Category: Europe

Progressives and their money…

I have always held the belief that today’s modern left is simply a modern day version of the old and corrupt aristocratic members of the feudal or guild systems of the middle ages – entities that closely guarded access to the benefits that membership provided, while lording it over everyone – and amounts to nothing but a protection racket for the connected. The progressive oligarchy smartened up however, knowing that simply doing business as usual, basically maintaining and growing its power and wealth, as was done on the olden days was not going to work. So instead of risking the mob turning on them, they shifted gears, pretending to help the less fortunate, while keeping business as usual. Don’t take my word for it.

Under Black Jesus, the super-rich have accumulated wealth at a pace that would have the progressives, both in politics and in the media (yeah, I know they are practically all progressive retards there), howling mad if the WH was occupied by a guy with an (R) next to their name. This has coincided with policy shifts that have drastically grown the handout class. More people than ever are now on some form of public assistance, primarily because the economy has been castrated and employment, especially full time high paying jobs in the private sector have all but dried up, and that number only looks to grow larger. Between the insane money borrowing & printing policies that are driving up our debt at an insane pace that makes anything that came before look tame, causing drastic inflation that we keep getting told is not happening by our political masters while the dollar’s power dwindles, and the anti-business vote buying schemes and scams like Obamacare, I remain surprised at the strength of our private sector’s ability to weather this storm.

But while these progressive policies are helping the ultra-rich get richer and keep power, by expanding the “Vote for a living” class membership, the real power behind America’s exceptionalism and economic success, the middle class, is getting destroyed. Of course, the truth is that all leftists systems end like this. Look at communism for the proof. From the old USSR, Cuba, and North Korea, as examples of abject failures, to more successful entities like China, the fact is that these progressive systems are based on a 2 class system. The first is the obvious oligarchy that runs the place and has all the power and wealth. They don’t have to won it directly, but people know better. Then you have the serfs: the rest of the schnooks that are fed a constant line of populist and anti-capitalism line bullshit, do all the work – when you can get them to work for the peanuts they get paid while struggling to get basic necessities – and reap none of the rewards, unless you think a reeducation camp, a gulag, or a bullet to the head is a reward.

Socialism is not much better. Look at Venezuela or any of those Arab oil states. Sure, our resident libs love to tell us about Israel, New Zealand, or Europe, but the truth is they are doing nothing more than the progressives in the 70s and 80s did in the US writ places like New York State, Michigan, Illinois, and California. Back then the progs told us all how their policies were directly responsible for the economic growth and success these places experienced, and even if there was a nugget of truth to it, today every one of these states or fiefdoms is facing hard times and bankruptcy. Most European socialist states are unraveling as well. That’s because this shit doesn’t work. You can’t keep borrowing and pushing the responsibility to pay the debt on others, all so you can prop up a system that pretends to do what it does to help people, but rarely does anything of the sort. Collectivism doesn’t work. And there is no room for a middle class in any of these progressive systems.

So why this long rant? Well, the whole thing is a setup for another obvious instance of the left’s double standards. What else do you call the revelation that people that advocate wealth redistribution policies but then work hard to avoid them for themselves ?

Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth. That doesn’t mean they want to pay it.

To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death.

The Clintons created residence trusts in 2010 and shifted ownership of their New York house into them in 2011, according to federal financial disclosures and local property records.

Among the tax advantages of such trusts is that any appreciation in the house’s value can happen outside their taxable estate. The move could save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes, said David Scott Sloan, a partner at Holland & Knight LLP in Boston.

“The goal is really be thoughtful and try to build up the nontaxable estate, and that’s really what this is,” Sloan said. “You’re creating things that are going to be on the nontaxable side of the balance sheet when they die.”

The Clintons’ finances are receiving attention as Hillary Clinton tours the country promoting her book, “Hard Choices.” She said in an interview on ABC television that the couple was “dead broke” and in debt when they left the White House in early 2001. After being criticized for her comments, she told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that she understood the financial struggles of Americans

Look, I am not denying anyone the right to try and keep as much of their income as possible. But if you ever had perfect examples of the progressive movement’s bad guys, your stereotypical robber barons, it’s the Clintons. They have made a ton of money out of being politically powerful and connected, and have done so while decrying that very practice. It’s the same hypocritical shit that allows someone like Michael Moore to get stinking rich making idiotic and pedantic bullshit they pass off a serious documentary reporting, but amount to nothing more than ranting against the very system that allows him to rake in the cash. It’s despicable.

One set of rules for thee, and another for the progressive oligarchy. Now I can understand their motivations. What I don’t understand is how the people that lap up the class warfare cock these oligarchs use to maintain their grip on power and their exclusive clubs don’t see through it. At least the other such two tiered systems didn’t make any bones about the motivation of the people in power like any of the collectivist systems the progressive movement so love does.

And You Thought You Had Problems

This is why I stopped at just being a millionaire, being a billionaire has it’s own set of headaches;

A Swiss court has ordered a Russian billionaire to pay more than $4.5 billion to his ex-wife in what could become the biggest divorce settlement in history.

In papers delivered Monday to both parties, the Geneva Tribunal of First Instance said Dmitry Rybolovlev, an owner of the French soccer club AS Monaco, must pay 4,020,555,987.80 Swiss francs ($4,509,375,184.80) to ex-wife Elena Rybolovleva of Geneva. Both are aged 47.

What I don’t get is that this guy is Russian, why didn’t he just have her whacked?

It’s hard to feel sorry for any billionaire, but when you are accomplished (ill gotten gains or otherwise) it hurts to give your ex wife half, of anything.

What do you think the attorney’s fees for this case will be?

Till death (how ever that comes about) do us part, bad planning, Dmitry.

Not Only That, But The Song Blows

The Eurovision Song Contest just crowned it’s new 2014 winner. The 40 some year old song contest has given us the likes of ABBA, Celine Dion, and Julio Iglesias, but there is always room for another superstar…………OK, maybe not super;

I had to watch the first minute a second time to see if his junk was visable through that dress.

Some critics think it was the beard that did it.

From time to time folks just gotta be contrary, like when Al Franken won his Senate seat, the more bizarre the better, it’s like a collective ,”We really don’t give a shit about any of it, so eat this”.

I try to understand the Europeans, even at their dopiest, but like a sanctimonious actor opining about whatever, or a smelly hippy walking around with a misspelled sign at a OWS rally, the curiosity factor forbids me to avert my eyes. Getting a chuckle out of them is just a bonus.

Yeah, sure… Not that there is anything wrong with that..

I am sorry, but my bullshit detector went on high alert when I saw this article titled Sociologists have found that sporty young men enjoy hopping into bed with other straight guys for a bit of nonsexual spooning. Are we to take this seriously?

‘‘I love a quick cuddle. Just so you remember your friends are around and are there for you.” This is John, a self-identified straight guy who took part in a study investigating attitudes toward same-sex cuddling at a university in the U.K. Researchers found that 97.5% of heterosexual, male college athletes have shared a bed with another guy and 93.5% have indulged in spooning. “We very often have hangover cuddles and naps together,” reported another participant named Max.

The findings were published in the latest issue of the journal Men and Masculinities. In it, researchers Eric Anderson and Mark McCormack describe how changing attitudes toward homosexuality have lessened stigma around nonsexual contact, and that the majority of young men now have no problem being affectionate with their friends—a particularly common trend among those on sports teams.

This journal must be the equivalent of Playgirl. You know, that Playboy publication that portended to be directed at women, but really was targeted at mandaters. Then again, this could be a metrosexual European thing too. They tend to do real strange shit across the pond. Maybe one of our foreign contributors can opine on this and let us know about their own personal experiences cuddling with other dudes, be it before a game, or going out to grab a pint. I will stick to chicks, and I bet John in the article above sits down when he pees too.

Gorby’s Empire

One of the most baffling developments of the 1980’s was the Cult of Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev had his qualities. He was one of the few leaders in the Soviet Union who understood that the system wasn’t working and was absurdly corrupt (I met a general who identified Gorbachev as a potential reformer back in 1983). He reigned in some of the worst parts of the police state and, unlike his predecessors, did not use military force to hold the Communist Bloc together. There’s a famous story of him meeting Reagan and asking if Reagan really did think the Soviet Union was an evil Empire. Reagan was impressed because Gorby’s predecessors hadn’t cared whether it was or not. He deserves credit for the role he played in winding down the Cold War.

But that’s enough for some people. Gorbachev has to be a visionary who saved the world from the nuclear fire that the evil Ronald Reagan was driving us toward. He was the messiah who delivered freedom to Eastern Europe. He was the visionary who ended half a century of antagonism from Western imperialists.

This line of thought ignores that Gorby was and is a supporter of communism who truly believed in Marxist-Leninism. He was sad that the advance of Marxism faltered — an advance played out in dozens of devastating civil wars. He has said, repeatedly, that the collapse of the murderous Soviet Union and the loosening of its stranglehold over Eastern Europe was a bad thing. He is a critic of the Washington Consensus that had led the world to the greatest prosperity in its history and thinks China’s economic model — see Alex’s posts on that subject — is the example to the world.

I’d like to think that this will rattle a few misconceptions:

Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev hailed Crimea’s vote to join Russia as a “happy event” on Tuesday.

In remarks carried by online newspaper Slon.ru, the last leader of the U.S.S.R. said Crimea’s vote offered residents the freedom of choice and justly reflected their will.

You know, it’s like if we invaded Quebec and had a plebiscite for them to become our 51st state. Everything would think that was legit, right?

It gets more ominous.

Gorbachev added that the Crimean referendum has set an example for people in Russian-speaking in eastern Ukraine, who also should decide their fate.

I expect that Gorby-worshippers will resolve this cognitive dissonance by deciding that Gorbachev is right: that the Crimea should be part of Russia and the US is wrong to oppose it. Of course, that would put them in conflict with Kerry and Obama. Good God, whose Cult of Personality do you follow?

Gorbachev has always been an imperialist who believe in a greater Marxist-Leninist state. That he eased up on enforcing that state with gulags and murder — the only way any such state has ever survived — is to his credit. But maybe we should reconsider his canonization.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Russia?

Let’s not beat around the bush. Russia has invaded the Ukraine, violating their sovereignty, breaking the treaty they signed and violating international rules of warfare. The Ukraine gave up their massive arsenal of nuclear weapons on the promise that the Russians would respect their sovereignty. That agreement is now dead.

The Russian excuse — that Crimea is ethnically Russian — is flimsy at best. Crimea is self-governing and is only 60% Russian. And Putin hasn’t really cared for the sovereignty of ethnic conclaves when they aren’t Russian (see Chechnya). His motivations are pretty plain: expand Russia and/or build a buffer zone of vassal states between Russia and Europe.

Frankly, I’m getting sick of this constant look into Russia’s motive and the unceasing slew of articles claiming that we need to see this from Russia’s perspective. Every aggressor in history has had his reasons. People don’t invade other countries for fun. What matters is what Putin has done, not what his motives were.

So what do we do about it? We don’t have a lot of options, barring a war. And I don’t think the Crimea is what we want to start World War 3 over. Zakaria proposes a few things, including kicking Russia out of the G-8. But I think the primary response has to be diplomatic. Whatever the result here, Russia’s neighbors have got be nervous. Now is the time to tighten those alliances and restart missile defense. I’m not sure if we should expand NATO to the Ukraine. A NATO alliance could prevent further aggression; it could also draw us into a war (or worse, not draw us into a war and collapse the entire concept of NATO).

Whatever our response is, we have to realize that we have a large aggressive nation in Eastern Europe that is devoted to slicing off chunks of their neighbors to consolidate their power. This may not quite be a cold war, but it requires us to create a bulwark against further expansion before this really does explode into World War 3. The good news is that we have a team at the State Department that can …

….

… oh, crap.

Getting Real in the Ukraine

So the Ukraine’s murderous Russophile prime minster was driven out of Kyiv last week. Earlier today, the Ukraine parliament elected the opposition leader as PM. Everyone has been wondering what Russia is going to do now that they don’t have to pretend to be (sorta) nice for the Olympics.

I think we’re finding out:

Dozens of armed men seized the regional government administration building and parliament in Ukraine’s southern Crimea region Thursday and raised the Russian flag in a challenge to the Eastern European country’s new leaders.

Crimea, with its ethnic Russian majority, is the last big bastion of opposition to the new political leadership in Kiev after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s ouster Saturday.

The incident, coming a day after Russia ordered surprise military exercises on Ukraine’s doorstep, has raised fears about the push and pull of opposing allegiances in a country sandwiched between Russia and the European Union.

Ed Morrisey has more, including a now clear alliance between Ukraine’s ousted PM and Putin.

I don’t think Putin is going to do a full-on invasion of the Ukraine. A nation of 44 million people is a lot to handle, even for him. But I do think we’re going to get something like the 2008 South Ossetia War, with Russian military forces “assisting” the ethnically Russian Crimea to “independence” from the rest of the Ukraine, following by an ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians. The end result will be to give Russia effective control of the Black Sea but with the Ukraine less divided and firmly in the European sphere of influence.

There’s not a lot we can do about that, short of a massive and extremely dangerous war. I suspect we’ll protest and maybe send a carrier out there. But any real pushback would have to come from Europe and … that ain’t happening.

You have got your facts wrong buddy

Peter Hatcher at “The Sidney Morning Herald” has an editorial post titled Poll shock as Swiss vote to slam the door shut dealing with the recent vote in Switzerland to curtail immigration.

So it seemed unlikely the Swiss would vote to put new limits on their country’s immigration intake in the referendum held at the weekend. The opinion polls concurred – surveys showed most Swiss opposed the idea of putting a cap on annual immigration numbers.

But the surprise result late on Sunday was the slimmest of majorities in favour. By 50.3 per cent, the Swiss voted to impose an annual limit.

The government, however reluctantly, will be obliged to implement the policy advocated by the far-right Swiss People’s Party. The policy itself is not an extreme one – it simply means Switzerland can exercise the traditional sovereign right to limit its immigration intake, which is about 80,000 a year in a country of 8 million.

In a nutshell, despite whatever the polls said or wanted people to believe, Swiss voters, by a slim margin I admit, in a referendum on the subject, decided they would prefer some restrictions on immigration, and that’s being sold as a huge upset. The author is concerned with the impact this vote will have on the relationship between Switzerland and the EU, which up until now had an agreement that allowed people to move freely between the two, despite the fact that Switzerland is not an EU member (smart on their part I say), especially in the economic arena. He foresees some kind of retaliatory strategy from the EU, and I would tend to agree that the hoity-toity bureaucrats in Brussels would respond exactly like that. But that’s not my beef with the article, and my focus is elsewhere.

The author also is worried about the repercussion of this referendum’s success and the implication for similar movements in other EU countries, expecting voters there to be galvanized by this victory for what he coins as “the far-right Swiss” movement, and that’s where I disagree with the article. First off, there are no far-right movements in Europe. That concept is ludicrous. Europe has become a collectivist cesspool, and anything that doesn’t involve a massive government bureaucracy that controls all aspect of life, completely in opposition of what the real movement on the right believes in because it stifles individualism, dignity, and freedom,, has about zero chance of existing there. Big, all controlling, government are the only political entities that exists. Some are labeled as far right, by people that either bought into or want to propagate the left’s myth that fascism is not just another socialist disease, like communism. It plays well to revive those fears of fascism as motivation for whatever the leviathan nanny state leftists want to oppose. Don’t take my word for this: here is the author of this post making the point:

Third, this event will energise far-right parties across Europe in the approach to elections for the European Parliament, due in three months.

The echoes of Europe’s grim history of the early 20th century, during which economic downturn led to the rise of fascism, always intensify in times of economic hardship.

Get it? Far-right movements are shadow fascism. That’s pure and simple bullshit. As I already mentioned, there are no far-right – in the traditional sense of what the right really stands for – in Europe. What these people coin as far-right is anything but. The fact remains that fascism is another spawn of the socialist movement. It’s communism’s brother, and only has a bad reputation because the old left liked the idea of communism, where the few oligarchs or single dictator running the show controls and owns everything, while pretending that property belongs to the people through the state, more. Today’s left is far more enamored of the incestuous relationship between an all controlling state that picks winners and losers, in the name of idiotic concepts like “social justice” or other such pap, and those elements in the private sector that the state approves of.

That relationship between the state and the private sector is one of the key components of fascism and was part and parcel of Mussolini’s Italy or Hitler’s Germany. It’s pervasive through what we would label the modern Western nation, but they go out of their way to pretend they are not engaged in it. The left has pretended because they no longer pay homage to the whole nationalist component of old fascism, which is what they used to brand fascism as a right wing phenomenon, that they are not engaged in fascist behavior. So far-right parties in the EU are labeled as the only fascist movement, because one can say they have more of that nationalist component. These big government movements are all fascistic, whether they are nationalistic in nature or otherwise, and we should put an end to the abuse by those that want to pretend otherwise so they can keep people freaked out about their opposition. Soft fascism is fascism. Let’s quit kidding ourselves that it is otherwise. And no entity is a bigger example of this fascism at work than the all-encompassing and pervasive EU bureaucracy with the possible exception of the lawless Obama administration in the US.

Quit the scare mongering about fascism. We are already living under a version of it, and sooner than later it will show us its ugly side, so let us stop pretending otherwise. This shit ain’t far-right anything either: it’s just another incarnation of collectivism.

You Can Keep Him

If you are Global Warming, you better have a thick skin, cancer has a better rep. But not to worry, your days are numbered. See, a UK politician has figured it out, to beat you silly they just need to expand foreign aid, money spent over there will fix our climate problems over here, and you thought Joe Biden was a boner;

Eric Pickles: Spend aid abroad to stop flooding in the UK
Sustainable aid spent across the world will help to alleviate the effects of extreme weather in the UK, the communities secretary suggests
—-
Britain’s international aid budget will help reduce flooding in the UK by addressing the causes of climate change abroad, Eric Pickles has said.

And I thought I just had to buy a hybrid, shower in rain water collected from my own barrel, and quit eating beans. So all that money sent to Pakistan (who gives succor to terrorists), the PLO (who use it to buy more rockets to loob over at Israel), and to Syria (to, you know, keep the female population in check) will somehow come flying back to us and rid the US of those nasty hurricanes, tornadoes and floods.

Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, has accused the Government of a “lethargic and inadequate” response to the floods and said foreign aid spending should be suspending while the floods crisis was tackled.
Farage said it was ”basic common sense” to suspend international aid while the country was dealing with the aftermath of recent extreme weather.
”Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that a government’s primary duty is to the well-being of its own citizens. Charity begins at home and it is not mean-spirited to say that, it is just basic common sense.”

Not to a politician, or should I say this politician. Common sense is like a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, something they just dream about.

European Pussies

Before I get in to the meat of the post, feel free to substitute European for liberal, progressive, or any thin skinned crybaby who makes a living out of victimhood and somehow thinks he/she should be protected from the world meanees out there who just might hurt their feelings, there.

There is a faux outrage story making the rounds about European sensibilities getting irritated by an ambassador making an off color comment. This whole episode gives new meaning to “Tempest in a teapot” and “Mountain out of a mole hill”. The fact that this caused even a hiccup on their outrage meter indicates an even greater degree of sissyness than even I imagined;

German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed outrage on Friday over a leaked conversation in which a top US diplomat used the f-word to disparage the European Union’s handling of the crisis in Ukraine.
The candid remark by the US State Department’s most senior European official threatened to drive a dangerous wedge between the allies in the midst of one their most high-stakes diplomatic tussles with Moscow since the Cold War.

Ho hum, get a life, Merkel.

So, someone, expecting a certain level of privacy considering that it was a private phone conversation said ,”F@ck the EU”, alert NORAD, we are at DEFCON 1.

But the leaked phone call hinted strongly at Washington’s mounting frustration with the Europeans’ handling of Ukraine’s worst political crisis since its independence in 1991.

Our frustration? Can you imagine the EU’s consternation over Obama policies over the last 5 years? Talk about frustration. I imagine that same F word bandied about several thousand times within their neat little circle of phone conversations, who cares?

The US State Department immediately pointed an incriminating finger at Russia for allegedly bugging diplomats’ phones.
“Certainly we think this is a new low in Russian tradecraft,” US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

Where is the European outrage over this?

See, this is why we need an adult/rational conversation over NSA practices. I want my government spying on EVERY foreign nation out there, friend or foe. This nonsense about gentlemen don’t spy on other gentlemen, if national security is the goal, and factoring in that each country must look out for it’s own national interests, then knowledge is power and what the other guys are doing and thinking elevates our own security.

This also cements (as if anyone needed more proof) that fact that Russia will always be our enemy. Their interests are in direct opposition to ours, we can make nice with them but like Bill Clinton, we would never let them baby sit our kids.

The events going on in the Ukraine are noteworthy, and yes, Russian meddling is bothersome. But I am for letting things play out. Jefferson talked about the tree of liberty and what is required for its refreshment. When the folks are pulling one way and the president, enticed by Russian carrots, pulls the opposite way, a tussle will naturally ensue. This is more a EU fight than ours and we should do whatever we can to assist them is drawing the Ukraine away from Russian influence, but this whinny sanctimony over, “F@ck the EU” only bolsters the notion that they really don’t know what they are doing and need even more hand holding from us.

You guys want to leave the kid’s table and start eating with the adults? grow a pair, forchrissakes.