DEM CONTROLLED CHICAGO IN MELTDOWN - MAYOR HEAVYFOOT SAYS TAKE CARE OF RAHM'S BANKSTERS FIRST - WHAT IS IT WITH DEMS AND BANK ROBBERS? 'Indeed, the largest single source of new revenue to cover the deficit comes from a category called “charges for services,” which has increased from $139.6 million to $460.2 million."

THE BANKSTER FUNDED DEMOCRAT PARTY: SERVANTS OF THE LA RAZA MEXICAN WELFARE STATE ON THE AMERICAN WORKERS’ BACKS!

THEY DESTROYED THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS, AMERICA’S BORDERS AND ENDLESSLY ASSAULTED THE AMERICAN WORKER IN THEIR EFFORTS TO FINISH OFF THE GOP… And they got filthy rich doing it!

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-democrat-party-vows-to-finish-off.html

“The Democrats had abandoned their working class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration”.  DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE

"Illinois is a state full of illegal aliens.  One in seven Illinoisans are immigrants, with 450,000 official illegals.  One point two million jobs are taken by illegals in Illinois.  This is one of the most heavily invaded states in the Union. Timothy Birdnow

THE LA RAZA SUPREMACY DEMOCRAT PARTY:

The Democratic Party used to be the party of blue-collar America- supporting laws and policies that benefited that segment of the U.S. population.  Their leaders may still claim to be advocates for American working families, however their duplicitous actions that betray American workers and their families, while undermining national security and public safety, provide clear and incontrovertible evidence of their lies…. MICHAEL CUTLER …FRONTPAGE mag

Chicago Mayor Lightfoot’s budget: Increased policing and austerity on behalf of the financial aristocracy

On October 23, Chicago Democratic Party Mayor Lori Lightfoot released her budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Despite repeated claims by Lightfoot and the media that the $11.65 billion budget embodies “equity,” it continues the class war austerity agenda of the Democratic Party and her immediate predecessor, former Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Lightfoot has put her foot down in regard to 

increased spending on social programs, 

saying “We’ve made a lot of tough choices 

and hard sacrifices” with “more to come.” 

Repeatedly claiming that there is “no money” to meet the demands of striking teachers, Lightfoot received a standing ovation from the aldermen of the City Council for her announcement that closing the city’s budget deficit would not result in increased property taxes.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot [Credit: AP Photo Jim Young, File]

Showing the class priorities involved, Lightfoot was able to find an additional $100 million to add to the budget line of the Chicago Police Department (CPD), a 7 percent increase over the previous year. Her budget relies on squeezing the school system and other units of government to pay for the police department’s “services.”

While there has been a great deal of silence and mystery over what increases and cuts are being proposed to individual programs and departments, official discussion has largely revolved around how to close an $838 million deficit. Of this, $346 million comes from required increased payments to the city’s criminally underfunded pension systems. The sharp increase in the city’s contribution is largely the result of the city failing to pay pension costs in previous years, abetted by the unions, which did nothing to oppose it.

In order to close the deficit, Lightfoot has proposed a raft of fee increases, many of which will have a much larger impact on workers than on the wealthy. Indeed, the largest single source of new revenue to cover the deficit comes from a category called “charges for services,” which has increased from $139.6 million to $460.2 million.

Chief among the new fees in the current budget is a sharp increase in the rate charged for ambulance services, which will rise from $900 to $2,500 and garner an expected $163 million.

Though it has been portrayed as simply a way to receive more money from the federal government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which pays for a large portion of ambulance rides, the fee will also be applied to those with private health insurance or without any insurance at all. According to the Chicago Tribune, Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker has pushed for Illinois municipalities to update their costs in order to receive higher reimbursements.

One of the most provocative of the new charges is for policing, with “sister agencies,” such as Chicago Public Schools (CPS), forced to pay for officers assigned to them. According to recent news reports, CPS is expected to pay the city $33 million for this.

The school system is also being charged $60 million to cover pension costs the administration claims are owed to the city for municipal workers assigned to CPS. Referring to these measures, Chicago CFO Jennie Huang Bennett said, “It’s about making sure that all of the various sister agencies live within their means and that we are all paying our fair share.”

Lightfoot is also proposing to raise the parking meter rate by 50 cents per hour this year, with future years being indexed to inflation. New parking meters will also be installed in areas of the West Loop that do not currently have any.

The Lightfoot administration has also announced that all “user fees,” such as those charged for water and trash removal, will be reviewed regularly to ensure they are covering costs, meaning that more increases are sure to follow.

Aside from these fees, the budget proposal also includes several increased taxes, including two percent on cloud computing services and a 0.5 percent increase in the sales tax on restaurant meals. Ride sharing services such as Uber and Lyft would see increased surcharges, particularly for rides going downtown, which would have a city fee totaling $3 at many times of the day.

Another injection of revenue will come from Lightfoot’s plan to refinance $1.3 billion in municipal bonds set to expire in 2040. However, instead of approaching it as a yearly savings, the mayor plans to immediately use the entirety of the $200 million that would have been saved over the whole time period in the upcoming fiscal year. According to Greg Hinz, writing in Crain’s Chicago Business, this means debt service payments over the next two payments will actually rise, putting increased pressure on future budgets.

Though no layoffs have been announced, 252 vacant positions are being eliminated, evidently identified through the Lightfoot administration’s employment of “zero-based budgeting.”

Several departments are being merged, including the Department of Innovation and Technology with the Department of Fleet and Facility Management. Administration of the Chicago Fire Department (CFD), CPD and Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC) will also be merged into an Office of Public Safety Administration. The latter merger is being affected in order to free up money for additional police officers, for which the city is spending around $1.5 billion on personnel costs.

The Lightfoot administration has thrown a few sops toward burnishing her “equity” credentials. One of these is an increase to the real estate transfer tax affecting properties worth over $1 million. If approved by the state legislature, it would bring in a relatively paltry $50 million.

Lightfoot has also proposed to tie budget approval to an increase in the city’s minimum wage, which would see it rise to $15 an hour by 2021. This has largely been seen as a way to get political support for the budget from the faction of aldermen associated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and United Working Families (UWF), a union-affiliated Democratic Party political organization. Needless to say, $15 an hour is wholly inadequate to cover living expenses in the third largest city in the country today, let alone in several years’ time.

BLOG: CHICAGO, OBOMB'S HOMETOWN, IS A SANCTUARY CITY WHERE ILLEGALS GET JOBS AND WELFARE FIRST!

Moreover, in a city with over 80,000 estimated

homeless people, Lightfoot has proposed 

additional affordable housing help for just 700

households.

Lightfoot will also not reopen 12 mental health clinics shut down by Emanuel. Instead, she has proposed doubling mental health funding to a pathetic $19 million. According to the city’s own public health department, 178,000 adults who needed mental health treatment at some point in the previous year were not able to receive it.

Combined with the elimination of 638 vacant positions in the county health system, it is clear that the Democratic Party will preside over a continuing social crisis. The county health system, which largely treats those without health care coverage of any kind, has been decimated by budget cuts implemented by Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, who also serves as chair of the Cook County Democratic Party, and who lost the mayoral race to Lightfoot.

DSA and UWF-affiliated aldermen were able to delay confirmation of Lightfoot’s nominee for health commissioner, Allison Arwady, due to her lack of support for reopening the clinics. However, Lightfoot claimed she made changes to the plan, saying, “So now we’ve fine-tuned it, made sure that we checked it with various community partners, and I have 100 percent confidence that Dr. Arwady will be the next full-time commissioner.”

Speaking at a rally of striking teachers in front of City Hall earlier this week, DSA and UWF-affiliated alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa claimed that the bloc would be fighting on their behalf during the budget approval process. He said, “Before we go to Mayor Lightfoot and say, ‘You have our vote on this budget,’ we are going to work with you to make sure that we finally have a budget for the many and not the few.”

Despite the rhetoric, Ramirez-Rosa is a loyal Democrat, and even serves as Democratic Party Committeeman for his city ward. His aim, as with the rest of the DSA and UWF aldermanic bloc, is to prevent independent opposition from emerging to the right-wing policies of Lightfoot, Preckwinkle and the Democratic Party of which they are all a part.

Michelle Obama: ‘Many’ Around the World Feel Barack Is ‘Their President’ 

Scott Olson/Getty Images

JOSHUA CAPLAN

 1 Nov 201943,151

1:27

Former first lady Michelle Obama said Tuesday that her husband, former President Barack Obama, could have built his presidential library anywhere in the world because many feel he is “their president.”

Obama, speaking at the Obama Foundation Summit at the Illinois Institute of Technology, explained Chicago’s Jackson Park was selected as the site for the Obama Presidential Center because it was close to the couple’s former home and situated near her South Side childhood home.

“There’s power in the selection of Jackson Park,” the former first lady said. “Barack and I don’t do things incidentally. There’s a strategy.”

Obama then argued the library could have even been built outside of the United States.

“Barack’s presidential library could have been anywhere in the world, because there are so many people who feel like he is their president,” she stated.

“New York wanted it. Hawaii wants it. Because it’s also an economic engine,” she added.

Michelle Obama appeared at the fireside chat with her brother, Craig Robinson, and interviewed by The Warmth of Other Suns author Isabel Wilkerson.

In June, a federal judge ruled plans to build the $500 million presidential center on Chicago’s lakefront could move forward, dismissing advocacy group Protect Our Parks’s lawsuit objecting to the use of public park land.

Pollak: Barack Obama Wrote the Playbook on Political Division

 

JOEL B. POLLAK

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

By Peter Skurkiss

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

By Christopher Skeet

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

MICHELLE OBAMA ANNOUNCES SHE WILL RUN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE AND BE BARACK’S THIRD TERM FOR LIFE.

MEXICO WILL ELECT HER!

https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/01/michelle-obama-ill-be-baracks-third.html

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

Editorial Reviews: Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

GET THIS BOOK!

Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses

BY TIMOTHY P CARNEY

 Editorial Reviews

Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s OBAMANOMICS TO SERVE THE RICH AND GLOBALIST BILLIONAIRES.