Archive for the ‘Germany’ Category

IS TRUMP’S UNORTHODOXY BECOMING ORTHODOX ?

Friday, February 21st, 2020

 

REAL CLEAR POLITICS

Is Trump’s Unorthodoxy Becoming Orthodox?

By Victor Davis Hanson
February 2020

When candidate Donald Trump campaigned on calling China to account for its trade piracy, observers thought he was either crazy or dangerous.

Conventional Washington wisdom had assumed that an ascendant Beijing was almost preordained to world hegemony. Trump’s tariffs and polarization of China were considered about the worst thing an American president could do.

The accepted bipartisan strategy was to accommodate, not oppose, China’s growing power. The hope was that its newfound wealth and global influence would liberalize the ruling communist government.

Four years later, only a naif believes that. Instead, there is an emerging consensus that China’s cutthroat violations of international norms were long ago overdue for an accounting.

China’s re-education camps, its Orwellian internal surveillance, its crackdown on Hong Kong democracy activists and its secrecy about the deadly coronavirus outbreak have all convinced the world that China has now become a dangerous international outlier.

Trump courted moderate Arab nations in forming an anti-Iranian coalition opposed to Iran’s terrorist and nuclear agendas. His policies utterly reversed the Obama administration’s estrangement from Israel and outreach to Tehran.

Last week, Trump nonchalantly offered the Palestinians a take-it-or-leave-it independent state on the West Bank, but without believing that a West Bank settlement was the key to peace in the entire Middle East.

Trump’s cancellation of the Iran deal, in particular, was met with international outrage. More global anger followed after the targeted killing of Iranian terrorist leader Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

In short, Trump’s Middle East recalibrations won few supporters among the bipartisan establishment.

But recently, Europeans have privately started to agree that more sanctions are needed on Iran, that the world is better off with Soleimani gone, and that the West Bank is not central to regional peace.

(more…)

Share

EUROPEANS TRY TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

Thursday, February 20th, 2020

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Europeans Try to Have It Both Ways

They expect American protection but aren’t prepared to defend their own countries.

By Walter Russell Mead     February 18, 2020

How solid is the West? At last weekend’s Munich Security Conference, the world’s largest gathering of security policy makers and officials, the theme was “Westlessness,” referring to the sense of disorientation that many Europeans feel in this age of America First.

Since the 1940s, U.S. leadership in the service of a united and secure Europe has been the one unchanging feature in the Continental landscape. For generations, the U.S. committed to protect Europe from Russia, maintain bases in Germany to prevent it from threatening its neighbors, and promote European integration. Now Europeans don’t know where they stand, and a mixture of bafflement, anger, disappointment and fear fills the atmosphere at conferences like the one in Munich.

There’s little doubt that Trump administration policies, ranging from trade wars to toughness on Iran, have tested trans-Atlantic relations to the breaking point. But to understand the growing weakness of the Western alliance, Europeans need to spend less time deploring Donald Trump and more time looking in the mirror. A good place to begin is with a Pew poll released earlier this month on the state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

(more…)

Share

GERMANY- VICTIM OF ITS OWN GREEN POLICIES

Sunday, January 26th, 2020

 

Because of Germany’s delusional  green policies, it now finds itself in a self made box of being dependent for its energy from totalitarian  and unreliable energy sources from  Russia and the Middle East.  Thankfully, the United States is now energy independent because of our common sense energy policies.  For many years, the oil  money flowing into the Middle East has fueled terrorism around the world.  How wonderful it is not to have to depend on the Middle East for our energy needs anymore .  Drill baby drill !!!!  Nancy 

Energy Paradoxes Put Europe in a Precarious Position

By Victor Davis Hanson   January 26, 2020

Despite its cool Green parties and ambitious wind and solar agendas, Europe remains by far the world’s largest importer of oil and natural gas.

Oil output in the North Sea and off the coast of Norway is declining, and the European Union is quietly looking for fossil fuel energy anywhere it can find it.

Europe itself is naturally rich in fossil fuels. It likely has more reserves of shale gas than the United States, currently the world’s largest producer of both oil and natural gas. Yet in most European countries, horizontal drilling and fracking to extract gas and oil are either illegal or face so many court challenges and popular protests that they are neither culturally nor economically feasible.

The result is that Europe is almost entirely dependent on Russian, Middle Eastern, and African sources of energy.

The American-Iranian standoff in the Middle East, coupled with radical drop-offs in Iranian and Venezuelan oil production, has terrified Europe — and for understandable reasons.

The European Union has almost no ability to guarantee the delivery of critical oil and gas supplies from the Middle East should Iran close the Strait of Hormuz or harass ships in the Persian Gulf.

Europe’s only maritime security is the NATO fleet — a synonym for the U.S. Navy.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia supplies an estimated 30 percent of Europe’s oil needs. In times of crisis, Putin could exercise de facto control over the European economy.

In other words, Europe refuses to develop its own gas and oil reserves, and won’t fund the necessary military power to ensure that it can safely import energy from problematic or even hostile sources.

(more…)

Share

U.S. FINANCING CHINA’S WORLD DOMINATION PLANS

Friday, November 15th, 2019

 

This is an article you have to read as there is so much new information in it regarding China and how our financial markets are being used to finance China’s expansion of their technological and military advances.  Nancy
IMPRIMIS – HILLSDALE COLLEGE

Why and How the U.S. Should Stop Financing China’s Bad Actors

October 2019  • Volume 48, Number 10 • Roger W. Robinson, Jr.

Roger W. Robinson, Jr.
Chairman, Prague Security Studies Institute

Roger W. Robinson, Jr. is president and CEO of RWR Advisory Group and co-founder and chairman of the Prague Security Studies Institute. He earned a B.A. from Duke University and an M.A. from George Washington University. He served as senior director of international economic affairs on President Reagan’s National Security Council, where he was the principal architect of the secret economic and financial strategy that proved decisive to the defeat of the Soviet Union. He later served as chairman of the Congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Prior to his government service, he was a vice president in the international department of the Chase Manhattan Bank.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on September 9, 2019, during a conference on the topic, “Understanding China.”

In the early 1980s, I served on President Reagan’s National Security Council. Prior to my time at the White House, I was a vice president at Chase Manhattan Bank, in charge of its USSR and Eastern Europe division. It was my job to assess the creditworthiness of the countries in that part of the world, and I had come to realize that the Soviet Union had relatively modest hard currency income—and that what little it had came largely from the West.

In 1982, the Soviets had an empire stretching from Havana to Hanoi, but their hard currency revenue totaled only about $32 billion a year—roughly one-third the annual revenue of General Motors at the time. They were spending about $16 billion more annually than they were making, with the funding gap—the USSR’s life support—being financed by Western governments and banks.

President Reagan had long believed that the Soviet Union was economically vulnerable, because he knew it lacked the entrepreneurship, technological dynamism, and freedoms that are the prerequisites of a strong modern economy. And when he learned that we in the West were financing its brutal regime, he committed to slowing, and ultimately terminating, that flow of discretionary cash.

Our European allies had a completely different approach. Their belief in Ostpolitik, as the Germans called it, presupposed that commercial bridge-building would lead to geopolitical cooperation. If the West would offer financing and trade with the Soviets, peace and prosperity would result. Meanwhile, the Soviets were using the proceeds of Western loans, hard currency revenue streams, and technological support to build up their military, expand their empire, and engage in anti-Western activities.

The Reagan administration drew the line on a project called the Siberian Gas Pipeline, a 3,600-mile twin-strand pipeline that stretched from Siberia into the Western European gas grid. If completed, not only would it become the centerpiece of the Soviets’ hard currency earnings structure, but Western Europe would become dependent on the USSR for over 70 percent of its natural gas, weakening Western Europe’s ties to the U.S. and leaving the continent open to Kremlin extortion. Moreover, the pipeline was being financed on taxpayer-subsidized terms, since France and Germany viewed the USSR as a less developed country worthy of below-market interest rates.

The U.S. at the time had a monopoly on oil and gas technology that could drill through permafrost—which we had developed for Alaska’s North Slopeand we imposed oil and gas equipment sanctions on the USSR and European companies that were helping to build the Siberian pipeline. At one point, despite the strain it placed on relations with our NATO allies, we closed the U.S. market entirely to companies that continued to supply the pipeline project over our objections. Four of the six affected companies went under within six months, and Europeans woke up to the fact that they could do business with us or the Soviets, but not both.

As a result of these efforts we capped Soviet gas deliveries to Western Europe at 30 percent of total supplies, delayed the first strand of the pipeline by years and killed the second strand, and eventually helped dry up the bulk of Western credits to the USSR. In a secret deal, we also persuaded the Saudis to pump an additional two million barrels of oil per day and decontrolled prices at the wellhead in this country, knocking oil prices down to about $10 a barrel—significant because for every dollar decrease in the price of a barrel, the Soviets lost some 500 million to one billion dollars. In short, the Soviet Union never recovered from these economic and financial blows. It defaulted on some $96 billion in Western hard currency debt shortly before the total collapse of the Soviet empire.

The story with China today has certain similarities, but with one big difference: the U.S. has been playing the role of the naïve Europeans. Since adopting the Kissinger policy of engaging with China in the 1970s, our government has operated on the assumption that economic and financial relations with China would lead Beijing to liberalize politically. And since 2001, when we backed China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, the pace at which we have given China access to our best technology and capital and trade markets has accelerated. Yet China has shown no signs of embracing individual freedoms or the rule of law.

Instead, with our support, the Chinese have launched a massive campaign to become the world’s leading superpower. We know about the “Belt and Road Initiative,” a strategic undertaking to place huge segments of the world under China’s influence or outright control. We know about “Made in China 2025,” a strategy designed to dominate key technology sectors—from artificial intelligence and quantum computing to hypersonic missiles and 5G. We know about China’s practice of forced technology transfers: requiring American companies to share their trade secrets and R&D in order to do business in China. We know about China’s predatory trade practices. We know many of these things only because President Trump has brought them to the forefront of national attention, for which he deserves credit. And the ongoing tariff war is a good thing in the sense that we’ve finally begun to take a stand.

(more…)

Share

TURKEY FLOODING EUROPE WITH MIGRANTS

Thursday, October 10th, 2019

 

GATESTONE INSTITUTE

Turkey Flooding Europe with Migrants

by Soeren Kern  

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.
October 10, 2019 

  • The Greek government has said that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan personally controls the migration flows to Greece and turns them on and off to extract more money and other political concessions from the European Union. In recent months, the Turkish government has repeatedly threatened to open the floodgates of mass migration to Greece, and, by extension, to the rest of Europe.
  • “If they [the European Union] do not give us the necessary support in this struggle, then we will not be able to stop the 3.5 million refugees from Syria and another two million people who will reach our borders from Idlib.” — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
  • “If we open the floodgates, no European government will be able to survive for more than six months. We advise them not to try our patience.” — Turkish Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu.
  • More than six million migrants are believed to be waiting in countries around the Mediterranean to cross into Europe, according to a classified German government report leaked to the newspaper Bild…More than three million others are waiting in Turkey.

 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other members of his government have repeatedly threatened to flood Europe with migrants. On September 5, Erdoğan said that Turkey plans to repatriate one million Syrian migrants to a “safe zone” in northern Syria and threatened to reopen the route for migrants into Europe if he does not receive adequate international support for the plan: “This either happens or otherwise we will have to open the gates.” Pictured: Erdoğan speaks at the UN on September 24, 2019. (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – HOW MARXISM INVADED THE CHURCH – TREVOR LOUDON

Wednesday, September 18th, 2019

 

 

Share

VIDEO HITLER SURVIVOR – “KEEP YOUR GUNS”

Thursday, September 12th, 2019

Share

WHO IS ANTIFA ?

Tuesday, August 27th, 2019

 

Who Is Antifa? What You Need To Know
Ray DiLorenzo, CFP.com
Antifa headquarters in Berlin from 1926 – 1933. The Antifaschistische Akton (Antifa) logo can be seen prominently on the front of the building. In 2005, the building was renamed ‘The Left Party PDS’ or Party of Democratic Socialism which merged with the Social Justice Electoral Alternative. Notice the hammer and sickle flags.AntifaAntifaschistische Aktion, abbreviated as Antifa or anti-fascist, was an organization affiliated with the Communist Party of Germany that existed from 1932 to 1933. In the postwar era the historical organization inspired new groups and networks, known as the wider Antifa movement, many of which use the aesthetics of the historical Antifaschistische Aktion, especially a modified version of its logo. Wiki

There is much confusion as to who Antifa is, and what they stand for. First, let’s define fascism that they say they are against: Fascism is a set of political beliefs that includes strong control of society and the economy by the state, and the halting of any resistance. In a fascist nation, private enterprise would continue, but all private commercial endeavors would be heavily controlled by the state. Examples would be Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy.

Antifa was and is primarily a global Communist movement using fascist tactics.

(more…)

Share

BRITISH NAVY – TRUMP TO THE RESCUE !

Saturday, August 17th, 2019

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Uncle Trump to the Naval Rescue

Europe claims it can’t rely on the U.S., but look who’s protecting ships.

By the Editorial Board   August 9, 2019
Well, well, look who’s coming to the rescue of the British and shipping in the Middle East. None other than the Trump Administration that is supposed to be an unreliable ally. The Brits now say they’re joining a U.S.-led coalition to protect merchant shipping after they failed to get help from the rest of Europe.

The Royal Navy will join the effort organized by the U.S. Central Command after Iran seized a third ship this week. On July 19 the HMS Montrose frigate was patrolling near the Strait of Hormuz but was too far away to stop Iranian forces from taking a British-flagged tanker and crew that Tehran still hasn’t released.

Britain needs help because nearly half of its frigates and destroyers are undergoing major repairs or upgrades. The Royal Navy has around 80 ships, down from more than 130 during the 1982 Falklands War. The country is without a deployable aircraft carrier, though it has plans for two. London spent more than 2% of gross domestic product on defense in 2018, fulfilling its NATO requirement. But former Defence Minister Tobias Ellwood admitted after the tanker seizure that “our Royal Navy is too small to manage our interests across the globe.”

Germany refused to help, perhaps because it doesn’t want to offend Iran and might lose a naval engagement. While the Deutsche Marine has helped fight piracy in East Africa, it struggles to meet basic NATO commitments. At one point in 2018 its entire U-Boat fleet—six submarines—was stuck in dry dock. The surface fleet has held up better, though it’s aging fast.

Berlin spent only 1.2% of GDP on defense in 2018. Chancellor Angela Merkel ’s heir apparent, Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, called for Germany to meet its 2% commitment during her recent swearing-in ceremony. Her fellow lawmakers responded with boos.

The French would have had a limited benefit to a patrol mission, perhaps because La Royale has only a single aircraft carrier after cancelling plans for a second years ago.

(more…)

Share

EU: A MASSIVE EXPANSION FROM NEW LEADER -URSULA VON DER LEYEN

Tuesday, July 23rd, 2019

 

Gatestone Institute

European Union: A Massive Expansion of Top-down Powers

  • An examination of von der Leyen’s main policy proposals reveals that she is calling for a massive expansion of top-down powers of the European Commission. Her proposals would substantially increase the role of Brussels in virtually all aspects of economic and social life in Europe — all at the expense of national sovereignty.
  • Von der Leyen warned that Brussels would overrule EU member states opposed to her tax overhaul… She called for a comprehensive “European Rule of Law Mechanism” to ensure the primacy of EU law over the national laws of EU member states. She warned that there would be financial consequences for member states that refuse to comply…. She called for a change in rules so that the EU could act even without the unanimous consent of EU member states.
  • “What you’ve seen from Ursula von der Leyen today is an attempt by the EU to take control of every single aspect of our lives. She wants to build a centralized, undemocratic, updated form of Communism that will render [obsolete] nation state parliaments, where the state controls everything, where nation state parliaments will cease to have any relevance at all.” — Nigel Farage, European Parliament, July 16, 2019.

 

Former German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, who has been narrowly confirmed as the next President of the European Commission, promises an ambitious left-leaning policy program on climate change, taxes, migration and the rule of law. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

 

Former German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen has been narrowly confirmed as the next President of the European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the European Union.

In a secret ballot in the European Parliament on July 16, von der Leyen, a close ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, received 383 votes, only nine more than the 374 required — the lowest margin since the position of President was established in 1958. She will take over from Jean-Claude Junker in November 2019 for a five-year term.

Before the vote, von der Leyen promised an ambitious left-leaning policy program on climate change, taxes, migration and the rule of law. Many of her pledges — which would require transferring yet more national sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels — appeared aimed at enticing support for her candidacy from Greens and Socialists in the European Parliament.

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories