I disagree with this writer’s sympathy for the good intentions of globalist elites, but he’s right about the overblown hysteria over the economic repercussions of the Brexit vote (the UK somehow managed to muddle along just fine for quite a few centuries before the EU was invented).  Where he absolutely pounds the nail on the head and smashes the thumbs of the dictatorial pro-globalization elite is in listing the reasons why the peasants finally got fed up and revolted.  Read his summation of all the ways in which high-handed leftist elites bullied, lectured, ignored and looked down on the working people of Europe and bulldozed over their concerns, beliefs and traditions, and tell me if it doesn’t sound like a capsule history of the past eight years in America under Obama.

As I have been saying for much of that time, you can govern against the will of the people for only so long before they make you pay for it big time.  Voters repeatedly sent Obama warnings by giving the House, then the Senate, to Republicans, but he refused to heed their messages and instead defied the people’s representatives by ruling through executive orders.  Do you really think the people are going to reward his obstinate arrogance with a third Obama term for Hillary?   

It’s ironic that the left accuses Donald Trump of wanting to be a dictator when he’s talking about returning power to the people and the states.  Truth is, the left loves dictators, as long as they agree with their dictation.

 

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/06/25/the-problem-with-brexit-is-the-leaders-not-the-voters/

 

 

The left raised a huge stink when Donald Trump suggested changing libel laws to stop the media from spreading false and defamatory political stories. This was called a scary, egocentric, fascistic attempt to undermine the First Amendment.  Yet they hardly even notice that liberals in positions of power are already threatening Americans with prosecution for exercising free speech, from hate speech laws to criminalizing climate change skepticism to the story at this link.  Maybe the real reason leftists want to repeal the Second Amendment is because it protects the First Amendment. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/26/chief-idaho-federal-prosecutor-warns-the-spread-of-false-information-or-inflammatory-or-threatening-statements-may-violate-federal-law/

 

 

Thanks to Instapundit for this link.  An article about young Britons whining that older people voted to pry them out of the warm, cozy clutches of the EU and force unwanted independence on them prompted this must-read Facebook response from blogger Richard Fernandez.  This should be hung on posters in every classroom in America and printed on every useless college diploma handed to a whining SJW. 

 

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/237221/

The recent mass shooting in Orlando will go down in history as the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001.

Wait, I need to tell you that in the previous sentence, emphasis should be placed on the word “history.” That’s a very important word. We all need to keep in mind that history is being written with every new example of terrorist carnage that comes our way.

So why does the Obama Administration insist on re-writing it?

Like Winston Smith in George Orwell’s novel 1984, scribes and spinners at the Justice Department are busy turning it into our very own Ministry Of Truth, dropping inconvenient references to Islam down the memory hole to create their own version of what is happening. The rationale they offer for their novelization of the facts is so ridiculous that they may as well admit it: they’re telling lies about why they’re telling lies.

On Sunday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch went on the Sunday shows (our collective antennae should go up any time someone from this administration does that) to tell us that “partial transcripts” of Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen’s 911 calls would be made public. Wait a minute --- partial? On CNN, she said the redaction was done “to avoid re-victimizing those that went through this horror. But it will contain the substance of his conversations.”

Reality check: the omissions from this record include references to Islam and ISIS, and it makes no sense to say they were made for the reason she states. The opposite could, in fact, be argued: that in creating a fiction about the motive for the killings, they further victimize the people who suffered. Those people are owed the truth.

And the edited versions absolutely do not contain the substance of the killer’s conversations. In his actual calls to 911, he repeatedly pledges allegiance to ISIS. Commentator Pamela Geller has pointed out that his very first words are the Islamic prayer. The terrorist speaks of Allah, but the word “Allah” never appears in the government-approved version. “Allah” is changed to “God [in Arabic].”

Reading through the reworked transcript, one might think some enraged Presbyterian had taken up arms for no particular reason and slaughtered 49 people. This is the version of history our government wants us to see. But in this context, the words “God” and “Allah” are hardly interchangeable. When mouthed by a terrorist, the word “Allah” means something very specific. It means hatred fueled by twisted religious fervor.

Ironically, by trying so hard to purge history of the terrorists’ real motives, President Obama gives us good reason to question his own.