Whether you think the United Kingdom exiting the European Union is cause for alarm or celebration, you have to concede this: Britons engaged in an open, lively and mostly peaceful debate, they turned out in droves, they cast their votes freely and fairly and, by so doing, expressed their will and determined their future. That’s called democracy. Is there a preferable alternative?
As our first president, George Washington knew that everything he did set a pattern for those who would follow. He served two terms in office, then stepped down. He declined all efforts to get him to stay.
If the 2016 presidential election has proved anything so far, it’s that millions of Americans know something is seriously wrong in Washington and they want it fixed. They’re right.
They wave a menacing black banner, behead American hostages in slickly produced videos, entice hardened jihadis and thrill-seeking wannabes alike to their ranks, bust a border to establish a state and claim provinces from West Africa to Southeast Asia.
Throughout this year’s presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders made support for tougher campaign finance laws a cornerstone of his (now presumably concluding) campaign. His website railed against the “political campaign finance system” as “corrupt,” and “the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision” as “hing[ing] on the absurd notion that money is speech, [and] corporations are people.”
Americans witnessed evil once again as a radical Islamic gunman — who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State’s caliph — recently killed or wounded 102 people while they were enjoying “Latin Night” in a popular gay night club in Orlando. It was the deadliest attack on the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender (LBGT) community in American history.
The British independence referendum vote on June 23 was close and, surely we all will respect the will of the British people. The British prime minister, doing the honorable thing, resigned. Yet many British people are deeply ashamed of the result, owing to the barely unspoken rationale behind many votes: immigration (very un-British), and the likely consequences.
It’s hard to remember a time in recent U.S. history when we’ve faced as many dire economic and political challenges as we do today.
Chicken Little will have company when the sky falls on the British isles and the world ends, which the European Union, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the BBC, CBS, NBC, ABC and Barack Obama can now say with confidence will be at 2:20 in the morning next Thursday (just in time for the late final editions).
Last week, Britain voted to leave the European Union, freeing itself from international governance. Just as the United States would recoil at the thought of Canadians making laws that trump U.S. governance were that a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Britain is evidently fed up with ceding its sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels as part of its international agreements.
Listening to environmentalists talk about the threat of climate change is like hearing some lost passage of the Book of Revelation with predictions of flooded cities, wildfires, hurricanes, failing crops and swarms of disease-bearing mosquitoes.
As we soon pause to celebrate the anniversary of our nation’s independence, it seems appropriate to consider the vital role played by the American military in the creation of our nation and its transformation of our world.
Oh what a difference a break makes. On Thursday, our English cousins across the pond voted to leave the European Union. For some reason, they had enough of unelected bureaucrats issuing rules and regulations ruining their lives and throwing the future in the dustbin.
“People are working harder and longer just to keep their heads above water. And to deal with the costs, the everyday costs, the costs of basics like childcare and prescription drugs that are too high. College is getting more expensive every day. And wages are still too low and inequality is too great. Good jobs in this country are still too hard to come by.”
On June 9, The New York Times ran this headline on Page A1: “Drug That Killed Prince Is Making Mexican Cartels Richer, U.S. Says.” The first line of the story reads, “The drug that killed Prince has become a favorite of Mexican cartels because it is extremely potent, popular in the United States — and immensely profitable, American officials say.”