Why Are We In NATO?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded on 4 April 1949. Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States signed the treaty. Since its founding, Greece, West Germany, Turkey, Spain, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Finland and Sweden have joined. Since its founding, no country has left the organization.

On April 1, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about NATO’s current actions.

The article reports:

The U.S. supports our NATO posture in Europe in part because it provides us with strategic military bases and operations that are considered vital to our national interests. However, as outlined in the Iran conflict, when we need to use those strategic bases the NATO member states withdraw previous permissions. France has blocked us from flying over their airspace, Spain and Italy have said the U.S. cannot use our military bases on their soil for operations. The U.K has refused to protect and/or escort their own energy assets.

The NATO membership is now a one-way street where they demand our military protection, but Europe blocks us from using our own military assets for our independent operations.

Europe, while hiding behind the NATO protection skirt of the U.S, is simultaneously telling the U.S. what we can and cannot do with our own military. Secretary Rubio and President Trump are now confronting this very visible one-way benefit head on.

The article includes the following video:

America has been protecting Europe since World War II. Our military bases there boost the local economies. The decision of some of the NATO counties to deny the use of bases in their countries to deal with the threat of Iran makes it very hard to justify our continued membership in the organization. I think Europe needs to understand the threat posed to them by Iran (if Iran’s missiles can reach Diego Garcia, they can reach Europe) and help with the war effort. Europe is much more dependent on the Strait of Hormuz for its oil than America is. It’s time for the NATO nations to step up to the plate. Otherwise, why should America be a member?

A Victory At The United Nations

This may only be a temporary victory, but it is a victory. On October 17th, World Net Daily reported that pressure from Secretary of State Rubio and the State Department team blocked a move to place a carbon tax on shipping worldwide. Unfortunately, the vote delayed the tax–when those behind the tax think they have the votes, it will be voted on again.

The article reports:

President Donald Trump has emerged with a win from a fight with European officials over their agenda to create another carbon tax and raise the cost of items shipped to America.

It was in the United Nations where globalists who adhere to the ideology called climate change, called global warming before the warming essentially stopped, hatched a plan to charge shipping companies for their travels.

“Huge push by @SecRubio and the State Dept team. Strong diplomacy that put American business and consumers first WON THE DAY over an ideological carbon tax from the UN and EU,” Mike Walz wrote on social media.

…Fifty-seven countries voted in favor of delaying the adoption vote and 49 voted against. There were 21 abstentions.

The Washington Examiner explained the decision was “a shock, as many member states of the IMO, a London-based specialized agency within the U.N., were confident there were enough votes to adopt the measure as international maritime law.”

Trump has been opposing the new world taxation plan for months, and recently escalated his objections.

Waltz, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said the delay was to the component of the “net-zero framework.”

As I have previously stated, we do not yet have the reliable technology for the “net-zero framework.” If we ever create that technology, I will be one of the first to support net zero!

Lied To Again

Actually, we really can’t discern whether the media is continually lying or if they are simply ignorant of basic facts. It is odd, however, that the lies do have a political slant.

On Monday, Red State posted an article about Vice President J.D. Vance’s recent trip to the Vatican.

The article reports:

But the media was at it again, spinning away about the greeting. Check out this headline from The Daily Beast, painting the greeting as a “snub” on Sunday.

Well, not so fast.

The article continues:

Other outlets like The Daily Mail ran similar takes.

Now, if they met, it’s pretty hard to call that a snub, but that’s how they tried to spin it anyway. They seem not to notice it’s the Pope’s inauguration, so he has a lot going on and many leaders to meet. Of course, this is about stoking some illusion that the Pope hates Vance to make Vance look bad. But that’s ridiculous since that goes against the whole nature of being Pope. They don’t seem to get that their scenario would make the Pope look bad, that they’re inherently attacking the Pope without realizing it.

This isn’t the first time they’ve tried this and printed absolute nonsense about Vance. The Daily Beast previously accused him of violating a rule about taking pictures in the Sistine Chapel. After excoriating him in a story, buried deep down in the story was the fact that Vance had permission. He was with Vatican officials.

The article also notes:

He and the Pope even exchanged gifts. Vance gave him a Chicago Bears jersey with his name and number. He also gave the Pope – who is an Augustinian priest – two books by St. Augustine, the “City of God” and “On Christian Doctrine.”

Meanwhile, the Pope gave Vance a bronze sculpture that said in Italian, “Peace is a fragile flower.” He also gave him a picture book of the papal apartments, saying he might live in them, but he hasn’t decided yet.

I said in my prior story that Vance and Rubio (United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio) should work on communication with the Pope so he isn’t just getting media spin about the Trump administration, and it looks like they were on that during the visit.

It’s odd that people who don’t have a political agenda and who have actually met President Trump are surprised at how different he is from the person the media paints him as.