| David Harsanyi is a senior editor at the Federalist August 22, 2019
How did Barack Obama’s policy legacy turn out to be so fleeting and rickety?
Hadn’t Obama’s ascent transformed a nation forever, stirring the American soul and sending thrills up the leg of the commentariat? Hadn’t his election, as Jesse Jackson Jr., then in Congress rather than on parole, noted, been “so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance?”
Not just anyone can win a Nobel Prize for their “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” before ever engaging in a single act of mediation. Then again, this was a man who had promised to marshal the forces of all mankind, the men and women who’d failed to live up to his lofty expectations for the past 150,000 years, to finally start to “heal” the earth.
Bill Clinton might have felt your pain, but Obama, noted San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford in 2008, was a “lightworker,” imbued with the supernatural ability to intuit exactly what an entire nation was thinking. It was not “merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric,” Morford preached (and gushed), it was that the new president was a “rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment.”
Obama had arrived to sort out the dismal state of human affairs. After years of American conflicts abroad, the progressive Left had finally found a leader to end our wars for oil. Here was a man who would finally inhibit the excesses of Wall Street greed that had driven the nation into the abyss of another depression. On top of all of that, Obama would dislodge the institutionalist’s candidate, moving Democrats past the Clintons forever and into a transcendent new era. He was their Ronald Reagan. Better, even.
Except it never happened. And these days, leading Democrats hardly ever mention the man, and when they do, it’s typically to grouse about something he’s either done or failed to do.
This week Rush Limbaugh repeated a quote from James Comey in a New York Magazine interview:
“I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”
It’s hard to pin too much on that quote. Perhaps Comey was joking by calling his vote for Jimmy Carter a vote for a Communist, in mockery of his supposedly fellow Republicans.
Joking about support for Communism is not all that funny in the Obama administration. Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan actually did vote for a Communist presidential candidate. Brennan and Comey are two of the central players in the Russia Collusion Hoax.
Obama choose Communists and Marxists for the highest, most powerful positions in our land, including his closest political advisors, and his head of the CIA. These facts are not in dispute. Most are openly admitted by the people in question, as necessary damage control. Our press chooses not to report them.
Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.
Brennan (who was sworn in as CIA director on a draft of the US Constitution, without the Bill of Rights, instead of a Bible) said that while he had voted Communist, he wasn’t an official member of the Communist Party – and was relieved that he had been accepted into the CIA.
Barack Hussein Obama
His Kenyan father was a communist, who met Obama’s mother, a radical leftist, in a Russian language class. Stanley Dunham, Obama’s white grandfather, chose a notorious member of the Communist Party to be Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.
Obama wrote in his memoir that in college, he sought out Marxist professors. A Marxist student at Occidental College, John Drew, confirms that Obama was a revolutionary Marxist in college. Drew recounts:
Obama… believed that the economic stresses of the Carter years meant revolution was still imminent. The election of Reagan was simply a minor set-back …As I recall, Obama repeatedly used the phrase “When the revolution comes….” …”There’s going to be a revolution,” Obama said, “we need to be organized and grow the movement.” In Obama’s view, our role must be to educate others so that we might usher in more quickly this inevitable revolution. …Obama seemed to think their ideological purity was a persuasive argument in predicting that a coming revolution would end capitalism.
Obama tells us the radical socialist conferences he attended before law school gave him his road map in life, i.e., their plan to put a stealth black candidate in the White House. Obama’s biggest job and his political career in Chicago were launched by self-avowed communist Bill Ayers. Obama’s run for state representative was as the hand-picked successor of a socialist state representative, who was publicly active in communist circles. Obama’s calling in life was work as a hard-left Alinskyite radical agitator. Until he became president, Obama was a 20-year member of an openly Marxist church whose members had to take a pledge against the middle class. When did Obama reject Marxism?
If you are even remotely interested in seeing the grandiose photos for the proposed Obama Center (not library), there is a link at the end of the article to see the photos. It never ends with this man ! Nancy
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE: By contrast, at the forthcoming Barack Obama Presidential Center in Chicago, for which ground will be broken later this year, things will be quite different. To begin with, it is the Obama “center” and not the Obama “library” because it is not, in fact, a library at all: There will be no books, no presidential papers or documents, nor printed matter of any kind related to the Obama presidency, except for, presumably, what’s on sale at the gift shop.
There will be no cables, no memoranda or manuscripts, no official records of the presidency it’s designed to celebrate. The Barack Obama Presidential Center will not be a historical archive, scholarly resource, or even museum, so much as a vast, 33-acre monument to Obama, spread over multiple structures and a manicured landscape.
Most startling of all, the unclassified papers of the Obama administration, the ostensible purpose of any presidential library, will repose not in Chicago but in a distant federal warehouse, digitized for online access but otherwise inconvenient and inaccessible.
Presidential libraries are many things.
They’re repositories of the official papers and, in many cases, the personal archives and artifacts of our nation’s chief executives, as well as those of their families, friends, and colleagues in public service. And as the name would suggest, they are also home to vast collections of books, articles, dissertations, monographs, and journals about their subject or the presidency in general. They’re a scholar’s dream for historians, researchers, and students alike. If you’re seeking to understand, say, Harry S. Truman’s diplomacy or Ronald Reagan’s life before politics, a journey to Independence, Mo., or Simi Valley, Calif., is probably obligatory.
In recent decades, they’ve expanded their purview. Since the advent of Jimmy Carter’s eponymous center in Atlanta, they double as the site of think tanks, foundations, or institutes intended to continue the public work of retired or deceased presidents. Some are located at birthplaces or boyhood homes, which are of interest in themselves, or on college campuses, where their presence may evoke mixed sentiments. They are conference centers, ceremonial and mortuary sites, and, above all, tourist destinations featuring well-stocked museums, rotating exhibitions, troops of visiting schoolchildren, and capacious gift shops.
At the John F. Kennedy library alongside Boston Harbor, you can see a replica of his Oval Office, complete with rocking chair, and at the Reagan library in sunny Southern California, there’s a two-story fragment of the Berlin Wall on an outside terrace.
This article will help you to understand the history behind how the Far Left has been able to take control of the Democrat Party and what their goals are for our country. It is a fascinating read . Nancy
To understand where the radical left plans to take America, you must understand the source of its ideas. We have been warning America about this for over 50 years!
America is in serious decline. Many Americans are deeply concerned. The radical left has gained control of the nation. Look at the Democratic Party today: Its leading personalities promote policies that are weakening the nation economically, socially, morally, militarily and geopolitically. How did they get control? What caused this nation to descend into this condition?
You need to understand what has happened inside this country and why. The problem is far deeper, and has been going on for far longer, than most people realize.
During the Cold War, there was a lot of fear within America about the spread of communism. Today, most Americans no longer consider it a threat of any concern.
But it is of grave concern. Few people realize it, but many mainstream political views in America today are identical to—and trace directly back to—the ideals and beliefs of communism.
One popular candidate running for the Democratic presidential nomination claims to be a socialist. Well, many Communists call themselves socialists. The fact that he has so much support reveals how dangerously ignorant the American people are.
What do you know about communism? A growing number of Americans support the government taking over health care and other major segments of the national economy. They fail to understand the dangers that accompany a Communist system.
Understanding Communism
Socialism and communism are alike in fundamental ways. Both say the centralized government or “the public” should own and control production, rather than individual business owners. Both call for centralized planning and control, which make for powerful governments that are highly susceptible to corruption. Socialism is considered the transition stage from capitalism to communism; in some cases, it is a less radical version that might eventually “mature” into communism.
“You can’t handle the truth,” the former IRS official tells the American people.
IRS official Louis Lerner testifies before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Capitol Hill, May 22, 2013.PHOTO: PETE MAROVICH/BLOOMBERG
By
William McGurn
Nov. 20, 2017 7:09 p.m. ET
In his courtroom apologia in the film “A Few Good Men,” Jack Nicholson’s Col. Nathan Jessup made the words famous. Now, in her bid to keep her testimony in a recently settled tea-party lawsuit against the IRS secret, Lois Lerner has picked up the Jessup argument: “You can’t handle the truth!”
They used different words but the meaning is the same. Here’s how lawyers for Ms. Lerner and her former IRS deputy, Holly Paz, put it in a filing aimed at persuading a judge to keep their testimony from becoming public: “Public dissemination of their deposition testimony would expose them and their families to harassment and a credible risk of violence and physical harm.” They’re not just thinking of themselves, they add. Young children, family members, might be hurt too.
That’s quite an argument. So enraged would the American public become upon learning what Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz said that they and those around them would be in physical peril. Which probably makes most people wonder what the heck must the two have said that would get everyone so agitated?
“Conservatives were justifiably worried that America’s decline was reaching a point of no return,” writes David Horowitz. After the recent election, many breathed a sign of relief, but as the author ofBig Agendasees it, “one battle is over, but there are many more to come.” To prevail, the combatants must want to win, but that has not always been the case with Republicans.
In 2012 Mitt Romney possessed strategic intelligence on his opponent yet failed to deploy it and duly lost the election. In 2016,Romney blasted fellow Republican Donald Trump as “a phony, a fraud,”a charge Clinton gleefully used in attack ads. Veterans of the Bush White House announced that they would vote for Clinton. In the six years they controlled both houses of Congress, Republicans failed to investigate into the Clinton Foundation.
Horowitz wonders what Republicans failed to understand about the perils of the nation, and “the destructive agendas of the left that threaten its future.” Here the author draws from his vast experience on the left.
The progressive movement operates on “almost religious convictions,” which is why members move in lockstep, and demonize anyone outside their ranks. The movement divides society into “oppressor” groups such as whites, males, Christians and heterosexuals and victim or “oppressed” groups such as “people of color” and the LGBT squads. For Horowitz this is “the old Marxist wine in new bottles.”
Security at the State Department’s Benghazi compound was so dire that another contractor was brought in to clean up the mess just two weeks before the 2012 terror attack – and was later pressured to keep quiet by government bureaucrats under then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to two from the American security company
More on this: ARTICLE AND VIDEO – TUCKER CARLSON AND KATHERINE HERRIDGE
Voter Fraud a Myth? That’s Not What New York Investigators Found
Only one fake voter was refused a ballot. The clerk was the mother of the felon he was impersonating.
By
LARRY LEVY
Mr. Levy is vice chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association.
PresidentTrump’s promise to investigate voter fraud has drawn predictable responses from Democrats and the media, who insist there is no such thing and have been fighting for years to prevent any inquiry into the matter. But an investigation in Mr. Trump’s hometown shows that the problem is real.
In 2013 the New York City Department of Investigation—the storied law-enforcement arm of city government, which houses and manages all the city’s inspectors general and investigators—decided to test the system. City investigators posed as 63 ineligible individuals still on the city voter rolls. Each ineligible voter had died, moved out of the jurisdiction, or been convicted of a felony at least two years earlier.
The investigators didn’t go to great lengths to hide their attempted fraudulent votes. In five instances investigators in their 20s or 30s posed as voters age 82 to 94. In some cases the investigators were of different ethnic backgrounds from the voters they were impersonating. Yet each was given a ballot and allowed to cast a vote without question.
In other instances the investigators informed the poll worker that they had moved but didn’t have time to get to their new home on Election Day; all but one was allowed to vote. Only one investigator was flat-out rejected. He had the misfortune of trying to vote at a polling place where the clerk was the mother of the ineligible felon he was impersonating.
Obama choose Communists and Marxists for the highest, most powerful positions in our land, including his closest political advisors, and his head of the CIA. These facts are not in dispute. Most are openly admitted by the people in question, as necessary damage control. Our press chooses not to report them.