Category Archives: Budget

Fwd: Denmark-cost of Social liberalism & Islam

Salute the Danish Flag – It’s a Symbol of Western Freedom

 By Susan MacAllen

 

In 1978-1979, I was living and studying in  Denmark ..
But in 1978 – even in  Copenhagen , one didn’t see Muslim immigrants.

The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism, one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 – a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time.

The rest of  Europe  saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.

Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies – it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arr ival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism.

How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets – all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

By the 1990’s the growing urban Muslim population was obvious – and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious.

Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of  Denmark ‘s liberal way of life, the Danes – once so welcoming – began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam a s incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

The  New York  Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in  Denmark  would explode In the article they reported:

‘Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.’ ‘Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.

”Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population.

A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.’ ‘Forced marriag es – promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death – are one problem’

‘Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark ‘s Muslim population grows large enough – a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of  Denmark  in 40 years will be Muslim.’

It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws.

An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the  US  : some Muslims in  Denmark  who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while20others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark , a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to  Sweden  – before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa – who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers – and I wonder what she would say today.

In 2001,  Denmark  elected the most conservative government in some 70 years – one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered Immigration. Today  Denmark  has the strictest immigration policies in  Europe  . ( Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of ‘racism’ by liberal media across Europe – even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)

If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes.. You must pass a test on  Denmark ‘s history, culture, and a Danish language test.

You must live in  Denmark  for 7 years before applying for citizenship.. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into  Denmark  , you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won’t find it so easy any more to move your friends and family to  Denmark  with you.

You will not be allowed to build a mosque in  Copenhagen  . Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in  Denmark  , they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren’t..

In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly o f the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government’s welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. ‘We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration.

The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,’ he said..
 

A large thorn in the side of  Denmark  ‘s imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, ‘The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,’ Hvilshøj says, ‘There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.’ And on Musl im immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, ‘In my view,  Denmark  should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.’

Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark , Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen , stating that the family’s thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time – in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.&n bsp;

Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether  Denmark  survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.

And meanwhile, Americans clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in America look at the enclaves of Muslims and illegal Hispanics amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history. We would do well to look to  Denmark , and say a prayer for her future and for our own.

Advertisements

Critique of O’Reilly’s Article – Oil Price Economics

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News fame states in a recent article that energy independence is a national security issue. With that subject I agree, however, it is the predicate of his argument – namely, that big oil interests (e.g., petrol corporations and OPEC) are responsible for high gas prices – with which I take exception. O’Reilly’s role as a television news anchor notwithstanding, sensationalist rhetoric dodging the point at issue by Red Herring which points to the symptoms of the problem rather than the cause is naive at best and irresponsible at worst.

The US consumer is at fault here, not Iran or the mullahs, for high and rising oil prices. If household balance sheets were in order, our external debt position would not be where it is today. Moreover, if households collectively exercised prudence with regard to their political decisions surrounding the government budget (the other constituent part of our ‘twin deficits’), and specifically regarding our entitlements crises (e.g., Medicare and Social Security), by electing officials who would put an end to the abuse of unaccountable government spending facilitated via the laundering effect of statist welfare mechanisms or by simply voting away these monstrosities via referendum, our spending power, hence the price of goods such as oil, would be much different.

The rationale to back the premise that household profligacy leads to higher prices is thus: the market is more or less efficient in that investors, traders, merchants, and the like do not want to put themselves at more risk than necessary to make a living. Hence, there are limits to supply and demand, limits facilitated by the price mechanism.

(Disclaimer:  If you wish to skip the wonkery, pass by this paragraph and you won’t lose any meaning behind my point.) The elasticity of demand for and supply of goods determines what degree supply and demand changes affect the [equilibrium, or market clearing] price. To be sure, the elasticity of demand for oil increases as the price rises as a percentage of household income. However, conjoined with other factors such as necessity and lack of proper substitutes, the relative inelasticity of demand for oil leads to consumption patterns which do harm to household balance sheets in the aggregate. Thus spending, investment, production, and employment growth in the economy is duly constrained. On the supply side, elasticity is affected by, among other things, the existence of raw materials (e.g., crude), production spare capacity (e.g., OPEC’s ability to put more petroleum onto the market), the length of the production process (e.g., refining Canadian tar sands) coupled with factor immobility and time (e.g., drilling and exploration).    

American money is worth less than it used to be due to the monetary approach to the balance of payments whereby, according to Krugman and Obstfeld, “An increase in the supply of domestic currency bonds that the private sector must hold raises the risk premium on domestic currency assets,” (524, International Economics Theory and Policy). In other words, our trade deficit is financed, indirectly, via US government treasuries, among other securities. And the more financing activity we pursue (e.g., via household debt) the higher the risk premium we have tacked on to the price of our money. Therefore, purchasing power is directly linked to our spending activities – i.e., there is a causal link between debt and inflation.

The argument can also be made that the US is exporting inflation from wars in the Mid-East as financing overseas adventures puts a strain on government coffers. That oil prices are blowback of government overextension. Yes, that point is well received, however, government defense appropriations still do not make up nearly the proportion of the budget as entitlements (e.g., war = 20% while SS and Medicare = 60%). Moreover, estimates project that 2/3 of our economic growth has been consumption based. This suggests that the impact from government spending on war has had concomitant effects in the domestic economy (on the demand side), which have led to the impacts we now face in terms of our purchasing power [parity] reflected in higher prices.

The strength of the dollar, essentially, is determined by, among other things, our capital position (e.g., net assets or deficits) and future income earning potential coupled with past performance (e.g., market returns) and overall risk (e.g., default rates). When investors, traders, merchants, foreign sovereign wealth holders, etc. look at the US and its indefinitely increasing entitlements overhang (e.g., $42 Trillion Social Security and Medicare debt projected over the next 75 years) coupled with its increasingly stagnant economic growth (e.g., due to normal business cycle fluctuations), lending to decadent and irresponsible Americans looks less than appealing.

The meaning of our present condition lies much deeper than the vacuous notions propagated by populist demagogues of price manipulation for ‘windfall profits.’ The cost of oil is a proxy for a downgrade in [worldwide] investment opinions of the United States and these opinions reside in and are buttressed by rational economic expectations.

Obama’s Black Ambition

If Barack Obama is running on the platform of being black, then he should lose unless the electorate cows in fear meanwhile justifying their own capitulation by hypocritical accusations (e.g., against conservatives for resisting miscegenation). An economist article suggested that American whites are less racist than they used to be (like in the fifties) because whites have had a seven-fold increase in the proportion of interracial children. This argument infers that whites are racist if they don’t intermarry and that whites are therefore racist by virtue of their skin color. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a racist argument, it leads unambiguously to the conclusion that whites are criminal (because it is a crime to be racist).  Don’t you like how the devil turns things upside down? Very nice logic indeed.

A leftist on tv says that she thinks it’s mean that people won’t vote for a candidate because of his race. On the contrary, it’s mean to vote for a candidate because of his/her identity.

 

 

Igniting Growth


By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, May 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Trade: As the U.S. economic hearth flickers, it makes sense to fan it back with the last hardy embers of growth. One is exports, which burn brightest with free- trade treaties. So why is Congress snuffing them out?


Read More: Economy | Business & Regulation


Last week’s preliminary gross domestic product data for the first quarter showed a pallid 0.6% rise. Housing was a drag, pulling real GDP down 1.2%. Business sales were unimpressive, and consumer spending was weak.

But there was one bright spot: exports, which rose 5.5% according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, accounting for a third of U.S. economic growth during the quarter.

Maybe that’s why President Bush isn’t letting up on urging Congress to pass three pending free-trade agreements, which will strengthen U.S. exports. It may have hit a wall with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi manipulating House voting rules, but with a potential recession looming, Bush has no choice but to seek it anyway.

“Opening markets is especially important during this time of economic uncertainty,” Bush said Wednesday. “Last year, exports accounted for more than 40% of America’s total economic growth. With our economy slowing . . . we should be doing everything possible to open up new markets for U.S. goods and services.”

Thus far, his plea has fallen on deaf ears in Congress, which has refused to ratify U.S. deals with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. Worse, it has halted any new pacts from being negotiated.

After all, with Pelosi literally changing the House rules for a treaty vote to “anytime I want,” it’s unlikely any nation would negotiate a free-trade deal only to see it become a public bargaining chip for Pelosi’s pork-barrel spending schemes.

Pelosi has allies in Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They have collectively become the Three Stooges of Big Labor, which opposes free trade.

Pelosi insists that she’s putting the American people first. That prompted U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab to blast those who “demagogue and prey on anxieties and fear. We do a disservice to the American people by pretending that trade is somehow the culprit of our economic problems and anxieties.” We know whom she meant.

Again, let’s look at what free trade with Colombia would do.

• It slashes tariffs from 32% to zero on 72% of U.S. goods right off the bat. Better still, it levels the playing field for U.S. firms because Colombian goods already enter the U.S. duty-free. In the 17 months that the treaty has awaited passage, U.S. businesses have shelled out $1 billion in tariffs to sell goods in Colombia.

• It provides U.S. investors with legal protections and provides for international arbitration if anything goes wrong.

• It ends child labor and lessens environmental damage, two extras the Democrats requested and got.

Meanwhile, if it’s not passed, the U.S. economy gets . . . nothing.

“Delaying the vote on the Colombia (pact) does not create one American job, it does not put one more dollar in anyone’s pocket, does not save one life, does not help one union to organize, or protect one endangered species,” Schwab said.

It just goes to show that doing nothing on free trade isn’t an accomplishment. In fact, it’s a wet rag on the U.S. economy that will eventually draw angry retribution from U.S. voters.

Bush knows this. Too bad Pelosi doesn’t.

Vote John McCain – And Donate Now!

My Friends,
We have a lot at stake in this presidential election. As a nation, we face many challenges that will require real leadership from our next president. I have said before that this election will be about the big things, not the small things, and I write to you today about one big issue in particular – the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. If one of my Democratic opponents is elected in November, you can rest assured that given the opportunity to appoint judges, they will appoint those who make law with disregard for the will of the people.
There may be at least two vacancies on the United States Supreme Court during the next presidential term. As president, I will ensure that only those judges who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States are appointed. I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their will through judicial fiat.
If you want judges who will clearly and completely adhere to the Constitution of the United States and who do not legislate from the bench to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, then I ask that you join my campaign for president today by making a financial contribution.
I am proud to have played a role in the appointment and confirmation of two great Supreme Court justices – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito I need your support now so that as your president I can nominate judges like Justices Roberts and Alito. Judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust. Judges who take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives. Judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.
My friends, the future of our country and of the Supreme Court is at stake in this election. If either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is elected – both voted against confirming Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito – they will appoint activist judges. They will appoint judges who legislate from the bench.
I’m sure I don’t have to remind you how important even one vote on the Supreme Court can be. Issues concerning states’ rights, abortion, affirmative action, the Second Amendment and religious freedom have all been decided by a very slim 5-4 margin.
America needs a leader who recognizes that the people and the states should decide what’s best, not the courts. In order to be that leader, I need your financial support immediately.
Please follow this link to make an immediate donation of $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 – any amount up to the legal limit of $4,600.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
John McCain
P.S. To date, my Democrat opponents have raised almost $450 million in their efforts to win the White House. Both Senators Clinton and Obama voted against confirming John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Both Senators Clinton and Obama will nominate liberal, activist judges. As your president, I will ensure that the Supreme Court protects our values. Please follow this link right away to make your donation of any amount, up to the legal limit of $4,600. Every contribution, no matter how big or small, is crucial to our efforts. Thank you.

SHHH! Liberals at Work! (Gunny G, Townhall blogs)

If there is ONE THING that Liberal’s HATE, it effective law enforcement. From Bill Clinton to Hitlery and Whitewater to WIlliam Jefferson to MILCON Dianne Feinstein, and on and on and on, liberals can be counted on to obfuscate, delay, stop, hinder, halt, and otherwise get in the way of good police work or justice being done.In Arizona, AMERICA’s Sheriff, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, INSISTS upon enforcing the law, treating criminals like the scum they are, and working to 
slow down the Mexican reconquista movement of Southwest America by throwing the illegal alien criminals in the slammer where they belong.
HOWEVER, Phoenix Mayor, Phil Gordon (D), is riding to the RESCUE of these human locusts who suck the lifeblood of America’s social services, cause huge amounts of crime, and are generally a pain-in-the-a**! (But hey! they vote Dhimmicrat…reliably) Little Phil can’t STAND that Sheriff Joe is KICKING A** on the illegals, rounding up these criminals and SENDING THEM BACK so what does he do? He bleats for help from the Feds. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

Message To Beijing

Comment:

I want to say something really scathing about people not being serious about budgets and spending, about the future, about anything, but I just can’t get it out right now.

  

Article:

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Geopolitics: French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner mulled a boycott of China’s Olympic ceremonies to protest its crackdown in Tibet. It may or may not work, but he’s right to tell Beijing that repression doesn’t pay.


Read More: East Asia & Pacific


Just four months before the Olympic torch is lit in Beijing, China sent in goon squads to break heads and shoot dissidents as frustrations boiled over in Tibet. Web sites were censored, and anyone reporting the news was kicked out of Lhasa.But photos of China’s atrocities got out anyway, and Tibetans say that 80 people have been killed. As the global Olympic games begin in August, this won’t be far from anyone’s mind.

So much for the ancient Olympic tradition of truce during the games. Or Beijing’s promise to the International Olympic Committee that the media would have full access to the country.

But more to the point, why would anyone from a civilized country want to be associated with a murderous regime putting on an empty show while acting as an oppressor?

The Tibet actions are a reminder that China is still little more than a nasty feudal state with Marxist and state capitalist overlays. Amid the glass skyscrapers and new technology, the ugly truth about its oppression is real — as is the prospect of the unrest spreading across the country.

Boycotting the Olympics entirely is one response. But having tasted that approach during the Jimmy Carter administration, it’s not a good one. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Carter’s 1980 boycott penalized American athletes, instead of confronting a major strategic challenge. It didn’t accomplish a thing.

But Kouchner’s “interesting” idea for the European Union to boycott only the Olympic opening ceremonies could be a better option. Although he has now backtracked on the idea, apparently in response to economic pressure from Beijing, it still has merit because it deftly takes aim at Beijing’s effort to create a good image of itself — leaving China room to change some of its behavior.

Olympic opening ceremonies are prestige events for the host country. Boycotting one — or perhaps the audience turning its back or waving Tibet flags when communist officials speak — has the potential to knock the Chinese over with a feather.

It may be the only proportionate way to send a message to China that barbarism shoved defiantly in the world’s face merits no applause. Unless China moves soon to lighten its oppressive hand at home, it needs to feel the global sting of losing face.