Union Jack

Blog Post
Passing Comment (Rule Britainia)

A leftie at a Dodgers/Angels baseball game took issue with my TRUMP 2020 baseball cap and told me smugly that the British Royals don’t like President Trump. I told her that they didn’t like George Washington either.

At the same time, it seems that the UK is interested in a trade deal with the US (most favored status) that will bring money to their island(s). I would think that the Royal Family should stand on principle because President Trump was elected by those meddlesome colonists and is likely to be re-elected.

Then again Prince Charles (a dim bulb by anyone’s reckoning) is not a man to be taken seriously. The British elite have repudiated everything that made Britain great, and they’re making themselves irrelevant. They REALLY don’t want to make Britain great again. Sad.
PS (on another note) – Dear Democrats, Let’s clear this all up today. Just turn over the DNC server and let the FBI forensically analyze it. Why are you hiding it?— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) July 16, 2018 

19 thoughts on “Union Jack

  1. But LL, aren't you forgetting that Trump os a TRAITOR?

    Prince Phillip, unlike the laughable "Charley" is a hero by any reckoning.

  2. Trump a traitor? I keep looking at the former John Kerry supporters saying that and can only shake my head.

  3. Last week during the NATO summit Trump was heavily criticized for his effort to increase the budgets to the military and make the European NATO members pay their fair share of the cost. Especially when Trump pointed out to Merkel that US taxpayers pay for the defense against Russia that Germany support by purchasing gas from. So Germany weaken their own defense and strengthening Russia. Last week Trump was to hard against Russia, but this week …

  4. Oh the horror. Europe dealing with a hard baller after decades of US pussies.

  5. President Trump has been called a lot of names.

    Jim – John (Old Woodenhead) Kerry is a genuine traitor as is his long time friend Hanoi Jane Fonda. He should never have been allowed to run for office.

  6. Should NATO exist, John? I realize that the treaty provides a safety net to much of Europe, but Europe doesn't seem to want it. Not really. US taxpayers pay somewhere between 72% and 90% of NATO costs, depending on how you do the math, and the question that many in the US are asking is what we get for it. Particularly in light of Germany working so hard to prop up the sagging Russian economy.

  7. The elites in Europe are shocked by somebody who shows up and calls them all skinflints.

  8. IMO, that's the $64,000 question. (Probably ought to be inflated to $64 Million by now…)

    What good is NATO anymore? Should it even exist? One of the biggest problem makers in the world is Erdogan in Turkey, and he's protected by NATO.

    We can go on from there: what do our bases in Germany do for us? Aside from being the nearest US hospitals to the Mideast. I understand that to really take land, you need ground forces and can't just bomb the snot out of things from high altitudes. That means ways of projecting power and that's why those bases are there.

    Why do we want to take and control land?

    NATO was the result of post-WWII winners saying "let's keep that from happening again". Does it really, or does the nuclear deterrent? Has NATO outlived its usefulness.

  9. The US saved Europe in WW 1 and 2 but at that time Germany was the bad guy. Today all point at Russia as the bad guy. The European population is twice as big as the US with more than 750 million people with the EU as a common organization to keep the different countries being friends. There should be no lack of people nor money to establish an army to solve any problem. But it is convenient to let the US take the bill. European countries can develop a fruitful industrial partnership with the US to develop equipment and find ways to cooperate. But still the US do have som interest in having access to intelligence to keep track of Russian subs representing a potential threat. I guess it is better to make Europe responsible again for its own destiny. The US also have an interest in Asia that Europe to not care that much about. That too cost money. NATO looks more like a party where everyone keep saying to the US that you fix the booze, the ladies and the music and we bring the water.

  10. Exactly – water. Nato isn't even willing to bring ice to the party to cool the drinks.

  11. Greybeard – We do have a lot of infrastructure in Germany, but we could lease the land without NATO – or maybe not? Maybe we need to buy Lichtenstein or something and put all of our toys there? Or maybe we find some way to put sovereignty somewhere else? The Germans, once reliable when they feared Russia, are just milking us like a goat.

  12. I guess a tender where the US ask for locations will be attractive and the cost will be acceptable. Then the US can optimize the locations and relocate what exists today to better places. But still there are some topics like intelligence and other areas where the US has an interest in having partners to get the best degree of security possible e.g. the subs with nukes. But European NATO members must pay and show some real interest in taking care of their security.

  13. The intelligence pendulum swings both ways. NATO countries (and particularly Canada, UK, and Australia) benefits from US intelligence as well.

    NATO will last as long as people want it to. When they no longer want it, it will die a timely death. As nations become "business rivals" and "business allies" first, it means that military alliance value is diminished.

  14. I guess while the US kept a tradition and focus on the full specter of military capacity the European politicians took a "Chamberlain" after the Soviet union passed away and thought peace in our time and started to shut down the military to protect their own ground. Then the Iraq war, Afghanistan and so on shifted the focus and mindset towards limited operation with focus on special forces kind of resources. Then came the terrorist wave and changed the direction towards law enforcement and away from being attacked by a military super power and put the final nail in the coffin of traditional military operations. The European politicians did not pay enough attention to the modernization of Russian military forces and today we see the result. While the US has been able to carry a strategy where all risk might occur the Europeans have not. Now they are underdogs and do not like the idea of Uncle Sam making them taking responsibility. Thus it is all Trumps fault since he makes the consequences look more grim than previous Presidents ever did. They just let the US taxpayer finance the party to the benefit of European politicians. That is not sustainable. The new generation of European politicians need to face the realities and come up with better plans making them capable of defending their countries against an attacking national state with the full specter of weaponry and not only a muslim committing terror. That will cost money they do not voluntarily want to spend unless they really must. Here Trump do a good job to motivate.

  15. The new president in Mexico will probably motivate to build the Wall faster than any D predicted. I guess the D now will look more seriously into the subject as Obrador have ideas of letting drug cartels establish more efficient production facilities along the border to support the US market. There is an idea that legalizing drugs is smart among certain people, I guess they also have good answers on how to deal with the negative consequences of using it.

    dw.com/en/mexico-lopez-obrador-government-to-consider-legalization-of-drugs/a-44717636

  16. Oh my is right. I don't think my brain can wrap itself around King Jug-ears Tampon of the Great Climate Hoax.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to top