China's Xi Jinping has cast the die. After weighing up the unappetizing choice before him for a year, he has picked the lesser of two poisons.

The balance of evidence is that most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Tse-tung aims to prick China's $24 trillion credit bubble early in his 10-year term, rather than putting off the day of reckoning for yet another cycle.

This may be well-advised for China, but the rest of the world seems remarkably nonchalant over the implications. Brazil, Russia, South Africa, and the commodity bloc are already in the cross-hairs.

"China is getting serious about deleveraging," says Patrick Legland and Wei Yao from Societe Generale. "It is difficult to gently deflate a bubble. There is a very real possibility that this slow deflation may get out of control and lead to a hard landing."

Societe Generale has defined its hard landing as a fall in Chinese growth to a trough of 2%, with two quarters of contraction. This would cause a 30% slide in Chinese equities, a 50% crash in copper prices, and a drop in Brent crude to $75.

Is everybody blind?" "What in the world has happened to us?"

Two bulls-eye questions asked by ordinary Americans that we all should be asking each other. 

The first was asked by Marine Colonel Peter Martino last week (8/12) in a Concord NH city council hearing regarding its police department's proposed acquisition (with Homeland Security money) of a "counter attack vehicle" to protect Concord from "domestic terrorist threats" such as the liberty advocates of the Free State Project.
 
Thanks to Col. Martino, and the video of his testimony's going viral, people may start catching on that their local police department is being converted into Obama's Storm Troopers, militarily armed to crush any attempt to rebel against his 1984 fascism.

The highest priority of conservatives on a local basis should be to demand the defunding of their community's police militarization. Almost every city above 25,000 population in America has its own militarized SWAT Team.  Does yours?

Regarding the second question, since you're not a hermit in a Himalayan cave, you watch Duck Dynasty that keeps setting records for the most-watched show on cable-tv.  The show has become a cultural phenomenon as the Robertson family is hilariously but clean-decent funny, pro-family, pro-life, unapologetically Christian, self-made wealthy and unapologetically capitalist, and loves guns and hunting. 

The show is incredibly popular and is the antithesis of all liberal values.  This was made sparkling clear with a video of a speech given by Phil Robertson, the family patriarch, that has gone wildly viral this week.  This quote is why:

Do you think you receive fair value for the money you spend on taxes? The fact is you don't, because there is excessive corruption in both the way your tax money is collected and in the way it is spent. Many countries are notorious for the tax collectors being "on the take." At the federal level, it is rare for an Internal Revenue Service agent to put his hand out, but that does not rule out considerable corruption.

The corruption starts with Congress. Members of Congress "buy votes" by handing out "free stuff." It includes expenditures on programs that few, if any, congressmen would spend their own money on, plus programs that are filled with waste and fraud that go on year after year (e.g., studies have shown that Medicare and Medicaid misspend up to a third of their budgets).

Members of Congress also buy campaign contributions by proposing and voting for expenditures that reward certain companies, industries, and unions Solyndra and the General Motors bailout come to mind. This kind of buying of votes and campaign contributions goes on in most democracies. The United States may be the world's leader in vote and contribution buying through special provisions in the tax code.

It is not hard to figure out why the members of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, the two tax-writing committees, tend to receive much larger campaign contributions than others who sit on less influential committees.

How upset are you over the CIA “secret prison scandal”? Maybe you said, “What scandal?”, or maybe you’ve glanced at stories about it carried in the back pages of your newspaper. Here in Europe, it’s the giant screaming front page headline story on every paper you pick up from England to Germany.

The Europeans are in a state of high emotional froth over CIA “renditions” of Moslem terrorists seized in one of their countries and taken to a “secret prison” in Poland or elsewhere. The Euroweenies are far more concerned with the “human rights” of the terrorists than they are about the threat of terrorists to kill them.

If you think all of this is just an excuse to bash the CIA and indulge in anti-Americanism, you’re right – just as planned by the weasels.

Everyone on the right, it seems nowadays, from the editorials in the Wall Street Journal to conservative columnists like Mona Charen and bloggers like John Hinderacker, are issuing calls to “Investigate the CIA!” They have been suckered by the left.

They should instead be demanding, “Investigate the weasels, not the agency!”

In last week's Half-Full Report (see the section on Debbie Does USAF), Jack asked me to comment about America's F-22A Raptor and F-35A/B/C Lightning II fighters.  Namely: if the F-22 Raptor was the better fighter, why was it canceled in favor of the F-35?

Both fighters sit at the nexus of some pretty big assumptions and questions about US air power in the next few decades, so it's hard to give a brief answer, but I'm going to try.

In brief: Yes, the F-22 is a much better fighter than the F-35. Indeed, it remains the best fighter in the world by a wide margin. The flip side is that it can't perform some roles, costs a lot to maintain, and will cost quite a lot ($7 billion or more) to upgrade to modern standards.

But the bottom line is thatI don't think the core problem is F-22 vs. F-35. The core problem is...