Tag Archives: USA

Il y a 54 ans jour pour jour, Charles de Gaulle nous a avertis que l’UE est une arnaque


Aujourd’hui est un anniversaire historique. Il y a exactement 54 ans, jour pour jour, Charles de Gaulle nous a avertis que la construction européenne – appelée aujourd’hui « l’Union européenne » – est une arnaque.

Il y a exactement 54 ans, il nous a avertis que la « Communauté européenne » est une construction américaine, conceptualisé et mise en oeuvre par les Etats-Unis dont le vrai but est d’assujettir les pays du Vieux Continent à Washington.

Construction-européenne-et-retrait-de-lOTAN
L’UE et l’OTAN sont deux faces de la même médaille : la domination américaine sur l’Europe. Crédit photo : l’Union populaire républicaine.

Il a lancé ces propos lors de sa conférence de presse à l’Elysée. La vidéo de cette partie de ladite conférence de presse peut être visionne ici :

Voici en la transcription fournie par l’Union Populaire Républicaine sur son site de réseau mondial :

« Je voudrais parler plus spécialement de l’objection de l’intégration.

On nous l’oppose en nous disant : « Fondons ensemble les six États dans quelque chose de supranational, dans une entité supranationale. Et ainsi tout sera très simple et très pratique. »

Cette entité supranationale, on ne la propose pas parce qu’elle n’existe pas. Il n’y a pas de fédérateur, aujourd’hui – en Europe ! -, qui ait la force le, le crédit et l’attrait suffisants.

Alors on se rabat sur une espèce hybride et on dit : « eh bien tout au moins que les sixÉtats acceptent, s’engagent, à se soumettre à ce qui sera décidé par une certaine majorité. »

En même temps, on dit : Il y a déjà six parlements européens, – six parlements nationaux plus exactement -, une assemblée parlementaire européenne, il y a même une assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe qui, il est vrai, est antérieure à la conception des Six et qui, me dit-on, se meurt aux bords où elle fut laissée.

Eh bien, malgré tout cela, élisons un parlement de plus, que nous qualifierons d’« européen » et qui fera la loi aux six États !

Ce sont des idées qui peuvent peut-être charmer quelques esprits mais je ne vois pas du tout comment on pourrait les réaliser pratiquement, quand bien même on aurait six signatures au bas d’un papier.

Y a-t-il une France, y a-t-il une Allemagne, y a-t-il une Italie, y a-t-il une Hollande, y a-t-il une Belgique, y a-t-il un Luxembourg qui soient prêts à faire, sur une question importante pour eux au point de vue national et au point de vue international, ce qui leur paraîtrait mauvais parce que ça leur serait commandé par d’autres ?

Est-ce que le peuple français, le peuple allemand le peuple italien, le peuple hollandais, , le peuple belge, le peuple luxembourgeois, sont prêts à se soumettre à des lois que voteraient des députés étrangers, des lors que ces lois iraient à l’encontre de leur volonté profonde ?

Mais, ce n’est pas vrai. Il n’y a pas moyen, à l’heure qu’il est, de faire en sorte qu’une majorité puisse contraindre – une majorité étrangère ! -, puisse contraindre des nations récalcitrantes.

Il est vrai que dans cette « Europe intégrée » comme on dit, ben il n’y aurait peut-être pas de politique du tout. Ça simplifierait beaucoup les choses. Et puis, en effet, dès lors qu’il n’y aurait pas de France, pas d’Europe qui auraient une politique, faute qu’on puisse en imposer une à chacun des six États, on s’abstiendrait d’en faire.

Mais alors, peut-être, tout ce monde se mettrait-il à la suite de quelqu’un du dehors, et qui – lui – en aurait une.

Il y aurait peut-être un fédérateur, mais il ne serait pas européen. Et ça ne serait pas « l’Europe intégrée », ce serait tout autre chose, de beaucoup plus large et de beaucoup plus étendu, avec je le répète un fédérateur. »

Remarquons que l’impact de cette déclaration a été tel que les ministres européistes (MRP) du gouvernement Pompidou ont démissionné sur le champ, ainsi laissant le général de Gaulle sans majorité dans l’Assemblée nationale.

Dans un entretien privé avec Alain Peyrefitte – l’un de ses plus proches collaborateurs qui avait participé à la négociations des traités de Rome créant les Communautés européennes – Charles de Gaulle a confirmé explicitement son avertissement :

« Vous savez ce que ça veut dire, la supranationalité ? La domination des Américains. L’Europe supranationale, c’est l’Europe sous commandement américain. »

Source : Alain Peyrefitte, C’était de Gaulle, Fayard,  Paris 1997, tome 2, p. 217.

Plus tard, au conseil des ministres le 19 juin 1963, Charles de Gaulle a ainsi résumé le but et la mécanique de la construction européenne et de l’OTAN :

« Le tout, pour que les États-Unis puissent mieux gouverner  l’Europe. Dans ce cas, l’Europe disparaît, la France est abolie. Ceux  qui ont renoncé à la France depuis longtemps, cherchent une situation  qui noie la France dans des systèmes politiques où la France  n’existerait pas.

C’est pourquoi ils sont ivres de l’ONU, de l’OTAN, de « l’intégration européenne ». Ils se ruent pour faire entrer la  Grande-Bretagne, alors qu’ils savent qu’il n’y aura pas d’intégration si  l’Angleterre est dans l’Europe. Ça leur est égal. Leur instinct est que  la France disparaisse.

– Ibid., p. 229-230.

Ce que le général de Gaulle a dit a plus récemment été prouvé par des documents rendus publiques depuis 2000 par le gouvernement américain. Le journaliste célèbre britannique Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (qui travaille pour le quotidien sérieux britannique The Daily Telegraph) les a analysés pour ses lecteurs et a confirmé ce que nous avait revelé en 1962 le général de Gaulle : l’Union européenne a toujours été un projet américain, pas européen.

En effet, dans ces documents – accessibles aujourd’hui par tout le monde des les archives du gouvernement américain – ce dernier admet que c’est lui qui a créé la soi-disante « construction européenne » et le mouvement politique qui l’anime.

Au lieu d’une stratégie de « divise et gère » (divide et impera), les USA ont décidé de fondre ensemble les pays ouest-européens (puis, apres la chute de l’empire soviétique, également les pays de l’est européen) dans une construction supranationale contrôlée par eux et gerée par des politiciens et des institutions qui se mettent à la botte des Américains : Angela Merkel, Jean-Claude Juncker, Wolfgang Schauble (qui soutenait l’agression américaine contre l’Irak en 2003), Sarko l’Américain…

Cette stratégie a marché parfaitement jusqu’ici parce que l’Union européenne est aujourd’hui inféodée aux Etats-Unis. Voici quelques preuves exemplaires :

  • L’UE et ses pays membres n’ont fait rien d’efficace pour contrer l’espionnage massif américain contre les pays et institutions européens. Bien au contraire, cet espionnage américain est toléré.
  • L’UE est au point d’ouvrir le marché européen à la concurrence totalement déloyale des USA dans le cadre du traité TAFTA (Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement).
  • L’UE n’avait non plus pris d’action contre les sanctions américains contre l’Iran lorsque celles-ci étaient en vigueur. Ces sanctions  – illégales dans le cadre du droit international – prétendaient de dicter aux sociétés européennes (p. e. dans l’industrie automobile) les règles de commerce – ou de refus de commerce – avec l’Iran. En raison de ces sanctions, les compagnies automobiles européennes avaient dû cesser de vendre des voitures en Iran. “Le président Obama a donné l’ordre de cesser l’activité en Iran.” Cette “ordre” illégal du président Obama a coûté cher à l’industrie automobile française, mais l’UE n’a rien fait pour contrer ce régime illégal de sanctions américain – qui était en vigueur jusqu’au janvier 2016, c’est-à-dire l’entrée en vigueur de l’accord de Vienne sur le nucléaire iranien.
  • L’UE n’a non plus fait rien contre les sanctions injustes imposées récemment par les USA contre des banques françaises, notamment BNP Paribas.
  • L’UE vient d’abolir l’exigence des visas pour les citoyens turcs et a accélére le processus de l’admission de la Turquie dans les rangs de l’Union – un objectif stratégique clé des Américains – lorsque la Turquie est une démocratie répressive et néo-islamique et lorsqu’elle soutient sécrètement l’Etat islamique.
  • Sous la pression des USA, la France a dû spolier des pièces importants de son patrimoine – notamment la section d’énergie d’Alstom – aux sociétés américaines.
  • L’UE a aussi abouti à la dominance culturelle et linguistique américaine en Europe. Une grande majorité des documents internes de l’UE sont originellement rédigés en anglais, pas en français ou en allemand, et la grande majorité de nouvelles chansons des artistes européens sont aujourd’hui rédigées et chantées en anglais et pas dans leur langue maternelle. Nous descendons dans l’abîme de la sous-culture vulgaire américaine.
  • La langue française devient une langue de moins en moins populaire, lorsque les autres langues européennes deviennent des langues rares en France… au grand profit de l’anglais, bien sûr. Tous les jeunes Européens apprennent ce dernier mais peu d’eux apprennent également le français. En effet, l’enseignement du français est en chute libre dans le Vieux Continent… et en forte croissance dans tous les autres continents du monde.
  • Sous la pression des USA et de leurs pantins à Bruxelles, la France a aussi dû voter la loi Fioraso qui autorise l’utilisation de la langue anglaise, au lieu du français, pour les cours et la soutenance des thèses aux universités françaises.
  • L’UE est maintenant en train d’imposer du libéralisme économique à l’américaine à la France contre le gré de son propre peuple.
  • Depuis l’introduction de l’Euro, la competitivité de l’économie française et le pouvoir d’achat des Français ont souffert et la proportion des reserves de devise mondiales qui est dénominée en dollars américains a crû. Affaiblie légèrement par la crise financière mondiale, elle a retabli sa préeminence. Actuellement, 87% de reserves de devises mondiales sont dénominées en dollars. En revanche, part de l’Euro a diminué depuis 2009 à 23%. Comme l’a observé Jeffrey Frankel, le statut de dollar n’est guère menacé par l’Euro. En effet, celui-ci est aujourd’hui moins utilisé comme la monnaie de devises que les monnaies européennes nationales (notamment la Deutsche Mark) qu’il a remplacées. (Cf. le graphe ci-dessous.)
  • Enfin, il n’est pas par hasard que tous les politiciens européistes sont également les atlanticistes les plus farouches, lorsque les euroscéptiques sont également des critiques fierces du comportement des USA. Il n’est pas non plus par hasard que les USA ont toujours soutenu le processus d’intégration europénne et l’appartenance du Royaume-Uni à l’UE.

Reserve_Currencies

Comme le démontre ce graphe, la position du dollar comme la monnaie de réserve préférée du monde n’a guère été menacé par l’Euro. Ayant légèrement augmenté lors de la guerre en Iran et au début de la crise mondiale, elle a diminué depuis lors. Sa part est maintenant moindre que celle des monnaies nationales européennes dans les années 1990. Photo crédit : Wikimedia Commons.

On nous ment souvent que l’UE est un “multiplicateur” de l’influence mondiale de la France ou encore qu’elle est la seule force européenne qui peut efficacement contrer les USA. Mais en réalité, l’UE ne peut aucunement contrer l’hégémonie américaine ou accroître le rayonnement mondial de la France tout simplement parce que elle est – et a toujours été – une construction conçue et contrôlée par les USA, tout comme nous l’a réveillé il y a 54 ans le général de Gaulle et comme vient de le confirmer M. Evans-Pritchard.

Qui plus est, comme nous avons observé au fil des 25-30 dernières années, plus étroite devient l’intégration européenne, plus s’effondre l’influence de la France – en Europe et dans le monde entier.

D’ailleurs, demandons-nous : si l’UE est vraiment une force qui puisse s’opposer aux USA et multiplier l’influence française dans le monde, pourquoi les USA ont-ils toujours soutenu la construction européenne, son élargissement, et l’appartenance du Royaume-Uni à celle-ci ? Pourquoi le président Obama, le sécretaire d’Etat américain John Kerry, et plusieurs anciens sécretaires à la défense, sécretaires de l’Etat, et chefs de renseignement américains ont appelé le Royaume-Uni à rester dans l’UE ? Pourquoi cinq anciens sécretaires généraux de l’OTAN ont fait le même appel ? Et pourquoi tous les politiciens européistes sont – et ont toujours été également les atlanticistes les plus farouches, lorsque les euroscéptiques sont aussi parmi les critiques les plus durs de la politique étrangère et militaire des USA ?

Parce que les prétensions des européistes que l’UE peut servir de contrepoids aux USA est un mensonge éhonté.

Conclusions

S’il avait toujours veçu et avait toujours été au pouvoir, le général de Gaulle aurait immédiatement été accusé d’ « anti-américanisme primaire » par les Léa Salamé de ce monde.

Or, le journaliste célèbre britannique Ambrose Evans-Pritchard – qui est plutôt sympathique aux USA – vient de confirmer l’analyse de Charles de Gaulle, comme le soutiennent des documents déclassifiées du gouvernement américain lui-même : la construction européenne a toujours été un projet américain. Elle constitue, en effet, des griffes dans lesquelles les USA souhaitent etouffer la France et les autres pays européens pour les assujettir.

En conséquence, au lieu de servir de “contrepoids” aux USA et freiner leur puissance et arrogance, elle a servi d’outil pour étendre leur domination sur l’Europe, jusqu’aux portes de la Russie. Et maintenant cet outil d’influence américaine qui est l’UE, est au point d’ouvrir les portes du marché européen à la concurrence totalement déloyale des USA.

Force est donc de constater que les européistes ont menti – comme toujours.

Advertisements

The REAL causes of the fall of the Berlin Wall


peacethroughstrength

Tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. On that evening, on November 9th, the East German government permitted its citizens to cross the border with West Berlin freely, and they began doing so in huge numbers.

These days, the media around the world propagate the claim that it was the citizens of East and West Germany, as well as Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms and the West German government’s policy, that brought the Berlin Wall down, while Ronald Reagan had little or nothing to do with it. When the world media covers the anniversary and its celebrations this week, you will hardly find or hear any mention of Ronald Reagan in the media or in the city of Berlin itself.

But the truth is that it was Ronald Reagan and his tough policy of exerting maximum pressure on the Soviet Union, especially on European, economic and human rights issues, that brought the Berlin Wall down. Throughout the entire 1980s, the US exerted enormous economic, military, and moral pressure on the Soviet Union and its satellite regimes, and THAT is what brought the Berlin Wall and the entire Soviet empire down. Furthermore, the West German government (and other Western European governments) NEVER had ANY intention whatsoever of dismantling the Berlin Wall and the Soviet empire – and had these European governments had their way, the Soviet empire would’ve still existed to this very day. This article will prove this with facts.

West German Subsidies For the Evil Empire

Throughout the Cold War, and especially since the early 1970s, Western European countries and companies were doing lucrative business with the Soviet Union… lucrative at least for Moscow and for European companies – similarly to how they do today. Western European governments were also loaning lots of money to the Soviet regime, as well as paying the East German government for releasing dissidents from jail.

And just like today, Western European countries were steadily increasing their oil and gas imports from the Soviet Union – and in 1980, they consented to the construction of a new gas pipeline that would increase Soviet gas exports to Europe (and Europe’s dependence on that supply source) still further.

Had that pipeline been built on time and on the proposed scale, the Soviet empire and the Berlin Wall would likely have not collapsed at all.

The story begins in late 1979, when the Kremlin informed the West German government and business leaders that it wished to build a new gas pipeline from the Yamal Peninsula to West Germany, with the goal of significantly increasing Soviet gas exports to Europe. The Ruhrgas AG was to be the direct recipient of the gas, Mannesman AG was to deliver the equipment to build and operate the pipeline, while the Deutsche Bank was destined to finance the construction. After the West German government’s initial okay, secret talks began at Deutsche Bank’s HQ in Dusseldorf. These were so secret that no interpreters were hired – one of Deutsche Bank’s high-ranking employees speaking Russian served as the translator.

The initial talks were successful and were continued in December 1979 by Deutsche Bank personnel in Moscow; with the support from the Soviet and West German governments, the talks were speedily advanced, with the West German business leaders knowing they’d be spending 10 billion West German marks – a huge sum of money – on building a pipeline that would immensely profit the Soviet Union.

With the Soviet and West German government’s support, an initial agreement was soon reached, and a Deutsche Bank branch was soon opened in Moscow to coordinate the project. When then West German chancellor Helmut Schmidt personally discussed the project with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on the phone, the talks were greatly sped up.

On June 30th, 1980, Schmidt arrived in Moscow and, despite the Soviet regime’s aggressive designs and its aggression against Afghanistan (which he didn’t care about), he signed a long-term economic cooperation agreement with Moscow that paved the way for the pipeline’s construction. Two weeks later – on the day the Moscow Olympic Games began – Deutsche Bank and the Soviet government began official negotiations on its pipeline, and a final was struck in Leningrad in 1983. This was AFTER Helmut Kohl and his CDU party came to power in 1982 – because the Kohl government, like the Schmidt cabinet, ALSO supported the pipeline’s construction and continued subsidies to the Soviet regime.

Ronald Reagan Strikes Back

But even before the deal was finally signed, Ronald Reagan counterattacked. Knowing the Soviet Union’s deep economic problems and the fact that destroying the Soviet economy was key to bringing the Soviet empire down, he imposed a slew of sanctions against the USSR in December 1981 after Moscow’s puppet regime in Poland implemented martial law to preserve communism there and crack down on Lech Walesa’s Solidarity.

Among the sanctions imposed on the USSR was a ban on exporting any pipeline machinery as well as machines used to extract oil and gas. This was intended to strike at the USSR’s Achilles heel – its dependence on oil and gas revenue. Western European companies were building such machinery based on American export licenses, but President Reagan revoked these. His sanctions were toughened still in September 1983 after the Russians shot down a civilian Korean airliner (KAL Flight 007).

Furthermore, President Reagan pressured the West German government and business leaders to cancel the pipeline’s construction. He did not succeed completely in that regard, but under his pressure, the pipeline’s scope was reduced from two lines to just one, and the whole project was delayed by many years – so much so that it wasn’t completed until 1999, eight years after the Soviet Union’s collapse.

This huge delay and reduction in scope of the project proved fatal to the Soviet Union. Making matters even worse for them, President Reagan deregulated the oil industry in the US and convinced Saudi Arabia to dramatically increase oil production. This brought about the oil glut of the late 1980s: in November 1985, a barrel of oil cost $30 (in 1985 dollars); by April 1986, it cost only $12. Moscow lost $10 bn (again, in 1985’s terms) in just five months as a result.

It was all downhill for the USSR from then on. That very month, in April 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear powerplant exploded, causing damage costing hundreds of billions of dollars. The war in Afghanistan dragged on – partially because of the Reagan Administration’s covert support for the Afghan mujahedeen fighting the Soviets.

And the Reagan Administration also dramatically toughened the arms race with the USSR by greatly increasing US defense spending and investing it in new, cutting-edge weapon platforms such as the B-2 stealth bomber (first flown in 1989, introduced in 1993), the MX Peacekeeper rail-mobile ICBM that could carry 10 nuclear warheads, nuclear-armed cruise missiles launched from air, naval, and ground platforms (including the BGM-109A Tomahawk A, scrapped unilaterally by Barack Obama), the Pershing intermediate range missiles that countered Soviet SS-20 missiles in Europe, the Ohio class of ballistic missile submarines (carrying 24 missiles each, more than any Soviet submarine could), the Trident missiles deployed on these submarines, the tank-killing Apache helicopter capable of obliterating the massed Soviet tank armies in Europe; the Aegis class of surface combatants; and many more.

Most importantly, the Reagan Administration initiated the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program, dubbed the Star Wars, against which the Soviet Union wasn’t capable of mounting any effective response due to its technological backwardness. In the 1980s, the US, and especially its military, was quickly being computerized – computers became an integral part of everything and made life and military operations easier. The Soviet Union, by contrast, was as short on computers as on human rights. Even the Soviet Chief of the General Staff, Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, admitted that the USSR was being overtaken by the US because of the revolution ushered in by computers.

Gorbachev tried his best to negotiate the SDI away, but Ronald Reagan held firm.

Moral Pressure Added to Economic and Military Pressure

Fully confident of its massive economic and military strength rebuilt by President Reagan, the US exerted increasing moral pressure on the USSR. That pressure culminated in the late 1980s.

President Reagan’s goal was nothing short of dismantling the Iron Curtain and the Soviet empire. As he said himself, his goal in the Cold War was to ensure that “we win, they lose.”  His Administration’s goal was to change the Soviet regime, and that goal was enshrined in Reagan’s National Security Decision Directive 75, signed by him in 1983. More importantly, that goal was actively sought (and ultimately achieved).

Like nobody else in the world, President Reagan exerted enormous pressure on the Soviet Union throughout his presidency. Only he had the courage to utter these memorable words in Berlin on June 12th, 1987:

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate.

Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate.

Mr. Gorbachev — Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Not only that, but he confidently predicted, “Yes, this wall will fall.” He didn’t just say he demanded that it be dismantled – he predicted that it WOULD BE. And it was. For, as President Reagan said:

As long as this gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.

This rhetoric was opposed by many in his administration (including Howard Baker and Colin Powell) and by all Western European governments except Margaret Thatcher’s. President Reagan’s advisors repeatedly attempted to delete those words from the speech, but Reagan personally overruled them.

Yes, to deliver these remarks, President Reagan had to face down many people even in his own administration.

Helmut Kohl and Mikhail Gorbachev: False Heroes Who Tried To Preserve the Soviet Empire

And of course, Western European governments, especially that of West Germany led by Helmut Kohl, still tried to save the Soviet Union with  subsidies, low-interest loans, and debt write-offs. In 1988 alone, West Germany lent the USSR 3 billion Deutschmarks. All told, from 1985 to 1991, Western European governments lent the USSR the equivalent of 15 billion dollars.

Fortunately, that proved to be woefully inadequate for the USSR to survive, thanks to Ronald Reagan’s skillful use of the economic lever. The ongoing war in Afghanistan and the costs of maintaining a global Communist empire and a huge state bureaucracy added to the USSR’s economic woes.

Nor did Gorbachev try, or even intend, to dismantle the Berlin Wall and the Soviet empire. On the contrary, he wanted to preserve and strengthen that empire. That was the goal of his reforms – perestroika and glasnost. His reforms were intended to STRENGTHEN the Soviet Union and the Communist system without touching their very nature. He believed that through half-measures such as less interference in state-owned enterprises’ affairs, he could revive and strengthen the Soviet economy.

This was no different from Tsar Alexander II’s and Tsar Nikolai II’s half-hearted “reforms” in the 1860s and 1900s, respectively: to change something so that nothing would really change.

Gorbachev’s reforms failed to strengthen the USSR – just like those Tsars’ pseudo-reforms failed completely – because you can’t save a rotten, totally failing, broken system by reforming it timidly and too late. If a system is completely broke and failing, the only right thing to do is to scrap it completely and start anew – which Gorbachev was completely unwilling to do.

Nor did Gorbachev want to dismantle the Soviet empire and free captive nations, despite his promise to give Eastern European nations the right of self-determination. He did not use force to stave off the Soviet empire’s demise – because he wasn’t able to. By 1989, the Soviet Union’s economic problems were so deep, the USSR – freshly booted out of Afghanistan by sandal-shod mujahedeen – was in no position to intervene militarily in East Germany, Poland, or Hungary. The fiscal costs alone would’ve been prohibitive, and those countries’ populations would’ve certainly resisted.

Gorbachev is not a hero; he’s just a flake who couldn’t keep the Soviet empire from collapsing. And today, he supports the murderous, criminal, illegal neo-Soviet dictator of Russia, Vladimir Putin, who is trying to restore the Soviet empire. This proves what an immoral person Gorbachev is.

Ronald Reagan Is The Real Hero

The real architect of the Berlin Wall’s and the USSR’s collapse was Ronald Reagan. As Professor Robert Kaufman rightly observed in 2011:

It is hard to see (…) how Gorbachev and a policy of conciliation deserve more credit for ending the Cold War in America’s favor than Reagan and his policy of vigilance. The restoration of American power under Ronald Reagan gave the Soviet Union little choice but to take the risk of choosing a reformer such as Gorbachev, who recognized that the Soviet Union could no longer compete against a rejuvenated, self-confident United States unless it liberalized at home and pursued a more conciliatory policy abroad.

Nor was Gorbachev a genuine democrat. He aimed only to reform Communism, not to abolish it. His regime began to implode under the cumulative effect of decades of U.S. containment, Reagan’s confrontational policies intensifying American pressure at a critical moment, and the mortal contradictions inherent in the Soviet system. Whereas Gorbachev did not intend the breathtaking collapse of Communism that his domestic reforms unwittingly unleashed, Ronald Reagan expected and dedicated his political life to achieving this outcome.

When the free world celebrates the 25th anniversary of the Berlin Wall today, don’t forget to honor the real architect of that event – President Ronald Reagan.

POSTSCRIPT:

Below: a video of the key part of Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” speech.

And below is a video of Sam Donaldson interviewing Ronald Reagan on the night the Berlin Wall began to be dismantled and giving President Reagan a lot of credit for the outcome:

There is a candidate…


Folks, on January 3rd, Iowa Republicans will cast their votes for their preferred candidate for the GOP Presidential nomination, with voters in other states to follow suit thereafter. I know that most Republican candidates want a credible candidate who is conservative across the board, doesn’t have a lot of baggage, and can defeat Barack Obama.

Does any of the 9 contenders fit that description? Yes.

There is a candidate who is conservative across the board – on social, economic, and defense/foreign policy issues, one who will protect unborn children, defend traditional marriage, cut and simplify taxes, eliminate unconstitutional federal agencies, rein in all three branches of the federal government, and reverse President Obama’s defense cuts.

There is a candidate who has always, consistently, been a conservative, because his conservative views are informed by his political principles and his religious and moral convictions.

There is a candidate who is not afraid to take on Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the liberal judges on the SCOTUS bench to uproot Washington DC, and recognizes that merely trimming around the edges won’t do.

There is a candidate who has served his Country in the military, as a volunteer, around the world, not sitting in the United States safely in military bases like Ron Paul did.

There is a candidate who has stayed married, and loyal, to his wife, his childhood sweatheart whom he married in 1982. He has never had any affairs, despite certain rumors to the contrary.

There is a candidate who doesn’t apologize for his conservative views and doesn’t pander to people, instead saying what he truly thinks.

There is a candidate who believes America is a shining beacon for the world, not the cause of all world evil as some claim.

There is a candidate who is such a loyal friend of Israel that he has received the Defender of Jerusalem Award.

There is a candidate who has decades of experience of governing and leading, and during that time has built a conservative record, cutting taxes, cutting spending, reducing the size and scope of government, securing America’s southern border, and creating a pro-business environment.

That candidate is the current Governor of Texas, Rick Perry.

Definite proof that Obama’s reset policy has abysmally failed


In 2009, President Obama initiated a policy of “reset” with Russia, i.e. a policy of unilateral concessions and capitulations to Russia based, in the best case, on the naive hope that Russia would reciprocate. As was bound to happen with any policy of unilateral concessions, it has failed: Russia has not reciprocated at all.

Yet, for the last 2.5 years, President Obama, his Administration, and leftist media around the world have been feeding the American people with BS propaganda that Obama had supposedly repaired relations with Russia, that this was “an unqualified success”, and that the “reset” policy has produced real, big benefits for the US, and cited the disastrous New START treaty – which favors Russia – as one of those benefits.

This was never true, and I’ve disproven this a few times already. Now Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has put the final nail in the coffin of the “reset” policy, by publicly threatening to withdraw Russia from the New START treaty, refuse to sign any new arms reduction agreements, strengthen Russia’s nuclear deterrent, and deploy Iskander ballistic missiles in the Kaliningradskaya Oblast along its border with Poland if the US deploys ANY missile defense systems in Europe. That is, Russia is demanding that the US forego ANY plans to deploy ANY missile defense systems in Europe.

BBC News reports that:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has warned that missiles could be deployed on the EU’s borders if the US pursues its missile defence plans.

In a televised statement, he said “modern weapons systems” could be deployed in Kaliningrad if Russia, the US and Nato failed to come to a deal.

He added that Moscow may opt out of the New Start arms deal agreed with the US.

Washington wants an anti-missile shield ready by 2020 but Moscow considers the idea a threat to its nuclear forces.

The US says the shield is intended to provide protection from the potential missile threat posed by countries like Iran.

Washington had originally intended to locate major parts of its missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic under Bush-era plans.

But Russia had objected vigorously, and when President Obama took office he scaled-back these ambitions.

However, Moscow has yet to be satisfied that the revised plans do not pose a threat to its interests.

BBC actually worded its news article mildly. Russia is demanding a total cessation of any plans to deploy any ballistic missile defense systems in Europe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15857431

Obama has once again proven he knows nothing about defense issues


America’s worst president ever, Barack Obama, has once again proven he knows nothing about defense issues, including the defense budget. During his recent Twitter interview with the voters and with Democratic plants, Obama was asked (apparently by a Democratic plant) a question about whether he plans to cut defense spending to reduce the budget deficit. Obama replied:

“The nice thing about the defense budget is it’s so big, it’s so huge, that a 1 percent reduction is the equivalent of the education budget. Not—I’m exaggerating, but it’s so big that you can make relatively modest changes to defense that end up giving you a lot of head room to fund things like basic research or student loans or things like that.”

To borrow a line from Herman Cain: Mr President, with all due respect, you’re wrong.

Obama was wrong. With that reply, he has proven that he knows nothing about defense issues, including the defense budget. Firstly, the defense budget for FY2011 (the current fiscal year) is $530 billion, and the DOD’s base budget request for FY2012 is $553 billion. 1% of these sums is a microscopic $5.3-$5.5 billion, equals just 4.5% of the federal education budget (i.e. the budget of the federal Department of Education), which is $122 billion for the current FY. This is even less than the 7% that the Heritage Foundation claimed.

Cutting the defense budget by $5.5 billion would not provide enough money for student loans nor for basic research programs. And although Obama has not explained what he means by “modest changes”, it’s likely that for him, even cutting the defense budget by 15-20% would be a chump change.

And although he admitted that “We can’t just lop 25% off the defense budget overnight” and that the US military has legitimate equipment needs that must be funded, he nonetheless insisted that defense cuts are needed, prudent, required by a “strategy”, justifiable, and safe for America – which they are not.

As the DOD has reported on its website, Obama said during the Twitter interview that:

“Though he is committed to cutting the Defense Department budget as part of the overall reduction in the federal deficit, U.S.security and strategic needs must drive the effort, President Barack Obama said yesterday in his first Twitter town hall meeting.

Obama said he conducted the meeting to find out what the public thinks about how to reduce the federal deficit, what costs should be cut and which investments should be kept.

Responding to suggestions for cuts in the defense budget, the president said that is not an easy task.

“We can’t simply lop off 25 percent off the defense budget overnight,” he said. “We have to think about all the obligations we have to our troops who are in the field, and making sure they’re properly equipped and safe.” The need to replace outdated military equipment is another budget consideration, the president added.

“We’ve ended the war in Iraq, our combat mission there, and all our troops are slated to be out by the end of this year,” Obama said. And as Afghan forces take more responsibility for their country’s security, he added, U.S. forces will draw down there as well. But drawing down forces and beginning a new phase in Afghanistan must be done “fairly gradually,” he said.

Obama said that while decisions to cut defense spending will be tough, a reduction requires a balanced approach, as with any government program, to shrink the overall federal budget.

“Those who say that we can’t cut military at all haven’t spent a lot of time looking at military budgets,” he added.

However, the president said, the reductions must take place with the nation’s security in mind.

“One of the things that we have to do is make sure that we do it in a thoughtful way that’s guided by our security and our strategic needs,” he said. “And I think we can accomplish that.””

Actually, I have spent more time “looking at”, reading, analyzing, describing, and devising amendments to, America’s (and Britain’s) defense budgets, as anyone who reads my blog and my articles knows. I’ve spent much more time doing it than Barack Obama or any other Democratic politician has. I’ve spent ca. 90% of my spare time doing so during the last 4 years. America can afford to withdraw its troopers from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and to zero its spending on these countries and the GWOT, but it cannot afford to reduce the size of its defense tooth or its base defense budget (which is already too small).

Obama claims that “our security and our strategic needs” should guide defense budget cuts and he thinks “we can accomplish that.” That is not true. One cannot accomplish defense budget cuts that would be consistent with America’s defense needs and strategic needs. Those needs dictate that defense spending be increased, not decreased. They do not require defense spending cuts; quite the contrary is true.

Therefore, one cannot credibly claim that “US security needs and strategy must drive the effort to cut defense spending.”

Moreover, it is ridiculous for him to claim that any cuts he will make to defense spending and America’s military will be justified by strategy. They will not. They will likely be arbitrary cuts that will weaken the US military. Moreover, they will be made SOLELY to meet Obama’s diktat of cutting defense spending by $400 bn over the next 12 years. Moreover, the DOD will likely lie that these cuts are justified, make up some excuses, and produce some “strategy” that will pretend to justify these unjustifiable defense cuts. (That’s what it did in 2010 with the QDR – it was written solely to justify Gates’ unjustifiable defense cuts.)

By ordering the DOD to cut defense spending by $400 billion, Obama has put the cart before the horse. He has ordered massive defense spending cuts and has told the DOD to find out how exactly to make these cuts.

I am appalled, but not surprised, by the fact that Obama is “committed” to reducing defense spending. He’s a wimpy weak Dhimmicrat, just like almost all of his party colleagues.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=64583

The Heritage Foundation has rightly commented that:

“The President’s accounting failures aside, there’s an even bigger problem at work. Obama is of the belief that, for starters, $400 billion can be cut from the defense budget over the next 10 years without putting the military at risk. That’s in addition to the approximately $400 billion already cut by the Administration during the previous two years. In turn, he would take those dollars and apply them to pay for his pet projects at home.

The President is proposing those cuts irrespective of the military’s needs.

Outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that ill-conceived cuts to defense spending could increase America’s vulnerability in a “complex and unpredictable security environment” and that “the ultimate guarantee against the success of aggressors, dictators, and terrorists in the 21st century, as in the 20th, is hard power—the size, strength, and global reach of the United States military.”

But with the President’s proposed cuts, America’s base defense budget would be at its lowest point in more than 60 years (as a percentage of America’s GDP). Meanwhile, the threats Gates spoke of continue to materialize, while challenges remain in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and throughout the Middle East.

And then there’s the state of U.S. forces. Secretary Gates and the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel have agreed that the U.S. went on a “procurement holiday” in the 1990s. Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz has stated that the present fleet of 187 F–22 fighters creates a high risk for the U.S. military in meeting its operational demands. The U.S. Navy has the fewest number of ships since America’s entrance into World War I. And yet the President sees fit to slash defense?

Contrary to Obama’s belief, the defense budget is not an ATM from which he can pull cash to pay for other projects. And he certainly can’t do it without causing further damage to U.S. military readiness. The Constitution demands that the U.S. government provide for the common defense. That’s a fact the President should keep in mind as he looks for ways to increase domestic spending amid a debt crisis.”

Sadly, yes, Obama sees it fit to deeply cut defense spending, as do his party colleagues and most Republicans (with few honorable exceptions such as Howard McKeon, Allen West, and Randy Forbes) – despite the fact that the PLAN is already larger than the US Navy, Russia and China are waging an arms race against the US, the Russian Navy has more SSBNs than the USN, the USAF’s current fleet of aircraft is the smallest and the oldest it has ever flown (with an average aircraft age of 24 years), the USAF’s ICBMs date back to the 1970s and need to be replaced,the USAF has only 20 stealthy bombers, and access-denial weapons are making current and potential future war theaters unsurvivable and unaccessible for nonstealthy aircraft and warships. The US military has huge legitimate modernization needs, yet both Democrats AND Republicans are committed to radically reducing defense spending, as is Obama.

It is utterly unacceptable for Obama to use defense spending as an ATM from which to finance his pet projects.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/07/what-obama-doesnt-know-about-defense-spending/

China is not America’s banker


China is not America’s banker, contrary to what many people have claimed. They’ve also claimed that because China is supposedly America’s banker, America must continue the Kissingerian policy of appeasement towards China. But they’re wrong.

China is not America’s banker. China must buy American T-bonds because it cannot buy anything else. It cannot buy the T-bonds of other countries, nor gold, nor anything else. The huge amount of money that China earns every year on exports is so big that it can be invested only in American T-bonds.

America doesn’t need to ask China to buy US T-bonds, because it could ask someone else to do so (e.g. Japan). Most of America’s public debt is NOT owed to China. 40% of it is owed to the Federal Reserve and other governmental agencies; i.e. this part is owed by one part of the US government to another. Of the other 60% part, only a small part is owed to China. Most of the foreign debt owed by the US to foreign countries is NOT owed to China.

Also, America is China’s biggest export market. The US can buy cheap products from emerging countries other than China (e.g. Vietnam, India), so it doesn’t need China as a producer. (If the Congress instituted protective tariffs, America wouldn’t need any imported products from anyone, except fuels, and the American industry would rebound.) But China cannot survive without America as an export market. 17.7% of China’s export goes to the US. America is China’s biggest export market. China’s total exported cargos, as of 2008, were worth $1435 bn. 17.7% of 1435 bn is $253.995 bn. Only an economic suicider would give up such a huge amount of money. And China would do so if it ruined the US economy (e.g. by selling its stock of American T-bonds).

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

America doesn’t need China. But China needs America.

Why America needs the FairTax


Today is April 15th, Tax Day. By this deadline, all American taxpayers must complete and send their federal tax forms. As a dear friend of mine remarked on Jefferson’s birthday, “he would be horrified to learn that I’m spending his birthday doing my *FEDERAL* taxes!”

She’s right. He would be. Because it’s unacceptable that hard-working Americans who have to pay their state and local taxes and (in most states) complete their state and local tax forms, must also do this unnecessary, long, costly paperwork of figuring how much they owe the feds and complete their federal tax forms.

The federal tax code, measuring 66,000 pages, is an extremely complicated mess. It’s extremely expensive to comply with – for individuals and businesses alike. They, combined, spend $265 bn per year to just figure out how much they owe. That’s $265 bn per year that could be used for more productive purposes. That’s effectively a 22.2% tax surcharge on every tax dollar you pay.

For small businesses, the compliance cost of this huge, complex tax code is so high that it actually exceeds the cost of tax rates themselves. Every year they pay $3-4 just to comply with the federal tax code per every tax dollar they pay to the federal government. That is, the compliance costs of the federal tax code are, for small businesses, 3-4 times higher than federal tax rates!

America cannot afford this complex Marxist tax code any longer. And no, Chairman Ryan’s “tax reform proposal” (which is actually an old, rehashed RSC proposal which would create another complex Marxist tax code on top of the existing one) is not a serious proposal, not even at the first glance.

The ONLY way to solve this program is the FairTax, which would entirely abolish the current tax code and the IRS, and to repeal the 16th Amendment.

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TestimonyofKarenWalby1-20-11.pdf