CAN YOU THINK OF EVEN ON
THING BARACK OBAMA DID FOR BLACK AMERICA EVEN AS HE OPERATED 'LA RAZA' OUT
OF THE WHITE HOUSE?
"Referencing the Wright and DeLisi report, Dr. Williams comments on another reality: that the rate of black homicide and armed robbery as well as other violent crimes are as is as much as 15–30 times more than whites..."
"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
THE OBOMB “PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY” FUNDED BY
MUSLIM DICTATORS AND OBOMB’S SAUDIS PAYMASTERS WILL NOT HOLD HIS PRESIDENTIAL
PAPERS. OBOMB HAS ALWAYS HIDDEN HIS TRAIL.
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
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.
THE DEPRAVED GHETTO
BLACK CULTURE IN AMERICA - Is it the
world’s most violent subculture?
Dr.
Williams comments on another reality: that the rate of black homicide and armed
robbery as well as other violent crimes are as is as much as 15–30 times more
than whites
So, we have local black gang associates posting terror threats
on social media -- threats of murder, by burning, directed at the women and
children family members of white police employees -- immediately before the
murder, by burning, of the white teenage daughter of a local police department
employee. Plus, the killing took place only minutes after the victim was seen
on video at the same location as the husband or boyfriend of the person who
posted the threats, as he was filling a handheld can with gasoline.
WINDO INTO THE DEPRAVED BLACK
SUBCULTURE
Heather Mac Donald
Public safety
The Social Order
As for interracial violence generally,
blacks disproportionately commit it. Between 2012 and 2015, there
were 631,830 violent interracial victimizations, excluding homicide,
between blacks
and whites, according to the Bureau of
Justice Statistics. Blacks, who make up 13 percent of the U.S.
population, committed 85.5 percent of those victimizations, or 540,360
felonious assaults on
whites, while whites, 61 percent of the
population, committed 14.4 percent, or 91,470 felonious assaults on
blacks. Regarding threats to blacks from the police, a police officer is
18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male
is to be killed by a police officer.
Anti-cop activist Shaun King says that his
involvement in the campaign around the Jazmine Barnes murder was not driven by
reports that a white man had killed the seven-year-old girl, who was gunned
down in Houston on December 30. According to Barnes’s mother and 15-year-old
sister, the white driver of a pickup truck had pulled up next to the family’s
car before opening fire. The accusation set off a frenzy of hate-crime
allegations and blanket coverage by the New York Times. King offered a $100,000
reward to anyone who located the suspect.
As it turned out, Jazmine Barnes was
killed by two black men, who opened fire on her mother’s car because they
thought that they were targeting enemies of their gang. King passed along a tip
about the real killers to the Houston police, and now says that he merely
“internalized the pain of the family and tried to search as if it were my own
child who was killed.” Race, in other words, had nothing to do with his
activism.
It’s worth remembering, though, the many
other black children who have been victims of drive-by shootings without
leading King to launch a national crusade.
A sampling: in March 2015, a six-year-old
boy was killed in a drive-by shooting on West Florissant Avenue in St. Louis,
as Black Lives Matter protesters were converging on the Ferguson, Missouri,
Police Department to demand the resignation of the entire department. In August
2015, a nine-year-old girl was killed by a bullet from a drive-by shooting in
Ferguson while doing her homework in her bedroom, blocks from the Black Lives
Matter rioting thoroughfare. Five children were shot in Cleveland over the 2015
Fourth of July weekend. A seven-year-old boy was killed in Chicago that same
weekend by a bullet intended for his father. In Cincinnati, in July 2015, a
four-year-old girl was shot in the head and a six-year-old girl was left
paralyzed and partially blind from two separate drive-by shootings. In
Cleveland, three children five and younger were killed in September 2015,
leading the black police chief to break down in tears and ask why the community
only protests shootings of blacks when the perpetrator is a cop. In November
2015, a nine-year-old in Chicago was lured into an alley and killed by his
father’s gang enemies; the father refused to cooperate with the police. All
told, ten children under the age of ten were killed in Baltimore in 2015;
twelve victims were between the age of ten and seventeen.
In 2016, a three-year-old girl in
Baltimore was partially paralyzed by a drive-by shooting. In Chicago in 2016,
two dozen children under the age of 12 were shot in drive-bys, including a
three-year-old boy mowed down on Father’s Day 2016 who is now paralyzed for
life and a ten-year-old boy shot in August; his pancreas, intestines, kidney,
and spleen were torn apart. A Jacksonville 22-month-old was shot to death by a
passing car last June. In September, three men killed three-year-old Azalya
Anderson in a drive-by in Sacramento, and a week before Christmas in
Bridgeport, a 12-year-old boy was shot and killed on his way home from the
candy store in a drive-by shooting.
Why did King let these shootings of black
children go by without responding as he did to Jazmine Barnes’s murder? Could
it be because the perpetrators were black? You could end all white shootings of
black children tomorrow and it would have zero effect on the death rate of
black children by homicide, because such white-on-black shootings are extremely
rare. Moral abominations, like the 2015 Charleston church massacre by white
supremacist Dylann Roof, are aberrations that belong to the outermost lunatic
fringe of American society. The country’s revulsion at the Charleston carnage
was immediate and universal, resulting in a movement to banish the Confederate
flag, embraced by Roof as a white supremacist symbol, from official
sites.
If Shaun King and other Black Lives Matter
activists really want to save black children from the trauma of urban violence,
they should put their efforts into rebuilding inner-city culture—above all, by
revalorizing a married father as the best gift a mother can give her child.
Fantasies about white violence against “black bodies” are a distraction from
what is actually happening on American streets.
Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith
Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and
the author of The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes
Everyone Less Safe and The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering
Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.
Walter Williams tackles the elephant
in the room on crime
Dr. Williams is a well known conservative economist and longtime
John Olin Chair faculty at George Mason University in eastern Virginia, author
of 12 books and syndicated columnist. In the past, he has been
substitute host on the Rush Limbaugh radio program. He is almost
like family to me, and I have benefited from his essays and books over the
years. This past week, I saw and read his essay on disparities in crime rates among races that was picked up
by Military in its October 2019 issue. What got Dr. Williams going
was the article by Matthew DeLisi of Iowa State U and John Paul
Wright of the U of Cincinnati titled "What Criminologists Don't Say and
Why."
Dr. Williams confirms that the writers are right about the liberal
tilt of criminologists — "If criminologists have the guts to even talk
about a race-crime connection, it's behind closed doors and in guarded
language. Any discussion about race and crime ... can mean the end
of one's professional career."
Dr. Williams points out teen black-on-white predatory behavior —
chronicled in detail by many, particularly Colin Flaherty, whose investigative reports appear frequently (more than 100) at American Thinker — cannot be reported,
mentioned, or considered by the media, politicians, criminologists,
commentators, politicians, even law enforcement people without risking being
called racist, the easy epithet used to enforce a ban on talking about the
realities of racial disparities in crime and the increasingly violent nature of
black violence against whites — the knockout game, polar bear hunting, flash
mob violence against people and property.
Referencing the Wright and DeLisi report, Dr. Williams comments on
another reality: that the rate of black homicide and armed robbery as well as
other violent crimes are as is as much as 15–30 times more than whites, for example, and he points out the silliness of criminologists'
claims that mass incarceration rather than criminality has decimated the black
community. He favorably quotes Wright and DeLisi when they say,
"What they [criminals] did, in reality was to prey on their neighbors."
Dr. Williams returns to a theme he has explored many times before
in this essay and commentary when he points out that the black family of the
past was two parents and stable, even back to days of slavery, and that the
black community was moral and law-abiding. "The strong
character of black people is responsible for the great progress made from
emancipation to today. ... [T]oday's conduct among black youth wouldn't have
been tolerated yesteryear."
My regret is there aren't enough Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell
types to engage the nutty attitudes of liberal chatterbox experts.
John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D. is an
emergency physician, sheriff's medical officer and inactive attorney, policy
and science adviser to the American Council on Science and Health of NYC and
the Heartland Institute of Chicago.
CITY JOURNAL
BLACK ON BLACK VIOLENCE Data,
of crime and policing than this weekend’s demonstrations suggest.
The FBI released its official crime tally for 2016 today, and the data
flies in the face of the rhetoric that professional athletes rehearsed in revived
Black Lives Matter protests over the weekend. Nearly 900 additional
blacks were killed in 2016 compared with 2015, bringing the black
homicide-victim total to 7,881. Those 7,881 “black bodies,” in the parlance of
Ta-Nehisi Coates, are 1,305 more than the number of white victims (which in
this case includes most Hispanics) for the same period, though blacks are
only 13 percent of the nation’s population. The increase in black homicide
deaths last year comes on top of a previous 900-victim increase between 2014
and 2015.
Who is
killing these black victims? Not whites, and not the police, but other blacks.
In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 blacks, the vast majority armed and
dangerous, according to the Washington Post. The Post categorized only 16 black male victims of police shootings
as “unarmed.” That classification masks assaults against officers and violent
resistance to arrest. Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police
have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the
police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a
black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer.
Black males have made up 42 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade,
though they are only 6 percent of the population. That 18.5 ratio undoubtedly
worsened in 2016, in light of the 53 percent increase in gun murders of
officers—committed vastly and disproportionately by black males. Among all
homicide suspects whose race was known, white killers of blacks numbered only
243.
Violent
crime has now risen by a significant amount for two consecutive years. The
total number of violent crimes rose 4.1 percent in 2016, and estimated
homicides rose 8.6 percent. In 2015, violent crime rose by nearly 4 percent and
estimated homicides by nearly 11 percent. The last time violence rose two years
in a row was 2005–06. The reason for the current increase is what I have
called the Ferguson Effect. Cops are backing off of proactive policing in
high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.
Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter
activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning
someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are
instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make
them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive
policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of
it. Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their
colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons,
according to a Pew Research poll released in January 2016. The reason is the persistent
anti-cop climate.
Four
studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased.
If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against
whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the
police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes.
The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of
law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.
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
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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment