How Many of These Insane Freaks Does the Left Have?

posted by Mark Lewis at Townhall 

When you have no conscience, self-control, or standard other than “every man does that which is right in his own eyes,” there is no final, absolute moral stopping place.  And as populations grow and atheism and amorality are taught widely and constantly, more and more insanity, perversion, and freaks will arise. Hence, we have the Left, the Democratic Party in America.

Even with all the babies they are murdering in America, the Left seems to be multiplying like rabbits. The greatest mistake the country made in its history was to divorce itself from divine guidance, push a “live and let live” philosophy with no moral standard other than individual personal judgment.  Some people, even on the Left, can control themselves, at least to a limited degree. Too many people, however, with no self-control, with no guidance, and with no good counsel to direct them down proper paths, go completely off the deep end into utter stupidity, decadence, and moral putrefaction.  It’s really becoming frightening, for people who have no conscience, whose only “god” is one they create, are liable to do anything. It’s Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong—if a person makes up his/her own god, and gains power with no one to impede them, then—well, we get Hiter, Stalin, Mao.  Abortion.  Child mutilation.  Drag queens.  Transgenderism.  Pedophilia and child sex slavery.  And…what’s next?

Where does it end?  It has no final stopping point because the Left has thrown all moral absolutes totally out the window—except the ones THEY establish, and those aren’t absolute, either, because they will change with the wind.  Joe Biden once argued that marriage was only between men and women. But that “absolute” didn’t last very long, did it? If you based your philosophy on ever-changing Darwinian, evolutionary morality, then, by definition, there CAN’T be any moral absolutes. An evolutionary worldview is the very antithesis of moral absolutism, and it is the very foundation of modern Leftism. The Left will never cease pushing the moral boundaries because there is no defined place TO stop.

And so, the freaks and insanity continue to grow in America, and it gets wilder and wilder.  A few examples:

--Tim Walz’s daughter recently posted on “X” that people who don’t support putting tampons in boys’ bathrooms are “f***ing weird.”  One can’t be surprised that this comes from a child of Tim Walz, but it’s an example of just how mindless and morally perverse the Left is.  And, of course, many, many Leftists agree with her, probably the entire Democratic Party leadership; at least, they won’t come out against it.  We’re “weird” for thinking that boys can’t have a “time of the month.”  Thousands of years of history, science, culture, tradition, God, and common sense are “weird” to this brain-empty, foul-mouthed degenerate.  But, never forget:  if we live in an ever-evolving moral universe where there is no God or absolute standards, then…why isn’t she right?  Why haven’t “moral standards” evolved to where boys need tampons?  No God, no standards, no truth…why is she wrong?  Folks, the battle we are fighting is for the very definition and purpose of the universe and existence, not just for a few policies on Capitol Hill.  It goes much, much deeper than that.

--I’ve got a clown liberal who has been pestering me literally for years.  I don’t know how he found me, but he started out sending me emails a few years ago.  I kindly asked him to stop, and he doesn’t send me emails any more, but he reads and stacks some of my substack articles with appropriate ad hominem attack and empty-brained, totally ignorant comments.  His most recent response to an article of mine was to say that Volodymyr Zelensky was a “great hero.”  Did you get that?  Zelensky is a “great hero.”  I’m not even going to comment on that.  You don’t need my help on that one.

--Here’s a dandy headline I recently found on Breitbart:  “Police: Florida Man Threatened Donald Trump, Challenged ‘Antichrist” POTUS to ‘Fight Me Naked to the Death.”  They are coming out of the walls, folks.  I read, quite often, posts on “X” from Leftists who threaten violence against Trump and his supporters.  I asked a Leftist a question about Trump recently (“How many wars was America involved in Trump’s first administration?”), and he got in my face and wanted to fight.  These people are crazy.  They have no self-control.  They DON’T control themselves.  And they are frightened because of it.

We see plenty of other godless perversions and irrationality as the Left continues to try to eradicate all decency and traditional moral values, virtues without which society and civilizations cannot function.  Pedophilia—“MAPs”—is now being defended in Leftist “moral” circles.  Any attack on transgenderism, which has to be about the stupidest thing humans have ever come up with, denying the most basic reality of our species—sends the Left into mouth-foaming, rolling on the ground, spastic frenzies. Drag queens waving their genitals in front of children, mothers allowing their own children to be butchered, mutilated FOR LIFE, on the altar of transgender sexual perversion—this is what the Left has come to. This is what the Democratic Party now defends and propagates. And to what hedonism will they descend next?

How can people get so far away from what is true and natural?  How can human beings become so warped and twisted in their minds, so utterly devoid of any decency and morality, so grotesque in their beliefs about their own children?  This is monstrous, pure evil, hellish, Satanic.  Not to mention freakish and insane.

But this is what America has descended to ever since it disconnected itself from divine guidance. It’s really not surprising. Study history. It happens every time a nation does what America is doing.

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- April 6

 

Greenland at the Crossroads: Why U.S. Leadership is Crucial

posted by Yassin Fawaz at American Thinker 

In the Arctic’s icy waters, a strategic gem lies in the hands of a distant nation—one that is struggling to keep it afloat, while another stands ready to offer the support it desperately needs. Greenland, often overlooked on the global stage, holds immense strategic value far beyond its seeming geographic isolation. For nearly a century, its security and defense have been primarily handled by the United States, not Denmark—its colonial ruler for centuries.

As tensions rise in the Arctic and geopolitical dynamics shift, it’s time to consider a future where Greenland is no longer a dependency of Denmark but is, instead, a key strategic asset under U.S. sovereignty. This piece explores why transferring Greenland’s sovereignty to the United States would benefit Greenland, Denmark, and the U.S., creating a unique win-win-win situation for all parties involved.

The Strategic Importance of Greenland

Greenland’s location at the crossroads of the Arctic and North Atlantic means that, in the modern ear, it has always been strategically vital. During World War II, the United States recognized the island’s importance and occupied it on behalf of Denmark, a neutral nation at the time.

This set the stage for a deep, enduring American military presence that continues to this day. The Thule Air Base, constructed in 1951 under the Greenland Defense Agreement, is a linchpin of U.S. Arctic defense. It allows Washington to monitor air traffic and early-warning radar across the northern hemisphere, serving as a critical part of America’s nuclear defense system.

During the Cold War, Greenland played a central role in monitoring Soviet activity in the Arctic. The establishment of Thule Air Base allowed the U.S. to deploy early-warning radar systems that were essential for detecting potential Soviet missile launches. The base remains a key piece in America’s global defense infrastructure, symbolizing the long-standing military cooperation between Greenland and the U.S. Furthermore, as Russia continues to assert its presence in the Arctic, maintaining this strategic asset has never been more critical.

Today, as the Arctic region becomes increasingly important in global geopolitics—thanks to melting ice and growing competition for resources—the U.S. has more to gain from controlling Greenland than does Denmark. Greenland’s proximity to Russia and its vast mineral resources, including rare-earth elements, make it an asset in the ongoing competition for Arctic dominance. For the U.S., it’s a matter of national security.

Moreover, Greenland’s proximity to the newly opening Arctic trade routes means that the island could become even more pivotal as international shipping and resource extraction increase in the region. America’s military and economic interests in Greenland are aligned with its broader geopolitical goals in the Arctic—a region that will only grow in strategic importance as climate change accelerates and global competition intensifies.

Denmark’s Limited Stake in Greenland

While many Danes feel a cultural and historical attachment to Greenland, the reality is that the island has been more of a burden than a boon. Greenland is more than 2,000 miles away from Denmark, making it an administrative and logistical challenge for Copenhagen to manage. The Danish government has struggled to make Greenland economically viable. Despite receiving billions in subsidies, Greenland’s economy remains dependent on Denmark, with little sign of self-sufficiency in the near future.

The cold, harsh climate, remote location, and lack of infrastructure mean that developing Greenland’s economy is a gargantuan task, one that Denmark simply cannot afford. A recent analysis estimated that it would cost Denmark $17 billion to bring Greenland’s economy to a sustainable level—an amount that far exceeds the Danish budget. By contrast, the U.S. has the resources to invest in Greenland’s future and can do so without straining its finances.

Greenland’s resource wealth remains largely untapped, but the infrastructure needed to unlock these assets is prohibitively expensive for Denmark. The island holds valuable minerals like rare-earth elements, which are increasingly crucial for global technology industries. Developing a sustainable mining sector could dramatically boost Greenland’s economy, but without substantial investment in transportation, infrastructure, and technology, these resources will remain out of reach. The U.S., with its vast technological and financial resources, is better equipped to bridge this gap, providing the funding and expertise needed to fully exploit Greenland’s natural wealth.

In 1951, when Denmark signed the Greenland Defense Agreement, it allowed U.S. forces almost totally free access to the island’s territory. This agreement has enabled the U.S. to maintain a military presence on Greenland, but it has never equated to sovereignty, nor has it been seen as an economically viable long-term solution for the island. For Denmark, relinquishing control of Greenland would free up resources to focus on its own priorities and allow Greenland to develop in ways that Copenhagen is incapable of supporting.

Greenland’s Quest for Self-Determination

The people of Greenland have long sought greater autonomy. In 1979, Denmark granted the island home rule, and in 2009, Greenland gained further autonomy with the Self-Government Act. While these steps have empowered Greenlanders politically, they have not led to true self-sufficiency. Despite having its own parliament, the island still relies heavily on Denmark for financial support and defense.

The notion of self-determination is a powerful one, and Greenlanders deserve the opportunity to make their own decisions about their future. But self-determination is not just about political independence—it’s also about economic independence. Greenland’s vast natural resources, from minerals to fisheries, could provide the foundation for a prosperous future, but only if the island receives the support necessary to develop these industries. The U.S. can offer that support, both financially and logistically, in a way that Denmark simply cannot.

A transfer of sovereignty to the U.S. would give Greenlanders the autonomy they seek while ensuring the island’s long-term economic viability. With American investment, Greenland could become a prosperous, self-sustaining entity within a broader American geopolitical framework. Unlike Denmark, which lacks the resources to sustain such an effort, the U.S. could offer substantial financial support and the infrastructure necessary to jumpstart Greenland’s development. This would allow Greenland to manage its own destiny while remaining strategically secure in the face of international competition.

The U.S. Path Forward

For the United States, the argument for absorbing Greenland is straightforward. The island is critical to American security and its strategic position in the Arctic. The U.S. has long treated Greenland as a de facto protectorate, so why not formalize that relationship? The move would strengthen U.S. influence in the Arctic and enhance its ability to respond to emerging threats from Russia, China, and other global powers.

While the idea of transferring sovereignty over Greenland may seem radical, it is not without precedent. The U.S. has historically annexed territories for strategic reasons—Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico—and in each case, American sovereignty has provided those territories with greater security, investment, and economic opportunities. Greenland is no different.

Moreover, this move would benefit Denmark by relieving it of the financial and military burden of supporting Greenland, allowing Copenhagen to focus on issues closer to home. For the U.S., it would secure a critical piece of Arctic real estate and further cement its position as the dominant power in the region. By taking control of Greenland, America would strengthen its military presence in the Arctic, solidify its geopolitical position against competing powers, and better protect its national security interests.

As global competition intensifies in the Arctic, with Russia and China increasingly seeking influence in the region, American control over Greenland would send a clear message about the U.S.’s commitment to defending its interests in the North. China’s growing interest in Arctic shipping routes, as well as its investment in Arctic resources, is a direct challenge to U.S. dominance in the region. Securing Greenland under U.S. sovereignty would enhance America’s ability to assert its leadership in the Arctic Council and ensure that the region remains open for international trade under a rules-based order.

Conclusion

Greenland’s future is at a crossroads. The island’s vast resources and strategic location have long made it a prized asset, but under Denmark’s stewardship, it has struggled to achieve self-sufficiency. A transfer of sovereignty to the United States would not only benefit Greenland’s people by offering them the economic opportunities and security they need but also strengthen America’s position in the Arctic and relieve Denmark of an expensive responsibility.

This is not a zero-sum game but a win-win-win scenario, where all parties—Greenland, the United States, and Denmark—stand to gain. The time has come to move beyond old colonial legacies and embrace a future where Greenland is empowered to control its own destiny while the U.S. provides the resources and security to ensure its prosperity. A bold new chapter for Greenland awaits, one that benefits its people, secures the Arctic, and strengthens the global balance of power.

Never Forgive Democrats For The Lies They Told You

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

I get it; politicians lie. That’s like saying beer drinkers burp or fish swim – it’s just how life is. But some lies are unforgivable, and the lies Democrats told last year fall in that category. 

Democrats, in and out of the media, not only swore that Joe Biden was “the best Biden ever,” they insisted that even suggesting anything to the contrary was ageism, outrageous, and heresy. They attacked you, us, for the simple act of noticing reality. 

They denied that reality insisted it wasn’t so, and attempted to destroy people for pointing it out. And they did it all with a smug sense of holier-than-thou-ism for the record books. 

Now, they’re retroactively on board with all of it. All the monologues, tweets, op-eds…it’s like they never happened – the eternal sunshine of the spotless campaign. 

In the new book “Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House,” they recount last year's events in a way that is both entertaining and like it’s from another planet. I remember the previous year vividly. And I bet you do, too.

No one from the outlets the two authors work for, let alone them, dared whisper what they’re now screaming from the mountaintops to sell books, not one of them. It takes a while to write a book, and the sources they used for this one are people they’ve known and talked to for years and years, which begs the question: when did they first start hearing about Biden’s slipping? Further, why didn’t they report it when they heard it? It sure as hell was long before now.

And the shows they go on to promote the book – especially Morning Joe – are all pretend curious about the “revelations” they helped perpetuate. If they’d had their way, gotten away with lying, the President of the United States may well be a dementia patient inflicting God knows what on the country. 

The question of what they knew and when they knew it will never be answered because they won’t go near anyone who’d dare ask it. The same safe space that enveloped Joe Biden is where they live – the left takes care of their own, always. Who would ask them – any of them – why they protected Biden and for how long, Rachel Maddow? Wolf Blitzer? They were all in it, every last one of them.

These people attacked anyone who dared point out the obvious, and they did it with a sense of self-righteousness unrivaled in the annals of history. We were the problem; we were the liars. There were “deepfakes” and “cheap fakes,” things taken out of context to “make Joe look bad.” 

When he tripped over a sandbag, it was something anyone would have done, not an old man not noticing a bag out in the open in broad daylight. Remember when Joe froze at the “Juneteenth celebration” at the White House? It was nothing, we were told, but now it was one of many such instances. The frozen moment at that Hollywood fundraiser, the one where Barack Obama had to grab his wrist and help him off stage – the one where the left really went all out on demanding anyone who dared question Joe’s mental state was some sort of enemy of the states – is described as it really was: a problem for Democrats.

When nothing is left in it for them to cover up for their politicians, they will tell the truth…for money. 

According to the book, Barack and Michelle Obama never liked Kamala Harris. Neither did Nancy Pelosi. Everyone was working behind the scenes to shove her out the window and pick anyone else. None of them thought she could win. Yet, none of this was reported at the time. Not that it wasn’t known at the time; it just wasn’t reported. There’s a significant difference. 

The people making the most money off the lies are the ones who perpetrated them the whole time. In an honest industry, these stories would’ve been told in real-time so the American people could’ve been informed and made decisions fully educated. Were they honest, they would’ve won awards for their journalism. But journalism is not an honest industry. They won’t win awards; they’ll just get big, fat checks, which almost anyone would take over a Lucite block with their name laser-etched.

Either way, never forget what they did, don’t ignore what they’re doing by pretending they were honest now, and never forgive them for any of it. Most importantly, never trust them again. Book tours like these farewell tours should be made for their credibility and their careers.

Research on Multiple Sclerosis Wins 'Oscars of Science'

 

An American neurologist and an Italian epidemiologist whose work revolutionized the treatment of multiple sclerosis on Saturday won a prestigious Breakthrough Prize, the award nicknamed the "Oscars of science."

Stephen Hauser and Alberto Ascherio were recognized for their decades researching the debilitating neurodegenerative disease, which affects nearly three million people worldwide and was long considered an impenetrable enigma.

Hauser's work on multiple sclerosis (MS) started more than 45 years ago, when he met a young patient named Andrea, "an extraordinarily talented young woman who was already an attorney" and working at the White House under then-president Jimmy Carter, he told AFP.

"Then MS appeared in an explosive fashion and destroyed her life," he said.

 

 

"I remember seeing her, unable to speak, paralyzed on the right side, unable to swallow, and soon, unable to breathe on her own, and I remember thinking that this was the most unfair thing I had ever seen in medicine."

Then 27 years old, he decided to make it his life's work.  

- Rough road -

"At the time, we had no treatments for MS. In fact, there was also a pessimism that treatments could ever be developed," said Hauser, now 74 and director of the neuroscience institute at the University of California San Francisco.

Scientists knew the disease, which damages the central nervous system and leads to paralyzing cognitive and motor problems, was caused by the immune system turning on the body.

But they thought the white blood cells known as T cells were the lone culprit. 

Hauser questioned that.

Studying the role played in the disease by B cells, another type of white blood cell, he and his colleagues managed to recreate the damage MS causes to the human nervous system in small monkeys known as marmosets.

The US federal body overseeing medical research dismissed the link as "biologically implausible," and turned down their application for funding for a clinical trial.

But Hauser and his team pressed on. 

They persuaded pharmaceutical company Genentech to back testing. In 2006, they got resounding results: treatments targeting B cells were associated with "a dramatic, more than 90-percent reduction in brain inflammation," Hauser said.

It was "something of a scope that had never been seen before."

That threw open a door to bring new treatments to market that slow the advance of the disease in many patients.

But it also raised other questions. For example, what would cause our white blood cells to turn against us? 

The virus connection -

That was a question that puzzled Ascherio, today a professor at Harvard.

He decided to investigate why MS mostly affected people in the northern hemisphere.

"The geographical distribution of MS was quite striking," he told AFP.

"MS is very uncommon in tropical countries and near the equator."

That made him wonder whether a virus could be involved. 

He and his team carried out a long-term study following millions of young US military recruits.

After nearly 20 years of research, they came up with an answer. In 2022, they confirmed a link between MS and the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), a common infection responsible for another well-known disease, infectious mononucleosis, or mono.

"Most people infected with EBV will never develop MS," said Ascherio, 72.

But everyone who develops MS has had EBV first. 

The discovery still did not explain why MS occurs. But it fuelled hope of finding new treatments and preventive measures for a disease that remains uncurable, and whose current treatments do not work on all patients.

Ascherio's breakthrough could also help treat other conditions.

"We are now trying also to extend our investigation, to investigate the role of viral infection in other neurodegenerative diseases, like Alzheimer's or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis," also known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease, he said.

The link remains theoretical for now. But "there is some evidence," he said.

"It's like where we were on MS 20 or 30 years ago."  

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/multiple-sclerosis/2025/04/06/id/1205835/

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

EU’s Plan to Bolster Own Defence Makes Sense Amid US Foreign Policy Shift

 Conrad Black:

The European Union has just announced an 800 billion-euro expansion of military expenses over the next five years. To achieve this objective, member states are being excused from observing the EU guidelines on avoidance of deficit financing, and a special program is being established by the union itself with a loan of 150 billion euros to individual members to assist them in meeting newly raised requirements for collective defense.

This, like the robust European response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine—which has largely gone unnoticed due to the Trump administration’s complaints that the United States has been paying an inordinate share of the cost of the war—demonstrates that the European ambition to retain its independence and be a substantial force in the world is greater than was readily appreciated, both in Russia and North America.

The European Union on balance has been a disappointment. Twenty years ago, its collective GDP was approximately equal to that of the United States, and today it is only about half of U.S. GDP. Part of this uncompetitive result is the defection of the United Kingdom from the EU, but the great majority of European underperformance is due to overregulation, excessive taxation, and the compulsive massaging about income in Danegeld to the working class and the small farmer.

The reasons for this expensive placebo for the masses of Europe can be easily understood by anyone with even a cursory knowledge of European history. But as the recent German elections indicate—and even the hesitant efforts of the Macron regime in France confirm—and as Italian prime minister Giorgio Meloni has proclaimed, a course correction is necessary to assure European economic growth and a rising standard of living. Europe is also in desperate need of a higher birth rate among the majority nationalities, or at least the ability to attract assimilable immigration, to ensure that the old continent does not succumb to either geriatric perils or the agitation of immigrant communities actively hostile to the societies into which they have moved.

The shift in U.S. foreign policy being enacted by the Trump administration—though it could have been better enunciated, particularly in respect to Canada—is a logical response to the evolution of strategic events in the world since the end of the Cold War 35 years ago.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew Western Europe well and was fluent in French and German, and his family’s considerable fortune was derived from trading in the Far East. Roosevelt saw that if there wasn’t an American presence in Western Europe and the Far East, the entire mass of Eurasia would be in danger of falling into the hands of regimes hostile to democracy, and the security of the Americas would be at risk every generation. He was the chief architect of the strategy that led to the Soviet Union bearing a disproportionate burden in World War II. Among the Big Three allied powers—the USSR, USA, and British Empire—the Soviet Union endured over 90 percent of the casualties and 95 percent of the physical damage in subduing Nazi Germany. Meanwhile, the Anglo-Americans occupied or liberated France, Italy, Japan, and most of Germany, and the USSR gained a temporary and widely resented occupation of Eastern European countries of lesser strategic value, which they were committed to evacuate.

The allied powers pledged at Tehran and Yalta to assure absolutely free democratic elections in all liberated countries and to evacuate all of them except Germany. The Western allies fulfilled their pledges, the Soviet Union did not, and the Cold War began. But with a strong American presence in Western Europe and the Far East, the American-devised strategy of “containment” of the Soviet Union was successful, and the Communist Bloc disintegrated after 45 years without a shot being exchanged between it and the Western powers. The United States devised the successful containment strategy and implemented it, but it must be said that allied leaders contributed importantly to the victory of the West. Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, Helmut Kohl, Francois Mitterand, Brian Mulroney, and in their time, Charles de Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, and Giulio Andreotti all contributed importantly to the Western victory in the Cold War.

The United States has no natural ambition to be involved in other parts of the world; its only concern is not to be threatened. Unlike empires built on steady expansion like Rome or colonial projection like Britain and France, the United States populated and developed the great center of North America, but beyond that has never remained long in any place where its presence was not desired, as it demonstrated in Cuba and the Philippines. It has absolutely no desire to maintain a large military presence in Europe, and only did so to keep potential threats far away from its own shores. That was a strategic policy that commended itself in days when Germany was, as far as the Anglo-French democracies were concerned, an unreliable and potentially dangerous country. It was long a truism to say that Germany was too late unified, had never determined if it was an Eastern or Western-facing country, and could not assure its own security without frightening or violating its neighbors.

President Eisenhower overcame the resistance of Mr. Churchill and of the French government in bringing West Germany into NATO and approving its partial rearmament in 1954–55. President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush were essential to the reunification of Germany, which Prime Minister Thatcher, President Mitterand, and President Gorbachev favored; only the United States had no fear of a united Germany. Now that Germany is comfortable in the cocoon of economic and military allies, and all the states that were its mortal enemies to the West are its allies now, Western Europe has four or five times the economic strength of a Russia that only contains half of the population of the old Soviet Union. And Western Europe can easily match and surpass Russia in military capacity.

The United States is now responding to the threat from China, as it did to the threat from the Soviet Union, by assembling a containment strategy. To be maximally effective, this will include Russia as well as India, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand, and, depending on events, Taiwan. Europe and America, though their relations should always be cordial, do not need each other as they did when the USSR was threatening all of them. Europe is not a serious force in the Pacific, and its military role should now be to ensure the security of Western and Central Europe and maintain a general alliance with the advanced countries of the Commonwealth, the United States, and its Pacific allies. Ideally, NATO would be reconfigured as a worldwide defensive alliance of democratic countries.

But in the meantime, Europe is absolutely correct to assure its own defense—which it has the means and the technical ability to do—and those European countries that wish political integration should achieve it while those that wish to retain their sovereignty should do so in alliance with federal Europe, the UK, as well as Canada and the United States.

 https://www.newenglishreview.org/eus-plan-to-bolster-own-defence-makes-sense-amid-us-foreign-policy-shift/