Boris Johnson Resigns in Disgust Over Prime Minister May’s Insufferable Brexit Failure and Acquiescence To EU Globalism….

The Last Refuge, by Sundance, July 9, 2018:

There is trouble ahead for Great Britain as the leaders of the British exit from the European Union (Brexit) quit in disgust over Prime Minister Theresa May’s abhorrent acquiescence to multinational corporations and the EU globalists.  British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson quit today.

Western Media are quick to come to the defense of Prime Minister May due to their financial and ideological alignment with the multinational media organizations and corporations who pull the strings.

EU Council President Donald Tusk quickly raises the idea that Brexit might be called off. “Politicians come and go but the problems they have created for people remain,” he tweeted.  Ultimately, this has been the goal of the multinationals’ all along.  The EU constructed the Brexit negotiations around the basic premise there would be no substantive change to the relationship.  Prime Minister May went along with the corrupocrat scheme, and now the primary voices behind the Brexit negotiation have quit.

(Via Reuters) […]  May’s office said it had accepted Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s resignation on Monday, hours after Brexit minister David Davis, in charge of exit negotiations with the bloc, quit on Sunday night.

The two departures shatter May’s own proclamation of cabinet unity last Friday, when she believed she had, after two years of wrangling, secured agreement on Britain’s biggest foreign and trading policy shift in almost half a century.  (read more)

As an outcome, the UniParty British Parliament (Labour and Conservatives) are thrilled as the voices of the British people are dismissed.  Elitism within the ‘we know better’ crowd rears its ugly head once again.

There’s a familiarity, an almost parallel construct, taking place within the United States congress over international trade negotiations etc.   The U.S. UniParty, filled with politicians who are purchased by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street and the multinationals, are fighting against President Trump the same way the U.K. politicians are fighting against the British people.

American ‘Deplorables’ find common cause and understanding with the British ‘commoners’; both groups fighting against a political class that sees themselves as better than the group they are supposed to represent.   Sickening elitism and globalism on display in both countries.  Underpinning it all is the root of all evil, money.

The timing is interesting.  U.S. President Trump is scheduled to arrive in the U.K on Thursday.  President Trump fully supports the sovereign right of the British people to get out of the European Union; and he supports Brexit.  Conversely Prime Minister Theresa May is aligned with the ruling class against the majority will of her constituents.  There is a prime opportunity for President Trump to speak in support of Brexit and dispatch the elitist sensibilities of the British ruling class.

No doubt the politicians within the U.K. are concerned about the optics of a U.S. President Trump outlining freedom and the voice of the people while the elite ruling class are forced to listen….. This could get very interesting.

***

***

***

***

Also see:

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

Fox News, By Bill Mears, June 26, 2018:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump’s controversial travel ban affecting several mostly Muslim countries, offering a limited endorsement of the president’s executive authority on immigration in one of the hardest-fought battles of this term.

The 5-4 ruling marks the first major high court decision on a Trump administration policy. It upholds the selective travel restrictions, which critics called a discriminatory “Muslim ban” but the administration argued was needed for security reasons.

Trump, reacting to the decision on Twitter, wrote: “SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!”

At issue was whether the third and latest version of the administration’s policies affecting visitors from five majority Muslim nations – known as travel ban 3.0 – discriminates on the basis of nationality and religion, in the government’s issuance of immigrant visas.

CLICK TO READ THE DECISION

Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the conservative majority opinion, wrote that the order was “squarely within the scope of presidential authority” under federal law.

“The sole prerequisite set forth in [federal law] is that the president find that the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The president has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here,” he wrote.

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was among the court’s four liberals that wrote a dissent.

“This repackaging does little to cleanse [the policy] of the appearance of discrimination that the president’s words have created,” she said. “Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.”

She and Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading their dissents from the bench.

While the policy was upheld, the case was sent back to the lower courts, which were told to rely on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of executive authority.

It was the first significant legal test so far of Trump’s policies and power and could lead to a precedent-setting expansion on the limits of presidential power, especially within the immigration context.

Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in recent months had ruled against the administration. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court last December concluded Trump’s proclamation, like the two previous executive orders, overstepped his powers to regulate the entry of immigrants and visitors.

But the justices had allowed the current restrictions to be enforced at the Justice Department’s request, at least until the case was fully litigated.

The Trump administration also seemed to enjoy a favorable reception before the court during arguments in April. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, during those April arguments, noted that of the 50 or so mostly Muslim majority countries, only five were on the current banned list.

The White House had framed the issue as a temporary move involving national security.

A coalition of groups in opposition called the order blatant religious discrimination, since the countries involved have mostly Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Chad was recently removed from the list after the administration said that country had beefed up its information-sharing.

A major sticking point for the justices was navigating how much discretion the president really has over immigration. Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and recent presidents from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including nations such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

A 1952 federal law — the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed in the midst of a Cold War fear over Communist influence — historically gives the chief executive broad authority.

It reads in part: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The administration strongly denies this is a “Muslim ban,” but federal judges across the country cited statements by then-presidential candidate Trump and his advisers, including a December 2015 campaign press release calling for such restrictions and citing “hatred” by “large segments of the Muslim population.”

The high court’s majority downplayed Trump’s campaign statements as a major factor in its decision.

“The issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements,” wrote Roberts. “It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.”

Sixteen state leaders led by Texas were among a number of coalitions backing the Trump administration. But Hawaii officials, who filed the appeal contesting all of the president’s orders, said the president’s policies violate the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom:

“Any reasonable observer who heard the president’s campaign promises, read his thinly justified orders banning overwhelmingly Muslim populations, and observed his administration’s persistent statements linking the two, would view the order and each of its precursors as the fulfillment of the president’s promise to prohibit Muslim immigration to the United States.”

Trump’s first executive order was issued just a week after he took office, and was aimed at seven countries. It triggered chaos and protests across the U.S., as some travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and others detained at airports for hours. Trump modified the order after a federal appeals court refused to allow the ban to be enforced.

“This is not about religion– this is about terror and keeping our country safe,” the president said on Jan. 29, 2017.

The next version, unveiled weeks later, dropped Iraq from the list of covered countries and made it clear the 90-day ban covering Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen didn’t apply to those travelers who already had valid visas. It also got rid of language that would give priority to religious minorities. Critics said the changes did not erase the legal problems with the ban.

When that second temporary travel ban expired in Sept. 24, it was replaced with Proclamation 9645 — what the administration said was a country-by-country assessment of security and cooperation with the U.S.

Mueller Year One: The Real Heroes in Journalism

Photo credit: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images

American Greatness, by Julie Kelly, May 16th, 2018:

Part one of a two-part series.

The American media are broken.

After eight years of feeding the Obama cult of personality—swooning over his suave personal traits, covering for mistakes and misconduct, applying little if any scrutiny to his policies or performance—the news media suddenly developed a keen interest in presidential accountability and integrity on November 9, 2016.

Since the day Donald Trump won the election over their strenuous objections, the media have been out to get the man they deem unworthy of the presidency. They have teamed up with the Left of and the NeverTrump Right to campaign for his removal from office. (Victor Davis Hanson recently documented #TheResistance’s full list of tactics.) Trump’s family, aides, and cabinet members have been harassed and reviled in despicable ways.

Reporters eagerly transcribe salacious stories pitched by unnamed sources to incite an already inflamed body politic. Events are twisted in grotesque ways to fuel the anti-Trump hysteria. (Look no further than this week’s reporting on the Hamas-led “protest” during the opening of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem.)

At the same time, the American media arrogantly portray themselves as martyrs—even heroes—for acting as bulwarks against a purportedly devious, inept and cruel administration. The self-puffery on display at last month’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner sounded like war veterans commending each other for bravery on the battlefield, although veterans are far more modest than your average cable news anchor or political pundit.

But it took the self-assured comfort that comes from getting too comfortable with such puffery to draw the media out, unwittingly perhaps, at that very event. For it was at the White House Correspondents dinner that they acknowledged their sycophancy to #TheResistance, their gullibility in being snookered by Obama loyalists, their flat-on-their-back willingness to be used by anti-Trump pimps.

CNN won an award for its January 2017 report about President-elect Trump being briefed on the bogus Steele dossier. While we now know the story was improperly leaked by former Director of National Intelligence (and virulent Trump foe) James Clapper to shotgun the Trump-Russia collusion plotline days before the inauguration—and the celebrated CNN reporters did little more than regurgitate talking points spoon-fed to them by political operatives (one is known to have close ties to Fusion GPS)—the network was applauded for its “depth of reporting.”

The reality is that there are only a handful of reporters bravely bucking the media’s status quo and conducting real investigative journalism to expose what, quite possibly, is the biggest political scandal in U.S. history: How top officials in an outgoing administration colluded with a presidential candidate’s campaign and a major political party for the purpose of  discrediting the rival presidential candidate and then stage a soft coup against him after he won.

Out of thousands of reporters in the United States, fewer than a dozen journalists have dared to cover the ways in which the world’s most powerful law enforcement and intelligence apparatus leveraged its authority to try and destroy Trump’s candidacy, then his presidency. The courageous group includes NRO’s Andrew McCarthy, The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway and Sean Davis, Tablet’s Lee Smith, The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross, the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel, Washington Examiner’s Byron York, Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, and independent journalist Sara Carter.

Unlike the self-proclaimed heroes in the mainstream media who either have willfully ignored or purposefully diverted coverage away from this scandal, these writers have not squandered their integrity or credibility in order to make nice with the ruling political class.

While each one deserves accolades and yes, legitimate awards, for their work, let’s focus on a few here first:

Andrew McCarthy: The former federal prosecutor who once worked for ex-FBI Director James Comey is arguably the most influential writer in this group, and has risked the most in terms of jeopardizing personal and professional relationships. “In the eyes of many of my former colleagues, I’m one of the bad guys. I’m sad about that, because I know things never really go back to the way they were,” he told me via email.

McCarthy, 59, is a Bronx native with a solid record of fighting organized crime and international terrorists. A law-and-order Republican, McCarthy contributed to National Review’s “Against Trump” issue where he wrote, “the [terrorist] threat against us has metastasized in our eighth year under a president who quite consciously appeases the enemy. But the remedy is not a president oblivious of the enemy.” His scrutiny of the Trump-Russia scheme is by not rooted in a deep affection for the president.

But his legal expertise and working knowledge of Justice Department protocols have been an invaluable guide, as the average person (like me) attempts to make sense of the various investigations and indictments. McCarthy also acknowledges that his bias toward law enforcement and some people at the center of this scandal have influenced his approach.

“I’ve been validly criticized for giving him [Comey] the benefit of many doubts that I would not give to others whom I don’t know well, or at all. It’s been a good—if excruciating—lesson in humility,” he told me.

He detected as far back as December 2016 that the Russian collusion story was a farce. He opposed both Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal and the appointment of a special counsel, although he applauded the choice of Robert Mueller (while predicting his probe “could be wrapped up within a few months.”)

Since then, he has been a fierce critic of the Mueller team, particularly of the prosecutions of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. And he has plenty of harsh words for Comey, someone for whom he has “genuine affection.” In his latest piece, he takes a deep dive into the text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and once more questions why his former colleagues are concealing information from the public.

Mollie Hemingway and Sean DavisThe Federalist has been a major target of #TheResistance for its unflinching coverage of the Trump-Russia scandal and exposure of an Obama Administration rife with corruption. (Even though publisher Ben Domenech was also a contributor to NR’s “Against Trump” issue.)

Hemingway was the first to suggest in great detail—just days after the award-winning CNN story—that Obama’s intelligence community had declared war against Donald Trump. “Far from discrediting Trump, [the allegation of Russian election interference]  paints a worrisome portrait of the deep state gone rogue, desperate to stop a man who, whatever his considerable flaws, is an outsider to Washington.” She started to piece together how the politically sourced Steele dossier was used to obtain FISA warrants on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, and gave extensive coverage to the work of the House Intelligence Committee.

After the Comey memos were released last month, Hemingway suggested the January 6, 2017 briefing orchestrated by top Obama intelligence officials was designed to set up the incoming president: “This briefing, and the leaking of it, legitimized the dossier, which touched off the Russia hysteria. That hysteria led to a full-fledged media freakout.” And she’s spared the media no criticism for burying huge developments in the emerging corruption scandal.

Hemingway has taken her battle to the airwaves. A regular Fox News contributor, Hemingway has become fan favorite by going toe-to-toe with anti-Trump journalists to raise serious questions about the veracity of the Trump-Russia investigation. (I personally admire her smackdowns of National Review’s Jonah Goldberg.)

Sean Davis (if you don’t follow him on Twitter, do it now), the site’s co-founder, had one of the past year’s most explosive scoops when he reported that Obama’s PAC paid nearly $1 million in 2016 to the law firm that was funneling money to Fusion GPS, and that the husband of one of Obama’s top communications advisors went to work for Fusion shortly after the 2016 election.

Just last month, Davis outed a former staffer to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) who has raised $50 million from a few wealthy Democratic donors to continue Fusion GPS’s dirty work against the Trump Administration. He also amplified an overlooked conclusion in the House Intelligence Committee report: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress when he testified that he did not discuss the dossier with any journalists when in fact he leaked the information to CNN’s Jake Tapper for the “award-winning” story. (Clapper, naturally,  is now a CNN intelligence analyst.)

Lee Smith: Few writers wield the literary blowtorch that Smith does. An expert on the Middle East, Smith noticed that the election collusion story sounded familiar: “The Russia story is a replay of how the former White House smeared pro-Israel activists in the lead-up to the Iran Deal,” he wrote in April 2017.

Most of his work is published in Tablet, a liberal, Jewish publication, but he views this scandal as nonpartisan. “We are now starting to understand more clearly, this is not simply a Democratic scandal, it’s a scandal that in many ways ties together both political establishments,” he told me by email. “Thus it threatens voters who tend to vote for Democrats as much as it does Republicans.”

He’s been a frequent critic of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson and routinely blasts the media for their self-serving complicity in pushing the phony Trump-Russia story. “Buy into a storyline that turns FBI and CIA bureaucrats and their hand-puppets in the press into heroes while legitimizing the use of a vast surveillance apparatus for partisan purposes, and you’re in. Dissent and you’re out, or worse—you’re defending Trump.”

But it was his withering takedown of Robert Mueller in March 2018 that scorched the ruling class. Smith called the Mueller investigation a cover-up to “obscure the abuses of the U.S. surveillance apparatus that occurred under the Obama administration.” He disassembled the Washington narrative that Mueller is above reproach, an unimpeachable public figure who should be allowed to conduct his investigation untethered.

Mueller, according to Smith, is the prototypical swamp creature, a hanger-on who’s been held unaccountable for his egregious failures. “The problem is that by using the justice system as a political weapon to attack the enemies of the country’s elite, Robert Mueller and his supporters in both parties are confirming what many Americans already believe. That in spite of all the fine rhetoric, we are not all equal under one law.”

Smith takes an almost patriotic approach to his reporting. “What all of us want is the restoration and rehabilitation of the key American institutions that have inflicted so much damage on the American public as well themselves with Russiagate—I am thinking primarily here of the media,” he told me. “Left and right, we need a free and honest press in order to debate and discuss how we best live together and influence others abroad.”

PART TWO: The rest of the Trump-Russia truth-tellers and media influencers.

***

Also see:

What’s really behind Macron’s sweet talk about the Iran deal?

Ludovic Marin/AFP | Getty Images

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, April 25, 2018:

French President Emmanuel Macron is waging an all-out campaign to convince President Trump — and the American people — to keep the United States in the Iran nuclear deal.

In a speech before a joint session of Congress on Wednesday morning, Macron called on the United States to stay in the Iran deal. He began his remarks claiming that Iran would never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, delivering what at first appeared to be tough rhetoric.

But shortly thereafter, Macron quickly took a more capitulatory tone and showed his hand when he demanded that the nations of the world respect the sovereignty of the terrorist regime that rules the country. He then pledged that France would not leave the Iran nuclear deal (known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the JCPOA).

He described Iran as a “great civilization,” but notably failed to mention that the ruling regime dismisses Iran’s historic Persian heritage and replaces it with an Islamic supremacist doctrine.

Here’s more of what Macron didn’t tell Congress and the American people:

Staying in the Iran deal would guarantee an economic windfall for France. He knows that continuing U.S. involvement in the deal — which effectively keeps it afloat — secures billions of dollars in trade deals for France. Leaving the deal would almost certainly terminate these agreements.

As the United States continues to warn against securing economic partnerships with the regime in Tehran, France has ignored these warnings. Paris is more than eager to execute multi-billion-dollar accords with the terrorist regime. France-based Airbus has a deal in place to sell 100 jetliners to the regime for $10 billion dollars. Total, a French oil and gas company, has signed a $2 billion deal with Tehran. Moreover, as the United States has tightened sanctions on the regime, France is working on bolstering trade with Iran.

The debate over the future of the Iran deal comes as the ayatollah’s theocracy is on the ropes.

Instead of focusing on building up the economy inside Iran, the regime has decided to dedicate most of its expenditures toward waging expansionist wars in foreign lands. Iran is in total upheaval, and protest movements continue to shake the foundations of the ruling class. The Iranian people are rising up throughout their country in defiance of the totalitarian state that rules over them with an iron fist. The Iranian economy is in tatters and continues on a downward spiral. Its currency, the rial, is depreciating on an exponential level. All of these circumstances pose real threats to the very existence of the regime.

President Trump has until May 12 to decide whether to stay in the Iran deal, negotiate a “fix” to it, or leave it altogether. Staying in the Iran deal, as presently construed, delivers a much-needed lifeline to the mullahs, who will continue to use the platform to negotiate bailout packages from European and Asian powers. Recent European proposals for reforming show that they have little interest in countering the serious threats from Iran.

The European model for stability and security with Iran, presented through the JCPOA, has no proven successes. If anything, it enriches the ruling parties in Europe while simultaneously bending the knee to Islamic totalitarians.

France and many others in Western Europe have surrendered their nations’ sovereignty — and moral authority — to radical Islamic theocrats. They believe that making a temporary peace agreement with the regime in Tehran — which serves as the incubator for Shiite radicalism — can perhaps stave off further terrorist threats. European powers have chosen to largely ignore the massive, uncontrolled Middle East migration crisis. And due to the influx of Middle East migrants and the Islamist doctrine they bring along, Sunni radicalism has become embedded in European society, so much that European intelligence agencies are entirely overwhelmed with domestic and foreign terrorist threats. French and German Jews are now attacked on what seems like a daily basis. Jews and other minority populations are fleeing the country in droves. Europe has surrendered minority protections to the interests of the millions of new migrants.

The French model is a model for surrender. President Trump knows that his primary duty is to protect the interests and safety of the citizens of the United States. He can do this by either reforming the Iran nuclear deal seriously, or simply leaving it altogether. President Macron and the French establishment are not serious about reforming the nuclear deal or keeping their own people safe from continuous terror threats. They have chosen the path of submission. President Trump must not make the same mistake. America does not bend the knee to foreign ideologies, particularly the Shiite radicalism articulated by the theocrats who rule Iran.

UTT Throwback Thursday: President Should Drop Pakistan as Ally

Understanding the Threat, by John  Guandolo, Sept. 21, 2017:

It is being reported that President Trump is considering dropping Pakistan as a U.S. “ally” due to their obvious support for “terrorism.”

It’s about time.

Pakistanis showing support for Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden

The Quranic Concept of War – written in 1989 by a Brigadier General SK Malik of the Pakistani army with the forward by the Army Chief of Staff/former Pakistani President Zia ul Haq and the Preface by the Advocate General of Pakistan – is doctrine for the Pakistani military.  It makes clear that war against non-muslim forces is obligatory until Islam dominates the world.

After the 9/11 attacks, the Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI) aided Al Qaeda in moving men and equipment to safer locations anticipating U.S. retaliatory attacks.

Al Qaeda’s leader Osama bin Laden lived in Abbottabad, Pakistan for several years up until the time he was killed in a U.S. raid.

Pakistan used “aid” money provided by the United States government during the Obama Administration to expand its nuclear program.

Pakistani ISI created Lashkar e Taiba, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. government, which has conducted numerous jihadi attacks including the four-day long Mumbai (India) attack of 2008 which killed over 160 people.

Pakistan has never been a friend to the United States, because it is a driving force in the global jihad.

Pakistan needs to be crushed along with Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Frank Gaffney: President Trump May Be ‘Undermined by His Own Subordinates’ After Strong UN Speech

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sept. 20, 2017:

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney joined SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily to review President Trump’s address to the UN General Assembly.

Kassam asked if Trump’s strong words against Iran during the speech presaged the end of the Iran nuclear deal.

“This is the question,” Gaffney replied. “Action is not so much what one needs to wonder about. I think there will be action. The question is, is it action consistent with what the president said yesterday?”

“This has been what’s so frustrating, I know, to all of us listening to this program and part of the Make America Great Again movement, is the president is being repeatedly and in fact serially undermined by his own subordinates,” he explained.

“He makes these speeches, or he makes these pronouncements, or he tweets the sorts of things that are redolent of the campaign, and what he stood for, and what he promised – only to have H.R. McMaster, or Jim Mattis, or particularly Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, almost immediately sallying forth and saying, ‘Well, what the president really meant to say was exactly the opposite,’” Gaffney lamented.

“In this case, of course, we have Rex Tillerson sitting down with the so-called ‘Perm 5 Plus One,’ which is U.N.-speak for the gang that put together this Iran deal – I call it the ‘Obama bomb deal’ – plus the Iranian foreign minister. Obviously, the pressure is going to be intense, not just from the Iranians but from the Europeans, to walk back from what the president said,” he warned.

“I pray that Rex Tillerson won’t do it because I think the president got it exactly right. This is a defective deal. It is an embarrassment to the United States that Barack Obama perpetrated it – and, by the way, that Republicans in Congress enabled him to get away with imposing it upon the rest of us. We need to get out from that thing right away. I think John Bolton had that exactly right, and I commend everyone his alternative approach. I hope that’s what Rex Tillerson will be promoting, but I don’t hold my breath on it,” said Gaffney.

Kassam mentioned the argument advanced by French President Emmanuel Macron that the North Korean crisis makes the case for keeping the Iran deal alive because Iran’s nuclear ambitions are now held in check by the kind of oversight North Korea has never received.

“Rubbish,” Gaffney snorted. “This is forgetting the actual lessons of all of this, of course, which are that indeed we made a deal with the North Koreans that was supposed to prevent them from getting the bomb, not unlike we’ve done with the Iranians, and it did not work out.”

“To the contrary, we’ve now got them with not only atomic weapons and missiles with which to deliver them, but now it appears a hydrogen bomb,” he argued. “The so-called ‘strategic patience’ of the Obama administration, unfortunately, followed on the heels of incompetence and malfeasance under both the Clinton administration that made that deal with the North Koreans, and the George W. Bush administration, so there’s a bipartisan fault here. This is not a model to be extolled or held up as the way to deal with Iran.”

Kassam found President Trump’s strong condemnation of socialism to be the most remarkable and encouraging moment of his speech, especially given that a majority of the nations in the UN General Assembly consider themselves socialist to some degree.

“It was tough love, without probably the love,” Gaffney quipped. “The president was laying out the hard truth, and it was incredibly important that he did so – and that he did so to the socialists in that place.”

“Not only are there large numbers of socialists, or communists for that matter, in the UN I mean, it basically is a socialist enterprise. It’s all about redistribution of wealth and power under the auspices of successive socialists, including the guy who is currently running it – the Secretary-General is an old socialist from Portugal. These are people who, I believe, actually think this is the way of the future, so it was very important,” he said.

“But again, it has to be backed up. Let me just say, I think in addition to not having his subordinates undermine him – which they do again, and again, and again, without any consequences – we also have to take actions, Raheem,” he told Kassam.

“I mean, it’s one thing to be telling the North Koreans and ‘Rocket Man’ that you’re toast if you think about pursuing with those hydrogen bombs threats to us. It’s another to actually put into place the capabilities to assure that everybody understands that that’s not an empty threat,” he stressed.

“The rhetoric has been more or less good,” Gaffney judged. “I think you’re absolutely right that the MAGA movement was heard, and brought back ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ That’s a twofer. One, it’s important in its own right to be calling the enemy what it is, and also that it demonstrates how important the base is. We need to make sure the president is hearing us all the time. I know that he does through your channel, but we need it more elsewhere. In this case in particular, we have got to make sure that we are backing up with credible military capabilities the rhetoric that the president is using.”

Kassam turned to Gaffney’s recent blog post, “Freedom’s Friends Must Denounce, Not Dignify, the SPLC and CAIR.”

“We’ve been talking a lot, and rightly so, about what’s being done to freedom of speech – arguably sort of the foundational freedom in our Constitution and for our republic,” Gaffney said.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood sharia supremacist groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, have been making – I’m sorry to say even under this administration, under a Republican-controlled Congress – great strides to try to impose the kind of restrictions you’re very familiar with, of course, on your side of the pond,” he said, referring to speech codes in the United Kingdom, where Kassam resides.

Gaffney said these speech restrictions “are designed to basically promote sharia blasphemy restrictions: you must not give offense, particularly to Muslims.”

“The Southern Poverty Law Center has been central to that agenda. They have been working assiduously to defame people who speak the truth about these sorts of issues,” he charged.

“Rod Rosenstein, amazingly, went to what was billed as a civil rights conference in Birmingham last week and gave a speech,” Gaffney said, referring to the Deputy Attorney General. “It was mostly about civil rights, but by his presence, he dignified an event that was holding up both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Council on American Islamic Relations. They had speakers, they were participants in this program, they were considered to be just great champions of civil rights – when, in fact, they are trying to take away that key civil right of freedom of expression. It’s scandalous.”

Of the recent revelations that President Trump appears to have been correct about the Obama Justice Department wiretapping Trump Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign, Gaffney said, “I think what we’re seeing dribbling out slowly, inexorably, is evidence that the Obama administration was engaged in political warfare.”

“I mean, ‘dirty tricks’ doesn’t begin to describe it,” he said, describing the Obama administration’s conduct as “political warfare that makes Nixon’s plumbers in Watergate look like pikers.”

“These were people that were using the instruments of the State, the Deep State if you will – the intelligence community, the law-enforcement community, and of course the National Security Council, Ben Rhodes and his whole disinformation operation and political warfare capabilities – to destroy those like Donald Trump and his campaign that they feared might actually prevent them from having a third term,” Gaffney charged.

“This is why it’s so important to get to the bottom of this, and not be distracted by these deflections, and misinformation, and special prosecutors who are off on a red tear to get us away from the reality that Barack Obama and his minions are Watergate on steroids,” he said. “We need to know the full truth of it.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern

LISTEN:

Trump’s America-first UN speech was the best of his presidency

President Donald Trump speaks during the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly, September 19, 2017. Mary Altaffer | AP Images

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, Sept. 19, 2017:

President Trump delivered the most America-first speech of his presidency in front of the United Nations Tuesday morning in New York City. It was a no-holds-barred address that shined a light on the threat posed by the enemies to the free world, such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and the global “radical Islamic terror” groups. Trump’s language adopted the “peace through strength” philosophy popularized by former President Ronald Reagan, and his promotion of American exceptionalism is sure to fire up the base that elected him president.

Trump took a 180-degree turn away from the Obama administration’s soft posture and rhetoric on Iran and radical Islam. He promised to hold accountable the terrorist regime in Tehran and separated the Iranian people from their fundamentalist rulers, demanding that the regime “stop supporting terrorists” and “begin serving its own people.”

He castigated the nuclear deal with Iran, which was negotiated by the Obama administration along with the P5+1 world powers. Trump said that the world would see “very soon” America’s future position on the deal. He has until October 15 to decide whether the U.S. will cancel its involvement in the nuclear accord or remain in the deal for another 90 days.

After taking a brief hiatus from identifying the threat that is the global jihadist movement, President Trump again warned of “the Islamic extremist” threat that continues to menace the free world across the globe. “We will stop radical Islamic terrorism, because we cannot allow it to tear up our nation and, indeed, to tear up the entire world,” Trump declared.

“No nation on Earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles,” Trump said of the “depraved regime” in North Korea. “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime,” Trump added of dictator Kim Jong Un, promising never to settle for anything less than a de-nuclearized Pyongyang.

Attacking the ideology of the Maduro regime in Venezuela, the president stated: “The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.” He said that the U.S. would not sit idly by while “the government of Venezuela persists on its path to impose authoritarian rule on the Venezuelan people.”

Moving to Syria, Trump described the Assad dictatorship that rules Damascus as a “criminal regime.” He went on to discuss how Assad uses horrific methods in bombing his own countrymen and is seemingly indiscriminate about whether they are men, women, or even innocent children.

On Tuesday morning, Trump delivered a Reaganesque, America-first speech that is sure to fire up conservatives and his base of support. In front of their representatives, he took direct shots at the rogue regimes of the world. Time will tell whether President Trump can make good on the best speech of his presidency with the needed policy outcomes to follow through on his rhetoric.

Jordan Schachtel is the national security correspondent for Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @JordanSchachtel.

***

TRANSCRIPT  – Remarks by President Trump to the 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly