Brexit and Europe

(With Marcon call for a European Army supported by Merkel and the challenge that Nationalism is presenting to the EU along with Brexit, this was adopted from my book, https://posthillpress.com/book/the-rise-of-national-populism-and-democratic-socialism-what-our-response-should-be and I explained these movements in Europe.)

The English monarch was never as absolute as his or her counterparts in continental Europe. From the Magna Carta onwards, the powers of the monarch were restricted. The belief in limited government has given Americans and the rest of the Anglosphere an advantage over their competitors. In the Anglosphere nations, entrepreneurship has flourished and spread beyond their borders. From the time of the American Revolution and development of the Constitution, the French have endured two Napoleons and five Republics. Outside of England, no European nation has had more experience with democratic rule than the United States. The development of a strong civil society and long time understanding of constitutional rule has fostered both political and economic freedom within the Anglosphere and led to its present domination throughout the world.

Within the Western traditions, there are now two competing ideas. For the French, there is a continental system that features extensive government intervention within the economic sphere and beyond. Many French have derided what they call “Anglo-Saxon” Ideas. In the 1960s, de Gaulle envisioned a block of nations as a separate world power that stood as a counter to the Soviet Empire and the American led “Anglo-Saxon Empire.” Whether it is attacking American culture or complaining about America hegemony, much of the French intellectual and foreign policy apparatus viewed American ascendancy as counter to their goal of dominating Europe through the EU. France wants to become a major player on the world scene through various international bodies such as the European Union and the United Nations. For many French intellectuals, the EU represented the both the political and economic counterweight to what they view as “cowboy capitalism.” (The problem is that EU and the euro aided Germany in being the dominant economic power within Europe, and it is no longer the French leading the way but they are becoming a tail wagged by the German dog.)

One of the future key issues for the Anglosphere nations will be Great Britain’s relations with Europe. The present EU and continental system favors more bureaucratic control over the economy and increased industrial policies targeting specific industries. The harmonization of taxes and budgets within the EU is designed to maintain high taxes and support an ever-expanding welfare state. The policy of harmonization is being used as wedge against lower tax countries such as those in Ireland and in the emerging democracies in Central Europe. Britain’s goal of being “the Anglosphere voice” would have been compromised by dealings with the French and Germans, the present leaders of the EU. James C. Bennett observed in 2007, “Were the United Kingdom to leave the Union and join NAFTA, it would lead to far more productive partnership.”

For Bennett, Britain needs to be more closely integrated into the Anglosphere through inclusion in NAFTA and the other Anglosphere pacts. This is a more logical alliance as Bennett observed that having the United Kingdom join NAFTA would, “accelerate the existing trend toward mergers, partnerships, and alliances between U.S., Canadian, and British infotech companies. It would extend them into allied defense and defense-impacted fields such as aerospace and commercial aviation.” In other words, Brexit.

Many European leaders have learned the wrong lessons of the past fifty years. At this moment, Europe is at peace for the first time in a millennium but with the resurgence of Putin’s Russia, there exists for the first time a prospect of a major European war. This peace came as a result of American steadfast military support of Western Europe. During the 2016 campaign, Trump refuse to committing American support for NATO and European collective security.  (Even though since then, he has maintained support for NATO while trying to strengthen it.  Marcon and Merkel are doing the opposite, weakening NATO. )

 

 

Beatles White Album, Their Best? By Tom Donelson

https://www.weeklystandard.com/dominic-green/the-beatles-white-album-at-50-when-they-was-fab  The author makes the case that this was their best album but the Beatles produced so many great albums.  Starting with Rubber Soul, Beatles began to change from being pop hits to serious artists.  Revolver continued that process with one of my favorite Tax Man, which the Beatles sang about the marginal high rates under the Labour Party. These lyrics sums up any conservative observations about taxes:

Let me tell you how it will be
There’s one for you, nineteen for me
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don’t take it all
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah I’m the taxman
If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
Brilliant analysis and Sgt. Pepper was the combination thematic melodic album and while many view this as the first conceptual album but Beach Boys Pet Sounds was one of inspiration for Sgt. Pepper.
White Album was the continuing maturity of the Beatles of a group that was soon destined to end.  From the early 60’s to end of the sixties, the Beatles was the greatest rock and roll band.

Data on Voter Fraud presented by Tom Donelson

This is a report we put together through Americas Majority Foundation. http://amermaj.org/pdf/Voting-Noncitizens.pdf

Incident of voter fraud documented

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Voter fraud exists, it is only  a matter of how much. Our own data does not support that any of the past three elections were impacted by voter fraud but there is evidence to suggest that specific elections may have been affected. There is evidence to suggest that voter fraud could have tilted North Carolina from McCain to Obama in 2008, our own data suggests that the possibility that 2016 North Carolina race may have been impacted.

Note the word may have been impacted.  An updated study from the Americas Majority Foundation 2017 study will be completed within the next two months.

This link from Senator Rubio, this is what stealing an election looks like. https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/11/08/bush-vs-gore-part-ii-marco-rubio-sounds-the-alarm-over-vote-counting-issues-in-broward-county-fl/?utm_campaign=twitchywidget

 

 

Why Vote Tuesday by Larry Fedewa

The USA is facing again a mid-term election on Tuesday. This is being called the most important mid-term election in our lifetime. Why is it important?
This mid-term is important because it may be our last effort to save our Congress’ role in our government. The Congress is the second of our three branches of government. With the Executive Branch and the Judiciary, the Congress was designed to be a vital player in the checks and balances by which our republic is governed. The most important role of the Congress is to limit the ability of either of the other branches to institute laws or regulations which unduly limit the freedoms of the people. Every single Congressman and Senator is elected personally by the people.
This is not exactly the case of the other two branches. It is true that the President and Vice President are elected, but the rest of the vast bureaucracy which they oversee is not elected and is in fact too large and diverse for any two-person team to supervise. The Judiciary consists of Judges who have been appointed by the President with, in some cases, the consent of the Senate. Thus, the Congress is closest to the people.
Another effect of legislative paralysis is the rise of the third branch of government, the Judiciary. We have already seen recent examples of a single, obscure federal judge issuing edicts which curtail the executive power of the President. Or, a nationally enforced injunction by a federal appeals court restricting law enforcement of the United States. Even if these foolish opinions are eventually reversed by the Supreme Court (which thus has more power than ever), they have led to various tragic consequences in the meantime, as we have seen in the immigration crisis.
So, the efforts of the President to “nationalize” the current mid-term elections is extremely pertinent to the health, even the survival, of our republic. The Congress is the PEOPLE’S GUARDIAN of our freedom and our representative government. It must remain viable and aggressive in the ongoing, everlasting struggle of our people to remain free.
The standard to which all elected officials are to be held was stated in the Declaration of Independence many years ago. This is the pledge which the Congress is sworn to protect:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That is why we all need to vote, and vote thoughtfully, on Tuesday.
So, why the concern about the effectiveness of the Congress?
The reason is that the USA has had divided government for ten of the last eighteen years. Divided government – when the President and only one or neither House of Congress is of the same party – used to work most of the time. It certainly came apart in 1860 and led to a Civil War. But for most of the 20th century the nation survived the periods of divided government without serious consequences.
But those days are over.
During the past decade, the differences between the two major parties have grown so sharp in rhetoric and views of the role of government that we are faced with the inability of the Congress to pass important and needed legislation. In order to pass legislation in our system, both Houses of Congress as well as the President have to vote in favor.
But the traditional limitations which the Senate has imposed upon itself for specific situations, (e.g. sometimes a 60-vote majority is needed to halt a filibuster), it has traditionally taken 60 votes to assert complete control over legislation (called a “super majority”). The last two times one party held a super majority were 1977-1979 and 2009-2011 – both were held by Democrats.
The constraints on the Senate requiring a super (filibuster-proof) majority are gradually being reversed as the super majority becomes ever rarer (three times since WWII). These rules were originally adopted to enforce compromises on important issues. Recently, however, compromises have become rarer than super majorities, so the rules have to change or all activity – including the actual operation of the government itself – as has happened twice recently (i.e. 2013 and 2018).What has now become a fact of life is the power of one House of Congress – or the President himself – to bring the entire government to a halt.
In addition, party discipline has now enforced straight party line votes on selected issues. In previous eras, it was always possible for each member to act independently. No longer. These days, every member is expected to follow directions from the Leader or suffer severe consequences, including committee assignments and campaign funding.
That leaves two alternatives – either the nation must elect a government unified by one party holding both houses of Congress, including a super majority of the Senate, as well as the Presidency, or the Congress will in effect cease to govern except in extreme emergencies, such as an attack on the homeland or an economic collapse, both of which have occurred in recent years.
There are other dangerous effects of legislative paralysis as well. First is the gradual ascendance to greater and greater power of the federal bureaucracy. It will continue to function and to fill any vacuum left by an absent second branch of government. We have seen how the IRS and the Justice Department/intelligence agencies have attempted to impose the will of a few high-ranking officials on the selection and effectiveness of the duly elected President of the United States. This usurpation must be halted by aggressive oversight of the Congress.
(Larry Fedewa is the host of Dr. Larry Show, all rights belong to Larry Fedewa)

End is not Near by Tom Donelson

ultimate resource

In 1980, I had a debate with a fellow conservative who was 15 years older than about the future. He was pessimist and I mention to him “I am optimist because I have a child and I will fight for policy to ensure her future.”  In 1980, the Soviet Empire was on the march, we were suffering from double digit inflation, the Western civilization itself look like it was tottering toward the abyss.  We were told that our resources were running out and there were too many people on this planet.  It is not much different than today in which our culture appeared to be crumbling, our planet is warming and we are doomed to a overpopulated, over heated planet and our resources running out.

Today, my children are adults but still I am amazed how some of the right and many on the left are pessimist about the future.  In 1970’s, the threat was pollution, a new ice age approaching, over population and running out of resources.  Yet, today we are living better than ever.  More people in the world are escaping poverty, and overall standard of living has improved.

When I bring up these facts, I am amazed how many people simply don’t believe that this is the case.  Recently on twitter, I had some guy say I was wrong and where was the data to show this, so I began with four recent sources and told him I could easily flood with him with many more.  I doubt that this will make him happy as he certainly will find some pessimist who will be happy to share some data to prove himself right that the world will end soon but the evidence is in front of us

Over the last fifty years, I have read enough predictions, none of which came through. The book, “The Population Bomb” painted a dismal picture of the future but our population has doubled and the world is now feeding more people better than ever before.  The human mind proved to be the ultimate resource, as the late Julian Simon demonstrated in his book by the same name.  The 1972 club of Rome report stated that overpopulation will lead to depletion of resources.  It didn’t happen as resources seem to be proving more plentiful than before with more than double the population.  In the 1970’s, a new Ice Age was upon us, it didn’t happen and now global warming will kill us but for the past three decades, we have been told repeatedly that we have ten years left but then when decade comes and the world has not ended, we are then told ten more years are left before the end of humanity.  The number of failed predictions and new theories on the world end keeps coming and crashing.  Eventually I guess a astroid will hit this planet and the pessimist will prove to be right.  If you keep predicting the end of the world, eventually it will come but in the meantime,  our world keeps improving.

There is much left to accomplish but we have been cursed with a political class and elite that seems to want to believe the end is near and today, it is climate change that will kill us even though for million of years, we have seen climate change on our planet. It is a given fact that climate change, weather changes but what allows us to survive is our ultimate resource, the human mind.

To the guy I had twitter discussion, I concluded to him, “For the past fifty years, I have heard the end of the world is coming and yet it never does, so if you want to wallow in your pessimism, fine. Wallow in it.”  The poor fellow simply doesn’t comprehend that the very policy he wants enacted will only make his children future bleaker.  For me, I look to a better world and I go back to what I told my conservative friend in 1980, I am optimist because I have a child and I will fight for policy to ensure her future.”  My children are now adults and I still have life left to finish and I be damned if I allow the pessimist to destroy the future for my children and others.  The end is not near.

Jacobs Prevail by Tom Donelson

Danny Jacobs edge past former sparring mate and undefeated Sergiy Derevyanchenko for the IBF Middleweight title.  He won by a split decision as two judges had him winning 115-112 while Julie Lederman had Derevyanchenko winning 114-113, disagreeing with her father who had Jacobs winning by a wider margin that the judges. I had 116-111.

jacobssergiy.0

Both fighters knew each other after sparring over 300 rounds and while Derevyanchenko came in with a 12-0 record but he also had 20 plus fights in the World Series of Boxing that did not count in his professional record.  Derevyanchenko was noted for the being an aggressive fighter but over the first half of the fight, Derevyanchenko showed restraint in his attack and with good reason. Throughout the bout, Jacobs launched vicious body shot and it didn’t help Derevyanchenko that he went down on a flash knockdown on a Jacobs’clubbing right hand near the end of the first bout.  Derevyanchenko did manage a combination in the second round that shook Jacobs up but from that point, Jacobs showed overall better skills and ring generalship as he moved and gave himself angles to hit Derevyanchenko.  Derevyanchenko fought a competitive fight and many pundits had the fight closer than I had.  Each round was competitive including the first round until Derevyanchenko hit the canvas at the end of the round.

Danny Jacobs escaped from being trapped on the rope while keeping much of the bout in the center of the ring.  Derevyanchenko did not match Jacobs hand speed and nor did he cut off the ring as well as he could but then Jacobs mobility has much to do with that.

There were moments that Derevyanchenko got the better including a solid left hand and right hand combination in the tenth round and he took the final round but it was too little too late, at least on my card.  While Harold Lederman had this fight in favor of Jacobs, other of the HBO team including Roy Jones and Max Kellerman warned the audience that while Harold had it easily in Jacobs favor, the judges would have it closer. They did and Harold own daughter disagree with her father on who won.  Now Jacobs want Alvarez to unify the title.

HBO is now leaving the fight game and by the end of the year, there will be no HBO covering boxing.  For years, Showtime has surpassed HBO and other just as ESPN and Fox sports covered the sport.  HBO was the king of boxing coverage for over four decades and if there was a big fight, HBO had it.  Over 1100 fights were seen on HBO since 1973 but over the past few years, Top Rank and Premier boxing took their business elsewhere and many of the bigger stars moved to Showtime, leaving HBO with very few big fights.  Over the years some of the greatest performed on HBO including Lennox Lewis, Roy Jones, Oscar De La Hoya, Sugar Ray Leonard and Tommy Hearns.  The last big stars left on HBO was Saul Alvarez and Gennady Golovkin, who will now be free agents.

For me, a decisive shift from HBO to Showtime was the Showtime Super Middleweight tournament and over a period of three years, Showtime had some of the best fighters in the 168 pound fighting each other and it was here that Andre Ward became a star as he won the tournament and became the king of the division.   HBO is no longer part of boxing but boxing may benefit from this as there are other who are willing to broadcast more matches.  My own bias is that covering Showtime boxing was more fun and their announcers were more accessible.  I remember covering a SHOBOX and I had the chance to interview the late Nick Charles and Steve Farhood, and found them both not just knowledgeable about the sport but down to earth.  I will miss Harold Lederman who often explained the nuance of scoring and hope he lands somewhere.  Jim Lampley is staying with HBO, so his career as play by play announcer is over but Max Kellerman may end up back at ESPN.   Boxing will survive and with Showtime, they have will a network that will promote the sport that HBO failed

Aren’t You Embarrassed? By Loredana Gasparotto

Recently for the very first time, I was harassed on Facebook. I ended up blocking that person. Later on, the same person managed to bother me again through two additional FB accounts, which I promptly deleted her from. I wonder why this person didn’t contact me through direct message instead of addressing her issues with me publicly.  Why didn’t she do that? If this was such a personal concern? Why involving strangers in a conversation they knew nothing about? What was her final goal? Was it to resolve and clarify the problem or just to complain and gain sympathy from others?

IMG_8729

As a result of this event, I asked myself  “what prompt some people to splatter their personal problems or intimate secrets on social media or public platforms? Their issues range from being bothered by their boss, from sharing the name of their medications or any personal matters.

IMG_8079

I began to research. I googled the topic, and I reflected on the personalities of the people I know that overshare on FB.  I found out that most of these people usually flag chronic anger,  resentment issues, and profound loneliness.  But what is more interesting is that they are not “dumb.” These characters are usually well educated and intelligent, but somehow they are incapable of self-analysis and introspection. They seem to fail to recognize that their stance toward others is the cause of their own troubles. Maybe it’s a question of humility. It’s difficult to admit that we are the cause of our misfortunes and it’s always more convenient to point the finger at the “others” who are insensitive, rude and selfish.

IMG_8033

The Huffington Post states that the problem is originated in deep insecurity and need for attention. Probably true. But I personally believe is rooted in this lack of introspection and humility that develops into envy, self-pity, and inaction. And it is insane how far these people would go to seek revenge. All energies that could be spent in taking action to better their own lives. But maybe being pitied by others is more satisfying and easier to achieve than persevering toward a goal without complaining.

IMG_8673

When I read or listen to the stuff these individuals post or speak about, I think “aren’t you embarrassed?” “Is the risk of being laughed at not enough to prevent you from revealing personal and embarrassing material?”

IMG_8075

Like Sebastian Maniscalco says ” It’s the internet. The internet is bringing out people we didn’t even know existed. Thirty years ago these people wouldn’t even leave the house. They would be in the basement talking to themselves. But now with the internet, they have an outlet in the world. And where are people getting the time to do half of the stuff they do online? Writing reviews on restaurants they go to? You’ve got nothing going on in your life?  Arent’ you embarrassed?” Amen