Great Britain Voted Thursday to Exit the European Union, This “Brexit” Could Unleash Global Chaos…

(Or the Start of Worldwide Independence)

by Lowell Ponte


On June 23, the British people voted in a national referendum to declare their independence from the European Union.

The ruling political establishment, right and left, had joined to crush this populist uprising with a campaign of fear and authority.



But a majority of voters, sick of the European rot that has been destroying the Great in Great Britain, pushed back – and history changed.

Brexit’s victory unleashed a shock wave around the world that for a time halted stock trading in Asia, sent Dow futures plunging by more than 700 points, drove the 10-year Treasury bond yield to modern record lows, and sent gold surging upwards by more than $80.

Our Fourth of July fireworks now take on new meaning. This is our celebration of declaring and winning Independence from the British Empire.

It has taken 240 years, but the United Kingdom is at last “a nation again,” asserting its freedom from an even larger oppressive empire. We salute them as a fellow free revolutionary people.

In the U.S., this same populist impulse can be seen in the popularity of anti-establishment politician Donald Trump, who backed Brexit.

The presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama urged those in the United Kingdom to submit to the socialist collectivism of the European Union.

We Americans will have our chance to exit such values this November, to renew our own American Revolution.

How did Britain and the world come to this historic transformation?

In the last national British referendum, in 1975, two of every three voters approved their country joining the European Community, a bloc then devoted mostly to trade. But two decades later this creature, now called the European Union, turned political.

In today’s Great Britain, more than 60 percent of its laws and regulations originate not in the Parliament in London but in Brussels, Belgium, from an army of “Eurocrats” and members of the European Parliament. [1]

How would it feel if we were in a binding union with the nations of Latin America, which outvote us and can impose their laws and rules in the United States. Imagine, says one pro-Brexit member of Britain’s Parliament, that a worker from any of these Latino countries has an automatic legal right to move to the United States and, if he fails to find a satisfactory job, is entitled to welfare that American taxpayers are required to pay him.

The EU imposed a $1.5 Billion fine on Poland for refusing to accept vast numbers of Muslim refugees.


Member nations in many ways lose control of their borders, sovereignty, laws and revenues. Nations such as Great Britain that once colonized others are being turned into colonies of the European Union megastate.

Come to think of it, this is close to what President Barack Obama has been imposing on us. No wonder that Mr. Obama recently visited Great Britain and spoke out against Brexit.

But Americans can at least still pretend we are a sovereign nation, not the pawn or serf of a globalist union of foreign nations with the power to replace our laws with their ideology.

And as the Brexit debate brought to light, the European Union has routinely lied to the people and lawmakers of the United Kingdom. The Brits in April learned, for example, that the European Union has secretly been preparing an EU military capable of imposing its will on member countries and potentially preventing them from escaping its imperial grasp. [2]

The force behind this “stealth” EU military is Germany, which attempted a similar “unification” of Europe 75 years ago.

Germany is also behind the new pan-European currency, the Euro, which is its attempt to rule Europe by economic power, to do what it failed to sustain by military power in World Wars I and II. [3]

Our brother Brits who fought so valiantly in alliance with us to win those wars must have felt pain to see their nation being taken over and its sovereignty being erased by a European Union run by Germany.

Britain’s exit from the European Union was opposed by Conservative Party Prime Minister David Cameron through a barrage of scare tactics. Among these claims: Brexit will cost every British family thousands of pounds by denying Britain access to European markets, that it will cause economic chaos, and that Britain returning to its independent sovereign status of 45 years ago might even lead to “the end of Western Civilization.”

Cameron and others are serving business interests that have enriched themselves via European Union trade with Europe. But more than 40 pro-Brexit Tory members of Parliament oppose ousting Cameron, in part to deal with Scotland and Northern Ireland, and in part because Cameron kept his promise to call such a referendum. Despite this, Cameron announced that he will leave office by October.

Despite a vote of the United Kingdom’s people to leave the EU, this process under EU rules will take at least two years of negotiation and making new trade and other arrangements

Opponents of the Brexit rightly fear that England’s vote to leave will encourage voters in many other places to demand their right to vote for secession. On Friday, French populist leader Marine LePen called for such a national referendum in her country. This could begin the unraveling of collectivist Europe.

Scottish voters two years ago came close to voting for independence from Great Britain. With Britain leaving the EU, will Scotland vote to separate from the United Kingdom and then join the European Union as its own independent country? Northern Ireland, which voted against Brexit, might likewise secede from the United Kingdom and join EU member Ireland.

(Few countries are rushing to join the European Union, with its crushing regulations and other high costs of membership. Days before the June 23 referendum, Switzerland withdrew its application to join the EU.)

Around Europe are dozens of secession movements. Many Venetians want to become a nation independent of Italy. A likely majority of Catalans around Barcelona want independence from Spain.

The successful Brexit vote will fuel many such movements around the world.

Donald Trump is not a secessionist, but his anti-establishment populist rhetoric is part of a global phenomenon whose activists are winning votes in France, Germany, Italy and many other countries. People are simply fed up with old-line oppressive political leaders.

“The world has decided the old status quo is not acceptable,” says monetary expert Craig R. Smith. “People want to be heard, and they are tired of politicians, crony capitalism and big business elites calling the shots.”

In North America, independent socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has led a surprisingly successful rebellion to move the Democratic Party even farther leftward. And a movement in Vermont continues to call for separating from the United States – and perhaps becoming a province of Canada. Many in Quebec, meanwhile, still want to separate from the rest of Canada.

And in the United States, independence movements in Alaska and Texas [4] want their own Brexit-like referendums.

Historically, politics around the world involve forcing things together under bigger governments, or forcing them apart into smaller nations. The British people’s Declaration of Independence vote will help roll back the globalist government direction of the European Union and similar Progressive collectivist entities.

A vote against Brexit could have made Britain’s decline permanent, because the people would never again have been allowed to regain their freedom with a ballot.

“Government regulators and central banks such as the Federal Reserve might ‘step in,’ in the wake of the Brexit vote, to manipulate markets and protect the old order,” says Smith. “They did this in 2008 and created the longest recession in American history.”

“They should let the free market work without political interference to restore genuine health and growth to our economy.”

“The world wants change,” says Smith, “that will bring back freedom, personal responsibility and individualism, and will end collectivism. People are hungry to return to small government, free markets and honest money.”

“British voters have taken a brave and noble step to push back against those who are trying to turn our nations into conquered provinces of their socialist empires.”

For an amazing interview with Lowell Ponte about the British referendum and secession movements here and in Europe, contact: Sandy Frazier at or call 516-735-5468

For a media copy of Lowell’s latest book, We Have Seen the Future and It Looks Like Baltimore: American Dream vs. Progressive Dream, co-authored with monetary expert Craig R. Smith, contact Bronwin Barilla at 800-950-2428.


[1] Justin O. Smith, “For God, Country, Family, and Queen,” American Thinker, June 13, 2016. URL:

[2] David Maddox, “Secret Plot Exposed: EU in Stealth Plan to Set Up Army by Merging German and Dutch Forces,” London Express, April 20, 2016. URL:

[3] Craig R. Smith and Lowell Ponte, We Have Seen the Future and It Looks Like Baltimore: American Dream vs. Progressive Dream. Phoenix: P2 Publishing, 2015. Pages 193-194; Professor Alan Sked, “How a Secretive Elite Created the EU to Build a World Government,” London Telegraph, November 27, 2015. URL:
; Christopher Booker, “The EU’s Architects Never Meant It to Be a Democracy: The Rise of a ‘Technocracy’ Was Always Part of the Plan for Europe,” London Telegraph, November 12, 2011. URL:

[4] Craig R. Smith and Lowell Ponte, We Have Seen the Future and It Looks Like Baltimore: American Dream vs. Progressive Dream. Phoenix: P2 Publishing, 2015. Pages 146-147; Tom Dart, “’Why not Texit?’: Texas Nationalists Look to the Brexit Vote for Inspiration,” The Guardian (UK), June 19, 2016. URL:


Was Hamilton America’s First Donald Trump?

Do Liberals Know Who They Are Cheering?

On Sunday, June 12, the Broadway stage play “Hamilton” won 11 Tony Awards, including those for Best Musical and Best Book and Original Score for its creator Lin-Manuel Miranda.


How odd that liberals who despise Donald Trump’s alleged authoritarianism are paying $1,000 per seat to see a Hip Hop and Rap glorification of this least-liberal, and in some ways most Trump-like, of America’s Founding Fathers.

The blockbuster musical focuses on the immigrant energy and genius of Alexander Hamilton, who rose from an out-of-wedlock birth in the Caribbean to become aide to General George Washington and America’s first Secretary of the Treasury.

Miranda deserves credit for seeing the dramatic potential in Hamilton, from his battlefield courage at Yorktown to his adulterous, scandalous affair, to his quarrels with Thomas Jefferson, to his death in a pistol duel with Jefferson’s “Progressive” Vice President Aaron Burr.

Hamilton’s vision of an urban, industrial America has in our time triumphed over Thomas Jefferson’s ideal of a rural republic of farmers.

We admire Jefferson, but as George Will wrote, we live today in Alexander Hamilton’s America. So why should liberals love Hamilton and hate urban builder Donald Trump? Consider:

(1) Alexander Hamilton fought patriotically for America’s independence from King George III, but he then urged George Washington to become ruler for life. Hamilton favored lifetime appointments for future Presidents and Senators as well, and argued that the President should appoint the governor of each state.

(2) Hamilton supported the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, which put tight controls on immigration. These laws also made it a crime to criticize the government and its high officials, which our second president John Adams used to imprison several members of Congress and dozens of journalists.

Had Thomas Jefferson not won the presidency in 1800 and halted enforcement of these Hamilton-backed laws, the United States might have slid into permanent dictatorship like the Soviet Union.

(3) Hamilton was an elitist who looked down his nose at working people and merchants. He devised government policies designed to favored the rich while denying the same subsidies and tax breaks to Middle Class business people and small farmers.

Hamilton saw democracy as mob rule. When asked if, like Jefferson, he wanted government by the people, Hamilton snapped” “Your People, Sir, is a great beast.” He favored rule by an unchanging aristocratic elite…an odd position for someone who rose solely by talent and the luck of gaining Washington’s personal favor.

(4) Hamilton favored high taxes and heavy-handed enforcement. When small farmers west of the Appalachians distilled their crops into easier-to-ship whisky to sell in the East, the federal government imposed heavy taxes on distilled spirits. When farmers rose against this tax in the “Whisky Rebellion,” Hamilton helped lead a crushing military show of force to compel their submission. He also advocated an armada of government cutters off the coast to crack down on tax evaders.

(5) Hamilton favored a large standing military with himself as one of its leaders. Most Founders distrusted this because such militaries in Europe were used to put down and keep down the People.

(6) Hamilton strongly supported a European-style central bank to manipulate money and credit, which thanks to Jeffersonian president Andrew Jackson was unable to take full control of America’s economy until 1913, when Democrat Progressive Woodrow Wilson gained the power to create the Federal Reserve because of a Republican Party split between President William Howard Taft and former President Teddy Roosevelt.

If Hamilton’s plans for a central bank had prevailed, corrupt government interference with our economy might have doomed our young Republic from the start. On the other hand, Hamilton’s tax and credit policies gave Jefferson’s Administration enough credit to make the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon.

The musical “Hamilton” reportedly persuaded Jack Lew, our current Secretary of the Treasury, to keep Hamilton’s image on America’s $10 bill….and instead to remove President Andrew Jackson’s image from the $20 bill.

Perhaps liberals love the musical “Hamilton” because it depicts this Founding Father opposed to slave-owners such as Jefferson. Truth be told, however, Hamilton did little to end slavery – and may have helped his relatives buy and sell a few slaves.

More likely, liberals applaud Hamilton as an advocate of a powerful central government who worked to become part of the ruling elite. They do not even know that Hamilton was eager to restrict immigration and impose trade restrictions.

Exactly the same could be said of Donald Trump, who at some not-too-distant future time will doubtless be the central figure of a successful broadway musical like “Hamilton.”

Too bad “Hamilton” does not tell the whole truth. It might have created an even better teachable moment.

Lowell Ponte’s articles about Thomas Jefferson have appeared in The New York Times and Los Angeles Times.

To schedule an interview with Lowell, contact: Sandy Frazier at or call 516-735-5468

For a media copy of Lowell’s latest book, We Have Seen the Future and It Looks Like Baltimore: American Dream vs. Progressive Dream, co-authored with monetary expert Craig R. Smith, contact: David Bradshaw at or 602.918.3296


Jason Frank and Isaac Kramnick, “What ‘Hamilton’ Forgets About Hamilton,” New York Times, June 10, 2016. URL:

Nancy Isenberg, “Liberals Love Alexander Hamilton. But Aaron Burr Was a Real Progressive Hero,” Washington Post, March 30, 2016. URL:

Samuel Biagetti, “Why Did Everyone Hate Alexander Hamilton? These Elitist Policies Made Hamilton the Most Despised Man in America,”, January 13, 2016. URL:

Jackie Calmes, “Success of ‘Hamilton’ May Have Saved Hamilton on the $10 Bill,” New York Times, April 15, 2016. URL:

The Primary Question

By Lowell Ponte

By the end of Tuesday, June 7, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will almost certainly have won enough delegates to be the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.


California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota, as well as the caucus in North Dakota, will have selected 806 Democratic delegates to add to the 12 chosen June 4 in the U.S. Virgin Islands and the 67 picked June 5 in Puerto Rico.

Voting will be entirely open only in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Montana for its 27 delegates. None of these eight places have Winner-Take-All votes, so even where she loses Mrs. Clinton is expected to come away with roughly half the delegates.

These places will be sending a combined 885 delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia July 25-28. As of June 2, Clinton was only 73 delegates short of the 2,383 needed to clinch her party’s nomination. By the end of June 7, she will almost certainly have won at least another 400.

“If sentenced to serve only one day per felony
for the crime of endangering America’s national security,
Hillary Clinton would have to serve
five and three-quarter years in federal prison….”

What remains, beyond the June 14 primary in Washington, D.C., will be what pundits call the “Comey Primary.” Will FBI Director James Comey refer Secretary Clinton to the Obama Justice Department for likely criminal indictment and trial?

The punditry believes that if President Barack Obama’s Administration turns down such an FBI referral, then Comey will resign his position in protest, and details of the damning case against Clinton will be leaked to the media.

Hillary Clinton’s position would be untenable, the argument goes, because the Obama Administration prosecuted General David Petraeus and saw him sentenced to the equivalent of two years in prison for doing far, far less than Clinton.

Petraeus was convicted and sentenced for giving personal notes containing classified information to his lover-biographer, who had a security clearance and presumably was little threat to the security of the United States. He never made national secrets open to worldwide hackers on an unsecured private email server as Clinton did.

Hillary Clinton may have broken the law in many ways, but to appreciate the Democratic Party’s dilemma let us consider just one – her private email server and whether she was negligent in handling emails that contained classified information.

Negligence, not evil intent, and the existence there of classified data, not actual Classified stamps on that data, are all that is needed to make each such mishandling a felony.

“Does the Democratic Party really want to risk
tying its future to the albatross of Hillary Clinton?
That is the real Primary Question
Democrats need to ask themselves.”

How many of the email chains in Mrs. Clinton’s server contained classified information?

The answer is 2,093 email chains, according to the State Department’s assessment as of last February, as analyzed by the Washington Post.

These emails include several Top Secret documents, the mishandling of which could theoretically each bring a sentence of 5 years or more in prison – or worse, if a jury decided that treason was involved.

If Mrs. Clinton were indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to one year in prison for each of these email chains, she might soon be serving 2,093 years in prison. General Petraeus, remember, got the equivalent of two years in prison for committing a single lesser felony involving classified information.

If a generous judge and jury sentenced her to only a month for each of these crimes, her prison time would be reduced to 174 years, and if to a mere week per email crime, to 40 years behind bars.

What if a judge and jury sentenced Mrs. Clinton to only one day for each of her email wrongdoings? If sentenced to serve only one day per felony for the crime of endangering national security, Hillary Clinton would have to serve almost five and three-quarter years in federal prison – equal to approximately 1.4 presidential terms in the White House.

[I]n California…a measure to let felons vote while behind bars – before they have “paid their debt to society” -is being rushed into law by ruling Democratic legislators.

A late-May poll by Rasmussen Reports found that 71 percent of Democrats think Mrs. Clinton should continue with her presidential run even if indicted and facing trial. This survey of 1,000 likely voters found that 65 percent – nearly two out of three Americans – believe it “likely” that Clinton broke the law.

However, if Hillary Clinton is elected President, she could pardon herself. Then we could have a felon commander-in-chief elected with the votes of felons newly re-enfranchised by ruling Democrats in Maryland, Virginia and perhaps even in California, where a measure to let felons vote while behind bars – before they have “paid their debt to society” – is being rushed into law by ruling Democratic legislators.

University studies have found that felons vote Democratic up to 88 percent of the time. Both have a passion for coercively redistributing other people’s wealth.

A departing President Obama might also pardon Mrs. Clinton after the election, but this could leave his legacy and the Democratic Party’s reputation in even more of a shambles than they are already.

Does the Democratic Party really want to risk tying its future to the albatross of Hillary Clinton? That is the real Primary Question Democrats need to ask themselves.
The opinions in this piece are solely Lowell Ponte’s. He was for 15 years a Roving Editor at Reader’s Digest and has covered stories in 33 countries, from Jerusalem to Jakarta, Havana to The Hague, Madrid to Mexico City, and Singapore to Paris.

Lowell is author or co-author of seven books – the latest, with monetary expert Craig R. Smith, being We Have Seen the Future and It Looks Like Baltimore: American Dream vs. Progressive Dream.

To schedule an interview with Lowell, contact: Sandy Frazier at or call 516-735-5468


Michael Bargo, Jr., “Hillary’s Potential Email Felonies,” American Thinker, June 1, 2016. URL:

“Clinton Email Scandal: Three Problems Hillary Can’t Escape” (Editorial), Investor’s Business Daily, June 2, 2016. URL:

Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton, On Her Private Server, Wrote 104 Emails the Government Says Are Classified,” Washington Post, March 5, 2016. URL:

“Clinton E-mail Scandal: Hillary’s Latest Excuse Is Her Worst Yet” (Editorial), Investor’s Business Daily, May 31, 2016. URL:

“State Dept. Finishes Clinton Email Release, More Than 2,000 Classified Emails In Total,” Fox News, February 29, 2016. URL:

Jim Geraghty, “How the FBI Could Force DOJ to Prosecute Hillary Clinton,” National Review, January 26, 2016. URL:

“50% Say Clinton Should Keep Running Even If Indicted,” Rasmussen Reports, May 31, 2016. URL:

“Will Anyone Get In Trouble For Voting Twice?” The American Spectator, June 2, 2016. URL:

Plano Wrong

Graduating students at Plano High School in Texas whose high grades and community service earned them membership in the National Honor Society will be prohibited from wearing any symbol of their achievement at this ceremony.

Yes, Political Correctness is apparently behind this. Such insignia might make students who fell short of this honor feel left out.


Welcome to the new America, once a meritocracy that rewarded accomplishment but that now no longer keeps score at baseball games and gives everybody “participation” trophies. Winners must not be elevated above losers, lest the losers get hurt feelings.


And, anyway, the winners “did not build that,” as President Barack Obama famously said. They are, in the Progressive phrase, “just winners in life’s lottery.”

Progressives have insisted that Darwin be taught in high school classrooms, along with its implicit message that we are not created by God but by billions of years of biological evolution. Evolution determines that the “fittest” triumphed; survival is not a random lottery.

Darwinian evolution also meant that the losers usually became extinct, that winning in competition with others is a very serious set of skills to learn.

As this columnist has written many times before, look how crazy our government socialist schools have become.

They insist on teaching Darwin, even though this violates Separation of Church and State by dogmatically telling students that the creation stories of their holy scriptures are false, and implicitly that the white-robed priests of science are the new ruling religion.

But, paradoxically, these haughty Progressives also insist that Darwinian competition – winning and losing and outward signs that we are not equal in skills or effort – be banished from the school playground….and now from graduation ceremonies.

The children sheltered from responsibility and hurt feelings will soon go out into the real world. Most will be seeking jobs from those who achieved in high school….and will pay a steep price for being coddled by utopian socialist schools.

I once saw a man taking parking tickets off car windshields along a street. Why, I asked, was he doing this? “To spare people the pain of getting these tickets,” he replied, thinking of himself as a good Samaritan. It apparently never occurred to him that when these people failed to pay on time a ticket they never saw, the government would hit them with stiff penalties and perhaps arrest warrants.

Sparing people the pain of reality can do far more harm than good in the long run. Whatever happened to the mission of schools to teach children the skills needed to succeed in the real world? In a Progressive future where all will be dependents of the government, its schools apparently now think such skills unimportant.

I, however, feel an even deeper anger at the Plano school denying a symbol of honor to graduates who worked the hardest. I believe this denial is a crime.

Those chosen for the National Honor Society are not only the brightest and hardest working students. Most are also born into subcultures where books, learning and top grades are highly respected. Almost stereotypically, Asian-Americans and Jewish Americans grow up in such subcultures.

By disparate impact, therefore, Plano’s action disproportionately denies due honor and recognition to Asian-Americans and Jews. Plano’s discrimination against academic achievers is therefore not noble. It is racist and anti-Semitic.

Plano’s arrogant action probably violates U.S. civil rights statutes. It ought to be sued.

Even more serious examples of such discrimination exist. One scholar told me that the University of California has quotas limiting the number of Asian-Americans it admits.

The reason: Asian-Americans earn such high grade levels and test scores that, if not limited by quotas, the student body admitted solely by merit at University of California campuses would soon be 95 percent Asian-American.

Politically Correct egalitarian social engineering Progressives have always hated meritocracy. They need to read Darwin to see what happens when societies ignore reality and try living in utopian fantasy. They are playing Russian roulette with America’s future.

What can wise parents do? If Progressives cannot be removed from positions of social responsibility, then consider today’s popular saying among realistic parents:

“Teach your children Spanish and your grandchildren Chinese.”

This will prepare our brightest offspring for the future Progressives are creating.
The opinions in this piece are solely Lowell Ponte’s. He was for 15 years a Roving Editor at Reader’s Digest and has covered stories in 33 countries, from Jerusalem to Jakarta, Havana to The Hague, Madrid to Mexico City, and Singapore to Paris.

Lowell is author or co-author of seven books – the latest, with monetary expert Craig R. Smith, being We Have Seen the Future and It Looks Like Baltimore: American Dream vs. Progressive Dream.

To schedule an interview with Lowell, contact: Sandy Frazier at or call 516-735-5468


Katherine Timpf, “School Prohibits Students from Wearing National Honor Society Stoles So Others Won’t Feel Left Out,” National Review, June 1, 2016.