MICHELLE OBAMA ANNOUNCES SHE WILL RUN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE AND BE
BARACK’S THIRD TERM FOR LIFE.
MEXICO WILL ELECT HER!
The
main objective of “political animals” like Obama and the Clintons is to get
elected; it’s not to fix a broken America, nor to protect her. There are people
who govern and there are people who campaign; Obama and the Clintons are the
latter. Just look at the huge Republican electoral gains under Obama and the
Clintons. It’s amazing that Democrats who still care about their party still
support the very people who have brought it down.
“Of course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful
and angry” is because race-baiting, Islamist,
class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was president for eight
long years. MATTHEW VADUM
“Of course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry” is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was president for eight long years. MATTHEW VADUM
THE OBAMA MARXIST-MUSLIM
BANKSTER-FUNDED THIRD TERM for life:
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/03/obamas-marxism-still-hankering-for.html
"Cold War historian Paul Kengor
goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in
American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an
excellent Mark Levin interview. Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose
younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and
Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into
power." Karin
McQuillan
"We know
that Obama and his inner circle have set up a war room in his D.C. home to plan
and execute resistance to the Trump administration and his legislative agenda.
None of these people care about the American people, or the fact thaat Trump won
the election because millions of people voted for him."
Patricia McCarthy / AMERICAN THINKER.com
CAN YOU THINK OF EVEN ON
THING BARACK OBAMA DID FOR BLACK AMERICA EVEN AS HE OPERATED 'LA RAZA' OUT
OF THE WHITE HOUSE?
"That phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by
President Barack Obama. Throughout his eight years in office, Obama practiced
divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of
fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter" lie. His
administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new
scandal." RICK HAYES
They Destroyed Our Country
“They knew Obama was an unqualified crook; yet they promoted
him. They knew Obama was a train wreck waiting to happen; yet they made him
president, to the great injury of America and the world. They understood he was
only a figurehead, an egomaniac, and a liar; yet they made him king, doing
great harm to our republic (perhaps irreparable.)”
These people were engaged in a massive political conspiracy. The
Democrats made a decision from the outset—beginning with the election campaign
of the favored candidate of Wall Street and the CIA, Hillary Clinton—that they
would not oppose Trump on his anti-working-class social policy or his
authoritarian hostility to democratic rights and promotion of anti-immigrant
racism, but on issues of imperialist foreign policy.
“Obama’s new home in
Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the
anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder
has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with
the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama campaign staffers now
work with a variety of groups organizing direct action against
Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features
lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”
“Attorney General Eric
Holder's tenure was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden
Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD
By the end of the speech, Obama had skillfully twisted the events
to the point where theoretical, faceless white racism was to blame for the
actual, documented racism of Xavier Johnson.
On a fundamental level, Obama understands that America is not
the systemically racist cesspool he allowed it to be portrayed as under his
watch. Yet he was Machiavellian enough to let this yarn spin itself for
the purpose of political advantage.
"That
phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by President Barack
Obama. Throughout his eight years in office, Obama practiced
divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of
fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter" lie. His
administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new
scandal." RICK HAYES
“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch
discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close
coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence
and on to the American dole.” Washington Times
“Make no
mistake about it: the Latino community holds this election in your hands. Some
of the closest contests this November will be in states like Florida, Colorado,
Nevada and New Mexico -- states with large Latino populations.” PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA
“I know how
powerful this community is. Just think how powerful you could be on November
4th if you translate your numbers into votes.” PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA
With Biden flailing, is
Michelle Obama going to take his place?
The
news is suddenly awash in reports that, on May 6, Netflix and the Barack and
Michelle Obama production company will premiere a documentary about the book
tour Michelle Obama did in connection with her memoir. Both the
memoir and the documentary are entitled Becoming. What's
interesting is that this premiere is a surprise:
Michelle Obama
'Becoming' documentary is a surprise new Netflix release
[snip]
"Those months I spent traveling — meeting and
connecting with people in cities across the globe — drove home the idea that
what we have in common is deep and real and can't be messed with," she
wrote in Monday's press release announcing the documentary.
"In talking about the idea of 'becoming,' many of us
dared to say our hopes out loud. I treasure the memories and that sense of
connection now more than ever as we struggle together to weather this pandemic,
as we care for our loved ones, tend to our communities and try to keep up with
work and school while coping with huge amounts of loss, confusion and
uncertainty.
"Even as we can no longer safely gather or feed off
the energy of groups, even as many of us are living with grief, loneliness and
fear, we need to stay open and able to put ourselves in other people's
shoes," she added. "Empathy is our lifeline here. It's what will get
us to the other side."
Am I
the only one who finds this "surprise" an amazing coincidence when
taken in conjunction with Joe Biden's declining candidacy?
Additionally,
Michelle has been popping up all over the place. She recorded a PSA for the District of
Columbia, as well as setting up robocalls and radio ads. She's
suddenly popped up on PBS reading books to
children ("Mondays with Michelle Obama"). She's also out
there pushing for voting by mail and is generally making more appearances.
In an
almost desperate manner, Joe Biden is also putting her name out there as his preferred running mate:
Joe Biden, the apparent Democratic presidential nominee,
had an update about his search for a vice presidential partner: He said he
would choose Michelle Obama as his running mate "in a heartbeat."
BLOG: THERE'S IS NOTHING 'BRILLIANT' ABOUT MICHELLE OBAMA! IN LAW SCHOOL SHE WAS CONSIDERED BARELY FUNCTIONALLY LITERATE!
THE OBOMBS AND HARVARD
OBAMA AND HIS SAUDIS
PAYMASTERS… Did he serve them well?
Malia,
Michelle, Barack and the College Admissions Scandal https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/03/malia-michelle-barack-and-college.html
Michelle was the next to attend Harvard, in her case Harvard
Law School. “Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good
enough for an Ivy League school,” writes Christopher Andersen in Barack and
Michelle, “Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”
GOOGLE WHAT THE OBOMB DID FOR HIS SAUDIS
PAYMASTERS
Barack Obama’s back door, however, was unique to him. Before
prosecutors send some of the dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their
dimness, they might want to ask just how much influence a Saudi billionaire
peddled to get Obama into Harvard.
“Of course,
one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry”
is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein
Obama was president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM
"She's brilliant. She knows the way around. She is a
really fine woman. The Obamas are great friends," the former vice
president told KDKA-TV of Pittsburgh.
Speaking
through Valerie Jarrett, the Obama family consigliere, Michelle has let it be
known that she doesn't want to be the vice president. Jarrett
claims as well that Michelle isn't interested in any part of the presidential
ticket:
Former Obama White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett
said Tuesday that Obama would not consider being Biden's vice president in an interview with The
Hill, telling the outlet that she simply is not interested in being on the
Democratic presidential ticket.
"The reason why I'm being so unequivocal is that there
just simply has never been a time when she's expressed an interest in running
for office," Jarrett said.
"She's not demurring here. She's not being hard to
get. She doesn't want the job," she continued.
That
may even be true, insofar as Michelle's wishes go, but I suspect that she's
getting an enormous amount of pressure to step up as Biden's fortunes go
down. Indeed, her husband may be assuring her that she'll just be a
figurehead while he does all the real work. She may find it hard to
resist that kind of pressure to "save the party" or "save the
country."
However,
a very savvy friend of mine (whom I won't name since I haven't had a chance to
clear this with him) believes that Michelle knows there's too much dirt out there
for her to overcome. He believes we'll soon learn just how deeply
Barack Obama was involved when it came to the Russia hoax. Michelle
will also find herself having to answer for multiple Obama-era policies, such
as the Iran deal, the sluggish economy, the mess that Obamacare proved to be,
etc.
Michelle
has always been drawn to the high life, says my friend, and she'll be reluctant
to give it up the freedom she has (augmented by the millions coming in on her
book sales) in exchange for the stress and constraints of the White House.
There is Nothing
‘Loony’ About Bill Ayers as Obama’s Muse
This past week several people called my attention
to a post by Scott Johnson on his influential PowerLine blog
that addressed the literary relationship between Barack Obama and his radical
friend, Bill Ayers.
In the post Johnson spoke of his high regard for
David Garrow’s “staggeringly researched” 2017 Obama biography, Rising
Star. “Without resolving all mysteries,” Johnson writes, “[Garrow’s]
scholarship belies the notion that [Dreams from My Father] was
ghostwritten by Bill Ayers or other such collaborator.”
Johnson emailed Garrow to follow up on the
authorship question, and Garrow responded, “I don’t recall exactly where the
Bill Ayers [stuff] got started, but it, like the Frank-Davis-as-father notion,
is just beyond loony, ’cause Dreams is already *in galleys*
when Barack and Bill first get to know each other.”
I did not advance this theory casually. I
understood then what Obama biographer David Remnick would later affirm, namely
that my theory, “if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough
voters, could have been the end of [Obama’s] candidacy.”
My research on this topic, aided by several
helpful literary detectives, culminated in my 2011 book, published by Simon
& Schuster, Deconstructing Obama. I think I can safely assume Garrow
has never read it. I would invite those curious about the evidence to read the
book or even to read the preliminary article cited above.
That Garrow does not know the source of a theory
he dismisses offhand as “beyond loony” is, unfortunately, altogether typical of
establishment political writers. His airy dismissal, in fact, reinforces the theme
of my forthcoming book Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True
Story of a Failed Presidency.
In the book, I use the phrase “samizdat” --
Russian for underground press -- to describe the loose coalition of
conservative blogs, online publications, talk radio shows, and legal monitors
such as Judicial Watch that challenged the Left -- and, occasionally, the
“responsible” right -- for control of the Obama narrative.
For eight-plus years, the samizdat broke
virtually every major unflattering story about Obama and his presidency, some
of which the major media grudgingly confirmed, some of which they continue to
suppress. In the book I tell how the individuals in question managed to break
these stories out. In every case, as you might imagine, the samizdat
journalists were met with condescension, if not outright contempt, from the
major media.
Obama’s biographers were among the more
contemptuous. Curiously, the four major biographers are all named David --
Mendell, Remnick, Maraniss, and Garrow. The last three are Pulitzer Prize
winners. To his credit, Garrow was the only one of the four who refused to prop
up what Remnick called Obama’s “signature appeal: the use of the details of his
own life as a reflection of a kind of multicultural ideal.”
The story Obama told about his happy
multicultural family at the conventions was pure fiction. According to Garrow,
Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, and Barack Obama Sr. “never chose to live together
at any time following the onset of Ann’s pregnancy.” Garrow quotes approvingly
one unnamed scholar to the effect that Obama Sr. was no more than “a sperm
donor in his son’s life.” All of this was common knowledge in the samizdat as
early as 2008, but it came as news to many of Garrow’s readers in 2017.
Like his fellow Davids, however, Garrow has no
use for information gleaned from the samizdat, especially information I
introduced. On the subject of the Obama poem “Pop,” for instance, Garrow notes,
“Most commentators presumed that Obama had written about his grandfather, Stan
Dunham, not Frank Marshall Davis.”
This much was true, but “hostile critics,” Garrow
continues, insisted the poem was about Obama’s bi-sexual Communist mentor,
Davis. The “hostile critics” Garrow cites in the footnotes are historian Paul
Kengor and me.
Instead of giving me credit for being the first
to decode “Pop,” Garrow describes me in the footnote as “someone who is cited
with the greatest reluctance.” What I did to deserve this slight is left
unsaid, especially since Garrow knows I nailed the identity of “Pop” two years
before anyone in the mainstream media did, including the other Davids.
As to Bill Ayers’s involvement in the writing
of Dreams, Garrow does not even deign to dismiss the possibility.
He has a discovery of his own, namely that outside literary help came from a
law school buddy of Obama’s named Rob Fisher. This is an important find
if for no other reason than it undercuts Obama’s 2008 boast to a crowd of
schoolteachers, "I've written two books. I actually wrote them myself."
An established economist before starting law
school, Fisher became good friends with Obama at Harvard. There, they
co-authored a manuscript that perhaps prophetically was never finished. One
completed chapter dealt with the always sexy topic of plant closings.
“The quest is to develop guidelines,” they wrote,
“on how politically progressive movements can use the market mechanism to
promote social goals.” Garrow quotes the unfinished manuscript extensively. Its
style is wonkish and ungainly throughout.
Sentences like the following suggest that one
author wrote as awkwardly as the other: “While Yuppies can afford the expensive
frivolities provided by The Sharper Image, others receive insufficient
nutrition to allow their minds to develop properly.”
I do not question Fisher’s involvement. Obama
needed all the help he could get. What I do question is Fisher’s ability to
provide the poetry, the rage, the postmodern rhetoric, and the Homeric
structure that inspired Oona King of the London Times to
overpraise Dreams as “a beautifully written
personal memoir steeped in honesty.”
Garrow seems to dismiss my thesis for no more
substantial reason than his belief that Dreams was already in
galley form when “Barack and Bill first get to know each other.” Garrow traces
the first meeting of these two gentlemen to a breakfast some time in early
1995. He bases this timing on the suspiciously well-remembered account of a
common friend who claims to have introduced them.
Garrow, however, has a problem with chronology.
He writes that Obama took six weeks off from his law firm job “in late spring
1994” to finish Dreams. He needed time to complete the book’s third
section, the one on Africa. Garrow claims Obama worked largely from letters he
sent in 1988 while in Kenya and retrieved from his girlfriend at the time,
Sheila Jager.
David Maraniss told a different story in his 2012
bio. According to Maraniss’s source, Crown editor Henry Ferris, Obama made an
additional trip to Kenya for further research. Obama confirmed this trip when
interviewed by Marannis. Garrow makes no mention of this mysterious trip, which
would have taken place in 1994. No one else does either. Like much in his life,
Obama appears to have made it up.
A more likely possibility is that Obama lied to
Ferris about the trip. Instead of going to Kenya, Obama may have contented
himself with going to the local library and pillaging the memoirs of longtime
Kenya resident Kuki Gallmann.
This is the theory proposed by
tireless researcher Shawn Glasco. He was intrigued by the many words and
phrases in Dreams that also appeared in Gallmann’s book, African
Nights, which was published in 1994. These include Baobab [a tree], bhang
[cannabis], boma [an enclosure], samosa [a fried snack], shamba [a farm field],
liana [a vine], tilapia [a fish], kanga [a sheet of fabric], shuka [decorative
sashes], and many, many more.
Based on Garrow’s imprecise timeline, Obama flew
to New York to hand the completed book off to Ferris no later than early June
1994. In other words, he spent six weeks to finish the last third of the
400-page book between “late spring” 1994 and early June 1994, which is, in
fact, late spring.
In his 2009 book, Barack and Michelle:
Portrait of an American Marriage, celebrity biographer Christopher Andersen
offers a much more credible account of how Obama managed to finish a project
that hung over his head ever since he finished law school.
According to Andersen’s two sources in Chicago’s
Hyde Park, Obama found himself deeply in debt and “hopelessly blocked.” At
“Michelle’s urging,” Obama “sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park
neighbor Bill Ayers.” Noting that Obama had already taped interviews with many
of his relatives, both African and American, Andersen elaborated, “These oral
histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were
given to Ayers.” Andersen’s six-page account makes sense, logically and
chronologically, but Garrow fully ignores it.
Andersen is a best-selling, mainstream author. He
even appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball to discuss the book. Said
Chris Matthews at the end of the interview, “You‘re amazing, successful
guy. You have a winning streak here.” Matthews likely did not read the
book. Garrow did read it and cites the book in the footnotes but, oddly, not on
the subject of authorship.
Garrow nonetheless offers some valuable insights
into the Ayers-Obama relationship, insights that I believe strengthen my
thesis. Once Ayers helped launch Obama’s political career in 1995, Garrow
writes, “Barack and Michelle began to see a great deal more of not only Bill
and Bernardine [Dohrn] but also their three closest friends, Rashid and Mona
Khalidi and Carole Travis."
According to Garrow, the three couples attended
"almost nightly dinners” together up until the time Obama ran for the U.S.
Senate in 2004. This information, of course, makes complete hash out of Obama’s
infamous claim during a 2008 debate that Ayers was “just a guy who lives in my
neighborhood.”
Khalidi, a radical Palestinian, begins his 2004
book, Resurrecting Empire, with a tribute to his own literary
muse. “First, chronologically and in other ways,” writes Khalidi, “comes Bill
Ayers.” Unlike the calculating Obama, Khalidi had no reason to be coy about
this relationship. He elaborates, “Bill was particularly generous in
letting me use his family’s dining room table to do some writing for the
project.” Khalidi did not need the table. He had one of his own. He
needed help from the skilled neighborhood editor and writer who obviously could
and would provide it.
There is nothing “loony” about Bill Ayers helping
a good friend finish his book. That is what Ayers did. He was grooming Obama
for higher office and was savvy enough to keep his writing relationship with
Obama under wraps. Being a friend of a terrorist, Ayers knew, would not exactly
help Obama’s career.
Jack Cashill’s most recent book, a
political thriller called “The Hunt” co-authored with Mike McMullen, is
available wherever you buy books. For a signed collector’s edition, see
www.TheHuntBook.com.
WELFARE
CHEAT BARACK OBAMA FUNDS HIS EGO TOWER off tax payers backs!
I am sure
that Obama and his friend and former chief of staff Rahm would not like to see
pols running for mayor on a platform of halting the giveaway."
But that halt to lawlessness hasn't stopped the
Windy City's politicians rushing to hand over almost 20 acres of precious
lakefront park land to the private foundation controlled by Barack and Michelle
Obama. The Obama Foundation (Obama.org) promises to build a monument
to his presidency, called the Obama Presidential Center (OPC). It
has to be called the OPC because it will not be an actual presidential library,
under the control of the National Archives, but rather a privately controlled
entity, free to focus on whatever pleases the 44th president.”
Michelle Obama castigates whites for ‘running from us’
Speaking at an event in Chicago called the “Obama Foundation
Summit” (were any heads of state present?), Michelle Obama let slip her
resentment of white people. The grudge goes back to her childhood, and she does
not seem to see much progress in the behavior she attributes to
Caucasian-Americans. Fox News reports what the New
York Times doesn’t:
White Americans are “still running” elsewhere when minorities
and immigrants move into their communities, Michelle
Obama observed Tuesday.
(snip)
In a sit-down interview with journalist Isabel Wilkerson, in which
Obama was accompanied by her brother, Craig Robinson, an executive with the
NBA’s New York Knicks, Obama described when she first became conscious of
what’s been called “white flight.”
We were doing everything we were supposed to do – and better,”
Obama said of her family, recalling when they got a new address on Chicago’s
South Side. “But when we moved in, white families moved out.
“I want to remind white folks that y’all were running from us,”
she continued, according to the
Chicago Sun-Times. “And you’re still
running.”
This is remarkably un-self-aware, considering that the Obamas currently
reside in Kalorama and Martha’s Vineyard. How many blacks live near their two
mansions?
“I can’t make people not afraid of black people,” she said, according
to The Hill. “I don’t know what’s going
on. I can’t explain what’s happening in your head."
Maybe what’s going on in the heads of white people is the same as
what was going on in Jesse
Jackson’s head when he said:
“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than
to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody
white and feel relieved.”
It would be wonderful if black crime rates were similar to those
of whites and Asians, but they aren’t. That’s is why many minorities flee from ghettos as soon as they
are financially able – a group that includes Barack and Michelle Obama.
Mrs. Obama is stoking racial resentment with her remarks, an
emotion that the Democrats use as part of their electoral strategy to drive
black turnout.
At least her statement castigating whites is consistent with her
oft-expressed position that she has “zero interest” in running for president.
Here is video of her remarks on race:
Hat tip: Ed Lasky
THE OBOMBS:
TWO LAWYERS, TWO SOCIOPATHS, TWO PATHOLOGICAL LIARS, TWO BRIBES
SUCKERS!
Nolte: Michelle Obama Condemns ‘White Flight’ After Purchasing
Home in Martha’s Vineyard
Gerardo Mora/Getty Images
31 Oct 2019113
5:28
Former first lady
Michelle Obama condemned white people for fleeing minority neighborhoods just
weeks after she and her husband purchased a $15 million estate in Martha’s Vineyard.
Martha’s Vineyard is almost as white
as an Elizabeth Warren rally.
Martha’s Vineyard is whiter than my
subdivision here in rural North Carolina.
Martha’s Vineyard is whiter than
MSNBC.
During a Tuesday appearance at the
Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago, she said, “But unbeknownst to us, we grew
up in the period — as I write — called ‘white flight.’ That as families like
ours, upstanding families like ours … As we moved in, white folks moved out
because they were afraid of what our families represented.”
“And I always stop there when I talk
about this out in the world because, you know, I want to remind white folks
that y’all were running from us.” She went on, “This family with all the values
that you’ve read about. You were running from us. And you’re still running,
because we’re no different than the immigrant families that are moving in … the
families that are coming from other places to try to do better.”
Did I mention that Michelle and
Barry just purchased a $15 million estate in Martha’s Vineyard, which is 95
percent white?
Oh, and did I mention the Obamas own
a second home, an $8 million mansion, in the exclusive DC neighborhood of Kalorama, which is 80
percent white and just four percent black.
Oh, and did I mention the Obamas
have a third home, a $5.3 million mansion, in Rancho Mirage, California, which
is 89 percent white and just 2.6 percent black.
Oh, sure, the Obamas still own their
Chicago home in Hyde Park, which is at least 26 percent black. But you would
think they could do better than 26 percent!
I like Michelle Obama. I have always
liked Michelle Obama. I’ve never said an unkind word about her, quite the
opposite, and while I find her politics ignorant, she was a terrific first
lady.
But this is nuts…
Not only is she attacking white
people for seeking a better standard of living, which I can assure you (as I
will explain below) has little to do with racism, she is also attacking whites
after she herself “fled” to 95 percent white Martha’s Vineyard (I will never
stop repeating this point) and two other homes in areas where the black
population is less than 5 percent.
Worse still, she is putting white
people in a position where they can never win, where they are damned if they do
or don’t, where they are always and forever racist.
If white people move out of a black
neighborhood, they’re racists engaging in white flight.
But…
And this is important…
If white people move into a minority
neighborhood, they are also racists for either engaging in gentrification —
which is just another form of cultural genocide, donchaknow — or cultural
appropriation.
Now I’m going to tell you a little
something about white flight, from my own experience…
Because I was poor, back in the
mid-eighties, I lived in the inner-city of Milwaukee for two years. My wife and
I did not flee (my wife is not white, by the way) because of “icky minorities”
(did I mention my wife is not white?), we fled because it was not safe to live
there. It was never safe. Over those two years, we had been mugged, robbed, and
had our car stolen. That’s why we left.
And when we fled, it was to a
community that was still not as white as *ahem* Martha’s Vineyard.
In 2002, my wife and I moved to
California for nine years and lived in an East Los Angeles neighborhood that
was just four percent white. For
nearly a decade, I was outnumbered 96-4 and never gave it a thought because I
was not outnumbered. A darker skin tone, an accent, and different religious
traditions did not make my neighbors any less American than me, and when I am
among Americans I am among my own. We left because predominantly white leftists
are destroying California.
Then there’s my poor dad…
He moved to the Northside of
Milwaukee in 1980, and spent decades, a lot of money, and a ton of sweat,
remodeling his home, building a garage, and paying that home off. He intended
to retire there. And yes, there were black people in his neighborhood when he
moved in, and for most of his adult life he worked in predominantly black
institutions. He never intended to move, and held on for as long as he could… He
didn’t flee because of black people. He was not forced to start all over at age
67 because he suddenly decided he didn’t like blacks. He left because he was
robbed, because gangs started tagging his house and garage, because it was no
longer safe to live there.
You know…
If we’re going to shame people for
such things, what does it say to black people when other black people,
especially the first black president and his family, reject them? What the hell
kind of message is this to send to black Americans, especially when the Obamas
can afford the security to live safely in any neighborhood they choose?
And if the Obamas wanted to live in
Southern California, why choose Rancho Mirage over Ladera Heights, the Black
Beverly Hills, a predominantly black neighborhood as swank as any in America?
Shame on Michelle and Barack Obama.
They have the money and profile to make an important statement on this issue,
but they obviously prefer to live in overwhelmingly white neighborhoods.
Pollak: Barack
Obama Wrote the Playbook on Political Division
Left-wing pundits have accused President Donald Trump of using his
tweets last weekend to launch a divisive re-election campaign.
David
Axelrod, former adviser to President Barack Obama, tweeted: “With his deliberate, racist outburst,
@realDonaldTrump wants to raise the profile of his targets, drive Dems to
defend them and make them emblematic of the entire party. It’s a cold, hard
strategy.”
That is
debatable — but if so, Axelrod should know; Obama did it first.
By 2011,
Obama knew that re-election would be difficult. The Tea Party had just led the
Republicans to a historic victory in the 2010 midterm elections, winning the
House and nearly taking the Senate. The economy was only growing sluggishly,
and Obama’s stimulus had failed to keep unemployment below eight percent, as
projected. Moreover, the passage of Obamacare had provoked a backlash against
Obama’s state-centered model of American society.
Facing a
similar situation in the mid-1990s, President Bill Clinton had “triangulated,”
moving back toward the middle, frustrating the GOP by taking up their issues,
such as welfare reform.
But Obama
rejected that approach. Having watched his icon, Chicago mayor Harold
Washington, settle for an incremental approach when
faced with opposition in the 1980s, only to die of a sudden heart attack before
fulfilling his potential, Obama chose the path of hard-left policy — and
divide-and-rule politics.
The first
hint of his strategy emerged during the debt ceiling negotiations in the summer
of August 2011. As Bob Woodward recounted in his book about the
crisis, The Price of Politics, then-Speaker
of the House John Boehner (R-OH) had wanted to reach a “grand bargain” with the
president on long-term spending cuts. But Obama blew up that agreement by
demanding $400 billion in new taxes, to his aides’ surprise. Obama wanted an
opponent, not a deal. (Last week, Boehner told Breitbart
News Tonight that Obama’s decision was his worst
disappointment in 35 years of politics.)
In the
fall of 2011, a new left-wing movement, Occupy Wall Street, was launched. A mix
of communists, anarchists, and digital pranksters, the Occupy
movement cast American society as a struggle between the “99 percent” and
the “one percent.”
Obama and then-House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) embraced the movement — and
failed to distance themselves from it even as it collapsed into violence, sexual assault, and
confrontations with police.
Instead,
Obama picked up on Occupy’s themes and used them to shape his campaign.
In
December 2011, Obama gave a speech at Osawatomie, Kansas — a
place steeped in radical symbolism — at which he
doubled down on his left-wing policies. He focused on the issue of economic
inequality, and attacked the idea that the free market could lift the middle
class to prosperity. “This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the
nation’s welfare,” he insisted.
Then, in
the spring of 2012, Obama made a controversial play on race. When a black teen,
Trayvon Martin, was killed in Florida during a scuffle with neighborhood watch
volunteer George Zimmerman, Al Sharprton — who was serving as an informal
adviser to Obama at the time — made the local crime story into a
national racial controversy. Obama, following Sharpton’s lead, weighed
in: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said at the time.
Poll
numbers suggest that race relations, which had
been improving, dropped precipitously after that. But to Obama, it was worth
it: the campaign needed to find a way to motivate minority voters. (Vice
President Joe Biden did his part, telling black voters that GOP nominee Mitt
Romney was “gonna put y’all in chains.”)
Trump is
pushing a non-racial, nationalist message. But if he actually wanted to divide
America for political gain, he could learn from the master.
Joel B. Pollak
is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social
Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard. He is a
winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the
co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a
Revolution, which is
available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Heading for civil war
Donald Trump’s opponents are completely unhinged. The hate and
slander directed towards the president and his supporters is off the charts.
The vitriol comes not just from the Democrat party, the media, and the world of
entertainment, but also from a sizable proportion of the federal
bureaucracy and many seemingly ordinary people.
The media coordinates this campaign and amplifies the hate at
every opportunity. Media twist every event, be it big or small, into a
criticism of the president. The goal is always to present Trump in not just an
unfavorable light but to make him appear too loathsome for polite society. And
Trump is not the sole target of this demonization. It is directed at his
supporters, too.
Where will all this lead? No less than Angelo
M. Codevilla fears it could
ultimately result in a bloody civil war. And if it comes to that, there's no
doubt where he places the blame.
The story of the contemporary American Left's sponsorship of hate
and violence began around 1964, when the Democrats chose to abandon the
Southern constituencies that had been its mainstay since the time of Jefferson
and Jackson. In less than a decade, the party found itself increasingly
dependent on gaining super-majorities among blacks, upscale liberals,
and constituencies of resentment in general -- and hence on stoking their
hate.
For the past half century, America's political history has been
driven by the Democrats' effort to fire up these constituencies by
denigrating the rest of America.
Codevilla notes that prominent Democrats like Barack Obama, Nancy
Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton have led millions of their followers "to think
and act as if conservatives were simply a lower level of humanity, and should
have their faces rubbed in their own inferiority."
It’s not surprising that many ordinary followers have concluded
that harassing conservatives in restaurants, airports, and public functions is
"not just permissible but praiseworthy,
and if thousands of persons who exercise power over cities, towns, and schools
have not concluded that facilitating such harassment and harm is their duty."
This is the toxic environment that the Democrats, in conjunction
with the media, have created. Has Pandora's box been opened? Are we beyond the
point of no return? Are leftists and their liberal soulmates too obtuse not to
expect that hate and violence will someday be answered in kind? These questions
are up in the air. Right now, one thing is clear. As Yeats wrote: "The
best lack all conviction while the worse are full of passionate
intensity."
Codevilla's worry about a civil war dovetails with The
Fourth Turning,: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About American's Next
Rendezvous with Destiny (1997) by William
Strauss and Neil Howe. To my reading, these authors predict a Fourth Turning
Crisis period around the years 2020-2022. Then, many things that Americans have
always taken for granted will unravel.
Just to touch on a few of the changes that Strauss and Howe see:
today's soft criminal justice system will become swift and rough. Vagrants will
be rounded up and the mentally ill recommitted. Criminal appeals shortened and
executions hastened. Pension funds will go bust and Social Security checks
become iffy. The full spectrum of society will be under distress. All
the problems will be combined into one -- the survival of society.
Aren't the seeds already planted for a crisis? Trust in Washington
and in government institutions is at an all-time low. Political violence is
tacitly condoned and often openly encouraged by Democratic officeholders. The political establishment encourages massive Illegal
immigration. The mainstream media is highly partisan and corrupt beyond reform.
The American flag, the country's history, and even its nationhood are openly
despised in universities. American public schools are a disgrace despite
the money poured into them. The country is burdened by a $22 trillion
national debt to which many trillions more of unfunded government liabilities
must be added. Students owe a trillion dollars in school loans that can never
be repaid.
Someday there has to be a reckoning for all this dysfunction.
Irrespective of the election results in 2020, the time frame of 2020-2022
sounds about the right for things to come to a head. It would be prudent to be
ready.
SCRATCH
THE SURFACE OF BARACK OBAMA IS A PRO-MUSLIM, ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-CHRISTIAN,
ANTI-JEWISH DICTATOR IN THE MAKING FOR GLOBALIST BANKSTERS AND BILLIONAIRES.
When Obama found religion (or feigned the motions of doing
so for future electability), he chose out of the near 1,000 available
options to him in Chicago a church whose pastor
was an outspoken anti-American, anti-white, and anti-Semitic conspiracy
theorist. For the next 20 years, Obama and Michelle chose to sit in the
pews of that swine and devour the filth he shoveled out from the trough at his
altar.
The
Crisis Obama Let Go to Waste
Barack Obama's legacy is nothing if not consequential. In
his decades as "community organizer" among Chicago's poorest, most
desperate neighborhoods, he did nothing other than perpetuate complete
dependence on Big Brother. His Affordable Care Act, and its accompanying
criminal penalties for not engaging
in commerce, scythed a mile-wide berth into the already frayed concept of a
citizenry living free from government coercion. More ominously, Obama
was able to entwine his instinctive Marxism with a vision for America's path
forward in a way his predecessors had been unable to.
The singular cunning of Obama was his success in realigning the
"victim" hierarchy almost completely from class to race. Free
citizens in a market society can climb or descend the social ladder, but race
remains a constant throughout. Race is our most recognizable difference,
no matter its superficial nature. In the deepest recesses of our
prejudices, race is pure tribalism. And in the darkest hours of human
history, at our most trying moments, and during our most vicious wars, people
of all tribes have taken refuge not within their class, but within their race
or ethnicity. The examples of Nazi Germany, of Bosnia, of Rwanda, and of
the Armenians in Turkey are but a few examples of the horrors lifelong friends
and neighbors of the same class can inflict on one another in the name of
racial identity politics.
This isn't to say Marxism hasn't been peddled before under the
guise of racial identity grievance. Indeed, Lenin himself was able to
provoke satellite regions like Ukraine and Kazakhstan to revolt from czarist
Russia in the name of ethnic separatism. In the United States, it has
been tried repeatedly since the 1960s. But as our nation's first (half)
black president, Obama was able sow division with absolute authority, and with
minimal criticism by a political class that either openly supported his aims or
was petrified of soliciting unsubstantiated accusations of racism.
And sow division he did, with every chance he got.
When Obama found religion (or feigned the motions of doing so for
future electability), he chose out of the near 1,000 available
options to him in Chicago a
church whose pastor was an outspoken anti-American, anti-white, and
anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist. For the next 20 years, Obama and
Michelle chose to sit in the pews of that swine and devour the filth he
shoveled out from the trough at his altar. When asked to justify his close association with this
shameless bigot, Obama shrugged off such concerns, comparing Wright to "an old uncle who sometimes will say things
that I don't agree with." Obama distanced himself from Wright only
when it started affecting his poll numbers.
When armed Black Panthers were caught threatening voters outside a
Philadelphia polling station in 2008, the Department of Justice under the Bush
administration charged (and convicted) them with violations of the Voting
Rights Act. Once in office, Obama had political appointees in the
DOJ dismiss the charges.
When Cambridge Police (both white and black, not that it should
matter) arrested his black friend Henry Gates for disorderly conduct, Obama,
after admitting that he didn't know all the facts, stated that the police "acted stupidly."
After Trayvon Martin was shot by Afro-Peruvian (AKA "white
Hispanic") George Zimmerman, Obama intoned, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." This
implies that Martin was shot because he was black, and not because he was
repeatedly pummeling Zimmerman's head into the pavement. Even Eric
Holder's investigation concluded otherwise.
After black nationalist Xavier Micah Johnson opened fire and
murdered five Dallas police officers in 2016 (as they protected a Black Lives
Matter march), Obama gave a eulogy at their funeral. The eulogy itself
stands as perhaps one of the most despicable moments of the Obama
presidency. He used the podium to equate the murder of the Dallas police officers with the recent
shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile (both of which were
investigated and found justifiable, and neither man was "unfairly
targeted" because he was black, as Obama asserted).
It was a speech as deft as it was cynical. Reading through
the text, one realizes more clearly the manipulation taking place that, when
spoken, is less detectable. He subtly but unmistakably steers the speech
from a tribute to the murdered officers to a damning indictment of our alleged
systemic racism, coupled with a defense of the paranoid style of the Black
Lives Matter movement. By the end of the speech, Obama had skillfully
twisted the events to the point where theoretical, faceless white racism was to
blame for the actual, documented racism of Xavier Johnson.
One wonders if, had he attended Sterling's funeral, he would have
lectured the audience about murdered police.
At this point, I must interject a side note regarding the
aforementioned shootings. Philando Castile was shot in a horrible case
of mistaken
identity. He closely matched the
description of a suspect from a recent armed robbery, and the officer thought
he was reaching for a gun he admitted to having. Alton Sterling (who had
a long arrest
record that included battery, burglary,
and weapons charges) was shot because he was physically fighting with police,
despite being tasered several times. Police shot him when he reached for
the loaded .38 caliber revolver in his pants. His shooting was completely
warranted, and Baton Rouge is a safer place without him. Neither the
tragic shooting of Castile nor the justified shooting of Sterling can in any
reasonable way be attributed to racism, nor can they be remotely likened to the
premeditated slaughter of the five Dallas officers. But such are the dots
that Obama connected to hustle his race narrative.
Obama is notoriously thin-skinned to criticism, or to the
suggestion that someone, somewhere, might be smarter than he. This is the
guy who claimed, with a straight face, that he was a better speechwriter than his
speechwriters, more knowledgeable about policy than his policy directors, and a
better political director than his political director. Still, one assumes
he was adroit enough to recognize that objections to his policies, or questions
of their constitutionality, were not the default reactions of repressed
racism. If he had thought they were, he would have said so. On
a fundamental level, Obama understands that America is not the systemically
racist cesspool he allowed it to be portrayed as under his watch. Yet he
was Machiavellian enough to let this yarn spin itself for the purpose of
political advantage.
Obama also understood the political pitfalls inherent in hiding
behind the race card in efforts to deflect policy debates he could not
win. So he did one better. He let his media sycophants do it for
him. For the duration of his presidency and beyond, these shrieking curs
claw the flesh off their faces at the slightest hint of criticism of Obama, his
policies, or his style of governance. I am unaware of a single instance
in which he publicly censured his groupies for their utter lack of nuance.
Therein lies the biggest tragedy of Obama's legacy. As a
biracial president, he had a foot in both black and white America. He was
uniquely positioned to use this to the advantage of the entire country, to
serve as a bridge of healing and progress between races who have butted heads
for far too long. Instead, for eight continuous years, he chose to do the
exact opposite. He entrenched identity politics as deeply as he could,
ripping open wounds in the process, and divided this great nation perhaps past
the point of no return. He did this to spread a thoroughly debunked
ideology, the achievability of which his ego will never allow him to admit he
was mistaken about.
In a 2008 speech in which Obama attempted to justify Jeremiah
Wright's irrational hatred, he said, "At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin
up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own
failings." Never before has a poker player so inadvertently revealed
his own hand. When Obama spoke those words, he was no doubt doing what he
does best: thinking of himself.
Malia, Michelle, Barack
and the College Admissions Scandal https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/03/malia-michelle-barack-and-college.html
*
Michelle was the next to attend Harvard, in her case Harvard Law School.
“Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good enough for
an Ivy League school,” writes Christopher Andersen in Barack and Michelle,
“Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”
GOOGLE
WHAT THE OBOMB DID FOR HIS SAUDIS PAYMASTERS
Barack Obama’s back door, however, was unique to him. Before prosecutors
send some of the dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their dimness, they
might want to ask just how much influence a Saudi billionaire peddled to get
Obama into Harvard.
“Of
course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful
and angry” is because race-baiting,
Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was president
for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM
No comments:
Post a Comment