OBAMA UNLEASHES FURY AT CRITICS, BUT NOT ISIS OR ORLANDO MASS MURDERER, SAYS: "POLITICAL DISTRACTION" TO NAME "RADICAL ISLAM" AS THE ENEMY OR THREAT~HE BELIEVES TO DO SO SERVES NO PURPOSE!!!

"DENIAL IS A WONDERFUL THING" FOR OBAMA AS IT AIDS AND ABETS MUSLIM TERROR & LIBERAL SOCIALIST GLOBALISM;

EXCEPT FOR THE VICTIMS OF JIHADISTS

Indignant Obama Scolds Trump for 

‘Radical Islam’ Taunts

SEE: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/indignant-obama-scolds-trump-radical-islam-taunts/;

QUOTE:

“There’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam,’” Obama said heatedly. “It’s a political talking point. It’s not a strategy.”

AS WITH HILLARY: "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE"???

THIS NARCISSIST IS PISSED AND INDIGNANT! TOUGH!
CLAIMS TRUMP IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST A RELIGIOUS GROUP

Video: Furious Obama defends his refusal to name the enemy: “What exactly would using this language accomplish?”

"CALLING A THREAT BY A DIFFERENT NAME DOES NOT MAKE IT GO AWAY"

EXPRESSES NO ANGER AT OMAR MATEEN, ORLANDO MASS GUNMAN

PAINTING ISLAM AS A "PEACEFUL" RELIGION MAKES HIM LOOK MORE TOLERANT & REASONABLE AS OPPOSED TO HIS CRITICS WHO WANT HIM TO SPECIFICALLY NAME THE ENEMY;

SHOWS HIS FUNDAMENTAL UNCONDITIONAL LOVE FOR ISLAM

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/06/video-furious-obama-defends-his-refusal-to-name-the-enemy-what-exactly-would-using-this-language-accomplish; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

“What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”

Indeed. But calling things by their right names is always preferable to obfuscation and dissimulation. If there is an Islamic jihad threat, we should call it an Islamic jihad threat. One rhetorical question Obama notably didn’t ask was, “Would calling this threat what it really is help us understand the enemy better and formulate more effective ways to counter it?” To that, the answer is yes.

And his talk about refusing to “validate” al-Qaeda and the Islamic State is just ludicrous. Islamic jihadis aren’t looking to the President of the United States for validation. They aren’t looking to non-Muslims to validate their Islamic authenticity. This is just an excuse for not speaking honestly about the threat, and it’s a dangerous one, since it prevents our law enforcement and military authorities from understanding the threat properly.

“Obama goes on tirade against Trump over ‘dangerous’ Muslim ban, ‘radical Islam,'” by Kevin Liptak and Stephen Collinson, CNN, June 14, 2016:

Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama lit into Donald Trump on 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….

“Where does this stop?” Obama asked Tuesday, condemning Trump’s renewal of his call for a ban on Muslim migration and claims that “thousands and thousands” of Muslims are pouring into the country with the “same thought process” as the terrorist behind the Orlando massacre.

“Are we going to start treating all Muslim-Americans differently?” Obama asked. “Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating against them because of their faith?”…

“That’s not the America we want,” he said. “It doesn’t reflect our democratic ideals. It will make us less safe.”…

Obama also expressed fury at critiques of his foreign policy, pushing back against criticism for not using the term “radical Islamic terrorism” and calling the debate “a political distraction.”

“What exactly would using this language 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.”…

Much of the criticism has centered on Obama’s refusal to use the phrase “radical Islam,” which the White House argues unfairly maligns the entire Islamic faith.

In a brief statement following Obama’s remarks, Trump said Obama “claims to know our enemy, and yet he continues to prioritize our enemy over our allies, and for that matter, the American people.”

“When I am president, it will always be America First,” Trump said. He was expected to respond more fully during an evening event in North Carolina….

In his remarks Tuesday, the President defended his actions against ISIS, lauding the work of the U.S. military in going after terrorists. He said changing his wording about the threat would not alter those efforts….

________________________________________________________________

Trump: Obama 'was more angry at me than he was at the shooter'

_______________________________________________________________

Obama Administration’s Syrian Refugee Processing Numbers Skyrocket

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/23405-obama-administration-s-syrian-refugee-processing-numbers-skyrocket
______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO: http://freedomoutpost.com/orlando-obamas-tirade-liberalisms-malignancy/;
QUOTE:

"Obama’s attempt to explain the delicate tone of his references to the actions of militant Islamists to date reflects a policy of incoherent rhetoric, one that not only minimizes the threat of Islamic terrorism, but mischaracterizes its nature and often draws a fallacious equivalency between the threat posed by Islamists and that posed by right-wing extremists, even placing the actions of truly unhinged mass murderers with no political agenda in the “right-wing extremist” column in order to validate this convoluted logic.

Indeed, neither history nor the ongoing silence of “over a billion Muslims” give any indication whatsoever that they reject militants’ “crazy notions.”

Obama also played the “American Values Card,” claiming that moves to limit Muslim immigration or single out Muslims in America as a threat “betrays the very values America stands for.” This was echoed by Republican House speaker and treasonous invertebrate Paul Ryan, who said Tuesday, “I do not think a Muslim ban is in our country’s interest.”

These positions are in keeping with the agenda of international socialist elites in government who have been facilitating Islamic militancy in order to destabilize their nations and necessitate draconian policies in the interest of public safety. In short, their efforts are calculated to bring about a police state. The dogged efforts of the Obama administration in blaming the access Americans have to firearms for this violence is a clear indicator of that strategy. One can only imagine the kind of nation we will have when guns become scarce, Americans are at the mercy of murderous Muslims, and law enforcement is loath to intercede over political correctness – but the prospect is chilling to say the very least."
_________________________________________________

Hugh Fitzgerald: When a Petulant President Presumes to Give Lessons in Language

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/06/hugh-fitzgerald-when-a-petulant-president-presumes-to-give-lessons-in-language

OBAMA IN 2008: 

"DON'T TELL ME WORDS DON'T MATTER!":