Tag Archives: european union

brexit-690x450

Who’s Upset Over Brexit Says Everything You Need To Know.

By: Chris Warren.

Well, they gone and done it! The United Kingdom has voted to dump the European Union and release themselves from an entire layer of feckless, inattentive, nanny state government. I will not feign neutrality here. Twenty First Summer has previously supported the Brexit. Over the last few days the media was flooded with analyses. I’m going to make this real easy. To truly understand the Brexit, just look at who is pissed off about it:

The Democrats: President Barak Obama was concerned enough to make a special trip to England to campaign against the Brexit. Imagine how deeply offended Americans would be if British Prime Minister David Cameron came to American soil and stirred the pot about a major, life-changing USA issue. Hillary Clinton at least had enough sense to shoot her mouth off from her own side of the Atlantic, but she was nonetheless just as against Brexit as Obama. It’s an election year like none before it, and the Obama/Clinton cartel don’t want the distraction of Brexit shining a very bright light light on their deeply flawed big government philosophy. By default, they had to be against it. And by default, they are very, very unhappy that it did not go their way.

Millennials: Specifically, British millennials. The 18-34 age group voted against the Brexit nearly 2-1 compared to their elders. Now they are whining that they have to inherit a world that their elders made and are even pushing for a “do-over” election. They grew up being told everyone gets a trophy, so I guess we can understand why they think they can just keep voting over and over until they win. British millennial  crybabies grew up in an escalating cradle-to-grave welfare state and have collectively contributed very little to society; it is somewhat amusing that they pout over the decisions of the people who paid for all their free stuff. Here’s a life lesson to all millennials: Sometimes you actually do lose. And no one gets to live in a world they made. Get over yourselves.

The rest of the European Union: The EU is not a benevolent body working towards the betterment of the common man. It’s a “special club” of power brokers who manipulate an entire continent to further their political, financial, and social goals. When the United Kingdom bailed, the EU lost control over a big chunk of its prime territory. Now the EU is saying that the UK is free to leave, but if they still want to do business with EU nations, then the Brits must assent to most of the demands that drove the movement to break away from the EU in the first place. In any other situation this would be called collusion, blackmail, threats, and extortion. Since a government body is doing it, it’s politely called “negotiating”.

It’s no coincidence that the elite aristocrats, wealthy connected families, business executives, and a happily dependent younger generation are the main groups upset about the success of the Brexit. They’re all worried about their slice of the pie getting smaller.

Here in the United States, Democrats play down the influence of the Brexit in American politics. Liberals are sticking to the talking point that it is a European regional matter with no corresponding effect in the USA, but that’s whistling past the graveyard. The atmosphere of revolt is palpable and the more liberals talk, the more they call attention to a system –their system– that a majority of Americans believe is not working. Meanwhile, presidential candidate Donald Trump wasted no time drawing similarities between the Brexit and his candidacy; the voters are slowly if not haltingly seeing Trump’s light.

The long term effects of the Brexit are yet to be known. What we do know is that it speaks volumes about what freeloaders & the power hungry, both rich and poor, sincerely think about those of us who pull our boots on and go to a real job every day. The USA Democrats are similar to the EU in that they appreciate us little people only to the extent that they can exploit us. There is no need for average Americans to sort through the endless Brexit explanations. Just look at who is agitated about it and ask yourself: Who do they really care about? Hint: It’s not you.

Revisiting Progressive Fairness.

By: Chris Warren.

Back in February 2014 my second post on the then brand new Twenty First Summer was about fairness (click here to go to the original article). Since that time, the attitudes I expressed in that article have not changed, but a lot of world events that drive those attitudes has. It’s perfect time to revisit the concept of fairness.

“Each side will claim the other is lying. Each side has a vested interest in keeping the concept of fairness as blurry as possible,” I said back then. That part is still glaringly true. What is different is that one side is more invested in blurring the lines of fairness than the other. I’m not sure what fairness exactly is, but I do know what it isn’t.

Fairness is not taking assets from those who earned them and giving them to those who did not. Where does it say that everyone has a divine cosmic “right” to housing, a college education, childcare, and on and on…regardless of one’s ability to pay?

fairness

While we’re on the subject of fairness, it’s also worthwhile to mix in the issue of “rights” because the two concepts are closely related. We The People have a right to many things. Yet, it does not automatically follow that having a right to something means others must provide it for you: I have a right to speak my mind. Should someone else be compelled to host my blog or set me up with a podcast for free?

If it’s not fair that I should get free web hosting, then I need someone from the political left to explain why. After all, they believe fairness equals the right to make someone else pay for my medical bills, my rent, my education, and pretty much my entire lifestyle. I want to know why the same line of thinking does not conclude that my free speech should be, literally, free.

Here in the United States we have the Second Amendment of the Constitution asserting our right to bear arms. While the liberal left is busy insisting that “fairness” means taxpayer funded sex change operations for convicts and fifteen dollars an hour for people stupid enough to think shoveling french fries is a lifetime vocation (none of this is in the Constitution, by the way), they should stay true to their philosophy and demand that the government issue a gun to every citizen who wants one. After all, it’s my “right,” isn’t it? Liberal logic should have no problem with my request for a 9 millimeter semiautomatic chunk of fairness. And I want someone else to pay for it so I don’t have to.

For American Progressives, Europe has been the role model of egalitarian fairness for two generations. Like all things liberal, the European version of fairness wholly depends on taking from those who earn and giving to those who don’t. Europe is now living up to the late great British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s quip about running out of other people’s money.

The Euro Zone which Thatcher strongly warned against is failing, as it deserves to, and Great Britain is seriously considering hitting the eject button from the European Union, an act known as the Brexit in economics-speak. It’s a bit of historic irony when the country that didn’t want the American colonists to have independence nearly 250 years ago is now itself contemplating what without question would be a very messy economic and political divorce from the rest of Europe. I say go for it England, before all that EU fairness sucks the life out of your great and proud land.

That brings me to my last question for American liberals: If European democratic socialism is so awesome, why is it failing? More precisely, why is your version of fairness failing? I’m sure the answer will be at least as blurry and evasive as the excuses for implementing it in the first place.

karte-4-634

Operation Mare Nostrum Is The Only Hope.

By: Chris Warren.

Few Americans here at our insulated cocoon between the oceans closely follow international news. Unless one goes well out of their way to keep up, it’s easy to think we’re the center of the universe and the only country with any kind of immigration problem. Far beyond our shores is an immigration situation that is more serious and life-threatening than anything going on in the USA and it deserves the attention of every kind hearted man and woman no matter where they live.

Operation Mare Nostrum (Latin for “our sea”) rescued African refugees who set out on the Mediterranean Sea bound for Europe to escape violence and terrorism in their home countries, particularly Syria and Libya. Italy began the operation in October 2013 after two shipwrecks left over 400 dead. Although no one really knows for sure how many attempted the crossing in the last year, Mare Nostrum has rescued 150,000 souls. One hundred and fifty thousand. In one year. That’s equivalent to the population of a decent sized city. Let that sink in for a moment.

The yearlong rescue mission conducted exclusively by Italy ended on October 31, 2014 because the other European Union nations did not want to help fund it. Italy had absorbed the entire $142 million (US) bill up to now, and they were not willing to go forward paying the tab and doing all the work alone. Mare Nostrum will be replaced by a much smaller scale Operation Triton. Triton will be carried out by Frontex, roughly the European Union equivalent of our United States Border Patrol. Triton is a coastal water security program only; high seas rescues are not within the scope of the mission.

It’s both unfortunate and understandable that operation Mare Nostrum was cut off. Unfortunate because without it thousands of victims will lose their lives in the harsh waves of the Mediterranean. Understandable because there are certain realities that cannot be ignored even if it does involve life and death. One nation cannot be expected to bear the entire burden forever, and there must be some consideration for the great peril the courageous Italian rescuers themselves are placed in while responding to distress calls.

The primary reason given by other European Union nations for withholding support for a permanent rescue policy had little to do with money. Rather, E.U. nations claim that if escapees believe they will be saved when things go wrong, they will be encouraged to attempt the dangerous sea crossing. This is seriously flawed reasoning that if not reversed will result in many deaths.

For the the refugees, leaving is a choice that is made for them. They are not going on vacation or looking to freeload off the Europeans. They are trying to escape terror and torture in Africa. The possibility that the Italians will save them (or not) is probably the farthest thing from their minds as they set sail on junky, unsafe, overcrowded boats. If you are stuck in a burning building and the only choices are to either die in the fire or jump out the window, you’re going to take your chances and jump whether the fire department is there to catch you or not. That’s the untenable position the asylum-seekers find themselves in.

The USA has been picking up fleeing Cubans from the Gulf of Mexico for decades in a western version of Mare Nostrum. Refugees intercepted at sea are not automatically brought back to the USA. Under the “wet foot-dry foot rule,” any Cuban refugee who actually makes it to the mainland USA on his own (“dry foot”) is allowed to stay and enter the legal immigration process. This policy is motivated by politics and not humanitarianism in that it applies only to Cubans. Everyone else is returned to a safe haven either in their home countries or elsewhere. No one is left to die in the Gulf.

Finding a definitive answer to the crisis in Africa is almost impossible. One of first solutions usually blurted out is to improve conditions in the other nations so there will be no (or less) reason to escape in the first place. This brings on a whole new plate of troubles: Accusations of imperialism or nation building, costs running into the billions, and very low likelihood of long-term success. One of President George W. Bush’s ultimate goals of the Iraq war was to stabilize the country so that everyday Iraqis would have a respectable standard of living. After decade and a half, billions of dollars, and many Americans and Iraqis killed, the place is in many ways a bigger mess than it was in early days of the Bush administration. The United States got absolutely nothing for the lives and treasure invested. We can argue the details ad nauseam, but the intended end result –a stable, democratic Iraq– is still unfinished business. Nation building never works, and even if it did, the promise of a free & peaceful society many years out is not helpful to doomed souls floating in the water today.

The other option is to keep plucking escapees from the sea and find a way to assimilate them into other cultures. This is more of a band aid than a true fix and has the potential to prove true concerns that a long term rescue policy will acclimate Africans to undertake hazardous sea voyages they might not otherwise attempt. It also gives abusive governments an easy method of getting rid of criminals and troublemakers, thereby dumping the problem on others. Fidel Castro was known to free violent criminals from Cuba’s prisons on the condition that they immediately leave the country.

Italy has honorably carried the burden alone, but this is not solely an Italian problem. European countries should “pay it forward” in recognition of the goodwill they have received in hard times. The modest cost split between several countries is barely a blip on a national budget radar and could even be funded all or in large part with donations of private money.

Forcibly improving the living conditions in Africa is an unattainable goal, and Operation Mare Nostrum as an indefinite rescue operation is also a far from a perfect solution. But it’s nowhere near as imperfect or immoral as purposely leaving tens of thousands of desperate victims to die in the Mediterranean Sea.