Barack Vladimir Putin Obama: To Change America

Recall the infamous March 26, 2012 “open-mike” clandestine muttering in Seoul, South Korea, between President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev as they meet to discuss critical, sensitive U.S.-Russian relations.

Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Barack without a teleprompter.  Barack just being Barack, the real Barack, a man who, like Vladimir, regards elections as a hindrance to his unfettered power exploitation. 

Over and over again Obama reveals himself megalomaniacally determined not just to execute the laws but to “execute’ our system of governance.  He wants to change the system by fiat, now and forever by personally deciding just how America should operate.  Obama chooses, either directly or through his surrogates, to ignore laws objectionable to him.  For instance, he avoids enforcing laws regarding immigration and voter intimidation when the latter involved New Black Panther Party threats toward white voters in Philadelphia.

His actions are not limited to dealing with a given issue or issues but strike at the very heart of our systems of government.  Of all his dictatorial actions, however, none is more detrimental to our nation than his attacks on our electoral processes.  For instance, Obama is determined to have criminals and illegal aliens vote because they will be eternally grateful not only for the vote but also for the political handouts so “liberally” dispensed by “progressive Democrats.”

Obama values Machiavellian manipulations of the electoral process because he realized early on that his very election depended on manipulations: 

The Washington Post, June 20 2008:

In February 2007, Barack Obama challenged Republican presidential candidates to agree to public financing of the general election. John McCain responded positively, prompting Obama's campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, to call on other Republican candidates to follow suit. The headline in the New York Times: "McCain and Obama in Deal on Public Financing."

June 20, 2008, the New York Times:

With his decision, Mr. Obama became the first candidate of a major party to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals.

Why the change?  Because Barack Obama realized that he could buy the election through private “He will be our first African American President” pander donations, and buying the election was far more important to him than was supporting the electoral process. 

Now that Obama has had his “last election,” has “more flexibility” and need not worry about bothersome election finance laws, he is ready for “change we can believe in.”   More specifically, he has decided to work his imperial governmental manipulations by surrogate fiat, namely, through having the Treasury Department and IRS try to decide who can donate how much to whom.   The Washington Post (November 26, 2013) notes that “501(c)4 groups that were potentially engaging in too much election-related activity” and “The ability of such organizations to play in politics without revealing their donors has been decried by President Obama and other critics as a major loophole in the campaign finance system.”  

Even the super-liberal Mark Shields has been moved to comment on Barack Obama’s role in the demise of the electoral process.  On the November 29, 2013 PBS Newshour he said:

We had 32 years, from 1976 to 2008, in which we had elections.  As somebody who spent his early year in politics, before I turned to journalism, by default, I can tell you, they were clean. Ronald Reagan three times ran for president. He accepted the limits on contributions, the limits on what you could spend, and he ran on public financing in the fall elections, when he won 49 states one time and 44 the next, George H.W. Bush twice, Bill Clinton twice, George W. Bush.

And it changed in 2008. President Obama was the first president not to abide by the limits in the general election. And then along comes the Citizens United case decision at the Supreme Court, which took off all limits on spending.    

  

So Barack, you can call me Vladimir, Obama plays free and easy with the electoral system and gets elected twice.  Now he’s through with elections and wants to make them “clean.”   This is a man with no integrity, no shame, and no concern for anyone or anything other than what he wants.  If anyone has earned the epithet “dark triad personality” with Machiavellian, psychopathic, and narcissistic features it surely is Barack Hussein Obama. 

A Black Reporter Responds to the Knock Out Game

Shine a bright light on any given black-perpetrated racial atrocity, stand back, and observe the double standards and double talk.   The recent “knockout whitey game” provides just that opportunity.  Of the many doubles candidates, I choose one for your consideration.

On November 25, 2013, TheGrio.com commented about black-on-white attacks being reported in so-called legacy media.   (According to the website, “TheGrio.com is the first video-centric news community site devoted to providing African Americans with stories and perspectives that appeal to them but are underrepresented in existing national news outlets.”)  The piece by Will Wright was entitled, “How ‘knockout game’ hysteria hurts black America.”

Let’s start with the title.  Mr. Wright refers to white “hysteria."  By doing so, he implies that white people are overreacting, irrationally emotional in their excessive attention to the assaults, and in so doing he delegitimizes the white concerns.  Consider too that his title underscores that he wants the reader to focus on how white hysteria hurts black America.  Wright is not concerned with morality or lawfulness.  He expresses not one scintilla of empathy for the white victims of black crime.  He focuses on the color of offender’s skin, not on the content of the offender’s character.  In fact, the author begins the body of his paper by framing the knockout “game” in terms of the “Central Park Jogger” incident which he regards as an example of black “youth” being unjustly accused of a crime against a white girl—another attempt to discount white knock out game concerns. 

Repeatedly, Wright questions how serious the current assaults are.  The absurdity of his position is blatantly obvious in the following statement:

New York City police officials are struggling to determine whether they should advise the public to take precautions against the ‘knockout game’ — whether in fact it is a growing dangerous trend, or something that has been ongoing and just recently rose to the surface.

The above remarks are mystifying.  Is Mr. Wright suggesting that “the public,” that is, the white public, should be more or less concerned if the “game” is a “trend” versus “something that has been going on?”  Would the punch be less painful or less destructive in either case?  Wright’s Rorschach-like remarks might be read as: If black-on-white attacks have been ongoing, there’s no need to be worried and no need for preventive action.  One thing for sure: If the black-on-white attacks have been ongoing, then I agree with Wright—it is just race relations as usual. 

Will Wright seems to be saying that the knockout assaults are just hubbub, just “hysteria,” no big thing so long as white over-reaction does not hurt black America.  I suggest that if he wants to explore racial hysteria, Willy might imagine what the response would be if white thugs were attacking unsuspecting black men, women, and children on the streets of America.  He also might recall the random looting of businesses, burning of buildings and cars, white maiming, and white murder that accompanied events such as Rodney King’s arrest.  Then and only then would Mr.Wright clearly understand what racial hysteria really is. 

Knock Out Whitey

The latest black inner-city game challenges young thugs to knock-out “white folks” with one, and only one, sucker punch.  These upstanding adolescents and young adults, who (like Trayvon Martin) could have been Obama’s sons, sneak up on unsuspecting whites, coldcock them, and run away.  The attack often involves several accomplices, with one sometimes videoing the event for future scoring and uproarious entertainment.

Like so many trends, this one started in NYC, the world’s hip-hop center.   Originally the assault was directed mostly at Jews.  Brooklyn’s Rabbi Yaacov Behrman, in fact, referred to the game as, ‘Knock Out The Jew.’  And Ray Kelly, the city’s Police Commissioner said that he had known of at least eight such attacks since mid-September 2013.

Underscoring the racist element, the knock-out game often is called the polar bear game since whites exclusively are being hunted.  Not surprisingly, such fun did not remain limited to Jews or to the “Big Apple” either.  To date, similar attacks on Jewish and non-Jewish whites have been documented for St. Louis, Missouri, New Haven, Connecticut., Washington, D.C., and the suburbs of Philadelphia.  Among the many victims have been a 12 year-old boy and a 78 year-old woman.  If you are white, you are a moving target, regardless of your residence, age, or gender.

On November 21, 2013, Colleen Long of the Associated Press wrote “Attacks around US probed for link to knockout game,” a piece worth reading in its entirety (http://news.yahoo.com/attacks-around-us-probed-knockout-game-215216013.html).  Among her revelations is the following:

In late May in Syracuse, a group of teenagers attempting to knock Michael Daniels out with a single punch wound up beating and stomping him to death, according to police. A 16-year-old was found guilty of manslaughter, and his 13-year-old co-defendant pleaded guilty to assault, admitting he started the fatal beating by trying to knock out Daniels with a single punch. Both were sentenced to 18 months behind bars.

Punishment for the crime surely serves as a strong deterrent to anyone contemplating similar assaults.  Just think of it: The poor misguided attackers, probably innocent victims of the “legacy of anti-black institutionalized racism in America,” are to receive a bruising sentence of about 540 days in jail. When they are released, they will be provided a free cell phone, free internet service, food stamps, condoms, a Medicare card, a voter registration card, social security benefits, and be invited to attend a community college with one-on-one tutoring for their Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder/Learning Disability.  Mr. Daniels’ family no doubt already has been given someone’s condolences and a clean white handkerchief.

So there you have it.  More black on white viciousness.  I haven’t heard half-black President Barack Obama or all-black Attorney General Eric Holder speak out about the knock-out game as racial oppression.  Have you?   So I will be so bold as to speak for them.

The knock-out game is one more rendition of the BIMP (black inner-city male persona) subculture. 

As I wrote in my book, some high-profile adult black race mongers and some American media delight in promoting swaggering, crotch-grabbing, expletive-spewing hyper-masculine behavior of some city-saturated African American boys so long as race mongers and media make a fast buck from it.  Anything from music to sports, to fashion and beyond is glamorized and “gangstarized” by media conglomerates to increase attention and sales.  Most blacks, including inner city-black males, are not BIMPS.  Most inner-city blacks want no part of the crude, criminal BIMP subculture.  But BIMPS rule inner-city streets and BIMP behavior is exploited on radio, internet, television, and movies, spreading the filth throughout our culture and, therefore, throughout the world.

ObamaCare, Care Dispensed Only to His Cronies and Contributors

Sometimes there is just nothing more to say.  That is how I feel after finding an article suggesting that the Obamacare website fiasco is one more example of how Barack continues to use his position to reward  friends and supporters, regardless of the consequences to our nation.

With that I mind, I encourage you to read the brief beforeitsnews.com article, quoted below in its entirety, and hope that you will pass it along to all interested people in your email address book.    

No Bid Contract For ObamaCare Website Was Given To Michelle Obama's Pal And Sorority Sister

Wednesday, November 6, 2013 11:57

There's an interesting thing that's surfaced regarding the disastrous $678 million ObamaCare website.

The company that built it, CGI Federal received a no bid contract to build the site, even though four other companies submitted bids which were never reviewed. Only CGI’s bid was considered.

And wouldn't you know it, there are a couple of other interesting coincidences.

As the Daily Caller reported, Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is the senior vice president at CGI Federal…and not only a classmate and friend of the First Lady, who graduated from Princeton the same year, but a sister at the all black sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha and a fellow member of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.

And to add to the mix, there's George Schindler, president of CGI, who became an Obama Campaign donor after CGI won the lucrative contract.

Even more interesting, there are rumors that CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc. PAC – CGI Group’s political action group that donates to the campaigns – made a significant swing in donations to Democrats at around the same time.

Now, no bid contracts have come up before. Democrats threw a huge tantrum over no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton for services they performed in Iraq because of former Vice Presidnt Dick Cheney's past employment with them. Those services included saving Iraq's oil wells after Saddam Hussein set them on fire after we invaded.

The difference was that for most of the work Halliburton performed in Iraq, they were the only game in town and no other bids were submitted. Few companies had the expertise and/or the equipment to do what Halliburton contracted to do…observers who credited Halliburton with saving Iraq's oil wells while avoiding an ecological disaster characterized it as a miracle. Not only that, but few if any competitors were willing to send their equipment and employees into a war zone or pony up for the huge insurance costs involved.

What happened with CGI was very different, with four other companies submitting bids that were never even looked at.

It's the Chicago way…and always done using other people's money.

http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/v2/lg-bookmark-en.gif

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/11/no-bid-contract-for-obamacare-website-was-given-to-michelle-obamas-pal-and-sorority-sister-2-2748636.html