Its like a stuck, worn out record repeating the same line over and over again. Those hypocritical folks from the Visegrad4 and Eastern Europe are all for solidarity when it comes to receiving EU monies, but they defy Brussels when it comes to migrant handouts. True they seem to want no part of Merkel Vision and who could blame them. They see, like almost everyone else, the failed multiculturalism of the West. "Good luck, but no thanks", they say.
But the funds they receive from the EU have nothing whatsoever to do with migrant quotas. Does one really believe the EU is just handing out money for no benefit of their own? This may be the case with Turkey, where Erdogan shakes down Merkel for billions as he winks an eye towards the 25,000 smugglers that operate openly on his shores. However, this is not the case with Eastern Europe.
In 1948, the United States started what was known here as the Marshall Plan to revitalize Europe after World War II. America invested 13 billion or 130 billion in today's dollars into Western Europe. Of course, Stalin rejected the plan for the eastern bloc. The United Kingdom received 26% of the funds, while France 18% and West Germany 11%. The United States was not just handing out welfare to be a "nice guy"; they were fully aware that in order to maximize their economy they needed a strong market in Europe. As Europe lay wounded, they needed to help rebuild the devastated infrastructure and to raise the standard of living. After all, it is much easier to export goods to people who have the money to buy them. The Marshall Plan helped get Europe back on track to the point where the ingenuity of the Europeans, Germans mostly, were able to capitalize on that seed money to become vibrant economies. In the end, Europe benefited, but so did America, very handsomely.
For a moment forget that this whole refugee crisis did not happen (wow, what a dream). The EU would still be earmarking monies for Eastern Europe and the V4. Why? Because Germany and the West need them to have prosperous economies for the benefit of all. A great deal of this money goes to rebuild the infrastructure that was neglected during communism and to raise the purchasing power of the people there. Why? So Germany and others can sell them goods. In other words, although not nearly as dramatic as the Marshall Plan, this EU "welfare" greatly benefits the donor countries in the long run.
Today it is the V4 economies that are thriving. Take a trip to Mlada Boleslav, a thriving town in the Czech Republic, and see who is assembling those German cars to be exported worldwide. Look at the Skoda cars that dominate their roadways. Germany's investment in Mlada Boleslav is paying dividends for both Volkswagen and the Czechs who live there. This is how the world works.
So the next time you hear some pundit at the Economist or bureaucrat in Brussels whining about the V4 and Eastern Germany accepting funds without the attached strings (migrants), you may want to ask them just who benefits from a strong Central/Eastern Europe? Who benefits from a strong
infrastructure in which to export to? Who benefits from an efficient workforce with the purchasing power to buy an overpriced, overrated edition of the English Economist?
With Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, and France melting down in the self-destructive malaise of socialism, Germany needs the V4 and CEE states more than ever to be strong and healthy.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Saturday, February 20, 2016
South Carolina Primary: Defending Iraq War a black hole to nowhere
Whatever one thinks of Donald Trump and his unique style of reckless abandon, he just can't be knocked out. South Carolina is one of the most conservative states for Republicans. Very pro-military, it is one of the places where George Bush is still admired. So what does Trump do? He tore down the politically correct, golden goose of neocon theology - the Iraq War.
Not only did he directly challenge the Iraq War, but he said the Bush administration misled the public on weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to invade Iraq. All in front of a partisan and hostile crowd of neocon and GOP establishment groupies. Good for him, the Iraq War was the match that ignited the fire for the global carnage we see today in the Middle East. It's blowback will be felt for decades as witnessed by Syria, Libya, and the refugee crisis tearing Europe apart. This writer won't go as far to say George Bush lied, but he sure was deliberately misled by Dick Cheney and the neocon crowd who fed him "cherry-picked" intelligent reports they knew were false or a stretch at best. The Iraq War was not about defending America, nor was it conservative at all. The Iraq War sacrificed our soldiers for the agenda of others in the Middle East. History will not be kind to the neocons.
And by the way, Trump won the primary with plenty of room to spare.
The neocon pundits that control Fox News were hysterical and predicted this heresy by Trump would be his downfall. Other candidates walked right into the trap. One by one they trotted out, with the same old tired group think, to proclaim that the Invasion of Iraq was a glorious undertaking. Like Merkel regarding the refugee crisis, neocons were quick to blame others for the debacle.
My writings are well known on the subject, but no one argued against the Iraq War as eloquently and convincingly as Pat Buchanan. Just google Pat Buchanan; one can view the volume of his opinion pieces about the war before, during and after. He was spot on and the neocons know this.
In Europe, there is not much debate on the follies of neocons in Iraq. Whether conservative or liberal, all view it as a failure. Indeed, Europe is living with the consequences. It may seem odd that we have a group in the States still in denial over its disaster. However, this cuts both ways. There are quite a bit of us here in disbelief that Angela Merkel still seems in denial over the refugee crisis and that the EU border remains open. Shocking that Merkel still speaks for the EU.
Donald Trump is tearing down the charade of the neocons and debating on his terms, not Meghan Kelly's. If Republicans want to try to defend Iraq or mass immigration, they will get blown away. As Pat Buchanan is probably saying, "Make my day".
I still believe this race will boil down between Trump-Rubio. Trump may want to remind voters just who is supporting, funding, and directing Rubio. For in that Rubio closet lays the skeletons of death: the ghosts of a neocon past. If Trump prevails, he not only takes down Rubio, but he will bury the neocon establishment once and for all.
Note: My primary voting date is not until April. While undecided, I am sure to vote for the candidate with best chance of defeating Rubio.
Not only did he directly challenge the Iraq War, but he said the Bush administration misled the public on weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to invade Iraq. All in front of a partisan and hostile crowd of neocon and GOP establishment groupies. Good for him, the Iraq War was the match that ignited the fire for the global carnage we see today in the Middle East. It's blowback will be felt for decades as witnessed by Syria, Libya, and the refugee crisis tearing Europe apart. This writer won't go as far to say George Bush lied, but he sure was deliberately misled by Dick Cheney and the neocon crowd who fed him "cherry-picked" intelligent reports they knew were false or a stretch at best. The Iraq War was not about defending America, nor was it conservative at all. The Iraq War sacrificed our soldiers for the agenda of others in the Middle East. History will not be kind to the neocons.
And by the way, Trump won the primary with plenty of room to spare.
The neocon pundits that control Fox News were hysterical and predicted this heresy by Trump would be his downfall. Other candidates walked right into the trap. One by one they trotted out, with the same old tired group think, to proclaim that the Invasion of Iraq was a glorious undertaking. Like Merkel regarding the refugee crisis, neocons were quick to blame others for the debacle.
My writings are well known on the subject, but no one argued against the Iraq War as eloquently and convincingly as Pat Buchanan. Just google Pat Buchanan; one can view the volume of his opinion pieces about the war before, during and after. He was spot on and the neocons know this.
In Europe, there is not much debate on the follies of neocons in Iraq. Whether conservative or liberal, all view it as a failure. Indeed, Europe is living with the consequences. It may seem odd that we have a group in the States still in denial over its disaster. However, this cuts both ways. There are quite a bit of us here in disbelief that Angela Merkel still seems in denial over the refugee crisis and that the EU border remains open. Shocking that Merkel still speaks for the EU.
Donald Trump is tearing down the charade of the neocons and debating on his terms, not Meghan Kelly's. If Republicans want to try to defend Iraq or mass immigration, they will get blown away. As Pat Buchanan is probably saying, "Make my day".
I still believe this race will boil down between Trump-Rubio. Trump may want to remind voters just who is supporting, funding, and directing Rubio. For in that Rubio closet lays the skeletons of death: the ghosts of a neocon past. If Trump prevails, he not only takes down Rubio, but he will bury the neocon establishment once and for all.
Note: My primary voting date is not until April. While undecided, I am sure to vote for the candidate with best chance of defeating Rubio.
Monday, February 8, 2016
EU Refugee Crisis: Europe must move on from Merkel
Angela Merkel will just about say or do anything to appear as if she is working hard to solve her refugee crisis. As the EU melts down, Merkel just keeps coming up with one bad idea after another. Merkel's latest magic trick is to turn "illegal migration into legal migration".
She wants to import another 300,000 refugees per YEAR from the camps in Turkey. In return, she believes Turkey will then suddenly halt the flow of refugees entering Europe. This is a nonsense, especially when the EU external border remains wide open.
Merkel certainly knows it is just not Syrian refugees looking to Europe. Choosing legitimate refugees from the camps in Turkey does nothing to halt the endless flow of economic migrants entering Europe. The smugglers will take advantage of the situation to target migrants outside Turkey or refugees who fail to be selected from the camps in Turkey to shuttle more into Greece. The EU has enough problems with the refugees and migrants already here. It is a nonsense to think the flow of illegals will stop without sealing the border or that Erdogan can be a trusted partner with his track record.
It is a very naive to believe that one can take in 300,000 new refugees per year straight from the camps in Turkey while 3-5,000 illegals arrive in Greece daily. This is futile without sealing the border - which Merkel, Greece and EUCO do not seem prepared to do.
Europe can't rely or wait for Merkel or Erdogan to clean up the mess. They must bypass her and defy her permanent scheme for redistributing refugees across the EU. If Merkel carries the day, the EU will find themselves with a system that guarantees a limitless flow of migrants with endless quotas for all. If, on the other hand, the CEE nations and V4 defy Merkel on her redistribution sharing scheme, she may be forced to finally seal the external border or Germany will explode.
This cannot continue as is, something has to give. Merkel is not too big to fail; in fact, her fall may be the best thing for Europe in the long run.
She wants to import another 300,000 refugees per YEAR from the camps in Turkey. In return, she believes Turkey will then suddenly halt the flow of refugees entering Europe. This is a nonsense, especially when the EU external border remains wide open.
Merkel certainly knows it is just not Syrian refugees looking to Europe. Choosing legitimate refugees from the camps in Turkey does nothing to halt the endless flow of economic migrants entering Europe. The smugglers will take advantage of the situation to target migrants outside Turkey or refugees who fail to be selected from the camps in Turkey to shuttle more into Greece. The EU has enough problems with the refugees and migrants already here. It is a nonsense to think the flow of illegals will stop without sealing the border or that Erdogan can be a trusted partner with his track record.
It is a very naive to believe that one can take in 300,000 new refugees per year straight from the camps in Turkey while 3-5,000 illegals arrive in Greece daily. This is futile without sealing the border - which Merkel, Greece and EUCO do not seem prepared to do.
Europe can't rely or wait for Merkel or Erdogan to clean up the mess. They must bypass her and defy her permanent scheme for redistributing refugees across the EU. If Merkel carries the day, the EU will find themselves with a system that guarantees a limitless flow of migrants with endless quotas for all. If, on the other hand, the CEE nations and V4 defy Merkel on her redistribution sharing scheme, she may be forced to finally seal the external border or Germany will explode.
This cannot continue as is, something has to give. Merkel is not too big to fail; in fact, her fall may be the best thing for Europe in the long run.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
GOP Primary: Rubio's Neocon Problem
I hesitate to take a break from the EU migrant crisis; certainly, the refugees never rest and another 3-5,000 new will arrive in Greece tomorrow. It never ends, nor will it as long as Merkel continues to get her way and Greece continues to surrender their border. More on that later in the week, but the EU is near the end. It will not and cannot survive its present form. The more I discover what values the EU represents, the more I believe Europe would be better off without the EU.
As a former US candidate for Congress in 1996 and 1998, I have a good instinct and feel for elections. Whoever I am against usually wins the election. My conservatism is of the "Old Right" and paleoconservative, best exemplified by my friend Pat Buchanan. He may not have won the election, but he has won the debate for the last twenty years. The issues he brought up long ago - immigration, multiculturalism, trade, globalism, the follies of invading Iraq, etc. are at the heart of the debate today. He was ahead of his time. To be frank, I am undecided and not one candidate energizes me as Buchanan did. In some ways, I believe ths allows me to analyze things from a rational and neutral point of view, although I know who I don't like.
Ted Cruz is a fighter and ran a great campaign in Iowa and it paid off. Iowa depends more on grassroots mobilization than grand speeches, which probably was to Cruz's advantage. Cruz is quite capable and he has to be taken seriously as an anti-establishment candidate. Donald Trump finished second and while this may have been disappointing for his supporters, he is here to stay. He has money, energy, and the passion on the issues that are popular for Middle America. A Trump nomination would more than likely set a record for cross-party voting in November for both political parties. Marco Rubio finished third, which energized his supporters. I have always thought it would come down to Trump vs. Rubio; Cruz was the surprise for me. It is a three-man race.
The establishment does not like Trump or Cruz; they prefer Marco Rubio. Who makes up the establishment? They are called the neoconservatives or neocons. They are led by Bill Kristol and offer plenty of Group Think via the various GOP media outlets they control. Watch Fox News and read the Wall Street Journal and one will find the neocon. The neocons are not the authentic conservatives that I grew up admiring, and while they are mere lightweights in my mind, they are big players within GOP circles. Neocons believe they need to shape the world around their beliefs and often advocate military action and a powerful executive branch to achieve their goals. However, they don't have a track record of success; in fact, one could easily argue they have been a disaster for America and the world. The invasion of Iraq was their trademark, their legacy. But they ignited the fire that began the breakdown of the Middle East which thus destabilized Syria and sent refugees flowing to Europe. Marco Rubio may be the their preferred candidate, but he is nothing more than a "mini-McCain".
Neocons prefer Turkey and Saudi Arabia as allies. They detest Putin and Iran and will oppose them, even if this means radical Islamic rebels and terrorists take over Syria. Their main antagonist is not ISIS, but Putin. If Merkel allows emotion to overtake critical thought, neocons allow pride and
ideology to trump foreign policy realism.
Rubio has been their man from the start and his foreign policy, where he is weak and easily influenced, would no doubt follow their course. One can see this by the influential neocons lining up behind his campaign. His third place finish in Iowa was good, but not as great as the neocons spin it. After all, he finished third. However, he did establish himself as the leading candidate of the neocon establishment. No matter how low his numbers or how easily confused he becomes on foreign policy, the neocon money supply will keep him in the race until the end. Rubio will be one of the two candidates left standing. Personally, I believe his foreign policy agenda would be a disaster, much like that of Dick Cheney. However, Rubio is a serious candidate, not by his credentials, but due to the power vested in those who support him.
Donald Trump is certainly the anti-establishment candidate. The neocons detest him partly because they cannot control him(as they would with Rubio). Trump is his own man and he resonates with Middle America, fed up with mass immigration, endless war, and unfair trade deals that sacrifice their jobs to the profits of multi-national corporations. Cruz and Trump will compete for the anti-
establishment vote. Only one can emerge; if both continue to the end they will split that vote and will have little chance to defeat Rubio.
My take as an undecided (only know that I will support whoever can defeat Rubio, who I believe would drive us into another Middle East quagmire): Either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz will emerge to take on Rubio. My gut feeling points to Trump because he taps into people's emotions more. But I have seen the nasty work of the neocons, their venomous smears on candidates like Pat Buchanan in the past. They will be in full attack mode and I still think they control the media and dollars to propel Rubio to the nomination. The time is coming when the neocon will be overthrown and discredited, but I don't see that happening in 2016.
Rubio will then face a damaged and detested H. Clinton in the general. Although demographics favor the Democrats, I just cannot see America voting for Clinton. Rubio is clever enough to mask his neocon foreign policy; he will win. But his presidency will be flawed and he will last one term. This will serve as the beginning to the end of the neocon establishment in Washington.
The rebels and traditionalists may not get what they want in 2016 - but Trump or Cruz - even in defeat may open the door for real change in 2020. Patience I say. Let Rubio and the neocons blow themselves up again. The question: Who is waiting in the wings to take back true conservatism from the neocons in 2020.
As a former US candidate for Congress in 1996 and 1998, I have a good instinct and feel for elections. Whoever I am against usually wins the election. My conservatism is of the "Old Right" and paleoconservative, best exemplified by my friend Pat Buchanan. He may not have won the election, but he has won the debate for the last twenty years. The issues he brought up long ago - immigration, multiculturalism, trade, globalism, the follies of invading Iraq, etc. are at the heart of the debate today. He was ahead of his time. To be frank, I am undecided and not one candidate energizes me as Buchanan did. In some ways, I believe ths allows me to analyze things from a rational and neutral point of view, although I know who I don't like.
Ted Cruz is a fighter and ran a great campaign in Iowa and it paid off. Iowa depends more on grassroots mobilization than grand speeches, which probably was to Cruz's advantage. Cruz is quite capable and he has to be taken seriously as an anti-establishment candidate. Donald Trump finished second and while this may have been disappointing for his supporters, he is here to stay. He has money, energy, and the passion on the issues that are popular for Middle America. A Trump nomination would more than likely set a record for cross-party voting in November for both political parties. Marco Rubio finished third, which energized his supporters. I have always thought it would come down to Trump vs. Rubio; Cruz was the surprise for me. It is a three-man race.
The establishment does not like Trump or Cruz; they prefer Marco Rubio. Who makes up the establishment? They are called the neoconservatives or neocons. They are led by Bill Kristol and offer plenty of Group Think via the various GOP media outlets they control. Watch Fox News and read the Wall Street Journal and one will find the neocon. The neocons are not the authentic conservatives that I grew up admiring, and while they are mere lightweights in my mind, they are big players within GOP circles. Neocons believe they need to shape the world around their beliefs and often advocate military action and a powerful executive branch to achieve their goals. However, they don't have a track record of success; in fact, one could easily argue they have been a disaster for America and the world. The invasion of Iraq was their trademark, their legacy. But they ignited the fire that began the breakdown of the Middle East which thus destabilized Syria and sent refugees flowing to Europe. Marco Rubio may be the their preferred candidate, but he is nothing more than a "mini-McCain".
Neocons prefer Turkey and Saudi Arabia as allies. They detest Putin and Iran and will oppose them, even if this means radical Islamic rebels and terrorists take over Syria. Their main antagonist is not ISIS, but Putin. If Merkel allows emotion to overtake critical thought, neocons allow pride and
ideology to trump foreign policy realism.
Rubio has been their man from the start and his foreign policy, where he is weak and easily influenced, would no doubt follow their course. One can see this by the influential neocons lining up behind his campaign. His third place finish in Iowa was good, but not as great as the neocons spin it. After all, he finished third. However, he did establish himself as the leading candidate of the neocon establishment. No matter how low his numbers or how easily confused he becomes on foreign policy, the neocon money supply will keep him in the race until the end. Rubio will be one of the two candidates left standing. Personally, I believe his foreign policy agenda would be a disaster, much like that of Dick Cheney. However, Rubio is a serious candidate, not by his credentials, but due to the power vested in those who support him.
Donald Trump is certainly the anti-establishment candidate. The neocons detest him partly because they cannot control him(as they would with Rubio). Trump is his own man and he resonates with Middle America, fed up with mass immigration, endless war, and unfair trade deals that sacrifice their jobs to the profits of multi-national corporations. Cruz and Trump will compete for the anti-
establishment vote. Only one can emerge; if both continue to the end they will split that vote and will have little chance to defeat Rubio.
My take as an undecided (only know that I will support whoever can defeat Rubio, who I believe would drive us into another Middle East quagmire): Either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz will emerge to take on Rubio. My gut feeling points to Trump because he taps into people's emotions more. But I have seen the nasty work of the neocons, their venomous smears on candidates like Pat Buchanan in the past. They will be in full attack mode and I still think they control the media and dollars to propel Rubio to the nomination. The time is coming when the neocon will be overthrown and discredited, but I don't see that happening in 2016.
Rubio will then face a damaged and detested H. Clinton in the general. Although demographics favor the Democrats, I just cannot see America voting for Clinton. Rubio is clever enough to mask his neocon foreign policy; he will win. But his presidency will be flawed and he will last one term. This will serve as the beginning to the end of the neocon establishment in Washington.
The rebels and traditionalists may not get what they want in 2016 - but Trump or Cruz - even in defeat may open the door for real change in 2020. Patience I say. Let Rubio and the neocons blow themselves up again. The question: Who is waiting in the wings to take back true conservatism from the neocons in 2020.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)