RUTHFULLY YOURS

BRUSSELS—European governments endorsed a plan aimed at building military cooperation so that the bloc could act alone, as pressure builds on the region to increase its own military spending with the election of Donald Trump.

European Union ministers decided Monday to move forward with a proposal to create a new planning organization to oversee training missions and to make greater use of its standing military crisis-response units.

But they made little progress on the more sweeping proposals from Brussels over the summer to build common military capabilities or tap EU funding for defense projects.

Expanding defense cooperation via the EU has long been controversial. Britain has blocked a number of proposals in the past, preferring to work to strengthen security through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization instead.

But the U.K.’s decision to leave the EU and, now, the election of Mr. Trump have given fresh impetus for efforts to build what officials call Europe’s “strategic autonomy,” an ability to act independently of other major powers. In his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump questioned the relevance of the NATO military alliance and suggested American military support could be conditional on European military spending.

According to a statement published after their meeting on Monday, the foreign and defense ministers said they were committed to strengthening the EU’s ability to act as a security provider.

“This will enhance its global strategic role and its capacity to act autonomously when and where necessary and with partners wherever possible,” they said.

Federica Mogherini, the EU foreign-policy chief called the agreement a “qualitative leap.” But even supporters of more cooperation, such as Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni, were more reserved, calling Monday’s decision a small step, albeit “in a very important strategic direction.”

Forging consensus in the EU is difficult, and divisions remain in the bloc over how to increase military spending or create new military capabilities. The agreements reached Monday fall far short of the military command-and-control headquarters some nations wanted, or an EU army, a proposal that never had wide support.

Member states are still considering options for some EU governments to enter into an agreement for a deeper defense cooperation, including working together to develop new weapons systems and military capabilities that Europe currently relies on the U.S. for. CONTINUE AT SITE

The European Union greeted Donald Trump’s election with gnashing of teeth and a typically chaotic “emergency summit” in Brussels over the weekend. Please, folks, get a grip.

This isn’t to say Europe doesn’t have cause for concern. The President-elect’s antitrade convictions could be economically and politically damaging on both sides of the Atlantic. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks between the U.S. and EU may suffer the same fate as the Pacific trade talks did last week.

Mr. Trump’s soft spot for Vladimir Putin could exacerbate divisions between EU hawks and doves on the bloc’s response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Mr. Trump also questioned America’s commitment to NATO, though he has since walked that back. One of his surrogates, Newt Gingrich, raised doubts about the U.S. commitment to smaller allies such as Estonia, which the former House Speaker described as a suburb of St. Petersburg.

But the EU bears some responsibility for alienating American voters who have trouble understanding the rationale for continued U.S. support for European security or free trade. One of Mr. Trump’s legitimate complaints about NATO is that only Estonia, Greece, Poland, the U.S. and U.K. meet the pact’s minimum requirement of spending 2% of GDP on defense.

In 2014 the newsweekly Der Spiegel noted that Germany, which spends about 1% of its gross domestic product on defense, would be able to deploy a grand total of 10 attack helicopters, 80 jet fighters and one submarine in a war. This in a country with a GDP of nearly $3.5 trillion. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump is the candidate who vowed to increase U.S. defense spending after years of declines under President Obama.

The EU also hasn’t covered itself in glory on trade. French and German politicians declared TTIP dead earlier this year even as the Obama Administration was trying to keep hopes for a deal alive. The EU did manage recently to conclude a free-trade deal with Canada, but only after barely overcoming a veto by Belgian dairy farmers. Decades of demagogy in Europe about the evils of all things American, from genetically modified foods to the “cowboy” instincts of U.S. foreign policy, haven’t exactly fostered a spirit of trans-Atlantic amity.

When will we see the emergence of a leader immune to the PC hectoring and abuse heaped on the US president-elect? Whenever that figure rises on our public stage, expect the same reaction we are seeing on the streets of the US: the impotent fury of the irrelevant left.
I still don’t believe it – Hillary Clinton is not POTUS. A ghost somewhat resembling Ronald Reagan is back in the saddle, the Clintons are relegated to history’s dustbin (and perhaps the penal system) and the Left, as usual, is both wrong and furious. I did not mention Ronald Reagan by mistake – the parallels are plentiful, especially in the vilification department.

There are more than enough post-mortems of the miraculously, marvelously upsetting and unexpected outcome of these elections, all featuring the allegedly wise heads who said a Trump triumph was impossible but who now, once again and undaunted, dispense their oracular wisdom about what the future will hold. In case you can’t guess, by their accounting it will be mostly terrible. I will not tell you why did Donald Trump won, except to note that, judging by the impotent fury of progressives and aggressives, various minorities and terminal idiots, the right person won the prize. The high-decibel rabble now protesting democracy and its result in America are livid that their countrymen — their lesser countrymen, as they would have it — dared to think for themselves, refused to do as they were told. How typical of the Left, which professes to love democracy but only until such time when the elections don’t go their way.

There is yet more comic relief from the ranks of the Republican elite, where we can observe an indecent haste to eat their words, uttered so recently with indignation and righteous fury when disowning their own candidate. Now the same scolds and naysayers are, pardon the pun, trumpling each other in a race to gather the crumbs of power from the table of the man they urged their fellow Americans to scorn in the voting booth. This is the same guy they maligned, undermined and betrayed at every turn. It is better to watch than a five-ring circus, albeit with more than the usual quota of clowns. To the extent that our political stage here in Australia is a sideshow beside the big top of US politics, the critics-turned-supplicants bring to mind our very own Malcolm Turnbull, PM, who bucketed Pauline Hanson in the run-up to the election and must now work with the very same woman he denigrated and reviled. You would have to be Niki Savva (or have a hubby working in the PM’s office) to see anything but an egomaniacal blowhard’s folly in that little prime ministerial outburst.

But I was talking about a US election, so let me observe that, as a long-term student of the American system, I can’t remember such fury after any other election which did not go the left’s way. Why such a strong feeling this time? I am mildly concerned that the combination of the left’s frustration and presumed moral superiority might prompt episodes of armed violence, as idiots consider it their right and obligation to resist “tyranny”. It is an impression enhanced by an internet meme doing the rounds as I type — a Facebook post allegedly authored by Hollywood scriptwriter Paul Schrader. It may be a hoax — I hope it is — but the currency of its instantly widespread circulation and endorsements is deeply unsettling. Here is the post that thousands of disgruntled leftists are “liking” (emphasis added):

I have spent the last five days meditating on Trump’s election. Upon consideration, I believe this is a call to violence. I felt the call to violence in the 60’s and I feel it now again. This attack on liberty and tolerance will not be solved by appeasement. Obama tried that for eight years. We should finance those who support violence resistance. We should be willing to take arms. Like Old John Brown, I am willing to battle with my children. Alt-right nut jobs swagger violence. It’s time to actualize that violence, Like by Civil War Michigan predecessors I choose to stand with the black, the brown and the oppressed.

The arrogant claim to the moral high ground by European elites has no basis in reality.

There is no respect for freedom and democracy on a continent where citizens, such as the politician Geert Wilders, are arrested and prosecuted by in a court of law for speaking their minds freely about topics that the authorities find it expedient not to debate in public.

Freedom, respect for the rule of law, and people’s race, religion and gender have never been less respected and protected in Germany during the post-WWII era than under Merkel. German authorities have completely failed to protect women, Christians and others from the chaos unleashed by the mass, unvetted, immigration of mainly Muslim migrants from Africa and the Middle East. The rule of law is anything but “respected” in Germany.

Not everyone is “panicking”. UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, rejected the invitation and told his colleagues to end their “collective whinge-o-rama” about the U.S. election result.

Critics of the U.S. election omitted, however, the runaway lawlessness, divisiveness and corruption that American voters declined to reinstate.

“A world is collapsing before our eyes”, tweeted the French ambassador to the United States, Gerard Araud, as it became clear that Donald Trump had won the US presidential election. Although he later apparently deleted the tweet, the sentiment expressed in his tweet encapsulates the attitude of the majority of the European political establishment.

Deutsche Welle (DW), Germany’s international broadcaster, described the reaction to Trump’s victory across Germany’s political spectrum as “shock and uncertainty.” Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen described Trump’s win as a “heavy shock.” German Justice Minister Heiko Maas tweeted: “The world won’t end, but things will get more crazy”.

Green party leader Cem Özdemir called Trump’s election a “break with the tradition that the West stands for liberal values.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s deputy chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, said:

“Trump is the trailblazer of a new authoritarian and chauvinist international movement. … They want a rollback to the bad old times in which women belonged by the stove or in bed, gays in jail and unions at best at the side table. And he who doesn’t keep his mouth shut gets publicly bashed.”

ww.atimes.com/trump-put-us-economy-back-track/

The surge in industrial and raw materials stock prices and the collapse of bond markets since Donald Trump’s election victory portend a very different kind of world economy. Rather than persisting in a world of quantitative easing, with extremely low interest rates and 1%-2% growth, the United States has the potential to get back onto a normal recovery track.

How much can it grow? The US economy is 10% smaller than it would have been under a “normal” economic recovery since 2008, and if it can regain half the lost ground, that’s an additional 5% of GDP. The global rally in capital equipment stocks reflects America’s need for capital goods imports to gear up.

Beijing does not expect a trade war with the United States; Trump is viewed by China as a pragmatic businessman, perhaps a tough negotiator, but a man whose object is to get a deal rather than to make ideological points.

This writer is one of the numbed masses of people who have spent their entire adult lives witnessing mass atrocity after mass atrocity committed against Americans around the world and on U.S. soil by evil persons acting in the name of Allah. Actually, attacks by militant Islamists on Americans go all the way back to the administrations of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Those attacks on American ships and sailors off the coast of what is today Libya were finally stopped by the Marines led by Stephen Decatur. Fast forward to World War I. At that time, the U.S. joined with Britain and France to fight against, and defeat, the aggression of the Central Powers of Europe that were allied with the Islamic Ottoman Empire. Only after that victory was this last caliphate dismantled into the various Islamic nation-states we now find in the Middle East.

The post-World War I decades have seen the expansion of Arab oil wealth and continued internecine quarrels within the divided Arab world. Further, Islamist aggression internally and against the West – nay, against the entire world — has not only continued but grown exponentially with each passing decade since 1918.

During October 1983, 241 U.S. troops were massacred in Lebanon by Hezbollah (as well as 58 French troops at a different location). President Reagan, for many citizens the very incarnation of the warrior spirit, nonetheless, by Feb. 1984 withdrew all remaining U.S. troops from Lebanon. Thirty years later, relatives of the soldiers killed in that attack were awarded $2.65 billion in reparations in a lawsuit against Iran, but have yet to see any of that money. At the same time, President Obama has negotiated a deal with Iran releasing $150 billion in frozen Iranian assets to Iran from various financial institutions as part of a new so-called detente with that malignant terrorist nation. And, by the way, Iran is still on our State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Fast forward to 1996, thirteen years later, part of a housing complex where Americans lived in Khobar, Saudi Arabia was bombed by a truck carrying the equivalent of 20,000 tons of TNT. On that occasion “only” 19 Americans were killed. After intense investigation, again Hezbollah and Iran were blamed for the bombing by a U.S. court; however, payments were not made to the affected U.S. citizens. It took 20 years before the mastermind of this attack was arrested, raising many suspicions about whether or not there has been a partial or total cover-up.