A hit piece against Trump by a globalist investment banker.
You can't make this stuff up.
http://www.richardcyoung.com/about-dick-young/
Good article. Yes, the politicians are generally worthless and deserving of a good, wholesome hanging.
"There was a time when some form of military experience or outstanding civilian service was considered a prerequisite for the presidency. Or when first-term senators did not presume to run for the White House without putting in time, paying dues, making friends and authoring some significant piece of legislation. Or when conspicuous character flaws or pending legal jeopardies were automatic and irrevocable disqualifications.”
But all that is in the past now, and the moment that happened can be precisely dated. It began with Bubba. It began when America made its first presidential-level accommodation with the mores of the 1960s, and when it made a self-conscious choice to redefine, and demote, the concept of character in the hierarchy of political virtues.
Let’s face it: If Mr. Clinton brought dishonor to the Oval Office, George W. Bush brought shallowness to it. Presidential aspirants were once expected to deliver finely tuned debating points about Quemoy and Matsu. After W, it became pedantic to expect candidates to know the names of the leaders of India and Pakistan."
A hit piece against Trump by a globalist investment banker.
You can't make this stuff up.
You just did. Article wasn't by Young. But then.......you knew that.......if you read it.
Quoted from original article in Wall Street Journal. As did multiple other sites and sources.
And what you gleaned from the article was "A hit piece on Trump"?
That's pretty singular focus...........
The cited web site, under "The Swiss Way" heading has a section "Swiss Armed Neutrality" that claims that the Nazi's were deterred from invading Switzerland by virtue of the Swiss program of "Swiss Armed Neutrality". This is only partially true.
I used to shoot military matches at a gun club in the East (this club was one of two in the US in which Swiss citizens could perform their mandatory military shooting qualification). One of the members of this club was the author of the book "Target Switzerland" (Stephen Halbrook), as was a Swiss citizen friend. I always believed that the Nazis were deterred by the Swiss armed stance, which I learned was only partially true.
Over beers and a good discussion, they both agreed that the armed response factor was only partially true. The Nazis could have overtaken Switzerland with acceptable losses, but what would they have gained? Switzerland is 20 % habitable. The remaining 80% consists of mountains with goat farming as a leading industry - the Germans had little use for goat cheese. The 20% was (and still is) an industrial powerhouse of precision manufacturing which was sorely needed by Germany.
Early on, the Nazis and the Swiss reached a deal in which the Nazis would not invade and the Swiss would quietly sell the Germans the time pieces (needed for munitions fuses and navigation instruments), as well as precision goods and pharmaceuticals needed for their war effort. Another important benefit for the Nazis is that Switzerland presented the Germans a window to the outside for air transport, diplomacy, other trade (some US goods were imported through this window as well!) and a way to infiltrate spies to other nations. Of course, the Swiss neutrality also allowed the Allies to have diplomats and spies (e.g., Allen Dulles) close to Germany.
It worked out for all sides, the Swiss were not invaded, the Germans got their needed supplies and access, the Allies got a strategic location in a nation surrounded by the Nazis and …. the Nazis got access to the Swiss financial institutions!
Anyway, get a copy of the book ("Target Switzerland" by Stephen Halbrook) – it is a good read of the diplomacy that went into the agreement.
Yep, the U.S. "accidently" bombed Swiss ball bearing factories late in WWII.
Also, the Nazis needed someplace to stash their stolen loot and Swiss banks were only too happy to oblige.