Hitler finds out about Britain Leaving the EU !!! via YouTube, February 23, 2016
Archive for June 25, 2016
Brexit: The Nation is Back!
June 25, 2016Brexit: The Nation is Back! Gatestone Institute, Yves Mamou, June 25, 2016
♦ In France, before the British vote, the weekly JDD conducted an online poll with one question: Do you want France out of the EU? 88% of people answered “YES!”
♦ In none of the countries surveyed was there much support for transferring power to Brussels.
♦ To calm a possible revolt of millions of poor and unemployed people, countries such as France have maintained a high level of social welfare spending, by borrowing money on international debt markets to pay unemployment insurance benefits, as well as pensions for retired people. Today, France’s national debt is 96.1% of GDP. In 2008, it was 68%.
♦ In the past few years, these poor and old people have seen a drastic change in their environment: the butcher has become halal, the café does not sell alcohol anymore, and most women in the streets are wearing veils. Even the McDonald’s in France have become halal.
♦ What is reassuring is that the “Leave” people waited for a legal way to express their protest. They did not take guns or knives to kill Jews or Muslims: they voted. They waited an opportunity to express their feelings.
“How quickly the unthinkable became the irreversible” writes The Economist. They are talking about Brexit, of course.
The question of today is: Who could have imagined that British people were so tired of being members of The Club? The question of tomorrow is: What country will be next?
In France, before the British vote, the weekly JDD conducted an online poll with one question: Do you want France out of the EU? 88% of people answered “YES!” This is not a scientific result, but it is nevertheless an indication. A recent — and more scientific — survey for Pew Research found that in France, a founding member of “Europe,” only 38% of people still hold a favorable view of the EU, six points lower than in Britain. In none of the countries surveyed was there much support for transferring power to Brussels.
With Brexit, everybody is discovering that the European project was implemented by no more than a minority of the population: young urban people, national politicians of each country and bureaucrats in Brussels.
All others remain with the same feeling: Europe failed to deliver.
On the economic level, the EU has been unable to keep jobs at home. They have fled to China and other countries with low wages. Globalization proved stronger than the EU. The unemployment rate has never before been so high as inside the EU, especially in France. In Europe, 10.2% of the workforce is officially unemployed The unemployment rate is 9.9% in France, 22% in Spain.
And take-home salaries have remained low, except for a few categories in finance and high-tech.
To calm a possible revolt of millions of poor and unemployed people, countries such as France have maintained a high level of social welfare spending. Unemployed people continue to be subsidized by the state. How? By borrowing money on international debt markets to pay unemployment insurance benefits, as well as pensions for retired people. So today France’s national debt is 96.1% of GDP. In 2008, it was 68%.
In the the euro zone (19 countries), the ratio of national debt to GDP in 2015 was 90.7%.
In addition to these issue all, European countries have been remained open to mass-immigration.
Immigration was not an official question of the British “remain” or “leave” campaign. But as noted by Mudassar Ahmed, patron of the Faiths Forum for London and a former adviser to the U.K. government, the question of immigration and diversity has been latent:
“In personal conversations, I have found those most eager to leave the European Union are also most uncomfortable with diversity — not just regarding immigration, but of the diversity that already exists in this country. On the other hand, those who are most eager, in my experience, to support remaining in the European Union are far more open to difference in religion, race, culture and ethnicity”.
In France, the question of immigration tied to an eventual “Frexit” is not at all latent. The Front National (FN) strongly supports leaving the EU, and that position is tied to immigration. In France, 200,000 foreigners have been coming annually for several years — from poor countries such as those in North Africa, as well as sub-Saharan countries. The growing presence of Muslims has brought a growing feeling of insecurity, and the cultural traditions of Arab and African countries has created in Europe a cultural “malaise.” Not to everyone, or course. In big cities, people accept diversity. But in the suburbs, it is different. Because those who were on welfare, who were poor, who were old — all these people are living precisely in the same neighborhoods and the same buildings as the new immigrants.
Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National, celebrates the Brexit vote under a sign reading, “And Now: France!”, June 24, 2016.
In the past few years, these poor and old people have seen a drastic change in their environment: the butcher has become halal, the café does not sell alcohol anymore, the famous French “jambon beurre” (ham and butter) sandwich disappeared, and most women in the streets are wearing veils. Even the McDonald’s in France have become halal. In Roubaix, for example,all fast food has become halal.
An eventual “Frexit” vote by the poor, the old, and the people on welfare would mean only one thing: “Give me my country back!” Today, to be against the EU is to reclaim the possibility of remaining French in a traditional France.
With the Brexit, the question of the nation is back in Europe. Without immigration, it might have been possible gradually to create an eventual European identity. But with Islam plus terrorism at the door, with politicians saying after each terrorist attack, “These men shouting, ‘Allahu Akbar’ have nothing to do Islam,” the rejection is big.
This “give me my country back” seems frightening. And it is. It is tainted with chauvinism, and chauvinism is not a good thing for any minorities in any country. Jewish people paid a heavy price for chauvinism in WWII.
What is reassuring, nevertheless, is that the “Leave” people waited for a legal way to express their protest. They did not take guns or knives to kill Jews or Muslims: they voted. They waited an opportunity to express their feelings. The “Leave” may not look modern or trendy, but it is peaceful, legal and democratic.
Hope things stay like that.
Annals of Mewling Idiocy
June 25, 2016Annals of Mewling Idiocy, Power Line,
(Why are so many in Israel distressed at Britain’s Brexit vote?)
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is now serving the twelfth year of his four-year term. He is an absurd and contemptible figure. In a perfectly timed companion to the Brexit referendum, Abbas had the honor of addressing the European Parliament this past Thursday. Abbas drew a standing ovation for his EU speech. (Emphasis added. — DM)
In the course of his remarks Abbas accused (mythical) Israeli rabbis of “demanding” that the Israeli government poison Palestinian water. Yair Rosenberg took up Abbas’s remarks at Tablet.
Abbas’s assertion was the kind of anti-Semitic lie in which he and his colleagues specialize, yet State Department spokesman John Kirby could not bring himself to denounce Abbas’s accusation Thursday. “I’ve seen the comments,” Kirby said: “I can’t confirm the veracity of that” (italics added). Kirby had an open mind on the possibility that rabbis had called for the poisoning of the Palestinians.
As if that weren’t enough, Kirby made the usual idiotic call for evenhandedness, calling on “both sides” to mind their manners. “We have long said what we want is for both sides to ratchet down not just the violence but the rhetoric, which can inflame some of the violence,” he said. “We just don’t find that sort of rhetoric helpful.”
Diaa Hadid follows up on the story in today’s New York Times. She reports that the PLO retracted the accusation early this morning. The retraction, if that is is what is, reads: ““After it has become evident that the alleged statements by a rabbi on poisoning Palestinian wells, which were reported by various media outlets, are baseless, President Mahmoud Abbas has affirmed that he didn’t intend to do harm to Judaism or to offend Jewish people around the world.”
Was the PLO statement published in Arabic in addition to English? I don’t know.
Hadid adds this uncharacteristically quizzical note to her report (italics added): “It was not immediately clear why Mr. Abbas repeated the allegation on Thursday, days after it was widely debunked. Neither the rabbi who supposedly made the claim, nor the organization quoted in the original P.L.O. article, appear to exist.”
The State Department transcript of Kirby’s comments is here. Jenna Lifhits links to it in her Weekly Standard post.
Cartoons of the Day
June 25, 2016
Ramming attack – Elias Junction – Kiryat Arba – June 24, 2016
June 25, 2016Uploaded on Jun 24, 2016
Brexit Contagion: Germany Fears 5 More “Leaves” –
June 25, 2016Brexit Contagion: Germany Fears 5 More “Leaves”
June 25, 2016
by TNO Staff
Source: Brexit Contagion: Germany Fears 5 More “Leaves” –
The German government has admitted in a secret briefing paper leaked to Die Welt newspaper that another five countries—France, Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, and Hungary—might follow Britain’s example and leave the European Union.
The document warns that a prolonged and messy British exit process can have a “crucial” impact in boosting the Eurosceptic movements in all five nations.
The document, titled “Task Force: Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union” was developed by the German Finance Ministry for what it describes as “difficult divorce proceedings.”
The document says it was to offer the UK “constructive outlet negotiations” which will end up in Britain becoming an “associate partner country” of the EU.
The exit process—governed by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty—allows for a two-year withdrawal process. “This creates time and the basis for negotiations,” the document says, adding that if necessary, this time period could be extended.
The paper also says it was to “grant the UK no large benefits”—specifically that there must be no “automatic access to the EU’s single market,” because, it continues, “otherwise other EU states will follow the UK’s path.”
This danger is highlighted by the fact that there are “imitation tendencies” in other European nations, the paper says, specifically listing France, Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, and Hungary.
Die Welt said in its commentary that the German Finance Minister is therefore “trying to walk a middle ground in the fundamental question of whether the EU should make an example of the UK in order to prevent other countries from quitting, or whether it should try and bind the island [Britain] closer to the EU and try and limit the economic damage with the hope of later convincing Britain of the idea of a united Europe.”
READ Hamburg: Police Called out 1,000 Times
Die Welt adds that the former attitude currently prevails: that Britain should not be granted any special terms and be “treated like any other country outside the EU,” otherwise other member states could also “demand special conditions for themselves through the threat of referendums. And that would be the end of the EU.”
On the other hand, Die Welt says, some know exactly how much is at stake, economically speaking. With Brexit, the EU is going to lose “almost 20 percent of its economic power,” and, more importantly, in a “tough divorce,” unforeseen political consequences may emerge.
* Meanwhile, France’s Front National leader, Marine Le Pen, has pledged to hold a French referendum if she emerges victorious in next year’s presidential elections.
In the Netherlands, a Nexit has also been postulated after Dutch voters earlier this year rejected a Ukraine-European Union treaty, and populist politician Gert Wilders—currently leading in the opinion polls—has already called for a UK-style vote.
Finally, the German taxpayers are not going to be pleased with the news that they are going to be forced to pay £2.44 billion ($3.3 billion) a year to the annual EU budget once Britain has left.
Thank you, America!
June 25, 2016Thank you, America! Wattsupwith that, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley via Anthony Watts, June 24, 2016
(This is by far the best address I have read thus far on Brexit. — DM)
“Your Majesty, with my humble duty, I was born in a democracy; I do not live in one; but I am determined to die in one.”
And now I shall die in one. In the words of William Pitt the Younger after the defeat of Napoleon, “England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”
The people have spoken. And the democratic spirit that inspired just over half the people of Britain to vote for national independence has its roots in the passionate devotion of the Founding Fathers of the United States to democracy. Our former colony showed us the way. Today, then, an even more heartfelt than usual “God bless America!”
***************************
For my final broadcast to the nation on the eve of Britain’s Independence Day, the BBC asked me to imagine myself as one of the courtiers to whom Her Majesty had recently asked the question, “In one minute, give three reasons for your opinion on whether my United Kingdom should remain in or leave the European Union.”
My three reasons for departure, in strict order of precedence, were Democracy, Democracy, and Democracy. For the so-called “European Parliament” is no Parliament. It is a mere duma. It lacks even the power to bring forward a bill, and the 28 faceless, unelected, omnipotent Kommissars – the official German name for the shadowy Commissioners who exercise the supreme lawmaking power that was once vested in our elected Parliament – have the power, under the Treaty of Maastricht, to meet behind closed doors to override in secret any decision of that “Parliament” at will, and even to issue “Commission Regulations” that bypass it altogether.
Worse, the treaty that established the European Stability Pact gives its governing body of absolute bankers the power, at will and without consultation, to demand any sum of money, however large, from any member state, and every member of that governing body, personally as well as collectively, is held entirely immune not only from any civil suit but also from any criminal prosecution.
That is dictatorship in the formal sense. Good riddance to it.
I concluded my one-minute broadcast with these words: “Your Majesty, with my humble duty, I was born in a democracy; I do not live in one; but I am determined to die in one.”
And now I shall die in one. In the words of William Pitt the Younger after the defeat of Napoleon, “England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”
Indeed, No-way and Nixerland having already voted down the EU, Brexit may well be swiftly followed by Frexit, Grexit, Departugal, Italeave, Czechout, Oustria, Finish, Slovakuum, Latviaticum and Byebyegium. At this rate, soon the only country still participating in the European tyranny-by-clerk will be Remainia.
The people have spoken. And the democratic spirit that inspired just over half the people of Britain to vote for national independence has its roots in the passionate devotion of the Founding Fathers of the United States to democracy. Our former colony showed us the way. Today, then, an even more heartfelt than usual “God bless America!”
All who have studied the Madison papers will grasp the greatness of the Founding Fathers’ vision. They were determined that no law and no tax should be inflicted upon any citizen except by the will of elected representatives of the people in Congress assembled.
They regarded this democratic principle as of such central importance that they wrote it down as Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States: “All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Period. No ifs. No buts. No exceptions.
Except one. The Constitution establishes that foreign treaties ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate shall have the same force of law throughout the United States as enactments of Congress.
It is, therefore possible for any U.S. Government that can muster that Senate majority to ratify any treaty and thereby to thwart the central principle of Congressional democracy: that no Congress may bind its successors.
The Republicans, who are not always as lively in their understanding of the threat to democracy posed by supranational and global institutions such as the EU, the UN and its bloated climate bureaucracy, are too often snared or charmed by determined “Democrats” who fully understand and thirst to exercise the power to inflict perma-Socialism on their nation by bilateral, multilateral or global treaties.
It is astonishing how many of the GOP are willing to be cajoled and schmoozed into supporting monstrosities such as the Transatlatic Trade and Investment Partnership, which on its face sounds like a free-marketeer’s dream but is in its small print a series of outright Socialist measures which, once the Senate has ratified them, cannot be repealed. Its climate provisions, for instance, are highly dangerous.
It is no accident, therefore, that the bankers, the corporate profiteers, the Greens and the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Scotland – the corporatists and the communists together – made common totalitarian cause and heavily promoted the campaign to keep Britain in the EU, that paradise of vested interests and their poisonous lobbyists.
It is likewise no accident that precisely these same national and global vested interests heavily promote the campaign to subject Britain and the world to various unnecessary and damaging measures whose ostensible purpose is to control the climate but whose real ambition is to curb capitalism, fetter freedom, punish prosperity,. limit liberty and deny democracy.
The necessity to protect the flagile flower of democracy from the scythe of Socialism is now surely self-evident. Here are two modest proposals to ensure that the will of the people prevails over the power of the politicians, the Press, and the profiteers.
First, every new treaty, and as many pre-existing treaties as possible, should be made subject to repeal by a national referendum – and not just by a referendum called by the governing party because it thinks it can win it but by the people via the initiative procedure. Britain would have left the EU long before now if we, the people, and not those who govern us, had had the right to put referendum questions on the ballot.
Secondly, the governing bodies of all new supranational or global bodies exercising real sovereign power or spending taxpayers’ money from the states parties to the treaty that establishes them should be elected at frequent intervals by the peoples of those states parties.
Otherwise every international treaty, being a transfer of power from elected to unelected hands, diminishes democracy. Britain’s membership of the European Union effectively took away our democracy altogether, so that three new laws in five (according to the researchers of the House of Commons Library) or five in six (according to the German Government in a submission some years ago to the German Constitutional Court) are inflicted upon us solely because the unelected Kommissars require it.
Till now, our obligation has been to obey, on pain of unlimited fines.
The vote by the people of Britain to break free from this stifling, sclerotic tyranny has sent a shock-wave through every major international governing entity. It was no accident that the the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Corruption and Devastation, and various world “leaders” including Mr Obama, broke with democratic convention by openly promoting a “Remain” vote in a flagrant attempt to interfere in Britain’s decision.
Mr Obama’s intervention was decisive. The moment he demanded that Britain should remain within the EU, the polls began to swing against it. It was only when, in his maladroit fashion, he had sought to interfere in Britain’s decision that so many undecided voters woke up to the danger that the maneuverings and posturings of the international governing class represent to democracy.
What will Britain’s decision mean for the climate debate? Of course, it will break us free from the EU, whose governing elite had seized upon the climate issue as a purported ex-post-facto justification for the now-hated bloc’s continued existence.
We are left with our own British governing class, which has until now been no less determined than the EU to damage our economic and environmental interests by shutting down vital coal-fired power stations and carpeting our once green and pleasant land with windmills.
Now that the EU and its devoted poodle Mr Cameron have been consigned to the trashcan of history, it is near-certain that any new British Cabinet will take a more alert and less acquiescent stance than the present lot on the climate question.
It may even occur to the new Cabinet to check whether the rate of global warming is anything like what the profiteers of doom had predicted; to count the number of downstream businesses – such as cinder-blocks made from fly-ash out of coal-fired power stations – that have been destroyed by the EU’s war on coal; and even to wonder whether the forest of windmills that infest our once beautiful landscape are now extracting between them so much kinetic energy from passing storms that they are slowing them down, causing far more flash flooding than slightly warmer weather would (if and when it happened).
In the past, there was no point in our politicians asking any such questions, for our policies on all matters to do with our own environment were set for us by the unelected Kommissars of Brussels, whether we liked it or not.
Now that our politicians are going to have to learn to think for themselves again, rather than acting as an otiose, automated rubber stamp for directives from Them in Brussels, perhaps the Mother of Parliaments will begin to calculate the enormous economic advantage that Britain will gain by abandoning all of the climate-related directives that have driven our coal corporations, our steelworks and our aluminum works overseas, and have killed tens of thousands by making home heating altogether unaffordable.
We, the people, are the masters now. Our politicians will have to reacquire the habit of listening not to Them but to us. Here, and in the rest of Europe, and eventually throughout the world, let freedom ring!
Thank you, America, and God save the Queen!
Brexit – Backlash from mass migration and ISIS
June 25, 2016Brexit – Backlash from mass migration and ISIS. DEBKAfile, June 24,2016
In a historic referendum, millions of British citizens voted Thursday, June 23, to leave the European Union after 43 years by a margin of 52 to 48 percent. Many were undoubtedly moved into approving this pivotal step by three seismic world events:
1. The mass migration flowing into Europe from the Middle East and Africa under the EU aegis. Forebodings in the UK were fueled by figures released a week before the referendum showing an influx of 330,000 migrants to Britain in 2015.
2. The war on the Islamic State which poses a peril which most Western governments avoid addressing by name as World War III in the making.
3. The inability of those governments, beyond empty words, to grapple with the war on ISIS or cope with the mass of migrants expected to beat on the gates of Western societies for many more hard years.
Many Americans and Europeans are dissatisfied and resentful of President Barack Obama’s approach to the war on ISIS, which is to dismiss the enemy as a minor band of fanatics and thus, rather than a war against Islam. Neither do they accept German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s magnanimous invitation to take refugees in – 1.5 million in two years – as her country’s moral responsibility.
This popular disgruntlement has thrown up such antiestablishment figures as Donald Trump in the US and Boris Johnson in Britain and contributes to the rise of far right-wing movements and extremist violence on both continents.
Those two leaders, though different in most other ways, owe much of their popularity to the pervasive fear in their countries that surging immigration will forever alter the fabric of their societies.
Such social upheaval is the result of a trap deliberately set for the West by two Muslim leaders: ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Turkish President Tayyip Reccep Erdogan.
Al-Baghdadi conceived the idea of flooding the western world with waves of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East as a way to achieve three targets:
a) To change the composition of the population of Western countries by expanding the Muslim increment.
b) To plant networks of ISIS terrorists in the West.
c) To boost ISIS Middle Eastern arms, people and drugs smuggling networks as the organization’s main source of income. Migrants are willing to pay an average of between 5,000 and 10,000 dollars to reach the West even though they know that many never make it alive.
Al Baghdadi made up for the revenue shortfall caused by the US bombing of ISIS-held oil fields and money reserves by pushing over a new wave of immigrants.
President Erdogan’s motives are quite different.
He allowed the waves of immigrants to pass through Turkey on their way to the US and Europe – just as for years, he allowed Western jihadists joining ISIS to reach Siria via Turkey – because he was consumed with the desire to punish the US, namely, the Obama administration, for refusing to back up his hegemonic aspirations in the Middle East; Europe was punished for denying Turkey EU membership year after year.
The victory of Boris Johnson’s “leave” campaign – in the face of Obama’s personal championship of Prime Minister David Cameron’s bid to keep his country in, supported by the Democratic presumptive nominee Hilary Clinton – was a loud and clear signal for politicians running in future elections in the West, including the US presidential vote in November.
Republican candidate Donald Trump’s call to stop Muslim immigration into the US until proper screening measures are in place may sound like an unformed idea, but no other US politician has dared put it on the table, or directly challenge the hollow words and self-righteous hypocrisy of Obama and Clinton on the issues of terror, wars in the Middle East and mass immigration. This alone gives Trump a popular edge in widening circles in the USA over his rival.
Trump is not likely to lose votes either by his pledge to rebuild NATO for leading the West in the war against Islamic terror.
During the five months up until the US presidential election, the West can expect more large-scale ISIS terror coupled with dramatic events in the wars raging in at least seven countries – Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Libya and Afghanistan. Refugees in vast numbers will continue to batter down the doors of countries that are increasingly unable and unwilling to accept them.
Wars in general and religious wars in particular, have throughout history thrown up massive shifts of population displaced by violence, plague, falling regimes, famine and economic hardship.
The year 2016 will go down as the year in which Middle East crises spilled over into the west, bringing social change and far-reaching political turmoil in their wake.
And this is only the beginning.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments