• What I Learned in Paris, Part II 2016  By Richard C. Young
• Obama Hostage to Political Correctness  By Richard C. Young
• The Biggest Driver of Gold Prices Is…  By E.J. Smith
• I Can’t Buy a Gun  By Richard C. Young
• Rage Gauge: The Real Unemployment Rate  By E.J. Smith
• The Militarization of America  By Debbie Young
• Mass Muslim Migration into the West?  By Richard C. Young
• Gun Control—A Fact-Free Issue?  By Debbie Young
• Infringing on an Individual’s Gun Rights  By Richard C. Young
• McCain Blames America First  By Justin Logan

If you are a first time or even a second or third time visitor, it is pretty easy not to understand the arrondissment concept. Paris, divided by the River Seine into the Right Bank and the Left Bank, is a city of about two million people living in 20 arrondissments, or districts, each with its own unique character. The 20 arrondissments are often referred to as snail shell, starting, with the 1^st arrondissment, which is basically the geographic center of Paris. The remaining 19 arrondissments work in a clockwise spiral crossing the river twice. At each major intersection, there is a plaque on a building that indicates the arrondissment you are in. Paris zip codes also key you to the arrondissments. The last two digits indicate the arrondissment.

The Left Bank, with six of the 20 arrondissments, is a completely different beast from the Right Bank. On the Left Bank, strung along the River Seine you will find the 5^th, 6^th, and 7^th (exclusive) arrondissments. Contiguous to these three are the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th.

On the Right Bank, there are 14 arrondissments. The 1^st (least populated/Louvre), 2^nd (primarily business), 3^rd (historic Marais/Carnavalet Museum), and 4^th (medieval Marais) are grouped clockwise tightly near the river. The 8^th, 9^th, 10^th, 11^th are above them in a semi circle. Finally above or north of this cluster, spread over a large clockwise semi-circle, are arrondissments 16^th (richest), 17^th, 18^th, 19^th and 20^th. Take a look at the 751 “No-Go” zones in Paris here.

If you are committed to exploring the best Paris has to offer in terms of Palace hotels and high-end couture shopping, you will take up residence in the pricy 8^th. In your early visits to Paris, consider confining yourself to districts one through eight. After many years and over a dozen trips, Debbie and I spend most of our time in the 6^th and 7^th arrondissments on the Left Bank, with the exception of our twice a year visit to our favorite hotel in the world Le Hotel Bristol in the 8^th or the Shangri La in the 16th. Don’t forget, the 16^th is next to the 8^th.

There are no Palace hotels on the Left Bank. Le Hotel Lutetia, now closed for a complete overhaul, may carry a Palace designation when it reopens, perhaps next year. We have loved staying at the historic Lutetia and look forward to its reopening.

We also enjoy the laid back charm of the 6^th and 7th arrondissments, where there are literally dozens of candidate hotels from which to select. Order a copy of The Little Black Book of Paris and turn to the chapter headed St. Germain/Rue du Bac. Make some initial selections and then do your homework on the Internet. Take your time and you will be in solid shape. None of the 751 “No-Go” zones in France is on the Left Bank, popular with American tourists fascinated by the “Lost Generation” of Hemingway, Picassso, Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein, and Sylvia Beach.

Paris hotels are rated from one to five stars, as well as the select group of less than a dozen Right Bank Palace hotels, each more spectacular than the next. By way of comparison, our favorite American city, Boston, offers nothing remotely resembling a Parisian Palace hotel.

Perhaps there are nice selections in one and two star hotels, but I know you can uncover some great choices at three stars. A couple of helpful books I would advise ordering well before your trip are Parisian Chic City Guide and Bright Lights Paris. Do not miss either.

You may wish to hire a Paris expert guide to show you around Paris. We have used a number, especially for the Versailles, the Louvre, Musee d’Orsay, and walking tours of the Marais and Montmartre, for example. A David Lebovitz gastronomy tour of Paris and Lausanne was a highlight. On our most recent trip we worked with Jodie Hutchins on a tour through the Marais, but she will customize her tours to fit your needs. Enjoy your visit to the “The City of Light.”

The Wall Street Journal suggests that Obama may be handing Donald Trump “his strongest argument.”

Mr. Obama’s refusal to acknowledge the real nature of the Islamist threat creates an opening for Mr. Trump’s immigration ban. It suggests to Americans that the President is so hostage to political correctness that he might not be doing all he can to combat the threat. When terrorists inspired by Islamic State keep slaughtering Americans at Christmas parties and nightclubs, they lose confidence in Mr. Obama’s ability to keep them safe.

Mr. Obama is so desperate to stop Mr. Trump that he seems ready to campaign as Hillary Clinton’s running mate. But perhaps Mrs. Clinton should tell him that by rejecting terms like “radical Islam,” the President is handing Mr. Trump his strongest argument.


 

The two biggest drivers of gold demand are jewelry and investment. The straw that stirs the drink for gold prices is investment demand.

Over the last five-years, gold investment demand has been down an average of 34.1 tons per year, as shown below in the World Gold Council’s Gold Demand Trends.

But in the first quarter of this year, compared to the first quarter of last year, investment demand was up by 617.6 tons—an increase of 122%.

Investment demand consists of two pieces: Total bar and coin, and ETFs and similar products. Total bar and coin demand growth was flat in the last year-over-year comparison. But ETFs and similar products skyrocketed from 25.6 tons last year to 363.7 tons this year. Meanwhile total gold supply was up about 5%, which is in line with its five year average growth rate.

Therefore, I have two takeaways for you.

First, I don’t believe the average investor has caught the gold bug yet. The money moving around in the ETFs is with a group (hint: begins with hedge), I believe, that can’t afford to sit around and wait out big time volatility. So don’t expect them to hang in if there are any signs of trouble in gold prices. Volatility may be the name of the game.

Second, if the average guy on the street starts talking about gold, it’s too late, you’ve missed the boat. As of now I don’t hear a peep. But remember, following the yellow brick road is never an easy endeavor.

Click on the report to read more.

 

 

Do you think I am a terrorist? Well the government believes that I am a person who should not be able to buy a gun. I am on their list and no one will tell me why. This happened to me a few years ago and then my name came off. To this day, I have not been told why I went on, or why I was taken off. I have been told that the best odds are that there is someone else with the same name as mine who preceded me on the government’s list and that I have been scooped up in the same-name search. I was given some forms to send to the FBI in an attempt to clear my name. I have chosen not to provide the FBI with a long run of details about myself. Debbie and I are law-abiding Florida Concealed Weapon or Firearm License holders, after passing the NRA’s excellent hand gun safety course. I have been a lifetime member of the NRA for years. We also already own enough firearms to start a gun shop. I got my first Winchester when I was 16 years old. It is in top-notch shape and sits next to my desk.

I advise every American to join the NRA TODAY and immediately have their entire family take the NRA’s handgun safety course, before, where your state allows it, obtaining your concealed weapons permit. Then click to my long list of weapons posts and begin to arm every member of your family who can shoot a gun. Debbie and I have given each of our grandkids a Henry .22, which I have outlined in detail at richardcyoung.com. We are strong believers in The Swiss Way, and believe that America, given the mandate of the Constitution, should not have a standing army, but rather a national militia under the control of individual state governors (certainly not the central government in Washington). Every American at 18 years old would begin a training program, as is the case today in Switzerland.

Here, The Cato Institute’s Adam Bates offers logic on the subject of a No-Guns List, which in my mind completely misses the point of keeping Americans more safe, more prosperous and more free.

Mr. Bates quotes himself from 2015:

How does a person prove they are not a terrorist? It’s virtually impossible. A no-flyer doesn’t receive the evidence against them or a hearing before being placed on the list. They are not allowed to confront their accuser. Even getting the government to acknowledge that a person is on the list may require lengthy and expensive litigation. A person on the no-fly list may not even know they are on the list until they’re refused service at the airport. A person on the broader terror watch list has no means of finding out. The system is devoid of anything resembling due process, a flaw The New York Times condemned as being intolerable in a free and democratic society and over which the American Civil Liberties Union is currently suing the Obama administration. The no-fly listing procedure has already been declared unconstitutional by at least one federal judge.

Including too many people on the list is inevitable. Nobody wants to explain, after a terrorist attack, why the attacker wasn’t in the database. And that overly inclusive quality has manifested itself in absurd ways already. Just a few examples of no-fly denials: the late Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, congressman and civil rights hero John Lewis, dozens of people named Robert Johnson, members of the U.S. military and federal air marshals.

The potential for false positives and mistaken identities is not just accepted as collateral damage by these no-gun list proposals, it is the entire point. Anyone who has actually been convicted or is currently charged with terrorism-related crimes is already prohibited from purchasing a firearm under federal law. The people adversely affected by this proposal will inevitably be people against whom the government lacks sufficient evidence to charge.

The fact that a person hasn’t been adjudicated as dangerous doesn’t preclude them from committing violence, of course. But just how much discretion should the president have in abolishing constitutional rights without charge or trial?

More from Bates here:

The typical headline unemployment numbers the American news media reports (U3) are inadequate for measuring not just unemployment, but underemployment. Many part time employees would prefer full time employment. The U6 unemployment number you see above includes more of the employees left out by the headline number; those who are marginally attached to the workforce, and those who are employed part time for economic reasons. The effect of the expanded definition is a fuller understanding of how many Americans aren’t working as much as they would like to.

The U6 rate is an important component to the RAGE Gauge, because as unemployment and underemployment spike, risk increases dramatically for Americans, and even for the economy as a whole.

Let’s see, special agents at the IRS are equipped with AR-15 military style weapons? The Department of Veterans Affairs is arming 3,700 employees? The Food and Drug Administration employs 183 heavily armed “special agents.” The EPA spending $3.1 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment? Tom Coburn, former senator from Oklahoma, asks in the WSJ, “What is the Obama administration up to?”

The number of non-Defense Department federal officers authorized to make arrests and carry firearms (200,000) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000). In its escalating arms and ammo stockpiling, this federal arms race is unlike anything in history. Over the last 20 years, the number of these federal officers with arrest-and-firearm authority has nearly tripled to over 200,000 today, from 74,500 in 1996.

Dr. Coburn, honorary chairman, and Adam Andrzejewski, founder and CEO of OpenTheBooks.com, reported on June 17 the alarming and growing arsenal at federal agencies.

The report catalogs federal purchases of guns, ammunition and military-style equipment by seemingly bureaucratic federal agencies. During a nine-year period through 2014, we found, 67 agencies unaffiliated with the Department of Defense spent $1.48 billion on guns and ammo. Of that total, $335.1 million was spent by agencies traditionally viewed as regulatory or administrative, such as the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Mint.

Read more here.

Pat Buchanan explains that our native born are dying out and that ISIS believes that mass migration into the west is a winning strategy.

ISIS believes it can gradually drive the West out of the Middle East, as it has already helped to drive the Christians out.

Then, ISIS believes, through mass Muslim migration into a West whose native-born are dying out, Muslims can reoccupy these lands they had almost wholly conquered, until stopped by Charles Martel 14 centuries ago.

For some few Muslims, as we saw at Fort Hood, San Bernardino and Orlando, ISIS offers a dream worth dying for. And as they kill and die for ISIS, they will push America where they are pushing Europe—to the right.

Photo by Gage Skidmore

John McCain has said something nutty about American foreign policy.

Shocking, I know.

Asked about gun control proposals in the wake of the terrorist attack at a gay club in Orlando, McCain said,

Barack Obama is directly responsible for [the attack], because when he pulled everybody out of Iraq, al-Qaeda went to Syria, became ISIS, and ISIS is what it is today thanks to Barack Obama’s failures… So the responsibility for it lies with President Barack Obama and his failed policies.

Earlier in the week, GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump had offered some vague but darkly conspiratorial comments about Obama’s failure to stop the attack.

But McCain’s remark went right there and said it: Obama was “directly responsible.” He would later walk back the claim, shrugging that

I misspoke. I did not mean to imply that the President was personally responsible. I was referring to President Obama’s national security decisions, not the President himself. As I have said, President Obama’s decision to completely withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 led to the rise of ISIL.

A couple of things are worth discussing here. First is the type of the claim being made. Usually, the sort of argument McCain leveled against Obama is made against interventionists like John McCain. The argument normally goes that because of a U.S. intervention, something bad and costly has befallen the United States, and we therefore should be wary of further intervention. You can see Rudy Giuliani’s embarrassing exchange with Ron Paul during the 2008 presidential primary for a case study in how these arguments go.

Jeane Kirkpatrick perfected this sort of demagogy 24 years earlier with her famous “blame America first” speech at the 1984 GOP convention. Kirkpatrick rattled off the U.S. invasion of Grenada, the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983, failed arms control negotiations with the Soviets, and Marxism in Latin America and blasted Democrats this way: “they always blame America first. The American people know better.”

It’s an exceptionally effective demagogic approach, so I apologize for the headline. The idea that the American government’s interactions with foreigners may have negative consequences for the country becomes blaming America for whatever bad thing might result. It’s a conclusion most people find unappealing, which makes it effective framing.

Let’s stipulate, then: of course it’s plausible that the action or inaction of the American government can have negative unintended consequences for national security. We should accept McCain’s (and Ron Paul’s) logic and evaluate their claims based on the evidence.

So the second question becomes: What evidence is there that keeping a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq would have stopped Omar Mateen from killing 49 people and wounding 53 others? Is there any evidence that, as McCain claimed in his walkback, “President Obama’s decision to completely withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 led to the rise of ISIL”?

One could imagine a scenario in which ISIS, whose existence well predates 2011, simply ceased to exist, or never came about at all, and therefore could not have inspired Mateen. For it never to have come into being, the United States would have had to not invade Iraq, something we can assume McCain does not mean. But there is little reason to believe that a rump U.S. presence in Iraq–which still exists, by the way–could have destroyed it.

One hesitates to ponder what would or wouldn’t have inspired Mateen, but the better approach surely would have been to point out, as John Mueller and Mark Stewart do here, that ISIS is actually history’s most pathetic caliphate, one that has failed to topple even the lowly Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, one that reigns over an expanse of mostly uninhabited desert, and one that is suffering serious losses against its local adversaries and a halfhearted U.S.-led bombing, training, and logistical campaign against it.

But none of that would have given John McCain a thrill.

The Wall Street Journal explains the Senate’s rejection of four poorly conceived anti-gun measures:

The Senate defeated two pairs of dueling, largely partisan proposals aimed at restricting suspected terrorists’ access to guns and strengthening the background-check system. None received the 60 votes needed to clear procedural hurdles.

The across-the-board rejection reflected Republicans’ deep apprehension that the federal government would infringe on individuals’ gun rights,

Do tighter gun-control laws reduce the murder rate?  This is not an esoteric question, writes Thomas Sowell. Nor is it a question for which no empirical evidence is available.

We have 50 states, each with its own gun-control laws, and many of those laws have gotten either tighter or looser over the years. There must be tons of data that could indicate whether murder rates went up or down when either of these things happened.

But have you ever heard any gun-control advocate cite any such data? Tragically, gun control has become one of those fact-free issues that spawn outbursts of emotional rhetoric and mutual recriminations about the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment.

Virtually all empirical studies in the United States show that tightening gun-control laws has not reduced crime rates in general or murder rates in particular.

Like President Obama, Hillary Clinton has used the Orlando massacre to renew the liberal offensive on the “gun lobby.” As William McGurn points out in the WSJ, Mrs. Cinton will “do everything” to take “weapons of war off our streets.” Law-abiding citizens, writes Mr. Sowell, “become more vulnerable when they are disarmed and criminals disobey gun-control laws, as they disobey other laws.” Read more here.