The U.K.’s Thursday referendum on European Union membership means that the United Nation’s global warming plans need to be rewritten, according to the executive secretary of the Paris global warming deal.
The referendum, often called Brexit, significantly changes the agreement, which assumed Britain would remain part of the EU.
“From the point of view of the Paris Agreement, the UK 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,” Christiana Figueres, one of the architects of the Paris global warming deal, said the day before the Brexit vote. “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.”
Progressive outlets like The Guardian are already claiming that Brexit will reduce environmental protections and create more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
The U.N.’s Paris global warming agreement will cost a minimum $12.1 trillion over the next 25 years, according to calculations performed by environmental activists. However, these estimates are likely low, as they exclude energy efficiency measures which will bring the total to $16.5 trillion, according to projections from the International Energy Agency.
That’s almost as much money as the U.S. federal government spent on defense in 2015, according to 2015 spending numbers from the bipartisan Committee For Responsible Federal Budget. The required annual spending is almost 3.7 times more than the $131.57 billion China spent on its military in 2014.
The deal, which was heavily encouraged by the Obama administration, encourages nearly 200 countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, slowing global warming. Secretary of State John Kerry however admitted that reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. and the developed world will not help the environment or even slow down global warming. (For more from the author of “UN: Brexit Means We Have to ‘Recalibrate’ Our Global Warming Plans” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/24863504319_0778d238f4_b.jpg7681024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-25 01:54:422016-06-25 01:54:42UN: Brexit Means We Have to ‘Recalibrate’ Our Global Warming Plans
Janet Yellen should send a note of congratulations to Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, the British politicians most responsible for pushing the Brexit campaign to a successful conclusion. While she’s at it she should also send them some fruit baskets, flowers, Christmas cards, and a heartfelt “thank you.“ That’s because the successful Brexit vote, and the uncertainty and volatility it has introduced into the global markets, will provide the Federal Reserve with all the cover it could possibly want to hold off on rate increases in the United States without having to make the painful admission that domestic economic weakness remains the primary reason that it will continue to leave rates near zero.
For months the corner that the Fed has painted itself into has gotten smaller and smaller. It continues to say that rate hikes will be appropriate if the data suggests the economy is strong. Then its representatives continually cite (arguably bogus) statistics that suggest a strengthening economy, which cause many to speculate that rate hikes are indeed on the horizon. But then at the last minute the Fed conjures a temporary reason why it can’t raise rates “right now,” but stresses that they remain committed to doing so in the near future. But each time they conduct this pantomime, they lose credibility. Sadly, Fed officials are discovering that their supply of credibility is not infinite, even among those who would like to cut them a great deal of slack.
But the Brexit vote saves them from all this unpleasantness. Now when critics question the Fed’s unwillingness to deliver on the suggested rate hikes, given what they believe to be a strong economy, all the Fed needs to do is point to the “uncertainty” that will be in play now that the world’s fifth largest economy is disengaging from the European Union. And since this process is bound to be long, messy, and fraught with uncertainties (as there is no precedent for a country leaving the EU), this will be a handy excuse that the Fed will be able to rely on for years.
Brexit could also place severe strains and uncertainties on the global currency markets. The fear of financial losses could encourage investors to seek safe haven assets like gold and, at least for now, the U.S. dollar. Given that there is already much concern that the dollar is valued too highly against most currencies, and that this has created imbalances in the global economy, any surge in the dollar that results from Brexit may have to be fought by the Federal Reserve through lower interest rates and quantitative easing. This would rule out the potentially dollar-strengthening interest rate hikes that they supposedly planned on delivering. So as far as Janet Yellen is concerned, the British have given her the gift that keeps on giving.
On another level, the vote in the UK illustrates the fundamental inefficacy of the monetary and financial policies that have been implemented by the world’s dominant central banks and central bureaucracies. For years, global elites have been telling us that deficit spending, government regulation, and central bank stimulus is the best way to cure the global economy in the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis. To prove these points, elite economists associated with the government, academia, and the financial sector have pointed to all kinds of metrics to show how their policies have been successful. But the man on the street perceives a very different reality. They know that their living standards have fallen, their cost of living has risen, and that their job prospects have deteriorated. They see a loss in confidence and economic stagnation when they are being assured the opposite.
This disconnect has fueled anti-establishment sentiment on both sides of the Atlantic. In the United States, it has given rise to the insurgent candidacies of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The unexpected successes of both reflect a deep distrust of the establishment. Such discontent would not be in play if the positive stories being told by the elites had made any resonance with rank and file voters.
The same holds true with the unexpected strength of the anti-EU voters in Britain. The “Remain” camp had the support of virtually all the elite members of the major UK political parties, the media, and the cultural world. In addition, foreign leaders, including President Obama in a state trip to England, harangued British voters with warnings of economic catastrophe if the British were to make the grave error of defying the advice of their “best” economists.
Given all this, poll numbers that suggested the vote could be close had been dismissed. The elites, as evidenced by recent drifts in currency and financial markets, had all but assumed that British voters would fall into line and vote to remain. Instead, the people revolted. After having been misled for so many years by the very elites who urged them to remain, the rank and file finally asserted themselves and voted with their feet.
British voters may not know what they will get with an independent Britain, but they knew that something was rotten, not just in Denmark, but all over the European Union. The same holds true in the United States. Until our leaders can paint more realistic pictures of where we are and where we are going, we should expect more “surprises” like the one we got [last week]. (For more from the author of “BREXIT: Just What the Doctor Ordered” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/brexit-1462470592ZSA.jpg9531920Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-25 01:19:352016-06-26 17:04:56BREXIT: Just What the Doctor Ordered
With the blessing of the Obama administration, Boeing Co. has negotiated the sale of a fleet of new jets to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.
The $17.6 billion deal between the aviation giant and the Islamic Republic of Iran was made possible by the lifting of economic sanctions against Tehran in January. It is a reckless piece of business that Congress must address.
Under terms of the memorandum of agreement, Boeing reportedly will supply 80 planes—including intercontinental jumbo jets—to state-owned Iran Air.
The carrier, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury, has been routinely commandeered by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics to transport rockets, missiles, and other military equipment, including materials and technologies with ballistic missile applications.
Iran Air flights have also transported military components to Syria (another state sponsor of terrorism).
None of which concerns President Barack Obama, evidently. His nuclear deal with the ayatollahs, including $150 billion in sequestered funds, specifically lifted restrictions on the sale of commercial aircraft. Indeed, enabling Iran to modernize its timeworn fleet was “essential” to striking agreement with Tehran to (supposedly) restrict its nuclear operations in return for easing economic sanctions, according to Boeing executives.
To complete the sale, Boeing still must obtain an export license from the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control. Should a U.S. bank or investment firm wish to finance the purchase, it, too, would have to obtain a license from the Office of Foreign Asset Control. (Officials of the U.S. Export-Import Bank have said the bank charter prohibits financing for Iran, but they aren’t the most credible bunch.)
This “licensing” procedure seems downright silly considering that Iran has been designated for years by the U.S. Department of State as “the leading state sponsor of terrorism globally.” As noted in the 2015 edition of the Country Reports on Terrorism, “Iran continues to provide support to Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.”
There is little reason to think that U.S. engagement with Iran is now moderating the regime, according to James Phillips, The Heritage Foundation’s senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs. Despite the agreement, he reports, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has repeatedly challenged U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf.
For example, the Guard Corps vessels launched rockets within 1,500 yards of the carrier Harry S. Truman near the Strait of Hormuz in late December, and in January flew drones over U.S. warships and detained and humiliated 10 American sailors. In March, the Guard Corps launched a series of missiles, including two that were emblazoned with the message “Israel must be wiped out” in Hebrew.
To their credit, Reps. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, and Peter Roskam, R-Ill., aren’t quite as trusting of Iran as the Obama administration. In a June 16 letter to Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg, the lawmakers said they “strongly oppose the potential sale of militarily-fungible products to terrorism’s central supplier,” and sought assurances that the company would repossess or remotely disable aircraft if Iran violated the nuclear deal.
Meanwhile, Roskam has introduced the No Dollars for Ayatollahs Act, which would impose an excise tax of 100 percent on any transaction that involves Iran conducting a financial transaction in U.S. currency.
According to Roskam, “It’s tragic to watch such an iconic American company make such a terribly short-sighted decision. If Boeing goes through with this deal, the company will forever be associated with Iran’s chief export: radical Islamic terrorism.”
In addition, Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., has introduced the Preventing Investment in Terrorist Regimes Act, which would deny U.S. tax credit to Boeing for the foreign taxes it would pay on the income derived from the Iranian deal.
Both measures are co-sponsored by all six subcommittee chairs of the House Ways and Means Committee. But whether either measure would prove effective in halting the sale, using the tax code to steer the actions of a multinational corporation is a lousy way to set policy.
Besides, Boeing generated more than $96 billion in revenue last year, and its market cap exceeds $86 billion. It also paid a lot of money to lobby in favor of the nuclear deal, including hiring Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador to Israel and the United Nations, to testify before Congress, write letters to high-level officials, and submit op-eds in support of lifting the sanctions. All of which is perfectly acceptable—except that he systematically failed to disclose his relationship with Boeing.
Boeing executives say the proposed sale is necessary to remain competitive against Airbus, the European aviation manufacturer that has struck a $27 billion deal with Iran for 118 planes. But that’s the same lame argument Boeing made in lobbying for reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank—from which Boeing was the top beneficiary of export subsidies.
The fact is, projected demand for commercial planes is forecast to rise for years to come, and both manufacturers are carrying huge backlogs that will take years to fulfill.
Rather than tweak the tax code, Congress should, at the very least, explicitly prohibit financing from the Export-Import Bank for the sale of Boeing planes (or any other product) to Iran.
Additional actions are needed as well. The administration has already increased the risk of yet more death and destruction by the terrorist state. Lawmakers should ensure that Boeing and other U.S. companies don’t become tools of Tehran. (For more from the author of “Iran’s Unfriendly Skies” please click HERE)
By BBC. Prime Minister David Cameron is to step down by October after the UK voted to leave the European Union.
Speaking outside 10 Downing Street, he said he would attempt to “steady the ship” over the coming weeks and months but that “fresh leadership” was needed.
The PM had urged the country to vote Remain but was defeated by 52% to 48% despite London, Scotland and Northern Ireland backing staying in.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage hailed it as the UK’s “independence day”.
The pound fell to its lowest level against the dollar since 1985 as the markets reacted to the results. (Read more from “Let (British) Freedom Ring: UK Gives Middle Finger to the Elites, Exits European Union” HERE)
___________________________________
Brexit Upends Global Markets as Stocks, Pound Plunge; Yen Soars
By James Regan and Stephen Kirkland. Global markets buckled as Britain’s vote to leave the European Union drove the pound to the lowest in more than 30 years and European banks to their steepest losses on record.
“It’s scary, and I’ve never seen anything like it,” said James Butterfill, 41, head of research and investments at ETF Securities in London. “A lot of people were caught out, and many investors will lose a lot of money.”
Sterling slid by the most on record and European stocks headed for the biggest drop since 2008 as trading soared. The yen strengthened past 100 per dollar for the first time since 2013, gold rose the most in more than seven years and benchmark Treasury yields had their biggest drop since 2009.
The victory for the “Leave” campaign prompted Prime Minister David Cameron to resign. The outcome stunned many investors who’d put wagers on riskier assets over the past week as bookmakers’ odds suggested the chance of a so-called Brexit was less than one in four. (Read more from “Brexit Upends Global Markets as Stocks, Pound Plunge; Yen Soars” HERE)
___________________________________
Britain Has Voted to Leave the EU – What Happens Next?
By Patrick Wintour. The UK’s historic decision to end its 43-year love-hate relationship with the European Union represents a turning point in British history to rank alongside the two world wars of the 20th century.
On the assumption there is no turning back, or collective buyer’s remorse, Britain will live with the political, constitutional, diplomatic and economic consequences for a decade or more . . .
So what happens next? . . .
The scale of the destruction wrought by independence day is such that one of the last redoubts of the establishment left standing – the civil service led by the cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood – will now take centre stage.
It will be his task, in conjunction with the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, and David Cameron acting as a caretaker prime minister to bring a semblance of shape to the chaos that is likely to ensue. (Read more from “Britain Has Voted to Leave the EU – What Happens Next?” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/David_Cameron_cropped.jpg8991217Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-24 02:27:382016-06-26 03:03:35LET (BRITISH) FREEDOM RING: UK Gives Middle Finger to the Elites, Exits European Union
Sweden had been one of the top refugee intake countries in the world, accepting 160,000 asylum-seekers last year despite only having a population of 9.5 million.
But on Tuesday the country overwhelmingly passed a series of tough new restrictions that will limit the number of people granted permanent residency and make it harder for migrants to bring family members over.
A New York Times report says Sweden viewed the restrictions as “necessary to prevent the country from becoming overstretched”:
The government said that under the new rules, individuals who want to bring over family members but do not apply to do so within three months of arriving in Sweden, would have to prove they can financially support them; current regulations require sponsors to demonstrate only that they can support themselves. Permanent residency for asylum-seekers under the age of 25 would be restricted to those who have completed high school and can support themselves. (emphasis mine)
People who are formally granted refugee status would be able to bring over family members from abroad, but the legislation would circumscribe the family members who are eligible.
The new rules clearly have an emphasis on migrants being financially independent enough that they can support themselves and contribute to society.
Of course, human rights groups have already jumped on Sweden, denouncing the move as harmful to children, according to the New York Time. Protesters have gathered outside of Parliament declaring it “inhumane,” says the Associated Press.
Is a sovereign nation not permitted to decide who does and does not enter their borders?
Kudos to the Swedish lawmakers for finally paying attention to their citizens who have been negatively affected by Sweden’s past extremely liberal refugee policies. Better late than never. (For more from the author of “Burned by Liberal Refugee Policies, Sweden Now Wises Up” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/5918017660_f164f3becf_o.jpg10671600Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-22 01:16:302016-06-22 01:16:30Burned by Liberal Refugee Policies, Sweden Now Wises Up
Thousands of American troops have been taking part in a large-scale military exercise on NATO’s front-line state of Poland, which borders Vladimir Putin’s Russia, its close ally Belarus, and war-torn Ukraine. The message is unmistakable—letting Moscow know that the U.S. and its allies take its treaty obligation to defend Eastern Europe seriously.
The 10-day Polish led exercise, called Anakonda, ended June 16. It consisted of over 31,000 troops from 24 countries, including 14,000 American troops.
This drill began in 2006 as a lone Polish effort, and has grown to be one of the largest military exercises to occur in Poland in 25 years.
According to the U.S. Army, “This exercise further supports assurance and deterrence measures by demonstrating allied defense capabilities to deploy, mass and sustain combat power.”
That is code for assuring America’s allies that the U.S. will defend them should the Russians decide to invade.
The Russian annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine has left many of the eastern NATO countries nervous and anxious for guarantees of NATO protection. History buttresses their anxiety.
Russia still views Eastern Europe as its backyard—as it did during Imperial times. It is estimated that, at its height, it was expanding at the rate of almost 90 square miles a day. By 1896 Tsar Nicholas the 2nd was crowned as “[Emperor] of All the Russians, Czar of Moscow”, as well as ruler of Poland, Kiev, Lithuania, Finland, Estonia, Bulgaria, and many more.
To this day Russia does not view these as sovereign countries, but as former vestiges of Russian Imperialism that belong under the influence of Moscow.
Many of these nations are members of NATO, now firmly part of the West. That is why these nations, now our treaty allies, fear the threat of invasion. Much of their history is blemished by Russian subjugation.
The Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) are small, geographically isolated from the rest of NATO, and have a significant ethnic Russian minority population. They are also facing a non-traditional threat to their security—active measures, or what is now commonly called “hybrid warfare.”
Active measures are a type of information warfare. It combines disinformation, propaganda, and manipulation of public opinion in order to influence the actions of a foreign country or people. These were used extensively by the Soviets in an effort to create instability in areas of interest.
The Baltic countries find themselves fighting Russian active measures on multiple fronts: their language and politics are being subverted. Russian media outlets are buying more space in order to push out native speaking media with a pro-Russian message. In the Baltics there is no need to translate or tailor their propaganda, because of the Russian speaking population. Because of this ethnic Russians and other Russian speakers are motivated to force their countries closer to Moscow.
There is also corruption problem. According to the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, Latvia scores a 55 in the category freedom from corruption. The world average is 42.6, and Latvia has shown increases in this measure since 2013. However, there is still an element of the Russian elite and professional criminals bringing money into Latvia. This brings in both unwanted attention and influence pulling Latvia ever closer to Moscow. Lastly, there is the tangible threat of Russian hard power. The Russian military has been moving to assert power over the Baltic Sea and airspace over Estonia increasingly in the past few years.
Understanding this threat, is NATO prepared to defend its front-line Eastern Allies?
Putin revived a Soviet era strategy called active measures, or “hybrid warfare”, and has successfully integrated this strategy to fit his imperialist agenda. His implementation is leading to a slow, steady corrupting influence into the Baltics. With Ukraine and Crimea, it has gone further and outright violence ensued. An expansionist policy may be the norm for Vladimir Putin, but NATO has an obligation to curb such appetites against its members.
That is why Anakonda 2016 matters. This exercise has already drawn criticism from the Russian government about escalating tensions between Moscow and NATO. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has called this exercise unjustified, as well as commenting that there is no Russian threat to any NATO member. But he did make sure to add that, “Russia’s sovereign right to ensure its security will come into force, [making use] of methods adequate to [respond to] today’s challenges.”
In light of this, it is important for our allies to feel that they are not being forgotten. The most important facet of NATO deterrence is the credible threat that aggression will be met with a resounding military response. Without showing our allies that they can believe in the U.S. commitment to their security, we might as well be paving the way for a Russian invasion. (For more from the author of “NATO Sends Clear Message to Putin” please click HERE)
The foreign policy for dealing with radical Islam pursued by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can best be described as the intersection of ideology and incompetence.
Obama’s “amore” for radical Islam began in 2009, soon after his inauguration, when he ordered his administration not to support the Iranian Green Revolution after thousands of brave Iranian democracy protesters rose up against the brutal Khamenei regime.
According to the Wall Street Journal: “Obama administration officials at the time were working behind the scenes with the Sultan of Oman to open a channel to Tehran. The potential for talks with Iran-and with Mr. Khamenei as the ultimate arbiter of any nuclear agreement,” one that would prove to be a national security disaster for the US. As it turned out, Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement only strengthen the hard-liners; since completion of the agreement, Tehran has stepped up arrests of political opponents.
In 2010, Obama ordered his advisors to produce a secret report, later known as Presidential Study Directive-11 (PSD-11), which concluded that the United States should shift from its longstanding policy of supporting stable but authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and North Africa to one backing, what Obama Administration officials considered groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Turkish AK Party, now led by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as a so-called “moderate” alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 as a Sunni Islamist religious, political and social movement, whose fundamental goal remains Islam’s global domination and the implementation of Sharia. Although the Muslim Brotherhood uses political instruments more than violence, its radical goals are no different from al-Qaeda and ISIS.
It has long been suspected that Obama, not only supports the Muslim Brotherhood, but that his administration is infiltrated by the Brotherhood, including Hillary Clinton’s long-serving assistant, Huma Abedin, who has enjoyed an intensely close relationship with the Islamist organization for decades.
Therein rests the motivation for the policies formulated and actions taken by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Egypt, Libya and Syria, all of which led to the growth of radical Islam in North Africa and the Middle East.
The Tunisian revolution in December 2010 and the rise of the Islamist Ennahda Movement in that country was quickly followed by the Cairo protests that began on January 25, 2011 under the direction of Egypt’s largest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood. The protests and associated violence led to the resignation on February 11, 2011 of long-time US ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. There are now a number of reports indicating the US cooperated with and attempted to sustain the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, including an alleged Brotherhood agent inside the US Embassy in Cairo.
Violent regime change in support of radical Islam began in earnest on February 15, 2011, when a rebellion broke out in Benghazi, Libya against the authoritarian regime of Muammar Qaddafi. Toppling Qaddafi had long been a goal of Islamic militant groups, including al-Qaeda and the local Libyan al-Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a key player in the anti-Qaddafi rebellion.
Within a few weeks of the outbreak of fighting in eastern Libya, Obama has signed a secret order authorizing a covert CIA operation to support Islamist rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. Both inside and outside the Obama administration, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among the most vocal early proponents of using U.S. military force to unseat Qaddafi. Seven months and thousands of more unnecessary deaths later, in October 2011, after an extended military campaign with sustained Western support, Islamist rebel forces conquered the country and shot Qaddafi dead. Many will recall Hillary Clinton, on October 20, 2011, cackling to a TV news reporter over the death of Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died.”
Since then, Libya has been in a constant state of chaos, with factional infighting, no uniting leader and has provided a haven for ISIS and other Islamic terrorists; culminating in the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi and the death of four Americans.
In released, but redacted emails, Hillary Clinton expressed interest in arming Libyan opposition groups using private security contractors. In an April 8, 2011 email to her then-deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, Clinton wrote: “FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.” It now appears probable that, in 2011, at Clinton’s urging, Obama secretly approved the arming of rebels in Libya and, later Syria by the same method, via a third party, likely Qatar, who had brokered the sale of more than $100 million in crude oil from rebel-held areas.
The rise of ISIS can be directly linked to the power vacuum left after the premature withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in December 2011 and fueled by American abdication of a foreign policy in Syria, where we sub-contracted our interests to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. Not surprisingly, those countries pursued their own interests; the Saudis supporting radical Islamic Salafists, while the Turks and Qataris backed the Muslim Brotherhood.
By the summer of 2012, Turkey, together with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, had constructed a fully operational secret command and control center to facilitate communications and the movement of weapons to the Syrian rebel groups. The center in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 100 km (60 miles) from the Syrian border, was set up after Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Saud visited Turkey and requested it. Adana is home to Incirlik, a large Turkish/U.S. air force base which Washington has used in the past for reconnaissance and military logistics operations. Adana is in close proximity to the Turkish port of Iskenderun, a major transit point for arms destined for the Syrian rebels.
It is important to note that Obama’s friend, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a Sunni Islamist, a vehement opponent of Syrian President Bashar al Assad and a fervent supporter of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood.
Assad has placed emphasis on controlling northwest Syria, which safeguards his Shia-Alawite home region and his base of support, as well as securing the strategically critical coastal area containing the Latakia airbase used by Russian forces and the important port of Tartus – a situation that has largely left eastern Syria along the Iraq border open for Islamist exploitation.
A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report sent to Hillary Clinton and other administration officials in August 2012 and declassified in May 2015, stated that “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI (Al- Qaeda in Iraq, which became ISIS) are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” and being supported by “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey.”
The report goes into detail about how the West was actively helping those opposition groups control the eastern border of Syria near the Iraqi province of Anbar and the strategic city of Mosul, both of which eventually came under control of ISIS.
The stupidity of Obama’s ideological and Muslim Brotherhood-centric policy in dealing with radical Islam is only exceeded by the galactic incompetence in which it was carried out, and has left us living in a more dangerous world. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Support of Radical Islam and the Rise of ISIS” please click HERE)
Listen to a recent interview with the author below:
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/15715981259_ea169dcafe_b-2.jpg546974Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-21 00:16:022016-06-21 00:16:02Obama’s Support of Radical Islam and the Rise of ISIS
Islamic State unleashed two waves of suicide bombers on pro-government Libyan forces in a last ditch defense of the group’s stronghold in the country.
More than 16 pro-government Libyan militia fighters were killed in the assault while continuing to rid ISIS from its coastal stronghold in the city of Sirte. ISIS has killed around 180 Libyan militia fighters since the siege began in May, though the terrorist group has lost significant ground in the last few weeks.
Libyan forces have retaken the city’s air base, port and several barracks. They also secured a symbolic victory by knocking down a stage in the middle of the city that was once used by ISIS to conduct executions and beheadings.
SIS forces remaining in Sirte have more or less been cornered, but that does not mean they are not dangerous. As has been the case in Iraq, when ISIS loses territory, it can still strike with deadly force through suicide bombings behind enemy lines.
Despite recent losses, ISIS has shown it has the capability to strike anywhere in Libya. Abdel-Aziz Essa, a spokesman for the Misrata hospital located 170 miles from Sirte, told The Associated Press Thursday 10 militia fighters were killed and seven injured in a suicide bombing on the Abu Grain village police station 80 miles west of Sirte.
The militia fighters who died in the attack were allied to the Western-backed Government of National Accord, which has been steadily trying to assert its authority over war-torn Libya.
Ahmed Hadia, the man in charge of the media for the operation against ISIS in Sirte, told the AP ISIS terrorists outside of Sirte “could be a more serious threat than the fighters we are currently surrounding.”
Exact figures as to how many fighters ISIS has in Libya are spotty, but U.S. intelligence estimated in that the group had anywhere between 4,000 to 6,000 men operating in the country. That figure has likely lowered since operations against Sirte began. (For more from the author of “THANKS, HILLARY: ISIS Deploys Waves of Suicide Bombers as Libya Enters Its Apocalypse Phase” please click HERE)
Islamic State will intensify its global terrorism campaign by directing as well as inspiring attacks in the U.S. and elsewhere, despite its mounting territorial and financial losses in Syria and Iraq, CIA Director John Brennan said.
The organization “will probably rely more on guerrilla tactics,” such as the attacks in Paris and Brussels in the past year that were directed by its leadership, Brennan told the Senate Intelligence Committee at a hearing on Thursday. It will also seek to inspire more attacks similar to those in San Bernardino, California, in December and in Orlando, Florida, this week, he said.
So far, there’s is no indication that Omar Mateen, who carried out the Orlando shooting, the worst massacre in modern U.S. history, had a direct link to Islamic State or any other foreign terrorist organization, Brennan said.
The Central Intelligence Agency chief’s stark assessment of the group’s intentions and capabilities contrasts with the Obama administration’s portrait of the group as being in decline because of increasing success in the the U.S.-led military campaign to retake territory that the group has claimed, and to cut off its oil income and other revenue . . .
“Despite our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach,” Brennan said, using an acronym for the group. “As the pressure mounts on ISIL, we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign to maintain its dominance of the global terrorism agenda.” (Read more from “CIA Chief Says Islamic State Plans to Intensify Attacks” HERE)
Egypt said that it spotted and obtained images from the wreckage of the EgyptAir plane that crashed into the Mediterranean last month, killing all 66 people on board, according to a statement by the country’s investigation committee.
The committee said that the vessel John Lethbridge, which was contracted by the Egyptian government to join the search for the plane debris and flight data recorders, “had identified several main locations of the wreckage.” It added that it obtained images of the wreckage located between the Greek island of Crete and the Egyptian coast . . .
The EgyptAir Airbus A320 en route to Cairo from Paris had been cruising normally in clear skies on an overnight flight on May 19. The radar showed that the doomed aircraft turned 90 degrees left, then a full 360 degrees to the right, plummeting from 38,000 feet (11,582 meters) to 15,000 feet (4,572 meters) before disappearing at about 10,000 feet (3,048 meters). (Read more from “Egypt Says It Has Found Plane Wreckage” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/hh.png7991199Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-15 22:44:262016-06-15 22:44:26Egypt Says It Has Found Plane Wreckage
