Obama: I Am The Populist, Not Donald Trump

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Reuters

by CHARLIE SPIERING29 Jun 20163,755

President Barack Obama defied the notion that Donald Trump was leading a populist revolution, quibbling with the media’s branding of the historic rise of the billionaire’s run for president.

“Maybe somebody can pull up in the dictionary quickly the phrase ‘populism’ but I’m not prepared to concede the notion that some of the rhetoric that’s been popping up is populist,” Obama said.

The president made his remarks at the end of a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Pena Neito after the North America Leaders’ Summit.

Obama argued that his 2008 campaign and his entire presidency was more about populism, arguing he cared more about poor people and working people.

“I suppose that makes me a populist,” he said confidently.

He alluded to people like Trump who worked against some of the policies pushed by liberal Democrats.

“They don’t suddenly become a populist because they say something controversial in order to win votes,” Obama said. “That’s not the measure of populism. That’s nativism or xenaphobia. Or worse. Or it’s just cynicism.”

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Obama told reporters to “be careful” about referring to the rising anti-elitist sentiment fueled by dissidents to his liberal agenda as “populist.”

“Where have they been? Have they been on the front lines working on behalf of working people?” he asked.

He admitted however that Sen. Bernie Sanders was a populist, because he had “worked in the vineyard” of making life better for poor people.

Obama warned voters to avoid political figures offering simple solutions to fixing the economy.

“Sometimes there’s simple solutions out there, but I’ve been president for seven and a half years, and it turns out that’s pretty rare,” he said.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Big Government,Obama, barack obama, Donald Trump,populist

Brexit: Britain Votes with Trump, against Hillary, Obama

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

AP

by JOEL B. POLLAK23 Jun 20162,779

British voters chose to “leave” the European Union on Thursday, defying the polls — and President Barack Obama, who had urged Britain to “remain” in the EU. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had also urged Britain to stay in the EU. Only Donald Trump had backed the campaign to leave.

Republican strategists had panned Trump’s decision to travel to the UK in the midst of campaign turmoil, and in the wake of his blistering attack on Hillary Clinton earlier this week.

Now, however, it looks like a risk that paid off handsomely, in the currency of foreign policy credibility.

Obama’s advice may have pushed some voters to “leave.” In April, he warned British voters they would be at the “back of the queue” in trade with the U.S. if they left the EU. Some, like Andrew Roberts, took offense, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

Surely—surely—this is an issue on which the British people, and they alone, have the right to decide, without the intervention of President Obama, who adopted his haughtiest professorial manner when lecturing us to stay in the EU, before making the naked threat that we would be sent “to the back of the queue” (i.e., the back of the line) in any future trade deals if we had the temerity to vote to leave.

Was my country at the back of the line when Winston Churchill promised in 1941 that in the event of a Japanese attack on the U.S., a British declaration of war on Japan would be made within the hour?

…

Were we at the back of the line on 9/11, or did we step forward immediately and instinctively as the very first of your allies to contribute troops to join you in the expulsion of the Taliban, al Qaeda’s hosts, from power in Afghanistan?

Or in Iraq two years later, was it the French or the Germans or the Belgians who stood and fought and bled beside you? Whatever views you might have over the rights or wrongs of that war, no one can deny that Britain was in its accustomed place: at the front of the line, in the firing line. So it is not right for President Obama now to threaten to send us to the back of the line.

Hillary Clinton also backed a “remain” vote in April, with a senior policy adviser issuing a statement on her behalf:

Hillary Clinton believes that transatlantic cooperation is essential, and that cooperation is strongest when Europe is united. She has always valued a strong United Kingdom in a strong EU. And she values a strong British voice in the EU.

Trump, who happens to be in Scotland toopen a golf resort, promised in May that leaving the EU would not put Britain at the “back of the queue,” and said: “I think if I were from Britain I would probably want to go back to a different system.” He reiterated that support last week, telling the Sunday Times: “I would personally be more inclined to leave, for a lot of reasons like having a lot less bureaucracy. … But I am not a British citizen. This is just my opinion.”

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, will be published by Regnery on July 25 and is available for pre-order through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Big Government,National Security, barack obama, Brexit,Donald Trump, European Union, Hillary Clinton, Leave, Remain

Exclusive — Donald J. Trump: Jobs Data ‘Shocking,’ ‘Only Going to Get Worse’ if Clinton

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

David J. Phillip/AP

by MATTHEW BOYLE8 Jun 2016Washington, DC3,096

Billionaire developer Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States, told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview on Wednesday that the anemic economic growth —  just 38,000 new jobs in the month of May is a “shocking development.” 

Trump says that under the economic policies of President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, things are “only going to get worse” because the “incentive” to do well in America has been destroyed by the institutional left.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Trump said of the jobs numbers:

It’s a shocking development. It’s a shocking development, and it’s only going to get worse because so many companies are leaving our country because of taxes, because of regulations, because of so many other reasons and restrictions. There’s so many companies leaving the country and it’s literally a shocking number when you see that. If that were in China, if that were in some of these countries where they’d get down to 7 percent GDP, they’d raise the alarm systems. When I heard 38,000—it’s the lowest in seven years—when I heard that number I was absolutely shocked. Shocked in one sense, but not that surprised in another sense—because there’s no reason for us to be doing well. There’s so little incentive in the country—the incentives have been taken away. There’s so little incentive in the country. Obama has done a terrible job with the economy. The number of course—to show you how phony the number is, of course we have the lowest job number in 7 years with the 38,000, and the unemployment rate went down from 5 to 4.7 percent or whatever number it was.

Trump added that the unemployment rate’s fall from five percent down to 4.7 percent is a “phony” tumble, because people are not working anymore—and have given up trying to work in the Obama-Clinton economy.

“They’re phony numbers,” Trump said. “People have given up looking for work, and they’re taken off the unemployment rolls.”

He added that record high levels of Americans outside the workforce—now nearly 100 million who could be working—means the signs for the future are grim.

“Almost 100 million people are out of the workforce,” Trump said. “And those people are considered ‘employed.’”

advertisement

Trump said that under his administration, things will be different because he will create an environment conducive to economic growth and job creation. Trump said:

Number one, we’re lowering taxes. Very important, for the middle income, for everybody. We’re lowering taxes for everybody but big league for business so that business can thrive. That’s going to have a tremendous effect. But we’re lowering taxes. Number two, and very importantly, we’re going to make it very difficult for companies to leave our country—where they fire people and leave our country—and number three we’re not going to allow countries to devalue their currencies like they do without a penalty. So if China or other countries, like they do, devalue their currencies, they’re going to have to pay a very big penalty. In a way it’s a form of cheating.

More from Trump’s latest exclusive interview with Breitbart News after he and Clinton became the official presumptive nominees of their parties is forthcoming.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Big Government,Economics, barack obama, Donald Trump,economy, Hillary Clinton

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

www.washingtontimes.com

Syrian refugees arrive aboard a dinghy after crossing from Turkey to the island of Lesbos, Greece, on Sept. 10, 2015. (Associated Press) more >

The State Department admitted 80 Syrian refugees on Tuesday and 225 on Monday, setting a new single-day record, as President Obama surges to try to meet his target of 10,000 approvals this year — sparking renewed fears among security experts who say corners are being cut to meet a political goal.

Officials insisted they’re moving faster because they’re getting better at screening, and say they’re still running all the traps on applicants.

But the new spike in numbers is stunning, with more people accepted on Monday alone than were approved in the entire months of January or February.

“The Obama administration is on full throttle to admit as many people as possible before the time clock runs out on them,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies. “This is the classic scenario when political expediency trumps prudence, and someone slips through who shouldn’t have, and tragedy ensues.”

Powerless to stop the civil war in Syria, Mr. Obama has instead offered the U.S. as a safe haven for those fleeing the conflict, promising to accept 10,000 refugees between Oct. 1 and Sept. 30. As of Tuesday evening, he’d approved 2,540 — an average of about 10 applications a day.

To meet the 10,000 goal, that pace will have to spike to nearly 60 approvals a day.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency charged with vetting the applications, declined to comment on the surge, referring all questions to the State Department, which gives final approval. Officials there insisted they can meet Mr. Obama’s goal without sacrificing security.

From February to April, the department deployed extra staff to Jordan, where some 12,000 applicants referred by the U.N. were interviewed. The department is also conducting interviews of Syrians in Lebanon and Iraq, and said everything is going according to plan.

“Increases in processing capacity have improved our capacity to meet the 10,000 target for Syrian refugee admissions for this fiscal year. As such, we expect Syrian refugee arrivals to the U.S. to increase steadily throughout the fiscal year,” an agency official said.

The department says refugees undergo the most checks of anyone applying to enter the U.S., and Syrians are getting as much scrutiny as possible.

But pressure to speed up the process is growing. Last week Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, fired off a letter saying other countries are approving refugees at a quicker pace, and demanding the administration catch up.

“Refugees are victims, not perpetrators, of terrorism,” the Democrats wrote in their letter.

That’s not always the case, however, as two men who arrived as part of the refugee program were charged with terrorism-related offenses in January.

One of those, Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, an Iraqi-born man, was living in Syria when he was admitted as a refugee in 2012. The State Department counts him against its Iraqi refugee program, not against the Syrian refugee program.

The Obama administration has repeatedly cited the Iraqi program as evidence that it can safely admit refugees from Syria. But security experts say the U.S., by dint of the long war in Iraq, has access to government databases, and a presence on the ground, to assist in checking out would-be refugees’ stories.

No such access exists in Syria, where the U.S. considers the current regime an enemy and much of the country is occupied by the very terrorist forces from Islamic State that the U.S. is fighting.

Critics say the Obama administration has been too heavily focused on Muslim refugees, while hundreds of thousands of Christians are left behind. The latest statistics show only a dozen Christian refugees from Syria have been accepted so far — a rate of less than half of one percent.

The overwhelming majority — more than 97 percent — are Suni Muslims.

Congressional Republicans have called for a slower approach to admitting refugees, but have been powerless to stop Mr. Obama. Democrats filibustered a proposal to require the chiefs of Homeland Security, intelligence and the FBI to sign off on every refugee’s application.

The House will take another step Wednesday, as the Judiciary Committee votes on legislation requiring USCIS to check the social media profiles of all applicants seeking visas from suspect countries.

States have also tried to block Mr. Obama, renouncing agreements to work with the administration to resettle refugees within their borders. Texas even sued to try to bar resettlement, but a federal court rejected the lawsuit, saying the state didn’t have standing.

COMMENTS

Obama: Britain Should Stay in the EU Because Of Iran, Climate Change, TTIP, And Because Sovereignty Is Outdated

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Getty

by RAHEEM KASSAM21 Apr 20161,468

U.S. President Barack Obama has penned an opinion columnin Britain’s Daily Telegraphnewspaper outlining why he believes Britain should remain in the European Union (EU). The core of his arguments are: that Britain’s voice would be lost without Brussels bureaucrats; his failing deal with the largest state sponsor of terrorism; the pro-mass-privatisation TTIP deal; and the fact that dead American servicemen are buried in Europe.

One might argue that he has failed to read the room.

Just as President Obama parodied himself in his multitude of snubs to Britain during his tenure, he has, probably unknowingly, lampooned himself again – which hasn’t gone unnoticed by staff at the Telegraphthemselves, when tweeting out his column tonight.

President Obama begins by talking up the United Nations and NATO: institutions that are increasingly being called into question not just in Britain, but across Europe and further afield. And he acknowledges the timing of his visit is poor to say the least, jesting:

“I realise that there’s been considerable speculation – and some controversy – about the timing of my visit. And I confess: I do want to wish Her Majesty a happy birthday in person.”

But his op-ed column takes a turn for the bizarre when he mentions the U.S. servicemen who died defending sovereignty and freedom in Europe. This is perhaps especially concerning when he is effectively backing a new German takeover of the continent. He writes:

“The tens of thousands of Americans who rest in Europe’s cemeteries are a silent testament to just how intertwined our prosperity and security truly are. And the path you choose now will echo in the prospects of today’s generation of Americans as well.”

And then comes the attack on the idea of sovereign nations themselves. President Obama insists that “collective action” is more pressing than the idea of independent countries: a notion that those same American servicemen died fighting against:

“And in today’s world, even as we all cherish our sovereignty, the nations who wield their influence most effectively are the nations that do it through the collective action that today’s challenges demand.”

President Obama then goes on to cite the nuclear deal with Iran that has emboldened the country – the globe’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, and enemy of the Western world and its allies:

“When we negotiated the historic deal to verifiably prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, it was collective action, working together with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, that got the job done. And the EU’s seat at the table magnified the United Kingdom’s voice.

“When the climate agreement in Paris needed a push, it was the European Union, fortified by the United Kingdom, that ultimately helped make that agreement possible.”

Finally, President Obama discusses theTrans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal – now widely knownto be a corporate lobbyist effort to privatise Britain’s National Health Service en masse and give corporations the right to sue governments. It is massively unpopular with the socialist left and the nationalist right, yet he says:

“When it comes to creating jobs, trade, and economic growth in line with our values, the UK has benefited from its membership in the EU – inside a single market that provides enormous opportunities for the British people. And the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the EU will advance our values and our interests, and establish the high-standard, pro-worker rules for trade and commerce in the 21st century economy.”

Just this week France threatened to derail the entire deal.

Conclusively, one might argue that President Obama’s op-ed is a litany of unpopular, establishment narratives. The most worrying thing about it? Most people aren’t likely to have a clue what he’s talking about.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Breitbart London, Iran,Germany, Obama, barack obama, Climate Change, EU referendum, United Nations,Nato, TTIP, Telegraph

Donald Trump: Killary Clinton ‘Should Be Indicted’

AP Photo/Mic Smith

by CHARLIE SPIERING20 Jan 2016249

Billionaire candidate Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton should be indicted for her mishandling of classified documents – after a Fox News report showed that she was sharing documents on her insecure server that was classified higher than top secret.

“What she did is so ridiculous, it’s so, frankly stupid … she was conniving, you know it’s just the way she is,” he said during an interview with radio host Howie Carr.

Trump suggested that Clinton was being protected by the Obama administration, as she was running to succeed him in 2016. “Right now President Obama and the whole group, they’re probably protecting her, and we’re going to find out how our law works,” he said, calling it a “criminal act.”

He said that he spoke to several lawyers and experts who agreed that Clinton absolutely should be indicted.

He also mocked Hillary Clinton for failing to share secrets without people finding out about it.

“With that kind of ineptitude you can’t be President of the United States,” he said.

Earlier today, Trump suggested that Vice President Joe Biden might enter the race – if Clinton was indicted.

“If she – for instance, gets indicted – if she has to go on trial, they’re going to have Biden or somebody else come in,” he said in an interview with radio host Simon Conwaythis morning. “We’ll see what happens. I wouldn’t mind that either.”

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, barack obama, Indicted

Markets suffer their worst start to the year since Great Depression | The Times

Obama resides over the worse economy in 80 years. 

EXCELLENT REVIEW ON LAST NIGHTS SHOW LISTEN 24/7 ON Military Veteran Talk Radio

 iHeart.SmythRadio.comwww.thetimes.co.uk

The start of this year has been the worst for financial markets since the onset of the Great Depression, with stock prices slumping around the world amid mounting concern over the situation in China.

A wave of selling has swept the world’s leading financial centres over the past two weeks, with the value of Britain’s leading companies falling by more than £110 billion since the start of the year.he year.

The FTSE 100 index of Britain’s biggest quoted companies fell 114 points, or 2 per cent, to 5,804 yesterday — the lowest close since November 2012. Indices in Europe and America have fared even worse: the Shanghai market was the worst performer, closing down 3.6 per cent, taking its total losses to 18 per cent for 2016. This was prompted by the price of a barrel of Brent crude dipping below the $30 mark, for the third time this week. In America the Dow Jones industrial average closed down 391 points, or 2.4 per cent, at 15,988.

The FTSE 100 index of Britain’s biggest quoted companies fell 114 points, or 2 per cent, to 5,804 yesterday — the lowest close since November 2012. In America the Dow Jones industrial average closed down 391 points, or 2.4 per cent, at 15,988.

The Shanghai market was the worst performer, closing down 3.6 per cent, taking its losses for the year so far to 18 per cent. This was prompted by the price of a barrel of Brent crude dipping below $30 for the third time this week.

David Buik, of Panmure Gordon, the investment bank, suggested that the “financial carnage” in stock markets in the first two weeks of the year was the worst since 1928.

Investors seeking safe havens have turned to gold, sparking a 2 per cent recovery in its price to $1,094 an ounce.

George Osborne underlined the pessimistic mood by warning last week of grave threats to the British economy, the chancellor saying that it could be “the year we look back at the beginning of the decline” if the country abandoned his agenda. Fears of another crash were heightened by a research note by an economist at RBS advising clients to “sell everything except high-quality bonds”.

Some economists have said, however, that the risk of contagion from China has been exaggerated. It is only Britain’s sixth-largest export market, representing no more than 3.6 per cent of overseas sales, behind the Republic of Ireland.

In China, interventions by the Communist party to prop up markets have done little to reassure investors, and the plight of the world’s second-largest economy is gripping markets. There is strong evidence of a slowdown, after an unprecedented boom between 2000 and 2014, when the size of the Chinese economy ballooned by a factor of eight. The Beijing authorities have set a growth target of 6.5 per cent for this year, but scepticism over the accuracy of its economic data is growing.

Fathom Consulting, an economic forecaster, thinks that growth in China could be as low as 2.4 per cent, rather than the official 6.8 per cent. The difference between those figures, in dollar terms, equated to more than the entire economy of the United Arab Emirates, suggesting that a severe jolt is in store for the rest of the world.

The Chinese government’s botched interventions in local stock exchanges have heightened the nervousness, and added to the steep fall in the price of oil. It tumbled to below $29 a barrel yesterday, its lowest since 2004.

COMMENTS

Watch: Trump Fires Back at Obama, Haley for SOTU, GOP Response Criticisms

by JEFF POOR13 Jan 2016

In an appearance on Wednesday’s “Fox & Friends,” Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump reacted to rhetoric that appeared to be aimed at him during last night’s State of the Union address from President Barack Obama and during the Republican response from Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC).

On Obama, Trump said he was living in a “fantasy land” when it comes to the seriousness of the threats facing the country.

However, as for Haley, he took her to task for weak on immigration and for having sought campaign contributions from him in the past.

“She’s weak on illegal immigration, and she certainly has no trouble asking me for campaign contributions, ‘cause over the years she’s asked me for a hell of a lot of money in campaign contributions. So, you know, it’s sort of interesting to hear,” he continued. “Perhaps, if I weren’t running she’d be in my office asking for money. But now that I’m running, she wants to take a weak side on immigration. I feel very strongly about illegal immigration. She doesn’t, and I think the people in her great state, I love her state, I’m there a lot, and by the way I have a massive lead in South Carolina. We have a massive lead. They’re incredible people, and they feel like I do. Believe me. Because they don’t like what’s happening in our country.”

Trump was also asked about the potential of a Trump-Haley GOP presidential ticket, to which Trump seemingly dismissed.

“We’ll pick somebody, but we’ll pick somebody who’s very good,” he replied. “But whoever I pick is going to be very strong on illegal immigration. We’ve had it. We’ve had it with illegal immigration.”

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

Read More Stories About:

About:

Breitbart TV, 2016 Presidential Race, Donald Trump, Obama, barack obama, Nikki Haley,Fox Friends,

Obama’s Chief of Staff Promises ‘Audacious Executive Action’ in Final Year

www.nationalreview.com

White House chief of staff Denis McDonough pushed back against the notion his president is played out in the wake of his last State of the Union address, promising “audacious executive action” in Barack Obama’s final year in office.

During a breakfast with reporters in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, McDonough responded to the observation that the president’s final speech before Congress lacked the usual pledge to “go it alone” if lawmakers failed to act. Coupled with the feeble executive actions on gun control announced earlier this month, had President Obama rethought the utility of acting unilaterally on issues important to the White House?

“We’ll do audacious executive action over the course of the rest of the year, I’m confident of that,” said McDonough, explaining that President Obama’s decision not to outline specific executive actions was more about a commitment to process than a lack of willpower.

“Process is your friend, but process also dictates what you can do,” McDonough said. “And we do want to make sure that the executive actions we undertake are not left hanging out there, subject to Congress undoing them.”

In addition to gun control, the White House has expressed interest in further unilateral actions on immigration reform, and in working around Congress to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay. But McDonough said the White House is considering executive action on any and all issues, and that the main question President Obama plans to ask himself is “Why not?”

“And so that’s the spirit through which we’ll approach this last year,” McDonough said.

' ].join('')); } else if( $('.story:eq(4)').length > 0 && !$('.story:eq(4)').hasClass('blog-ad-tagged') ) { $('.story:eq(4)') .addClass('blog-ad-tagged') .append([ '

COMMENTS

Radical Islamic Group Scores Invites to SOTU

Getty Images

by JIM HANSON12 Jan 20161,888

Politicians often bring guests to the President’s State of the Union address, sometimes to make a partisan point. This year that privilege is being stretched beyond the bounds of decency: At least two members of a radical Islamic group will be attending as guests of Members of Congress, supposedly to represent American Muslims. That is a disgrace.

Representatives Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)(D-Calif.) and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)(D-Fla.) are bringing leaders from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR says it is an “advocate for justice and mutual understanding.” Yet after the San Bernardino terror attacks last month, CAIR was the chief public advocatefor the terrorists’ family, even arguing in court that they should retain custody of the terrorists’ child.

CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, has stated publicly he supports the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. CAIR itself wasdesignated a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates in 2014.

The impetus for this travesty was a call by Representative Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, and Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) for their colleagues to bring a Muslim to the State of the Union. They said this is needed to counter the “shocking and alarming rise in hateful rhetoric against one particular minority population in our nation.”

But Muslims are not the primary victim of hate crimes in the U.S. The vast majority of victims of hate crimes, according to the FBI, are Jews.

What is actually more shocking and alarming than alleged rhetoric against Muslims is the rise in hateful killings by one minority population.

The recent slaughter in San Bernardino, the attempted assassination of a police officer in Philadelphia, and the slayings of our troops in Chattanooga and Fort Hood all had one thing in common: The killers were Muslim – or, more specifically, jihadists – a significant subset of Muslims who believe Islam must dominate the world.

The violent version of jihad is easier to understand, but the insidious nature of “civilization jihad” makes it even more dangerous in the long term. It aims to use the very institutions of free society to destroy it. This goal and strategy was stated outright in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was seized in 2004 during a police raid in Virginia:

The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.

CAIR is considered part of a network of front groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. It was also named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in US history, which shut down the Holy Land Foundation due to its funding of Hamas.

CAIR is out front in the effort to downplay the role of Islam in Islamic terror. For example, CAIR reacted to the recent shooting of a police officer with this statement from CAIR-Philadelphia’s executive director, Jacob Bender: ”At this time, it does not appear that he was an observant or mosque-going Muslim.”

He was describing a man who was wearing Islamic garb and who told police he was acting in the name of Islam.

After the San Bernardino jihadist attacks, Hussam Ayloush, director of CAIR’s Los Angeles chapter, told CNN that the United States bore responsibility for the killings: “Let’s not forget that some of our own foreign policy, as Americans, as the West, have fueled that extremism.”

CAIR does more than justify terrorism and obfuscate the motivations of the jihadists. It pushes the boundaries of “tolerance.” Last year, it promoted the story of Ahmed the clock-hoaxer as an incident of anti-Muslim bias, rather than what it arguably was: namely, an incident of political warfare striking back at the mayor of Irving, Texas, who came into CAIR’s crosshairs when she fought back against an attempt to open an Islamic Law tribunal in Irving.

The success of CAIR in presenting itself as an organization of “moderate” Muslims is especially dangerous as it marginalizes groups actually trying to reform Islam. TheMuslim Reform Movement, headed by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, is one such group that actually deserves to be heard. It calls for an awakening within Islam to make it compatible with free western society. We must ensure that extremists like CAIR don’t drown such voices out.

Jim Hanson is the Executive VP of the Center for Security Policy and previously served in US Army Special Forces.

Read More Stories About:

National Security, Jihad, barack obama,Hamas, Muslims, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, democrats, Muslim Brotherhood,CAIR, State of the Union, Keith Ellison

Obama Tells Jerry Seinfeld Many World Leaders "Insane" In New Crackle Coffee Klatsch

deadline.com

The night before GOP frontrunner Donald Trump was scheduled to ring in 2016 onFox News Channel, President Obamadebuted on Jerry Seinfeld’s Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee on Crackle. Seinfeld explains in the interview that Obama has gotten off just enough funny lines during his presidency to barely qualify as a guest on his Crackle gig.

“How many world leaders do you think are just completely out of their mind?” Seinfeld asks, one of the better interviews conducted with Obama during his presidency.

“A pretty sizable percentage,” Obama answered, continuing what Comedy Central late-night host Larry Wilmore has dubbed Obama’s “Doesn’t Give a F•ck”year in office.

Recent Comments

Trump, meanwhile, buried the hatchet in his on-again-off-again war with Fox News to continue his war on the Clintons on the cable news network’s New Year’s Eve clambake. Trump’s booked to start at 11 PM ET, from his estate in Palm Beach, Fla. FNC says Trump is exclusive to its show for the night, joining hosts Kimberly Guilfoyle and Eric Bolling of  The Five. But other GOP candidates are slated to show up as well, including Ben Carson.

COMMENTS

Obama Goes Beyond Mere Gun Control, Hints at Confiscation

AP

by AWR HAWKINS3 Oct 201539,237

When President Obama spoke in reaction to the heinous October 1 attack on Umpqua Community College, he went beyond his usual calls for more gun control and suggested instead that America consider following the path blazed by Australia and Great Britain.

In the mid-1990s Australia and Great Britain both instituted what were virtually complete bans on firearm possession.

Obama referenced the bans thus:

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings.  Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours.  So we know there are ways to prevent it.

And Obama is not the only one who suggested taking a gun-free approach to American life. The anti-Second Amendment message was also pushed by Slate, Vox, and Dan Savage.

For example, on October 1 Slate ran a story reminding readers that Australia enacted their gun ban in response to an attack on April 28, 1996, wherein a gunman “opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania.” Thirty-five were killed and 23 others wounded in the attack. Twelve days later Australia’s government banned guns, period.

On October 2 Vox explained that Australia “confiscated 650,000 guns” via a “mandatory gun buyback” program which forced gun owners to hand their firearms over for destruction. Vox claims the result was that “murders and suicides plummeted’ and suggested such a path might be an option for America following “the murder of at least 10 people at Umpqua Community College.”

Vox did not mention that “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” began plummeting in America in the mid-1990s as well. But in America, the decrease in violent crime did not correlate with a gun ban but with a rapid expansion in the number of guns privately owned. The Congressional Research Service reported that the number of privately owned firearms in America went from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million privately owned firearms in 2009. Subsequently, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate fell from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 and finally to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.

But none of this made any difference to Dan Savage, who responded to the attack on Umpqua Community College by calling for the Second Amendment’s repeal. Savage tweeted, “F**k the NRA, f**k the gun nuts, f**k the Second Amendment — better yet, repeal the Second Amendment.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2nd Amendment, barack obama, gun control, Umpqua Community College, Dan Savage, Gun