Election of our nation's first black president is delivering an unexpected message to our black population. Blacks are discovering that what a man or woman does -- their actions -- is what matters, not the color of their skin. It is not hard to understand why black Americans were happy that a black man was elected president of the United States. It was kind of final and most grand announcement that racism has finally been purged from America. But for the highly politicized parts of black America this was certainly not the only message. Because for the highly politicized parts of black America, the point has always been to keep race in American politics. For black political culture that dominated after the civil rights movements, the point was not just equal treatment under the law, but special treatment under the law. Plus the assumption that more black political power -- defined by more blacks holding office -- would mean that blacks would be better off. Now blacks have a dilemma. We have a black president and blacks are worse off. Not just a little, but a lot worse off.

Who would have thought just 18 months ago that a member of the eurozone, the most elite club of economies in Europe, could have a worse credit rating than Pakistan? And yet this is the case for Greece today, perched on the verge of a debt restructuring; two other eurozone countries (Ireland and Portugal), meanwhile, are already in Europe's intensive care unit, receiving large bailouts. And who would have thought that a rating agency would dare question the sacred AAA credit rating of the United States, the sole supplier of global public goods such as the international reserve currency (the dollar) and a financial system that serves as the nexus of international capital flow? There are, of course, several custom-made reasons for these developments. But together, they speak to major realignments that are fundamentally changing the character of the global economy and how it functions. Three things in particular have had a significant influence, and they will continue to shape the world we live in for years to come.

A few months ago, I gave a talk to the U.S. Naval War College. This venerable institution is home to a student body of the future leaders of the world's navies, who preserve our freedom through strength on the seas. Toward the end of a spirited question-and-answer session, a young officer stood and asked the final question: "What keeps you up at night?" The simplicity of the question struck an emotive cord. In a flash, I thought of my boyhood growing up in an America where every morning I could get on my bike, and as far as the eye could see, there was President Reagan's "shining city on the hill," standing bright and tall on the horizon. The majesty, bounty and exceptionalism of America provided opportunity for all to climb that summit and share in the glow. Yet now, for the first time since the Civil War, this God-blessed experiment is in real jeopardy of not being preserved for our children and the "huddled masses" seeking to embrace the American way. I saw the concern in that lieutenant's eyes -- a soldier-citizen, seeking an answer. Mine was clear: "Debt out of control, entitlement spending out of control, and the loss of economic freedom and opportunity." Why and from where had this malady come, and, most important, how can we restore our God-given national birthright?

At this writing, many details of the debt-ceiling deal wrangled out over the weekend remain fuzzy. One thing is clear, unfortunately: The national security of the United States is going to suffer greatly. The Pentagon stands to be whacked by as much as half of the $1.5 trillion that an as-yet-undesignated congressional "supercommittee" is supposed to come up in "deficit reduction" by Thanksgiving. The trouble is that more than $400 billion has already been cut from our national security investments over the past few years. Thus even if no further reductions are made in the spending allocated to defending our people and interests around the world, we will see ominous reductions in the capabilities needed to meet those vital responsibilities. The warnings of what will befall our military and country as a result are beginning to accumulate.

Black Caucus chairman Democrat Congressman Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri produced a headline-garnering sound bite following the passage in Congress of the debt ceiling compromise bill. Even as this bill didn't by any means manage to demonstrate Congress's serious understanding of economic reality, Cleaver said that the bill amounts to "a  sugar-coated Satan sandwich" - by which he meant that it amounts to the defiance of centuries of teachings of the world's greatest religions about how one must look out for the poor and needy as one lives one's life. Most all religions do implore us to lend those in need a hand, to help the poor and indigent. Indeed, there is no ethical system that doesn't make some room for this idea. Yet the use to which Rep. Cleaver wants to put this idea is quite perverse. He doesn't urge us to be generous, kind, compassionate, charitable and such. No, he urges us to engage in robbery and to use the loot we obtain by this means to provide help to those the robbers believe should get some of it.

[Note from JW:  Skye posted this response to Disraeli's Tea on the Forum, which by TTPer acclamation was requested to be a full article.  Happy to comply.  Also - as I have been on the road so much, Jack Kelly was to write the HFR this week but is unable to do so for health reasons.  I apologize for there being no HFR today.] The central government has become so titanic that slowing its rate of growth would simply slightly delay the inevitable crash. The Federalies must be cut down to size, and voting NO on the debt limit increase is currently our best chance for doing so. Vote NO on increasing the debt limit. The deficits must be stopped or America will be pushed over the economic cliff onto the ash heap of history where it will join the Soviet Union. If the deficits are not stopped now, then when?  But if they are, you can then cut three Gordion Knots at once that have hogtied our economy.

The predictable narrative has already begun to take hold, regarding the despicable, murderous attack by a madman in Norway last Friday (7/22) . The confessed perpetrator of a bombing of government offices in Oslo and a seek-and-destroy slaughter at a Labor Party youth camp on Utoya Island, Anders Behring Breivik, is depicted as a "Christian," "conservative" and "right-wing extremist." His attacks, we are told, were animated by a delusional ambition to save his country from an Islamic takeover. Much remains to be learned about this evident psychopath and his precise motivations for acting in such a deranged fashion. Still, an unholy axis of Moslem Brotherhood operatives and those on the Left - groups whose spokesmen, ironically, endlessly inveigh against precipitous judgments when jihadists are the perpetrators - have been quick to find in this attack proof of their favorite meme: That conservatives and Christians are as much a threat to domestic tranquility - if not more - than those seeking to impose the totalitarian Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah. Somehow, the axis overlooks Mr. Breivik's admiration for the terrorists of Al Qaeda and Iran.  In his 1,500 page "manifesto," Mr. Breivik states that he will: "consider working with the enemies of the EU/US hegemony such as Iran,  al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab or the rest of the devout fractions of the Islamic Ummah with the intention for deployment of small nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons in Western European capitals and other high priority locations."

Outgoing US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is worried about the shape of things to come in US foreign policy. In an interview with Newsweek over the weekend, Gates warned: "To tell you the truth, that's one of the many reasons it's time for me to retire, because frankly I can't imagine being part of a nation, part of a government... that's being forced to dramatically scale back our engagement with the rest of the world." What Gates is saying is that he doesn't trust his commander in chief to allocate the resources to preserve America's superpower status. He is saying that he believes that Obama is willing to surrender the US's status as a superpower. This would be a stunning statement for any defense secretary to make about the policies of a US President. It is especially stunning coming from Gates. Many conservatives hailed Obama's decision to retain Gates as defense secretary as a belated admission that Bush's aggressive counter-terror policies were correct. These claims ignored the fact that in Bush's last two years in office, with the exception of the surge of troops in Iraq, under the guidance of Gates and then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, US foreign policy veered very far to the Left. As bad as it has been so far under Obama with Gates, it is now going to get much worse without him.

One of the secrets about Western trade with enemy states like Iran is that the Western companies trading with them may also wittingly or unwittingly serve as espionage assets for their home country or for other Western countries. The boycott drive against states like Iran uses a legalistic framework to deal with complex military challenges. And since the nail doesn't exactly fit the hole, it stands to reason that the damage sanctions can do to military or intelligence operations may in certain circumstances outweigh the benefit they bring to diplomatic operations. Late last month (5/24), the State Department announced that it was sanctioning the shipping company of Israel's richest family, the Ofer Brothers, for reportedly violating US law by trading with Iran.  Ever since, there has been a deluge of news reports alleging that the Ofer Brother's ships were used by the Mossad and perhaps the IDF to infiltrate and exfiltrate agents into and out of Iran.  There are number of troubling aspects to this story.