The French elections figure to alter European landscape as Front National is poised to take numerous mayors’ offices around France.

With the crucial second round of voting in France’s local elections just days away, The Local looks ahead, with the help of an expert in French politics, to what will happen. How well will the National Front do? How badly will it get for the left, and who will triumph in Paris?

We enlisted the help of Nonna Mayer, Research Director at the Centre of European Studies at Sciences Po in Paris to look at some of the key questions.

How well can we expect the National Front to do?

All talk after the first round of voting was about the historic gains made by the National Front, led by Marine Le Pen. The FN (Front National) as they are referred to, picked up five percent of the vote despite only putting forward candidates in around 600 of the 36,000 villages, towns and cities.

The far-right party already have one mayor elected in the northern town of Hénin-Beaumont and they are hoping to beat their record of four back in the mid-1990s. The FN will compete in around 200 towns and cities in the second round. Le Pen and co’s success in the first round led to the Prime Minister and several others calling for a republican front to stop the FN taking over local councils. But Sciences Po’s Mayer believes those calls will fall flat.

“They can’t be stopped. It’s the first time the National Front have such an electoral dynamic in local elections,” she said. “French voters mobilized against them in 2002 when the National Front made it to the run-off in a presidential election but this is different.

“Voters are so tired of the economic situation and they have the feeling that the left and the right have been unable to find a solution. They will say: ‘After all, we have tried everything. Why don’t we try the National Front?

“They will probably get six cities and some big ones are in there. It’s going to be a very, very good election for the National Front.”

How bad will it be for the Socialists on Sunday?

If the National Front were seen as the big winners in the first round then naturally the losers were President François Hollande’s ruling Socialist Party, who along with their allies, only picked up 38 percent of the vote. Hollande told his ministers this week to “learn the lessons” from the poor showing in the first round, but the French public, who have long since fallen out of love with the President, might be ready to teach them another one on Sunday.

“Things were already bad. And they are going to be very, very bad in the run-off,” Mayer says. “The Socialists should have acknowledged the ‘punishment vote’ they received in the first round. Mayer blames Hollande’s tax policies and the Responsibility Pact that he signed with business leaders for voters being turned off.

The Socialists are predicted to lose key towns and cities like Strasbourg, Amiens and Caen that they won from the right in 2008. If they were given a bloody nose in the first round, the Socialists look set to get a heftier beating on Sunday.

What will the beating at the polls mean for Hollande’s government?

The question then is how will Hollande respond to an embarrassing defeat. Even before the local elections he was under pressure to reshuffle his government and in particular ditch his beleaguered Prime Minister, Jean Marc Ayrault, who appears to be about as popular as the President himself.

“I think he is going to have a reshuffle, but I don’t know who or how,” Mayer says. “But I can say even his prime minister didn’t have the proper reaction after the defeat. If they [Socialists] want to start again fresh then they need to reshuffle.”

If Ayrault does go, the man most likely to take his place is the current Interior Minister Manuel Valls, who has remained popular in the eyes of the public, unlike his party leaders. But while making Valls Prime Minister would appease the public, it is unlikely to go down to well in the cabinet. There have already been rumours that Housing Minister Cecile Duflot will quit if Valls is made PM. No easy solution for Hollande then.

Related video:

The National Front’s shocking success at the polls has rocked the socialist boat in France. In Italy and Britain, rebellious factions are gaining momentum and change is in the air. Anti-immigration is the theme of the National Front in France. And an anti-European Union theme is running strong not only in France, but in Britain as well. Here Pat Buchanan lays out what is building as a crisis condition throughout old Europe.

Why is the EU under rising centrifugal pressure? Why do so many nations of Europe seem on the verge of breaking up?

There is no single or simple explanation.

Venice and Northern Italy feel exploited. Why, they ask, should we subsidize a less industrious and lazier south that consumes tax revenues we raise here. Many northern Italians believe they have more in common with Swiss than Romans, Neapolitans or Sicilians.

Flanders feels the same about the Walloons in Belgium.

Scots and Catalans believe they are a people with a culture, history and identity separate from the nations to which they belong.

Across Europe, there is a fear that the ethnic character of their countries and continent are being altered forever against the will of the people.

Western Europeans are recoiling at the Bulgarians, Rumanians and gypsies arriving from Eastern Europe. Asylum seekers, economic refugees and migrants in the scores of thousands arrive annually on the Italian island of Lampedusa and in the Spanish Canaries.

Early this month, the New York Times reported a surge of 80,000 African migrants headed for the tiny Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the Moroccan coast.

The goal these desperate people seek: the mother countries of the Old Continent and the wealthy welfare states of Northern Europe.

What the children of Europe are rebelling against is what their fathers, paralyzed by political correctness, refused to prevent.

It was predictable, it was predicted, and it has come to pass.

French—for centuries the language of culture, diplomacy, the arts, the educated. But French today is a language not spoken mostly by the people of France. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, one of the world’s fastest-growing areas, the language is also growing fast. According to one projection, by 2050, French, rather than Mandarin or English, could be the most-spoken language in the world.

French may be a beautiful language, but few would argue it’s the most useful, and almost nobody would argue it’s the language of the future. John McWhorter spoke for many when he wrote an immediately viral piece titled, “Let’s Stop Pretending That French Is an Important Language,” attacking New York City’s bilingual education programs.

Here’s the thing: the data suggests that French language just might be the language of the future.

French isn’t mostly spoken by French people, and hasn’t been for a long time now. The language is growing fast, and growing in the fastest-growing areas of the world, particularly sub-Saharan Africa. The latest projection is that French will be spoken by 750 million people by 2050.

A study by investment bank Natixis even suggests that by that time, French could be the most-spoken language in the world, ahead of English and even Mandarin.

Controlling what you spend has some benefits. Forbes talked to two extreme early retirees and developed a three step process that could work if you don’t mind forgoing some of the finer things.

Here’s the three-step process Fisker, Mr. Money Mustache and others recommend to pull it off:
1. Embrace a very frugal lifestyle. That means cutting back substantially on biggies like your home and car expenses as well as learning to cook (to save on dining out and prepared foods) and to do more things yourself rather than pay someone else to do them.

2. Save like crazy­ — ideally at least 75% of your income — and invest the money. Put another way, if you can live on one dollar out of four and invest the other three, you’ll save enough money to cover three years’ worth of future expenses in just one year.

3. Once your investments are sufficient to support that very frugal lifestyle for the rest of your life, consider yourself free to retire. Fisker sets the savings target at 25 to 40 times annual expenses, depending on how many years you have ahead of you.

The story goes on to point out that preparations for retirement shouldn’t be focused entirely on the income side of your budget.

Most people wrongly focus on the income side of this equation, he says. “They want as much income as possible in retirement, to ensure the happiest possible life. What they are missing is that happiness is almost completely unrelated to how much you spend.”

Mustache maintains that with a bit of learning and reflection, almost anyone can learn to live happily on half of their take-home pay or less. That “allows savings to compound and set you free rapidly.”

Skeptical? He suggests a trial run.

“Try some experiments in your own lifestyle that cut down your costs and watch the surprising results on how happy you are,” says Mustache. You might wind up driving less, walking more, cooking more and spending more time enjoying nature rather than costly leisure activities, he adds.

Interestingly, the activities that extreme early retirees recommend for saving money bear a strong resemblance to the things many of us look forward to in retirement anyway, such as cooking, gardening, walking and biking.

Their choice to live in smaller homes and not be “owned” by possessions also fits nicely with the attitude many of us adopt as we get older (and, we hope, wiser).

You probably have serious questions about personal privacy abuse by NSA. And you are no doubt cloudy on how Edward Snowden plays into it all. Here my friend and Cato Institute Chairman Bob Levy clarifies the trade-offs and suggests a path forward.

The main argument against treating Snowden as a hero is that he may have disclosed crucial information to such bastions of liberty as Russia, China, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, or Cuba — countries where (according to Wikileaks) he applied for asylum. Snowden supporters offer two counterarguments:

First, they maintain that Snowden had no real choice regarding asylum in Russia, where he was trapped after the U.S. State Department revoked his passport. He would have preferred Iceland, which rejected his bid for citizenship. Snowden’s remaining options were unacceptable: keep quiet about the NSA’s snooping, stay here and be exposed to 30 years or more in prison, or go to an allied country and face extradition.

Second, in a September NPR interview, reporter Barton Gellman (a Snowden confidant) stated that Snowden “is exceptionally skilled at digital self-defense.” He taught courses on avoiding surveillance at the NSA and CIA. Gellman believes Snowden “rendered himself incapable of opening the [NSA database] while he was in Russia.” He no longer had the key to the encrypted data; and, more importantly, there was “nothing for the key to open any more.” Snowden buttressed that assertion in a letter to former U.S. Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH): “You may rest easy knowing that I cannot be coerced into revealing that information, even under torture.”

Therein lies the crux of the matter for some libertarians. Snowden deserves our enduring gratitude for uncovering government abuse at great personal risk. On the other hand, Mike Rogers (R-MI), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, alleges that Snowden probably had help from Russia and may have compromised vital national security interests, a charge that Snowden denies. Perhaps that suggests this outline for a deal: first, Snowden can come home if he will cooperate with investigators. Second, he will not be prosecuted for actions already disclosed to the public. But third, he can be held accountable for other actions, not yet disclosed, that amount to espionage — traditionally defined as transmitting national defense information with intent or reason to believe that it will be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation. And fourth, as constitutionally required, the government would have the burden of presenting evidence to a grand jury, obtaining an indictment, and prevailing in a criminal trial.

If Britain can privatize snail mail then why can’t we? It’s a question that deserves an answer. Cato’s Chris Edwards explains:

Britain privatized its Royal Mail in 2013, proceeding with an initial public offering of shares that raised about $2.7 billion. The government pursued the reform because the company faced falling mail volume, and it needed to reduce costs and increase innovation. Similar issues face the U.S. Postal Service.

The Financial Times has named the reformer leading the privatized Royal Mail its “Person of the Year.” Below is an excerpt about Moya Greene from FT’s story. I have two questions: i) Why don’t we get reforms or reformers like this in Washington? ii) Why are American leaders so comparatively timid in embracing market-based reforms?

The IRS plans to tax millions of Americans without congressional authorization—itself a federal crime. Cato’s Michael Cannon explains here how Halbig v Sebelius asks the courts to force the administration to implement O’Care as Congress intended.

Tuesday, all eyes will be on a high-profile Obamacare case before the Supreme Court. But just a few blocks away, a lower court will hear a lesser-known Obamacare case that could have a far greater impact on the future of the law.

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments Tuesday in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, a case challenging the Obama administration’s attempt to force private companies to purchase contraceptives for their employees contrary to the owners’ religious beliefs. A ruling for Hobby Lobby would restore the religious freedom of potentially millions of employers and workers.

Just down the street, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments in Halbig v. Sebelius. Obamacare supporters call Halbig ”the greatest existential litigation threat to the Affordable Care Act.”

That description, while colorful, is not quite accurate. Halbig does not ask the courts to strike down any part of the law. It merely asks the court to force the administration to implement the law as Congress intended, a prospect that absolutely terrifies Obamacare supporters.

The issues in Halbig are simple.

Obamacare authorizes the IRS to provide health-insurance subsidies (nominally, tax credits) to consumers who purchase health insurance “through an Exchange established by the State.” That’s not a drafting error. The subsidy-eligibility rules employ that language a total of nine times, without deviation. The rest of the statue is fully compatible with this language.

The statute is therefore clear and unambiguous: the IRS may issue subsidies in the14 states that established an exchange, but not in the 34 states that left the job of establishing and operating their state’s exchange to the federal government. Congress’ purpose is likewise clear. It wanted states to operate the exchanges, so it conditioned subsidies on state cooperation. Medicaid and countless other federal programs do the same.

The IRS’s philosopher-kings have decided to issue subsidies in those 34 states anyway.

The New York Times would have Americans believe yes, by referring back to cold war levels of troop deployment and a strange philosophy of a resurgent Russia. My Cato Institute friend Chris Preble pulls the Times editors away from the brink of hysteria with some logic and common sense.

We have cut military spending modestly, and most of the reductions have been from war costs. The base budget is still well above pre-9/11 levels when adjusted for inflation.

The Europeans, by contrast, began cutting immediately after the Cold War, and haven’t stopped cutting. Promises to get serious about defense ring hollow against this backdrop.

But if the Europeans ultimately fail to increase spending, we (Americans) have only ourselves to blame. This was the deal that we cut at the end of the Cold War–we agree to defend you, and you agree to let us. If I were in the Europeans’ shoes, I probably wouldn’t have spent much more on the military. People are generally disinclined to pay for things that others will buy for them (a concept that conservative Republicans understand when it comes to domestic welfare spending, but strangely ignore when the dependents are wealthy foreign countries).

Related video:

We are delighted that the Pats and Vince are back together again.

Bellicose war hawks would bring Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia into NATO while moving U.S troops and warplanes into Poland. Obama and Kerry cry out “all options are on the table.” Tired and miss-guided treaties of yore commit America to defend the Philippines, Japan and South Korea, for three, against aggression. Is it not long past time that these countries took over the cost and burden of defending themselves? Don’t Americans know that our Constitution does not even allow for a standing army? The Constitution refers to raising and supporting of armies but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for longer than two years! The Constitution does call for providing and maintaining a Navy. The Constitution was about suppressing Insurrections and repelling Invasions. In other words, the founders were about defending our shores and most certainly did not write the Constitution as a handbook for meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries. Jefferson wrote "I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be." Here Pat Buchanan outlines the circling of the war hawks and correctly warns Americans that leadership has the country on a dangerous course.

Sweeping through Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania this week, Joe Biden reassured all three that the United States’ commitment to Article Five of the NATO treaty remains “solemn” and “iron clad.”

Article Five commits us to war if the territory of any of these tiny Baltic nations is violated by Russia.

From World War II to the end of the Cold War, all three were Soviet republics. All three were on the other side of the Yalta line agreed to by FDR, and on the other side of the NATO red line, the Elbe River in Germany.

No president would have dreamed of waging war with Russia over them. Now, under the new NATO, we must. Joe Biden was affirming war guarantees General Eisenhower would have regarded as insane.

Secretary of State John Kerry says that in the Ukraine crisis, “All options are on the table.” John McCain wants to begin moving Ukraine into NATO, guaranteeing that any Russian move on the Russified east of Ukraine would mean war with the United States.

Forty members of Congress have written Kerry urging that Georgia, routed in a war it started with Russia over South Ossetia in 2008, be put on a path to membership in NATO.

Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, other voices are calling for expanding NATO to bring in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, and for moving U.S. troops and warplanes into Poland and the Baltic republics.

President Obama says, “All options are on the table” if Iran does not give us solid assurances she is not building a bomb. Members of Congress support U.S. military action against Iran, if Tehran does not surrender even the “capability” to build a bomb.

End all enrichment of uranium, or America attacks, they warn.

In the Far East we are committed to defend Japan if China seizes the Senkakus that Beijing claims as Chinese territory, a collection of rocks in the East China Sea. If Kim Jong-Un starts a war with South Korea, we are committed by treaty to fight a second Korean War.

We are committed by treaty to defend the Philippines. And if China acts on its claim to the southern islands of the South China Sea, and starts a shooting war with Manila’s navy, we are likely in it.

Is this not an awful lot on Uncle Sam’s plate?

Related video: