Thursday, June 16, 2016

CNN to Donald Trump: You Messed with Our Boy, Obama, so We Gonna Mess YOU Up!

[Previously, at WEJB/NSU:

“Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump’s Speech on the Orlando Moslem Mass Murder (Complete Video and Transcript)”; and

“One Day After Trump’s Powerful Orlando Speech Condemning ‘Obama’ and Hillary, an Angry ‘Obama’ Lashes Out at Trump: Telling the Truth is a ‘Political Distraction’; ‘Is There Anyone Who Thinks We’re Confused… About Who Our Enemies are?’; Tries to Paint Trump as Traitor (Video).”]

We won World War I and II by having an open door immigration policy for Germans and Austrians in both wars, Turks in WWI, and Italians and Japs in WWIII.

The words “Obama” used, and which CNN operatives Kevin Liptak and Stephen Collinson hopelessly sought to rationalize, depicted Trump as some sort of Joseph McCarthy figure.

Obama goes on tirade against Trump over “dangerous” Muslim ban, “radical Islam”
By Kevin Liptak and Stephen Collinson
Updated 7:35 P.M. ET, Tue June 14, 2016

Washington (CNN) President Barack Obama lit into Donald Trump Tuesday, turning the tables to make the impassioned case that Trump is the one who's un-American.

Obama's extraordinary denunciation of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was about far more than a personal intervention on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the ugly general election campaign.

The commander in chief's fury, which seethed out of him in a stunning soliloquy on live television, amounted to a moment of historic significance: a president castigating one of the two people who could succeed him as beyond the constitutional and political norms of the nation itself.

[There was nothing stunning about it, unless you mean that “Obama” acted in a manner so unpresidential as to be without precedent.]

Obama's remarks, motivated by his disgust over Trump's response to the worst terror attack since 9/11, were also deeply ironic, given that Trump has hounded him for years with insinuations that he's not a real American.

[There was nothing at all ironic about “Obama’s” rant. Kevin Liptak and Stephen Collinson clearly have no bloody idea what irony is.]

The real estate mogul had returned to that theme on Monday, hinting that in some way the President was complicit or approved of Islamic terror attacks, saying on Fox News, "There is something going on."

[“Obama” does approve of Islamic attacks! He approves of anything that will help destroy America. Conversely, Trump is trying to save America.]

Trump has based his attacks on conspiracy theories that Obama was born outside the country or a closeted Muslim. Obama's charge, in contrast, was based on his perception that the billionaire Republican's views are so extreme that he threatens the fabric of America itself.

[Of course, “Obama” is a Moslem, though not a believer. Liars. Obama's charge, was based on his realization that Trump is trying to save America.]

And Obama sought to shame Republican leaders, many of whom were left squirming by Trump's views. Though they differ with many of his views -- House Speaker Paul Ryan again on Tuesday rejected the GOP presumptive nominee's stance on Muslims -- they are trapped by his millions of primary voters, who made it clear to the party leadership that the billionaire businessman should be heeded.
"That's not the America we want," he said. "It doesn't reflect our democratic ideals. It will make us less safe."

[Obama, the dictator, who daily stomps on America’s Constitution and laws, charges Trump with violating America’s “democratic ideals”? America doesn’t have democratic ideals to begin with; it’s a republic.]

Obama also drew an implicit analogy between Trump's call for a ban on Muslim travel and the most "shameful" moments in American history when the government had mistreated its people, adding that then [sic] Constitution prohibited religious tests.

[The Constitution is completely irrelevant to the question of a president prohibiting certain classes of foreigners from coming here. A sitting president absolutely has that right and responsibility, and these two CNN operatives are lying, in implying that he doesn’t. But what do they or “Obama” care about the U.S. Constitution, to begin with?]

"If we ever abandon those values, we would not only make it a lot easier to radicalize people here and around the world, but we would have betrayed the very things we are trying to protect," Obama warned.

[How would protecting the American people “radicalize” Moslems here and abroad? More than they already are? And what are those things “Obama” says “we are trying to protect”?]

Trump responds

Trump responded to the President during his Thursday night rally in Greensboro, North Carolina, saying Obama "was more angry at me than he was at the shooter."
“The level of anger, that's the kind of anger that he should have for the shooter and these killers that shouldn't be here," Trump added, blasting Obama as a "lousy president" who had done a "terrible job."

Obama has pilloried Trump before. But Tuesday's remarks displayed a deeper intensity and anger, reflecting his apparent belief that America had reached a dangerous moment given Trump;s [sic] new status as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

[They aren’t reporting; they’re acting as “Obama’s” advocates, desperately rationalizing his acts and words. “Obama’s” rage at Trump is because Trump had challenged his American citizenship, and more importantly, that no white man had ever refused to defer to him.]

"I think the key for President Obama -- is he is talking to the world," presidential historian Douglas Brinkley told CNN's Anderson Cooper. "Donald Trump isn't just a candidate who a few months back was talking about banning Muslims from the United States. He has got a lot of momentum."

[Like over 90% of tenured history professors in this country, Doug Brinkley is a Democrat hack.]

He continued, "President Obama wanted to make clear that the United States government, the federal government says no to what Donald Trump is suggesting, that it is hateful bigotry."

More lies. Like everyone else, Obama can opine as he wish, but the federal government may not “say no” to what Trump is suggesting.]

He concluded, "There was ire [hate] in his eyes and sarcasm in the way he went after Trump."

[Trump has gotten under his skin!]

Obama told his aides on Monday that he wanted to deliver a speech rebutting the Republican nominee's comments after stewing over them, a senior administration official told CNN's Dana Bash.

The result was the kind of public venting that Obama, one of the world's most self-contained politicians, rarely indulges in publicly -- though this side of his character is familiar to those who have witnessed the much more impassioned rhetoric he adopts in private.

In some ways, it recalled the angry tirade against American politics that Obama delivered after the Newtown massacre of defenseless schoolchildren in 2012 and the subsequent rant he delivered about politicians that he implied were too cowardly to embrace his crusade for gun control.

[As in, “A nation of cowards”? He had proxies lie on his behalf, in asserting that Adam Lanza had committed the 25 murders at the school with a Bushmaster .223, when law enforcement had initially reported that he’d committed all of the murders at the school with a pistol.]

He hammered Trump over his "dangerous" mindset and "loose talk and sloppiness" about who exactly America was fighting, implying that Trump's remarks were actually driving Muslims who might be prone to radicalization into the arms of ISIS.

[This is a recycled version of Hillary Clinton’s Big Lie, asserting that ISIS was using Trump in its recruiting videos.]

And he doubled down to repudiate Republican campaigns that he was abetting terrorism by refusing to use the words "radical Islamic terrorism."

Sebastien Borka

What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?" Obama asked during remarks at the Treasury Department. "Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans?" he continued, using a different acronym for ISIS.

"Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above," he said. "Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away."

[As terrorism author Sebastien Gorka argued, you cannot solve a problem that you do not name correctly. If a patient has tuberculosis, and you tell him he has a cold or the flu, and treat him according to the misidentification, he will die. What is “Obama’s” problem with the truth?]

Speaking after Obama's remarks, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the President had grown frustrated at hearing "political talking points" being wielded in place of a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy.

[Trump has much more of a strategy than “Obama” does.]

But while the President's remarks likely cheered many of his supporters, the tone of his comments -- which included a call for gun control -- contained little reassurance for Americans scared about a new wave of homegrown terror on U.S. soil.

And while Obama mounted a stern defense of his administration's battle to eradicate ISIS in its self-declared caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq, his remarks will not assuage critics who argue he was late to the fight and is still not doing enough.

Mike Rogers, former head of the House Intelligence Committee, faulted Obama for treading the same kind of political terrain as Trump with his angry remarks.

"This was the chance for the President to try to bring us together. I think he is so focused on this presidential campaign he let himself go," Rogers, now a CNN commentator, said on "The Lead" with Jake Tapper. "I just don't think it looked presidential.

"Obama's intervention also seemed motivated by a desire to help Clinton.

The former secretary of state lit into Trump herself on Tuesday, warning that Trump was temperamentally unfit to serve in the Oval Office.

She also made the case that his obsession with the words "radical Islam" was a smokescreen for his own lack of knowledge.

"Is Donald Trump suggesting that there are magic words that once uttered will stop terrorists from coming after us?" Clinton said in Pittsburgh. "What I will not do is demonize and declare war on an entire religion."

[But she, like “Obama,” had no problem demising all white Southerners, after the Dylann Roof shooting in Charleston, S.C.]

The Republican Party did lash out at Obama, however, with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus hitting out at the administration's record on fighting terrorism and faulting Clinton and Obama for pushing for gun control in the wake of the tragedy in Florida.

"Let's not forget: President Obama's hasty and politically driven withdrawal from Iraq, which Hillary Clinton supported, created the vacuum that enabled the rise of this terrorist group," Priebus said in a statement."

Their failure to secure Libya after their military intervention gave ISIS a beachhead on another continent. Democrats want to talk about anything else because they have lost the national security debate."

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Add the NY Times today to the piling on anti-Trump rhetoric.Not just Trump,but Republicans in general "are to blame for terrorist attacks here in this country",according to the Times.
There genuinely IS a war occurring right now in the United States.I continue to believe the conventions this summer will be battlegrounds not seen since Chicago,1968.These conventions,this year,will make that one look like a love-in.
Watching the Negro Nightly News is like watching a black preacher and his associates,telling me what I'm supposed to think and do.Last night,Reverend Holt tossed it to one of the ministry for a report about how the talk shows were uniformly "against bigotry".Clips of Colbert,Fallon,Comedy Central,imploring us to not give in to racist thoughts...that there should be gun control,not immigration control.Without a nutjob Muslim on the end of that assault rifle,it is just an inanimate object.I agree people with criminal histories or terrorist connections should be forbidden from buying a gun--just as a policy.
But the truth is.,the black criminal,the Muslim terrorist will find a way to get the weapon of their choice to commit the crime they have in mind.
It wasn't legal in 2001 to steal 2 airplanes and fly them into New Yorks tallest buildings was it.If they could do that...they are capable of stealing and using ANYTHING to accomplish the mass murder of Americans .
The New York Times has officially lost credibility and relevance (joining NBC) because of ITS outright prejudices.Not worthy of a mention anymore.
--GR Anonymous