The Biden Era “Green Agenda” as dead as the mental capacity of Biden to think. The absolute disgrace of mass hysteria over ‘global warming’ or ‘government enforced socialist health care – like the mass Covid-19 injections – which treated humans as some ‘Western medicine corporate monopoly guinea pigs! Pie in the Sky mass hysteria – sucks.
Clearly Russia today does not compare to post WWII USSR; modern Europe does not in any way shape or form compare to post Oct 7th 2023 Gaza! The time has come for the US to pull its troops out of Germany and all Europe! European societies need to wean themselves from the American tits. The Trump Administration, by taking over S. American oil reserves and Greenland’s critical minerals serves to maintain post WWII American economic dominance, especially when challenged by BRICS counter-currency; competition the basis of economic health.
Europe a post Shoah cursed childless dying society that’s fast transforming its culture unto a Muslim dominated civilization. Actions have their consequences, the guilt of the Shoah disgrace has murdered the religion and good name reputation of Xtianity. The establishment of the EU a clear “over-reaction” to two 20th Century European Civil Wars. The “One Size Fits All” Soviet socialism collapsed in failure back in 1991. Restoration of European nation state political independence represents the European framers vision post the Napoleonic wars!
Western European states must respect post Napoleon and Hitler invasions of Russia through the Ukraine. Better to partition Ukraine like unto 19th Century Poland than assume that Russia post these two horrific Western European utterly crushed defeats of imperialism/invasion – to preach while standing on a soap box that Russia must accept the inevitable that the Ukraine joins NATO. Especially when the US intends to get out of NATO, in accordance with the founding Fathers of America which strongly advised not getting entangled into European alliances … but rather focus and maintain the Monroe Doctrine.
The “Big Three” explicitly agreed to respect Soviet security concerns. Hence the Great Powers established Eastern Europe as a buffer zone to protect from still another Western invasion attempts in the future. Stalin’s demand blunt: Never again allow a hostile military power to mass on Russia’s western frontier. The unification of Germany – began the negation and crooked Western chisel away from the West’s commitment to respect the concerns of Stalin post war. James Baker (US Sec. of State) famously said: “NATO will move not one inch eastward.”Russia sees NATO expansion as encirclement, no different than Arab State encirclement of Israel. Post 1991 NATO kept expanding without integrating Russia. NATO expansion violates the spirit of the Big Three agreements. Russia will never accept NATO on its borders, most especially Ukraine. While the Big Three agreements not a formal treaty, my grand father taught me: if a Man’s word: no good, the Man no good.
Post WWII America can never return the released genie from its bottle of 1930s American Isolationism any more than post Napoleon and Hitler invasions Russia will ever willingly permit Western European domination. This post war reality will only change if and only if Europe defeats both the US and Russia in a third World War!
American Industries cannot “compete” if they flee to foreign lands with cheap labor costs like as happened under Post WWII bureaucratization “Sovietization” of Washington bureaucracies! The government establishment of Corporate monopolies – starting with the Federal Reserve abomination under Wilson in 1913 requires immediate uprooting. Not the place of Washington to manage a controlled economy like both LBJ and Nixon “managed” the Vietnam defeat from DC! This means Washington must restore the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment – States Rights – which the Trump Supreme Court started with revoking Roe vs. Wade; the abortion industry only the States of the Republic should regulate. The same holds true with Agriculture, Healthcare, Insurance in all shape manner and forms starting with the Social Security fraud.
To maintain US economic growth and dominance, especially post WWII wherein the US supplied the oil and gas etc to the Allied war effort against the Central and Axis alliances, America First must never forget the post Andrew Jackson independent banking established in 1825 and the British Hong Kong free banking models.
America prior to Wilson’s socialism did not require an IRS direct taxation of the American people. Washington taxed the States not the individuals living within the States of the Republic. The inherit corruption of Pelosi and lifetime politicians not as easily tolerated when State Legislatures appointed their two Senate “ambassadors” sent to DC. Pre-WWI US joining the WWI Allied alliance occurred chiefly because Central Bank (private monopoly Federal Reserve) made huge loans to England and France without Congressional oversite and consent! Had Washington joined the Central Alliance in 1917 Britain and France would have negated their debt obligations to America much like post Bolshevik Russia did with its loans made with European central banks.
In the 19th Century Washington relied primarily upon imposing protective tariffs upon foreign governments industrial competition with American goods and services. Obviously during the American Civil War Lincoln’s ‘greenbacks’ modified Jackson’s ‘free banking’ by forcing banks to hold US treasury bonds. The first federal income tax was a temporary wartime measure during the Civil War (Revenue Act of 1861), imposing a 3% flat rate on incomes over $800, later graduated to 5% on higher earnings.The 16th Amendment, ratified in February 1913 (just before Wilson’s inauguration), explicitly allowed Congress to levy income taxes “without apportionment among the several states.” This enabled the Revenue Act of 1913, creating a graduated federal income tax (1% on incomes over $3,000, up to 7% on over $500,000) and expanding the Bureau of Internal Revenue (precursor to the IRS). Critics at the time, and since, viewed this as enabling “socialism” by centralizing fiscal power, shifting from state-apportioned burdens to direct individual taxation. This change marked a key expansion of federal authority, aligning with Progressive Era reforms but diverging from the Founders’ emphasis on limited central government.
The early 20th Century post Civil War shift away from the States-Rights American Republic unto direct elections “democracy” ignores the basic facts of Confederate concerns of Central Government domination over the State, like as exemplified by the The post Civil War Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 negated the States Rights Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. This Act, according to the popular rhetoric propaganda (Obamo like “change” political slogan) sought to curb the monopolistic practices of railroads, particularly the unfair pricing strategies and discrimination against certain customers and promote competition.
Bunk. Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), the first federal agency established to regulate economic activity across the board! Not simply limited to Railroad monopoly abuses!
The Interstate Commerce Act marked a critical shift in the balance of power between state and federal authorities. By regulating interstate commerce, the federal government asserted its authority over economic activities that previously fell under state jurisdiction, challenging the States’ Rights perspective that had been a significant aspect of the U.S. political landscape.
The Interstate Commerce Act laid the groundwork for future federal regulation of various industries beyond railroads, influencing later legislation related to telecommunications, airlines, and more. It set a precedent for the federal government’s role in regulating interstate commerce, establishing a framework for ongoing regulatory bureaucratic State behind the State revolving door bureaucrats with Corporate monopoly “experts”, commonly known today as the Industrial military complex.
By the 1820s–1830s (e.g., Tariff of 1828, the “Tariff of Abominations”), rates rose to protective levels (averaging 40–60% on dutiable imports) to foster domestic manufacturing. This system reflected Hamiltonian ideas of using tariffs for industrial development. Post-Civil War, high protective tariffs (e.g., Morrill Tariff of 1861 and later acts) persisted, funding Reconstruction and industrial growth while generating surpluses in peacetime. This tariff-heavy model kept federal power limited—no need for a permanent income tax or large bureaucracy—aligning with states’ rights and limited government visions.Lincoln/Secretary Chase’s National Banking Acts (1863–1864) centralized the Greenback fiat monopoly money/currency to finance the Civil War Yankee imperialism. States do not compare to counties within States as Lincoln sought to dictate. Lincoln’s creation of nationally chartered banks which required all banks to hold U.S. Treasury bonds as backing for their notes, this standardization of US currency stabilized the US dollar during the Civil War crisis. It taxed state banknotes heavily (10% tax in 1865) to drive them out.
This approach not only helped manage the economic chaos but also laid the foundation for Wilson’s corrupt IRS/Centralized Bank standardized currency system. Greenbacks complemented this by providing immediate liquidity. By taxing state banknotes, Washington effectively encouraged a shift towards federal currency, thereby consolidating control over the monetary system and minimizing the risks of inflation.
Greenbacks (Legal Tender Act, 1862): Issued $450 million in fiat currency (backed by future taxes, not gold) to fund 60% of war costs (~$3.2 billion total). Forced banks to accept them and hold U.S. Treasury bonds (National Banking Acts, 1863–1865), creating the First National Bank system. This centralized banking ~1,600 national banks by 1865, crowding out state banks via a 10% tax on their notes. Inflation hit 80% by 1864, but greenbacks were redeemed in gold by 1879 (Specie Resumption Act).
The Supreme Court’s 1886 Wabash decision, which invalidated state regulation of interstate rail rates as violating the Commerce Clause (exclusive federal domain) compares to how Roe vs Wade made Washington Big Brother so completely dominant over States economic autonomy. The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) – interpreted by Yankee victors to allow federal preemption when activities crossed state lines or affected interstate flow. This challenged Southern/Confederate-era states’ rights concerns about central domination, as railroads symbolized Northern industrial power post-Civil War.
Initially, the Act applied only to railroads—the first industry federally regulated. The ICC’s scope expanded later via amendments (e.g., Hepburn Act 1906 added pipelines, terminals; Motor Carrier Act 1935 added trucking/buses). In the 1880s–1890s, it was railroad-focused, though it set the template for future agencies (e.g., FCC for telecom, CAB for airlines). Critics argue it birthed the “regulatory state,” with bureaucrats often drawn from (or returning to) the industries they regulated—creating capture and monopoly entrenchment rather than true competition.
Rep. William Bourke Cockran called the 16th Amendment and Revenue Act of 1913 (the post Civil War Yankee ‘Progressive Centralization pivot) “Socialism”!!! Because it shifted the burden of Washington raising money away from foreign competitors in business to US citizens. It funded Wilson’s corrupt ‘New Freedom expansion rhetoric propaganda (e.g., FTC, Clayton Act). Madison in Federalist No. 10 warned against factions using direct taxes for redistribution of US citizen wealth. By their fruits you shall know them: By 1920, income tax raised 58% of Federal revenue, enabling welfare state growth like LBJ’s Great Society rhetoric propaganda. Passage of the
17th Amendment (1913) compounded this, replacing state-legislature Senate picks with popular vote—eroding states appointing Federal Senators as ambassadors of State legislatures sent to negotiate with Washington. Establishment of the ICC “Obama-like ‘change’ birthed the first independent Federal regulatory agency octopus monster illegal 4th Branch of the US Government in direct violation of the 3 branches of the US Government established by the Constitution.
mosckerr
Tag: ukraine
Genocide, a profane taboo word, commonly raped pillaged and burned among people who abhor the Israeli response to the Oct 7th 2023 massacre. Genocide in this context, amounts to Holocaust denial. A word meant to prevent another Shoah has been weaponized to accuse Jews of committing the very crime inflicted upon them.
Genocide — a word forged in the ashes of the Shoah — has become a profane taboo, violated, cheapened, and weaponized by those who abhor Israel’s response to the Oct. 7th 2023 massacre. In this context, the accusation is not merely false; it amounts to Holocaust denial. A term meant to prevent another genocide is now hurled against the Jewish state in a grotesque inversion of history: the victims accused of the crime that nearly annihilated them.
This version of the Xtian Church infamous blood libel. Manufactured and disseminated by the UN, EU bureaucrats, Moscow, Beijing, and the media conglomerates that sell “genocide headlines” the way pornography sells clicks. Genocide sells. Justice does not. And so, the word violently and brutally raped and pillaged for political theatre rather than applied with legal integrity. Genocide occurs when those in power worship power itself, not justice. But no one dares question the motives of the institutions promoting this Blood Libel slander. Why? Because the same leaders, together with their institutions, have grown dependent on the “Jewish problem” narrative to justify their own existence.
Never once has anyone questioned the agenda of an organization that promotes this “Blood Libel Slander” made against Israel. Israel did not sign the Rome Agreement which established the International Court of the Hague. In point of fact, NEVER AGAIN, as PM Begin expressly communicated to Jimmy Carter at Camp David, means that Israelis post the European “Final Solution” will ever again permit, specifically European Goyim States, to dictate their “SOLUTION” to “THE JEWISH PROPLEM”. Israel rejects the idea that: (1) Jews exist again a ward of Europe. (2) Jewish sovereignty pre-conditional to UN approval. (3) Jewish self-defense is subject to foreign veto. Thus, the ICC’s attempted jurisdiction is a political fiction—an extension of the pre-1948 mindset that Jews do not have independent standing among nations. The ICC’s claim of jurisdiction over Israel: a fiction built on an older fiction. This accusation of “genocide” guilt imposed by Press decree upon Israel, simply the old paternalism in a new legal wrapper of classic South African Apartheid racism.
The accusation of “genocide” against Israel after Oct. 7, a form of modernized Holocaust denial — a mutation of the classic European blood libel — and the UN’s usage of the term reveals a long-standing imperial contempt for Jewish sovereignty. The UN never had moral universality. It functioned from birth as a colonial power-balancing instrument, and its treatment of Israel, merely the most concentrated exposure of its original design flaws. Where medieval Xtendom accused Jews of murdering Xtian children, the modern UN-Leftist coalition accuses Jews of murdering Palestinian children.
The replacement theology converts the UN as the new Ersatz-Xtianity. The idea of a secularized form of Xtianity that rejects the theological trappings of the Gospel narrative, but retains dogmatic moral and ethical frameworks associated with Papal Rome. This concept often manifests in political contexts, where political ideologies adopt seemingly Xtian ethical principles, like for an example: a just war, without engaging theological ‘Good News’ yet promoting the new religion of democracy.
The UN originally set up to prevent another Shoah. Clearly the UN has failed its mandate and MUST disband. What does the UN have to do with the Xtian “Genocide” in Nigeria? Or Pol Pot, or Idi[ot] Amin? The UN promotes platitudes rather than pursues justice. The UN today totally not recognizable to the UN of 1948. Pursuit of power and political coalitions of State international alliances has completely uprooted the founding Charter. The UN systematically ignores or minimizes actual genocide, mass slaughter, and mass enslavement when politically inconvenient. The UN protects authoritarian regimes with bloc voting. The Human Rights Council institutionalizes political scapegoating. UN Bloc voting by authoritarian states has turned this pie in the sky replacement of Wilson’s post WWI League of Nations into a political marketplace where justice get bought and sold on the illegal white women, and child-slave trade-markets.
Franklin D. Roosevelt U.S. President; championed the idea of a global peace organization. Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairperson of the UN Commission on Human Rights; pivotal in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Winston Churchill – British Prime Minister; advocated for collective security and cooperation. Joseph Stalin – Soviet Dictator primarily responsible for the Allied victory over the Nazis; boycotted the UN Chapter VII dictate to North Korea. Charles de Gaulle – not included at the Yalta Conference, French Resistance leader; crucial in representing defeated France’s interests post-WWII wherein France sat as a Permanent Member in the UN Security Council. De Gaulle as a statesman, succeeded in asserting France’s interests in the aftermath of World War II. Harry S. Truman, U.S. President after FDR; supported the formation and principles of the UN which negated the Constitutional Right of Congress to Declare War.
The Yalta Conference, held in February 1945, was a pivotal meeting between Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin to discuss the post-war reorganization of Europe and the establishment of international cooperation through the United Nations. Their responses varied significantly, reflecting their distinct national interests and ideologies. Stalin showed a positive attitude towards Roosevelt’s proposal for a new international organization aimed at maintaining peace. He recognized the need for a framework to manage post-war tensions and prevent conflicts. These men who built the UN, represent colonial empires, racial hierarchies, colonial interests, and military blocs.
Stalin insisted that the new organization must include mechanisms that recognized the Soviet Union’s status as a major power. He wanted assurances that Soviet interests and security concerns, particularly in Eastern Europe, would be addressed. While agreeing to the formation of the United Nations, Stalin was adamant about establishing Soviet influence in Eastern Europe, emphasizing a security buffer to protect the Soviet Union from future aggression. Clearly the Democratic Party leadership attempt to increase the NATO alliance to include these same Eastern European countries into the NATO alliance, specifically the Ukraine, no UN Resolution has ever condemned.
Churchill was more cautious regarding Stalin’s intentions. He was supportive of the idea of a United Nations but harbored concerns about Soviet expansionism and the balance of power in Europe. Churchill advocated for a United Nations that emphasized democratic principles and human rights. He urged for a system that would prevent the imposition of totalitarian regimes, especially in nations liberated from Nazi occupation. Yet the UN promotes Arab dictatorships, specifically Palestinian Arab dictatorships, precisely following the Oct 7th 2023 massacre of Israelis. Churchill wrote the first White Paper, this man focused his interests over British domination upon any new balance of power political arrangement.
Stalin’s enthusiasm for the concept of the United Nations demonstrated a strategic acknowledgment of the necessity for international governance. This was essential for managing tensions after the war. His insistence on recognizing the Soviet Union’s status as a major power was non-negotiable. The establishment of a security buffer in Eastern Europe was paramount for him, as it aligned with the Soviet doctrine of protecting its borders from perceived threats. Stalin’s strategy foreshadowed the post-war division of Europe. His desire for influence in Eastern Europe laid the groundwork for future Cold War dynamics, where conflicting ideologies and interests between the USSR and Western nations would lead to tension.
Mali announced the expulsion of French troops, effectively ending an French economic or military domination. In similar fashion the governments of Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad, Senegal, & Côte d’Ivoire. The UN never once condemned French neocolonialism. The rise of alternative global partnerships, particularly with nations like China and Russia, has provided Sahelian countries with options to diversify their diplomatic and economic relationships. The UN never condemned Western neocolonial economic structured dominance which favored French interests over African development. Independent Sahelian countries, no thanks to the UN, have started to forge new alliances that prioritize their interests rather than continuing to rely on traditional colonial ties. African sovereignty and control over national resources the UN never recognized.
Jan Christian Smuts, a prominent South African statesman and military leader, had a contentious and complex relationship with Mahatma Gandhi. While they both played influential roles in early 20th-century India and South Africa, their interactions were often marked by significant ideological differences and personal animosity. Smuts held a more conservative viewpoint, often prioritizing colonial interests and the maintenance of order within the British Empire.
One major point of contention was the implementation of discriminatory pass laws targeting Indians in South Africa. Gandhi actively opposed these laws through protests, while Smuts supported the laws as a means of maintaining control. During discussions about Indian representation in South African politics, Smuts was seen as obstructive, further fueling Gandhi’s disdain for him.
Reports suggest that Smuts had a personal dislike for Gandhi, viewing him as a radical undermining British authority in South Africa. This animosity was reflected in their public exchanges and political opposition. Despite their differences, Gandhi’s struggle for Indian rights in South Africa remains a significant historical contribution, overshadowing Smuts’ position at that time. Today, Smuts is often critiqued for his stances, which contributed to systemic discrimination, while Gandhi is celebrated for his non-violent approach to achieving social justice. The relationship between Jan Christian Smuts and Mahatma Gandhi exemplifies the broader tensions of colonial politics, with personal ideologies and ambitions clashing in a critical period of history. Their interactions serve as a lens through which the complexities of resistance against colonial rule can be understood.
Jawaharlal Nehru, as India’s first Prime Minister played a significant role in the establishment of the United Nations (UN). Nehru was a strong proponent of internationalism and believed in the necessity of a global organization to foster peace and cooperation among nations. His vision was largely influenced by the horrors of World War II and the need to prevent future conflicts. Nehru actively participated in key discussions that shaped the UN’s formation. He was part of the Indian delegation at the San Francisco Conference in 1945, where the UN Charter was drafted.
His contributions emphasized the importance of decolonization and civil rights. Nehru advocated for the inclusion of human rights in the UN framework. As a leader from a newly independent nation, he championed the cause of oppressed peoples, aiming for a UN that would not only prevent wars but also promote social justice. Nehru’s commitment to the UN and its principles laid a foundation for India’s active participation in UN affairs, which has continued to influence its foreign policy. His advocacy for peace, cooperation, and justice remains a part of India’s global identity today.
In 1975 the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemned the Augusto Pinochet regime for its widespread human rights violations, including torture and political repression. The resolution called attention to reports of extrajudicial killings, disappearance of political opponents, and the overall lack of civil liberties in Chile under Pinochet’s dictatorship. The Augusto Pinochet regime immediately eclipsed the socialist influence of Hernán Santa Cruz.
Alger Hiss, a high-ranking official in the U.S. State Department and a key figure in the founding meetings of the United Nations. In 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a former communist and journalist, accused Hiss of being a communist spy and of passing classified documents to the Soviet Union. In 1950, Hiss was tried for perjury and was convicted, serving several years in prison. While Hiss was involved in the establishment of the United Nations, serving as a crucial part of the U.S. delegation at the founding conference in 1945, his legacy became overshadowed by the espionage allegations. Historians often debate the extent of his guilt, with some arguing that he was falsely accused.
The Weaponization of “Genocide”, the UN has perverted into a political cudgel, detached from its historical meaning. Its use against Israel, framed as a form of Holocaust denial and “blood libel.” Israel’s Sovereignty Post-Holocaust — “Never Again” means Israel will not allow external powers—especially European states—to dictate Jewish survival, our international borders or our Capital City. Israel’s refusal to sign the Rome Statute, presented as a rejection of foreign-imposed “solutions” which presume Israel remains a Protectorate Territory of the UN or post WWII European Courts of international law.
The UN was created to prevent another Shoah, but instead it promotes platitudes and power politics. Examples: ignoring atrocities in Nigeria, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Idi Amin’s Uganda, and French neocolonialism in Africa. A UN which continually remains worse than simply silent about its founding premise: preventing unilateral security expansions that could trigger world conflict. A UN which “claims” to defend human rights, built partly by men who defend racially stratified empires.
Selective Condemnations, the UN condemned Pinochet’s Chile but ignored French neocolonialism in Africa. UN resolutions often reflect political convenience rather than consistent justice. The Smuts vs. Gandhi conflict illistrates how the UN’s silence on neocolonial structures in Africa echoes the impact of Colonial legacies.
Alger Hiss’s role in founding the UN is overshadowed by espionage accusations, symbolizing the organization’s compromised legacy, matched only by the grossly perverted number of UN condemnations made against Israel. The UN has always had compromised foundations, and those cracks have widened into fissures today.
The UN never morally coherent. It stands exposed as a truce between competing empires wrapped in universal language. The same Human Rights Commission built by men like Smuts and Santa Cruz now functions as a propaganda bureau for authoritarian regimes. And the same UN founded with Alger Hiss — now shadowed by espionage accusations — continues to operate with layers of clandestine influence.
The weaponization of “genocide”, an old psychological warfare guilt trip, on par with “He died for you”. It continues the old European narative: The Jew as the world’s chief problem. Where once Jews were accused of poisoning wells, today we are accused of poisoning Gaza. Where once Jews were accused of blood crimes, today we are accused of genocide. A system built on the ashes of the Holocaust now recycles Holocaust denial under the guise of human rights.
Why Smuts? Why Gandhi? Why Pinochet? Why the Sahel? Why Nehru? These leaders and countries both tyrants and saints influenced the establishment of the UN, its the failed ‘dream vision’ which ignores the eternal conflict conducted between Power vs. Justice. All the prophets of the T’NaCH pitted justice against avoda zara – the Human worship of power as God.
Israel never signed the Rome Statute. Therefore the ICC has no jurisdiction unless Israel consents which fundamentally profanes the post Shoah sworn oath “NEVER AGAIN”. The ICC’s maneuver relies on the fiction that “Palestine” is a state with standing. British Palestine, established by the League of Nations based upon the Balfour Declaration of 1917 ceased to exist when David Ben Gurion declared Jewish national independence and named the new country Israel in 1948.
Only in 1964 did Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the name of Palestine as central to his PLO Charter. That charter did not view Jordan’s West Bank or Egypt’s Gaza as occupied territory. It limited the phrase “Occupied Territory” only to ’48 Israel. UN Resolutions 242, 338, 446, 2334 etc all political blood libel frauds. UN Resolution 3379 – Zionism is Racism – rejects the Balfour Declaration which fathered the Palestine Mandate of 1921.
EU News: What a complete Joke
Gaza War Defends ‘Western Values’: Israel’s Herzog
The French Government Has COLLAPSED: Macron Given 7 Days to Resign!
Moldova is a small country that gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Transnistria is a breakaway region that declared independence but is not recognized by most countries, including Moldova. The region has a significant Russian military presence and has been a point of tension between Moldova and Russia.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has been vocal about the need to counter Russian influence in Eastern Europe, which may involve strategic considerations regarding Moldova and Transnistria. The claim that NATO and Ukraine might be planning provocations in Transnistria to destabilize Moldova and thwart peace efforts between Trump and Putin suggests a belief in a broader strategy to counter Russian influence. However, such claims exposed skewed one sided propaganda rhetoric that has an agenda.
The geopolitical landscape the EU “Union” with the crisis across Germany, France, and Britain far more worthy of attention. The narrative that NATO and Ukraine are destabilizing Moldova can be seen as part of a larger discourse that seeks to frame Western actions in a negative light. The EU/British issues far overshadow the Russian/Ukraine war and how much more so piss-ant Moldova, Transnistria. Hungary threatens its own Britexit.
The EU is grappling with significant internal challenges, including economic disparities, political fragmentation, and differing national interests. Issues such as migration, economic recovery post-COVID-19, and energy security far greater pressing concerns that in point of fact merit a focused attention from silly insignificant external threats. The notion of a “Britexit” or further distancing from the EU, particularly in light of Hungary’s threats, underscores the fragility of European unity. Hungary’s stance on various EU policies has raised questions about the cohesion of the bloc and its ability to respond collectively to external challenges.
The French national debt compares to the debt of 1789! The rise of rightwing nationalist “country FIRST”, Trump like movements in several EU countries has led to increased political fragmentation. These movements often capitalize on economic anxieties, immigration concerns, and a desire for greater national sovereignty, leading to increased political fragmentation within the EU.
The ongoing migration crisis stooge career politicians and Parties can no longer ignore. Illegal immigration floods swept the Biden Administration out of power. Despite Biden functioning as the Scarecrow in movie “The Wizard of Oz”. The attempt to turn to ‘Green Energy’ or Germany’s dependence upon Russian oil has exposed a disaster. The perception of ineffective governance can lead to significant electoral consequences, as seen in various elections. How would the EU “union” respond to the US pulling out of NATO? Obviously this question simply speculation. But the NATO alliance directly compares to the fragility of the EU union.
The fall of the EU would create a securiity vacuum across Europe, comparable to post WWII Europe immediately after the conclusion of WWII. The collapse of the EU would shatter an integrated European defense policy. Europeans countries have a growing distrust of Brussels, a European Army how much more so! European “collective defense capabilities” an utter joke – comparable to Obama as a US President. The Russian-Ukraine War has definitively proven that Russia does not compare to the Stalin Russian Army which defeated the Nazis and captured Berlin.
Many European countries exhibit growing distrust of Brussels, viewing it as a bureaucratic entity that often prioritizes its agenda over national interests. Never in all Europe’s collective history has a United States of Europe as a “Republic” ever existed.
EU finished as a major power in the Middle East dance of balance of power.
President Trump Talks to Press on Air Force One – 7/29/25
On the way back from Scotland to D.C.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
EU wants to reward Ham-ASS for Oct 7th. The EU want the utterly discredited UN to preside over the ‘Food Centers’. The same UN criminals who joined the Ham-ASS Oct 7th attack! Thank YOU Mr. President. The concept of Mass-Population Transfer, the EU opposes. Notice the emphasis placed by President Trump upon Israel rather than the EU or other foreign powers, as if Israel was not a Power Player in Middle East diplomacy. The EU simply yesterday’s news as a power in the Middle East.
The DemoCRAPS love slander. Russia-Gate Hoax, Trump will cause WWIII. The Gossip Press sucks almost as bad as does the defunct DemoCRAPIC poo-poo organization. France reaps the fruits of their isolation from US led NATO. NBC – “Fake News”, One of the Worst. The plane gift given to replace Air Force One! The gossip press ignores the attempts by Obozo the clown, nigger shoe shine boy in the White House, that he sought to replace the old Air Force One plane. Obozo a big gossip, guilty of the Russia-Gate Hoax.
Trump success on the India/Pakistan conflict. But the Poo Poo Press gossips still about WWIII. Biden illegals housed in Hotel rooms while American war veterans stink on the streets. Yet the Poo Poo Press gossips Trump Trump Trump. Windmills lose money and kills birds. Oil makes money, just that simple. Listen to Trump … Liberal suck. People loving the work of Bobby Kennedy. Did Obozo hire the shooter in the assassination attempts made on candidate Trump’s life. The auto-pen Biden Administration refused to increase Trump’s campaign security.
Trump denounced South Africa’s racist policies. Ya know S. A. accused Israel of war crimes following the Oct 7th pogrom.
Coming Attractions
Trump Leadership in the Free World
Its not 1948 but 2024, Israel dominates the Middle East. In terms of trade port Rotterdam exceeds British trade. Rotterdam’s port is indeed larger in terms of cargo throughput, but the UK’s trade impact extends beyond its physical ports. Both play critical roles in global commerce, albeit in different ways.
Currently the Netherlands ranks 17th in terms of total GDP in the world whereas the British stand at 5th in terms of total GDP. The UK’s main export partners include Germany, Belgium, France, the U.K., and the U.S.
Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port, stands at the crossroads. If Amsterdam gains prominence, it could divert some trade flows away from British ports. The UK’s ranking might shift, like a seesaw balancing sovereignty and economic integration.
London, the financial epicenter, thrives on services—banking, insurance, tech. But Amsterdam’s allure grows. Will British services retain their edge, or will Amsterdam’s charm lure investors and start-ups?
Will British businesses pivot toward this new alliance? Will Jerusalem-Amsterdam become the gateway to Europe? Rankings aren’t static. If the Jerusalem-Amsterdam alliance gains momentum, Rotterdam’s supremacy could challenge British trade domination. Now what if the US Senate voted to negate the NATO alliance? How would this impact British dominance in Europe?
If the U.S. Senate voted to negate the NATO alliance, it would have significant implications for British dominance in Europe. The UK has historically relied on NATO as a cornerstone of its defense strategy and its influence in European security matters. Without the U.S. as a key player in NATO, the alliance’s overall strength and cohesion would be weakened, potentially diminishing the UK’s ability to project power and influence within Europe.
This could lead to a shift in the balance of power, with other European nations, such as Germany and France, stepping up to fill the void left by the U.S. withdrawal. The UK might find itself needing to forge new bilateral or multilateral defence agreements to maintain its strategic position.
Europe has a long history of nation state rivalry. Europe’s history, rich with rivalries—complex, intertwined threads that have shaped the continent’s destiny. In the 20th Century along, this rivalry resulted in two world wars!
The historical concept of the “balance of power” in Europe has shaped centuries of diplomacy, alliances, and conflicts. If the U.S. Senate unilaterally decided to pull out of NATO, several significant consequences and implications would explode. European countries would likely seek to strengthen their own defence capabilities. A U.S. withdrawal could accelerate efforts toward a more independent European defence policy.
Either initiatives like the European Defence Union gains rapid momentum, leading to greater investment in defence spending, joint military operations, and defence industry cooperation within the EU OR the EU collapses as an economic alliance of western European states OR Europe returns to a Concert of Europe balance of power.
A paper tiger NATO would definitely change the balance of power in Europe. Eastern vs Western European countries would present immediate difficulties.
For Trump to sell such a bold move to both the American & European people would require him to campaign like he has so energetically done in 3 Presidential elections! To attain the votes required for the Senate to annul NATO would require no less that 14 Democratic Senators! The only way to pull this off, Trump made Rubio his Secretary of State, this pulled him out of the Senate. Gov DeSantis would have to hold a special election for Rubio to return to the Senate and lead the GOP neo con opposition to Trump’s America First leadership!!
Trump would need to offer substantial incentives or policy concessions that align with the interests of California’s constituents and the broader Democratic agenda. He would face a hard sell likewise among New York Democratic senators.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity & European security. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments.
A U.S. withdrawal from NATO would have profound and far-reaching consequences. It would likely lead to significant political turmoil both domestically and internationally. In the U.S., such a move would spark intense debate and opposition from both parties, given the strong bipartisan support for NATO. It could also lead to a crisis of confidence among U.S. allies, who have long relied on American leadership within the alliance.
In Europe, the impact would be even more dramatic. NATO has been a cornerstone of European security since its inception, and the sudden withdrawal of the U.S. would leave a significant power vacuum. European nations would need to rapidly reassess their defence strategies and potentially increase their own military spending to compensate for the loss of U.S. support. This could lead to increased tensions and instability within the region as countries scramble to adapt to the new security landscape.
If the U.S. were to withdraw from NATO, the resulting political chaos would significantly impact the relationship between Eastern and Western Europe. Eastern European countries, which have relied heavily on NATO for security against potential threats from Russia, would likely feel vulnerable and seek new security arrangements. This could lead to a more fragmented Europe, with Eastern European nations potentially forming their own alliances or seeking closer ties with Western European countries that have strong military capabilities, such as Germany and France.
Western Europe, on the other hand, would need to reassess its security strategy and possibly increase its defence spending to compensate for the loss of U.S. support. This could lead to a more unified European defence policy, with greater cooperation and integration among EU member states. However, the transition period would be marked by uncertainty and potential instability as countries navigate the new security landscape.
The economic trilateral alliance between the U.S., Jerusalem (Israel), and Amsterdam (Netherlands) is not a formalized entity like NATO, but there are significant economic and strategic partnerships among these regions. For example, the U.S. and Israel have a strong strategic partnership, highlighted by initiatives like the Jerusalem US-Israel Strategic Partnership. This partnership focuses on various joint endeavours, including innovation, security, and economic cooperation.
Additionally, the U.S. and the Netherlands have robust economic ties, with both countries being major trading partners. The Netherlands, one of the largest foreign investors in the U.S., and there are numerous collaborations in sectors such as technology, energy, and agriculture.
While there isn’t a specific trilateral alliance involving the U.S., Israel, and the Netherlands, the existing bilateral relationships between these countries contribute to a broader network of economic and strategic cooperation. This network can be seen as part of a larger effort to strengthen ties and address global challenges through collaboration and innovation.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity & restoring the concert of European independent autonomy. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of American voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments. However, achieving this would require significant political maneuvering and overcoming strong widespread bipartisan support for the NATO alliance.
The Federal Reserve, established in 1913, plays a crucial role in managing the U.S. economy. This private Federal Government established monopoly controls the money supply of the nation; it sets & establishes monetary policy. Closing the Federal Reserve and returning the power to mint money back to Congress would be a radical shift, likely causing significant economic uncertainty and instability. This move would require substantial legislative changes, starting with the restoration of States Rights to bureaucratically regulate trade and commerce inside their respective States. The Supreme Court rejection of the earlier Roe vs. Wade ruling strongly supports the priority of the Commerce Clause over the 19th Amendment.
Combining these two major policy shifts—pulling out of NATO and closing the Federal Reserve—utterly unprecedented and a highly controversial strategy. It would require convincing a broad coalition of lawmakers and the American public, navigating complex legal and economic challenges, and addressing the potential geopolitical and financial repercussions.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments.
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate trade and commerce among the states. If Trump were to push for closing down federal bureaucracies and returning these powers to the states, it would be a significant shift in how the U.S. government operates. This move would aim to decentralize power, giving states more control over their own affairs and reducing the federal government’s role in regulating trade and commerce within the larger Republic. Such a strategy could appeal to those who advocate for states’ rights and a smaller federal government.
Trump would need to build a broad coalition of support, leveraging his electoral mandate and appealing to both Republican and Democratic voters who favor States’ rights and reduced federal oversight. This would involve extensive political maneuvering and negotiation, to address the concerns of various stakeholders. Just as the same would equally apply to the European allies within the NATO alliance.
Trump could potentially leverage his negotiation skills to propose a deal where the U.S. pulls out of NATO in exchange for Russia withdrawing from Ukraine and Crimea. Additionally, he could propose returning to a free banking system and gold currency. This would be a highly complex and unprecedented move, requiring significant political maneuvering and concessions, on par with a General on the battlefield.
Combining these elements into a single deal would be an incredibly ambitious and risky strategy. It would require Trump to navigate complex legal, economic, and geopolitical challenges, and to build a broad coalition of support from both Republicans and Democrats and the people of Europe!
Explore the potential consequences of a return to a Congressionally minted gold commodity-based currency, and the restoration of Free banking in America, particularly in the context of the European Union euro fiat currency. Returning to a Congressionally minted commodity-based currency and restoring free banking in America would have profound and far-reaching consequences, especially when compared to the European Union’s euro fiat currency system.
A commodity-based currency, such as one backed by gold, could provide greater stability and control over inflation. Since the money supply would be tied to the availability of the commodity, it would limit the government’s ability to print money indiscriminately. However in times of economic crisis, the government could fall back upon Lincoln’s Greenback precedent.
The Greenbacks represented a departure from the gold standard. Unlike traditional banknotes backed by precious metals, they were essentially “free fiat money” created by the government no different from the current EU euro. Free banking could foster competition and innovation in the financial sector, potentially leading to better services and products for consumers. However, it would also require robust regulatory frameworks to prevent fraud and ensure financial stability.
Back in the 19th century, Hong Kong, together with the United States operated under a free banking system. This system allowed banks to issue their own banknotes, and competition among these banks was quite lively. Hong Kong maintained a three-tier system of deposit-taking institutions: 1) Licenced Banks, the big players. 2) Restricted Licenced Banks, smalling institutions with less privileges. And 3) Deposit-Taking Companies. These specialized in taking deposits. The three collectively known as “authorized institutions.”
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) issued licences to the three branches. Its oversight responsibilities evaluated safety, soundness, risk management, and internal controls using a risk-based approach. The HKMA’s principal function was to “promote the general stability and effective working of the banking system”. Essentially, they were the financial lifeguards, ensuring the stability of the banking pool. In summary, the HKMA played a crucial role in maintaining stability, ensuring banks didn’t go all cowboy with their banknotes, and keeping the financial rodeo under control.
American free banking regulated itself by limiting the power of banks to print banknotes by requiring that banks back up their banknotes with government bonds. The free banking law not only specified which bonds had to be deposited but also set the value of banknotes that could be issued based on a given bond. These government bonds served as collateral for the banknotes. In other words, if a bank wanted to print its own currency, it had to secure it with these bonds.
The free banking law not only specified which bonds had to be deposited but also set the value of banknotes that could be issued based on a given bond. In essence, the value of the banknotes a bank could issue was directly tied to the face value of the government bonds it deposited. When banks faced redemption requests (people wanting to exchange their banknotes for gold or silver), they had to ensure they had enough specie (precious metals) to honor those redemptions.
Restoration of free banking a completely different world than in the Wild West Wildcat banking frauds that so damaged 19th Century American banking. The classic criticism of free banking often focuses on wildcat banking. The bond-value relationship – played a crucial role in determining banking stability.
Restoring free banking and returning to a commodity-based currency could indeed be framed as a way to address the US national debt. By shifting the responsibility of money creation back to Congress and tying it to a tangible asset like gold, the argument could be made that this would limit the ability of the Federal Reserve to create money and thus reduce the national debt.
For Trump to successfully sell the idea of pulling out of NATO and transitioning to a new financial system, he would need to effectively communicate the benefits and address the concerns of the American & European people. Articulating the reasons for these changes and how they align with the “America First” agenda. Emphasizing the potential economic and security benefits could help garner support.
Engaging with the public through town halls, social media, and other platforms to explain the changes and address any concerns directly plays into Trump’s populist appeal with the American people. By addressing concerns and explaining the benefits of his proposed changes, he could build a strong narrative around prioritizing American interests and reducing foreign entanglements. This strategy could help him gain support from a broad spectrum of voters who resonate with the “America First” agenda.
Trump could indeed frame the withdrawal from NATO as a strategic move to prevent a third World War, drawing parallels to the 1856 Crimean War. The Crimean War qualifies as a significant conflict involving Russia and an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain, and Sardinia. The war ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1856, which aimed to maintain the balance of power in Europe and prevent further conflicts.
By referencing this historical precedent, Trump could argue that a similar diplomatic approach could lead to a peaceful resolution in Ukraine and Crimea. He could propose that the U.S. withdrawal from NATO would be contingent on Russia pulling out of Ukraine and Crimea, thereby reducing tensions and promoting stability in Europe.
This strategy would require careful negotiation and significant concessions from both sides. It would also need to address the concerns of NATO allies and ensure that the security of Europe not compromised. However, by emphasizing the potential for peace and stability, Trump could potentially gain support for this bold move.
Trump could indeed frame his decision to pull out of NATO as a gesture of friendship and a commitment to peace, emphasizing that Europe has endured enough conflict. By presenting this move as a way to prevent future wars and promote stability, he could appeal to both American and European audiences. Drawing parallels to historical events like the Crimean War and highlighting the potential for diplomatic solutions could strengthen his argument. This approach would require careful negotiation and significant concessions from all parties involved, but it could resonate with those who prioritize peace and stability over military alliances which resulted in two World Wars in the 20th Century.
Coming Attractions
Trump Leadership in the Free World
Its not 1948 but 2024, Israel dominates the Middle East. In terms of trade port Rotterdam exceeds British trade. Rotterdam’s port is indeed larger in terms of cargo throughput, but the UK’s trade impact extends beyond its physical ports. Both play critical roles in global commerce, albeit in different ways.
Currently the Netherlands ranks 17th in terms of total GDP in the world whereas the British stand at 5th in terms of total GDP. The UK’s main export partners include Germany, Belgium, France, the U.K., and the U.S.
Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port, stands at the crossroads. If Amsterdam gains prominence, it could divert some trade flows away from British ports. The UK’s ranking might shift, like a seesaw balancing sovereignty and economic integration.
London, the financial epicenter, thrives on services—banking, insurance, tech. But Amsterdam’s allure grows. Will British services retain their edge, or will Amsterdam’s charm lure investors and start-ups?
Will British businesses pivot toward this new alliance? Will Jerusalem-Amsterdam become the gateway to Europe? Rankings aren’t static. If the Jerusalem-Amsterdam alliance gains momentum, Rotterdam’s supremacy could challenge British trade domination. Now what if the US Senate voted to negate the NATO alliance? How would this impact British dominance in Europe?
If the U.S. Senate voted to negate the NATO alliance, it would have significant implications for British dominance in Europe. The UK has historically relied on NATO as a cornerstone of its defense strategy and its influence in European security matters. Without the U.S. as a key player in NATO, the alliance’s overall strength and cohesion would be weakened, potentially diminishing the UK’s ability to project power and influence within Europe.
This could lead to a shift in the balance of power, with other European nations, such as Germany and France, stepping up to fill the void left by the U.S. withdrawal. The UK might find itself needing to forge new bilateral or multilateral defence agreements to maintain its strategic position.
Europe has a long history of nation state rivalry. Europe’s history, rich with rivalries—complex, intertwined threads that have shaped the continent’s destiny. In the 20th Century along, this rivalry resulted in two world wars!
The historical concept of the “balance of power” in Europe has shaped centuries of diplomacy, alliances, and conflicts. If the U.S. Senate unilaterally decided to pull out of NATO, several significant consequences and implications would explode. European countries would likely seek to strengthen their own defence capabilities. A U.S. withdrawal could accelerate efforts toward a more independent European defence policy.
Either initiatives like the European Defence Union gains rapid momentum, leading to greater investment in defence spending, joint military operations, and defence industry cooperation within the EU OR the EU collapses as an economic alliance of western European states OR Europe returns to a Concert of Europe balance of power.
A paper tiger NATO would definitely change the balance of power in Europe. Eastern vs Western European countries would present immediate difficulties.
For Trump to sell such a bold move to both the American & European people would require him to campaign like he has so energetically done in 3 Presidential elections! To attain the votes required for the Senate to annul NATO would require no less that 14 Democratic Senators! The only way to pull this off, Trump made Rubio his Secretary of State, this pulled him out of the Senate. Gov DeSantis would have to hold a special election for Rubio to return to the Senate and lead the GOP neo con opposition to Trump’s America First leadership!!
Trump would need to offer substantial incentives or policy concessions that align with the interests of California’s constituents and the broader Democratic agenda. He would face a hard sell likewise among New York Democratic senators.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity & European security. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments.
A U.S. withdrawal from NATO would have profound and far-reaching consequences. It would likely lead to significant political turmoil both domestically and internationally. In the U.S., such a move would spark intense debate and opposition from both parties, given the strong bipartisan support for NATO. It could also lead to a crisis of confidence among U.S. allies, who have long relied on American leadership within the alliance.
In Europe, the impact would be even more dramatic. NATO has been a cornerstone of European security since its inception, and the sudden withdrawal of the U.S. would leave a significant power vacuum. European nations would need to rapidly reassess their defence strategies and potentially increase their own military spending to compensate for the loss of U.S. support. This could lead to increased tensions and instability within the region as countries scramble to adapt to the new security landscape.
If the U.S. were to withdraw from NATO, the resulting political chaos would significantly impact the relationship between Eastern and Western Europe. Eastern European countries, which have relied heavily on NATO for security against potential threats from Russia, would likely feel vulnerable and seek new security arrangements. This could lead to a more fragmented Europe, with Eastern European nations potentially forming their own alliances or seeking closer ties with Western European countries that have strong military capabilities, such as Germany and France.
Western Europe, on the other hand, would need to reassess its security strategy and possibly increase its defence spending to compensate for the loss of U.S. support. This could lead to a more unified European defence policy, with greater cooperation and integration among EU member states. However, the transition period would be marked by uncertainty and potential instability as countries navigate the new security landscape.
The economic trilateral alliance between the U.S., Jerusalem (Israel), and Amsterdam (Netherlands) is not a formalized entity like NATO, but there are significant economic and strategic partnerships among these regions. For example, the U.S. and Israel have a strong strategic partnership, highlighted by initiatives like the Jerusalem US-Israel Strategic Partnership. This partnership focuses on various joint endeavours, including innovation, security, and economic cooperation.
Additionally, the U.S. and the Netherlands have robust economic ties, with both countries being major trading partners. The Netherlands, one of the largest foreign investors in the U.S., and there are numerous collaborations in sectors such as technology, energy, and agriculture.
While there isn’t a specific trilateral alliance involving the U.S., Israel, and the Netherlands, the existing bilateral relationships between these countries contribute to a broader network of economic and strategic cooperation. This network can be seen as part of a larger effort to strengthen ties and address global challenges through collaboration and innovation.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity & restoring the concert of European independent autonomy. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of American voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments. However, achieving this would require significant political maneuvering and overcoming strong widespread bipartisan support for the NATO alliance.
The Federal Reserve, established in 1913, plays a crucial role in managing the U.S. economy. This private Federal Government established monopoly controls the money supply of the nation; it sets & establishes monetary policy. Closing the Federal Reserve and returning the power to mint money back to Congress would be a radical shift, likely causing significant economic uncertainty and instability. This move would require substantial legislative changes, starting with the restoration of States Rights to bureaucratically regulate trade and commerce inside their respective States. The Supreme Court rejection of the earlier Roe vs. Wade ruling strongly supports the priority of the Commerce Clause over the 19th Amendment.
Combining these two major policy shifts—pulling out of NATO and closing the Federal Reserve—utterly unprecedented and a highly controversial strategy. It would require convincing a broad coalition of lawmakers and the American public, navigating complex legal and economic challenges, and addressing the potential geopolitical and financial repercussions.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments.
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate trade and commerce among the states. If Trump were to push for closing down federal bureaucracies and returning these powers to the states, it would be a significant shift in how the U.S. government operates. This move would aim to decentralize power, giving states more control over their own affairs and reducing the federal government’s role in regulating trade and commerce within the larger Republic. Such a strategy could appeal to those who advocate for states’ rights and a smaller federal government.
Trump would need to build a broad coalition of support, leveraging his electoral mandate and appealing to both Republican and Democratic voters who favor States’ rights and reduced federal oversight. This would involve extensive political maneuvering and negotiation, to address the concerns of various stakeholders. Just as the same would equally apply to the European allies within the NATO alliance.
Trump could potentially leverage his negotiation skills to propose a deal where the U.S. pulls out of NATO in exchange for Russia withdrawing from Ukraine and Crimea. Additionally, he could propose returning to a free banking system and gold currency. This would be a highly complex and unprecedented move, requiring significant political maneuvering and concessions, on par with a General on the battlefield.
Combining these elements into a single deal would be an incredibly ambitious and risky strategy. It would require Trump to navigate complex legal, economic, and geopolitical challenges, and to build a broad coalition of support from both Republicans and Democrats and the people of Europe!
Explore the potential consequences of a return to a Congressionally minted gold commodity-based currency, and the restoration of Free banking in America, particularly in the context of the European Union euro fiat currency. Returning to a Congressionally minted commodity-based currency and restoring free banking in America would have profound and far-reaching consequences, especially when compared to the European Union’s euro fiat currency system.
A commodity-based currency, such as one backed by gold, could provide greater stability and control over inflation. Since the money supply would be tied to the availability of the commodity, it would limit the government’s ability to print money indiscriminately. However in times of economic crisis, the government could fall back upon Lincoln’s Greenback precedent.
The Greenbacks represented a departure from the gold standard. Unlike traditional banknotes backed by precious metals, they were essentially “free fiat money” created by the government no different from the current EU euro. Free banking could foster competition and innovation in the financial sector, potentially leading to better services and products for consumers. However, it would also require robust regulatory frameworks to prevent fraud and ensure financial stability.
Back in the 19th century, Hong Kong, together with the United States operated under a free banking system. This system allowed banks to issue their own banknotes, and competition among these banks was quite lively. Hong Kong maintained a three-tier system of deposit-taking institutions: 1) Licenced Banks, the big players. 2) Restricted Licenced Banks, smalling institutions with less privileges. And 3) Deposit-Taking Companies. These specialized in taking deposits. The three collectively known as “authorized institutions.”
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) issued licences to the three branches. Its oversight responsibilities evaluated safety, soundness, risk management, and internal controls using a risk-based approach. The HKMA’s principal function was to “promote the general stability and effective working of the banking system”. Essentially, they were the financial lifeguards, ensuring the stability of the banking pool. In summary, the HKMA played a crucial role in maintaining stability, ensuring banks didn’t go all cowboy with their banknotes, and keeping the financial rodeo under control.
American free banking regulated itself by limiting the power of banks to print banknotes by requiring that banks back up their banknotes with government bonds. The free banking law not only specified which bonds had to be deposited but also set the value of banknotes that could be issued based on a given bond. These government bonds served as collateral for the banknotes. In other words, if a bank wanted to print its own currency, it had to secure it with these bonds.
The free banking law not only specified which bonds had to be deposited but also set the value of banknotes that could be issued based on a given bond. In essence, the value of the banknotes a bank could issue was directly tied to the face value of the government bonds it deposited. When banks faced redemption requests (people wanting to exchange their banknotes for gold or silver), they had to ensure they had enough specie (precious metals) to honor those redemptions.
Restoration of free banking a completely different world than in the Wild West Wildcat banking frauds that so damaged 19th Century American banking. The classic criticism of free banking often focuses on wildcat banking. The bond-value relationship – played a crucial role in determining banking stability.
Restoring free banking and returning to a commodity-based currency could indeed be framed as a way to address the US national debt. By shifting the responsibility of money creation back to Congress and tying it to a tangible asset like gold, the argument could be made that this would limit the ability of the Federal Reserve to create money and thus reduce the national debt.
For Trump to successfully sell the idea of pulling out of NATO and transitioning to a new financial system, he would need to effectively communicate the benefits and address the concerns of the American & European people. Articulating the reasons for these changes and how they align with the “America First” agenda. Emphasizing the potential economic and security benefits could help garner support.
Engaging with the public through town halls, social media, and other platforms to explain the changes and address any concerns directly plays into Trump’s populist appeal with the American people. By addressing concerns and explaining the benefits of his proposed changes, he could build a strong narrative around prioritizing American interests and reducing foreign entanglements. This strategy could help him gain support from a broad spectrum of voters who resonate with the “America First” agenda.
Trump could indeed frame the withdrawal from NATO as a strategic move to prevent a third World War, drawing parallels to the 1856 Crimean War. The Crimean War qualifies as a significant conflict involving Russia and an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain, and Sardinia. The war ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1856, which aimed to maintain the balance of power in Europe and prevent further conflicts.
By referencing this historical precedent, Trump could argue that a similar diplomatic approach could lead to a peaceful resolution in Ukraine and Crimea. He could propose that the U.S. withdrawal from NATO would be contingent on Russia pulling out of Ukraine and Crimea, thereby reducing tensions and promoting stability in Europe.
This strategy would require careful negotiation and significant concessions from both sides. It would also need to address the concerns of NATO allies and ensure that the security of Europe not compromised. However, by emphasizing the potential for peace and stability, Trump could potentially gain support for this bold move.
Trump could indeed frame his decision to pull out of NATO as a gesture of friendship and a commitment to peace, emphasizing that Europe has endured enough conflict. By presenting this move as a way to prevent future wars and promote stability, he could appeal to both American and European audiences. Drawing parallels to historical events like the Crimean War and highlighting the potential for diplomatic solutions could strengthen his argument. This approach would require careful negotiation and significant concessions from all parties involved, but it could resonate with those who prioritize peace and stability over military alliances which resulted in two World Wars in the 20th Century.
Coming Attractions
Trump Leadership in the Free World
Its not 1948 but 2024, Israel dominates the Middle East. In terms of trade port Rotterdam exceeds British trade. Rotterdam’s port is indeed larger in terms of cargo throughput, but the UK’s trade impact extends beyond its physical ports. Both play critical roles in global commerce, albeit in different ways.
Currently the Netherlands ranks 17th in terms of total GDP in the world whereas the British stand at 5th in terms of total GDP. The UK’s main export partners include Germany, Belgium, France, the U.K., and the U.S.
Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port, stands at the crossroads. If Amsterdam gains prominence, it could divert some trade flows away from British ports. The UK’s ranking might shift, like a seesaw balancing sovereignty and economic integration.
London, the financial epicenter, thrives on services—banking, insurance, tech. But Amsterdam’s allure grows. Will British services retain their edge, or will Amsterdam’s charm lure investors and start-ups?
Will British businesses pivot toward this new alliance? Will Jerusalem-Amsterdam become the gateway to Europe? Rankings aren’t static. If the Jerusalem-Amsterdam alliance gains momentum, Rotterdam’s supremacy could challenge British trade domination. Now what if the US Senate voted to negate the NATO alliance? How would this impact British dominance in Europe?
If the U.S. Senate voted to negate the NATO alliance, it would have significant implications for British dominance in Europe. The UK has historically relied on NATO as a cornerstone of its defense strategy and its influence in European security matters. Without the U.S. as a key player in NATO, the alliance’s overall strength and cohesion would be weakened, potentially diminishing the UK’s ability to project power and influence within Europe.
This could lead to a shift in the balance of power, with other European nations, such as Germany and France, stepping up to fill the void left by the U.S. withdrawal. The UK might find itself needing to forge new bilateral or multilateral defence agreements to maintain its strategic position.
Europe has a long history of nation state rivalry. Europe’s history, rich with rivalries—complex, intertwined threads that have shaped the continent’s destiny. In the 20th Century along, this rivalry resulted in two world wars!
The historical concept of the “balance of power” in Europe has shaped centuries of diplomacy, alliances, and conflicts. If the U.S. Senate unilaterally decided to pull out of NATO, several significant consequences and implications would explode. European countries would likely seek to strengthen their own defence capabilities. A U.S. withdrawal could accelerate efforts toward a more independent European defence policy.
Either initiatives like the European Defence Union gains rapid momentum, leading to greater investment in defence spending, joint military operations, and defence industry cooperation within the EU OR the EU collapses as an economic alliance of western European states OR Europe returns to a Concert of Europe balance of power.
A paper tiger NATO would definitely change the balance of power in Europe. Eastern vs Western European countries would present immediate difficulties.
For Trump to sell such a bold move to both the American & European people would require him to campaign like he has so energetically done in 3 Presidential elections! To attain the votes required for the Senate to annul NATO would require no less that 14 Democratic Senators! The only way to pull this off, Trump made Rubio his Secretary of State, this pulled him out of the Senate. Gov DeSantis would have to hold a special election for Rubio to return to the Senate and lead the GOP neo con opposition to Trump’s America First leadership!!
Trump would need to offer substantial incentives or policy concessions that align with the interests of California’s constituents and the broader Democratic agenda. He would face a hard sell likewise among New York Democratic senators.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity & European security. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments.
A U.S. withdrawal from NATO would have profound and far-reaching consequences. It would likely lead to significant political turmoil both domestically and internationally. In the U.S., such a move would spark intense debate and opposition from both parties, given the strong bipartisan support for NATO. It could also lead to a crisis of confidence among U.S. allies, who have long relied on American leadership within the alliance.
In Europe, the impact would be even more dramatic. NATO has been a cornerstone of European security since its inception, and the sudden withdrawal of the U.S. would leave a significant power vacuum. European nations would need to rapidly reassess their defence strategies and potentially increase their own military spending to compensate for the loss of U.S. support. This could lead to increased tensions and instability within the region as countries scramble to adapt to the new security landscape.
If the U.S. were to withdraw from NATO, the resulting political chaos would significantly impact the relationship between Eastern and Western Europe. Eastern European countries, which have relied heavily on NATO for security against potential threats from Russia, would likely feel vulnerable and seek new security arrangements. This could lead to a more fragmented Europe, with Eastern European nations potentially forming their own alliances or seeking closer ties with Western European countries that have strong military capabilities, such as Germany and France.
Western Europe, on the other hand, would need to reassess its security strategy and possibly increase its defence spending to compensate for the loss of U.S. support. This could lead to a more unified European defence policy, with greater cooperation and integration among EU member states. However, the transition period would be marked by uncertainty and potential instability as countries navigate the new security landscape.
The economic trilateral alliance between the U.S., Jerusalem (Israel), and Amsterdam (Netherlands) is not a formalized entity like NATO, but there are significant economic and strategic partnerships among these regions. For example, the U.S. and Israel have a strong strategic partnership, highlighted by initiatives like the Jerusalem US-Israel Strategic Partnership. This partnership focuses on various joint endeavours, including innovation, security, and economic cooperation.
Additionally, the U.S. and the Netherlands have robust economic ties, with both countries being major trading partners. The Netherlands, one of the largest foreign investors in the U.S., and there are numerous collaborations in sectors such as technology, energy, and agriculture.
While there isn’t a specific trilateral alliance involving the U.S., Israel, and the Netherlands, the existing bilateral relationships between these countries contribute to a broader network of economic and strategic cooperation. This network can be seen as part of a larger effort to strengthen ties and address global challenges through collaboration and innovation.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity & restoring the concert of European independent autonomy. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of American voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments. However, achieving this would require significant political maneuvering and overcoming strong widespread bipartisan support for the NATO alliance.
The Federal Reserve, established in 1913, plays a crucial role in managing the U.S. economy. This private Federal Government established monopoly controls the money supply of the nation; it sets & establishes monetary policy. Closing the Federal Reserve and returning the power to mint money back to Congress would be a radical shift, likely causing significant economic uncertainty and instability. This move would require substantial legislative changes, starting with the restoration of States Rights to bureaucratically regulate trade and commerce inside their respective States. The Supreme Court rejection of the earlier Roe vs. Wade ruling strongly supports the priority of the Commerce Clause over the 19th Amendment.
Combining these two major policy shifts—pulling out of NATO and closing the Federal Reserve—utterly unprecedented and a highly controversial strategy. It would require convincing a broad coalition of lawmakers and the American public, navigating complex legal and economic challenges, and addressing the potential geopolitical and financial repercussions.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments.
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate trade and commerce among the states. If Trump were to push for closing down federal bureaucracies and returning these powers to the states, it would be a significant shift in how the U.S. government operates. This move would aim to decentralize power, giving states more control over their own affairs and reducing the federal government’s role in regulating trade and commerce within the larger Republic. Such a strategy could appeal to those who advocate for states’ rights and a smaller federal government.
Trump would need to build a broad coalition of support, leveraging his electoral mandate and appealing to both Republican and Democratic voters who favor States’ rights and reduced federal oversight. This would involve extensive political maneuvering and negotiation, to address the concerns of various stakeholders. Just as the same would equally apply to the European allies within the NATO alliance.
Trump could potentially leverage his negotiation skills to propose a deal where the U.S. pulls out of NATO in exchange for Russia withdrawing from Ukraine and Crimea. Additionally, he could propose returning to a free banking system and gold currency. This would be a highly complex and unprecedented move, requiring significant political maneuvering and concessions, on par with a General on the battlefield.
Combining these elements into a single deal would be an incredibly ambitious and risky strategy. It would require Trump to navigate complex legal, economic, and geopolitical challenges, and to build a broad coalition of support from both Republicans and Democrats and the people of Europe!
Explore the potential consequences of a return to a Congressionally minted gold commodity-based currency, and the restoration of Free banking in America, particularly in the context of the European Union euro fiat currency. Returning to a Congressionally minted commodity-based currency and restoring free banking in America would have profound and far-reaching consequences, especially when compared to the European Union’s euro fiat currency system.
A commodity-based currency, such as one backed by gold, could provide greater stability and control over inflation. Since the money supply would be tied to the availability of the commodity, it would limit the government’s ability to print money indiscriminately. However in times of economic crisis, the government could fall back upon Lincoln’s Greenback precedent.
The Greenbacks represented a departure from the gold standard. Unlike traditional banknotes backed by precious metals, they were essentially “free fiat money” created by the government no different from the current EU euro. Free banking could foster competition and innovation in the financial sector, potentially leading to better services and products for consumers. However, it would also require robust regulatory frameworks to prevent fraud and ensure financial stability.
Back in the 19th century, Hong Kong, together with the United States operated under a free banking system. This system allowed banks to issue their own banknotes, and competition among these banks was quite lively. Hong Kong maintained a three-tier system of deposit-taking institutions: 1) Licenced Banks, the big players. 2) Restricted Licenced Banks, smalling institutions with less privileges. And 3) Deposit-Taking Companies. These specialized in taking deposits. The three collectively known as “authorized institutions.”
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) issued licences to the three branches. Its oversight responsibilities evaluated safety, soundness, risk management, and internal controls using a risk-based approach. The HKMA’s principal function was to “promote the general stability and effective working of the banking system”. Essentially, they were the financial lifeguards, ensuring the stability of the banking pool. In summary, the HKMA played a crucial role in maintaining stability, ensuring banks didn’t go all cowboy with their banknotes, and keeping the financial rodeo under control.
American free banking regulated itself by limiting the power of banks to print banknotes by requiring that banks back up their banknotes with government bonds. The free banking law not only specified which bonds had to be deposited but also set the value of banknotes that could be issued based on a given bond. These government bonds served as collateral for the banknotes. In other words, if a bank wanted to print its own currency, it had to secure it with these bonds.
The free banking law not only specified which bonds had to be deposited but also set the value of banknotes that could be issued based on a given bond. In essence, the value of the banknotes a bank could issue was directly tied to the face value of the government bonds it deposited. When banks faced redemption requests (people wanting to exchange their banknotes for gold or silver), they had to ensure they had enough specie (precious metals) to honor those redemptions.
Restoration of free banking a completely different world than in the Wild West Wildcat banking frauds that so damaged 19th Century American banking. The classic criticism of free banking often focuses on wildcat banking. The bond-value relationship – played a crucial role in determining banking stability.
Restoring free banking and returning to a commodity-based currency could indeed be framed as a way to address the US national debt. By shifting the responsibility of money creation back to Congress and tying it to a tangible asset like gold, the argument could be made that this would limit the ability of the Federal Reserve to create money and thus reduce the national debt.
For Trump to successfully sell the idea of pulling out of NATO and transitioning to a new financial system, he would need to effectively communicate the benefits and address the concerns of the American & European people. Articulating the reasons for these changes and how they align with the “America First” agenda. Emphasizing the potential economic and security benefits could help garner support.
Engaging with the public through town halls, social media, and other platforms to explain the changes and address any concerns directly plays into Trump’s populist appeal with the American people. By addressing concerns and explaining the benefits of his proposed changes, he could build a strong narrative around prioritizing American interests and reducing foreign entanglements. This strategy could help him gain support from a broad spectrum of voters who resonate with the “America First” agenda.
Trump could indeed frame the withdrawal from NATO as a strategic move to prevent a third World War, drawing parallels to the 1856 Crimean War. The Crimean War qualifies as a significant conflict involving Russia and an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain, and Sardinia. The war ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1856, which aimed to maintain the balance of power in Europe and prevent further conflicts.
By referencing this historical precedent, Trump could argue that a similar diplomatic approach could lead to a peaceful resolution in Ukraine and Crimea. He could propose that the U.S. withdrawal from NATO would be contingent on Russia pulling out of Ukraine and Crimea, thereby reducing tensions and promoting stability in Europe.
This strategy would require careful negotiation and significant concessions from both sides. It would also need to address the concerns of NATO allies and ensure that the security of Europe not compromised. However, by emphasizing the potential for peace and stability, Trump could potentially gain support for this bold move.
Trump could indeed frame his decision to pull out of NATO as a gesture of friendship and a commitment to peace, emphasizing that Europe has endured enough conflict. By presenting this move as a way to prevent future wars and promote stability, he could appeal to both American and European audiences. Drawing parallels to historical events like the Crimean War and highlighting the potential for diplomatic solutions could strengthen his argument. This approach would require careful negotiation and significant concessions from all parties involved, but it could resonate with those who prioritize peace and stability over military alliances which resulted in two World Wars in the 20th Century.
Coming Attractions
Trump Leadership in the Free World
Its not 1948 but 2024, Israel dominates the Middle East. In terms of trade port Rotterdam exceeds British trade. Rotterdam’s port is indeed larger in terms of cargo throughput, but the UK’s trade impact extends beyond its physical ports. Both play critical roles in global commerce, albeit in different ways.
Currently the Netherlands ranks 17th in terms of total GDP in the world whereas the British stand at 5th in terms of total GDP. The UK’s main export partners include Germany, Belgium, France, the U.K., and the U.S.
Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port, stands at the crossroads. If Amsterdam gains prominence, it could divert some trade flows away from British ports. The UK’s ranking might shift, like a seesaw balancing sovereignty and economic integration.
London, the financial epicenter, thrives on services—banking, insurance, tech. But Amsterdam’s allure grows. Will British services retain their edge, or will Amsterdam’s charm lure investors and start-ups?
Will British businesses pivot toward this new alliance? Will Jerusalem-Amsterdam become the gateway to Europe? Rankings aren’t static. If the Jerusalem-Amsterdam alliance gains momentum, Rotterdam’s supremacy could challenge British trade domination. Now what if the US Senate voted to negate the NATO alliance? How would this impact British dominance in Europe?
If the U.S. Senate voted to negate the NATO alliance, it would have significant implications for British dominance in Europe. The UK has historically relied on NATO as a cornerstone of its defense strategy and its influence in European security matters. Without the U.S. as a key player in NATO, the alliance’s overall strength and cohesion would be weakened, potentially diminishing the UK’s ability to project power and influence within Europe.
This could lead to a shift in the balance of power, with other European nations, such as Germany and France, stepping up to fill the void left by the U.S. withdrawal. The UK might find itself needing to forge new bilateral or multilateral defence agreements to maintain its strategic position.
Europe has a long history of nation state rivalry. Europe’s history, rich with rivalries—complex, intertwined threads that have shaped the continent’s destiny. In the 20th Century along, this rivalry resulted in two world wars!
The historical concept of the “balance of power” in Europe has shaped centuries of diplomacy, alliances, and conflicts. If the U.S. Senate unilaterally decided to pull out of NATO, several significant consequences and implications would explode. European countries would likely seek to strengthen their own defence capabilities. A U.S. withdrawal could accelerate efforts toward a more independent European defence policy.
Either initiatives like the European Defence Union gains rapid momentum, leading to greater investment in defence spending, joint military operations, and defence industry cooperation within the EU OR the EU collapses as an economic alliance of western European states OR Europe returns to a Concert of Europe balance of power.
A paper tiger NATO would definitely change the balance of power in Europe. Eastern vs Western European countries would present immediate difficulties.
For Trump to sell such a bold move to both the American & European people would require him to campaign like he has so energetically done in 3 Presidential elections! To attain the votes required for the Senate to annul NATO would require no less that 14 Democratic Senators! The only way to pull this off, Trump made Rubio his Secretary of State, this pulled him out of the Senate. Gov DeSantis would have to hold a special election for Rubio to return to the Senate and lead the GOP neo con opposition to Trump’s America First leadership!!
Trump would need to offer substantial incentives or policy concessions that align with the interests of California’s constituents and the broader Democratic agenda. He would face a hard sell likewise among New York Democratic senators.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity & European security. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments.
A U.S. withdrawal from NATO would have profound and far-reaching consequences. It would likely lead to significant political turmoil both domestically and internationally. In the U.S., such a move would spark intense debate and opposition from both parties, given the strong bipartisan support for NATO. It could also lead to a crisis of confidence among U.S. allies, who have long relied on American leadership within the alliance.
In Europe, the impact would be even more dramatic. NATO has been a cornerstone of European security since its inception, and the sudden withdrawal of the U.S. would leave a significant power vacuum. European nations would need to rapidly reassess their defence strategies and potentially increase their own military spending to compensate for the loss of U.S. support. This could lead to increased tensions and instability within the region as countries scramble to adapt to the new security landscape.
If the U.S. were to withdraw from NATO, the resulting political chaos would significantly impact the relationship between Eastern and Western Europe. Eastern European countries, which have relied heavily on NATO for security against potential threats from Russia, would likely feel vulnerable and seek new security arrangements. This could lead to a more fragmented Europe, with Eastern European nations potentially forming their own alliances or seeking closer ties with Western European countries that have strong military capabilities, such as Germany and France.
Western Europe, on the other hand, would need to reassess its security strategy and possibly increase its defence spending to compensate for the loss of U.S. support. This could lead to a more unified European defence policy, with greater cooperation and integration among EU member states. However, the transition period would be marked by uncertainty and potential instability as countries navigate the new security landscape.
The economic trilateral alliance between the U.S., Jerusalem (Israel), and Amsterdam (Netherlands) is not a formalized entity like NATO, but there are significant economic and strategic partnerships among these regions. For example, the U.S. and Israel have a strong strategic partnership, highlighted by initiatives like the Jerusalem US-Israel Strategic Partnership. This partnership focuses on various joint endeavours, including innovation, security, and economic cooperation.
Additionally, the U.S. and the Netherlands have robust economic ties, with both countries being major trading partners. The Netherlands, one of the largest foreign investors in the U.S., and there are numerous collaborations in sectors such as technology, energy, and agriculture.
While there isn’t a specific trilateral alliance involving the U.S., Israel, and the Netherlands, the existing bilateral relationships between these countries contribute to a broader network of economic and strategic cooperation. This network can be seen as part of a larger effort to strengthen ties and address global challenges through collaboration and innovation.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity & restoring the concert of European independent autonomy. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of American voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments. However, achieving this would require significant political maneuvering and overcoming strong widespread bipartisan support for the NATO alliance.
The Federal Reserve, established in 1913, plays a crucial role in managing the U.S. economy. This private Federal Government established monopoly controls the money supply of the nation; it sets & establishes monetary policy. Closing the Federal Reserve and returning the power to mint money back to Congress would be a radical shift, likely causing significant economic uncertainty and instability. This move would require substantial legislative changes, starting with the restoration of States Rights to bureaucratically regulate trade and commerce inside their respective States. The Supreme Court rejection of the earlier Roe vs. Wade ruling strongly supports the priority of the Commerce Clause over the 19th Amendment.
Combining these two major policy shifts—pulling out of NATO and closing the Federal Reserve—utterly unprecedented and a highly controversial strategy. It would require convincing a broad coalition of lawmakers and the American public, navigating complex legal and economic challenges, and addressing the potential geopolitical and financial repercussions.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments.
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate trade and commerce among the states. If Trump were to push for closing down federal bureaucracies and returning these powers to the states, it would be a significant shift in how the U.S. government operates. This move would aim to decentralize power, giving states more control over their own affairs and reducing the federal government’s role in regulating trade and commerce within the larger Republic. Such a strategy could appeal to those who advocate for states’ rights and a smaller federal government.
Trump would need to build a broad coalition of support, leveraging his electoral mandate and appealing to both Republican and Democratic voters who favor States’ rights and reduced federal oversight. This would involve extensive political maneuvering and negotiation, to address the concerns of various stakeholders. Just as the same would equally apply to the European allies within the NATO alliance.
Trump could potentially leverage his negotiation skills to propose a deal where the U.S. pulls out of NATO in exchange for Russia withdrawing from Ukraine and Crimea. Additionally, he could propose returning to a free banking system and gold currency. This would be a highly complex and unprecedented move, requiring significant political maneuvering and concessions, on par with a General on the battlefield.
Combining these elements into a single deal would be an incredibly ambitious and risky strategy. It would require Trump to navigate complex legal, economic, and geopolitical challenges, and to build a broad coalition of support from both Republicans and Democrats and the people of Europe!
Explore the potential consequences of a return to a Congressionally minted gold commodity-based currency, and the restoration of Free banking in America, particularly in the context of the European Union euro fiat currency. Returning to a Congressionally minted commodity-based currency and restoring free banking in America would have profound and far-reaching consequences, especially when compared to the European Union’s euro fiat currency system.
A commodity-based currency, such as one backed by gold, could provide greater stability and control over inflation. Since the money supply would be tied to the availability of the commodity, it would limit the government’s ability to print money indiscriminately. However in times of economic crisis, the government could fall back upon Lincoln’s Greenback precedent.
The Greenbacks represented a departure from the gold standard. Unlike traditional banknotes backed by precious metals, they were essentially “free fiat money” created by the government no different from the current EU euro. Free banking could foster competition and innovation in the financial sector, potentially leading to better services and products for consumers. However, it would also require robust regulatory frameworks to prevent fraud and ensure financial stability.
Back in the 19th century, Hong Kong, together with the United States operated under a free banking system. This system allowed banks to issue their own banknotes, and competition among these banks was quite lively. Hong Kong maintained a three-tier system of deposit-taking institutions: 1) Licenced Banks, the big players. 2) Restricted Licenced Banks, smalling institutions with less privileges. And 3) Deposit-Taking Companies. These specialized in taking deposits. The three collectively known as “authorized institutions.”
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) issued licences to the three branches. Its oversight responsibilities evaluated safety, soundness, risk management, and internal controls using a risk-based approach. The HKMA’s principal function was to “promote the general stability and effective working of the banking system”. Essentially, they were the financial lifeguards, ensuring the stability of the banking pool. In summary, the HKMA played a crucial role in maintaining stability, ensuring banks didn’t go all cowboy with their banknotes, and keeping the financial rodeo under control.
American free banking regulated itself by limiting the power of banks to print banknotes by requiring that banks back up their banknotes with government bonds. The free banking law not only specified which bonds had to be deposited but also set the value of banknotes that could be issued based on a given bond. These government bonds served as collateral for the banknotes. In other words, if a bank wanted to print its own currency, it had to secure it with these bonds.
The free banking law not only specified which bonds had to be deposited but also set the value of banknotes that could be issued based on a given bond. In essence, the value of the banknotes a bank could issue was directly tied to the face value of the government bonds it deposited. When banks faced redemption requests (people wanting to exchange their banknotes for gold or silver), they had to ensure they had enough specie (precious metals) to honor those redemptions.
Restoration of free banking a completely different world than in the Wild West Wildcat banking frauds that so damaged 19th Century American banking. The classic criticism of free banking often focuses on wildcat banking. The bond-value relationship – played a crucial role in determining banking stability.
Restoring free banking and returning to a commodity-based currency could indeed be framed as a way to address the US national debt. By shifting the responsibility of money creation back to Congress and tying it to a tangible asset like gold, the argument could be made that this would limit the ability of the Federal Reserve to create money and thus reduce the national debt.
For Trump to successfully sell the idea of pulling out of NATO and transitioning to a new financial system, he would need to effectively communicate the benefits and address the concerns of the American & European people. Articulating the reasons for these changes and how they align with the “America First” agenda. Emphasizing the potential economic and security benefits could help garner support.
Engaging with the public through town halls, social media, and other platforms to explain the changes and address any concerns directly plays into Trump’s populist appeal with the American people. By addressing concerns and explaining the benefits of his proposed changes, he could build a strong narrative around prioritizing American interests and reducing foreign entanglements. This strategy could help him gain support from a broad spectrum of voters who resonate with the “America First” agenda.
Trump could indeed frame the withdrawal from NATO as a strategic move to prevent a third World War, drawing parallels to the 1856 Crimean War. The Crimean War qualifies as a significant conflict involving Russia and an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain, and Sardinia. The war ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1856, which aimed to maintain the balance of power in Europe and prevent further conflicts.
By referencing this historical precedent, Trump could argue that a similar diplomatic approach could lead to a peaceful resolution in Ukraine and Crimea. He could propose that the U.S. withdrawal from NATO would be contingent on Russia pulling out of Ukraine and Crimea, thereby reducing tensions and promoting stability in Europe.
This strategy would require careful negotiation and significant concessions from both sides. It would also need to address the concerns of NATO allies and ensure that the security of Europe not compromised. However, by emphasizing the potential for peace and stability, Trump could potentially gain support for this bold move.
Trump could indeed frame his decision to pull out of NATO as a gesture of friendship and a commitment to peace, emphasizing that Europe has endured enough conflict. By presenting this move as a way to prevent future wars and promote stability, he could appeal to both American and European audiences. Drawing parallels to historical events like the Crimean War and highlighting the potential for diplomatic solutions could strengthen his argument. This approach would require careful negotiation and significant concessions from all parties involved, but it could resonate with those who prioritize peace and stability over military alliances which resulted in two World Wars in the 20th Century.
Coming Attractions
Trump Leadership in the Free World
Its not 1948 but 2024, Israel dominates the Middle East. In terms of trade port Rotterdam exceeds British trade. Rotterdam’s port is indeed larger in terms of cargo throughput, but the UK’s trade impact extends beyond its physical ports. Both play critical roles in global commerce, albeit in different ways.
Currently the Netherlands ranks 17th in terms of total GDP in the world whereas the British stand at 5th in terms of total GDP. The UK’s main export partners include Germany, Belgium, France, the U.K., and the U.S.
Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port, stands at the crossroads. If Amsterdam gains prominence, it could divert some trade flows away from British ports. The UK’s ranking might shift, like a seesaw balancing sovereignty and economic integration.
London, the financial epicenter, thrives on services—banking, insurance, tech. But Amsterdam’s allure grows. Will British services retain their edge, or will Amsterdam’s charm lure investors and start-ups?
Will British businesses pivot toward this new alliance? Will Jerusalem-Amsterdam become the gateway to Europe? Rankings aren’t static. If the Jerusalem-Amsterdam alliance gains momentum, Rotterdam’s supremacy could challenge British trade domination. Now what if the US Senate voted to negate the NATO alliance? How would this impact British dominance in Europe?
If the U.S. Senate voted to negate the NATO alliance, it would have significant implications for British dominance in Europe. The UK has historically relied on NATO as a cornerstone of its defense strategy and its influence in European security matters. Without the U.S. as a key player in NATO, the alliance’s overall strength and cohesion would be weakened, potentially diminishing the UK’s ability to project power and influence within Europe.
This could lead to a shift in the balance of power, with other European nations, such as Germany and France, stepping up to fill the void left by the U.S. withdrawal. The UK might find itself needing to forge new bilateral or multilateral defence agreements to maintain its strategic position.
Europe has a long history of nation state rivalry. Europe’s history, rich with rivalries—complex, intertwined threads that have shaped the continent’s destiny. In the 20th Century along, this rivalry resulted in two world wars!
The historical concept of the “balance of power” in Europe has shaped centuries of diplomacy, alliances, and conflicts. If the U.S. Senate unilaterally decided to pull out of NATO, several significant consequences and implications would explode. European countries would likely seek to strengthen their own defence capabilities. A U.S. withdrawal could accelerate efforts toward a more independent European defence policy.
Either initiatives like the European Defence Union gains rapid momentum, leading to greater investment in defence spending, joint military operations, and defence industry cooperation within the EU OR the EU collapses as an economic alliance of western European states OR Europe returns to a Concert of Europe balance of power.
A paper tiger NATO would definitely change the balance of power in Europe. Eastern vs Western European countries would present immediate difficulties.
For Trump to sell such a bold move to both the American & European people would require him to campaign like he has so energetically done in 3 Presidential elections! To attain the votes required for the Senate to annul NATO would require no less that 14 Democratic Senators! The only way to pull this off, Trump made Rubio his Secretary of State, this pulled him out of the Senate. Gov DeSantis would have to hold a special election for Rubio to return to the Senate and lead the GOP neo con opposition to Trump’s America First leadership!!
Trump would need to offer substantial incentives or policy concessions that align with the interests of California’s constituents and the broader Democratic agenda. He would face a hard sell likewise among New York Democratic senators.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity & European security. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments.
A U.S. withdrawal from NATO would have profound and far-reaching consequences. It would likely lead to significant political turmoil both domestically and internationally. In the U.S., such a move would spark intense debate and opposition from both parties, given the strong bipartisan support for NATO. It could also lead to a crisis of confidence among U.S. allies, who have long relied on American leadership within the alliance.
In Europe, the impact would be even more dramatic. NATO has been a cornerstone of European security since its inception, and the sudden withdrawal of the U.S. would leave a significant power vacuum. European nations would need to rapidly reassess their defence strategies and potentially increase their own military spending to compensate for the loss of U.S. support. This could lead to increased tensions and instability within the region as countries scramble to adapt to the new security landscape.
If the U.S. were to withdraw from NATO, the resulting political chaos would significantly impact the relationship between Eastern and Western Europe. Eastern European countries, which have relied heavily on NATO for security against potential threats from Russia, would likely feel vulnerable and seek new security arrangements. This could lead to a more fragmented Europe, with Eastern European nations potentially forming their own alliances or seeking closer ties with Western European countries that have strong military capabilities, such as Germany and France.
Western Europe, on the other hand, would need to reassess its security strategy and possibly increase its defence spending to compensate for the loss of U.S. support. This could lead to a more unified European defence policy, with greater cooperation and integration among EU member states. However, the transition period would be marked by uncertainty and potential instability as countries navigate the new security landscape.
The economic trilateral alliance between the U.S., Jerusalem (Israel), and Amsterdam (Netherlands) is not a formalized entity like NATO, but there are significant economic and strategic partnerships among these regions. For example, the U.S. and Israel have a strong strategic partnership, highlighted by initiatives like the Jerusalem US-Israel Strategic Partnership. This partnership focuses on various joint endeavours, including innovation, security, and economic cooperation.
Additionally, the U.S. and the Netherlands have robust economic ties, with both countries being major trading partners. The Netherlands, one of the largest foreign investors in the U.S., and there are numerous collaborations in sectors such as technology, energy, and agriculture.
While there isn’t a specific trilateral alliance involving the U.S., Israel, and the Netherlands, the existing bilateral relationships between these countries contribute to a broader network of economic and strategic cooperation. This network can be seen as part of a larger effort to strengthen ties and address global challenges through collaboration and innovation.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity & restoring the concert of European independent autonomy. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of American voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments. However, achieving this would require significant political maneuvering and overcoming strong widespread bipartisan support for the NATO alliance.
The Federal Reserve, established in 1913, plays a crucial role in managing the U.S. economy. This private Federal Government established monopoly controls the money supply of the nation; it sets & establishes monetary policy. Closing the Federal Reserve and returning the power to mint money back to Congress would be a radical shift, likely causing significant economic uncertainty and instability. This move would require substantial legislative changes, starting with the restoration of States Rights to bureaucratically regulate trade and commerce inside their respective States. The Supreme Court rejection of the earlier Roe vs. Wade ruling strongly supports the priority of the Commerce Clause over the 19th Amendment.
Combining these two major policy shifts—pulling out of NATO and closing the Federal Reserve—utterly unprecedented and a highly controversial strategy. It would require convincing a broad coalition of lawmakers and the American public, navigating complex legal and economic challenges, and addressing the potential geopolitical and financial repercussions.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments.
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate trade and commerce among the states. If Trump were to push for closing down federal bureaucracies and returning these powers to the states, it would be a significant shift in how the U.S. government operates. This move would aim to decentralize power, giving states more control over their own affairs and reducing the federal government’s role in regulating trade and commerce within the larger Republic. Such a strategy could appeal to those who advocate for states’ rights and a smaller federal government.
Trump would need to build a broad coalition of support, leveraging his electoral mandate and appealing to both Republican and Democratic voters who favor States’ rights and reduced federal oversight. This would involve extensive political maneuvering and negotiation, to address the concerns of various stakeholders. Just as the same would equally apply to the European allies within the NATO alliance.
Trump could potentially leverage his negotiation skills to propose a deal where the U.S. pulls out of NATO in exchange for Russia withdrawing from Ukraine and Crimea. Additionally, he could propose returning to a free banking system and gold currency. This would be a highly complex and unprecedented move, requiring significant political maneuvering and concessions, on par with a General on the battlefield.
Combining these elements into a single deal would be an incredibly ambitious and risky strategy. It would require Trump to navigate complex legal, economic, and geopolitical challenges, and to build a broad coalition of support from both Republicans and Democrats and the people of Europe!
Explore the potential consequences of a return to a Congressionally minted gold commodity-based currency, and the restoration of Free banking in America, particularly in the context of the European Union euro fiat currency. Returning to a Congressionally minted commodity-based currency and restoring free banking in America would have profound and far-reaching consequences, especially when compared to the European Union’s euro fiat currency system.
A commodity-based currency, such as one backed by gold, could provide greater stability and control over inflation. Since the money supply would be tied to the availability of the commodity, it would limit the government’s ability to print money indiscriminately. However in times of economic crisis, the government could fall back upon Lincoln’s Greenback precedent.
The Greenbacks represented a departure from the gold standard. Unlike traditional banknotes backed by precious metals, they were essentially “free fiat money” created by the government no different from the current EU euro. Free banking could foster competition and innovation in the financial sector, potentially leading to better services and products for consumers. However, it would also require robust regulatory frameworks to prevent fraud and ensure financial stability.
Back in the 19th century, Hong Kong, together with the United States operated under a free banking system. This system allowed banks to issue their own banknotes, and competition among these banks was quite lively. Hong Kong maintained a three-tier system of deposit-taking institutions: 1) Licenced Banks, the big players. 2) Restricted Licenced Banks, smalling institutions with less privileges. And 3) Deposit-Taking Companies. These specialized in taking deposits. The three collectively known as “authorized institutions.”
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) issued licences to the three branches. Its oversight responsibilities evaluated safety, soundness, risk management, and internal controls using a risk-based approach. The HKMA’s principal function was to “promote the general stability and effective working of the banking system”. Essentially, they were the financial lifeguards, ensuring the stability of the banking pool. In summary, the HKMA played a crucial role in maintaining stability, ensuring banks didn’t go all cowboy with their banknotes, and keeping the financial rodeo under control.
American free banking regulated itself by limiting the power of banks to print banknotes by requiring that banks back up their banknotes with government bonds. The free banking law not only specified which bonds had to be deposited but also set the value of banknotes that could be issued based on a given bond. These government bonds served as collateral for the banknotes. In other words, if a bank wanted to print its own currency, it had to secure it with these bonds.
The free banking law not only specified which bonds had to be deposited but also set the value of banknotes that could be issued based on a given bond. In essence, the value of the banknotes a bank could issue was directly tied to the face value of the government bonds it deposited. When banks faced redemption requests (people wanting to exchange their banknotes for gold or silver), they had to ensure they had enough specie (precious metals) to honor those redemptions.
Restoration of free banking a completely different world than in the Wild West Wildcat banking frauds that so damaged 19th Century American banking. The classic criticism of free banking often focuses on wildcat banking. The bond-value relationship – played a crucial role in determining banking stability.
Restoring free banking and returning to a commodity-based currency could indeed be framed as a way to address the US national debt. By shifting the responsibility of money creation back to Congress and tying it to a tangible asset like gold, the argument could be made that this would limit the ability of the Federal Reserve to create money and thus reduce the national debt.
For Trump to successfully sell the idea of pulling out of NATO and transitioning to a new financial system, he would need to effectively communicate the benefits and address the concerns of the American & European people. Articulating the reasons for these changes and how they align with the “America First” agenda. Emphasizing the potential economic and security benefits could help garner support.
Engaging with the public through town halls, social media, and other platforms to explain the changes and address any concerns directly plays into Trump’s populist appeal with the American people. By addressing concerns and explaining the benefits of his proposed changes, he could build a strong narrative around prioritizing American interests and reducing foreign entanglements. This strategy could help him gain support from a broad spectrum of voters who resonate with the “America First” agenda.
Trump could indeed frame the withdrawal from NATO as a strategic move to prevent a third World War, drawing parallels to the 1856 Crimean War. The Crimean War qualifies as a significant conflict involving Russia and an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain, and Sardinia. The war ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1856, which aimed to maintain the balance of power in Europe and prevent further conflicts.
By referencing this historical precedent, Trump could argue that a similar diplomatic approach could lead to a peaceful resolution in Ukraine and Crimea. He could propose that the U.S. withdrawal from NATO would be contingent on Russia pulling out of Ukraine and Crimea, thereby reducing tensions and promoting stability in Europe.
This strategy would require careful negotiation and significant concessions from both sides. It would also need to address the concerns of NATO allies and ensure that the security of Europe not compromised. However, by emphasizing the potential for peace and stability, Trump could potentially gain support for this bold move.
Trump could indeed frame his decision to pull out of NATO as a gesture of friendship and a commitment to peace, emphasizing that Europe has endured enough conflict. By presenting this move as a way to prevent future wars and promote stability, he could appeal to both American and European audiences. Drawing parallels to historical events like the Crimean War and highlighting the potential for diplomatic solutions could strengthen his argument. This approach would require careful negotiation and significant concessions from all parties involved, but it could resonate with those who prioritize peace and stability over military alliances which resulted in two World Wars in the 20th Century.
2nd Term Coming Attractions
Trump Leadership in the Free World
Its not 1948 but 2024, Israel dominates the Middle East. In terms of trade port Rotterdam exceeds British trade. Rotterdam’s port is indeed larger in terms of cargo throughput, but the UK’s trade impact extends beyond its physical ports. Both play critical roles in global commerce, albeit in different ways.
Currently the Netherlands ranks 17th in terms of total GDP in the world whereas the British stand at 5th in terms of total GDP. The UK’s main export partners include Germany, Belgium, France, the U.K., and the U.S.
Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port, stands at the crossroads. If Amsterdam gains prominence, it could divert some trade flows away from British ports. The UK’s ranking might shift, like a seesaw balancing sovereignty and economic integration.
London, the financial epicenter, thrives on services—banking, insurance, tech. But Amsterdam’s allure grows. Will British services retain their edge, or will Amsterdam’s charm lure investors and start-ups?
Will British businesses pivot toward this new alliance? Will Jerusalem-Amsterdam become the gateway to Europe? Rankings aren’t static. If the Jerusalem-Amsterdam alliance gains momentum, Rotterdam’s supremacy could challenge British trade domination. Now what if the US Senate voted to negate the NATO alliance? How would this impact British dominance in Europe?
If the U.S. Senate voted to negate the NATO alliance, it would have significant implications for British dominance in Europe. The UK has historically relied on NATO as a cornerstone of its defense strategy and its influence in European security matters. Without the U.S. as a key player in NATO, the alliance’s overall strength and cohesion would be weakened, potentially diminishing the UK’s ability to project power and influence within Europe.
This could lead to a shift in the balance of power, with other European nations, such as Germany and France, stepping up to fill the void left by the U.S. withdrawal. The UK might find itself needing to forge new bilateral or multilateral defence agreements to maintain its strategic position.
Europe has a long history of nation state rivalry. Europe’s history, rich with rivalries—complex, intertwined threads that have shaped the continent’s destiny. In the 20th Century along, this rivalry resulted in two world wars!
The historical concept of the “balance of power” in Europe has shaped centuries of diplomacy, alliances, and conflicts. If the U.S. Senate unilaterally decided to pull out of NATO, several significant consequences and implications would explode. European countries would likely seek to strengthen their own defence capabilities. A U.S. withdrawal could accelerate efforts toward a more independent European defence policy.
Either initiatives like the European Defence Union gains rapid momentum, leading to greater investment in defence spending, joint military operations, and defence industry cooperation within the EU OR the EU collapses as an economic alliance of western European states OR Europe returns to a Concert of Europe balance of power.
A paper tiger NATO would definitely change the balance of power in Europe. Eastern vs Western European countries would present immediate difficulties.
For Trump to sell such a bold move to both the American & European people would require him to campaign like he has so energetically done in 3 Presidential elections! To attain the votes required for the Senate to annul NATO would require no less that 14 Democratic Senators! The only way to pull this off, Trump made Rubio his Secretary of State, this pulled him out of the Senate. Gov DeSantis would have to hold a special election for Rubio to return to the Senate and lead the GOP neo con opposition to Trump’s America First leadership!!
Trump would need to offer substantial incentives or policy concessions that align with the interests of California’s constituents and the broader Democratic agenda. He would face a hard sell likewise among New York Democratic senators.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity & European security. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments.
A U.S. withdrawal from NATO would have profound and far-reaching consequences. It would likely lead to significant political turmoil both domestically and internationally. In the U.S., such a move would spark intense debate and opposition from both parties, given the strong bipartisan support for NATO. It could also lead to a crisis of confidence among U.S. allies, who have long relied on American leadership within the alliance.
In Europe, the impact would be even more dramatic. NATO has been a cornerstone of European security since its inception, and the sudden withdrawal of the U.S. would leave a significant power vacuum. European nations would need to rapidly reassess their defence strategies and potentially increase their own military spending to compensate for the loss of U.S. support. This could lead to increased tensions and instability within the region as countries scramble to adapt to the new security landscape.
If the U.S. were to withdraw from NATO, the resulting political chaos would significantly impact the relationship between Eastern and Western Europe. Eastern European countries, which have relied heavily on NATO for security against potential threats from Russia, would likely feel vulnerable and seek new security arrangements. This could lead to a more fragmented Europe, with Eastern European nations potentially forming their own alliances or seeking closer ties with Western European countries that have strong military capabilities, such as Germany and France.
Western Europe, on the other hand, would need to reassess its security strategy and possibly increase its defence spending to compensate for the loss of U.S. support. This could lead to a more unified European defence policy, with greater cooperation and integration among EU member states. However, the transition period would be marked by uncertainty and potential instability as countries navigate the new security landscape.
The economic trilateral alliance between the U.S., Jerusalem (Israel), and Amsterdam (Netherlands) is not a formalized entity like NATO, but there are significant economic and strategic partnerships among these regions. For example, the U.S. and Israel have a strong strategic partnership, highlighted by initiatives like the Jerusalem US-Israel Strategic Partnership. This partnership focuses on various joint endeavours, including innovation, security, and economic cooperation.
Additionally, the U.S. and the Netherlands have robust economic ties, with both countries being major trading partners. The Netherlands, one of the largest foreign investors in the U.S., and there are numerous collaborations in sectors such as technology, energy, and agriculture.
While there isn’t a specific trilateral alliance involving the U.S., Israel, and the Netherlands, the existing bilateral relationships between these countries contribute to a broader network of economic and strategic cooperation. This network can be seen as part of a larger effort to strengthen ties and address global challenges through collaboration and innovation.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity & restoring the concert of European independent autonomy. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of American voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments. However, achieving this would require significant political maneuvering and overcoming strong widespread bipartisan support for the NATO alliance.
The Federal Reserve, established in 1913, plays a crucial role in managing the U.S. economy. This private Federal Government established monopoly controls the money supply of the nation; it sets & establishes monetary policy. Closing the Federal Reserve and returning the power to mint money back to Congress would be a radical shift, likely causing significant economic uncertainty and instability. This move would require substantial legislative changes, starting with the restoration of States Rights to bureaucratically regulate trade and commerce inside their respective States. The Supreme Court rejection of the earlier Roe vs. Wade ruling strongly supports the priority of the Commerce Clause over the 19th Amendment.
Combining these two major policy shifts—pulling out of NATO and closing the Federal Reserve—utterly unprecedented and a highly controversial strategy. It would require convincing a broad coalition of lawmakers and the American public, navigating complex legal and economic challenges, and addressing the potential geopolitical and financial repercussions.
Trump’s “America First” strategy aims to transcend party lines and appeal to a broader sense of national unity. By framing the withdrawal from NATO as a move to prioritize American interests and reduce foreign entanglements, he could potentially rally support from a diverse range of voters. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty and self-reliance, which might resonate with those who feel disillusioned by prolonged international commitments.
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate trade and commerce among the states. If Trump were to push for closing down federal bureaucracies and returning these powers to the states, it would be a significant shift in how the U.S. government operates. This move would aim to decentralize power, giving states more control over their own affairs and reducing the federal government’s role in regulating trade and commerce within the larger Republic. Such a strategy could appeal to those who advocate for states’ rights and a smaller federal government.
Trump would need to build a broad coalition of support, leveraging his electoral mandate and appealing to both Republican and Democratic voters who favor States’ rights and reduced federal oversight. This would involve extensive political maneuvering and negotiation, to address the concerns of various stakeholders. Just as the same would equally apply to the European allies within the NATO alliance.
Trump could potentially leverage his negotiation skills to propose a deal where the U.S. pulls out of NATO in exchange for Russia withdrawing from Ukraine and Crimea. Additionally, he could propose returning to a free banking system and gold currency. This would be a highly complex and unprecedented move, requiring significant political maneuvering and concessions, on par with a General on the battlefield.
Combining these elements into a single deal would be an incredibly ambitious and risky strategy. It would require Trump to navigate complex legal, economic, and geopolitical challenges, and to build a broad coalition of support from both Republicans and Democrats and the people of Europe!
Explore the potential consequences of a return to a Congressionally minted gold commodity-based currency, and the restoration of Free banking in America, particularly in the context of the European Union euro fiat currency. Returning to a Congressionally minted commodity-based currency and restoring free banking in America would have profound and far-reaching consequences, especially when compared to the European Union’s euro fiat currency system.
A commodity-based currency, such as one backed by gold, could provide greater stability and control over inflation. Since the money supply would be tied to the availability of the commodity, it would limit the government’s ability to print money indiscriminately. However in times of economic crisis, the government could fall back upon Lincoln’s Greenback precedent.
The Greenbacks represented a departure from the gold standard. Unlike traditional banknotes backed by precious metals, they were essentially “free fiat money” created by the government no different from the current EU euro. Free banking could foster competition and innovation in the financial sector, potentially leading to better services and products for consumers. However, it would also require robust regulatory frameworks to prevent fraud and ensure financial stability.
Back in the 19th century, Hong Kong, together with the United States operated under a free banking system. This system allowed banks to issue their own banknotes, and competition among these banks was quite lively. Hong Kong maintained a three-tier system of deposit-taking institutions: 1) Licenced Banks, the big players. 2) Restricted Licenced Banks, smalling institutions with less privileges. And 3) Deposit-Taking Companies. These specialized in taking deposits. The three collectively known as “authorized institutions.”
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) issued licences to the three branches. Its oversight responsibilities evaluated safety, soundness, risk management, and internal controls using a risk-based approach. The HKMA’s principal function was to “promote the general stability and effective working of the banking system”. Essentially, they were the financial lifeguards, ensuring the stability of the banking pool. In summary, the HKMA played a crucial role in maintaining stability, ensuring banks didn’t go all cowboy with their banknotes, and keeping the financial rodeo under control.
American free banking regulated itself by limiting the power of banks to print banknotes by requiring that banks back up their banknotes with government bonds. The free banking law not only specified which bonds had to be deposited but also set the value of banknotes that could be issued based on a given bond. These government bonds served as collateral for the banknotes. In other words, if a bank wanted to print its own currency, it had to secure it with these bonds.
The free banking law not only specified which bonds had to be deposited but also set the value of banknotes that could be issued based on a given bond. In essence, the value of the banknotes a bank could issue was directly tied to the face value of the government bonds it deposited. When banks faced redemption requests (people wanting to exchange their banknotes for gold or silver), they had to ensure they had enough specie (precious metals) to honor those redemptions.
Restoration of free banking a completely different world than in the Wild West Wildcat banking frauds that so damaged 19th Century American banking. The classic criticism of free banking often focuses on wildcat banking. The bond-value relationship – played a crucial role in determining banking stability.
Restoring free banking and returning to a commodity-based currency could indeed be framed as a way to address the US national debt. By shifting the responsibility of money creation back to Congress and tying it to a tangible asset like gold, the argument could be made that this would limit the ability of the Federal Reserve to create money and thus reduce the national debt.
For Trump to successfully sell the idea of pulling out of NATO and transitioning to a new financial system, he would need to effectively communicate the benefits and address the concerns of the American & European people. Articulating the reasons for these changes and how they align with the “America First” agenda. Emphasizing the potential economic and security benefits could help garner support.
Engaging with the public through town halls, social media, and other platforms to explain the changes and address any concerns directly plays into Trump’s populist appeal with the American people. By addressing concerns and explaining the benefits of his proposed changes, he could build a strong narrative around prioritizing American interests and reducing foreign entanglements. This strategy could help him gain support from a broad spectrum of voters who resonate with the “America First” agenda.
Trump could indeed frame the withdrawal from NATO as a strategic move to prevent a third World War, drawing parallels to the 1856 Crimean War. The Crimean War qualifies as a significant conflict involving Russia and an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain, and Sardinia. The war ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1856, which aimed to maintain the balance of power in Europe and prevent further conflicts.
By referencing this historical precedent, Trump could argue that a similar diplomatic approach could lead to a peaceful resolution in Ukraine and Crimea. He could propose that the U.S. withdrawal from NATO would be contingent on Russia pulling out of Ukraine and Crimea, thereby reducing tensions and promoting stability in Europe.
This strategy would require careful negotiation and significant concessions from both sides. It would also need to address the concerns of NATO allies and ensure that the security of Europe not compromised. However, by emphasizing the potential for peace and stability, Trump could potentially gain support for this bold move.
Trump could indeed frame his decision to pull out of NATO as a gesture of friendship and a commitment to peace, emphasizing that Europe has endured enough conflict. By presenting this move as a way to prevent future wars and promote stability, he could appeal to both American and European audiences. Drawing parallels to historical events like the Crimean War and highlighting the potential for diplomatic solutions could strengthen his argument. This approach would require careful negotiation and significant concessions from all parties involved, but it could resonate with those who prioritize peace and stability over military alliances which resulted in two World Wars in the 20th Century.
Conflict Resolution 