Limbaugh EXPOSES Why Obama Says “ISIL” Instead Of “ISIS” & It EXPLAINS EVERYTHING

TPI| When you hear President Barack Obama speak about deadly attacks, he never says “Islamic terrorist attacks.”

However, he repeats the abbreviation “ISIL” often… You probably have asked yourself, why does he call the Islamic State that, instead of “ISIS”? It sounds strange and forced… but as America’s most popular conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh notes, there is a sinister reason why Obama uses the phrase: It’s an to insult Israel!

I think most people are wondering, “What is this ISIL? Why does he keep calling it ISIL? It’s ISIS.” They’re not saying, “Well, that’s because ISIS he can pin to Bush, but ISIL he can’t, so he doesn’t want to –” I just don’t think that anybody in the Regime even thinks that people are going to think in these terms. I think there’s a totally different reason for this. And I don’t know how to say it. (laughing) (interruption) Well, it does. Snerdley is asking me, “Doesn’t it have something to do with Israel?” Yes, because the Levant is the entire region.

ISIS stands for the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, or Iraq and Syria, that’s the I-S, and ISIL, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant includes more than Iraq and Syria. It would include Israel, which, to these people, Israel is a fraud. Israel doesn’t deserve to be there. That’s all Palestine and that’s what I think is behind the pronunciation, this insistence that it be called ISIL. He’s the only one that does it. I mean, others in the Regime do. Even the media calls it ISIS, but he sticks with ISIL.

I think he’s got a different audience for the term. I don’t think he’s talking to the American people. I think he’s talking to Iran. We just heard Walid Phares say that Obama’s linkage here is not to oppose ISIL because Iran supports ISIL, and it’s all to do with the sectarian violence between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites and the fact that Iran capitalizes on the sectarian violence, does not want it solved because they hope to end up controlling the entire Levant — uh, sorry — region. Didn’t mean to say that.

So your explanation makes total sense if people were attuned, the American people domestically were attuned to when ISIS began, when it didn’t began. See, I don’t think — I could be wrong about this. Very rare that I would be wrong, but it’s possible. I think the American people are so far beyond “Bush did it” and this and that. I mean, Bush is eight years ago now, seven-years. They know Bush had nothing to do with San Bernardino. He had nothing to do with Fort Hood. People know that when Bush was president, this stuff didn’t happen. People know that when Bush was president, there wasn’t an ISIS. ISIS and all of this happens to coincide with the election of Barack Hussein O. But the use of the word “Levant” has an audience in the Middle East. He’s not talking to us.

Even when referring to a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths in San Bernardino, California, Obama goes out of his way to slam Israel. Just which side is Obama on, anyway?

Here is a recent video which goes into further detail about the differences between “ISIS” and “ISIL.” A real leader in the White House would call out Islamic terrorists by their real name, instead of playing this dangerous rhetorical game:

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. . . Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. . . Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” . . Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. . . Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. . . “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” . . Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. . . The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” . . But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? . . At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. . . “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: . . For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. . . However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. . . A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” . . However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . . -Obama’s Iran nuke deal -Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server -Obama IRS targets conservatives -Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters -Obamacare & Obama’s false promises -Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order -Benghazi-gate -Operation Fast & Furious -5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl -Extortion 17 -‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session -Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval -Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law -Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act -Illegally conducting war against Libya -NSA: Spying on Americans -Muslim Brotherhood ties -Miriam Carey -Birth certificate -Executive orders -Solyndra and the lost $535 million -Egypt -Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress -Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers -Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’