World Watch Today

China's first Aircraft Carrier

The most visible symbol of China’s rising military power is it’s first aircraft carrier. The carrier is a clear sign of China’s naval ambitions.

The giant, grey hulk of China’s newest warship, 60,000 tons of steel, sits at a dockside in the port of Dalian.  The huge carrier has been years in the making, and it is an unmistakable sign of China’s expanding military, and China’s desire to project Chinese power further beyond its borders.

China’s military is generally believed to be 20 years behind America’s in its development, but China is determined to catch up.  China is focusing on weapons designed to blunt US military power.  “An aircraft carrier is a symbol of the power of your navy,” says General Xu Guangyu, who used to serve in the PLA’s headquarters and is now retired. China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is the largest armed force in the world.  “China should at least be on the same level as other permanent members of the UN Security Council who have carriers.”

But it isn’t just one aircraft carrier. It’s three, of possibly five.  No sooner had the Defense Ministry admitted the existence of one carrier, sources confirmed the existence of two additional carriers being built in Shanghai. The addition of two indigenous carriers would put China in an entirely different class, since currently the United States is the only nation with more than two carriers in service.  These new developments reveal that China is interested in more than just territorial defense—they want to be seen as a superpower to be respected.

China is on course to build a modern military by 2020, a move that could threaten stability in the Asia-Pacific region, the Pentagon says. In the Pentagon’s annual report on China’s defense capability, the Pentagon said China had closed key technological gaps.  A main aim of the military development was to prevent possible US intervention in any conflict with Taiwan.

The PLA has also invested heavily in submarines. It is believed to be close to deploying the world’s first “carrier-killer” ballistic missile designed to sink aircraft carriers while they are maneuvering at sea up to 1,500km offshore, and it is building its own stealth fighter aircraft along with advanced carrier-based aircraft built from Russian designs. All of these can target US bases, US ships and US carriers in Asia.

America is increasingly being seen as the great sunset power, and China, the great sunrise power.

America's Most Urgent Problem

Marriage breakdown in America is ruining our nation. Where you see Divorce, Cohabitation (Living Together) and “hooking up” you also see a massive increase in women having children without the benefit of marriage. Last year, the U.S. illegitimacy rate had grown to 42 percent. In 1950 the rate of out of marriage births was just 4 percent.

The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock babies born last year and their unmarried mothers now look to the American tax-payer as their financial father. The consequences of this are staggering: As government becomes the financial provider for millions of children and mothers, it emboldens bureaucrats to tax its citizens even more (to provide the money necessary to take care of millions of non-married households stuck in poverty)—a vicious cycle.

7 out of 10 voting women who have children out of marriage vote Democratic; they simply view the Democratic Party as the party most likely to pay for their family needs. National and State welfare handouts cost taxpayers nearly one Trillion dollars last year—the largest percentage of welfare handouts subsidize non-marriage households. America spends more money every year funding non-married families, than we spend on National Defense and Homeland Security combined.

The clear truth is that marriage keeps a father in the home. Divorce, living together, same-sex marriage, hooking-up… these lifestyles result in children being born into households that are mostly without the biological father present in their children’s lives. Living together, no-fault divorce, “gay marriage” and abortion are vicious attacks against Fatherhood. Our culture and our government have become anti-marriage, anti-father.

No fault divorce that spread across the nation in the 1970s has placed government on the side of marriage breakdown. Feminist ideas devalue marriage and are hostile toward men. Many of our courts are heavily biased toward the feminist agenda. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asserted that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated.”

Romans 1:28 describes most of our leader’s thinking in government, education, media and business: “And because they did not think it worthwhile to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them over to a worthless mind to do what is morally wrong.”

The King James Bible calls it a reprobate mind and the Amplified Bible says that it is a base and condemned mind. Meaning that they are void of judgment and unable to discern or distinguish what is wise. A nation that “plays” at marriage is bound to collapse.

The destruction of the marriage bond, and lack of respect for the marriage covenant is our nation’s most pressing problem. But don’t expect to hear our leaders voice this shameful truth.

Steven LeBlanc

Immigration Debate Challenges German Tolerance of Minorities

Thilo Sarrazin is an unconventional figure. Until recently he had been a leading politician in the German Social Democratic Party and a member of the Executive Board of the German Bundesbank. Then in August last year, contrary to the modern German tradition of political correctness and tolerance, he published a book titled Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany does itself in), denouncing Germany’s post war immigration policy and declaring German multiculturalism failed, taking principal aim at Turkish Muslim immigrants.

The book has become the most successful German language book in the last decade. Before it had even appeared on shelves, 25,000 copies were pre-sold. As of May this year, 1.5 million copies had been sold. Chancellor Merkel reacted strongly against it, as did many politicians, calling it “unacceptable” and “injurious”. But politicians are in a quandary as to what to do – Mr Sarrazin enjoys approximately 50% support of the German population and 18% say they would vote for him if he were to form his own party.

Shortly after publication in September the Bundesbank asked the German President, Christian Wulff, to dismiss him, a move that Mr Sarrazin pre-empted by resigning despite his initial refusal to do so. Then his party began proceedings to expel him before the Arbitration Commission though the proceedings were ultimately discontinued in April this year.

Germany’s attitude of tolerance towards minorities, including immigrants, comes as an obvious reaction to the national horror of having let the Holocaust take place. In 1949 the new German Constitution came into force, which, recognised Germany’s Nazi past and thus included in its “Basic Law” far-reaching asylum rights which included a constitutionally guaranteed right to sue for asylum.

Following this throughout the 1960s strong immigration incentives were provided to foreigners as Germany tried to rebuild post World War II. However already by the early 1970s there was less demand for migrant workers and by the 1980s the government was actively trying to wind back immigration by offering repatriation with compensation to those guest workers who would take it. However take up was less than expected and by the 1990s the immigration debate had turned violent with neo-Nazi style attacks being launched against immigrants.

Though his target may not be Jewish people, it is the overwhelming similarity to the anti-semitic, Nazi propaganda in Mr Sarrazin’s own style and reasoning, and the German people’s susceptibility to its persuasion, that is alarming. For example, just as Hitler appealed to the idea of the higher intelligence of the German people, Sarrazin also employs this same ideal. He argues that the mere presence of immigrants from Turkey, the Middle East and Africa in the German education system is contributing to the dumbing down of German society.

He has also employed the highly provocative idea that German people are in the process of losing control over their country, being overrun by Arabs and Muslims who have higher birthrates claiming, “The Turks are taking over Germany exactly as the Kosovars took over Kosovo: via a higher birth rate.” Nazi propaganda also employed this idea where Germans were reminded of the struggle against foreign enemies and Jewish subversion in the lead up to controversial legislation. The propaganda then encouraged passivity and acceptance of the impending measures against Jews, as these appeared to depict the Nazi government as stepping in and “restoring order”.

In fact according to Der Spiegel there are 4 million Muslims in Germany of a total population of 82 million citizens. Somewhat ironically, his polemics may have excited the sort of political activism from Muslim German citizens that he is so fearful of. It seems since the publication of his book there has been a wave of political activism amongst Muslims who resent being stereotyped and who have begun to speak up.

In 2008 Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told Turks living in Germany: “No one can expect you to subject yourselves to assimilation, because assimilation is a crime against humanity.” What Prime Minister Erdogan is arguing against is the requirement for immigrants to replace all aspects of their Turkish cultural background with German culture. This is not a question of integrating as it is a question of becoming the same.

This may be at the heart of the issue as one American on the Der Spiegel discussion board remarked. After having come to the Netherlands, adopted the customs, passed all the language and cultural exams and become a Dutch citizen, he is still told by his Dutch compatriots that he will never be a “Dutchman”. If assimilation is what Germans are seeking, perhaps Mr Sarrazin’s book and the ensuing debate will bring that to light.

Eye on Europe

Fatherless Britain

As Britons recover from the worst civil disturbance to hit their country in 40 years, many are asking why did it happen? The violence, arson and thievery that that swept through British cities 2 weeks ago shocked the world. A predatory breed of mostly inner-city youths joyously plundered shops and destroyed businesses and beat-up people for fun.

In a recent speech, the British Prime Minister vowed to help parents, improve schools, foster a sense of responsibility and decrease welfare dependency among the poor.

As well intentioned as his words may have been, government cannot solve the problem of Britain’s criminal youth. The collapse of the married two-parent family, soft punishment of criminals, and lack of enforcement of the drugs laws has created a nation that is bullied by a lazy, violent, selfish class of youths who number in the millions.

Poverty was not the cause of this childhood savagery in British cities. The problem with British youth goes much deeper. Multi-generation fatherlessness is the chief cause.

In Britain many are desperately calling upon parents to keep their children in at night but this only demonstrates shallow thinking. Most of the thugs do not have responsible parents—the parents themselves are either too drunk or given over to addictions or drugs to care much what their teens and children are doing day or night.

Most of these children come from mother headed households. Over the past 40 years there has been a mass exodus of fathers from the homes of their children. The most crucial factor behind a boy’s development is a father who is fully committed to the family, living in the home. Of course there are many single moms who are dedicated to raising their children with a strong sense of right and wrong, but clearly the role of single mom is very, very hard.

In Britain successive generations are being raised only by mothers, through whose houses pass uncommitted, selfish males leaving the all-ready wounded children more damaged.

The careless view of marriage was encouraged by the Welfare State, which subsidizes single parenthood and encourages the idea of the absent father. Welfare dependency further created the entitlement culture–that the world owes them. The British tax system punishes married couples when the wife does not work, and the school system leaves children to decide for themselves the right and wrong of sexual behavior.

In short, Britain is leaving its children to raise themselves—moral authority is almost non-existent in millions of children’s lives. Marriage is the anchor of a healthy society. When marriage is treated frivolously—a thing to be played with—it is just a matter of time before that nation begins to fight a massive crime problem and incurs a diseased economy.

In Britain criminal activity is mostly excused on the basis that the criminal couldn’t help himself, as he was the victim of circumstances such as prejudice, poverty and unemployment. For too long the criminal has been considered the “victim” of society. This foolishness must stop.

When a society ignores the Ten Commandments and treats the marriage covenant as if it is a cartoon an increase in crime and deeply damaged children is the outcome. We are no different here in America. Our contempt for God’s laws is leading us in the same direction as Britain.

The prophet Hosea warns…

“…my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. “Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children” (Hosea 4:6).

Children need a clear understanding of right and wrong; they need to see that there are severe consequences when choosing wrong behavior; and most of all they desperately need to be raised in homes where their biological fathers are present.

Steven LeBlanc

The great European experiment – still experimenting

The Eurozone is still struggling to avert crisis after billions of Euros in loans have been extended to its weakest members. Only two weeks after its most recent summit on 21 July, Italian and Spanish government bonds came under pressure leading to increased speculation that they may be the next countries to need a bail-out. More recently, France too is also appearing to be weakened as is Cyprus. European leaders continue to slowly chip away at a problem that seems to grow two sizes bigger with each seeming solution.

The main European vehicle to fund the struggling states of Greece, Ireland and Portugal has been the European Financial Stability Fund. The EFSF is a Luxembourg company and its stockholders are the Euro-zone states. Its remit is to raise money, primarily through issuing bonds, which it then loans to Euro-zone member states. The EFSF currently has a piggy bank of €440 billion to draw on, backed by collateral guarantees from the Euro member states up to 165% of their contribution.

In recent weeks, it has become clear that even at €440 billion, the EFSF is not big enough. Last week it was reported that the fund at €440 billion could not rescue both Spain and Italy. This week it was reported that the EFSF could only satisfy Spain’s debt over three years.  Add to that France and Cyprus and the present impossibility of the task of rescuing so many flailing economies is clear.

One leading investment bank has predicted three possible outcomes from here. The first, now a probability, is that the European Central Bank will intervene in the Italian and Spanish government bond markets to buy up bonds. If they fail to do this, yields on these bonds will continue to increase making interest payments unmanageable for these countries. However, the question is how long the ECB can do this and whether this measure will be effective. In the past when the ECB has intervened to prevent bond yields escalating it has only had a temporary effect and bailouts ultimately were necessary.

This leads to the second measure required: an increase in the size of the EFSF.  The same investment bank suggests that it would need to be increased to €3.5 trillion, a leading European think tank has suggested €4 trillion. The probabilities seem stacked against this solution at this point given the debt to GDP ratio it would require the EFSF states to take on. However, if one considers that European politicians prefer backroom deals which preserve their political capital at home, one might just imagine this is a possibility. After all, if the alternative is to tell their voters that the joint-currency is a failure less than a decade after its inception, you can see that the captains might just prefer to let the ship sink slowly.

As an alternative to the above two possibilities, there is the quiet whisper “Eurobond”, which would mean that Euro-area countries would jointly and severally guarantee debt issuance from all member countries. Although many believe this last solution could end the uncertainty that is causing so much instability in the Euro-zone, there is no European leader (that counts) that is prepared to spend their political capital on pushing it through. In the “saving” countries such as Germany, it is viewed as tantamount to giving financially wayward countries a blank cheque without any political control over how such economies would be brought back into the “black”. So at present, it appears the first two solutions are the more likely.

Assuming that the size of the EFSF is increased so that Spain, Italy, France and Cyprus (at present) could be “rescued”, there still remains the question whether Germany could extract the same measure of austerity from such countries. Remembering that at the very beginning, the very purpose of the European Union’s forerunner was to align German and French interests so closely that one could never attack the other again, it seems unimaginable that Germany could wield its power to force France into an austerity program with all the economic hardship and political instability that would entail. Also, given that these austerity programs take decades to be effective in reducing a country’s debt, how long would European leaders be able to insist on austerity in so many Euro-zone countries before the resulting political instability would end up affecting the Euro anyway?

Clearly at some point austerity measures will not be workable. This could be the tipping point that leads to the discussion of a fiscal union, essentially an agreement to transfer funds between European countries so that states such as Greece are floated by states such as the Netherlands. However, a fiscal union requires greater centralised tax planning and fiscal control. So just as the German Debt Management Office signs off on all loans from EFSF right now, you can be sure that Germany is not going to be giving away “free money” – it will extract the measure of political power it wants, in exchange for it bankrolling the weaker economies.

Countries which have adopted the Euro do not have any contingency planning for unwinding their currency union should it fail. Most agree that such a situation would be messy and perhaps less predictable than sticking with what we have presently. Therefore we should assume that those countries that are “in” the Euro will commit greater resources and relinquish more power in order to save it. Of course then the question of centralisation of power remains “when” and “how” not “if”.

Eye on Europe

Page 61 of 64« First...102030...5960616263...Last »
© 2017 World Watch Today
Sitemap | Website by Noble Image