"He sang. He wept. He cheered. And many say they finally saw the man who inspired them in '08."
"He sang. He wept. He cheered. And many say they finally saw the man who inspired them in '08."
Barack Obama sat in the pews of a radical racist church for 20 years listening to the rantings of a black supremacist preacher (steeped in the hateful teachings of Black Liberation Theology) who saw 9/11 and 3000 dead as divine punishment for slavery, Jim Crow and white America's nonexistent ongoing institutional oppression of blacks-millions of whom are trapped in poverty and degradation by the failed liberal welfare state. So I wasn't surprised to hear Obama this week libelling and stereotyping (less offensively than Wright) all white Americans as hopelessly, unredeemably, immutably racist.
But before I get into that perhaps you'll recall that candidate Obama in March 2008-foreshadowing the racially divisive president he'd make, as I predicted then (see)-in his speech on Reverend Wright and race (to save his election campaign) threw his old, sick white grandmother under the bus comparing her to Wright because of her racist sins: "She feared black men," said Obama...."and occasionally uttered racial and ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." (Did she God damn black America I wonder?)
Now after this despicable speech (which the liberal media laughably compared to Lincoln's historic "Cooper Union Speech") Obama elaborating on his grandmother's racism said that it was "TYPICAL OF WHITE PEOPLE." He said that racism was "bred into our experiences and doesn't go away..... and that's just the nature of race in our society." In other words, while candidate Obama was smiling and lying and pledging to be a post-racial uniter and healer as president (another Mandela or Dr. King) he seems to have believed that trying to unite black and white in a harmoniously racial society wasn't possible. Why? Because like his racist grandmother all white people by nature (no matter how liberal they seem), are hopelessly and helplessly racist to some degree, and could never accept blacks as equal human beings. In fact, Obama's Wright speech was an ominous sign that as president he'd wage war against white America on behalf of blacks just like he did for decades on the streets of Chicago as a race hustling community agitator-like pressuring banks to make risky subprime loans to blacks (see). And indeed, no sooner did Obama take office than he fired the first shoot in this war by having Eric Holder condemn white Americans as "cowards when it comes to race" despite all the progress and financial sacrifices that were made to help blacks over the decades.
In other words, as you will see below, it doesn't matter to extremists like Obama whether you're left or right, Republican or Democrat-or if you descended from immigrants who came to our shores from Ireland, Italy, Germany or France when the Civil War was decades past-if you're a white American of any ethnicity living anywhere in this land you're blood is poisoned (like Obama's grandmother) with anti-black racism.
Indeed, Obama's radicalism was even more pronounced in his pod cast interview with Marc Maron this week where after shocking many by using the "N" word he demonized white America-going beyond what he said in 2008-as hopelessly, helplessly and ineradicably racist. Just listen to this crap and cringe:
Remember Apollo, this is the same French President that is trying to help Obama force a Palestinian State down the Israeli's throat. If anything, I take his move as a surreptitious way in preparation for the cous de gras they intend to deliver in the UN Security Council Chambers.The fur has not yet begun to fly. See my post above
“Palestine can never recognize Israel as a Jewish state......I have never and will never give up the right of return for Palestinian refugees”- Mahmoud Abbas
"The Israeli demand for Palestinian recognition of a Jewish state as a condition in negotiations is a mistake and should be dropped." - Secretary of State John Kerry
WHY WOULD THE CLOSEST THING TO A TEENAGER
ever to sit in the White House want it known that he thinks he's the closest thing we've ever had to a Jewish president? Is it one last-ditch effort at public relations to repair his justified image with Israelis of being the most anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian US president in history? Is this Obama’s last desperate adolescent move at winning back the hearts and minds of Israelis and turning them against Bibi Netanyahu who he believes is depriving him and them of a peace deal with an implacably Jew-hating Arab people headed by Mahmoud Abbas: the anti-Zionist co-founder of the PLO who refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State and wants a return of millions of Palestinian refugees to Israel as the central condition for peace? Is that what Obama is trying to do?
Truth is Netanyahu and Israelis want peace-the same just peace Israel achieved with Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Jordan's King Hussein when both courageously "betrayed" the evil Arab cause and recognized the legitimacy of Zionism and Israel as the national homeland for the Jewish people. But Abbas and the Palestinians are hell-bent on victory and believe it can be their's. Hating Sadat and King Hussein for their “traitorous” peace with Israel "peace" for Abbas means Jewish Israel's incremental political destruction. It means Israelis forgoing Zionism and allowing the return of every last Palestinian refugee and their descendents which would gradually undermine the Jewish character of Israel and turn it into an Arab-Moslem-Sharia run hell state with its Jewish minority living in oppression-just as the shrinking number of Christians now live in the Palestinian territories.
Indeed, when John Kerry said last year that for the sake of peace it would be best if Netanyahu "drop the Jewish state demand" it signaled that he and Obama (though not daring to say it publicly) were on board with Abbas's evil scheme for a one state solution by flooding Israel with millions of Arab refugees that was caused by a pan-Arab war of annihilation against Israel. Indeed, if this weren’t so then why didn’t Kerry, to be fair, also tell Abbas that for peace it would be best to “drop the right of refugee return?” But about this so-called right there wasn’t a peep. Instead, Obama and Kerry have taken leave of their senses claiming that Abbas (with his refugee scheme for destroying Israel) is a genuine and trustworthy “peace partner " as if he was another Sadat or King Hussein. But Netanyahu and Israel aren't deceived: Abbas is a "peace partner" from hell with a plan of peace for peacefully taking down the Jewish state piece by piece.
But Obama and Kerry’s actions and inactions should surprise no one familiar with the anti-Israel Zionist-hating left. For like many on the left Obama and Kerry believe that Jewish Israel's existence has been a disaster for US foreign policy, the peace and stability of the Middle East and the world; and that if Netanyahu and the Jews peacefully sacrificed their Zionism (and trying to maintain the Jewish character of Israel by controlled immigration) it would be for the greater good of the region and world and everyone would prosper. Indeed, if only Netanyahu (and the Jews), like Obama says, could overcome his security fears [of Jews living in a Palestinian state] and see the "best possibilities" of the Palestinians-meaning that they’re a good, noble, just and generous people; in other words, if only he and the Jews could learn to trust the Palestinians and agree to the return of millions of refugees as Abbas demands (and Arafat before him) as an absolute condition for peace (which Obama and Kerry tacitly endorse), then they'd see that their fears were unfounded; they'd see that living as a minority in a larger Arab-Palestinian-Moslem state would not be the nightmare of oppression and injustice they imagine. In a word, Israeli Jews would see that the good, just, noble Palestinians would treat them with kindness, respect and equality, and protect their ethnic, religious and human rights. And everyone would live happily evermore.
That Barack Obama from the start of his presidency has been anything but a honest broker in trying to negotiate a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians should be clear to the reader-as it is to the vast majority of Israelis who rightly despise him. Not once from his first day in office has Obama so much as criticized Mahmoud Abbas for making the massive return of refugees to Israel the main condition for peace. On the other hand, Bibi Netanyahu-Obama's scapegoat for failure-has relentlessly been criticized over border issues, expanding settlements, new home construction in East Jerusalem, Jewish state demand, and now for being blind to the "better possibilities" of Palestinians. In short, Obama like Abbas and the Palestinians, most Moslems worldwide, and the anti-Israel left won't be happy with Israel until it is willing to commit national suicide and agree to its own demise. And this deceptive anti-Zionist enemy of Israel has the audacity to say he's the closest thing this country ever had to a Jewish president? It's mind-boggling!
Where did Obama learn to be a pro-Palestinian anti-Zionist? From his pro-Hamas mentor Reverend Wright, where else?
On May 26TH junior socialist senator from Vermont Bernie "single payer, tax the rich to death" Sanders launched his radical 2016 presidential campaign challenging hypocritical, corrupt, scandal plagued frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton. Since Sander's launch enthusiasm has been growing for his candidacy among hard left Democat voters (such as Elizabeth Warren supporters) who loath the super wealthy elitist Clintons and see them as too centrist to continue Barack Obama's unfinished agenda of political, social, economic and environmental transformation (see). Could the unthinkable happen again with Hillary losing in a close primary race to a candidate running to her left, or perceived as a more genuine and trustworthy progressive who will soak the rich, grow the welfare state, redistribute more wealth to the poor, grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, keep us out of war and save the planet from climate change disaster? Instead of the Democrat Party having its first woman nominee for president will it get instead its first Jewish nominee-a son of Holocaust survivors? Nobody but God knows.
Bernie Sanders kicking off his 2016 presidential campaign promising supporters (among other things) that he will expand Medicare for some (which is going bankrupt) into "single payer Medicare for all."
But is providence dropping clues that Hillary is predestined for defeat, and is using Sanders' candidacy to wreck her electoral hopes? In other words, is Sanders a sign foretelling that end? If Sanders is too radical to become the nominee will the growing popularity of his candidacy with progressives nevertheless pull Hillary so far to the left (assuming she's the nominee) that she'll end up irreversibly alienating the moderates and independents she'd need for victory? For the signs (if signs they be) are looking rather grim for Hillary. Consider the following and judge for yourself.
Hillary announced her candidacy for the Democrat nomination to run for the 45th presidency on April 12th in an insipid two minute YouTube video (see). As I wrote here April 12th was the 70th anniversary of Franklin Roosevelt's death-that year being the 45th of the 20th century, the most significant number in this presidential race. Now Roosevelt who was born and raised and achieved political success in New York State, where Hillary lives, was the last president to come from that state. Does Hillary therefore announcing her bid for the 45th presidency on the death date of America's last president from New York in some mysterious way signal that this race will kill for good her presidential aspirations? That the next president from New York (if there is one in our future) will be someone else? And that a strong Bernie Sanders' campaign is the stake that will be driven through Hillary's political heart?
Interestingly enough Sanders like FDR (and unlike Hillary) was born and raised in New York. In fact, Sanders was born in Brooklyn where Hillary, oddly, has her campaign headquarters (see). Moreover, unlike Hillary (born 1947) Sanders was born during FDR's presidency just 90 days short of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. And amazingly, as Hillary announced her candidacy on the 70th anniversary of FDR's death in 1945 Sanders (a man in his early 70s) officially launched his campaign not 44 days later or 46 days later but exactly, precisely 45 days later (see). Could this too be an ominius sign for Hillary that though she were to win her party's nomination that radical left fired up Bernie will so damage her with moderates and independents as to ruin her chances of becoming 45th president? Or will some new criminal corruption scandal finally destroy her campaign?
Whatever, both candidates will be claiming to truly represent the New Deal liberalism of Franklin Roosevelt when in reality they'll both be running to FDR's far left. Sanders has been warning (and Hillary would agree) that "our nation [Barack Obama's America] is facing more serious crises than we've faced since the Great Depression." But will Sanders convince a majority in his party that he not Hillary is the more credible New Dealer and true heir to FDR's (failed) economic legacy? And that he can and will do more than Hillary to punish corporate greed, Wall Street banksters and the super rich to benefit their helpless "victims"- the poor and struggling middle class families?
But not to be outdone by Sanders or any challenger Hillary will officially launch her campaign on June 13th in Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island (named after FDR, see) to signify her committment to FDR's misguided belief that bold government action and experimentation is the answer to economic distress, income inequality, unfairness and most every other crisis real or imagined; and that she more than Sanders (or any other candidate) is the true 21st century FDR (or Eleanor Roosevelt) running in this race; and that she knows better than her less capable rivals how to expand and use the power of the federal government to fix everything that's unfair, wrong and broken in our country. In fact, to signal to the nation that she intends to be, or is destined to be (what Barack Obama failed to be) the second FDR with a new New Deal for saving America Hillary by design it seems picked the highly significant date of June 13th to hold her first major campaign rally. For June 13th is the 82nd anniversary of the very last momentous day of FDR's First 100 Days of Action* where he signed into law a dozen bills to end the Great Depression-which dismally failed causing instead a prolonging of the crisis until the militarization of the US economy put America back to work during World War II.
* From FDR's March 6th Presidential proclamation closing the nations banks to his June 13th "Home Owners Loan Act" is exactly 100 days (see).
The race for FDR's obsolete New Deal legacy is on among regressive, reactionary, government supremacist Democrats. A legacy that in reality has no answers for America's current crises under the most reckless spending (New Dealer on steroids) president in history. With $18 trillion in debt and growing, and $100 trillion in unfunded Social Security, Medicare and pension liabilities, America is on an unsustainable course that can't continue without devastating domestic and global consequences. Government spending, intervention and regulation are out of control and killing this nation driving it toward bankruptcy and ruin; and the Democrat solution is a "new New Deal II" after Obama's has failed. Now more than ever what Bill Clinton said in his 1996 State of the Union is true: "The era of big government is over."