Barack Obama is a ‘conservative’ compared to today’s ‘radical’ Democrats, says Washington Post This argument has been made before He Ran As One’conservative’, but became the “Progressive” , We Knew He Was All Long

Image result for Obama liar

In an opinion column, Washington Post editor David Swerdlick argues that former President Barack Obama, the nation’s 44th president, was often misunderstood by both the right and the left. Swerdlick notes that Obama’s progressive critics were often turned off by his calm demeanor and gradualist approach to public policy and that those on the right unfairly attacked him as a “radical.”
Ditch the fake news ==> Click here to get news you can trust sent right to your inbox. It’s free!

What both of them get wrong, the editor says, is that Obama was, at his core, a conservative:

Given the political climate, it’s no surprise to see the party’s base clamoring for something dramatic. But the contrast between Obama’s steady approach and the seeming radicalism of his Democratic heirs can’t just be chalked up to changing times. It’s because the former president, going back at least to his 2004 Senate race, hasn’t really occupied the left side of the ideological spectrum. He wasn’t a Republican, obviously: He never professed a desire to starve the federal government, and he opposed the Iraq War, which the GOP overwhelmingly supported. But to the dismay of many on the left, and to the continuing disbelief of many on the right, Obama never dramatically departed from the approach of presidents who came before him.

There’s a simple reason: Barack Obama is a conservative.

Swerdlick notes that, unlike contemporary Democrats, such as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Julian Castro, the “former president was skeptical of sweeping change, bullish on markets, sanguine about the use of military force, high on individual responsibility and faithful to a set of old-school personal values.”

How was Obama a conservative?

Swerdlick essentially says that although many of Obama’s policies were not “right-of-center,” the process through which he governed was conservative:

But his constant search for consensus, for ways to bring Blue America and Red America together, sometimes led him to policies that used Republican means to achieve more liberal ends. The underlying concept for his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, with its individual mandate, was devised by the right-wing Heritage Foundation and first implemented at the state level by Mitt Romney, then the Republican governor of Massachusetts. Obama wanted to protect Americans from the effects of a prolonged recession, so he agreed, in one of his defining votes as a senator, to a bailout of banks — and as president, he prioritized recovery over punishing bankers for their role in the financial crisis. In his first inaugural address, he affirmed the power of the free market “to generate wealth and expand freedom.”

The Post editor also claims that Obama’s admirable personal qualities bolster his conservative bonafides:

He embraced respectability politics as a way to signal how conventional it was to have a first family of color: the many Norman Rockwell-worthy photo-ops, such as the 2009 portrait by Annie Leibovitz, a study in wholesome family living; their annual vacations on Martha’s Vineyard, summer haven of the black elite; dialing back his storied “cool,” as when he displayed his stiff dance moves during an appearance on “Ellen,” laying claim to the mantle of the everyman dad.

Albeit, as Swerdlick states, “Obama was a believer in big government” who used his presidency to advance liberal ends. Among them: naming liberal Supreme Court justices, imposing limits on carbon emissions, ordering anti-discrimination protections for LGBT employees, and not enforcing deportation laws—all of this mainly through executive fiat.

This argument has been made—and refuted—before

Variations of the “Obama is a conservative” argument were made in 2008 and early in his presidency. New York Times columnist David Brooks famously claimed in 2009 that “Obama sees himself as a Burkean” and compared him to Edmund Burke, the 18th century Anglo-Irish statesman considered by many as the progenitor of modern conservatism.

However, conservative thought leaders scoffed at Brooks’ claims of Obama’s conservatism, which are not dissimilar from Post’s contention. Jonah Goldberg refuted that for “every sentence fragment the guy [Obama] has offered that could be construed as Burkean… I can think of whole speeches and books that are not.”

Conservative intellectual Yuval Levin argued, “I cannot imagine how anyone observing the Obama administration could think the president a Burkean.”

Adding, “No one said he has to be a Burkean. But those who say he is one are, I think, well off the mark.”

This writer’s perspective

As I’ve publicly noted before, as a young man, I volunteered for President Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns. Since then, my political views have matured. Still, I think the former president has many respectable qualities, especially as a family man, that people on both sides of the aisle can agree are decent and good.

Our country has two noble political traditions—liberalism and conservatism—that have been with us since the founding and are different, in many respects, than their variations elsewhere. President Obama fits squarely within the former and the tradition of Thomas Paine—albeit, arguably with a lower-case ‘c’ conservative temperament and calm demeanor.

Yes, he is certainly more moderate and gradual in matters of public policy than many of today’s leading Democrats, but that doesn’t make him a conservative.

Soros Cash Flows To Pressure Vulnerable GOP Congress Members To Impeach Trump

Image result for Obama and George Soros

Apparently, it’s not enough that leftist hedge fund billionaire and ‘stateless statesman’ George Soros and his non-government organization front groups made a lunge to take over much of eastern Europe, visibly in the case of Ukraine during the Maidan revolution.

Nor is the Soros seeding of first the Obama administration, and then the Trump administration, with former operatives of his from other outfits. Some, in the case of Trump, are now testifying as witnesses in the impeachment hearings.

Now, the Soros cash is rising to flood levels, targeting GOP Congress members to vote in support of impeaching Trump. Here’s the latest on that from the Daily Caller:

A liberal “dark money” group that received millions of dollars from George Soros’s advocacy network, records show, is behind a seven-figure ad blitz urging vulnerable Republicans in swing districts to support the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

The ads, which were scheduled to air this week on “Fox and Friends” in the Washington, D.C., market and in 13 GOP-held congressional districts, feature military veterans urging Republican representatives to “put country over politics” by holding Trump accountable for “abusing his office and risking national security for his own gain.”

It’s like a hydra-headed monster, springing into action on one, two, many fronts. As one fades, another appears.

Now that he couldn’t take over Ukraine, nor get the president he wanted into the White House, he’s shelling out to overthrow President Trump.

Any GOP congress member who pays heed to such ads, now that this information is out, should have his head examined. Soros never sleeps. And once again, he’s up to no good.

Obama’s Deadly School Discipline Policy

Image result for sheriff david clarke

There are many news stories squandered by CNN, The New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, and even FOX News. Many of these stories are easy to find. However, the narrative-driven media are too busy trying to topple the Trump administration and undo the 2016 election. So while all the invented drama of the impeachment hearings are clogging up the 24-hour news cycles, a comprehensive study on school shootings published by the U.S. Secret Service never sees the light of day.

Why? Because the study discovered some inconvenient truths for gun control advocates, specifically how to reduce and prevent school shootings. What is not surprising is that the study found that most students who committed these deadly shootings had a history of disciplinary trouble–their behavior disturbed others but was never reported. It also determined school shootings “are not sudden, impulsive acts where a student gets disgruntled,” and “the majority of these incidents are preventable.” In other words, the system was blinking red, and little was done about it. The report’s conclusion says that schools may need to think differently about school discipline and intervention.

Why does this matter? Remember in 2011, when Barack Obama and his Department of Education were on a socially engineered crusade to artificially manufacture public school safety through race politics? Recall they launched their Supportive School Discipline Initiative that was championed as a national model for discipline reform. Yet, this misguided intervention into local school policy is why the Department of Education should be shut down. Through forced compliance to receive federal funding, this junk science kept many miscreants in the school instead of finding an alternative placement somewhere else and an effective tracking system. States also followed by revising their laws to reduce suspensions and expulsions.

This high-minded, one-size-fits-all liberal policy, like most other liberal policies, didn’t take into account the potential unintended consequences of their nitwitted idea. Instead, it got students unnecessarily hurt, killed, and left countless communities traumatized in the aftermath of mass school slaughters because they were worried about the civil rights of disruptive students. They had, however, no concern for students who had a civil right to go to school and learn without being mowed down in a classroom.

Obama and his Department of Education ignored the real-life experiences of teachers and school administrators who knew that keeping a student who should be expelled or at least suspended from school for extremely outrageous behavior was not a novel concept, but a dangerous one. Take for example a teacher in a North Carolina school who said that the daily fights, concealed weapons, and assaults on faculty were ignored simply to reduce the number of incidents reported. Or the father of a student killed in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas School in Parkland, Florida who called these polices cancerous and that these lenient, P.C. policies led to the non-reporting of potential school killers. Maybe like the Stoneman Douglas shooter Nikolas Cruz.

Cruz had a history that was completely ignored because of the Obama-era policy that allowed him to fly off the radar screen and to go unmonitored. He was referred to what was called the PROMISE Program in middle school for his repeated threatening behavior, but there was no record of his receiving services. This program mirrored Obama’s forced lenient compliance requirements on school discipline in order to receive federal funding.

President Trump commissioned a comprehensive study after the Parkland School shooting on the effect of the Obama-era lax school discipline policy. It found that, among other things, a “recurring narrative that teachers in the classroom and students in hallways were afraid that students who had a history of antisocial or violent behavior were left unchecked.”

Thankfully Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced in December of 2018 that she rescinded the dangerous Obama-era policy on lenient school discipline requirements. That was a good start. But the problem is that reversing policy takes time to take root. The liberal behavior of schools will have administrators continuing on this path. It is how human behavior works, not to mention the liberal nature of local public school officials. Unfortunately, it will take more mass school shootings before the public demands tactics and policies that actually work.

Liberals are big on amassing government databases of private citizens information like gun ownership. They support gun registration lists with public access to such records. They support so-called red flag laws that allow for the confiscation of a person’s firearms without due process, but when it comes to the protection of kids in schools, they are worried about their civil rights? They are afraid that school records on discipline could follow a student and may end them up in the criminal justice system when that is exactly where someone like Cruz belonged.

Here is how we keep kids safe in school. We need at least a state database of disruptive students, a red flag system so that when these troublemakers move on to other schools, law enforcement and the new school can find out who they are getting. Schools need to return to a zero policy on student disruptive behavior and a return to using arrest, suspension, and expulsion for behavior control, at least in extreme cases. When schools hear about a “best practice,” they should run in the other direction. These are nothing more than liberal socially engineered experiments developed in university ivory towers with no empirical proof or peer review that they actually work. And lastly, keep the U.S. Department of Education out of the business of ordering school policy. The safety of our children and faculty is worth it.

Fiona Hill Testifies That Obama Was Putin’s Puppet

While the fake news media are trying to convince you that Trump investigating the obvious and blatant corruption of the Biden family in Ukraine is a crime, one of their witnesses declared that Obama danced to Putin’s tune.

Fiona Hill testified that Obama refused to give military aid to Ukraine despite the fact that the “interagency” — the unelected wonks like Vindman who think they not Trump should run foreign policy — said that the U.S. should provide weapons to Ukraine to defend themselves against the Russian invasion.

Hill testified that Obama refused to provide lethal aid to Ukraine so as to not upset Putin.

That’s pretty clear evidence that Obama, not Trump, was in Putin’s pocket.

Hill’s testimony also creates problems for the Democrats’ impeachment narrative.

After all, the elite policy wonks said the U.S. should arm Ukraine to help defeat Russia’s invasion, but Obama said he wouldn’t because that would make Putin mad.  Given that the Democrats are saying in the impeachment hearings that Trump temporarily not following the “guidance” of the interagency is an impeachable offense, clearly, Obama’s permanent rejection of the interagency guidance must also be a crime.

What Republicans are doing is using the impeachment farce to shine a light on the many failings of the Democrats that the fake news media will never cover, including how the Democrats, not Republicans, have always been on Russia’s side.

To see who was really putting America first, we can compare Obama’s deference to Putin to Trump’s actions that have gone directly against Putin’s interest, such as provided weapons to Ukraine.  Trump held the military aid up for a short time only because of his concerns about corruption and the fact the Europeans should be providing more aid to Ukraine.  Unlike Obama Trump did what Putin didn’t want done and what the interagency wanted done.

But that’s not the only evidence we have that Obama was dancing to Putin’s tune.

In March 2012 Obama told Russian president Dimitry Medvedev the following: “On all these issues, particularly on missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space[.]”

Putin did give Obama space and didn’t act aggressively during the 2012 campaign, which is why Obama was able to mock Mitt Romney for Romney’s concern about Russian aggression.

Why did Putin agree?  Because Obama also told Medvedev this: “This is my last election.  After my election I have more flexibility.”

That’s far from the only example of Obama doing Putin’s bidding for political gain.  Here’s a few things that Obama did that really helped Putin:

1. Obama “reset” our relationship with Russia even though Russia continued to hold pieces of the country of Georgia that they had taken by force.

2. Obama let a Russian company get control of 20% of U.S. uranium reserves.

3. Obama canceled a missile defense system for Europe, which was designed to prevent Iran from being able to blackmail the E.U. because Putin didn’t like it.

4. Obama set up a deal with Iran, a Russian client in the Middle East, so that Iran would be able to develop nuclear weapons once Obama was out of office.

5. When the Russian client running Syria used chemical weapons against civilians, Obama did nothing despite having proclaimed that to be a red line.  Instead, he turned the problem over to the Russians, who we now know allowed their client to retain some chemical weapons.

Compare that to how Trump’s been treating Putin:

1. Got Germany to cancel a massive natural gas deal with Russia which cost Putin billions.
2. Got NATO to significantly increase defense spending.
3. Increased sanctions on Iran to get them to stop nuclear weapon development.
4. Bombed the Russian client’s air base in Syria in response to the Syrian government using chemical weapons against civilians.
5. Significantly increased U.S. defense spending.
6. Provided lethal aid to the Ukrainians to help them fight off the Russian invasion.
7. Has told Russia to get its troops out of Venezuela.
8. Has increased sanctions on Russian entities.

This part of an interesting pattern where Democrats accuse Trump of crimes that he isn’t committing but Democrats are.  Examples include the following:

  • Accusing Trump of “bribing” Ukraine when in fact that’s what Biden did.
  • Accusing Trump of going easy on Putin when in fact that’s what Obama did.
  • Accusing Trump of putting kids in cages when in fact that’s what Obama did.
  • Accusing Trump of financial crimes and profiting from his office when in fact that’s what Hillary did.
  • Accusing Trump of being racist when it’s the Democrats who ignore the mass shooting of blacks in Chicago and deny black kids decent educations.

The reality is simple: the whole story that Trump and Republicans are soft on the Russians is a big lie.  Since back in the old days, when leftists supported Hitler because he was allied with Russia, ’til the present, leftists have always supported Russia and said that it is a great place.

That changed only when leftists thought Putin might have hurt Hillary, or more likely because they thought he’d be a good scapegoat to blame Hillary’s loss on while attempting to convince the American people that Trump isn’t really the president.

While the fake news media won’t cover it, Fiona Hill’s testimony shows that not only are the Democrats condemning Trump for something they said was great when Obama did it, but it was Obama, not Trump, who did Putin’s bidding in return for help getting elected.

Given the lack of conservative media outlets, you need to help save America by telling your friends these facts.  Given the truth, most people who vote for Democrats wouldn’t do so, so do your part and flood the U.S. with truth.  As Scripture says “the truth shall set you free.”

Swedish Teen Climate Activist Greta Thunberg Was Hailed By Barack Obama As “One Of Our Planet’s Greatest Advocates.”

During her recent visit to Washington, DC, Swedish teen climate activist Greta Thunberg was hailed by Barack Obama as “one of our planet’s greatest advocates.”  When the two met prior to her speech before Congress, the former president assured her of his own environmental bona fides with this: “You and me, we’re a team.”

Cropped close-up from Obama Foundation YouTube

To demonstrate her passionate commitment to reducing fossil fuel emissions, Greta traveled from her country to the U.S. by a solar powered yacht, rather than a gas-guzzling private jet, the most planet-destructive mode of transportation.  Her “carbon-free” trip to America was largely a symbolic gesture, but there’s no doubt she’s a true believer in the hotly-disputed theory that fossil fuels are destroying the planet. 

If she thinks Obama is on her team, she’s one of the most gullible and uninformed 16-year-olds in the world.  Since she apparently knows little about his carbon-consumptive living, I will share that information here.  According to TIME, following are a few of the lifestyle choices he made in the first five months after leaving the White House in January 2017, each of which speaks volumes about how seriously he takes his own feigned call for “each and every one of us” to make drastic cutbacks in the use of fossil fuels.

● He bought an 8,200 sq. ft., 9-bedroom, fully air-conditioned mansion in one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in the nation’s capitol.

● The day he left office, he flew 2,200 miles in a near-empty U.S. government Boeing 747 all the way across the continent to Palm Springs, California for his first post-presidency vacation.

● After relaxing at an 11,000 sq. ft. fully air-conditioned villa at the exclusive Thunderbird Heights Resort in nearby Rancho Mirage, he flew 3,300 miles, by private jet, all the way back across the continent to the Caribbean, where he vacationed with Richard Branson at Branson’s $48,000 per night, fully air-conditioned luxury villa on Branson’s private island.

● After departing his vacation with Branson by private jet, he took another private jet to fly 6,000 miles for some much-needed R & R at the late Marlon Brando’s fully air-conditioned French Polynesian hideaway in Tahiti.

● Next, he took another private jet for a 2,700-mile trip to Hawaii, where he golfed for several days before taking yet another private jet for the 4,800-mile return trip to his 8,200 sq. ft. fully air-conditioned mansion.

● In February, he twice traveled from DC to New York, both times by private jet, the first to take in a play on Broadway, the other to rub shoulders over dinner with U2’s Bono.

● In early May, he private-jetted from DC to Milan, Italy, a roundtrip of 8,200 miles, where a caravan of 14 carbon-powered SUVs took him to give a paid speech about — sit down for this — humans dumping too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

● While in Milan, he stayed for two days at the 2,000 sq. ft., fully air-conditioned, $9,500 per night presidential suite at the exclusive Park Hyatt Milan.

● Next, he took a private jet, from Milan to Tuscany, where he stayed at Borgo Finocchieto, a fully air-conditioned manor house that once was home to 21 families before being turned into an ultra-luxurious vacation villa for the rich and famous.

● Having left a feather-light carbon footprint in Italy, the former president returned, by private jet, to his 8,200 sq. ft. fully air-conditioned mansion in DC.

One of the world’s loudest climate preachers, the former president flew more than 27,000 miles during his first five months of retirement, a distance greater that Earth’s circumference.  There’s no telling how many private jet flights he’s taken in the last two-plus years, but one thing’s for sure.  His opulent lifestyle reveals a total lack of concern that fossil fuel emissions are destroying the environment.

How does this sanctimonious man get away with such stunning hypocrisy?  He gets away with it because the corrupt mainstream media never call him out for consuming the unconscionable amounts of carbon energy needed to fuel his insatiable appetite for lavish living, the planet be damned.

An electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech and now retired, John Eidson is a freelance writer in Atlanta.  American Thinker recently published related article of his titled The Obamas tackle climate change and wealth inequality” and “Harrison Ford, Climate Hypocrite.”

Lindsey Graham Said This Date Is a Lock for the Release of the Report on Alleged FISA Abuses Under Obama

Lindsey Graham Said This Date Is a Lock for the Release of the Report onn Alleged FISA Abuses Under Obama

Source: AP Photo/Evan Vucci

It’s been months. We’ve heard timetables offered over and over again. When will it drop? When will the report of alleged FISA abuse during the Obama administration drop? It was supposed to be sometime during the summer. Now, we’re way into fall and there was still no word. Every journalist and blogger was hoping that it wouldn’t drop during Thanksgiving. That would be cruel and unusual punishment. Instead, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that the report would drop on a Monday. December 9th is the date this long-awaited report will be available to the public. As Katie wrote in a prior post, December 11 is when Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, an Obama appointee, will come before Congress to testify about the contents of the report (via Fox News):

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Wednesday that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant abuse during the 2016 election will be released on Dec. 9.

During an appearance on “Hannity” Wednesday, host Sean Hannity noted Horowitz will be coming before Graham’s committee on Dec. 11 to testify on the matter and went on to ask Graham not to allow a Friday night document “dump” that could muffle the coverage of the news.

In response, Graham smiled and nodded.

“It’ll be December 9th — you’ll get the report,” the South Carolina lawmaker said.

“That’s locked.”

The report will surely dive into the allegations that the FBI was spying on Trump officials. The Trump dossier, which was compiled by ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele, was used as credible evidence to secure a FISA warrant on Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, despite no one appearing to verify the document. There are glaring errors in the dossier that could have been cleaned up with a simple Google search. This document, which was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrats, was a piece of biased political opposition research. Even the State Department knew this document was biased; Steele told them

This dossier is also alleged to be the “insurance policy” disgraced ex-FBI Agent Peter Strzok was referring to in texts with his mistress, bureau lawyer Lisa Page, when he met with ex-deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe who refused to answer questions from Congress concerning whether this document was verified. I wonder why? Strzok was fired for the tens of thousands of anti-Trump texts he sent to Page, which damaged the credibility and professionalism of the bureau. He was a top counterintelligence agent who was a key person in two of the agency’s most sensitive investigations: the review of Hillary Clinton’s email server and the probe into Russian collusion that was eventually taken over by ex-Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation when he learned about these texts, one of which has Strzok assuring Page that they will stop Trump. Yes, anti-Trump deep state, spying, and viva la resistance should be pervasive themes in this report. 

RecommendedWe’ll Tell You Who’s PrivilegedAnn Coulter

The DOJ of a sitting administration was allegedly spying on the presidential campaign of a rival party. That’s pretty nasty, huh? 

Christmas came early, folks. And you know there’s going to be a lot of dirt against Democrats. They’re scrambling. The Trump impeachment nonsense will be wiped off the news cycle. Grab the popcorn, the eggnog, and the mug to grab all the liberal tears of frustration.    

Susan Crabtree@susancrabtree

Inbox: @LindseyGrahamSC announces DOJ IG Horowitz report on FISA process/abuse for its Russia/2016 probe will be released Dec. 9 and Horowitz will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Dec. 11.

View image on Twitter

1937:24 AM – Nov 21, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy149 people are talking about this

AFP Reports Astounding Number Of Child Migrant Detentions Under Trump. Then Discovers It Was From 2015 Under Obama.

Nov 25, 2013

Jun 30, 2014

The AFP News Agency withdrew a story intending to criticize the Trump administration over the high number of migration-related child detentions after they discovered the number actually came from detentions during the Obama administration.

“AFP is withdrawing this story. The author of the report has clarified that his figures do not represent the number of children currently in migration-related US detention, but the total number of children in migration-related US detention in 2015.

“We will delete the story,” they added.

Their previous tweet blared out the headline, “More than 100,000 children in migration-related US detention,” and cited the United Nations.

Schumer, Feinstein voted for a border fence in 2006

But that number turns out to have nothing to do with the current administration under President Donald Trump. The AFP News Agency was excoriated on social media for deleting the entire story, instead of updating it.


Jul 21, 2016

The Trump 2020 campaign mocked the AFP’s action with a tweet from their official account.

“Once we found out that more than 100,000 children were in migration-related U.S. detention while Joe Biden was Vice President, we no longer wanted to report this story. Nothing to see here!”

Obama won’t halt deportations for parents of kids brought to US illegally | Noticiero | Telemundothey 

Here’s more about child migrant detentions:

The Rabid Left Turns On Obama

Obama: “Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America” Long Version

A Sistah Soulja moment this was not.

Obviously seeing a train wreck in the Democrats’ future, as well as stuck endorsing it whatever it might be, President Obama cautioned Democrats to not try to tear down society in revolutionary fervor, because America’s just not ready for it.

Here Obama goes in this RealClearPolitics video here. And according to the transcript from RealClearPolitics:

FORMER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: My point is that even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality and the fact that voters, including Democratic voters and certainly persuadable independents or even moderate Republicans, are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds or the activist wing of our party.

This is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement. They like seeing things improved. But the average American doesn’t think that we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it’s important for us not to lose sight of that.

Didn’t matter, the rabid left treated it as a Sistah Souljah repudiation and decided to bite back.

It was a rather unexpected response to The Won, who, up until now has been untouchable, But now he is and they mercilessly mocked him as if he were a right-winger.

Yet it’s not as if Obama were actually blasting these radicals.

Based on his speech, notice that he never says that the far-left ideas in question themselves stink to high heaven. It’s not that socialism fails every time you try it. The only people he blames for this state of affairs is American voters. Americans just aren’t quite progressive enough. They’re not up for being “transformed,” as Obama used to say.

He must know.

Obama counseled the leftists in his room that since Americans fall short, they need to start couching their radical plans as “improvements” in their “narratives.” 

In the interest of winning (and making that coveted Obama presidential endorsement actually worth something) Obama has now “transformed” himself into Mister Moderate. It’s not just laughable in itself, it’s also too little, too late. Toothpaste’s out of the tube. The Dems are now welded to their radical far left plans and it would be very hard for any of them to do U-turns now. For Bernie Sanders, of course, that’s congenitally impossible.


It didn’t go over well.

And better still, the rabid left is now mocking Obama to high heaven.

Here’s what far-left Common Dreams had to say, first explaining out how it looks to leftists, and then curating its favorite tweets on Twitter:

After it was reported Friday that former U.S. President Barack Obama told a room full of “wealthy liberal” Democratic Party donors that voters ultimately won’t go for candidates offering political visions he suggested were too ambitious and radical, progressives online reacted critically to Obama advising the party to sideline “certain left-leaning twitter feeds” and what he termed the “the activist wing of our party.” 


 On Saturday, the hashtag #TooFarLeft was trending on Twitter.

Political operative Peter Daou, who took credit for launching the hashtag, said: “I launched the #TooFarLeft tag because I’ve had it with Republicans, media elites, and corporate Dems enabling fascists while denigrating those who seek economic and social justice as ‘too far left.’  I’d like to ONCE hear them complain America is too far right.”

And so, a brief sample of reactions:

Such as:


I launched the #TooFarLeft tag because I’ve had it with Republicans, media elites, and corporate Dems enabling fascists while denigrating those who seek economic and social justice as “too far left.”

I’d like to ONCE hear them complain America is too far right.

Peter Daou@peterdaou


I launched the #TooFarLeft tag because I’ve had it with Republicans, media elites, and corporate Dems enabling fascists while denigrating those who seek economic and social justice as “too far left.”

I’d like to ONCE hear them complain America is too far right.7,2329:54 AM – Nov 16, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy2,005 people are talking about this

A bitter, touchy, sensitive bunch, aren’t they? Winning elections isn’t a thing for them, just proving one’s far-left bonafides to the other lefties is what matters.

Daily Caller picked out another passel of choice tweets from the radicals angry at Obama, such as this:

Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, for instance, told her Twitter followers Saturday that “if being #TooFarLeft means” believing “healthcare is a human right”and “all student debt should be canceled,” then “count me in.” Climate change activists also weighed in.

Oh goody. Now she’ll have to reassure her voters once again that she “loves” Obama. It happened once before. Something says that’s not happening, not now with this pile-on.

What it shows is that any bid to even delicately steer the left in a winnable direction gets met with brickbats from the fanatics. They’ll actually go against Obama himself, which up until now has been unheard of. No wonder Obama has always been afraid of them, afraid to go Sistah Souljah, except in the face of a certain train wreck. Yet if he wants results, the only way to get their attention is to launch a full-on attack of them, which he won’t do. Any tiptoe delicate criticism blaming American voters is as good as it gets. Now even that has led to this reviling. It’s pathetic, given that Obama has no other fans to look to.

Flashback: That Time Obama Brutally Fired All Of Bush’s Ambassadors

Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified before the House Intelligence Committee. House Democrats have decided to take their secret impeachment proceedings out of the bunker and into the open for all to see. And if you don’t know this already, the Democrats’ reasoning to hold this circus is even shoddier and more pathetic than the Russian collusion hoax. The allegation is that in July, President Trump threatened to withhold military aid unless Ukraine opened a corruption investigation into Hunter Biden, son of Vice President Joe Biden, who was sitting on the board of an energy company making $50,000 a month despite having zero experience in this field of work. The quid pro quo allegation is all based on second-hand information. 

Yet, today, it was more of a therapy session for Yovanovitch. Pretty much she was against Trump’s Ukraine policy, she used a congressional hearing to voice that, and in the process received the praise from Democrats for coming forward, as if she were some Rosa Parks figure. Folks, she was fired by Trump because that’s what he can do. You’d think that Trump dismissed her because she stumbled upon some felonious activity. Wrong. It was an absurdly long hearing for a career State Department employee who was there to pretty much explain the not so unprecedented reasons for her dismissal. Trump said bad things about her on Twitter. Yep. We have a First Amendment, and this was not an act of intimidating a witness. It’s not unusual for a new administration to fire ambassadors. They don’t need a reason; they serve at the president’s pleasure. Former President Barack Obama slaughtered scores of Bush appointees, brutally terminating their employment. It was a red wedding. The Washington Times’ Larry O’Connor dredged up this bit of history (via WaPo):

Larry O’Connor@LarryOConnor

I’ll just leave this here. #ImpeachmentHearing #Yovanovich

View image on Twitter

68212:50 PM – Nov 15, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy534 people are talking about this

If you aren’t moved by this story, you just don’t have a pulse!9412:50 PM – Nov 15, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy24 people are talking about this

The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.

The clean slate will open up prime opportunities for the president-elect to reward political supporters with posts in London, Paris, Tokyo and the like. The notice to diplomatic posts was issued this week.

Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush’s ambassadorial appointees.

Pelosi on Trump Tweeting About Yovanovitch: He’s an Insecure Impostor


In a December 2018 talk at an all-girls school in North London, Michelle Obama was asked how she felt about being viewed as a “symbol of hope.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Friday said President Trump is an “impostor” who “is in over his head” in the Oval Office. She said that was why Trump “attacked” former United States Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch on Twitter during her Congressional testimony.

“Why do you think he was tweeting about her?” CBS News’ Margaret Brennan asked.

“Because he knows — well, he made a mistake and he knows her strength. And he was trying to undermine it,” she replied with a smile. “Of course presidents appoint ambassadors, but people don’t insult people, especially when they’re giving testimony before the Congress of the United States. I think even his most ardent supporters have to honestly admit this is the wrong thing for the President to do.”

Brennan reminded Pelosi that the White House has said Trump’s tweets are his opinion, not a means of intimidation. Naturally, the Speaker disagreed with that assessment. 

“What the president, and perhaps some at the White House have to know, is that the words of the president weigh a ton. They are very significant and he should not frivolously throw out insults, but that’s what he does,” Pelosi explained. “I think part of it is his own insecurity as an impostor. I think he knows full well that he’s in that office way over his head and so he has to diminish everyone else.”

These are the tweets Brennan were referring to:

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.116K7:01 AM – Nov 15, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy99.1K people are talking about this

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrumpReplying to @realDonaldTrump

….They call it “serving at the pleasure of the President.” The U.S. now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than proceeding administrations. It is called, quite simply, America First! With all of that, however, I have done FAR more for Ukraine than O.63.4K7:01 AM – Nov 15, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy38.7K people are talking about this