Has the Trumpian Revolution begun


Editor: Vladimir Bajic | Tactical Investor

Before we get to the article at hand many might ask why we cover political and health issues when our main focus in the stock markets and the financial arena.  The short and simple answer is that all these fields are connected; we don’t have free market forces anymore. Everything is manipulated; from the food, you eat to data you are provided.

 If you are aware of this you can plan accordingly. Identifying the problem is over 80% of the solution and this is why most people don’t know what to do because they don’t really understand the problem. Now you know why we are the only financial website that covers such a wide array of topics that on the surface appear to be unrelated but are in fact, deeply interwoven.  Mass psychology is a very powerful tool and if employed correctly can help you spot the grotesque levels of manipulation the masses are subjected to. We strongly suggest that you view or read or view Plato’s allegory of the cave.  You might also find the following article to be of interest:

Inflation, according to Merriam-Webster online dictionary is defined as follows: a continuing rise in the general price level usually attributed to an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services

We all pretty much have felt the effects of inflation in one form or another. However, economists and the central bankers chose to define inflation as an increase in the price of goods. This is an ingenious way to hide what they are doing as the real definition of inflation is an increase in the supply of money. If they can inflate the money supply and control the cost of some goods, to create the illusion that all is well. Then they have more or less won as the average person has come to associate inflation in terms of rising prices. Inflation the Silent Killer Tax that’s destroying Middle Class America


December 8, 2016

Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted with permission from WND

The wailing and keening over the choice of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the EPA appears to be a lead indicator of a coming revolution far beyond Reagan’s.

“Trump Taps Climate Skeptic For Top Environmental Post,” said the Wall Street Journal. “Climate Change Denial,” bawled a disbelieving New York Times, which urged the Senate to put Pruitt in a “dust bin.”

Clearly, though his victory was narrow, Donald Trump remains contemptuous of political correctness and defiant of liberal ideology.

For environmentalism, as conservative scholar Robert Nisbet wrote in 1982, is more than the “most important social movement” of the 20th century. It is a militant and dogmatic faith that burns heretics.

“Environmentalism is well on its way to becoming the third great wave of redemptive struggle in Western history,” wrote Nisbet, “the first being Christianity, the second modern socialism.” In picking a “climate denier” to head EPA, Trump is rejecting revealed truth.

Yet, as with his choices of Steve Bannon as White House strategist and Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general, he has shown himself to be an unapologetic apostate to liberal orthodoxy.

Indeed, with his presidency, we may be entering a post-liberal era.

In 1950, literary critic Lionel Trilling wrote, “In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.”

The rise of the conservative movement of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan revealed liberalism’s hour to be but a passing moment. Yet, today, something far beyond conservatism seems to be afoot.

As Hegel taught, in the dialectic of history the thesis calls into existence the antithesis. What we seem to be seeing is a rejection, and a counter-reformation against the views and values that came out of the social and political revolutions of the 1960s.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Consider the settled doctrine Trump disrespected with Pruitt.

We have long been instructed that climate change is real, that its cause is man-made, that it imperils the planet with rising seas, hurricanes and storms, that all nations have a duty to curb the release of carbon dioxide to save the world for future generations.

This is said to be “scientific truth,” and “climate deniers” are like people who believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. Some hold the matter to be so grave that climate deniers should be censored for promoting socially destructive falsehoods.

Yet, the people remain skeptical.

Their worry is not that the rising waters of the Med will swamp the Riviera, but that tens of millions of Arabs, Muslims and Africans may be coming across to swamp Europe, and that millions of Mexicans may cross the Rio Grande to swamp the USA.

Call them climate deniers or climate skeptics, but they see the establishment as running the Big Con to effect a transfer of wealth and power away from the people – and to themselves.

Across the West, establishments have lost credibility.

The proliferation of minority parties, tearing off pieces of the traditional ruling parties, points to a growing distrust in ruling regimes and a return to identifying with the nation and tribe whence one came.

A concomitant of this is a growing disbelief in egalitarianism and in the equality of all races, creeds, nations, cultures and peoples.

The Supreme Court may say all religions are equal and all must be treated equally. But do Americans believe Christianity and Islam are equal? How could they, when Christians claim their faith has as its founder the Son of God and God himself?

After calling for a ban on Muslim immigration, Trump was elected president. After inviting a million refugees from Syria’s civil war into Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel admits having made a mistake and is now in favor of letting German cities and towns decide if women should be allowed to wear burqas.

A sea change in thought is taking place in the West.

Liberalism appears to be a dying faith. America’s elites may still preach their trinity of values: diversity, democracy, equality. But the majorities in America and Europe are demanding that the borders be secured and Third World immigrants kept out.

The next president disbelieves in free trade. He wants a border wall. He questions the wisdom of our Mideast wars and the need for NATO. He is contemptuous of democratist dogma that how other nations rule themselves is our business. He rejects transnationalism and globalism.

“There is no global anthem, no global currency, no certificate of global citizenship,” said Trump in Cincinnati, “We pledge allegiance to one flag, and that flag is the American flag. From now on, it’s going to be America first. … We’re going to put ourselves first.”

That’s not Adlai Stevenson or Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama.

Nothing seems settled or certain. All is in flux. But change is coming. “Things are in the saddle, and ride mankind.”

Has the Trumpian Revolution begun


John Major: case for second Brexit referendum is credible

The UK establishment is utterly determined to keep us captive INSIDE the toxic Islamifying EU!!

‘Tyranny of majority’ should not dictate manner of exit from EU, says former PM in remarks likely to anger pro-Brexit Tories

Sir John Major and Tony Blair

Sir John Major has become the second former prime minister within 24 hours to question the Brexit process, saying there is a “perfectly credible” case for a second referendum on leaving the European Union.

Speaking shortly after Tony Blair argued in an interview that Brexit could be reversed if the public changed its mind, Major said that the 48% of voters who wanted to remain should not be subject to the “tyranny of the majority”.

The former Conservative prime minister said in a speech at a private dinner on Thursday that the opinions of remain voters should be heard in the debate about how Britain left the EU, the Times reported.

In his first intervention over the issue since the 23 June referendum, Major said he accepted the UK would not remain a full member of the EU, but hoped any Brexit deal would mean the UK remained as close as possible to EU members and the single market, which he described as “the richest market mankind has ever seen”.

Whatever happened with Brexit, he said, he could not accept that those people who voted to remain should have no input on the terms of Brexit.

“I hear the argument that the 48% of people who voted to stay should have no say in what happens,” he said. “I find that very difficult to accept. The tyranny of the majority has never applied in a democracy and it should not apply in this particular democracy.”

Major argued that it must be parliament, not the government, that made the final decision on any new deal with the EU, and there was a “perfectly credible case” for a second referendum on such a deal.

Major was addressing a dinner and question-and-answer session commemorating the 100th anniversary of David Lloyd George becoming prime minister.

Earlier on Thursday, the New Statesman published Blair’s comments about the possibility of Brexit being halted.

In an interview to mark his return to commenting on political matters, Blair said he was not predicting Brexit would not happen, only that there was a possibility it would not. “It can be stopped if the British people decide that, having seen what it means, the pain-gain, cost-benefit analysis doesn’t stack up,” he said.

Such a turnaround could arise in one of two ways, both of them hinging on negotiations over access to the EU’s single market, Blair said.

“Either you get maximum access to the single market, in which case you’ll end up accepting a significant number of the rules on immigration, on payment into the budget, on the European court’s jurisdiction. People may then say, ‘Well, hang on, why are we leaving then?’

“Or alternatively, you’ll be out of the single market and the economic pain may be very great because, beyond doubt, if you do that you’ll have years, maybe a decade, of economic restructuring.”

Theresa May’s spokesman dismissed the idea of a second referendum.

“We’ve been clear all along that the people of the United Kingdom have given the government a very clear instruction to take us out of the European Union,” he said. “Even Sir John has accepted that we are going to be leaving the European Union.”

Asked about the idea of the 48% of remain voters having no say, the spokesman said such issues were being raised in Commons debate and in the work of the Brexit select committee: “All these opinions will be fully aired and fully debated.”

He dismissed Major’s notion of the “tyranny of the majority”, saying: “It was a full and fair, democratic vote, and the majority voted to bring Britain out of the European Union. It is now the job of the government to deliver on the will that was expressed on that vote.”

The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said: “When a former Conservative prime minister publicly comes out in support of a Lib Dem policy, it shows we are the only sensible party on Brexit.

“The British people voted for departure but they didn’t vote for a destination, and they certainly didn’t vote to make the nation poorer and risk jobs. The haphazard way May’s cabinet are handling Brexit makes the case for a referendum on the deal stronger each day, and we’re glad to have growing cross-party support for this campaign.”

Like Blair, Major was notably more pro-EU than many other MPs in his party. The former Tory prime minister’s time in office was marked by persistent battles with his backbenchers over Europe.

The peak of the disruption came in 1995 when Major stood for re-election as Conservative leader against the leading Eurosceptic John Redwood in an attempt to regain his authority on Europe.

Major’s comments are likely to enrage some of his former foes, such as Redwood, who are still in parliament.

John Major: case for second Brexit referendum is credible



Trump and Brexit success could herald Australian regional, rural revolt

Updated about 3 hours ago

The election of Donald Trump and Britain’s exit from the European Union are the hallmarks of a tectonic shift in Western politics, fuelled by rural and regional revolt.

Key points:

  • Trump and Brexit have shaken up politics in Australia
  • One Nation’s resurgence has rattled the major parties
  • More issue-based voting rather than party-based voting anticipated
  • National Party expected to break ranks with the Coalition more often

As a consequence, the long-forgotten people in the regions of Australia are now at the forefront of every politician’s mind.

Infrastructure Minister Darren Chester said there is a growing push back against the idea of the elites.

“I think there is no doubt there is a bit of an anti-establishment movement in the community,” he said.

“It’s more of a feeling amongst some people that perhaps they may have been left behind.”

Conservative LNP Minister George Christensen believes political movements in the US and UK indicate it is time for Australia to take a drastic change in direction.

“As important as it is, people aren’t interested in the Government’s budget repair, they’re interested in repairing their own household budgets, which are bursting at the seam because of higher electricity prices, petrol prices,” he said.

“It’s the cost for everything. Tax is out of control.”

If George Christensen’s point of view was a slogan, it would echo Donald Trump — “Make Australia great again”.

“Civic nationalism is actually very different to the ethnic Nazi-type nationalism, fascist-type nationalism that we saw throughout Europe and sometimes do see throughout Europe,” he said.

“Civic nationalism is about putting your country first on matters economic, on matters political, and I think that’s where the public wants us to be.”

Rise of One Nation

All of this is music to the ears of One Nation, whose resurgence has rattled the major parties.

Rob Borbidge knows more than most about the threat posed by One Nation.

He was Queensland premier in 1998, when Pauline Hanson’s party won six seats off the Nationals and five off Labor.

“There’s an enormous amount of dissatisfaction with everyone. I mean, people are basically grumpy,” he said.

“They feel disenfranchised, they feel that the political system is letting them down.”

He is urging the major parties to stick to their core values and wait for One Nation to implode, as they did when he was premier.

“I don’t think that mainstream political parties should panic at this stage.

“The types of people that One Nation get into Parliament are rebellious, they are renegades and they don’t want to be part of the football team.

“Sooner or later, they want to go and do their own thing.”

Many in the current crop of Nationals, such as Darren Chester, agree, and for now are resisting calls from within to lurch to the right.

“I don’t think that many people in Australia actually identify as being left or right. I think they tend to vote on issues,” he said.

It is a sentiment shared by Labor, who has a lot to lose in the rise of the anti-establishment movement.

Joel Fitzgibbon, the Opposition spokesman for regional and rural Australia, said politics outside the major cities has changed.

“The National Party represents I think nine of the 10 poorest electorates in the country,” he said.

“And yet over time, people have continued to back them in and support them in those electorates.

“So if the National Party was serious, it would be talking about some progressive change. That’s certainly what the Labor Party wants to do.”

Breaking ranks a feature of the future

The recent Orange by-election in New South Wales was yet another wake-up call.

The Baird Government’s greyhound ban and push for council amalgamations saw a major upset, with the election of a Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party candidate.

A matter of days later in Federal Parliament, the Nationals sent their constituents a powerful message when two Senators crossed the floor to support lifting a ban on the Adler shotgun, and four others abstained.

In fact, not a single National voted with the Government’s position.

Nationals breaking ranks with the Coalition is something we are likely to see a lot more of in future, as regional representatives seek to prove they are different to their colleagues from the big smoke.

“There’ll be times when we disagree and we need to negotiate, we may need to compromise,” said the Nationals’ Darren Chester.

“If we can’t reach that agreement, there will have to be times when the Nationals may well vote differently.”

That is something Labor, with its strict rules about caucus solidarity, will not be trying to replicate.

“Sticking together in a big number is a better way of progressing good public policy and good outcomes than fracturing all over the place,” said Joel Fitzgibbon.

“I mean, fracturing, I think, only further feeds the new and unstable political model.”

Topics: regional, community-and-society, us-elections, government-and-politics, australia, united-states,united-kingdom

Trump and Brexit success could herald Australian regional, rural revolt

After Brexit, UN Climate Regime in Trouble

Written by 

In addition to the devastating blow dealt to globalism generally, the historic British “Brexit” vote to exit the European Union could have far-reaching implications for the United Nations “climate” regime. Concocted in Paris last year by the UN and its member governments, the controversial deal is unprecedented in terms of its full-blown promotion of regional governments, such as the EU, as crucial players in imposing the international agenda. But with Brexit, that gamble has turned against the globalists, and now they are scrambling to save face amid a victorious “leave” campaign led largely by climate skeptics and realists.

Whether the Paris Agreement is doomed yet remains unclear. Either way, though, the UN “climate” agreement is on increasingly shaky ground. Among other headaches for UN climate alarmists and internationalists hoping to centralize power at the global level is the United States. GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump is already vowing to blow up the Paris deal and de-fund the UN bureaucracy responsible for it. Indeed, U.S. funding for the UN “climate” machine is now illegal under federal law. Plus, there is practically zero chance of ratification for the deal by the U.S. Senate, as required by the Constitution for all treaties.

Other governments are also weary of ratifying the controversial scheme for various reasons, even with promised bribes to Third World dictators who play along. And with the man-made global-warming theory looking increasingly discredited — just 40 percent of Americans believe the theory in polls, as observable evidence debunking it continues to grow — the clock is running out on the alarmists. Now, the British referendum to leave the EU represents the latest monkey wrench to be thrown into the gears of the UN’s “climate” agenda. Establishment-controlled “green” groups and “news” outlets are already sounding the alarm, calling on Prime Minister David Cameron to ink the Paris Agreement prior to leaving office in case a “skeptic” government takes the reins.

Before the Brexit referendum last month on whether to secede from the increasingly totalitarian EU, UN climate czarina Christiana Figueres warned that the UN pseudo-treaty purporting to control “global warming” would have to be rewritten if the Brits voted to leave. Speaking at a June 22 press conference next to EU Energy Union Commissioner Maroš Šefcovic, a “former” communist from Slovakia, and billionaire U.S. extremist Michael Bloomberg, whose fanaticism on global warming is second only to his crusade to disarm Americans by any means necessary, Figueres was clear that if Brexit were to happen, the UN scheme could not just march on uninterrupted.

Basically, she said, if the British people reject the EU, the Paris deal would need to be renegotiated and rewritten. “From the point of view of the Paris Agreement, the U.K. is part of the EU and has put in its effort as part of the EU so anything that would change that would require a recalibration,” said the controversial UN figure, who famously opened one of the UN’s infamous carbon dioxide-spewing “climate” conferences with a prayer to the Mayan goddess of war, human sacrifice, and cannibalism. “In principle, it is actually, historically, we say, as humankind, we are moving towards larger and larger tents of collaboration […] rather than in the opposite way.”

The British voted to leave the EU anyway, sending prices for CO2-emissions permits in the super-state’s so-called carbon market — a key component of the EU’s plan under the Paris scheme — plunging by close to 20 percent. At first, Figueres and other UN bureaucrats and alarmist politicians may have thought they were bluffing, aiming to keep the British people under the thumb of the EU via fear-mongering. Now, though, the reality is setting in, and the Paris pseudo-treaty is in jeopardy. Figueres may have been wrong about the globalist mantra of centralizing power more and more, or “larger and larger tents of collaboration” as she put it, but she was right about the threat Brexit poses to the UN’s “climate” machinations.

The unaccountable EU super-state, which now lords over the formerly independent peoples of Europe practically without restraint, pledged at the UN climate summit in Paris to slash the CO2 emissions of its disenfranchised subjects by 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. The commitment was “to be fulfilled jointly.” But without the British to endure an outsized dose of the economic pain, loss of prosperity, and diminishing liberty, that lawless pledge by the EU commissars is in serious jeopardy. Indeed, even the globalist push to have regional governments take a leading role in imposing UN schemes may be blowing up in the internationalists’ faces.

In Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, for example, the agreement outlines a plan for “regional economic integration organizations,” such as the EU, “to  act  jointly” under the agreement. It also calls on those regional super-governments to notify the UN bureaucracy of “the emission level allocated to each Party (national government).” In other words, emerging regional governments such as the European Union, the African Union, the Union of South American States, the Eurasian Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and other sovereignty-crushing outfits are expected to play a major role in allocating “emission levels” to entire nations.

That means illegitimate and unelected bureaucrats will decide how much CO2,” also known as “the gas of life,” nations will be able to release. In short, it is rationing, on an unprecedented scale, due to false scarcity imposed by internationalists themselves. The implications for liberty and prosperity are gargantuan. Consider that every human activity — including breathing — emits CO2. (Though man-made CO2 emissions account for a fraction of one percent of all greenhouse gases naturally in the atmosphere). By purporting to grant regional governments loyal to the UN the power to limit and regulate those emissions, negotiators in Paris attempted to literally hand those regional governments power over life and death, over all energy, all economic activity, and more.

The deal also purports to allow and even encourage regional governments, such as the EU or any of the other super-states being imposed on people around the world, to vote in place of their member states, with the same number of votes as it has member states. “Any regional economic integration organization that  becomes a Party to this Agreement … shall be bound by all the obligations under this Agreement,” the Paris deal explains. So if you live under the EU or any other autocratic would-be super-state that signs up to the UN scheme, you can kiss your nation’s liberties and self-government goodbye.

In keeping with the globalist strategy for building what its architects often refer to publicly as a “New World Order,” the UN agreement is packed with references to the regional super-governments being used to shackle nations and peoples worldwide. It is clear that these Soviet-style regimes are being positioned to play an increasingly massive role in the lives of people around the world, all under the supervision of the UN. In fact, even the preamble to the Paris Agreement vows to “uphold and promote regional and international cooperation in order to mobilize stronger and more ambitious climate action.”

The scheme also calls on parties to the UN scheme to “strengthen regional cooperation on adaptation” and “establish regional centers.” By “regional cooperation,” the document is of course referring to supranational governance at the regional level — the EU, the AU, ASEAN, and other such schemes. In all, there are 17 provisions relating to regionalism in the UN document, which is just over 30 pages long. With British voters dealing a crushing blow to regionalism by supporting Brexit, though, the agenda just suffered a major defeat.

Even domestically, the Brexit vote may have major implications on British “climate” policies. For one, many of the movement’s leaders and its voters are deeply skeptical of the man-made global-warming theory, as well as the policies to allegedly deal with the alleged problem. “It is highly unlikely that the party-political green consensus that has existed in parliament for the last 10 years will survive the seismic changes that are now unfolding after Britain’s independence day,” said Global Warming Policy Foundation director Benny Peiser, citing the “astonishing self-determination and skepticism of the British people in [the] face of an unprecedented fear campaign.”

The UN and Obama are pretending that if enough Third World dictators can be bribed (with your tax money) into “ratifying” the pseudo-treaty before a potential President Trump, that it will be more difficult for the deal to be shredded. That is, of course, nonsense, as the scheme was never ratified by the U.S. Senate or even presented to it for ratification, making it essentially a glorified press release by Obama and his cohorts, with accompanying illegal and unconstitutional decrees with no force of law. In short, the foundation of the entire scheme is built on quicksand, and it appears to be in the process of swallowing up the scam.

Regardless of what happens with Brexit, Americans must continue to expose the fraud that is the UN’s Paris Agreement. With aconcerted educational campaign, the extremist plot to empower the UN and regional governments over every aspect of life can and will be crushed.

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, was at the UN climate summit in Paris. He can be reached atanewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Source: After Brexit, UN Climate Regime in Trouble

Americans should be inspired by the Brexit – Personal Liberty®

Last week’s UK vote to leave the EU may have come as a shock to many, but the sentiment that led British voters to reject rule from Brussels is nothing unique. In fact it is growing sentiment worldwide. Frustration with politics as usual, with political parties that really do not differ in philosophy, with an economy that serves the one percent at the expense of the rest of society is a growing phenomenon throughout Europe and in the United States as well. The Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump phenomena are but one example of a frustrated public sensing something is very wrong with society and looking for a way out.

What is happening in the UK, in Europe, and in the U.S., is nothing less than a breakdown of the entire system. The EU was meant to be a customs union where post-World War II Western Europe could rebuild itself through free trade and a reduction in bureaucracy. Through corruption and political ambition it became an unelected bully government in Brussels, where the well-connected were well compensated and insulated from the votes of mere citizens.

Whatever happens in the near future – and it is certainly not assured that the vote to “Brexit” will actually end in the UK’s departure from the EU – a line has been crossed that supporters of more personal liberty should celebrate. Rule from London is preferable to liberty-minded Britons than rule from Brussels. Just as Texans should prefer rule from Austin to rule from Washington. That doesn’t make either option perfect, just more likely to produce more freedom.

Is Brexit the first victory in a larger freedom movement? Can we get out of a system that creates money out of thin air to benefit the ruling class while impoverishing the middle class? Can we get out of a central bank that finances the wars that make us less safe? Can we exit Executive Orders? Can we exit the surveillance state? The PATRIOT Act? Can we exit NDAA and indefinite detention? Can we exit the US worldwide drone program, that kills innocents overseas and makes us ever-more hated?

Getting out of NATO would be a good first move. This Cold War relic survives only by stirring up conflict and then selling itself as the only option to confront the conflict it churned up. Wouldn’t it be better to not go looking for a fight in the first place? Do we really need still another NATO military exercise on the Russian border? It should be no surprise that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was fear-mongering on the eve of the Brexit vote, warning UK citizens that if they vote to leave they could face increased terrorism.

Likewise, the US would do well to exit the various phony “free trade” agreements that provide advantage to the well-connected elites while harming the rest of us.

The act of exit is liberating. We should make a longer list of those things we would like to get out of. I am only getting started.

Source: Americans should be inspired by the Brexit – Personal Liberty®

Brexit burns Obama and Clinton – POLITICO



Brexit burns Obama and Clinton

Donald Trump slams the president and his former secretary of state for misreading the political moment.

06/24/16 09:31 AM EDT

Updated 06/24/16 02:19 PM EDT


In the months leading up to the United Kingdom’s referendum on its European Union membership, President Barack Obama urged Britons to think carefully about the choice ahead of them. Leaving the EU would move the U.K. to the “back of the queue” on trade deals, he warned in April, and cast doubt upon the global institutions created in the wreckage of World War II.

Hillary Clinton, too, cautioned Britons against scuppering decades of ever-growing trans-Atlantic cooperation. In April, Jake Sullivan, her top foreign policy adviser, said the Western alliance has always been “strongest when Europe is united.” Donald Trump, on the other hand, while at times a full-throated supporter of Brexit, cautioned in a TV interview, “I don’t think anybody should listen to me because I haven’t really focused on it very much.”

But on Friday, after British voters stunned the world by voting for “Leave,” Obama declared that Brexit will not affect the “special relationship” after all, even as he lost his trans-Atlantic partner, British Prime Minister David Cameron, who tendered his resignation. Meanwhile, Leave supporter Boris Johnson, a colorful upper-crust Conservative who has drawn comparisons to Trump, emerged as the leading candidate to take Cameron’s place.

Obama sought to reassure, saying he recognized that “the people of the United Kingdom have spoken, and we respect their decision,” but the special relationship would remain unchanged. It was left to Vice President Joe Biden to express the White House’s dismay, acknowledging during his Ireland trip that the U.S. had “preferred a different outcome.”

“I do think that yesterday’s vote speaks to the ongoing changes and challenges that are raised by globalization, the president said later at a forum at Stanford University, in his only allusion so far to the sort of populist rage represented by Trump and the Brexit movement.

Clinton, meanwhile, went on the attack, telling American voters that the Brexit vote “only underscores the need for calm, steady, experienced leadership in the White House to protect Americans’ pocketbooks and livelihoods, to support our friends and allies, to stand up to our adversaries, and to defend our interests” — an unmistakable shot at Trump and a reminder of her experience as secretary of state.

“It also underscores the need for us to pull together to solve our challenges as a country, not tear each other down,” she added for good measure.

And Clinton sought to reinforce her economic message aimed at “everyday Americans,” arguing that the “first task has to be to make sure that the economic uncertainty created by these events does not hurt working families here in America.”

Trump by then had already celebrated the Brexit vote as vindication for his brand of nationalism-fueled politics, speaking to reporters in Turnberry, Scotland, to promote one of his golf courses.

“Basically, they took back their country. That’s a great thing,” he said — never mind that Scots overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU, with the country’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, calling a second vote on Scottish independence “highly likely.”

And the Manhattan mogul laced into Obama directly, saying, “The U.K. has been such a great ally for so long, they’ll always be at the front of the line. They’ve been amazing allies, in good times and in bad times.”

Trump also slammed Obama and his former secretary of state for misreading the political moment.

“I’m surprised that Obama came over here and was so bold as to tell people here what to do,” Trump said. “And I think that a lot of people don’t like him and I think if he had not said it, I think your result might have been different. But when he said it, people were not happy about it and I thought it was totally inappropriate.”

“And then she doubled down and she did the same thing,” Trump added. “They’re always wrong, and that’s the problem with them.”

In his formal statement sent to reporters, Trump was more statesmanlike, pledging 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,” he said.

Clinton, declaring the aftermath of Brexit a “time of uncertainty,” didn’t address Trump’s comments directly in her own statement. But her top aides held a conference call in which they unloaded on the presumptive Republican nominee in far sharper terms.

Trump, Sullivan told reporters, “proves again and again that he is temperamentally unfit for the job.

“The American people need a steady hand at times of uncertainty, not a reckless egomaniac,” he said.

“Donald Trump actively rooted for this outcome and the economic turmoil in its wake,” Sullivan said of the Brexit vote, adding that from Clinton’s perspective, “it really matters who’s actually sitting in the Oval Office.”

“We have the wherewithal to help American families to weather all kinds of storms, but it takes strong, effective leadership — but Donald Trump just doesn’t have it,” Sullivan added.

Nolan D. McCaskill , Annie Karni and Daniel Strauss contributed to this report.

Source: Brexit burns Obama and Clinton – POLITICO