How President Trump has upset the Globalist plans and schemes.
Merkel and Obama had many summits with each other before Merkel spoke with President Trump for the dedication of the new NATO headquarters. That Obama-Merkel meeting spoke volumes. The two globalists meeting and conferring prior to Merkel’s visit with Trump, the outspoken American nationalist. No doubt, Merkel knew Trump would ask Merkel’s Germany to spend less money on Muslim migrants which often harbor Islamic terrorists, focus less on making Putin the scapegoat and bogeyman, spend less energy on a militarized European Union and more money and time on the preservation of NATO, with an expanded mission to defeat radical Islam. Many elite globalists abhor such a commonsense nationalistic mission. As cited in Reuters, German expenditures are more focused on welfare relief and programs for Islamic migrants and less concerned about accomplishing NATO objectives.
“Germany’s government expects to spend around 93.6 billion euros by the end of 2020 on costs related to the refugee crisis, a magazine said on Saturday, citing a draft from the federal finance ministry for negotiations with the country’s 16 states. The figure is likely to stoke concerns, particularly among growing anti-immigration movements, on the impact of new arrivals on Europe’s largest economy which took in more than a million people last year, many from Syria and other war zones. The numbers arriving have fallen this year, helped by a deal between the European Union and Turkey the report said that 25.7 billion euros ($29.07 billion) would be needed for jobless payments, rent subsidies and other benefits for recognized asylum applicants by the end of 2020. Another 5.7 billion euros would be needed for language courses and 4.6 billion euros would be required for measures to help migrants get jobs, it added….The annual cost of dealing with the refugee crisis would hit 20.4 billion euros in 2020, up from around 16.1 billion euros this year, the report said it was designed to give Turks visa-free travel to Europe in return for stemming the flow of migrants….”- German government plans to spend 93.6 billion euros on refugees by end 2020
On many occasions, President Trump righteously called to task, NATO member states, for slovenly, negligently, unfairly and perhaps maliciously requiring the American taxpayer to pay for the defense of NATO, while these European nations spend excessive amounts on social programs particularly for Islamic migrants. Consider the following report, by the BBC. “As President [Donald] Trump has made clear, it is no longer sustainable for the US to maintain a disproportionate share of NATO’s defense expenditures,” he said.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said: According to NATO’s 2016 annual report, only five countries met the 2% target – the US, the UK, Greece, Poland, and Estonia. By contrast, Germany spent 1.2% on defense. However, according to latest OECD available figures based on gross national income, Germany spent more in relative terms on overseas development aid in 2015 than the US – 0.52% of GNI compared with 0.17% for America “
Merkel’s resistance to the Trump admonishment for NATO members to bear their fair share of defense costs is well-known and an affront to the taxpayers of the United States. This is because the Merkel agenda is also the Clinton-Obama agenda. Her agenda, includes filling Europe, especially, Germany with Muslim immigrants, spend billions on lavish social welfare programs for the migrants, invest in a European Union military force, set up Russia as the boogeyman for motivation and rationale to accomplish her nefarious designs and have the U.S. taxpayer burden the expense of this European realignment.
Merkel’s German government has publicly acknowledged their nefarious and hidden agenda. Consider the following pronouncement:
“German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel suggested Friday that his country shouldn’t have to meet its required funding level for NATO because it is already spending billions to “stabilize countries and regions… Gabriel’s remarks came in response to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s request to NATO foreign ministers that member nations boost their defense spending. Germany is one of 23 NATO members that don’t meet the mandatory financial obligation to the mutual defense alliance, which is currently set at 2 percent of GDP…Gabriel said the U.S. should focus on “better spending instead of more spending,” adding that non-defense expenditures such as economic and humanitarian aid should also count toward the spending minimum, Reuters reported.”
True American conservatives should vigorously, unapologetically and forthrightly oppose any group supporting the Merkel-Obama-Clinton vision of Europe. Reconsider, the motivations for the liberal hysteria over Russia and Vladimir Putin and scrutinize the Merkel agenda of creating a militarized and Islamification of an independent European Union. Of course, paid for courtesy of the American taxpayer.
According to the writer, Peter Glover, April 25, 2007, article for “World Politics Review”, Merkel is actively advocating, soliciting and encouraging a European Union standing army, utterly independent of NATO.
Consider this following assertion regarding Merkel’s active promulgation and advocacy for a more powerful European Union military force than NATO, represented during the David Cameron tenure as United Kingdom Prime Minister. “Angela Merkel will expect David Cameron to drop his opposition to an EU army in exchange for supporting Britain’s renegotiation, the Telegraph has been told. The German chancellor will ask Britain to stand aside as she promotes an ambitious blueprint to integrate continental Europe’s armed forces.”
Merkel insists the European Union needs a military force, “According to someone named Jean-Claude Juncker (we’re told he is ‘President’), the European Union needs a standing army – supposedly to “defend its values” from the sudden existential evil menace known as Moscow.”
What is the liberal globalist justification for a European Union military presence? Of course, these globalists, claim, Washington dominates NATO because the United States is responsible for most of the NATO budget. Inversely, Merkel has scoffed at the idea of increasing their contributions to required NATO levels for military expenditures. Instead, citing the massive amounts of monies of the overall German budget, provided for social welfare to migrant Muslims within Germany’s borders. Therefore, the strange and self-serving twist in logic goes as follows. Since Germany must spend so much on social welfare programs to support Islamic migration, it cannot adequately fulfill NATO military obligations; and thus, since the United States is paying most of NATO’s budget, American’s dominate NATO, therefore, a European Union military force must be established. As so fallaciously stated below:
“When it comes to any action or policy, NATO’s European member states are clearly puppets of Washington DC. The reason for this is not rocket science. The US supplies NATO with approximately 75% of its funding which guarantees that NATO is always under Washington’s control. The chief winners of NATO are two-fold. First and foremost are the defense contractors who have been able to tap into the lucrative NATO market. Secondly are Wall Street and the Pentagon – who have been able to use NATO in order to wiggle into areas of the world in which Congress would never allow a declaration of war.”
The New Atlantic Rift: NATO vs The EU Army, March 11, 2015,
So says, certain members of the European globalist community, endorsed by Merkel-Obama-Clinton and their subordinate followers, Pelosi, Warren, Waters, Schiff, and Schumer. Naturally, these globalists are for the expansionist European Union and a diminished Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Nonetheless, despite the globalist forces arrayed against President Trump, during his recent foreign tour, he told the Muslim nations they must take more responsibility for eliminating Islamic jihadism, terrorism, and violence. While the liberal media was quibbling with phrases, Trump was getting things done.
In his Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, before the Islamic-American summit on Sunday, May 21, 2017, President Trump gave a tremendous speech stating, among other things, to paraphrase, “people should not be fleeing from the region (Middle East) but flocking to the region”. President Trump goes on to proclaim, “…this is a battle between good and evil…terrorism has spread across the whole world…the nations of the Middle East must drive out the terrorist and the extremists…”
President Trump declared that Muslim nations must take responsibility to take control from Muslim extremist groups from establishing footholds on Islamic lands. “Barbarism will deliver no glory…and your soul will be fully condemned.” President Trump encourages, “We must practice tolerance …if these three faiths (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) can cooperate, peace is possible…
President Trump’s showed his greatness and vision and leadership to the world, as the leader of a great Western Christian nation reaching out to the Muslim world. His speech was well-balanced but firm as to what action is required, “Will we be indifferent in the face of evil?”
President Trump saliently echoed the foreshadowing prophetic words of Alexis de Tocqueville, diplomatically addressed the reformation requirements in Islam or any culture when materialism and gratification become more accentuated than temperate education and religious moderation. An extreme interpretation of Islamic doctrines, such as genocide against Jews and Christians, denigration and enslavement of women should be reformed. President Trump referred to an educational center to be established to promote such a moderating influence and reformation of the tenets of Islam.
“When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . .. It is not necessary to do violence to such a people to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . .. they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.” (see: Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 2)
American influence through diplomacy and strength, without interference and intervention into the culture and politics of sovereign nations can assist in the reformation and change of the Islamic world. For example, ponder this reference in Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville, “When a nation has reached this point, it must either change its laws and mores or perish, for the well of public virtue has run dry: in such a place one no longer finds citizens but only subjects.” (see: ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America)
It is most certain, that the extrinsic evidence, indicating that massive migration from Islamic countries to the Christian nations demonstrate the truism of Alexis de Tocqueville’s statement. As de Tocqueville reiterates, “when a nation has reached …a point, it must either change its laws and mores or perish…” No doubt, if the underlying critical cultural and societal issues can ferment, Islamic radicalism and extremism will continue to fester in the Middle East and elsewhere throughout the Muslim world. This may eventually lead to the toppling of more moderate, temperate Muslim governments and societies. Thus, another de Tocqueville truism, “everybody feels the evil, but no one has courage or energy enough to seek the cure” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America)
The Trump Administration is working diligently to assist and facilitate Islamic nations to accept their responsibility to find a cure in the genuine reformation of Islam. This was forcefully observed in his May 21, 2017, Riyadh Speech. And for those who attempt a feeble-minded assertion that the Trump Speech was like the Obama “Cairo Speech”, review your faulty and shallow analysis. The Trump” Riyadh Speech” placed primary responsibility for eradicating Islamic jihadism and violence in Muslim societies in Muslim countries. The “Obama Cairo Speech” placed primary responsibility on European-American imperialism and colonialism. The “Riyadh Speech” reflected a mature understanding of international politics and doctrinal ideology, while the “Cairo Speech”, betrayed an immature revolutionary anti-western, anti-Christian Marxist-type philosophy. The substantive nature and content of the speeches were opposites even though superficial comparisons may yield similarities.
John Locke, in his respected work, “Two Treatise on Government”, warns that both the judicial and legislative branches can also exceed their powers and limitations resulting in tyranny. Locke said,
“Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street may be opposed as a thief and a robber, if he endeavors to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant, and such a legal authority, as will empower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed.” (see: Section 202 of Chap. XVIII “Of Tyranny” in Book II of the Two Treatises of Government, by John Locke)
The minority party in Congress, such as Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, Waters and Warren are increasingly acting more subversive, more disingenuousness, and more seditious than as respectful considerate legislators. These aberrant, unreasonable and dishonest legislators are exercising legislative tyranny and must be proscribed in their out-of-control behavior.
“By the social compact, we have given the body politic existence and life; we have now by legislation to give it movement and will. For the original act by which the body is formed and united still in no respect determines what it ought to do for its preservation. What is well and in conformity with order is so by the nature of things and independently of human conventions. All justice comes from God, who is its sole source; but if we knew how to receive so high an inspiration, we should need neither government nor laws. Doubtless, there is a universal justice emanating from reason alone; but this justice, to be admitted among us, must be mutual. Humanly speaking, in default of natural sanctions, the laws of justice are ineffective among men: they merely make for the good of the wicked and the undoing of the just, when the just man observes them towards everybody and nobody observes them towards him. Conventions and laws are therefore needed to join rights to duties and refer justice to its object. In the state of nature, where everything is common, I owe nothing to him whom I have promised nothing; I recognize as belonging to others only what is of no use to me. In the state of society, all rights are fixed by law, and the case becomes different.” (see: The Social Contract, BOOK II 1. THAT SOVEREIGNTY IS INALIENABLE, by Rousseau)
The problem with certain members of the United States Congress is that they have placed their partisanship and self-interest in a sociopathic frenzy above the social contract and good of the American people and nation. These wayward Congressional legislators are exercising the tyranny of the legislature in defiance of the universal and natural law.
Agree or disagree with President Trump’s policies, he was acting graciously, diplomatically and Constitutionally as head of state. Congress should display equal grace. The Constitution clearly delegates to the President the right of execution of American foreign policy.
Moreover, Trump also gave a discourse to the Merkel crowd, at the dedication of the new NATO headquarters in May 2017, urging NATO member-states to satisfy their financial obligations under the NATO agreement. Trump put others on notice that America, although, willing to assist and help will no longer be taken advantage of by NATO member-states, such as Germany nor by oil-rich Muslim nations which pass on the expense of Muslim migrants to European nations and America. Trump has also made very clear, a Trump Administration is willing to communicate with Russia. Merkel wants a militarized European Union, blaming America and the United Kingdom, while, inversely, Germany spends billions on social welfare programs for migrants and refuses to maintain NATO obligations. The liberal Democrats have initiated a new era of “Russian hysteria”, in order, to isolate Russia and Putin, and advance their globalist agenda.
The 4th circuit appeals court split mainly over partisan lines to affirm the stay on the Trump Administration Travel Ban regarding Muslim nations suspected of harboring violent jihadism and terrorism. The majority opinion was supported by Obama appointees and liberal democrats, while the dissenting judges were appointed by Republicans. This division has set the stage for the Justice Department Writ to the United States Supreme Court. In a broad manner, this is a legal struggle between liberal globalists and more conservative nationalists within the context of American law and justice.
This is a battle royal between the nationalist versus the globalists. The outcome will shape the world’s future.