Jim Wallis slips, tells the truth

This is Political Correctness defined: Dissenters are to "stop talking".
In other words: "Shut up," he explained.

Freedom of Religion and the Social Contract

The events of the last week have brought to our attention the freedoms enunciated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and how other jurisdictions don't extend the same protections. The Left is now calling upon suppressing freedom of speech that is "offensive" to Muslims. The irony is that they have it exactly backwards. If anyone's freedom of speech/religion deserves to be abridged, it's the Muslims themselves.
The First Amendment says two things about religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

I see these two as a package deal: The Episcopalians agreed not to try to be the official state religion in exchange for the Catholics not having Inquisitions to punish heretics, etc. To participate in religious liberty, your religion has to allow that same liberty to others. If you believe you have the right to use violence against those who disagree with you, then we have the right to use violence to stop you.

The Platform: Ramrod Repair

So they put the planks back in:

... by blatantly ignoring the vote and "deeming" the amendment passed.

Folks, we have to have such a landslide that it's beyond the Margin of Fraud, or they'll do the same thing in election offices this November.

Firewall 16: Walking Into Mordor

Bill's back with another Firewall. Here he ventures deep into enemy territory and brings back a recon report:

Firewall 15: Turncoat!

Firewall 8: A Nation of Desire

Bill explains how the Judeo-Christian morality in our culture promotes liberty:

Merry Christmas!

Hannan Explains US Exceptionalism

Peter Robinson sat down with British MEP Daniel Hannan for a five part interview [Part 1|2|3|4|5] right before the election. His recurring theme is that America's institutions and culture have reinforced each other to set us apart from the European institutions and culture from which we separated long ago, creating our exceptional liberty and prosperity. Hannan says Obama is trying to make the US more European, and therefore less American. And he has help from the ruling class in all parties.

One key insight is that we have what he calls "open" primaries. By that he doesn't mean that Democrats can vote in Republican primaries to choose the Republican nominees for various races, but that Republcans can do so. You see, in the European model, the party bosses choose who stands for election in each district. Ponder that when you see and hear the elitists in both parties telling us how those darned TEA Party extremists cost the GOP control of the Senate by nominating all of those divisive candidates instead of the safe RINOs that we may rest assured would have won in a walk.

Firewall 4: Natural Law

Bill's at it again with the fourth in his series "What We Believe", this time explaining the idea of natural law:
If you haven't seen the others yet, get caught up here:

Time Perspectives

Watch this, and think about what it's saying. Then think some more. This is about a fundamental problem that seems to be getting worse, not better.

Hannan!

When South East England's MEP Daniel Hannan speaks, we should listen:

Here he talks about the Anglo-Saxon heritage of freedom and decentralized political power that was exported to America, then forgotten in the UK. He warns us against following that same road, and we ignore his advice at our peril.

Adnan Barqawi Addresses Virginia Republicans

You'll never hear about this from the MainScream Media, because it doesn't fit the narrative of RethugliKKKans hating on brown-skinned immigrants. The quality of the audio and video is sub-par (and particularly rough at first with the people talking near the shooter's mic) but I think you'll find it worth your while to stick with it to hear a refutation of multiculturalism (don't call him a "Palestinian-American") and a ringing endorsement of American exceptionalism from someone who knows first-hand how exceptional this country is.

(Click on the image to play — it will open in a separate window/tab)

Why I love America, pt. 10,301

Purex has launched a new product.
http://www.purex.com/media-center
It's a sheet with detergent, fabric softener and anti-static all in one.
I have no idea if the thing works or how much it costs.
But the concept is frakkin' brilliant!
It's a bachelor's dream.
Now if someone could just invent the washer/dryer all-in-one machine.

Bill Lays the Smackdown on Jon Stewart

On last night's Daily Show, Jon Stewart issued an apology for calling Harry Truman a war criminal. I don't know if he'd seen an advance copy of Bill's Afterburner segment at PJTV: Jon Stewart, War Criminals & The True Story of the Atomic Bombs

Watch it. This is how it's done, boys and girls.

UPDATE: DHS Secretary Napolitano Stands by "Right Wing Extremism" Report

Napolitano stands by risks report

"Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S."

On the other hand, it looks like some previously-smug Obama supporters have started sweating as they realize that the 'Most Messianic Administration Evah' may have crossed the line:

"But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was "dumbfounded" that such a report would be issued.

"This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans," said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, in his letter sent Tuesday night."

...and maybe... just maybe... you're starting to see a few too many eyes narrowing at that, huh?

"Ms. Napolitano insisted that the department was not planning on engaging in any form of ideological profiling."

Uh-huh...

- But we've all seen the report already, so I'm afraid it's a little late to get that toothpaste back into the tube now.

- MuscleDaddy

Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremism” Setup

(sorry for being a little late on this – family in from out of town - MD)

Just to be clear – this is the Department of Homeland Security’s report on ‘Rightwing Extremism’, dated 07APR2009:


(Here’s the link to the .pdf)


The most glaring feature that leaps to the fore when reading this ‘report’, is that it is regrettably light on facts or references, seeming instead to follow an “Everyone Knows” approach to fact-gathering, i.e. :

“Where are you getting your information?”

“What do you mean? Everyone knows it’s true!”

In the course of my work, I’ve seen … quite a few… threat assessment reports.

This one is a political editorial wearing ‘threat assessment’ clothing.


Let’s Review.

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

So straight-away, the authors of this “report” state that they … well,… have nothing to report in the way of actual facts or information – nothing actionable, nothing specific – not even a currently-identified group to use as an example…

… only a general notion that the hordes of Rightwing-Nuts (that everyone knows about, after all) may be recruiting new members.

...Because the President’s Black and ‘everyone knows’ that those on the Right are violent racists.

Oh Wait! There’s an asterisk in there! Let’s see what details or clarifications are provided:

* Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

So, included under ‘Rightwing Extremism’ are:

- Those “based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups” (Nation of Islam, Black Panthers & CAIR – welcome aboard, guys!)

- Those who think that the Federal Government has no business exercising control over local governments, OR that government in general has no business dictating to the individual in a free society (see also: Washington, Jefferson, Franklin)

- Those dedicated to opposing abortion or illegal immigration (letting the Leftist discussion-framing peek through, they’ve – once again – left out the word ‘illegal’)


…So much for ‘asterisks’.

Onward.

“Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

“Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.”

Again – we have a threat assessment report that states:
“While there is no ‘there’ there – well,…well… there could be!”

Very informative – Very Useful.

And then there’s the Report’s version of ‘The Race Card’:

“Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and…”

…and don’t you dare try to dispute that, or you will have denied the very existence of racism in this country as a motivating force at the forefront of the American mind – and you know what that would make you.


Next, we move on to the part of the report that says that the Right Wing Extremists become dangerous every time there’s a Democrat in the White House:

"The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers."

I guess the difference **this time around** is that the POTUS keeps reassuring us that the threat to U.S. sovereignty is not only real, but actually on his agenda. (links)

Wrapping up our 90’s-Flashback and closing the circle:

"Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power."

Oooh, I see.

So now that we have a POTUS who has a history with domestic-terrorist-bombers, is actively working to tank the economy, and intends to downgrade us from “preeminent world power” to “citizen of the global collective” – we can expect an uptick in groups of people who think that ‘Change’ is not necessarily ‘Progress’?

Good thing we’ve got this report to tell us that.


Okay!

And now we get into that part of the report that is my personal favorite…

"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government.

The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement."

So – propositions within our government to abrogate the right of the people to keep and bear arms (as recognized in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) – would not be met by "We The People" with open arms… some of them might even take it into their minds that the government lacks the right or legal authority to do something like that and *just might* be willing to actually fight to keep those rights, as the founders of our country did so many years ago.


You know, I just had a thought on this one.


Remember back when, in an attempt to create a sense of moral-relativism to excuse terrorists around the world, the meme was “Well, George Washington was considered a terrorist in his time too!”

The point of that bit of pablum was to say:
‘You can’t say that suicide-bombing terrorists terrorists are inherently bad because they are just fighting for their version of freedom – JUST LIKE OUR FOUNDING FATHERS DID!’

So – at what point did ‘fighting for freedoms like the founding fathers’ go from being a “Good” thing when used to apologize for terrorists, to being a “Bad” thing when applied to people taking precautions against the loss of those same freedoms and rights... that our founders actually fought for?

**Jump straight into the comments if you’ve got something there, because I don’t get it. **


Followed Immediately By:

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."

I’m going to stop after this, because the rest of the report just regurgitates the same dreck over and over in an apparent attempt to make it all scarier/more-damning by repetition.

But seriously – “Returning Veterans”?

According to the US Census there were 23.7 Million military veterans in the U.S. in 2006

But somehow, the “returning veterans” today are different – THESE are the ones to watch out for.

I guess that’s particularly true if they’ve got a Ron Paul bumper sticker.


Poorly written, lacking anything specific in the way of references, examples, citations or even …well,... threats to be assessed, this “report” does nothing but attempt to demonize/criminalize those “rightwing” enough to disagree with Obama’s intent or direction – stopping just short of actually calling all of us “Domestic Terrorists” (which wasn’t supposed to be a ‘bad thing’ during the election) but suggesting that we should all be watched very carefully…

… because you never know – and particularly not when you work for the DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

- MuscleDaddy

P.S. - I'm already getting reports that the approach of the MSM (NBC specifically) to this has been to essentially read-the-report, interview someone from the Southern Poverty Law Center and show stock footage of the KKK.

Nothing to see here, folks - move along.

Ramussen Poll shows more than Economic Preference

Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism
(h/t Monopticus)

So sayeth the Ramussen Phone Poll...

Though according to the initial breakout, if you're sitting there scratching your head and thinking "That just can't be right"... chance are, you're probably over 40.

Let's Review:

- Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided.
(that last 30% are the vacantly-staring, disconnected, mental-tabula-razas that criminal-defense and civil-prosecution attorneys refer to as "jurors" - MD)

- Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism.

- Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

- Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism.

- As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

- There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism.

- Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism.

As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

Now I'm reminded of an old-saw that my brother and I frequesntly trade back-and-forth that goes:
"Truisms become truisms because, at some point, they were true."

You know - like:
"As people get older, start raising kids and become acquainted with cold reality - they become more conservative."

Or:
"A Liberal is just a Conservative who hasn't been mugged yet."

Okay - enough fun - looking back:

- Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided.

The phrase "adults under 30" seems more than ever like an oxymoron to me - particularly since the Obama campaign.

To be more accurate, that should probably read:
"kids at least old enough to have graduated college, who are still living with their parents, and are angry over not having been issued their Gulfstream IV with their degree".

Seriously, we're talking about the generation with the largest sense of collective-entitlement that our culture has ever seen.

MuscleDaddy-the-Elder asked his final (before retirement) Freshman English Class, on the first day of the semester, to scratch out a couple of paragraphs about:
"What you would want to have with you if stranded on a deserted island"

- more than one wrote "My Parents".

This is fairly indicative of the cultural phenomenon that allowed Barack Obama to get elected in the first place - nearly two generations brought up into lives of ease, short-attention-span and instant gratification... and they don't want it to end.

Someone should be their 'parent' - why not the government?

Bob Parks touched on this one in a recent post - go ye now and read it.


Sorry, what's that you say?

"But wait, MD - what about all of those patchouli-and-ponytail wearing oldsters?
What about the middle-aged Code Pinkos and over-the-hill Che-shirt-wearers?
What about the "Socialism" sides of the poll from the other age groups?
Don't they invalidate your chrono-centric rant, here?"

Not really, as it turns out.

But since they are a topic about which an entire book could be (and coincidentally, has been) written, I'll just point out that Diana West has already done all of the heavy-lifting on that topic - complete with a yeoman-effort of citation-and-reference gathering - and has produced the defining work in the explanation of that aspect of our societal failure with her book:

Death of the Grown-Up

...and follow by saying unto you all "go ye forth and read it".

(You can't have my copy - I'm hanging onto it against the long-chance of getting it autographed - go show your support of capitalism and buy your own!)


Seriously, folks - this isn't something that's going to fix itself, nor is the real work likely to bear fruit anytime soon.


The real change has to start here, now - with our kids.

- MuscleDaddy

(P.S. - I'm beating all of you to it - "Hey you kids! Get off my lawn!"... so there.)

Pournelle: SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

The magnificent Jerry Pournelle has seen fit to republish SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS, originally written in 1983. As Jerry points out, some things have changed. On the gripping hand, much has not...

There are other masters; masters who will do more than hold fast to the old ways; they will usher in a new era. The theorists proclaim it. Times have changed. Old institutions, devised in simpler times, are outmoded. Modern times demand modern, streamlined, efficient government- government that can sweep away the dead hand of the past, and bring forth the new dawn.

A new friend of the people comes forth. He will end the babble of political parties and factions and class war He will give meaning to life; will lead a crusade against poverty, squalor, ugliness; will transform the nation into a land beautiful and shining. He will be the Hero, of whom Carlyle said,

His place is with the stars of heaven. He walks among men; loves men, with inexpressible soft pity--as they cannot love him: but his soul dwells in solitude, in the innermost parts of creation. Thou, 0 World, how wilt thou secure thyself from this man? He is thy born king, thy conqueror and supreme lawgiver not all the guineas and cannons under the sky can save thee from him.

Sound familiar? Do read the entire thing, and see just who was the object of Carlyle's adoration. [Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

We Are Still A Republic

"Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose.

Some words give you a feeling. Republic is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat.

The same tightness a man gets when his baby takes his first step, or his first baby shaves, and makes his first sound like a man.

Some words can give you a feeling that make your heart warm. Republic is one of those words.

-John Wayne, “The Alamo”

As the events of the “First 100 Days” continue to unfold, I find that many of the really BIG mistakes (by which I mean ‘those likely to have the farthest-reaching negative effects on the fabric of our country) to which I am forced to bear witness seem to have a single common thread – that they stem from a loss of understanding of one very basic precept that has guided the very existence of our nation – perhaps “The” basic precept:


The United States of America is a Republic.


You’ll notice that I said “loss of understanding” rather than “lack of understanding” – that was on purpose, because it is something our elected officials used to know, but seem to have lost – It’s also something that cannot adequately be imparted, but something that may be regained by people familiar enough to recognize it.

At its heart, the problem is that they seem to have fallen into a trap of shoddy linguistics, so that they have come to mistake our “Republic” for a “Democracy”, confusing the essence of each as many people confuse the terms themselves, considering them to be synonyms … which they most assuredly are not.


In the immortal words of MuscleDaddy-the-Elder: “Let’s Review”


The difference between a Republic and a Democracy lies in their respective sources of official power.


A “Republic” is a political entity governed by a charter, which directs a restricted group (citizens) to elect representatives who will govern the state. Republics are free societies precisely because they are bound by their charters, which restrict the responsibilities and powers of the state.

It is this restriction, along with the legal consistency and rationality of the charter, as well as the people’s willingness to observe and live by it, that keeps people free.


A “Democracy” is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority. There is still a restricted group (citizens) in a democracy, but this group rules directly and personally runs everything. The group may delegate specific tasks to individuals, (governorships, etc) but there is no question that the ruling force in a democracy is not a charter, but the vote of the majority.

Unbound by any sort of charter, democracies are free only so long as the citizen-rulers are consistent in their application of freedom. If the citizens (or, more specifically, a majority of the citizens) come to a point where they no longer understand what freedom is then the mob-rule of a democracy can slide into a tyranny every bit as complete as any central-planning dictatorship (think: Socrates' suicide, forced by the “democracy” in Athens.)

The United States of America is, and has always been, a Republic – bound by the charter of the United States Constitution which, by its design, limits the amount and type of power the government may wield over the individual.

This is where the understanding has been “lost” among our elected officials, who have either fallen to the siren-cries of mob-rule or (and infinitelty worse) are using its cacophony to mask their own intended movements.

Examples of this abound, but two of the most glaring and blatant examples have intersected with current events in just the past several days.


Consider H.R. 1388 – the camouflage-named “GIVE Act”.

I wrote about this one the other day – pointing out that while none of its provisions are specifically “Mandatory” in themselves right now it is, at best, economically coercive - and very plainly lays all of the necessary groundwork and installs the necessary infrastructure to open the door to making its form of “volunteerism” mandatory in the future.


But, however “good” it might make a democratic-majority majority “feel” to pass into law a bill that so prominently speaks of “volunteerism”, the merest suggestion – the slightest hint – of making any form of work “Mandatory” for American citizens should have seen this piece of legislation squashed… by the binding charter of our country:

United States Constitution
Amendment XIII
Section 1.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

“Mandatory Volunteerism” makes no provision for a person’s desire (or lack of) to volunteer – it is simply “mandatory”, and as such goes directly against the country’s binding charter of the United States Constitution and our Republic (by design) has no power to impose it.


Here’s another…


Consider H.R. 1586 – the so-called Bonus Tax bill.

Aside from all of the finger-pointing-outrage of who may have “allowed” the situation at AIG to develop as it has, the form and function of this proposed law (and make no mistake, tax-law is LAW) is writ plainly on its cover:

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 18, 2009

A BILL
To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients.

“..certain TARP recipients” - plainly singling out specific individuals, and when combined with the last line of the bill:

g) Effective Date- This section shall apply to disqualified bonus payments received after December 31, 2008, in taxable years ending after such date.

…again, leaves it in such direct opposition to our nation’s binding charter of the United States Constitution, that it never should have seen the light-of-day:

United States Constitution

Article I, section 9, clause 3:

“No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

In the context of the Constitution, a "Bill of Attainder" refers to a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (say, a specific group of people from a specific handful of companies) – while ‘ex post facto’ naturally refers to making a law against a specific act or situation after it has already occurred, so that it may now be made subject under the law “after the fact” (say, enacting a law today that makes subject an act or occurrence from 3 months ago).


However “justified” the outrage of the mob, waving their signs and shouting their chants in the streets, may be,

However badly our elected officials may want “do-overs” for their own mistakes or malfeasance,

However fair-or-unfair it may be spun-up by the media to seem at the time...


None of that matters when exerting the authority and power of government.


We Are Still A Republic.

…not just when we like the outcome – not only when the media-led public outrage agrees.


We Are Still A Republic.

…and we follow our own rules for a reason.

“Now I may sound like a Bible beater yelling up a revival at a river crossing camp meeting, but that don't change the truth none. There's right and there's wrong. You got to do one or the other. You do the one and you're living. You do the other and you may be walking around, but you're dead as a beaver hat.”

- John Wayne

When the man's right, he's right.

- MuscleDaddy

Murray at AEI: The Happiness of the People

Yesterday I shared Mark Steyn's characterization of the Obama Administration's program as Eurofication; today let us turn to Charles Murray's observations. He recently spoke at the American Enterprise Institute (accepting its 2009 Irving Kristol Award) on the subject of The Happiness of the People, in which he explains why Leftist prescriptions to make various people's lives easier, to whatever extent they actually succeed in doing so, make them less happy. He explains whence comes happiness (in the Aristotlean sense) and how the European model of "Social Democracy"

To become a source of deep satisfaction, a human activity has to meet some stringent requirements. It has to have been important (we don't get deep satisfaction from trivial things). You have to have put a lot of effort into it (hence the cliché "nothing worth having comes easily"). And you have to have been responsible for the consequences.

There aren't many activities in life that can satisfy those three requirements. Having been a good parent. That qualifies. A good marriage. That qualifies. Having been a good neighbor and good friend to those whose lives intersected with yours. That qualifies. And having been really good at something--good at something that drew the most from your abilities. That qualifies. Let me put it formally: If we ask what are the institutions through which human beings achieve deep satisfactions in life, the answer is that there are just four: family, community, vocation, and faith. Two clarifications: "Community" can embrace people who are scattered geographically. "Vocation" can include avocations or causes.

It is not necessary for any individual to make use of all four institutions, nor do I array them in a hierarchy. I merely assert that these four are all there are. The stuff of life--the elemental events surrounding birth, death, raising children, fulfilling one's personal potential, dealing with adversity, intimate relationships--coping with life as it exists around us in all its richness--occurs within those four institutions.

Seen in this light, the goal of social policy is to ensure that those institutions are robust and vital. And that's what's wrong with the European model. It doesn't do that. It enfeebles every single one of them.

[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]
I'm not as optimistic as Murray on how science will prove the fundamental tenets of leftism false; maybe that's because I've had enough "scientific consensus" on Gorebal Warming, thank you very much. But you owe it to yourself to read the whole thing and hear his arguments.

Steyn: Prime Minister Obama

When Mark Steyn writes, you really ought to read, just on general principles. If, therefore, you've already read this one, read it again. If you haven't, then read it twice, so that you can truly appreciate what lies in store for Western Civilization (if we fail to heed the warning).

We've been told for years how despised we are by the European elites, who in contrast loved then-Senator Obama. Why the Germans seem to love him even more than they do David Hasselhoff! Steyn takes us through what it will mean to transform the American Republic into a European-style Social Democracy under "Prime Minister Obama":

It’s interesting that it never occurred to the IMF that anyone would be loopy enough to try their study the other way around — to examine the impact on America of Europeanization. For that, we had to wait for the election of Barack Obama. Which brings us to the third problem of Europeanization: What are the consequences for the world if the hyperpower embarks on the same form of assisted suicide as the rest of the West?