Archive for June 2016

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Trump’s Declaration of Independence

June 29, 2016

Trump’s Declaration of Independence, Power Line, John Hinderaker, June 28, 2016

Today Donald Trump delivered a major speech on the economy in Pennsylvania, titled “Declaring America’s Economic Independence.” You can read the speech, as prepared for delivery, here. These are my thoughts on it:

1) The fact that it is a prepared speech at all is good. Trump’s speeches during the primary season were generally stream of consciousness riffs, and he often has gotten into trouble while ad libbing. He needs the discipline of a prepared text to keep him on message and avoid foolish distractions.

2) The speech previews themes which I think will be highly effective. Those themes aren’t new, of course, but Trump is now honing them and bringing them to a wider audience. Speeches like the one he delivered today will drive the Democrats crazy. They will denounce Trump as a demagogue and xenophobe, which means they are afraid voters will find him persuasive. Trump’s speech tells a story–a personal, populist story, with Hillary Clinton as one of the villains:

We are thirty miles from Steel City. Pittsburgh played a central role in building our nation.

The legacy of Pennsylvania steelworkers lives in the bridges, railways and skyscrapers that make up our great American landscape.

But our workers’ loyalty was repaid with betrayal.

Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization – moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas.

Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache.

3) The speech was mostly about trade. Trump sounds very much like Dick Gephardt, circa 1988. He links the decline in American manufacturing jobs to currency devaluations and cheating by our trade partners, under the benign eye of the globalist financial elite represented by Hillary Clinton. I think Trump’s diagnosis is mostly wrong. The number of manufacturing jobs has declined due to constantly improving productivity, even as the value of goods manufactured in the U.S. is at an all-time high. Trump talks about dealing with “cheating” by trade partners and denounces specific deals (NAFTA and TPP) as bad for the U.S., but to the extent that manufacturing has grown more rapidly in some other countries, like China and Mexico, it is because of cheaper labor and less costly regulation. Trump implies, but doesn’t quite say, that he wants to impose high tariffs on manufactured goods. This would be a highly destructive policy, I think.

4) Still, Trump’s narrative contains a considerable kernel of truth. There is a globalist elite that doesn’t much care about the United States, and Hillary Clinton is its foremost representative in American politics (or will be when Barack Obama steps down). I think it is true that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a bad deal for America, and, in general, that we would be better served by tough negotiators who care about American interests. Most voters sense this, which is why Trump’s approach could be political dynamite:

[I]f we’re going to deliver real change, we’re going to have to reject the campaign of fear and intimidation being pushed by powerful corporations, media elites, and political dynasties.

The people who rigged the system for their benefit will do anything – and say anything – to keep things exactly as they are.

The people who rigged the system are supporting Hillary Clinton because they know as long as she is in charge nothing will ever change.

The inner cities will remain poor.

The factories will remain closed.

The borders will remain open.

The special interests will remain firmly in control.

Hillary Clinton and her friends in global finance want to scare America into thinking small – and they want to scare the American people out of voting for a better future.

My campaign has the opposite message.

I want you to imagine how much better your life can be if we start believing in America again.

At times, Trump is downright Reaganesque.

5) Once he gets away from trade, pretty much everything Trump says is sound, if vague:

We will make America the best place in the world to start a business, hire workers, and open a factory.

This includes massive tax reform to lift the crushing burdens on American workers and businesses.

We will also get rid of wasteful rules and regulations which are destroying our job creation capacity. Many people think that these regulations are an even greater impediment than the fact that we are one of the highest taxed nations in the world.

We are also going to fully capture America’s tremendous energy capacity. This will create vast profits for our workers and begin reducing our deficit. Hillary Clinton wants to shut down energy production and shut down the mines.

Altogether, it is a powerful message. I would like to see less emphasis on trade and more on regulation, but from a political standpoint, Trump’s formula will be effective.

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Economy, Regulations, Trade
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

U.S.-Backed Syrian Rebel Commander Boasts of Fighting With AQ Affiliate

June 29, 2016

U.S.-Backed Syrian Rebel Commander Boasts of Fighting With AQ Affiliate, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Ariel Behar and Ravi Kumar, June 28, 2016

1660Nuruddin az-Zinki fighter with a Tow missile.

A commander of a U.S.-backed Syrian opposition group says his fighters continue to ally on the battlefield with an al-Qaida-tied jihadist group.

The United States continues to arm Nuruddin az-Zinki as it fights dictator Bashar al-Assad’s forces. But in an interview posted online last week, az-Zinki founder Tawfiq Shihab Al Deen acknowledged teaming up “with Al Nusra (an al-Qaida affiliate in Syria), which is a group that proved themselves to be forceful fighters.”

“Our groups, Nuruddin az-Zinki, along with Al Nusra, are the only groups continuously fighting against the regime in the al-Malah area in Aleppo,” Shihab al-Deen told Abdullah al-Muhasayni, a radical Saudi preacher said in an interview posted on YouTube June 21.

Al-Muhasayni interviewed jihadi commanders in Syria during the month of Ramadan. He is known to be the conduit between the Jihadi rebel groups in Syria and their benefactors in the Gulf.

The United States has armed Nuruddin az-Zinki, which has posted many videosshowing their fighters using U.S. TOW missiles.

It is not clear why the United States continues to support Nuruddin az-Zinki despite its alliance with an al-Qaida affiliate.

Muhasayni’s interview with Shihab al-Deen could indicate that this alliance between Nuruddin az-Zinki and Al Nusra extends beyond the battlefield. Muhasayni is considered the spiritual father of al-Qaida in Syria.

The U.S. suspended non-lethal aid to Syrian rebels late in 2014, after jihadists seized warehouses storing supplies. But support for Nuruddin az-Zinki continued, the McClatchy news service reported.

Categories: Al Qaeda, Nuruddin az-Zinki, Obama and Syria, Syria war
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Cartoons of the Day

June 28, 2016

H/t Power Line

Brexit-Cuck-copy

 

Brexit-Dog-copy

 

Brexit-Fimger-copy

 

Brexit-Tea-Party-copy

Categories: BREXIT, Britain, European Union, Humor
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Humor? | Let’s give all immigrants and Muslim “terror” groups what they want and need.

June 28, 2016

Let’s give all immigrants and Muslim “terror” groups what they want and need. Dan Miller’s Blog, June 28, 2016

(I marked the post as “Humor?” but it comes very close to reflecting Obama’s world view. The opinions implicit in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

This is a guest post by Loretta Lynchmob, Supreme Attorney of Imam Obama’s Loving America. Her younger sister is among the singers in the following inspirational video, as is Hillary Clinton. Here are her, er, inspiring words.

I also participated in this dazzling performance on my way to support an abortion clinic:

Unfortunately, I did not have enough time to sing What the World Needs Now is Love before or after making my remarks following the White supremacist hate-group’s attack in Orlando, Florida during which almost two hundred innocent  homosexuals and lesbians were killed or wounded. That sad incident, of course, had nothing — absolutely nothing — to do with the wonderful Religion of Peace and Tolerance. Rather than listen to the haters who claim that it was on account of our their beautiful Islam, we must give all Muslims at home and abroad love, not hate.

This brings me to the major point of this article: Since everyone — including Muslim “terror” groups — wants the same loving sort of life that all good Americans want, we must give them what they want and need to end their totally justified “depredations.” To do so is Imam Obama’s Loving American way and we cannot do otherwise; that would not be who we are and would put us on the wrong side of hisherstory.

What do immigrants and the so-called terror groups want and what can we give them?

“Terror” groups, like the immigrants fleeing the poverty and repression they suffer in much of Latin America, want to have the same prosperity and freedom that we have in Imam Obama’s already-great America; America was never greater than under the heel of Obama. The Latin American immigrants want it here, the “terror groups” want it in the countries we wrongfully took from them to give to radical firebrands such as President al-Sisi in Egypt and Prime Minister Netanyahu in Occupied Palestine. They will have the prosperity and freedom they want and deserve only when we give them love, not hate. Trump offers hate, we offer love. Surely, ours is not only the better way, it is the only way.

Aside from our abiding, non-judgmental love, what can we give them? They are poor so we need to give them money and the stuff that money can buy. Based on our outpourings of love, they will not use the money to purchase automatic weapons and other types of assault rifles to use against innocents or even against us. Obama’s wonderful peace deal with Iran is a case in point: due to His wisdom in returning to Iran economic power and money of which she had been unjustly deprived, Iran has joined the world community as a peaceful power, opposed to “terrorism,” and will never have nuclear bombs. Only those in America who cling hatefully to their guns and their religion of hate see the world differently and use weapons of war on innocents.

We can, and must, also help them to learn more about democracy. We encouraged democracy when the Egyptian masses overthrew “their” dictator Mubarak and replaced him with their own peace-loving, tolerant President Morsi. That’s the way true democracy works. Then, sadly, a few thousand Egyptian enemies of the brave and peace-loving Muslim Brotherhood conducted a coup, led by an Egyptian general, and replaced President Morsi with a fascist dictator named al-Sisi. The people of Egypt have not forgotten about how democracy should work, and given a chance will again rebel against fascist al-Sisi and depose him in favor of another brave, peace-loving Muslim Brotherhood advocate. We must do everything we can to help them in their loving quest for true freedom and true democracy.

Much of Occupied Palestine is rich; that’s where the Jews live and parade with their filthy feet in what they call “Temple Mount.”

What do the Jews give their Palestinian brothers — who want only their love and sustenance? When they provide water, they poison it. They often cut off electricity to Gaza, with no better excuse than that their poverty-stricken supplicants there can’t pay for it! Is money all that matters? Is gross human suffering of no consequence?

We can, and must, do everything possible to send the Jews festering in Occupied Palestine back to wherever they came from. It’s only just and fair! The blessed United Nations is one hundred percent with us on this; too long have we vetoed Security Council resolutions even modestly adverse to “Israel.” Were we to sponsor a decree by the UN Security Council to rid Occupied Palestine of its Jews, it would pass without veto. If we believe in love — not the hate spewed by “Israel” — that’s precisely what we must do.

Hillary Clinton is indisputably the best-qualified person to take up Obama’s great work when He, sadly, must leave office next January. There is much left to be done, and only She can and will do it. Even the proprietor of this vile right-wing hate blog has said so. Trump, on the other hand, would destroy everything that Obama has done and thereby destroy America as we know and love her. A vote for Hillary is a vote for honesty, candor and, most important, love. A vote for he-of-the-orange hair is a vote for dishonesty, lies and hate.

****************

Editor’s comments

Ms. Lynchmob does a good job of articulating the differences between Trump and the Obama-Clinton cabal and their visions for America as seen by the left. How many in Obama’s America see things as she does?

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Egypt, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Islam, Israel, Israel and human rights, Jews, Love sweet love, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, National secuity, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama's America, Palestinians, Sisi, Temple Mount, U.S. politics, United Nations, Zionists
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Why Our Leaders Won’t Name the Enemy

June 28, 2016

Why Our Leaders Won’t Name the Enemy, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 28, 2016

ol

After the Orlando attack, Obama ranted that it did not matter what we called Islamic terrorism. “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIS less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

The “Islamic terrorists by any other name would smell as sweet” argument is the last resort of the losing side. It dismisses the whole issue as a matter of semantics with no bearing on the real world.

And that’s a neat rhetorical trick for the political side that relentlessly refuses to acknowledge reality.

One of the more shocking moments in Jeffrey Goldberg’s extended Atlantic write-up of Obama’s foreign policy came with his conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia. Obama, who has refused to recognize any connection between Islamic theology and violence, and made the hijab into a civil rights issue, told the Australian leader how he had seen Indonesia turn to “fundamentalist” Islam and noted, unfavorably, the large numbers of women now wearing hijabs as a sign of that fundamentalism.

Obama blamed the Saudis for pushing Wahhabism through imams and madrassas into Indonesia.

It wasn’t an original critique, but also not one that you hear much in Obama’s circles. When Obama reportedly tells world leaders that there will be “no comprehensive solution to Islamist terrorism until Islam reconciles itself to modernity” and undergoes reforms the way that Christianity did, it’s like suddenly having Khrushchev explain why Communism can’t work and will end up falling apart.

It’s shocking and revealing.

In moments like these we see that Obama knows that he’s lying. And Obama makes the awkward semantics argument because he knows that the existence of Islamic terrorism can’t be debated. When you are reduced to arguing that names don’t matter, it’s because you know that the name is right.

Plenty of leftists lie to themselves about Islamic terrorism. Obama is not lying to himself. He’s lying to us. He is willing to say things about Islamic terror to foreign leaders that he refuses to say to Americans.

He can tell them that Islamic terrorism is real and that the only way to stop it is to reform Islam.

And here is where we come back to his question of why naming Islamic terrorism matters. It’s a question that Obama has already answered. You can’t solve a problem until you define it. It may not matter what you call a rose, as long as you know that it’s a plant. If you don’t know that a rose is a flowering plant that grows out of the ground, then you’ll never figure out how to plant one. If you don’t know that Islamic terrorism is a theological implementation of its core religious identity, you won’t even know what it is you are supposed to be fighting. And you won’t win except through brute force.

We have never defined the problem of Islamic terrorism because that would just be too dangerous.

Why is Obama willing to talk about Saudi support for terrorism to the Prime Minister of Australia, but not to Americans? Why does he only suggest reforming Islam to foreign leaders in private?

The official story is that it would “empower” Islamic terrorists, but that’s a nonsensical claim. ISIS doesn’t derive its legitimacy from whether we call it ISIS, ISIL or Daesh. Nor are Muslims going to determine the theological legitimacy of a Jihadist group based on whether we refer to it as Islamic.

Telling the truth would no doubt “offend” Muslims. And the threat of offending Muslims continues to occupy far more branches of our government than fighting Muslim terrorism.

But Obama isn’t really afraid of offending Muslims. If he were, he wouldn’t have provided this little peek into his private meetings at all. Obama isn’t afraid of Muslims, terrorists or otherwise, he’s afraid of Americans.

Tell the truth and Americans might suddenly get the naughty idea that instead of waiting for Islam to “reform”, they ought to just deal with the problem at its source with a travel ban. They might decide that extra scrutiny for mosques really is warranted and that airport profiling would save everyone grief.

And, worst of all, they might realize that they have no reason to feel guilty about our foreign policy. If Islamic terrorism exists and is caused by Islam, then America isn’t and was never the problem.

That kind of thinking frightens Obama and the left far more than a hundred Orlando terror attacks.

Name the enemy and Americans might suddenly start feeling good about themselves. That outraged confidence which we associate with Pearl Harbor, but that made a brief return after September 11, might come back to stay. Americans would embrace patriotism and pride without doubt or guilt.

That is why Islamic terrorism can’t and won’t be named.

Whatever dislike Obama may harbor for the Islamization of Indonesia, he appears to be far less concerned by it than by the Americanization of America. He may indeed recognize Islamic terrorism to be a threat of some degree, but he views American patriotism as a much bigger threat.

He can give enlightened Atlantic readers a small peek behind the scenes to show them that he recognizes the obvious problem, but he isn’t about to extend that confidence nationwide.

And it’s not just Obama.

The real reason that our leaders won’t name the enemy is that they don’t like us and they don’t trust us. Running through their heads are nightmare scenarios like Brexit and Trump. They see their job as shepherding us away from our “worst impulses” toward a proper role within the global community.

They are quite capable of recognizing Islamic terrorism for what it is. They may not be terribly bright, but people in their positions have more than enough access to information for the conclusions to be inescapable. But they are determined not to allow Islamic terrorism to disrupt their larger plans for us.

It isn’t another 9/11 or 7/7 that worries them, but a resurgence of nationalism in response to it. That is why they will lie, mislead and even criminalize any dissent. Their response to every Islamic terrorist attack is to make us feel responsible, ashamed and helpless by transforming Muslims into the victims.

For these same reasons they will push mass Muslim migration no matter what the terror risks are. They will champion the hijab, even though they know it harms Muslim women. Why? Because these policies undermine our values and transform our countries. And that is their overriding agenda above all else.

That is what we are up against.

They know that they are lying about Islamic terrorism. It’s why Obama dismisses the subject as mere semantics. But it’s only one of many things that they are lying to us about. Obama lies to us about Islamic terrorism for the same reason that he lies to us about being able to keep your doctor.

He knows the truth, but the truth would interfere with the left’s larger plans to transform America.

Categories: Foreign policy, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's America, Obama's hypocrisy
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Why Trump frightens the GOP Illuminati

June 28, 2016

Why Trump frightens the GOP Illuminati, American Thinker, Lee Cary, June 28, 2016

Unlike the Democrats, who hunger for full power and control over the federal government, the GOPe aims to “go-along-to-get-along.”  They don’t want to lead. It’s too hard. They’d rather follow. It’s less risky.

Besides, the party is ill-equipped to lead.  It has no guiding, discernible political philosophy. It collectively swims in the neither hot,  nor cold, waters of moderation.

When conservative GOP Senators are elected, the moderates ostracize them as extremists, a la Cruz.

***********************

George Will, Brent Scowcroft, Hank Paulson, and Paul Ryan all fear Donald Trump.

They’re part of a growing list of GOP Establishment Illuminati that includes Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and Mitch McConnell.

George Will officially declared himself an independent – no longer aligned with the GOP.  He recommends that Republican conservative voters “grit their teeth” and hope Trump loses.  Referring to the GOP, Will said, “This is not my party.”

196758_5_(Screenshot, not a video)

George doesn’t understand that he never owned the party.

On June 23, 2016, CNN trumpeted that “a heavyweight foreign policy adviser to Republican presidents” had endorsed Hillary Clinton’s candidacy:

“Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to Presidents George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford, and who worked in the White House of Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, said Clinton ‘brings truly unique experience and perspective to the White House.’”

Then, on June 24, 2016, CNN gleefully announced that Hank Paulson “endorsed Hillary Clinton, adding his name to prominent GOP heavyweights who are backing the presumptive Democratic nominee.”

Yet another “prominent” GOP “heavyweight” for Clinton!

Paulson was Treasury Secretary during George W. Bush’s presidency.  Hank brought us the 2008 Big Bank Bailout – along with union pension fund bailouts – plus, funding for all those “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects that were never-ready for shovels.  A huge scam.

And there’s Robert Kagan, a reputed neoconservative who writes for the Washington Post. On July 21, 2016, Kagan is scheduled to headline a D.C. fundraiser for Clinton. TPM quotes him saying,

“For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.”

Kagan is concerned that America will become 1933 Germany.  His May 18, 2016, Post article led with this incendiary title: “This is how fascism comes to America.” In it, he deploys 1,300 words to describe Trump as America’s rendition of Adolf Hitler.

No hedging from Kagan there – we Americans are potential Nazis. Speak for yourself, Bob.

Kagan’s byline at the Post reads, “Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing columnist for The Post.”

The “Brookings” in Brookings Institution was Robert S. Brookings, once President Emeritus of Washington University (a signed, discarded book from WU Library is the source for the quote below).

In The Way Forward (1932), Brookings wrote,

“The economic consequences of what went on before the crash and of what has followed it, have been of such a drastic nature as to leave us, and indeed the whole world, after the lapse of more than two year’ time, in a state of industrial and agricultural depression requiring a thoroughly planned policy if we are to attain a sound healthy economic condition.”

Brookings firmly believed in central economic planning.

Brookings also wrote,

“This means that our present system for the distribution of wealth is unjust to those who mainly produce it and whose needs would easily absorb all of its products, could there be brought about some modification in our system of compensation providing a more equitable distribution and so increasing the consumption power of workers. This – distribution based on social justice – is the main problem of the world today.”

Sound familiar? 

Kagan is a poster boy for a GOPe that talks the limited-government-talk, but walks the bigger- government-walk.

Then there’s The Weekly Standard founder and editor, Bill Kristol.  Kristol, another neocon, came out early and loud against Trump.  In response to Will’s party abandonment, Kristol tweeted this:

Kristol tweet

Kristol declared he won’t vote for Trump.  He has encouraged Mitt Romney and Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse to step forward as alternative candidates.  And, he asked Sen. Lindsey Graham to “resurrect the campaign he suspended in December.”

How do you resurrect a campaign that was never alive?

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell display the anti-Trump style of politico-speak characterized by the English idiom, damn with faint praise.

Ryan called Trump “a very unique nominee.”  He might have added, “Bless his heart,” if he lived south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

McConnell’s comments about Trump, made to the Washington Post, went public on June 10, 2016, in an article with the blatantly editorialized title, “Mitch McConnell just made a devastating admission about Trump — and the GOP.”

“Mitch McConnell is getting a lot of attention this morning for his startlingly candid admission, in a new Bloomberg Politics podcast, that Donald Trump ‘doesn’t know a lot about the issues’ and has not displayed the requisite ‘seriousness of purpose’ for the presidency. And it certainly is clarifying to have the top Senate Republican admit this about the party’s standard bearer.”

The Washington Post always welcomes devastatingly clarifying negative comments from Republicans, about other Republicans.

The list of prominent GOPe anti-Trumpters is likely to grow as the Republican Convention approaches.  So why are some GOPe Illuminati so afraid of Trump?  Here’s why:

Trump threatens the complacent comfort they’ve long enjoyed as members of the junior political party – junior even though they now control both Houses of Congress.

Unlike the Democrats, who hunger for full power and control over the federal government, the GOPe aims to “go-along-to-get-along.”  They don’t want to lead. It’s too hard. They’d rather follow. It’s less risky.

Besides, the party is ill-equipped to lead.  It has no guiding, discernible political philosophy. It collectively swims in the neither hot, nor cold, waters of moderation.

When conservative GOP Senators are elected, the moderates ostracize them as extremists, a la Cruz.

When liberal GOP Senators are elected, the moderates see them as bridges across the proverbial aisle that allegedly separates the two parties.  In fact, no bridge is needed.  Just a stepping stone, or two, will suffice.

Because Trump threatens to destabilize the GOP’s status quo position as the junior political party, he presents an existential threat to the livelihoods of party apparatchiks. The GOPe is fully content to play the Washington Generals to the Democrat Globe Trotters.

Meanwhile, everybody gets paid. Not just the elected pols.

Faux dialectical partisanship in America is big business for a burgeoning host of enterprises.  In addition to the pols who benefit from this dualistic charade, there’s a long list of roadies who keep the show on the road, including, but not limited to: the professional fund-raisers; the career strategists and consultants; the crony-capitalism lobbyists; the political action groups’ administrators and accountants; the media pundits (including most of the FOX All Stars), who often play the roles of dueling talking-heads; the erudite fellows who swim in Think Tanks (like Kagan at the Brookings Institute); the multiple, redundant polling enterprises; the political-ad firms; big media that charges big fees to air political ads; the major-events planners and providers; caterers and sound technicians for those big events; the new myriad of social media hacks…the list goes on.

Let’s not forget the little people who make the bumper stickers, the hats, the signs, the flags, the banners, the campaign buttons, and the requisite convention balloons.

It’s like when the credits roll at the end of the latest blockbuster movies showing how many and varied are the workers who make a living in Hollywood – even when the film is a bust.

It’s no surprise that four of the ten richest neighborhoods in the U.S. surround Washington D.C.  The town is a bipartisan, bottomless sinkhole for taxpayer and donor greenbacks.

Then along comes a Donald Trump – an outsider, despite disingenuous efforts to stamp him as an “insider” – who threatens to lead the GOP from the here comfortable known, to the unknown somewhere else.

It’s no wonder that the Wills, Ryans, Kristols et al are threatened by Trump. He represents a clear and present danger to their comfortable lives.

And, since they know what’s best for the nation, much better than the rubes that determined the GOP primary results, the Illuminati despair at the thought that Trump will represent their beloved party in the General Election.

They don’t get it.  It’s not their party.  Maybe it was once.  But no longer.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Never Trumpers, Republicans
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Mark Christian Moment: Can Any LGBT Individual Survive a Day Under Sharia Law?

June 28, 2016

Mark Christian Moment: Can Any LGBT Individual Survive a Day Under Sharia Law? The Glazov Gang via YouTube, June 27, 2016

(The speaker, now a Christian, is a former Muslim imam. — DM)

Categories: Islam and homosexuals, Sharia law
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Abu Hafs Al-Mauritani: If Al-Qaeda’s Leadership Moves to the Arab World, This Would Be a New Stage

June 28, 2016

Abu Hafs Al-Mauritani: If Al-Qaeda’s Leadership Moves to the Arab World, This Would Be a New Stage, MEMRI via YouTube, June 27, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HuEwtiHQPE

The blurb beneath the video states,

In an interview with the UAE-based Alaan TV, the former mufti of Al-Qaeda, Abu Hafs Al-Mauritani, analyzed the decline in the popularity of Al-Qaeda, attributes it to the void left by Bin Laden, the rise of rival organizations, and infighting between the various Jihadi groups. Abu Hafs said that it was premature to talk about replacing Ayman Al-Zawahiri as the leader of Al-Qaeda, but added that if the leadership were to move from Pakistan and Afghanistan “to the center of action, to the heart of the Arab world,” this could spell a new stage in the history of Al-Qaeda. The interview aired on June 22.

Categories: Al Qaeda
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

Benghazi Committee Releases Final Report, Slams Clinton

June 28, 2016

Benghazi Committee Releases Final Report, Slams Clinton, Breitbart, Joel B. Pollak, June 28, 2016

The U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi released its final report on Tuesday morning, comprising some 800 pages of investigations and conclusions that suggest former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration were derelict in their duty to protect American diplomats from the most significant terror attack on the U.S. since Sep. 11, 2001.

The report also details how the Obama administration contrived to misinform the public about the cause of the attack.

The committee had already slammed a separate report Monday by its Democratic members, who had long maintained that the investigation was politically motivated. “Benghazi Committee Democrats’ obsession with the former Secretary of State is on full display. For over two years they refused to participate in the Majority’s serious, fact-centered investigation. The dishonest Democrats on this committee falsely claimed everything had been ‘asked and answered.’ They said the committee had found ‘absolutely nothing new.’ If that’s changed, they should come clean and admit it. If not, everyone can ignore their rehashed, partisan talking points defending their endorsed candidate for president,” an official statement by the committee declared.

For its own part, the committee published a list of facts that it said were new insights revealed by the investigation:

  • Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
  • With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
  • The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
  • None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
  • The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

Part II

  • Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
  • The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
  • Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]
  • According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
  • On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
  • After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
  • Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
  • The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
  • A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]

Part III

  • During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]
  • The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]
  • When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]
  • In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]
  • Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]
  • In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]
  • Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]

The report also slams the Obama administration for “intentional failure to cooperate with this and other congressional investigations.”

 

Categories: Benghazi, CIA, Department of State, Foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, Islamic jihad, Obama -Benghazi, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Nigel Farage 20years ago you laughed at me, you are not laughing now

June 28, 2016
Published on Jun 28, 2016

(28TH JUN 2016) Subscribe for more Nigel Farage content.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »