serbia.

2001 – U.S. unilaterally withdraws from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

2004 – Seven more Eastern European nations join NATO. NATO troops are now directly on Russia’s border.

2004 – Russia’s parliament passed a resolution denouncing NATO’s expansion. Putin responded by saying that Russia would “build our defense and security policy correspondingly.”

2008 – NATO leaders announced plans to bring Ukraine and Georgia, also on Russia’s borders, into NATO.

2009 – U.S. announced plans to put missile systems into Poland and Romania.

2014 – Legally elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, fled violence to Moscow. Russia views ouster as a coup by U.S. and NATO nations.

2016 – U.S. begins troop buildup in Europe.

2019 – U.S. unilaterally withdraws from Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty.

2020 – U.S. unilaterally withdraws from Open Skies Treaty.

2021 – Russia submits negotiation proposals while sending more forces to the border with Ukraine. U.S. and NATO officials reject the Russian proposals immediately.

Feb 24, 2022 – Russia invades Ukraine, starting the Russia-Ukraine War.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

There is a new and interesting development in Arkansas where attorneys for Lunden Alexis Roberts have prepared a list of witnesses for the upcoming proceedings involving Hunter Biden’s daughter, Navy.

As previously discussed, Hunter Biden is seeking to reduce child support payments and has balked at Navy being able to use the Biden name. If successful, this could get a lot worse for Hunter in his alleged efforts to conceal his past income.

On the list are business partners at the center of the influence peddling scandal.

(Thank you to the reader who sent this possibly prophetic intersection picture).

On the list are business partners who are connected to millions of dollars acquired from foreign interests in China, Ukraine and other countries. Also on the list is New York City art gallery owner Georges Bergès who continues to sell his art.  Bergès has reportedly pushed back on congressional efforts to reveal details on these proceeds and buyers even though former government ethicists have raised concerns over the sales.

The costs of these proceedings and high-priced legal team would seem to undermine claims of financial distress by Biden. However, by putting his financial worth at issue, Hunter has opened up a new front in battling over the disclosure of his past dealings. Some of his past associates are reportedly cooperating with House investigators in tracking foreign payments.

Even the Washington Post has belatedly published an editorial admitting that this is all a serious concern over influence peddling. In an editorial titled  “Millions flowed to Biden family members. Don’t pretend it doesn’t matter.”

It was a bittersweet moment for many of us who have been writing about these dealings for years as newspapers like the Post downplayed the scandal or the authenticity of the laptop. Media outlets like National Public Radio (NPR)  declared that it “not want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.” These disclosures have been forced into the public despite the best efforts of the Post and other media.  Indeed, recently the Post’s Philip Bump derided the House investigation as a “fishing expedition . . .  it’s nearly all innuendo, a big corkboard with lots of pictures but little interconnecting string.” His “witchhunt” attack was then repeated by others at the Post.

Despite these efforts, Hunter Biden appears to doing his level best to force the issue in Arkansas. It is not clear if the court will call any of these witnesses. However, since Hunter has put his finances at issue, some disclosures will need to be made.

As for Navy, she is still uncertain if the court will allow her to use the Biden name despite her father’s efforts to the contrary. While it does not appear that Hunter (who lives in a California mansion) is financially broke, his actions (and those of the President and First Lady) toward this little girl show a moral deficit and delinquency that is abundantly obvious.

Authored by Andrea Widburg via AmericanThinker.com,

Like all Democrat-run cities that turned against police in 2020, New York City has a crime problem, including an explosive uptick in shoplifting. Fortunately for New York City store owners, Mayor Eric Adams has a plan. The problem is that, as with all lefty plans, it will cost money and almost certainly be completely useless.

Ever since the George Floyd riots caused leftist-managed cities to defund their police, all sorts of crimes have increased. In New York City, the crime that’s really taken off is shoplifting.

In the first eight months of 2021, shoplifting in New York increased by 30% over rates in 2020. Of course, one could argue that slowly ending the lockdown was what made the difference. However, that wouldn’t explain what happened in 2022. In that year, shoplifting went up by another 45% over rates in 2021, with an even better marker being the fact that it was 275% higher than a decade or so earlier.

Shoplifting may be a non-violent crime, but it has a disastrous effect on people in the community because stores, including big box stores, respond to theft in two different ways: First, they raise their prices; then when that proves ineffective, they pick up their marbles and go home by shutting down stores. In San Francisco, for example, Walgreens closed five stores due to shoplifting. Target, meanwhile, predicts that retail crime will cost it as much as $1.3 billion:

Crime-battered retail giant Target said it expects to suffer as much as a $1.3 billion hit to its bottom line because of “theft and organized crime,” according to the company’s first-quarter earnings report released Wednesday.

The Minneapolis-based chain said its profit will be squeezed by “$500 million more than what we saw last year” – when the company lost as much as $800 million from “inventory shrink.”

Considering that Target voiced its full-throated support for BLM and dug deep in its pocket to support the communist organization, one can’t help but notice an “actions have consequences” scenario at work. That’s a shame because Target used to be a very nice place. Now, though, aside from shoplifting, lots of people (me included) are fed up with its Pride shenanigans, which it’s now aimed at children. But I digress…

New York mayor Eric Adams seems to have been feeling the heat from merchants in New York City, so his office has announced a “crackdown on shoplifting plan.”

As always, though, when the government steps in to help, the devil is in the details:

Clown world intensifies. 🤡🌎

NYC plan to “crackdown” on shoplifting. 🤨 pic.twitter.com/4MHcnBgucn

— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) May 20, 2023

And yes, that screen shot is real, not a Photoshop. According to Fox 5’s full report,

The new crackdown includes giving first-time offenders intervention programs instead of prosecution, de-escalation training for retail employees, establishing neighborhood retail watch groups to share information about a theft in real-time with one another and the police, and installing kiosks in stores to connect would-be thieves with social service programs.

One of the things that everyone has noticed about shoplifters is that they’re not starved, Dickensian-style waifs stealing a loaf of bread to survive. Instead, they’re organized gangs that go in and steal merchandise that has a good retail value on the street:

San Francisco pic.twitter.com/klaiesGE2C

— Clown World ™ 🤡 (@ClownWorld_) May 16, 2023

Or if they’re eating what they steal, it’s party time, not starvation time:

Why is Walmart struggling in urban areas?

pic.twitter.com/jDQlStgBWp

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) May 19, 2023

What’s happening is organized crime:

Last Walmart in North Portland Closing Down … they cannot overcome the losses from shoplifting.

The people of Portland voted for this so retail stores are exiting. 🤡 🌎

🔊 pic.twitter.com/EyE6jrRTFJ

— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) May 19, 2023

In other words, little police kiosks promising social services (which will augment all the posters about social services in the crime-ridden NY subway) are not going to change things. Nor will friendly little “intervention programs” affect what is hardcore criminal activity. The NYC plan is taking a flyswatter to an out-of-control wild boar.

I would say that the people of NYC deserve better but, actually, they don’t. This is what they voted for. It’s not just that Adams garnered 80.4% of the vote in Manhattan, 76% in the Bronx, 70.8% in Brooklyn, and 59.8% in Queens, with only Staten Island showing the good sense to vote for Curtis Sliwa (66.4% of the votes). It’s also that a total of only 1,125,000 turned out to vote, out of a city with a population that’s close to 9,000,000.

The only ones I feel for are the conservatives (some of whom I count among my good friends) who took the time and made the effort to vote. As to those people, I’ve heard that Florida’s a nice place, as are most of the southern states.

When it comes to travel, some tourists spare no expense. And some cities are well suited to attract them.

From the luxurious desert city of Dubai to the city of light and love, Paris, many international travelers today are looking to tick the crème de la crème of destinations off their bucket lists. In some cases, they’re seeking out the opulent experiences they missed out on when the pandemic brought the world to a halt.

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist’s Freny Fernandez and Bhabna Banerjee use the latest research by the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) to highlight the top 10 cities where international travelers spent the most in 2022.

Cities of Opulence

Last year, Dubai took top spot, followed by nearby Doha, Qatar.

Singapore and Macau represented East Asia, and New York was the sole city from the Americas on the list.

It’s worth noting that this list differs somewhat from overall tourism spending, which would include domestic travel spending as well. Large countries like the United States and China fare better in that ranking.

City Spotlight: Destinations Favored by Big Spenders

When you think of luxury travel, you think of five-star hotels, Michelin-star restaurants, luxury retail outlets, and many other premium experiences. And these cities offered their international travelers just that.

#1. Dubai

From the Burj Khalifa, currently the world’s tallest building, to the desert excursions and yacht cruises, Dubai offers extravagant experiences for international visitors. The city’s reputation for tax-free, high-end shopping and its commitment to providing a luxurious experience has made it a top travel destination for luxury shoppers from around the world.

Location is another factor in the city’s success. Dubai sits at the natural crossroads between Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, and is home to one of the world’s busiest, well-connected airports.

International travelers spent close to $30 billion in the city in 2022.

#3. London

London has long been a preferred location for the ultra-wealthy, and as a result, the city has an abundance of amenities for well-heeled travelers. For one, London is home to more five star hotels than any other city. As well, London offers ultra-wealthy travelers access to a wide range of high-end designer retailers, as well as world-famous museums, galleries, and landmarks.

Of course, the UK’s largest city also sees a high overall volume of tourists overall, which adds to the $16 billion global visitors spent in the city in 2022.

#4. Macau

Known as the Las Vegas of Asia, Macau’s gambling hub has been a magnet for international tourists for years. However, as the city began re-imagining its tourism strategies post-pandemic, it has grown stronger as an international tourist destination.

Outside tourists brought in $15.6 billion in 2022, and that number is only expected to multiply further over the next decade. This growth is being fueled by China and Hong Kong, which account for the lion’s share of visits.

Note: Although Macau is now a part of China, it remains a Special Administrative Region under the “One Country, Two Systems” principle.

Transforming Travel Trends

The global travel industry continues to recover from the pandemic, which is good news for the many nations that economically rely on tourism.

As travel restrictions were lifted, many tourists flocked to remote destinations that were less traveled. However, this WTTC research is proof that the world’s iconic cities are making their way back onto tourist itineraries once again.

Authored by Roger Kimball via American Greatness,

Suppose a document drops in the wilderness and no one is around to hear it. Does it make a sound?

I submit that John Durham just tested this Bishop Berkeleyesque query. The special counsel spent four years beavering away in the forests of the deep state and what did he produce?

Three hundred pages telling us what, for the most part, we already knew and with the result that exactly nothing, apart from a little hand wringing, will happen. 

We already knew that James Comey, Robert Mueller, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, John Brennan, Susan Rice, Michael Sussmann, Kevin Clinesmith, and all the other characters in and around the Russia Collusion Delusion had fabricated the story of Trump’s supposed connection with Russia out of whole cloth. 

We already knew that they had gone out of their way to protect Hillary Clinton. 

We knew that there was no predicate for obtaining a FISA warrant against Carter Page (one of many thousands of such warrants), thus opening a back door into the Trump campaign. 

We knew that the surveillance apparatus of the regime had been weaponized to prevent Donald Trump from being elected and then, when he surprised everyone by winning anyway, to taint his administration and render him radioactive.  

What should we make of Durham’s non-revelatory revelations? I think that, wittingly or not, they were just a big exercise in track-covering, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Well, nothing beyond the sound and fury, anyway.

Still, Durham’s bulletin is useful as a marker of the futility in which we labor. André Gide touched on this point when he reminded us that “Toutes choses sont dites déjà, mais comme personne n’écoute, il faut toujours recommencer.” Over the past five or six years, virtually everything that Durham said in his report had already been said. But because no one was listening, it is necessary to start again and say it once more. 

In this spirit, I am going to say again some things I have said elsewhere, beginning with what has become my ritual invocation of British Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s observation that a week is a long time in politics. That’s time enough, as T. S. Eliot said in another context, “for a hundred indecisions, And for a hundred visions and revisions, Before the taking of a toast and tea.”

Until the night of March 5, 2023, I suspected that “The Donald Trump Show,” which has been such blockbuster entertainment, might have entered its final season. That’s still possible, of course. The people clamoring for its cancellation are many and vociferous. Moreover, they have another concession with which they propose to entertain us: “The Ron DeSantis Deliverance.” Someday, I’d like to see that show myself.

I wonder, though, about the most profitable time to air it. 2024? Perhaps. But I think the jury is still out on that. We’ll know more after DeSantis finally announces what he has already made clear, namely that he, too, is running for the presidency in 2024. He will, if the past is any guide, get a bump in the polls. But at the moment, anyway, I am inclined to think that 2024 belongs to the Donald. Why? There are many reasons.

One vivid reason was vouchsafed us during the final hours of the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) program in National Harbor, Maryland, in March. It was then that Trump addressed the crowd. C-SPAN described the speech as “remarks.” To me, the word “remarks” suggests something brief and casual. Trump’s performance was long and, for Trump, well-prepared.

As usual with the former president, the talk was peppered with digressions and offhand observations. But he was clearly following a script. Chris Christie, formerly an ally, sighed that the room was only half full (was it?) and that Trump was “not what he used to be.” Opinions about that vary. I thought the talk bristled with rhetorical electricity. And in terms of substance, it was one of the most forthright and powerful political speeches I’ve heard. 

Earlier that day, Trump had won the CPAC straw poll with 62 percent of the vote. DeSantis was the runner-up with 20 percent. As of May 19, with a half a dozen Republican candidates in the field, Trump leads by 42 points. Is that significant? I don’t know. It’s early days. DeSantis hasn’t even officially declared yet, A week is a long time, etc., etc.

But right now, as of May 20, I would say this about the 2024 race on the Republican side: There are two plausible candidates: Trump and DeSantis.

DeSantis has the blessing of the donor class and Conservatism, Inc. He’s a great governor and would probably make an effective president.

Trump has the unwavering support of the MAGA millions and most allotropes of the dissident Right. There’s plenty of exasperation about Trump, not least among those who worked with him in his first term. He’s a difficult, demanding, and mercurial person. But his CPAC speech (and, more recently, his performance at a CNN “townhall” with Kaitlan Collins) demonstrated why he’s beloved by his supporters and feared and hated by his opponents.

Trump said many bold and controversial things in the course of his speech.

I’ll concentrate on two themes.

The first—it was the thing that really set heads spinning—revolved around the word “retribution.” 

“In 2016,” he said, “I declared, I am your voice. Today, I add, I am your warrior, I am your justice, and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.” 

And just in case you missed that last bit, he repeated it. “I am your retribution.”

The pundits love-hated that, just as they were appalled by this promise: “I will totally obliterate the deep state.” I think he meant it, too. “I will fire the unelected bureaucrats and shadow forces who have weaponized our justice system. . . . I will put the people back in charge of this country again.”

’Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Could he actually do it? That’s a very good question. His track record during his first term was impressive but not dispositive, partly because he was surrounded by the swamp and its denizens. Really, he didn’t know any better. He came to office as an outsider, a naïf. He actually thought that Jim Mattis and Rex Tillerson were on his side. Imagine that. 

He has been disabused of those sentiments, though who exactly he can rely on as allies remains an open question. Personnel will once again be a critical problem for Trump were he to reoccupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Here’s a bit of unsolicited advice that I have for the former president should he be elected again: Stay out of Washington as much as you can. Stop the newspapers. Have your mail forwarded.

Washington really is a swamp and it will consume you. And here are a few particular bits of advice: 

1) Have the inauguration in Mar-a-Lago.

2) Govern from Florida as much as you can. 

3) If you decide to indulge in the theater of the State of the Union Address as it has evolved, deliver it from, say, Kansas. 

4) Disband the FBI. We should never have allowed a national police force to come into being. 

Move the bits of the government you can’t actually destroy to other parts of the country.

Do these things instantly—the day you take office. The deep state will howl. The bureaucrats will oppose you. The lawyers will sue you. Do it anyway. Act first, deal with the consequences later. 

Conduct metaphorical dawn-raids on their people and institutions just as they weaponized the Justice Department against you and your supporters. That would not only be the retribution you seek, it would also be reciprocity. Speed and thoroughness will be of the essence. If you hesitate, if you are half-hearted, you will be lost.

These are points I have made before. The focus should be on eclipsing Washington, D.C. as the seat of government. It has long been obvious to candid observers that there is something deeply dysfunctional about that overwhelmingly Democratic, welfare-addicted city. It is a partisan sinkhole. Jefferson wanted the capital moved from New York to Washington in part to bring it closer to the South, but also to place it somewhere that was officially neutral. There is nothing neutral about Washington today. The city has some impressive architecture and urban vistas. They should be preserved and staffed as tourist attractions. But the reins of power should be relocated.

The more I think about our situation, the more I believe the only hope for the republic is to downgrade the place of Washington in our public life. The business of Washington is to make government bigger—forever. That is not what the people, who pay for it, want. Legitimacy is draining out of our governing institutions at an alarming rate. Stanching that debilitating flow requires that we redirect our attention away from the greedy puppet show in Washington to the true source of legitimacy, which is with the people.

Trump is one of the few people with the temerity to attempt such a thing. Perhaps he can appease some of his critics by proposing we rename Washington to George Floyd City. I would be OK with that. In any event, the actual government of the country should be moved to some neutral ground, out of the overwhelmingly corrupt cesspool that is Washington.

The other bit of Trump’s CPAC speech that I want to mention concerns NATO. Trump did not, as some commenters asserted, “muse about Russia blowing up the NATO headquarters.” Rather, he talked about the folly of NATO spending billions to construct a huge headquarters for itself. Would they not have been better advised to construct a hardened bunker? After all, Trump pointed out, Russia could destroy the shiny new headquarters with a single missile.

Bill Kristol, seizing on the idea that Trump was musing about blowing up NATO headquarters, took to Twitter to make “the most obvious point: This man cannot be our next president.” Kristol was also aghast at Trump’s call for an “all-European NATO, with the United States as an ally but not a member.” “One of the problems with the involvement of the United States in NATO,” he said, “is that it dilutes the nationalist impulse.” Can you believe that? He actually praised “the nationalist impulse.” How Hitlerian can you get?

Unfortunately for Bill Kristol, though, those last observations come not from Trump (though he would probably agree with them) but from someone else named Kristol: Irving Kristol, Bill’s father, who in 1983 wrote an essay called “What’s Wrong With NATO?” After the Soviet Union fell, Irving Kristol went on to express doubts about the future role for NATO in European politics altogether.

If that seems surprising, it’s only because you have failed to appreciate just how long a week in politics can be.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via RealClear Politics,

The most recent liberal ABC News/Washington Post poll showed President Joe Biden’s approval rating at 36 percent – the lowest in history for a president at this point in his first term.

Biden’s low popularity is no mystery.

He inherited energy independence, affordable gas prices, historically low interest rates, low inflation, calm overseas, a low crime rate, and a largely closed border with legal-only immigration.

And then Biden destroyed that inheritance.

He has begged illiberal foreign governments to pump oil he refuses to drill domestically for.

He spiked inflation at the highest rate in over 40 years.

Home interest rates have skyrocketed from less than 3% to 7%.

He nearly doubled the price of gasoline.

His hare-brained retreat from Afghanistan marked the greatest humiliation of the American military in the last half-century.

Kabul is now selling billions of dollars’ worth of abandoned American equipment to terrorists and anti-American regimes.

After that fiasco, Biden foolhardily played down a possible “minor” Russia invasion of Ukraine. He implored Russia to exempt some American institutions from its cyber-attack target list.

No wonder an empowered Russian President Vladimir Putin went into Ukraine.

Biden’s family is corrupt from top to bottom.

Its influence peddling schemes increasingly are targets of congressional investigations. Biden himself is explicitly mentioned by his son Hunter as the recipient of a 10% commission on monies the family syndicate leveraged from foreign interests.

Biden promised “unity.” Instead, he habitually smears half the country as “semi-fascists” and “ultra-MAGA” extremists.

Biden is cognitively challenged and often incoherent. And he is now losing support in the polls from African Americans, once his most loyal constituency.

In response, Biden does what he has always done for some 40 years: mouth wild racist demagoguery.

This graduation season, Biden deliberately chose Howard University to scare its Black graduates into believing the greatest threat to their aspirations is “white supremacy” – but that he, Biden, has been their protector in fighting it.

Note the existential threats Biden deliberately omits.

Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are flooding over a border Biden deliberately destroyed. Millions of incoming poor will vie for limited federal and state support with Americans who are in need.

Since Biden was elected, there have been nearly 7 million illegal entries.

Some 100,000 Americans now die each year from Mexican-produced fentanyl and other opioids shipped across a wide-open border.

Biden did not mention that nearly 10,000 African Americans are murdered each year, over 90% of them killed by other African Americans.

Biden first should heal his own racism before he fabricates it in others.

He fueled his early Senate career with homages to southern Democratic segregationists such as Senator James O. Eastland, D-Miss. Biden even bragged that Eastland “never called me ‘boy.'” Biden gave eulogies for former Dixiecrat Sen. Strom Thurmond and former Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd.

Of school busing, a younger Senator Biden thundered, “My children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle.”

Biden in 2008 patronized former President Barack Obama in racist terms as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

In 2012, Biden condescended to a group of accomplished Black professionals that the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, would “put y’all back in chains.”

As a presidential candidate in 2020, he dismissed two Black journalists, respectively with the putdowns “you ain’t Black” and “junkie.”

His fabricated “Corn Pop” he-man autobiographical tales are utterly racist.

As president he has referred to two prominent people of color as “boy.” He still uses the term “Negro” to refer to Blacks.

Biden never cites data to support his wild accusations that white supremacy poses the nation’s greatest threat.

The 2020 riots, the lengthiest in our history, left up to 40 people dead, destroyed $2 billion in property, led to 14,000 arrests, spanned 120 days of mass looting, and arson, and saw mobs torching police precincts, federal courthouses, and an historic church.

That violence was engineered by radicals in Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

In the January 6 Capitol protests, the only person confirmed to have been killed at that event was an unarmed military veteran and Trump supporter, Ashli Babbitt. She was lethally shot by a Capitol police officer for the misdemeanor of attempting to enter through a broken window.

If “white supremacy” is our “greatest” terrorist threat, surely crime statistics would reveal such an existential peril.

Yet federal hate- and interracial-crime data show that so-called whites are considerably unrepresented demographically in such racially motivated violence.

Far from galvanizing the public, Biden’s monotonous racial demagoguery is turning it off.

The military suffers a vast drop in enlistments that began once Biden’s Pentagon brass, without evidence, likewise began demagoguing about supposed “white rage” in the ranks.

Only 37% of independents in a recent poll now support Biden. Some 70% of the public in other polls opposes a second Biden run.

So on spec, a panicked Biden now turns to what he has done for decades – inflammatory racial demagoguery.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

A Bud Light distributor in Alabama issued a public plea to bring back customers who boycotted the brand after it produced a can with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney’s face.

Steve Tatum, with the Montgomery-based Bama Budweiser distributor, deployed a radio advertisement for several area stations, pleading with customers to purchase Bud Light again.

In April and during the first week of May, sales of Bud Light were down significantly, while sales of other Anheuser-Busch products also dropped amid the Mulvaney backlash.

“We too at Bama Budweiser are upset about it and have made our feelings known to the top leadership at Anheuser-Busch,” Tatum said in the ad, according to multiple news reports.

“The voice of the consumer has been heard, and Anheuser-Busch has taken action.”

‘#BudLightPartner’

Like Anheuser-Busch’s leadership, Tatum also tried to distance Bud Light from Mulvaney, a biological male who had posted the custom-made Bud Light can and used a hashtag “#BudLightPartner” in early April, drawing significant ire from consumers and conservative celebrities. Several popular country singers, including Travis Tritt and John Rich, said they wouldn’t serve the beer, while Kid Rock posted a video of him shooting up cases of Bud Light.

“We at Bama Budweiser, an independent wholesaler, employ around 100 people who live here, work here, and our children go to school here,” Tatum said in the ad.

“We do not, and as I said before, did not support this issue involving Dylan Mulvaney. There was one single can made. It was not for sale and wasn’t properly approved. As a result, the Bud Light brand has new leadership.”

Tatum added:

“Dylan Mulvaney is not under contract with Bud Light. The videos you may have seen are Mulvaney’s own social media posts that went viral and many web-based news outlets have distorted the story. You deserve to know the truth, and life is too short to let a couple of individuals decide what you can eat or drink or spend your hard-earned money on. And remember, making friends is our business, not enemies.”

Drop in Sales

Latest industry data shows that Bud Light’s sales dropped in the first week of May, falling 23.6 percent in the week ending May 6, reported Beer Business Daily using Nielsen IQ data. In the final week of April, sales for the beer dropped 23.3 percent, the data show.

“Trends aren’t getting much worse, but certainly not getting any better either,” Beer Business Daily wrote in a commentary on the figures.

Tatum told AL.com that he’s received positive feedback for his ad campaign. However, he said that there has been no response from Anheuser-Busch or Bud Light corporate officials.

“I’m just trying to look after Bama Budweiser,” he said. “I’ve worked too hard to give it all away.”

The distributor added to Newsweek that “I felt like we had to get a message out there,” adding: “We are tied to a corporation, but that’s not necessarily our beliefs in our market here in Alabama.”

Sales volumes for Anheuser-Busch products also dropped 9.7 percent for the first week in May, up from the 11.4 percent decline in late April, according to industry data. Anheuser-Busch, which has headquarters in the Netherlands, also makes Budweiser, Michelob, Stella Artois, and Beck’s, among other beers.

‘Misinformation and Confusion’

Anheuser-Busch CEO Michel Doukeris told the Financial Times in a recent interview that his company believes the Bud Light boycott was triggered by “misinformation and confusion” circulating on social media and sought to distance his firm from Mulvaney. He said that Mulvaney wasn’t part of an official marketing campaign and that “one can” was produced with Mulvaney’s face.

“It was one post. It was not an advertisement,” Doukeris told the outlet.

He alleged viral videos of billboards with images of the Bud Light can with Mulvaney’s face on it inserted “electronically,” although he did not address why Mulvaney wrote the hashtag on social media suggesting a partnership.

Initially, Anheuser-Busch USA CEO Brendan Whitworth released a statement that did not address the boycott or the Mulvaney partnership.

The company “never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people,” he said in a statement, which was criticized by conservatives.

In the meantime, Anheuser-Busch InBev had its stock downgraded recently by an HSBC analyst who said the firm is now dealing with a “Bud Light crisis” of sorts. There are “deeper problems” than Anheuser-Busch would like to admit publicly after its marketing engagement with the transgender influencer became a hot topic, the analyst said.

‘The Tide Has Turned’

While some analysts and researchers say that boycotts of large corporations rarely work, a former Anheuser-Busch, Anson Frericks, said last week that the Bud Light one is actually working.

“Now, the tide has turned. A poll conducted earlier this year shows that 68 percent of Americans think that companies that speak out on social issues do it as a marketing ploy,” he wrote.

“And a study out earlier this month shows that Americans are much more likely to distrust institutions they view as politicized—even when they take political positions that align with their views. In today’s heated political environment, the surest course for companies—particularly those in high-visibility, competitive markets—is to focus on their brand and stay out of the debates.”

The Epoch Times has contacted Anheuser-Busch multiple times for comment about the sales and controversy.

In retaliation over a sweeping US ban on selling advanced chip-making technology to China, Beijing is now banning major Chinese firms from doing business with Micron Technology, claiming that its products pose a ‘major national-security risk,’ the Wall Street Journal reports.

On Sunday, the Cyberspace Administration of China said that Micron failed a national security review, and that its products contain “significant security risks” that would affect national security. The agency has warned operators of key Chinese information infrastructure (telecom firms and state-owned banks in particular) against purchasing Micron products.

“We are evaluating the conclusion and assessing our next steps,” Micron told the Journal. “We look forward to continuing to engage in discussions with Chinese authorities.”

The Chinese ban came less than two months after Beijing announced an investigation on imports from Micron, the largest memory-chip maker in the U.S., in what seemed a political gesture aimed at hitting back at a sweeping ban Washington put in place late last year on selling advanced chip-making technology to China. 

Chinese officials believe certain American companies lobbied the Biden administration to institute the ban. The Micron probe suggested Beijing zeroed in on Micron as a particular target. It also comes as China has broadly ratcheted up pressure on foreign businesses in a bid to fortify its economy from foreign influence. -WSJ

According to Lester Ross, a Beijing-based lawyer at WilmerHale which advises US companies doing business in China, the impact could be broader than initially thought.

“Other domestic customers may also consider this to be a political signal to stop buying, and even replace, their products,” he said.

The action against Micron follows Beijing’s condemnation of a recent statement issued by President Joe Biden and the leaders of six other countries which have pledged to take action against the transfer of sensitive technology to China, and to protect nations from what they’ve characterized as Chinese intimidation tactics.

China, meanwhile, called the Group of Seven as fostering “Western rules” that lack international credibility.

According to anonymous Chinese officials, Beijing is pondering whether to send Commerce Minister Wang Wentao to Washington DC to meet with his US counterpart, instead of sending him to Detroit for a meeting of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation trade ministers.

“Such a bilateral meeting must be conducted on the basis of mutual respect,” said one of the officials.

On Sunday, Biden told reporters after the G-7 meeting that the US wants to open more lines of communication with China. “Then this silly balloon that was carrying two freight cars worth of spy equipment was flying over the United States and it got shot down and everything changed in terms of talking to one another,” he said. “I think you’re going to see that begin to thaw very shortly.”

China has been looking for ways to retaliate against intensified U.S. sanctions against Chinese companies. It has held back its required green light for mergers that involve American companies such as Intel as the U.S.-China technology war intensifies.

But Chinese officials have also been wary of punching too hard as to further limit Chinese companies’ access to advanced Western technology.

Micron represents an easy target for Beijing because Chinese companies can easily switch out its products for those made by competitors such as Samsung and SK Hynix, according to analysts and Western business executives who have consulted with Chinese authorities. -WSJ

Approximately 10% of Micron revenue comes from China, according to Gavekal Dragonomics.

By Howard Wang of Convoy Investments

The US debt ceiling crisis

Currently there is considerable political tension and bickering surrounding the US debt ceiling, resembling the dinner table dynamics of a financially troubled and debt laden family. Over the past few years, I have frequently discussed the escalating US sovereign debt level due to its growing significance in shaping politics, economics, and markets. Struggles like the ongoing debt ceiling issue are likely to become a regular part of our society.

In this letter, I provide context regarding the current debt ceiling impasse, which I believe will have limited short-term impact. More importantly, I delve into the long-term outlook on US debt, discuss some potential solutions to address this issue, and examine the implications for markets and the economy.

Near-term impact of the debt ceiling

While the current round of debt ceiling talks make for good political theatrics, it is unlikely to have substantial practical ramifications on the economy. In the short term, the market anticipates that the US government will likely resolve this crisis. Market indicators suggest a low 1% per year probability of default on US debt over the next five years, slightly higher than during the 2011 and 2013 debt ceiling crises

Markets expect the debt ceiling to be raised without significant practical consequences. The impasse has had minimal impact on US borrowing costs, which have continued to slowly trend down since the end of last year in line with inflation.

Additionally, the US stock market maintains its upward trajectory in 2023.

The relatively benign outlook is likely due to fact that the underlying economics of the US budget were greatly improved by the pandemic, which allowed the US to secure low financing rates while printing money to generate inflation, and boost GDP growth and federal tax income. However, as indicated by the following chart, this positive trajectory is rapidly deteriorating due to rising interest rates, a return to more normal levels of inflation, and a slowing economy.

This pattern is also evident when considering the total debt level as a percentage of GDP. After the initial spike caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the ratio steadily declined but is now on the rise once again.

I largely agree with market sentiment that the current debt ceiling does not pose a significant immediate threat. However, I believe we are approaching a critical juncture where mounting debt levels, increasing financing costs, a slowing economy, and an expanding government footprint could compound and create an exponential problem.

What is the end game of continuously increasing the debt ceiling?

As the US has the ability to print its own money, the debt ceiling can be repeatedly raised for the time being. One key metric for assessing the sustainability is the cost of servicing debt as a percentage of the US federal government’s income (taxes). This is analogous to examining the monthly payments compared to income when determining whether one can afford a house. Let’s consider the rough math:

The current debt stands at approximately 125% of GDP. At the current 4% treasury rate, debt servicing costs would amount to 5% of GDP per year once the 4% cost extends to all maturities, which will take some time.

The federal government collects 15-20% of GDP as tax revenue, a consistent figure since World War II.

This means that 25-33% of federal income would go toward debt servicing, which is high but still manageable. For instance, at the personal level, the recommended threshold for housing mortgage payment is typically 30% of income.

Presently, this ratio is actually a bit lower, at around 20% of federal income. Much of the existing debt carries lower interest rates locked in from the last few decades. However, this ratio will rise rapidly as we retire older, cheaper debt and replace it with more expensive new debt. The following chart illustrates the portion of federal income allocated to debt servicing. We are already experiencing the rapid upward swing.

This ratio would deteriorate further if total debt levels increase or if market financing costs rise. For example, at 200% of GDP and a 4% financing cost, interest payments would consume nearly half of federal income. Alternatively, if interest rates were to suddenly rise faster than our GDP growth rate, the total cost of rolling and raising new debt would increase. Either scenario could initiate a downward spiral toward a debt crisis, where the federal government needs to do substantial borrowing to service existing debt, all the while facing higher cost of financing due to the deteriorating balance sheet.

So, how significant is the debt problem we must address? The current debt ceiling stands at $31.4 trillion. According to projections from the US Congress, we will need to issue an additional $130 trillion over the next 30 years, projected to reach around 200% of GDP.

Issuing and managing $130 trillion in debt will pose the most substantial financial challenge for the next generation of Americans. Debt levels have now reached a point where they significantly impact politics, the economy, and financial markets. Gone are the days when Congress, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve could operate relatively independently. We are already witnessing conflicts in managing objectives such as inflation, financial stability, recession, and the debt ceiling. These conflicts will only worsen. For instance, I believe the Federal Reserve will gradually shift its focus from managing inflation to assisting the Treasury department in managing national debt, albeit discreetly.

Debt has become pervasive, affecting nearly every aspect of our economy and government. The following chart  provides a rough illustration of the interconnectedness that previously existed as more independent components.

So how do we deal with the debt?

The following are some of the levers that will determine whether we handle the debt issue in a healthy manner
or allow it to spiral out of control. With the exception of the last lever, all the proposed solutions have painful
side effects

1) Maintain higher inflation than interest rates

This approach would increase GDP income faster than interest rate costs, boosting income relative to debt. For example, post-Covid inflation has greatly benefited the US government’s budget as prices and income grew far faster than the cost of debt.

However, higher inflation often comes with higher borrowing costs and other economic challenges, as we have recently experienced. Therefore, we cannot rely solely on inflating away the debt. Instead, I expect the Federal Reserve to maintain steady moderate inflation slightly higher than their 2% target, likely around that of 10-year treasury rates (around 3-4%).

2) Decrease the value of the dollar

Lowering the value of the dollar is similar to generating domestic inflation in foreign exchange terms. This approach would enhance US competitiveness, reduce trade deficits, and increase GDP. Following a significant surge during Covid, the dollar has begun to depreciate, and I anticipate that the Federal Reserve will encourage a gradual decline in its value.

On the flip side, it is crucial to manage the dollar carefully since its stability has played a significant role in its status as the reserve currency, affording numerous benefits to the US. Additionally, as the dollar weakens, the US will experience imported inflation, which will gradually erode the average American’s standard of living. This cure will not come without painful side effects.

3) Use quantitative easing to keep borrowing costs artificially low

This has the obvious benefit of allowing the US to manage its own borrowing costs and to lock in longer term debt when long rates are appropriately low. Simultaneously, lower interest rates encourage shor-tterm growth, further boosting federal income. This strategy worked exceedingly well in the 2010s.

This strategy enables the US to manage its borrowing costs and secure long-term debt when long-term rates are suitably low. Simultaneously, lower interest rates stimulated short-term growth, further increasing federal income. This approach proved highly effective during the 2010s. However, it is worth noting that since the US government would essentially be purchasing its own bonds, there are limitations to this strategy. After all, the Federal Reserve cannot own the entire market. Since Covid, the Federal Reserve has held approximately 30% of all US debt.

I suspect this figure could be increased if necessary. Nevertheless, this strategy must be employed strategically as there are limitations. Carefully managing the financing costs is crucial because of its significant impact on the future of our federal balance sheet. A mere 1% change in financing rates can drastically alter the trajectory of our budget, as shown below in the projections from the congressional budget office.

4) Increase taxes

Raising taxes on a given size of GDP would augment federal tax income. Historically, the US government has collected roughly 15-20% of GDP as tax revenue since World War II.

Increasing taxes will create economic pain and face much political resistance, but may become necessary if the debt situation becomes dire enough. So we should anticipate potential increases in income taxes, wealth taxes, estate taxes, property taxes, and tariffs.

5) Reduce government spending

Reducing government spending is challenging since, aside from spikes and drops during wartime and times like the Covid pandemic, the size of our government has consistently expanded. As our country ages and programs like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid become more expensive, we can expect government spending to continue growing.

Implementing any cuts will be painful and face considerable political resistance. However, we may find ourselves with no choice but to tighten our belts, so we should prepare for potential reductions in discretionary spending in the future, along with associated economic pains.

6) Related to above, semi-defaults on certain obligations like social security

I anticipate that we may witness soft defaults on mandatory spending, such as scaling back on Social Security. For instance, the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to deplete within the next ten years due to deficits.

Consequently, the program is anticipated to accumulate massive annual deficits, reaching up to $9 trillion per year by 2090, exacerbating the existing US debt issues.

It is highly likely that the next generation of US retirees will not receive the Social Security benefits promised to them.

7) Increase real GDP

This is by far the most desirable solution, as it entails no downsides. It is also how the US managed to overcome its World War II debts. The success of this approach largely hinges on the US’s ability to maintain leadership in cutting-edge fields like AI. The provided chart showcases the long-term evolution of the US stock market as a proxy to the US economy. US stock market capitalization as % of the world experienced continuous growth from 1900 to 1970 as the US emerged as the world superpower after the two World Wars. Subsequently, the rest of the world rebuilt and advanced, with countries like Japan rising to prominence and taking away global share. Since 1990, the US has once again regained global market share, largely on the back of technological advancements.

I remain optimistic about the future of the US economy, primarily due to the massive leverage potential in technology, which tends to be a winner-takes-all industry. The head start and ecosystem that the US has cultivated in fields like AI provide our greatest hope for addressing our government’s precarious finances.

I believe that US debt will pose a significant problem requiring a combination of all seven levers to resolve. The more we can rely on the last lever of real economic growth, the less painful the process will be. I believe the US will grapple with substantial debt issues while simultaneously serving as a beacon of global growth and innovation.

From an investment standpoint, I expect high volatility, characterized by both extreme highs and lows. Diversification of currencies and assets will be crucial, especially as central banks are forced to become more prominent players in the market, resulting in more black swan events. However, I believe maintaining exposure to US equities, particularly in technology sectors at reasonable valuations, will be key to long-term success.

Because of my expectation of higher-than-anticipated inflation, I think it is important to hedge against inflation directly through commodities, TIPS (Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities), and a small allocation to gold or cryptocurrencies if you believe in the long-term potential of that asset class. Specifically, switching to TIPS early on is recommended due to its relatively small market size compared to nominal bonds, which I hold a bearish view on in the long term. I believe gone are the days of the traditional 60/40 stock/bond portfolio. You’ll like need a 60/40 portfolio of stocks and inflation hedge assets.