View Full Version : Original US Dec. of Independence in light of Brexit--why it's so inspiring for today

07-03-2016, 09:46 PM
Why secession is not a dirty word

Exclusive: William J. Watkins Jr. compares Brexit defense, Declaration of Independence

Link: http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/why-secession-is-not-a-dirty-word/

Published: 8 hours ago
By William J. Watkins Jr.

The media call it Brexit – a catchy term for the recent vote by citizens of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. What actually happened was secession, and therein lies a lesson for the United States.

Americans are taught that political unions are everlasting and that secessionists are rebels and traitors who ought to be despised. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase’s description in Texas v. White (1869) of the union as complete, perpetual and indissoluble is accepted constitutional dogma. Legal authorities, however, do not view secession in pejorative terms.

“Black’s Law Dictionary,” for example, defines secession as “the act of withdrawing from membership in a group.” In essence, a people simply remove themselves from the jurisdiction of a government or power. Britain did just that in the historic referendum of June 23, 2016.

Attitudes toward secession change over time as people find themselves in new and different circumstances. Two-hundred and forty years ago, British leaders waged war to prevent 13 North American colonies from leaving the empire and forming their own government. The colonists were described as “spoilt children” needing a good spanking from His Majesty’s armed forces.

This effort at discipline, for all practical purposes, ended at the Battle of Yorktown when Lord Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington. The united colonies successfully seceded from the British Empire and established the independence that had been declared in 1776. The American grievances that led to secession are remarkably similar to those expressed by Brexit proponents.

For example, Americans protested that a distant parliament passed laws governing the internal affairs of the colonies rather than leaving such matters to colonial legislatures. The British feel the same way about the EU’s central government in Brussels regulating such minutiae as the length of imported bananas and the electric conductivity of honey.

Americans complained about judiciary laws that required the accused to be tried in London rather than at home by a jury of his peers. Brexiters inveighed against the European Court of Justice adjudicating cases on principles alien to the ancient British constitution.

Americans resented mercantilist economic policies that enriched the Mother Country at the expense of her colonies. The British voters resented sending millions of pounds to Brussels to be used to prop up the ailing economies of various Eurozone countries.

President Obama took the exceptional step of meddling in British internal affairs by urging a vote to remain in the EU. He further threatened that if the United Kingdom did leave, it should not expect the U.S. to rush negotiating a trade treaty or to provide any other form of aid.

President Obama likely opposed Brexit because he prefers centralization and fears that one or more of the states in the American union might rediscover the principles of self-determination. Indeed, several American states, upon ratifying the Constitution of 1787, declared that the powers delegated to the national government would be recalled if the new government became oppressive.

For instance, the Virginia ratifying convention averred that “the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.” According to Dumas Malone, an American historian and Pulitzer Prize winner, in the early republic “there was nothing particularly startling in the idea that the Union was dissoluble, and threats against it were common.”

The case made by the Brexiters against the EU could easily be made by a state against the national government in Washington, D.C. Congressional statutes and regulations issued by administrative agencies govern the most mundane and local matters.

The Supreme Court claims final say on the Constitution and even forbids states from defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman – the accepted definition for millennia. The people of the states are taxed to help fund a wasteful welfare-warfare state that has accumulated a debt of $19 trillion.

Brexit is yet another reminder that secession is not a dirty word. A people have the fundamental right to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of a political authority and to establish their own government. It is a principle we would do well to remember as our national government becomes more incompetent, intrusive and domineering.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/why-secession-is-not-a-dirty-word/#VsyJ3oxfxrrcqHVk.99

07-03-2016, 10:01 PM
‘Independence Day Resurgence’ Is Awful

Link: https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/independence-day-resurgence-awful/

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
July 3, 2016


I had seen the original in 1996, when the whole theatre cheered the alien deathray that blew up the White House. In the sequel, the imperial mansion is spared. The heroic Hillaryesque president–albeit good-looking and thin–is also president of the planet. She announces that earthlings must again triumph over the aliens because of what we’ve achieved in the last 20 years: world government. She’s killed and replaced by a man, but it’s OK: he’s a general. The handsome Bill Clintonesque ex-president sacrifices himself to blow up the alien ship. Whatagal, whataguy.

BTW, the reviews are right. This is a very bad movie. One doesn’t care about whether the earth will be saved at the last minute or not, nor whether any of the stereotypical characters live or die. The CGI is repetitive and boring.

NB: the movie is un-PC in one way. The earth is being visited by advanced hive insects. Is it OK to exterminate them, just because they look different from us? Yes, holds the movie. But wouldn’t these undocumented immigrants enrich us? Isn’t species diversity a Good Thing?

BTW: Rockwell’s Law holds once again. If they can’t make an interesting trailer, the movie is no good.

07-03-2016, 10:07 PM
Brexit: The Opening Salvo Against The Centralized State

Charles Burris

Link: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/brexit-opening-salvo-centralized-state/

Thomas DiLorenzo and Gary North have magnificently put forth that Brexit is a beginning salvo of an international contagion to redefine devolution of sovereignty and nationalism in opposition to centralization of state power, especially globalism. But we must not stop there. Delegitimize global governance and continually move forward with decentralist strategies of secession, nullification, or interposition, down to the level of the sovereign state, community or neighborhoods, and ultimately the individual. This is a war waged against oligarchy in support of empowerment of each individual to determine their own lives. It is the opening salvo of the war against the State.

07-04-2016, 03:04 AM
Nigel Farage Has Earned His Place In History As The Man Who Led Britain Out Of The EU

Link: http://www.prisonplanet.com/nigel-farage-has-earned-his-place-in-history-as-the-man-who-led-britain-out-of-the-eu.html

London Telegraph
July 4, 2016


Nigel Farage has persuaded Britain to vote to leave the European Union.

Mission accomplished for the Ukip chief, so it’s little surprise that he has felt able to ride off into the sunset, announcing his resignation today by declaring: “”I want my life back”.

The Ukip leader said he had “couldn’t possibly achieve more”, having presided over the biggest political upheaval in modern British history – which would certainly not have happened without him.

For years, the Establishment mocked and ignored the Ukip leader, but he is the man who put Britain’s withdrawal from the EU on the agenda. His party, once dismissed by Michael Howard as a collection of “cranks and political gadflies”, forced the Prime Minister to call the referendum.

And when the referendum came, David Cameron told us we had a choice between his Britain and Nigel Farage’s. Britain chose Mr Farage’s vision.

The result has ensured David Cameron will go down in the history books as the Prime Minister who failed to take voters with him on the future of their country, with over 17.4 million people rejecting him by choosing Leave. He was once feted for winning last year’s general election, but that victory – with 11.3 million voting for him – has been dwarfed by this defeat.

By contrast, Nigel Farage will be remembered as the man the British people chose to follow. His entire political career has led up to what he calls “our independence day”.

07-05-2016, 11:38 AM
Trump Hammers On Brexit, “Independence Day” And Repudiation Of Rule By The Global Elite

By VNN on July 4, 2016

Link: http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2016/07/04/1007641trump-hammers-on-brexit-independence-day-and-repudiation-of-rule-by-the-global-elite/   

One thing is clear, whether or not everyone will agree with what is said, Trump is at least speaking more directly than most politicians do

Donald Trump has always framed his candidacy as providing the average American with an opportunity to vote for an outsider, someone not already part of the traditional political machine. Immediately following Brexit, we asked whether or not this was Trump’s opportunity to seize the momentum and use the referendum result as an example of what can be done if the people stand up against the global elites.

It turned out that Trump wasted no time in making sure that the people of America understood that what had been done in the UK can be done in the United States.

Recall from Trump’s statement immediately following Brexit:

Statement Regarding British Referendum on E.U. Membership

The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union, and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.

Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.

We were curious as to how framing the debate as a fight against the elites would play out for Trump, but if the first Rasmussen poll after the Brexit result is any indication, the tide could be turning for Trump. As we reported, Trump jumped out to a four point lead over Hillary Clinton in the latest Rasmussen poll last week, after being behind prior to that.

Of course none of this has been lost on The Donald, and as The Hill points out, Trump is ramping up efforts to continue the framing of his candidacy as a fight against the global elite. Trump is stepping up the rhetoric around the economy being rigged by the media and corporate elites, and is folding Hillary Clinton into the mix seamlessly. In some cases, Trump is even putting himself in direct conflict with big business in Washington, something that will presumably only help with the voters looking for a change from the status quo.

As The Hill explains

In a series of economic speeches, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has railed against the forces of globalization, arguing that changes in the economy have betrayed workers and wiped out the middle class.

At the center of the “rigged economy,” Trump argues, are “powerful corporations, media elites and political dynasties” and his likely general election opponent, Hillary Clinton.

“Hillary Clinton and her friends in global finance want to scare America into thinking small — and they want to scare the American people out of voting for a better future,” Trump said Tuesday in a speech near Pittsburgh.

“I want you to imagine how much better our future can be if we declare independence from the elites who’ve led us to one financial and foreign policy disaster after another.”

Trump’s rhetoric is unusual for a presumptive Republican nominee for president,placing him in direct conflict with Washington business groups who have traditionally been allies of the GOP.

To be sure, Trump has gotten the attention of those that have been targeted by his speech. Some, such as US Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue, have taken the time to respond directly. In an op-ed in The Washington Post, Donohue said “Let’s get one thing straight – ripping up our trade agreements, as presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump suggests, and raising a tariff wall around the US economy wouldn’t bring those jobs home.”

Even former George W. Bush administration official Tony Fratto has called Trump’s attacks “destructive and wrong-headed”, adding “To trash TPP the way he does is really upsetting. He’s not serious at all, and he’s only interested in selling false promises.”

Of course that type of response is exactly what Trump wants, so that the dialogue can be furthered. Trump responded by saying “The US Chamber of Commerce is totally controlled by the special interest groups. They want to have TPP, one of the worst deals, it will be the worst deal since NAFTA.”

Trump takes all of the outcry from the establishment and uses it as a way to further drive home his point that the system is rigged and the elites must be defeated in order to change it – an idea that whether or not one likes Donald Trump, is accurate.

“The people who rigged the system are supporting Hillary Clinton because they know as long as she is in charge nothing will ever change. The inner cities will remain poor. The factories will remain closed. The borders will remain open. The special interests will remain firmly in control. I want you to imagine how much better our future can be if we declare independence from the elites who’ve led us to one financial and foreign policy disaster after another.” Trump said.

Rather surprisingly, Trump is even starting to publicly win over some Republicans who have been on the fence about the the GOP candidate for quite some time, such as Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan.

From The Hill

While few other Republicans have used such language, anti-trade sentiment is running high in both parties. Should Trump win the White House on such a message, it could reshape the Republican Party, which has historically supported free trade.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who is reportedly a front-runner to be Trump’s running mate, did an about-face on trade this week, endorsing Trump’s approach.

“I basically agree with Trump’s speech on trade,” Gingrich wrote to Politico.

Meanwhile, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who at first declined to endorse Trump after he won the party’s nomination, has become increasingly critical of the TPP, saying it should be renegotiated.

Ryan this week said he’s on the same page with Trump when it comes to trade deals.

“What I have heard from him is that we need to engage, that we need to have very good trade agreements that are good for America. And I agree with that.”

* * *
One thing is clear, whether or not everyone will agree with what is said, Trump is at least speaking more directly than most politicians do, and by pointing out the fact that everything is rigged rigged, Trump has struck a common ground with many Americans who struggle each day just to make ends meet. Whether the strategy of fighting back against the political machine will work or not remains to be seen, but to his credit, Trump isn’t backing down, even when the establishment unites and tries to fight back.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinm ail

Related Posts:
•Victory Is Possible – Israel Shamir
•Brexit Victory over the EU Globalists
•Why the British Said No to Europe – John Pilger
•Dr Paul Craig Roberts: BREXIT, WHAT NEXT ?
•How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote