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.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Italy-Greece Crisis: Open Borders No Act of Humanity
*Update 4-30-2016. Whether Italy years ago, Greece months ago, or again Italy today, Open borders have been a disaster for all, including the true war refugees themselves. For those who say it is a secure border causing dangerous journeys to Europe, I would ask, "What secure border"? Neither Greece or Italy is secure; they allow all migrants to enter. If one wants to cite a "secure border" to make a case that it promotes dangerous journeys, they need to use a valid example, like Australia. However, they may be disappointed. But don't pretend the external EU border at Italy and Greece is "secure". It has been surrendered. Enjoy original post below from Jan2016.
Original Post:
The debate goes on in Europe over "values". Somehow, the leaders of Greece and Italy believe they have a monopoly on the subject (for the record, my blood is a mix of Italian, German, Slovak while my heart is Czech since I am married to one; my ego still American). While the EU desperately seeks to secure the border, Italy and Greece claim 'their values' prevent them from securing their (in reality, the EU) border from undocumented migrants.
But is surrendering ones border really an act of humanity or is it the cause of so much tragedy and does it indirectly enable human smugglers to thrive? Let's take a look.
Greece is a perfect example with 85% of the refugees making their way from Turkey to Greece by sea. The open border encourages these dangerous journeys which have resulted in death and abuse by smugglers. Everyone knows Greece offers no resistance, especially the smugglers. They arrange the trips on the Turkish coast where a bustling and profitable trafficking enterprise exists. It goes on right in front of Erdogan's eyes; he could stop it but chooses not to for his own interests. The trips are expensive and sometimes the women pay for the trip through forced sex with the smugglers. Children are often abused. This is not a secret; both Greece and the UN know what is happening yet choose to ignore it based on their greater 'value' of humanity for the migrants.
Moreover, the migrants are often without any identification and are barely vetted, which makes the route accessible to jihadists posing as migrants. Most of the migrants are young males who do not respect the culture. They pose great risks to women as evidenced by the Cologne sexual attacks and numerous others across Europe. Blowback will also occur years from now when a mass of parentless, young men grow up with many emotional scars. In addition, they are easy prey for radicalization and criminal gangs (we already see this happening in Sweden and Germany).
On the other side, Australia provides the example of a secured border. Years ago, when the boats started to arrive on their coast, they implemented policies that discouraged illegal human trafficking. This included turning the boats back. Tough love at first, but the boats stopped and they no longer have a problem. The smugglers were put out of business due to a sealed border, there are no drownings and their citizens have not been exposed to the dangers of undocumented male migrants. You can also look currently at the V4 countries (Czech, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) that control their borders and detain the illegal migrants. There is no chaos in their streets and their citizens are safe, sleeping like babies.
The conclusion is obvious. Securing the borders saves lives, eliminates the smugglers, and provides order and safety for the citizens of that country. Moreover, it can provide an orderly process outside the borders that can actually help a limited amount of true refugees in need.
An open border like Greece is a disaster for all, including the true war refugees, who are actually hurt by the huge mass of illegal migrants. The huge volume of refugees produce long delays in processing and even abuse from the illegal migrants themselves. The open border in Greece encourages the dangerous voyage, and as a result, we have seen far too many deaths. The citizens of Europe are exposed to great risks and they are tense and see their way of life disappearing.
So when we hear Renzi or the leaders of Greece talk humanity, we may want to ask them why the smugglers prefer their 'values' as opposed to Australia's Tony Abbott or Hungary's Viktor Orban. For what type of 'values' risk the security of your own people in the name of 'humanity'?
Original Post:
The debate goes on in Europe over "values". Somehow, the leaders of Greece and Italy believe they have a monopoly on the subject (for the record, my blood is a mix of Italian, German, Slovak while my heart is Czech since I am married to one; my ego still American). While the EU desperately seeks to secure the border, Italy and Greece claim 'their values' prevent them from securing their (in reality, the EU) border from undocumented migrants.
But is surrendering ones border really an act of humanity or is it the cause of so much tragedy and does it indirectly enable human smugglers to thrive? Let's take a look.
Greece is a perfect example with 85% of the refugees making their way from Turkey to Greece by sea. The open border encourages these dangerous journeys which have resulted in death and abuse by smugglers. Everyone knows Greece offers no resistance, especially the smugglers. They arrange the trips on the Turkish coast where a bustling and profitable trafficking enterprise exists. It goes on right in front of Erdogan's eyes; he could stop it but chooses not to for his own interests. The trips are expensive and sometimes the women pay for the trip through forced sex with the smugglers. Children are often abused. This is not a secret; both Greece and the UN know what is happening yet choose to ignore it based on their greater 'value' of humanity for the migrants.
Moreover, the migrants are often without any identification and are barely vetted, which makes the route accessible to jihadists posing as migrants. Most of the migrants are young males who do not respect the culture. They pose great risks to women as evidenced by the Cologne sexual attacks and numerous others across Europe. Blowback will also occur years from now when a mass of parentless, young men grow up with many emotional scars. In addition, they are easy prey for radicalization and criminal gangs (we already see this happening in Sweden and Germany).
On the other side, Australia provides the example of a secured border. Years ago, when the boats started to arrive on their coast, they implemented policies that discouraged illegal human trafficking. This included turning the boats back. Tough love at first, but the boats stopped and they no longer have a problem. The smugglers were put out of business due to a sealed border, there are no drownings and their citizens have not been exposed to the dangers of undocumented male migrants. You can also look currently at the V4 countries (Czech, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) that control their borders and detain the illegal migrants. There is no chaos in their streets and their citizens are safe, sleeping like babies.
The conclusion is obvious. Securing the borders saves lives, eliminates the smugglers, and provides order and safety for the citizens of that country. Moreover, it can provide an orderly process outside the borders that can actually help a limited amount of true refugees in need.
An open border like Greece is a disaster for all, including the true war refugees, who are actually hurt by the huge mass of illegal migrants. The huge volume of refugees produce long delays in processing and even abuse from the illegal migrants themselves. The open border in Greece encourages the dangerous voyage, and as a result, we have seen far too many deaths. The citizens of Europe are exposed to great risks and they are tense and see their way of life disappearing.
So when we hear Renzi or the leaders of Greece talk humanity, we may want to ask them why the smugglers prefer their 'values' as opposed to Australia's Tony Abbott or Hungary's Viktor Orban. For what type of 'values' risk the security of your own people in the name of 'humanity'?
Sunday, January 24, 2016
EU could sink Turkey: The Leverage of Economic Hardball to adjust Erdogan attitude
Dwight Eisenhower knew how to play hardball. During the Suez Crisis in 1956, Britain, France, and Israel found this out the hard way. When alerted to the surprise attack on Egypt, Eisenhower did not ask Anthony Eden to reconsider politely; he told him he would sink the pound and bury England's economy. Message sent; all three backed off. (Note*This example illustrating power of economic leverage, not the merit of Ike's actions, which is another debate)
This is called economic leverage: the ability to influence through economic means. It's quite powerful, sometimes more so than a B52 Bomber. Before engaging in any battle, one must evaluate the leverage one holds over his opponent (and vice-versa).
The EU-Turkey relationship is curious to me (I have several detailed posts on the subject). 85% of the refugees enter an impotent Greece via a network of 25,000 smugglers operating in Turkey. The common sense and natural approach should be to seal that border and send the boats back. Australia utilizes this approach successfully - eliminating the tragedies at sea and putting the smugglers out of business. Amazingly, the EU has chosen to surrender their border and delegate EU border security to a foreign entity in Turkey. The EU is negotiating from a point of weakness, at the mercy of Recap Erdogan. I believe this is a mistake and it is doomed to fail miserably.
The EU needs to reassess the economic leverage they have over a very vulnerable Turkey. They will soon realize that they do have the leverage, assuming they have the strength to 'man-up' to Erdogan (which is questionable).
Turkey's economy has slowed and their current account balance as % of GDP is -7.9. The Turks are extremely poor with a paltry GDP per head of $10,970. The inflation rate is a staggering 8.9% and unemployment at 10%. The country - 98% Muslim- is a tinderbox of volatility that Islamic jihadists and foreign fighters use as a hub for Syria. Tensions inside the country are high and they are fighting a proxy war through their various Islamic rebels against both Putin and Iran. Turkey is about as European as Sultan Suleiman I.
Dig deep and one will find more economic ammunition to battle Erdogan. 41% of Turkey's exports are to EU28 countries with Germany buying the most from Turkey. The Middle East is imploding with no future; Europe could bury Turkey's economy. Erdogan needs Europe much more than Merkel needs Turkey. The EU should by all means give Erdogan a choice behind close doors: Eradicate the smugglers, stop the dinghies from sailing, and respect our borders and we can talk about your future; or cast your lot with a Middle East in flames and we will isolate you and your people from Europe. Erdogan respects power, not candy, and cannot afford any type of sanctions at this time from a continent he needs. He will understand the message loud and clear. Destabilize the economy and his power becomes threatened. (Word of caution. EU Border must be secured for any solution. It is a common sense at any time).
The weak and feeble response by the EU to this crisis has baffled me from the start. By unarming themselves of all courage in the face of "UN-Correctness", the EU finds itself disrespected by the smugglers, Erdogan and even the migrants themselves. As a result, all Europeans are at risk and chaos reigns. The borders are open to literally anyone, including Islamic terrorists.
The EU is not threatened by a strong opposition but rather by their own weakness and lack of will and confidence. The EU has the leverage to stop this madness; but do they have the courage to fight for their culture and way of life or have they already surrendered their soul?
This is called economic leverage: the ability to influence through economic means. It's quite powerful, sometimes more so than a B52 Bomber. Before engaging in any battle, one must evaluate the leverage one holds over his opponent (and vice-versa).
The EU-Turkey relationship is curious to me (I have several detailed posts on the subject). 85% of the refugees enter an impotent Greece via a network of 25,000 smugglers operating in Turkey. The common sense and natural approach should be to seal that border and send the boats back. Australia utilizes this approach successfully - eliminating the tragedies at sea and putting the smugglers out of business. Amazingly, the EU has chosen to surrender their border and delegate EU border security to a foreign entity in Turkey. The EU is negotiating from a point of weakness, at the mercy of Recap Erdogan. I believe this is a mistake and it is doomed to fail miserably.
The EU needs to reassess the economic leverage they have over a very vulnerable Turkey. They will soon realize that they do have the leverage, assuming they have the strength to 'man-up' to Erdogan (which is questionable).
Turkey's economy has slowed and their current account balance as % of GDP is -7.9. The Turks are extremely poor with a paltry GDP per head of $10,970. The inflation rate is a staggering 8.9% and unemployment at 10%. The country - 98% Muslim- is a tinderbox of volatility that Islamic jihadists and foreign fighters use as a hub for Syria. Tensions inside the country are high and they are fighting a proxy war through their various Islamic rebels against both Putin and Iran. Turkey is about as European as Sultan Suleiman I.
Dig deep and one will find more economic ammunition to battle Erdogan. 41% of Turkey's exports are to EU28 countries with Germany buying the most from Turkey. The Middle East is imploding with no future; Europe could bury Turkey's economy. Erdogan needs Europe much more than Merkel needs Turkey. The EU should by all means give Erdogan a choice behind close doors: Eradicate the smugglers, stop the dinghies from sailing, and respect our borders and we can talk about your future; or cast your lot with a Middle East in flames and we will isolate you and your people from Europe. Erdogan respects power, not candy, and cannot afford any type of sanctions at this time from a continent he needs. He will understand the message loud and clear. Destabilize the economy and his power becomes threatened. (Word of caution. EU Border must be secured for any solution. It is a common sense at any time).
The weak and feeble response by the EU to this crisis has baffled me from the start. By unarming themselves of all courage in the face of "UN-Correctness", the EU finds itself disrespected by the smugglers, Erdogan and even the migrants themselves. As a result, all Europeans are at risk and chaos reigns. The borders are open to literally anyone, including Islamic terrorists.
The EU is not threatened by a strong opposition but rather by their own weakness and lack of will and confidence. The EU has the leverage to stop this madness; but do they have the courage to fight for their culture and way of life or have they already surrendered their soul?
Monday, January 18, 2016
EU Refugee Crisis: Lets Play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey"
I believe that was the name of the childhood game we played. Each kid, blindfolded, would try to place a pin on a donkey's tail in a poster on the wall. Quite amusing, someone eventually "pinned the tail", but usually after much angst. It would have been much easier and less time consuming if only our eyes were open.
Blindfolded seems to be how many in the EU are choosing to deal with the refugee crisis. I see more focus and determination at my eight-year old daughters tennis matches. EUCO, Merkel, and member states are desperately throwing proposal after proposal against the wall, hoping to find that "silver bullet" to gain some type of control, some form of sanity.
Don't get me wrong, some ideas have merit, but others are just downright Tom Foolery. For instance, the idea that one can pay Turkey or Africa billions of dollars to keep their migrants at home is absurd and naive. Erdogan tolerates and profits from the 25,000 smugglers he houses in his country; it's quite the booming enterprise for Turkey. Many in Africa won't even accept back their citizens whom the EU wants to deport.
Anyhow, Merkel's deportation deception (read my earlier blog for details) will be futile without sealing the external border. Merkel is even trying to convince some that the refugees are "temps" and that they will go home with peace in Syria. (Just like the Turks from years ago that never went back or the phenomenon of economic migrants from "safe" countries). EUCO wants to play magician by turning 'illegal migration into legal migration' by taking 250,000 refugees straight from the camps in Turkey; again futile with an open border.
In conclusion, Merkel and EUCO will "attempt" to deport a few thousand, while taking 250,000 new refugees from Turkey, as 5000 new migrants arrive DAILY in Greece. The numbers do not add up, but that's OK. Merkel's Solidarity Plan A also includes a binding and permanent refugee redistribution scheme for her subjects in the lands of Visegrad4 and Eastern Europe. "We can do it,
Germany is Great" has suddenly morphed into forced diktats on those who have seen the results of Western Europe's multiculturalism and want no part of that way of life.
Even the well-meaning proposals from individual states to deter migrants (which I support) misses the point. If the external border is not sealed, the mass entrance of millions upon millions of refugees and migrants from alien cultures will eventually overwhelm all of Europe. It is simply not sustainable nor is it wise. Christians and non-Muslims are persecuted and discriminated against by every country with a Muslim majority in the Middle East. The two cultures do not mix well at all as history shows.
It's time for the EU to open their eyes and to focus on the one and only solution to this crisis: Sealing the external border, specifically Greece. Australia is the perfect example and one can google their official policy. Like most other self-respecting countries, Australia believes it is their duty to protect their coast in order to safeguard their people. When faced with this same type of invasion, they simply turned the boats back before they entered their territory. The UN was not happy, but Australia took control of the situation to solve the problem pretty quickly. This is the way strong and confident leaders act.
In order to defend ones house, it is only natural to defend ones border. No Union or country can protect its people, culture, and way of life by allowing their borders to be violated by people they know nothing about. The boats must be turned back at the border, even if this requires the elite NATO navy of Greece escorting the dinghies back to Turkey for a safe return. Erdogan must be told to accept them back and to eradicate the smugglers or be faced with sanctions and economic isolation from Europe. EUCO, Merkel should not act so weak or feeble. They have much leverage over Erdogan, who desperately needs Europe as the dying Middle East burns. The EU could sink his fragile economy even further. They should be prepared to do so if he is not willing to play ball.
The EU has the tools to stop illegal immigration and to defend their borders; but the spirit seems weak. The question: Do they have the will and strength to defend their continent. Defending your border is not a radical idea; it is quite natural and normal. What is perverse is surrendering your nation, your culture, and the well-being of your own people without a fight.
Blindfolded seems to be how many in the EU are choosing to deal with the refugee crisis. I see more focus and determination at my eight-year old daughters tennis matches. EUCO, Merkel, and member states are desperately throwing proposal after proposal against the wall, hoping to find that "silver bullet" to gain some type of control, some form of sanity.
Don't get me wrong, some ideas have merit, but others are just downright Tom Foolery. For instance, the idea that one can pay Turkey or Africa billions of dollars to keep their migrants at home is absurd and naive. Erdogan tolerates and profits from the 25,000 smugglers he houses in his country; it's quite the booming enterprise for Turkey. Many in Africa won't even accept back their citizens whom the EU wants to deport.
Anyhow, Merkel's deportation deception (read my earlier blog for details) will be futile without sealing the external border. Merkel is even trying to convince some that the refugees are "temps" and that they will go home with peace in Syria. (Just like the Turks from years ago that never went back or the phenomenon of economic migrants from "safe" countries). EUCO wants to play magician by turning 'illegal migration into legal migration' by taking 250,000 refugees straight from the camps in Turkey; again futile with an open border.
In conclusion, Merkel and EUCO will "attempt" to deport a few thousand, while taking 250,000 new refugees from Turkey, as 5000 new migrants arrive DAILY in Greece. The numbers do not add up, but that's OK. Merkel's Solidarity Plan A also includes a binding and permanent refugee redistribution scheme for her subjects in the lands of Visegrad4 and Eastern Europe. "We can do it,
Germany is Great" has suddenly morphed into forced diktats on those who have seen the results of Western Europe's multiculturalism and want no part of that way of life.
Even the well-meaning proposals from individual states to deter migrants (which I support) misses the point. If the external border is not sealed, the mass entrance of millions upon millions of refugees and migrants from alien cultures will eventually overwhelm all of Europe. It is simply not sustainable nor is it wise. Christians and non-Muslims are persecuted and discriminated against by every country with a Muslim majority in the Middle East. The two cultures do not mix well at all as history shows.
It's time for the EU to open their eyes and to focus on the one and only solution to this crisis: Sealing the external border, specifically Greece. Australia is the perfect example and one can google their official policy. Like most other self-respecting countries, Australia believes it is their duty to protect their coast in order to safeguard their people. When faced with this same type of invasion, they simply turned the boats back before they entered their territory. The UN was not happy, but Australia took control of the situation to solve the problem pretty quickly. This is the way strong and confident leaders act.
In order to defend ones house, it is only natural to defend ones border. No Union or country can protect its people, culture, and way of life by allowing their borders to be violated by people they know nothing about. The boats must be turned back at the border, even if this requires the elite NATO navy of Greece escorting the dinghies back to Turkey for a safe return. Erdogan must be told to accept them back and to eradicate the smugglers or be faced with sanctions and economic isolation from Europe. EUCO, Merkel should not act so weak or feeble. They have much leverage over Erdogan, who desperately needs Europe as the dying Middle East burns. The EU could sink his fragile economy even further. They should be prepared to do so if he is not willing to play ball.
The EU has the tools to stop illegal immigration and to defend their borders; but the spirit seems weak. The question: Do they have the will and strength to defend their continent. Defending your border is not a radical idea; it is quite natural and normal. What is perverse is surrendering your nation, your culture, and the well-being of your own people without a fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)