There has been near constant accusations and bloviating all about Donald Trump’s presumed short fuse. These attacks have come furious and provokingly and these are being used as chum in the water for the mainstream media to feast on; and believe us they have been coordinating and laying aside above the fold for every leading news-story; or should we say political editorial. These salacious assaults on Donald Trump would be far more convincing and less conniving if they were to include even a hint on Hillary Clinton’s short fuse and ill-tempered side which were a driving force behind much of what has displayed her being ill-fit to be the President of the most powerful nation on the planet. When Donald Trump has an emotional outburst, his response is verbal and short-lived. Hillary Clinton is known to carry forth for the remainder of life, hers or her newly acquired target. When Bill Clinton lost his reelection election she famously called the Christian Campaign Manager a “F—-g Jew B——d.” She became the wounded warrior and claimed that a “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” was behind the accusations of sexual misconduct of her husband. Beyond that, Hillary took charge of the intimidation, belittling, slandering, character assassination, media control, story massaging and sundry miscellaneous attacks targeting any and all allegations and accusations against Bill Clinton thus assuring that no more women, or bimbos as the White House labeled those coming forward, would be coming up with any additional accusations or verifications against the President. This was a well-coordinated assault just as well planned and executed as was the campaign to get out the vote except this was a suppress the evidence effort.
Hillary Clinton on the Prowl for Voters
If this was the extent of Hillary Clinton perfidy, there would be little evidence of her unsuitability for the office of President of the United States. Hillary claims how she has always been so transparent in all her actions that the public can trust that all her actions will be entirely open and able to be monitored by all who are interested. Apparently Hillary Clinton has completely forgotten her efforts at designing her own version of a healthcare system. Her committee contained some of the best minds in the progressive movement plus the fly in the ointment, Hillary Clinton. The public was left in the dark. Congress was left in the dark. The media, including the leftist media, was left guessing, being fed tempting morsels but actually only gristle and no red meat. The universe was led on the merry path of flowers and unicorns with all the wonderful reports of total free coverage with almost no additional costs. Perhaps the promises of everything for nothing proved to be the straw that broke the healthcare back. When Hillary Clinton and companies’ plan was presented to Congress, even the democrat faithful headed for the hills escaping as fast as they could. Her produced healthcare plan was such a monstrous and unwieldly conglomeration of regulations, legal demands, meticulous record keeping and required filings with the Federal Government that all who read the plan were flabbergasted. Commentary from numerous sources inside and outside, but close to the manners in which the plan was hatched, told of Hillary Clinton riding roughshod over all contrary opinions doing exactly as she thought best. This kind of leadership, totalitarian leadership, had actually driven a number of leading surgeons and physicians from participating or even signing the plan sent to Congress. They told of fiery outbreaks replete with profanity at some of the mildest of suggestions or alternative proposals where Hillary Clinton appeared to have lost all sense of reason.
Finally, there were numerous reports and even complaints filed against Hillary Clinton for abusive language, abusive treatment, violent outbursts and some workers fearing for their safety. These complaints and requests for transfer or alternate position from people who had nearly a lifetime of service climbing to reach a White House assignment and to then risk never making it back to their former privileged position was an acceptable sacrifice to be rid of Hillary Clinton. All of these point to Hillary Clinton not only having an explosive temper but also a short fuse with a vengefully long memory. Such was a temperament of throwing items, oft of value, for periods as long lasting as an entire day and even lasting through the next day or beyond as well. Some who have been found to get on the wrong side of Hillary Clinton have related that despite attempts to settle their differences or even apologize have failed dashed on the craggy cliffs which make up the beach at shoreline Clinton. Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be a person with a malleable core where beliefs come to die especially after receiving poor poll ratings. Taking the sum of these parts produces a picture of an unbalanced individual whose coworkers fear working anywhere near her spheres of influence.
Many have spoken similarly of Donald Trump, but from most appearances his tantrums have been largely bluster with little threat of physical violence, at least before the October Surprise of crass claims of sexual violence. Given the claims of violent actions, we would feel safer with a Donald Trump Presidency than a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Unfortunately, elections remain out by three weeks and it is still anybody’s election to win or lose. Donald Trump will be facing sexual harassment charges most of which are likely people coming forth for their moment of fame. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is facing a truly deep character fault which will have a direct effect on her Presidency. As to which one is most likely to get the United States embroiled into a war, it would be Hillary Clinton with her establishment of a “No Fly Zone” probably on Aleppo could escalate with the downing of a Russian fighter jet leading to a direct confrontation. That is but a single potential point of contention where a single miscalculation could lead to great problems soon thereafter. That alone is food for thought.
The election this fall is not about Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Taliban, or other security. It will not be about most of the items the media is talking about. What it is about is the economy, jobs, employment, wages, and everything about the economy but not in the obvious ways being discussed. Where will this next Presidency balance? The main item is which way does it benefit the United States most, continuing internationalism or returning to nationalism.
The media and most politicians are pushing this global economy, global integration, global cooperation, global solutions while hiding a dirty little secret, they are selling global as the solution while having the United States and the advanced nations pay for everything while equalizing the global playing field, whatever that means. We had a debate last night and we heard more of the same. Clinton claimed more globalism and taxes on the rich and Trump tried and may have meant to sound like Reagan. What they were not telling the people is that Clinton was using the same internationalism where the world matters more than the United States so in order to equalize the world the United States and the advanced world has to bleed to allow the rest of the world to catch up and then all will be well and how wonderful the world can be. Trump is actually claiming that every nation take their own and put them first and attempt to allow the nations who are leading the world to continue to be the leaders and then assist other nations in making gains and follow and give them access to advances as they are able to implement these advances. So, which way will work best. That depends on which nations one decides should be permitted to advance their own interests than to share with the world.
Internationalism is wonderful if your country is on the receiving end and not so wonderful if you are being bled to bring the other nations up to their level. The problem with that are many of these nations that are presumably being given advances in order to raise them to the same level are led by dictators who are enriching themselves and not making their nations any closer to the advanced world as that does not directly benefit them. What these dictators are not being intelligent about is that had they advanced their nation they would have enriched themselves in the process. They are not even thinking nationally rather than internationally. Internationally is a recipe for disaster as it inhibits the leaders from leading and demands that the least efficient be granted the largess while the leaders are placed in financial straight-jackets. Internationalists place a stop sign where all nations must park their own business and park their nation by the side of the highway and wait for the rest of the world to reach an equal position. The problem is that many of these nations, which they are waiting for to reach the same point, are themselves broken and not gaining and will never catch up as they are not even making any effort to reach the next level. Internationalism believes that making all nations equal will solve the world’s problems and inequalities, despite it not ever bringing the rest of the nations to first world status.
World Map with Borders Deemphasized
Nationalism is the opposite view which allows each nation to advance at their own rate and still demands that the first world assist the developing nation but does not demand they try to make equal those nations so dysfunctional that they are the closest thing to an economic black hole as can be found. Nationalism rewards each nation for their efforts and allows each nation to gain at their own speed. Allowing the leaders to lead gives other nations a target and proven path they can emulate but without national gain by the wealthiest nations to blaze the trail for the others to follow. The basis for nationalism is it allows each nation to set their own monetary policies and is against unifying monetary policies as such a system is flawed and destroys the lesser productive nations which has been proven by the European Union Euro which has benefited Germany while leaving Greece behind. Nationalism allows each country to do the best for their own people and society. That does not mean that nations which are developing should not be aided and it is in the interest of the most advanced nations to assist those nations who are developing and making the right choices and allowing them to benefit from the experiences of those nations who have traveled those roads before them. But those nations which are completely dysfunctional cannot be assisted as long as their governance is broken and until the nation decides to change their dysfunctions there is no reason to throw good money after bad.
Internationalism is a wonderful, feel-good policy filled of kind words and low on actual results. Internationalism demands that all nations be made to give according to their ability and the funds are granted to countries according to their needs. Internationalism demands open borders allowing free immigration with no limits or criminal and other background checks or other limits or restrictions. The policies sound as if they will allow all nations equal opportunities in word while defining this policy as bringing all nations up to the same level and making things fair for all nations. The truth is that this is accomplished by tearing down the greater nations while benefitting some of the least deserving nations who are corrupt criminal enterprises more than they are actual functional nations. Rewarding the worst while impeding the best prevents progress and will constantly restrict progress and the discoveries of new technologies and new systems which would result in assisting those nations seeking a better future to implement the proven methods. To get an idea on the difficulties caused by internationalism there is a perfect example which we can observe, the European Union. How has that equal currency been working for over half of Europe who are not Germany or Britain but are Greece, Spain, Italy and even France and many of the former Warsaw Nations. The common currency has taken the small differences of economic production where the agrarian economies which work on a different production level having to survive with the same policies of the industrial and other highly developed nations.
World Map and Relative Wealth of Nations
Permitting each nation to perform at their highest level and to their full potential will set target paths for other nation to follow along the proven road set by the highest performing nations. Progress is the fuel that raises all nations in turn. Progress provides the test paths and allows developing nations to benefit from their more advanced nations but only when they decide to advance. No nation could be forced to grow their economy and advance their national infrastructure and when a nation refuses to advance itself then forcing the rest of the world to wait for such a nation to reach an equative level is ridiculous and counterproductive. Internationalism is wonderful idea if it could function as promised. Nationalism is the dirty sounding word which is accused of being selfish because it benefits the wealthy nations and prevents developing nations from ever reaching the top level. The obvious fault is that accusation is completely false. If nationalism prevented up and coming nations from ever becoming the top nations were true then China would have ruled the world, Spain would be a leading nation, Greece would be the top nation in Europe, Egypt would be the most advanced nation in construction and engineering, Persia would still control East-West trade routes, Portugal would be a great power with colonies throughout the world, and the Hittites would be the great power in the norther worlds of Europe through to Turkey. Top nations change and have changed throughout the history of the world while nationalism was the rule of the world. Internationalism has caused massive stagnation as the world as a whole is not permitted to advance because the leading nations are held back presumably for the benefit of the lesser nations. This will always be a supported philosophy as there will always be more developing and undeveloped nations than leading nations as only a few nations will be in the top ten percent, which is why it is referred to as the top ten percent. Internationalism has been working so well over the past twenty to thirty years since 1979 while the rest of history was pathetic and without economic advancement advances by all nations and we are still using salt as a currency, aren’t we? The progress from salt as money to salt as something on almost every dinner table was a result from nationalism, not internationalism.
Compare the two with eyes open and the preferable form, open competition or controlled advancement, the choice could provide opportunity or a slow decadence and eventual decimation. Internationalism is welfare on an international scale much in the form of the Soviet Union and the initial Plymouth Rock Colony which would have starved if not for the Native Americans who grew and hunted for surplus for the winter and had sufficient to teach and feed the Pilgrims. After that experience of all get all they need, while most gave nothing in effort, they introduced a new program where each family kept a percentage of what they grew and the remainder was shared, the amounts of food skyrocketed. That is the balance which nationalism can produce, the most advanced achieve at their highest level and those developing nations learn from those leaders and in time some will replace them as they eventually falter. That is the secret of effort based economies, the people or nations at the top changes with time when another makes decisions which make them even more profitable as the other sinks under likely bureaucratic waste. You decide.
All of the votes have been counted and it is official as 52% voted yes to Brexit and 48% voted to remain in the European Union (E. U.). Along with the Brexit yes vote comes news that Prime Minister Cameron will resign, as he stated, “But the British people made a very clear decision to take a different path and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction. I will do everything I can as Prime Minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months. But I do not think it would be right for me to try and be the captain that steers our country to its next destination.” Well, he said the if vote went against his preference that he would pass the torch, and the good news is we will have another national vote for new leaders to give us a break from the Hillary and Donald catastrophe across the pond. Below is his entire talk from in front of 10 Downing Street to the media. He stated that he would like to see new leadership by October when the Conservative Party is holding their national conference. I can only assume he expects his Conservative Party to continue to lead the nation such that the new Prime Minister will also lead the party; and if they fail, then he can step forward to lead the nation in repealing the Brexit as I doubt he would change his stated view on E. U. membership.
Now we will see the rush for the door. Already France and the Netherlands have had public pressure for their own exit vote on their E. U. As we had stated earlier, with Brexit passing, and not by what should be considered anything but a fairly definitive vote, all right, landslide it wasn’t; but any politician would be very happy to have a 4% margin of victory which the media in any election would report that the people had made their decision known as if it was a really definitive vote. One has to further note that initially the “remain” vote was comfortably leading after the early vote count from London and other metropolitan cities where the population is younger and considered more erudite, but the rest of the country was definitively of a different mind. This was sort of reminiscent of the Dewey Defeats Truman headline which proved erroneous as the rural votes came in and Truman won the day. The vote was expected to be close with the older population favoring leaving while the youth desired to remain in the E. U.; so once again it fell to that favorite item of pollsters, the ever unpredictable middle. This time the middle was not the middle between conservatives and liberals but the middle aged people, those who may not have lived or only their childhood witnessed Britain before the E. U. but were raised by people who lived through both before E. U. membership and after joining E. U. From appearances this middle aged voting public really did not want to remain in the E. U. or they really wanted to remove Cameron, whichever, the vote is done and the British are free of the Brussels Bureaucracy and their dictatorial ultimatums.
Dewey Defeats Truman
It will be interesting to see which nations now have similar demands for being allowed to see whether their people desires remaining in the E. U. or demanding their government be empowered and freed from the restrictions and economic directives from Brussels. As noted, France and the Netherlands may already be heading for a vote and if there has been sufficient public outcry, we can expect they too will vote favorably for leaving the E. U. and in many ways the E. U. has brought this upon themselves with their slow but steady suffocation of individual sovereignty. The E. U. was supposedly a mostly economic and trade union and not supposed to replace the individual government’s dominion. But as time went the E. U. grew and assumed more and more power taking these decisions from the individual governments and supplanting them with the dictations and ultimatums from Brussels. They took control over immigration erasing borders between the separate nations. Further they began taking from the wealthier nations and giving to those faltering nations which are where the idea of central planning began to fail. There we are again with central planning being the difficulty, the causational problem. This had a dual effect which simply furthered the problems. The wealthier nations were put out for being made to cover these other nations which they regarded as slacker nations where the people did not have the same work ethic of say Germany or Britain and at the other end these faltering nations were being dictated on decisions which they refused to obey which caused further friction. Both the sides found the demands placed upon them by an unelected set of faceless bureaucrats to be onerous and distasteful. The E. U. will press the predictions that leaving their overseeing guidance as resulting in confusion, trade wars, and every problem conceivable as should the E. U. be disbanded these bureaucrats and the governing central planners will all be out of a job and with no prospects for future employment. What will these poor central planners do without the power of the E. U. charter, a document they have stretch beyond all recognition, to empower them and grant them powers, well, some of the powers they wield as some might be beyond the original intents the member nations originally agreed upon. Overreach can really be a downer that can lead to resentment followed by people actually doing something about being so dictated to.
Perhaps the lesson here is that when the representatives that the people elect are slowly but ever so steadily disempowered by an unelected group of central planners who have been overreaching and taking more and more power to themselves, well, you eventually get blowback. The decision to also allow thousands of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and beyond into the E. U. may have been the final straw. Then there were the terror attacks which many blamed on the E. U. and their immigration policies. This was possibly brought to the fore last week with the horrible event where a Labor Party Minister of Parliament, Jo Cox, was murdered by a reportedly mentally unstable fanatic who was anti-refugee and believed to have been a white supremacist. We can only hope he gets treatment and remains incarcerated in a mental health institution or prison for the mentally unstable such that he never again has the opportunity to harm anyone. This crime did bring an end to the discussion a full week before the vote and was thought would suppress the voters favoring Brexit. If that was true then the Brexit was even more favored than the vote may have indicated though it is more likely that this crime had little if any effect.
Late Minister Jo Cox Refugee Advocate Killed by Anti-Refugee Fanatic
This crime also deserves some investigation. Jo Cox was both shot and stabbed as was a 77-year-old man, who intervened to help Cox and sustained a serious injury to his abdomen and remains in stable condition in the hospital. Britain had gun laws which are amongst the strictest in the world and yet this unstable individual somehow came to possess and use a firearm in this criminal act of murder. This goes a long way in proving that if a person is determined to murder, there are no laws which will prevent them from attaining a firearm with which to commit their heinous crimes. As long as there are firearms, and that means as long as nations have armies, then people will find a way of attaining weapons. We don’t want to get into a gun control vs. gun rights argument beyond the understanding that anyone willing to commit a violent criminal act will never be deterred by laws about weapon possession or any other law as they are already committed to violating far more serious laws than possession laws or crossing the street outside a crosswalk or stalking or anything else on the books, period.
As far as we have been capable of determining, Jo Cox was a refugee advocate and had been quite vocal about the responsibility of the wealthier and peaceful nations of Europe to offer open doors and open arms to the refugees from the war torn areas of the Middle East and Africa. The man who murdered her in cold blood was an adamant and vehement opponent to immigration of those people he saw as from an inferior society and likely incapable of acting and interacting with Europeans and would be a disaster waiting to happen. He had a history of prescribing to white supremacist and apartheid organizations as well as other, according to police and media reports were “right-wing” and “extremist” groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-leaning United States ‘human rights and minority rights’ organization, has published what it says are documents showing that the suspected murderer, Mr. Mair, had a history of purchasing material from the National Alliance white supremacist organization based in the United States. They released copies of receipts and a 2013 subscription to the National Alliance’s publication, National Vanguard, as well as receipts from 1999 showing purchases for neo-Nazi book “Ich Kampfe,” the “Improvised Munitions Handbook” and other books and traced his activities back to his having also subscribed to a pro-apartheid group’s magazine in the 1980s. Thank you Southern Poverty Law Center for your timely research into this person’s history.
This person, Mr. Mair, had definite problems and if law enforcement or public health had known of his problems, it raises questions as to why he was still permitted to be outside of observation and managed care. There was a movement back in the late 1960s and through the 1970s and continuing to this day which operates under the misconception that people with mental difficulties benefit from living in the real world even if this means their missing taking necessary medications. The numbers of homeless living on the streets rose precipitously coinciding with the decisions that mental institutions were harming the people they cared for and that the monies wasted on such institution could be better used in outpatient services for these people. There were studies done subsequently which varied and conflicted with some reporting that many of the former institutionalized individuals were not receiving their medications and has missed appointments with counselors and had been removed from rolls and left on the street without getting the medical attentions they had received previous to being placed out in the world without any real assistance in adjusting. Others reported how many had obviously found a better life as living in the real world had filled them with and through interactions such that they were no longer in need of medication or counseling. One side of these results has to be horrifically missing the mark as they are opposites though their percentages are remarkably similar. So we have to believe that either there are a number of formerly institutionalized individuals who remarkably recovered or that an equal number of these people have fallen through the cracks and nobody really cares. How many of these people will end up on the wrong side of the law or are being abused by others also on the streets as many are likely easy marks. Either way, if there are even half of these people not receiving the medication and help they need, that is a calamity of tragic proportions. One of the victims of this experiment is now Minister of the British Parliament Jo Cox, and that too is a tragic price that British society has paid.
Our final note on Brexit, this is just the beginning and this story is about to take on a whole new and serious proportion as the rest of Europeans force their governments to allow them the same choice and we may soon have a free and independent new Europe free of the dictatorship in Brussels. This might be the start of a healthier Europe when each nation will determine their own trade and future and economically they will now be able to have a free and independent currency as each return to their own currency which then adjusts with their economic strength and needs. The ones who would benefit most from being independent from the E. U. would be Greece, Spain and other areas which have found the Euro to be inhibitive of their economic needs. Time will tell and we can hope that the people will get the freedom to decide for themselves and each nation does what is the best for their economies and people.
Beyond the Cusp 