THE LEGACY OF
BARACK OBAMA:
Final Death of the American White Middle Class
Under the Obama administration, more Americans have found themselves consigned to economic ghettos, living in neighborhoods where more than 40 percent subsist below the poverty level.
Millions more now live in “high poverty” districts
of 20-40 percent poverty, according to recently released report by the
Brookings Institution.
It seems that the news of Obama getting $400,000 for a speech to a Wall Street firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, and that Random House will pay Obama up to sixty million dollars for two books has upset the usual Kool-Aid drinkers who support Obama. Or m...
May 2, 2017
Hell freezes over: Lefties attack Obama
It seems that the news of Obama getting $400,000 for a speech to a Wall Street firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, and that Random House will pay Obama up to sixty million dollars for two books has upset the usual Kool-Aid drinkers who support Obama. Or maybe it was the spirit of May 1, the commie holiday.
First, Van Jones, the Communist who once worked for Obama and now works at CNN, said Obama should do a "poverty tour" to visit poor areas.
Fat chance. During his presidency, Obama's policies contributed to the increase in poverty. Obama vacationed at Martha's Vineyard, while Michelle vacationed in Hawaii, France, Italy, Vail, Mexico, and other non-poverty spots. The Obamas flew to Manhattan for "dates" and regularly had lavish parties at the White House. They lived large at taxpayer expense. Obama did not care about the "poverty areas" while he was president, so why would he care now?
Senator Warren, already in her campaign for 2020, echoed Van Jones:
I think President Obama, like many others in both parties, talks about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots. That GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans. And the lived experiences of most Americans is that they are being left behind in this economy.
Finally, two Democrats, one a commie and one a candidate, tell the truth about Obama that was obvious to conservatives and to the voters who elected Trump. Obama does not care about the poor. He also does not care about security of our country given his appeasement of Iran on the nuclear deal, and his failure to enforce our borders and enforce immigration laws.
The question should be why Warren and Jones, as representatives of the Democratic Party, are surprised that Obama is cashing in. Obama was supported by Wall Street, Hollywood millionaires, and the well paid mainstream media. He did nothing to improve the economy and went out of his way to damage the economy with his refusal to approve the oil pipeline and offshore drilling, his war on coal, and his numerous regulations on business.
Jones, the commie, should ask his former boss, Obama, to "share the wealth" of the $60 million.
BARACK OBAMA:
FUNDER AND LEADER OF THE MEXICAN FASCIST
PARTY of LA RAZA “The Race”
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-racist-mexican-fascist-party-of-la.html
During Obama’s 8 year bankster
regime, he openly operated and funded the Mexican fascist racist party of LA
RAZA “The Race” from the White House under La Raza VP Cecilia Munoz…. Google
Obama and LA RAZA!
BARACK OBAMA PLANS A THIRD TERM: HIS CRONY BANKSTERS, LA RAZA, MUSLIMS
AND THOSE MUSLIM DICTATORSHIPS HE FUNDED ARE BEHIND HIM…. Along with George
Soros!
THE OBAMA COUP TO BE DICTATOR:
THE ARMY OF ILLEGALS TO BRING
AMERICA DOWN AND FORM THE OBAMA MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP THAT WILL BE OPEN
BORDERS AND PRO LA RAZA FASCIST SUPREMACY.
Daniel Greenfield, the award-winning Shillman
Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, believes (OBAMA'S POLITICAL PARTY)
“OFA will be far more dangerous in the wild than the Clinton Foundation ever
was.”
THE
CONSPIRACY OF TRAITORS:
THE
CLINTON-OBAMA PLAN TO DESTROY DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA FOR GLOBALIST BILLIONAIRES
INCLUDING THEIR PAYMASTER GEORGE SOROS!
"When it comes to Islamic
terror or shariah imposition, Obama and other globalists preach a type of
defenselessness and impotence: something we have to abide. For many liberals,
virtue signaling, the epitome of vanity,
is more important than saving lives, even the lives of their countrymen."
THE OBAMA WAR ON AMERICA: His OFA Party is Dedicated to Destroying
American and Building the Obama Muslim-style dictatorship funded by crony
banksters.
Daniel
Greenfield, the award-winning Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center,
believes (OBAMA'S POLITICAL PARTY) “OFA will be far more dangerous in the wild
than the Clinton Foundation ever was.”
*
"Obama is no
fool and he understands -- having encouraged Black Lives Matter and the war on
police and law enforcement, having facilitated ballooning welfare rolls and
doubling student debt to $1.35 trillion, having presided over a flood of
immigrants illegally crossing the southern border, and having pushed
unprecedented deficit spending that added nearly a trillion dollars annually to
the federal debt and doubling that debt in eight years to $20 trillion -- that
the U.S. is nearer collapse than at any previous time. And every Marxist knows
that socialist transformation first requires collapse of the old order."
PSYCHOPATH!
THE LEGACY of BARACK OBAMA: MUSLIM
PSYCHOPATH AND BANKSTER RENT BOY WHO CAME NEAR TO CREATING A MUSLIM-STYLE
DICTATORSHIP BY SABOTAGING AMERICA’S HOMELAND SECURITY AND FUNDING THE MEXICAN
FASCIST RACIST PARTY of LA RAZA.
The WSWS has reported several
times that during Obama’s administration the wealth of the richest 400
Americans grew from $1.57 trillion to $2.4 trillion and the stock market
enjoyed one of its most successful runs in history.
HILLARY AND OBAMA’S PAYMASTER:
NAFTA MAN GEORGE SOROS: GLOBAL
LOOTER, GLOBAL PLUNDERER, GLOBAL TERRORIST and one man fascist
movement!
FOR THE SUPER RICH:
“The terrorist suspect’s most recent efforts through “open
society” foundations he funds are bringing globalist gunpowder plots to places
like Poland and Armenia, in the long march to make the world safe for
plutocracy.”
EVEN BEFORE HIS FIRST DAY AS
PRESIDENT, "HOPE & CHANGE"
HUCKSTER OBAMA HAD SUCKED IN
MORE BRIBES FROM CRIMINAL
BANKSTERS THAN ANY OTHER
PRESIDENT IN HISTORY! ..... DURING
OBAMA'S FIRST TWO YEARS IN OFFICE,
THIS CRONY BANKSTERS MADE MORE
THAN THE ENTIRE 8 YEARS GEORGE
BUSH SERVED THEM!
“law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists,” “the top 1 percent or so of the income scale,”
The New York Times worries about the high political cost of Obama’s $400,000 speeches
PRESIDENT, "HOPE & CHANGE"
HUCKSTER OBAMA HAD SUCKED IN
MORE BRIBES FROM CRIMINAL
BANKSTERS THAN ANY OTHER
PRESIDENT IN HISTORY! ..... DURING
OBAMA'S FIRST TWO YEARS IN OFFICE,
THIS CRONY BANKSTERS MADE MORE
THAN THE ENTIRE 8 YEARS GEORGE
BUSH SERVED THEM!
$$$$$$$$$
The New York Times worries about the high political cost of Obama’s $400,000 speeches
By David Walsh
3 May 2017
3 May 2017
The august editorial board of the New York Times weighed in anxiously May 1 on the decision of former president Barack Obama to accept “a reported $400,000 to speak to a Wall Street firm” (“The Cost of Barack Obama’s Speech”). The editorial is brief and unconvincing, bringing forward arguments and issuing an appeal to Obama that the editors themselves hardly seem to believe in.
In its own way, the Times’ piece reflects the ongoing disintegration of the two-party system in the US and the apprehension of the American ruling elite about what this foretells.
The pompous editorial paints a picture of a politician who, like Jesus during his time in the desert, has confronted temptations numerous times before and until now successfully resisted them--or at least come out even. Obama, we are told, has long “wrestled with what it means to be a representative public servant in an era of purchased influence.”
Citing then Senator Obama’s comment, in The Audacity of Hope (2006), that he had found himself at a certain point in his political career spending much of his time with “law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists,” “the top 1 percent or so of the income scale,” the Times implies (without providing any proof) that Obama’s admission amounted to a career-defining self-criticism, and that this self-critical attitude sustained him through his years in the White House.
Now, however, does his acceptance of a $400,000 speaking fee represent “a betrayal of that sentiment”? “Perhaps not,” write the editors, “but it is disheartening that a man whose historic candidacy was premised on a moral examination of politics now joins almost every modern president in cashing in.”
The newspaper’s presentation of Obama’s career is thoroughly deceitful. Insofar as the latter ever “wrestled” with any choices in the direction of his life, they all had to do, from a very early point in his career, with the best means of defending American big business and “national security” interests while maintaining, if possible, the lie that the Democratic Party was more oriented to the “average” man and woman.
Obama emerged from the Illinois Democratic
Party, one of the most corrupt entities ever
created by man, with the public backing of a
layer of trade union officials, “lefts” and
upper middle class African American
politicians. Less publicly, influential financial, political and intelligence forces no doubt saw in Obama years ago a marketable and valuable commodity, a man who could present himself--as we wrote in our review of The Audacity of Hope --as both “white and black, liberal and conservative, foreign and American, a man above party ideology and the petty bickering of partisan politics.”
Party, one of the most corrupt entities ever
created by man, with the public backing of a
layer of trade union officials, “lefts” and
upper middle class African American
politicians. Less publicly, influential financial, political and intelligence forces no doubt saw in Obama years ago a marketable and valuable commodity, a man who could present himself--as we wrote in our review of The Audacity of Hope --as both “white and black, liberal and conservative, foreign and American, a man above party ideology and the petty bickering of partisan politics.”
During Obama’s two terms in office,
the stock market soared, the
fantastically wealthy grew even richer
and the social divide in America
substantially widened. The Times editorial remains silent about this. It is silent because the newspaper’s owners and top staff too have sucked up their share of the same parasitical, reckless stock market and real estate bonanza that is the ultimate source of Obama’s enrichment and, for that matter, that of his successor, Donald Trump.
the stock market soared, the
fantastically wealthy grew even richer
and the social divide in America
substantially widened. The Times editorial remains silent about this. It is silent because the newspaper’s owners and top staff too have sucked up their share of the same parasitical, reckless stock market and real estate bonanza that is the ultimate source of Obama’s enrichment and, for that matter, that of his successor, Donald Trump.
But appearances and tone count for a good deal in bourgeois politics, especially in America where almost nothing of substance separates the two major parties.
The Times comment points to this reality, observing that “As a couple and a family, the Obamas brought grace, empathy and high standards to their time in the White House, in stark contrast to the workaday vulgarity of its current occupants.”
The Times comment points to this reality, observing that “As a couple and a family, the Obamas brought grace, empathy and high standards to their time in the White House, in stark contrast to the workaday vulgarity of its current occupants.”
The editorial jumps over the content of Obama’s tenure in office to express disappointment with his decision to “conform to a lamentable post-presidential model created fairly recently,” i.e., of supping “at the corporate table.”
In the immediate aftermath of the revelations about Obama’s huge speaking fees, the US media felt it necessary, by and large, to accommodate themselves to the obvious widespread disgust. By now, however, Obama’s open defenders have found their voice. Syndicated columnist Froma Harrop, for example, asks in a headline, “What’s wrong with Barack Obama receiving $400,000 for a speech?” and goes on to assert, “If after 20 grueling years in public service Obama wants to pick up some financial security by giving speeches, call off the dogs and let him be.” Isaac J. Bailey, of the Charlotte Observer editorial board, in his headline, claims, “You don’t have to be poor to fight for the poor,” and proceeds from there.
But these kinds of arguments, and there are many along these lines, clearly create unease at the Times. It’s all very well for Obama, now out of office, to make a small fortune speaking to corporate events, and for his shortsighted apologists--who only dream of making that type of money--to defend him, but the Times ’ editors must take a slightly broader view.
The May 1 editorial pointedly reminds Obama that the practice of accepting vast amounts from big business “contributed to the downfall of the Democrat he hoped would cement his legacy. The tens of millions that Hillary Clinton raised from speaking to corporate interests most likely haunts her now--or should.” So much for “white racism” and “misogyny”!--the Times more or less acknowledges that it was Clinton’s identification with Wall Street and the status quo that did her in.
Then there is the broader question of the fate of the Democratic Party as a whole. The editors note that “the traditional party of working people has lost touch with them. In a poll released last week, more than two-thirds of voters, including nearly half of Democrats themselves, said the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of the American people. For the first time in memory, Democrats are seen as more out of touch with ordinary Americans than the party’s political opponents. There’s little doubt that Democratic leaders’ unseemly attachment to the party’s wealthiest donors contributed to that indictment.”
It’s not simply a matter of wealthy donors, of course, but of decades of attacks by Democrats and Republicans alike, black and white, male and female, on the jobs, living standards and democratic rights of broad layers of the population. This combined process of the endless shift to the right by the entire political establishment and ever-increasing popular discontent with its policies has reached a nodal point.
The Times editors are perturbed, but they are entirely powerless to halt the course of this development.
No comments:
Post a Comment