Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Thursday, February 20, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 588)

Puerto-Rico-flag

Flag of Puerto Rico. (Photo: Getty)

The TV ads flash the noble faces of American retirees and urge Washington to help protect their savings. The back story is kept rather vague. It’s that many older people invested in Puerto Rican bonds. The U.S. territory’s economy is in deep crisis, and it has begun defaulting on this debt.

The question here: What prompted ordinary investors to put their savings into Puerto Rican bonds? But first let’s look at who is running the ads.

No, the retirees haven’t pooled their Social Security checks to make their case. These ads are being run by hedge funds and other big Wall Street players who made their own bad bets on Puerto Rico’s debt. They are now hiding behind the average Joes to press Washington for a bailout.

The obvious solution to this crisis is to let the island restructure its debt under U.S. bankruptcy rules — alongside a federal oversight board that would keep a close eye. States are allowed to declare bankruptcy, but as a U.S. territory, Puerto Rico needs congressional approval first. A bankruptcy would not cost the U.S. taxpayer anything.

This approach would also be the most humane. The setbacks for investors pale next to the trauma being suffered by Puerto Ricans. The island’s government has already raised taxes and cut spending on social services to the bone. Thousands, meanwhile, are fleeing to the U.S. mainland.

Turning the language around, the big financial interests are now calling the bankruptcy route a “bailout.” It’s not the first time they’ve forgotten the clause in capitalism saying that when an investment goes sour, the investors are expected to lose money.

Many average buyers of Puerto Rican bonds didn’t quite know what they were getting into. The bonds may have been rated as fairly safe at the time, but they were not something to put in a drawer and forget about.

In 2012, Morningstar issued a warning after the rating agency Moody’s downgraded Puerto Rico’s general obligation debt to just above junk bond level. “Moody’s does not believe that Puerto Rico enjoys the same level of fiscal stability as any of the official 50 states,” Morningstar wrote. “Even lowly Illinois GO debt is rated firmly within the investment-grade spectrum at A2.”

Study after study shows that the general public poorly understands the nature of risk. Small investors scooped up Puerto Rican bonds because they offered higher yields than U.S. municipal bonds and were exempt from local, state and federal taxes. When an investment with super tax advantages offers an unusually good yield, there’s a reason: It comes with risk.

Again we see the limitations of the “ownership society,” the doctrine that Americans should be managing their own money for retirement rather than relying on Social Security to send monthly checks.

Remember President George W. Bush’s push to let workers direct some of their Social Security taxes to stock funds and other privately run accounts? Skeptics questioned whether ordinary Americans had the expertise, but Bush assured them in fatherly fashion that he wouldn’t let them do crazy things with their money. There would be a list of acceptable investment vehicles.

Fortunately, the plan never got off the ground. In 2008, the market tanked, humbling the most conservative stocks alongside the high fliers. One shudders to think of the pitchfork parades that would have descended on Washington had people lost significant sums on their privatized Social Security accounts.

Yes, we should all save and invest, albeit with great care. At the same time, let us give thanks for boring old Social Security. It’s something to fall back on, just in case.

The obvious solution to the debt crisis

nsa-headquarters

June 6, 2013: A sign stands outside the National Security Agency (NSA) campus in Fort Meade, Md. (Photo: AP)

Would all of our lives be safer if the government could break down all the doors it wishes, listen to all the conversations it could find and read whatever emails and text messages it could acquire? Perhaps. But who would want to live in such a society?

To prevent that from happening here, the Framers ratified the Fourth Amendment, which is the linchpin of privacy and was famously called by Justice Louis Brandeis “the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” He wrote those words in his dissent in the first wiretapping case to reach the Supreme Court, Olmstead v. United States, in 1928.

Roy Olmstead had been convicted for bootlegging on the basis of words he used in overheard telephone conversations. Because he had used a phone at his place of work that the government had tapped without breaking and entering his workplace, the high court ruled — despite the fact that the government had not obtained a warrant — that he had no right to privacy. Brandeis dissented.

Over time, the Brandeis dissent became the law. The Fourth Amendment, which protects the privacy of all in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” was interpreted to cover telephone conversations and eventually emails and text messages. So today, if the government wants information contained in those communications, it needs to obtain a search warrant, which the Fourth Amendment states can only be given by a judge — and only upon a showing of probable cause of evidence of a crime contained in the communications it seeks.

If the government does not obtain a search warrant and listens to phone conversations or reads emails or text messages nevertheless and attempts to use what it heard or read to acquire other evidence or directly in the prosecution of a defendant, that is unlawful. That type of information is known as the fruit of the poisonous tree.
Evidence procured that is the fruit of the poisonous tree has been inadmissible in federal criminal prosecutions in the United States for the past 100 years and in state criminal prosecutions for the past 50 years.

Until now.

Now comes the super-secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, reaffirmed by Congress last year under the so-called USA Freedom Act. Beware the names of federal statutes, as they often produce results that are the opposite of what their names imply; and this is one of them.

Congress has unconstitutionally authorized the FISA court to issue search warrants on the basis of governmental need — a standard that is no standard at all because the government can always claim that it needs what it wants. The FISA court does not require a showing of probable cause for its warrants, because it accepts the myth that the government is listening to or reading words by foreign people for foreign intelligence purposes only, not for prosecutorial purposes.

Never mind that Congress cannot change the plain meaning of the Constitution. Never mind that the Fourth Amendment protects all people in the United States, American or foreign, from all parts of the government for all purposes, not just criminal prosecutions.

Yet the FISA court still grants general warrants — look where you wish and seize what you find — exposing our innermost thoughts to the prying eyes of the intelligence community in direct contravention of the Fourth Amendment.

Enter the USA Freedom Act. One of its selling points to Congress was that it would permit the FISA court to appoint a lawyer to challenge hypothetically some of its behavior. The court recently made such an appointment, and the lawyer appointed challenged the policy of the National Security Agency, the federal government’s domestic spying agency, of sharing data it acquires via the unconstitutional FISA warrants with the FBI. She argued that the data sharing goes far beyond the stated purpose of the FISA warrants, which is to gather foreign intelligence data from foreign people, not evidence of domestic crimes of anyone whose emails might be swept up by those warrants.

The challenge revealed publicly what many of us have condemned for years: The NSA actually makes its repository of raw data from emails and text messages available for the FBI to scour at will, without the FBI’s obtaining a warrant issued by a judge pursuant to the Fourth Amendment.

In an opinion issued in November but kept secret until last week, the FISA court rejected the hypothetical challenge of its own appointee and ruled that the NSA could continue to share what it wants with the FBI.

There are several problems with this ruling. The first is the hypothetical nature of the challenge. Federal courts do not exist in a vacuum. They do not render advisory opinions. They can only hear real cases and real controversies involving real plaintiffs and real defendants, not hypothetical ones as was the case here.

The whole apparatus of hypothetical challenge and hypothetical ruling is constitutionally meaningless. It was the moral and legal equivalent of a law school moot court oral argument. Yet federal and soon state law enforcement will interpret it as giving cover to the NSA/FBI practice of data sharing, which is clearly unconstitutional because it is the use of fruit from a poisonous tree.

FISA and the USA Freedom Act were enacted under the premise — the pretense — that the data collected under them would be used for foreign intelligence purposes only so that attacks could be thwarted and methods could be discovered. Yet the use by the FBI of extraconstitutionally obtained intelligence data for ordinary criminal prosecutions defies the stated purposes of the statutes and contradicts the Fourth Amendment.

If this is keeping us safe, who or what will safeguard our freedoms? Who will keep us safe from those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution yet defy it?

The Fourth Amendment was interpreted by Justice

Cruz-Fiorina-2016

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz announced on April 27, 2016, that if he is the Republican presidential candidate, his vice presidential pick would be Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO and presidential candidate. (Photo: Michael Conroy/AP/Associated Press)

Desperate to blunt Donald Trump’s momentum, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz announced Wednesday if he wins the nomination Carly Fiorina would be his vice presidential nominee. Sen. Cruz is hoping to alter the course of the race after suffering overwhelming defeats in the prior six contests and with less than one week before the make-or-break Indiana Republican Primary on Tuesday May 3.

Sen. Cruz, speaking to a small but rowdy crowd in Indiana described Mrs. Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and presidential candidate, as “brilliant and capable,” He also said she was deeply principled and “shattered glass ceilings.”

Mrs. Fiorina sang a song to Mr. Cruz’s daughters on stage before repeating the oft-cited attack by the Cruz campaign argument on both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton.

“They’re not going to challenge the system,” she said. “They are the system.”

Sen. Cruz’s announcement comes with the hope of distracting from rather politically harmful revelations. Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Sen. Cruz made public this week a collaboration to deny Mr. Trump the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

It also marks the first time ever in U.S. presidential politics that a mathematically eliminated candidate named a vice presidential pick. In his 1976 primary challenge against President Gerald R. Ford, Ronald Reagan–behind in the delegate count and polls, also desperately needing a change–announced his choice of a running mate before the Republican convention. However, he was not yet mathematically incapable of reaching the delegate goal.

Nevertheless, even if Mr. Trump loses in The Hoosier State his larger-than-anticipated wins in the prior six contests have made it more than possible to secure the magic number. Following his margin in Pennsylvania, the New York businessman has already secured 39 of the 54 unbound delegates. While it provided him much-needed cushion, a Cruz win in Indiana could help to shift the narrative.

However, Sen. Cruz currently trails Mr. Trump on the PPD average by more than six points, outside the collective margin of error. The latest [content_tooltip id=”37989″ title=”FOX Poll”] conducted prior to Trump’s big wins found him leading Sen. Cruz by 8 points. In truth, Sen. Cruz’s internal polling in Indiana had him down double-digits in Indiana last week, but the campaign claims he has edged closer to Mr. Trump in nightly surveys this week.

“If the election were held today, we’d lose but not get crushed,” a source familiar with Mr. Cruz’s polling data admitted. Worth noting, the survey data cited was all taken before Mr. Trump trounced his rivals in a five-state sweep on Tuesday. Sen. Cruz on Monday trailed Mr. Trump by almost 10 points, according to the survey data.

Still, the campaign insists Mrs. Fiorina is good for a few points at the polls, something Republican insiders dispute. But the choice may have more to do with Mrs. Fiorina’s past clashes with Mr. Trump, representing a last-ditch effort to bait him into statements that could cause him women votes. Critical of her business record, Mr. Trump has also commented on her personal appearance.

“Look at that face,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine last summer. “Would anyone vote for that?”

Of course, that line of attack against Mr. Trump, which was brought to the forefront in the second Republican debate, failed to gain traction in the primary. Mrs. Fiorina dropped out of the race after New Hampshire. As far as Mrs. Fiorina, advisers to Mr. Trump say he has long-thought of her as an agitator and an unworthy opponent with questionable business record. HP cut tens of thousands of jobs under the stewardship of Mrs. Fiorina and made controversial, arguably foolish acquisitions.

There is little doubt that delegate-rich California, which holds its primary on June 7, factored into Sen. Cruz’s decision-making process. The contest, if Mr. Trump loses Indiana, could determine whether he reaches the delegates needed to clinch the nomination before the convention. Still, even though Mrs. Fiorina has statewide name recognition, having been part of the Republican Establishment in the state and party nominee for U.S. Senate against Sen. Barbara Boxer in 2010, she lost the state by 10 points.

Not only has she since left the state to live in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, but left on a sour note with party activists and the voting base. While Mrs. Fiorina ran as a political outsider and made her very debatable career at HP a centerpiece of her campaign, in reality, Chuck DeVore was the grassroots outsider with all the big-name conservative support. She defeated DeVore and former Rep. Tom Campbell by playing the gender card on the former and accusing (unjustly) the latter of being anti-Semitic (oh, and a demon-sheep, no kidding).

Meanwhile, the Republican frontrunner campaigned with famed and still-widely popular former Hoosier State head coach Bobby Knight, sensing an opportunity to put an end to Sen. Cruz’s campaign. A victory in Indiana on Tuesday would almost certainly put the last nail in the #NeverTrump coffin. Mr. Trump dismissed the announcement by tweeting out a video of Mrs. Fiorina, who once had a very different take on Sen. Cruz.

Desperate to blunt Donald Trump's momentum, Texas

Obama’s Social Justice Warriors Won’t Cut It

Female-Soldier-Military

(Photo: Stephen B. Morton/AP)

It has become patently obvious that the Obama administration has succeeded in turning the United States military into a politically correct, leftist petri dish for the progressive, multicultural and feminist agenda. This state of affairs almost ensures a defeat in a serious future conflict.

As they used to teach in the service academies, militaries are used to kill people and break things, not ensure advancement for females and those supporting the climate change fraud. Obama has succeeded in changing the military culture, so that it is now acceptable to make ROTC students walk around in high heels for a day and have classes on “white privilege.”

This sea change strikes at the heart of America — its security, its former culture of freedom, its history, and its warrior origins. Yes, the United States was born out of mortal conflict. We have felt the need to defend this freedom with our blood and treasure many times over the last few centuries. You can bet we will need to water the tree of liberty with patriot blood again in the future. Although the seal of the United States shows the eagle looking towards the vision of peace, its claws contain arrows, to defend freedom if need be.

Having a military comprised of social justice warriors won’t cut it in the next war. Our adversaries won’t be impressed with our diversity or gender neutrality. They will be impressed if the best war fighters and commanders are allowed to flourish and thrive, no matter their sex, race, or background.

Military commanders have enormous power that can be abused. I have seen it with my own eyes. I’ve seen commanders who don’t like a subordinate recommend psychiatric care or take out personal grudges against someone who reports to them. Obviously, we’ve seen this type of abuse with the ROTC high heel issue and white privilege classes. This cannot be allowed to continue.

The next president will have a big job on his hands to weed out these cultural warriors from the ranks of the officer corp. Upon inauguration, the next commander-in-chief needs to make the mandate crystal clear for any officer, commissioned or noncommissioned, that the role of the military is to fight wars and defend America, not climate change, feminism, or diversity. Those not agreeing to this directive should be relieved of command.

The United States military is truly the one organization where it is critical that the best man, or woman, wins. Obama has done tremendous damage. Our military needs to regain its warrior culture. Otherwise, our children may find themselves speaking another language for real in the future.

(H/T Threat Assessment via The Washington Times)

[mybooktable book=”currency” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

It has become patently obvious that Barack

fair-tax-rally-dc

Supporters of the fair tax and flat tax model hold a Tax Day rally in Washington D.C. (Photo: AP)

There’s a very powerful statement, variously attributed to Alexis de ToquevilleBenjamin Franklin, or Alexander Tytler, that basically warns that democracy is doomed when people figure out they can vote themselves money.

There’s no evidence that any of them actually spoke or wrote those words, though I guess it doesn’t matter that the quote didn’t originate with someone like Franklin. What does matter is that it accurately captures something very important, which is the tendency for governments to over-tax and over-spend once people decide that it’s okay to use government coercion to take other people’s money.

But it’s still nice to be able to cite something accurate. With this in mind, I came up with my Theorem of Societal Collapse. And I think it’s actually more accurate than the vote-themselves-money quote because democracy doesn’t necessarily lead to statism. What leads to bad outcomes is democracy combined with bad values.

And a pervasive belief in redistributionism is a bad value. Heck, it’s a self-destructive value. Consider Greece. When you add together the people getting welfare and disability to the people getting pension payments to the people on the government payroll, it turns out that a majority of people in the country are riding in the wagon of government dependency.

That’s bad. But what makes the Greek situation so hopeless is that those are the same people who vote. Which means there’s very little chance of getting a government that would implement good policy.

After all, why would the recipients of other people’s money vote for politicians who support limits on redistribution?

But I’m not just blaming voters. Politicians also deserve scorn and disdain because they are the ones who often seek votes by promising to take other people’s money.

Some observers would like to believe that these politicians will use their supposed superior expertise and knowledge about public policy to make appropriate tradeoffs and prevent the system from becoming over-burdened.

But that’s somewhat naive.

Indeed, there’s an entire school of thought in economics, known as “public choice,” which is based on making real-world assumptions about the self-interested behavior of politicians and interest groups. Here’s a partial description from the Library of Economics and Liberty.

As James Buchanan artfully defined it, public choice is “politics without romance.” The wishful thinking it displaced presumes that participants in the political sphere aspire to promote the common good. …public officials are portrayed as benevolent “public servants” who faithfully carry out the “will of the people.” …public choice, like the economic model of rational behavior on which it rests, assumes that people are guided chiefly by their own self-interests… As such, voters “vote their pocketbooks,” supporting candidates and ballot propositions they think will make them personally better off; bureaucrats strive to advance their own careers; and politicians seek election or reelection to office. Public choice, in other words, simply transfers the rational actor model of economic theory to the realm of politics. …collective decision-making processes allow the majority to impose its preferences on the minority.

In other words, both voters and politicians can have an incentive for ever-larger government, even if the end result is Greek-style fiscal chaos because taxes and spending reach ruinous levels.

I call this “Goldfish Government” because some think that a goldfish lacks the ability to control its appetite and therefore will eat itself to death when presented with unlimited food.

Indeed, public choice scholars explicitly recognize that unconstrained democracy can lead to bad results.

Public choice scholars have identified…deep…problems with democratic decision-making processes.

That’s the bad news.

The good news is that their research suggests ways to compensate for the natural tendency of ever-expanding government.

Like that founding father of the American constitutional republic, public choice recognizes that men are not angels and focuses on the importance of the institutional rules… If, for example, democratic governments institutionally are incapable of balancing the public budget, a constitutional rule that limits increases in spending and taxes to no more than the private sector’s rate of growth will be more effective.

Hmmm…., a rule that limits the government so it doesn’t grow faster than the private sector.

Sounds like an idea worth embracing.

But while I like anything that builds support for the Golden Rule, I’m not sure it’s a sufficient condition for good policy.

Simply stated, we have too many examples of nations that followed the Golden Rule for several years, only to then fall off the wagon with a new splurge of spending.

There are two ways to deal with this problem. First, make the spending restraint part of a jurisdiction’s constitution, as we see in Switzerland and Hong Kong.

Second, augment the internal constraint of a spending cap with the external constraint of tax competition. Bluntly stated, destructive tax policies will be less likely when politicians are afraid that taxpayers will move across borders.

I spoke about this topic at a recent conference in Slovakia. I also discuss the critical role of demographic change toward the end of my speech.

P.S. America’s Founding Fathers had the right solution. They set up a democratic form of government, but they strictly limited the powers of the central government. This system worked remarkably well for a long period, but then the Supreme Court decided that the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution were just a suggestion.

P.P.S. While it’s bad news to combine democracy with bad value, I want to emphasize that the problem is bad values. Most non-democratic societies have policies that are so evil and destructive (think Cuba and North Korea) that they make France seem like a beacon of economic liberty.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Democratic governments tend to over-tax and over-spend

[brid video=”35572″ player=”2077″ title=”Pending Sales in March Hold Steady But Affordability Hurts West”]

The Pending Home Sales Index (PHSI), conducted by the National Association of Realtors, increased slightly in March for the second consecutive month. The PHSI climbed 1.4% to 110.5 in March from an downwardly revised 109.0 in February and is now 1.4% above March 2015 (109.0), reaching its highest level in almost a year.

After last month’s slight gain, the index has increased year-over-year for 19 consecutive months and is at its highest reading since May 2015 (111.0).

“Despite supply deficiencies in plenty of areas, contract activity was fairly strong in a majority of markets in March,” said Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist. “This spring’s surprisingly low mortgage rates are easing some of the affordability pressures potential buyers are experiencing and are taking away some of the sting from home prices that are still rising too fast and above wage growth.”

“Demand is starting to weaken in some areas, particularly in the West, where the median home price has risen an astonishing 38 percent in the past three years,” adds Yun. “As a result, pending sales in the region have now declined in four of the last five months and are lower than one year ago for the third month in a row. Closed sales in the region in March were also below last year’s pace.”

The Pending Home Sales Index (PHSI), a closely-watched indicator for the housing sector, is based on a national sample typically representing about 20% of pending sales of existing homes. A sale is considered “pending” when the contract has been signed but the transaction has not closed. The actual sale is finalized on average within one or two months of signing.

An index of 100 is equal to the average level of contract activity during 2001, which was the first year to be examined. As a matter of sheer coincidence, the volume of existing-home sales in 2001 fell within the range of 5.0 to 5.5 million, which NAR and housing market analysts consider normal for the current U.S. population.

The PHSI in the Northeast increased 3.2% to 97.0 in March, and is now 18.4 percent above a year ago. In the Midwest the index inched up 0.2% to 112.8 in March, and is now 4.0% above March 2015.

Pending home sales in the South rose 3.0% to an index of 125.4 in March but are still 0.6% lower than last March. The index in the West declined 1.8 percent in March to 95.3, and is now 7.9% below a year ago.

The Pending Home Sales Index (PHSI), conducted

Trump-Foreign-Policy-Speech-Mayflower-Hotel

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gives a foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, Wednesday, April 27, 2016. (Photo: AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Full Transcript: Donald Trump outlined his America First foreign policy platform in a major address at the Mayflower Hotel on Wednesday in Washington, D.C.

FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you, and thank you to the Center for the National Interest for honoring me with this invitation.

I would like to talk today about how to develop a new foreign policy direction for our country – one that replaces randomness with purpose, ideology with strategy, and chaos with peace.

It is time to shake the rust off of America’s foreign policy. It’s time to invite new voices and new visions into the fold.

The direction I will outline today will also return us to a timeless principle. My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people, and American security, above all else. That will be the foundation of every decision that I will make.

America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration.

But to chart our path forward, we must first briefly look back.

We have a lot to be proud of. In the 1940s we saved the world. The Greatest Generation beat back the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists.

Then we saved the world again, this time from totalitarian Communism. The Cold War lasted for decades, but we won.

Democrats and Republicans working together got Mr. Gorbachev to heed the words of President Reagan when he said: “tear down this wall.”

History will not forget what we did.

Unfortunately, after the Cold War, our foreign policy veered badly off course. We failed to develop a new vision for a new time. In fact, as time went on, our foreign policy began to make less and less sense.

Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, and this led to one foreign policy disaster after another.

We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama’s line in the sand in Syria. Each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos, and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper.

It all began with the dangerous idea that we could make Western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming a Western Democracy.

We tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed. Civil war, religious fanaticism; thousands of American lives, and many trillions of dollars, were lost as a result. The vacuum was created that ISIS would fill. Iran, too, would rush in and fill the void, much to their unjust enrichment.

Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster.

No vision, no purpose, no direction, no strategy.

Today, I want to identify five main weaknesses in our foreign policy.
First, Our Resources Are Overextended

President Obama has weakened our military by weakening our economy. He’s crippled us with wasteful spending, massive debt, low growth, a huge trade deficit and open borders.

Our manufacturing trade deficit with the world is now approaching $1 trillion a year. We’re rebuilding other countries while weakening our own.

Ending the theft of American jobs will give us the resources we need to rebuild our military and regain our financial independence and strength.

I am the only person running for the Presidency who understands this problem and knows how to fix it.
Secondly, our allies are not paying their fair share.

Our allies must contribute toward the financial, political and human costs of our tremendous security burden. But many of them are simply not doing so. They look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honor their agreements with us.

In NATO, for instance, only 4 of 28 other member countries, besides America, are spending the minimum required 2% of GDP on defense.

We have spent trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense – and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.

The whole world will be safer if our allies do their part to support our common defense and security.

A Trump Administration will lead a free world that is properly armed and funded.
Thirdly, our friends are beginning to think they can’t depend on us.

We’ve had a president who dislikes our friends and bows to our enemies.

He negotiated a disastrous deal with Iran, and then we watched them ignore its terms, even before the ink was dry.

Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and, under a Trump Administration, will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

All of this without even mentioning the humiliation of the United States with Iran’s treatment of our ten captured sailors.

In negotiation, you must be willing to walk. The Iran deal, like so many of our worst agreements, is the result of not being willing to leave the table. When the other side knows you’re not going to walk, it becomes absolutely impossible to win.

At the same time, your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them.

President Obama gutted our missile defense program, then abandoned our missile defense plans with Poland and the Czech Republic.

He supported the ouster of a friendly regime in Egypt that had a longstanding peace treaty with Israel – and then helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in its place.

Israel, our great friend and the one true Democracy in the Middle East, has been snubbed and criticized by an Administration that lacks moral clarity. Just a few days ago, Vice President Biden again criticized Israel – a force for justice and peace – for acting as an impediment to peace in the region.

President Obama has not been a friend to Israel. He has treated Iran with tender love and care and made it a great power in the Middle East – all at the expense of Israel, our other allies in the region and, critically, the United States.

We’ve picked fights with our oldest friends, and now they’re starting to look elsewhere for help.

Fourth, our rivals no longer respect us.

In fact, they are just as confused as our allies, but an even bigger problem is that they don’t take us seriously any more.

When President Obama landed in Cuba on Air Force One, no leader was there to meet or greet him – perhaps an incident without precedent in the long and prestigious history of Air Force One.

Then, amazingly, the same thing happened in Saudi Arabia — it’s called no respect.

Do you remember when the President made a long and expensive trip to Copenhagen, Denmark to get the Olympics for our country, and, after this unprecedented effort, it was announced that the United States came in fourth place?

He should have known the result before making such an embarrassing commitment.

The list of humiliations goes on and on.

President Obama watches helplessly as North Korea increases its aggression and expands even further with its nuclear reach.

Our president has allowed China to continue its economic assault on American jobs and wealth, refusing to enforce trade rules – or apply the leverage on China necessary to rein in North Korea.

He has even allowed China to steal government secrets with cyber attacks and engage in industrial espionage against the United States and its companies.

We’ve let our rivals and challengers think they can get away with anything.

If President Obama’s goal had been to weaken America, he could not have done a better job.

Finally, America no longer has a clear understanding of our foreign policy goals.

Since the end of the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union, we’ve lacked a coherent foreign policy.

One day we’re bombing Libya and getting rid of a dictator to foster democracy for civilians, the next day we are watching the same civilians suffer while that country falls apart.

We’re a humanitarian nation. But the legacy of the Obama-Clinton interventions will be weakness, confusion, and disarray.

We have made the Middle East more unstable and chaotic than ever before.

We left Christians subject to intense persecution and even genocide.

Our actions in Iraq, Libya and Syria have helped unleash ISIS.

And we’re in a war against radical Islam, but President Obama won’t even name the enemy!

Hillary Clinton also refuses to say the words “radical Islam,” even as she pushes for a massive increase in refugees.

After Secretary Clinton’s failed intervention in Libya, Islamic terrorists in Benghazi took down our consulate and killed our ambassador and three brave Americans. Then, instead of taking charge that night, Hillary Clinton decided to go home and sleep! Incredible.

Clinton blames it all on a video, an excuse that was a total lie. Our Ambassador was murdered and our Secretary of State misled the nation – and by the way, she was not awake to take that call at 3 o’clock in the morning.

And now ISIS is making millions of dollars a week selling Libyan oil.

This will change when I am president.

To all our friends and allies, I say America is going to be strong again. America is going to be a reliable friend and ally again.

We’re going to finally have a coherent foreign policy based upon American interests, and the shared interests of our allies.

We are getting out of the nation-building business, and instead focusing on creating stability in the world.

Our moments of greatest strength came when politics ended at the water’s edge.

We need a new, rational American foreign policy, informed by the best minds and supported by both parties, as well as by our close allies.

This is how we won the Cold War, and it’s how we will win our new and future struggles.

First, we need a long-term plan to halt the spread and reach of radical Islam.

Containing the spread of radical Islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the United States.

Events may require the use of military force. But it’s also a philosophical struggle, like our long struggle in the Cold War.

In this we’re going to be working very closely with our allies in the Muslim world, all of which are at risk from radical Islamic violence.

We should work together with any nation in the region that is threatened by the rise of radical Islam. But this has to be a two-way street – they must also be good to us and remember us and all we are doing for them.

The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more.

We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies.

A pause for reassessment will help us to prevent the next San Bernardino or worse — all you have to do is look at the World Trade Center and September 11th.

And then there’s ISIS. I have a simple message for them. Their days are numbered. I won’t tell them where and I won’t tell them how. We must as, a nation, be more unpredictable. But they’re going to be gone. And soon.

Secondly, we have to rebuild our military and our economy.

The Russians and Chinese have rapidly expanded their military capability, but look what’s happened to us!

Our nuclear weapons arsenal – our ultimate deterrent – has been allowed to atrophy and is desperately in need of modernization and renewal.

Our active duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today.

The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during that time.

The Air Force is about 1/3 smaller than 1991. Pilots are flying B-52s in combat missions today which are older than most people in this room.

And what are we doing about this? President Obama has proposed a 2017 defense budget that, in real dollars, cuts nearly 25% from what we were spending in 2011.

Our military is depleted, and we’re asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global warming.

We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. It is the cheapest investment we can make. We will develop, build and purchase the best equipment known to mankind. Our military dominance must be unquestioned.

But we will look for savings and spend our money wisely. In this time of mounting debt, not one dollar can be wasted.

We are also going to have to change our trade, immigration and economic policies to make our economy strong again – and to put Americans first again. This will ensure that our own workers, right here in America, get the jobs and higher pay that will grow our tax revenue and increase our economic might as a nation.

We need to think smarter about areas where our technological superiority gives us an edge. This includes 3-D printing, artificial intelligence and cyberwarfare.

A great country also takes care of its warriors. Our commitment to them is absolute. A Trump Administration will give our service men and women the best equipment and support in the world when they serve, and the best care in the world when they return as veterans to civilian life.

Finally, we must develop a foreign policy based on American interests.

Businesses do not succeed when they lose sight of their core interests and neither do countries.

Look at what happened in the 1990s. Our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked and seventeen brave sailors were killed on the USS Cole. And what did we do? It seemed we put more effort into adding China to the World Trade Organization – which has been a disaster for the United States – than into stopping Al Qaeda.

We even had an opportunity to take out Osama Bin Laden, and didn’t do it. And then, we got hit at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the worst attack on our country in its history.

Our foreign policy goals must be based on America’s core national security interests, and the following will be my priorities.

In the Middle East, our goals must be to defeat terrorists and promote regional stability, not radical change. We need to be clear-sighted about the groups that will never be anything other than enemies.

And we must only be generous to those that prove they are our friends.

We desire to live peacefully and in friendship with Russia and China. We have serious differences with these two nations, and must regard them with open eyes. But we are not bound to be adversaries. We should seek common ground based on shared interests. Russia, for instance, has also seen the horror of Islamic terrorism.

I believe an easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia – from a position of strength – is possible. Common sense says this cycle of hostility must end. Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out. If we can’t make a good deal for America, then we will quickly walk from the table.

Fixing our relations with China is another important step towards a prosperous century. China respects strength, and by letting them take advantage of us economically, we have lost all of their respect. We have a massive trade deficit with China, a deficit we must find a way, quickly, to balance.

A strong and smart America is an America that will find a better friend in China. We can both benefit or we can both go our separate ways.

After I am elected President, I will also call for a summit with our NATO allies, and a separate summit with our Asian allies. In these summits, we will not only discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments, but take a fresh look at how we can adopt new strategies for tackling our common challenges.

For instance, we will discuss how we can upgrade NATO’s outdated mission and structure – grown out of the Cold War – to confront our shared challenges, including migration and Islamic terrorism.

I will not hesitate to deploy military force when there is no alternative. But if America fights, it must fight to win. I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary – and will only do so if we have a plan for victory.

Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war and destruction.

The best way to achieve those goals is through a disciplined, deliberate and consistent foreign policy.

With President Obama and Secretary Clinton we’ve had the exact opposite: a reckless, rudderless and aimless foreign policy – one that has blazed a path of destruction in its wake.

After losing thousands of lives and spending trillions of dollars, we are in far worse shape now in the Middle East than ever before.

I challenge anyone to explain the strategic foreign policy vision of Obama-Clinton – it has been a complete and total disaster.

I will also be prepared to deploy America’s economic resources. Financial leverage and sanctions can be very persuasive – but we need to use them selectively and with determination. Our power will be used if others do not play by the rules.

Our friends and enemies must know that if I draw a line in the sand, I will enforce it.

However, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands that caution and restraint are signs of strength.

Although not in government service, I was totally against the War in Iraq, saying for many years that it would destabilize the Middle East. Sadly, I was correct, and the biggest beneficiary was Iran, who is systematically taking over Iraq and gaining access to their rich oil reserves – something it has wanted to do for decades. And now, to top it all off, we have ISIS.

My goal is to establish a foreign policy that will endure for several generations.

That is why I will also look for talented experts with new approaches, and practical ideas, rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war.

Finally, I will work with our allies to reinvigorate Western values and institutions. Instead of trying to spread “universal values” that not everyone shares, we should understand that strengthening and promoting Western civilization and its accomplishments will do more to inspire positive reforms around the world than military interventions.

These are my goals, as president.

I will seek a foreign policy that all Americans, whatever their party, can support, and which our friends and allies will respect and welcome.

The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies, that we are always happy when old enemies become friends, and when old friends become allies.

To achieve these goals, Americans must have confidence in their country and its leadership again.

Many Americans must wonder why our politicians seem more interested in defending the borders of foreign countries than their own.

Americans must know that we are putting the American people first again. On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy – the jobs, incomes and security of the American worker will always be my first priority.

No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first. Both our friends and enemies put their countries above ours and we, while being fair to them, must do the same.

We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism.

The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down, and will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.

NAFTA, as an example, has been a total disaster for the U.S. and has emptied our states of our manufacturing and our jobs. Never again. Only the reverse will happen. We will keep our jobs and bring in new ones. Their will be consequences for companies that leave the U.S. only to exploit it later.

Under a Trump Administration, no American citizen will ever again feel that their needs come second to the citizens of foreign countries.

I will view the world through the clear lens of American interests.

I will be America’s greatest defender and most loyal champion. We will not apologize for becoming successful again, but will instead embrace the unique heritage that makes us who we are.

The world is most peaceful, and most prosperous, when America is strongest.

America will continually play the role of peacemaker.

We will always help to save lives and, indeed, humanity itself. But to play that role, we must make America strong again.

We must make America respected again. And we must make America great again.

If we do that, perhaps this century can be the most peaceful and prosperous the world has ever known. Thank you.

Full Transcript: Donald Trump outlined his America

Donald Trump Holds Campaign Rally In Dallas

DALLAS, TX – SEPTEMBER 14: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump greets supporters during a campaign rally at the American Airlines Center on September 14, 2015 in Dallas, Texas. More than 20,000 tickets had been distributed for the event. (Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images)

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump Wednesday outlined his “America First” foreign policy platform in a major address at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. Less than 24 hours after rolling over his rivals in a five-state sweep on Tuesday, Mr. Trump called for the U.S. to take a new approach in the global arena and vowed “America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration.”

“It is time to shake the rust off of America’s foreign policy,” Mr. Trump said. “It’s time to invite new voices and new visions into the fold.”

The New York businessman slammed foolish interventions by both Republican and Democratic presidents that drained the nation’s financial resources and failed to further any vital security interests. He said post-Cold War and current U.S. foreign policy has lost its way, calling it “a complete and total disaster” with “no vision, no purpose” and “no direction.” In his speech, he identified what he said were “five main weaknesses in our foreign policy.”

U.S. Resources Are Overextended

In “Myths of Empire,” national security expert Jack Snyder warned the U.S. not to fall into the same trap as other nations. Judging by his speech, the Republican frontrunner shares the same concerns.

“President Obama has weakened our military by weakening our economy. He’s crippled us with wasteful spending, massive debt, low growth, a huge trade deficit and open borders,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re rebuilding other countries while weakening our own.”

He said the U.S. must end the “theft of American jobs” in order to ensure the resources necessary to rebuild the military and ensure financial independence.

U.S. Allies Not Paying Their Fair Share

While he drew sharp criticism from his rivals and other neocon elements in the Republican Party for proposing to reform NATO, he isn’t backing down. He noted that only 4 of 28 other member countries, save for the U.S., are actually spending the minimum required 2% of GDP on defense.

“They look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honor their agreements with us,” Mr. Trump said. “The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense – and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.”

In sit downs with The Washington Post and The New York Times, he had previously called for a total reformation of NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. As he previously proposed, Mr. Trump said he would seek to reform the alliance, which was established and designed to meet the threat from the Soviet Union. He said it should be modernized and reflect the current challenges that face the U.S., such as global terrorism.

Allies Think They Can’t Depend on U.S.

In his losing speech on Tuesday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz again repeated the claim that Mr. Trump shares the same views on Iran as Hillary Clinton. Sen. Cruz has said he would “tear up” the Iran nuclear deal on day 1, which the frontrunner has called a dishonest claim. The money freed up by the nuclear deal is gone and no one, not even Sen. Cruz, can get it back.

Still, he sought to put an end to that criticism and propose another direction the U.S. should take moving forward, one that does not permit Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

“We’ve had a president who dislikes our friends and bows to our enemies,” Mr. Trump said. “He negotiated a disastrous deal with Iran, and then we watched them ignore its terms, even before the ink was dry… Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and, under a Trump Administration, will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.”

He added that in negotiations the U.S. must always be prepared to walk away, something President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were never willing to do. They viewed the deal as a legacy item and successful if it pushed the sunset provision past the Obama administration’s tenure.

“The Iran deal, like so many of our worst agreements, is the result of not being willing to leave the table,” Mr. Trump added. “When the other side knows you’re not going to walk, it becomes absolutely impossible to win.”

That is a central tenet in Trump’s business practices, one which he outlined extensively in his best-selling book “The Art of the Deal.” He went on to slam President Obama’s ouster of a friendly regime in Egypt, one that respected a longstanding peace treaty with Israel and cooperated in the global war on terror. The result was a power vacuum that helped fuel the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.

“President Obama has not been a friend to Israel,” he added. “He has treated Iran with tender love and care and made it a great power in the Middle East–all at the expense of Israel… We’ve picked fights with our oldest friends, and now they’re starting to look elsewhere for help.”

Rivals No Longer Respect Us

It has become a popular, oft-cited claim among Republicans in Congress and elsewhere that friends no longer count on and enemies no longer respect the U.S., a narrative that the frontrunner expanded on Wednesday. He cited the president’s recent trip to Cuba, during which he was snubbed at the airport by the communist dictator. Soon after the Islamic terror attacks in Brussels, Belgium, President Obama was doing the tango with a professional dancer in Argentina.

“When President Obama landed in Cuba on Air Force One, no leader was there to meet or greet him–perhaps an incident without precedent in the long and prestigious history of Air Force One,” Mr. Trump said. “Then, amazingly, the same thing happened in Saudi Arabia–it’s called no respect.”

America First

It should come as no surprise that the overall theme to the speech was riddled with nationalist overtones. Despite the recent neoconservative domination of the Republican Party during the Bush years, the Trump America First foreign policy platform in fact represents a return to a less interventionist approach. It is the more traditional Republican approach that puts realpolitik at the forefront of policy.

“Many Americans must wonder why our politicians seem more interested in defending the borders of foreign countries than their own,” Mr. Trump added. “Americans must know that we are putting the American people first again. On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy – the jobs, incomes and security of the American worker will always be my first priority.”

“We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism.”

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump outlined his "America

Donald Trump Endorses GOP Candidate Mitt Romney In Las Vegas

LAS VEGAS, NV – FEBRUARY 02: (L-R) Ann Romney, Donald Trump and 2012 Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. (Photo: AP)

Mitt Romney has one more reason to dislike Donald Trump. Now that the votes are tallied from his five-state sweep on Tuesday, Mr. Trump has surpassed Gov. Romney in the popular vote and is on track to set a new primary record for the Republican Party.

As of Wednesday morning, Mr. Trump has received more than 10 million popular votes, roughly 250,000 more than Gov. Romney received during the entire 2012 primary cycle. He also topped Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 GOP nominee, by more than 153,000 votes. The feat is actually understated by the raw numbers because, unlike the prior two primary cycles, the fields weren’t as large and the votes weren’t split by so much for such a long period of time.

Now, for the overall Republican primary vote record.

The current record-holder is George W. Bush, who received more than 10.8 million votes in 2000. Worth noting, G.W. Bush also set the record for the least number of votes in 2004. But that was his reelection bid and wasn’t opposed by any serious candidate. The previous no-vote record was held by President Ronald Reagan, won around 7.7 million votes in 1980 (don’t forget about population growth people).

“So, in a nutshell, the Republican party wants to stop the one candidate who excites voting and non-voting Americans from getting the nomination,” said PPD’s senior political analyst Richard Baris. “We’ve seen the voters behind these totals in several states Republicans have been unable to carry in a general election. These are voters they will need if they hope to compete with the changing demographics. And yet the party has failed to heed the message.”

With ten more contests to go, including voter-rich states such California, Mr. Trump is on track to top former President George W. Bush. Ironically, he won in the 2000 presidential election against all odds by tapping into much the same nationalist sentiment, or “America First” platform . Bush was trailing in the polls and up against the vice president of a sitting president with a high approval rating.

“George W. Bush wasn’t always a neocon. He slammed China on trade and promised not to be a globalist ‘policemen of the world,'” Baris added. “That generated excitement among certain voters who had previously abandoned the Republican Party for Ross Perot or no one, at all. They never registered in the pollsters’ surveys and he shocked the world.”

No doubt, Mr. Trump and his supporters are hoping for the same come November.

Donald Trump has surpassed Mitt Romney in

Bobby-Knight

Bobby Knight, nicknamed “The General,” was the popular head coach of the Indiana Hoosiers from 1971 to 2000. (Photo: Getty Images)

Fresh off his five-state sweep on Tuesday, Donald Trump is hitting the stump in Indiana with Bobby Knight, the former coach of the Indiana Hoosiers. Knight, nicknamed “The General,” remains extremely popular in The Hoosier State, which holds its primary next Tuesday on May 3.

The state’s demographics should bode well for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who has promised to repeat his win in Wisconsin. However, he currently trails Mr. Trump in the polls, though they have now consistently underestimated the frontrunner’s support in the past seven voting contests.

The latest [content_tooltip id=”37989″ title=”FOX Poll”] conducted prior to Mr. Trump’s five-state sweep found Sen. Cruz trailing by 8 points. The PPD average of Indiana Republican Primary polls shows a slightly closer race with Mr. Trump leading Sen. Cruz 39.3% to 33%, respectively.

As was the case in New York, the polls in the most recent contests did not reflect what is a precipitous drop in Sen. Cruz’s support. In Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island, Mr. Trump outperformed his polling support by upwards of ten points, carrying every single county in all five states.

“The demographics-only argument against momentum has hit a brick wall,” said PPD’s senior political analyst Richard Baris. “This was a monumental sweep by Donald Trump that cannot be explained solely by demographics. Sen. Cruz made an enormous mistake embracing the Republican Establishment and making public his alliance with Gov. John Kasich.”

Indeed, for the first time ever this cycle, polling shows Republican primary voters now see Sen. Cruz as an establishment candidate, rather than an outsider. In this election cycle, being branded with that label is tantamount to receiving the kiss of death.

“He made a decision to outwardly embrace a lot of what was already going on behind the scenes and now he’s paying the price,” Mr. Baris added. “That’s certainly part of what is behind the disparity between the polling and the results.”

Meanwhile, Knight, the controversial former head coach who is known for throwing a chair across the court during a game, had been praising Mr. Trump for months before the endorsement.

“No one has accomplished more than Mr. Trump has,” Knight said in an article published by The New York Times last October.

Mr. Trump will no doubt stress that record of accomplishment and his outsider status as he rails against U.S. trade and immigration policy in a state where both have negatively impacted American workers. Carrier, an Indianapolis-based manufacturing plant, announced in February that they will ship more than a thousand jobs to Mexico.

“You taking away from this community by taking this job, this plant away,” Dominique Anthony, a Carrier employee who says he’s worked at the west side facility for 13 years told reporters. “I have almost 16 family members that work there are Carrier. They have to go and tell our family that we have lost our jobs to feed our family.”

The New York businessman teased the endorsement of the famous coach last weekend.

“Tough, strong, smart. I would like to get that for Indiana, I’ll tell you what. To me, that would be a great endorsement,” he said on Saturday.

In his victory speech in Indiana Tuesday night, Mr. Trump said he was the presumptive frontrunner and turned his attention to his likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. He slammed Mrs. Clinton’s record on trade and her lack of experience in job creation.

VIEW REPUBLICAN DELEGATE COUNT

“Hillary Clinton knows nothing about jobs except for the jobs she creates for herself,” The Donald said. “She supports and her husband signed NAFTA (North-American Free Trade Agreement). She talks about phone calls? She was asleep when she got the 3:00 a.m. phone call from Benghazi.”

Indiana lost 113,000 manufacturing jobs (or 18%) as a result the NAFTA-WTO period (1994-2015), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The percentage of all private sector jobs that are directly in the manufacturing sector in Indiana fell from 28% to 20.2% during the NAFTA-WTO period.

Fresh off his five-state sweep on Tuesday,

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial