Archive for the ‘U.S. politics’ category

Hillary — Lies, Benghazi, Murders and Consequences

July 7, 2016

Hillary — Lies, Benghazi, Murders and Consequences, Dan Miller’s Blog, July 7, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and are not necessarily those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Hillary Clinton, who if elected would be President Obama Part Two, is a world-class liar. Whenever She considers truth damaging to Herself — as it usually is — She lies. Normally, She gets away with it. She lied about her State Department e-mails: guilty as hell and free as a bird. She lied about the terrorist attack in Benghazi and, thus far, has got away with it. This year, it is up to the American people to do the only thing we can to prevent Her from becoming President Obama Part Two. Our only way to do that will be to deny Her what She considers “Her turn” to continue Obama’s quest to destroy America.

Guilty as Hell and free as a bird

Guilty as Hell and free as a bird

First, a flash-back

She lied misspoke, as She often does.

On July 5th, during FBI Director Comey’s address on his recommendation that She not be indicted, She was revealed as a consummate liar. She then got adverse press, even from the lamebrain media. For her lies evidenced there alone, She should not become “our” president. She will not if we stand firm. Please see The FBI Recommendation Not to Indict Hillary Will Help Trump.

This brings us to The Benghazi Clusterdunk

The following video shows that the Obama-Clinton administration should, and could, have sent American military resources to prevent American deaths in Benghazi. For political reasons, resources were not sent: elections were comings soon, so Islamic terror needed to have been defeated and nation-building had to have been successful in Lybia. Both were lies.

The next video provides what we know about the Clinton-Obama administration refusals to send American military help. There is much that we don’t know, because of the Obama administration chose to provide lies instead of truthful answers.

Hillary lied, Obama lied. Americans died and Obama got a second term in office. Now Hillary wants Her “turn.”

Knowing full well that the attack had nothing to do with a poorly made video — for which the maker was gratuitously jailed — Hillary and Obama lied. Ambassador Rice may also have lied intentionally. Either that or she was given a political spin instead of accurate information and had no reason to believe that she had been lied to.

September 25, 2011

According to the Majority Report on the Benghazi clusterdunk, as summarized by Robert Spencer,

  • 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] [to avoid offending the locals by wearing military attire — DM]
  • 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]

And now, two wrap-ups:

Conclusions

Hillary lied, Obama lied and Islamist al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists murdered Americans because no American military resources were sent, even though available. Their deaths were not only unnecessary, they were and remain a disgrace.

There is now only one action that we can take, and that will be on November 8th. Then, we will vote either for Obama Part Two becoming Obama Part One, thereby affirming their disgraceful actions and inactions or disown them. It’s up to us to disown them both.

CAIR-Fuqra Official Announces Intention to Run for Governor

June 29, 2016

CAIR-Fuqra Official Announces Intention to Run for Governor, Clarion ProjectRyan Mauro, June 29, 2016

Tahirah-Amatul-Wadud-HPTahirah Amatul-Wadud (Photo: Facebook)

Tahirah Amatul-Wadud, an official with both the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Massachusetts chapter and the Muslims of the Americas (a rebranding of the Jamaat ul-Fuqra terrorist group), has announced her intention to run for governor.

She currently lives in Massachusetts, where Republican Governor Charlie Baker will be running for re-election in 2018. It is unclear if Wadud meant that that she’d run in the next cycle.

Amatul-Wadud is currently the general counsel for the Muslims of the Americas, whose spiritual leader is a radical cleric named SheikhMubarak Ali Gillani in Pakistan. The organization was previously known as Jamaat ul-Fuqra, when it carried out terrorist attacks in the 1980s and early 1990s.

The group is best known for its “Islamberg” headquarters in New York where guerilla training of women has occurred, as seen in this undated footage obtained by the Clarion Project from a law enforcement source. It claims to have 22 “Islamic villages” in 12 states. The Clarion Project identified one such “village” in Texas in 2014. We recently published the heartbreaking testimony of a woman who grew up in these villages in the 1980s.

A 2007 FBI report  obtained by the Clarion Project states “the documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the U.S. Government.”

It says “members of the MOA are encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training from Gillani.” It warns that MOA “possess an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.” MOA has a history of terrorist and criminal activity.

Amatul-Wadud previously posted an article on her Facebook page by Gillani that touts 9/11 conspiracy theories and claims that ISIS is a front for British intelligence. It also claims that the U.S. was brought into World War Two by a Jewish conspiracy.

“There was no need for America to go to war against Hitler. Hitler was not the enemy of America or the American people. There was a mutual animosity between Hitler and the Jews. So, the American people paid a very heavy price for fighting someone else’s war,” Gillani wrote.

When Amatul-Wadud made her announcement, she immediately tweeted to Syeda Zainab Gillani, who praised her for the decision. Gillani’s twitter displays a photo of Sheikh Gillani and Hussain Adams, chief executive officer of MOA and son of convicted Fuqra terrorist, Barry Adams.

Amatul-Wadud is also a board member for the Massachusetts branch of CAIR, which the Justice Department has labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism-financing trial. CAIR is also identified by the Justice Department as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. The United Arab Emirates designated CAIR as a terrorist organization when it cracked down on Islamist extremism and banned the Muslim Brotherhood.

A 2007 court filing by federal prosecutors in another terrorism case reads:

“From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists … the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.”

Amatul-Wadud’s status as a joint CAIR/Fuqra official reflects growing ties between the two organizations.

Shockingly, Amatul-Wadud was invited to a White House event celebrating activists for religious pluralism in December. She is also on the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Women, which interestingly doesn’t mention her connection to MOA/Fuqra (but does mention her status as a CAIR official).

The CAIR-MA website also doesn’t mention the connection, only saying that she is “general counsel for a New York Muslim congregation.” When I confronted a CAIR official on Newsmax TV about this link and Fuqra’s history (which includes showing pictures of the weapons found during a raid on a Fuqra camp in Colorado in 1992), his rebuttal was that terrorist networks haven’t existed in America since the 9/11 attacks.

Whenever Amatul-Wadud does run for governor, MOA/Fuqra, CAIR and their allies will try to drown out voices mentioning this information with shouts of “Islamophobia,” as those with Islamist extremist backgrounds always do. But, with this volume of incriminating information, no megaphone will be loud enough to stop the facts from being heard.

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?

 

How Brexit will Change America and the World

June 24, 2016

How Brexit will Change America and the World, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 24, 2016

750x-1

During Obama’s first year in office, Count Von Rompuy grandly declared that “2009 is also the first year of global governance.” Like many such predictions, it proved to be dangerously wrong. And now it may just well be that 2016 will be the first year of the decline and fall of global governance.

The power of the establishment is illusory. Like the naked emperor, it depends on no one challenging it. The harder it is challenged, the harder it will fall. Brexit was an impossible dream. Then it was reality.

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

Yesterday the British people stood up for their freedom. Today the world is a different place.

Celebrities and politicians swarmed television studios to plead with voters to stay in the EU. Anyone who wanted to leave was a fascist. Economists warned of total collapse if Britain left the European Union. Alarmist broadcasts threatened that every family would lose thousands of pounds a year if Brexit won.

Even Obama came out to warn Brits of the economic consequences of leaving behind the EU.

Every propaganda gimmick was rolled out. Brexit was dismissed, mocked and ridiculed. It was for lunatics and madmen. Anyone who voted to leave the benevolent bosom of the European Union was an ignorant xenophobe who had no place in the modern world. And that turned out to be most of Britain.

While Londonistan, that post-British city of high financial stakes and low Muslim mobs, voted by a landslide to remain, a decisive majority of the English voted to wave goodbye to the EU. 67% of Tower Hamlets, the Islamic stronghold, voted to stay in the EU. But to no avail. The will of the people prevailed.

And the people did not want migrant rape mobs in their streets and Muslim massacres in their pubs. They were tired of Afghani migrants living in posh homes with their four wives while they worked hard and sick of seeing their daughters passed around by “Asian” cabbies from Pakistan in ways utterly indistinguishable from the ISIS slave trade while the police looked the other way so as not to appear racist. And, most of all, they were sick of the entire Eurocratic establishment that let it all happen.

British voters chose freedom. They decided to reclaim their destiny and their nation from the likes of Count Herman Von Rompuy, the former President of the European Council, selected at an “informal” meeting who has opposed direct elections for his job and insisted that, “the word of the future is union.”

When Nigel Farage of UKIP told Count Von Rompuy that “I can speak on behalf of the majority of British people in saying that we don’t know you, we don’t want you and the sooner you are put out to grass, the better,” he was fined for it by the Bureau of the European Parliament after refusing to apologize. But now it’s Farage and the Independence Party who have had the last laugh.

The majority of British people didn’t want Count Von Rompuy and his million-dollar pension, or Donald Tusk, Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and the rest of the monkeys squatting on Britain’s back.

Count Von Rompuy has lost his British provinces. And the British people have their nation back.

The word of the future isn’t “union.” It’s “freedom.” A process has begun that will not end in Britain. It will spread around the world liberating nations from multinational institutions.

During Obama’s first year in office, Count Von Rompuy grandly declared that “2009 is also the first year of global governance.” Like many such predictions, it proved to be dangerously wrong. And now it may just well be that 2016 will be the first year of the decline and fall of global governance.

An anti-establishment wind is blowing through the creaky house of global government. The peoples of the free world have seen how the choking mass of multilateral institutions failed them economically and politically. Global government is an expensive and totalitarian proposition that silences free speech and funnels rapists from Syria, Sudan and Afghanistan to the streets of European cities and American towns. It’s a boon for professional consultants, certain financial insiders and politicians who can hop around unelected offices and retire with vast unearned pensions while their constituents are told to work another decade. But global government is misery and malaise for everyone else.

The campaign to stay in the EU relied on fear and alarmism, on claims of bigotry and disdain for the working class voters who fought and won the right to decide their own destiny. But the campaign for independence asked Britons to believe in their own potential when unchained from the Eurocratic bureaucracy. And now Brexit will become a model for liberation campaigns across Europe.

And it will not end there.

Brexit showed that it is possible for a great nation to defy its leaders and its establishment thinkers to throw off its multinational chains. And while the European Union is one of the biggest prisons forged by global government, it is far from the only one. America and Britain are sleeping giants covered in the cold iron links of multinational organizations that limit their strength and their potential.

It is time to break those chains.

Americans who want to cut their ties with the United Nations have found Brexit inspiring. Leaving the UK was once also seen as a ridiculous idea at the margins that could never be taken seriously. Serious politicians refused to listen to it. Serious thinkers refused to discuss it. And then it gathered speed.

There is growing opposition even among Democrats to treaties like the TPP. Trump has challenged NAFTA. Americans across the political spectrum are suspicious of economic treaties and organizations. Support for Brexit came from Labour areas in the UK. Support for Trump’s challenge to multinational treaties and alliances could very well come from unexpected places, like Bernie Sanders backers.

Brexit has shown us the weakness of the multinational establishment. Its vast bureaucratic power rests on using the media to suppress political dissent. When the media’s special pleading fails to stop the democratic process, it is more helpless than any dictator when the outraged mob pours into his palace.

What was true of Britain, is also true of America. Our elites are just as impotent. The power they have illegally seized is defended zealously by a media palace guard that spends every minute of every day lecturing, hectoring and messaging Americans. But when no one listens to the media, then the men and women who run our lives, who feed off us like a colony of parasitic insects, are helpless.

Their power is purely persuasive. When we stop listening, then we are free.

That is the lesson of Brexit. It is the future.

The future is not a vast behemoth of global government that swallows up nations and individuals, that reduces democratic elections to a joke and eliminates freedom of speech, but the individual. The elites have gambled everything on big government, big media and big data. But all of those lost to Brexit.

They lost to Brexit in the UK. They can lose in the US too. And they will lose.

The power of the establishment is illusory. Like the naked emperor, it depends on no one challenging it. The harder it is challenged, the harder it will fall. Brexit was an impossible dream. Then it was reality.

Our impossible dreams, the policies that conservatives are told by the establishment are not even worth talking about, can be just as real as Brexit.

If we are willing to fight for them.

Populist Anger Upends Politics on Both Sides of the Atlantic

June 24, 2016

Populist Anger Upends Politics on Both Sides of the Atlantic, New York TimesJune 24, 2016

25europe-web2-master768Outside the Houses of Parliament in London on Friday. Credit Andrew Testa for The New York Times

Time and again, the European Union has navigated political crises during the past decade with a Whac-a-Mole response that has maintained the status quo and the bloc’s lumbering forward momentum toward greater integration — without directly confronting the roiling public discontent beneath the surface.

“There is a very widespread rejection of politics everywhere. There is a similar mood in the United States, an antipolitical sentiment.”

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

LONDON — From Brussels to Berlin to Washington, leaders of the Western democratic world awoke Friday morning to a blunt, once-unthinkable rebuke delivered by the flinty citizens of a small island nation in the North Atlantic. Populist anger against the established political order had finally boiled over.

The British had rebelled.

Their stunning vote to leave the European Union presents a political, economic and existential crisis for a bloc already reeling from entrenched problems. But the thumb-in-your-eye message is hardly limited to Britain. The same yawning gap between the elite and mass opinion is fueling a populist backlash in Austria, France, Germany and elsewhere on the Continent — as well as in the United States.

The symbolism of trans-Atlantic insurrection was rich on Friday: Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and embodiment of American fury, happened to be visiting Britain.

“Basically, they took back their country,” Mr. Trump said Friday morning from Scotland, where he was promoting his golf courses. “That’s a good thing.”

25europe-web4-master675Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for president, arriving at his Trump Turnberry resort in Scotland on Friday. Credit Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Asked where public anger was greatest, Mr. Trump said: “U.K. U.S. There’s plenty of other places. This will not be the last.”

Even as the European Union began to grapple with a new and potentially destabilizing period of political uncertainty, the British vote also will inevitably be seized upon as further evidence of deepening public unease with the global economic order. Globalization and economic liberalization have produced winners and losers — and the big “Leave” vote in economically stagnant regions of Britain suggests that many of those who have lost out are fed up.

Humor |Phrases about Islamist Terrorism that won’t Offend Anyone Important

June 15, 2016

Phrases about Islamist Terrorism that won’t Offend Anyone Important, Dan Miller’s Blog, June 15, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Obama, His Department of Homeland Security, CAIR and His many other collaborators colleagues have tried really hard not to offend Islamists when talking about Islamist terror. Ditto the lamebrain mainstream media. They need more variety, so here are just a few politically correct suggestions for appropriate phrases guaranteed not to offend anyone important.

Church violence — for use when Islamists burn or otherwise attack a church.

Synagogue violence — as above, but when they burn or otherwise attack a synagogue.

Christian violence – broader than church violence, but otherwise about the same.

Jewish violence — Broader than synagogue violence, but otherwise about the same.

Homosexual violence — for use when Islamists kill homosexuals.

Gun violence — for use when Muslims use guns to attack homosexuals, Christians, Jews or other non-Muslims.

Knife violence — same as for gun violence, except it applies only when knives are used.

Violent rhetoric — applies only to whatever Donald Trump says.

Hate speech — applies to anything linking the Quran, the Hadith, Sharia Law, other Islamic texts, CAIR or other Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups to violence.

Great speech! –applies to anything about Islamism said by Obama,  Hillary or a CAIR spokesperson.

Peaceful Muslims — applies to all Muslims who haven’t yet behaved violently toward non-Muslims personally.

Racist incitement — Any derogatory remarks about Islamists, even though Islam is not a race.

Racism — see Racist incitement.

Men of God — Imams.

Not Islamic — applies to any violent, criminal or otherwise antisocial act committed by a Muslim.

That’s just a sample. Any sane person could suggest more.

Now, for your further entertainment, here’s a beautiful vocal rendition by the Muslim Brotherhood Trio:

Pentagon Denies Troop Presence on Syria Front Lines Despite Photographs

May 28, 2016

Pentagon Denies Troop Presence on Syria Front Lines Despite Photographs, Washington Free Beacon, May 27, 2016

Kurdish Peshmerga soldiers guard against Islamic State militants at a frontline base near Mosul, northern Iraq, on June 6, 2015, four days before the first anniversary of the second-largest Iraqi city's fall to the extremists. (Kyodo) ==Kyodo

Kurdish Peshmerga soldiers guard against Islamic State militants at a frontline base near Mosul, northern Iraq, on June 6, 2015, four days before the first anniversary of the second-largest Iraqi city’s fall to the extremists. (Kyodo)

The Pentagon Thursday denied the presence of U.S. troops on the front lines in Syria despite photographic evidence showing special operations troops fighting alongside Kurdish forces in an offensive to retake Raqqa from the Islamic State.

Peter Cook, the Pentagon press secretary, maintained the Obama’s administration’s claim that ground troops in Syria are solely serving in advisory and assistance roles in the war-torn region.

“They are not on the forward line. They are providing advice and assistance,” Cook said during a testy exchange with reporters. “That mission has not changed, their role has not changed. They are not leading this fight. They are supporting those forces that are at the leading edge of this fight, and they are doing it in a very effective fashion.”

Near frontline north of the Islamic State bastion of Raqa city, in Syria an AFP photographer saw armed US soldiers http://u.afp.com/ZEZo 

proxy (1)
Fatisah (Syria) (AFP) – US forces on the ground in northern Syria are helping a major offensive against the Islamic State group in its stronghold of Raqa 

Cook refused to comment specifically on the photos.

“What I will say is that special operations forces when they operate in certain areas do what they can to, if you will, blend in with the community to enhance their own protection, their own security… And they might be, again, for visual purposes, might be blending in with the local community,” he said.

The AFP reported that U.S. commandos were seen climbing onto a rooftop “carrying U.S.-made anti-tank missiles.” A fighter with the Syrian Democratic forces told the outlet that U.S. troops are taking part in the group’s operation against ISIS.

The revelations contradict the Obama administration’s insistence that ground troops are in Syria solely to advise and assist local forces.

Ahead of the president’s announcement last month that he would deploy an additional 250 special operations forces to Syria, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes reiterated that U.S. troops would not be acting in a combat role

“Obviously, any special forces troops that we deploy into Iraq or Syria are going to be combat-equipped troops,” Rhodes said. “They’re not being sent there on a combat mission. They’re being sent there on a mission to be advising and assisting and supporting the forces that are fighting against ISIL on the ground.”

One reporter pressed Cook to clarify the difference between a “forward line” and a “front line.” He replied vaguely that he didn’t “have a yardstick measurement” and that the front lines of war are always “fluid.”