Europe’s Crisis: Policy Decisions and Their Consequences

Introduction

Future historians may well ask what led to the decline and ruin of Europe. The actions and decisions of key leaders in recent decades have played a pivotal role, with policies that have shaped the continent’s current challenges.

Angela Merkel: Architect of European Transformation

Dr. Tilak K. Doshi of the Daily Skeptic identifies Angela Merkel as a central figure in Europe’s troubles. In 2015, Merkel oversaw a massive wave of immigration into Europe, primarily from the Muslim world. Simultaneously, she implemented net zero policies, decommissioning nuclear power and removing fossil fuels from the German industrial base. This dual focus—shutting down nuclear and coal power plants in favor of wind and solar energy—initiated a process that is now undermining the German economy.

Merkel’s rationale for accepting millions of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa was to address Europe’s low fertility rates and to bring in “doctors and engineers” to support the economy. However, Doshi observes that Germany and the European Union instead received an influx of fighting-age males, often crime-prone and resistant to assimilation, placing additional strain on already overstretched welfare systems. As current Chancellor Merz acknowledged, “The welfare state that we have today can no longer be financed with what we produce in the economy.”

Doshi concludes that both social and economic consequences were predictable: crime surges and the rise of parallel societies in cities such as Cologne and Berlin, as well as elsewhere in Europe, including Malmo in Sweden and Southport in England. Industry has increasingly relocated to the United States and Asia in search of affordable energy, leaving Germany—once Europe’s workshop—facing stagnation. Despite these outcomes, Merkel was celebrated by Brussels and mainstream media as the moral conscience of Europe.

Ursula Von Der Leyen and the European Commission

Ursula Von Der Leyen’s tenure as Germany’s defense minister was marked by inefficiency, with the Bundeswehr operating only a handful of tanks and aircrafts. Yet, she now holds the unelected and unaccountable position of President of the European Commission. In her recent “State of the European Union” address, Von Der Leyen reaffirmed her commitment to the “green transformation,” even as European industries falter under electricity costs that are triple those in the United States. Germany’s deindustrialization continues apace, while Britain, under both Conservative and Labour governments, aligns with the EU’s climate and immigration policies and shuts down vital steelworks, refineries, and offshore energy operations.

Despite these trends, Von Der Leyen’s rhetoric invokes economic competitiveness and energy security, even as policies restrict the fossil fuel sector that would otherwise deliver growth and affordable energy. As Doshi remarks, Europe has become a civilization sacrificing its productive capacity at the altar of Gaia. Von Der Leyen also criticizes elected officials like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, who resist unvetted immigration policies and defend national traditions. Orbán, for instance, is branded an “ally of Russia” for importing affordable gas and prioritizing Hungarian interests, while Fico faces similar condemnation for refusing mass migration and the latest ‘woke’ gender dogmas. Their insistence on national interests and skepticism of EU unity mark them as heretics to the European creed.

Centralization, Censorship, and Loss of Freedom

The European Union’s drive for tighter control over national politics has led to troubling developments, including the nullification of elections in Romania, interference in Moldova’s elections, and proposals for government access to private internet communications. Von Der Leyen’s push for net zero policies and increased censorship has contributed to a less free Europe, burdened by bureaucratic rules and unsustainable economic and energy policies.

A Crisis of Civilization

Europe’s difficulties are not merely economic—they reflect a deeper crisis of civilization. Doshi argues that elites such as Von Der Leyen have lost faith in the fundamental tenets of Western civilization, prioritizing sentiment over substance. The tendency to replace engineers with activists in energy ministries and to elevate failed ministers to international office has proved disastrous. The economic cost of such virtue signaling is severe: Europe’s electricity and gas prices are among the highest globally, crippling its manufacturing sector. Major industries are relocating to countries with more rational energy policies, while Europe’s share of global industrial output declines and its welfare states consume ever more of a shrinking economic pie.

Inversion of Priorities and the Cost to the Working Class

Europe’s decline is a result of deliberate choices favoring bureaucratic globalism over national aspirations. Doshi highlights Von Der Leyen’s recent call for multilateral development banks to focus on climate change rather than poverty, despite opposition from the United States. This inversion of priorities illustrates how Europe’s elites perceive the main problem of the poor as insufficient decarbonization, rather than lack of opportunity. Yet, evidence indicates that economic growth—not emissions cuts—remains the most reliable path to environmental improvement and human welfare.

The true victims are the working class, who bear the burden of high energy bills and face a future of mounting debts and a declining civilization. Doshi argues that Europe must rediscover the virtues of Western civilization that once enabled it to prosper and remain free and must reverse the momentum of its decline.

Trump Policy

America First: The Trump Approach to U.S. Foreign Policy

Introduction

The Trump administration’s foreign policy is characterized by a distinct America First approach, which is neither isolationist nor driven by hubris. Instead, it is grounded in the principle of defending U.S. national interests. This philosophy draws from historical precedents, particularly the Cap Weinberger Doctrine, which established foundational rules for military engagement.

The Cap Weinberger Doctrine: Principles of Engagement

Former Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger outlined six essential rules for U.S. military engagement:

Forces should not be committed unless the action is vital to national interest.
Forces should be committed wholeheartedly with the intention of winning, or not at all, there should be no half-hearted commitment.
Commitment of forces must have clearly defined political and military objectives.
The use of force should be a last resort, employed only after all diplomatic initiatives have been exhausted.
The relationship between objectives and the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
There must be reasonable assurance of public support before committing forces abroad.

Weinberger introduced these principles in the post-Vietnam era, responding to national divisions and concerns about the management of the war. These guidelines remain relevant for political leaders today.

Historical Context: Lessons from Lebanon and Grenada

In 1983, two significant events shaped U.S. foreign policy: the loss of 240 Marines in Beirut due to a suicide bombing and the invasion of Grenada, where U.S. forces ousted a Marxist government backed by Cuban forces. The Beirut mission was criticized for its unclear objectives, leading President Reagan to withdraw U.S. troops, avoiding prolonged entanglement. In contrast, the Grenada operation was executed decisively, swiftly removing Cuban forces from the region.

Trump’s Application of Weinberger’s Principles

President Trump has exhibited caution in the use of military force, adhering to many of Weinberger’s principles. He has resisted placing American troops in harm’s way, such as in Ukraine, and has favored measured responses in the Middle East. For example, airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities were only undertaken after diplomatic efforts failed, supporting a broader strategy of stability. In these operations, Israel played a critical role by neutralizing Iranian air defenses, facilitating U.S. access to key targets.

Middle East Strategy and the Role of Alliances

Since October 7th, Israel has fought Iranian proxies, including Hezbollah and Hamas. Trump distinguished his approach from the Biden administration by granting Israel autonomy to address Iranian threats directly. His objective in bombing Iranian nuclear facilities was to delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions, after which he urged both sides to pursue a truce. Trump’s actions demonstrated an ability to escalate conflict strategically to deescalate and pursue peace, as seen in his involvement with Qatar and efforts to solidify alliances through the Abraham Accords, which aimed to unite Israel and Sunni Arab states against Iranian influence.

Opposition to Transnational Organizations

A central feature of Trump’s America First policy is skepticism toward transnational organizations. His rejection of the Paris Climate Accords in 2017 and after taking office was based on concerns that the agreement hindered American energy policy while favoring countries like China and India. Trump maintains that such accords disadvantage the United States. He has asserted that his own diplomatic initiatives have produced more tangible results than those of the United Nations.

Pragmatic Diplomacy and Cultural Realism

Trump’s foreign policy does not focus on spreading democracy, though he welcomes its growth. He has acknowledged cultural differences, notably when addressing Saudi Arabia’s domestic achievements without advocating for the imposition of democratic systems. His emphasis is on respecting national sovereignty, encouraging countries to avoid threatening their neighbors or the United States.

Immigration and Cultural Preservation

Trump has expressed concern about the erosion of Western civilization, attributed to open borders in the U.S. and Europe. He believes that unchecked immigration without assimilation undermines national identity, viewing secure borders as essential to preserving American culture. He has echoed the sentiment that immigration without assimilation amounts to conquest, reinforcing his commitment to border security and cultural integrity.

Energy Independence and Economic Strategy

Energy independence is a cornerstone of Trump’s foreign policy. He aims for the U.S. to lead global energy production, minimizing obstacles to development and leveraging energy exports to strengthen alliances. Trump warned European allies against reliance on Russian oil and gas, advocating for American energy as a more stable alternative. Promoting American energy exports not only benefits the U.S. economy but also solidifies strategic partnerships.

Modest Foreign Policy: Prioritizing American Interests

Trump’s approach is characterized by a modest foreign policy, placing American interests above all else. He recognizes the importance of alliances based on mutual benefit but resists arrangements that disadvantage the U.S., such as unfavorable tariffs. His negotiations aim to protect American workers, expand manufacturing, and encourage allied countries to adopt policies supportive of U.S. interests. Tariffs have also served as a tool to address border security and decouple manufacturing from China.

Strategic Objectives and Measurable Outcomes

Trump emphasizes the importance of clear strategic objectives and measurable outcomes before committing military or diplomatic resources. His foreign policy leverages economic tools and alliances to advance American interests, adapting previous administration principles to contemporary challenges. This pragmatic leadership seeks to position the United States as a decisive actor on the global stage.

Influences: Nixon and Reagan

In many respects, Trump combines the foreign policy approaches of Nixon and Reagan. He focuses on stabilizing the world through peace negotiations and strategic competition, particularly with China, while strengthening the American economy. Nixon’s legacy includes innovative diplomacy, such as leveraging China against the Soviet Union, while Reagan emphasized the importance of a strong economy as the foundation for effective foreign policy.

Iran, Trump and American first foreign policy

We have been at war with Iran since 1979 only most Americans have not realized it. From the time of Iranian mullahs taking our embassy staff hostage, to many different acts of terrorism against our soldiers beginning with the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon and during the war on terror, American soldiers died as result of Iranian efforts. Obama/Biden appeasement Iranian government giving them billions to spread their terrorism which included proxies in Lebanon and Gaza strip as well as Assad in Syria. The reality is that Obama/Biden negotiations would have allowed Iran the bomb but in the case of Obama, long after he left office

The entire basis of Obama/Biden was designed to create a balance of power between Iran, Saudi’s and Israel but the absurdity of the policy could be seen in that Iran’s goal was not a balance of power but control over the Middle East and the destruction of Israel. Brian Kennedy in America Mind observed about Iran, and American policy during the cold war, “The U.S. experience with Iran tells a different story. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with the United States for almost half a century. Its enmity for the U.S. was born of our cooperation in the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and the restoration of the Shah of Iran until his fall at the hands of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The overthrow in 1953 was part of a series of Cold War considerations that the United States made with our British allies to check the influence of the Soviet Union in the Middle East and ensure Western access to oil…The Cold War, clearly misunderstood by so many young Americans today, was an existential contest between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States was not engaged in the democracy promotion that came to characterize the discredited and failed efforts of the Global War on Terrorism. During the Cold War, the United States and our NATO allies engaged in ruthless competition with the Soviet Union and its allies, such as Communist China, North Korea, and the terrorist movements represented by the PLO in the Middle East and Communist/terrorist groups in Europe such as Baader-Meinhof, Black September, and the Red Brigades. Communist China supported these groups every bit as much as the SovietUnion did. It was a global struggle for primacy.”

Our involvement with Iran was part of winning the cold war and the collapse of the Shah and its replacement with Mullah’s theocracy changed our calculations in the Middle East and the impact would go beyond the end of Cold war. During the 1980’s Iraq and Iranian were engaged in war for nearly 8 years in which millions died, and we actually supported Saddam against the Iranians Hussain invasion changed the calculations as United States would not allow the invasion to stand and United States led coalition removed Hussian from Kuwait

Muslim scholar Robert Spencer noted the difference between Iran and Iraq, “As a consistent opponent of our misguided misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan from the beginning, I’m here to tell you that Iran in 2025 is not Iraq in 2003. Back in March 2003, I argued in an article in the late, lamented Insight magazine that President Bush did not have a realistic plan for bringing democracy to the Middle East, and that insisting that the nations of the Middle East choose between Western-style democracy or the terror state would do more harm than good.…In that article, I wrote that “certainly he will find proponents of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere. But the primary opponents of these democrats will not be terrorists, but those who hold that no government has any legitimacy unless it obeys the Shariah. Even if they lose in the short run, they will not disappear as long as there are people who take the Koran and Islamic tradition seriously. And that spells trouble for any genuine democracy.” I hate to say, “I told you so,” but I don’t hate it all that much…And now, the idea that the Islamic regime in Iran could well be in its last days is giving a lot of people who style themselves “America First” the vapors. But Iran in 2025 is pretty much the polar opposite of Iraq in 2003. Saddam’s Iraq did not enforce Sharia; ; it was a secular state, which rankled many Muslim hardliners within the country. They were itching for a chance to impose Sharia and govern the country, or as much of it as they could wrench under their control, as a proper Islamic state, and when that chance came courtesy of the Americans, they grabbed it. The Islamic State, which in its heyday controlled a territory in Iraq and Syria larger than Britain, applied Islamic law with scrupulous exactitude and remorseless efficiency. The end result, as everyone knows, was far worse than what had been seen under Saddam.”

Melanie Phillips made a similar point with a British colonial, “In London, a British colonel told me that “Ariel Sharon has his hand up Bush’s back”—and was astonished when I replied that Israel had told the United States it was Iran, not Iraq, which posed the greatest danger.” Iraq war may have been the wrong war at wrong time with the wrong country.

Victor Davis Hanson observed about Trump policy toward Iran and in general, “Trump’s past shows that he never claimed that he was either an ideological isolationist or an interventionist. He was and is clearly a populist-nationalist: i.e., what in a cost-to-benefit analysis is in the best interests of the U.S. at home and its own particular agendas abroad? Trump did not like neo-conservatism because he never felt it was in our interests to spend blood and treasure on those who either did not deserve such largess, or who would never evolve in ways we thought they should, or whose fates were not central to our national interests.” Hanson point is that Trump is not an isolationist but believes that our interest needs to be considered.

In the past, I have discussed the Cap Weinberger thesis on the conditions in which American go to war. For advocate of an America’s First foreign policy might begin reviewing the former Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger six rules for engagement. The principles were:

1. Forces should not be committed unless the action is vital to national interest.

2. Forces should be committed wholeheartedly with the intention of winning – or they should not be committed at all (No half-hearted commitment).

3. Forces should be committed with clearly defined political and military objectives.

4. The use of force should be the last resort (after all diplomatic initiatives have been exhausted).

5. The relationship between objectives and the force committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

6. Before committing forces abroad (in foreign countries) there should be some reasonable assurance of public support.

Casper Weinberger set these principles in the aftermath of the Vietnam war in which America was divided and there was serious question on how the war was conducted, so he set in principle ideas that political leader needs to consider. In 1984, two events occurred, one in which 240 Marines were killed as result of a suicide bomber in Beirut and the second, the invasion of Grenada in which United States removed a Marxist government that overthrew another leftist government and supported by Cuban forces.

The Beirut attack was part of an ill-defined peace keeping mission in Lebanon and eventually Reagan, left Lebanon as oppose to getting sucked into an endless morose and in Grenada, United States went into with overpowering force, and easily removed the Cuban forces in an island in our backyard, the Caribbean.

The first Gulf War was influenced by this principle as United States and their alliance went into Kuwait with overwhelming force, defeated the Iraqi army easily before ending the war. And Bush administration went to the American people and Congress to gain approval to use force if diplomacy failed in persuading Hussein to leave Kuwait. After the failure of diplomacy, the first Gulf War commenced.

The second Gulf War and the war on terror began with these principles but after the initial victory, the United States expanded upon the objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan to reinstitute democratic government in both countries. From there, United States engaged in long term engagement that ended in failure in Afghanistan. The expanded mission after the second war in Iraq ended in failure. Robert Spencer predicted the failure of this mission and while the initial war in Afghanistan was designed to go after those responsible for 9/11 and the initial campaign succeeded in that but the movement toward pushing Afghanistan toward democracy proved problematic and Bush involved us in two wars at same time.

An Americas First policy begins identifying what is in our national interest and what is not. Americans no longer want to be involved in endless wars without any end game, but they will follow defined goals that are attainable and convinced in our national interest. Reagan exercised a modest foreign policy with the objective of winning the Cold War. After the cold war, we found ourselves in unique position as the World leading superpower after the Soviet Empire collapsed and China has yet to be the power they are now. George W Bush campaigned on a modest foreign policy and even questioned nation building in Haiti but after 9/11, things change and the strategy as Bush administration decided including nation building to reverse future Islamist terrorist states. Just as Bush criticized Clinton administration for his nation building efforts in Haiti, his national building efforts to build more stable nations in the Middle East failed, certainly in Afghanistan and Biden withdrawal proved to be disastrous in allowing the Taliban back in power and Putin took this as a sign of weakness and a license to begin the invasion

What is an American first foreign policy? If China is the main threat, then what strategy needs to be followed? How do decoupling ourselves from China and tariffs fit in the strategy? What alliances need to be set up and the condition of those alliances that will increase our own national interest? What would the role of Europe and NATO play and what about our relations with India fit into our national interest? What should our position be in Europe, and do we allow the Europeans manage the bulk of the defense of Europe against future Russian incursion? How do we deal with Central and South America? I could go on, but Weinberger principle gives Americas firsters a framework to build from.

Victor Davis Hanson concluded, “So-called, optional, bad-deal, and forever wars in the Middle East and their multitrillion-dollar costs would come ultimately at the expense of shorting Middle America back home. However, Trump’s first-term bombing of ISIS, standing down “little rocket man”, warning Putin not to invade Ukraine between 2017-21, and killing off Qasem Soleimani, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and many of the attacking Russian Wagner Group in Syria were certainly not Charles Lindberg isolationism but a sort of Jacksonian—something summed up perhaps as the Gadsen “Don’t tread on me”/ or Lucius Sulla’s “No better friend, no worse enemy” . Trump’s much critiqued references to Putin—most recently during the G7, and his negotiations with him over Ukraine—were never, as alleged, appeasement (he was harder in his first term on Putin than was either Obama or Biden), but art-of-the-deal/transactional (e.g., you don’t gratuitously insult or ostracize your formidable rival in possible deal-making, but seek simultaneously to praise—and beat—him.) Similarly, Churchill initially saw the mass-murdering, treacherous Stalin in the way Trump perhaps sees Putin, someone dangerous and evil, but who if handled carefully, occasionally granted his due, and approached with eyes wide open, could be useful in advancing a country’s realist interests—which for Britain in 1941 was for Russia to kill three-quarters of Nazi Germany’s soldiers, and, mutatis mutandis, for the U.S. in 2025 to cease the mass killing near Europe, save most of an autonomous Ukraine, keep Russia back eastward as far as feasible, and in Kissingerian-style derail the developing Chinese and Russian anti-American axis. Trump was never anti-Ukraine, but rather against a seemingly endless Verdun-like war in which after three years neither side had found a pathway to strategic resolution—a war from the distance fought between two like peoples, one with nuclear weapons, and on the doorstep of Europe.”

Trump policy is not isolationist but based on restricting the use of military only in need to defend our national interest nor is he interested in spreading “democracy” but accept countries choice of government as long they do not impact our national interest. He stated to the Saudis, ”And it’s crucial for the wider world to note this great transformation has not come from Western interventionalists or flying people in beautiful planes giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs. No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons, or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities… Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves, the people that are right here, the people that have lived here all their lives — developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies in your own way. It’s really incredible what you’ve done.”

Trump view is that countries need to find their own path and as long as those paths don’t involved threatening the United States Trump view that each region or countries need to find their own way and we can’t impose our views or system upon others. As Brian Kennedy noted about our alliance in World War II included the Soviet Union and , we allied ourselves with unsavory countries to defeat the Soviet Empire, but also many countries like South Korea found their own path to both economic and political freedom as we aided the process but not start the process for it was their people who started the process and move toward democracy on their own.

Postscript,

As I was completing this piece, Trump bombed the nuclear facilities and now we will see where we go The Weinberger doctrine would limit Trump responses beginning with understanding the limits of what the United States can do. Trump is not interested in boots on the ground, but Trump administration needs to be prepared for Iranians counterattack including shutting down the Strait of Hormuz or terrorist activities in the Unted States with undetected cells.

Trump had a good beginning a limited objective, destroy Iranian nuclear facilities and as for regime change, it would be good if the mullahs were replaced but the United States can not be involved instituting regime change nor have boots on the ground. Iranian people themselves must change their government. Trump has made his feeling known on this.

Tapper Real Game

Jake Tapper book has the following goals, first being to put him and others who help cover this up to be absolve of any journalistic wrong doing. Considering how the media help cover this up, Tapper goal is to rewrite history by saying reporters were duped. The second is to delegitimize Trump’s victory by saying by waiting as long as Biden did to leave, it gave very little time to Kamala to campaign. The reality is simple, Tapper and others knew Biden’s condition but refuse to report it. One journalist admitted he was told by a cabinet member two years earlier in 2022, that Biden needed not to run in 2024.I can’t believe that Tapper didn’t have similar sources telling him the same thing.

From the Russian collusion hoax, the Hunter Biden lap top and this, the media have consistently got big stories wrong or lied about the big stories Tapper is admitting either he is a liar or simply not a very good reporter For me, Biden stayed the candidate after that debate performance, he would have been slaughtered and lost by a bigger margin than even Kamala Harris. The media would have reported that Biden lost because he was not physically capable. Kamala on the other hand received more than double what Trump brought in and was the sitting Vice President and had the media on her side. This was a referendum on Biden/Harris years and voters decided they were ready for change. Tapper goal is to make the case that Biden allowed Trump to win by waiting and not because of Harris connection to the Biden’s year.

Tapper is merely shifting the blame of Trump victory on Biden’s and his inside team. He has not even bothered to blame Harris or key members of the administration since they obviously knew what was going on. Bottom line is that Tapper rewriting of history should not be allowed to stand. Tapper and the media were not fooled by Biden’s handler and knew what was going on. Members of the administration and those on capitol hill knew what was going on but they refuse to blow the whistle until it was too late

Review as of April 23rd

I remember when Reagan dealt with a serious economic crisis as he came into office along with a foreign policy that saw the Soviet Empire on the march and by the end of the first year, many Republicans called for a retreat of his supply side revolution. The nuclear freeze movement was in full spring in the United States and Europe, and Reagan was in the process of installing the Pershing missile to counter the Soviets SS-20.

Trump is facing similar pressure as the Courts are putting every obstacle into his deportation plans, his economic plan, in particular his tariff plan, is under siege and he attempting to end war in Europe while trying to see if he can stop Iran from getting the bomb. He is browbeating the Feds and that is the one thing that Reagan didn’t do when he supported Feds effort to stop inflation. What I will do is to work on three things, Trump war on the administrative and how out of control courts is undermining his agenda against the bureaucracy and deportation, his tariff policy and where is leading, and finally his foreign policy.

Let’s begin with his tariffs policy. Both side on the tariffs debate need to understand the nuance of the debate. It is not a simple tariff bill but there are nuances that Trump is attempting to do, using tariffs to open up markets and get help in key areas like dealing with immigrations.

For supporters of Tariffs who view McKinley tariffs as a model, two things that need to understand, tariffs were the principal way the federal government raised money and government spending was only 10 percent of the total economy. The depression of 1893 may have been caused by tight monetary policy and or possibly tariffs were higher as result of tariffs bill passed in the previous Republican administration. McKinley following the Spanish-American war was moving toward a reciprocal trade policy similar to what we may end up with Trump final negotiations.

In the 1920’s we had high tariffs but lower tax rates and reduced both the national debt and spending. Harding and Coolidge inherited high tax rates from the Wilson administration left over from World War I. Harding economic plan saved America from the 1920’s great depression. Hoover on the other hand after dealing with 1929 crash raised tariffs even higher, and increase spending, brow beat corporations into keeping salaries higher and then raised taxes on top of that. It didn’t help that the federal reserve saw circulation of money drop by a third. Hoover did everything wrong and while many view Hoover as a conservative but at the time he was consider part of the moderate/progressive wing of the Republican parties and as President Coolidge observed, “Hoover gave me a lot of advice and most of it wrong.” 1950’s and 60’s saw United States move forward on economic and free trade and Reagan revolution of lower tax rates aided in a boom that lasted a quarter of century. While freer trade is good for the economy, it is not a panacea if followed by poor domestic policies and in the 1920’s, we saw good domestic policies even with high tariffs and Reagan did use tariffs as a mean to bargain with other countries including allies just as Japan to open their markets. His supply side revolution led to a quarter of century of growth.

Trump will keep tariffs on China as part of slowing Chinese economy down and use tariffs negotiations with leading economic powers to isolate China and encourage companies to relocate here with Trump lower tax rates, reduce regulations and increase energy productions. Some similarity with Coolidge except Trump may be working toward a reciprocal policy toward Europe, and Asia and this may result lower tariffs. Tariffs and Trump war with the Feds have caused turmoil in the market but there may be confusion about Trump plan and how it fits. Many of his critics are not looking at the whole plan and Trump has certainly added to the confusion with not explaining fully his plan. Mention tariffs and we are thinking great depression but as I noted, the Great Depression centered on the following, first adding higher tariffs to what was already passed in an economy in recession, second increase government spending and raising taxes later in his administration and we can’t not forget that we lost nearly a third of money circulating in the economy from1929 to 1932, so the Feds did their share in turning a recession into a great depression.

Tom Sowell noted that before the tariffs passed, unemployment dropped from 9 percent to 6 percent from the crash into the summer of 1930’s, so if Hoover did nothing, the recession may have ended before 1932, and he would have had an economy in recovery. Maybe the critics should wait to see how it all goes.

On foreign policy the one question “is Trump thinking a pulling a Nixon?” Nixon trip to China was his move to separate the China from Russia. My own view is that in the back of Trump’s mind, he is thinking along those lines. I won’t say if this is possible certainly not now but hear me out. Russia is now a junior partner in her relations with China and China does have many of Russian Eastern portion under their radar screen. Russia relation now is based on needs plus Putin hatred of the West, but his Ukraine war can’t be seen as a success and eventually Russia may find the price of China’s support too high. Russia and China are the real agents of chaos and for China, Russia war on Ukraine forces much of the West attention toward Russia and not on China. Russia is playing their own games, aiding North Korea to improve their arm forces and nuclear capacity and may even helping Iran. The Axis of evil at work. Is it possible or is the time, right? That is a good question or if it is possible, but Trump does understand a Russian-China collaboration over the long haul gives the Chinese the military advantages with resources including rare minerals and energy within its grasp.

With the Ukraine, there are three options. One simply gives Russia all of the Ukraine and that would be classified as a defeat. This is a point I made before, but the following two options will be a victory for the West since Russia will be denied a complete conquest of Ukraine. The first which is the most likely scenario, Russia keeps what they have, the Ukraine will still have most of its country and let not forget, they didn’t have all of their country including the Crimea to begin with. Ukraine won’t be part of Nato, but Europeans can figure out a way to continuing to arm the Ukraine. There will be no peacekeeping force for three reasons, one the United States won’t participate and second the Europeans in the end will have neither the will or the troops to do it and finally Russia won’t allow it. However, I have mention there are ways for the European to arm Ukraine and Russia have lost quite of bit of men and materials. The final option won’t happen because the United States will not provide material or engage in direct combat with the Russians and Europeans will not intervene to make this option a reality, that is remove Russia from all of the Ukraine including Crimea. Option two, the partial peace with Russia will be the option that becomes a reality.

One important piece is the trade deal with India that is being negotiated and if succeed, this opens the door to other deals and help build India economically, ties the two biggest English-speaking countries and finally India is one of the BRICS nations that just last year was threatening to ditch the dollar and If India is working with the United States, this weakens the BRICS.

In foreign affairs, America first is not isolationism but more realistic foreign policy that measures American interest and calls on our allies to do more. Europe has a GNP ten times than Russia and should be easily defend themselves against Russia. The battle over tariffs may be a tactic to negotiate lower tariffs among major economic power and isolate China who will be stuck with higher tariffs. For Trump the real enemy is China. Trump is fighting on many fronts from taming the administrative state, foreign policy that is influx, closing our southern borders and reviving our economic strength.

On the legal side, Jon Turley made some good points about Alito scathing dissent on the recent Supreme Court decision stopping deportation. Alito point was centered about the following points: that court had no right to act and had no input from the government plus court declares a crisis and then decided to act. Jon Turley noted, “Yeah, what Justice Alito is objecting to is that this is becoming increasingly improvisational. I mean, you know, you’ve covered the supreme court for years as I have, and we rarely see this level of – or number of emergency cases going in front of the Supreme Court. And a lot of them are half-baked, in the sense they don’t have the normal details, the record that you have. And the justices are expressing their frustration.”

Turley added, “But in the same way, a lot of these challengers are bringing these cases fast and furious to the court. And what Justice Alito is saying is, “What are we basing our decision on? These things are coming to us with virtually no record…That is where the Supreme Court has a problem. Every single member of the nine-person body seems clearly frustrated with the bombardment of legal challenges all over the country. And even Elena Kagan can see the writing on the wall here: If liberal District Court judges act well outside of their bounds and it is tolerated, then conservative District Court judges will do the same, and the situation will only spiral.”

There is a crisis with the judicial and the Supreme Court must act. The Biden administration allowed millions of illegal in unprecedented numbers and now Trump administration has to clean up the mess quickly and Alito concern is that the courts made a serious mistake and leaves us with the question, if in the end the Courts make the wrong unconstitutional decision, what is the recourse?

Trump and chaos often are one and the same. Trump is a man on a mission and at the age of 78, he is a man in a hurry. Trump inherited an economy that was slowly imploding, a world on fire with wars in Middle East and Europe with its most brutal war since World War two. Trump first objective is to secure the border and begin the deportation of many of the illegal beginning with the criminal element and used the 1798 alien act working on the theory that this was invasion and there may be evidence at least with the Venezuelan gangs are working with the Venezuela communist government.

There is a war on the administrative state that needs to be completed. The administrative state has become an unelected body independent of the constitution approved by the branch: legislative, judicial and the executive branch. We see out of control part of our government that passes 10 regulations with the power of law for every law passed by Congress, and you will be ten times more likely to be pursued by the administrative than a jury of your peer.

Another area that Trump team is telling the truth about the Covid.

This White House website on Covid details the origin of Covid, and this is important since what we saw was the abandonment of science and hiding the reality that this was most likely a virus released from the Wuhan lab. What was and still at stake was the credibility of science and failure to place responsibility on the Chinese government. This was one of the great attempts by Tony Fauci to hide the truth and hide the fact that Tony Fauci helped finance gain of function research conducted by the Chinese.

A friend of mine who worked with Bush administration on getting vaccines to the market met Fauci and told me that Fauci support of the lockdown and the subsequent policies was designed to hide his financing of the virus research. Let be blunt, Fauci knew the lethality of the virus as he originally wrote that virus lethality between .1 to 1 percent in February 2020, but within a month, Fauci declared the death rate of Covid would be ten times of a flu season which turned out to be false as the Covid death rate was .2 to .5 depending on which study. This was similar to a bad flu season.

His original goal was correct and there was no science to back his change of mind! Fauci had to know the origin of the virus and it should be pointed out that CDC director Robert Redfield believed the virus was human made. (Redfield co-authored Fauci piece that original study on lethality but he was shut out by Fauci about the origin study by Fauci.) Fauci not only covered up the origin of the virus but advice the President that this a natural event even though he was being told by scientists privately this was human made. Fauci allowed the Chinese to get away with this and prefer to side with a foreign government as opposed to the rest of the world and the American people. He had to know the source of virus and much of his advice on the origin along with Mask mandates, school closing and lockdowns was wrong, and I suspect he knew that much of the advice was wrong. His advice was not just wrong, but it was disastrous for our economy and for many students whose fall behind in education. And his cover up on the origin was not just bad but it covered up the failure of gain of function research. Which he helped finance with American taxpayer’s help.

Fauci is a cautionary tale of the need to deal with the administrative state and understand its danger to our liberties. Fauci and Birks essentially lockdown an entire economy and many people lost their basic rights including to use a questionable vaccine without lost of jobs. Churches were closed along with schools and business shut down plus millions of people out of work. We are still dealing with the residual impact from this. The importance of controlling our administrative state.

Turley on the Courts

Jon Turley made some good points about Alito scathing dissent on recent Supreme Court decision. Alito point was centered about the following points: that court had no right to act and had no input from the government plus court declares a crisis and then decided to act. Jon Turley noted, “Yeah, what Justice Alito is objecting to is that this is becoming increasingly improvisational. I mean, you know, you’ve covered the supreme court for years as I have, and we rarely see this level of – or number of emergency cases going in front of the Supreme Court. And a lot of them are half-baked, in the sense they don’t have the normal details, the record that you have. And the justices are expressing their frustration.” Turley added, “But in the same way, a lot of these challengers are bringing these cases fast and furious to the court. And what Justice Alito is saying is, “What are we basing our decision on? These things are coming to us with virtually no record…That is where the Supreme Court has a problem. Every single member of the nine-person body seems clearly frustrated with the bombardment of legal challenges all over the country. And even Elena Kagan can see the writing on the wall here: If liberal District Court judges act well outside of their bounds and it is tolerated, then conservative District Court judges will do the same, and the situation will only spiral.”

Trump and Nixon

Is Trump thinking a pulling a Nixon? Nixon trip to China was his move to separate the China from Russia. My own view is that in the back of Trump’s mind, he is thinking along those lines. I won’t say if this is possible certainly not now but hear me out. Russia is now a junior partner in her relations with China and China does have many of Russian Eastern portion under their radar screen. Russia relation now is based on needs plus Putin hatred of the West, but his Ukraine war can’t be seen as a success and eventually Russia may find the price of China’s support too high. Russia and China are the real agents of chaos and for China, Russia war on Ukraine forces much of the West attention toward Russia and not on China. Russia is playing their own games, aiding North Korea to improve their arm forces and nuclear capacity and may even helping Iran. The Axis of evil at work. Is it possible or is the time, right? That is a good question or if it is possible, but Trump does understand a Russian-China collaboration over the long haul gives the Chinese the military advantages with resources including rare minerals and energy within its grasp.

Ukraine, there are three options. One simply give Russia all of the Ukraine and that would be classified as a defeat. This is a point I made before but the following two options will be a victory for the West since Russia will be denied a complete conquest of Ukraine. The first which is the most likely scenario, Russia keeps what they have, the Ukraine will still have most of its country and let not forget, they didn’t have all of their country including the Crimea to begin with. Ukraine won’t be part of Nato but Europeans can figure out a way to continuing to arm the Ukraine. There will be no peacekeeping force for three reasons, one the United States won’t participate and second the Europeans in the end will have neither the will or the troops to do it and finally Russia won’t allow it. However, I have mention there are ways for the European to arm Ukraine and Russia have lost quite of bit of men and materials. The final option won’t happen because the United States will not provide material or engage in direct combat with the Russians and Europeans will not intervene to make this option a reality, that is remove Russia from all of the Ukraine including Crimea. Option two, the partial peace with Russia will be the option that becomes a reality.

Fauci lied and Millions of People Died

Vindication: White House Makes Major Website Update re: COVID Origins, Calls Out Fauci – RedState

This article details the recent government report on Covid origin, and this is important since what we saw was the abandonment of science and hiding the reality that this was most likely a virus released from Wuhan lab. What was and still at stake was the credibility of science and failure to place responsibility on the Chinese government. This was one of the great attempts by Tony Fauci to hide the truth and hide the fact that Tony Fauci helped finance gain of function research conducted by the Chinese.

A friend of mine who worked with Bush administration on getting vaccines to the market met Fauci and told me that Fauci support of the lockdown and the subsequent policies was designed to HIDE HIS FIANNCING of the virus research. Let be blunt, Fauci knew the lethality of the virus as he originally wrote that virus lethality between .1 to 1 percent in February 2020, but within a month, Fauci declared the death rate of Covid would be TEN TIMES of a flu season which turned out to be false as the Covid death rate was .2 to .5 depending on which study. This was similar to a bad flu season.

His original goal was correct and THERE WAS NO SCIENCE TO BACK HIS CHANGE OF MIND!! Fauci had to know the origin of the virus and it should be pointed out that CDC director Robert Redfield believed the virus was human made. (Redfield co-authored Fauci piece that original study on lethality but he was shut out by Fauci about the origin study by Fauci.) Fauci not only covered up the origin of the virus but advice the President that this a natural event even though he was being told by scientists privately this was human made. Fauci allowed the Chinese to get away with this and prefer to side with a foreign government as opposed to the rest of the world and the American people. He had to know the source of virus and much of his advice on the origin along with Mask mandates, school closing and lockdowns was wrong, and I suspect he knew that much of the advice was wrong. His advice was not just wrong, but it was disastrous for our economy and for many students whose fall behind in education. And his cover up on the origin was not just bad but it covered up the failure of gain of function research. Which he helped finance with American taxpayer’s help.

Observations on 2025

Ten lessons for 2024 and moving forward

The advent of Elon Musk and the death of Jimmy Carter showed an interesting divide as in the 1970’s, we were told we reached the era of limitations and needed to revamp our images, but Reagan view was that our best was still to come. Carter essentially viewed the common narrative that we needed to view our future bleak due to limitation of our resources. Elon Musk is not a conservative in my estimate but a moderate who believe that we are just entering a new era beginning going to where no man or woman has been before in space and Trump follows this whereas Harris, Biden and much of the left has adopted a de growth mentality in which the next generation must be satisfied with lower standard of living .
The legacy media bias has been exposed as we found out that they cover up Joe Biden senility and the bias against Trump. Legacy media showed it could no longer be trusted with the truth and the cover of Biden’s health was just one of many episodes of misinformation.
Trump won the popular vote, but it was close as Trump gathered nearly 50 percent to Harris 48 percent. Despite the fact that most voters felt the economy was bad , the world appeared on fire and there as a craziness to the Democrat party this race was still statistically close. Harris was a weak candidate who was part of the Biden administration and could not escape the policies of the administration
Trump made inroads into minorities as he nailed 46 percent of Hispanics votes including over half of males and nearly one out of every four Black males. 45% of voters members of union voted for Trump and won suburban voters overall. This coalition is not yet set in stone, and a successful Trump administration could cement much of this and his margin in key battleground states was close as it was in 2016 in which he won and in 2020 which he lost.
How stable is this coalition? One end you have Musk and other entrepreneur who may have different objectives versus the workers including minorities workers as well as small businesses. We see conflict in the debate over HB Visas as Musk is looking to attract the top .1 percent as he stated and many in the MAGA movement wants the program essentially eliminated. Populism is not necessarily pro capitalist as many MAGA view socialism as evil but not entirely trust in capitalism or view the system as favoring the uber rich at their expense. This was shown by Steve Bannon who admitted that he pushed for higher margin tax on the rich and has gone after Musk.
The key to Trump is to find the ability to find a middle ground. Immigration, close the border, deport illegals, and then reform Visa program to garner the top minds around the world while protecting American workers. In foreign policy, Ukraine will be an interesting test as Trump doesn’t want allow Putin to win the war but find peace. On tax issues, find the right plan that increases innovation while providing something for the middle class and on trade, the key is to expand trade while protecting American workers, managed trade is another way of putting it.
The long-term key to health of our economy is to attack the administration state and defanged its power.
End the Green new deal, frack baby frack, nuke baby nuke, and eliminate subsidies for inferior energy and cars. On the later point, Musk will go along since he is the leader in EV and he will win any battle on EV’s, he doesn’t need the subsidies but his rival do. His biggest competition will come from overseas.
Go to space for this is a battle of the future of humanity as by leaving our planet new world opens up new adventures and allows humanity to dream once again. Just as Christopher Columbus opens up the world to Europe, space will provide new opportunity .
In Congress ride the horse you are on and that begins with keeping Mike Johnson as speaker.

Other lessons,

Rebuild the inner city and start the process of building coalitions to get folks elected in blue cities and blue states.
Defining what America First looks at and how the rise of populism impacts Europe and it’s future with America. Is it time to revive or reduce EU influence over the hold of European country.

From Musk editorial and other observations.

From AfD co-chair Alice Weidel

“We don’t see that the European Union in its current state is an institution that is working well. What we need to have is free trade among the European countries, but we don’t need all the bureaucracy. … [W]e says, look, we don’t need a Commission that is actually destroying the foundation of our continent. What we need is free trade among the European countries …

[W]e think that the European treaties need to be reformed, so that every country within the European Union has the right, first of all, to have a veto against the Commission … And if a country wants to leave the European Union, why not fall automatically into a free trade zone?

What the AfD actually proposes, then, are EU-level reforms that will open to all member states the option of leaving the EU itself while remaining within the single market. Should these reforms be realized, the AfD would support leaving the EU while maintaining all of its prior EU-associated trade relationships. Now, you can agree with Weidel’s arguments or not, you can find her proposals realizable or reasonable or not, but what is very tiresome and also unsettling, is the outright refusal to address them at all, in favor of simply attacking strawman AfD policy proposals.”

Musk

“Economic renewal: The German economy, once the engine of Europe, is now mired in bureaucracy and stifling regulations. The AfD understands that economic freedom is not only desirable but also necessary. Their approach to restricting government overreach, lowering taxes and deregulating the marketplace reflects the principles that have made Tesla and SpaceX successful. If Germany wants to regain its industrial strength, it needs a party that not only talks about growth but also takes political action to create an environment in which companies can flourish without heavy government intervention… immigration and national identity: Germany has opened its borders to a very large number of migrants. While this was done with humanitarian intent, it has created significant cultural and social tensions. The AfD advocates a controlled immigration policy that priorities integration and the preservation of German culture and security. This is not about xenophobia, but about ensuring that Germany does not lose its identity in the pursuit of globalization. A nation must preserve its core values and cultural heritage to remain strong and united…Energy and independence: The energy policy pursued by the current coalition is not only economically costly, but also geopolitically naive. Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear energy and instead rely heavily on coal and imported gas, as well as volatile wind and solar power, without the battery storage necessary to maintain a stable power supply, has left the country vulnerable, especially to power outages. The AfD has a pragmatic approach to energy and is advocating a balanced approach. I hope they will consider the expansion of safe nuclear energy combined with battery storage to cushion major fluctuations in electricity consumption, because that is the obvious solution…Political realism: The traditional parties have failed in Germany. Their policies have led to economic stagnation, social unrest, and the erosion of national identity. The AfD, even if it is labelled as far-right, represents a political realism that resonates with many Germans who feel their concerns are ignored by the establishment. It addresses current issues without the political correctness that often obscures the truth. The description of the AfD as far-right is clearly wrong when you consider that Alice Weidel, the leader of the party, has a same-sex partner from Sri Lanka! Does that sound like Hitler to you? Please!”