Beyond the Cusp

April 25, 2016

Potential British Exit from European Union

 

Despite the unsolicited commentary and thinly veiled threats from President Obama, the British governance from both sides of the aisle have always endeavored to keep open the financial freedom of the British Isles to depart from the European Union (EU) by retaining the Pound Sterling as their independent Coin of the Realm and merely recognized the Euros as legitimate for use within its boundaries giving it a right above that of any normative foreign currency. One cannot use the Dollar, or other foreign currency, without changing them for Euros or Pounds to pay for items in the United Kingdom (UK). Further, the British were late entries into the European exclusive club which itself had their doubts about allowing the British into the EU as the British were seen to have too close and almost personal relations with the United States (US), especially in trade relations as there existed independent of the EU a free trade agreement between the US and the UK. This agreement between the two Anglo nations was all part of the Anglophile and the relationships of its members. This was seen by the EU as an economic threat which by permitting the UK membership into the EU was tantamount to granting the US membership in the EU, something fought against by presumed friendly nations of France and Germany. Now, all of a sudden President Obama speaks of sending the British to the back of the line for receiving a trade agreement which they retained independent from the EU with the United States as a member of the Anglophile.

 

So why might President Obama issue such a veiled threat to London over their coming vote for independence from the EU and its potential harnessing of the UK economic health as a source for propping up the less productive members of the EU who are experiencing serious economic downturns which they are feigning an inability to reverse. This was a problem which was obvious in its eventuality of the less productive states of southern Europe would have difficulties if forced to use the Euros as their coinage as the value of the Euro was set often in conjunction of German industrial strength and not upon the lesser nations utilizing the Euro as their coinage of preference. The UK likely saw the inevitability of economic uproar and eventual disintegration of the EU and especially this exact division where the wealthier nations would demand a higher setting of the Euros’ value, a value not supported by the economic doldrums many EU member states are currently facing and the lack of monetary policy freedom these states faced. The weaker economies within the EU, such as Greece, Spain, Italy and many of the former East European nations, to sustain an economic growth equivalent to the strength and economic growth by the Euro due to the main productive nations such as Germany, Britain and France, with potentially former Warsaw Pact nations more recently added to the EU such as Poland, have economic growth which often does not equal the valuations of the Euro.

 

 

Map of the European Union

Map of the European Union

 

 

The British by retaining their Pound were free to establish an acceptable level for the value of the Euro compared to the pound upon which the UK established their financial policies. Had Greece, Italy, Spain and the other weaker economic nations retained their original coinage and simply permitted a relative limit to its adjustment against the Euros would have provided for some level of independence which over time would permit for the lowering the value of their independent national coinage which would provide a greater latitude for the value of each countries’ economic jumpstart policies thus permitting that level of economic independence they so desperately require in order to retain their financial independence. The current system originally set these national economic standards to mitigate the different economic indicators by making for allowances between the less industrial and less growth oriented nations and the engines driving the EU economy. The system used basically allowed for a limited form of welfare for the lesser productive nations which grew to the point where the less productive member states inability to match German growth in wealth driving their unemployment higher as they found themselves often incapable of matching the economic expectations of the EU through its presumed common economic policies dictated most often from German economic strength, or at the worst the French economic growth, neither of which were matched by the southern European states.

 

Much of the difference was a result of the completely disparate driver of economic indicators between the industrial EU states and their more agricultural nations whose prices were often dictated by the EU for their crops where a single bad year’s yield would decimate their economic indicators setting standards unfathomably high. Had these lesser nations retained their own separate but equally acceptable coinage their economic indicators would have also grown though not so much as had the Euro which was more attuned to the German economic strength. By retaining a modicum of economic independence their currencies would have reflected their slower growth rate and adjusted against the Euro thus setting the economic indicators somewhat independent of the Euro though retaining their strong bindings both to the EU and to its economic viability. Their newly found elasticity would allow for the continued strong relations which set the overall relationship between the independent nations as a whole when making deals with the rest of the world. This would extend the strength of German, French and British industrial economic indicators as a backing for any deals made with the outside world while permitting some level of independence for the individual nations allowing for the disparate economies to grow in relations to each other in a far healthier environment.

 

That economic story is not the reality which the British will be facing as they decide whether or not to remain as a member state subordinate to the economic policies and other arrangements designed to mitigate the different economic realities within the EU. The reality the British will be facing is the growing pressures from the EU for the UK to give up their independent currency and become a full-fledged Eurocentric economy and matching policies. This would free the UK from economic planning and the freedoms related to such planning having their own currency demanded. Instead, the British are facing the same economic trap which Germany is trapped within where their greater wealth and industrial productivity is being siphoned from German economic health in order to prop up nations who have had the audacity to implement as much freedom from their positions in the interim state of affairs. The German government has been touting this all-for-one-and-one-for-all mindset where all of the EU will sink or swim as a single entity, period, end of story. This has allowed the EU to literally steal German economic wealth and gift it as supposed loans guaranteed by the EU banking system and even used the German’s strong economy to guarantee International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans from international banks in ever increasing amounts just to simply allow the now debtor nations to continue to operate though be it at a far lesser economic growth or even health as has Germany. The British economy is equally healthy as is German economic status with one major difference, the UK is not being forced to uphold and pay the debts of these nations and especially so if the funders of the debt are EU banks including but not limited to the European Central Bank (ECB). This has allowed the UK to deal with much of the Irish secondary economic crash which has stalled the economies of the other UK states such as England, Scotland and others within the UK to have all the national economies to fall within the guidelines of the EU. On the other end of the economic scale there are the nations stalled in their production which may not be forthcoming as there may be a split in the EU which can only be the beginning of the end for the EU as other nations see their path to be more advantageous separated from the stifling policies of the Euro.

 

The controversies in the UK over separation from the EU are splitting even members of the current party leading the British governance with David Cameron as the Prime Minister favoring remaining as a member of the EU while London Mayor Boris Johnson favors leaving the EU which has led to a fight between the two to lead the Conservative Party in the near future. Much of this could be laid at the feet of Boris Johnson’s obvious attempts to lead the Party in the next elections seeking the Prime Minister position for himself. Some have pointed to London Mayor Boris Johnson being for remaining within the EU before he was for the UK-EU Brexit policy. Either way, does it matter as politicians often alter their positions to match the moment and this very well could be Boris Johnson’s eying riding this vote to the top position in all of British politics. Still, this is one controversy which will most likely be resolved before the United States Republican and Democrat presidential national conventions slated for later this summer as the British people will have voted on the referendum slated for June 23, 2016. Finally something which will be decided definitively, unlike the nominees for the American Presidency one of which apparently very likely will not be decided on the first vote in Cleveland. Brexit may or may not be adopted by the June 23, 2016 voting though that vote will be far from the last words and provocations thrown around between the top two politicians of the Conservative Party which will climax before the next election in the UK for Parliament.

 

 

Mayor of London Boris Johnson and Prime Minister David Cameron

Mayor of London Boris Johnson and Prime Minister David Cameron

 

 

If the people vote in favor of Brexit expect for David Cameron to press for the Parliament to overrule the people and lay the groundwork for their remaining and potentially doubling down and at long last resigning their Pound Sterling for their full emersion into the Euro financial disaster now gripping the European continent. This is a test of British complacency or unique and visceral independence from the Continent once and for all having the citizens of the UK loudly proclaiming their independency from the European Continent’s overriding controls. Having ties to the British Isles through my father’s side of the family, he was born and raised in a suburb of London and proudly plied his trade as an English Custom Tailor and Designer in Washington DC where he had many high profile customers from both sides of the political isle in America; my feelings are for the British to remain the British and not just become more European Continentalists. It is my opinion, which agrees with others who observed similar stands, that the Pound Sterling and not forsaking their noble currency has been instrumental in retaining the health and vibrancy of the UK economy as a whole despite certain downturns which if handled by the EU would have dragged the rest of the UK down an economic black hole from which return would have proved miraculously difficult. It is not too difficult to see the difference between the British handling their own internal difficulties between the separate states with the EU handling of such difficult economic challenges as posed to the EU by Greece. The EU has demanded, stolen and misappropriated untold millions, if not tens or hundreds of millions, of Euros generated within Germany and gifted them to Greece with a loose understanding that the debt be repaid promptly by Greece even to the point of using German wealth and health of economy to undersign loans from the ECB, IMF and even American banking institutions who have invested entire retirement accounts on Greek bailouts just to have these investments barely break even as these banks have already reached the point where trading with Europe may require payment before rather than after any deal signing just for safe keeping of any promise of payment.

 

The other item of equal importance the future of Europe may be riding on with the Brexit vote is the influx of tens and hundreds of millions of Islamic refugees and a tap left open for too long and now cones the payment for such a deal of trust and opportunity. The concept was that the Islamic refugees and other Islamic immigrants would make up for the lower than required population growth figures. What have happened thus far have been the swelling of the welfare rolls as many Islamic immigrants prefer to collect welfare and remaining unassimilated and demanding that their new homes change their rules and the very fabric of their societies to match the nations they fled. This is preferable to them as they view Europe as their latest conquest and expect the Europeans t work and assume the rolls of Dhimmi supporting their Muslim betters in the lifestyle they wish to become accustomed to. This will not end well for either party as there will be a growing resentment and eventual revolt against these immigrants who are gaming the system and demanding that Islam replace both the remaining Christian and new ranks of the secular societies which the European touted as being so advanced that they could be accepting of all and respect their new arrivals. Respect has to be a two way street or one side will eventually revolt and there begins the problem.

 

Once European workers realize that their new countrymen are using them as their ticket out of the horrors and squalor of their former homelands and are assuming the role of exalted ones who need not produce but are to be treated to lives free from work or any obligation to the society beyond complete rejection of the underpinnings and instead demanding to have their religious demands and rulings become the bedrock of the new reality where the European slaves toil to support their Islamic betters. Should the British not approve the Brexit proposition then the EU will remain intact and more and more policy and powers will gravitate to Brussels and come under the mastery and control by the unelected EU leaders and even more so its bureaucracy which recently sought an agreement which would permit free entrance for any Turkish citizen. This would lead to a problem as Turkey would then only need to grant citizenship identification cards and paperwork to any and all Arab and Islamic refugees, both due to war or economic, and then pass these refugees unfiltered and without any background checks or terror watches observed eventually crashing the European economies due to their being overrun by unable to be assimilated refugees who would swell the populations of the Muslim communities until something would give, or worse, snap. Already there have been numerous rightist nationalist rallies held unofficially, often without permits and always under the radar as these groups would rather remain anonymous, where the main line of agreement was that something need be done to end this unrestricted inflow of refugees. These groups do not see these refugees as potential additions to the workforce but as foreign invaders in Europe to completely subjugate their societies and destroy secular Europe. These are socialists but not international socialists who believe in the unity of mankind but of the all too familiar fiercely Eurocentric vision socialists. They view the recent refugees flooding into Europe as an invasive disease; an influx of parasitic beasts which must be destroyed before they consume all that these right wing nationalists believe is holy and righteous about Europe. In some ways these are the people who if they had had children instead of living self-serving lives where they lived for the moment and the future be damned the problem of insufficient workforce to generate an economically vibrant functioning society would never have arisen. It was to some extent the old Europe’s own fault that their civilization now lies on the verge of extinction and it may actually be too late to salvage even a remnant of their past. Should Brexit vote succeed then there may be movements throughout Europe starting with France or Germany after which it will be a rush for the exits as the economic heart of the EU will have left the body making it everyone for themselves. This will inevitably lead to a renewed sense of nationalism which will have both a good side and an unavoidable bad side. The good side is there may be birthed a new hope for a future worth having children to enjoy and assure that future and the bad side is the refugees may be sent packing back to their former homelands unless they show signs of cooperating in the building of an assimilated society where everyone is respected and all beliefs or lack thereof are treated equally and respected with no one belief being more equal than others. This will require some adjustments on all sides but through such a situation there may be birthed a new universalism, just one where national pride is valued as a driving force for good and cooperation. The really bad side would be a violent conflict between the two civilizations now occupying the continent which would lead to a bloodbath of unequalled proportions as such a conflict could and likely would lead to yet another generational war, this one being World War III, the war that proves there is no upper limit to carnage. Let’s hope it does not end with such a conflict as the killing weapons of today are beyond imagination compared to just a century ago or even half a century. Mankind cannot afford to go there but also they might not be capable of avoiding such, how sorry.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

January 2, 2015

Will it be a Good Year Too?

Filed under: 24/7 News Reporting,Administration,Afghanistan,al-Qaeda,Amalekites,Anti-Israel,Anti-Semitism,Anti-Zionist,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Arab Appeasement,Arab League,Arab World,Arabs,Balkans,Bashir al-Assad,Binding Resolution,Blood Libel,Borders,Cabinet,Calaphate,Canada,Civil War,Civilization,Conflict Avoidnce,Court Order,Domestic NGOs,Economy,Equal Responsibility,Equal Rights,Equal Treatment,Equality,Europe,European Council,European Governments,European Media,European Pressure,European Union,Executive Order,Fatah,Fatah Charter,Foreign Funding,Foreign NGOs,France,Government,Government Controlled Media,Hamas,Hamas Charter,Hate,History,Internal Pressures,International Politics,Intifada,Intifada,Iran,Iranian Pressure,Iraq,ISIS,Islam,Islam,Islamic Pressure,Israel,Israeli Capital City,Israeli Interests,Israeli Media,Jerusalem,Jewish Heritage,Jewish Leadership,Jewish State,Jews,Jihad,Jordan Valley,Jordanian Pressure,Judea,Judicial Activism,Kobane,Leftist Pressures,Mahmoud Abbas,Mainstream Media,Malmo,Media,Middle East,Ministers,Muslim World,Muslims,One State Solution,Oppression,Oslo Accords,Palestinian,Palestinian Authority,Palestinian Pressures,Parliament,Parliamentary Government,Peace Process,Pogroms,Politicized Findings,Politics,President Vladimir Putin,Prime Minister,Prime Minister,Recep Tayyip Erdogan,Resolution,Russia,Russian Pressure,Samaria,San Remo Conference,Saudi Arabian Pressure,Secular Interests,Security,Sharia Law,Soviet Union,Statehood,Syria,Taqiyya,Terror,Third Intifada,Turkey,Two State Solution,Ukraine,United Nations,United Nations Presures,United States,United States Pressure,Warsaw Pact,West Bank,World Government,World Media,World Opinion,World Pressures,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 4:37 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

Yesterday we took a somewhat longer view of our universe which can be read here, but now let’s take a look at items a little closer to this year alone and things we can examine closer to the here and now. The first news read on page one or heard on news broadcasts might have been about the petition filed by Jordan before the Security Council as the agents for the Palestinian Authority demanding the Security Council act to basically force Israel to surrender to the territorial demands without any demand for the Palestinians to make peace was not passed missing by a single vote. There will be many editorials examining why the petition failed and in many instances there will be questions as to what actions were taken by Israel to possibly affect Rwanda, Nigeria and Britain that they abstained when predictions from different news organizations had listed combinations of these as the last votes which were thought to be in the Palestinian support column. Reacting immediately to their defeat, the Palestinian Authority in its numerous manifestations acted to join various conventions including and starting with the Rome Convention in order to attempt to call Israel onto the carpet before the International Criminal Court (ICC) on various charges of crimes against humanity and various war crime charges. If Israel were a normal nation these charges would be thrown out without any consideration, but Israel has the advantage, as does the United States and other nations, fearful of being subjected to specious accusations forcing them to be spending an inordinate amounts of time and treasure fighting one charge after the other, of placing themselves outside of the full jurisdiction by retracting themselves or having never joined the ICC, thus leaving them subjected to only a very limited number of acts or accusations emanating from the ICC. The nations who have placed themselves under such a state of exclusion from the complete power to be adjudicated before the ICC have not had efforts made to force them to stand before the court in contradiction to their electing to decide not to be within the full jurisdiction of the court, but we may soon see if Israel will be the first to be demanded to stand before the ICC despite their not being a member after the Palestinian Authority or one of its numerous manifestations bring charges against Israel at the ICC. Where the filing of charges by Mahmoud Abbas and the Authority is not a guaranteed certainty, yet the decision will not be decided or even the slightest bit influenced by the actual fact of whether Israel can legally be brought before the ICC on the more than likely specious charges. But there is always the one unknown, whenever something includes Israel in the equation, evidence soon proves that Israel is not treated the same as other nations and things for which no other nation would be excoriated and forced to be subjugated to adjudication despite presumably being beyond the jurisdiction under the ICC authority. So, it might not prove to be all that surprising, though there will be those newscasters breathlessly commenting as to the potential priority setting situation should Israel actually be brought to answer against the charges filed with the ICC by Saab Erekat and Mahmoud Abbas. These reports will logically be followed by breathless interviews with numerous spokespersons including our culprits, Saab Erekat and Mahmoud Abbas, with easy softball questions and supportive commentary expressing sympathy for and verification of their cause and agreement that the seriousness of their charges demands an exception as there must be resolution for these accusations, the rules be damned. There will also be interviews of Israelis, especially such as Prime Minister Netanyahu and any others who are named in the accusations, where the attitude will be even more accusatory than a television dramatic prosecutor, as that is the part they are actually assuming, with demands that guilt for the charges be admitted berating the interviewee severely as if that would be sufficient to presage the newscaster’s hunger for an admission of guilt from any of the Israelis subjected to this trial by media. This little scenario may even play out throughout the year as new charges are filed and other agencies are sought in further attempts to vilify Israel and bring her down by a continuous barrage of accusations as the latest manner of assault. The Geneva Convention in numerous different areas and treaties were also signed by Mahmoud Abbas granting yet another friendly venue for more charges and then there will be the attempt by Abbas and Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and who knows what other Arab or Muslim nations will join demanding that Israeli be forced to sign onto the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) thus also demanding that Israel destroy any nuclear weapons they possess as well as decommissioning their research reactor at Dimona in the Negev Desert. The reactions from the community of nations will tell more about the nations of the world than it will about Israel.

 

Russia will continue to be an extension of President Vladimir Putin’s desires to return Russia, and through Russia also aggrandizing himself, to its former glories as the Soviet Union by slowly ratcheting up pressures on the closest former Warsaw Pact nations. He may renew pressuring Georgia, providing arms and potentially providing fighters in the eastern provinces of the Ukraine in efforts to break them away and place a puppet government over the territories. Then there is what appears to be the next target predicted for Russian interest, Moldova. Where it is true that Moldova is a small nation, it also is located centrally between Romania and the Ukraine which means that should Putin gain leverage over Moldova, he will then have a base with which to threaten the western border of the Ukraine making the situation in the Ukraine even more volatile than it currently appears to be. What makes such a move even more dangerous is the fact that in 1992 Moldova was accepted into NATO and has remained a NATO member nation ever since. Any Russian moves on Moldova would have consequences far beyond the Ukraine or Romania, which are the two nations surrounding the small nation, but would also be a direct challenge to the NATO treaty for mutual defense by all nations should any nation under the NATO umbrella be attacked. Should United States President Obama refuse to act or only act by ‘leading from behind’, as he has shown a preference for doing, then Putin might decide that NATO is a paper tiger making her member nations susceptible to attack without any risk of further escalation. Such an indication might trigger Putin making good on his off-the-cuff remark made a few months back in a moment of bravado claiming that he could take any and all NATO countries without suffering any repercussions from the remaining NATO nations. Making a move to take Poland as well as all the smaller nations right on the Russian border might even appear to be something which would carry little downside.

 

There are those who have predicted that President Vladimir Putin would be driven from office in a response to the crash of the Russian nation’s currency taking it from Ruble to Rubble. Recent polling shows Putin still well regarded by the Russian public carrying near eighty-five percent approval, certainly not the sign of a leader in trouble at home. Putin will continue to present a threat to the nations nearest Russia as increasing Russian territory is nearly guaranteed to spur economic growth to aid the Russian economy out of its current difficulties. There is one silver lining in this dark cloud which is the Russian economy, with the decreased worth of the Ruble, this priced the Russian oil and natural gas at a far lower than before the downward spiral thus protecting Russia from the petroleum warfare being waged against Iran by Saudi Arabia. We can expect Russia to also make the news with Iran in their mutual support for Syrian President for Life Bashir al-Assad against the rebel forces largely consisting of forces allied in an al-Qaeda with the majority of the rest belonging to ISIS. We should not expect for Bashir al-Assad to fall from power or stop the extreme methods he has employed against the rebel forces, ISIS and his own people. No matter who prevails in Syria, the victory will be a Pyrrhic victory, as the entire nation has been devastated with the majority of the infrastructure being completely destroyed. The most important yet devastating development to come as a result of the Syrian Civil War has been the rise of ISIS and their control of much of central Iraq and a swath of land across Syria reaching almost to the Turkish border where they were stopped dead at the northern city of Kobane where Kurdish Peshmerga Militias are making a desperate and unbelievable stand.

 

Speaking of Kobane brings us to one of the more desperately unfortunate events which have been unfolding as if in slow motion, the Islamification of Turkey slowly turning back almost one-hundred years of progress by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. President Erdogan has singlehandedly undone the carefully crafted safeguards by which Turkey had been secularized in the aftermath of World War I and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Turkey was included in NATO during the Cold War in order to seize control of the Bosphorus Straights which gave NATO the ability to stop all shipping traffic from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean Sea and from there to the Atlantic Ocean. This gave the NATO allies a way of monitoring and potentially trapping the Soviet Union’s access to the Atlantic as their sole warm water port was in the Crimean, the same port that Russia has grabbed by their assuming control over the Crimea from the Ukraine. President Erdogan has been serving the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood openly with the silent consent of United States President Obama. Erdogan found his best ally in transforming Turkey back into an Islamist state in the European Union where the nations of the European Union with the assistance of the United States then President George W. Bush when they prevented the ranking generals of the military from performing a coup as their reaction as tasked by the Turkish Constitution where it stated that should the Turkish government be detected moving the nation back into the arms of Islamic Sharia that the military must step in and end such governance. Then the Turkish military was tasked with overseeing elections permitting only a secular government to form before returning civilian control. This method had been utilized in 1960 and again in 1980 and was almost going to occur once again around 2004-5 but the European Union warned the Turkish military that the nations within the European Union, which Turkey is trying desperately to join, do not allow for the military to rise up against the civilian government for any reason even if such power is vested in the military to preserve the secular nature of the nation. This basically froze the military’s power and Erdogan slowly but inexorably replaced those generals who were opposed to the direction he was steering the nation. President Erdogan is still moving Turkey away from Europe and NATO and towards the Muslim Brotherhood and seemingly illuminating the imposition of Sharia on all of Turkey. President Erdogan has also waged a low-level war of attrition against the Kurds which has been expanded since to include arming, training and financing the Sunni rebels fighting against Syrian President al-Assad. With the Kurdish also fighting against al-Assad, Erdogan had to decide whether he would aid the Kurds in Syria, and especially in Kobane where the Kurds were getting desperate. This led to allowing the Kurdish Peshmerga Militias from Iraq to enter Syria from Turkey and aid the Kurdish fighters. The Islamization of Turkey is likely to continue unabated and Turkey will probably continue to aid ISIS as best as they are able mostly by reselling the oil from Iraq using that marketing as the easiest way to both provide Turkey with revenue while also funding ISIS.

 

Turkey is not the only nation being inexorably moved into compliance with the Sharia as many of the European nations have minority neighborhoods which are imposing Sharia as the laws within their controlled neighborhoods. These enclaves are almost exclusively inhabited by Muslims with only a small numbers of the original Europeans still reside in these enclaves and they too would have moved given the opportunity. There are those who claim that it is these new immigrants which spend their time protesting against Israel and are also responsible for the increased anti-Semitism. Unfortunately it is not exclusively the immigrant population who are responsible for the recent escalating numbers of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic crimes which have increased so significantly that the increases are not measurable as easily as a percentage but rather as a multiplier. Had the increases been merely a percentage such as an increase of fifteen percent, twenty percent numbers like that might have been the new immigrant populations and as such acceptable as an explanation. Perhaps even fifty percent or even anything less than ninety percent but when countries are measuring increases of incidents of violent anti-Semitic acts increasing by four times, five times and in some cities even worse numbers, we are talking increases above, if measured by percentages, numbers of more than seven-hundred percent and those numbers require more than just the new immigrants. Do these immigrants count for a large number? Yes, but not the entirety. One need only look at the evening news to see that at some rallies the participants are not immigrants. When the banners carry the Golden Dawn logo we are not looking at immigrants. The same goes for the Jobbik Party demonstrations. When a Mayor of a major city, one of the five largest in that nation, and the mayor tells the Rabbi of a community which has resided in that city for centuries that the Jews will no longer be safe and there is nothing that can be done to protect them, that is more than the new immigrants. The Jews have seen this before when in the first decade and a half after the founding of the state of Israel we saw this in one Arab country after the other where the Jews were told by a friend that it would be better if they left, if they left and moved to that country of theirs. First it was in individual small towns and villages and eventually became the entire nation regurgitating their Jews. We saw it in Russia in the seventies and eighties. We saw it here in Europe right after World War II when many returned to their homes from before the horrors they had already suffered and when returning to their town only to be met with some family living in their home as the bombs destroyed half of the town and they had to live somewhere and we were not there, so, you do what you have to do. Not everywhere was like this, but still, anyone receiving such a greeting returning from the camps was a bit much. What was the answer every time? We heard you would not be returning, half the homes were hit by bombs, artillery, whatever. What were we told? Go to that country you are founding. Where will the Jews of today go; America? Canada? Israel? We may as well realize that eventually we will all end up together again in Israel as even Canada and the United States are seeing the beginnings of what has metastasized in Europe. The entirety of the world is going to be spitting out their Jews and yet when we find ourselves in Israel, the place everybody tells us is our nation and where we belong, then we get there and are told that is not ours either. If not Israel, where else is there? We asked this question once before in “If Not Israel Where do the Jews Belong? and nobody had an answer then. My bet is nobody has an answer now either. Maybe if every nations sent us here then can we please have all of the lands you once promised we could use for our little corner in the world, our really little corner in the world? Just allow us sovereignty over the lands west of the Jordan River and east of the Mediterranean Sea and allow us to live in peace and in return we will make advances in whatever fields we touch and we will share them with the world just as we have always done. We are a sharing people which we have always been ever since we shared what we received on two stone tablets. Perhaps you remember those ten rules we shared with all the societies on earth; we shared the one enduring set of laws that really were written in stone, twice. We merely asked that others observe seven that Noah recounted after the flood as what his family could base a just and civil society, just Seven Noahic Codes; that’s all.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

March 16, 2014

President Obama Sends Definitive Message on Ukraine

The situation in the Ukraine does not exactly fill one with a firm belief that everything will work itself out without any bloodshed. According to the first Ukrainian to lead the nation after the fall of the Soviet Union, former President Kravchuk, there are currently minimally approximately eighteen-thousand Russian troops operating in the Crimea region of the Ukraine. Where the Ukraine works as strategically placed buffer state between Russia and Europe, the Crimea could be seen as the buffer region between Russia and the rest of the Ukraine as well as the vital link to the Black Sea providing Russia with a warm water port with access to the Black Sea and from there the Mediterranean Sea on into the Atlantic Ocean. There is no question that Russian President Vladimir Putin, I like to refer to him as Vlad the Invader, has taken and planning on retaining the entirety of the Crimean Peninsula. The big question is whether or not President Putin has any plans to invade the remainder of the Ukraine and after that would he continue his aggressions by continuing westward pushing Russian forces into Poland, northward across Belarus or southward into Romania. Then again, if President Putin’s aim is, as some have claimed is his goal, to reform Russian hegemonic control over all the areas which were formerly within the Warsaw Pact nations within the eastern parts of Europe within the Iron Curtain, then occupying the Ukraine is only his initial step. If Putin is planning to reassert Moscow’s iron-fisted control over the entirety of the domains which fell under the formidable control of the Soviet Union, then his eventual aim could likely be seen as forcing all of Europe into subservience to Moscow.

 

Meanwhile, United States President Barack Obama has appeared completely ineffectual and powerless in the face of President Putin’s aggressions. But if the leaked announcement move by the Pentagon is correct, that is about to change. A response from the United States may be imminent as units are to be deployed to Poland as a statement, a warning to Russian President Putin. The announcement referred to sending twelve F-16 aircraft and three-hundred American troops to Poland by the end of the week to reassure and defend American allies in the region and to be a show of force to convey the seriousness of America’s commitments to NATO and the treaties with the Ukraine among other nations. I am sure this almost marginal and miniscule commitment will be more of an amusement to President Putin and will be regarded as a message of President Obama’s increased flexibility which he had promised former Russian President Medvedev before the last elections. This show of force is just the latest example of the new President Obama America which stands as firm as jello when it comes to protecting former American allies or facing down threats to the status quo in the world which contrasts well with the forcefulness reserved for the former allies and friends of the United States. The American citizens voted twice for Hope and Change and a fundamental transformation of their country, and that is exactly what they are receiving. Unfortunately, that is also what the rest of the world is getting and we did not vote for that. For the immediate future, the Ukraine and its new leadership are left to squirm while being in the direct glaring and menacing stare of a cold former KGB enforcer become Russian President and his attitudes and reliance on force have remained from his days in Rumania.

 

The problem for the people and government of the Ukraine is that despite the weakness of the troop deployment by the United States, any expected assistance from the European nations will likely make this American deployment look formidable. Basically, the Ukrainians are going to be left on their own which hopefully they have realized by now. Of course, perhaps the Ukrainians should thank their lucky stars that President Barack Obama did not hold negotiations with Vlad the Invader and bring the indomitable European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton and the stalwart United States Secretary of State John Kerry demanding they all meet in Munich to decide whether the peoples of the Crimea were really displaced Russians which had requested Russian protection. The Ukrainians would have faced the same destructive compromises which happened in the famous previous negotiations in Munich when the allies presented Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany by allowing a similar encroachment as we are facing with the Russian incursion into the Crimean peninsula of the Ukraine. There will be no demands for Putin to remove his forces. There will be no ramifications or deterring moves in order to force the Russians to reconsider and actually assist in the defense of the Ukraine. Should Vlad the Invader decide to take the remainder of the Ukraine, the rest of the world will be treated at most with another long and uninspiring speech from President Obama giving platitudes and kind explanations on how Russia had simply reconstituted the lands which had belonged to them since Czar Catherine the Great annexed these areas as part of Russia. The next threat might once again be an attack on Poland. The question is whether it will once again be a division of Poland between Angela and Vlad or will Vlad the Invader be selfish and demand all of Poland for Russia. Should Russian aggressions extend beyond the Ukraine, such an action might be a nation too far and force an actual and consequential response, even from President Obama. We can only pray that such a situation never comes to pass.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.