I have dealt with the history of the region and NATO’s role in prompting Putin’s actions in Ukraine. Europe’s political leadership is committed to Ukraine’s victory over Russia and making sure Russia gains no ground from its invasion. That’s not going to happen. Russia controls significant territory in the Donbass area, and it is getting stronger daily vis-à-vis the Ukrainians.

Europe’s elite and the military-industrial complex in the United States think Russia and Putin are the epitome of evil. They are determined to “win” in Ukraine by any means necessary. Now they are willing to destroy their advantages in international finance by breaking the critical rules that made everyone willing to park money with them.

Normal people and companies hold assets in banks, bonds, and other investments. Nation-states do the same thing. Their funds are called Sovereign Reserves since they are the property of a national entity. It has been understood that these funds are not tools and playthings. A nation holding them has certain obligations of neutrality in dealing with them. It is a fundamental rule that Sovereign Reserves are untouchable regardless of conflict or political enmity.

Countries that follow those rules benefit because other nations use their currency and buy their bonds. But the current leadership in Europe and some in the United States have already bent the rules and are about to break them completely.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ordered banks to freeze accounts of truckers protesting COVID-19 regulations. It worked in Canada.

When the Russian-Ukrainian conflict began in February 2022, the Central Bank of Russia (CBR) ‘s assets around the world were “frozen.” This was one of the measures designed to harm the Russian economy and force Russia to withdraw. Russia is a nation. It didn’t work against them. They are still fighting, going on four years later.

Even countries that might disapprove of Russia’s conduct are concerned about this action. That concern led them to consider changing their procedures to protect themselves against the West’s indifference to established rules and norms.

A group of countries, led by five (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), known as BRICS, accelerated efforts to develop an alternative to the U.S.–European financial system. There are now 10 countries in the BRICS, and they are working on other options for the International Monetary Fund and on different ways to store sovereign wealth.

For many reasons, including fraud, Ukraine is desperate for money. The sanctions on Russia have backfired in Europe and ruined their economies. Between that, the costs of open migration, and the money they’ve already sent to Ukraine, their budgets are in chaos. They have no funds to spare. Being desperate, they are looking for a way to justify using Russia’s money to help Russia’s opponent without being accused of stealing the money Russia entrusted to them.

Members of the European Parliamentary Research Service provided one analysis. It is what would be expected from support staff on one side of the issue. It lists the options and excuses they produced.

Columbia Professor Jeffrey Sachs’s 22-minute YouTube talk covers the problem from both sides and explains its severity. He notes the core problem is the central principle that is being broken: Sovereign Reserves are untouchable regardless of conflict or political enmity.

The European leaders don’t have the money to keep Ukraine afloat, so they are going to use Russia’s money as collateral for a loan. When Russia loses the war and must pay reparations, that money will repay the loan, and the collateral will be covered. But Russia doesn’t plan to fail. In fact, they now have every incentive to keep going.

In the meantime, there are almost a trillion dollars’ worth of Western companies’ assets in Russia, and they will be subject to quite different new rules. Russia will get its money back through them.

A factor holding up this scheme is the possible liability of the nations and banks holding the CBR’s funds. Most of the funds in Europe are held by Euroclear, a global provider of Financial Market Infrastructure (FMI) services, headquartered in Belgium. Both Euroclear and the Belgian government are worried that any attempt to use Russian assets will prompt immediate legal action by Russia. Alexander Mercouris has a video discussing the delay in this action and the opposition to the idea.

The use of currency and banking as political tools is dangerous. After the United States froze Russia’s access to the dollar, Saudi Arabia refused to renew its longstanding rule requiring all oil purchases to be made in dollars. Playing games with Russia’s Sovereign Assets, no matter how righteous you think you are, will have a significant adverse effect on the position of all the countries involved in terms of both their currency and their status as trustworthy places to hold wealth.

One of the guests on Bill Maher's Real Time program right after the election tried to tell him that inflation and the impact of the economy on lower-income people had been a significant factor in the election. He couldn't get it. He insisted the economy was excellent, inflation was slowing, and the stock market kept hitting new highs.

Before I proceed, I need to clarify a term. I will talk about the "average American," but when I do that, I talk about people with a median income. The median income number is lower than the average income. In the real world, a few billionaires lift the average for many people without changing the median value. You can find the median income for any county using a Census Bureau website here. Figures range widely from under $30,000 to over $150,000. One can imagine the impact of inflation is somewhat inversely related to income.

Dave Ramsay has a weekday radio program offering strict and sober advice to keep people from getting into debt and helping them work out of it. I've encountered his show and listen occasionally. My mother practiced much of what Ramsay advises.

The problem now is caused by our leaders solving their problems and serving their causes by making other people pay. Drastic increases in the cost of essentials destroy budgets. When your income is a thousand dollars a week, and your basic costs go up a thousand dollars a month, there is no contingency in the budget to deal with that.

Democratic officials at all levels are going for "net zero" CO_2, which increases the cost of everything that uses energy. But everything uses energy. Food production needs energy for plowing and everything else. Carbon fuels are used to dig for the materials to build solar panels, windmills, and EV batteries. Fuel is needed for trucks to bring food to the local stores. Also, everyone along the way must pay extra to the truckers, which adds to what grocers pay them and charge us.

Those with high five-figure or six-figure median incomes see these changes as a number in their credit card statements and checkbook balances. They might even notice it at the grocery store or our favorite restaurant, but it doesn't change their lifestyle. They vote on other issues.

But when you're missing meals or dropping education

 plans, it is all you think about. I mean all. A woman who has just returned from a trip to the store and is seeing purple over the prices doesn't give a damn about "standing up to her husband" or voting for the first woman or anything other than being able to put food on the table. Her husband has the same concerns. They vote the same way.

That is why women in median-income families "deserted" the Democratic party. The party cared more about net zero and the environment than it did about them, and they returned the favor.

Hispanics, Blacks, and working-class whites share a blue collar. Traditionally, industrial labor union leaders opposed open borders to keep down the labor supply and keep wages up. Only Trump speaks for these people now. Even if the immigrants are good people, they harm workers on the lower end by driving down wages.

When Trump talks about "Murderers and Rapists," he is not saying that every immigrant is evil. If any of them are, vetting must be tightened. There are enough cases of violence committed by people who shouldn't be here to cause a voting bloc sufficient to help Trump. Foreign gangs have taken over small towns and sections of bigger cities.

Voters justly believe the government's job is to "provide for the common defense," and open borders meet the desires of a few and endanger the many.

Immigrants of all types who waited and came here legally are frustrated when their relatives keep having their entry delayed by the volume of illegal entries. They want that flow to stop so their relatives can enter legally. That desire adds to the Trump vote among new citizen immigrants.

Trump received more than 40 percent of the Jewish vote in some places. This is not surprising given his support for Israel in his first term and the inconstant support of the current administration.

In the end, the inability, or refusal, of the Democrats and their media allies to understand the reality of the damage caused by net zero, inflation, and immigration made Trump's victory inevitable. The elites convinced themselves they had all the winning cards because the flip side of the cards only hurt people they never talked to and didn't care about.

Those affected people had been grumbling for years, and they shouted on November 5, 2024.

Are you one of those who loudly proclaimed that you wouldn’t have gone along with the crowd if you had lived in Germany in the 1930s? Somehow, you would have made an impact and helped to keep things from being so bad. You’d have been smart enough to leave in time if you were Jewish. If you were a gentile, you wouldn’t have been silent or at least been among the righteous.

Congratulations! Now you have a chance to prove it.

Yes. I mean it. It’s the same old story. After an all too brief interlude, the seemingly eternal antisemitism is reaching another worldwide global peak. The United Nations, international courts, and left and center-left parties around the world are all taking “anti-Zionist” positions and arguing that it differs somehow from antisemitism. Yeah. Right.

I am about to do my bit. I could sit by quietly and not cause any trouble. But going along was the weak and meek way back then. I have some things I need to say if I am going to do my part. I expect I will not win friends, but I hope I will influence some people.

Environment and Inflation

Let’s start by understanding what happened then and see the parallels today. I was in high school in the Kennedy years and a JFK liberal and an idealist. I was devouring books by Alan Bullock, William Shirer, and others describing the rise of Hitler. German frustration after their loss in World War One was compounded by the incompetence of the Weimar government and unbelievable inflation. People took their pay and spent it as soon as they received it because it lost value by the minute.

Our inflation is not as bad, but it is causing severe pain. Rob Henderson coined the term “Luxury Beliefs.” The wealthy and elite have ideas and plans to save the world. These plans have costs that don’t impact the rich. Their schooling, dining, vacations, heating, and air conditioning are unaffected. For the lower classes, however, the changes are dramatic. The weekly or monthly family dinner at McDonald’s is now out of reach. Tuition at the Community College is a fantasy. In Europe and America, people choose between heating the house or eating enough food.

The environmental movement is a significant cause of price increases. John Robson of The Climate Discussion Nexus produced a video called American Energy for Grownups showing its impact. Let me be blunt. Angry, hungry, freezing people don’t give a damn about what might happen to the environment in thirty years.

Oil and Israel

There has always been some resistance among fashionable people about Zionism and Israel. If we were energy-independent, we would have a freer hand in deciding what to do about helping. Our dependence on Arab oil comes up when Presidents deal with questions about Israel.

President Truman recognized Israel despite a good deal of resistance. Truman respected George C. Marshall, who did not want to recognize Israel in part because of concern about Arab reaction and oil. Truman had long felt a need to help the holocaust victims and went ahead with recognition.

A Commentary Magazine article by Jason Moaz describes Richard Nixon’s actions in support of Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. At one point, he is told to limit the shipment to three planes to avoid offending the Arabs. He snapped, “We are going to get blamed just as much for three as for 300. . . . Get them in the air, now.”

[T]o the end of her life [Golda Meir] referred to Nixon as “my president” and told a group of Jewish leaders in Washington shortly after the war: “For generations to come, all will be told of the miracle of the immense planes from the United States bringing in the materiel that meant life to our people.”

Jews in America in the 1930s

Life in America was not as good for Jews in the first half of the twentieth century as later. The 1930s are a clear example. Jews were unwelcome in many places. Medical and law schools either excluded them or had formal or informal quotas. Legally enforceable covenants kept them out of neighborhoods and clubs. The movie Gentlemen’s Agreement (1947) showed the informal but rigid restrictions that kept Jews out of clubs and “classier” hotels. The “Borsch Belt” in the Catskills gave New York City’s Jews a place to go where they could enjoy themselves without discrimination.

It is easy to blame Franklin Roosevelt for his lukewarm support for German Jews, but he was not being pushed very hard by American Jewry. Matt Lebovic and Alex Gordon exemplify the timid reaction of American Jewish leaders to Kristallnacht and the advice they gave FDR. They tried to minimize the number of refugees and were willing to support FDR’s goal of not making the holocaust the center of the war effort.

In the late 1930s, the dangers and hardships facing Jews in Germany were not a secret, but help was lacking. In June 1939, a ship called the St. Louis had Jews trying to flee the holocaust. They had visas to Cuba but were not allowed to disembark in Havana. They went to Florida, but President Roosevelt would not bend the strict immigration limits for their part of the world. Even Canada wouldn’t help. The ship carried them back to Germany to meet their fate.

Books and articles describe the way the Sulzberger family, the Jewish owners of the New York Times, downplayed its coverage of the holocaust, less the paper be seen as too Jewish.

Which Antisemites are the problem?

That raises a serious point. When is antisemitism a danger? When do words and actions matter? When couple of drunks in a bar in Podunk mutter some slurs hundreds of miles from the nearest Jew they set a bad example. The action or inaction of organizational leaders, public or private, who have various degrees of control over the lives of others cause more harm.

For those who were shocked by the actions of our college students, it might be of interest to know how German academics behaved during the rise of Hitler. King Charles recently knighted British historian Niall Ferguson. Sir Niall described The Treason of the German Intellectuals. He noted that the antisemitism and book-burning were out in full force in what, at that time, had been considered the world’s leading universities. Faculty members were glad to see Jews removed or excluded to open more promotions for Aryans.

When college administrators take serious tuition payments and donations from countries who wish Israel harm and let their students and faculties become antisemitic, there are serious consequences. It’s a problem when Jewish admissions at Medical and Law schools drop because of “affirmative action.” When administrators are indifferent to the fact that Jewish students are unsafe or can’t freely participate in student groups and offices, that is a problem.

The New York City Democratic Party coalition includes Al Sharpton, who triggered a vicious episode of antisemitism in Crown Heights, NY, in 1991. Nationally, the movement to eliminate cash bail and reduce the punishment for minors and other criminals is making life more dangerous for many people. Most of the urban attacks on Jews are done by Blacks. When a Jew has been the victim of a crime, and the mayor or prosecuting attorney in New York City says and does nothing, there is serious harm.

European Political Parties

I was in London in 2017 when the blatant antisemitism of Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn contributed to his party’s loss and his resignation as leader. The move of most of Europe’s Left and even Center-left parties toward antisemitism is clear for everyone to see.

An article in The Free Press notes that French Jews voted for Marine La Pen’s National Rally Party because the leftist parties are a threat to Jews. (see footnote below)

America’s Political Parties

In the 2016 campaign, the Republican candidate was repeatedly asked to condemn someone named David Duke. He had done so during Ross Perot’s campaign, but the media wouldn’t be bothered by facts. Duke’s followers might fill a VW Beetle or Bus.

On the other hand, the Democratic candidate in 2008 was backed by Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. In addition, the candidate and his wife were married by and attended the services of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who hated America, whites, and Jews.

The attitude of the two men mattered after the 2016 election. In the interregnum, Obama was free to show his attitude toward Israel. America had a veto on any UN Security Council resolution. The veto had always protected Israel. Obama changed that. He ordered Samantha Powers to abstain on UN Resolution 2334 instead of voting no, letting a resolution about settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem pass. Trump tried to get Russia to delay the vote so he could block passage. The media tried to claim his efforts were part of the “Russia collusion.”

The Democratic Party now has a large bloc of Muslim voters. That fact may have influenced the choice of this year’s Democratic Vice Presidential nominee. That also impacts their decisions and will affect their attitude about America’s support for Israel.

I’m not a Zionist or even Jewish.

After the fall of Hitler, German pastor and theologian Martin Niemöller wrote a famous description of the problem. The Nazis came for one group after another, but he wasn’t part of those groups and even had a reason why harm to them was permissible. When they came for him, nobody was left to help.

Some people hope that by feeding other victims to vicious groups, they will be spared. Bad idea! It only makes “the lion” more voracious. You are still on the menu.

It’s Up To You

I’ve done it. I’ve been rude and said the unsayable. I read about the rise of Hitler more than sixty years ago. I was in high school. As a teenager, I knew I’d be brave enough to speak up and say what I thought should be told. But, now I’m almost 80, and the temptation to let things slide is strong. But no. I can’t do that. So, with inflation, there’s my two bucks worth.

It’s your turn. What are you going to do?

Note:

The full article about the French voting for Le Pen is limited to Free Press subscribers. I strongly recommend the Free Press and its writers as a balance to modern “journalism,” especially regarding Israel and Jews. Bari Weis founded it. She wrote for the New York Times, her life’s dream. Eventually, the Twitter-driven environment became oppressive. She resigned and founded the Free Press.

Weis became Bat Mitzvah at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. In 2018, eleven Jews were killed there while they prayed.

The opposite is true. Racism plays its largest role when we first meet someone. After we know the person, other factors come into play. A comedian once remarked, “Racists are lazy. With a little bit of effort you can learn to hate people one at a time.”

When we first meet someone, we know very little about them other than their appearance. After we know them, we judge them by our experience with them. When we first meet a store clerk, mechanic, physician, classmate or anyone else race, gender, height, appearance and other visible things are all we know. If someone recommended this person, we have that to go on.

After the initial meeting, we judge people by what they do. A good mechanic gets our car running at a fair price, a bad one doesn’t. The doctor may or may not have a good bedside manner and make us feel comfortable about his or her level of concern and knowledge. After we know the person, we judge them as individuals. Secondary characteristics like race matter less and less the more we know about a person.

If race were going to be the deciding factor for Mr. Obama, it would have been so in 2008. He was virtually unknown. He won in 2008 because of what he was not. He was not George Bush. He was not a Republican. He was not responsible for the financial crisis. For some people, the fact that he was not white was a bonus. White men had fouled things up. It was time to look elsewhere.

The 2008 election was decided on the basis of the performance of George Bush and the economy. Every presidential election is largely about the performance of the incumbent president or party. 2012 will be no different. The question before the voters is simple: Given the job Mr. Obama has done, should we vote for him or his opponent?

Even very popular presidents barely get above 60 percent of the vote. Lyndon Johnson got 61.05% in 1964 for the largest percentage in history. Franklin Roosevelt’s 60.8% in 1936 is second best. Even these popular presidents had more than 39% of the voters vote against them. It is certain that Obama will not beat either of their performances.

In 2008, Obama ran an “I am what you want to see” campaign. As the unknown outsider, he let people see what they wanted to find in him. Outsiders can do this, incumbents can’t. He is now a known quantity. He has made decisions which some people like and others do not.

His actions in support of General Motors and Chrysler helped those companies and their workers and hurt bondholders, including state worker pension funds. His policies on the environment have earned him support in some quarters while probably turning coal-oriented West Virginia against him.

Recently he has worked to build support among women voters and gay rights activists. In the process, he has moved the Catholic Church and other social conservatives into direct and open controversy with him. The election will show whether his decisions have been politically wise.

Many voters agreed that his emphasis on the health care bill was important. For others, he should have been focused on jobs and the economy. Some voters feel the stimulus was more about helping Democratic interest groups, including state workers, than boosting the general economy.  Those who support him argue he was dealt a tough hand and should be given more time to fix the economy. Others believe the results should be better by now.

Obviously there are a multitude of reasons to vote for or against any incumbent president. To claim race is the major factor is not merely incorrect, it is defamatory. And, at its worst, it could be inflammatory.

There are always those who profit from racial tension and animosity. They benefit from the passions and tensions such feelings produce and they don’t care about the consequences. Responsible people, especially those with influence on others, need to make it clear that incumbents sometimes lose. It has happened to white incumbents and could happen to President Obama. It is how politics works.