Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

 The sash of the papal cassock has traditionally had a decoration at the end of it. Pope Francis asked that it be removed to be in more conformity with his humbleness compared to other popes who preceded him.

Pope Leo’s cassock does not have the decoration, but that was from the cassocks in the room of tears. Hopefully a cassock truly tailored to him will eventually have it?

Should the papal sash be humble with no decor or ornately proud with decor?

Should the red shoes of the fisherman reappear?

Learning her baby was “incapable with Life” as a 40-year-old woman in her first pregnancy was not something Sheila Walsh was ready to hear.

Because of her age, Sheila, a best-selling Christian author, was advised to undergo some additional testing in the middle of her pregnancy.

She and her husband were called back to the office once the results were in. “I don’t remember everything she said, but I remember this: ‘Your baby is incompatible with life.’ I stared at her as if she was speaking in a foreign language. This was a phrase I’d never heard before. Neither Barry nor I said anything. We were stunned,” Walsch recalled.

Then her doctor recommended scheduling an abortion for the next day. “I heard that, and her words snapped me back into reality. I was shocked. ‘No!’ I said vehemently. ‘No! Absolutely not. This little one will have every day God has planned for him to live,’” she highlighted.

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

In her confusion and despair, Sheila drove to a nearby beach to pray.

“I took off my shoes and walked to the edge of the water and prayed. I prayed like I had never prayed before, out loud to the wind and the waves and the birds,” Sheila said.

“Jesus! My heart is aching. I don’t understand this at all, but I just want to declare here and now that we are in this together. I’ve always needed You, but I know right now that I need You more than I ever have. I don’t know how this will end, but I’m not letting go of You for one moment. You didn’t promise me happiness, but You did promise You would never leave me. I’m not letting go. I’m not giving up. You and me—we’re in this together.”

“Something shifted inside me. I had no idea how long I could carry our son, but I became relentless in my prayers, not for a perfect outcome but for the presence of a perfect Father. At 35 weeks, my doctor called. I held my breath,” Walsh recalled.

That day, Sheila learned that another 40-year-old patient’s test results had been mixed up with hers. Her son had no diagnosis after all.

“There had never been anything wrong with our son. I fell to my knees and thanked God, but then I prayed for the other mother who would be getting a very different phone call,” Walsh said.

Today, her son Christian is 27 years old—a proud Texas A&M graduate with a master’s degree in Psychology. He is living proof of what’s possible when a mother chooses faith over fear. If Sheila and her husband had followed the doctor’s advice, their son would never have taken his first breath.

Sheila Walsh’s story is a powerful reminder that every life—no matter how uncertain or difficult—deserves a chance. In a moment when fear nearly stole her son’s future, Sheila chose faith and trusted God’s plan.

Every child deserves a chance, and every parent deserves the truth—not fear-based pressure.
If you or someone you know is pregnant and facing a life-limiting diagnosis, you’re not alone. Organizations like Abel Speaks are ready to walk alongside you with compassion and support.

LifeNews Note: Ashlynn Lemos is the communications intern for Texas Right to Life.

The post A Doctor Told Her “Your Baby is Incompatible With Life” and Suggested Abortion. Now Her Son is 27 appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Karim Khan reportedly sought arrest warrants for Israeli leaders a little over two weeks after the accusations were made

International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan set in motion a plan to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leadership shortly after he faced sexual misconduct allegations, The Wall Street Journal has reported, citing documents from a UN probe into the scandal.

Khan announced he would file applications for arrest warrants for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and then Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on May 20 last year, a mere two and a half weeks after he first learned about the sexual misconduct allegations against him, the Journal said. “The timing of the announcement has spurred questions about whether Khan was aiming to protect himself from the sexual-assault allegations,” the newspaper suggested.

According to the materials the WSJ reviewed, Khan’s alleged sexual misconduct spree began in late 2023, when “the 55-year-old prosecutor was increasingly lashing out at his team” after coming under a barrage of criticism. Pro-Palestine activists had labeled him a “genocide enabler” and accused the ICC of a lack of action on the Gaza conflict.

One of his assistants, a “woman in her 30s who often traveled with him for her job” requested a meeting “to urge him to ease up,” according to the report. Khan allegedly invited her to his suite in the Millennium Hilton hotel next to the UN, where he sexually assaulted her.

“She said she attempted to leave the room several times, but he took her hand and eventually pulled her to the bed. Then he pulled off her pants and forced sexual intercourse, according to the testimony,” the report reads.

The misconduct allegedly continued after the first incident, with Khan performing “nonconsensual sex acts” on his staffer on multiple occasions during trips to New York, Colombia, Congo, Chad and Paris, as well as “at a residence owned by his wife where he stayed in The Hague,” according to the accuser’s testimony cited by the WSJ.

The woman, a lawyer from Malaysia, kept silent on the affair for a while, fearing retaliation from Khan and losing her job. When the allegations became known within the organization, the prosecutor attempted to press her into disavowing them and insisted the scandal would ultimately hurt the Gaza investigation, the woman claimed in her testimony.

Khan’s legal representatives have rejected all allegations, stating it is “categorically untrue that he has engaged in sexual misconduct of any kind.” The prosecutor previously pledged to cooperate “fully and transparently with the external investigation” and denied any “retaliatory behavior” against his accuser or other staffers.

Israel asked the ICC to withdraw the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant on November 21 last year. The country rejects the jurisdiction of the Hague-based court, and also urged the body to suspend its investigation into alleged atrocities in Gaza altogether.

Israel has no plans to stop its war with Hamas despite ongoing hostage release talks, according to the prime minister

The Israeli military will finish off Hamas in Gaza in the near future, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed. Meanwhile, his government intends to continue negotiations for the release of the remaining hostages held by the militant group.

Speaking to wounded Israeli reservists on Tuesday, Netanyahu insisted that “in the coming days, we will go in [to Gaza] with full force to complete the operation.” This means “destroying Hamas” as well as “freeing all our hostages,” according to the prime minister.

He did not rule out a “temporary ceasefire” in exchange for the release of captives taken by the Islamist group during its attack on Israel in 2023. However, Netanyahu made it clear that “there will be no situation where we stop the war.”

The prime minister said that Israel had already “set up a governing body that will allow [civilians] to exit” Gaza, though no country has apparently expressed a willingness to take them in. Given the opportunity, more than half of its residents would leave, according to him.

Netanyahu’s comments follow Tuesday’s airstrike by Israel Defense Forces on the European hospital in Khan Yunis in the south of the Palestinian enclave. According to the IDF, Hamas militants had set up an underground “command and control center” beneath the building. Local media reported that the attack targeted a Hamas leader, Muhammad Sinwar, whose fate remains unknown.

On Wednesday, several media outlets claimed that Israeli warplanes had struck the site again, in an apparent attempt to prevent rescue workers from approaching the hospital.

Gaza’s civil defense agency later confirmed that IDF warplanes “deliberately targeted anyone who tried to reach” the wounded. According to Palestinian officials, the airstrikes claimed the lives of at least 28 people.

Israel launched its military campaign in Gaza following a deadly Hamas incursion on October 7, 2023, which left more than 1,100 people dead, with more than 200 taken hostage. The heavy aerial and artillery pounding of the densely populated Palestinian enclave, coupled with an Israeli ground operation, have claimed the lives of over 60,000 people, with many more injured or missing, Palestinian authorities have estimated.

The new measures would reportedly reduce duty-free quotas on agricultural products, amid pressure from Eastern European members

The EU is preparing tariffs on Ukrainian agricultural imports when the current duty-free trade regime expires next month, Financial Times reported on Wednesday, citing diplomatic sources.

Brussels suspended import duties and quotas on Ukrainian exports to the EU in 2022 following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. The Autonomous Trade Measures (ATMs) were extended last year and are set to expire on June 6. The EU previously said it would not prolong the tariff-free regime further, after cheap imports flooded Eastern European countries, sparking waves of farmer protests, most notably in Poland.

Following the unrest, Brussels introduced an emergency mechanism which allowed tariffs to be reimposed on specific products such as eggs, poultry, sugar, oats, maize, and honey, if imports of these products exceeded average annual volumes. Being part of the ATMs, it is also set to expire in three weeks.

The EU is currently working to review and update its overall free trade agreement with Ukraine, the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA). The bloc’s officials have suggested that if the talks are not finalized by June 5, “transitional measures” will be applied, to allow more time for negotiation.

According to FT, Warsaw has asked Brussels to “delay highly unpopular trade talks” with Kiev so as not to stir the sensitive issue ahead of a presidential election on Sunday to “minimize the chances” that nationalist opposition candidate Karol Nawrocki will prevail.

Nawrocki, who is backed by Poland’s conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, has capitalized on domestic discontent over Ukrainian agricultural imports and has been critical of the idea of Ukraine’s integration into the EU and NATO. He is currently polling in second place ahead of the May 18 vote.

The transitional proposal, recently sent to EU member states, “would drastically cut the tariff-free quotas,” specifically on maize, poultry, wheat and sugar, FT cited unnamed diplomats as saying.

The maize quota will drop on an annual basis from 4.7 million tonnes to 650,000 tonnes, with poultry falling from 57,110 to 40,000 and sugar from 109,000 to 40,700, according to the outlet.

READ MORE: Ukrainian membership of EU would drag bloc into war – Hungary

Ukraine’s government estimates that the cancellation of free-trade quotas would reduce its revenues by about €3.5 billion ($3.9 billion) a year.

Eighty years after WW II, EU leaders are approving huge budgets to solve a self-made security problem. Yet the silver bullets are defective

It has been said that quantity has quality all of its own.

The origins of this dictum, which is often attributed to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, can be traced back to ancient dialecticians. They argued that continued quantitative changes will eventually lead to qualitative transformations. After all, if you incessantly add one grain of sand to another, finally a heap will emerge.

Imbued with an unshakeable belief in the power of quantity, European leaders, who due to their incompetence form a veritable kakistocracy (rule of the worst), in March 2025 hastily adopted financial mega-packages simultaneously at the supranational level (European Union) and national level (Germany) for additional defense spending and other outlays far exceeding one trillion Euro.

This catchpenny action, which served special interests (such as those of the defense industry), was touted as an antidote to a much-hyped security problem. The quagmire allegedly consisted of an acute threat of Russia exploiting a vacuum, which had been created by the United States’ decoupling from Europe, by invading the old continent in no time. On the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, the European alarmists exploited threat bias by conveniently reinforcing long-harbored fears concerning Russia. More specifically, they remined their audiences of the latter’s iron grip on Eastern Europe in the wake of the worst military conflict in history - irrespective of the fact that the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic constituted only one part of the Soviet Union and this federation of republics had long ceased to exist.

However, the mega-spending approach is highly questionable in terms of process and content. In this context, it needs to be remembered that there is no free lunch - food in officers’ messes not excluded! The veracity of this dictum is revealed by a closer look at the following, partially interrelated problems associated with the gargantuan debt-financed defense packages and other new mega-spending programs adopted across Europe.

1. Widening democratic deficit and credibility gap

Across the EU, the success of conservative Eurosceptic parties, which are defamatorily labelled “extreme right-wing” and “populist” by the governing elites and their media mouthpieces, shows that broad swathes of the electorate there are opposing the building of a European superstate. Especially the new EU-wide defense splurge aimed at financing one building block of this expensive European mansion (that is, a common defense capability), thus clearly defies the popular will in many places.

At the EU-level, the decision-making process, which is opaque, has been driven by the upper caste of EU bureaucrats, who lack democratic legitimacy. They routinely jump the bandwagon and succumb to groupthink and delusional, hubris-fueled wishful thinking, with no political-economic Cassandra warning them of the clear and present dangers courted by their foolishness. Feeling safe inside the herd and being absolved of individual accountability and responsibility, the members of the exclusive EU club tend to take overly risky decisions. Clearly, the grand ambition of the EU to become the new “leader of the free world”, after the US has retired for good reasons (including financial ones!), is both unaffordable and anachronistic (especially given that a growing number of people around the world are rejecting unchecked, woke-filled liberalism).

Worse, the dire predictions regarding Russia are fraught with the grave risk of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, since the so-called enemy might feel threatened and take reactive and preventive measures (as happened in Ukraine according to Russia’s account of the special military operation). This, in combination with the strategic failure of not incorporating exit ramps into the grand European plans, which can be used to transit from crisis mode to normalcy, might result in a dangerous spiral of escalating commitments and violence.

Using a combination of scaremongering and the slippery slope argument based on domino theory, Russia’s attack on Ukraine is framed as being just the prelude to Russian invasions of other countries if Moscow remains unchecked. The recycling of the rhetorical device of the slippery slope, which is classified as a fallacy, bodes ill. It was used to great effect by the U.S. to justify its participation in the Vietnam war, allegedly to prevent the spread of Communism to other Asian countries. However, it is extremely unlikely that Russia, assuming that it will not be provoked, will invade Germany, for example, which is a member of NATO and has a long history of friendly ties with the Eastern bear in manifold spheres.

Even though different options always exist, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, in an oxymoronic antithesis claimed apodictically on 18 March 2025 that the “choice is none”. After touting the alleged virtues of pacifism and individualism for decades, European leaders suddenly in unison are preaching a new dangerous form of collectivism, demanding heavy sacrifices for what is portrayed as the common good.

Using the alleged Russia threat as a red herring and smokescreen, as well as igniting and exploiting one upheaval after another, they create a perpetual crisis and constant threat reminiscent of the situation depicted in George Orwell’s dystopic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. They are thus impeding critical thinking through tactics of continuous diversion and detraction, in order to pursue a hidden agenda in a mendacious and unencumbered fashion. The pernicious effect of the stratagem of blurring the water to catch a fish is heightened by the sheer speed by which EU groupthinkers are hastening through the mega spending packages at different levels, leaving potential opponents little time to mount resistance.

In Germany, a softening of constitutionally enshrined debt ceilings, known as the Schuldenbremse (debt brake), among other things, limiting annual structural deficits to 0.35% of a gross domestic product (GDP), was approved in March 2025 in a hastily reconvened lame-duck Bundestag (federal parliament), even though a new parliament had already been elected. The loosening of fiscal shackles was destined to make it possible to borrow large amounts of money for new mega-spending packages. Due to the increase in the number of seats of the Eurosceptic AfD, the radical constitutional change, which required a supermajority, would most likely not have been adopted by the new parliament.

Even if, in purely technical terms, the gambit of using the old parliament was legal, it clearly bore witness of utter disrespect for the popular will. Since the sweeping change of the constitutional debt limits and the spending spree were not clearly highlighted in party programs and on the campaign trail, the move also amounts to egregious voter deception. In addition, the CDU, given that it failed to achieve stellar results in the 2025 federal election and thus was forced to enter another grand coalition with the SPD, which pursues different objectives, has no sweeping mandate for transformation. As a consequence of all the machinations and disregard for the wishes of voters, the democratic credentials and political credibility of mainstream parties in Germany are further undermined.

2. Waste of resources and corruption potential

Lacking strategic focus, the big spenders in Europe are pursuing an excessive number of mutually conflicting objectives and employ a reactive shotgun approach aimed at combating the phantom enemy in the east and conveniently solving other problems at the same time. As a consequence, resources are likely to be wasted at a grand scale. The German language, with its great capacity for compounding words, possesses an apt, humorous term that is well-suited for describing the all-in-one financial mega packages adopted in March 2025 and their wished-for all-inclusive results, that is, eierlegende Wollmilchsau, which is literally translated as egg-laying wooly dairy pig. Would it not be great to have such a fabulous multifunctional animal as a cornucopian source of myriad desirable products?

Apparently inspired by a comparable unrealistic, perfectionist vision of completeness in the field of politics, the German all-in-one package adopted by the Bundestag in March 2025, among other things, included spending on infrastructure, defense and climate projects (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Clearly, the addition of environmental spending aimed at combatting yet another phantom, that is, a changing climate (which by nature is always changing!), constitutes a surrender to the demands of clientele politics pursued by the Green Party. Money, so the German spendthrifts think, is the answer to all problems – a conception as erroneous as hoping that pouring an ever-increasing amount of water on a plant will further healthy growth. Again, adopting a shoot-then-aim approach and trying to be a jack of all trades, while being master of none, undermines the credibility of the political mavericks and tricksters.

Due to the package approach, vaguely stated purpose and large amounts of money involved – coupled with the lack of democratic due process and concomitant intransparency – there is a high risk of moral hazards and unintended consequences occurring, including wide-spread and large-scale misappropriation of funds under different disguises by officials who simply do not care or are outright corrupt. In fact, it is quite easy to hide expenditure items, which are not related to the overall stated purpose, inside a large financial package, especially if one uses budget tricks and “creative accounting”. For example, given the vague nature of spending labels, it is easy to misappropriate infrastructure funds for defense.

The problems get compounded when a fast-track approval, steam-roller-like process without due diligence and accountability is used to deceive voters and confront them with a fait accompli before they can react. A case in point is Western military aid to Ukraine, in regard to which some critics doubting whether all funds and arms reached the intended destination. As an earlier example, the hastily approved European Covid-19 rescue funds were partially misappropriated by corrupt actors. The EU president even negotiated a deal with Pfizer via SMS, in order to procure the American pharma giant’s vaccines without proper accountability.

The so-called thin-edge-of-the-wedge effect becomes clearly visible when one analyzes political patterns in the EU: After taboos have been shattered and the breaking of national, democratically legitimized resistance has become a well-established pattern, erstwhile unthinkable action – such as mutualizing debt and misappropriating funds earmarked for other purposes - is now taken publicly without shame.

While the financing of the Covid-19 packages through European loans constituted a crossing of a German red line, creating another European financing vehicle for the EU defense package prompted no real debate and met no serious resistance. Furthermore, as an example of budget tricks used, one key ingredient of the European defense package announced in March 2025 is the redirecting of funds originally earmarked for the promotion of interregional cohesion to investments in defense projects. Even the lifting of EU fiscal rules to allow for defense spending of 650 billion Euro was calmly accepted by all important players.

In this context, it is important to note that referring to the Covid-19 rescue packages as a precedent to justify new mega spending packages constitutes a false analogy, given that there are crucial differences with respect to their financing costs. When the pandemic broke out in 2020, the key interest rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) was 0%. Yet in 2022, the monetary authority started to increase rates to combat high inflation. In March 2025, at the time the new mega spending packages were announced, the key interest rate stood at 2.5%.

Finally, the promise to do “whatever it takes” (WIT) in a perpetual crisis mode – as part of a reactive pattern of long-time procrastination followed by sudden bursts of radical measures – coupled with the lack of a clearly defined exit ramp back to consolidation ensures that waste and corruption can go on for a long time, with commitments being escalated all along - in for a penny, in for a pound (even if one does not have a penny to bless oneself with!).

The WIT approach is adopted despite the fact that as regards spending, there are always costs and benefits, as well as declining marginal returns, which makes it necessary to strive for an optimum instead of continuously pouring more funds in a limitless fashion (which is particularly pernicious if the problem is a phantom one). The idiomatic “whatever it takes” label thus is clearly ominous, since, according to its definition, in certain contexts it serves as a euphemism for improper behavior, including harmful measures in the pursuit of a given objective.

In fact, EU leaders are behaving like addicted gamblers, opting for one stimulus after another, such as injecting funds into defense after the COVID-19 stimuli have fizzled out, while the amount of funds spent increases at an exponential rate. By behaving like a gambler at the roulette table who is ready to spend whatever it takes to win, they are essentially gambling their own nations away.

Theoretically, the entire spending process can go on indefinitely, since the targets are extremely soft and subjective and thus elusive. For example, there is no point where one can conclude with absolute certainty that Europe is “properly defended”, especially when there is considerable heterogeneity between the countries on the old continent in many regards. Given such fuzziness and the lack of solid anchors, it comes to no surprise that targets are shifted easily, as witnessed by the raising of the minimum that NATO members are supposed spend on defense (lately, the minimum expenditure measured as a percentage of GDP has risen from 2% to 5%).

3. Imbalances due to lopsided Keynesianism

During the Great Depression (1929-c.1939), the British economist John Maynard Keynes managed to transform public policy by challenging the neoclassical view that labor markets would adjust automatically to changing economic conditions and instead arguing for increased government spending to combat unemployment. In his view, the specific nature of the spending did not matter, as long as it contributed to employment. In his book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936, he praised the building of pyramids and even suggested that it would make sense for the government to pay for the digging of holes and then again to spend money on filling them up!

After his widely popular theory fell into disrepute during the period of stagflation (declining output coupled with inflation) in the 1970s and rule-based, fiscally conservative ordo liberalism gained supremacy over discretionary economic pump priming, Keynesianism became fashionable again during the 2008 financial crisis and was reignited during the Covid-19 pandemic. The bonanza of spending announced in March 2025 with the aim of combatting the imagined Russia threat continues this trend of Keynesian revival.

However, Keynesian economic policy is lopsided, since it focuses only on the demand side of the economy. In figurative terms, it is concerned only with how to slice the economic cake – allocating economic output to consumption, investment, government expenditure and net exports respectively – instead of focusing on how to actually increase the gâteau, which requires supply-side economic measures that expand the production possibility frontier.

Increasing demand - through measures such as raising defense spending - without expanding supply, ceteris paribus, eventually will push up prices. Such inflation distorts economic signals and leads to a misallocation of economic resources, thus creating serious imbalances in society (such as pensioners on fixed incomes being hurt more than people whose nominal income will be increased when the general price level rises). An inflationary spiral ensues when (a) wages are incessantly increased to compensate for losses in purchasing power due to price rises and (b) inflationary expectations, which are particularly difficult to dampen, are heightened as a result.

Instead of lopsided, inflation-fueling neo-Keynesianism and mere occasional lip services to the future removal of structural bottlenecks, a robust combination of different economic policies is needed in the EU and many other places, focusing on both the demand side (as long as the production possibility frontier has not been reached) and the supply side (aiming at expanding the production possibility frontier). Unlike Keynes, who, when push came to shove, did not exhibit real interest in the particular nature of government expenditure (as long as it contributed to employment), supply-side economic measures need to be targeted, focusing on the drivers of long-term growth, that is, capital, labor and technological progress.

4. Negative impact of reckless financial engineering

In theory, Keynesian stimuli programs can be financed by various means, but in practice, they most often rely on borrowing, which also applies to the EU spending packages approved in March 2025. This particular financing approach – used instead of offsetting spending cuts, for example – is problematic in various regards.

First, financing the huge spending packages via loans instead of by means of proportional reductions in other expenditure constitutes an act of deception, since it hides crucial tradeoffs. More specifically, one aim of such financial engineering is to hide the “guns versus butter” tradeoff in the short run. Given limited resources, in the absence of supply-side economic growth, higher spending on military goods (which are a deadweight in times of peace) at least partially comes at the opportunity cost of lower spending on civilian goods – now or in the future. Put simply, the money you spend on a tank will not be available for building a hospital.

Moreover, the increased demand of the government for loanable funds, ceteris paribus, is bound to drive up real interest rates. As a foretaste of things to come, Germany’s borrowing costs rose quickly after the new huge spending package was announced in March 2025, with 10-year note yields jumping by over 20 basis points. Increased rates in turn make it more expensive for businesses to finance their investments. As the final result of increased government borrowing, private investment is crowed out.

Furthermore, as confirmed by cutting-edge academic research using input-output analyses, the positive economic impact of spending on arms purchases (a hidden form of industrial policy) tends be smaller than the effect exerted by non-military government spending. In addition, military expenditure is also positively correlated with income inequality.

The net multiplier effect of defense spending viewed in isolation, which hinges on technological spillovers from the defense industry to other sectors within the same economic region, tends to be lower as compared to many other investments with lower opportunity costs. In particular, the multiplier is likely to be comparatively small in the EU, since it procures approximately 80% of defense products from outside the block.

Furthermore, debt-financed Keynesian policies also tend to deceive uneducated and myopic consumers in other ways. More specifically, the short-term demand-side growth of an economy that has not yet reached the production possibility frontier comes at the expense of future consolidation of state finances – a fact not known to economic laymen. In a form of yo-yo-effect, consumers may provoke a temporary spike in aggregate demand by pulling forward consumption, which, however, in a later “snap-back” movement, will need to be curtailed when the government adopts austerity measures. In the final analysis, the impact of a government’s fiscal expansion program on the demand side is positively correlated with the degree of irrationality of consumers, which it is ruthlessly exploiting. More specifically, Keynesianism partly hinges on kindling consumers’ “animal spirits”, increasing their optimism by injecting stimuli funds into the economy, even though such optimism is misplaced when life-time income is considered.

If on the other hand, citizens are very savvy and farsighted, they at least instinctively grasp the so-called Ricardian Equivalence, understanding that debt-financed stimuli programs will necessitate fiscal consolidation in the form of future tax raises. This expectation will prompt them to curtail consumption after an expansion program has been adopted, so that they will have sufficient funds to pay the higher taxes in the future. If this happens, the demand boost that policymakers wanted to achieve through Keynesian stimulus packages will not materialize.

A responsible, prudent and honest statesman would need to offset increased military spending by either reducing other government expenditure or raising government income (such as by increasing taxes) or a combination of both. By seemingly effortlessly and quickly paying for the military buildup through new debt, EU leaders simply shift the economic pain, which current voters would probably be unwilling to endure, to future generations. Clearly, this ruse hinging on what I call “guilt-by-succession” gravely violates intergenerational justice. As soon as somebody calls out the bluff, EU leaders will suffer another blow to their credibility.

Apart from the serious problems associated with debt-financing mentioned above, ceteris paribus, an increasingly larger share of EU members’ budgets will need to be used for interest payments if debt levels continue to increase across the block. This means that less money will be available to meet other important public needs. Those include, among other things, financial means for coping with foreseeable problems undermining long-term supply-side economic potential (such as an aging population and concomitantly shrinking labor pool) and emergency funds to deal with various unforeseen shocks to the system.

The US, whose federal debt amounted to a staggering 35.46 trillion US-dollars in 2024, offers a cautionary tale in this regard. This is because the so-called leader of the free world had to spend more on interest in that year than on other big-ticket items. For instance, interest payment exceeded spending on higher education by a staggering 756 billion US dollars (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

In addition, rising debt levels are dimming the long-term prospects for growth in national income, partly because they lead to an increase in risk premiums and real interest rates. The mere expectation of slower long-term growth can negatively affect the current business cycle. This happens, for example, if entrepreneurs, due to high government debt, lose confidence in the economy and reduce investments in the expectation of future austerity programs. If the debt is monetized through loans from the central bank which prints new money, inflation is likely to be stoked in a vulnerable economy. Similarly to what usually happens in the wake of wage inflation, inflationary expectations will rise concomitantly, unleashing an inflationary spiral that is particularly difficult to end.

Moreover, the continuous increase in government debt across the EU can lead to members suffering from debt overhang whereby, due to their indebtedness, they cannot attract new funds even if there are investment projects that promise high yields. Finally, they are likely to end up in a debt trap, that is, a vicious circle where debt service obligations are met with a succession of new loans. This pernicious pattern is likely to trigger increasingly serious financial crises (including sovereign debt crises) and finally a total collapse of the entire system. Then, European leaders may conclude that the only solution to this plight is a great reset after a major war, possibly between former allies on European soil!

5. European disintegration

The new mega-financial packages threaten European unity in various ways. To start with, the huge spending programs announced in March 2025 create another layer of supranational debt, which comes on top of high national debt mountains. In particular, a new dedicated program of funding is to be launched at the EU level to finance military projects.

The scheme will be used as a smokescreen to deepen European integration and relies on new loans hinging on Germany’s still formidable financial prowess and still favorable credit rating. This approach enables member states with overshooting budget deficits and national debt to take a free ride. This is because, for the time being, they can profit from lower interest rates due to the favorable credit rating of the erstwhile financial poster child Germany, which also assumes the lion share of the EU budget and EU debt without commensurate returns in any form. This is bound to create additional tensions between Germany and the European spendthrifts in particular. Once a truly patriotic leader, who puts national interests first, has emerged in Germany, the land of poets and thinkers is likely to leave the EU and the whole European project will probably collapse, since its most important financier will have disappeared.

Furthermore, there are other destructive forces at work creating fissures that make European disintegration more likely. For example, a second pernicious yo-yo effect is bound to manifest itself at the macroeconomic level. As happened before, the spending surge in 2025 will have to wind back in the form of tough austerity measures in the future - with at least the same force as the initial measures, or, to resort to the yo-yo metaphor, using the full rotational energy unleashed.

After all, previous austerity programs, instead of being mere flashes of inspiration of ill-intentioned and moody economists, were desperately needed as antidotes to reckless overspending in the past and to recuperate subsequent layouts for bailouts. In this context, it is noteworthy that Germany is at least in a better position than many other heavily indebted countries to increase spending precisely because it endured austerity programs before, including the introduction of the above-mentioned constitutionally enshrined debt brake, a sound vehicle promoting fiscal rectitude, in 2009 as a response to the 2008 financial crisis.

EU members states with particularly high debt-to-GDP ratios, such as Greece (158.2% at the end of Q3 2024), Italy (136.3%) and France (113.8%), whose dire straits are the result of a lack of financial rectitude in the past, are likely to be hit particularly hard by future austerity measures. As a consequence, populist politicians there will probably put the blame for unpopular budget consolidation efforts on the EU as a whole and ‘overly strict Germans’ (especially if Berlin again bails out the splurgers and demands tough fiscal measures). As a consequence of the painful policy zigzag between fiscal expansion and hang-over contraction, intra-European tensions will rise further and the very fundament of the EU again be damaged, increasing the chances of its final collapse.

Moreover, the Euro, the block’s common currency, is undermined by reckless, instability-inducing financial engineering. If countries with high budget deficits and national debt had their own national currency, they could devalue it to increase international competitiveness and thus increase demand-side growth through a rise in net exports. However, given that the spendthrifts inside the Eurozone are locked into a common currency, this option is not available to them. Instead, they must count on fiscal transfers from countries with better finances, whose citizens will not be amused by the solemn call to take on the burden of others in the name of “European solidarity”. Furthermore, the high budget deficits and national debt of individual member states can cause market panic, for example, since investors might be spooked by the specter of a sovereign debt crisis. Due to contagion in an intertwined financial system (including banks in sound economies holding debt of countries in trouble), problems may spill over to the rest of the Eurozone and trust in the system could be undermined. If, as a result of all these problems, the Euro is abandoned as a common currency, one prestigious European project will have failed and one important glue of European integration will have disappeared.

Incidentally, the reckless behavior of fiscally irresponsible member states such as Greece is also a classic case of postcontractual opportunism and time inconsistency in the form of reneging on ironclad promises, since they busted previously agreed-upon financial rules. More specifically, the Maastricht Criteria were introduced in 1992 as a basic requirement for the launch of the Euro in 1999. Among other things, those obliged countries that intended to join the Euro to adhere to strict convergence targets in terms of maximum permissible levels of budget deficits (3% of GDP) and national debt (60% of GDP) – precisely to avoid problems such as those outlined above. Furthermore, the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) was concluded in 1997, which specifies binding financial restrictions for all EU member states, including the same ceilings related to budget deficits and national debt as the Maastricht criteria.

However, several members with little concern for sound public finances missed the clearly specified financial conditions to which they had earlier agreed. For example, as mentioned above, the national debt of Greece amounted to a staggering 158.2% of GDP at the end of Q3 2024, far exceeding the 60% ceiling to which the country had committed.

The disrespect shown for the various institutional constraints, functioning as much-needed checks and balances in a fragile system, witnessed in the past and in the case of the gargantuan spending packages announced in March 2025 is highly problematic. This is because such behavior constitutes a negative precedent opening the floodgates to future economic trouble created by unhinged actors and further undermines the trust in the EU, thus precipitating its eventual disintegration. In this context, the fact that Germany, the former guardian of sound public finances in the EU, strayed from fiscal rectitude by softening constitutionally enshrined debt limits bodes particularly ill.

Another factor contributing to European disintegration is the expected misappropriation of EU funds in the wake of the permission given in March 2025 to channel EU cohesion funds into defense projects. These cohesion funds, which are distributed to EU members with a gross national income (GNI) per capita that is lower than a threshold of 90% of the EU average (with an expected 37% of funds to be used to meet climate targets!), were destined to even out interregional differences inside the EU.

For Germany, which is the main contributor of cohesion funds, too, the scheme in essence meant that the country had to give its own money to foreign customers as a gift so that they could subsequently purchase products made by German companies and their competitors. Clearly, this giveaway had been approved by German politicians who did not pursue German interests.

Since less cohesion funds will flow to weak EU members, there will be less leveling out of existing disparities. The imbalances remaining as a result constitute another factor destabilizing the common European house. If more fiscal transfers will occur in the future to increase cohesion, the paymasters are likely to become disgruntled about another act of so-called solidarity, which will result in more disharmony inside the EU.

Finally, another dangerous centrifugal force will be the widening cleavage between Atlanticist EU members, who still believe in a strong defense alliance with the U.S., and Gaullists, keen on promoting European independence. This is partly due to the increasing disgruntlement of US loyalists about the gargantuan funds earmarked to build a standalone European defense capacity.

***

In conclusion, it has been said that if you want to make God laugh, you should tell him about your plans.

Rather ironically, the clique of EU leaders with the blueprint of building a stronger European house in the form of a veritable fortress, through their reckless spending spree that hides critical tradeoffs, are likely to undermine the existing building’s very foundations and thus eventually cause its collapse.

In this context, it is truly amazing how inventive human beings tend to become when trying to justify more debt. In this regard, they are prone to display the same seemingly boundless creativity and criminal energy as used for scheming, carrying out and covering up heinous crimes, especially through highly ingenious lies that distort facts in a devilish fashion - after all, etymologically the diabolos is the one who ‘throws through’ things and via distortion cunningly sows confusion.

Without a grand supranational idea and noble mission based on truth and honesty, which act as an invisible glue, the European project will eventually falter, especially, given that the interests of European nations in the political, economic, social, military, cultural and other spheres diverge widely. Undoubtedly, this destructive process is accelerated by reckless financial engineering at the supranational and national level.

To avoid committing collective political and economic hara-kiri, EU leaders need to immediately stop prioritizing politics over sound economics and refrain from exploiting the irrationality and myopia of their citizens. Instead, they should act as real statesmen, building their own nations rather than Europe at the expense of their homelands, and enrich their people through smart and enlightened human-centered policies, which also include education as an antidote to economic naivety. To sum up, when the band begins to play (a sad song), it is high time to change course (and advisable to play a different tune)!

This article forms part of a series on the new European spending packages. Previous column: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 14: ‘Whatever it takes’ revisited – Euromaniacs exploit threat bias again, 19 March 2025.

The bloc’s members are reportedly rushing to agree to spend 5% of their GDP on defense ahead of a summit next month

NATO member states are struggling to overcome divisions and define the details of an increase in spending targets demanded by the US ahead of the bloc’s annual summit in The Hague, Bloomberg has reported.

US President Donald Trump has demanded that European NATO states spend 5% of their GDP on defense, warning that Washington may reconsider its commitments to the bloc if they fail. According to NATO’s latest report, ten of the bloc’s 32 members do note even spend 2% of GDP on defense, a baseline bloc target.

The US has argued that European NATO members must take primary responsibility for their own defense. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently described the current dynamic as the US alongside “a bunch of junior partners that aren’t doing their fair share.”

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is reportedly pushing for a compromise spending target of 3.5% of GDP within seven years, plus an additional 1.5% for wider defense-related spending, Bloomberg has cited senior diplomats as saying.

Foreign ministers are meeting in Türkiye on Wednesday and Thursday to define what qualifies under the 1.5% category, including military mobility, dual-use goods, and cybersecurity.

NATO defense ministers met in Brussels on Wednesday to debate the 3.5% target and review “highly classified lists of weapons and other capabilities” that are part of the bloc’s “ambitious” militarization drive, according to Bloomberg.

The talks come as Russian and Ukrainian delegations are expected to meet in Istanbul on Thursday to discuss possible steps toward ending the conflict.

Earlier media reports speculated Trump might skip the summit if the 5% spending demand is not met. US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker insisted on Tuesday that Trump will attend.

READ MORE: Russian delegation will be waiting for Ukrainians in Istanbul – Kremlin

The increased militarization of the bloc follows claims, long denied by Moscow, that Russia could attack a NATO member in coming years. Russia has accused the bloc of “irresponsibly stoking fears” of a fabricated threat.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the bloc “has degraded into an openly militarized entity.”

The US president has reportedly backed off the renaming of the Persian Gulf in light of ongoing nuclear talks in Oman

US President Donald Trump has backed off a reported plan to rename the Persian Gulf, CNN wrote on Wednesday, citing a source familiar with the matter. The move was described as a concession to Iran amid ongoing nuclear talks between the two countries.

Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported that Trump was planning to refer to the waterway off Iran’s southern coast as the “Arabian Gulf’ during his May 13-16 Middle East trip. However, Trump later told reporters he would “have to make a decision,” adding that he did not want to “hurt anybody’s feelings.” 

The US president reversed the idea in recent days, the source said, as Tehran has signaled strong opposition to the renaming amid ongoing talks.

Washington and Tehran have held several rounds of negotiations in Oman over Iran’s nuclear program. The talks, described by both sides as constructive, have been overshadowed by rising tensions in Yemen, where the US and UK have intensified strikes against allegedly Iran-backed Houthi militants. Trump’s announcement of a bombing pause in early May was aimed at building momentum for the ongoing talks, sources told CNN at the time.

Speaking at the Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, Trump said he wanted to “make a deal” with Iran.

Trump pulled the US out of the 2015 UN-backed nuclear deal during his first term, accusing Iran of violating the agreement – a charge Tehran denies. The Islamic Republic began scaling back its commitments after the 2020 US drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.

The UK, Germany, and France have urged Iran to abandon its nuclear program in the coming months or face new sanctions, UK Ambassador to Israel Simon Walters said in February.

Iran has also been accused of increasing production of near-weapons-grade uranium, which it denies.

The naming of the gulf has long been a point of contention between Iran and the Arab states. Tehran insists on calling it the Persian Gulf, citing historical evidence and ancient maps linking the area to its territory. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq, and others, however, refer to it as the Arabian Gulf or simply ‘the Gulf.’

Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi called the renaming proposals “indicative of hostile intent toward Iran and its people.”

Trump has previously used symbolic renaming in foreign policy. In January, he signed an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America.”

A Louisiana woman killed her 20-week-old unborn baby with the abortion pill and threw her baby in a garbage can.

That’s the shocking story from a pro-life state where officials are pursing potential charges against a New York abortionist who is violating the state’s pro-life law to illegally mail abortion pills to women.

Louisiana’s attorney general mentioned the shocking case during testimony yesterday in the state legislature. She also highlighted New York-based abortionist Margaret Carpenter, who is now under investigation again for selling the abortion pill used to kill the baby.

Carpenter allegedly mailed the abortion drug to another woman in the state, this time located in the city of Shreveport.  The Shreveport woman was 20 weeks pregnant when she took the abortion medication and subsequently went into labor, Attorney General Liz Murrill said during a testimony for a pro-life bill.

Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page!

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.10"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

“She and her boyfriend, after she gave birth, took the baby, wrapped it in a towel, and threw it in a garbage can,” she said.

According to Murrill, the couple went to the hospital and were told to get the baby’s body – which the boyfriend eventually did. Local law enforcement is also investigating the case.

A Louisiana grand jury indicted Carpenter in January for violating a state law after she illegal mailed an abortion pill to another Louisiana resident.

State law enforcement issued an arrest warrant for Carpenter, and she was charged with criminal abortion by means of abortion inducing drugs. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry issued an extradition request for Carpenter, but radically pro-abortion New York Governor Kathy Hochul refused to sign it.

The Louisiana legislature is examing a new bill to make it easier to punish abortionists like Carpenter who break the law – by allowing Louisiana residents to sue any person or entity that “causes or substantially facilitates an abortion.”

“It is another mechanism, it is another tool in the toolbox for people who are harmed by somebody who is intent on violating our laws,” said Murrill.

“We’re not going to stop trying to extradite her and prosecute her for the crimes that she’s committing in our state,” she added, referring to Carpenter.

The post Woman Killed Her 20-Week-Old Baby With Abortion Pill, Threw Baby in a Garbage Can appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iván Archivaldo Guzmán recently evaded capture by Mexican police by using escape tactics that he learned from his father Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. The Journal described Iván as “Mexico’s Most Wanted Drug Kingpin.”

But wait a minute! I thought that when U.S. officials recently sentenced El Chapo himself to life in a U.S. prison, the war on drugs was supposed to have been won. Alas, apparently not. It turns out that El Chapo has several sons who took over the family drug business.

Darn! And here I thought that the drug war was finally over. Who would have thought that the busting of one big drug lord only means that new drug lords are there to take their place? Gosh, so does that mean that if officials capture or kill all the Chapitos, the drug war will finally be over? If you believe that, I’ve got a nice bridge across the Rio Grande I’d like to sell you.

President Trump knows that the drug war is a long way from being over, no matter how many Chapitos are killed or captured. Trump now wants to use military force against drug cartels inside Mexico. He says the drug dealers are more than drug dealers. He says there are also “terrorists.” So, he wants to kill them by dropping U.S. bombs on them, firing missiles at them, or using U.S. troops to shoot them — inside Mexico. Trump obviously feels that by winning the war on drugs in Mexico, he will be winning the war on drugs here at home.

Unfortunately for Trump, however, when he asked Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum for permission to use U.S. military force inside Mexico, she said no. That must have undoubtedly surprised Trump, given that he has been praising her for several months and even cut her some slack on his tariff campaign. In fact, Trump was so miffed over Sheinbaum’s rejection of his request that he responded by suggesting that she was just scared of the drug cartels.

However, it’s not difficult to understand why Sheinbaum has rejected Trump’s request.

For one thing, Trump’s request is a variation of “I’m from the federal government and I’m here to help you.” Who believes that one? Not anyone in Mexico, including Sheinbaum.

Another thing to consider is that if U.S. troops enter Mexico ostensibly to combat the drug cartels, there is a good possibility that they will never leave. After all, aren’t there still U.S. troops in Iraq? Indeed, aren’t there post-World War II troops still in Germany? Why would Mexico want a permanent occupation by the U.S. national-security establishment? Would Americans want a permanent occupation of the United States by the Mexican army?

A third thing to consider is that the U.S. government hasn’t exactly done a great job in smashing its own illicit drug distributors here inside the United States. After all, if it had done so, U.S. officials could have declared victory and an end to the drug war. Instead, implicitly acknowledging defeat domestically, they now feel that they need to go into Mexico to win the drug war over there. One can understand why Mexico would question the competence of U.S. officials to win the war on drugs in Mexico when it can’t even win the war on drugs inside the United States.

Something else to consider is all of the innocent people who would be killed in a U.S. military campaign against Mexican drug cartels. Remember: U.S. officials don’t exactly put a high value on the lives of Mexicans. After all, isn’t that one of the countries that U.S. officials say is filled with rapists, murderers, thieves, and robbers who are invading the United States? Given such, I can’t imagine that U.S. officials are going to be very upset about the large number of Mexican citizens who would be killed in a U.S. military campaign against the drug cartels.

Finally, based on what happened in the Mexican War, one can understand why Sheinbaum and the Mexican people would be a bit skittish about permitting a U.S. invasion of their country. When the U.S. government provoked that war, U.S. officials used the war to steal the entire northern half of Mexico. Who’s to say that the U.S. government wouldn’t do the same thing today — after forcing all Mexican citizens to move south, of course, to avoid having them become U.S. citizens.

As President Trump has pointed out, Sheinbaum is a very sharp person. She is smart to say no to Trump’s request to invade and bomb her country in the name of winning the ongoing, never-ending, perpetual immoral and destructive war on drugs.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.