Baghdad, Iraq.  Would you invest in Iraq? Many people think it is crazy to even ask the question.

But strange as it may seem, there may already be some good investment opportunities in Iraq, and chances are there will be many high-yielding investments in the country in the next few years.

When you arrive at the international airport in Baghdad and are greeted by a security company that puts an armored vest on you, and then loads you into a highly armored vehicle manned by tough guys with automatic weapons, just to get you to a hotel, you are thinking, "This is the last place where I would ever invest."

The good news is that much of Iraq, other than Baghdad (outside the Green Zone and other high-security compounds) and a few other places, is returning to normal and is safe, and parts of it, such as the Kurdish region, are actually booming. This means there are increasing potentially profitable private investment opportunities, on a risk-adjusted rate of return basis.

This past week, the Washington-based Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) hosted a conference in Baghdad where about 100 representatives of 15 of the 18 Provincial Investment Commissions (PICs) came to discuss how they more effectively attract foreign investment.

If the Iraqis didn't think things were getting more peaceful and normal, it is unlikely they would waste time traveling some distance to Baghdad by automobile to learn how they might obtain more private foreign investment in their provinces. 

In hindsight, it probably will be obvious that the missteps of the Obama administration vis-a-vis Israel were critical catalysts to a war that today seems ever more likely to engulf the Middle East, and perhaps the world more generally.

Assuming - assuming - such an outcome is neither the intention of the president and his team nor is desired by them, American course corrections must be taken urgently.

Throughout their 17 months in office, the president and his senior subordinates have been at pains to demonstrate a more "evenhanded" approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to "engage" the Moslem "world."

The practical effect, however, has been to excuse, empower and embolden those hostile not just to Israel, but to the United States as well. Consider just a few ominous examples:

As the HFR goes to press this Friday morning, a Kabuki drama is unfolding on the Honduran-Nicaraguan border.  Exiled former president Zelaya is reported by the Miami Herald to be in Esteli, Nicaragua trying to cross into Honduras.  Soldiers and opponents of Zelaya have gathered at the Las Manos Honduran border crossing, as well as a few Zelaya supporters.

It so happens that I am familiar with the Honduran-Nicaraguan border, having crossed it several times surreptitiously with the Contras in the 80s.  This is rough country, and I can assure you Zelaya will not try this as I did, on foot through mountainous jungle.  He's not in shape and he's too big and fat for his people to carry.

Thus his options are very limited and easy to stymie.  He is engaged in nothing more than a media stunt.  Zelaya is sinking fast -- even the left-wing Miami Herald admits it.  One person we have to thank for this is Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC).

Yet who knew Senator Jim DeMint's real name is Arthur Wellesley? 

How much should the U.S. government spend on an economic stimulus program? If you have trouble answering the question, it is because it is the wrong question.

The United States (and the world) economy is (or at least has been for the last few months) in decline with rising unemployment rates. It is widely believed the government must "do something." The political and media classes, and even many economists, call for an "economic stimulus program." But what do they mean by "stimulus," and will it do any good?

The argument is made that many Americans are suffering from a decline in income, and thus the government should give them money so they can buy more and put others back to work.

Sounds good - but where does the government get the money? It must either tax someone else now or borrow more money, which diverts productive saving to current consumption. Either way, it is less than a zero-sum game.

The "aid convoy" incident off the coast of Gaza on May 30 wasn't about bringing humanitarian supplies to the terrorist-ruled territory. It wasn't even about Israel.

It was about Turkey's determination to position itself as the leading Moslem state in the Middle East.

Three ships of that six-ship pro-terror convoy flew Turkish flags and were crowded with Turkish citizens. The Ankara government -- led by Islamists these days -- sponsored the "aid" operation in a move to position itself as the new champion of the Palestinians.

And Turkish decision-makers knew Israel would have to react -- and were waiting to exploit the inevitable clash. The provocation was as cynical as it was carefully orchestrated.

It's been busy.  Non-stop travel for the past three weeks - driving 2,200 miles in California and Nevada alone - regarding my Achilles Heel Project (to be revealed at the Winning the Revolution Rendezvous in September).

On the way, Rebel and I met a lot of wonderful people who love America.  I can't resist sharing with you an insight of one of them - a doctor who lives near Palm Springs, California.

As a physician, he's very observant of changes in people's dimensions.  As a conservative he's noticed something about Mrs. Zero.  Based on it, he has devised a scientific formula with intriguing predictive value.

He calls it the ACR, which stands for Ass Circumference Ratio.  The ACR predicts that Mrs. Zero's derriere will widen or narrow corresponding with how her husband's presidency is failing or succeeding.

Notice how it's been expanding lately?  That's the ACR at work.  At the rate Mr. Zero's popularity ratings are heading towards the basement, it won't be long before Mrs. Zero will be a real porker.  Thanks for the tip, Doc.

Should we abolish the Fed? The Federal Reserve Bank, or "The Fed" as it is commonly known, is the central bank of the United States. It was created by Congress in 1913 as the direct result of the Panic of 1907 (recessions or depressions were previously called panics, and they tended to be short lived and self-correcting).

The United States had been without a central bank since the closure of the Second Bank of the United States in 1836 by Andrew Jackson. A major goal of the Fed was to stop bank panics which had occurred with some regularity from the Founding of the American Republic. The Fed also was charged with maintaining a stable price level and full employment.

When considering whether the Fed should be kept, or at least kept in its present form, it is always useful to look at the data. Specifically, what happened in the 94 years prior to 1914 (when the Fed became operational), and what happened in the 94 years since 1914?

This week (5/26), the New York Times published another front-page article based on a leaked classified document. This time, it was an order signed by Gen. David Petraeus authorizing black operations against adversaries and such dubious friends as Iran, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

Gee, thanks. We really needed to know that. The world's a better place now.

Yet the Times' sin was the lesser one. The paper has long since given up any pretense of patriotism.  Its editors are just publishing and perishing as citizens of the world.

It's whoever leaked the document that bears the burn-in-hell blame. And that person resides somewhere in the White House.

The recent drop in oil and other commodity prices makes it almost a certainty that some unstable commodity-exporting nations will reach a crisis stage in the next few months. The only question is, which countries are likely to erupt first?

The Middle East is always a safe bet for an explosion, but there is a very good chance the next eruption will be in Africa, with the most likely location being Congo, followed by Sudan.

In Latin America, Argentina is headed for another debt default and financial meltdown, and Venezuela continues to rapidly deteriorate.

And there is Russia, which is likely to react poorly as its once booming economy goes into to a sharp recession.

But -- pressures will mount on the United States to become involved, particularly in Africa, as mass killings begin again.

The world changed this week and we yawned. Our government and media utterly failed to grasp the meaning of the Iran-Brazil-Turkey nuke deal.

What Brazil and Turkey just did wasn't intended to impede Tehran, but to make it harder for Western powers to impose sanctions. Both countries want Iran to run interference for them.

Once Iran gets the bomb and takes the (slight) heat, Brazil and Turkey both intend to go nuclear.

As Western states fantasize about a "nuclear-weapons-free world," their developing-world darlings are scrambling like mad to develop nuclear arsenals. And we don't get it.

Which leads to the second problem with our asleep-at-the-wheel foreign policy (content to equate Arizona's human-rights record with China's): New alliances are developing that are already destabilizing our strategic architecture -- even without nukes.

Let's connect a few of the Iran-Turkey-Brazil dots:

On the eve of July 4^th, I've discovered I can't do what I've done for the past five years:  provide a cheery update for Freedom's Birthday.

Yes, the 4^th is a time to feel good about America.  But our country is in such extraordinary danger - more than any time since the Civil War - that just feeling good and proud doesn't cut it.  Especially when the danger is internal, not foreign.

This example just appeared in Israeli papers today (7/03):  That Zero intends to block any new sanctions on Iran at the upcoming G8 summit next week.

Never before in our nation's history have we ever had a president who hated his country, who by his every action sought to weaken its national security, destroy its prosperity, and expand government control over our lives to literally the level of Orwell's 1984.

Thus the phrase you'll hear at many a Tea Party tomorrow:

"To avoid 1984, you have to go back to 1776."