The Winston Churchill Fiver, David Downing and the Berlin Blockade

I was delighted to read last week's news that from 2016, Winston Churchill will be the new face of the fiver (five pound note, about $7.50, if you're reading this in the US).

Now, my reaction isn't surprising, given that I wrote a book about Sir Winston. But it goes far beyond my appreciation for the man who led Britain through her darkest hour and into her finest.

The pound is a reminder to Brussels that Britain is still, in the best ways, the same country that Churchill gave his all to preserve. While the Tory Europhiles (step forward, Mr. Heseltine and co.) wanted to let the Euro technocrats consign our currency to the history books in favor of the gold-starred monstrosity of the Euro and Tony Blair would surely have done the same, several things stood in their way.

Chief among these was arguably Gordon Brown's finest political act: his Five Tests. These were conditions that the British economy had to meet before the then Chancellor of the Exchequer would permit Britain to join (see: capitulate to) the single currency. I'd like to believe that, despite his failings as Prime Brown is a man who understood the economic catastrophe that would be unleashed if he let Blair do away with the pound.

Because it's not just about getting to choose pictures to put on your country's notes and coins - though I believe that both American and Brits agree this is important, given the historical giants whose images these countries put on their currency (as did Jesus, and, ahem, John Maynard Keynes per this Daniel Hannan video).

In fact, the ability to make such decisions, to name your coins, to set their value, etc. is a key marker of how much influence a government and the people who elected them have over their country.

Certainly British author David Downing is aware of how important currency is not just in domestic affairs, but also on the world stage. In the wonderful conclusion to the John Russell series,Masaryk Station, Downing's protagonist ruminates on the currency reform that America, Britain and France initiate in their occupation zones within postwar Germany in 1948. Echoing Keynes, Russell tells one of his CIA handlers, "Whoever controls the currency runs the economy, and whoever controls the economy runs the country. If Washington leaves Berlin out, then they're handing it to the Russians."

And how did the Soviets respond to the currency reform? In the same manner any authoritarian regime reacts to a threat to its power and legitimacy - by attempting to reassert control in the most dramatic fashion possible. In the case of 1948, this took the shape of the Berlin Blockade, whereby Russia locked down all road, rail and water travel between its zone in the East and the British, French and American zones in the West. The goal was twofold: force the Western allies to abandon the currency change or quit Berlin. Thanks to the imagination and resolve of General Lucius Clay, George Marshall, Harry Truman, Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin, they failed on both counts.

Click here to finish reading this article via The Huffington Post. 

The End of European Sovereignty: Merkel's Superstate Plan

This isn't the first time I've taken issue with Angela Merkel's attempts to squash decision making in Britain, France, her native Germany and the rest of the EU nations. But as her latest comments come at a time when the fate of the Eurozone hangs in the balance like never before, I'll risk lapsing into (gasp!) self-plagiarism.

It has long been the tendency of rulers across the political spectrum to consolidate power during times of crisis - from Caesar to Napoleon to, more recently, FDR during the aftermath of the Great Depression. Sometimes, as during war, it is necessary for leaders to do this, such as with the nationalization of British and American industry during WW2.

In the case of Merkel, Mario Draghi and the other ideological champions of the ever-expanding EU, it is the fallout of the Greek and Cypriot fiscal meltdowns that has led to their renewed calls for Brussels to wrest yet more control from countries' own democratically-elected parliaments. Speaking in Berlin, the German Chancellor said:

"We need to be ready to accept that Europe has the last word in certain areas. Otherwise we won't be able to continue to build Europe."

Merkel then turned to fear to justify her latest petition for more Europe, less sovereignty, stating that "chaos" reigned and that EU member countries are "staring over the abyss." 

Well of course you have to frighten people into believing that without your plan their lives will spiral into The Gorge of Eternal Peril if you want to impose your will on them. And it has long been the will of Merkel and her we-know-better-than-you-silly-little-European-electorates ilk to eradicate self-determination, freedom of choice and the other tenets of democracy, in favor of centralized, autocratic hegemony in the extraordinarily un-Parliamentary EU "Parliament." 

This is a body, let us remember, that ignored Ireland's "No" vote on the Lisbon Treaty EU Constitution the first time and forced another ballot, into which it poured millions of Euros to ensure a "Yes" vote.(Uh huh, I have written that before).  

A body that cared not a whit for the Irish people it compelled and duped when it imposed punitive terms upon them, and then on Greece in the wake of not-so-benevolent bailouts. 

A body that oversaw the illegal seizure of private bank account holders' funds in Cyprus. 

This is the type of institution Merkel wants to "build", as she knocks down democratic houses of Parliament and reinforces the walls of unaccountable, unchecked Fortress Brussels with the rubble. 

But it's OK because Germany is, she's quick to remind us, the "largest economy" in Europe. And bigger, of course, always knows better. And just to ensure the continuation German fiscal dominance, the EU wants to cudgel the City of London with the EU Financial Transaction Tax, which recent estimates suggest would cost Britain $6 billion a year. 

How long will the hard-working German people stand by and see Merkel pour their hard-earned wealth down the EU drain?

How long will the majority of left-leaning and mainstream media in the UK and US remain blindfolded to the folly of the Euro and the ill designs of the Brussels technocrats who control it?

How long will Britain stand idly by, thinking that holding an In/Out referendum in 2017 (newsflash, that's four years away!) is enough? 

It is high time for The Politician Formerly Known as Frau Nein to hear again, this time in Dolby 7.1 surround sound, that resounding cry Margaret Thatcher uttered over the EU's domination of Europe: "No, No, No!"

Otherwise, it will not be "certain" areas of life in its member nations that the EU takes over, but all areas, as the United States of Europe becomes a hideous reality.

Boston Marathon 'Right Wing' Talk Does Left, Right and Center a Disservice

Does partisanship know no bounds? Is it impossible for liberals and conservatives to see ambiguity? Can we focus on healing the wounded, instead of hurling hurtful words at ideological 'opponents'?

In the wake of the Boston bombing, I'm afraid to say the answer to all three questions is "No."

As soon as the news broke of the awful events at the marathon, the blogosphere, Twitter and Facebook lit up with theories about who was to blame. Maybe it was North Korean, Syria or Iran. Perhaps an isolated, unstable person like James Holmes, the alleged Aurora shooter. But wait, it's Tax Day in the US, and Patriots' Day. The Tea Party is calling for lower taxes and less government. That's it! It must have been the work of subversive "right wing" forces! Draw line to Timothy McVeigh. Case closed.

Really? Has our determination to politicize, polarize and polemicize every aspect of American society gone this far? I know we're all into playing the blame game, of pointing fingers, of pushing responsibility onto anyone else but ourselves. But to start pointing fingers to either side of the political spectrum in the wake of such a tragedy is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest.

The next (il)logical leap for some commentators is to not only blame so-called "right wing extremists" but to finger Conservatism itself as being reactionary, hateful and destructive. If those who are right of center weren't directly responsible, they're still on the hook, according to some.New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof tweeted, "Explosion is a reminder that ATF needs a director. Shame on Senate Republicans for blocking apptment."

Now, the bomber and his or her co-conspirators may end up being tied to an extremist group. I'm not ruling that out, but my point is this knee-jerk "look left, look right, assign blame without thinking" approach has got to stop. By demonizing right or left, and/or seeking to label a political philosophy that we don't agree with as "evil" instead of wrong-headed, is profoundly destructive. As we bemoan gridlock in Washington (Nicholas Kristof was correct about that), shake our heads as we see Republicans' and Democrats' inability to pass a solid budget and our confidence level in Congress slips further, to 13%, why are we so determined to heap kindling on the partisan fire?

Click here to keep reading this article via The Huffington Post

Truman, Thatcher and Right to Work - A Legacy of Political Resolve

So much has been written about the late, great Margaret Thatcher this week that if you found this blog post via a search engine, I applaud your diligence! (and good evening to my regular readers). It's hard to encapsulate Thatcher's legacy in a single blog post, but here's one ex-pat Brit's attempt to write something new:

Before we get to The Grocer's Daughter, let's look in on 1945. In April of that year, Harry Truman, who had Vice President for just 82 days, took FDR's place in the White House. When he asked a grieving Eleanor Roosevelt if he could help in any way, she told him “Is there anything we can do for you? For you are the one in trouble now."

How right she was. Though Truman faced Communist expansionism abroad and made the tough decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan, he had a host of problems at home. The doubts of the liberals who doubted his commitment to the progressive cause, threats of the Southern Democrats who despised his pro-civil rights stance and look-down-the-nose derision of the FDR loyalists who thought him an uneducated commoner were the least of them.

At the top of the list was labor unrest. Once the war was over, the AFL, CIO, UMW and other big unions wanted payback for their wartime efforts and for frozen wage increases. Their foils, the titans of industry, refused to meet these demands, and so the picketing began. Steel workers, miners, auto workers and more refused to man their posts, and all told 28.5 million work days were lost, the highest total in US history.

Truman called in A.F. Whitney, chief of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, and Alvanley Johnston, head of the largest railway engineers' union, insisted that they put a stop to the strikes. They refused. "All right," the President told them. "I'm going to give you the gun."

And he did. Though Truman's negotiators brokered a settlement while he was at the podium, Truman told a joint session that he wanted power to draft the striking trainmen into the US Army. They'd have to obey their Commander in Chief, he reasoned. Though Truman later healed his rift with most union leaders and secured crucial labor backing to fuel his unlikely 1948 election win, he would not be held hostage by union chiefs, even when his opposition risked their wrath.

Fast forward to the late 1970s. Now it was Britain that was at the mercy of the trade unions, which provided funds for the ruling Labour Party and so had carte blanche at 10 Downing Street during the shaky Labour tenure of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan. Unlike Truman, these two men lacked the fortitude to say "no" to their backers, and so the Communist-influenced unions got exactly what they wanted.

Until Maggie. When she took over from Callaghan in May 1979, the union chiefs must have thought it'd be business as usual, even though she was a Conservative instead of a leftist puppet. When it became clear that the new Prime Minister wouldn't be intimidated by threats, the National Mine Workers strikes started, led by the fiery Marxist Arthur Scargill, who was determined to destroy Thatcher's government as his organization had Edward Heath's Tory administration in 1974.

But they underestimated the grit of the Iron Lady. She told the Conservative Party's 1922 Committee during the peak of 1984-1985 strikes: "We had to fight the enemy without in the Falklands. We always have to be aware of the enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight and more dangerous to liberty."

Despite the difficulty and danger of the situation, during which strikers battled riot police and Scargill disgraced his movement by failing to bring the Government's settlement offer before his workers (see this brilliant book), Thatcher prevailed. The type of strike that saw unions punish industrial suppliers was banned and the striking workers failed to bring the nation to its knees. Which was Scargill's aim all along. In the ensuing years, the British economy awakened from its late-70's slumber and ceased to be "sick man of Europe" (or, indeed, woman!).

And who is carrying the leadership torch of Truman and Thatcher today? None other than the bold state governors of the United States. Recognizing that people like Scargill and current UAW president Bob King are not defenders of workers' rights but rather the living embodiment of the "some are more equal than others" mentality of the ruling elite in Orwell's Animal Farm, Rick Snyder, Mitch Daniels and the governors of 22 other states have passed "right to work" legislation. Combined with bold tax cuts, such as those recently passed by Kansas governor Sam Brownback, such moves are spurring economic growth that's impossible in union-dominated states. No wonder so many people are relocating to low-tax areas.

For the good of taxpayers and business alike, unions cannot be allowed to hold the whip hand. To prevent this, the US President, British Prime Minister and American governors should channel the resolve, determination and courage of the grocer's daughter and the farmer's son: a Conservative and a Democrat who strode boldly where others feared to tread.

Peace Through Strength and David Cameron: Not a Love Story

This week I had the pleasure of reading a well-craftedWall Street Journal blog post by Pete Du Pont, in which he argues that President Barack Obama would do well to put Ronald Reagan's "peace through strength" mantra into practice.

But what of David Cameron and the British military? Surely a Conservative Prime Minister has preserved Britain as a global force to be reckoned with, even after the follies of his predecessor in Afghanistan and Iraq? Particularly a Conservative Prime Minister who just vocally advocated for the continuation of his nation's Trident nuclear deterrent?

Not so much. Despite the Trident statement and William Hague's belief that a strong, capable Army, Navy and Royal Air Force is necessary to protect us from traditional threats and combat the malevolence of terrorists, the Conservative Party seems to have either disregarded Reagan's theory or confused it for "strength through weakness." First there was the 8% cut in 2010, then the decommissioning of the HMS Ark Royal aircraft carrier, and the removal of the Desert Rats' tanks. By the time Cameron and co are up for reelection, they'll have pensioned off thousands of troops.

And the Prime Minister may not stop there if he returns to Number 10 Downing Street, recentlyrefusing to eliminate the possibility of further weakening British forces if he wins reelection in 2015.

Reagan's "peace through strength" stance (best expressed in this 1986 speech) is not some obscure American concept, but rather has its roots in Winston Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' address in 1946. In it, Churchill stated that Stalin and his cronies would only push Communism westward if they thought Britain and America were too weak to prevent it. "I am convinced," Churchill said, "that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness." 

Remember that the actual title of this talk was not the 'Iron Curtain' speech, but actually "The Sinews of Peace." Contrary to the claims of revisionist detractors, it was peace, not war, that Churchill wanted. And he knew that to withstand Communism, Britain must stand strong and stand with its "special relationship" partners - the United States, Canada, Australia et al - in good times and in ill.

Of course, the world of combat is not the same as it was under Churchill, Thatcher or even Blair. Military forces must be increasingly fast and mobile, drones are fast replacing manned fighter planes and the need for a large-scale ground invasion as in the Gulf War is, thankfully, receding.

Yet saber-rattling Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, strongman Russian President Vladimir Putin and even posturing North Korean President Kim Jong-Un will be merely encouraged to test our resolve by the sight of Britain's military spending and personnel cuts.

Click here to finish reading this article at Huffington Post UK. 

To read my other Huffington Post entries, click here