Leave takes the Lead in England!!!

[DSK]

The Leave forces may be victorious in spite of the fact that virtually every "New World Order" politician, musician, businessman, celebrity, etc scolded the people to stay or else it would be an economic disaster.

Leave is a blow for freedom from the elites of the world. I hope it spreads to the United States and our freedoms increase again and by extension, the liberals lose some power.

FREEDOM MOTHERFUCKER!!!!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by DSK

The Leave forces may be victorious in spite of the fact that virtually every "New World Order" politician, musician, businessman, celebrity, etc scolded the people to stay or else it would be an economic disaster.

Leave is a blow for freedom from the elites of the world. I hope it spreads to the United States and our freedoms increase again and by extension, the liberals lose some power.

FREEDOM MOTHERFUCKER!!!!

+1

They did it!

[i'va biggen]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/u...235755919.html

[gnadfly]

Remember, according to Obama, "they are on the wrong side of history."

Who's buying his shit anymore?

Tomorrow, Obama's legacy unravels.

[lustylad]

This was written before the vote, but it eloquently explains why so many Brits were angry at Odumbo.


Britain and Obama’s ‘Back of the Queue’

I hope that Americans who know what self-government means to a free people will rally to the cause of an independent Britain.

By Andrew Roberts

June 17, 2016 6:12 p.m. ET

On June 23 the British people will be going to the polls to choose whether they want to continue with the present system whereby 60% of British laws are made in Brussels and foreign judges decide whether those laws are legitimate or not, or whether we want to strike out for independence and the right to make all of our own laws and have our own British judges decide upon them.

It’s about whether we can recapture the right to deport foreign Islamist hate preachers and terrorist suspects, or whether under European human-rights legislation they must continue to reside in the U.K., often at taxpayers’ expense. The European Union is currently experiencing migration on a scale not seen since the late 17th century—with hordes of young, mostly male Muslims sweeping from the southeast into the heart of Europe. Angela Merkel invited them in and that might be fine for Germany, but why should they have the right to settle in Britain as soon as they get a European passport?

Surely—surely—this is an issue on which the British people, and they alone, have the right to decide, without the intervention of President Obama, who adopted his haughtiest professorial manner when lecturing us to stay in the EU, before making the naked threat that we would be sent “to the back of the queue” (i.e., the back of the line) in any future trade deals if we had the temerity to vote to leave.

Was my country at the back of the line when Winston Churchill promised in 1941 that in the event of a Japanese attack on the U.S., a British declaration of war on Japan would be made within the hour?

Was Great Britain at the back of the line when America was searching for allies in the Korean War in the 1950s?

When America decided to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War in the early 1990s, was Britain at the back of the line when we contributed an armored division that fought on your right flank during Operation Desert Storm?

Were we at the back of the line on 9/11, or did we step forward immediately and instinctively as the very first of your allies to contribute troops to join you in the expulsion of the Taliban, al Qaeda’s hosts, from power in Afghanistan?

Or in Iraq two years later, was it the French or the Germans or the Belgians who stood and fought and bled beside you? Whatever views you might have over the rights or wrongs of that war, no one can deny that Britain was in its accustomed place: at the front of the line, in the firing line. So it is not right for President Obama now to threaten to send us to the back of the line.

Britain is the largest foreign investor in the U.S.—larger even than China—so it makes no economic sense for you to send us to the back of the line. Yet quite apart from your economic or strategic best interests, it also makes no moral sense for America to treat your genuine friends (you also see this phenomenon in the case of Israel, of course) as though they are your enemies, while all too often you treat your rivals and enemies—Cuba, China, Venezuela and others—as though they’re your friends. In what sane world does America put Iran at the front of the line for trade deals, while sending Britain to the back?

President Obama might be very clever intellectually, but he hasn’t grasped the central essence of American foreign policy over the centuries, which is the honorable one of being a strength and beacon to your allies and a standing reproach and constant source of anxiety to your enemies and to the enemies of freedom.

Fortunately, the best kind of Americans instinctively understand that truth, and outside the Obama administration nobody seems to want to relegate my country to the back of the line. Anglo-American friendship is far stronger than any one administration or government. I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve read the obituaries of people who have written the obituary of the Special Relationship. It survives because it lives on in the hearts of our two peoples—who have so much more in common than that which separates us—rather than just in the pages of venerable treaties and history books.

The good news is that the British people don’t seem to have taken much notice of President Obama—indeed, on the day he left the U.K., the Leave campaign actually saw a 2% increase in the polls. (As it’s neck and neck at the moment, perhaps we should invite him back?)

The endless threats about trade deals and GDP per capita from the EU and the IMF and the World Bank and the OECD, instead of cowing the British people, seem merely to have excited their bloody-mindedness. They recognize that they might indeed take a short-term financial hit, but there are some things more important than money.

Imagine if a bunch of accountants had turned up at Valley Forge in that brutal winter of 1777 and proved with the aid of pie-charts and financial tables that Americans would be better off if they just gave up the cause of independence. George Washington would have sent them off with a few short, well-chosen words on the subject—probably derived from the Anglo-Saxon.

Winston Churchill was warned repeatedly by the Treasury that it was bankrupting Britain to continue her lonely and seemingly doomed struggle against the power that utterly dominated the entire European Continent in 1940 and 1941, but he treated all such warnings with his characteristically coruscating ire. That is what people do who love their country, and that is what I hope my countrymen will do on June 23.

And if we do vote to leave the EU on Thursday, I hope that Americans with a sense of history, Americans with a sense of tradition who honor friendship past and future, above all Americans who know what self-government means to a free people, will rally to the cause of an independent Britain.

Mr. Roberts is the author of “Napoleon: A Life” (Viking, 2014). This is adapted from his remarks upon receiving a Bradley Prize from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., June 15.

[i'va biggen]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/e...091744242.html

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by lustylad

This was written before the vote, but it eloquently explains why so many Brits were angry at Odumbo.


Britain and Obama’s ‘Back of the Queue’

I hope that Americans who know what self-government means to a free people will rally to the cause of an independent Britain.

By Andrew Roberts

June 17, 2016 6:12 p.m. ET

On June 23 the British people will be going to the polls to choose whether they want to continue with the present system whereby 60% of British laws are made in Brussels and foreign judges decide whether those laws are legitimate or not, or whether we want to strike out for independence and the right to make all of our own laws and have our own British judges decide upon them.

It’s about whether we can recapture the right to deport foreign Islamist hate preachers and terrorist suspects, or whether under European human-rights legislation they must continue to reside in the U.K., often at taxpayers’ expense. The European Union is currently experiencing migration on a scale not seen since the late 17th century—with hordes of young, mostly male Muslims sweeping from the southeast into the heart of Europe. Angela Merkel invited them in and that might be fine for Germany, but why should they have the right to settle in Britain as soon as they get a European passport?

Surely—surely—this is an issue on which the British people, and they alone, have the right to decide, without the intervention of President Obama, who adopted his haughtiest professorial manner when lecturing us to stay in the EU, before making the naked threat that we would be sent “to the back of the queue” (i.e., the back of the line) in any future trade deals if we had the temerity to vote to leave.

Was my country at the back of the line when Winston Churchill promised in 1941 that in the event of a Japanese attack on the U.S., a British declaration of war on Japan would be made within the hour?

Was Great Britain at the back of the line when America was searching for allies in the Korean War in the 1950s?

When America decided to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War in the early 1990s, was Britain at the back of the line when we contributed an armored division that fought on your right flank during Operation Desert Storm?

Were we at the back of the line on 9/11, or did we step forward immediately and instinctively as the very first of your allies to contribute troops to join you in the expulsion of the Taliban, al Qaeda’s hosts, from power in Afghanistan?

Or in Iraq two years later, was it the French or the Germans or the Belgians who stood and fought and bled beside you? Whatever views you might have over the rights or wrongs of that war, no one can deny that Britain was in its accustomed place: at the front of the line, in the firing line. So it is not right for President Obama now to threaten to send us to the back of the line.

Britain is the largest foreign investor in the U.S.—larger even than China—so it makes no economic sense for you to send us to the back of the line. Yet quite apart from your economic or strategic best interests, it also makes no moral sense for America to treat your genuine friends (you also see this phenomenon in the case of Israel, of course) as though they are your enemies, while all too often you treat your rivals and enemies—Cuba, China, Venezuela and others—as though they’re your friends. In what sane world does America put Iran at the front of the line for trade deals, while sending Britain to the back?

President Obama might be very clever intellectually, but he hasn’t grasped the central essence of American foreign policy over the centuries, which is the honorable one of being a strength and beacon to your allies and a standing reproach and constant source of anxiety to your enemies and to the enemies of freedom.

Fortunately, the best kind of Americans instinctively understand that truth, and outside the Obama administration nobody seems to want to relegate my country to the back of the line. Anglo-American friendship is far stronger than any one administration or government. I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve read the obituaries of people who have written the obituary of the Special Relationship. It survives because it lives on in the hearts of our two peoples—who have so much more in common than that which separates us—rather than just in the pages of venerable treaties and history books.

The good news is that the British people don’t seem to have taken much notice of President Obama—indeed, on the day he left the U.K., the Leave campaign actually saw a 2% increase in the polls. (As it’s neck and neck at the moment, perhaps we should invite him back?)

The endless threats about trade deals and GDP per capita from the EU and the IMF and the World Bank and the OECD, instead of cowing the British people, seem merely to have excited their bloody-mindedness. They recognize that they might indeed take a short-term financial hit, but there are some things more important than money.

Imagine if a bunch of accountants had turned up at Valley Forge in that brutal winter of 1777 and proved with the aid of pie-charts and financial tables that Americans would be better off if they just gave up the cause of independence. George Washington would have sent them off with a few short, well-chosen words on the subject—probably derived from the Anglo-Saxon.

Winston Churchill was warned repeatedly by the Treasury that it was bankrupting Britain to continue her lonely and seemingly doomed struggle against the power that utterly dominated the entire European Continent in 1940 and 1941, but he treated all such warnings with his characteristically coruscating ire. That is what people do who love their country, and that is what I hope my countrymen will do on June 23.

And if we do vote to leave the EU on Thursday, I hope that Americans with a sense of history, Americans with a sense of tradition who honor friendship past and future, above all Americans who know what self-government means to a free people, will rally to the cause of an independent Britain.

Mr. Roberts is the author of “Napoleon: A Life” (Viking, 2014). This is adapted from his remarks upon receiving a Bradley Prize from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., June 15.

+1

[DSK]

Originally Posted by lustylad

This was written before the vote, but it eloquently explains why so many Brits were angry at Odumbo.


Britain and Obama’s ‘Back of the Queue’

I hope that Americans who know what self-government means to a free people will rally to the cause of an independent Britain.

By Andrew Roberts

June 17, 2016 6:12 p.m. ET

On June 23 the British people will be going to the polls to choose whether they want to continue with the present system whereby 60% of British laws are made in Brussels and foreign judges decide whether those laws are legitimate or not, or whether we want to strike out for independence and the right to make all of our own laws and have our own British judges decide upon them.

It’s about whether we can recapture the right to deport foreign Islamist hate preachers and terrorist suspects, or whether under European human-rights legislation they must continue to reside in the U.K., often at taxpayers’ expense. The European Union is currently experiencing migration on a scale not seen since the late 17th century—with hordes of young, mostly male Muslims sweeping from the southeast into the heart of Europe. Angela Merkel invited them in and that might be fine for Germany, but why should they have the right to settle in Britain as soon as they get a European passport?

Surely—surely—this is an issue on which the British people, and they alone, have the right to decide, without the intervention of President Obama, who adopted his haughtiest professorial manner when lecturing us to stay in the EU, before making the naked threat that we would be sent “to the back of the queue” (i.e., the back of the line) in any future trade deals if we had the temerity to vote to leave.

Was my country at the back of the line when Winston Churchill promised in 1941 that in the event of a Japanese attack on the U.S., a British declaration of war on Japan would be made within the hour?

Was Great Britain at the back of the line when America was searching for allies in the Korean War in the 1950s?

When America decided to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War in the early 1990s, was Britain at the back of the line when we contributed an armored division that fought on your right flank during Operation Desert Storm?

Were we at the back of the line on 9/11, or did we step forward immediately and instinctively as the very first of your allies to contribute troops to join you in the expulsion of the Taliban, al Qaeda’s hosts, from power in Afghanistan?

Or in Iraq two years later, was it the French or the Germans or the Belgians who stood and fought and bled beside you? Whatever views you might have over the rights or wrongs of that war, no one can deny that Britain was in its accustomed place: at the front of the line, in the firing line. So it is not right for President Obama now to threaten to send us to the back of the line.

Britain is the largest foreign investor in the U.S.—larger even than China—so it makes no economic sense for you to send us to the back of the line. Yet quite apart from your economic or strategic best interests, it also makes no moral sense for America to treat your genuine friends (you also see this phenomenon in the case of Israel, of course) as though they are your enemies, while all too often you treat your rivals and enemies—Cuba, China, Venezuela and others—as though they’re your friends. In what sane world does America put Iran at the front of the line for trade deals, while sending Britain to the back?

President Obama might be very clever intellectually, but he hasn’t grasped the central essence of American foreign policy over the centuries, which is the honorable one of being a strength and beacon to your allies and a standing reproach and constant source of anxiety to your enemies and to the enemies of freedom.

Fortunately, the best kind of Americans instinctively understand that truth, and outside the Obama administration nobody seems to want to relegate my country to the back of the line. Anglo-American friendship is far stronger than any one administration or government. I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve read the obituaries of people who have written the obituary of the Special Relationship. It survives because it lives on in the hearts of our two peoples—who have so much more in common than that which separates us—rather than just in the pages of venerable treaties and history books.

The good news is that the British people don’t seem to have taken much notice of President Obama—indeed, on the day he left the U.K., the Leave campaign actually saw a 2% increase in the polls. (As it’s neck and neck at the moment, perhaps we should invite him back?)

The endless threats about trade deals and GDP per capita from the EU and the IMF and the World Bank and the OECD, instead of cowing the British people, seem merely to have excited their bloody-mindedness. They recognize that they might indeed take a short-term financial hit, but there are some things more important than money.

Imagine if a bunch of accountants had turned up at Valley Forge in that brutal winter of 1777 and proved with the aid of pie-charts and financial tables that Americans would be better off if they just gave up the cause of independence. George Washington would have sent them off with a few short, well-chosen words on the subject—probably derived from the Anglo-Saxon.

Winston Churchill was warned repeatedly by the Treasury that it was bankrupting Britain to continue her lonely and seemingly doomed struggle against the power that utterly dominated the entire European Continent in 1940 and 1941, but he treated all such warnings with his characteristically coruscating ire. That is what people do who love their country, and that is what I hope my countrymen will do on June 23.

And if we do vote to leave the EU on Thursday, I hope that Americans with a sense of history, Americans with a sense of tradition who honor friendship past and future, above all Americans who know what self-government means to a free people, will rally to the cause of an independent Britain.

Mr. Roberts is the author of “Napoleon: A Life” (Viking, 2014). This is adapted from his remarks upon receiving a Bradley Prize from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., June 15.

I believe it was Boris Johnson who commented that Obama and America would never allow the loss of sovereignty inflicted on EU member states.

Hopefully, this will be a turning point in history that puts down the liberal elites who dictate our lives.


FREEDOM MOTHERFUCKER!!!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by DSK

I believe it was Boris Johnson who commented that Americans would never allow the loss of sovereignty inflicted on EU member states.

Hopefully, this will be a turning point in history that puts down the liberal elites who dictate our lives.


FREEDOM MOTHERFUCKER!!!

Johnson's statement needed some mending: Odumbo is quite willing to surrender American sovereignty, though Odumbo wants applause for the recovery enabled by Quantitative Easement ... an economic policy denied Britain and Greece as members of the EU.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Johnson's statement needed some mending: Odumbo is quite willing to surrender American sovereignty, though Odumbo wants applause for the recovery enabled by Quantitative Easement ... an economic policy denied Britain and Greece as members of the EU.

Without quantitative easing and classifying the unemployed as no longer looking for a job, Obama would have been a total and complete disaster on the economic front. As it is, he claims he did some good using his fake numbers and ignoring the stimulative effect of printing money.

BTW, I think printing money is the way to go. I just wish Obama would credit that for the economic success he claims.

England was smart to keep her currency.

Hopefully, the rest of the New World Order who "know what is best for us" will also be overthrown.

[gfejunkie]

Get ready for the next British invasion. Only this time, it ain't gonna be the Beatles!

[nevergaveitathought]

the borderless worldview and dream of Obama and john Kerry et al took a hit

the elites met the common sense of the people and were shocked

whats next? itlaleave? or maybe Czechout?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Johnson's statement needed some mending: Odumbo is quite willing to surrender American sovereignty, though Odumbo wants applause for the recovery enabled by Quantitative Easement ... an economic policy denied Britain and Greece as members of the EU.

Actually IB, the Brits never joined the Euro, instead keeping their pound sterling and their monetary sovereignty. This means they have always been free to "Quantitatively Ease" to their hearts' content.

The Bank of England did in fact launch its own QE program from 2009-12.

The European Central Bank (ECB), which oversees the Euro, did not pursue its own QE until 2015. (Prior to that, the idea faced too much opposition from the inflation-fearing Germans.)

Fyi - Of the 28 countries who belong to the EU (27 once the UK exits), 19 use the Euro while the other 9 still use their own currencies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurozone

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-c...easing-dummies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Actually IB, the Brits never joined the Euro, instead keeping their pound and their monetary sovereignty. This means they have always been free to "Quantitatively Ease" to their hearts' content.

Fyi - Of the 28 countries who belong to the EU (27 once the UK exits), 19 use the Euro while the other 9 still use their own currencies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurozone

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Actually IB, the Brits never joined the Euro, instead keeping their pound sterling and their monetary sovereignty. This means they have always been free to "Quantitatively Ease" to their hearts' content...

Yes, exactly! And almost two decades ago, there was a lot of caterwauling by much of Europe's "policy elite" when those ornery Brits decided to eschew adoption of the euro. But now, few serious observers doubt that they made the correct decision.

Likewise, today, a lot of heads are exploding across Europe. And a lot of markets have been temporarily roiled. EU policy elite types in Brussels and other euromeddlers should learn a lesson or two from all this, but almost certainly won't.

But it's a helluva good time to go to rate-lock if you can manage to get commercial real estate investments or other assets refinanced with fixed-rate loans tied to the U.S. 10-year T-note rate!
.