The difference was made gin-clear by a recent editorial in the International Herald Tribune, wholly owned by the New York Times, sneeringly entitled The Nanny State?

The difference is this:  A bank robber doesn't claim he has a moral right to steal your money.  A bank robber doesn't claim his thievery makes him the moral superior over his victims.

Liberals do - which makes them far more immoral than common criminals, thugs and thieves. 

According to the IHT, "The United States has long had one of the most meager tax takes in the industrial world [at least they call it ‘take,' as in ‘theft'].  America's social spending [i.e., welfare programs] is almost the stingiest among industrial nations."

Such meager and stingy theft is condemned as a "moral outrage," a contemptibly "tightfisted" approach to "public needs."

It is liberal thievery that is the moral outrage - and we have a Congress in Washington run by such thieves because too few conservatives have the courage to denounce the criminality.

Ten or fifteen years ago, when you looked at the cars on the road, how many Hyundais did you see? How many Hyundais do you see now, driven by buyers who wanted a "good enough" car for a reasonable price? 

Back in my April 4/14 Half-Full Report, I referred to a nascent "Hyundaization" (hun-dye-zay-shun) trend in the global defense market.  Even now, few people have noticed this.

Hyundaization has been masked by spending from high-end customers who only want top-end gear, and by global fire sales of used Western equipment. As an example of those fire sales, many of the Jordanian F-16s bombing ISIS right now recently belonged to the Dutch and Belgian air forces.

After a decade of those sales, however, there isn't much second-hand equipment left to sell. That's opening the door to new buys from new sources. A combination of technology trends, industrial policies, and a multi-polar global shift will give this trend staying power.

This is a sea change on multiple levels.  "Hyundaization" is going to have profound diplomatic, military, and industrial consequences.  Let's talk about them.

Hong Kong.  Why is Hong Kong succeeding while New York City is receding?

They are both world-class cities with about the same per-capita income and great natural harbors. New York is about 15 percent larger in population, while Hong Kong is about one-third larger in area (but unbuildable because of the steep terrain). Both have large immigrant populations who are seeking better lives.

Last week, I explained how much of Hong Kong's success was a result of it having the freest economy in the world, with low levels of government spending, low tax rates, a minimum of government regulation and the rule of law. There is more.

Hong Kong, like Singapore, South Korea, Chile and Switzerland are aspirational societies, rather than societies consumed with envy, like France. Work, saving and investment are not punished in aspirational societies, and there tend to be less social conflict and a higher level of civility.

(It was U.S. venture capitalist Terry Anker who first used the term "aspirational society" to describe Hong Kong during our meetings in this glorious city this past week. It is a more inclusive term than "opportunity society" that Newt Gingrich and Jack Kemp frequently used to describe their vision for the United States.)

The United States used to be an aspirational society, but has increasingly become an envious society.

Last week I asked you to define three things: Something you want to stop doing; something you want to start doing - or do more of; and a longer term goal that you want to reach.

Today I want to give you the beginning of a training regimen that will strengthen your ability to achieve those three things (also largely courtesy of Kelly McGonigal from her book, The Willpower Instinct).

Whenever you strengthen your capacity for willpower in a specific way, you strengthen your capacity for willpower in general. Since there are three different applications of willpower, reflected in three different parts of your brain, let's practice strengthening each of these.

In 1966, The Beatles wrote Hillary Clinton's theme song.

The quote that most perfectly encapsulates her philosophy of government was delivered on June 28, 2004 at a San Francisco fundraiser for fellow senator Barbara Boxer in which she announced to her wealthy listeners and all Americans in general:

We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.

The underlying philosophy of the Democrat Party as personified by the PIAPS is fascist thuggery posing as humanitarian compassion.  Witness her project of giving $5000 to every child born in the US (legal or illegal).  "Giving" is not the right term of course - it would only be if it were her money.

What she is in fact proposing is to steal at the point of a gun money from people who have earned it and hand it over to those who have not.  That's called theft, not "giving" or "being compassionate."

Thus Hillary's Theme Song, the first track on the 1966 Revolver album.  The Beatles had Hillary and her fascist ilk in mind when they wrote it. 

It's called The Taxman: