Much Ado about the Ukraine

Events in the Ukraine are now big headlines and the topic of a torrent of commentaries by experts on Russia, the European Union, NATO and related subjects. The whole thing began after protests forced its president to flee to Russia, followed by the Russian Federation’s annexation of Crimea as disputes between Eastern and Western Ukraine broke out.

 

 

At the time and still now I thought it was a predictable action and one that did not involve “invading” the Crimea since Russia has for many years had several thousand troops already stationed there to service and protect its military and naval facilities. Rather than wait around for the Ukrainians to resolve their conflict, the Russians took the reasonable, rational action of annexation. Crimea had been a part of Russia for hundreds of years and the Ukraine was as well. The national language there is Russian.

 

 

The problems the Ukraine has encountered began with public rejection of its president, Victor Yanukovycha, a fellow who preferred alignment with Russia than the West. Many Ukrainians thought this was a bad idea, but it seems now that many others had no objections. The main objections appear to have been the dismal governance of the nation, replete with major corruption.

 

 

The problem Vladimir Putin poses today is the problem that Russia has always posed for any nation on its borders. From the czars to the commissars, it has a long history of imposing control on its neighbors. They were regarded as a buffer zone. Russia had been unsuccessfully invaded by Napoleon and, after being betrayed by the Nazis with whom they signed a deal to split Poland, they wanted territory between them and Europe. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, those satellite nations declared their sovereignty once again, happy to be free and to embrace Western Europe.

 

 

NATO, a European mutual defense organization, was created to respond to what was seen as the potential for Russian aggression. As a member, the U.S. is committed to join in their defense. World War Two was followed by over forty years of “containment” by the West. When in 1992 the U.S. Senate ratified NATO expansion to include nations that bordered the former Soviet Union, it set up the present tense situation. Ukraine, however, is not a member of NATO.

 

 

Interviewed in 1998, George Kennan, the U.S. diplomat who was ambassador to Moscow in 1952 and who authored the “containment” policy adopted by the U.S., said the expansion of NATO was a very bad decision.

 

 

Presciently, he said, “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies,” adding “It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia and then (the NATO expanders) will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are—but this is just wrong.”

 

 

On April 28, the Associated Press reported that President Obama said of increased sanctions on Russia, “We don’t yet know whether it’s going to work.” 

 

 

Nothing else in the Obama foreign policy regarding Russia has worked since the famed “reset” in his first term so he’s probably right. On a personal level, not just Putin, but most leaders of foreign nations have concluded Obama is too weak and too incompetent to be treated with anything other than the courtesy his office requires.

 

 

Thomas Graham, a former senior director for Russia on the U.S. National Security Council staff from 2004 to 2007, recently expressed his view of the current situation in the April 28 edition of the Financial Times. He dismissed a new version of “containment” saying “It will not work. Nor will it advance U.S. interests. Economically, Russian is impossible to isolate.”

 

 

 

 

 

That’s true, but its economy is primarily dependent on oil and natural gas sales. If the prices of either were to fall, its economy would go with it. As it is, money is fleeing Russia, investment has halted, and its present threatening posture toward Ukraine may make Putin a hometown hero, but in the rest of the world, he is trouble with a capital T. As for Ukraine, its economy it’s even worse. But Russian pipelines runs through it to Europe. That is reason enough for Russia to show some concern for events there.

 

 

Whatever Russia does, the West can be counted upon to wimp out, doing little or nothing. In this case, staying out of the internal dispute in Ukraine may be the wisest course of action.

 

 

At home we have watched the influence of the United States decline from the day Obama took office. He has made matters worse by engaging in the reduction of our military capabilities. Until Obama leaves office, there is little that can be done to reverse this lamentable trend.

 

 

As the White House and the rest of us watch from the sidelines, we will hear a lot of empty rhetoric. Putin will be called a war monger, but he just wanted to protect Crimea. If he can covertly subvert Ukraine enough to gain more influence over its eastern half, he will try.

 

I cannot weep much for a nation with historic ties to the Nazis and one in which anti-Semitism is still virulent. This is hardly a nation to which the U.S. should be lending millions with loan guarantees for billions.

 

 

What happens to the Ukraine is a matter for the Ukrainians to address, not us.

Force

An interesting question came up yesterday.
During a conversation with an associate I was asked to define Socialism.  And, then explain why I think it’s bad.
My response was “Force”.
The issue is not that Socialism is difficult to define but rather that so many people demonstrate the mindset through their actions while calling themselves various other things.  Socialists intentionally try to keep you, and themselves, confused… if they didn’t you would see them for what they are.
It became clear during this conversation that a simple rule would be useful because the left changes their names with regularity and impunity. They figured out long ago that when people understand who they are and what they really stand for, those people don’t like them. So the solution was to keep calling themselves something different… often. It adds up to a long list, from stealing the term “Liberal” to using words like Progressive. You’ll find them labeling themselves Democrats, Moderates, Social Democrats, Republicans and even, hilariously, “No Labels”.  I prefer “Statists” because it lumps them all together… it’s easier for me as I have few brain cells remaining.
It becomes humorous when you think about it… how disliked must you be to have so many names?  Well, criminals do this everyday.  Count the times have you’ve watched the news and the police are looking for a guy with fifteen different “AKA’s”?  Criminals, and Liberals, understand that a name follows you around and really gets in the way of doing bad things.  Can’t have that.
So how do we identify these people?
The very first question you should always ask yourself is… does this person advocate force to be used upon U.S. Citizens?
An easy example of the above is:
Ask yourself, is the government forcing me to buy… a bible, a first edition of Audacity of Hope or health insurance?  If so, the person advocating the force is a Socialist.  It doesn’t matter what they call themselves.
And, the law used to force you to do so is Socialist in nature and therefore extra-constitutional.  (OK Lefties – Car insurance does not apply here as you are not forced to buy a car… and even if you choose to, as long as it resides on your private property (say a ranch) you are not forced to have insurance for it.)
If you’re still not sure, then the second question is; does this person desire to use this force to “nudge” you to the “right” decision, in other words quicker than you might have arrived there on your own…  This is done because the Leftist wielding the force already knows (believes) their answer is the right one and you’re too inept to make the correct decision on yourself.
Some examples are skyrocketing gas prices forced upon us through Federal taxes, and a refusal to utilize our own natural resources, so we can get those cars that run on algae which we have all been dreaming about.  Or, forcing banks to lend you money even though you don’t have a job and you have a history of not paying your bills… this way you can have a house BEFORE you can afford it subsequently causing a GLOBAL financial meltdown.
It just doesn’t matter what the consequences are because these people are brilliant and full of only the best intentions… like forcing people to buy crappy fluorescent light bulbs from a company that donates millions of dollars to their campaign coffers.  Thank God we have such smart folks to take care of us stupid people…  it’s all for our own good.
It really is that simple and this “force” rule can be applied hundreds of times a day. Now that you realize this, you’ll be amazed on how it changes the way you see the world. You will also be amazed at the change in how you view people you previously thought you agreed with.
So instead of allowing yourself to succumb to the intentionally confusing and overwhelming number of names and supposed “good intentions” the Left hides behind, you now have an easy way to identify them and their behaviors immediately and clearly even through the denials.  When applied, this rule will identify those Socialists on both sides of the aisle.
In contrast, Free-Market Capitalism requires no force.  None.  All it requires is you making the decision you think is best for you.  Rugged Individualism takes into account that we are all in this together, but it allows YOU to determine if coming together as a group to accomplish a goal is the right thing for you to do… it does not allow for some other person to force you to come together  and accomplish a goal you disagree with but they think is the right one.
Make no mistake… there is a war going on.  It’s a battle between two very different governing theories… two very different Ideologies.
One is Collectivist in nature.  It’s a number of ideas that sound nice when said aloud but have a very long, sad history of oppression, poverty, death, destruction and failure.  It’s called Democratic Socialism. It’s Force.  The entirety of the Democrat Party, and many in the Republican Party promote this ideology through their actions while denying it to your face.  They work “around” the U.S. Constitution because it is anti-socialist by design.  They call it a “living, breathing document” or “outdated”.  Of course they do, it’s in the way.
The other theory is Enlightened and what this country was founded on.  It’s Liberty and Freedom of the Individual to choose.  It’s a Federal Government Limited by a Constitution.  It’s Free-Market Capitalism that protects not just the Individual, but the Economic health of all of us… together.  There are a few politicians promoting this ideology but their numbers are increasing as the citizens begin to actively pay attention.  With the Education of the population in regard to these two theories the voters find their way.  Sadly, the contrast is not being taught in our Government School System and must be sought out.
What should be understood is these two ideologies are mutually exclusive.  Compromise has no place here.  The fact that we have tried to compromise ( link to: Bipartisanshitt) over the last 100 years is exactly what has brought us to the fiscal cliff.  We have strayed far from our original intent.
It’s time to admit it, double back, and find the right path before it’s too late.
We are very close to “too late”.

Government Lexicon

Words no longer mean anything stable and therefore laws mean nothing stable at the highest level of U.S. government. The government is the master of words now. It creates threats when none exist. It defines and names them according to its pleasure. This in turn justifies it in creating a national emergency when there is none.
There is no restraint, no constraint, no boundary on what a president can do when and if words fail to provide such constraints. When a president uses words to mean things they do not in fact mean, that is, when he uses bald-faced lies as justifications for his actions, then any so-called law can be issued by a president. He can do anything by declaring that the situation demands it, even if it doesn’t. At that point, words mean nothing of what their conventional content gives them. They become what authority says they mean. At that point, we are in an Alice in Wonderland world.

Alice is talking with Humpty Dumpty:

“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
“‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
“‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’”

Who is master, the word or its user, in this case Humpty Dumpty? Humpty tells Alice he’s the master.

Obama is now the master. Here is Humpty Dumpty Obama speaking. Obama issued an executive order that says:

“I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of persons — including persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine — that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby order:”

What national emergency? There isn’t any. I defy anyone to prove that there is an actual national emergency because of relations between Crimea and Ukraine. Obama finds “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States…” What threat? I defy anyone to prove that there is a threat to the security of Americans arising from Crimea’s relations with Ukraine.

What danger is there to Americans if Crimea holds a referendum? What danger if it decides to alter its political relations with Ukraine and Russia? What actually is the “Government of Ukraine” of which Obama speaks? What are its democratic processes being undermined? How can a vote in Crimea cause an emergency to Americans? How can such a vote cause an emergency to Americans while riots in the streets, snipers and thugs can cause a change in government in Ukraine and that is no cause for Obama to declare an emergency, indeed that becomes a cause for approval?

In Obama’s dictionary, if he thinks something has happened in Crimea having to do with its government that another government (in Ukraine) has not authorized, then this constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States…” This constitutes an “emergency”.

If the foreign policy of the United States is unlawful to begin with and if it is thwarted by Crimeans or a Crimean vote to separate from Ukraine, does that give rise to a threat to the foreign policy of the U.S.? Even if it does, which it doesn’t in this case, is it so serious as to declare that the U.S. foreign policy faces an emergency?

A national emergency arises from a threat to THE NATION, that is, to Americans regarded as a people. If there is a threat to the foreign policy of the U.S., and I deny that a vote among Crimeans is a genuine threat even to that, this is not the same as a threat to Americans. There is no national emergency.

How can a vote in Crimea be viewed as a threat to U.S. foreign policy and the overturning of the government of Ukraine by violent means not be viewed as a threat? Only if the U.S. is content with the latter but unhappy with the former. In other words, to the U.S. government, a threat is that which frustrates what it desires. It is not based on something objective that endangers Americans but on an impediment to U.S. foreign policy. This impediment is declared to be a threat so that then a national emergency can be declared when none exists. That in turn then is used to justify taking actions in the form of sanctions.

Is the frustration of a want to be called a threat? If I want a Mercedes-Benz in a showroom but can’t get it without paying for it, is the dealer a threat to my “foreign policy”? Do I then declare that the dealer has threatened my family? Do I declare a family emergency? Do I then use my power to blockade the showroom or to prevent the dealer from accessing his bank account or to stop trailers from delivering new cars to him? Yes, this all sounds very far-fetched but so is it far-fetched for Obama to see a threat to this nation from a vote in Crimea and declare a national emergency.

Obama’s executive order is a raw exercise of power dressed up to give the appearance of legality.