Is Barack Obama A Racist?

5 12 2009

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

As the first year since Barack Obama’s election as president passes into history, it is worthwhile to read (or reread) and reflect on his “Dreams from My Father,” which was first published in 1995, when he was 33 years old.  In his preface to the 2004 edition—only a scant five years ago, when the book was republished—he does not disavow or even soften his often-harsh sentiments at all.  However, he does mention that his mother died of cancer right after the book was first published; and in retrospect, he might not have written the same book about an “absent parent,” his father, but instead might have celebrated her life.[2] He loved her, and writes: “[S]he was the kindest, most generous spirit I have ever known, and . . . what is best in me I owe to her.”[3]

The book is still relevant and instructive today because it provides a window into his core beliefs—unfiltered by aides or the pandering to voters that so often takes place when a politician is running for public office.  These core beliefs came into being many years before we heard his name or knew how to pronounce it; and they are being reflected in his actions and policies that affect each of us.  Also, the book warrants a careful reexamination at this juncture in his presidency, when a growing number of Americans are having second thoughts or “buyers’ remorse” about the man in the White House.

Barack Obama is not his Kenyan father, nor his mother.  Perhaps he comes closest to being his maternal grandparents, “Toot” and “Gramps.”  They loved him dearly and nourished him when he was growing up as a “half-breed”—his term, not mine[4]—caught between two cultures, one white and the other non-white. He writes lovingly about his grandparents: “They had sacrificed again and again for me.  They had poured all their lingering hopes into my success.  Never had they given me reason to doubt their love; I doubted if they ever would.”[5] Later, he would write: “I looked out the window, thinking about my mother, Toot, and Gramps, and how grateful I was to them—for who they were. . . .”[6]

Because of his looks and not his parentage or lineage, he made a conscious decision to be black.  Once he made it, he seemed to put the white world behind him and to identify with the “victimization” of blacks.  For example, he writes: “[T]o admit our doubt and confusion to whites, to open up our psyches to general examination by those who had caused so much of the damage in the first place, seemed ludicrous, itself an expression of self-hatred—for there seemed no reason to expect that whites would look at our private struggles as a mirror into their own souls, rather than yet more evidence of black pathology.”[7] In these and other similar statements, he evidenced how far he had traveled from the white world of his mother and her parents who raised him.

The transformation seems to have started when young “Barry” Obama returned to Hawaii from Indonesia, where he had been living with his mother and her second husband, to live with her parents and enroll at Honolulu’s elite, ethnically and culturally diverse Punahou School—where his sense that he “didn’t belong continued to grow.”[8] He began hanging around and identifying with the few black Punahou students and other black teenagers “whose confusion and anger would help shape [his] own.”[9] He writes about loneliness that made him want to run “back into the sort of pain a boy could understand,”[10] and he speaks about “the sense of abandonment [he’d] felt as a boy.”[11] Also, he writes that he was “trying to raise [himself] to be a black man in America,”[12] and “living out a caricature of black male adolescence, itself a caricature of swaggering American manhood.”[13]

It was during this time that he developed a “ledger of slights.”[14] He adds: “I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds, understanding that each possessed its own language and customs and structures of meaning, convinced that with a bit of translation on my part the two worlds would eventually cohere.”[15] Still at Punahou, he would recall: “[T]he only thing you could choose as your own was withdrawal into a smaller and smaller coil of rage, until being black meant only the knowledge of your own powerlessness, of your own defeat.  And the final irony: Should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for that, too, a name that could cage you just as good.  Paranoid.  Militant.  Violent.  Nigger.”[16]

One wonders whether on some level Obama thought in those terms about the whites who made his future successes possible?  If not, why was he choosing to identify so much with the “victimization” of blacks and with anti-white feelings?  Is that the anger he “inherited” from his Kenyan father with multiple wives, who was a stern disciplinarian and loved him so much that the father spent only one month of his life with young Barry when he was 10 years old[17], and effectively abandoned him the rest of the time?  In his own words, he reflects on his feelings as that 10-year-old when his father visited Hawaii: “I began to count the days until my father would leave and things would return to normal.”[18] Also, he acknowledges his anger.[19]

Later, in Kenya, he realizes what his life might have been like when he views a photo album of his father’s third wife and their family.  “They were happy scenes, all of them, and all strangely familiar, as if I were glimpsing some alternative universe that had played itself out behind my back.  . . .  Here it was, I thought, what might have been.  And the recognition of how wrong it had all turned out . . . made me so sad that after only a few minutes I had to look away.”[20] However, he expresses great love for his father too, and places him on a pedestal at times[21]—and there is mention of the fact that his father was highly educated, generous and never held a grudge.[22] There is no claim or insinuation that his father was a racist; and his mother certainly was not a racist.[23]

At Occidental College in Los Angeles, Obama hung out with blacks too[24], but seemed to mellow somewhat.  He writes: “I had stumbled upon one of the well-kept secrets about black people: that most of us weren’t interested in revolt; that most of us were tired of thinking about race all the time. . . .”[25] In writing about a young multiracial student named Joyce, he quotes her as saying: “It’s not white people who are making me choose.  Maybe it used to be that way, but now they’re willing to treat me like a person.  No—it’s black people who always have to make everything racial.  They’re the ones making me choose.”[26] Yet, Obama rejects her beliefs, and allies himself with others who are “alienated.”[27] He seems to mellow somewhat again by admitting: “My identity might begin with the fact of my race, but it didn’t, couldn’t, end there.”[28]

When he arrived in New York City to attend Columbia University, he became “Barack” as opposed to “Barry,”[29] and he asked rhetorically: “Where do I belong?”[30] Also, he asked: “Did any of us [know where we belonged]?  Where were the fathers, the uncles and grandfathers, who could help explain this gash in our hearts?”[31] Leaving a theater in New York with his mother and half-sister Maya, he observed: “The emotions between the races could never be pure. . . .  Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.”[32] Later, in writing about his times in Chicago and the stories he had heard from the black leadership, Obama says: “They had arisen out of a very particular experience with hate.  That hate hadn’t gone away; it formed a counternarrative buried deep within each person and at the center of which stood white people—some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives.”[33]

Yet, as he was about to embark on his life in Chicago (before attending law school), he reflected: “[T]his community I imagined was still in the making, built on the promise that the larger American community, black, white, and brown, could somehow redefine itself—I believed that it might, over time, admit the uniqueness of my own life.”[34] And it has, as our first non-white American president.  While commenting on his work in Chicago, however, he concludes: “If [black] nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self-respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence.”[35] In discussing the difficulties facing black businesses, he mentions “the leg up that your [white] competitors possessed after having kept you out of the game for over three hundred years”[36]—again, the issue of black victimization.

What is perhaps most striking is that he never expounds on any religious beliefs or spirituality, much less a belief in God.  However, the book spans so much of his life—and his formative years—and deals with almost every other subject imaginable that one could think or write about.  Perhaps the closest he comes to dealing with the subject may be reflected in the following comments: “I remained a reluctant skeptic, doubtful of my own motives, wary of expedient conversion, having too many quarrels with God to accept a salvation too easily won.”[37] Also, when he and his Kenyan half-sister Auma are on a safari, he listens to their Kikuyu driver sing a hymn at night while Obama is walking back to his tent, and he writes: “I felt I understood Francis’s plaintive song, imagining it transmitting upward, through the clear black night, directly to God.”[38] One is left to wonder about his beliefs, and whether his attendance at churches in subsequent years may be for political reasons, and calculated, which is true of many politicians.

Other issues raised in the book include:

  • What would have become of Obama’s life if he had gotten hooked on the illegal drugs he was taking?  For example, he writes: “Junkie.  Pothead.  That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.”[39]
  • To what extent has he has been successful at anything other than writing, speaking, campaigning, politics and getting elected—being a professional politician?  For example, the book evidences few significant accomplishments as a “community organizer.”  Indeed, he writes: “When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly.  Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change.  Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds.  Change in the Congress, compliant and corrupt.”[40] Also, he accomplished nothing memorable in the U.S. Senate during the short time he was actually there.
  • How his socialist and anti-capitalist views are reshaping America, and the damage that may result?  His biases are reflected in the book.  For example, in New York City before he moved to Chicago for the first time, he went to work as a research assistant at a consulting house to multinational corporations, where he recalled feeling like “a spy behind enemy lines.”[41] That spy effectively “owns” General Motors, Chrysler and major American banks and other business entities; and he has not hesitated to dictate to them—including that GM’s CEO be removed and what cars the company is to make in the future.  History is replete with the names of other world leaders who have tried to run areas of economic and societal activity, without having any knowledge[42], and they have failed.
  • How to address the sense of black victimization that is reflected in so much of his book?  For example, by way of contrasting the attitudes of various American minority groups including Asians, he cites a black man who says: “I guess we worked so long for nothing, we feel like we shouldn’t have to break our backs just to survive.  That’s what we tell our children anyway.”[43]
  • Whom will Obama blame if his popularity fades (e.g., because of perceived narcissistic arrogance and incompetence) and his presidency fails?  Since he and his party control the White House and Congress, the buck stops with him; and sooner or later, he may come to be viewed by a majority of Americans as the problem, not the solution.  Will he handle his descent from “Mount Olympus” gracefully, or will his fall from grace be a tumultuous one?
  • What scandals will unfold involving his life and administration, such as the federal funding of organizations like ACORN that have engaged in massive voter fraud or other criminal activities?  Ultimately, will Obama be ensnared in a web, politically and legally—a victim of the very need for change that he has preached for so many years?  He writes: “Real change [is] . . . an extension of my personal will and my mother’s faith. . . .”[44]
  • Former Senator Edward W. Brooke, the first black U.S. Senator since Reconstruction, was a trailblazer too; however, he did not try to change America because of any deep-seated hatred of whites or our capitalist system.  After reading “Dreams from My Father,” most Americans will have few if any doubts why Obama associated with and befriended Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.  Their radical views seem consistent with his.
  • The messianic adoration of Obama is reminiscent of John F. Kennedy, his presidency and sycophants.  What will we learn about Barack Obama in the future?  If he has feet of clay too[45], how will that factor alone manifest itself and affect America and its role in the world, and the fates and fortunes of individual Americans?  Also, will our adversaries (e.g., North Korea, Al Qaeda, Iran, Russia, China) determine he is weak and naïve, and hurt our great nation deeply, capitalizing on that naïveté?

Because Obama does not appear to be religious, one wonders whether he has the courage, depth and capacity to provide the moral authority and spiritual vision and leadership to guide America and its culturally rich and diverse people through truly perilous times?  Jimmy Carter was a man of God, yet he failed.  Carter did not have feet of clay though.  If Obama’s goal is to grow government, his naïveté knows no bounds.  Having worked in and with the federal government for 21 years nonstop, I believe the only agency of government that is remotely efficient and effective is the Pentagon and our military, which have been performing magnificently.

In writing about a young black organizer named Rafiq aka Wally Thompson, Obama says: “[H]e was less interested in changing the rules of power than in the color of those who had it and who therefore enjoyed its spoils.”[46] Is that what Obama is all about too?  Before he left Chicago for Kenya, he observed: “[N]otions of purity—of race or of culture—could no more serve as the basis for the typical black American’s self-esteem than it could for mine.”[47] That seems to have been an awakening for him.  Also, he came face to face with the realities of his father as a man: “It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself. . . .   Now, . . . that image had suddenly vanished.  Replaced by . . . what?  A bitter drunk?  An abusive husband?  A defeated, lonely bureaucrat?  To think that all my life I had been wrestling with nothing more than a ghost!  . . .  Whatever I do, it seems, I won’t do much worse than he did.”[48]

En route to Kenya, he referred to himself as “a Westerner not entirely at home in the West, an African on his way to a land full of strangers.”[49] He grew up in Hawaii, Indonesia and then Hawaii again, which are hardly the “heartland” of America, so his experiences were different than those of most Americans.  It is arguable that he had not assimilated fully into the American “culture,” and that his father’s absence from his life—as well as his mother’s absences—contributed to his sense of abandonment and anger.  In trying to find his “identity,” he had immersed himself in the writings of people who were “alienated” as well, and he embraced those lessons.  He adds: “Stripped of . . . the racial obsessions to which I’d become so accustomed and which I had taken (perversely) as a sign of my own maturation[,] I had been forced to look inside myself and had found only a great emptiness there.  . . .  What if . . . [my father’s] leaving me behind meant nothing, and the only tie that bound me to him, or to Africa, was a name, a blood type, or white people’s scorn?”[50]

In Kenya, his alienation is reflected once again when he characterizes other tourists as expressing “a confidence reserved for those born into imperial cultures.”[51] Also, throughout the book, he expresses his intense dislike for “colonialism,” which is perhaps summarized by his thoughts as he rides a train and imagines how a British officer might have felt on its maiden voyage: “Would he have felt a sense of triumph, a confidence that the guiding light of Western civilization had finally penetrated the African darkness?  Or did he feel a sense of foreboding, a sudden realization that the entire enterprise was an act of folly, that this land and its people would outlast imperial dreams?”[52] Yet, he tells his Kenyan aunts: “We’re all part of one tribe.  The black tribe.  The human tribe.”[53]

In terms of his presidency, his comments about the late black Chicago Mayor Harold Washington’s last campaign are interesting and instructive: “The business community sent him their checks, resigned to his presence.  So secure was his power that rumblings of discontent had finally surfaced within his own base, among black nationalists upset with his willingness to cut whites and Hispanics into the action, among activists disappointed with his failure to tackle poverty head-on, and among people who preferred the dream to the reality, impotence to compromise.”[54] Will Obama’s presidency and legacy follow a similar pattern: doing enough to mollify his base, while reaching out to others in an effort to broaden that base and seek his reelection and the election of a Democrat majority in Congress during the years ahead?

Early in the book, he is careful to point out: “I wouldn’t do anything stupid.  It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.”[55] Perhaps those words encapsulate his political life, his campaign for the presidency, and how he is governing and hopes to survive the global economic meltdown, national security challenges and growing constituent anger, while trying to change the essence of America.

In the final analysis, will he be viewed as a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history?  Will his naïveté have been matched by his overarching narcissism, and will he be considered more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter?  Will his presidency be considered a sad watershed in history?  Or will he succeed and prove his detractors wrong, and be viewed as the “anointed one” and a true political “messiah”?  Even Abraham Lincoln was never accorded such accolades, much less during his lifetime.  And Barack Obama’s core beliefs are light years away from those of Ronald Reagan.

© 2009, Timothy D. Naegele

[1] Mr. Naegele was counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee; and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass), the first black senator since Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates (  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years.  See, e.g.,

[2] Obama, “Dreams from My Father” (paperback “Revised Edition,” published by Three Rivers Press, 2004), pp. xi-xii.

[3] Id. at xii.

[4] Id. at 100.

[5] Id. at 89.

[6] Id. at 343.

[7] Id. at 193.

[8] Id. at 59-60.

[9] Id. at 80.

[10] Id. at 341.

[11] Id. at 430.

[12] Id. at 76.

[13] Id. at 79.

[14] Id. at 80.

[15] Id. at 82.

[16] Id. at 85.

[17] Id. at 125, 342.

[18] Id. at 68.

[19] Id. at 115, 270.

[20] Id. at 342-343.

[21] Id. at 129, 220.

[22] Id. at 220, 336-337.

[23] Id. at 127.

[24] Id. at 98.

[25] Id. at 98.

[26] Id. at 99 (emphasis in original).

[27] Id. at 101.

[28] Id. at 111.

[29] Id. at 118.

[30] Id. at 115; see also p. 199.

[31] Id. at 118.

[32] Id. at 124.

[33] Id. at 195.

[34] Id. at 135.

[35] Id. at 200.

[36] Id. at 201.

[37] Id. at 286-287; see also p. 295.

[38] Id. at 358.

[39] Id. at 93; see also pp. 120, 270.

[40] Id. at 133.

[41] Id. at 135.

[42] For example, Adolf Hitler tried to run his country’s military and other activities; and ultimately, he destroyed everything within his control—including Germany, at least a generation of Germans, and millions of innocent people.

[43] Id. at 182.

[44] Id. at 229.

[45] See, e.g., Thomas C. Reeves’ “A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy,” and Seymour M. Hersh’s “The Dark Side of Camelot.”

[46] Id. at 202.

[47] Id. at 204.

[48] Id. at 220-221.

[49] Id. at 301.

[50] Id. at 301-302.

[51] Id. at 312.

[52] Id. at 368.

[53] Id. at 348.

[54] Id. at 287.

[55] Id. at 94.



147 responses

28 12 2009


Regardless of one’s views of Jimmy Carter’s politics, his life with Rosalynn is a wonderful and loving story.


28 12 2009


It should be clear after reading this article that I am not interested in racists calling Barack Obama a racist. Also, in asking the question, I have left it up to the reader of this article, and of “Dreams from My Father,” to make a determination for himself and herself. All I have done is set out statements that Obama made, which seem to form a pattern, and which have never been denounced by him. I do not presume to get into his head or heart. I have included comments, especially about his mother and grandparents, which are very kind and endearing.


30 01 2010

One’s belief in and path to God is very personal. Some people wear it on their sleeves, and shout it from the mountaintops, while others prove their faith “quietly” each and every day—by confronting challenges that are big and small, some of which may truly seem like mountains at the time.

It is in this context that one must view Barack Obama’s religious beliefs, to the extent they exist. It has been reported that he and his family publicly attended religious services in Washington, D.C. just three times in the past year, and not on Christmas Day, 2009. See

This seems consistent with my article above, in which I conclude after reading his book: “[H]e never expounds on any religious beliefs or spirituality, much less a belief in God.” Also, I wrote:

Because Obama does not appear to be religious, one wonders whether he has the courage, depth and capacity to provide the moral authority and spiritual vision and leadership to guide America and its culturally rich and diverse people through truly perilous times?

Time will tell.


28 02 2010

Obama kept looking for direction as the drama in his life had more questions than answers. We can’t understand his quandry but he had a family, a home and people that loved and cared about him. He wanted his fathers attention and guidance but was ignored. We get that. Give me a break….so many children have had poor care and have moved on. Obama is his own man. Poor me is pathetic. He’s very clever and it’s totally obvious he wants us to be a european democracy. He surrounds himself with radicals and definately shares their views. He sold us on being a centrist and turned out to be a leftist and a poor leader. The no drama Obama is proving nugatory. He loves the camera and is finally getting the attention he lacked as a child.


1 03 2010

Thank you for your comments, Lee.

Yes, I agree. “Dreams from My Father” is a fascinating book, which I read twice after the election.

As indicated in the article above, he took that direction when he was a student at Punahou in Honolulu, long before he set foot on the American mainland—and after having lived in Indonesia too, with his mother’s Indonesian husband.

Based on the book and everything else that I have read, she and young Barry’s father never married, much less got a divorce. It is clear though that his father had multiple “wives,” as well as children with his first wife in Kenya before he ever set foot in Hawaii.

His father was with young Barry for only one month of his life, when he was 10 and the father visited Honolulu. Barry’s mother was often gone, so the only stabilizing influences in his life were his maternal grandparents, “Toot” and “Gramps.” They loved him dearly and nourished him, and he acknowledges that. In fact, the most touching comments in the book are about his mother and her parents. They were his rock—which is why the anti-White sentiments in his book and his later life are “stunning,” to say the least.

Also, I agree with your comments: “He sold us on being a centrist and turned out to be a leftist and a poor leader.” As I point out in the article above: he has never been “successful at anything other than writing, speaking, campaigning, politics and getting elected—being a professional politician.” He and his Chicago crowd (e.g., Rahm Emanuel) may be in the process of getting their political comuppance, bigtime.

Lastly, there is no question that he is a narcissist; and as European leaders point out, he is too arrogant to admit when he knows little or nothing about a subject. This may be a basis of his undoing ultimately, among other factors.


1 03 2010

Mr. Naegele,

Why are you not involved in politics? We as a country need smart leaders as yourself.

We can only hope Americans won’t have short memories come 2012. They so much want to believe in this young knight. He may try to change his stripes but the wind is at his back. Everyday his suporters are deminishing. Too much time is still left, but we’ll see. He’s so comfortable in his skin but is bound to suffer foot’n mouth disease which will impair his performance.

I may be over the hill, (a senior) but it’s better than being under it.

Again, get involved. Thanks for your input.


1 03 2010

How nice of you to say this, Lee, but I have been there and done that. See, e.g.,

I may help with a campaign shortly, but I am only interested where there is a chance to make a real difference.

In the world of politics, 2012 is light years away. So many things can happen between now and then that it is difficult if not impossible to predict. What is most important, or so I believe, is that Independents who supported Obama are deserting him. They can and will tip the scales.

However, the GOP must have a candidate who can beat him, unless he becomes so damaged—like Jimmy Carter was—that the door is open to lots of GOP candidates, which may happen.

Before reading his book, I had two reasons not to vote for him: national security and the economy. I believe he has been a disaster with respect to both; and it is only apt to get much worse before he leaves office.

See, e.g, and

Your comments are excellent, and you may want to get involved too! 🙂


2 04 2010

Obama’s Policy Of Slapping Allies

This is the title of an article by the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer, which is worth reading—as are all of his weekly columns.


The fact is that most if not all of Barack Obama’s views and policies are understandable if one reads his “Dreams from My Father.”

His treatment of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Brits mirrors his feelings about “colonialism,” and “imperial” cultures and dreams. For example, as my article states, in Kenya his alienation was reflected when he characterized other tourists as expressing “a confidence reserved for those born into imperial cultures.”

See Barack Obama, “Dreams from My Father” (paperback “Revised Edition,” published by Three Rivers Press, 2004), p. 312.

Also, his intense dislike for colonialism is perhaps summarized by his thoughts when he rode on a train and imagined how a British officer might have felt on its maiden voyage:

Would he have felt a sense of triumph, a confidence that the guiding light of Western civilization had finally penetrated the African darkness? Or did he feel a sense of foreboding, a sudden realization that the entire enterprise was an act of folly, that this land and its people would outlast imperial dreams?

See id. at 368; see also

Krauthammer’s quoting of David Manning—a former British ambassador to the United States—is apt: “[Obama] is an American who grew up in Hawaii, whose foreign experience was of Indonesia and who had a Kenyan father. The sentimental reflexes, if you like, are not there.” Even more precisely, Obama was repulsed by colonialism and the British Empire, and it is reflected in his policies today.

With respect to the Falkland Islands and India, his policies may simply reflect his views about colonialism.

Aside from the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the most dangerous and irresponsible leader that Israel has ever had, Obama’s dislike for him probably reflects his belief that the Israelis are the oppressors, and the Palestinians are the oppressed, much like he viewed Apartheid in South Africa.

See, e.g.,

Why Obama coddles the Russians is unfathomable though, unless he seeks their help with Iran, which is very naive.

See also

His treatment of Honduras is a mystery too, unless some policy advisers have convinced him.


11 11 2010

“Aside from the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the most dangerous and irresponsible leader that Israel has ever had.”

Based on your other comments re Israel over the years, methinks that any Israeli not willing to surrender their (God-given—there I said it!) land to blood-thirsty terrorists who can’t even live in peace with their own kind, is dangerous and irresponsible in your eyes.


11 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments, Joseph, which mirror what you said in a postings below.

Again, I have discussed these issues fully in another article, and in postings beneath it, which I will not repeat here. You might wish to read them.



21 05 2010

Mr. Naegele,

Thank you for a very interesting, thorough, and thoughtful analysis of the narrative about Obama in Dreams From My Father.

I say “about Obama” because I do not believe Obama wrote the book. He does not and never did possess the literary talent or skills to create anything remotely resembling it.

Jack Cashill has done a meticulous job deconstructing both the text and the style of the book, and concludes, I believe irrefutably, that the book was authored in whole or substantial part by Obama’s friend and neighbor, veteran writer William Ayers.

Cashill’s thesis has been confirmed in the recent Obama bio by Christopher Andersen, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage. Andersen reports that Obama, who was under contract and unable to produce a manuscript, at Michelle’s urging “sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.” What attracted the Obamas were “Ayers’s proven abilities as a writer.” Obama delivered a box of his notes and tape recorded memos, and then, “Thanks to help from the veteran writer Ayers,” writes Andersen, “Barack would be able to submit a manuscript to his editors at Times Books.”

The book, like Obama, is a fraud. And when it is read with the understanding that the real voice is that of a radical revolutionary and member of the Weather Underground – the words takes on substantially different and considerably more ominous meanings.


21 05 2010

Thank you, Winston, for your comments.

Yes, I am aware of what you describe (e.g., that Ayers wrote at least part of the book), and it may be true.

The book is very well written, yet shocking in many respects, as my article above points out. If more Americans had read the book, I doubt he would have been elected.

His policies to date are consistent with the book, as I have pointed out in this and other articles.

See, e.g., and’s-second-emperor and


26 05 2010

What Would Reagan Do?

The Wall Street Journal has a fine article by David Malpass entitled, “The Panic, Round Two: What Would Reagan Do?” that is worth reading.


Yes, the panics are upon us—and there will be many of them globally—as America and the world sink deeper into what economic historians will describe 20-40 years from now as the “Great Depression II,” or by some similar label.

See, e.g.,

David Malpass is right in asking what would Reagan do, because the former president—certainly at the top of his game—might have figured out a way of getting us out of this mess, or of somehow making it less onerous than it will be. After all, he was a creature of the “Great Depression I,” and he learned its lessons well.

Unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent in December 1982, two years after his election—which was higher than any time since the first Great Depression—then dropped during the rest of Reagan’s presidency. But facts and figures do not tell the whole story of the Reagan presidency by any means: his personality and leadership qualities, and his ability to instill hope and optimism.

See, e.g.,

One must remember too that Paul Volcker was Chairman of the Fed, and he contributed mightily to keeping the economy on an even keel, and preventing runaway inflation. He was followed by Alan Greenspan, who never saw the Housing Crisis coming, and he testified to that before a House committee. Or, as Giulio Tremonti, Italy’s Minister of Economy and Finance, put it: “Greenspan was considered a master. Now we must ask ourselves whether he is not, after [Osama] bin Laden, the man who hurt America the most.” That speaks volumes, in terms of the human suffering domestically and globally, which Greenspan launched.

See; see also’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/

Implicit in Malpass’ fine article is the fact that Congress does not know what it is doing. Most politicians have zero training in economics, and do not understand it, and have no appreciation for economic history. They are simply interested in getting elected and reelected, and wielding power while they have it.

Malpass adds correctly:

As Reagan understood, true leadership requires stating goals and taking decisive action, in this case reducing government spending substantially enough to convince the private sector to invest again.

However, Ronald Reagan’s leadership was broader and more important than that. He instilled confidence and optimism when there had been little or none, across the board (e.g., national security, economics).

See also

Sadly, Reagan’s leadership and vision are lacking now, as wrong-headed politicians lead us father down the path toward financial ruin, dashing the hopes and dreams of Americans and their counterparts worldwide. However, the days of reckoning are upon us. America and other nations are in uncharted waters; and their politicians may face backlashes from disillusioned and angry constituents that are unprecedented in modern times. We are beginning to see that now.

Also, Barack Obama has zero experience with respect to economic and a plethora of other issues. Americans should read (or reread) his “Dreams from My Father,” and realize that he is one of the most “uneducated” presidents in American history, in terms of real-world issues. This is not said by way of condemnation, but as a fact.

See, e.g.,

At best he is an academic. Perhaps more importantly, he and his advisers are “a bunch of academics” and ideologues, who have pre-set ideas about how the world should function, which do not square with reality. In many ways, they are the most ill-equipped individuals to confront and understand the “Great Depression II,” much get us through it.

I cannot think of another group that is so ill-equipped to deal with critical issues facing America and the world (e.g., two wars, the risk of any EMP or other devastating attack, North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, the Great Depression II). Fortunately, no calamities hit the Clinton years. We are not and will not be so lucky this time around.

Lastly, Ronald Reagan was blessed—yes, blessed by God. He had innate wisdom and a reservoir of faith, confidence, optimism and good will, and collective life experiences that allowed him to do just the right thing at the right time. Clearly, the fall of the “Evil Empire” was a shining achievement, but there were many many others too.


19 06 2010

Obama Loathes the British, Colonialism And The Israelis

My article above explains Barack Obama’s feelings about the British and Colonialism, which are clear when one reads his book, “Dreams from My Father.” He hated apartheid too, which he equates with the Israelis’ treatment of the Palestinians.

UK’s Daily Mail has an interesting article, which states in part:

The Kenyan bowed his head as his captors opened the prison cell door to deliver another brutal whipping—a punishment meted out after he was accused of taking part in the independence movement against the British colonial authorities.

The man had been working as a cook for a British Army officer. And his name? Hussein Onyango Obama—President Barack Obama’s paternal grandfather.

He had been arrested in 1949 and jailed for two years in a high-security prison. There, according to his family, he was subjected to horrific violence. They say British soldiers used torture in an effort to get him to reveal rebel secrets.

. . .

[T]hese bitter tales form part of the Obama family folklore, and seem to have left the U.S. President with a vehemently anti-British outlook.

So has Obama’s memory of his grandfather’s treatment influenced his aggressive reaction to BP over its handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill?

The [UK] Government has become increasingly concerned by Obama’s anti-British rhetoric. For example, he has often referred to the global company as ‘British Petroleum’, although it changed its name to BP more than a decade ago, and even compared the disaster to 9/11.

But this is not the first time he has paid little heed to the so-called Special Relationship. When he entered the Oval office, he immediately returned a bust of Winston Churchill that was on loan from Britain.

And during the recent stand-off between Britain and Argentina over oil rights around the Falkland Islands, America was less than supportive.

. . .

For some time, [Hussein Onyango Obama] was too traumatised to speak about his experiences. Mrs Onyango told her grandson: ‘From that day on, I saw that he was now an old man.’ This week she told us: ‘My husband rarely spoke about the British and colonial rule after his arrest. All I know is that he hated them.

‘After serving the British very diligently, they turned him into enemy number one.

‘His awful tales of his experiences at the British torture chambers always moved his emotions. He wondered why the British never respected African culture.

. . .

The old man would shed tears at the mention of the British and colonial rule. He simply hated them.’


This article is consistent with Obama’s “Dreams from My Father.”


24 06 2010

While I share many of your opinions, I find your hatred of Israel, a fellow democracy trying to survive in a sea of hate, both perplexing and disturbing. Casting your lot with murderous savages over peace-loving Israel reveals the blackness of your soul.

Ironically, it was when Jew-haters like yourself mobbed the Dreyfuss trial in Paris a century or so ago that Hertzl envisoned a Jewish State as a refuge. The good Lord has a wonderful sense of irony don’t you think?


24 06 2010

Thank you, Joseph, for your comments.

I do not hate Israel at all. My views on this subject are set forth in another article that you may wish to read (and the postings beneath it), about the damage being done by Netanyahu.


As stated in that article, Netanyahu was hated by former Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin—and especially by Rabin’s wife Leah, who blamed Netanyahu for her husband’s assassination. She saw “only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and of course she was correct.

Also, I am forever reminded of what a prominent American (who is a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel with impeccable credentials) told me a number of years ago:

I have long thought that Israel will not make it, if only because of what are cavalierly called WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and its very tight geographical compression. All else is immaterial, including the Palestinians, or us, or the nature of Israel’s [government].

I was stunned by this person’s words, and I have reflected on them many times since. This undergirds my sense of urgency concerning the Israeli-Palestinian peace process—not peace at any price, but something different than the approach being taken by Netanyahu.


6 11 2010
Keith Beveridge

Hi Tim,

Very nice article. BHO’s life story is representative of most of the problematic issues our country faces with regard to its citizenry politically, psychologically, and culturally. It also demonstrates the hope that America provides to its people.

BHO is a lightningrod for the disaffected. It is clear that with his childhood, he grew up feeling disillusioned and more than a little angry at his life situation. The fact that his father abandoned the family was clearly the most seminal fact that shaped his core belief system, which you point out, probably does not include a strong belief in God.

But his rise to power is also indicative of what a determined and intelligent person can do in this country.

I think the lesson we learn from this presidency is that America is great enough to allow the common man rise to the highest level, but that high level does not come cheaply or without responsibility.

America is smarter now after experiencing a president like BHO. He should be commended and respected for his accomplishments. But we, and he, should learn from his mistakes. We all need to change course a bit in reaction to what we have learned from BHO to make America even greater than it already is.


6 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Keith, for your thoughtful comments.

Yes, I agree completely. Well said. 🙂


11 11 2010

“As stated in that article, Netanyahu was hated by former Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin—and especially by Rabin’s wife Leah, who blamed Netanyahu for her husband’s assassination. She saw ‘only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process’ with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and of course she was correct.”

I recall the Oslo days clearly and distinctly remember Leah Rabin partying on, and her husband and Shimon Peres hobnobbing with European elites as daily bus bombings in Jerusalem murdered hundreds while the three of them and their stooges blithely droned on regarding the need to “sacrifice” for peace and how one does not make peace with friends but with sworn enemies.

And you knew of an Israeli who was critical of his own government, eh? Well I know some Moslems and Arabs who support Israel, so I guess that makes us even.


11 11 2010

After two years of Obama it is quite evident he pretends to talk the talk but hides his descrimination. He’s definitely a racist along with his whole administration. As I said before he’s going to be a one term president. We may not know the whole man but his views are so flawed and should be impeached. His friend George Schwartz Soros speaks his language, supports his agenda and dictates all of his policies. No need to say more.


1 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

[Note: What follows is a series of comments about developments in the Middle East, which will only get worse, far worse. They underscore the tragic nature of Barack Obama’s presidency. Prior to the 2008 American elections, I gave serious thought to voting for him and working to help him get elected. Today, I have zero faith in him, and believe he should be removed from office at the earliest possible date. He is an unmitigated disaster as president, which was totally predictable if anyone (including yours truly) had bothered to read his book, “Dreams from My Father,” before the 2008 elections. The article above discusses that book in great detail, quoting his words extensively; and it is every bit as relevant today as it was more than two years ago.]

. . .

Will Barack Obama Go Down In History As The President Who Lost The Middle East?

As I have written:

[Obama’s] naïveté is matched by his overarching narcissism; and he is more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter. Indeed, it is likely that his presidency will be considered a sad and tragic watershed in history; and the American people are recognizing this more and more with each day that passes. Hopefully he chooses to end his political career with dignity by not running for reelection in 2012, instead of continuing to drag this great nation down with him.


He is a cowardly demagogue, who failed to come to the aid of those courageous Iranians who were tortured and killed after rising up in protest against the disputed victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, following the 2009 Iranian presidential election.

It was a seminal moment in Obama’s presidency up to that point in time. He flinched, and demonstrated to the world that he is not a true small-“d” democrat; and that he is weak like Jimmy Carter was. He stood with our enemy, the theocracy in Iran.

With respect to Egypt, the United States must do whatever is necessary to make sure that radical Islam does not take over the country. If it happens, and if that spreads—for example to Jordan, another ally of ours and of Israel—at the very least Obama will go down in history as the president who lost the Middle East. Also, this might determine the fate of Israel.

See; but see (“Egypt . . . has the opportunity to become what it always should have been—the leader of a movement toward freedom and democracy in the Arab world”)

Political pundit and former Bill Clinton adviser, Dick Morris, has warned:

Unless President Obama reverses field and strongly opposes letting the Muslim [B]rotherhood take over Egypt, he will be hit with the . . . question: Who Lost Egypt?

The Iranian government is waiting for Egypt to fall into its lap. The Muslim Brotherhood, dominated by Iranian Islamic fundamentalism, will doubtless emerge as the winner should the government of Egypt fall. The Obama Administration, in failing to throw its weight against an Islamic takeover, is guilty of the same mistake that led President Carter to fail to support the Shah, opening the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran.

The United States has enormous leverage in Egypt—far more than it had in Iran. We provide Egypt with upwards of $2 billion a year in foreign aid under the provisos of the Camp David Accords orchestrated by Carter. The Egyptian military, in particular, receives $1.3 billion of this money. The United States, as the pay master, needs to send a signal to the military that it will be supportive of its efforts to keep Egypt out of the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Instead, Obama has put our military aid to Egypt “under review” to pressure Mubarak to mute his response to the demonstrators and has given top priority to “preventing the loss of human life.”

President Obama should say that Egypt has always been a friend of the United States. He should point out that it was the first Arab country to make peace with Israel. He should recall that President Sadat, who signed the peace accords, paid for doing so with his life and that President Mubarak has carried on in his footsteps. He should condemn the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood extremists to take over the country and indicate that America stands by her longtime ally. He should address the need for reform and urge Mubarak to enact needed changes. But his emphasis should be on standing with our ally.

The return of Nobel laureate Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) . . . to Egypt as the presumptive heir to Mubarak tells us where this revolution is headed. Carolyn Glick, a columnist for the Jerusalem Post, explains how dangerous ElBaradei is. “As IAEA head,” she writes, “Elbaradei shielded Iran’s nuclear weapons program from the Security Council. He [has] continued to lobby against significant UN Security Council sanctions or other actions against Iran…Last week, he dismissed the threat of a nuclear armed Iran [saying] ‘there is a lot of hype in this debate’.”

As for the Muslim Brotherhood, Glick notes that “it forms the largest and best organized opposition to the Mubarak regime and [is] the progenitor of Hamas and al [Qaeda]. It seeks Egypt’s transformation into an Islamic regime that will stand at the forefront of the global jihad.”

Now is the time for Republicans and conservatives to start asking the question: Who is losing Egypt? We need to debunk the starry eyed idealistic yearning for reform and the fantasy that a liberal democracy will come from these demonstrations. It won’t. Iranian domination will.

Egypt, with 80 million people, is the largest country in the Middle East or North Africa. Combined with Iran’s 75 million (the second largest) they have 155 million people. By contrast the entire rest of the region—Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Jordan, UAE, Lebanon, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar combined—have only 200 million.

We must not let the two most populous and powerful nations in the region fall under the sway of Muslim extremism, the one through the weakness of Jimmy Carter and the other through the weakness of Barack Obama.


The United States cannot afford to lose Egypt, Jordan and other allies in the region. Among other things, Obama is pulling our forces out of Iraq; and a debacle is likely to follow in Afghanistan too, which seems to be a lost cause. All of this might determine the fate of Israel.

See, e.g.,;_ylt=Akg0dRp1i4NSyUsUi6YKt.0LewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTJkdnRuaHE2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMjAxL21sX2lyYXEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX3BhZ2luYXRlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDc2VuYXRlcmVwb3J0 (“American diplomats and other mission employees may not be safe in Iraq if the U.S. military leaves the volatile country at the end of the year as planned, according to a new report released [by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee]”)

As I have written:

Obama is a [fool, a] fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who will be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history—unless he tragically alters the course of American history.

See (emphasis added)

Obama might tragically alter America’s history by losing the Middle East.

The Israelis are deeply and justifiably concerned. In an important article entitled, “Israel shocked by Obama’s ‘betrayal’ of Mubarak,” Reuters has reported:

If Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday.

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told ministers of the Jewish state to make no comment on the political cliffhanger in Cairo, to avoid inflaming an already explosive situation. But Israel’s President Shimon Peres is not a minister.

“We always have had and still have great respect for President Mubarak,” he said on Monday. He then switched to the past tense. “I don’t say everything that he did was right, but he did one thing which all of us are thankful to him for: he kept the peace in the Middle East.”

Newspaper columnists were far more blunt.

One comment by Aviad Pohoryles in the daily Maariv was entitled “A Bullet in the Back from Uncle Sam.” It accused Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of pursuing a naive, smug, and insular diplomacy heedless of the risks.

Who is advising them, he asked, “to fuel the mob raging in the streets of Egypt and to demand the head of the person who five minutes ago was the bold ally of the president … an almost lone voice of sanity in a Middle East?”

. . .

Obama on Sunday called for an “orderly transition” to democracy in Egypt, stopping short of calling on Mubarak to step down, but signaling that his days may be numbered.


Netanyahu instructed Israeli ambassadors in a dozen key capitals over the weekend to impress on host governments that Egypt’s stability is paramount, official sources said.

“Jordan and Saudi Arabia see the reactions in the West, how everyone is abandoning Mubarak, and this will have very serious implications,” Haaretz daily quoted one official as saying.

Egypt, Israel’s most powerful neighbor, was the first Arab country to make peace with the Jewish state, in 1979. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who signed the treaty, was assassinated two years later by an Egyptian fanatic.

It took another 13 years before King Hussein of Jordan broke Arab ranks to [make] a second peace with the Israelis. That treaty was signed by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated one year later, in 1995, by an Israeli fanatic.

There have been no peace treaties since. Lebanon and Syria are still technically at war with Israel. Conservative Gulf Arab regimes have failed to advance their peace ideas. A hostile Iran has greatly increased its influence in the Middle East conflict.

See; see also (“If Egypt resumes its conflict with Israel, Israelis fear, it will put a powerful Western-armed military on the side of Israel’s enemies while also weakening pro-Western states like Jordan and Saudi Arabia”)

Also, in an article captioned, “Israel Watches ‘Regional Earthquake’ in Egypt,” the Wall Street Journal has reported:

Israeli commentators depicted the crumbling of President Hosni Mubarak’s rule in Egypt as a regional earthquake, calling it the most significant Middle East event since the 1979 revolution against the Shah in Iran.

. . .

The speed at which Mr. Mubarak’s troubles escalated appeared to blindside Israeli officials, who have watched with growing alarm as protests in Cairo and other Egyptian cities swelled, endangering the grip on power of their strongest ally in the region. Inspired by a popular uprising in Tunisia, Egyptian protests swelled in a matter of days late last week. By the weekend, it was clear Mr. Mubarak’s reign was in jeopardy.

“We were caught by surprise,” said Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in New York, a few hours before Mr. Mubarak’s announcement. “The Egyptian regime seemed very strong and very stable.”

Israel has a huge stake in Egypt’s stability. The historic 1979 peace treaty between the two countries, which share a long border, is the cornerstone of a regional balance. For more than 30 years, Israel has been able to count on Egypt to refrain from siding in Arab hostilities against the Jewish state.

An unfriendly government in Egypt would deprive Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of his only ally in a region that has grown more hostile toward Israel over the past several years, with the growing influence of Iran, the armed takeover of Gaza by Hamas, the rise of Hezbollah as a major political force in Lebanon, and Turkey’s tilt away from Israel and toward Syria.

Apart from geopolitical interest, Israel has economic stakes in Egyptian stability. Egyptian natural-gas supplies generate 20% to 25% of Israel’s electricity needs.

Israeli officials have said they worry that elections in Egypt could benefit Islamist groups hostile to Israel. Mr. Steinitz said Israel supports the establishment of a democracy in Egypt. But “sometimes, even democracies can lead to very negative results.” he said.


The battle of Cairo has begun, just as battles have begun elsewhere in the Middle East. They will be ugly and brutal. When the dust settles finally, America’s “Hamlet on the Potomac”—or “Jimmy Carter-lite”—Barack Obama might have lost the region, just as Carter lost Iran to Islamic fascists. The consequences will be mind-boggling.

See also (The Wall Street Journal’s Interactive Timeline of “Regional Upheaval” in the Middle East)


1 02 2011
Smilin' Jack

Your description of the situation at hand is correct. We are at a crossroads that could put us in harm’s way. Unfortunately, our president has surrounded himself with a bunch of idiots—as in “birds of a feather, flock together.”


2 02 2011
Delia Hartog

In depth and impressive. Frighteningly so…..


3 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Is A Fool And A Political Naïf, And The Israelis Recognize It

In an important article entitled, “US response to Egypt draws criticism in Israel,” the AP has reported:

President Barack Obama’s response to the crisis in Egypt is drawing fierce criticism in Israel, where many view the U.S. leader as a political naif whose pressure on a stalwart ally to hand over power is liable to backfire.

Critics—including senior Israeli officials who have shied from saying so publicly—say Obama is repeating the same mistakes of predecessors whose calls for human rights and democracy in the Middle East have often backfired by bringing anti-West regimes to power.

Israeli officials, while refraining from open criticism of Obama, have made no secret of their view that shunning Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and pushing for swift elections in Egypt could bring unintended results.

“I don’t think the Americans understand yet the disaster they have pushed the Middle East into,” said lawmaker Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who until recently was a Cabinet minister and who is a longtime friend of Mubarak.

“If there are elections like the Americans want, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t win a majority, it would win half of the seats in parliament,” he told Army Radio. “It will be a new Middle East, extremist radical Islam.”

Three decades ago, President Jimmy Carter urged another staunch American ally—the shah of Iran—to loosen his grip on power, only to see his autocratic regime replaced by the Islamic Republic. More recently, U.S.-supported elections have strengthened such groups as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories and anti-American radicals in Iran.

“Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as ‘the president who lost Iran,'” the analyst Aluf Benn wrote in the daily Haaretz this week. “Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who ‘lost’ Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America’s alliances in the Middle East crumbled,” Benn wrote.

Israel has tremendous respect for Mubarak, who carefully honored his country’s peace agreement with Israel after taking power nearly 30 years ago.

While relations were often cool, Mubarak maintained a stable situation that has allowed Israel to greatly reduce its military spending and troop presence along the border with Egypt.

He also worked with Israel to contain the Gaza Strip’s Hamas government and served as a bridge to the broader Arab world.

. . .

In the course of the turmoil, the Obama administration has repeatedly recalibrated its posture, initially expressing confidence in Egypt’s government, later threatening to withhold U.S. aid, and lastly, pressing Mubarak to loosen his grip on power immediately.

. . .

Critics say the U.S. is once again confusing the mechanics of democracy with democracy itself.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed similar sentiments this week when he warned that “if extremist forces are allowed to exploit democratic processes to come to power to advance anti-democratic goals—as has happened in Iran and elsewhere—the outcome will be bad for peace and bad for democracy.”

So far, no unified opposition leadership or clear program for change has emerged in Egypt. Historically the leading opposition in Egypt has been the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that favors Islamic rule and has been repressed by Mubarak throughout his tenure.

Many young people see the former director of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, as Egypt’s democratic hope, but critics say he is out of touch with Egypt’s problems because he has spent so many years outside of the country.

The calls for democracy inside Egypt have put the U.S. in an awkward position of having to balance its defense for human rights with its longtime ties to an authoritarian regime that has been a crucial Arab ally.

In Israel, critics say the U.S. has suffered a credibility loss by shaking off Mubarak when his regime started crumbling.

“The Israeli concept is that the U.S. rushed to stab Mubarak in the back,” said Eytan Gilboa, an expert on the U.S. at Bar-Ilan University.

“As Israel sees it, they could have pressured Mubarak, but not in such an overt way, because the consequence could be a loss of faith in the U.S. by all pro-Western Arab states in the Middle East, and also a loss of faith in Israel,” he said.

Raphael Israeli, a professor emeritus of Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, echoed a widely felt perception that before the unrest erupted, the Obama administration paid only lip service to the lack of human rights in Mubarak’s authoritarian regime.

“If Obama were genuinely concerned with what is going on in Egypt, he should have made the same demands two years ago (when he addressed the Muslim world in Cairo) and eight years and 20 years ago. Mubarak didn’t come to power yesterday.”

See (emphasis added); see also (“Worried Israel: Bad news for the Jewish state: Egypt’s upheaval is rattling the Israelis“)

As emphasized above, one conclusion jumps out:

Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who ‘lost’ Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America’s alliances in the Middle East crumbled.

Beyond that, he may be remembered as the American president who lost the Middle East, or certainly large portions of it. Again, he is an utter fool and a feckless naïf, and he must be removed from office before he can do even more damage to America and U.S. interests.


14 12 2014
Mark Talmont

It’s hard to decipher his true motives. There is a review of his personal history at the Alex Jones InfoWars site that is disturbing and never has been reported. The whole family network a matrix of covert ops/false fronts/subversives.



14 12 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Mark, for your comments.

There is a great deal that Obama omits from his book, “Dreams from My Father,” such as how he paid for college and his globe-trotting adventures.

As with other presidents, I expect that the details will become available as time passes and people speak out and tell the truth.


4 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Is Barack Obama America’s Most Polarizing President Ever?

The UK’s Daily Mail has an article that expresses astonishment at the fact that Barack Obama divides the U.S. more than any second-year president in more than half a century. The article states in pertinent part:

Barack Obama was swept into power on a wave of optimism over his promise to bring America together in a new spirit of unity.

But a new poll has revealed that he divided the country down the middle more than any other second-year US president in more than half a century.

Astonishingly, Mr Obama’s second year in office was even more polarising than his White House predecessor George Bush.

Critics blamed Mr Obama’s determination to push through healthcare reforms and his administration’s big spending attempts to dig the US out of the financial crisis as two of the biggest issues that have split American opinion.

According to figures released by Gallup, Mr Obama’s popularity in 2010 was even more polarised than they were during his first year, measuring a 68-point gap between the percentage of Democrats and Republicans that approve of the president.

An average of 81 per cent of Democrats approved of the job Mr Obama was doing last year, compared to just 13 per cent of Republicans.

The 68-point divide is up from a 65-point gap in 2009, which was also a record for a first-year president.

Despite all his talk of bringing America’s two main political parties closer together, Mr Obama’s rock bottom 13 per cent approval from Republicans is easily the lowest percentage of support from an opposing party for any president in his second year.

See and (Gallup poll results); see also (“George W. Bush’s Memoir Sells 2 Million Copies In A Month, Nearly As Many As Bill Clinton’s Sold In Six Years”) and (“Bush Job Approval Rating Higher Than Obama’s”)

Neither the writer of the article nor the Daily Mail should be “astonished” in the least about what has happened to Barack Obama. In fact, such astonishment reflects enormous naïveté about U.S. politics and the American people.

The high-water mark of the Obama presidency was reached when Congress passed his signature health care legislation, “ObamaCare.” A U.S. federal court has just struck down that law in its entirety; and Congress is moving to repeal it as well.

See, e.g., (“ObamaCare May Be History, And Barack Obama May Be Too”)

Obama is a fool and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who will be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history—unless he tragically alters the course of American history.

If he loses Egypt and other countries of the Middle East to Islamic fascism, and the American economy continues to decline, and he loses the Afghan War, he will have changed history, for the worse.

See, e.g., (“Will Barack Obama Go Down In History As The President Who Lost The Middle East?”) and (“Obama Is A Fool And A Political Naïf, And The Israelis Recognize It”) and (“SHOCK CLAIM: Hawaii Governor Admits There Are No Obama Birth Records In Hawaii”)

Lastly, racism is not what has turned off so many Americans. On the contrary, Obama is a far-left president in a center-right country; and he was “packaged” before the 2008 elections as a moderate, which was fraud. Those who voted for him are increasingly having “buyer’s remorse,” and this is especially true of Independents—who comprise approximately 35 percent of American voters—and members of the Tea Party movement, and “disenchanted” Democrats. These three groups, plus Republicans, may seal Obama’s political fate as the 2012 elections approach.

See, e.g.,


5 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele


“WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets”

HMS Vanguard

This is the title of the UK Telegraph’s article—subtitled, “The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose”—which states:

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

. . .

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today.

. . .

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”

Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”

While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.


Obama must be impeached, now!

He needs to be dumped before the next election. The Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives must begin investigations immediately, laying the basis for the impeachment process.

Russia’s dictator-for-life Putin is our enemy, and cutting any deals with him is equivalent to cutting deals with Adolf Hitler before or during World War II.

See, e.g.,

Obama is a traitor. We have always known that!

See, e.g., (“Will Barack Obama Go Down In History As The President Who Lost The Middle East?”) and (“Obama Trashes Pentagon, And Must Be Impeached!”)

Also, his hatred for the British seems to know no bounds. In his book, “Dreams from My Father,” he set forth his core beliefs, which I have discussed at length in an article. For example:

In Kenya, his alienation is reflected once again when he characterizes other tourists as expressing “a confidence reserved for those born into imperial cultures.” Also, throughout the book, he expresses his intense dislike for “colonialism,” which is perhaps summarized by his thoughts as he rides a train and imagines how a British officer might have felt on its maiden voyage: “Would he have felt a sense of triumph, a confidence that the guiding light of Western civilization had finally penetrated the African darkness? Or did he feel a sense of foreboding, a sudden realization that the entire enterprise was an act of folly, that this land and its people would outlast imperial dreams?”



5 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Is Barack Obama Becoming A Handmaiden To Islamic Fascists?

It is a given that Obama is a cowardly demagogue. For example, he failed to come to the aid of those courageous Iranians who were tortured and killed after rising up in protest against the disputed victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, following the 2009 Iranian presidential election. The government of Iran is America’s enemy. Egypt’s Mubarak has been our ally, whom Obama has been “throwing under the bus”—which the Israelis understand fully, and watch with dismay and revulsion.

See, e.g., (“Obama Is A Fool And A Political Naïf, And The Israelis Recognize It”)

The Brits—another staunch ally—are outraged that Obama has agreed to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets. The UK’s Telegraph has reported that Obama secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information about Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign the New START Treaty, which is traitorous and an impeachable offense.

See, e.g.,

The battle of Cairo has begun, just as battles have begun elsewhere in the Middle East. They will be ugly and brutal. When the dust settles finally, America’s far-Left, naïve, anti-war, narcissistic president—our “Hamlet on the Potomac” or “Jimmy Carter-lite”—Barack Obama might have lost not just Egypt but the entire region, just as Carter lost Iran to Islamic fascists. The consequences will be mind-boggling.

See; see also (“Jordan will sooner or later be the target of an uprising similar to the ones in Tunisia and Egypt”)

Obama is a fool and a feckless naïf, who is pulling out of Iraq completely. His policies are leading to the utter failure of his Afghan War; and it is simply a matter of time before he cuts and runs from there as well. As shrewd as Hillary and Bill Clinton can be at times, they seem to miss the fact that we may be in the midst of “The Clash of Civilizations” that Samuel P. Huntington wrote about—which Richard Nixon worried about.

See, e.g.,; but see (“[George W.] Bush was . . . a far more active champion of democracy than Mr Obama has been. . . . [T]he experts who scoffed at Mr Bush for thinking that Arabs wanted and were ready for democracy on the Western model are suddenly looking less clever—and Mr Bush’s simple and rather wonderful notion that Arabs want, deserve and are capable of democracy is looking rather wise”)

Islamic fascists find democratic movements and democracies abhorrent to them; and they are outwitting Obama at every turn, and making him into their handmaiden.

In an important Wall Street Journal article entitled, “Could al Qaeda Hijack Egypt’s Revolution?”—and subtitled, “Terrorists in Pakistan and mullahs in Tehran want to see chaos in Cairo. A splintered army and premature elections would help their cause”—Kenneth M. Pollack writes:

It is the nature of revolutions to be entirely unpredictable. Most fail, and even those that succeed often follow paths that no one foresaw—not their targets, not their protagonists, not the partisans on any side.

. . .

The uprising in Egypt is far from over, and neither is America’s necessary role. We must work to guard against the worst outcomes, which may seem remote but are all too likely in the unpredictable maelstrom of revolution:

The disintegration of the Egyptian army. Though hardly a paragon of democratic virtue, the army is the most important institution in Egypt, and it is vital to a peaceful transition to a moderate form of government. If the army fractures, Egypt will descend into chaos.

U.S. officials don’t know how loyal the army’s senior officers feel toward Hosni Mubarak, nor how sympathetic the enlisted men feel toward the protesters in Tahrir Square. Nor do we know where the loyalties of middle-ranking officers lie, but it is not hard to imagine that they are caught betwixt and between. At some point that no one will recognize until after the fact, the military may lose its cohesion and its ability to act on anyone’s behalf.

Thus the U.S. must maintain its extensive ties with Egypt’s soldiery, bolster their spirits, and encourage them to act as the impartial guardians of their country’s orderly transition. It’s imperative that the U.S. help Egypt past its current deadlock before divided loyalties tear apart the army.

Premature elections. If there is a need for a speedy resolution to the present impasse, the answer should not be an accelerated move to new elections. Where elections are concerned, speed kills.

Elections are an important element of democracy, but they are not synonymous with democracy. Few things can do more harm to a nascent democracy than premature elections.

. . .

Egypt is not ready to have good elections. It needs a new constitution and time for viable political leaders to establish parties, something the Mubarak regime prevented for 30 years. It is an open question whether eight months will be enough, but advancing that timetable would be incredibly reckless.

Although the Muslim Brotherhood likely represents only a minority of Egyptians, it probably would dominate any early elections. It is the only true mass party in Egypt, well-organized and disciplined, with a well-known track record and a well-understood political platform.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not al Qaeda, and it might provide reasonable leadership of a new government. But perhaps not. We simply don’t know, because Mr. Mubarak never allowed the Brotherhood any meaningful degree of participation in politics, so it never had to show its true colors.

It could be disastrous if the Brotherhood got to pick the next president of Egypt simply because it was the only organized party when elections were held.

A reprise of Lenin’s 1917 train ride into the Russian Revolution. Whatever our concerns about it, the Muslim Brotherhood is essentially the “Menshevik” faction of the Egyptian revolution. It espouses a moderate version of an ideology common among the Egyptian opposition and other Arab opposition movements, and it says it is willing to live and work within the constraints of a democratic system.

But revolutions often get hijacked by equivalents of the “Bolsheviks,” extremists who previously seemed so marginalized that they could never pose a real threat. The “Bolsheviks” of the Egyptian revolution are sitting in caves in Pakistan. They are the Salafist extremists of Ayman Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad and other groups that sought to bring about an Egyptian revolution throughout the 1990s. They waged a vicious terrorist campaign to try to do so and were ultimately driven from the country and into the arms of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, where they became one of its dominant factions.

We should not doubt that when Zawahiri and his cohorts heard the news from Tahrir Square, they were probably jubilant that the revolution they had sought for so long had begun. They were likely also frustrated that they were not there to hijack it and lead it toward the radical Islamist state they seek. Zawahiri is probably doing whatever he can to play catch-up—to dispatch his supporters to Egypt to take control of the revolution.

The Iranian regime is also gleeful about the collapse of Mr. Mubarak, one of America’s most important Arab allies and one of Tehran’s most passionate enemies. Iran’s mullahs often see opportunity in chaos and violence, believing that anything that disrupts the region’s American-backed status quo works to their advantage. Witness their various efforts over the years in Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and Bahrain.

Tehran may have already concluded that turmoil in Egypt suits its interests far more than any successful transition to stable democracy. Turmoil, after all, might prevent a new American ally from emerging and enhance the chances that Egypt’s new regime is more radical and friendly toward Iran. All of this gives Iran and al Qaeda common interests that may drive them toward tacit cooperation—with the goal of fomenting a modern Bolshevik Revolution.

In 1917, the Kaiser’s Germany famously arranged a train to take Vladimir Lenin from his exile in Switzerland across Germany to Russia. Berlin knew that Lenin was a wild radical who wished no good for Germany either, but it facilitated his entry into the Russian Revolution because it hoped he would make the situation worse and accelerate the collapse of the Russian state. It’s a model that could hold great appeal for Tehran today.

All of this may seem unlikely, but revolutions are also unlikely events, and once that threshold is crossed, old rules about what is normal and likely go out the window. That’s why those who start revolutions are rarely those who end up in charge when the smoke clears and the barricades come down. And it’s why the U.S., as Egypt’s friend and ally, must try to prevent a revolution made in the name of democracy from being hijacked by something much worse.

See; see also (“In the Desert, a Tourist Drought”)


12 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

The Collapse Of The Mubarak Regime, Wholly Unexpected A Month Ago, May Constitute A Precursor Of What Is To Come Elsewhere In The Middle East

Which countries are next? Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Israel? Where this stops, no one knows.

For those who think that it might never happen in Israel, the following comments—from an article in the UK’s Economist—are sobering:

[S]ome Israelis ask whether Palestinian police units—or Israeli security forces, for that matter—would really crush a mass democracy movement live on world television, after Egypt’s powerful army has set a precedent of forbearance.

. . .

[C]ould [Israel] win against masses of peaceful protesters in town squares across the West Bank, Gaza and Israel too, demanding political rights for Palestinians? It is a question that makes many Israelis queasy.

See (“Worried Israel: Bad news for the Jewish state: Egypt’s upheaval is rattling the Israelis“); see also (“Obama Is A Fool And A Political Naïf, And The Israelis Recognize It”) and (“Gaddafi tells Palestinians: revolt against Israel”)

Will the Jewish state be the next to fall—or among the next?

Another crucial question to ask is whether Barack Obama is the handmaiden of Islamic fascists, and whether he is facilitating the fall of America’s allies in the Middle East like dominoes?

See, e.g.,

With respect to Israel, it bears repeating that I am forever reminded of what a prominent American (who is a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel) told me a number of years ago:

I have long thought that Israel will not make it, if only because of what are cavalierly called WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and its very tight geographical compression. All else is immaterial, including the Palestinians, or us, or the nature of Israel’s [government].

I was stunned by this person’s words, and I have reflected on them many times since. I have always assumed that Israel would be attacked from outside of “Palestine,” but not from within.

. . .

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal states:

Political Islam is so 1979—nowhere more so than in Iran, where an opposition rose up two years ago with the same demands as the Egyptians, only to fail amid a ruthless and violent government crackdown. Egypt’s revolt should inspire the Iranians anew. . .

However, one must never forget that America’s far-Left, naïve, anti-war, narcissistic president—“Hamlet on the Potomac” or “Jimmy Carter-lite”—Barack Obama failed to come to the aid of those courageous Iranians who were tortured and killed after rising up in protest against the disputed victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, following the 2009 Iranian presidential election.

Even worse, he coddled and gave comfort to America’s enemies, the brutal theocratic regime in that country. The Journal was guarded and too kind when it described his conduct as an “embarrassing silence.” It was nothing short of cruel; and he may have “signed” the death sentences of courageous Iranian protesters—but this is true of other uncaring, raving narcissists like Obama.

See, e.g., (“Iranian Crackdown Goes Global”) and (“The President Snubs Iran’s Democrats”) and (“Iran sentences 5 to death in postelection turmoil”) and (“An Alternative Nobel”)

For example, one Journal article—dated November 3, 2009—stated:

[C]ourageous and dignified overtures to the U.S. by [Iranian] Green Movement activists have been snubbed by the Obama administration. The administration has avoided discussion about the prospects for liberalization in a country that exports radical Islamist ideology throughout the Middle East and beyond. In regressive realpolitik fashion, it has grown increasingly reticent about the Iranian people’s struggle for human rights, apparently viewing it as irrelevant to U.S security interests. Rather than bolstering the opposition at a time when the Iranian regime is at its weakest, America is pursuing a policy of appeasement.

. . .

Iranian cyberspace is brimming with anger at what the Green Movement sees as betrayal by the West. From legendary filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi’s representative in Europe, to Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi, Iranian democrats are expressing disappointment at what they see as the trading of their democratic aspirations for dubious progress toward the goal of preventing a nuclear Iran.

“Engagement,” it turns out, is about nuclear weapons alone—no matter how many innocent Iranians are being beaten, tortured, raped and killed for expressing their hope for change.

. . .

Can the Obama administration achieve anything with Ahmadinejad’s cabal on the nuclear front that could possibly justify its betrayal of the Iranian people and American values?


Also, the four articles cited immediately above stated: (1) the regime cracked down hard at home, and a Wall Street Journal investigation showed that it extended that crackdown to many of the 4 million Iranians living abroad as well; (2) Obama’s “engagement” with Iran was about nuclear weapons alone, no matter how many innocent Iranians were being beaten, tortured, raped and killed for expressing their hope for change; (3) the Iranian courts sentenced at least 89 defendants and 81 of them got prison terms ranging from six months up to 15 years; (4) the Obama Administration downplayed human rights in Iran as it pursued a negotiated nuclear settlement with the Ahmadinejad government; and (5) forgotten—at least by Barack Obama—is 27-year old Neda Aga Soltan, whose murder in June of 2009 by one of Ahmadinejad’s goon squads was captured on a video seen around the world.

. . .

In the final analysis, what is happening in Egypt and elsewhere may be another vindication of George W. Bush. Indeed, the Journal added:

This is also a day to note that George W. Bush was the President who broke with the foreign policy establishment and declared that Arabs deserved political freedom as much as the rest of the world. He was reviled for it by many of the same pundits who are now claiming solidarity with Egyptians in the streets.

See; see also (“[George W.] Bush was . . . a far more active champion of democracy than Mr Obama has been. . . . [T]he experts who scoffed at Mr Bush for thinking that Arabs wanted and were ready for democracy on the Western model are suddenly looking less clever—and Mr Bush’s simple and rather wonderful notion that Arabs want, deserve and are capable of democracy is looking rather wise”) and (“[R]evolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush’s freedom agenda”)


12 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele


Obama in cowboy hat

He has compared himself with Ronald Reagan, by referring to himself as “The Gipper”—which is the moral equivalent of comparing Adolf Hitler favorably with Mother Teresa.


Another fool—who fancied being the president too—was Mike Dukakis who ran against George H.W. Bush in 1988, and was “destroyed” by him electorally. Hopefully the same thing happens to Obama between now and the 2012 elections.

Dukakis in tank


14 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Is The Rift Widening Between Obama And Hillary?

Hillary and Bill Clinton fought hard to defeat Barack Obama in 2008, and there was no love lost between their respective political camps.

Among others, political pundit and former adviser to Bill Clinton, Dick Morris, has suggested that when the timing is right, the Clintons will strike at Obama again—in all likelihood, before the 2012 primary elections.

See; see also, footnote 10.

It has been reported that Obama was “furious” with Hillary’s State Department over Egypt, and that they undercut him at every turn.

See and (“Obama was furious, and it did not help that his secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton . . . was publicly warning that any credible transition would take time—even as Mr. Obama was demanding that change in Egypt begin right away”)

This might be a preview of what is to come as the 2012 primaries and general election approach. Obama and the Clintons may become overt political enemies again.


17 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

The Middle East Is On Fire Again, And Crazy Muslims With Funny Names Aren’t Helping Things—. . . Barack . . .

This is the first paragraph of Ann Coulter’s latest column entitled, “Democrats: Emboldening America’s Enemies & Terrifying Her Allies Since 1976,” which added:

The major new development is that NOW liberals want to get rid of a dictator in the Middle East! Where were they when we were taking out the guy with the rape rooms?

Remember? The one who had gassed his own people, invaded his neighbors and was desperately seeking weapons of mass destruction?

. . .

Liberals couldn’t have been less interested in removing Saddam Hussein and building a democracy in Iraq.

. . .

Liberals angrily cited the high unemployment rate in Egypt as a proof that Mubarak was a beast who must step down. Did they, by any chance, see the January employment numbers for the United States?

. . .

You know another country where Obama wasn’t interested in democracy? (I mean, besides the U.S. when it comes to health care reform?) That’s right—Iran.

. . .

When peaceful Iranian students were protesting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s stolen election in 2009, we didn’t hear a peep out of Obama. The students had good reason to believe the election had been rigged. In some pro-Ahmadinejad districts, turnout was more than 100 percent.

Wait, no, I’m sorry—that was Al Franken’s election to the U.S. Senate from Minnesota. But there was also plenty of vote-stealing in Ahmadinejad’s election.

When it came to Iran, however, the flame of democracy didn’t burn so brightly in liberal hearts. Even when the Iranian protester, Neda [Aga Soltan], was shot dead while standing peacefully on a street in Tehran, Obama responded by . . . going out for an ice cream cone.

But a mob of Egyptians start decapitating mummies, and Obama was on the horn telling Mubarak he had to leave. Obama didn’t acknowledge Neda’s existence, but the moment Egyptians started rioting, Obama said, “We hear your voices.”

. . .

The fact that liberals support democracy in Egypt, but not in Iraq or Iran, can mean only one thing: Democracy in Egypt will be bad for the United States and its allies. (As long as we’re on the subject, liberals also opposed democracy in Russia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and all the Soviet satellite states, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua and Minnesota.)

Democrats are all for meddling in other countries—but only provided a change of regime will harm U.S. national security interests.

Time and again, Democrats’ fecklessness has emboldened America’s enemies and terrified its allies. . . .

For 50 years, Democrats have harbored traitors, lost wars, lost continents to communism, hobnobbed with the nation’s enemies, attacked America’s allies, and counseled retreat and surrender. Or as they call it, “foreign policy.”

As Joe McCarthy once said, if liberals were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of their decisions would serve America’s interests.

See; see also


17 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele


General David Petraeus

In an article entitled, “US faces exodus of top Afghanistan team”—and subtitled, “The US faces the loss of four senior members of its Afghanistan team in coming months, leaving President Barack Obama with a gaping lack of experience as the conflict enters a critical phase and the public expects a withdrawal of troops to start”—the UK’s Telegraph has reported:

The long-running conflict has placed unforeseen demands on the human resources of the US administration and several senior people are reaching the end of gruelling tours. Mr Obama will in coming months have to find replacements for Karl Eikenberry, the ambassador to Kabul, and Gen David Petraeus, the commander of coalition forces. Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who also served under George W Bush, could also be heading for the exit, though pressure is likely to increase on him to stay for the duration of Mr Obama’s first term in office.

In addition, Adm Mike Mullen’s four-year term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ends in September and Marc Grossman, a retired diplomat, has just replaced the late Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to the region.

The length of the war, now in its tenth year, has exposed a shortage in Washington of people with experience or expertise in South Asia who have not already served long tours. Mr Obama therefore is confronted with a considerable challenge of finding the right people to continue his strategy of heavy US troop involvement in trouble spots such as Helmand while preparing the Afghan security forces to take charge by 2014.

Gen Petraeus only took up his current position in June last year when Mr Obama fired Gen Stanley McChrystal for making unflattering remarks about the administration during a magazine interview.

But he has already served multiple tours in Iraq and is a leading candidate to replace Adm Mullen. Stepping down in the autumn would at least allow Gen Petraeus to oversee the start of a planned troop withdrawal in July which Mr Obama has promised to Americans.

There are only a handful of suitable candidates to replace Gen Petraeus, and none is regarded as a match for his combination of battle experience, intellect or the public relations skills required for the job.

The four-star general is widely credited in Washington for his role in salvaging the war in Iraq when he took over as commander in 2007, and many Republicans view him as a hero and possible presidential material. The 2012 campaign appears to have to come too late for those ambitions, however.


First, like Jimmy Carter before him, Obama’s first term in office will be his only term in office. He is finished as America’s “Community-Organizer-In-Chief,” and will return to either Chicago or Hawaii permanently in January of 2013—at the latest—to lick his political wounds, write his memoirs, and work on his presidential library.

Second, “victory” is a word that Obama has never used with respect to his Afghan War; and like the North Vietnamese before them, the Taliban may begin using that term in the not-too-distant future. Obama’s Afghan War is lost, and the Taliban have won it, and Afghan women will pay a horrible price in the process.

See, e.g.,

Third, if the speculation is true, David Petraeus will have “escaped” with his reputation intact, to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which will be his reward for “rescuing” Obama from the McChrystal debacle—unless, of course, Obama blows the Petraeus appointment too.

Fourth, McChrystal is rumored to have a book coming out shortly before the 2012 elections, which may “fry” Obama politically.

Lastly, I have been told by a foreign policy “legend”:

That war was lost when we decided to invade. It was tailor-made for special forces, which we did at the beginning. . . . But [George W.] Bush decided revenge[, which] required a full scale invasion. Big mistake. As Mubarak [said] at the time, the situation required Muslim troops only, no US or other Western European nations. Bad call from Day One which means, in my judgment, ineluctable defeat.


22 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

The Goal Of A Global Caliphate . . . And Barack Obama’s Reticence To Fight It

Arnaud de Borchgrave—editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International—has written another excellent and very sobering article entitled, “Gullible amnesia,” which is worth reading and reflecting on. In it, he states in pertinent part:

Jihad has a global strategy beyond self-defense—attack every “infidel rule” to widen the global caliphate until all mankind lives under the Islamic flag.

. . .

“The Yuppie Revolution in Egypt is Over, the Islamist Revolution Has Begun,” captured the essence of Egypt’s 18-day upheaval.


Because of the Muslim influence during Obama’s formative years when he was growing up in Indonesia, one wonders whether he has the will, determination and capacity to fight against a regional—much less a global—caliphate on behalf of the American people. Or is he merely a handmaiden of Islamic fascists, and a useful “tool” for them?

See, e.g.,


24 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

China’s Jasmine Crackdown

Obama is an utter buffoon, who will not be reelected.

Why is he silent when the forces of democracy are moving in China—like he was silent and failed to come to the aid of those courageous Iranians who were tortured and killed after rising up in protest against the disputed victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, following the 2009 Iranian presidential election?

See (“Nervous China puts security apparatus into overdrive“) and (“China’s Jasmine crackdown“) and (“China Is America’s Enemy: Make No Mistake About That“) and (“The Collapse Of The Mubarak Regime, Wholly Unexpected A Month Ago, May Constitute A Precursor Of What Is To Come Elsewhere In The Middle East“) and (“The Goal Of A Global Caliphate . . . And Barack Obama’s Reticence To Fight It“)


11 05 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

These People Are Lowlifes

In an article entitled,”Michelle Obama welcomes rapper to White House who called for burning of George Bush,” the UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Lonnie Rashid Lynn Jr, who uses the stage name ‘Common’, will be welcomed at an event celebrating American poetry on Wednesday.

He is expected to take part in rap workshops with schoolchildren in the afternoon before performing in the evening.

In footage on YouTube he is seen calling for the burning of the former president.

‘Burn a Bush cos for peace he no push no button,’ the hip-hop artist raps in one video, which has more than 800,000 views.

Other song lyrics reportedly include threats to shoot the police.


What scum!

As one American commenter noted:

These people have no shame. I guess they’re enjoying it while they can, because they’ve got just over a year and a half left before they have to pack up and move. I just hope our country holds together until then . . .

Amen in spades. The police are outraged too, and justifiably so—but this is who the Obamas are!

See, e.g., (“NJ State Police ‘Outraged’ Over Rapper Invite to White House“) and (“Obama joins Michelle at racially charged White House reception for rapper who praised Black Panther cop killer and singer who condemned mixed race marriages“); see also (“Barack Obama Is A Lame-Duck President Who Will Not Be Reelected”)

Anyone who does not realize that down deep Barack and Michelle Obama are racists has never read his book, “Dreams from My Father,” nor understood their genuine affinity and affection for their former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright—at least until they threw him “under the bus” politically. It is who they are; their core beliefs and essence.


20 06 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama’s ACORN Is History

The Associated Press has reported:

The Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal from ACORN, the activist group driven to ruin by scandal and financial woes, over being banned from getting federal funds.

The high court on Monday refused to review a federal court’s decision to uphold Congress’s ban on federal funds for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Congress cut off ACORN’s federal funding last year in response to allegations the group engaged in voter registration fraud and embezzlement and violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.

ACORN sued, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City upheld the action. The high court refused to hear its appeal.

See; see also

The next step will be to send Obama to Chicago or Hawaii no later than January of 2013, to lick his political wounds and write his memoirs, and work full time on his presidential library. For the good of the country, it cannot happen fast enough!


10 08 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Is Race A Factor In My Comments About Barack Obama and Tiger Woods?

First, as I have said and written:

I believe in this country, and I believe in Americans of all colors, faiths and backgrounds. The United States is the only true melting pot in the world, with its populace representing a United Nations of the world’s peoples. Yes, we fight and we even discriminate, but when times are tough—like after 9/11—we come together as one nation, which makes this country so great and special. Also, all of us or our ancestors came here from somewhere else. Even the American Indians are descended from those who crossed the Bering Strait—or the “Bering land bridge”—according to anthropologists.

See’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/ (Interview with Timothy D. Naegele: “Greenspan’s legacy: more suffering to come”) and (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”); see also

Second, race is still an issue in our society, and discrimination exists; and neither Woods nor Obama have changed that fact. One would be very naïve to think otherwise. However, both Woods and Obama have taken giant steps to tear down the color barriers that had existed, just as others before them had done.

Third, if anyone thinks that African-Americans who voted for Obama overwhelmingly in 2008 will not be upset—and, indeed, angry—if he is not reelected, such a person is naïve and knows essentially nothing about race relations and national politics in the United States today.

Fourth, many African-American women are very sensitive about African-American men who do not date and/or marry African-American women. This is a fact. Because Woods seems never to have dated an African-American woman, African-American women are not likely to defend him or come to his aid if the scandals swirling about him intensify even more.

See, e.g., (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the article)

This is not present in the case of Barack Obama. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that he is happily married to his wife, Michelle, who is a very strong-willed and talented African-American woman.

Fifth, my favorite golfer for many years has been Vijay Singh, who is “blacker” than Woods and Obama in terms of his skin color. Indeed, my only regret is that Singh has not beaten Woods in their every encounter. If anyone has followed Singh around at tournaments and/or talked with those who know him well, they will realize that he is personable and well-liked, and not arrogant, aloof and unbearingly narcissistic like Woods. Also, the scandals that have surrounded and hounded Woods (e.g., prostitutes, doping)—and have brought shame to him, and hurt the young kids who revered him as a hero—have not blemished Singh.

Sixth, I have very definite and deep-seated substantive, philosophical and political differences with Obama, which I have not been timid or defensive in writing about. I never realized the depth of these differences until I read and analyzed his book, “Dreams from My Father” twice after he was elected in 2008. These differences have become greater, much greater, as his presidency has unfolded.

See, e.g., (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”) and (“Barack Obama Is A Lame-Duck President Who Will Not Be Reelected”) (see also the footnotes and all of the comments beneath both articles)

Seventh, some people have suggested that the level of hatred towards Woods would be much less if we did not have a president who is half African-American, and a country with serious economic problems. However, the linkage between Woods and Obama is almost nonexistent. Among other things, Woods’ “accident” in Florida that triggered his “bimbo eruption” and subsequent divorce occurred in late November of 2009, when Obama was still very popular. Indeed, essentially all of the facts about Woods’ prostitutes and bimbos came out while Obama remained popular.

Lastly, I am very proud of the federal housing laws that I authored on behalf of Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). They included the “Brooke Amendment” relating to public housing; and the national “Housing Allowance” program, which morphed into the Section 8 housing program that has helped millions of African-Americans and others.

Brooke was the first African-American to serve in the U.S. Senate following Reconstruction at the end of the American Civil War; Barack Obama was the third. As a young attorney, I staffed Senator Brooke on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the United States Senate; and I served as chief of staff to the senator during his re-election campaign of 1972.

Also, on behalf of Senator Brooke, I established a summer program for disadvantaged kids in Massachusetts, in conjunction with the Pentagon, which involved underutilized military facilities within the State (e.g., the Boston Navy Yard, Otis Air Force Base) and served approximately 100,000 kids during its first year alone.


On most issues, I was politically in tune with Senator Brooke; I am not with Barack Obama at all.


12 08 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

What A Vile Man Barack Obama’s Father Turns Out To Have Been: A Drunken, Wife-Beating, Bribe-Taking Bigamist Of Extreme Arrogance, Who Spent Much Of His Life Propping Up Bars While Bemoaning His Fate And Running Down Rivals

This is one of many conclusions reached about Barack Obama’s father, which appear in the UK Daily Mail’s review of a new book about the father entitled, “The Other Barack” by Sally H. Jacobs.


They are consistent with Barack Obama’s own assessment of his father, which are set forth in the article above:

It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself. . . . Now, . . . that image had suddenly vanished. Replaced by . . . what? A bitter drunk? An abusive husband? A defeated, lonely bureaucrat? To think that all my life I had been wrestling with nothing more than a ghost! . . . Whatever I do, it seems, I won’t do much worse than he did.

Yet, by doing enormous damage to the American nation and hurting its people, he has done far worse than his father ever did. Indeed, the tragedy continues with Barack Obama in the White House.

The son—America’s narcissistic “Hamlet on the Potomac” and “Jimmy Carter-lite”—grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and never set foot on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Southern California. Like his father before him, he admitted in his own book, “Dreams from My Father,” that he came close to getting hooked on the illegal drugs he was taking. For example, he wrote: “Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.”

Obama will not be reelected next year, and instead he will be retreat either to Chicago or Hawaii no later than January of 2013, to lick his political wounds and write his memoirs, and work full time on his presidential library. It cannot happen fast enough, for the good of the United States and the American people!

See (see also the article itself, as well as the footnotes and other comments beneath it)


23 09 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Is A Hypocrite, A Demagogue, and a Raving Unprincipled Narcissist

Obama=not a clue

As the UK’s Financial Times has underscored:

Exactly a year ago this week, President Barack Obama stood at the podium at the UN General Assembly and declared his support for a Palestinian state.

“Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that comes with their own state,” Mr Obama told the general assembly, unless the two parties reached a peace agreement.

So it will be some degree of awkwardness that Mr Obama returns to the UN this week and directs his representatives to vote against a plan that would lead to Palestinians achieving that exact destination. . . .

Indeed, the US president will be acutely aware how hypocritical he must appear: voicing support for democratic transitions across the Middle East at the same time as scuppering Palestinian aspirations for recognition. Mr Obama hardly wants to be seen as being on the wrong side of the change sweeping through the Arab world.

Palestinian leaders this week plan to make a bid for full membership of the UN, a move that would officially make it a state, Palestine, on an equal footing with Israel. But the US has explicitly stated that it will use its veto power through the Security Council to block any such move.

. . .

Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former Saudi Arabian ambassador to the US and part of the ruling family, last week warned that an American veto would end the allies’ “special relationship” and would make the US “toxic” in the Arab world.

Blocking the move would also undercut the US’s authority as a genuine mediator in the peace process that Mr Obama has only half-heartedly pursued since taking office.

See; see also (“Palestinian Options at U.N. Lead to Legal Threat to Israel’s Military”)

What is clear from this and so many other examples like it is that Obama is a fool, a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who will be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history—unless he tragically alters the course of American history.

His naïveté is matched by his overarching narcissism; and he is more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter. Indeed, it is likely that his presidency will be considered a sad and tragic watershed in history; and the American people are recognizing this more and more with each day that passes.

He must be sent packing either to Chicago or Hawaii not later than January of 2013, to lick his political wounds and write his memoirs, and work full time on his golf scores and his presidential library. It cannot happen fast enough, for the good of the world, the United States and the American people, before he does even more damage!

See also (“Poll: Economic pessimism deepens, and more blame Obama”) and (“Morgan Freeman: Obama Made Racism Worse”)


3 10 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Under Barack Obama, Poverty Among Blacks Has Reached Record Levels, At The Very Least Destabilizing The Black Middle Class

Time Magazine has an article by Steven Gray, a Washington Correspondent for the magazine and its former Detroit bureau chief, which is worth reading because of the writer’s apparent disillusionment with Obama.

Among other things, he concluded:

[O]n the watch of the first African American president, poverty among blacks has reached record levels, potentially, permanently, destabilizing the black middle class. . . . [A]ny President should be concerned that such a large subset of the population is falling into the abyss.


This article mirrors the writer’s naïveté. Barack Obama is black when it suits him, and white at all other times; and what is happening to the black middle class is happening on his watch. At best, the writer is being charitable.

For openers, look at the number of white male advisers who surround Obama at the White House, and then look for any people of color who hold these very top positions. The name “White” House has defined his presidency since the very beginning . . . and indeed, since the beginning of his runs for elective offices (e.g., David Axelrod, David Plouffe).

Down deep Obama is conflicted. Just read his book, “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there in black and white.


Obama is a racist and a bigot; and he is anti-Israel. Put succinctly, he is a raving narcissist and a demagogue; and he speaks out of all sides of his mouth. He and he alone is the center of his universe.

See (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the article)

Barack Obama has been an unmitigated disaster for blacks and whites, which is among the many reasons why his presidency will end no later than January of 2013, when he retreats either to Chicago or Hawaii to lick his political wounds and write his memoirs, and work full time on his golf scores and his presidential library.

It cannot happen fast enough, for the good of the United States and all Americans!


2 05 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama’s Girlfriends Were Boiled Down To One “Composite” In His Book

At least this is the assertion being made today.

See and

Where are his friends and former lovers and college classmates and those with whom he smoked pot and took other drugs?

How could he afford to pay for Occidental College in Los Angeles and Columbia University in New York City and his apartments, travels, food to eat, drugs and everything else? Money does not fall out of the sky.

These are among the vast number of unanswered questions about him.

. . .

One interesting comment by Obama, which appears in a letter quoted in the Vanity Fair article cited above:

[T]here’s a certain kind of conservatism which I respect more than bourgeois liberalism. . . .

Some Liberals argue that he has governed like a Republican (e.g., broadening the war in Afghanistan), while conservatives take an entirely opposite position.


7 05 2012
Timothy D. Naegele


Obama, racist

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

George Zimmerman’s father says he was shocked to see ‘hate’ coming from President Obama and other public figures after his son killed Trayvon Martin last month.

The 64-year-old Vietnam veteran and retired magistrate judge said his family has received ‘thousands’ of death threats and become the targets of overwhelming public vitriol in the aftermath of the shooting in Sanford, Florida.

Robert Zimmerman defended his son’s actions and claimed he was left no choice but to open fire after Trayvon told him ‘you’re going to die tonight’ while the unarmed 17-year-old was beating the neighborhood watch volunteer.

‘I never foresaw so much hate, coming from the president, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP,’ Robert Zimmerman told Fox Orlando Wednesday night.

‘Every organization imaginable is trying to get notoriety from this or profit in some way.’

Obama famously said, ‘If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon,’ in his remarks about the shooting. He also called for a full investigation to ‘get to the bottom of exactly what happened’

George Zimmerman, it was revealed earlier this week, is a registered Democrat.

. . .

He described a life where his son was forced to flee his home, and he and his wife were also forced to leave theirs to hide out while the case attracts international publicity and thousands of angry protestors.

‘We, the entire family, we basically don’t have a life,’ he said.

They cannot do anything in public that includes giving their names, he said, including seeking medical care.

He called the negative attention on his family ‘unimaginable.’

‘I’m sorry all the hate that’s going around,’ he said of the anger toward his son.

Robert Zimmerman said George is ‘colorblind’ and was mentoring two black children before the shooting occurred.

He said the campaign against his son, especially from the lawyer representing Trayvon’s parents, is a smear.

‘How he is being portrayed is an absolute lie,’ he said.

Robert Zimmerman said his son, who is half-white and half-Hispanic, began following Trayvon because he didn’t recognize the boy.

He looked suspicious, he said, because he was walking in the grass behind the townhouses in the gated community [where] he lived, rather than walking in the road or on the sidewalk.

Additionally, when the 911 dispatcher that Zimmerman called told him he didn’t need to follow the teen, he didn’t go back to his car only because he wasn’t sure of the address where he had stopped and seen Trayvon, who was wearing a hoodie.

Robert Zimmerman said his son walked up the street to find a street sign so he could figure out where, exactly he was. It was then, that Trayvon approached him and attacked him, Zimmerman claims.

See (“‘I never foresaw so much hate from the president’: George Zimmerman’s father speaks out on his family’s ‘persecution’ after Trayvon shootings”); see also (“New High Def Video Vindicates Zimmerman’s Story”) and (“Trial by lynch mob? Fears George Zimmerman is ‘already convicted’ in Trayvon Martin’s death as his family says America is ‘out for blood'”)

As I wrote in comments above:

Quite predictably, Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are playing the race card with respect to Martin and Zimmerman, which may backfire bigtime in November’s elections.

George Zimmerman, who may be half-Jewish, deserves the presumption of innocence that was never afforded to Richard Jewell.

See (“Trayvon Martin Protesters Ransack Store”)

Aside from (1) domestic and global economic problems, which will get much worse, and (2) national security issues, which may explode at any time (e.g., the ever-reckless Netanyahu’s attack on Iran, potentially drawing Americans into a wider war in the Middle East—and with 1.5 billion followers of Islam worldwide), the issue of (3) race will be a significant factor in November’s elections.

Obama is trying to play the race card to ignite his political base of black voters. However, Zimmerman is half-Hispanic; and Obama may lose Hispanics in the process.

There are racial tensions between blacks and Hispanics in Florida and other States already. Indeed, race relations between Hispanics—which is the larger American population group—and blacks is potentially a powder keg.

Also, Obama’s actions remind white voters that he is black and a racist—which of course he is, as set forth vividly in his book, “Dreams from My Father,” in his own words.


. . .

Also, it is worth noting:

[I]f Trayvon had been shot dead by a black neighborhood watch volunteer, Jesse Jackson would not have been in a pulpit in Sanford, Fla., howling that he had been “murdered and martyred.”

Maxine Waters would not be screaming “hate crime.”

Rep. Hank Johnson would not be raging that Trayvon had been “executed.” And ex-Black Panther Bobby Rush would not have been wearing a hoodie in the well of the House.

Which tells you what this whipped-up hysteria is all about.

It is not about finding the truth about what happened that night in Sanford when Zimmerman followed Trayvon in his SUV, and the two wound up in a fight, with Trayvon dead.

It is about the exacerbation of and the exploitation of racial conflict.

And it is about an irreconcilable conflict of visions about what the real America is in the year 2012.

Zimmerman “profiled” Trayvon, we are told. And perhaps he did.

But why? What did George Zimmerman, self-styled protector of his gated community, see that night from the wheel of his SUV?

He saw a male. And males are 90 percent of prison inmates. He saw a stranger over 6 feet tall. And he saw a black man or youth with a hood over his head.

Why would this raise Zimmerman’s antennae?

Perhaps because black males between 16 and 36, though only 2 to 3 percent of the population, are responsible for a third of all our crimes.

In some cities, 40 percent of all black males are in jail or prison, on probation or parole, or have criminal records. This is not a product of white racism but of prosecutions and convictions of criminal acts.

Had Zimmerman seen a black woman or older man in his neighborhood, he likely would never have tensed up or called in.

For all the abuse he has received, Geraldo Rivera had a point.

Whenever cable TV runs hidden-camera footage of a liquor or convenience store being held up and someone behind the counter being shot, the perp[etrator] is often a black male wearing a hoodie.

Listening to the heated rhetoric coming from demonstrations around the country, from the Black Caucus and TV talkers—about how America is a terrifying place for young black males to grow up in because of the constant danger from white vigilantes—one wonders what country of the mind these people are living in.

The real America is a country where the black crime rate is seven times as high as the white rate. It is a country where white criminals choose black victims in 3 percent of their crimes, but black criminals choose white victims in 45 percent of their crimes.

Black journalists point to the racism manifest even in progressive cities, where cabs deliberately pass them by to pick up white folks down the block.

That this happens is undeniable. But, again, what is behind it?

As Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has written, from January to June 2008 in New York City, 83 percent of all identified gun assailants were black and 15 percent were Hispanics.

Together, blacks and Hispanics accounted for 98 percent of gun assaults.

Translated: If a cabdriver is going to be mugged or murdered in New York City by a fare, 49 times out of 50 his assailant or killer will be black or Hispanic.

Fernando Mateo of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers has told his drivers, “Profile your passengers” for your own protection. “The God’s honest truth is that 99 percent of the people that are robbing, stealing, killing these guys are blacks and Hispanics.”

Fernando Mateo is himself black and Hispanic.

To much of America’s black leadership and its media auxiliaries, what happened in Sanford was, as Jesse put it, that an innocent kid was “shot down in cold blood by a vigilante.”

Yet, from police reports, witness statements, and the father and friends of Zimmerman, another picture emerges.

Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, and was punched in the nose, knocked flat on his back and jumped on, getting his head pounded, when he pulled his gun and fired.

. . .

[N]ow that it is being investigated by a special prosecutor, the FBI, the Justice Department and a coming grand jury, what is the purpose of this venomous portrayal of George Zimmerman?

As yet convicted of no crime, he is being crucified in the arena of public opinion as a hate-crime monster and murderer.

Is this our idea of justice?

No. But if the purpose here is to turn this into a national black-white face-off, instead of a mutual search for truth and justice, it is succeeding marvelously well.


Sadly, there are few black leaders who are truly responsible and not exacerbating racial tensions that need to be “cooled” instead of inflamed. Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, the Congressional Black Caucus and others are fanning racial hatred, not defusing it. More demagogues are not needed; and the media—such as Piers Morgan, a Brit at CNN—is acting irresponsibly.

The real tragedy would occur if White and Hispanic America—and other ethnic and racial groups in the United States, such as Asians—were to turn against Black America in retribution, saying: “Enough is enough.” There are many minorities, not just the one that makes the most noise. Also, no one should ever underestimate the fact that violence begets more violence, which can spin out of control.

Indeed, the words of one commenter from Florida about the ransacking of a North Miami Beach Walgreens store, which I cited above, are worth repeating again:

A sizeable number of law abiding [Floridians] have a CCW [carrying a concealed weapon] and will actually start packing [such weapons]. The law even shields them from employers that threaten to terminate employees for keeping a gun in their car. So rioting won’t just be a big Lord of the Flies style bonfire party in central FL, and certainly not in Latino dominated Miami. Then we’ll have a week with 40 – 80 [Trayvon] Martins … [E]ventually the people trying to pimp a kid’s stupid mistake into an agenda will figure out that what works in Chicago or Philly or Georgetown on any given weekend won’t fly here.

Compare (“Trayvon Martin Protesters Ransack Store“) with (“Farrakhan To Black College Students: People Are Going To Kill Their Leaders In A Few Days”); see also (“Man Beaten By Mob, In Critical Condition“) and (“George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting”) and (“100 black teens beat white couple in Norfolk…“) and (“100 Blacks Beat White Couple, Media Bury Attack“) and (“Revealed: Dramatic pictures of Trayvon’s lifeless body from night of shooting as new evidence shows Zimmerman bleeding with ‘broken nose’ and proves teenager had DRUGS in his system when he died”) and (“Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman’s Version of Trayvon Martin Shooting“) and (Alan Dershowitz: “Drop George Zimmerman’s murder charge . . . New evidence suggests Trayvon Martin’s killer acted in self-defense”)

Obama fanatic


27 07 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama Is A Total Moron

Charles Krauthammer has written a fine article in the Washington Post entitled, “Did the state make you great?”:

If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

— Barack Obama, Roanoke, Va., July 13, 2012

And who might that somebody else be? Government, says Obama. It built the roads you drive on. It provided the teacher who inspired you. It “created the Internet.” It represents the embodiment of “we’re in this together” social solidarity that, in Obama’s view, is the essential origin of individual and national achievement.

. . . [T]he most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.

Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective.

Obama compounds the fallacy by declaring the state to be the font of entrepreneurial success. How so? It created the infrastructure—roads, bridges, schools, Internet—off which we all thrive.

Absurd. We don’t credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein’s manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.

. . .

Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it particularly new. The Via Appia was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts, too. And sewers. Since forever, infrastructure has been consensually understood to be a core function of government.

The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It’s about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It’s about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work—the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It’s about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure.

. . .

Beyond infrastructure, the conservative sees the proper role of government as providing not European-style universal entitlements but a firm safety net, meaning . . . treatment for those who really cannot make it on their own—those too young or too old, too mentally or physically impaired, to provide for themselves.

Limited government so conceived has two indispensable advantages. It avoids inexorable European-style national insolvency. And it avoids breeding debilitating individual dependency. It encourages and celebrates character, independence, energy, hard work as the foundations of a free society and a thriving economy—precisely the virtues Obama discounts and devalues in his accounting of the wealth of nations.

See; see also (“Four Little Words . . . ‘You didn’t build that'”—”[T]he president’s rare moments of candor—on free enterprise, on those who ‘cling to their guns and religion,’ on the need to ‘spread the wealth around’—are so revealing. They are a look at the real man”)

Considering the fact that Obama has never really worked in the private sector a day in his life—except briefly in New York City—he has brass cojones to make the statement set forth in the first Obama quote above. Indeed, as I have written, citing his book, “Dreams from My Father”:

[I]n New York City before he moved to Chicago for the first time, he went to work as a research assistant at a consulting house to multinational corporations, where he recalled feeling like “a spy behind enemy lines.”


This “spy” named Obama has no idea what most Americans go through to earn a living, much less does he have any true empathy for them. Like most politicians, he is nothing more than an empty suit—an actor, pure and simple.

His knee-jerk, far-Left, socialist “nanny state” ideas are bankrupt, just as he has been bankrupting the United States and the American people. The sooner he is gone from the White House permanently, the better off our great nation will be!

See and (“Americans’ Wealth Drops 40 Percent, With Much Worse Yet To Come”)


26 10 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

The Emperor’s New Clothes

Barack Obama the narcissist

In Hans Christian Andersen’s wonderful fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” two make-believe weavers purport to spin a fine suit of clothes for an emperor, which is made of beautiful material that possesses the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who is unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid. The potentate and his subjects acknowledge that the garments are very fine indeed. That is, until one little child sees the emperor marching in a procession, and says at last: “But he has nothing on at all”—and the grand swindle is exposed for all to see.


Barack Obama is that modern-day “emperor,” and he has been exposed for all to see.

In an article entitled, “When Americans Saw the Real Obama,” the Wall Street Journal‘s Peggy Noonan has written:

We all say Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. But it’s all still Denver, Denver, and the mystery that maybe isn’t a mystery at all.

If Cincinnati and Lake County go for Mitt Romney on Nov. 6 it will be because of what happened in Denver on Oct. 3. If Barack Obama barely scrapes through, if there’s a bloody and prolonged recount, it too will be because of Denver.

Nothing echoes out like that debate. It was the moment that allowed Mr. Romney to break through, that allowed dismay with the incumbent to coalesce, that allowed voters to consider the alternative.

. . .

Why was the first debate so toxic for the president? Because the one thing he couldn’t do if he was going to win the election is let all the pent-up resentment toward him erupt. Americans had gotten used to him as The President. Whatever his policy choices, whatever general direction he seemed to put in place he was The President, a man who had gotten there through natural gifts and what all politicians need, good fortune.

What he couldn’t do was present himself, when everyone was looking, as smaller than you thought. Petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself. He couldn’t afford to make himself look less impressive than the challenger in terms of command, grasp of facts, size.

But that’s what he did.

And in some utterly new way the president was revealed, exposed. All the people whose job it is to surround and explain him, to act as his buffers and protectors—they weren’t there. It was him on the stage, alone with a competitor. He didn’t have a teleprompter, and so his failure seemed to underscore the cliché that the prompter is a kind of umbilical cord for him, something that provides nourishment, the thing he needs to sound good. He is not by any means a stupid man but he has become a boring one; he drones, he is predictable, it’s never new. The teleprompter adds substance, or at least safety.

. . .

[Mitt] Romney was poised, knowledgable, presidential. It was a mistake to let that come forward!

. . .

The sheer number of people who watched—a historic 70 million—suggests a lot of voters were still making up their minds.

. . .

Maybe what happened isn’t a mystery at all.

That, anyway, is the view expressed this week by a member of the U.S. Senate who served there with Mr Obama and has met with him in the White House. People back home, he said, sometimes wonder what happened with the president in the debate. The senator said, I paraphrase: I sort of have to tell them that it wasn’t a miscalculation or a weird moment. I tell them: I know him, and that was him. That guy on the stage, that’s the real Obama.


Which gets us to Bob Woodward’s “The Price of Politics,” published last month. The portrait it contains of Mr. Obama—of a president who is at once over his head, out of his depth and wholly unaware of the fact—hasn’t received the attention it deserves. Throughout the book, which is a journalistic history of the president’s key economic negotiations with Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama is portrayed as having the appearance and presentation of an academic or intellectual while being strangely clueless in his reading of political situations and dynamics. He is bad at negotiating—in fact doesn’t know how. His confidence is consistently greater than his acumen, his arrogance greater than his grasp.

He misread his Republican opponents from day one. If he had been large-spirited and conciliatory he would have effectively undercut them, and kept them from uniting. (If he’d been large-spirited with Mr. Romney, he would have undercut him, too.) Instead he was toughly partisan, he shut them out, and positions hardened. In time Republicans came to think he doesn’t really listen, doesn’t really hear. So did some Democrats. Business leaders and mighty CEOs felt patronized: After inviting them to meet with him, the president read from a teleprompter and included the press. They felt like “window dressing.” One spoke of Obama’s surface polish and essential remoteness. In negotiation he did not cajole, seduce, muscle or win sympathy. He instructed. He claimed deep understanding of his adversaries and their motives but was often incorrect. He told staffers that John Boehner, one of 11 children of a small-town bar owner, was a “country club Republican.” He was often patronizing, which in the old and accomplished is irritating but in the young and inexperienced is infuriating. “Boehner said he hated going down to the White House to listen to what amounted to presidential lectures,” Mr. Woodward writes.

Mr. Obama’s was a White House that had—and showed—no respect for Republicans trying to negotiate with Republicans. Through it all he was confident—”Eric, don’t call my bluff”—because he believed, as did his staff, that his talents would save the day.

They saved nothing. Washington became immobilized.

Mr. Woodward’s portrait of the president is not precisely new—it has been drawn in other ways in other accounts, and has been a staple of D.C. gossip for three years now—but it is vivid and believable. And there’s probably a direct line between that portrait and the Obama seen in the first debate. Maybe that’s what made it so indelible, and such an arc-changer.

People saw for the first time an Obama they may have heard about on radio or in a newspaper but had never seen.

They didn’t see some odd version of the president. They saw the president.

And they didn’t like what they saw, and that would linger.

See (emphasis added)

This is a fine article by Noonan, and it is accurate as far as it goes. However, it does not go far enough.

If more Americans had read Barack Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father” before the 2008 elections, they would have realized that he is a racist, a narcissist, and not someone who is truly likable. It is set forth there, in his own words, for all to read.

Read the book if you have any doubts.

I am an Independent; and before the 2008 elections, I considered the idea of voting for Obama and working actively on his campaign. I even had discussions with someone very close to the top about working on Obama’s “housing advisory group,” because of work that I had done in the U.S. Senate.

In the final analysis, I voted for John McCain because of two issues: (1) the economy, and (2) national security matters. And I read Obama’s book twice after the election, to more fully understand what our new president was really like.

The book was a shocker; and my first article that began this blog—which appears above—draws on his own words to describe his core beliefs.


. . .

Obama and racial hatred

If Mitt Romney wins the election, which is likely, racial prejudice may increase dramatically. Blacks have said they will riot, which would produce a dramatic backlash on the part of whites; and the post-Obama period in racial relations might be grim. After Obama, who has played the “race card” again and again, and fanned racial and class divisions, it may be a very long time before another black is elected president; and many blacks may feel more alienated than ever.

See (“Racial prejudice has increased to 51 per cent of Americans since Obama took office finds AP poll”); see also and and and and (“Gallup: Obama’s Job Approval Drops 7 Points in 3 Days”—”On Oct. 26, it dropped . . . to 46 percent who said they approved and 49 percent who said they did not“) and (“Biden: ‘There’s Never Been A Day In The Last Four Years I’ve Been Proud To Be His Vice President’“) and (“This was supposed to be a presidency of great thoughts and ideals. Obama was the big ideas guy: hope, change, the transformation of Washington, and a new post-racial, post-partisan politics. But whenever a moment came to go big, Obama went small”) and (“[P]rediction—a big Romney win!”) and (“OBAMA ENDS CAMPAIGN IN HALF-EMPTY ARENA“)


But see (“Morning-after reality: No easy answers to gridlock”) and (“Big Bet Six Months Ago Paved Way for President”) and (“Liberals on Twitter celebrate Obama victory with profane, racist tweets”) and (Dick Morris: “Why I Was Wrong”) and (GOP: “There’s no need for radical change. . . . Romney is a good man who . . . nearly won. He would have made a superb chief executive”)


6 11 2012

Early in the book, “Dreams from My Father,” Barack Obama was careful to point out: “I wouldn’t do anything stupid. It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.” Perhaps those words encapsulate his political life, his campaign for the presidency, and how he is governing now and hopes to survive the global economic meltdown, national security challenges and growing constituent anger, while trying to change the essence of America. In the final analysis, will he be viewed by history as a racist or a healer? Time will tell.

The question is ” What do you think “. My answer is : A dead rabbit would make a better president than Obama. Give Obama another 4 years, and I think he will finish destroying the United States economically, which was his original plan to begin with.


9 02 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

When Will Obama Fall?

Obama and rifle

In an article entitled, “With Plea Deal, Jesse Jackson Jr.’s Fall From Grace Seems Complete,” Newsweek‘s John Avlon writes:

Former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. agreed Friday to plead guilty to charges of misusing campaign funds, in an apparent bid to an end a federal investigation that threatens to also implicate his wife, former Chicago Alderman Sandi Jackson. Both had resigned their offices in recent months, reportedly as part of the congressman’s negotiations with prosecutors.

. . .

The Jackson dynasty appears to be done.

. . .

[Jackson Jr.] resigned two weeks after Election Day. His wife, a city alderman, resigned her office in January after the Chicago Sun Times raised questions about her use of campaign funds from her husband’s congressional accounts, including a $5,000 monthly consulting salary, credit-card charges and the moving of money between accounts.

This practice is apparently epidemic in the corruption-plagued Land of Lincoln.

. . .

Some swamps take a long time to drain. Stunningly, three current members of the Illinois state legislature were sworn in this year despite facing criminal charges, ranging from bribery to bank fraud.

See; see also (“Will Obama ‘Unravel’ Like Nixon Did?”) and (“Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It”)

Barack Obama is an integral part of the same corrupt Chicago culture.

See, e.g.,

When will the Obama “swamp” be drained, and how complete will be his fall from grace?


27 05 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Free George Zimmerman, And Shut Down The Racists!

There is little question that Zimmerman is being persecuted by racists—of the same ilk as those who freed O.J. Simpson after this heinous murders of his wife Nicole and Ron Goldman on June 12, 1994 in Los Angeles.

See (“Trayvon Martin Protesters Ransack Store”) and (“OBAMA PLAYS THE RACE CARD”); see also (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”)

Racial politics must not be allowed to condemn and imprison Zimmerman!


10 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

The Racial Profiling Of George Zimmerman

Ann Coulter has written in an excellent article entitled, “Zimmerman Trial Is This Year’s Duke Lacrosse Case”:

This week, instead of attacking a Hispanic senator, Marco Rubio, I will defend a Hispanic citizen, George Zimmerman, on trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin. (Zimmerman would make a better senator.) It’s becoming painfully obvious why no charges were brought against Zimmerman in this case—until Al Sharpton got involved. All the eyewitness accounts, testimony, ballistics and forensics keep backing up Zimmerman. We should send a big, fat bill for the whole thing to Sharpton, courtesy of MSNBC.

With the prosecution’s witnesses making the defense’s case, the inquisitors’ last stand is to claim that, if the races were reversed, the black guy would have been instantly charged with murder. As explained in The New York Times:

“Had Mr. Martin shot and killed Mr. Zimmerman under similar circumstances, black leaders say, the case would have barreled down a different path: Mr. Martin would have been quickly arrested by the Sanford Police Department and charged in the killing, without the benefit of the doubt.” (Also, CNN could have dropped the “white” and referred to Zimmerman exclusively as “Hispanic.”)

The people who say this are counting on the rest of us being too polite to mention that it is nearly impossible to imagine such a case in a world where half of all murders and a majority of robberies are committed by blacks. To reverse the races with the same set of facts, first, we’re going to need a gated, mixed-race community, similar to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, that has recently experienced a rash of robberies by white guys. The only way to do that is to enter “The Twilight Zone.”

There were at least eight burglaries in the 14 months before Zimmerman’s encounter with Martin. Numerous media accounts admit that “most” of these were committed by black males. I’m waiting to hear about a single crime at Twin Lakes that was not committed by a black male.

Just six months before Zimmerman’s encounter with Martin, two men had broken into the home of a neighbor, Olivia Bertalan, while she was alone with her infant son. She had just enough time to call 911 before running upstairs and locking herself in a room. The burglars knew she was home, but proceeded to rob the place anyway, even trying to enter the locked room where she held her crying child. Bertalan had seen the burglars just before they broke into her house—one at the front door and one at the back. They were young black males. They lived in the Retreat by Twin Lakes.

In another case, a black teenager strode up to Zimmerman’s house and, in broad daylight, stole a bicycle off the front porch. The bike was never recovered.

Weeks before Zimmerman saw Martin, he witnessed another young black male peering into the window of a neighbor’s house. He called the cops, but by the time they arrived, the suspect was gone.

A few days later, another house was burglarized. The thieves made off with jewelry and a new laptop. Roofers working across the street had seen two black teenagers near the house at the time of the robbery. When they spotted one of the teens the next day, they called the police.

This time, the roofers followed the suspect so he wouldn’t get away. The cops arrived and found the stolen laptop in his backpack. This was the same black teenager Zimmerman had seen looking in a neighbor’s window.

The only reason it’s hard to imagine the Zimmerman case with the races reversed is that it’s hard to imagine a white teenager living in a mixed-race, middle-class community, mugging a black homeowner. This is not a problem of society’s reactions, but of the facts.

There is, however, at least one case of a black homeowner fatally shooting a white troublemaker. He was not charged with murder.

In 2006, the ironically named John White was sound asleep at his nice Long Island home when his teenage son woke him to say there was a mob of white kids shouting epithets in front of the house. The family was in no imminent danger. They could have called 911 and remained safely behind locked doors.

But White grabbed a loaded Beretta and headed out to the end of the driveway to confront the mob. A scuffle ensued and White ended up shooting one of the kids in the face, killing him.

White was charged and convicted only of illegal weapons possession—this was New York, after all—and involuntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to 20 months-to-four years in prison, but after serving five months was pardoned by Gov. David Paterson.

With all due compassion for the kid who was killed, the public was overwhelmingly on the father’s side—a fact still evident in Internet postings about the case. The kids were punks menacing a law-abiding homeowner. Even the prosecutor complained only that Paterson hadn’t called the victim’s family first. The local NAACP had campaigned aggressively on White’s behalf. There were no threats to riot in case of an acquittal.

The centerpiece of White’s self-defense argument was his recollection of his grandfather’s stories about the Ku Klux Klan. George Zimmerman’s memory of young black males committing crimes at Twin Lakes is somewhat more recent.

John White wasn’t jumped, knocked to the ground, repeatedly punched, and his skull knocked against the ground. He wasn’t even touched, though he claimed the white teen was lunging at him. Talk about no reason to “follow,” there was no reason for him to leave the safety of his locked home. White’s son knew the kids by name. They could have waited for the cops.

So, yes, this case probably would be very different if Zimmerman and Martin’s races were reversed. It is only when the victim is black that we must have a show trial, a million-dollar reward paid to the victim’s parents and the threat of riots.

See (emphasis added); see also (“OBAMA PLAYS THE RACE CARD”)

Bravo for Ann Coulter! Once again, she has called a spade a spade, and assessed the Zimmerman trial correctly. It is a farce, promulgated by Black racists and their Liberal kin.

Non-Black Americans should feel zero guilt about writing or speaking out forcefully concerning the issues that Ann Coulter has discussed. The threat of riots should not intimidate even one non-Black American.

No other group has rioted—in Watts, or on behalf of Rodney King, or elsewhere in the United States for perceived grievances and injustices—except the Blacks. Enough is enough!

. . .

Also, it must never be forgotten that young Blacks target elderly Blacks, who are defenseless. This is the major tragedy, yet the Black community is not policing its own.


13 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Zimmerman Prosecutors ‘Should Be Disbarred’

This is the verdict of famed attorney and Harvard Law School professor, Alan Dershowitz—with whom I do not always agree. His views about the Trayvon Martin case, and the trial of George Zimmerman, are as follows:

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder trial should be charged with “prosecutorial misconduct” for suggesting the defendant planned the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

“That is something no prosecutor should be allowed to get away with . . . to make up a story from whole cloth,” Dershowitz told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.

“These prosecutors should be disbarred. They have acted absolutely irresponsibly in an utterly un-American fashion.”

Zimmerman, a 29-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer, is charged with gunning down Martin, 17, as the two fought following a confrontation in the gated Sanford, Fla., community where Zimmerman lives—an act the defendant said was in self-defense.

In the prosecution’s final argument on Friday, lawyer John Guy said Zimmerman deliberately followed Martin and “shot him because he wanted to.”

Dershowitz called Guy’s statement “such speculation. How does he get into the mind of Zimmerman? He hasn’t cross-examined him, he hasn’t met him.

“To ask the jury to believe that is to ask the jury to convict based on complete and utter speculation and that’s not the way the law operates.”

A day earlier, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said Zimmerman—whom he labeled a “wannabe cop”—”followed” and “tracked” Martin after profiling him as a criminal.

Dershowitz said not only should Zimmerman have not been charged with second-degree murder, but prosecutors should not have pushed to have manslaughter and child abuse added to the list of possible jury verdicts.

“[It’s] utterly irresponsible. . . . The idea that the prosecution can try the case on a murder theory and then, at the last minute, substitute manslaughter, even though it seems to be permitted generally under Florida law—it’s a big mistake to allow it in a case like this,” he said.

“And then the very idea of even suggesting child abuse in a case like this is so irresponsible.”

Dershowitz praised the closing argument of defense lawyer Mark O’Mara.

“He did the right thing by being methodical and factual because this is a case where the prosecution’s case is all emotion and the defense case is all factual,” the famed civil-rights lawyer said.

“Emotionally, obviously everybody can identify with a young, unarmed 17-year-old who ends up dead, and emotionally, as President [Barack] Obama said, he’s all of our children.”

Dershowitz—whose clients have included Claus von Bulow, Mike Tyson, Patricia Hearst, and former televangelist Jim Bakker—said the case has “reasonable doubt” written all over it.

“Nobody knows who started the initial physical encounter, who threw the first blow—and if you don’t know that you have to have a reasonable doubt,” he said.

“Nobody knows for sure who screamed, ‘Help me, help me.’ You have to have a reasonable doubt about that. Nobody knows for sure who was on top and who was on bottom, though the overwhelming forensic evidence suggests that Zimmerman was on the bottom having his head banged by a younger, stronger man. You have to have reasonable doubt there.”

See; see also (“The Racial Profiling Of George Zimmerman”)



14 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele


See also

Bravo! Justice has been served!

. . .

Unfortunately, in the next breath, Barack Obama’s disgraced Justice Department has announced that “it is looking into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin to determine whether federal prosecutors should file criminal civil rights charges now that George Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case.”

See; see also (“The United States Department of Injustice”)

An AP story on the subject adds:

In a statement Sunday, the Justice Department said the criminal section of the civil rights division, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Middle District of Florida are continuing to evaluate the evidence generated during the federal probe, in addition to the evidence and testimony from the state trial.

The statement said that, in the government’s words, “experienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation.”

See id.

This is totally consistent with how Barack Obama, his administration, and his Democratic Party operate. Despite having said that “[a] jury has spoken,” Obama and his Justice Department—and key party members, such as Harry Reid—are still trying to find a way to destroy George Zimmerman.


This is unconscionable, and Obama should be impeached—for this, and a long list of other issues!


15 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Dershowitz: ‘Prosecutorial Tyrant’ Violated Zimmerman’s Rights

It has been reported:

Famed defense lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz is calling for a federal investigation into civil rights violations stemming from the George Zimmerman case—but he says the probe should focus on prosecutorial misconduct rather than on allegations of racial profiling and bias.

. . . Dershowitz said the jury’s finding that Zimmerman was not guilty of either second-degree murder or manslaughter was “the right verdict.”

He added, “There was reasonable doubt all over the place.”

Immediately after the verdict was announced, however, the NAACP and outspoken activist Al Sharpton called on the Justice Department to launch a federal civil-rights probe, charging that the case had been racially tainted.

Dershowitz is calling for a civil-rights probe as well. But he contends the person whose rights were violated was Zimmerman.

“I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties—by the prosecutor,” said the criminal-law expert. “The prosecutor sent this case to a judge, and willfully, deliberately, and in my view criminally withheld exculpatory evidence.”

He added: “They denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations, and civil liberty violations.”

Dershowitz said the second-degree murder case should never have gone to trial considering the flimsy evidence against Zimmerman. He also does not believe it was strong enough to be submitted to a jury for deliberation.

“If the judge had any courage in applying the law, she never would have allowed the case to go to the jury. . . . She should have entered a verdict based on reasonable doubt.”

Dershowitz singled out special prosecutor Angela Corey for “disciplinary action.”

He criticized the state’s probable-cause affidavit for not including evidence indicating Zimmerman could have been acting in self-defense, including graphic images of blood streaming from his scalp and nose.

“The prosecutor had in her possession photographs that would definitely show a judge that this was not an appropriate case for second-degree murder. . . . She deliberately withheld and suppressed those photographs, refused to show them to the judge, got the judge to rule erroneously this was a second-degree murder case.

“That violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations that prosecutors have. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team,” he said.

Dershowitz described the prosecution’s attempt late in the case to add a third-degree murder charge by asserting the shooting constituted child abuse “so professionally irresponsible as to warrant sanctions and investigations.”

Dershowitz said various legal and bar association organizations could investigate how the state handled the prosecution. He added it could warrant a federal investigation as well.

“I think people’s rights have been violated, . . . but it was the rights of the defendant and the defense team, by utterly unprofessional, irresponsible, and in my view criminal actions by the prosecutor,” he said.

Dershowitz went on to express his opinion that Corey is “basically a prosecutorial tyrant, and well known for that in Florida.”

Dershowitz and Corey have had run-ins before. She contacted Harvard Law School demanding that he be disciplined for voicing his opinion that she had improperly omitted information that could have exonerated Zimmerman.

“Of course, the Harvard Law School laughed at [her complaint],” he said.

. . . Even after the verdict was rendered Saturday, Corey continued to defend her decision to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder.

“We charge what we believe we can prove,” she told the media. “That’s why we charged second-degree murder. We truly believe that the mindset of George Zimmerman and the words that he used and the reason he was out doing what he was doing fit the bill for second-degree murder.”

Corey said the case “has never been about race,” but also said there was “no doubt” young Trayvon Martin had been “profiled to be a criminal.”

Although Zimmerman was cleared of all charges, Corey told the media: “This case was about boundaries and George Zimmerman exceeded those boundaries.

Dershowitz [said] he expects there will probably be a lawsuit filed against Zimmerman for civil damages. He said civil-damage cases require a lower standard of proof that a wrong has been committed, and Zimmerman would not be able to avoid testifying.

But Dershowitz adds: “I don’t know where you’ll find a lawyer who is prepared to bring it, because it has very little chance of success.”

Asked if he expects Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department to launch a civil-rights investigation targeting Zimmerman, Dershowitz stated: “I don’t think that’s going to happen, and if it happens, I don’t think it would succeed.”

Dershowitz [said] the prosecutor overcharged the case, and never should have sought a second-degree murder conviction.

“The theory was clearly to charge second-degree murder, and hope for a compromise verdict of manslaughter,” he said.

Dershowitz was careful to add that the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin exposes a need to reform Florida laws.

He believes the Stand Your Ground law should be changed because it “elevates macho over the need to preserve life.”

He also stated that racial profiling “has to be addressed.”

“I think these vigilante community groups have to be disarmed,” he said. “I don’t think Zimmerman should have been allowed to have a gun.

“He should have been walking around with a walkie-talkie and calling the police,” he said. “It’s the job of the police to investigate and apprehend suspects based on their professional training.”

But the need for future legal reforms had no bearing on the Zimmerman trial, Dershowitz said, and insisted the case should never have reached a jury.

See; see also (“Zimmerman Prosecutors ‘Should Be Disbarred’”)

Of course, Dershowitz is correct!


17 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele


If we want to reduce or eliminate violence, then Hollywood should not make and distribute any violent films and TV shows; such violence should be banned from TV programming; violent video games should be banned; advertisers that support violent media undertakings should see their products boycotted; parents who allow their children to commit violence should be prosecuted; and those who advocate violence should be prosecuted as well.


18 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele


This is the title of an article by Ann Coulter, which states:

Black liberals keep bemoaning the danger to their own teenage sons after the “not guilty” verdict in George Zimmerman’s murder trial. To avoid what happened to Trayvon Martin, their boys need only follow this advice: Don’t walk up to a stranger and punch him, ground-and-pound him, MMA-style, and repeatedly smash his head against the pavement.

The Justice-for-Trayvon crowd keeps pretending there hasn’t been a trial where the evidence overwhelmingly showed that Trayvon committed the first (and only) crime that night by assaulting Zimmerman. Instead, the race agitators are sticking with the original story peddled by the media, back when we had zero facts. To wit, that Zimmerman had stalked a young black child and shot him dead just for being black and wearing a hoodie.

Dozens of these hair-on-fire racism stories are retold in my book, “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama.” In the golden age of racial demagoguery, they came at a pace of about one a year. Al Sharpton was usually involved.

A normal person would hear some of the more outlandish allegations and think, “I can’t believe it!” not meaning, “Wow! What a blockbuster story!” but rather, “I would like to hear the facts because I literally don’t believe it.” (That was much of America’s reaction to the media’s claim last year that a neighborhood-watch captain in Florida had hunted down a black teenager and shot him dead just for wearing a hoodie.) Whenever a much-celebrated claim of racism turned out to be false—which was almost always—you’d just stop hearing about it. There would never be a clippable story admitting that the media’s harrumphing had been in error:

Attention, readers! That story we’ve been howling about for several months turned out to be a complete fraud.

A little time would pass, and then we’d get an all-new, excited “America is still racist” media campaign. Journalists are incapable of learning that they should get all the facts before launching moral crusades.

As a result, the official record shows: A few hate crimes and some unverified hate crimes with no clear resolution one way or another. As long as the fraudulent hate crimes didn’t get counted as strikeouts, liberals always looked like Ted Williams.

Since they didn’t keep an accurate batting average, I did it for them in “Mugged.”

The case most like George Zimmerman’s is the Edmund Perry case. In 1985, Perry, a black teenager from Harlem who had just graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy, mugged a guy who turned out to be an undercover cop. He got shot and a few hours later was dead.

Instead of waiting for the facts, the media rushed out with a story about Officer Lee Van Houten being a trigger-happy, racist cop. When that turned out to be false, The New York Times looked at its shoes. It was the kind of story the elites wanted to be true. It should be true. We had such high hopes for that one. Damn!

The initial news accounts stressed not only that Perry was a graduate of Exeter on his way to Stanford, but that he was unarmed. (In all white-on-black shootings, the media expect the white to have RoboCop-like superpowers to detect any weapons on the perp as well as his resume.)

A few weeks after the shooting, The New York Times called Perry “a prized symbol of hope.” In a telling bit of obtuseness, The Times said that “all New Yorkers have extraordinary reasons to wish for the innocence of the young man who was killed.” I doubt very much that the cop being accused of being a murderous racist hoped for that.

An article in The Village Voice explained: “[L]ike so many other victims in this city,” Perry was “just too black for his own good.”

Luckily for the policeman, Perry had mugged him in a well-lit hospital parking lot. Twenty-three witnesses backed the officer’s story in testimony to the grand jury. (Unlike Zimmerman, Van Houten’s case was at least presented to a grand jury.)

As I wrote in “Mugged”: “God help Officer Van Houten if he had been mugged someplace other than a hospital parking lot with plenty of witnesses.” Such as, for example, a dark pathway in The Retreat at Twin Lakes. There weren’t 23 witnesses backing Zimmerman’s story, only about a half-dozen. But, as with Van Houten, the evidence overwhelmingly corroborated Zimmerman’s story.

In Van Houten’s case, even after it was blindingly clear that Perry had mugged him, the truth was only revealed amid great sorrow. When the facts were unknown, the cop was a racist. When it turned out Perry had mugged the cop, it was no one’s fault, but a problem of “violence,” “confusion” and “two worlds” colliding.

Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like volitional human beings. But not yet.

As with Zimmerman’s case this week, some journalists pretended to have missed the court proceedings that supported the self-defense story. Even after the grand jury’s refusal to indict Van Houten, Dorothy J. Gaiter of the Miami Herald wrote about Perry in an article titled “To Be Black and Male Is Dangerous in U.S.” She asked: “How do you teach a boy to be a man in a society where others may view him as a threat just because he is black?”

Van Houten said he was jumped, knocked to the ground, punched and kicked by Edmund Perry. Grand jury witnesses backed his story. Isn’t it possible that Van Houten saw Perry as a threat for reasons other than “just because he is black”?

(And please stop talking about Martin’s “hoodie”! Zimmerman wasn’t worried about the hoodie; he was worried about being beaten to death.)

Instead of turning every story about a black person killed by a white person into an occasion to announce, “The simple fact is, America is a racist society,” liberals might, one time, ask the question: Why do you suppose there would be a generalized fear of young black males? What might that be based on?

Throw us a bone. It’s because a disproportionate number of criminals are young black males. It just happens that when Lee Van Houten and George Zimmerman were mugged by two of them, they survived the encounter.


. . .

Elderly Blacks and White women are particularly vulnerable. A friend of mine’s wife in Los Angeles was volunteering at a Junior League thrift shop near USC, and had returned to her car when a Black man jumped into her front passenger seat, threatened her, and told her to drive.

Fortunately, she had taken a Mace course, and had a canister attached to her car key; and she had the presence of mind to spray him in the face and jump out of the car and run back to the shop.

Her car was found about a week later . . . torched.

Another lovely Hispanic woman worked for a Hollywood criminal defense lawyer who put his non-paying clients to work. She “crossed” one of them, and he torched her car as well.

. . .

Some American Blacks are very angry and want to pick a fight. However, they need to remember that they truly constitute a minority group—about 12.4 percent of the American people, to be exact. Lots of Hispanics have no use for them; and the same is true of Asians and other groups.

If these groups and “Whites” ganged up against the Blacks, and said “enough is enough,” it could get very dicey and nasty for Black thugs and their wannabes. The retribution against them might be swift, overwhelming and tragic. Any guilt on the part of non-Black Americans for slavery, which ended 150 years ago, is long gone . . . if it ever existed.

Wonderful American Blacks need to stand up and speak out, and tell it like it is. Violence within their community hurts them most.


20 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Bash Mobs Sweep Through Southern California

The Los Angeles Times has reported:

Organized “bash mob” crime rampages of roving groups attacking innocent people and businesses have been striking cities around the United States. Law enforcement agencies in Southern California have reported few similar problems—until now.

In the last several days, there have been several reports of such group crime waves in South L.A., Hollywood, San Bernardino and Victorville. Long Beach police are bracing for another one Friday.

These so-called bash mobs of “flash mob” crime waves are organized through social media and have been a problem in Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington. In April, 28 Chicago youths were arrested on suspicion of attacking pedestrians along the city’s famed Magnificent Mile. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed legislation in May enacting stiffer penalties for people who text or use social media to organize mob attacks.

Long Beach police warned in a statement that participants could face severe penalties.

“The mere participation in such an event can result in felony charges including conspiracy, and are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison,” according to the statement.

Police said they feared bash mob organizers planned to hit Long Beach at 2 p.m.

Long Beach experienced such a gathering July 9, when more than 100 people descended on stretches of downtown in an organized, sudden crime rampage.

On Monday, a group of unruly young people broke off from hundreds gathered for a Trayvon Martin prayer vigil and rushed into a Wal-Mart on Crenshaw Boulevard, where they tossed merchandise and tried to break into a jewelry display case.

In Hollywood on Tuesday night, a flash mob of thieves rushed down Hollywood Boulevard, stealing phones, knocking over tourists and vandalizing shops, according to police, who said it may have been related to the George Zimmerman verdict. Twelve people—11 juveniles and one 18-year-old—were arrested on suspicion of robbery.

On Wednesday night in Victorville, authorities arrested 17 people after a group allegedly tried to force its way into the Mall of Victor Valley.


This is what Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and other Black racists have wrought!

These Black protestors and their Liberal kin are the worst kind of racists. If they unleash violence, they must be dealt with harshly, with no mercy shown.

If the verdict had gone against George Zimmerman, Whites would not have rioted, period.

. . .

Of course Barack Obama is a racist. If you have any doubts whatsoever, read his book “Dreams from My Father,” written in his own words.


Wake up America!


21 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Antonio Santiago West Is Remembered

You won’t recognize me. My name was Antonio West and I was the 13-month old child who was shot at point blank range by two black teens who were attempting to rob my mother, who was also shot. A Grand Jury of my mommy’s peers from Brunswick GA determined the black-teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty . . . too bad I was given a death sentence for being innocent and defenseless.

My family made the mistake of being white in a 73% non-white neighborhood, but my murder was not ruled a Hate Crime. Nor did President Obama take so much as a single moment to acknowledge my murder.

I am one of the youngest murder victims in our great Nation’s history, but the media doesn’t care to cover the story of my tragic demise, President Obama has no children who could possibly look like me—so he doesn’t care and the media doesn’t care because my story is not interesting enough to bring them ratings so they can sell commercial time slots.

There is not a white equivalent of Al Sharpton because if there was he would be declared racist, so there is no one rushing to Brunswick GA to demand justice for me. There is no White Panther party to put a bounty on the lives of those who murdered me. I have no voice, I have no representation and unlike those who shot me in the face while I sat innocently in my stroller—I no longer have my life.

So while the blacks and liberals [are] seeking justice for Treyvon, please remember to seek justice for me too. Tell your friends about me, tell you families, get tee shirts with my face on them and make the world pay attention, just like they did for Treyvon.

See; see also


25 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele


It has been reported:

Public attitudes about race relations have plummeted since the historic election of President Barack Obama, according to a new poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.

Only 52 percent of whites and 38 percent of blacks have a favorable opinion of race relations in the country, according to the poll, which has tracked race relations since 1994 and was conducted in mid-July by Hart Research Associations and Public Opinion Strategies.

That’s a sharp drop from the beginning of Obama’s first term, when 79 percent of whites and 63 percent of blacks held a favorable view of American race relations.

Negative views on race relations have also increased substantially. According to the poll [pdf], 45 percent of whites and 58 percent African-Americans now believe race relations are very or fairly bad, compared with 2009, when only 20 percent of whites and 30 percent of blacks held an unfavorable view.

Although the NBC/WSJ survey addressed the politically fueled Trayvon Martin controversy only obliquely (asking how the acquittal of George Zimmerman in Martin’s shooting death had affected respondents’ views of the legal system), the survey’s historical time frame—which shows the steepest declines in positives and increases in negatives coming in the last two years—suggests the firestorm over the Martin case played a role in diminishing the high solidarity between whites and blacks that was exemplified by Obama’s election.

By November 2011, three years after Obama’s election, only 22 percent of whites and 41 percent of African-Americans believed that race relations were fairly bad or very bad. Positive views have fallen correspondingly since November 2011, when 75 percent of whites and 57 percent of blacks said race relations were either good or very good.

Obama garnered intense criticism in March 2012 for weighing in on the shooting death of Martin, announcing, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Obama went a step further in July 2013, after the acquittal of neighborhood watchman Zimmerman in Martin’s death, declaring, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”

As The Daily Caller reported, the Obama administration’s Justice Department sent a unit with a history of anti-white racial advocacy to Sanford, Florida to help facilitate protests in the area calling for Zimmerman’s prosecution in 2012, including a major rally headlined by activist Al Sharpton.

The bitter 2012 election, which saw Obama running on a stagnating economy and his supporters mounting intense attacks on challenger Mitt Romney, may also have contributed to the souring of race relations. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which steadfastly supports the Obama administration, distributed pro-Obama election flyers in 2012 with lynching and Ku Klux Klan imagery.

Although these efforts may have helped boost African-American turnout to record levels and deliver the key states of Florida and Ohio to Obama, they do not appear to have done much for black Americans. The black unemployment rate in the United States is currently 13.7 percent, more than six points higher than the national unemployment rate, which stands at 7.6 percent.

Overall, the public’s view of race-relations has fallen back to levels reported in 1994 and 2007.

The increased division is a long way from the hope for improved race relations that fueled and accompanied Obama’s 2008 victory.

“It’s all about the coalition of the willing,” Michael Stewart, a progressive activist, told The Chicago Tribune in November 2009. “I’ve come to appreciate people as individuals, not by their race [and] there’s more a focus on what we have in common than what divides us.”

See (emphasis added)


28 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

4 Out Of 5 in USA Face Near-Poverty, No Work . . .

The AP has reported:

Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.

Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor and loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.

The findings come as President Barack Obama tries to renew his administration’s emphasis on the economy, saying in recent speeches that his highest priority is to “rebuild ladders of opportunity” and reverse income inequality.

Hardship is particularly on the rise among whites, based on several measures. Pessimism among that racial group about their families’ economic futures has climbed to the highest point since at least 1987. In the most recent AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of whites called the economy “poor.”

“I think it’s going to get worse,” said Irene Salyers, 52, of Buchanan County, Va., a declining coal region in Appalachia. Married and divorced three times, Salyers now helps run a fruit and vegetable stand with her boyfriend, but it doesn’t generate much income. They live mostly off government disability checks.

“If you do try to go apply for a job, they’re not hiring people, and they’re not paying that much to even go to work,” she said. Children, she said, have “nothing better to do than to get on drugs.”

While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in government data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press.

The gauge defines “economic insecurity” as experiencing unemployment at some point in their working lives, or a year or more of reliance on government aid such as food stamps or income below 150 percent of the poverty line. Measured across all races, the risk of economic insecurity rises to 79 percent.

“It’s time that America comes to understand that many of the nation’s biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position,” said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty.

He noted that despite continuing economic difficulties, minorities have more optimism about the future after Obama’s election, while struggling whites do not.

“There is the real possibility that white alienation will increase if steps are not taken to highlight and address inequality on a broad front,” Wilson said.


Sometimes termed “the invisible poor” by demographers, lower-income whites are generally dispersed in suburbs as well as small rural towns, where more than 60 percent of the poor are white. Concentrated in Appalachia in the East, they are also numerous in the industrial Midwest and spread across America’s heartland, from Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma up through the Great Plains.

More than 19 million whites fall below the poverty line of $23,021 for a family of four, accounting for more than 41 percent of the nation’s destitute, nearly double the number of poor blacks.

Still, while census figures provide an official measure of poverty, they’re only a temporary snapshot. The numbers don’t capture the makeup of those who cycle in and out of poverty at different points in their lives. They may be suburbanites, for example, or the working poor or the laid off.

In 2011 that snapshot showed 12.6 percent of adults in their prime working-age years of 25-60 lived in poverty. But measured in terms of a person’s lifetime risk, a much higher number—4 in 10 adults—falls into poverty for at least a year of their lives.

The risks of poverty also have been increasing in recent decades, particularly among people ages 35-55, coinciding with widening income inequality. For instance, people ages 35-45 had a 17 percent risk of encountering poverty during the 1969-1989 time period; that risk increased to 23 percent during the 1989-2009 period. For those ages 45-55, the risk of poverty jumped from 11.8 percent to 17.7 percent.

By race, nonwhites still have a higher risk of being economically insecure, at 90 percent. But compared with the official poverty rate, some of the biggest jumps under the newer measure are among whites, with more than 76 percent enduring periods of joblessness, life on welfare or near-poverty.

By 2030, based on the current trend of widening income inequality, close to 85 percent of all working-age adults in the U.S. will experience bouts of economic insecurity.

“Poverty is no longer an issue of ‘them’, it’s an issue of ‘us’,” says Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who calculated the numbers. “Only when poverty is thought of as a mainstream event, rather than a fringe experience that just affects blacks and Hispanics, can we really begin to build broader support for programs that lift people in need.”

Rank’s analysis is supplemented with figures provided by Tom Hirschl, a professor at Cornell University; John Iceland, a sociology professor at Penn State University; the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey Institute; the Census Bureau; and the Population Reference Bureau.

Among the findings:

—For the first time since 1975, the number of white single-mother households who were living in poverty with children surpassed or equaled black ones in the past decade, spurred by job losses and faster rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites. White single-mother families in poverty stood at nearly 1.5 million in 2011, comparable to the number for blacks. Hispanic single-mother families in poverty trailed at 1.2 million.

—The share of children living in high-poverty neighborhoods—those with poverty rates of 30 percent or more—has increased to 1 in 10, putting them at higher risk of teen pregnancy or dropping out of school. Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 17 percent of the child population in such neighborhoods, up from 13 percent in 2000, even though the overall proportion of white children in the U.S. has been declining.

The share of black children in high-poverty neighborhoods dropped sharply, from 43 percent to 37 percent, while the share of Latino children ticked higher, from 38 to 39 percent.


Going back to the 1980s, never have whites been so pessimistic about their futures, according to the General Social Survey, which is conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago. Just 45 percent say their family will have a good chance of improving their economic position based on the way things are in America.

The divide is especially evident among those whites who self-identify as working class: 49 percent say they think their children will do better than them, compared with 67 percent of non-whites who consider themselves working class.

In November, Obama won the votes of just 36 percent of those noncollege whites, the worst performance of any Democratic nominee among that group since 1984.

Some Democratic analysts have urged renewed efforts to bring working-class whites into the political fold, calling them a potential “decisive swing voter group” if minority and youth turnout level off in future elections.

“They don’t trust big government, but it doesn’t mean they want no government,” says Republican pollster Ed Goeas, who agrees that working-class whites will remain an important electoral group. “They feel that politicians are giving attention to other people and not them.”


Hold on tight. It will get far worse between now and the end of this decade!

. . .

But nothing interrupts the Obamas’ lavish vacations!

See, e.g., (“Obama Vineyard vacation at $7.6m private resort, over 75 rooms booked for staff”) and (“Still No [White House] Tours, but Parade of Special Visitors Continues”)


7 08 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Black Racism

The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the African-American family. Right now, about 73 percent of all black babies are born out of wedlock. That drives poverty. And the lack of involved fathers leads to young boys growing up resentful and unsupervised.

These are the words of Bill O’Reilly, which are echoed by Ann Coulter.

See; see also (“Democrats do nothing for black Americans except mine them for votes, which they do by telling tall tales about racist Republicans”)

Instead of helping, Barack Obama has been fanning racial hatreds. This is totally consistent with how he grew up—angry and resentful—and with his racist views that are written in his own words in “Dreams from My Father,” which are discussed in the article and other comments above.

. . .

Tolerance of blacks, and efforts to bridge the racial divide that exists between blacks and whites, is being reversed. Blacks are angry, and whites are responding in kind. This is apt to get far worse, before it gets better. Also, other racial groups (e.g., Hispanics, Asians) will be responding in the same way to blacks, in all likelihood.

Indeed, as I have written above:

The real tragedy would occur if White and Hispanic America—and other ethnic and racial groups in the United States, such as Asians—were to turn against Black America in retribution, saying: “Enough is enough.” There are many minorities, not just the one that makes the most noise. Also, no one should ever underestimate the fact that violence begets more violence, which can spin out of control.



15 08 2013

Early in the book, [“Dreams from My Father,” Barack Obama] is careful to point out: “I wouldn’t do anything stupid. It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.” Perhaps those words encapsulate his political life, his campaign for the presidency, and how he is governing and hopes to survive the global economic meltdown, national security challenges and growing constituent anger, while trying to change the essence of America.

In the final analysis, will he be viewed [by history as a racist or a healer? Time will tell.]

What’s been ignored here is that there is very good reason to believe that Barack Obama’s biological father was Frank Marshall Davis, not Barack H. Obama, Sr. In fact, in my view, the evidence is compelling and overwhelming, but even if Davis wasn’t Obama’s real father, he was, by Obama’s admission, his first, and most important “mentor.” This period was between 1971 when Obama was ten and 1981, when Obama was eighteen, in other words, throughout his entire adolescence, Obama was, by his own account, under the direct influence of Frank Marshall Davis, who was not only a self-confessed “communist” but anti-Caucasian racist. It was in 1971, that Ann Dunham returned from Indonesia, and dumped Barry on her parents to raise, with the suggestion that they “take him to Frank.” In this connection, how many black men named “Frank,” who also happened to be a friend of Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, do you suppose lived in Honolulu Hawaii in 1971? In Dreams From My Father (1995), Obama even makes reference to “Frank” and his disdain, if not hatred, for whites and life on the mainland U.S., where Davis imagined that the government of the United States was essentially no different from the Ku Klux Klan, and that all whites were devils, beyond and even unworthy of redemption no matter how racially tolerant. THAT is the picture Barack Obama painted of Davis’ views of America, and there is no reason whatsoever to think that he didn’t pass those ideas and attitudes onto Barack Obama. As for Obama it could very well be that Obama himself never knew that Davis was his real father, at least at the time he made his “pilgrimage” to his father’s grave in Kenya. In any case, it seems very odd to me that in 1995, as part of his plan to run for Mayor of Chicago, Barack Obama mentioned “Frank” in his autobiography. This fact tells me that whoever actually wrote or helped Obama write Dreams From My Father, “dropped the cufflink” that is probably the key to understanding the mystery man, Barack Obama. If Obama couldn’t remember Frank’s last name, why would he describe him as his first “mentor”? Obama says that at age 18, “Frank” gave him his last piece of advice, i.e., to the effect that he should never trust whites, before Barry left for California and Occidental College. What reason did the writer have to forget Frank’s last name, since Obama was 18 years of age? Obama would have us believe that he forgot Frank’s name? Frankly, that strains credulity. The only reason would be that Obama, or his ghost writer did not want to reveal the identify of “Frank,” or the fact, that “Frank” was something much more than Obama’s first significant mentor.


15 08 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments. They are very interesting.

See also


15 08 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama Is A Total Idiot, And Sinister

He has already lost Iraq; he is losing Afghanistan and Pakistan; much of the rest of the Middle East is in turmoil; and now he is on the verge of turning Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood.

See (“Obama condemns Egypt over violence, cancels joint military exercise”)

He was raised in a Muslim country, Indonesia; and it is not surprising at all that he is doing this.

See (see also the comments beneath the article)

To make matters even worse, Obama’s policies are turning Egypt against the United States. Famed reporter Bill Gertz has written:

The Obama administration support for Muslim Brotherhood Islamists in Egypt is driving the powerful military there against the United States and toward Moscow, according to U.S. officials and reports from the region.

The pro-Muslim Brotherhood stance is undermining decades of U.S. policy toward the Middle East state and prompting concerns that the United States is about to “lose” Egypt as a strategic partner, said officials familiar with intelligence reports.

Disclosure of the concern over the administration’s policy failure in Egypt comes as a security crackdown on pro-Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Cairo resulted in scores killed.

“The Obama administration’s blatant Islamist support is risking the decades-long security arrangement with Egypt,” one U.S. official told the Washington Free Beacon.

“The Egyptians are so upset they might very well give up our support,” the official added, noting the military regime is currently leaning toward seeking backing from Russia, and possibly China in the future.

The United States has provided Egypt with more than $49 billion in both military and economic assistance since 1979. Cairo was viewed as a key strategic partner in the region.

However, the 2011 ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a long-time U.S. ally, as part of the pro-democracy Arab Spring movement began a shift in U.S. policy. At that time, the Obama administration began covertly backing the Muslim Brotherhood, an anti-democratic Islamist group.

The policy shift was a marked change from past policy. During the 1970s, the United States successfully diverted Egypt’s alignment with Soviet Union under Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser by developing close ties to Nasser’s successor, Anwar Sadat, and later Mubarak.

“The administration, through a combination of ignorance, incompetence and support for the Islamists is reversing the strategy gains we made in Egypt,” the official said.

. . .

U.S. officials said there are signs Egypt’s military is taking steps to expand control over the political system.

Current Defense Minister Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is being touted by government controlled news media as a patriotic, Nasser-like figure who should run for president.

According to the officials, since the June 30 military takeover, pro-military groups and backers of the new regime are promoting anti-American policies in news outlets.

The campaign, which appears to have high-level Egyptian military support, also calls for shifting Egypt’s alliance from the United States to Russia.

Numerous photos promoting the theme have appeared at rallies and on social media in the past month and half.

The campaign also has included an effort to expel U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson, who the pro-militarists say was a backer of the Muslim Brotherhood.

A military source was quoted in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Youm al-Sabi as saying Patterson was responsible for the killing of Muslim Brotherhood protesters at Rab’a al Adawiya following a reported meeting between her and senior Muslim Brotherhood officials. The reported plot was discussed at a hotel that called for a plan to foment violence that would justify military intervention and sanctions against Egypt.

On Twitter, a pro-military politician, Mustafa Bakri, criticized President Barack Obama for delaying the sale of four F-16 jets to Egypt and called the president “an ally” of the Brotherhood.

In tandem with the anti-U.S. campaign, pro-military news outlets have been promoting a shift in policy toward Russia. The Al Watan newspaper on July 29 quoted several Egyptian foreign affairs experts as urging the government to replace the United States with Russia as a key ally, based on the failure of the U.S. government to support the military takeover.

A pro-military online forum called the “Arabic Military” on July 29 quoted “diplomatic sources” as saying Putin would soon visit Egypt in the aftermath of calls for a reevaluation of U.S.-Egypt ties.

Russia is known to be seeking a foothold in the Middle East following the turmoil in Syria that prompted a Russian pullout [] from the port of Tartus.

Russia also is setting up a new naval headquarters in the Mediterranean.

Other pro-military Facebook pages have criticized Obama and praised Putin. One site called “Egypt will Not Fall” praised Putin as “great Caesar and leader” who is offering to sell Egypt 55 MiG fighter jets to replace the U.S. F-16s.

See; see also (“Obama Administration Secretly Suspended Military Aid to Egypt”)

. . .

In an article entitled, “Can Obama write his own laws?,” the Washington Post‘s Charles Krauthammer has written:

As a reaction to the crack epidemic of the 1980s, many federal drug laws carry strict mandatory sentences. This has stirred unease in Congress and sparked a bipartisan effort to revise and relax some of the more draconian laws.

Traditionally—meaning before Barack Obama—that’s how laws were changed: We have a problem, we hold hearings, we find some new arrangement ratified by Congress and signed by the president.

That was then. On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder, a liberal in a hurry, ordered all U.S. attorneys to simply stop charging nonviolent, non-gang-related drug defendants with crimes that, while fitting the offense, carry mandatory sentences. Find some lesser, non-triggering charge. How might you do that? Withhold evidence—for example, the amount of dope involved.

In other words, evade the law, by deceiving the court if necessary. “If the companies that I represent in federal criminal cases” did that, said former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger, “they could be charged with a felony.”

But such niceties must not stand in the way of an administration’s agenda. Indeed, the very next day, it was revealed that the administration had unilaterally waived Obamacare’s cap on a patient’s annual out-of-pocket expenses—a one-year exemption for selected health insurers that is nowhere permitted in the law. It was simply decreed by an obscure Labor Department regulation.

Which followed a presidentially directed 70-plus percent subsidy for the insurance premiums paid by congressmen and their personal staffs—under a law that denies subsidies for anyone that well-off.

Which came just a month after the administration’s equally lawless suspension of one of the cornerstones of Obamacare: the employer mandate.

Which followed hundreds of Obama­care waivers granted by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to selected businesses, unions and other well-lobbied, very special interests.

Nor is this kind of rule-by-decree restricted to health care. In 2012, the immigration service was ordered to cease proceedings against young illegal immigrants brought here as children. Congress had refused to pass such a law (the DREAM Act) just 18 months earlier. Obama himself had repeatedly said that the Constitution forbade him from enacting it without Congress. But with the fast approach of an election that could hinge on the Hispanic vote, Obama did exactly that. Unilaterally.

The point is not what you think about the merits of the DREAM Act. Or of mandatory drug sentences. Or of subsidizing health care premiums for $175,000-a-year members of Congress. Or even whether you think governors should be allowed to weaken the work requirements for welfare recipients—an authority the administration granted last year in clear violation of section 407 of the landmark Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform of 1996.

The point is whether a president, charged with faithfully executing the laws that Congress enacts, may create, ignore, suspend and/or amend the law at will. Presidents are arguably permitted to refuse to enforce laws they consider unconstitutional (the basis for so many of George W. Bush’s so-called signing statements). But presidents are forbidden from doing so for reasons of mere policy—the reason for every Obama violation listed above.

Such gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution. It mocks the separation of powers. And most consequentially, it introduces a fatal instability into law itself. If the law is not what is plainly written, but is whatever the president and his agents decide, what’s left of the law?

The problem is not just uncertain enforcement but the undermining of the very creation of new law. What’s the point of the whole legislative process—of crafting various provisions through give-and-take negotiation—if you cannot rely on the fixity of the final product, on the assurance that the provisions bargained for by both sides will be carried out?

Consider immigration reform, now in gestation. The essence of any deal would be legalization in return for strict border enforcement. If some such legislative compromise is struck, what confidence can anyone have in it—if the president can unilaterally alter whatever (enforcement) provisions he never liked in the first place?

Yet this president is not only untroubled by what he’s doing, but open and rather proud. As he tells cheering crowds on his never-ending campaign-style tours: I am going to do X—and I’m not going to wait for Congress.

That’s caudillo talk. That’s banana republic stuff. In this country, the president is required to win the consent of Congress first.

At stake is not some constitutional curlicue. At stake is whether the laws are the law. And whether presidents get to write their own.


. . .

Ann Coulter has added:

I didn’t care for the “Arab Spring,” but the “Arab Summer” is a blockbuster!

Liberals’ rosy predictions for Egypt’s Islamic revolution didn’t turn out as planned. Who could have guessed that howling mobs in Tahrir Square in 2011 would fail to produce a peaceful democracy?

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak had supported U.S. policy, used his military to fight Muslim extremists and recognized Israel’s right to exist. So naturally, Obama told him he had to go.

Let’s review what liberals said at the time about that glorious people’s revolution—only from The New York Times:

– “(Egyptian) Officials blamed the Muslim Brotherhood (for the protests). . . . Even if the Brotherhood had a role—the group denies it; the truth seems more complex—it is easy to understand why Egyptians are fed up.” (Editorial: “Mr. Mubarak Is Put on Notice,” Jan. 26, 2011)

– “The mistake, which still emanates from think tanks stocked with neoconservatives, is assuming that democracy can come at the end of sword. . . . Now that some of the dominoes appear to be falling, this has more to do with Facebook and the frustrations of young, educated adults who can’t earn enough money to marry than it does with tanks rolling into Baghdad, or naive neocons guiding the State Department.” (Timothy Egan, “Bonfire of American Vanities,” Feb. 3, 2011)

– “It’s time to be clear: Mubarak’s time is up.” (Roger Cohen, “Hosni Mubarak Agonistes,” Feb. 4, 2011)

– “What is unfolding in Arab streets is not an assertion of religious reaction but a yearning for democracy with all its burdens and rewards.” (Ray Takeyh, “What Democracy Could Bring,” Feb. 4, 2011)

Oops! Within less than a year, we found out that the truth wasn’t “complex”: The Muslim Brotherhood was behind the revolution. They rigged an election and were planning to implement Sharia law—until the Egyptian military stepped in on behalf of the people this year and removed the Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi as president.

In Arab countries, at least, it seems that democracy can come only “at the end of a sword.”

Also in 2011, Obama ordered air strikes in Libya against Moammar Gadhafi—at the precise moment Gadhafi was no longer a threat to anyone. After Bush invaded Iraq, Gadhafi promptly gave up his nuclear program and invited U.N. weapons inspectors in to prove it. Apparently, he wasn’t interested in becoming the next Saddam Hussein.

Obama’s bombing of Gadhafi was also enthusiastically supported at the Times. Gadhafi, you see, had killed hundreds of his own people. Meanwhile, President Bashar Hafez al-Assad of Syria can preside over the slaughter of more than 100,000 of his people since that time without a cross word from the left.

Libyan people proceeded to stalk and kill Gadhafi in the desert (video on YouTube). A year later, the happy people of Libya murdered our ambassador and three other Embassy staff. But as Hillary said, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

After all their carping about the Iraq War, you’d think liberals would have waited a few years before getting sentimental about democracy in Egypt and Libya. At least democracy is working in Iraq, despite Obama’s attempt to wreck it by withdrawing all U.S. troops. (We still have troops in Germany—but not in Bush’s Iraq.) Still, our ambassador wasn’t assassinated in Baghdad.

Speaking of which, what is the geopolitical strategy behind Obama’s sending more troops to Afghanistan? The 9/11 attack was not committed by Afghanistan. That country has no history of exporting terrorism. Afghans have traditionally been the invaded, not the invaders. They’re too busy herding goats.

The 9/11 attack was planned by foreigners who had decamped to Afghanistan. Although the Taliban was eager for al-Qaida’s help in fighting the Northern Alliance, it had no interest in attacking America. Mullah Omar dissented from Osama bin Laden on that brilliant idea.

It was one thing to go in and wipe out the Taliban after 9/11 in retaliation for their allowing bin Laden to set up shop there, but what was the point after that? Three months into President Bush’s war in Afghanistan, we had accomplished all we were ever going to accomplish in that godforsaken area of the world.

To quote one of liberals’ favorite arguments against the Iraq War: What does victory in Afghanistan look like?

The one place Obama should have intervened was Iran. The moderate, pro-Western, educated Iranian people were being shot in the street in 2010 for protesting an election stolen by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a messianic lunatic in a Members Only jacket. There was a clear alternative in that case that didn’t involve the Muslim Brotherhood, to wit: the actual winner of the election.

But Obama turned his back on the Iranians. Democrats are so opposed to promoting the United States’ interests around the globe, it doesn’t occur to them that, sometimes, our national interests might coincide with the interests of other people.

Liberals made fun of Sarah Palin for not being able to define “the Bush doctrine.” Can Obama tell us what “the Obama doctrine” is? Leap in only to make the rest of the world a more dangerous place? At least Egyptians are safe now, thanks to their military and no thanks to Obama.

See (emphasis added)

. . .

Charles Krauthammer has added:

Egypt today is a zero-sum game. We’d have preferred there be a democratic alternative. Unfortunately, there is none. The choice is binary: the country will be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood or by the military.

Perhaps it didn’t have to be this way. Perhaps the military should have waited three years for the intensely unpopular Mohamed Morsi to be voted out of office. But Gen.Abdel Fatah al-Sissi seems to have calculated that he didn’t have three years, that by then there would be no elections—as in Gaza, where the Palestinian wing of the Brotherhood, Hamas, elected in 2006, established a one-man-one-vote-one-time dictatorship.

What’s the United States to do? Any response demands two considerations: (a) moral, i.e., which outcome offers the better future for Egypt, and (b) strategic, i.e., which outcome offers the better future for U.S. interests and those of the free world.

As for Egypt’s future, the Brotherhood offered nothing but incompetent, intolerant, increasingly dictatorial rule. In one year, Morsi managed to squander 85 years of Brotherhood prestige garnered in opposition—a place from which one can promise the moon—by persecuting journalists and activists, granting himself the unchallenged power to rule by decree, enshrining a sectarian Islamist constitution and systematically trying to seize the instruments of state power. As if that wasn’t enough, after its overthrow the Brotherhood showed itself to be the party that, when angry, burns churches.

The military, brutal and bloody, is not a very appealing alternative. But it does matter what the Egyptian people think. The anti-Morsi demonstrations were the largest in recorded Egyptian history. Revolted by Morsi’s betrayal of a revolution intended as a new opening for individual dignity and democracy, the protesters explicitly demanded Morsi’s overthrow. And the vast majority seem to welcome the military repression aimed at abolishing the Islamist threat. It’s their only hope, however problematic, for an eventual democratic transition.

And which alternative better helps secure U.S. strategic interests? The list of those interests is long: (1) a secure Suez Canal, (2) friendly relations with the United States, (3) continued alliance with the pro-American Gulf Arabs and Jordanians, (4) retention of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, (5) cooperation with the U.S. on terrorism, which in part involves (6) isolating Brotherhood-run Gaza.

Every one of which is jeopardized by Brotherhood rule.

What, then, should be our policy? The administration is right to deplore excessive violence and urge reconciliation. But let’s not fool ourselves into believing this is possible in any near future. Sissi crossed his Rubicon with the coup. It will either succeed or not. To advocate a middle way is to invite endless civil strife.

The best outcome would be a victorious military magnanimously offering, at some later date, to reintegrate the more moderate elements of what’s left of the Brotherhood.

But for now, we should not be cutting off aid, civilian or military, as many in Congress are demanding. It will have no effect, buy no influence and win no friends on either side of the Egyptian divide. We should instead be urging the quick establishment of a new cabinet of technocrats, rapidly increasing its authority as the soldiers gradually return to their barracks.

Generals are very bad at governance. Give the reins to people who actually know something. And charge them with reviving the economy and preparing the foundations for a democratic transition—most importantly, drafting a secular constitution that protects the rights of women and minorities.

The final step on that long democratic path should be elections. First municipal, then provincial, then national. As was shown in the post-World War II democratizations, the later the better.

After all, we’ve been here. Through a half-century of cold war, we repeatedly faced precisely the same dilemma: choosing the lesser evil between totalitarian (in that case, communist) and authoritarian (usually military) rule.

We generally supported the various militaries in suppressing the communists. That was routinely pilloried as a hypocritical and immoral betrayal of our alleged allegiance to liberty. But in the end, it proved the prudent, if troubled, path to liberty.

The authoritarian regimes we supported—in South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Chile, Brazil, even Spain and Portugal (ruled by fascists until the mid-1970s!)—in time yielded democratic outcomes. Gen. Augusto Pinochet, after 16 years of iron rule, yielded to U.S. pressure and allowed a free election—which he lost, ushering in Chile’s current era of democratic flourishing. How many times have communists or Islamists allowed that to happen?

Regarding Egypt, rather than emoting, we should be thinking: what’s best for Egypt, for us and for the possibility of some eventual democratic future.

Under the Brotherhood, such a possibility is zero. Under the generals, slim.

Slim trumps zero.

. . .

Before the Obama presidency ends, he will have single-handedly destroyed America as we have known it, economically, racially and in terms of our national security and foreign policy. He makes Richard Nixon seem like an American patriot by comparison; and I never voted for Nixon either! However, there is a consensus today that Nixon was a foreign policy expert, unlike Obama who knows little or nothing about foreign policy.

See (see also the comments beneath the article)


31 08 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

The Truth About Martin Luther King, Jr. Emerges . . . Finally [UPDATED]

Martin Luther King, Jr.

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Driven by FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover’s mistaken conviction that [Martin Luther King, Jr.] was a dangerous Communist, federal agents bugged his hotel rooms. What they found, and tried to use against him in a poisonous blackmail campaign, was not evidence of Communism but of serial adultery.

Leading one of the most astonishing double lives in history, King was not just the Bible-thumping champion of the rights of man, but also an inveterate womaniser who cheated on his wife throughout their marriage.

King’s secret sex life became such a talking point at the White House that recently released interviews with Jackie Kennedy revealed even she knew about it.

Jackie confided how her brother-in-law Bobby Kennedy had told her the FBI had recorded King trying to arrange a sex party on the night before the March on Washington in August 1963.

‘I can’t see a picture of Martin Luther King without thinking, you know, that man’s terrible,’ sniffed the former First Lady. Bobby had told her that King ‘was calling up all these girls and arranging for a party of men and women, I mean, sort of an orgy’.

That King was a sex addict—though probably no worse than Mrs Kennedy’s husband, JFK—has long been a source of embarrassment. . . .

Though it is beyond question that King was charismatic, tireless and courageous, it is also indisputably true that this brilliant man had a seamier side, as one of Dr King’s closest associates confirmed.

Civil rights campaigner the Rev Ralph Abernathy was the man who cradled King the day he was killed by an assassin’s bullet in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1968.

But in 1989, Abernathy—who succeeded King as the movement’s leader—incurred the eternal wrath of his allies and accusations of a Judas-like betrayal after he confirmed that long-standing rumours about his old friend’s rampant sexual appetites were true.

In his autobiography, Abernathy said King—whose 1953 marriage to Coretta Scott produced four children—had a ‘weakness for women’.

King, a pastor from the age of 25, ‘understood and believed in the Biblical prohibition against sex outside marriage,’ said his friend. ‘It was just that he had a particularly difficult time with that temptation.’

And that was putting it mildly. Abernathy related an extraordinary story that indicated King spent the last night of his life enjoying the attentions of not one but two lovers, followed by an encounter with a third woman whom he knocked sprawling across his motel room bed.

The fateful evening had started with King delivering his historic I’ve Been To The Mountaintop speech at the Masonic Temple in Memphis, in which he appeared to foresee his own death.

Afterwards, Abernathy, King and a civil rights movement comrade, the Rev Bernard Lee, went to the home of one of King’s female friends for a late-night dinner.

Abernathy said he and Lee took a post-prandial nap in the sitting room. He awoke at 1am to see King emerging with the woman from her bedroom.

They then returned to their lodgings at a local motel, where a black female politician was waiting to see him. She got her wish and Abernathy left the couple to go to get some sleep in the room he shared with King.

At around 7am or 8am, King burst into their bedroom, looking alarmed, said Abernathy. King needed his friend’s help to calm down a third woman who was, he said, ‘mad at me. She came in this morning and found my bed empty’.

. . .

The drama didn’t end there. When the third woman turned up in the room, her argument with King became so intense that he ‘lost his temper and knocked her across the bed’.

. . .

Abernathy was not the only one to level such accusations.

Though the subject never makes it into the admiring discussions of King on U.S. breakfast TV, CNN or the pages of the New York Times, the preacher’s serial sexual adultery has been covered in a string of acclaimed biographies.

According to Pulitzer prize-winning biographer David Garrow, it was an open secret among civil rights [] activists who even warned King to rein in his ‘compulsive sexual athleticism’.

But he was unrepentant, bluntly telling a friend: ‘I’m away from home 25 to 27 days a month. F*****g’s a form of anxiety reduction.’

Though he didn’t name names, Garrow said three particular women became more than one-nights stands.

King grew very close to one of them—believed to be a female colleague from Atlanta. At one point, he saw her almost every day, though—Garrow added—‘it did not eliminate the incidental couplings that were a commonplace of King’s travels’.

It was clearly not just the civil rights leader doing the chasing. A King aide recalled watching woman after woman making passes at King at a suburban New York fund-raising party.

‘I could not believe what I was seeing in white Westchester women,’ he said. ‘They would walk up to him and would sort of lick their lips and hint, and [hand him] notes . . .  After I saw that thing that evening, I didn’t blame him.’

Evidently, King could afford to be choosy in his adultery. According to an old family friend: ‘The girls he “dated” were just like models . . .  tall . . . all usually were very fair, never dark.’ King, he added, was ‘really a Casanova’, but one who had a ‘quiet dignity’ and was respectful towards his many conquests.

It was an extraordinary secret existence for a man who used the message of the Gospels in all his speeches and who would tell interviewers that ‘sex is basically sacred . . . and must never be abused’.

But as even his closest friends attested, King was a male chauvinist who insisted his wife—a devoted civil rights activist—stay at home and bring up the children while he travelled America with his firebrand preaching.

He once told Coretta he was too busy to discuss which school they should choose for their daughter. On the few days he did spend at home, King was continually on the phone.

It didn’t help that when he was out on the road with his fellow preachers in the early civil rights movement, he was among like minds. Commentators say these pastors’ sexual charisma was a fundamental part of their appeal to congregations.

Sleeping with female members was the norm rather than the exception and King himself admitted that he didn’t know a single black preacher who was chaste.

As the veteran activist Michael Harrington delicately phrased it, the movement was ‘not at all a sour-faced, pietistic’ endeavour. ‘Everybody was out getting laid.’ Or trying to.

One of King’s most distinguished biographers, Taylor Branch, revealed how—on King’s trip to Norway to collect the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize—members of his entourage were found running after naked or near-naked prostitutes in the Oslo hotel where they were staying. Only a desperate appeal to hotel security saved them from being thrown out.

Branch also detailed how FBI agents bugged King’s hotel room in Washington in January 1964 and recorded him in adulterous full flow. ‘I’m f*****g for God! I’m not a negro tonight!’ he could be heard shouting.

The same year, the FBI anonymously sent King a ‘highlights’ tape of his sexual groaning and dirty jokes, along with a message that read: ‘You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal, fraudulent self is bared to the nation.’

King interpreted this as a call for him to commit suicide, though FBI insiders later said they were simply seeking his resignation from the civil rights movement.

The FBI also sent damning evidence to his colleagues, politicians and major media outlets (who, for reasons unclear, declined to publicise them).

. . .

[T]here’s another mystery: why, having collected the evidence, did the government never make more of these highly incriminating tapes? Many senior government figures—not least the formidable J. Edgar Hoover—would have exposed King like a shot.

But, according to Taylor Branch, while President Lyndon Johnson felt betrayed by King over his public opposition to the Vietnam War, he baulked at using the FBI’s dossier against him.

It’s not clear why his predecessor, JFK, also stayed his hand, but given his own philandering, perhaps he thought it would be hypocritical.

When he got the tape, King was surprised to learn that the FBI knew so much about his private life, but he also told friends it was none of their business. The FBI tape was also sent to Coretta: she claimed she could not make out what was going on and ignored it.

Later she admitted she had never once discussed infidelity with King, saying: ‘I just wouldn’t have burdened him with anything so trivial . . . all that other business just didn’t have a place in the very high-level relationship we enjoyed.’

. . .

[O]ne wonders what he would think of the almost god-like adulation he receives today.

His wife and friends said he was racked by guilt about his personal failings. He found it uncomfortable to be put on a pedestal when all he wanted to do was end the injustice of segregation.

On Sundays, at his Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, King would tell his congregation—without being too specific—that he was a ‘sinner’.

He added: ‘There is a Mr Hyde and a Dr Jekyll in all of us . . . you don’t need to go out this morning saying that Martin Luther King is a saint.’

See (“Sex tapes, FBI smears and the double life of an all too human saint: The other side to the Martin Luther King story“); see also (“Journalist Accuses Rev. Jesse Jackson of Sexual Harassment“)

In Washington, it has been rumored for many years that King had three women just before he was killed; and that his sexual appetite was enormous, like so many politicians—such as John F. Kennedy.

See (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History“) and (“JFK Files: New documents allege Martin Luther King Jr. had secret affairs, orgies“) and (“FBI tapes show Martin Luther King Jr had 40 affairs and ‘laughed’ as friend raped parishioner“)


9 10 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama’s Welfare Socialism Sparked The US Government Shutdown, Not The American Constitution

American founder weeping

This is the opinion of Dr. Tim Stanley, a historian of the United States, writing in the UK’s Telegraph:

One thing often heard in media commentary on the shutdown: what must the Chinese think when the US can’t even keep its government open? The correct answer: who cares? China’s a communist state—its government never sleeps. America’s a democracy—if it has an honest disagreement with itself then it debates it openly within the context of law and the Constitution. If things must shutdown for a bit, so be it.

The Founding Fathers divided the US government in order to keep it limited. No, they never thought things would break down quite this way, but then they never thought that elected officials would try to grow the government so large. Since the 1930s, a series of administrations has tried to expand the responsiblities of the federal government far beyond its original remit, usually bypassing the Constitution in order to avoid breaking with it altogether (covert action signed off by the executive, generously interpreting the Commerce Clause etc). Crucially, this was done by both parties with fairly equal contempt for the founding principles of their republic. Democrats gave us the Great Society, Republicans gave us Medicare part D, the Patriot Act and the Iraq War.

But in recent years things have gotten a lot worse. To understand the roots of the present crisis you have to understand how revolutionary the Democratic power grab of 2008-2010 was. Realising that their time in charge of all three parts of the government was short, the Dems tried to do as much as possible in those two years—which meant taking a leap towards refashioning America into a social democracy. The auto industry got a bailout with a nice sweet-heart deal for the unions. Welfare jumped an astonishing 32 per cent, with the outcome that by 2012 roughly 100 million Americans were getting some kind of benefit with the average outlay being $9,000. On top of all of this, Obama came up with Obamacare—the programme behind the shutdown. Crucially, the Democrats did not negotiate with the Republicans over its content and the only way they could get its patently unAmerican concept of a mandated-purchase into law was for the Supreme Court to redefine it as a tax. If the Republicans oppose it then they do so because it is expensive, may do damage to business and isn’t concomitant with the American Way.

So the Republicans are feeling obstinate. But so are the Democrats. It’s often forgotten that the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to approve a budget for three years—that’s why it should could come as no surprise that they refused to do so again this time. And what won’t the Senate Democrats budge on? A one year delay in funding for Obamacare and a prohibition on lawmakers, their staff and top administration officials from getting government subsidies for their health care. If the Republicans are using their power to hold the Democrats hostage then the Democrats are using their power to hold the Republicans hostage. In fact, it’s less of a hostage situation than it is a Mexican standoff over a large cache of taxpayers’ money.

It all sounds calamitous, but when the US government shuts down what does it really amount to? Museums and parks are closed (and will probably soon reopen thanks to emergency legislation) but Social Security checks still go out and the military will still be paid. Some 800,000 federal workers have been sent home early but this only amounts to 20 per cent of the total federal workforce. That’s right. The US government has grown so big that 800,000 people is a drop in the ocean. Of course, things will be a lot worse when it comes to debating raising the debt ceiling. A default really would be disastrous for America and the entire global economy and everything should be done to avoid it.

The bottom line is that while America’s democracy is functioning the way it was intended to do (debating, mulling and even stalling grand utopian projects), its politicians are failing to live up to the standards and values set by the Founding Fathers. The largest party in Congress isn’t the Democrats or the Republicans. It’s become the welfare/warfare crowd who have been spending and spending for the last century like it has no consequences. And what has pushed America to the brink in the past few years has been an overambitious, highly partisan President willing to gamble everything on social reform. So enough grumbling about a broken America—let’s talk more about failed policies.

Finally, if you think China worrying about American democracy is hard enough to swallow, consider this. Al Jazeera says that the Republicans are guilty of “extremist actions”. Al Jazeera. “Mr Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Kettle…”

See (emphasis added)

Having worked on Capitol Hill and with government all of my legal career, it is nice to find an article that tells the truth. Tim Stanley is correct.

The only thing that I question are his statements:

[T]hings will be a lot worse when it comes to debating raising the debt ceiling. A default really would be disastrous for America and the entire global economy and everything should be done to avoid it.

Even here, the “game of chicken” may proceed; and the scare tactics and “climate of fear” spread by Obama and his far-Left Liberals may fall on deaf ears and be farfetched.

Shut down the government: it has happened, and few Americans are losing any sleep over it. The same thing may be true about a failure to raise the debt ceiling. Obama’s “Chicken Little-The Sky is Falling” approach is not working, inter alia, because Americans just witnessed his humiliating Syrian debacle.

See, e.g., (“Obama’s Epic Incompetence”); see also (“[Moody’s] says that the U.S. Treasury Department is likely to continue paying interest on the government’s debt even if Congress fails to lift the limit on borrowing“)

. . .

Also, any notion that the U.S. will lose its borrowing ability is utter nonsense. In borrowing money (e.g., for a large real estate project), it is always desirable to be the largest debtor of a small bank. Indeed, it is often said that the borrower “owns” the bank, because the borrower’s default can take down the bank.

The same thing applies to China, for example. If American purchases from China were to collapse, China would collapse economically. The Chinese leadership has to do business with us, and play ball with us, or suffer the consequences. “Devious” though they may be, they are not stupid.

See also (“China’s Hard Landing”)

. . .

Americans detest government, and rightly so. It is an integral part of the American psyche today. Barack Obama keeps emitting scare tactics; and we are getting very used to them, like the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” over and over again.

Of much greater concern to the American people on a daily basis is the damage that Obamacare may do to their health.

As Stanley notes correctly, Barack Obama and his Democrats are to blame. Even before the latest crisis, Obama had used his “Sequestration” to drastically cut our military, and even cut off White House tours:

Due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration, we regret to inform you that WhiteHouse Tours will be canceled effective Saturday, March 9, 2013 until further notice.

See; see also (“OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DECIDED TO BLOCK ACCESS TO MEMORIALS“) and (“[Obama Administration] Orders Closure of Park that Receives No Federal Funding“) and (“Democrats relish the role of bullies“) and (“Need health care coverage? Just dial 1-800-FUCKYO to reach Obamacare’s national hotline“) and (Obama cuts NFL, baseball coverage to troops overseas) and (“Police Remove Vietnam War Veterans at Memorial Wall“) and (“FEDS TRY TO CLOSE THE OCEAN BECAUSE OF SHUTDOWN“) and (“If it were up to the American public, they would vote no [on raising the nation’s debt limit so the federal government can borrow more money]—with a majority saying the debt limit should only be raised after major spending cuts have been made“) and (“U.S. Taxpayers Shelled Out $634,320,919 To Build Obamacare Website“) and (U.S. DEBT DOUBLES SINCE OBAMA…) and (“[W]e don’t have enough money to continue to finance our ever-growing federal government (with our $17 trillion dollar national debt that has increased over 50% since Obama took office). . . . That’s why President Obama wants to increase the debt limit”)

Obama never set foot on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles. Instead, he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia. His views are out of touch with most Americans who were born and raised here.

He is a Narcissist, a demagogue, a liar and incompetent; and his reelection in 2012 merely elevated and reinforced these qualities in him. Indeed, he has come to believe that he is invincible, politically; and he has set about to change America, much like Richard Nixon did after his landslide reelection victory in 1972.

Obama’s anger and willingness to punish his enemies are on display, each and every day, like Nixon’s anger and willingness to punish his enemies.

If you have any doubts whatsoever about such anger, which has undergirded Obama’s life and still does, read (or reread) his book “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there, in his own words.

See; see also (“[The Obama Administration] is engaging in high profile acts in an effort to exaggerate the impact of the shutdown”) and (“Immigration Reform Must Be Blocked Forever“) and (“McConnell-Reid Deal Includes $2 Billion Earmark for Kentucky Project“)

. . .

Obamacare—the signature and arguably the only “accomplishment” of the Obama presidency—will be hung around Barack Obama’s neck like a dead albatross, politically. It is merely a function of time before this happens.

America’s founders must be weeping . . .


2 11 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

NPR: Yellowstone County Treasurer Admits Sending Racist E-Mail Message About Obama

Ban of free speech

Montana Public Radio has published an article, which states:

Yellowstone County treasurer and county superintendent of schools, Max Lenington, says his use of racist and anti-gay slurs in an email were a private message to his sister, and reflected his anger that President Barack Obama was re-elected.

The Billings Gazette reports Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito is investigating whether there are grounds to recall Lenington for comments made in an email sent from his work computer last year.

News Director Sally Mauk spoke with Lenington this afternoon about the e-mail, which he confirms he sent. In the e-mail, Lenington says of Obama’s re-election, “It must mean there are more lesbians, queers, Indians, Mexicans, and n____ [slur for blacks] than the rest of us!”

Lenington admits people might be offended by the remarks.

“Possibly, but I wouldn’t say it in public…It was strictly a comment to my sweet sister,” Lenington said.

Lenington believes the slurs he used are commonly used in Montana.

“I was born and raised in central Montana and that’s kind of the way we talk,” he said.

Lenington has worked for Yellowstone county for over 40 years. His term ends on December 31st, 2014. He says he’s in discussion with the county attorney over whether he will resign over the remarks but says he’s getting lots of support to stay in office.


First, racism is a fact of life in America today, and globally.

Second, all Americans and peoples of other countries should read Barack Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father,” written in his own words, if you have any doubts whatsoever about his core beliefs. And then view many of his actions and statements as president (e.g., regarding Trayvon Martin) against his own black racist sentiments.


Third, ideally, there should not be any racism, period. However, Obama has played the “race card” repeatedly, which is reprehensible.

Fourth, every American’s e-mails should be private. Apparently, Lenington—whom I had never heard of, before reading this article—used his computer at work to send the message to his sister; and someone went through his e-mails, and disclosed this one to the public.

The very essence of the current NSA scandals involves the interception and disclosure of private messages. Americans are aghast that anyone or any government agency could intercept and read their private e-mail messages, or listen to or record their phone calls, and disclose the contents. And of course, they are correct.

Fifth, the very idea that “political correctness” or the thought or language “police” (e.g., in the form of Montana Public Radio) should exist, or be projected or imposed on others, violates this great nation’s basic guarantee of freedom of speech. It is repugnant.

This is why all public funding of PBS and NPR must cease. Among other things, clearly neither entity criticized the hateful comments and threats that were and still are directed toward former President George W. Bush.

Lastly, I believe in this country, and I believe in Americans of all colors, faiths and backgrounds. The United States is the only true melting pot in the world, with its populace representing a United Nations of the world’s peoples.

Yes, we fight and we even discriminate, but when times are tough—like after 9/11—we come together as one nation, which makes this country so great and special. Also, all of us or our ancestors came here from somewhere else. Even the American Indians are descended from those who crossed the Bering Strait—or the “Bering land bridge”—according to anthropologists.

See (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”); see also (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple”)


5 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

The Left: Young Black Males Have Always Been Violent, So This Is Nothing New

Ann Coulter has written in an article:

On a break from pretending to believe they live in a country bristling with violent white racists, the Non-Fox Media have been trying to debunk stories about the “Knockout Game,” in which young black males approach random strangers and try to knock them out with one punch.

The left’s leading line of defense against the Knockout Game is to argue that young black males have always been violent, so, hey, this is nothing new.

You’re welcome, black America!

In Slate, Emma Roller wearily recounted other episodes of black-on-white violence in order to announce: “The ‘Knockout Game’ is a myth.”

Reminiscing about the flash mobs that shook many parts of the country a few years ago, Roller wrote: “I remember the summer of 2011, a story about a crowd of (black) teenagers at the Wisconsin State Fair randomly attacking fairgoers went viral as a sign of a burgeoning race war.”

So you see, stupid right-wingers, young black males have always been violent, so what’s the big deal about the Knockout Game? Your honor, my client’s not a killer; he’s a serial killer.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes reached for a different example of monstrous black-on-white violence in order to dispute that the Knockout Game is anything new.

Looking like a translator for the deaf with all the air quotes he had to make for “supposed” “trend” and “Knockout Game,” Hayes compared it to what he called the fake trend of “wilding” after a mob of black youths violently attacked and raped a white woman jogging in New York’s Central Park in 1989. According to Hayes, “there never was such a thing” as wilding.

Whether the boys who were convicted of the crime did it or, as liberals now claim, a man already sentenced to life in prison did it, the Central Park jogger was brutally raped and nearly murdered by either one or several young black men. (They all did it—see Chapter 13 of my book “Demonic.”)

The following year, 1990, blacks committed 57 percent of all the violent crime against whites, while whites committed only 2 percent of the violent crime against blacks, according to the Department of Justice’s annual Victimization Report. Thanks for the memories, Chris!Oh, and contrary to Hayes’ proclamation, black men raping white women is something of a “trend”—at least according to FBI crime statistics. At least since 1997[, . . .] blacks have raped several thousand white women every year, while white-on-black rapes have numbered between “0.0″ and “Sample based on 10 or fewer.” (See Chapter 11 of “Mugged.”)

In a particularly incomprehensible defense of black America in Mediaite, Tommy Christopher denounced the “sketchy” news reports of “the so-called ‘Knockout Game’” by citing the video of a group of black teenagers walking past teacher Jim Addlespurger, when one of the black teens steps from the group and knocks the teacher out cold, and then they all laugh about the assault as they continue walking.

But Christopher helpfully notes that a cop said this “was just a random act of violence.” So don’t worry about the Knockout Game, white people—this is mostly just ordinary, everyday black-on-white violence.

Flash mobs, wilding, day-to-day black violence—talk about damning with faint praise!

Liberals have to work so hard to avoid noticing the astronomical crime rate among young black males that their brains freeze.

Roller attributed public interest in a story about mobs of young black males attacking families at a state fair to white people’s need to validate their “fear” that black people are dangerous. . . .

But Roller implied that blacks engaging in violence is wildly unusual: “When a few YouTube videos are able to convince terrified white folks that young black people are dangerous, they may as well assume that all cats can play the keyboard.”

Is a disproportionate amount of keyboard playing in the country being done by cats?

According to the FBI, between 1976 and 2005, blacks, who are about 12 percent of the population, committed 53 percent of all felony murders and 56 percent of non-felony murders. The Centers for Disease Control recently reported that young black men are 14 times more likely to commit murder than young white men.

White liberals know this. Blacks certainly know it. Despite the hoo-ha over George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin, most black people’s experience is not that white vigilantes are shooting them. For every one of those, there are 1,000 black teens killing other black people.

But if liberals took the first step toward sanity and admitted that young black men commit an awful lot of violent crime, they might have to ask why that is.

That’s a dangerous question for people who refuse to acknowledge the devastation of fatherless boys caused by liberal welfare policies. (See Chapter 6 of “Never Trust a Liberal Over 3″ to see how the British welfare system has created the same social disaster among hordes of white people.)

Unable to consider the obvious explanation—single-motherhood—liberals are left with nothing but genetic determinism.

So liberals defend young black males from the charge of playing a Knockout Game by telling us young black men are always violent.

Don’t worry, black America. White liberals have your back.


When I worked on the Brooke Amendment in the U.S. Senate, to help improve the conditions in public housing nationwide, we received numerous reports about young blacks terrorizing elderly blacks in the projects. Indeed, part of the money was to be used for greater security measures.


6 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

The Legacies of Nelson Mandela


Barack Obama has hated Apartheid in South Africa and revered Nelson Mandela for most of his adult life. To him, Apartheid was a stain on Mankind, and Mandela was his hero.

See, e.g., (“For Mandela, Reverence, but Criticism, Too”) and

An outgrowth of these beliefs has been Obama’s goals of rapprochement with Iran, and a lasting peace in the Middle East. However, just as Obama and the United States have been pursuing these goals, Benjamin Netanyahu has been doing whatever is necessary to sabotage such efforts.

See (see also the article itself, as well as the other comments beneath it)

If anything, Mandela’s death may strengthen Obama’s resolve to end Apartheid in Israel, and to “tear down the wall.” This might be one of Obama’s greatest legacies, but it will not come about as long as Netanyahu leads Israel. To Obama, he embodies white oppression.


24 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

What Was 2013’s Most Significant Story?

Obamas-no smiles

The dramatic failure of Obamacare is the biggest story, because it foretells the end of the Obama presidency—as the myth of Barack Obama collapses before the eyes of the world.

See, e.g., (“Americans Finally Wake Up To Who Barack Obama Really Is“)


16 04 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Fans Racial Hatreds

In an editorial entitled, “Coalition of the Disappointed”—and subtitled, “Obama fires up racial and gender resentments to get out the vote”—the Wall Street Journal notes:

You can tell it’s an election year because so many noncrises are suddenly urgent priorities. Real median household income is still lower than it was in 2007, the smallest share of Americans is working since 1978, and the Russians are marching west, but Democrats are training fire on race, gender and the grievances of identity politics.

“We have this congenital disease, which is in midterm elections we don’t vote at the same rates,” President Obama said at a Houston fundraiser the other day. He means that the Obama Democrats are now what they call the “coalition of the ascendent,” made up of minorities, young people, single women and affluent, college-educated cultural liberals. The problem is that this year they may be a coalition of the disappointed, so Democrats are trying to scare them to the polls with pseudo-controversies.

Take last week’s East Room reception for feminist celebrity Lilly Ledbetter, when Mr. Obama declared that “today the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns; for African American women, Latinas, it’s even less. And in 2014, that’s an embarrassment. It is wrong.” He’s right that it’d be wrong, except he knows this isn’t close to true.

The “pay gap” is the ratio between median earnings for men and women, according to Census Bureau data. But adjust for hours worked, occupation, decisions about marriage and children, education and risk, and equal work means equal pay. The war on women is really a war on meaningful statistics.

To wit, applying the same broad median-earnings standard to the White House shows that female staffers make only 88 cents on the dollar of their male counterparts. The White House should indict itself for disparate-impact bias. Spokesman Jay Carney defended the hornet’s nest of sexism where he works by insisting, “That the problem exists in a lot of places only reinforces the need to fix it.”

So how’s that working out? Readers may remember the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that was the first bill Mr. Obama signed in January 2009. The measure was little more than a trial lawyer payoff, but Mr. Obama called it “a simple fix to ensure fundamental fairness” and end the injustice of “women across this country still earning just 78 cents for every dollar men earn.” Five years later, they’ve lost a penny by his own reckoning.

Still, women don’t have it as bad as Attorney General Eric Holder, who in a speech last week departed from his prepared remarks to feel sorry for himself after a testy House hearing. “What Attorney General has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?” he asked. “What President has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

Mr. Holder should recall the treatment of his predecessor Alberto Gonzales before implying that his critics are racist, but then he sees Jim Crow everywhere. In his speech before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, he said the right to vote faces “unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity.”

Some 34 states now require voters to show some form of government-issued photo identification, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, up from zero in 2006. The states say such rules uphold public confidence in the integrity of the ballot.

And if the states are secretly trying to suppress minority turnout, they’re doing a lousy job. The Census reports that the black voting rate rose 13 percentage points from 1996 to 2012. At 66.2% black participation in 2012 surpassed the rate for non-Hispanic whites (64.1%).

Yet every Democrat seems to have received the white supremacist conspiracy memo. Last week Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference that “I think race has something to do with the fact that they are not bringing up an immigration bill. I’ve heard them say to the Irish, ‘If it was you, it would be easy.'” Yes, the Irish. Steve Israel of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee added that “elements” of the GOP are “animated by racism.”

This color-by-numbers strategy may prove a tougher sell for young adults, who are among the biggest losers of the Obama era. The millennials (those age 18 to 33) are the first generation since World War II to be poorer and more jobless than their parents at the same stage of life, according to the Pew Research Center. In 2012 Mitt Romney won a majority of voters who entered the electorate (i.e., turned 18) during Mr. Obama’s first term, reports political scientist John Sides.

Still, student loan debt has swelled to about $1.2 trillion, and interest rates on federal bonds are likely to climb this July, so look for Mr. Obama to promise one more refinancing discount. Other millenials can console themselves with free birth control, even if ObamaCare forces them to pay artificially higher premiums to subsidize their elders.


Transparent cynicism is the lifeblood of politics, but it’s nonetheless notable that the only way Democrats think they can win is by dividing the electorate into blocs and inflaming racial and other tensions. Governing so far to the left has polarized U.S. politics, and now the party of the government status quo is deliberately deepening the national divide because they think that is the only way to save the at-risk population that is the Senate Democratic majority.

All this is more than a country mile away from the era of political comity that Mr. Obama promised in 2008. America’s largest problems don’t have an ethnicity or gender, and most of them could be ameliorated with faster economic growth that would benefit everyone. Sadly, the liberal strategy of cultivating resentment will only get worse as the year drags on.


There should not be any doubts that Barack Obama is a racist.

If you have a modicum of doubt, please read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which sets forth his core beliefs in his own words. It provides a roadmap to how he has been governing, and what we can expect during the remaining years of his presidency.

The book is shocking, and I read it twice after the 2008 election, to learn about our new president. I took copious notes and converted them into an article, and tried to be as objective as possible.


The book is shocking to this day; and every American who wants to understand our president should read it.


7 10 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama And Racism

Obama and racism

I have been on the Web for more than 20 years, and have seen many of the items that circulate. They come through “chain letters” from friends, acquaintances and total strangers. Some are not worth opening at all. Others can provide occasional humor, or even stimulate thinking.

The message above—whether it is factually correct or not—is making the rounds; and it is important because it underscores the racial divide in America today. Many black Americans feel victimized; and whites feel there is a “double standard” with Barack Obama as our president. One of his greatest failings is being a divider, and not a healer or uniter.

He and his presidency offered enormous promise and opportunities to heal the racial divides. However, American politics being what it is, he has appealed to his base of black voters, and lost vast swaths of white America in the process. According to the 2000 census, non-Hispanic or Latino white Americans constitute approximately 70 percent of the population.

See, e.g.,


14 10 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Black America’s Rising Woes Under Obama

Black America hurt by Obama

The UK’s Financial Times has an article that addresses this subject which is subtitled, “Those who have fared worst under this president are the ones who love him the most”:

A paradox haunts America’s first black president. African-American wealth has fallen further under Barack Obama than under any president since the Depression. Yet they are the only group that still gives him high ratings. So meagre is Mr Obama’s national approval rating that embattled Democrats have made him unwelcome in states that twice swept him to power. Those who have fared worst under Mr Obama are the ones who love him the most. You would be hard-pressed to find a better example of perception-driven politics. As the Reverend Kevin Johnson asked in 2013: “Why are we so loyal to a president who isn’t loyal to us?”

The problem has taken on new salience with the resignation of Eric Holder. America’s first black attorney-general has tried to correct the gulag-sized disparities in prison sentencing between blacks and whites. His exit leaves just two African-Americans in Mr Obama’s cabinet. Given the mood among Republicans, it is hard to imagine the US Senate confirming a successor to Mr Holder who shares his priorities.

Mr Obama shot to prominence in 2004 when he said there was no black or white America, just the United States of America. Yet as the continuing backlash to the police shooting of an unarmed young black man in Ferguson has reminded us, Mr Obama will leave the US at least as segregated as he found it. How could that be? The fair answer is that he is not to blame. The poor suffered the brunt of the Great Recession and blacks are far likelier to be poor. By any yardstick – the share of those with subprime mortgages, for example, or those working in casualised jobs – African-Americans were more directly in the line of fire.

Without Mr Obama’s efforts, African-American suffering would have been even greater. He has fought Congress to preserve food stamps and long-term unemployment insurance – both of which help blacks disproportionately. The number of Americans without health insurance has fallen by 8m since the Affordable Care Act came into effect. Likewise, no president has done as much as Mr Obama – to depressingly little effect – to try to correct the racial bias in US federal sentencing. Bill Clinton was once termed “America’s first black president”. But it was under Mr Clinton that incarceration rates rose to their towering levels.

By no honest reckoning can Mr Obama be blamed for the decline in black America’s fortunes. Yet the facts are deeply unflattering. Since 2009, median non-white household income has dropped by almost a 10th to $33,000 a year, according to the US Federal Reserve’s survey of consumer finances. As a whole, median incomes fell by 5 per cent. But by the more telling measure of net wealth – assets minus liabilities – the numbers offer a more troubling story.

The median non-white family today has a net worth of just $18,100 – almost a fifth lower than it was when Mr Obama took office. White median wealth, on the other hand, has inched up by 1 per cent to $142,000. In 2009, white households were seven times richer than their black counterparts. That gap is now eightfold. Both in relative and absolute terms, blacks are doing worse under Mr Obama.

Why then do African-Americans still give him such stellar ratings? To understand, listen to the dog whistles of Mr Obama’s detractors. The more angrily the Tea Party reviles Mr Obama, the more ardently African-Americans back him. When Newt Gingrich, the former Republican leader, described Mr Obama as a “food stamp president”, the subtext was plain. It was too when Joe Wilson, a Republican lawmaker, interrupted Mr Obama’s address to Congress to call him a liar – an indignity none of his predecessors suffered.

Likewise, no president has been forced to authenticate that he was born in the US (rather than Kenya). Donald Trump then demanded proof that the president had attended Harvard. How could a black man get so far without cheating? That at least is what many black Americans heard.

Then there is Mr Obama’s impact as a role model. With the exception of the fictional Cosby Show – the 1980s sitcom about an upbeat black household – many whites have little experience of intact black families. The latter remains dishearteningly uncommon. Barack and Michelle Obama have done much to counteract that image.

There is a prominently displayed photograph in the White House showing the moment that a young black boy touched Mr Obama’s hair to compare it with his own. “So, what do you think?” asked Mr Obama. “Yes, it does feel the same,” said the child. That episode conveys something no Fed statistician can measure.

Black Americans seem to grasp something many of Mr Obama’s white supporters often forget. If the opposing party controls Congress and wants to make trouble, it can stop almost any White House initiative in its tracks. Most voters hold the president accountable for the big trends affecting their lives, particularly economic. But there are times when this is not fully deserved. Under this president at least, black America’s insights may be a step ahead of the rest.

See (emphasis added)

As a whole, African-Americans are the last hired and the first fired, except in government.

Other ethnic groups have come to our shores, but America’s blacks remain at the bottom of the totem pole, while the more recent arrivals climb above them (e.g., those of Mexican or Hispanic heritage, Asian Americans).

America’s first and perhaps last “Affirmative Action” president has only made their conditions worse.


25 10 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

The 2014 Race Card

Racism Ruins Lives

In a Wall Street Journal editorial, it is stated:

President Obama was elected on a promise to unite the country, and in particular millions of Americans hoped he could help to transcend racial divisions. So one of the great tragedies of his Presidency is that he and the Democratic Party have used race for political purposes in ways that exacerbate tensions—no more so than this election year.

Mr. Obama’s approval ratings are so bad that Democrats will need to drive a huge turnout to drag many incumbents over the victory line. The core of their political base are African-Americans, more than 90% of whom still register high approval of the President, and many of whom reside in battleground Senate states like Georgia, Louisiana and North Carolina. The party’s problem is that black turnout often drops sharply in midterms.

Hope and change are long gone, so Democrats are now playing the race card to scare black Americans to the ballot box. At the milder end of this spectrum is the Democratic National Committee’s appeal that the midterms should be a gesture in racial solidarity. “GET HIS BACK,” reads an ad the party committee is running in black newspapers. “Republicans have made it clear that they want our President—Barack Obama—to fail. If you don’t vote this November 4, they win.”

The harder, nasty edge is playing out in individual campaigns. The Democratic Party of Georgia is distributing a flyer that shows two young black children holding signs that say “Don’t Shoot.” The flyer reads: “If You Want To Prevent Another Ferguson In Their Future . . . VOTE.”

The handout refers to Ferguson, Mo. shooting victim Michael Brown, noting that in Ferguson 67% of the population is black, while “94% of its police force are white.” What Ferguson has to do with pressing the Senate candidacy of white Georgia Democrat Michelle Nunn isn’t clear, other than that Ms. Nunn can’t win without a resounding black vote.

In North Carolina, black residents have received flyers that show a lynching scene, with the superimposed words: “ Kay Hagan doesn’t win! Obama’s impeachment will begin! Vote in 2014.” The flyers are attributed to the “Concerned Citizens of Cumberland County,” and no wonder its authors want to remain anonymous.

In Maryland, where Democrat Anthony Brown is running to become the state’s first black Governor, the state Democratic Party has released a flyer showing pictures of a civil-rights march, a “colored waiting room” sign, and Donald Trump alongside the words: “Where’s the birth certificate?” The flyer ends: “In Maryland, it’s our turn to take an important step in the journey . . . Vote for Anthony Brown.”

Democrats are also building on the fears stoked by Eric Holder ’s Justice Department about voter ID laws. Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Alison Grimes is running a radio ad in urban areas in which a male narrator claims she is a “champion” for civil rights. The ad goes on to say that Republican Senator Mitch McConnell “has been leading the Republican effort to take away our voting rights. Just like he blocked everything from getting done in Washington, he’s blocking the ballot box and trying to silence our voices.”

Some silence: Black voter turnout exceeded white turnout in states like Georgia and Indiana after voter ID laws passed.

All this brings to mind a young presidential candidate named Barack Obama, who warned in 2008 that Republicans would play the race card. “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’” he told a rally. Mr. Obama won, and won again, but that hasn’t stopped Democrats from rolling out that same racism charge at any opportunity, using it in particular as a tool to drive minority turnout in elections.

Such racial exploitation is possible because the two U.S. political parties are so divided along racial lines. The appeal wouldn’t work if Republicans took 40% of the black vote, instead of the 10% or less they get in the Obama era. For that the GOP is partly responsible for not trying harder.

But Democrats do themselves no credit and the country no good by playing up racial divisions for partisan ends. Alas, they’ll keep doing it until voters stop rewarding them with votes.

See (emphasis added)

There is no question that Barack Obama is a racist. If you have any doubts whatsoever, please read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which is summarized in the first article of this blog, with page citations to the book itself.


It is all there, in his own words: his core beliefs, which undergird how he has been governing as America’s president, and what we can expect during the remainder of his presidency.


5 11 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

White America Has Spoken Emphatically, And Rejected Barack Obama

Obama whacked out

Obama has been soundly defeated.

He forgot that White Americans are the racial majority, with a 77.7% share of the U.S. population, according to the 2013 U.S. Census.


In a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled “A Shellacking for Obama,” it has been written:

On the night of his 2012 re-election triumph, following his victory speech, President Obama walked off the stage and made separate phone calls to Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic campaign chairman Steve Israel. He told them he would spend the next two years helping Democrats retake the House in 2014, and he pledged to raise $50 million and devote his 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina to the task.

Two years later we know how that turned out. The Republicans on Tuesday defeated at least four incumbents to take control of the Senate and are adding to their majority in the House. Add the GOP sweep of most of the close races for Governor, including in states Mr. Obama won twice, and the vote is a major repudiation of the President’s governance.

That 2012 episode, reported at the time by the Washington Post, speaks volumes about the reason. Mr. Obama has consistently put liberal policy demands and partisanship above the goals of economic growth and compromise. Far from cementing a Democratic majority, his political posture has helped the GOP make a comeback. The question now is whether he will change enough to salvage his last two years as President.

Liberals are busy discounting Tuesday’s results as meaningless, a “Seinfeld” election about nothing, and it’s true that Republicans failed to offer much of a unified policy agenda. Yet the one issue that has been on the ballot everywhere this year is President Obama and his record.

The main common Republican theme has been linking incumbent Democrats to Mr. Obama and his 42% approval rating. In left-leaning Colorado they have moved the polls by charging that Mark Udall had voted with the President “99% of the time,” and in other states it was 96% or 98%. Mr. Udall lost.

Those Democrats in turn studiously avoided appearing with Mr. Obama, much less having him campaign for them, and the Senate challenger in Kentucky famously wouldn’t even say if she’d voted for him. Georgia Democrat Michelle Nunn identified herself explicitly with George H.W. Bush. Mr. Obama was consigned to campaigning in heavily Democratic states, like Maryland.

Democratic incumbents claimed their votes for the President’s agenda were mostly “procedural,” but the problem is that all of them were with the White House on every vote that mattered. Each of them provided the last “aye” to get ObamaCare through the Senate. Most Democrats barely defended ObamaCare while promising vaguely to fix it, and GOP Senate candidates ran more ads against ObamaCare in October than on any other issue, according to Kantar Media/CMAG.

The GOP’s Senate sweep is especially impressive when you consider that they held all of their current seats, and they picked up Democratioc seats in two states, Colorado and Iowa, that Mr. Obama carried twice. The last time the GOP defeated more than two Senate Democratic incumbents was in 1980. Majority Leader Harry Reid ’s strategy of shutting down the Senate stands repudiated.

The GOP also added to their House ranks, with a chance to have the largest Republican majority since the 1950s, and maybe the 1920s (if they hit 247 with a gain of 14 or more). That would be a cushion against potential losses in 2016 and give Speaker John Boehner more policy running room. After losing 63 seats in 2010, Mr. Obama appears to have lost more House seats for his party in midterm elections than any President since Eisenhower, who lost 66 in 1954 (18) and 1958 (48).

And flying below media radar, the GOP could add to its already large advantage in state legislatures—the building blocks of policy experimentation and future candidates for Congress. So much for Mr. Obama’s ambition to be the liberal Reagan.

The liberals who have cheered on Mr. Obama as he drove his party into this ditch are now advising that he should double down on partisanship. Veto everything. Rule by regulation, including a vast immigration diktat that would poison any chance of bipartisan and thus politically durable reform. Demonize Republicans at every opportunity to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016.

If we judge by Mr. Obama’s six-year record, that is what he will probably do. But there is a better way that would do more for the country and his own legacy. Start by recognizing that many Republicans want to do more than merely oppose him. They know their own political brand needs burnishing, and that even their most intense partisans want some results from electing Republicans.

Above all that should mean focusing on measures to lift the economy out of the 2% growth trap of the Obama years. We offered this same advice in 2012, pointing to the way rapid growth had helped Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan survive the traumas of their second terms.

Mr. Obama preferred the partisan satisfaction of forcing Republicans to swallow a tax increase, and he has insisted on $1 trillion more as his price for any entitlement reforms. He has preferred gridlock to ending automatic defense spending cuts. The result: Slow growth and falling incomes for all but the wealthy. This is not a legacy a liberal President wants to leave.

The way to avoid it is to work with Republicans in Congress on pro-growth policies. Several could be quick and easy victories. Repeal the medical-devices tax and fix ObamaCare’s bias against hiring full-time employees. Pass fast-track trade authority and the pan-Pacific trade pact. Liberate energy production and export. Trade more defense spending for more dollars for roads.

Immigration and tax reform would take more time, but both are also possible if Mr. Obama is willing to share credit and settle for less than everything he wants. The realist in us doesn’t expect he’ll take any of this advice, but it’s the only way he’ll revive his broken Presidency.

See (emphasis added)

This editorial is wrong-headed in many respects, such as any notion of trading “more defense spending for more dollars for roads.” With enemies around the world emboldened by Obama’s weakness, now is the time to strengthen our military, not dilute it any further.

However, the editorial is accurate in terms of describing many of Obama’s failures. Tragically, Americans must endure two more years of his failed presidency, and the dangers that lie ahead.


15 11 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama: The Loneliest President Since Nixon

Obama and Nixon

Peggy Noonan, writing in the Wall Street Journal, states:

Facing adversity, Obama has no idea how to respond.

Seven years ago I was talking to a longtime Democratic operative on Capitol Hill about a politician who was in trouble. The pol was likely finished, he said. I was surprised. Can’t he change things and dig himself out? No. “People do what they know how to do.” Politicians don’t have a vast repertoire. When they get in a jam they just do what they’ve always done, even if it’s not working anymore.

This came to mind when contemplating President Obama. After a devastating election, he is presenting himself as if he won. The people were not saying no to his policies, he explained, they would in fact like it if Republicans do what he tells them.

You don’t begin a new relationship with a threat, but that is what he gave Congress: Get me an immigration bill I like or I’ll change U.S. immigration law on my own.

Mr. Obama is doing what he knows how to do—stare them down and face them off. But his circumstances have changed. He used to be a conquering hero, now he’s not. On the other hand he used to have to worry about public support. Now, with no more elections before him, he has the special power of the man who doesn’t care.

I have never seen a president in exactly the position Mr. Obama is, which is essentially alone. He’s got no one with him now. The Republicans don’t like him, for reasons both usual and particular: They have had no good experiences with him. The Democrats don’t like him, for their own reasons plus the election loss. Before his post-election lunch with congressional leaders, he told the press that he will judiciously consider any legislation, whoever sends it to him, Republicans or Democrats. His words implied that in this he was less partisan and more public-spirited than the hacks arrayed around him. It is for these grace notes that he is loved. No one at the table looked at him with colder, beadier eyes than outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , who clearly doesn’t like him at all. The press doesn’t especially like the president; in conversation they evince no residual warmth. This week at the Beijing summit there was no sign the leaders of the world had any particular regard for him. They can read election returns. They respect power and see it leaking out of him. If Mr. Obama had won the election they would have faked respect and affection.

Vladimir Putin delivered the unkindest cut, patting Mr. Obama’s shoulder reassuringly. Normally that’s Mr. Obama’s move, putting his hand on your back or shoulder as if to bestow gracious encouragement, needy little shrimp that you are. It’s a dominance move. He’s been doing it six years. This time it was Mr. Putin doing it to him. The president didn’t like it.

From Reuters: “‘It’s beautiful, isn’t it?’ Putin was overheard saying in English in Obama’s general direction, referring to the ornate conference room. ‘Yes,’ Obama replied, coldly, according to journalists who witnessed the scene.”

The last time we saw a president so alone it was Richard Nixon, at the end of his presidency, when the Democrats had turned on him, the press hated him, and the Republicans were fleeing. It was Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP’s standard-bearer in 1964, and House Minority Leader John Rhodes, also of Arizona, who went to the White House to tell Nixon his support in Congress had collapsed, they would vote to impeach. Years later Goldwater called Nixon “The world’s biggest liar.”

But Nixon had one advantage Obama does not: the high regard of the world’s leaders, who found his downfall tragic (such ruin over such a trifling matter) and befuddling (he didn’t keep political prisoners chained up in dungeons, as they did. Why such a fuss?).

Nixon’s isolation didn’t end well.

Last Sunday Mr. Obama, in an interview with CBS ’s Bob Schieffer, spoke of his motivation, how he’s always for the little guy. “I love just being with the American people. . . . You know how passionate I am about trying to help them.” He said what is important is “a guy who’s lost his job or lost his home or . . . is trying to send a kid to college.” When he talks like that, as he does a lot, you get the impression his romantic vision of himself is Tom Joad in the movie version of “The Grapes of Wrath.” “I’ll be all around . . . wherever there’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there.”

I mentioned last week that the president has taken to filibustering, to long, rambling answers in planned sit-down settings—no questions on the fly walking from here to there, as other presidents have always faced. The press generally allows him to ramble on, rarely fighting back as they did with Nixon. But I have noticed Mr. Obama uses a lot of words as padding. He always has, but now he does it more. There’s a sense of indirection and obfuscation. You can say, “I love you,” or you can say, “You know, feelings will develop, that happens among humans and it’s good it happens, and I have always said, and I said it again just last week, that you are a good friend, I care about you, and it’s fair to say in terms of emotional responses that mine has escalated or increased somewhat, and ‘love’ would not be a wholly inappropriate word to use to describe where I’m coming from.”

When politicians do this they’re trying to mush words up so nothing breaks through. They’re leaving you dazed and trying to make it harder for you to understand what’s truly being said.

It is possible the president is responding to changed circumstances with a certain rigidity because no one ever stood in his way before. Most of his adult life has been a smooth glide. He had family challenges and an unusual childhood, but as an adult and a professional he never faced fierce, concentrated resistance. He was always magic. Life never came in and gave it to him hard on the jaw. So he really doesn’t know how to get up from the mat. He doesn’t know how to struggle to his feet and regain his balance. He only knows how to throw punches. But you can’t punch from the mat.

He only knows how to do what he’s doing.

In the meantime he is killing his party. Gallup this week found that the Republicans for the first time in three years beat the Democrats on favorability, and also that respondents would rather have Congress lead the White House than the White House lead Congress.

A few weeks ago a conservative intellectual asked me: “How are we going to get through the next two years?” It was a rhetorical question; he was just sharing his anxiety. We have a president who actually can’t work with Congress, operating in a capital in which he is resented and disliked and a world increasingly unimpressed by him, and so increasingly predatory.

Anyway, for those who are young and not sure if what they are seeing is wholly unusual: Yes, it is wholly unusual.

See (emphasis added)

Barack Obama’s naïveté has been matched by his overarching narcissism; and he is likely to be considered more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter—and certainly Richard Nixon.

Also, he is a racist. Please read his book, “Dreams from My Father,” if you have any doubts whatsoever. It is all there in his own words: his core beliefs, which have been guiding his presidency.


Harry Truman is reported to have said: “”If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.” Barack Obama needs all of the “dogs” that he can find.


14 12 2014
Mark Talmont

I think it’s a touch heavy-handed to call him a “racist”. He’s an opportunist who uses race for political advantage in an unprincipled way. There is a devastating examination of the speech he made at Selma while he was still a Senator on the snopes site. He lies as readily as the Clintons.



14 12 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Mark, for your comments.

If you read the article above, which is an accurate summary of Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father”—with page cites to support my statements—I believe you too will conclude that he is a black racist.

His core beliefs are set forth in the book; and they are reflected in how he has been governing as president, and what we can expect during the remaining two years or so of his presidency.


1 03 2015
Cesar Grenados

I quite like reading an article that will make men and
women think. Also, many thanks for allowing me to comment!

Liked by 1 person

28 04 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Rioting, Looting And Killing By Thugs And Hoods In American Cities [UPDATED]

Rioting in Baltimore

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

President Barack Obama broke his silence this afternoon on the riots that devoured Baltimore last night and led to more than 200 arrests, shaming looters and saying they should be treated as ‘criminals’ and ‘thugs.’

‘There is no excuse for the kind of violence we saw yesterday,’ Obama said during a joint presser with Japan’s Prime Minister. ‘It is counter productive when individuals get crow bars and start prying open doors to loot.’

‘They’re not protesting. They’re not making a statement. They’re stealing,’ he said. ‘When they burn down a building they’re committing arson.’

The comments were the first Obama had made publicly addressing last night’s mayhem in Maryland’s largest city, located roughly an hour northeast of Washington, D.C., following the funeral of 25-year-old Freddie Gray, a black youth who died of spinal injuries while in police custody earlier this month.

The White House said yesterday that its new attorney general, Loretta Lynch, was monitoring the situation, and the Department of Justice released a statement on her behalf condemning ‘the senseless acts of violence’ that ran rampant in the city, including the lighting of some 150 fires.

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan last night said that the president called him and urged him to exercise ‘due restraint’ but agreed with his decision to issue a state of emergency and call up the National Guard, 500 of whom have been deployed to protect the city’s streets.

The president, Hogan said, told him the state needed ‘to get control of our streets, and he endorsed the action taken tonight.’

‘I assured him that we were. The last thing we want to do is escalate violence. I assured him we would not stand by and allow our city of Baltimore to be taken over by thugs,’ Hogan said.

Obama said today he told Hogan and Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake it was ‘entirely appropriate’ for them to ‘work to stop that kind of senseless violence and disruption.’

Repeating his earlier statement, the U.S. president described rioters ‘a handful of people taking advantage of a situation for their own purposes, and they need to be treated as criminals.’

The president warned violent demonstrators that ‘one burning building’ will make headlines and the thousands of peaceful protesters will be ignored.

The White House sent three of its own emissaries to Gray’s funeral on Monday, two of whom represented the president in Ferguson, Missouri, after the killing of Michael Brown.

Broderick Johnson, a native of the Baltimore and the chairman of the president’s My Brother’s Keeper Task Force, and Heather Foster, an adviser in the White House Office of Public Engagement, both of whom were in Ferguson, as well as Elias Alcantara, the associate director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, were dispatched to Baltimore yesterday.

The White House gave reporters a ‘readout’ summary after Obama’s first official meeting with Lynch, an occasion it barred reporters from observing.

The president’s press team said the administration’s new top cop ‘assured the President that she would continue to monitor events in Baltimore’ and told him her department ‘stands ready to provide any assistance that might be helpful there.’

The White House also acknowledged that the president spoke over the phone that afternoon to Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and that Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett talked to Hogan.

Amid the violence and looting that claimed a CVS pharmacy, a $16 million nursing home and a shopping mall and left at least six police officers in the hospital, Obama called Hogan himself, the Maryland governor revealed.

Lynch said in a statement on Monday evening issued by the Justice Department: ‘I condemn the senseless acts of violence by some individuals in Baltimore that have resulted in harm to law enforcement officers, destruction of property and a shattering of the peace in the city of Baltimore.

‘Those who commit violent actions, ostensibly in protest of the death of Freddie Gray, do a disservice to his family, to his loved ones, and to legitimate peaceful protestors who are working to improve their community for all its residents.’

Lynch reiterated that the FBI and Justice Departments ‘have an ongoing, independent criminal civil rights investigation into the tragic death of Mr. Gray.’

‘We will continue our careful and deliberate examination of the facts in the coming days and weeks.’

‘As our investigative process continues, I strongly urge every member of the Baltimore community to adhere to the principles of nonviolence,’ she said.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest kept his cards close to his vest on Monday, telling reporters that ‘there is an active – well, let me say it this way – the Department of Justice is currently gathering information as it relates specifically to Mr. Gray’s case.’

‘And I don’t want to say anything specifically about the case that might be construed as interference in that independent law enforcement investigation.’

See (“Obama shames Baltimore looters and condemns ‘riots in the streets’: ‘They’re not protesting. They’re not making a statement.’ They’re ‘criminals’ and ‘thugs'”)

The pattern has been the same since the Watts Riots in Los Angeles during the summer of 1965. Hoods, thugs and criminals have burned, looted and killed innocent people, and destroyed their businesses; and launched a war against the police.

Nothing has changed except the faces.

Blacks constitute approximately 13.2% of the U.S. population. Hispanics are not rioting. Asians are not rioting. Jews are not rioting. Only the blacks are rioting . . . and then only a small portion of them: the hoods, thugs and criminals—who must not be coddled.

America has no sympathy for them; and the backlash may be horrendous. Far too often, their targets include elderly blacks and other inner-city poor.

One black commentator has written:

[T]he main thing that keeps black America feeling alienated in its own land is the police.

This is utter nonsense. Just another excuse why so many black Americans remain at the bottom of the totem pole, while newer Americans (e.g., Hispanics, Asians) climb the ladder to success.

More than 150 years after Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, little seems to have changed.

The writer added:

[T]here is a genuine conversation about the cops and black people going on these days in America, and that wouldn’t be true if there hadn’t been riots in Ferguson.

This is utter nonsense too. Such conversations began after the Watts Riots, but certain elements within black America have not progressed very far since then. They keep seeking scapegoats, just as the writer does.

See; see also (“Civilian Complaints Against the Police in Los Angeles”) and (“Social media analysis suggests links between Baltimore and Ferguson violence”—”An analysis of social media traffic in downtown Baltimore Monday has unearthed striking connections to the protests in Ferguson, Mo. last year . . . suggest[ing] the presence of ‘professional protesters’ or anarchists taking advantage of Freddie Gray’s death to incite more violence” and (“[T]hese cops are political prisoners, offered up as human sacrifices, thrown like red meat to an angry mob”) and (“[T]op criminal lawyer blasts charges against six cops as ‘outrageous and irresponsible'”) and (“CBS News/New York Times Poll: Race Relations Worst In Over 2 Decades”) and (“The New Nationwide Crime Wave”—”Arrests in black communities are even more fraught than usual, with hostile, jeering crowds pressing in on officers and spreading lies about the encounter. Acquittals of police officers for the use of deadly force against black suspects are now automatically presented as a miscarriage of justice”—”Cops are disengaging from discretionary enforcement activity and the ‘criminal element is feeling empowered'”—”‘Any cop who uses his gun now has to worry about being indicted and losing his job and family'”) and (Louis Farrakhan: “[W]hite folks march with you because they don’t want you upsetting the city”) and (“HORROR! Black Youths Mock and Laugh at Unconscious and Bloody Victim After July 4th Beatdown (VIDEO)“) and (“Surge in L.A. crime in first 6 months ends more than decade of declines“) and (“Two Couples Ambushed By Group Of Men While Walking Down Detroit Street, Stripped Of Clothes And Sexually Assaulted”—”The hunt is on for a group of men in Detroit who . . . attacked two couples while they were walking down the street, forcing the male victim to watch as his female companion is gang raped”); compare (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”) with (“Edward W. Brooke Is Dead”)

Hoods in Baltimore


5 06 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

The following comments by Jonathan Buttall appear elsewhere at this blog; however, they are sufficiently important that they are reprinted here.


In the summer of 1967 my father was victimized by race rioters. The nationwide race riots of 1967 and 1968 were a major historic event (a negative one, obviously) that destroyed parts of almost every major American city and killed over 100 people each. It seems that no media or historic source ever mentions this, it’s been covered up except by us older boomers that remember it.

In Newark, New Jersey, where it started, my father owned a meat market in the ghetto; all of these businesses were owned for many years by people in the suburbs and provided jobs for the people there. No locals started such businesses and for decades, this was considered perfectly safe and accepted.

When the riots occurred, however, my father was present while his store was looted by rioters. He had to stand there and watch. There was a gun behind his cash register, but of course if he used it, he would never have lived a minute longer. He went bankrupt and his business, along with every other business in every ghetto neighborhood in Newark and many other cities, was destroyed. Those jobs never came back nor did the neighborhoods. The population of Newark and Detroit dropped in half. The lessons were not learned as these events are not taught in history classes today.

I have some progressive political opinions but not about riots and looting. Our soldiers should not be used to take sides in other countries’ religious civil wars. They need to be home defending our cities from the real enemies; many of our own citizens.


10 06 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Disappointment In Obama Leads Some Blacks To Ask Whether Voting Is Worth It [UPDATED]

Obama, Brooke and Lincoln

This is the subject of a Washington Post article by Robert Samuels, which states:

During those two electric Novembers, the chance to elect a black president, and then keep him in office, seized Regenia Motley’s neighborhood.

Nightclubs were registering voters. Churches held fish fries after loading buses that ferried parishioners to the polls. A truck hoisted a big sign that said “Obama.” And residents waited in long lines at precincts across the community.

But as Motley and some friends sought shade recently under a mulberry tree and looked across the landscape of empty lots and abandoned houses that has persisted here, they wondered whether they would ever bother voting again.

“What was the point?” asked Motley, 23, a grocery store clerk. “We made history, but I don’t see change.”

On Jacksonville’s north side and in other struggling urban neighborhoods across the country, where Barack Obama mobilized large numbers of new African American voters who were inspired partly by the emotional draw of his biography, high hopes have turned to frustration: Even a black president was unable to heal places still gripped by violence, drugs and joblessness.

The dynamic, made prominent in recent months after unrest in Baltimore and Ferguson, Mo., sets up a stark challenge for Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner.

While supporting Obama became a cause for many here rather than a typical campaign, Clinton faces a higher bar in making a case that she, too, can be a transformative figure.

Her campaign is planning to build on the multiethnic coalition that turned out to support Obama. Running to be the first female president, Clinton will also try to generate Obama-like enthusiasm among new voters — those who were too young to turn out for Obama or have not previously been engaged with politics.

Yet as her allies prepare to register voters and expand the black electorate, her candidacy presents residents here with a question: If Obama’s presidency didn’t do more to help African Americans, then how could hers?

“She is focusing on exactly the right issues,” said the Rev. Lee Harris of Mount Olive Primitive Baptist Church on the north side. “But here in Jacksonville, the issues won’t be enough.”

Clinton has shown in recent weeks that she intends to put high-priority issues for African Americans, particularly those who live in impoverished urban areas, at the top of her campaign agenda.

In her first major policy speech, in April, amid the Baltimore protests that followed the death of Freddie Gray, Clinton lamented how the incarcerations of hundreds of thousands of black men affected communities. She vowed to “deliver real reforms that can be felt on our streets, in our courthouses, and our jails and prisons, in communities too long neglected.”

And last week, she called for universal voter registration, tapping into frustration among many minority advocates who say that Republican-backed voter-ID laws have served to squelch black and Hispanic voting.

Clinton’s early moves are designed to signal that she can speak out and act more boldly than Obama, who felt political pressure as a candidate to tread lightly around race issues. Her campaign officials say she has enlisted a number of African Americans in top positions and plans on finding local leaders in cities who will advocate for her.

Still, polls show a gap between the positive feelings black voters have for Clinton and those they hold for Obama.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week found that 75 percent of African Americans thought that Clinton understood the problems of “people like you,” as opposed to 91 percent who felt that way about Obama in a survey last fall.

“At least with Obama, he gave pride to our young men and was a good role model,” said Daniel “Happy Jack” Cobb Jr., 73, the owner of Happy Jack’s Grocery and Market on Jacksonville’s north side. “Hillary needs to prove to us that she’s genuine and really true. And I’m not even sure that would help. We’ve been snakebitten too many times before.”

Far from the palm-tree-lined, trendy corridors of this sprawling city in the northeast corner of Florida, some roads on the north side have no sidewalks. The major thoroughfares are home to Family Dollar stores and bail bondsmen and crab shacks that sit between large, fenced-in lots full of shaggy grass. In one area, contaminated soil from a trash incinerator put off plans for a redevelopment project.

Before 2008, many here felt singed by the contentious 2000 presidential election, when thousands of votes cast in the city’s black neighborhoods were among those nullified amid the legal battle that led to Republican George W. Bush’s narrow victory in the state.

Obama campaign aides studied the numbers and saw that tens of thousands of eligible black voters here had not turned out in 2004, when Republicans again won Florida. While Obama’s team knew that winning the majority in Duval County was unlikely — Bush won the county, whose seat is Jacksonville, by 61,000 votes in 2004 — strategists concluded that aggressively targeting black voters here could narrow the gap and boost statewide totals.

So the Obama team hit the north side hard. It signed up hundreds of volunteers, made thousands of phone calls and animated voters who had never before trusted the political process.

And there was so much swag. Residents kept buttons and door hangers as keepsakes — even squares of toilet paper with Obama’s face on them.

At the end of the 2008 campaign, Jacksonville was one of the last places Obama visited. When the voting was done, that 61,000-vote gap between the Democratic and Republican nominees in Duval County had been reduced to 8,000 — and Obama had won Florida.

“It became more about a personal duty to elect Obama than a civic duty to vote,” said Mone Holder, the northern Florida regional director for Florida New Majority, a liberal voting rights group. “There’s been a lot of talk in the state about how to transform that enthusiasm into a black and brown agenda. No one has fully figured it out yet.”

There was a newfound fascination with politics on the north side, a sense that black officials could be elected to jobs that were once unfathomable. The community that once felt disenfranchised had become a political force, making a statement to the country and to themselves.

That feeling carried over into 2011, when the city elected its first black mayor, Alvin Brown, who won with support from an energized black community as well as backing from whites and parts of the business establishment. Obama cinched Florida again in 2012, in part by once again mobilizing blacks and keeping the margins low in Duval County.

But now, as the Obama era draws to a close, that excitement has dimmed.

On the north side, gang violence and drug use have surged. In April, 33 Jacksonville residents were shot, including seven who were killed. A group of pastors held a news conference and declared the city a “war zone.”

For the friends who gathered recently to hang out in the shade of the mulberry tree, it will be hard to justify the effort of turning out and voting next year when so little has changed — and some things feel worse.

“We got the president his job,” Motley said. “But did he help us get any good jobs? I still need a raise.”

“It’s not his fault,” interrupted Louis Wilson, 65, a retired airport maintenance worker. “We did all the work to get him in, but when it came time to vote in people to support him, all the [black people] stayed home. That’s what happens when you don’t vote.”

The conversation became heated. Another said he’d love to vote but could not because of his felony conviction. Another complained that she couldn’t get a raise in eight years.

“We all struggling,” said another. One man became so uncomfortable, he removed his T-shirt, wrapped it around his head and walked away. The shirt read “Obama ’08.”

Last month, when Mayor Brown was up for reelection, pastors and voting advocates considered the race a test of whether Jacksonville’s black electorate remained politically engaged. Republicans rallied around a former state party chairman, Lenny Curry, as their candidate. GOP presidential hopefuls Marco Rubio and Rick Perry visited, and Jeb Bush made a video in support of Curry.

On the night of the election, after the pastor at St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church on the north side encouraged his flock to trust God’s plans, a group of young black parishioners reminisced about the wonders of the past two presidential elections. And they wondered about the next one.

“It’s not just because Obama was black, but it was because you knew he had a sense of empathy with your struggle,” said Sherrod Brown, a 26-year-old gospel singer. “The people of Jacksonville are fair. We’d vote for Hillary, but she has to prove she’s down.”

Simia Richardson, 31, a teacher, said she was unsure whom to support. “I’m all about [Clinton] being a woman, but it will be a problem for a lot of people,” she said. “And there are some other people who might be interesting. Ben Carson, he’s running.”

The mention of Carson, the famous black neurosurgeon running as a Republican, caused some to perk up.

“The ‘Gifted Hands’ dude?” asked James Sneed, 18, referring to Carson’s popular autobiography.

“Yeah, and he’s a Republican,” Richardson said. “And there’s another one who thinks he can get black votes. Rand Paul?”

Then Brown’s cellphone buzzed.

“Alvin Brown is going to lose the election,” he announced.

There was a pause. Richardson tried to reassure the group, but soon shook her head and expressed disbelief.

“I know, right?” Sherrod Brown replied. “Just when we thought things were about to change.”

Sneed, who remembered voting for the winning candidate in every major election since a mock vote for Obama in middle school, pulled out his phone to read the news. He encountered a word that was unfamiliar to his political life. He looked up and asked:

“What does concede mean?”

See (“Disappointment in Obama leads some African Americans to ask: Is voting even worth it?”) (emphasis added)

The answer, of course, is emphatically yes. All of us who are legally entitled to vote should do so, certainly when a candidate reflects our point of view.

First, realistically, politics is cruel. Dreams are given wings, and then deflated, often with an deafening thud. It is even crueler on the national level.

Second, those who have said that violence, drugs and joblessness have not been addressed—and are getting worse—are correct.

A war against the police is underway, fostered in large part by the hoods, thugs and criminals who have burned, looted and killed innocent people, destroyed their businesses, and engaged in hate crimes. When the police are gone, who will protect the elderly and inner-city blacks?

See, e.g., (“Rioting, Looting And Killing By Thugs And Hoods In American Cities”) and; see also (“CNN Poll: 57 Percent Say Confederate Flag Not Racist”—”Among African-Americans, . . . 72 percent said the flag is a sign of racism, but only 25 percent of the whites surveyed by CNN agreed. And in the South, the racial divide was even wider, with 75 percent of Southern whites saying the flag symbolizes pride and 18 percent saying it was a sign of racism. The figures were reversed among the Southern African-Americans polled, with 11 percent seeing it as a sign of pride and 75 percent as racism”)

Also, no businesses are going to hire the hoods and thugs; and illegal immigration is taking away other jobs that might have gone to blacks.

See (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple”)

Third, American blacks have come a very long way; however, there is little question that many are still at the very bottom of the American totem pole, while other newer arrivals (e.g., Hispanics or Latinos, Asians) keep rising up it.

Even blacks from the continent of Africa, or those who have grown up in the UK, often look down on many American blacks who are uneducated and hoods. This has been true for decades.

It is evident in cities like Washington, D.C. where educated foreign-born blacks attend Howard and other universities. Many are ashamed of what American blacks have become, more than 150 years after Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

Fourth, I voted against Barack Obama twice, in 2008 and 2012. And I have written many scathing articles and comments about him, at this blog and elsewhere. However, I believe he has tried to do his best. I do not agree with his approach regarding many if not most issues, but perhaps I have mellowed, because I like him.

However, it must be remembered that there is not one drop of black American blood in Barack Obama’s body. His father was born and raised in Africa, and his mother was white. Indeed, Barack Obama grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and never lived on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

The origins of his racist beliefs are described in great detail in his book, “Dreams from My Father”:

The transformation seems to have started when young “Barry” Obama returned to Hawaii from Indonesia, where he had been living with his mother and her second husband, to live with her parents and enroll at Honolulu’s elite, ethnically and culturally diverse Punahou School—where his sense that he “didn’t belong continued to grow.” He began hanging around and identifying with the few black Punahou students and other black teenagers “whose confusion and anger would help shape [his] own.”

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”)

Fifth, what is “American black culture” today?

The hoods, thugs and criminals who have burned, looted and killed innocent people, destroyed their businesses, and engaged in hate crimes? Those who have savaged our police? Those who have targeted defenseless elderly blacks, and instilled fear in them? The gangsta rappers?

Is there an American black culture today?

See, e.g., (“Edward W. Brooke Is Dead”) and (“Is Obama The New Nixon?”) and (“Barack Obama Is A Lame-Duck President Who Will Not Be Reelected”) and (“Are Afghanistan, Iraq And Pakistan Hopeless, And Is The Spread Of Radical Islam Inevitable, And Is Barack Obama Finished As America’s President?”) and—is-barack-obama-smoking-pot-again/ (“The Speech—Is Barack Obama Smoking Pot Again?”) and (“The End Of Barack Obama”) and’s-second-emperor/ (“Barack Obama: America’s Second Emperor?”) and (“Obama In Afghanistan: Doomed From The Start?” and (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”); see also (“Poverty In America”) and (“Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database”) and (“More black babies aborted than born in New York City”)

Barack Obama is not Edward W. Brooke, nor is he Abraham Lincoln . . .

Obama became a “transformative” or revolutionary president, which is not what the majority of Americans wanted. Perhaps because he was born and raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, his perspective is not that of most Americans . . . even blacks.

See (“Obama’s Tragic Legacy for Black Americans“); see also (“Black Lives Matter” protesters burn American flag outside GOP debate) and (“Tavis Smiley: On Every Leading Economic Issue Black Americans Have Lost Ground Under Obama”) and (St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and New Orleans named on list of 50 most violent cities in the world)



11 07 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

The Thought Police Are At It Again

Confederate Flag

The Wall Street Journal has published an article entitled, “The Right Way to Remember the Confederacy,” which is not worth reading but it is nevertheless mentioned here.


There is NO right or wrong way to remember the Confederacy—which is why the Journal article is so absurd and should not have been published.

It is another example of the Putinesque “thought police” trying to dictate to Americans how to think about racism, global warming and a whole host of other issues.

See, e.g., (“Putin Meets Economic Collapse With Purges, Broken Promises“) and (“The Global Warming Hoax, And The Great Green Con, Revisited“) and (“The Global Green Energy Fad“)

The so-called “progressives”—which they are not—or far-Left Democrats want to shove their beliefs down our throats, which is not working and is falling on deaf ears. More importantly, it is apt to be remembered and reflected in next year’s election results.

Their efforts are the fulfillment of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” where all of the animals were equal until the pigs reigned supreme.

See (“Animal Farm“)

My first paternal ancestor arrived here from Rottweil, Germany in 1849; and 11 years later, he began serving with the Union Army. I never thought that I would be defending the Confederacy, much less its flag.

However, the Confederacy should be remembered, and its flags should fly proudly—because this is a right that every American has. Indeed, lots of us who have never put up a Confederate flag may do so now.

See (“Confederate Flag Treated Like Fallen Hero“) and (“Confederate flag supporters rise up to defend embattled symbol“)

The Leftists and their politicians are trying to mask the fact, and deflect attention from the fact that Hispanics are not rioting. Asians are not rioting. Jews are not rioting. Only the blacks are rioting . . . and then only a small portion of them: the hoods, thugs and criminals who also target elderly and inner-city blacks—and our police.

Racial tensions, hostility and outright hatred exist in America today, in the faces and actions of such hoods, thugs and criminals; and it is creating a reaction of equal or greater magnitude on the part of other Americans.

See, e.g., (“Disappointment In Obama Leads Some Blacks To Ask Whether Voting Is Worth It“) and (“Rioting, Looting And Killing By Thugs And Hoods In American Cities“)



4 08 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Will Barack And Michelle Divorce? [UPDATED]

Michelle's anger

There have been rumors for years that the marriage of Barack and Michelle Obama was on the ropes. The latest come in the following article:

President Barack Obama’s wedding ring was “noticeably missing” from his left hand on Sunday, according to a White House pool report.

Obama, who was at Camp David in Maryland on Sunday, arrived back at the White House and was photographed by the Associated Press without a ring on his hand. He was playing golf earlier in the day to celebrate his birthday, which comes this Tuesday.

Obama’s ring, however, was off his finger long before he stepped on the course. He was photographed on Friday signing highway funding legislation and was not wearing his ring.

This is not the first time this year that Obama has decided to shed his ring. Last March, he spent nearly an entire week with no ring on his left hand.

Meanwhile, first lady Michelle Obama has spent much of her summer away from the White House. She took her daughters on a trip to Europe in June, and she spent last week in Palm Springs. She was in California to attend the Special Olympics, but made an excursion out to the Coachella Valley and appears to have stayed at the Rancho Mirage, where she and her husband have stayed together in the past.

When President Obama traveled to Palm Springs earlier in the summer, he was not joined by Michelle and the rest of the family.

Daughter Malia Obama has also been away from the White House, living in New York City as an intern for Lena Dunham’s HBO show Girls.

See (“Barack Obama Didn’t Wear His Wedding Ring this Weekend“) (emphasis added); see also (“Is the Obama marriage on the rocks? Astonishing claims emerge of ugly fights over that selfie, and even a Presidential affair“) and (“Clinton Fatigue“) and (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History“) (see also the comments beneath the article) and (“Divorces“)

Like Bill and Hillary Clinton, JFK and Jackie Kennedy, LBJ and Lady Bird Johnson, FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt, perhaps they will reach an “accommodation” and never divorce.

In his book, “Dreams from My Father,” Mr. Obama was very “discreet” about discussing his relationships “pre-Michelle.” He may choose to continue that approach, even after leaving the White House.

One thing is clear, “Aunt Jemima” Moochie is a very nasty racist, which may be the tie that binds the two of them together.

See also (“How Michelle Obama refused to invite Hillary and Bill Clinton to dinner, wanted Joe Biden to run and can’t wait to leave the White House to make money on book deals and speaking fees”—”‘The 2008 presidential campaign left deep and lasting scars on both the Clinton and the Obama camps, and they are still shockingly fresh'”—”Michelle is very close to Jill Biden and Vice President Joe Biden. She was hoping that Biden would run against Hillary for the Democratic nomination and his win would take away the sweet taste of victory once again for Hillary”)



22 08 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Heroes . . . And Three Friends

Three friends

This photo shows three American childhood friends who attended the same Christian high school in California, and who were touring Europe when they stopped a Kalashnikov-wielding terrorist on a train, and instantly became global heroes.

They are, left to right: Oregon National Guard member Alek Skarlatos from Roseburg, Oregon, who had been deployed in Afghanistan; U.S. Air Force Airman First Class Spencer Stone (standing) of Carmichael, California; and Anthony Sadler, a senior at Sacramento State University in California.

Their heroics are described in numerous articles, too many to cite. However, two in the UK’s Daily Mail stand out, which should be read and the videos viewed. An emotional video interview with Sadler’s father, a Baptist pastor, in the second Daily Mail article is especially worth watching.

See (“A humble wave from a hero: Wounded US airman who took down AK47-wielding terrorist on French train, then treated others before tending to his own stab wounds emerges from hospital with a smile“) and (“‘Let’s go!’ How hero American airman charged Kalashnikov-wielding terrorist on French train, tackled him and beat him unconscious with the help of his comrade in arms and a friend”); see also–france-train_attack-5be2fb37d9.html (“3 Americans praised for subduing gunman on European train“) and (“[President] Obama spoke with the three Americans and expressed his gratitude”) and (“Three Americans and a British grandfather who tackled Paris train terrorist are awarded France’s highest honour for bravery for preventing ‘carnage’ – as first hero passenger is revealed to be a U.S. professor [Mark Moogalian]“)


14 01 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama: A Failed American Presidency [UPDATED]


The UK’s Economist has an editorial entitled, “A voice in the wilderness,” about Obama:

TO HEAR most of the contenders for this year’s presidential election tell it, America is in a horrible state. Republicans both mainstream and whacko, from Jeb Bush to Donald Trump, describe a country enfeebled militarily, ailing economically and culturally corrupted by seven years of Democratic rule; on the left, Bernie Sanders describes an economy rigged against ordinary Americans. In his last state-of-the-union message to Congress on January 12th, Barack Obama delivered a rebuke to that miserabilism—and to the ugly nativism it is fuelling among voters.

During his first presidential campaign, Mr Obama promised Americans a lot of change they would like. In what is likely to be his last major speech before the process of electing his successor begins in Iowa on February 1st, he talked more of the historic change globalisation is making, to the workplace, pay packets and complexion of American society, in turn creating much of the anxiety and resentment his would-be successors are pandering to. “It’s change that promises amazing medical breakthroughs, but also economic disruptions that strain working families,” he said. “It promises education for girls in the most remote villages, but also connects terrorists plotting an ocean away.”

It is not certain that America will master the turbulence. “Progress is not inevitable,” he warned, disabusing those conservative critics who accuse him of holding a Pollyanna-ish view of history. “It’s the result of choices we make together. And we face such choices right now. Will we respond to the changes of our time with fear, turning inward as a nation . . . ? Or will we face the future with confidence in who we are, in what we stand for?”

This was genre-busting stuff. The annual presidential address to Congress is traditionally a wishlist of legislative business for the coming year, with, in the final year of a presidency, an additional trumpeting of the incumbent’s record. Mr Obama’s speech contained some of that. He exhorted Congress to approve the recently concluded Pacific trade agreement, pass legislation to authorise the ongoing American operations in Syria and Iraq and work on criminal-justice reform, one of the few remaining causes that has bipartisan support. He also noted many of his achievements; in presiding over impressive job creation, health-care reform and America’s first national effort at mitigating carbon emissions, for example. Yet the main thrust of his speech was in a way more audacious: an effort to stake out, ahead of Iowa, the ground for legitimate debate in a civilised society.

America has not, Mr Obama ventured to suggest, gone to the dogs. Its economy is the envy of the world. Its armed forces are unrivalled. So is its global leadership. “When it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead—they call us.” On that basis alone, anyone promising extreme solutions to America’s problems should be mistrusted. And where they threaten the principles of fairness and rule of law, the basis of America’s strength, they must be disdained. “We need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion,” said Mr Obama, in a nod to Mr Trump’s promise of mass deportations and a blockade of Muslims. “This isn’t a matter of political correctness. It’s a matter of understanding just what it is that makes us strong.”

The job of politics is to settle finer debates, about the role of the state in apportioning wealth (“The American people have a choice to make”) and the exercise of America’s undimmed power. It was in this didactic spirit that Mr Obama defended his record. On the state, he argued that it was reasonable to worry about overburdening business with regulation, but illogical to reduce welfare payments, as most Republicans want, at a time of wage stagnation and rising insecurity for millions of workers. On national security, he protested, in a tacit response to his many critics, that escalating the wars in which America is already embroiled will not make it safer; “That’s not leadership; that’s a recipe for quagmire. . . . It’s the lesson of Vietnam; it’s the lesson of Iraq.”

This was vintage Obama, disdainful of the tribal emotions that have subsumed American politics, cerebral, unrelentingly reasonable. No doubt, it reminded many of his critics, who represent around half of Americans, why they abhor him. Mr Obama said the one big regret of his presidency was that partisan divisions had got worse during the course of it; but America is in no mood for healing. Sitting behind Mr Obama, Paul Ryan, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, wore the impassive expression of a man who dared show no flicker of approval for a president his party despises—even when Mr Obama denounced the business-throttling red tape it should hate even more. When Mr Obama claimed that America was not enfeebled militarily, many Republican congressmen emitted a scandalised gasp. Yet mainstream Republicans candidates such as Chris Christie and Mr Bush, none of whom has denounced Mr Trump’s vile politics half as effectively as Mr Obama, must quietly hope Republican voters imbibe his moral lesson, and reject the rabble-rousers. While he himself must pray that Democratic voters, 30-40% of whom are currently tempted to vote for Mr Sanders, will instead rally to Hillary Clinton who, because more electable, is much likelier to protect his legacy.

That, in turn, points to Mr Obama’s weakness, the other political context in which he spoke. The president’s decision not to recite the customary legislative to-do list—as notable by its absence as the victims of gun violence symbolised by a seat left empty next to Michelle Obama—was partly enforced. After a burst of bipartisan co-operation last year, including the overdue passage of a federal budget, he can expect little additional help from Congress. Whatever extra measures he hopes to burnish his record with, for example, to equalise pay between the sexes or increase the modicum of gun control he attempted this month, will probably have to be enacted by executive decree.

Wite-Out and the White House

So were many of his existing achievements, including changes to how laws on immigration are enforced. Although Mr Obama has not used his presidential powers half as profligately as his critics claim—his immediate predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, both issued many more orders—his inability to get much legislation passed since the Democrats lost control of the House in 2010 has made his record unusually dependent on them. And given that most Republicans candidates vow to erase many of those orders, his legacy is one bad election result away from looking rather thin.

In his peroration, Mr Obama alluded to that frailty. In the absence of much enthusiasm for electoral reform in Congress, he promised to “travel the country” making his case for it. That desirable change, which he himself once promised to bring about, “will only happen when the American people demand it”, he concluded. As so often, he is right and admirable in his diagnosis. Still, it is hard not to be dismayed by the image he left hanging in the divided House, of the president, once the change politician, reduced to wandering America like a mendicant preacher, appealing forlornly to its better nature.

See (emphasis added); see also (“The state of the presidency: spent”—”[Obama has given] us the most divisive, partisan, tendentious presidency since Nixon”—”After two terms, presidents are spent. Nothing shows it like a State of the Union valedictory repeating the hollow promises of the yesteryear candidate — as if the intervening presidency had never occurred”)

A majority of Americans tuned out Barack Obama long ago, which was predictable—certainly if anyone had bothered to read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which set out his core beliefs in his own words.


He grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and never lived on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles. He is out of step with mainstream American beliefs; and it was inevitable that at some point, the tide were turn decisively against him.

The greatest tragedy is that he has set back race relations in the United States by years if not decades. He has been a divider, not a healer.

With respect to his major policy “accomplishments”—such as Obamacare, limited gun control, the Paris “global warming” accords—they can and probably will be undone by executive orders on Day One when the next American president takes office less than a year from now.

Obama may go down as the worst president in American history, even eclipsing Jimmy Carter, which is a remarkable feat unto itself.

In sum, history may record that Obama became a “transformative” or revolutionary president, which is not what the majority of Americans wanted. Perhaps because he was not raised on the U.S. mainland, his perspective is not that of most Americans . . . even blacks.

With the global economy imploding, and Obama being an impediment to any of the U.S. growth that has taken place, his place in American economic history may rank next to or below that of Herbert Hoover.

Obama is like a minstrel wandering the land, with respect to whom no one will listen.

See, e.g., (“Helter Skelter Is Arriving With A Thud, Sell Everything“) and (“A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming“) and (“Abortions And Autos Kill More In America Than Guns“)


7 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Painful Twilight Of Barack Obama’s Presidency [UPDATED]


This is the title of an article in the UK’s Financial Times, which states:

Call it the curse of high expectations. When Barack Obama took office, the world swooned, America exhaled and pundits declared an end to centuries of racial division. Gazing at the 1.5m people who braved the cold to witness Mr Obama’s inauguration, Steven Spielberg said it would have been impossible to stage for a movie. That was then. Today America’s first non-white president is winding down at the nation’s tensest moment of racial polarisation in decades. Thanks to Donald Trump, the Ku Klux Klan is back in the headlines. I doubt Mr Trump will succeed Mr Obama as president but he has injected poison into the bloodstream. For all Mr Obama’s hopes, fear is the dominant currency.

Much like the end-of-history declarations in the 1990s, America’s racial history did not end with Mr Obama’s election. It simply opened a new chapter. Nations, it seems, suffer from similar disorders to humans — what happens in their formative years shapes their character for evermore. Just as India sees foreign investors as potential colonisers, and Britain confuses Brussels with the papacy, so the US is enchained to its original sin of slavery. Half a millennium after the first Africans were shipped across the Atlantic, the US still has one foot in its past.

Do not take my word for it. Listen to Mr Trump’s supporters. According to exit polls in South Carolina, which Mr Trump won handily last month, a fifth of those who voted for him thought that Abraham Lincoln was wrong to emancipate slaves. Just over a third wished the south had won the civil war. Ted Cruz, who looks like Mr Trump’s only viable rival, had similar numbers. Seventy per cent wished that the Confederate flag was still flying above the state’s capitol building. It was removed last year following the massacre of nine black churchgoers by a self-declared confederate. “The past is never dead,” said William Faulkner. “It is not even past.”

The weight of history is borne out by today’s voting patterns. In 2008, more than nine out of 10 African-Americans voted for Mr Obama both in the primary race against Hillary Clinton and in the general election against John McCain, the Republican nominee. Last month more than 80 per cent chose Mrs Clinton over Bernie Sanders in South Carolina — not because Mr Sanders is considered suspect but because they backed the candidate most likely to win the presidency. Martin Luther King said that Sunday morning church was the most segregated hour in America. Nowadays it is the polling booths. Black voting in the south is an almost exact mirror of that of whites, who vote Republican by similar margins. Though a minority of Mr Trump’s supporters are racist — and he may simply be posturing out of expediency — the dangers are very real.

What can Mr Obama do about it? Nine years ago he launched his campaign from the same steps in Springfield, Illinois, where Lincoln rose to prominence. He quoted the former president: “A house divided cannot stand.” Mr Obama would usher in a new politics that transcended the gulf between red states and blue states. The subtext was that by electing an African-American, the US would also bridge a more ancient divide. The promise of both have been belied by Mr Trump’s rise. In fact, the latter’s popularity is icing on a cake that was already baked. Not since the era following the civil war has American politics been so gridlocked. Republicans have said they will not even meet whomever Mr Obama nominates for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death last month of Antonin Scalia — let alone hold hearings.

Mr Obama’s biggest weapon is the power to help Mrs Clinton succeed him by ensuring a high turnout on November 8. Should Mr Trump be the Republican nominee, or indeed Mr Cruz, they would need as much as 70 per cent of the white male vote to win, according to Politico. That may prove impossible. The share of white male votes for Mitt Romney in 2012 was 62 per cent. It is hard to believe Mr Trump could improve on that. It is likelier to fall.

Moreover, a Trump nomination could spark a civil war inside the Republican party. Last week Mr Romney made it clear he would try to bend party convention rules to deny the crown to Mr Trump. If he failed, there could be a third party bid by a “true conservative”. Michael Gerson, former speechwriter to George W Bush, last week suggested that could be Condoleezza Rice. Others think it could be Mr Romney. Whoever it is would be immaterial: by splitting the vote it would all but hand the White House to Mrs Clinton.

But would her victory be Pyrrhic? That will depend mostly on Republican leaders. Last week Mr Romney said Mr Trump represented “a brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss”. He was right. However, it is an anger that his party has quietly stoked since the civil rights era. Mr McCain echoed Mr Romney’s views yet he took no responsibility for having chosen Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008. Ms Palin endorsed Mr Trump in January. She did as much as anyone to breed resentment against Mr Obama’s “hopey, changey stuff”.

For decades, key Republican strategists have used a dog-whistle to play on racial fears. It should come as no surprise that someone like Mr Trump would one day swap it for a megaphone.


At a minimum, what this article misses are that (1) Barack Obama is a racist; (2) he did not grow up on the U.S. mainland, and hence he is out of step with traditional American values; (3) government does not work, and Americans are angry and saying enough is enough; and (4) Hillary Clinton may be indicted, which will mean “game over” for her presidential aspirations once again.

If anyone has any doubts whatsoever that he is a racist, they should read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which sets forth his racist beliefs in great detail and with specificity. It is all there, in his own words.


He grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and did not live on the U.S. mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles. Hence, his background and beliefs are at odds with those of most Americans.

Also, for all intents and purposes, he was raised by his white mother’s parents. Indeed, his black Kenyan father loved him so much that the father spent only one month of his life with young Barry when he was 10 years old, and effectively abandoned him the rest of the time.

In the book, Obama writes about his anger:

It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself. . . . Now, . . . that image had suddenly vanished. Replaced by . . . what? A bitter drunk? An abusive husband? A defeated, lonely bureaucrat? To think that all my life I had been wrestling with nothing more than a ghost! . . . Whatever I do, it seems, I won’t do much worse than he did.

The Financial Times author’s predictions about Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and the future of American politics may be worth exactly what the reader has paid for them: nothing.

See (“Imagine Sweet Justice“) and (“GOP Establishment Neanderthals’ Panic, Suicide“) and (“A New Republican Party Under President Trump“) and (“Donald Trump’s Odds Against Hillary Clinton“) and (“MITT ROMNEY: NO CLASS!“) and (“Clinton Fatigue“)

In summary, there is nothing painful about the end of the Obama presidency. Indeed, most Americans are counting the days until he and Moochie are gone from the White House.

In most respects, his presidency has failed; and this seems to be the consensus of black and white Americans alike.

See, e.g., (“Disappointment In Obama Leads Some Blacks To Ask Whether Voting Is Worth It”) and (“Barack Obama: A Failed American Presidency“) and (“The Obama Great Depression“) and (“‘Black Lives Matter’ Thugs In Chicago”)


12 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

“Black Lives Matter” Thugs In Chicago [UPDATED]

A legitimate campaign rally in Chicago for Donald Trump was just disrupted by “Black Lives Matter” and other thugs, who should be arrested and imprisoned. They are the inheritors of other violent black movements throughout American history. Indeed, our cities have been burned by them.

See, e.g., (“Rioting, Looting And Killing By Thugs And Hoods In American Cities“) and (“Disappointment In Obama Leads Some Blacks To Ask Whether Voting Is Worth It“) and (“The Painful Twilight Of Barack Obama’s Presidency“)

A war against the police is underway, fostered in large part by the hoods, thugs and criminals who have burned, looted and killed innocent people, destroyed their businesses, and engaged in hate crimes. When the police are gone, who will protect the elderly and inner-city blacks?

Today, these ugly “protestors” intended to stop a scheduled presidential political rally, and shut down free speech. It is not the fault of the Trump campaign, but CNN and other far-Left media outlets have predictably blamed Trump.

These thugs should not have been allowed within miles of the event venue. They are the very worst of America. Their lives do not matter!

They are an outgrowth of Barack Obama’s racism, in the city where his racism was so evident. If you have any doubts whatsoever, please read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which sets forth his core racist beliefs in his own words.

See; see also (“TERRORIST BILL AYERS PROTESTS DONALD TRUMP IN CHICAGO”—”Obama buddy and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers was seen protesting Donald Trump in Chicago”—”Bill Ayers, a former leader of the Weather Underground, participated in bombings of the New York City police headquarters in 1970. Barack Obama started his political career in Bill Ayers’ living room”) and (“Black Lives Matter UK says climate change is racist“)

Groups like “Black Lives Matter” and MoveOn.Org must be banned from America.


12 03 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Security Scare At Trump Rally

Security scare

Yesterday, hoods and thugs from despicable groups like “Black Lives Matter” and MoveOn.Org—and outright terrorists like Bill Ayers—stopped a rally for Donald Trump in Chicago.

Ayers is a former leader of the Weather Underground, who participated in the bombings of the New York City police headquarters in 1970, and in whose living room Barack Obama started his political career.

They must be arrested; and such groups must be banned from America.

See (“‘Black Lives Matter’ Thugs In Chicago”)

Today, there was a security scare at another Trump rally at the Dayton, Ohio airport where Trump was speaking. In the video below, you will see Secret Service agents rushing to Trump’s protection.

See (“Secret Service Rushes Stage to Protect Donald Trump at Ohio Rally“) and (“Security jumps stage at Donald Trump event“)


22 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele


Obama in Kenya

This is the headline from today’s Drudge Report, which reflects a series of articles worldwide, based on the comments of London’s Mayor Boris Johnson as Barack Obama visits the city. For example, the UK’s Independent has reported:

Boris Johnson has criticised the US president Barack Obama and suggested his attitude to Britain might be based on his “part-Kenyan” heritage and “ancestral dislike of the British empire”.

Writing a column for The Sun newspaper the outgoing Mayor of London recounted a story about a bust of Winston Churchill purportedly being removed from White House.

“Some said it was a snub to Britain. Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire – of which Churchill had been such a fervent defender,” he wrote.

The White House said in 2012 that the story of the bust being moved was “100 per cent false” and that the bust remained in the White House, having been moved to the President’s private residence.

It was however later forced to clarify that the Churchill bust still located in the President’s residence was in fact a different bust, and that one had indeed been removed.

The Mayor said that the US would never dream of engaging in an arragement similar to the EU.

“It is deeply anti-democratic – and much as I admire the United States, and much as I respect the President, I believe he must admit that his country would not dream of embroiling itself in anything of the kind,” he said.

Conservative MP Nicholas Soames, who is the grandson of the late Sir Winston Churchill, was not impressed by the comment piece.

“Appalling article by Boris Johnson in [The] Sun, totally wrong on almost everything,” he said.

Labour’s shadow chancellor John McDonnell called on Mr Johnson to withdraw the comment.

“Mask slips again. Boris part-Kenyan Obama comment is yet another example of dog whistle racism from senior Tories. He should withdraw it,” he said.

Mr Johnson’s column comes on the day Mr Obama visits Britain to encourage the UK to stay in the [EU] bloc.

The US president is expected to tell a town-hall style meeting that the EU helps the UK achieve greater opportunity and prosperity.

His intervention has receive push-back from some eurosceptics, however. Jacob Rees-Mogg, a prominent Tory backbencher, said last week that parts of the Obama administration were “not friends of the United Kingdom”.

A YouGov poll for the right-wing CapX website found most of the British public – 51 per cent – attribute Mr Obama’s intervention to him believing it will be easier to deal with Europe as a single bloc.

24 per cent believe Mr Obama thinks Britain staying in the EU is in the interests of global security, while 14 per cent believe the president is making the call as a favour to David Cameron.

Just 4 per cent believed Mr Obama cared about Britain’s prosperity and believed it was better off in the EU.

The Mayor of London is currently the favourite to succeed David Cameron as Prime Minister.

See (“Boris Johnson suggests ‘part-Kenyan’ Obama may have ‘ancestral dislike’ of UK“) (emphasis added); see also (“Boris Johnson: UK and America can be better friends than ever Mr Obama… if we LEAVE the EU“) and (“Barack Obama is right: Britain could lead Europe if it wanted to“) and (“The EU And Brexit“)

To determine the truth of Barack Obama’s racist and anti-British beliefs, one must read (or reread) his “Dreams from My Father,” which is summarized in my article above.

It was the first article of this blog; and it includes quotes from and cites to the Obama book itself. If you have not read the book or my article, please do so.

The book is shocking, to say the least. Yet it provides a roadmap with respect to the president’s core beliefs and how he has been governing, and his views of the world.

Historians will pour over his presidency for decades to come; and the starting point must be his core beliefs and what shaped him.



23 04 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Twilight Of The Failed Obama Presidency: His Farewell Tour [UPDATED]


First, the Saudis did not meet him when he landed in Riyadh, after the same thing happened when he landed in Havana.

Now, the Brits and the Germans are saying: “Go Home!” The problem, of course, is that Americans are counting the days until he leaves office and his failed presidency ends.

It cannot happen fast enough, for most of us.

In an article entitled, “Obama’s amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the ‘back of the queue’ after Brexit,” the UK’s Express has reported:

The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels.

But his threat provoked outrage and scorn from pro-Brexit campaigners, who dismissed it as yet another scaremongering ploy from the pro-EU lobby.

Mr Obama, who will no longer be in office when decisions on a trade deal are made, delivered a lecture to the British people on why he thinks it is in the UK’s, America’s and the world’s best interests for Britain to vote to stay in the EU on June 23.

He weighed into the debate despite being warned by a host of anti-EU campaigners to “butt out” of our referendum battle.

He said there could be a US-UK trade agreement “down the line” but warned: “It’s not going to happen any time soon, because our focus is on negotiating with a big bloc, the EU. The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.”

The claim, made during a joint news conference with David Cameron, angered Leave campaigners.

Tory Justice Minister Dominic Raab said Mr Obama had made “a pretty cynical intervention”.

He added: “We’ve got a lame duck president doing an old friend a favour for purely political reasons – and taking a few unnecessary risks, being a bit irresponsible with the special relationship between our two countries.

“You can’t say on the one hand that the relationship is essential and always will be, then say that if you don’t take my advice you’ll be at the back of the queue for a free trade deal. I don’t think the British people will be blackmailed by anyone but he’s entitled to give his view.

“What is good for US politicians is not necessarily good for the British people. The US would not dream of opening its border with Mexico, so it is hypocritical for President Obama to insist that we do the same with Europe.”

Richard Tice, co-founder of the Leave.EU campaign, said the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal between the US and the 28-member EU was not good for Britain.

“We don’t have a trade deal with the US now because we’re members of the EU,” he said.

“The proposed TTIP deal would be disastrous for British workers. Obama doesn’t have the authority to deny us a deal, as he will be long gone before any such proposals are on the table.”

Matthew Elliott, Vote Leave chief executive, said: “Barack Obama won’t be president when we vote to leave so we should take his comments with a large pinch of salt. Of course the US would want to do a deal with its friends in the UK.”

Before the news conference Ukip leader Nigel Farage said Mr Obama had no understanding of the EU and was talking “utter baloney”.

Citing George Bush getting Britain into the Iraq war, and America’s call, resisted by Harold Wilson, to join forces in Vietnam, Mr Farage added: “I would rather he (Obama) butted out.

After all, the history of American foreign policy advice is not good, is it? We can take advice from the Americans on lots of things, but in terms of foreign policy they are rarely right.”

Mr Farage said he hoped all world leaders and global corporations would argue for Britain to stay in the EU because then he could tell voters: “It’s us against the entire political establishment. The more they club together, the better our chances are of winning.”

Pro-Brexit Tory MP Boris Johnson said Mr Obama was being “downright hypocritical” because he “would not dream” of involving America in an organisation like the EU and surrendering so much control over its own affairs. During the news conference Mr Obama stressed it was the British people’s decision whether to leave the EU.

But he said he believed it was right to make the case that Britain, and therefore its close ally America, was stronger, safer and more prosperous when the UK was a strong member of a stable EU.

He said the US and UK might well have a special relationship but it was inefficient to try to do piecemeal trade deals rather than devoting the effort involved to a deal with a big market of many countries.

He acknowledged the US had different relationships with its neighbours. But he added: “If I had access to a massive market where I sell 44 per cent of my exports and I’m thinking about leaving the organisation that gives me access to that market… that’s not something I would probably do.”

EU membership also gave Washington a trusted partner in Europe on issues such as terrorism, he said. “The US wants a strong United Kingdom as a partner and the UK is at its best when it is helping to lead a strong Europe. I don’t believe the EU moderates British influence in the world, it magnifies it, makes you guys bigger players.”

Mr Cameron also stressed that the referendum was “the sovereign choice of the British people” but said it made sense “to listen to what our friends think”.

Meanwhile, Leave campaigners highlighted the US embassy’s longstanding refusal to pay the congestion charge for driving in central London. Mr Elliott said: “The US zealously defends its sovereignty, even to the point of refusing to pay the congestion charge, yet the US President thinks the UK should hand more power over our affairs to Brussels and EU judges.”

Ukip trade spokesman the Earl of Dartmouth said a US customs official had confirmed by email that the UK was not too small to do a trade deal with the US.

“A deal is in both countries’ interests and President Obama’s comments strike me as pre-scripted political point scoring rather than a statement of fact,” he said.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Why should we take advice from a president who has surrendered the world to chaos?”—”Did Mr Obama have any sense at all that what he was now urging the British electorate to accept was precisely the surrender of those sacred principles of democratically accountable government and self-determination for which the combined American and British forces had made their ultimate sacrifice?”—”The withdrawal of the US from world leadership – from being what Mr Obama’s people refer to disparagingly as ‘the world’s policeman’ – has been one of the most dramatic developments on the international stage of the past eight years”—”[T]he Obama isolationist doctrine was there from the start: deliberate and consciously chosen”—”In the Middle East, Obama’s White House scarcely shows any interest now that it is no longer dependent on the region for oil. It can only be roused to do what is minimally required to keep Americans safe from Isil terrorism”—”The abandonment of border checks inside the EU, combined with the unilateral decision by Germany to encourage mass entry, created a living hell in which organised people-trafficking on an industrial scale became a fixture of life”) and (“LONDON MAYOR RIPS KENYAN OBAMA: ANCESTRAL DISLIKE OF BRIT EMPIRE“) and (“Boris Johnson rages at ‘ridiculous and weird’ Obama”) and (“Trump Is Right Again: Screw The Saudis Who Gave Us 9/11!“) and (“Obama Releases More Gitmo Terrorists“) and (“Ronald Kessler: Hillary Indictment On Way, But Obama Could Pardon Her“)

Barack Obama’s presidency has spawned great anger in America.

It is reflected in the super-energized campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders; and in the efforts to have Hillary Clinton indicted and imprisoned.

And it is just beginning!

See, e.g., (“The Obama Great Depression“)


27 05 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Failed Obama Presidency: His Shameful Apology Tour Visits Hiroshima [UPDATED]


Barack Obama is on his shameful “apology tour”—which undergirds his failed presidency—and the latest stop is Hiroshima, Japan.

Instead of mourning the Japanese, he should be mourning the lives of Americans and our allies who suffered because of unfathomable Japanese cruelty and atrocities.

The Wall Street Journal has reported:

President Barack Obama mourned the victims of the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan at the memorial honoring those who died in the Aug. 6, 1945, attack on Hiroshima, a solemn visit that was the first to this city by a sitting U.S. leader.

After laying a wreath at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, Mr. Obama reflected on the day “death fell from the sky” and how America’s decision during World War II ended the conflict but also forever changed the world.

“We stand here in the middle of this city and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell,” Mr. Obama said Friday, standing alongside Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

“We remember all the innocents killed across the arc of that terrible war,” he said. “We have a shared responsibility to look directly in the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.”

The visit was delicate for Mr. Obama to navigate. He used the platform it provided to call for diplomacy instead of war and the elimination of nuclear weapons, though he has conceded his nonproliferation efforts have made only modest progress during his two terms in office. During that time, he has struggled to end two wars and entered new conflicts.

The president sought to offer condolences to the victims of the bombing while avoiding an apology. He chose not to meet privately with survivors of the Hiroshima attack. Instead, after his speech, he walked over to greet two survivors who had been seated in the audience. Mr. Obama briefly spoke with each of them and held their hands.

One of them was Shigeaki Mori, 79 years old, who created a memorial for U.S. prisoners of war killed in Hiroshima. Mr. Obama hugged Mr. Mori as the two spoke.

Mr. Mori said in an interview that he told the president, “The 12 American soldiers must be looking down from heaven and feeling very happy,” referring to the POWs.

“The president’s hand was very warm. It’s like a dream come true. I suffered so much, so today was the best day that was given by America,” Mr. Mori said.

Another survivor, Sunao Tsuboi, 91, said he told the president that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a tragedy for humanity. “I told him that it was us human beings that did that. It’s not all good things we do, we made nuclear weapons—so I said I won’t blame America.”

Mr. Tsuboi said he urged the president to make repeat visits to Hiroshima and spend more time listening to people’s stories. “I said we must overcome our sad past,” he said.

A survivor of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki who attended the event, 84-year-old Terumi Tanaka, praised the president’s speech as moving but said it lacked specifics on how to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama was in Hiroshima for about 90 minutes. He took a helicopter into the city from a nearby U.S. Marine Corps Air Station and went briefly inside a museum about the bombing without touring it. After his remarks, he walked through part of the peace park before departing.

At the museum, Mr. Obama wrote a message in the guest book: “We have known the agony of war. Let us now find the courage, together, to spread peace and pursue a world without nuclear weapons.”

Mr. Abe also spoke, saying it took courage for Mr. Obama to visit Hiroshima.

“Even today there are victims who are suffering unbearably,” he said. “This tragedy must not be repeated again.”

The first atomic bomb on Aug. 6, 1945, caused the deaths of about 140,000 people in Hiroshima by the end of that year, according to figures released by the city. More than 70,000 people were killed in Nagasaki when the second atomic bomb was dropped there three days later.

Japan’s National Police Agency said 5,600 police were deployed to Hiroshima for Mr. Obama’s visit. Local law enforcement asked residents not to drive during the event because of possible congestion from traffic controls.

Once the president left, a cheerful mood returned to the streets and crowds lined up to take photos of the wreaths the U.S. and Japanese leaders laid. At one point the crush was so great that police had to rush in to restore order.

By evening, people were strolling along the river that runs between the Peace Memorial Park and the Atomic Bomb Dome, a prewar building that partially survived the bombing and is now a memorial. They tried to soak up the atmosphere of the historic event.

Katsuki Tachino, 50, a supermarket employee, said he waited from noon to evening unsuccessfully trying to catch a glimpse of Mr. Obama.

“I wanted to greet him with applause,” Mr. Katsuki said. “But he made a precedent, and that’s amazing. It could pave the way for the next [president] to come.”

Bomb victims said they weren’t bothered by the lack of an apology.

“It’s far too late to be asking Mr. Obama for an apology. If there was to be one, it should have come from previous presidents,” said 73-year-old Masashi Ieshima, who was at home about a mile and a half (2.5 kilometers) from ground zero when the atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima. “Rather than an apology, it’s my strong wish for him to set out a course to eliminate all nuclear weapons.”

Mr. Ieshima, who was 3 years old at the time of the bombing, said his father, who initially survived, died at the age of 60 after struggling with stomach cancer and upper-jaw cancer—illnesses that Mr. Ieshima believes were the results of radiation effects.

See (“Obama: Memory of Hiroshima Bombing ‘Must Never Fade’”) (emphasis added)

Barack Obama has brought shame and disgrace to the presidency.

He grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and never lived on the U.S. mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles. He has been out of touch with traditional American values since Day One.

Indeed, having been raised by his maternal grandparents in Hawaii—where Japanese war planes attacked our naval forces at Pearl Harbor on a peaceful Sunday, December 7, 1941—he should have some sense of history and of Japanese cruelty and brutality.

See, e.g., (“Attack on Pearl Harbor“)

He is a racist, which anyone would realize if they bothered to read his book, “Dreams from My Father” that sets forth his core beliefs with great specificity. It is summarized in the article above, with direct quotes and cites to the book’s pages.

Virtually everything he has done since assuming office has taken this great country in the wrong direction. By doing what he has done at Hiroshima, he ignores history.

The Japanese were brutal and inhumane, yet they have never apologized for their atrocities. Indeed, they still refuse to acknowledge their criminal conduct throughout the war, or their role in turning innocent women from Korea and elsewhere into sex slaves, known as “comfort woman.”

See (“The Tragic Story of Comfort Women“)

Also, a full-scale allied invasion of the Japanese mainland would have resulted in the loss of far more American, allied and Japanese lives than our use of Atomic weapons. Truman made the right decision.

Until the Japanese atone for their sins, Obama’s trip to Hiroshima brings even more shame to his presidency.

He is a national disgrace, but expect more of the same until he and Moochie leave the White House. Vast numbers of Americans are counting the days until they are gone forever.

Donald Trump is correct. Obama’s failed presidency has made Jimmy Carter look good. Indeed, it is fair to say that Obama has been and remains the worst president in American history. Hopefully nothing like it occurs ever again.

See (“‘It’s pathetic’: Donald Trump blasts Obama’s visit to Hiroshima and asks why he didn’t mention Pearl Harbor . . . reminding his followers that it is Memorial Day weekend and time to remember the 2,235 US soldiers who died during the December 7 attack”) and (“Remember on Memorial Day“)


17 07 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama Is Responsible For The Tragic Killings In America [UPDATED]


The Left denies it, and the totally-discredited GOP “establishment” is loathe to admit it, but Obama’s life-long black racism is directly responsible for today’s tragic killing of police officers in Baton Rouge, and those in Dallas, and in other cities throughout the United States—with many more yet to come.

If you have any doubts whatsoever about Obama’s strident racism since he was a young student in Honolulu’s privileged Punahou School, please read the article above. It summarizes his book, “Dreams from My Father,” and contains direct quotes and page cites.

It was the first article of this blog. If you have not read the book or the article, please do so.

Instead of healing race relations in America, Obama has lit a flame to them again and again.

The book is shocking, to say the least. Yet it provides a roadmap with respect to Obama’s core beliefs and how he has been governing, and what to expect during the remaining months of his failed presidency.

Historians will pour over his time in office for decades to come; and the starting point must be his core beliefs and what shaped this angry black racist.


He may go down as the worst president in American history, never to be repeated again.

He is a dark and sinister figure, and tragically so. Most Americans have tuned him out, and rightly so. Good riddance to him.

. . .

I spoke with an officer today who was sitting in his car, who told me that his 10-year-old son called him and was crying, after the tragic killings in Baton Rouge.


14 08 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama’s Race Riots In Milwaukee [UPDATED]

Riots in Milwaukee

Barack Obama is the most racially-divisive president in American history. His hatred of white Americans was evident when he was a student at Honolulu’s privileged Punahou School, and later when he wrote “Dreams from My Father,” which is summarized in the article above.

Aside from his other failings that are endless, he has done more to tear apart the fabric of America than any other president. He is a abject failure; and this should have been evident to anyone who realized that by his own admissions, he was a failed “community organizer” and a racist in his core beliefs.

The totally-despdicable “Black Lives Matter” scum’s latest atrocities have occurred in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which mirror their activities in other American cities. Yes, black lives do matter (e.g., black-on-black crimes must be ended, especially those where the elderly are targeted); and in fact, all American lives matter, even the very poorest and downtrodden among us. But this racially-embittered group must be rejected, spurned and yes, destroyed. It deserves to follow in the footsteps of the KKK and other enemies of America.

It is been reported:

Video footage shows violent mobs of ‘Black Lives Matter’ rioters targeting white people for brutal beat downs during last night’s unrest in Milwaukee.

The clip shows angry rioters chanting “black power!” before asking “is they white?” as cars slowly drive past.

“Yeah they white!” states someone else, prompting the mob to run towards the vehicle.

“Yeah they white, get their ass!” screams another.

“Hey they beatin’ up every white person!” exclaims another rioter.

“He white – beat his head – bitch!” he adds.

The footage appears to show the mob attacking cars and trying to drag out the drivers.

The footage then cuts to an upper floor window before the person shooting the video states, “I think they just beat some white bitch ass for no reason – they bust open the window.”

Local reporters were also targeted for violent assaults, including a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporter, who was “thrown to the ground and punched”.

WTMJ was forced to pull its reporters from the ground altogether because of violent threats from the mob.

In another clip, rioters are seen burning down a gas station while chanting “black power!”

Another clip shows a man trying to justify the violence by claiming that rich people don’t give blacks enough money.

Rioters also destroyed random cars for no particular reason.

The unrest began after police shot and killed an armed man with a “lengthy criminal record” who was carrying an illegal firearm that had been used in a burglary.

Last night’s chaos will do nothing to change the view that ‘Black Lives Matter’ is a violent, domestic hate group, but despite this recurring theme, the movement has received positive coverage from the mainstream media and has been supported by President Obama himself on numerous occasions.

See (“‘BLACK LIVES MATTER’ RIOTERS TARGET WHITES FOR BEAT DOWNS”) (emphasis added; videos omitted)

As I have written before:

Other ethnic groups have come to our shores, but America’s blacks remain at the bottom of the totem pole, while the more recent arrivals climb above them (e.g., those of Mexican or Hispanic heritage, Asian Americans).

America’s first and perhaps last “Affirmative Action” president has only made their conditions worse.

See also (“Barack Obama Is Responsible For The Tragic Killings In America“) and (“‘Black Lives Matter’ Thugs In Chicago“)

More than 153 years after Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, vast numbers of American blacks are uneducated and looked down upon by blacks from Africa and other English-speaking countries who are highly educated, articulate and hardworking.


26 08 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Voters Paint A Grim Racial Picture of America

According to the Rasmussen Reports:

The White House insists that blacks are better off after President Obama’s eight years in office, but voters strongly disagree. No wonder Republican nominee Donald Trump is reaching out to black voters, saying they have “nothing to lose” by supporting him.

Only 13% of Likely U.S. Voters believe life for young black Americans has gotten better since Obama’s election in November 2008. Forty-one percent (41%) believe it has gotten worse.

Even among black voters, only 15% say life for young black Americans is better now.

Sixty percent (60%) of all voters think race relations are worse since Obama’s election in 2008. Just nine percent (9%) believe race relations are better now.

Perhaps even more disturbing is that 50% of Americans believe race relations are getting worse, the highest level of pessimism ever in Rasmussen Reports surveying, and that was in January, before several high-profile police shootings and revenge killings of police officers.

By contrast, in January 2009, just before Obama’s inauguration, 70% of Americans said relations between black and white Americans were getting better.

. . .

As recently as last September, only 20% of voters said Obama has brought Americans of different races closer together. Forty-seven percent (47%) think the president has driven those of different races further apart instead.

Forty-four percent (44%) of black voters feel the president has brought us closer together, but just 16% of whites and 21% of other minority voters agree.

However, 53% of blacks – and 72% of all voters – believe America is a more divided nation than it was four years ago.

After eight years of the first black president, blacks are still much more likely than whites and other minority voters to believe the economy and the U.S. justice system [are] unfair to them.

Blacks strongly believe they are treated unfairly by the police, but most voters in general think crime in inner cities is a bigger problem than police discrimination against minorities.

Seventy-five percent (75%) of black Americans say this country has not reached the time of equal opportunity that Martin Luther King, Jr. preached about. That view is shared by 59% of whites and 56% of other minority adults.

Voters definitely have a low opinion of politicians who play the so-called “race card,” but the frequency with which it is used suggests that it’s a successful political tactic. Witness Hillary Clinton’s attempt this week to tie Trump to the Ku Klux Klan. Only 14% of voters think most politicians raise racial issues to address real problems. Three-out-of-four voters (73%) think they’re only raising racial issues to get elected.

Sixty percent (60%) think comments critical of the police made by some politicians make it more dangerous for police officers to do their job. Just 15% disagree and say it’s more likely that these critical comments improve the quality of the police’s performance.

But there’s a noticeable racial difference of opinion here, too. Sixty-six percent (66%) of whites and 52% of other minority voters believe critical comments about the police by some politicians make cops’ jobs more dangerous. Among black voters, just 36% feel that way, although only 24% think those comments improve the quality of the police’s performance.

Just 27% of whites, 38% of blacks and 32% of other minority voters think the country is headed in the right direction.

See (emphasis added)

Could anyone be worse than our current president, Barack Obama, who is a black racist?

If you have any doubts whatsoever, please read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which sets forth his racist beliefs in considerable detail, and has served as a roadmap for his presidency. It is summarized in the article above, with direct quotes and page cites.

However, Hillary Clinton is even worse. She is not well physically, and she does not have the intellect of Obama. She and Bill Clinton are probably the most corrupt politicians in American history; and both of them should be wearing orange prison jumpsuits during the entire Trump presidency.

See (“Clinton Fatigue”)



21 09 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

We Out Like The Taliban! [UPDATED]

Charlotte riots

This is the violent cry that rang out in Charlotte, North Carolina, as black racists rioted there. The Daily Caller has reported:

Charlotte, N.C., erupted into a riot Tuesday night after hundreds of people gathered to protest the fatal shooting of a black man.

According to police, officers were serving a warrant when they encountered Keith Lamont Scott in his car. Police say Scott got out of his car with a gun and was shot because he posed an immediate threat.

But, according to demonstrators on the scene and supporters online, Scott was a disabled man who was simply holding a book and was no threat when he was gunned down. Soon after the shooting, people began to gather, and they soon swelled to a crowd of hundreds and began clashing with riot police.

“We out like the Taliban!” one rioter could be heard crying on a Facebook Live broadcast of the protests, shortly after tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd. After 11 p.m., the situation grew more severe, with several people successfully trashing a police SUV.

“We ain’t playin’ no motherfuckin’ games, nigga!” another demonstrator yelled on the Facebook broadcast, trying to fire up other protesters.

“This ain’t no one-day action!” another cried. “This is the first time people standing up!”

Ironically, the police officer responsible for shooting Scott, Brentley Vinson, is also a black man.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Governor calls out National Guard as Charlotte police shooting protests continue“) and (“Voters Paint A Grim Racial Picture of America“)

This is our black racist president’s most enduring legacy.

If anyone has any doubts whatsoever that he is a racist, please read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which sets forth his core beliefs and undergirds his presidency.

It is summarized in the article above, with direct quotes and page cites; and it should have been read by every American before he was elected in 2008, and reelected in 2012.


3 11 2016
Timothy D. Naegele



Business Insider has reported:

President Barack Obama delivered an impassioned plea to voters in North Carolina to vote next week and reject the candidacy of Republican nominee Donald Trump.

“We don’t win this election, potentially, if we don’t win North Carolina,” he said during a campaign rally for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. “I hate to put a little pressure on you, but the fate of the republic rests on your shoulders. The fate of the world is teetering.”

In his speech to voters in the Tar Heel State, the president emphasized how crucial North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes are to Clinton’s path to capturing the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House.

Obama repeatedly laid into Trump, one sentence after another, saying that he had “no respect for working people,” mocking his claim that he has a “good brain,” and lambasting the Republican presidential nominee’s plan to bar all Muslims from entering the US.

“What I can tell you is we can’t afford a president who suggests that America should torture people, or that we should ban entire religions from our country,” Obama said.

The president also raised the 2005 video of Trump boasting about kissing and forcing himself on women regardless of their consent.

“If you disrespect women before you are elected president, you will disrespect women when you’re in office,” Obama said.

“Imagine what you’ll do when you actually have the power to violate the Constitution along those lines,” he added.

Obama also noted how congressional Republicans have already mulled investigations and a potential impeachment of Clinton over her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

“They’re promising years of investigations, years of hearings, more shutdowns, more obstruction,” Obama said.

He added moments later: “You’ve got some Republicans in Congress who are already suggesting they will impeach Hillary. She hasn’t even been elected yet. It doesn’t matter what evidence — they’ll find something. That’s what they’re saying already. How does our democracy function like that?”

With just one week until the general election, the Clinton campaign has deployed Obama to key battleground states including Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida in hopes that he can gin up Democratic turnout.

Despite strong early vote rates in states such as Nevada, the president worried that black voter turnout is “not as solid as it needs to be” in other battleground states like Florida.

See (“‘The fate of the republic rests on your shoulders’: Obama delivers impassioned plea to America to reject Trump”) (emphasis added)

Barack Obama is the worst president in American history, and a flaming black racist.

If one has any doubts whatsoever about his racism, please read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which sets forth his core racist beliefs in his own words.

Indeed, to paraphrase his own words as set forth in the Business Insider article:

“If you [are a black racist] before you are elected president, you will disrespect [non-black Americans] when you’re in office.”

Amen in spades.

Actions should be taken against him after he leaves office, for his complicity in the Clintons’ criminality (e.g., participating in the criminal cover-up).

Also, he has done virtually nothing for African-Americans during his presidency.



3 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Is Trying To Delegitimize Trump [UPDATED]


The Hill has reported:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says there’s an “obvious” reason the Obama administration has focused on Russia’s alleged role in Democratic hacks leading up to Donald Trump’s electoral win.

“They’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House,” Assange said during an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity airing Tuesday night, according to a transcript of excerpts from the network.

“They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate president,” Assange said during the interview, which was conducted at the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he has been staying.

“Our publications had wide uptake by the American people, they’re all true,” Assange continued. “But that’s not the allegation that’s being presented by the Obama White House.”

Assange reiterated the group’s denial that Russia was the source of the Democratic documents released over the summer.

“Our source is not a state party, so the answer for our interactions is no,” he said.

In December, Assange told Hannity that the documents the anti-secrecy group received looked “very much like they’re from the Russians” but said his source was not them.

When asked if he thought WikiLeaks influenced the 2016 election, Assange pointed to private comments from members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign in documents published by the group.

“Did [WikiLeaks] change the outcome of the election? Who knows, it’s impossible to tell,” Assange said.

“But if it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz, their true statements is what changed the election.”

See (“WikiLeaks founder: Obama admin trying to ‘delegitimize’ Trump“) (emphasis added); see also (“Assange To Hannity: Our Source Was Not The Russian Government“)

Whatever happened to the smooth transition that Obama promised, which George W. Bush afforded to him?

See, e.g., (“Whatever happened to that smooth presidential transition Obama vowed?“)

What is abundantly clear is that Obama has no class. He never had any to begin with, and he has none now. He is a petty, failed “community organizer” and a black racist.

When this blog began on December 5, 2009, more than seven years ago, I asked in the first article:

In the final analysis, will he be viewed as a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history? Will his naïveté have been matched by his overarching narcissism, and will he be considered more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter? Will his presidency be considered a sad watershed in history? Or will he succeed and prove his detractors wrong, and be viewed as the “anointed one” and a true political “messiah”? Even Abraham Lincoln was never accorded such accolades, much less during his lifetime. And Barack Obama’s core beliefs are light years away from those of Ronald Reagan.


While God is the final “arbiter,” history will judge the man and his presidency.

He has not come remotely close to Lincoln or Reagan; he is “a tragic Shakespearean figure who [may be] forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history”; and “his presidency [may be] considered a sad watershed in history.”

See also (“The Obama years stumble to a cheesy climax”—”President Obama arrived in Washington on the wings of his promise to cool the rancor between the races, the nation’s saddest and most enduring inheritance of slavery, and he leaves Pennsylvania Avenue having only made things worse”—”The new president will bring to office an agenda with radically different priorities — which is why the people of the 50 states elected him — and Mr. Obama is doing everything he can to lay traps and land mines in the Donald’s paths, few of which he would have dared earlier”—”Rarely if ever since the Nazi era has there been such blatant public spite taken against Jews”—”[H]e’s acting, in the words of one pundit, as if ‘Obama and John Kerry are tenants who trash the place as they are being evicted'”)


6 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Black thugs

President Obama arrived in Washington on the wings of his promise to cool the rancor between the races, the nation’s saddest and most enduring inheritance of slavery, and he leaves Pennsylvania Avenue having only made things worse.


ABC7 in Chicago has reported:

Four people were charged Thursday in connection with the brutal torture of an 18-year-old man with special needs that was streamed live on Facebook.

Jordan Hill, 18, of Carpentersville; Tesfaye Cooper, 18, of Chicago; Brittany Covington, 18, of Chicago; and Tanishia Covington, 24, of Chicago; were each charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restraint, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and residential burglary, according to the Cook County state’s attorney. Hill was also charged with robbery and possession of a stolen motor vehicle.

In a press conference Thursday afternoon, Chicago police detectives laid out the timeline of events that led up to a man being tied up, kicked, beaten, yelled at, slashed and forced to drink toilet water – all of which was streamed live on Facebook.

Police said they don’t know the motive behind the apparent torture or the suspects’ decision to film it. At one point, the teens, who are black, told the victim, who is white, to say he loves black people.

Police said they investigated the attack as a hate crime and the state’s attorney agreed it met those standards by approving the charges.

“Let me be very clear, the actions in that video are reprehensible. That alone with racism have absolutely no place in the city of Chicago or anywhere else for that matter,” Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson said.

The victim, who is from northwest suburban Crystal Lake, was reported missing from nearby Streamwood by his parents on Monday. Police said they had not heard from him since Saturday, when they dropped him off at the McDonald’s near Schaumburg and Barrington roads to meet up for a sleepover with Hill. Police said the two were “acquaintances” who met at a school in Aurora.

Unbeknownst to the victim, investigators said Hill had stolen a van prior to picking him up at McDonald’s. Investigators said the pair then drove around for the next two days, visiting friends and sleeping in the van. It wasn’t until Tuesday that police said Hill brought the victim to an apartment in the 3400-block of West Lexington Avenue in the Homan Square neighborhood on Chicago’s West Side.

Investigators said the victim told them he got into a “play fight” with Hill that escalated when two of Hill’s acquaintances, the Covington sisters, became aggravated with him.

“That’s when they tie him up and when the racial slurs and, you know, the deference to his mental capacity starts coming out. That’s primarily one of the reasons they were charged with the hate crime,” said Cmdr. Kevin Duffin, Chicago Police Dept.

Police said the victim was left tied up in the corner for four to five hours. Streamwood police said the victim’s parents received text messages from people who claimed to be holding him captive.

When a downstairs neighbor complained about the noise and threatened to call 911, police said the Covington sisters kicked in her door and stole something. That prompted the neighbor to call police and gave the victim the opportunity to escape, investigators said.

Police said an officer came upon the victim wandering on Lexington on Tuesday evening wearing a tank top inside out and backwards, jean shorts and sandals. He was observed by an officer to be confused and bleeding, who later learned he had been reported missing two days earlier in Streamwood.

“He was bloodied and battered and due to the cold weather conditions, I approached him for a field interview,” said Officer Michael Donnelly, Chicago Police Dept. “He was discombobulated, he was injured, he was confused.”

Investigators said they do not believe the attack was premeditated, but may have escalated under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Police said they decided to pursue hate crime charges considering the “totality” of the victim’s diminished mental capacity, the fact that he was bound, and racist statements made on the video.

Police said the victim is now at home in Crystal Lake and is expected to make a full recovery. His family said they had all seen the video in a brief press conference Thursday evening.

“We’re so grateful for all the prayers and efforts that led to the safe return of our brother,” said David Boyd, the victim’s brother-in-law. “He’s doing as well as he could be at this time.”

A group of West Side ministers spoke out Thursday to condemn the brutal attack. They said they were called to act after hearing from their congregations. They said they will pray for and donate to assist the victim.

“This is not who the West Side is. This is not a representation of the African American race in Chicago at all,” said Rev. Ira Acree, Greater St. John Bible Church.

“Sin is a reproach to any people. But we also condemn the use of social media to highlight this,” said Rev. Walter Arthur McCray, National Black Evangelical Association.

In an interview with ABC7’s Judy Hsu, President Barack Obama addressed the attack, calling it “horrific” and “terrible.”

“Part of what technology allows us to see now is the terrible toll that racism and discrimination and hate takes on families and communities. But that’s part of how we learn and how we get better. We don’t benefit from pretending that racism doesn’t exist and hate doesn’t exist. We don’t benefit [from] not talking about it. The fact that these things are being surfaced means we can solve them,” Obama said.

A Facebook spokesperson released this statement Thursday: “We do not allow people to celebrate or glorify crimes on Facebook and have removed the original video for this reason. In many instances, though, when people share this type of content, they are doing so to condemn violence or raise awareness about it. In that case, the video would be allowed.”

Facebook’s community standards with regard to Facebook Live state, “We understand the unique challenges of live video. We know it’s important to have a responsible approach. That’s why we make it easy for people to report live videos to us as they’re happening. We have a team on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, dedicated to responding to these reports immediately.”

All four suspects will appear in bond court around 1:30 p.m. Friday. The victim’s family said they have not yet decided if they will attend.

See (“HATE CRIME, KIDNAPPING CHARGES FILED AGAINST 4 IN FACEBOOK LIVE TORTURE CASE“) (emphasis added); see also (“Chicago sees four charged over abuse of special needs man streamed on Facebook Live”) and (“SHOCK VIDEO: WHITE MAN KIDNAPPED, GAGGED, BEATEN BY RACIST BLACK ANTI-TRUMP GANG”—”Forced to say ‘f**k Donald Trump,’ ‘f**k white people'”) and (“Black teens are charged with a HATE CRIME after live-streaming torture of white disabled man who they held prisoner for days before he escaped – as cops reveal they have shown NO remorse“) and (“We Out Like The Taliban!“) and (“Voters Paint A Grim Racial Picture of America“) and (“Barack Obama’s Race Riots In Milwaukee“) and (“Barack Obama Is Responsible For The Tragic Killings In America“) and (“‘Black Lives Matter’ Thugs In Chicago”) and (“Disappointment In Obama Leads Some Blacks To Ask Whether Voting Is Worth It“) and (“Rioting, Looting And Killing By Thugs And Hoods In American Cities“)



11 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama Is A Delusional Narcissistic Black Racist [UPDATED]


That he is a racist is not in question.

While he has done his very best to mask his racism, it has surfaced again and again, in large and small ways. By his skin color, he is black. By his lineage, he is half white. And it was his maternal white grandparents, “Toot” and “Gramps,” who made the difference in his life.

This blog began with an assessment of the man, based on his book “Dreams from My Father.” It was the first article here, and it was intended to be objective and even-handed. Tragically, his epitaph and legacy are the following:

President Obama arrived in Washington on the wings of his promise to cool the rancor between the races, the nation’s saddest and most enduring inheritance of slavery, and he leaves Pennsylvania Avenue having only made things worse.

See; see also (“John Lewis ‘Presided Over Destruction Of Black America'”—”Lewis [is] a ‘Civil Rights turncoat’ who has ‘collaborated with the Democratic Party to oppress black America'”)

The AP has reported:

In his parting message to the nation, President Barack Obama is declaring his continued faith in the ability of all Americans to bring about powerful national change, despite the trials of the last eight years that so often stood between him and his goals.

Obama, standing before thousands in his hometown, Chicago, planned to reflect on his origins as a community organizer who witnessed “the quiet dignity of working people in the face of struggle and loss.” He argues change is only possible “when ordinary people get involved” and join forces to demand progress.

“After eight years as your president, I still believe that,” Obama says in excerpts of his speech released in advance by the White House. “And it’s not just my belief. It’s the beating heart of our American idea – our bold experiment in self-government.”

Now an elder statesman, Obama returned to the city that launched his unlikely political career to bring his eight years as president to a close. His speech at Chicago’s McCormick Place will be his last chance to try to define what his presidency meant for America.

It’s a fitting bookend to what he started in Chicago. It was here in 2008 that the nation’s first black president declared victory, and where over the years he tried to cultivate his brand of optimism in American politics.

In his speech, Obama planned to invoke the Declaration of Independence’s teachings about equality and unalienable rights, and its challenge to Americans to take it upon themselves to defend those rights and improve America’s democracy.

“This is the great gift our Founders gave us,” Obama planned to say. “The freedom to chase our individual dreams through our sweat, toil, and imagination – and the imperative to strive together as well, to achieve a greater good.”

The president arrived in Chicago in the evening joined by an array of long-serving White House advisers and people from his past, including sister Auma Obama from Kenya. First lady Michelle Obama, daughter Malia and family friends came along for what the White House said was Obama’s 445th mission aboard Air Force One.

Obama has said he’s leaving his eight years in office still confident that the democratic system responds when dedicated citizens make their voices heard. The system did respond, in November, to Americans who by and large rejected Obama’s policies by electing Republican Donald Trump.

Obama and Democrats had warned against a Trump presidency in apocalyptic terms. So now Obama’s daunting task – the closing act of his political career – is to explain how his vision of America remains relevant and achievable for Democrats in the Trump era.

No stranger to high-stakes speeches, Obama rose to national prominence on the power of his oratory. But this speech is different, White House officials said.

Determined not to simply recite a history of the last eight years, Obama directed his team to craft an address that would feel “bigger than politics” and speak to all Americans – including those who voted for Trump.

His chief speechwriter, Cody Keenan, started writing it last month while Obama was vacationing in Hawaii, handing him the first draft on the flight home. By late Monday Obama was immersed in a fourth draft, with Keenan expected to stay at the White House all night to help perfect Obama’s final message.

Ahead of his speech, Obama acknowledged that the chaos of Washington makes it easy to lose sight of the role American citizens play in democracy. He said that while he leaves office with his work unfinished, he believes his administration made the U.S. “a stronger place for the generations that will follow ours.”

Seeking inspiration, Obama’s speechwriters spent weeks poring over Obama’s other momentous speeches, including his 2004 keynote at the Democratic National Convention and his 2008 speech after losing the New Hampshire primary to Hillary Clinton. They also revisited his 2015 address in Selma, Alabama, that both honored America’s exceptionalism and acknowledged its painful history on civil rights.

Former aides were brought back to consult on the speech, including advisers David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, and former speechwriter Jon Favreau, said the officials, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the private discussions.

Vice President Joe Biden and his wife were also traveling to Chicago for the speech at McCormick Place, a sprawling convention center along Lake Michigan. For Obama, it will be his final trip aboard Air Force One as president, though he’ll use the plane to depart Washington for an unspecified destination next week just after Trump is inaugurated.

In his hometown of Chicago, the prospect of witnessing Obama’s last presidential address brought thousands out in single-digit temperatures over the weekend in hopes of securing tickets. They showed up well before sunrise and waited in lines that stretched for blocks.

See (“OBAMA, IN FINAL SPEECH, TO DECLARE FAITH IN POWER OF CHANGE“) (emphasis added); see also (“Obama’s farewell address longer than Reagan’s, Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s combined“) and (“Obama Refers To Himself 75 Times In Farewell Address“) and (US DEBT NEARS $20 TRILLION) and (“Obama’s Disgraceful Exit”—”Unfortunately he’s going to be as bad an ex-president as he’s been a president”)

I did not watch his speech, inter alia, because I do not believe him anymore. His words fall on deaf ears. Indeed, it is worthwhile repeating the last paragraph of the article above, in its entirety:

In the final analysis, will he be viewed as a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history? Will his naïveté have been matched by his overarching narcissism, and will he be considered more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter? Will his presidency be considered a sad watershed in history? Or will he succeed and prove his detractors wrong, and be viewed as the “anointed one” and a true political “messiah”? Even Abraham Lincoln was never accorded such accolades, much less during his lifetime. And Barack Obama’s core beliefs are light years away from those of Ronald Reagan.

History will be the final judge, and it is apt to be harsh—unless his sycophants write it, as they tried to do in the case of John F. Kennedy.

See (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History“)


13 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Cubans: Obama Screwed Us


The Manila Times has reported:

“Obama has screwed all Cubans,” Yadiel Cruz, a Cuban in Panama bitterly told Agence France-Presse on Thursday upon learning the US president has suddenly made it tougher for migrants like him to get into America.

The 33-year-old summed up what many compatriots were feeling as they digested the news in a Catholic shelter in Panama’s capital, a waypoint on their overland trek to the United States.

But, he declared, “for me, I’m not going back.”

Around him, dozens of other Cubans expressed sadness or anger.

Much of the fury was directed personally at US President Barack Obama for announcing that he has scrapped, with immediate effect, a 1995 policy that had given near-automatic entry to the US to Cubans who set foot on American soil, regardless of their visa status.

Now, like those who attempted to cross by water, they could face deportation back to Cuba unless they convince US officials they were afraid of being persecuted or had valid humanitarian reasons to be let in.

The move, made just days before Obama leaves office and hands the reins over to Donald Trump, known for his anti-immigration stance, rattled nerves, sparked frustration and evoked tears here.

Obama has ‘hurt us’

“We feel sadness because we are all coming with a dream that comes from pain, hunger and a lot of work to get this far,” said Lorena Pena, a woman four months pregnant who left Cuba with her husband and four-year-old daughter.

Obama, she said, “screwed up, because what he’s done is hurt us—so he really isn’t as good as everyone says.”

Ulises Ferrer, a carpenter from Havana, said: “We don’t know what we’re going to do now. But what we’re certain of is that we’re not going back to Cuba unless we’re dead.”

The shelter they were in, a simple set-up run by the Caritas charity and featuring just one bathroom, is in the Ancon neighborhood of Panama City.

It was established months ago to accommodate some of the stream of Cuban migrants who had been passing through Central America on their way to Mexico and then to the United States.

The “Wet foot, Dry foot” policy Obama scrapped had meant that many of them felt they were on their way to a new life in America, once they reached the border.

Their destination hasn’t changed. But now the reception and easy access they had hoped for is less likely.

If they are accepted into the United States, though, a 1966 law, the Cuban Adjustment Act, is still valid and offers them a fast-track to residency and legal employment.

Arduous trek

The Cubans in Panama were on an overland route that has already been used by tens of thousands of others.

The number of migrants from their Communist-ruled island spiked in 2015 and 2016, after Washington and Havana agreed to a thaw in their long hostile relations.

Many of those fleeing feared exactly what came to pass Thursday: that the rapprochement would see the door close on Cuban migrants being given automatic US entry and residency.

The wave of Cubans, along with a decision by Nicaragua to close its border to them, created a backlog in Panama and Costa Rica that prompted both countries last year to try to shut out arriving Cubans.

Waiting for Trump

But while numbers have dropped, the flow hasn’t ceased. Many Cubans coming up from South America now pass through the Darien Gap—an inhospitable, swampy, snake-infested stretch of jungle dividing Panama from Colombia.

“We are thousands of Cubans who have crossed through the middle of the jungle, rivers and dangers,” said Yanisel Wilson, a 20-year-old who crossed through the Darien gap two days earlier.

Getting to even that point has meant running a gauntlet of thieving police officers, gangs and money-sucking people-smugglers along the way.

“I’m going to wait a few days to watch the news and see what gets decided. Here we will wait for Donald Trump to take over and see if he will help us,” Wilson said.

The ordeals the Cuban migrants have gone through speak to their unwavering determination to reach America, regardless of Obama’s policy change.

See (“Obama ‘screwed’ us, angry Cuban migrants say“) (emphasis added); see also (“Ordinary Cubans fret about end to US immigration policy“) and (“Cubans sold everything to reach U.S., now hundreds stranded“) and (“Cuban families expecting relatives seek answers on change in immigration policy“) and (“Cuban migrants furious, disconcerted by end of US welcome policy“)

No one should ever trust Barack Obama.

This is the tragic lesson that so many people have learned the hard way.


30 01 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Raises His Ugly Head And Speaks Out Against Trump’s Refugee Ban [UPDATED]


Variety has reported:

Former President Barack Obama, in his first statement since leaving office, issued a statement through his spokesman expressing support for protesters as “exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.”

His spokesman, Kevin Lewis, said that Obama “is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country. In his final official speech as President, he spoke about the important role of citizen and how all Americans have a responsibility to be guardians of our democracy — not just during an election but every day.

“Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.”

Obama had signaled at his final press conference that he would not remain silent about speaking out on a number of issues. Since he left office, there have been widespread protests including the Women’s March on Jan. 21 and, last weekend, demonstrations at major airports over President Trump’s executive order restricting refugees as well as visits from seven Muslim-majority countries until new vetting procedures are established.

“With regard to comparisons to President Obama’s foreign policy decisions, as we’ve heard before, the President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion,” his spokesman said.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Obama ‘fundamentally disagrees’ with Trump’s temporary ban on migrants“)

As a result of his failed policies in Syria and throughout the region—and elsewhere in the world—there has been a flood of refugees to Europe and globally. Included among these immigrants have been terrorists who have struck Europe, and produced chaos, violence and fear.

Yet, America’s only black racist president has the audacity to blame our new President Donald Trump for trying to protect the United States and the American people.


See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“); see also (“[Black Lives Matter] BLM Anti-Trump Protest In Seattle: ‘We Need To Start Killing People’”)


7 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama’s Coming Crusade Against Trump


Ed Klein has written at

In my last report, I wrote about Hillary Clinton and what she sees when she looks into her crystal ball and plans her future.

This week, let’s talk about Barack Obama.

After three short days in rainy Southern California, Obama escaped the weather and boarded Sir Richard Branson’s private jet for the British Virgin Islands. There, with his hat on backwards and wearing shades, Obama chilled out with his wife, Michelle.

As ET on line reported: “Obama’s backwards hat was the talk of Twitter, with one [liberal] tweet reading, ‘Obama got his hat to the back like it’s 1990 and trump isn’t president. GET YO A** BACK HERE . . . with respect, sir.'”

Liberals don’t have to worry: Obama intends to be the most politically active ex-president in modern times. He’s tossing out the old rule book that says former presidents should remain silent for a decent interval to give their successors in the White House time and space to govern.

Spurred into action by his two significant others—Michelle and Valerie Jarrett—the 55-year-old ex-president is preparing to lead the progressive charge against President Donald Trump.

“He’s planning to make speeches and speak out forcefully against Trump,” said one of his friends. “He’s going to fight Trump’s executive actions, fire up the leftwing resistance to the Trump administration, and pave the way for the Democrats to retake Congress.

“He’s been given assurances by George Soros and other liberal money men that they will make a mighty war chest available for his crusade against Trump,” the friend continued.

“Among Democrats, there is no one on the national scene with the status and popularity to match Obama’s. He’s a towering figure on the left, with a constituency that is angry and begging for a leader to steer them in the right direction.

“And he has every intention of answering their call.”


In a desperate attempt to give life to his abysmal racist legacy, America’s former president is rearing his ugly head again.

How pathetic, but it is so true to his character.

In my first article at this blog, I wrote:

In the final analysis, will he be viewed as a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history? Will his naïveté have been matched by his overarching narcissism, and will he be considered more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter? Will his presidency be considered a sad watershed in history? Or will he succeed and prove his detractors wrong, and be viewed as the “anointed one” and a true political “messiah”? Even Abraham Lincoln was never accorded such accolades, much less during his lifetime. And Barack Obama’s core beliefs are light years away from those of Ronald Reagan.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

I believe his legacy will be that of a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history. Clearly, his naïveté was matched by his overarching narcissism, and he was more starry-eyed and dangerous than Jimmy Carter.

His presidency was a sad watershed in American history. Indeed, as mentioned previously, his epitaph and legacy are the following:

President Obama arrived in Washington on the wings of his promise to cool the rancor between the races, the nation’s saddest and most enduring inheritance of slavery, and he leaves Pennsylvania Avenue having only made things worse.



15 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Flynn Victim Of Obama Coup [UPDATED]


Political pundit Dick Morris has written:

The Obama appointees still inhabiting the bowels of the State and Justice Departments orchestrated the coup that brought down General Michael Flynn who quit as National Security Advisor only four weeks into Trump’s term.

Waiting until their confirmations as secretary of state and defense, neither Tillerson nor Sessions have had the time to replace the Obama appointees. But, in the interregnum, the Obama operatives used the time to slit Flynn’s throat, Washington style.

Flynn, anxious to head off Russian retaliation against U.S. sanctions, spoke with Moscow’s Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak to assuage his concerns over the sanctions imposed in the wake of Russian intervention in Ukraine and Crimea. Because he did so before Trump took office — but after his own appointment — he ran afoul of established protocol.

The alert Obama-era wiretappers pounced, taping the conversation and leaking it to the media. Former Obama officials were quoted in the New York Times as saying that Flynn reassured the ambassador that Mr. Trump would adopt a more accommodating tone on Russia once in office. They said that Flynn urged Russia not to retaliate against any sanctions because an overreaction would make any future cooperation more complicated.” One Obama official said that “he appeared to leave the impression that it would be possible” to ease the U.S. sanctions under the new president.

Then the former Obama folks at the Justice Department chimed in, gratuitously warning the incoming president that there was a blackmail risk that Moscow might hold the fact of the conversation over Flynn’s head as he served in office.

Finally, the former Obama folks at the Defense Department scrutinized a 2015 trip to Moscow by Flynn during which he received a payment to attend an anniversary celebration of a Kremlin operated TV station. The payment (it might have been a nominal gift of some sort) had to be reported because Flynn is a former general.

Essentially, the Obama team at State, Justice, and Defense acted as opposition researchers for Obama and the Democrats to frame the incoming National Security Advisor and leak his sins to the media.

Caught in the trap sprung by the Democratic operatives, Flynn, unfortunately doubled down and lied to VP Mike Pence, concealing the full extent of his conversation with the Russians. But never fear, the Obama minions helpfully provided the full text of the Flynn-Kislyak conversation that showed the former general had gone further in reassuring the Russians.

Once Flynn lied to the Vice President and Pence had gone out in public to defend him, a resignation was inevitable.

But the prospect of the political appointees in one administration using their powers and surveillance capabilities to bring about the resignation of a highly placed official in the incoming administration is, itself, a more alarming event than any perpetrated by Michael Flynn.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Former Obama Officials, Loyalists Waged Secret Campaign to Oust Flynn“) and (“FBI needs to explain why Flynn was recorded, Intelligence Committee chairman says“) and (“In Final Interview, Defiant Flynn Insists He Crossed No Lines, Leakers Must Be Prosecuted“) and (“Trump asked for Flynn resignation over lack of trust, White House says“) and (Dick Morris: “Flynn Was Forced Out By Obama Operatives”—”[T]here is a subversive group within the government of the United States, composed of former Obama appointees who still inhabit the bowels of these agencies . . . and these folks—who may linger for six months to a year—are using the power of the government against the president. It’s as close to an insurrection or coup d’état as you can have it in the United States. And Flynn is the first to fall to their efforts”)

The dark and sinister shadow of the racist, Barack Obama, and his operatives is ever present; and it must be purged.

See also (“Obama’s Coming Crusade Against Trump“) and (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)


22 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Why Do So Many Americans Hate This Woman? [UPDATED]

Maxine Waters

The Gateway Pundit has reported:

Far left Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has taken on the role of spokesperson for the Democrat Party since the November election.

During an appearance on MSNBC’s All in with Chris Hayes, Democrat Maxine Waters read off a list of people connected to the Trump team who also have connections to Russia and the oil and gas industry.

Waters then went on to call the Trump administration a “bunch of scumbags.”

Two weeks ago Maxine Waters told reporters Russian leader Vladimir Putin invaded Korea.

See (“Democrat Maxine Waters Calls Trump Cabinet Picks: ‘A Bunch of Scumbags’ (VIDEO)”) (emphasis added)

The new face of the Left’s and far-Left’s politics—aka the Democrats and so-called “progressives”—seems to be Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren.

With a cast of characters like this one. President Donald Trump and the GOP should waltz to election victories next year and beyond.

See also (“Ellison holds edge in DNC race survey“)

Waters' World


3 03 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

A Must Read: War—Obama Is Pure Evil! [UPDATED}


The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Barack Obama is turning his new home in the posh Kalorama section of the nation’s capital – just two miles away from the White House – into the nerve center of the mounting insurgency against his successor, President Donald J. Trump.

Obama’s goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment.

And Obama is being aided in his political crusade by his longtime consigliere, Valerie Jarrett, who has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion with the former president and Michelle Obama, long time best friends.

Jarrett played a vital – if at times low-key – role in the Obama presidency. She lived in the White House, dined with the Obamas, and help shape his domestic and foreign policies.

The former president has set up an office on the West End of the national’s capitol, where he recently hosted an open house for his White House staff – including Joe Biden, Susan Rice, Josh Earnest and Jarrett.

But the office, part of his post presidency perks, cannot be used for political purposes. The rent on his home is paid by him personally.

On Tuesday, former Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that Obama is indeed getting closer to making his public reappearance in politics.

‘It’s coming. He’s coming,’ Holder said speaking to reporters. ‘And he’s ready to roll.’

According to the family source, Obama was at first reluctant to assume the role of leader of the opposition.

‘No longer the most powerful man in the world, he was just observing Trump and not liking what he saw,’ said the source.

‘He was weary and burned out after eight years in office. But Valerie convinced him that he didn’t have any choice if he wanted to save his legacy. And, as usual, he bowed to Valerie’s political wisdom and advice.’

In his only public comment against Trump since leaving the presidency, Obama came out in support of the protests opposing President Donald Trump’s executive order to restrict immigration from predominantly Muslim countries.

A spokesman said the former president thinks they’re ‘citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.’

After Obama left office, Jarrett moved all her White House belonging into the Kalorama mansion.

‘There was never any doubt that Valerie would have a suite of rooms in the house that the Obama’s [sic] are renting,’ said the source. ‘Obama trusts her judgment more than any other person on the planet, as does Michelle.

Obama doesn’t make a decision without her.’

Spurred on by Jarrett and Michelle, the ex-president has come to embrace his role as the leader of the opposition against Trump, whose policies he loathes and whose presidency he considers illegitimate.

‘He is going to use his immense popularity with the half of the country that identifies as liberals and progressives,’ said the Obama family source. ‘Millions of Americans are energized and ready to take to the streets to oppose Trump, but they need to be organized and have their anger focused and directed.

‘Obama is dismayed at the way Trump is tearing down his legacy—ObamaCare, the social safety net and the welcome mat for refugees he put in place,’ the source continued.

Trump’s cabinet picks are also problematic for the former president, especially Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, whom Obama regards as too racially insensitive to be in charge of the Civil Rights division at Justice.

Leaving Jim Comey as FBI Director is another thorn in Obama’s side. He blames Comey for announcing that he was reopening the FBI investigation into Hillary’s emails eleven days before the election, which, in Obama’s view, was an irresponsible act that helped elect Trump.

‘He had hoped to write his memoirs, golf to his heart’s content. and bask in the glory of his eight years in power and the progressive achievements he brought about. Instead, he is going to be leading the fight and strategy to topple Trump.’ says the insider.

The Kalorama house, which the Obama’s are renting from Joe Lockhart, who was Bill Clinton’s press secretary, is still being refurbished and redecorated by Michelle.

‘Michelle and Valerie have changed their minds many times over about colors, carpets, wall paper, furnishing and art,’ said the source.

Michelle hired Los Angeles-based interior designer Michel S. Smith, who designed several rooms in The White House during their residence, to decorate the Kalorama home. Smith will also decorate the Obama’s new home in Rancho Mirage, California.

According to the source, Michelle and Valerie have big plans for traveling and shopping as well as strategizing over Trump.

The friend said that Valerie and her signature enormous totes are going to be packed and ready to go for shopping sprees with Michelle from their native Chicago to Paris and the Far East, including Shanghai.

‘They feel like they have had some great trips while in the White House, but were always working and being herded around,’ said the source. ‘Now they are planning to travel together – home to Chicago, to Paris and Shanghai, and shop to their heart’s content.

‘The Obamas both love the Kalorama house and are making it their own,’ continued the source. ‘They have plans to build a pool on the grounds. And they are almost certainly going to wind up buying the house from Lockart in the next few years.

‘They are also planning to have a house in Hawaii, as well as in Chicago, where the Obama Presidential Library will be built. But Kalorama, where the Washington action takes place, is going to be home base.’

See (“Barack Obama’s close confidante Valerie Jarrett has moved into his new DC home, which is now the nerve center for their plan to mastermind the insurgency against President Trump“) (emphasis added); see also (“Barack Obama and His Deep State Operatives Are Attempting to Sabotage the Duly Elected President of the United States”—”This story is about Barack Obama and the Democrat Party attempting to sabotage the Trump presidency and do everything they can to either render it meaningless and ineffective or to get him impeached or force him to resign”—”[T]his is the only option the Democrats have open is to try to convince as many people as possible that Hillary should have won the election, that Trump is illegitimate, that Trump’s victory was the result of cheating and fakery and maybe foreign espionage. That’s all they’ve got”—”[T]hey’re going after all of the people who are the closest advisers to Trump. They took out Rudy Giuliani right after the election with stories about his supposed ties to foreign governments”—”It is all about Barack Obama and the Democrat Party attempting to unseat President Trump. It’s all about sabotage and a scandal from the highest levels of the Democrat Party. That’s what is happening here”) and (“Sessions Under Fire: GOP Rushes to Eat Their Own Again“)

Aside from being a black racist, Barack Obama is pure evil.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article)

The Left and far-Left, aka the Democrats (or self-styled “progressives”) and their lapdogs in the Mainstream Media, are determined to destroy the Trump presidency in its incipiency.

Having lost the election, and races across this great country, they are bent on using every trick and “dirty trick” imaginable to achieve their objective. They must not be given any red meat. Those of us who lived through Watergate remember their tactics vividly.

This “war” began on the day that Donald Trump was elected. At least Richard Nixon had a “grace period.” President Trump and his new administration have none.

See also (“Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump”—”Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration”—”Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation”)


6 03 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Victims of Obama’s Many Wiretaps


The Gateway Pundit has reported:

The Main Stream Media and other enemies of the current President are challenging the proposition that President Obama wire tapped President Donald Trump during the 2016 Presidential race. President Trump started this discussion with his tweets over the weekend.

In his first tweet President Trump tweeted:

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

He next tweeted:

Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

Next the President tweeted:

I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!

The final for four tweets concerning the wire tapping:

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

This is now being referred to as Obamagate!

It is not unfounded that former President Obama would wire tap President Trump during the election process. This is because he has done this before. Here is a list of individuals who were wire tapped by the Obama Administration.

WikiLeaks released the following list on February 23rd . . . of Obama Administration wire taps:

* The US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin;

* Obama bugged Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone;

* Obama singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception;

* Obama stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu;

* Obama intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US “extort[ing]” them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed);

* Obama explicitly targeted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers;

* Obama explicitly targetted the phones of Italy’s ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and

* Obama intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to “pop like a cork”.

In addition to the above list we also know now that Obama wire tapped various individuals in the US media that were reporting information not flattering to the Obama Administration. It is widely known that Obama’s Justice Department targeted journalists with wiretaps in 2013:

* In 2013 the liberal Washington Post expressed outrage after the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks. The reporter, Fox News’ James Rosen and his family, were part of an investigation into government officials anonymously leaking information to journalists. Rosen was not charged but his movements and actions were tracked.

* Also in 2013, members of the Associated Press were also a target of the surveillance. The ultra liberal New Yorker even noted that “In moderate and liberal circles, at least, the phone-records scandal, partly because it involves the dear old A.P. and partly because it raises anew the specter of Big Brother, may well present the most serious threat to Obama’s reputation.”

* Reporter Sharyl Attkisson said in 2014 that her personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration. A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to an article in the New York Post.

Update – WikiLeaks tweeted overnight that the Obama Administration spied on their journalists as well:

Obama is no stranger to wire tapping. His administration tapped phones and computers of friends and foe alike.

See (“Here’s the List: More Than a Dozen Proven Victims of Obama’s Many Wiretaps“) (emphasis added); see also (“A Must Read: War—Obama Is Pure Evil!“)


7 03 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Investigate Obamagate!


Jeffrey Lord—a former member of the Ronald Reagan administration, a journalist, author, and political strategist—has written:

Obamagate is here.

And Mark Levin is on the case. First on his Thursday radio show and then in his appearance on Fox and Friends over the weekend, Mark laid out in chapter and verse the mainstream media’s own reporting that the Obama administration was responsible for using government agencies to spy on its political opponents — namely Donald Trump, his aides, and then-U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, now the Attorney General of the United States.

Said the former chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III:

This is not about President Trump’s tweeting; this is about the Obama administration spying. . . . The issue isn’t whether the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign or transition of surrogates; the issue is the extent of it . . . . Donald Trump is the victim. His campaign is the victim. His transition team is the victim. His surrogates are the victim.

To the question of whether former President Obama was involved? After noting that there were repeated stories on the government’s spying of Trump and others in the New York Times and the Washington Post — newspapers unquestionably well-read by the Obama White House — the talk radio host added: “I will tell you this, he’s more involved than he says; it’s his executive branch.”


Is this another Watergate? Here’s the History Channel’s description of the original Watergate scandal that eventually forced the resignation of President Richard Nixon, [italics] supplied:

Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, several burglars were arrested inside the office of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), located in the Watergate building in Washington, D.C. This was no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught while attempting to wiretap phones and steal secret documents. While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising “hush money” for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members.

Note well: Watergate began with an attempt to wiretap phones — which is to say spy on the target, in this case the Democratic National Committee and its then-chairman, ex-JFK and LBJ aide Lawrence O’Brien.

On his radio show and in his Fox appearance, Mark Levin lays out eight specific examples of reporting by no less than the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, the McClatchy news service, and Heat Street, the libertarian website. Of all these sources cited, only Heat Street would be considered a “right-wing” site, as it is libertarian-oriented. The rest, every one, are part of the left-leaning “mainstream” media in the United States and, in the case of the Guardian, the United Kingdom.

So, again, for the record, let’s look at the stories Mark Levin has found that emphatically bolster President Trump’s belief that the Obama Administration was spying on him.

1. Heat Street on November 7, 2017:

EXCLUSIVE: FBI ‘Granted FISA Warrant’ Covering Trump Camp’s Ties to Russia

Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of “U.S. persons” in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.

2. The Guardian on January 11, 2017:

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

3. McClatchy on January 18, 2017:

FBI, 5 other agencies probe possible covert Kremlin aid to Trump

WASHINGTON — The FBI and five other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into Russian attempts to influence the November election, including whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided President-elect Donald Trump, two people familiar with the matter said.

The agencies involved in the inquiry are the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the director of national intelligence, the sources said.

4. The New York Times on January 19, 2017:

Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates

WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump. . . .

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

5. The New York Times, January 12, 2017:

N.S.A. Gets More Latitude to Share Intercepted Communications

WASHINGTON — In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

6. The New York Times, March 1, 2017:

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators. . . .

As WikiLeaks was pushing out emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee through online publication, American intelligence began picking up conversations in which Russian officials were discussing contacts with Trump associates, and European allies were starting to pass along information about people close to Mr. Trump meeting with Russians in the Netherlands, Britain and other countries.

7. The New York Times, February 9, 2017:

Flynn Is Said to Have Talked to Russians About Sanctions Before Trump Took Office

WASHINGTON — Weeks before President Trump’s inauguration, his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, discussed American sanctions against Russia, as well as areas of possible cooperation, with that country’s ambassador to the United States, according to current and former American officials. . . .

But current and former American officials said that conversation — which took place the day before the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia over accusations that it used cyberattacks to help sway the election in Mr. Trump’s favor — ranged far beyond the logistics of a post-inauguration phone call. And they said it was only one in a series of contacts between the two men that began before the election and also included talk of cooperating in the fight against the Islamic State, along with other issues.

8. The Washington Post, March 2, 2017:

. . . The Wall Street Journal, following The Post’s report, added that “U.S. investigators have examined contacts . . . Sessions had with Russian officials during the time he was advising” Trump’s campaign. “The outcome of the inquiry, and whether it is ongoing, wasn’t clear,” per Carol E. Lee, Christopher S. Stewart, Rob Barry and Shane Harris. “The contacts were being examined as part of a wide-ranging U.S. counterintelligence investigation into possible communications between members of Mr. Trump’s campaign team and Russian operatives.”

And then there’s this.

The New York Times, January 20, 2017:


Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides

In this story the Times reports that “. . . wiretapped communications had been provided to the (Obama) White House.”

But barely a month later the Times headlines this:

Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones

And the kicker here? Times reporter Michael Schmidt co-wrote both stories. The first on January 20th headlining “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides” — and the March story saying: “Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones.”


Last but not least there is this interview with former Bush 43 Attorney General Michael Mukasey over on ABC, with the questioning by Martha Raddatz. Here is part of the transcript as supplied by ABC:


RADDATZ: You heard about them.

MUKASEY: Yeah, I hear about them, but I don’t do tweets and for good reason. It’s not the’ ideal medium in which to get an idea across.

This is the difference between being correct and being right. I think the president was not correct certainly in saying that President Obama ordered a tap on a server in Trump Tower. However, I think he’s right in that there was surveillance and that it was conducted at the behest of the attorney — of the Justice Department through the FISA court.

RADDATZ: And what do you base that on?

MUKASEY: I base that on news reports that you mentioned in the last spot. I also base it on kind of inadvertent blurting out by (Democratic Congressman from Washington) Adam Schiff that his committee wants to talk to the counterintelligence agents at the FBI who were involved in this. Now, what that means is this is part not of a criminal investigation, but of an intelligence gathering investigation.

The FBI has got two functions. They investigate crimes and they gather intelligence. They started gathering intelligence in ’08 based on guidelines that we put in place.

They tried to get — apparently tried to get a wiretap based on their criminal investigation function in June. That was turned down. They then tried to get, and got, an order permitting them to conduct electronic surveillance in October. This is October of 2016.

So that’s when, apparently, that’s when . . .

RADDATZ: And again you’re basing this on news reports as well.

MUKASEY: And on, and on, Adam Schiff.

RADDATZ: And on Adam Schiff. If a wiretap did exist, it would have to have been approved by a FISA court based on real evidence. So, if there was a wiretap, does that mean there were suspicious things going on between the Trump administration and the Russians?

MUKASEY: It means there were some basis to believe that somebody in Trump Tower may have been acting as an agent of the Russians, for whatever purpose, not necessarily the election, but for some purpose.

And the FBI keeps track of people who act as agents of foreign governments. They keep track of people who act as agents of the Chinese, the Russians, the Israelis, everybody.

RADDATZ: Some of the evidence may have been gleaned from classified means. Is there any way to verify these claims in the press or Trump’s claims so the American people can really understand what’s going on here?

MUKASEY: The only way to verify, whether there was a — whether there was electronic surveillance is to disclose the warrant and to disclose the fruits of it. And that should not be done even in a political storm as hot as this one.

Over at National Review, the redoubtable Andrew C. McCarthy, who has been following all of this since January with his keen legal eye . . . , has in his latest headlined the obvious:

While You Weren’t Looking, the Democrat-Media Election-Hacking Narrative Just Collapsed

Writes Andy ([italics] supplied by me):

That supposed FBI investigation of collusion with the Russians? Never mind. . . . They’re in retreat now.

You may have missed it amid President Trump’s startling Saturday tweet storm, the recriminations over president-on-candidate spying, and the Jeff Sessions recusal — a whirlwind weekend. But while you weren’t looking, an elaborate narrative died. . . .

But still, the media and Democrats have always had a serious vulnerability here — one they’ve never acknowledged because they’ve been too swept away by the political success of the fantasy narrative. It is this: At a certain point, if compelling evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the election did not materialize, the much more interesting question becomes “How did the government obtain all this information that has been leaked to the media to prop up the story?”

The most plausible answer to that question: The Obama administration, through the Justice Department and the FBI, was investigating the associates of the opposition party’s presidential nominee, and perhaps even the nominee himself, during the campaign. Otherwise, what explanation can there be for all of the investigative information — much of it classified, and thus illegal to disclose — that has been funneled to the press?

In other words? In other words, the repeated stories in the liberal outlets the New York Times and the Washington Post — have now effectively hoist[ed] the liberal media on their own petard. Liberals wanted an investigation — and now they are being joined by conservatives. And yes indeed, via press secretary Sean Spicer, President Trump is now calling for an investigation “to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016.” Now that we all agree, let’s start digging.

In 1974 the House of Representatives was preparing to pass articles of impeachment for Richard Nixon. Nixon, back against the wall, was never impeached because he resigned before the process could get any further. Recall Article One, [italics] supplied:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence.

Which is to say Nixon was being held responsible for the Watergate break-in, something it was never proven — to this day — that he knew of much less authorized. Be that as it may, it was his campaign committee who sent those “Watergate burglars” into the DNC offices in the dead of night to tap the DNC phones. Everything that transpired afterwards came from that unalterable fact.

What we have here is no “conspiracy theory.” This is an administration that investigated the emails of Fox journalist James Rosen. This is the administration that employed Lois Lerner and all of that abuse at the IRS. What we have here this time — as repeatedly reported by the Times and the Post — is an admission that, to quote McCarthy again, “The Obama administration, through the Justice Department and the FBI, was investigating the associates of the opposition party’s presidential nominee, and perhaps even the nominee himself, during the campaign.”

Exactly right. In other words? Collectively? This is a really, really big deal.

Obamagate is here. And it is not going away. By all means, bring on the grand juries and the congressional investigations. ASAP.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Who Inside The U.S. Government Is Trying To Destroy The President?“) and (“The Beltway Conspiracy to Break Trump“) and (“Victims of Obama’s Many Wiretaps“) and (“A Must Read: War—Obama Is Pure Evil!“)


4 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama’s Sex And Drugs Past [UPDATED]

Barack Obama and Genevieve Cook
[Barack Obama and Australian Genevieve Cook]

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

The sex secrets of the young Barack Obama have been revealed in an authoritative new biography of the ex-president.

Obama slept with his girlfriend Genevieve Cook on their first date, before she wrote him a poem about their ‘f***ing’ and called their sex ‘passionate’, the book about the former president reveals.

They also did cocaine together – and after they split she slept with his best friend.

Obama also considered a gay relationship while at college, twice proposed to another white girlfriend, and cheated on Michelle with his ex during the first year of their relationship.

His past is revealed in the 1,078-page biography Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, to be published on May 9.

Obama, a new Columbia graduate who was working for a firm that prepared financial reports at the time, made dinner for Cook at his apartment in Manhattan two weeks after meeting her at a New Year’s Eve party and handing her his phone number.

It was the start of a relationship which is one of a series revealed in Rising Star.

The 1,078-page biography is the most comprehensive work ever on Obama and the first to be published since he left office.

It was written after exhaustive research by Pulitzer-prize winning biographer David Garrow, and also reveals how he asked another woman to marry him – and continued a relationship with her while dating Michelle, before she became his wife.

Cook was 25 when she met 22-year-old Obama on New Year’s Eve in 1983.

Australian-born Cook was living in her mother and stepfather’s Park Avenue apartment at the time, but had been brought up around the world, including – like Obama, Indonesia – as her father was an Australian spy and diplomat.

She wrote about it in a private memoir and said that at the party ‘I remember being very engaged and just talking nonstop’ with Obama.

‘The thing that connected us is that we both came from nowhere – we really didn’t belong.’

Their first date involved more than talk however, with Obama cooking at the West 114th Street apartment he shared with two other roommates.

‘Then we went and talked in his bedroom. And then I spent the night. It all felt very inevitable,’ she wrote in a private memoir, revealed by Garrow.

She spent the night again with him a few days later and rated him highly in bed – even writing a poem to him saying: ‘B. That’s for you. F’s for all the f***ing that we do.’

Garrow reveals that she said: ‘Sexually he really wasn’t very imaginative but he was comfortable. He was no kind of shrinking “can’t handle it. This is invasive” or “I’m timid” in any way; he was quite earthy.’

Their relationship appears to have been deeply sexual, with her writing that ‘all this f***ing’ was ‘so much more than lust’ and also saying in her diary: ‘Making love with Barack, so warm and flowing and soft but deep – relaxed and loving – opening up more.’

She also wrote in her diary about ‘passionate sex’, the book says.

But the couple also used drugs and Cook reveals that Obama was still a cocaine user when they were together.

He would spend time with other friends – Hasan Chandoo, Imad Hussain and Sohale Siddiqi, who he had been friends with at Occidental College, in Los Angeles – and Cook said the trio was taking ‘lots of cocaine’.

They were far more prolific users than Obama, who she said probably preferred staying home to read than taking the drug. Chandoo – who was later to become a fundraiser for Obama – was the leader, the book claims.

‘For every five lines that somebody did, he would have done half,’ Cook said.

The book also notes that Cook and Obama would smoke pot but only at parties and records one time when during tension in their relationship she wrote in her diary that they went to a party and got ‘high’ on cocaine.

That Obama was still using cocaine in his early 20s is a significant revelation.

He had previously only disclosed that he used it as a teenage student.

The couple split in June 1985, after a year and a half together, the book says.

But she was hardly out of his life – because she became involved with his friend Sohale in September of that year.

She and Sohale did ecstasy together, and then had sex. When she wrote to Obama and told him he replied: ‘The news of Sohale and you did hurt.’

He also used – possibly inadvertently – a racial slur to refer to Sohale and the other two Pakistani-born friends, calling them ‘the Pakis’ in the same letter.

His first name girlfriend in the book was Alex McNear, who is described as a ‘beautiful blond’ who was the focus of a crushes for many students at Occidental College.

One male student even fantasized that she was ‘the most beautiful lesbian’.

Later, writes Garrow, Obama boasted to fellow Illinois state lawmakers at their regular poker games in the early 2000s about a sexual conquest who appears to align with her.

One close acquaintance told Garrow: ‘The only woman he ever talked about screwing was some really hot blond chick that he was still proud of.

‘He was really proud that he’d banged some super-hot blonde from a super-rich family.’

McNear was not super-rich and Garrow suggests this was an ‘exaggerated’ version of her upbringing being used by Obama.

However the book is far sketchier on their time together, noting that she knew him in Manhattan as both moved there when he transferred from Occidental to Columbia.

When Obama came to write Dreams From My Father, he created a composite girlfriend from the early 1980s, representing all his white ex-girlfriends.

The book discloses that Jager felt particularity upset by his treatment of his white girlfriends in Dreams From My Father.

Not only did she become part of ‘a woman in New York who I loved’, their time living together in Chicago for two years was dropped, and – she said – love letters he sent her were the basis for much of the narrative.

‘I never understood why he wrote it this way,’ she said.

‘I wonder if the unedited Dreams is as inaccurate as the published version.’


Barack Obama proposed to a different woman – twice – before he met Michelle and kept on seeing her for the first year of his relationship with FLOTUS.

Sheila Miyoshi Jager was almost entirely omitted from Obama’s own biography, Dreams of My Father, where she was simply combined with his other white exes into one character.

But according to Rising Star, Jager played a huge role in Obama’s formative years. So much so that even after Barack met his wife-to-be Michelle, he kept seeing Jager on and off for at least a year, the book claims.

The couple were very much in love in the mid 1980s when they were living together in Chicago, according to Jager, who described them as being ‘an island unto ourselves.’

Their relationship quickly progressed and in the winter of 1986, while visiting his girlfriend’s parents, Barack popped the question, Jager told Garrow.

But Jager’s parents were concerned that she was too young – Jager was 23 and Obama was 25 – and refused his advances.

They remained together, but it was about this time that Jager began to realize her then-boyfriend’s ‘deep-seated need to be loved and admired.’

The book claims that Barack kept on seeing Jager for the first year he was dating Michelle but said it stopped after the couple married in 1992.

Now 53, the associate professor and director of the East Asian program at Oberlin College in Ohio, told Garrow that Obama became ‘so very ambitious very suddenly.’

‘I remember very clearly when this transformation happened, and I remember very specifically that by 1987, about a year into our relationship, he already had his sights on becoming president.’

But Obama believed he needed to ‘fully identify as African American’ to fulfill his political ambitions – and believed that having a non-black spouse could damage his prospects, according to the book.

This reportedly put pressure on Obama’s relationship with Jager who is of Dutch and Japanese heritage.

By the time he was leaving for Harvard Law School, their relationship was on the rocks.

But Obama was not ready to give up on Jager, and proposed to her for a second time – asking her to join him in Harvard.

Again Jager turned him down.

She believed that his proposal was ‘out of a sense of desperation over our eventual parting and not in any real faith in our future.’

The second marriage rejection was too much for their relationship, and the couple split.

It is also possible that Obama cheated on Jager with an Hispanic single mother of three he had met through his work as a ‘community organizer’.

Garrow says that Mary Ellen ‘Lena’ Montes became an ‘intimate friend’.

She was a divorced young mother who had become a prominent activist in Chicago.

In the August after Obama first moved to Chicago, Jager visited her family and he spent time with Lena.

‘Obama would remember some intense making-out,’ Garrow writes, ‘while Lena explained: “I’m a passionate person.”‘

After he moved in with Jager, Lena had the impression that it was ‘because of convenience’.

Indeed, her existence may have precipitated his split from Jager, as Garrow recalls how after an argument, she found Obama’s journal under his bed and looked through it.

She was upset about ‘someone’ in the journal, Lena recalled later – although Lena did not know if she was the person Jager was upset about.

‘I just remember him saying that she was leaving… because of this journal,’ Lena said.

Regardless of whether he was faithful to Jager, Obama went to law school then met Michelle. The couple quickly fell for each other and began dating.

But Garrow claims that Jager and Barack continued to see each other on and off after she arrived at Harvard for a teaching fellowship. Garrow describes Obamas as having ‘two powerful, overlapping relationships’.

‘I always felt bad about it,’ Jager said.

However, after Barack and Michelle married in 1992, Jager says that they stopped seeing each other and their contact was limited to the odd letter or phone call.

The Obamas have not publicly responded to the claims in the book.


President Obama considered pursuing a gay relationship while he was a college student.

Writing about the former president’s two years at Occidental College in Los Angeles, Garrow discloses in Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama the close relationship Obama had with assistant professor Lawrence Goldyn.

‘Goldyn made a huge impact on Barry Obama,’ Garrow writes. ‘Almost a quarter century later, asked about his understanding of gay issues, Obama enthusiastically said, “my favorite professor my first year in college was one of the first openly gay people that I knew. . . . He was a terrific guy.” with whom Obama developed a ‘friendship beyond the classroom.’

It was the winter of 1980 when Obama took a political science course at Occidental taught by the openly gay professor, a 1973 graduate of Reed College in Oregon with a PhD from Stanford.

To say that Goldyn was out ‘would be an understatement,’ a fellow student at the college told Garrow. Goldyn was ‘funny, engaging’ and ‘wore these really right bright yellow pants and open-toed sandals.’

Goldyn was one of the first gay people that Obama knew and Obama said the ‘strong friendship that developed helped to educate me.’

Goldyn would remember that Obama was not fearful of being associated with him.

Three years later, writes the author, ‘Obama wrote somewhat elusively to his first intimate girlfriend that he had thought about and considered gayness but ultimately decided that a same-sex relationship would be less challenging and demanding than developing one with the opposite sex.’

. . .

The Advocate, a leading gay and lesbian magazine asked President Obama [in] 2009 who had most profoundly influenced his ideas about gays and lesbians[;] the second person he named – after his mother – was Lawrence Goldyn.

‘He was a wonderful guy,’ Obama said. ‘He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with.

‘And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.’

Goldyn retrained as a doctor and is now an HIV specialist in Mendocino, California.

David Garrow, author of the wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Martin Luther King Jr., and is a regular contributor to The New York Times and The Washington Post.

See (“Obama’s sex secrets laid bare: How he considered a gay fling, had passionate sex and COCAINE with one white girl, proposed twice to another – and CHEATED on Michelle before they married“) (emphasis added); see also (“‘They went back and forth having sex, screaming, yelling, having sex.’ Meet the college professor who Barack Obama loved and lost because he ‘wasn’t black enough to have a white wife’“)

All of this is consistent with my article above; and all were white women except for Moochie.

If anyone thinks that Obama will not cheat on her, again, they are delusional. Like John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton before him, his marriage may be simply one “of convenience.”

See (“Will Barack And Michelle Divorce?“); see also (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History“) and (“Clinton Fatigue”) and (“The Truth About Martin Luther King, Jr. Emerges . . . Finally“)


15 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

‘Black Lives Matter’ Must Be Destroyed

The Washington Times has reported:

President Trump took aim at the Black Lives Matter movement and former President Obama Monday, saying ambush-style killings of police last year during tensions in minority communities were “a stain on the very fabric of our society” and that too many Americans “obstruct” law enforcement.

“We are living through an era in which our police are subjected to unfair vilification and defamation — even worse, hostility and violence,” Mr. Trump said at a memorial ceremony at the Capitol for fallen officers. “More officers were slain last year in ambushes than in any year in more than two decades.”

Of fallen officers, Mr. Trump said, “We owe it to their memory to put truth before politics, justice before agendas, and to put the safety and security of the American people above everything else.”

While the president didn’t mention Black Lives Matter by name, Mr. Trump said, “The attacks on our police must end, and they must end right now.” He specifically addressed ambushes of police last year in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and in Dallas.

Some law enforcement officials were critical of President Barack Obama during the height of police-minority tensions, accusing him of emboldening the BLM movement and putting more cops at risk. Mr. Obama convened a task force on police practices in an effort to build better relations between police departments and minority communities.

Mr. Trump seemed to refer to Mr. Obama Monday when he told police officials, “I want you to know that patriotic Americans of all backgrounds truly support and love our police. A very sad thing is that many of today’s politicians don’t want to say that, don’t want to talk about that because it’s not politically correct or they think it might hurt them with the voters. I will say it and I will talk about it proudly.”

He also told the gathering, “You are entitled to leadership at the highest level that will draw a bright line in the sand, not a red line in the sand that isn’t gone over, but a bright line in the sand. And we will protect you, that I can tell you, and we will say ‘Enough is enough.’ “

Mr. Obama had infamously failed to enforce his own “red line in the sand” against Syria after that government’s military launched a chemical-weapons attack in 2013.

The president also called for Americans to “end the reckless words of incitement that give rise to danger and give rise to violence” against police.

He said too many Americans “obstruct” the work of law enforcement.

“It is time to work with our cops, not against them, but to support them in making our streets safe, not to obstruct, which we’re doing,” Mr. Trump said. “True social justice means a future where every child in every neighborhood can play outside without fear, can walk home safely from school, and can live out the beautiful dreams that fill their hearts.”

Mr. Trump told officers at the Peace Officers’ Memorial ceremony, “You are the thin blue line between civilization and chaos. You rush into unknown danger, risking your lives for people you have never met. And often without any thanks at all.”

President Chuck Canterbury of the National Fraternal Order of Police praised Mr. Trump.

“In his short time in office, he has let America know that our law enforcement officers are important, and that their lives matter,” he said.

Total law enforcement officer fatalities through Sunday were up 39 percent over the same period last year, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Firearms-related fatalities actually dropped slightly during that period, from 18 last year to 16 so far this year.

According to the NLEOMF, law enforcement fatalities nationwide rose to their highest level in five years in 2016, with 135 officers killed in the line of duty. That was a 10 percent increase over 2015, and the highest total since 2011, when 177 officers were killed.

Firearms-related incidents accounted for the most police deaths in 2016, with 64 officers shot and killed nationwide, a 56-percent increase from 2015. Of the 64 shooting deaths of officers last year, 21 were the result of ambush-style attacks — the highest total in more than two decades.

See (“Trump takes aim at Black Lives Matter, slams ‘hostility and violence’ against police“) (emphasis added); see also (“‘Black Lives Matter’ Thugs In Chicago”)

Barack Obama was and is a despicable black racist. If anyone has any doubts whatsoever, please read his book “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there, in his own words and beliefs, which undergirded eight years of his failed presidency, and gave rise to racial divisions not seen in our great country in years.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)


23 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

This Is The Twisted Face Of Pure Evil [UPDATED]

Maxine Waters

The Washington Examiner has reported:

The Democratic National Committee reported its worst April of fundraising since 2009, according to Federal Election Commission records released Monday.

The DNC reported taking in $4.7 million last month. While this is an off-year for fundraising, the DNC hauled $8.5 million last year, and nearly $5 million in 2015. Between 2010 and 2014, the Democrats received anywhere from $6.3 million to $14.4 million per year.

However, the drop in donations coincides with an effort by DNC Chair Tom Perez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to rally support for the party. The two traveled the country on a “unity tour.”

The Republican National Committee’s April numbers more than doubled its counterpart. The RNC reported raising $9.6 million in April and holding $41 million cash on hand. The DNC said it has $8.8 million on hand.

See (“DNC reports worst April of fundraising since 2009“)

Maxine Waters’ black racist face should be on ads nationwide as next year’s elections approach. She is un-American, and should be driven from elective politics.

See also (“Why Do So Many Americans Hate This Woman?“)

Waters is the face of the Democrats and far-Left and so-called “progressives,” along with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Elijah Cummings, Al Sharpton and others.

Maxine Waters Poverty Pimp


24 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Classified Documents Show Obama Illegally Spied On Americans For Years [UPDATED}


John Solomon and Sara Carter have written for Circa:

The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community.

More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa.

The Obama administration self-disclosed the problems at a closed-door hearing Oct. 26 before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that set off alarm. Trump was elected less than two weeks later.

The normally supportive court censured administration officials, saying the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to an “institutional lack of candor” and that the improper searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26, 2017.

The admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans.

Circa has reported that there was a three-fold increase in NSA data searches about Americans and a rise in the unmasking of U.S. person’s identities in intelligence reports after Obama loosened the privacy rules in 2011.

Officials like former National Security Adviser Susan Rice have argued their activities were legal under the so-called minimization rule changes Obama made, and that the intelligence agencies were strictly monitored to avoid abuses.

The intelligence court and the NSA’s own internal watchdog found that not to be true.

“Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collections under Section 702,” the unsealed court ruling declared. “The Oct. 26, 2016 notice informed the court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries inviolation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”

The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself and safeguard American’s privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.

“I think what this emphasizes is the shocking lack of oversight of these programs,” said Neema Singh Guliani, the ACLU’s legislative counsel in Washington.

“You have these problems going on for years that only come to the attention of the court late in the game and then it takes additional years to change its practices.

“I think it does call into question all those defenses that we kept hearing, that we always have a robust oversight structure and we have culture of adherence to privacy standards,” she added. “And the headline now is they actually haven’t been in compliacne for years and the FISA court itself says in its opinion is that the NSA suffers from a culture of a lack of candor.”

The NSA acknowledged it self-disclosed the mass violations to the court last fall and that in April it took the extraordinary step of suspending the type of searches that were violating the rules, even deleting prior collected data on Americans to avoid any further violations.

“NSA will no longer collect certain internet communications that merely mention a foreign intelligence target,” the agency said in the statement that was dated April 28 and placed on its Web site without capturing much media or congressional attention.

In question is the collection of what is known as upstream “about data” about an American that is collected even though they were not directly in contact with a foreigner that the NSA was legally allowed to intercept.

The NSA said it doesn’t have the ability to stop collecting ‘about’ information on Americans, “without losing some other important data. ” It, however, said it would stop the practice to “reduce the chance that it would acquire communication of U.S. persons or others who are not in direct contact with a foreign intelligence target.”

The NSA said it also plans to “delete the vast majority of its upstream internet data to further protect the privacy of U.S. person communications.”

Agency officials called the violations “inadvertent compliance lapses.” But the court and IG documents suggest the NSA had not developed a technological way to comply with the rules they had submitted to the court in 2011.

Officials “explained that NSA query compliance is largely maintained through a series of manual checks” and had not “included the proper limiters” to prevent unlawful searches, the NSA internal watchdog reported in a top secret report in January that was just declassified. A new system is being developed now, officials said.

The NSA conducts thousand of searches a year on data involving Americans and the actual numbers of violations were redacted from the documents Circa reviewed.

But a chart in the report showed there three types of violations, the most frequent being 5.2 percent of the time when NSA Section 702 upstream data on U.S. persons was searched.

The inspector general also found noncompliance between 0.7 percent and 1.4 percent of the time involving NSA activities in which there was a court order to target an American for spying but the rules were still not followed. Those activities are known as Section 704 and Section 705 spying.

The IG report spared few words for the NSA’s efforts before the disclosure to ensure it was complying with practices, some that date to rules issued in 2008 in the final days of the Bush administration and others that Obama put into effect in 2011.

“We found that the Agency controls for monitoring query compliance have not been completely developed,” the inspector general reported, citing problems ranging from missing requirements for documentation to the failure to complete controls that would ensure “query compliance.”

The NSA’s Signal Intelligence Directorate, the nation’s main foreign surveillance arm, wrote a letter back to the IG saying it agreed with the findings and that “corrective action plans” are in the works.

See (“Obama intel agency secretly conducted illegal searches on Americans for years“) (emphasis added; chart omitted); see also (“Investigate Obamagate!“)

Also, there are reasons to believe that Barack Obama knowingly let in MS-13 gang members, which is despicable unto itself.

See, e.g., (“Obama admin knew gang members were part of illegal immigrant surge: Whistleblower“)


3 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Handed Trump A Weapon To Cripple Obamacare

Obama hangs

The New York Times has reported:

Obama administration officials knew they were on shaky ground in spending billions of dollars on health insurance subsidies without clear authority. But they did not think a long-shot court challenge by House Republicans was cause for deep concern.

For one thing, they would be out of office by the time a final ruling in the case, filed in 2014, was handed down. They also believed that a preliminary finding against the administration would ultimately be tossed out. Finally, they figured that President Hillary Clinton could take care of the problem, if necessary.

Well, they are out of office, Mrs. Clinton is not president and the uncertain status of the cost-sharing payments now looms as the biggest threat to the stability of the insurance exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act. A dubious decision made by the previous White House has handed the current administration a powerful weapon to wield against the health care legislation that it despises.

“The administration should not have found an appropriation where none existed,” said Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor who has studied and written about the issue. “The Obama administration argument that the Affordable Care Act included an appropriation for the cost-sharing payments never held water.”

Judge Rosemary M. Collyer agreed with that assertion last year. She ruled that the Obama administration had no explicit authority to pay as much as $130 billion over 10 years to insurance companies to cover out-of-pocket health costs for millions of lower-income Americans obtaining insurance on the new health exchanges. At the same time, she found that the Republican-led House had the standing to sue the administration — a potentially far-reaching decision that many constitutional law experts predicted would be overturned on appeal, causing the suit to be dismissed.

Then November’s election upended all the calculations. Donald J. Trump won, and his interest in defending the executive branch against the House lawsuit was nonexistent given his antipathy for the health care law.

But neither he nor congressional Republicans were in any hurry to drop the appeal initiated by the Obama administration because that would mean the subsidies would be immediately cut off, throwing the health insurance market into turmoil. Instead, the lawsuit has been essentially suspended and the payments have become a new bargaining chip in Washington. The administration is essentially doling them out on a month-to-month basis while Republicans struggle to come together on their own health care replacement plan.

Republicans say the fight over the subsidies is just one element contributing to a failure of the health care law.

“This law is in the middle of a collapse,” Speaker Paul D. Ryan told reporters before the House went on its Memorial Day break. “We need to bring down the cost of coverage, and we need to revitalize the market so that people have real choices and real access to affordable health care.”

Democrats and other critics say it is the Trump administration’s position on the cost-sharing payments that is a chief contributor to the shakiness in the market, with insurers abandoning the program or raising premiums in anticipation of the federal dollars disappearing. They say that the White House maneuvering on the subsidies is simply the latest in a series of calculated moves meant to sabotage the insurance program, starting with an order to end enforcement of the requirement that people obtain insurance.

While some Democrats acknowledge that the Obama administration left the law vulnerable to attack with the way it funded the subsidies, they say it is Republicans who will now pay politically if the program collapses on their watch.

“This would put their hands on the bloody knife,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who is heading the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Mr. Bagley, the law school professor, agrees that Republicans would be held accountable for a failure in the marketplace. He says they should be because of the actions they have taken to undermine it.

“The biggest source for the instability in the markets in 2018 is the president,” he said, warning of a run of damaging headlines for Republicans beginning this fall if things proceed on their current course.

Republicans dismiss such talk and say that the public knows just where the problems with the health care law originated — and it is not with them.

“The blame belongs with Obamacare,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said recently. “There’s just no serious way to now try and spin away these years and years of Obamacare failures on cost.”

The ongoing debate overlooks an underlying problem with the Affordable Care Act. In the past, disputes such as the funding fight would have been resolved with corrective legislation.

Congress has traditionally taken years to resolve disagreements and unintended consequences arising from complex pieces of social legislation, as they continue to do with Medicare, which became law in the 1960s. But the bitter partisan divide over health care has prevented any such tweaking.

What to do about the payments will no doubt arise in budget talks between Capitol Hill and the White House.

The Trump administration could try again to extract concessions from Democrats by trading a commitment to continue funding the subsidies even though the White House was unsuccessful in doing so this year.

And if the Republican effort to find a substitute to the health care law ends in failure, which now seems a real possibility, perhaps Republicans and Democrats could find a way to come together to make repairs to the Affordable Care Act and resolve doubts surrounding the payments.

But for now, the uncertainty continues to imperil both the Affordable Care Act and the politicians who could be held accountable for any failure.

See (“Obama Unwittingly Handed Trump a Weapon to Cripple the Health Law“) (emphasis added)


28 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump: Let Obamacare Implode [UPDATED]

Obama hangs

Newsmax has reported:

President Donald Trump Friday vowed to “let Obamacare implode” after bare-bones legislation to repeal the healthcare law failed on a decisive early morning vote cast by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain.

“They should have approved healthcare last night, but you can’t have everything,” Trump told law enforcement at a rally vowing to destroy the MS-13 street gang on Long Island in New York.

“They’ve been working on that one for seven years,” he said. “Can you believe that?

“The swamp.

“But we’ll get it done,” Trump said. “We’re going to get it done.

“I said from the beginning, let Obamacare implode, and then do it.

“I turned out to be right. Let Obamacare implode.”

McCain, 80, who returned to Washington this week after brain cancer surgery, joined Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to vote against a “skinny” bill that would have repealed core elements of the Affordable Care Act.

McCain cast his vote around 1:30 a.m. Friday. The legislation failed 49-51, falling just short of the 50 votes needed to advance it.

The senator said Thursday that he would not support the repeal, proposed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, unless House Republicans agreed to go to conference to reach a deal for broader healthcare reform.

On Tuesday, McCain cast the 50th vote to start debate on the “skinny” repeal bill, creating a tie that was broken by Vice President Mike Pence.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Obama Handed Trump A Weapon To Cripple Obamacare“) and (Dick Morris: “Health Care: What Happens Now?”)


Seven Republican senators voted against the Obamacare repeal after previously pledging to support it. Here’s a list of the senators along with their previous quotes supporting repeal:


THEN: “This law is not affordable for anyone in Alaska. That is why I will support the bill that repeals the ACA and wipes out its harmful impacts.”

NOW: Voted Against Repeal


THEN: “The repeal of this law will not only reduce federal spending, but it will also allow Congress to address problems within the current health care system.”

NOW: Voted Against Repeal


THEN: “I have consistently voted to repeal and replace this disastrous health care law, and I am glad that a repeal bill will finally reach the president’s desk.”

NOW: Voted Against Repeal


THEN: “Obamacare was an historic mistake, and should be repealed and replaced with step-by-step reforms that transform the health care delivery system.”

NOW: Voted Against Repeal


THEN: “I believe that we made – that Congress made – a real error in passing Obamacare, we should repeal the law so that we can start over.”

NOW: Voted Against Repeal


THEN: “It is clear that any serious attempt to improve our health care system must begin with a full repeal and replacement of Obamacare.”

NOW: Voted Against Repeal


THEN: “[Obamacare] is fundamentally flawed. I do think we ought to delay … and then we’ve got to repeal this thing and start over.”

NOW: Voted Against Repeal

They must be “Cantorized,” and driven from the Congress like the former Virginia congressman Eric Cantor.

Nothing less will suffice.


13 08 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama Is A Filthy Black Racist


Dino-Ray Ramos and Dominic Patten have written an anti-Trump, biased article for DEADLINEHollywood:

Following a delayed and controversial response by Donald Trump to the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia today, former President Barack Obama has spoken out about the gathering and subsequent violence on social media this evening.

While never directly saying the word Charlottesville, the 44th POTUS quoted one of his heroes Nelson Mandela in a trio of tweets poignantly spotlighting foundations of racism and hate. Obama hasn’t tweeted since July 19, so the timing clearly implied he was sharing his thoughts on the events in Charlottesville.

Obama was not the only significant Democrat to address the tragedy and hatred of Charlottesville today. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former presidential candidate and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders and former President Bill Clinton also tweeted their thoughts.

The tweet from former VP Biden was clearly a direct response to the inadequate remarks made by the former Celebrity Apprentice host this morning where he put blame “on many sides.” A number of people criticized Trump for not directly addressing the March by white supremacists and the subsequent actions today in the University of Virginia town.

See (“Barack Obama Addresses Racist Charlottesville Rally With Nelson Mandela Quote“)

Where were the Obamas, the Democrats, Leftists and others when the thoroughly-evil “Black Lives Matter” group incited violence across the country, with surely more to come?

Obama and his wife Moochie have done more to destroy race relations and harmony in America than any others.

If one has doubts about his racism that undergirded eight years of his failed presidency, please read the article above, which was the first one published when this blog began in 2009.

The article summarizes his book, “Dreams from My Father,” with direct quotes and page cites.

Michelle's anger


6 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Black Racist Barack Obama Defends His Lawlessness [UPDATED]


Newsmax has reported:

Former President Barack Obama said that the decision by the Trump administration to end the “Dreamer” program was “self-defeating” and “cruel.”

In a rare statement since leaving the presidency, Obama said that “the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question.”

“Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program would be rescinded, after a phase-out of six months. President Donald Trump has called for Congress to address the issue of what happens to individuals who came to the United States as kids with their undocumented parents.

But Obama defended his 2012 executive order that established the DACA program, noting that he issued it after Congress failed to pass so-called “Dreamer” legislation.

In his statement, Obama said that “Today, that shadow has been cast over some of our best and brightest young people once again. To target these young people is wrong — because they have done nothing wrong. It is self-defeating — because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel.”

Sessions argued that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority when he issued his executive order. But legal scholars have different opinions on whether that is the case.

Obama said that his executive order was “based on the well-established legal principle of prosecutorial discretion, deployed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike, because our immigration enforcement agencies have limited resources, and it makes sense to focus those resources on those who come illegally to this country to do us harm.”

He said that after the executive order, “deportations of criminals went up. Some 800,000 young people stepped forward, met rigorous requirements, and went through background checks. And America grew stronger as a result.”

See (“Obama: Trump Immigration Move ‘Cruel,’ Not ‘Required Legally'”) (emphasis added)

Barack Obama and Moochie are black racist scum, who have done more to damage the fabric of America than any other POTUS and FLOTUS in our great nation’s history.

If anyone has any doubts whatsoever that he is a racist, please read his book, “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there, in his own words, and they are shocking.

The two of them are the very worst of America, followed closely by Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton and Elijah Cummings.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

Michelle's anger

America’s Leftist media ignores the fact that the Democrats gave us slavery and fought to preserve it.

Also, Barack Obama’s efforts to help illegal aliens actually hurts black Americans, who are often the last hired and first fired, and who keep getting pushed farther down America’s economic totem pole by the new arrivals from other countries.

Lots of us were Democrats once; however, like Ronald Reagan, we left the Party and will never go back.

The “Black Lives Matter” and Antifa groups spread violence and racism, and must be crushed.


19 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Barack Obama did more to fan violence and racial hatred than any other president in the history of our great nation. As discussed in my article above, he is a despicable black racist who will forever be a stain on America’s history.

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

“The Barbarian cannot make … he can befog and destroy but … he cannot sustain; and of every Barbarian in the decline or peril of every civilization exactly that has been true.”

Hilaire Belloc’s depiction of the barbarian is recalled to mind as the statues honoring the history and heroes of the Republic and of the West continue to be vandalized and smashed.

A week ago, the statue of missionary and Catholic Saint Fr. Junipero Serra was beheaded at the Santa Barbara Mission he founded. A century-old Columbus statue in Central Park was defaced and spray-painted with: “Hate will not be tolerated.”

Baltimore’s monument to Francis Scott Key, who observed the bombardment of Fort McHenry on a British warship late in the War of 1812 and was inspired to write “The Star-Spangled Banner,” was covered in red paint. “Racist anthem” was written across it.

In Berkeley, home of the Free Speech Movement, the university last week had to spend $600,000 to protect an invited speaker of the college Republicans from being assaulted.

But St. Louis was where the real action was. Friday, a mob hurled rocks and bottles injuring 11 cops, leaving one with a broken jaw. They smashed windows at the mayor’s residence and marched miles to the Central West End to berate diners on patios of restaurants with the menacing chant: “Off the sidewalk. Into the street.”

Saturday, the mob invaded and shut down a suburban mall, and then smashed windows across a nightlife district.

The protesters rationale: rage at a not-guilty verdict in the murder trial of ex-cop Jason Stockley in the death of Anthony Lamar Smith — in 2011.

Stockley’s police van had been struck by Smith’s car, who had been nabbed in an alleged drug deal and led police on an 80-mile-an-hour chase, at the end of which Stockley emptied his gun in Smith.

Yet even Attorney General Eric Holder declined to investigate.

On Sunday, Black Lives Matter showed up at the St. Louis’ police headquarters chanting, “Stop killing us!” But if the killing of black folks is a legitimate grievance, we need to ask: Who is killing them?

Last year, there were 4,300 victims of shootings in Chicago and 762 deaths. How many of those shootings were by cops?

How many of those shootings, mostly of blacks, were acts of “terrorism by White supremacists, White nationalists, neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan,” all of whom our ever-heroic Congress demanded that President Trump, in a joint resolution after Charlottesville, denounce.

Nowhere in the resolution was there any mention of Antifa, the “anti-fascist” fighters on the other side of the Charlottesville brawl, where a protester was run down and killed by a Nazi sympathizer.

What is it in their DNA that causes Republicans reflexively to sign on to a one-sided Democratic denunciation of President Trump for the sin of suggesting there were two parties to the Charlottesville brawl?

And are neo-Nazis really a threat to the republic?

In 1963, this writer was at Dr. King’s March on Washington, which began on the Monument grounds where George Lincoln Rockwell’s Nazis were yelling slurs. On the site where Rockwell’s Nazis stood, there stands today the African-American Museum.

When my father was a 21-year-old Al Smith Democrat in D.C. in the Calvin Coolidge era, scores of thousands of anti-Catholic Klansmen strode up Pennsylvania Avenue, and the national Klan numbered in the millions.

But is the KKK of today a serious threat to civil rights?

Lately, St. Louis and East St. Louis have boasted the highest murder rates in America. Is that the doing of white supremacists?

This morning we read there have been so many smashed and stolen bicycles that Baltimore is canceling its Bike Share program.

Did David Duke and his Klan friends steal all those bikes?

Who are the ones shouting down speakers? Who violently disrupts political rallies, on campuses and off? Who engages in mob violence after almost every police shooting of a black suspect? As for interracial assaults, rapes and murders, according to FBI crime statistics, these are primarily the work of black criminals against white victims.

The Justice Department should report on hate crimes by white racists. But from the stats, anti-white racism is far more common and far more manifest in crimes of violence. Who reports that truth?

Are Christian supremacists murdering Muslims in Europe, or are Muslim supremacists committing acts of terrorism in Europe and conducting genocide against Christians in the Middle East?

The left has been marinated in an ideology where the enemy is always to the right. People blinded by ideology, unable to see the true enemies of their civilization, end up losing it, and their lives as well.

“We sit by and watch the Barbarian,” wrote Belloc, “We tolerate him … We are tickled by his irreverence; his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creed refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond; and on those faces there are no smiles.

See (“Who Truly Imperils Our Free Society?“) (emphasis added); see also (“The Black Racist Barack Obama Defends His Lawlessness“) and (“UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDENT NAPOLITANO IS A DISGRACE, AND MUST BE FIRED“)

The only things that the “Black Lives Matter” and Antifa thugs understand is violence, so it is time to show them real violence as Ronald Reagan did when he was Governor of California.


23 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Boycott The Democrats, Completely [UPDATED]

Colin Kaepernick takes a knee

John Bowden has written at TheHill:

Former Democratic Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) tweeted that she hopes all NFL players kneel during the national anthem on Sunday in response to President Trump’s remarks attacking Colin Kaepernick.

Edwards, who left Congress earlier this year, called Trump a “white supremacist who squats in our White House” in her tweet.

Trump suggested at a rally Friday night for Alabama Senate candidate Luther Strange (R) that NFL players like Kaepernick who kneel during the national anthem should be fired and fans should walk out.

“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a b—- off the field right now,'” Trump said, adding, “‘He is fired.'”

“When people like yourselves turn on television and you see those people taking the knee when they are playing our great national anthem – the only thing you could do better is if you see it, even if it’s one player, leave the stadium,” Trump added Friday. “I guarantee things will stop.”

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell responded to Trump’s remarks on Saturday, calling them “divisive” and saying they show a “lack of respect” for the league and its players.

“Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities,” Goodell said.

See (“Dem calls for all NFL players to kneel during national anthem“) (emphasis added)

Another reason to boycott the Democrats, completely.

Like Maxine Waters, Donna Edwards appears to be nothing more than another despicable black racist.

See, e.g., (“This Is The Twisted Face Of Pure Evil“)

As my article above captures in his own words, the racist Barack Obama created and fostered a black-white racial divide in our great country, which had been healing for decades. Today the festering wounds have been torn wide open.

This son of Indonesia—where he grew up with his mother and her second husband—has managed to pit American against American, in an attempt to destroy the very fabric of the United States.

Also, he did little or nothing to help black Americans, as they fell farther down the economic totem pole during his failed presidency; and black-on-black crimes have torn asunder his Chicago and other U.S. cities.

Illegal immigration has meant that jobs have gone to others; and tragically, the black-white racial divide has become even more pronounced. His far-Left Democrats have drunk from the same “Kool-Aid,” and followed him into electoral purgatory.

And yes, lots of us were Democrats once, but—like Ronald Reagan before us—we turned our backs on the party years ago, and will never go back.

Next, it is doubtful that Colin Kaepernick and other players like him will ever play in the NFL again. Americans are boycotting the league’s games, and much more is expected.

See, e.g., See (“It’s Shocking How Empty The Stadium Was For Thursday Night Football”—”[Colin Kaepernick’s] San Francisco 49ers Thursday night game against the Los Angeles Rams kicked off in front of a nearly empty stadium”) and (“‘Sunday Night Football’ Ratings Down Again On Day Of Player Protests”)

Last but by no means least, Rasmussen Reports polling indicates that 69 percent of of Democrats say that President Trump is a bigger threat than North Korea’s Kim Jong-un.

See (“69% of Democrats Say Trump A Bigger Threat Than North Korea’s ‘Rocket Man’“)

This simply underscores how “brain dead” and un-American the Democrats are. As I have written previously:

At a time when both Democrats and some in the GOP are trying to destroy the Trump presidency, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un has ambitious plans for us, which will end all of our dreams.

Today, a nation-ending EMP Attack can be launched from North Korea, or from a sub or barge located in the Atlantic or Pacific, or in the Gulf of Mexico or the Sea of Cortez. Our military is partially hardened, but the civilian sector is not.

Only 30 million Americans would survive, which is scary to say the least. This should be the number one issue in Washington and throughout our great nation, instead of the nonstop efforts to cripple or destroy the Trump presidency.

See, (“North Korea EMP Threat Advancing Faster Than Expected“)


26 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


NFL sucks

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

“America refuses to address the pervasive evil of white cops killing black men, and I will not stand during a national anthem that honors the flag of such a country!”

That is the message Colin Kaepernick sent by “taking a knee” during the singing of “The Star Spangled Banner” before San Francisco ’49s games in 2016. No NFL owner picked up his contract in 2017. But a few players began to copy Colin and to “take a knee.”

Friday night in Alabama, President Trump raged that any NFL player who disrespects Old Glory is a “son of a b—-h” who ought to be kicked off the field and fired by his team’s owner. And if the owners refuse to do their patriotic duty, the fans should take a walk on the NFL.

And so the stage was set for NFL Sunday.

Two hundred players, almost all black, knelt or sat during the national anthem. The Patriots’ Tom Brady stood in respect for the flag, while locking arms in solidarity with kneeling teammates.

The Pittsburgh Steelers coach kept his team in the locker room. Steeler Alejandro Villanueva, an ex-Army Ranger and combat vet, came out and stood erect and alone on the field.

For NFL players, coaches, commentators, owners and fans, it was an uncomfortable and sad day. And it is not going to get any better. Sundays with the NFL, as a day of family and friends, rest and respite from the name-calling nastiness of American politics, is over.

The culture war has come to the NFL. And Trump will be proven right. Having most players stand respectfully during the national anthem, while locking arms with other players sitting or kneeling in disrespect of the flag, is a practice the NFL cannot sustain.

The mega-millionaire and billionaire owners of NFL franchises are going to have to come down off the fence and take a stand.

The issue is not the First Amendment. It is not whether players have a right to air their views about what cops did to Michael Brown in Ferguson, or Eric Garner in Staten Island, or Freddie Gray in Baltimore. Players have a right to speak, march in protest, or even burn the flag.

The question NFL owners are going to have to answer soon with a definitive “yes” or “no” is this: Do players, before games, have a right, as a form of protest, to dishonor and disrespect the flag of the United States and the republic for which it stands? Or is that intolerable conduct that the NFL will punish?

Trump is taking a beating from owners, players and press for being “divisive.” But he did not start this fight or divide the country over it.

Kaepernick did, and the players who emulated him, and the coaches and owners who refuse to declare whether insulting the flag is now permissible behavior in the NFL.

As Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said Sunday, team owners and Commissioner Roger Goodell have strict rules for NFL games. No NASCAR-type ads on uniforms. Restrictions on end-zone dances. All shirttails tucked in. Certain behavior on the field can call forth 15-yard penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, or even expulsion from the game.

Our Supreme Court has denied coaches of public high school teams the right to gather players for voluntary prayer before games. Why not an NFL rule requiring players to stand respectfully silent during the national anthem, and, if they refuse, suspend them from play for that day?

Or will the NFL permit indefinite disrespect for the flag of the United States for vastly privileged players whose salaries put them in the top 1 percent of Americans?

If watching players take a knee on the gridiron before every game, in insult to the flag, is what fans can expect every week, Trump again is right: The NFL fan base will dissipate.

Sunday’s game exposed a clash of loyalties in the hearts of NFL players. Do black players stand in solidarity with Kaepernick? Do white players stand beside black teammates, if that means standing with them as they disrespect the flag under which hundreds of thousands of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have died?

This conflict in loyalties among NFL players mirrors that of our country, as America divides and our society disintegrates over issues of morality, patriotism, race and culture.

We have been here before. At the Mexico City Olympics of 1968, gold and bronze medal-winning sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos each raised a black-gloved fist as a sign of solidarity with Black America, and not the nation they were sent to represent.

A month later, America elected Richard Nixon.

In terms of fame and fortune, no professions have proven more rewarding for young black American males than the NFL and the NBA.

Whether they soil their nest is, in the last analysis, up to them.

See (“Will NFL Demand Respect for Old Glory?“) (emphasis added); see also (“THE NATIONAL FELONS LEAGUE IS SPITTING ON AMERICA, NOT THE FANS”—”Remember this, when they do what they did yesterday, they’re not disrespecting a President, they’re disrespecting an entire nation. They’re disrespecting you and me”) and (“NFL Favorability Gets Nearly Cut In Half After Anthem Protests“) and (“The N.F.L. Is Now One of the Most Divisive Brands in the U.S.“) and (“Police-focused NFL protests overlook rising, disproportionate black homicide rate“) and (“Black Lives Matter, police-focused NFL protests overlook rising black-on-black homicides“)

The despicable black racist Barack Obama must be celebrating, after having succeeded in exacerbating racial tensions and ripping our great nation apart.

See (“Race Hustlers Like The NAACP, Colin Kaepernick And Barack Obama“) and (“Boycott The Democrats, Completely“)



10 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Race Hustlers Like The NAACP, Colin Kaepernick And Barack Obama [UPDATED]

Colin Kaepernick takes a knee
[Colin Kaepernick takes a knee]

SportsDay has noted:

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) issued a response to Jerry Jones on Tuesday after the Cowboys owner said he’d sit players who don’t stand for the national anthem.

“This is not an issue about our flag, this is an issue about police brutality, racism, and the ability of members of the NFL whose communities are disproportionately impacted by police misconduct to peacefully say enough,” said NAACP interim President and CEO Derrick Johnson. “This is not simply a Black issue due to the number of white people also killed by police, but we know historically that when justice occurs for African Americans, all other members of our society benefit as well.”

Jones was the first NFL owner to declare that players will be disciplined for protesting during the anthem when he did so Sunday after the Cowboys’ loss to the Green Bay Packers. He said Tuesday that his intention is to remove the Cowboys from the debate.

“I want them [the players] to have the ammunition to tell anybody that asks them to do anything otherwise or demonstrate during that period of time, that ‘I don’t get to play if I do that,'” Jones said. “This is a workplace issue. I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding as to where I want the personnel of the Cowboys to be when we’re at the No. 1 workplace we have, which is the field and the sideline on gameday. I want to do everybody a service, as I should in leading the team, and let’s be really clear about what our expectations are.”

The NAACP’s senior director of corporate affairs said Jones not only is being insensitive toward his players, but also he’s violating their constitutional rights.

“Jerry Jones’ comments are more than tone-deaf, more than misinformed and misguided – they are a public commitment by an NFL owner to violate his players’ Constitutional right to free speech – one of the principles on which our nation was founded,” said Tony Covington, the NAACP’s Senior Director of Corporate Affairs at the NAACP. “They are proof that athletes like Colin Kaepernick who have quietly and peacefully used their platform to protest violence against communities of color do so at their own peril.”

Covington spent five seasons in the NFL in the 1990s, including four as a safety for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Jones disputed claims that he wasn’t sensitive to his players’ concerns.

“I have a complete NFL career establishing beyond reproach I back the players,” he said Tuesday in an interview with 105.3 The Fan. “One of my criticisms of my time in the NFL is that I’m too supportive of the players. … There’s no way anybody could say I’m not supportive of players and their issues. This time, the Cowboys and what’s best for the Cowboys, this time what’s best for the flag…that’s going to be the priority over all the other issues.”

The owner also isn’t violating constitutional rights as long as he’s addressing the players’ conduct in the workspace, First Amendment legal expert Chad Baruch told SportsDay.

“He’s a private employer so he’s free to make any rules he wants that infringe on free speech,” Baruch said. “He’s totally unconstrained legally.

“[The First Amendment] protects your right to have opinions against government intrusion, not to exercise that right at work.

“Having said that, all of us should be very wary of a world where employers make employment decisions based on political beliefs. All of us can understand in the long run why that might not benefit society. But that’s a values issue, not a First Amendment issue.”

See (“NAACP: Jerry Jones’ anthem comments are ‘tone-deaf,’ violate Cowboys’ constitutional rights“) (emphasis added); see also (“BOYCOTT THE NFL!“)

Worth noting is the following:

“Colin Kaepernick is a national disgrace and I’m tired of seeing him celebrated like he’s a hero,” wrote Jeremy Staat in a fundraising letter. The former NFL defender is a candidate in California’s 8th Congressional District.

See (“Former NFL Player, Congressional Candidate Calls Kaepernick ‘A National Disgrace’”)

It seem clear that Kaepernick and the NFL are finished. That much is clear.

See (“The NFL and Colin Kaepernick are done with each other“)

. . .

150 years after slavery ended, the pathetic NAACP and other black racist organizations—like the so-called “Black Lives Matter,” Antifa and other violent groups—continue to play the “race card” at every turn, and seek “reparations” (e.g., welfare payments) for their flock.

They are spearheaded by “race hustlers” such as Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters and other members of the so-called “Congressional Black Caucus”—which should be outlawed as a racist organization.

As other minorities rise up the economic totem pole, America’s blacks remain at the bottom and are passed over. And their thugs aka NFL players are highly paid, but ignore the plight of elderly and other blacks in Chicago and other American cities.

Obama and Moochie fanned the flames of black-white racism, and it is present again after almost disappearing. Obama is a despicable un-American racist and anti-Semite. If anyone has any doubts, please read his book Dreams from My Father. It is all there, in his own words, and they are shocking!

The stain and divisiveness of Obama’s failed, racist presidency may be with us for decades.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“) and (“Barack Obama Is Responsible For America’s Tragic Racial Divide“) and (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?“); but see (“Edward W. Brooke Is Dead”—”[Brooke] was an American leader before Barack Obama was even born; and he was a conciliator, not a rabble-rouser or racist”)



14 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Shame On The NFL Players And Despicable Race Hustlers!

NFL players taking knee

Valerie Richardson has written in the Washington Times:

Lost in the uproar over the NFL sideline protests against police brutality are newly released statistics showing that the threat to black men is skyrocketing — not from trigger-happy or racist cops, but from crime.

More than any other demographic group, black men are paying the price with their lives with a surging violent crime rate over the past two years, including a 20 percent jump in the overall homicide rate, even as the number of blacks killed by police declines.

Using homicide figures from the 2016 FBI Uniform Crime Report released Sept. 25, Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald found that the number of black homicide victims has jumped by nearly 900 per year since the Black Lives Matter movement took root in 2014.

“The majority of victims of that homicide surge have been black,” Ms. Mac Donald said in an email. “They were killed overwhelmingly by black criminals, not by the police and not by whites.”

Meanwhile, the number of blacks killed by police dipped from 259 in 2015 to 233 in 2016, with 2017 so far coming in below both years with 175 deaths as of Oct. 12, according to The Washington Post’s Fatal Force database.

Crime statistics are notoriously slippery: The FBI Uniform Crime Report depends on local departments to report their statistics voluntarily, and the figures tracked by sites such as the Killed by Police page on Facebook differ from those of The Post.

In addition, the percentage of blacks killed by police has long been more than double blacks’ percentage of the population — about 13.3 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Likewise was the percentage of blacks involved in violent crime.

Still, the dramatic increase in black homicide victims has raised questions over whether NFL players taking a knee in a statement against racially motivated police violence are missing the larger problem.

“If these wealthy football players really cared about saving black lives, they would support proactive policing and denounce criminality,” said Ms. Mac Donald, author of “The War on Cops” (Encounter Books, 2017). “When the police back off of proactive policing in high-crime areas, black lives are lost.”

The FBI reported that violent crime jumped in 2016 by 3.4 percent nationwide, the largest single-year increase in 25 years, which “reaffirms that the worrying violent crime increase that began in 2015 after many years of decline was not an isolated incident.”
In addition, the number of homicides rose by 7.9 percent “for a total increase of more than 20 percent in the nationwide homicide rate since 2014.”

Ms. Mac Donald and others have blamed the increasingly hands-off approach of police officers who are worried about running afoul of the Black Lives Matter movement after the 2014 shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. She dubbed it “the Ferguson effect.”

Peter Moskos, associate professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, tracked the same phenomenon in Baltimore after the April 2015 rioting over the death of a black man in police custody. He calls it “the Freddie Gray effect.”

He found a spike in homicides and shootings after the riots, which were followed by Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s decision to charge six officers in Gray’s death. Three of the officers were acquitted in non-jury trials, and charges against the other three were dismissed.

“Police were instructed — both by city leaders and then in the odd DOJ report city leaders asked for — to be less proactive since such policing will disproportionately affect minorities,” Mr. Moskos said in a Sept. 4 post. “Few seem to care that minorities are disproportionately affected by the rise in murder.”

Yet such statistics can’t compete for headlines with high-profile officer shootings such as the February 2016 barrage of bullets that killed a black couple — Kisha Michael and Marquintan Sandlin — reportedly unconscious at the time in their car in Inglewood, California.

Black Lives Matter has called for the five officers involved to be charged, while protests are continuing in St. Louis after a white police officer was acquitted of murder last month in the 2011 death of Anthony Lamar Smith.

Why the lack of focus on black-on-black crime? Those involved with Black Lives Matter have said in the past that prosecuting such killings is easier than cases involving police force against civilians.

While the NFL kneeling began as a protest against police brutality, those involved have increasingly expanded the point to encompass what San Francisco 49ers safety Eric Reid described as “systemic oppression that has been rampant in this country for decades and decades.”

Rashad Robinson, senior campaign director at Color of Change, said President Trump’s recent suggestion that owners should fire players who refuse to stand for the national anthem represents a view within sports that “black people serve at the pleasure of white people.”

“Almost every NFL owner is white. Nearly 70% of players are Black,” Mr. Robinson said in a written statement. “Yet for Donald Trump this power imbalance is not enough — he wants to be sure that players who exercise their right to protest social injustice can be fired with impunity. This is what it means to advance a white supremacist worldview.”

The latest crime figures support what rank-and-file officers are witnessing in terms of street violence, said Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, which represents 241,000 cops.

“It jibes with what our members are telling us,” said Mr. Johnson. “Violence in general is up in the sense that whether it leads to reported crime or arrests. Just the situation in our communities and our streets is worse than it was three years ago, certainly before the agitation from Black Lives Matter.”

Officers also have been hit: Ms. Mac Donald said there was a 53 percent increase in 2016 in the shooting deaths of cops, while The Washington Post database found that only 16 of the 233 black men killed by police in 2016 were unarmed.

“A police officer is 18 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer,” Ms. Mac Donald said. “Black males have made up 42 percent of all cop killers over the past decade, though they are only 6 percent of the population.”

The worst part is that those suffering from the higher crime rate are those who can least afford it, Mr. Johnson said.

“It’s the communities themselves — people who are being victimized, people who are being murdered, families who are losing loved ones, kids who are afraid to go to schools, business people who won’t open up a business because the neighborhood is too rough — that’s who’s suffering,” he said.

Not all neighborhoods are hit equally.

“It tends to be poor communities, communities of color,” Mr. Johnson said. “Communities that are already suffering from higher crime rates than their neighbors who need safe, effective, thorough law enforcement.”

See (“Black Lives Matter, police-focused NFL protests overlook rising black-on-black homicides“) (emphasis added); see also (“Race Hustlers Like The NAACP, Colin Kaepernick And Barack Obama“) and (“Boycott The Democrats, Completely“)

Black-on-black crimes have been rampant for decades, especially targeting defenseless elderly blacks. It is a tragedy that is not discussed, but it is real.

Needless to say, the NFL players—and owners—are doing nothing to prevent it, which is among the many reasons why they must be boycotted.


Protecting the elderly—and enhancing their lives—was the primary reason why the late Senator Edward W. Brooke and I wrote the “Brooke Amendment” relating to public housing nationally; and why we followed its enactment with the national “Housing Allowance” program, which morphed into the Section 8 housing program that has helped millions of Americans.

See (“Edward W. Brooke Is Dead“)

Someone commented recently on the work that Senator Brooke and I had done:

Tim: Section 8 has perpetuated blacks dependency on government. As a wise man once said, teaching a man to fish is better than giving him a fish. That translates to providing the means to learn a trade and get out of poverty.

All in all, government has done quite little to help the plight of the black. Liberal policies are the cornerstone of this failure.

We never set out to create another welfare program, or to enhance any existing welfare programs. Our primary goal was to help the elderly who were being victimized and priced out of their existing federal-housing units. But the commenter may be correct: all we did was create another layer of welfare—and yes, dependency.

Perhaps in the final analysis, we were naïve in not realizing that our best intentions would be perverted and twisted, and cheapened and sullied.


16 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

118 Law Enforcement Officers Died In Line of Duty, 57,180 Assaulted

Susan Jones has written at

118 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty last year in the United States, the FBI reported on Monday.

That was up 37 percent from the 86 law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty in 2015.

In 2016, 66 of the 118 deaths of law enforcement officers were felonious and 52 were accidental. In 2015, 41 of the 86 deaths of law enforcement officers were felonious and 45 were accidental.

Another 57,180 officers were assaulted in the line of duty in 2016, and 16,535 (or about 29 percent) sustained injuries from that assault.

“All of these numbers increased from figures reported in 2015, when 45 officers died accidentally and 41 were feloniously killed in the line of duty,” the FBI said. A total of 50,212 assaults were reported in 2015.

Of the 66 officers killed by criminal acts in 2016:

–62 of the 66 were killed by firearms;

–51 were wearing body armor at the time they were killed;

— 4 were killed intentionally with vehicles;

— 17 were killed in ambushes, 13 were killed answering disturbance calls, and 9 were killed investigating suspicious people or circumstances.

Of the 52 officers who were killed in accidents in 2016, 26 were killed in auto accidents, 12 were struck by vehicles, and 7 died in motorcycles accidents.

Through its Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the FBI collects data about the circumstances surrounding assaults against law enforcement and officer deaths. The data is collected from campus, local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies, as well as FBI field offices and non-profit organizations that track line-of-duty deaths.
Ad Feedback

The FBI data is used in officer safety training.

See (“FBI: 118 Law Enforcement Officers Died in Line of Duty in 2016; 57,180 Assaulted“) (emphasis added); see also (FBI Report)

The despicable black racist Barack Obama and his wife Moochie, the so-called “Black Lives Matter” and Antifa groups, and other black racists such as Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters and Elijah Cummings are responsible for these national tragedies.



19 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

An Empty Barrel

Barack Obama and Frederica Wilson

See (“What to know about Frederica Wilson, Florida Democrat who criticized Trump“); see also (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)

White House Chief of Staff, General John F. Kelly, put it best:

See also (“John F. Kelly“)


8 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Ban The NAACP As A Racist Group

Shirin Rajaee has reported for CBS Sacramento:

The California NAACP is pushing to get rid of the national anthem that they’re calling racist and anti-black.

“This song is wrong; it shouldn’t have been there, we didn’t have it ’til 1931, so it won’t kill us if it goes away,” said the organization’s president Alice Huffman.

Colin Kaepernick started the NFL protests, which quickly spread to bring attention to systemic racial injustice in the country. But Huffman says Kaepernick’s message was lost when it turned into a debate about the flag.

“The message got distorted, the real intentions got overlooked, it became something that’s dividing us, and I’m looking for something to bring us back together,” she said.

Huffman adds that the protests did lead her to look at the lyrics of the “Star Spangled Banner” especially the parts of the anthem we don’t typically sing.

“It’s racist; it doesn’t represent our community, it’s anti-black,” she said.

Huffman is referring to the third stanza which includes the lyric “no refuge could save the hireling and slave from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.”


And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

She says some interpretations conclude that the lyrics celebrate the deaths of black American slaves fighting for freedom, and the song should be replaced with something that supports all of our values.

“That’s an extreme way of doing things,” said Kenneth Lu, a veteran living in Davis.

The opinions varied at the VFW in West Sacramento.

“I believe it’s a slap across the face, whether there’s a flaw in the context, I don’t see it that way. I have to stick with our traditions and our values and what we represent,” said Sydney Lugo.

“It won’t solve any problem,” said veteran John Cox.

Huffman says it may not solve anything, but it’s a step towards social justice that she says is long overdue.

“This is not about the flag. We love the flag. This is about a song that should never have been the national anthem. This country is a country that has shared values, and the more we respect each other, the better off we’ll be as a country,” said Huffman.

A separate resolution by the California NAACP is calling on Congress to censure President Donald Trump for his remarks about firing those who don’t stand for the anthem. They are also asking NFL teams to let Kaepernick play again.

“He still has a lot of talent, and he has the right to play, why should he be persecuted over peaceful protest?”

The organization is still looking for legislative sponsors for these resolutions.


O say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O’er the ramparts we watch’d were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bomb bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream,
‘Tis the star-spangled banner – O long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

See (“Group Calling National Anthem Lyrics Racist, Anti-Black“) (emphasis added)

Along with the violent and despicable so-called “black lives matter” and Antifa groups, the NAACP must be banned.

All references to Martin Luther King, Jr. must be removed too, and the national holiday named for him must be eliminated.

See (“The Truth About Martin Luther King, Jr. Emerges . . . Finally“)

Also, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch and many others must be indicted, convicted and imprisoned for the rest of their lives, stemming from their treasonous conduct in the “Uranium One”-Russian-Clinton scandal, which may be “the greatest scandal in American history.”

See (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) (see also the comments beneath the article)

Nothing less will suffice.


10 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

“It’s OK To Be White” Campaign Draws Fire! [UPDATED]

Bradford Richardson has written in The Washington Times:

Internet trolls provoked outrage over Halloween by hanging “It’s OK to be white” posters on several American and Canadian college campuses.

The signs were reported at Harvard, Princeton, Auburn, the University of California Berkeley, the University of Kansas, Tulane and Western Washington, as well as the University of Alberta and the University of Toronto.

Campus officials typically removed the signs once they were discovered. The posters were condemned as “divisive” and “racist” by students and administrators alike. In several cases, the police were called.

The stunt was organized on 4chan’s “Politically Incorrect” board to show that “lefties & journalists hate white people.” Seeing “the media & lefties frothing at the mouth” in response to the signs would “nuke” their credibility, the author of the 4chan thread wrote, ensuring a “massive victory for the right in the culture war.”

The police were called to Cambridge Common and Harvard Square on Nov. 1 to investigate more than a dozen “It’s OK to be white” stickers posted on light poles and electrical boxes around the town, the Boston Globe reported. Workers from the Department of Public Works removed all of the signs with knives by morning.

“HLS will not let that happen here,” Ms. Sells wrote in an email to students, the Harvard Crimson reported. “We live, work, teach, and learn together in a community that is stronger, better, and deeper because of our diversity and because we encourage open, respectful, and constructive discourse.”

A sign posted to the door of the University of Alberta’s native student center also launched an investigation on that campus.

University President David Turpin released a statement addressing “several incidents of racism that have occurred on north campus in recent days.”

“Messaging or displays that target or marginalize any individuals or groups will not be tolerated,” Mr. Turpin said in a statement, World Net Daily reported. “We are working with the University of Alberta Protective Services to find the parties responsible.”

Mady Womack, student body president at the University of Kansas, said it is “shameful that anyone would use these posters to promote a racist agenda.”

“I am deeply disgusted that this organized online campaign to divide university communities across the country has come to our campus,” Ms. Womack told the Kansan.

Posters were found in residence halls, academic buildings, and on bulletin boards around campus at Tulane University, Tulane Hullabaloo reported. Heather Seaman, director of the Lavin-Bernick Center for University Life, said they were immediately taken down.

Mike Strecker, executive director for Tulane public relations, said the president’s office was reviewing surveillance footage to determine the identity of the culprit.

“We believe these signs were posted at Tulane as part of a national campaign,” Mr. Strecker said. “To state the obvious, it is ‘OK’ to be any race. We have no idea who posted the signs, but that person is obviously not speaking for Tulane University. Tulane is firmly committed to diversity and to supporting every member of our community.”

Police were called Nov. 3 in response to reports of posters in several locations at the University of California Berkeley, the Daily Californian reported. Department spokesperson Sgt. Sabrina Reich said the signs did not constitute a hate crime because they did not target a specific race and because no criminal act was committed.

See (“‘It’s OK to be white’ campaign rankles higher education”)

As of July 2016, white Americans were the racial majority, with the total white population (including White Hispanics and Latinos) being 76.9 percent. So-called “African Americans” amounted to 13.3 percent of the population.

See, e.g., (“Race and ethnicity in the United States“)

Efforts to thwart white Americans from expressing their views and beliefs, nonviolently, are outrageous. Steps should be taken immediately to remove those in academia who have sought to stifle such free speech.

Despite his beliefs that are discussed in the article above, we tolerated Barack Obama’s racist views, which have existed most of his life. Indeed, he has done more than any other U.S. president to tear apart the racial fabric of America, which will be his legacy.

The fact that universities do little or nothing to shut down the violent so-called “black lives matter” and Antifa groups is unconscionable. Overt racism by the NAACP—and despicable black racists such as Maxine Waters, Frederica Wilson, Colin Kaepernick, and Al Sharpton—is also tolerated.

See, e.g., (“Ban The NAACP As A Racist Group“) and (“118 Law Enforcement Officers Died In Line of Duty, 57,180 Assaulted“) and (“Shame On The NFL Players And Despicable Race Hustlers!“)

The efforts to eradicate nonviolent white views and beliefs—and historical statues and monuments—are the fulfillment of George Orwell’s prescient Animal Farm, where all of the animals were equal until the Pigs reigned supreme and subjugated the other animals.

See (“Animal Farm“)


12 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Three UCLA Basketball Thugs Arrested In China For Shoplifting [UPDATED]

Ben Bolch has written in the Los Angeles Times:

UCLA’s basketball team returned from Shanghai after its season-opening victory over Georgia Tech on Saturday without the three players ensnared in a legal imbroglio over the alleged theft of designer sunglasses.

Freshmen LiAngelo Ball, Jalen Hill and Cody Riley remained in a hotel in Hangzhou, China, along with a contingent of UCLA and Pac-12 Conference officials, according to a person close to the situation not authorized to comment publicly because of the sensitive nature of the information.

LaVar Ball, LiAngelo’s father, and other family members also stayed behind, according to ESPN, for the Tuesday opening of a Big Baller Brand pop-up shop in Hong Kong.

ESPN reported that a person with firsthand knowledge of the investigation said that there was surveillance video of the players shoplifting from three stores inside an upscale shopping center next to the hotel where the team was staying in Hangzhou.

The players are expected to remain in the hotel until their legal situation is resolved.

UCLA coach Steve Alford declined to address the situation after his team’s 63-60 triumph over Georgia Tech at the Baoshan Sports Center in Shanghai and a school representative declined to comment.

See (“UCLA basketball team returns to L.A., with three arrested players still in China“) (emphasis added); see also (“UCLA players accused of shoplifting at three stores, will stay in China when team flies home“) and (“3 UCLA basketball players could be stuck in China ‘for months'”)

Leave ’em there.

They have dishonored their country, UCLA, their families and themselves.

Perhaps former UCLA basketball great, Bill Walton, put it best—and spoke for countless Bruin alums and fans in the process:

I am sad, disappointed and embarrassed. This is a very big deal. The noble purpose here has been stained. Our host, Alibaba China, the people, they have been better than perfect in everything. They’ve done everything right to make this all work. Now, members of our family have displayed an appalling lack of honor, lack of respect, lack of decency by doing something in someone else’s home that they would never do in their own. And I want to apologize right now on behalf of the human race for this travesty.

See (“Bill Walton apologizes ‘on behalf of the human race’ for UCLA players involved in shoplifting incident“)

As another UCLA alum put it—whenever the three players return to the United States:

They should be kicked off the team. What an embarrassment for UCLA.

At the very least!


16 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Crush the NFL! [UPDATED]

NFL sucks

Andrew Beaton has written in the Wall Street Journal:

The NFL accused Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones of trying to sabotage its contract negotiations with commissioner Roger Goodell, calling his conduct “detrimental to the league’s best interests.”

That language, included in a letter sent to Jones’s attorney on Wednesday and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, escalates a growing conflict between the league and one of its most powerful owners. The letter says Jones’s “antics, whatever their motivation, are damaging the League.”

The tension has grown so severe that the topic of removing Jones has been discussed by at least some owners, according to three people familiar with the matter. That type of drastic action would require the league showing conduct detrimental to the league—which is exactly the language the league used in its Nov. 15 letter to Jones’s attorney, David Boies.

That letter was shared with all of the league’s 32 owners. It was in response to a Nov. 14 letter from Jones’s lawyer, David Boies, who wrote that “Mr. Jones is in possession of a document that shows that certain statements made about those negotiations are not accurate.”

In a radio interview Nov. 14, Jones described any chatter about his ouster “ridiculous.” A spokesman for the Cowboys didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The conflict marks a dramatic reversal for Jones, who in a matter of weeks has gone from being one of football’s most influential figures to one who is effectively ostracized from the league. It also raised the specter of a protracted civil war within the league, which has been largely unified since a series of legal battles with the late Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis.

Throughout the season, Jones has sharply criticized Goodell’s discipline of Cowboys star running back Ezekiel Elliott over violations of the league’s personal conduct policy related to alleged domestic violence. Jones and the NFL Players Association have called the suspension unfair and criticized how the investigation was conducted.

Elliott has denied the allegations and after a protracted legal battle that kept him on the field served the first game of that six-game suspension last Sunday.

Jones pivoted against Goodell in the aftermath of Elliott’s suspension, according to executives from around the league. They said as recently as two days before Elliott’s suspension was announced in August, Jones expressed his continued support for Goodell’s extension.

Although the league’s owners voted unanimously in May to proceed with negotiations for a Goodell contract extension, Jones has in recent weeks stepped up efforts to halt the process. He hired one of the country’s most prominent litigators, Boies, and threatened to sue the league and its owners over the issue. That resulted in his banishment from the compensation committee, where he served as an ad hoc member.

Jones has said he isn’t out for vengeance, but rather has been concerned about the structure of the contract and the rush to get it done when there is still about a year and a half left on Goodell’s current deal.

Throughout Jones’s history as an owner, he has been successful in not only growing the league’s business but getting his way. His decisions have driven the league’s television deals to unprecedented heights and his opinions have typically carried outsize weight among the owners.

It is unclear how many other owners support Jones. Two of the executives from around the league said Redskins owner Dan Snyder may be the only one who steadfastly supports Jones’s efforts, and that if there are others it is only a handful. A spokesman for Snyder declined to comment.

Also angering some owners was their view that Jones was behind remarks from Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter earlier this month that were critical of the NFL. If Jones encouraged Schnatter to attack the league that could qualify as detrimental conduct, the executives said.

Papa John’s is an NFL sponsor and on a recent earnings call Schnatter said the NFL has “hurt us” and expressed disappointment that the league had not resolved the player protests during the national anthem.

Jones has said he’s a joint owner of more than 100 Papa John’s stores and that Schattner’s points have “tremendous credibility.”

In a series of tweets yesterday, Papa John’s walked back those comments, apologizing to anyone who thought the comments were divisive. “We believe in the right to protest inequality and support the players’ movement to create a new platform for change,” the company tweeted.

Jones’s tactics thus far have backfired and rallied support around finishing Goodell’s extension, said the league executives. The framework for that new deal has been agreed upon.

Goodell’s new contract, which would begin in 2019, would have a base salary under $5 million, with the vast majority of his compensation contingent on incentives in different categories, according to the tentative framework in place. More than half of the league’s owners would determine annually to what extent Goodell reached those benchmarks. Goodell earned more than $34 million in 2014, according to a tax filing, and has reportedly made more than $200 million since becoming commissioner in 2006.

“The Committee is continuing its work towards finalizing a contract extension with the Commissioner,” said Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank, who is chair of the compensation committee, in a statement Monday. “The negotiations are progressing and we will keep ownership apprised of the negotiations as they move forward. We do not intend to publicly comment on our discussions.”

Boies’s Nov. 14 letter says that “Mr. Jones believes it is important that the owners know the truth about the negotiations” and plans to send an Aug. 16 memo from a consultant hired by the compensation committee.

In his response, the league’s outside counsel, Brad Karp, wrote that Boies’s letter is “yet another effort by your client to disregard and interfere” with the owners’ unanimous resolution in May to give Goodell a contract extension. The letter says “there is no legitimate basis for Mr. Jones to circulate to the full ownership a three-month-old document” that “Mr. Jones personally knows to be an outdated, historical artifact of no relevance whatsoever in the context of these lengthy negotiations.”

“With due respect,” the letter says, “we urge Mr. Jones to drop his misguided litigation threats and media campaign to undermine the Committee’s mandate.”

This clash only adds fuel to a season that has in many ways already been defined by unprecedented tensions. In addition to continued ratings declines the league has grappled with its players continued protests during the national anthem, which became the source of a feud between the country’s most popular sport and the White House, when President Donald Trump encouraged fans to boycott games if the demonstrations continue. Trump and some fans have called the protests unpatriotic, while sponsors have expressed concerns too.

Trump called for NFL owners to fire or suspend players for their protests, which began a year ago to draw attention to social issues. Vice President Mike Pence later walked out of a game because of protesting players.

The topic became the focus of the league’s October owners’ meetings, where they ultimately decided not to implement a policy that would require players to stand. Jones, meanwhile, has said he would bench any Cowboys player who took a knee during the anthem.

See (“NFL Accuses Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones of Damaging the League“) (emphasis added); see also (“Shame On The NFL Players And Despicable Race Hustlers!“) and (“Race Hustlers Like The NAACP, Colin Kaepernick And Barack Obama“) and (“BOYCOTT THE NFL!“) and (“Boycott The Democrats, Completely“) and (“NFL steps into politics, fights tax cut bill with no stadium bond breaks“) and (“NFL banks billions of dollars on the backs of taxpayers and small businesses“) and (“League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis“)

It is time to crush the NFL once and for all.

It, and the owners must be stripped of all beneficial tax treatments, as well as those benefits associated with NFL stadiums, etc.

The NFL is the moral equivalent of, and has the moral authority of Hollywood.



16 11 2017
John Hunsaker

the NFL is NOT that important to loose ANY time or sleep over the stupid came. But when these millionaire ball players complain about ANY activity going on in our country, I am not one bit interested in hearing or seeing such crap, I tuned in to watch FOOTBALL not their crap. Result: I have so much more quality time to enjoy the wonders of family, church and memories of my childhood. Go to hell… NFL.

Liked by 1 person

16 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Well said, John. Thank you for your comments.

You speak for a large swath of Americans, which is expanding each and every day.


19 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


The Associated Press has reported:

President Donald Trump says he should have left three UCLA basketball players accused of shoplifting in China in jail.

Trump’s tweet Sunday comes after the father of player LiAngelo Ball minimized Trump’s involvement in winning the players’ release in comments to ESPN.

“Who?” LaVar Ball told ESPN on Friday, when asked about Trump’s involvement in the matter. “What was he over there for? Don’t tell me nothing. Everybody wants to make it seem like he helped me out.”

Trump has said he raised the players’ detention with Chinese President Xi Jinping (shee jihn-peeng) during the leaders’ recent meeting in Beijing.

The players returned to the U.S. last week. They have been indefinitely suspended from the team.

Says Trump: “Now that the three basketball players are out of China and saved from years in jail, LaVar Ball, the father of LiAngelo, is unaccepting of what I did for his son and that shoplifting is no big deal. I should have left them in jail!”

The younger Ball, along with fellow freshmen Jalen Hill and Cody Riley, aren’t with the rest of the No. 23 Bruins, who are in Kansas City to play in the Hall of Fame Classic on Monday and Tuesday. The trio isn’t allowed to suit up, be on the bench for home games or travel with the team.

The players were arrested and questioned about stealing from high-end stores next to the team’s hotel in Hangzhou, where the Bruins stayed before leaving for Shanghai to play Georgia Tech.

UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero said last week that the players stole from three stores.

“As long as my boy’s back here, I’m fine,” LaVar Ball told ESPN. “I’m happy with how things were handled. A lot of people like to say a lot of things that they thought happened over there. Like I told him, ‘They try to make a big deal out of nothing sometimes.’

“I’m from LA. I’ve seen a lot worse things happen than a guy taking some glasses. My son has built up enough character that one bad decision doesn’t define him. Now if you can go back and say when he was 12 years old he was shoplifting and stealing cars and going wild, then that’s a different thing,” he said.

“Everybody gets stuck on the negativity of some things and they get stuck on them too long. That’s not me. I handle what’s going on and then we go from there.”

See (“Trump Says He Should Have Left UCLA Players in Chinese Jail“); see also (“‘I should have left them in jail!’ Trump blasts UCLA basketball player’s dad for ‘unaccepting’ what he did for son detained in China for shoplifting”) and (“Three UCLA Basketball Thugs Arrested In China For Shoplifting“)

Many UCLA alums and fans believe the three should have been left in China, and subjected to Chinese “justice.”

Our President is correct; and he speaks for lots of Bruin alums and fans!

Ball’s father is an “ungrateful fool,” or crazy—take your pick.

See (“‘LaVar is just a poor man’s version of Don King, but without the hair’: Trump launches personal attack on basketball dad as he calls him an ‘ungrateful fool’ in 5am Twitter rant”—”The father of LiAngelo Ball, one of three UCLA basketball players arrested in China accused of shoplifting earlier this month, questioned what Trump did to free his son when he appeared on CNN Tonight on Monday. Today Trump hit back with a 5am Twitter rant in which he branded him a ‘fool’ and compared him to legendary boxing promoter King. . . . He wrote: ‘It wasn’t the White House, it wasn’t the State Department, it wasn’t father LaVar’s so-called people on the ground in China that got his son out of a long term prison sentence – IT WAS ME. Too bad! LaVar is just a poor man’s version of Don King, but without the hair. Just think.’ He continued in a second tweet: ‘LaVar, you could have spent the next 5 to 10 years during Thanksgiving with your son in China, but no NBA contract to support you. But remember LaVar, shoplifting is NOT a little thing. It’s a really big deal, especially in China. Ungrateful fool!’ . . . All three UCLA players – who have been suspended indefinitely – thanked Trump for his efforts during their on-campus news conference Wednesday”)

. . .

See also (“LaVar Ball pulls suspended son LiAngelo Ball from UCLA”—”UCLA confirmed the news with a statement Monday from men’s basketball head coach Steve Alford. ‘We learned today of LiAngelo Ball’s intention to withdraw from UCLA. We respect the decision he and his family have made, and we wish him all the best in the future,’ Alford said“)


8 01 2018
Timothy D. Naegele



Daniel Bates has written in the UK’s Daily Mail:

Chaos, running rows and f-word confrontations over foreign policy are revealed in a new fly-on-the-wall documentary about the last days of the Obama White House.

Senior officials give the film unvarnished accounts of a ‘whole drama’ over how Syria was dealt with – and how there was nothing to force the Iranians to abide by their terms of the deal [that was] supposed to stop them from getting nuclear weapons.

In ‘The Final Year’ Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, also says that it took ‘too long’ to get the measure of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The documentary, shot by director Greg Barker and produced by Magnolia Pictures, followed Obama and his cabinet during his final 12 months in office.

The Final Year, out later this month, covers the officials in 21 countries including Cameroon, Chad, Nigeria and Japan, and highlights events such as the Syrian peace negotiations.

It also covers the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran nuclear deal and Obama’s visits to Hiroshima and Laos.

On the internal negotiations to find peace in Syria, Samantha Power, Obama’s US ambassador to the UN, says it is ‘beyond frustrating’ and ‘haunting’ that they couldn’t do more.

She says: ‘There’s no issue where my thoughts and my feelings and ideas have made such a marginal impact on desperate people.’

In a moment of exasperation she says: ‘Of course, I ask myself had I made an argument differently, I think we could have tried other things (sighs)…there’s a whole drama there’.

Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry says: ‘Samantha will get her point of view out there as tough as anybody else.

‘We joke and commiserate at times when we’re both in the same place and don’t get what we wanted. Sometimes we have some tough arguments in this business’.

Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice tries to brush off the disagreements and says they did not want ‘group think’ among the cabinet.
But on Obama’s final address to the UN, what should have been a largely ceremonial affair, Rhodes says he had a ‘huge fight’ with Power over the tone of the speech.

Power says that she and Rhodes have a ‘fundamentally different perspective’ about the world and that she thinks the 65 million refugees are a sign things are ‘going in the wrong direction’.

Rhodes says that he sided with Obama in saying this was the best moment to be alive and says that Power ‘felt that was potentially discordant with the mood’.

On Russia, Rhodes talks about one of his biggest regrets, admitting the administration took too long in figuring out Putin’s real interests.

He says: ‘The error we may have made is Putin doesn’t seem to pursue Russia’s national interests – he pursues Putin’s interests.

‘Russia’s national interests are not to have a shrinking economy and be this rogue actor.

‘I think probably we figured that out but…that was the thing that took us too long in retrospect, to separate Putin out from Russia’.

During negotiations over the Iran deal, Rhodes makes another striking admission, though it is not clear if it was just a phase during the negotiations that eventually led to the deal.

Rhodes says: ‘At a certain point the Iranians have a fairly substantial body of evidence to say that they don’t need to abide by the deal. We may lose control of it today.’

Rhodes was the subject of a New York Times profile last year that caused a storm because he boasted about setting up an ‘echo chamber’ to sell the Iran deal to the public, and claiming that he had turned the media into tools.

He is also highly controversial in the Trump White House, where Michael Wolff’s explosive Fire and Fury book revealed senior officials believe Rhodes – whose brother is president of CBS News – is a serial leaker who orchestrated attacks on the Trump administration using classified material.

At one point Rhodes explodes in rage at the bombing of a humanitarian convoy in Syria, apparently by the Russians or the Syrians and says it is ‘f***ing sick’ nobody is being held accountable for it.

Rhodes is sharply critical of Trump and says he is part of the ‘retrenchment forces pushing back from the other direction’ away from Democratic values.

He says that ‘maybe this just has to happen, confront the ugly reality of it’.

Rhodes says that Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Accord will lead to the ‘complete isolation of the United States’.

The last scenes of The Final Year show the heartache among Obama advisers on election night.

Thinking that Hillary Clinton would win, Power invited some women, including Gloria Steinem and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, to watch with her in the West Wing.

Steinem says: ‘I didn’t think it would be this bad.’

Power can be seen sitting with her head in her hands, crying.

In an offhand remark she says: ‘To think of them in control of the Senate, the House and the Presidency . . . .’

Rhodes is shown sitting alone in the darkness and is so shell-shocked he cannot even speak when asked how he feels.

See (“F-word rows and bitter disputes over Russia, Iran and Syria: New documentary to lay bare the truth about the Obama White House’s last days“) (emphasis added; video omitted)

As my article above and all of the comments beneath it indicate—as well as other articles, and the comments beneath them—it was predictable that the Obama presidency would fail.

See, e.g., (“Obama In Afghanistan: Doomed From The Start?“) and (“Barack Obama: America’s Second Emperor?“) and (“The End Of Barack Obama“) and (“The Speech—Is Barack Obama Smoking Pot Again?“) and (“Are Afghanistan, Iraq And Pakistan Hopeless, And Is The Spread Of Radical Islam Inevitable, And Is Barack Obama Finished As America’s President?“) and (“Barack Obama Is A Lame-Duck President Who Will Not Be Reelected“) and (“Is Obama The New Nixon?“) and (“The Obama Great Depression“)

While I predicted Barack Obama’s political demise would occur sooner than it happened, and I predicted an economic calamity that has not materialized yet—in no small part because of the election of Donald Trump, and newfound economic optimism—I did not anticipate that Obama would run the risk of engaging in criminality, much less to help the Clintons.

See (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“)

In the final analysis, the issues that I raised in my article above remain the prism through which the man and his presidency must be viewed by history and the American people:

[W]ill he be viewed as a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history? Will his naïveté have been matched by his overarching narcissism, and will he be considered more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter? Will his presidency be considered a sad watershed in history? Or will he succeed and prove his detractors wrong, and be viewed as the “anointed one” and a true political “messiah”? Even Abraham Lincoln was never accorded such accolades, much less during his lifetime. And Barack Obama’s core beliefs are light years away from those of Ronald Reagan.

With respect to getting the measure of Russia’s killer Putin, that should have been done on Day One. It was not a mystery.

See, e.g., (“Russia’s Putin Is A Killer“) and (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War“)

Perhaps Barack Obama will be remembered the most for his treason, and for having torn the fabric of our great nation apart by increasing the racial divide like no other American president in our history.

See, e.g., (“Just 22% Think Race Relations Are Getting Better“)

The end of Obama, the Clintons and others


6 02 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


The facts are mounting that he should!

See also (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) (see also the comments beneath the article) and (“Texts between FBI lovers reveal Obama wanted to be briefed on EVERYTHING happening in Clinton email investigation – after he ‘guaranteed’ he wouldn’t get involved“) and (“Dick Morris: Obama Was in It up to His Eyeballs“)

Barack Obama - prison


3 07 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

The Consummate Un-American Black Racist And Race Hustler [UPDATED]

Black racist Maxine Waters

Sylvan Lane has written for TheHill:

From the perspective of some House Democrats, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has the right message. She’s just not always the best messenger.

The Los Angeles lawmaker’s early calls for President Trump’s impeachment and viral showdowns with administration officials have endeared Waters to the party’s young, liberal base. And those stances have also garnered the respect of many House Democrats, who admire how Waters, 79, sticks to her political convictions.

“She is up-to-date, she is smart, she is authentic and she is not scared to express herself,” Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) told The Hill, adding that her constituents in Milwaukee often ask her if she knows Waters. “She is transformative in terms of appealing to different generations of people.”

Yet her most recent remarks — encouraging public confrontation with Cabinet members — rankled some of those colleagues and raised concerns about how Waters would handle increased authority if Democrats regain control of the House in November.

House and Senate minority leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) condemned her comments, while other Democrats distanced themselves from her.

Waters is aware that she sometimes pushes the envelope, according to a former aide who said the congresswoman thinks Democrats as a whole have engaged in “nice guy politics” for too long.

“She’s definitely pushing people into a place of discomfort,” said the former aide, adding that Waters is “slowly but surely getting the Democrats to play the game the way Trump plays it.”

The former staffer said that Trump’s 2016 mimicking of Serge Kovaleski, a New York Times reporter who has a physical disability, “ignited her fire.”

“That was the moment that really spurred her to speak out against him,” the former staffer said. “It was a moment that I think snapped her into accepting this is now our reality and accepting her role as an emerging soldier against this administration.”

That kind of approach has led to concern among some Democrats, including those on the House Financial Services Committee, where Waters is poised to wield the gavel next year if Democrats are in the majority.

One Democrat on the panel told The Hill that a few members of the committee are worried that Waters’s recent remarks about confronting administration officials are a sign that she’s itching to lead a crusade against Trump.

“We’ve got a division, because some people are very concerned that she’s going to be pushing an ideological agenda,” said the lawmaker. “We can have disagreements on the substance, and that’s fine. I just want to make sure it doesn’t become like a show.”

Waters, who declined an interview for this article, said in a statement that she’s eager to “work with Members [from] both sides of the aisle on sensible solutions to benefit hardworking Americans and strengthen our nation’s economy.”

“She works really hard, she’s opinionated on some things,” said Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), who serves with Waters on the Financial Services panel. “She also takes some very hard stands, and you know the Republicans don’t like it and they try to push back. But she’s every bit as tough or tougher than they are.”

Though Democrats generally hold Waters in high regard, her willingness to explore the boundaries of opposition to Trump has caused unease among some colleagues.

Waters was one of the first members of Congress to call for Trump’s impeachment, and she has voted twice in favor of resolutions that would begin the process. Democratic leaders have tried to quash talk of impeaching Trump, a move they consider premature and a distraction from their campaign message aimed at regaining control of the House in the midterm elections this fall.

But her supporters have spoken out in her defense following the onslaught of criticism stemming from her most recent remarks, insisting that they were misconstrued by critics and came nowhere close to the violence that Trump advocated for on the campaign trail.

“What Maxine and her generation did was make this country a better country by protesting, by sitting at lunch counters, by marching,” said Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), chairman of Congressional Black Caucus, which Waters led from 1997 to 1999. “She reached back into that era of saying, ‘When you see them, protest.’”

Waters, who has served in the House since 1991, said her comments were a call for political pressure, not violence, and that any conversation about civility should start with Trump’s conduct.

Despite her abrasive public manner, some Democrats say she takes a different approach when it comes to getting things done at the committee level.

“There are disagreements that come up from time to time, and we try to hammer them out the best we can,” Perlmutter said.

Waters has worked with her Republican colleagues on important compromise legislation, including a bipartisan flood insurance overhaul package. She has also allowed Democratic members on the panel, some who have deep Wall Street ties, to pursue bipartisan measures that she opposes.

Most of Waters’s Democratic colleagues speak about her with reverence and respect when asked about her work in Congress, calling her a studious, fearless leader.

Those close to her say that she’s used to public and private pushback from her colleagues and won’t be deterred by the controversy surrounding her anti-Trump remarks.

“She is very, very much a minority in the House of Representatives, and that hasn’t dissuaded her from speaking her truth in a room surrounded by people who do not look like her,” her former aide said. “It’s easy to be quieted because you’re scared, and she’s not scared.”

See (“Maxine Waters is done with ‘nice guy politics’“) (emphasis added); see also (“Maxine Waters orders MORE public harassment of Trump aides: ‘God is on OUR side!’”) and (“Pelosi Slams Maxine Waters for ‘Unacceptable’ Attack on Trump“) and (“DEMOCRATS ARE ANTI-SEMITES“) and (“The Ugly And Twisted Face Of A Vile Disgusting Black Racist“) and (“Trump attacks Maxine Waters accusing congresswoman of being corrupt“) and (“Urging Violence against Trump Cabinet Sinks Maxine Waters’ Scandal-Plagued Career to a New Low“)

As I have written above:

150 years after slavery ended, the pathetic NAACP and other black racist organizations—like the so-called “Black Lives Matter,” Antifa and other violent groups—continue to play the “race card” at every turn, and seek “reparations” (e.g., welfare payments) for their flock.

They are spearheaded by “race hustlers” such as Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings and other members of the so-called “Congressional Black Caucus”—which should be outlawed as a racist organization.

As other minorities rise up the economic totem pole, America’s blacks remain at the bottom and are passed over. And their thugs aka NFL players are highly paid, but ignore the plight of elderly and other blacks in Chicago and other American cities.

Obama and Moochie fanned the flames of black-white racism, and it is present again after almost disappearing. Obama is a despicable black racist. If anyone has any doubts, please read his book Dreams from My Father. It is all there, in his own words, and they are shocking!

The stain and divisiveness of Obama’s failed, racist presidency may be with us for decades.

See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“); but see (“Edward W. Brooke Is Dead”—”[Brooke] was an American leader before Barack Obama was even born; and he was a conciliator, not a rabble-rouser or racist”)


25 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

The NFL Must Be Boycotted Forever

NFL sucks

From a friend who is a real man, not an un-American wimp like the NFL owners and players:

You graduated high school in 2011. Your teenage years were a struggle. You grew up on the wrong side of the tracks. Your mother was the leader of the family and worked tirelessly to keep a roof over your head and food on your plate. Academics were a struggle for you and your grades were mediocre at best. The only thing that made you stand out is you weighed 225 lbs and could run 40 yards in 4.2 seconds while carrying a football. Your best friend was just like you, except he didn’t play football. Instead of going to football practice after school, he went to work at McDonalds for minimum wage. You were recruited by all the big colleges and spent every weekend of your senior year making visits to universities where coaches and boosters tried to convince you their school was best. They laid out the red carpet for you. Your best friend worked double shifts at Mickey D’s. College was not an option for him. On the day you signed with Big State University, your best friend signed paperwork with his Army recruiter. You went to summer workouts. He went to basic training.

You spent the next four years living in the athletic dorm, eating at the training table. You spent your Saturdays on the football field, cheered on by adoring fans. Tutors attended to your every academic need. You attended class when you felt like it. Sure, you worked hard. You lifted weights, ran sprints, studied plays, and soon became one of the top football players in the country. Your best friend was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division. While you were in college, he deployed to Iraq once and Afghanistan twice. He became a Sergeant and led a squad of 19 year old soldiers who grew up just like he did. He shed his blood in Afghanistan and watched young Americans give their lives, limbs, and innocence for the USA.

You went to the NFL combine and scored off the charts. You hired an agent and waited for draft day. You were drafted in the first round and your agent immediately went to work, ensuring that you received the most money possible. You signed for $16 million although you had never played a single down of professional football. Your best friend re-enlisted in the Army for four more years. As a combat tested sergeant, he will be paid $32,000 per year.

You will drive a Ferrari on the streets of South Beach. He will ride in the back of a Blackhawk helicopter with 10 other combat loaded soldiers. You will sleep at the Ritz. He will dig a hole in the ground and try to sleep. You will “make it rain” in the club. He will pray for rain as the temperature reaches 120 degrees.

On Sunday, you will run into a stadium as tens of thousands of fans cheer and yell your name. For your best friend, there is little difference between Sunday and any other day of the week. There are no adoring fans. There are only people trying to kill him and his soldiers. Every now and then, he and his soldiers leave the front lines and “go to the rear” to rest. He might be lucky enough to catch an NFL game on TV. When the National Anthem plays and you take a knee, he will jump to his feet and salute the television. While you protest the unfairness of life in the United States, he will give thanks to God that he has the honor of defending his great country.

To the players of the NFL: We are the people who buy your tickets, watch you on TV, and wear your jerseys. We anxiously wait for Sundays so we can cheer for you and marvel at your athleticism. Although we love to watch you play, we care little about your opinions until you offend us. You have the absolute right to express yourselves, but we have the absolute right to boycott you. We have tolerated your drug use and DUIs, your domestic violence, and your vulgar displays of wealth. We should be ashamed for putting our admiration of your physical skills before what is morally right. But now you have gone too far. You have insulted our flag, our country, our soldiers, our police officers, and our veterans. You are living the American dream, yet you disparage our great country. I am done with NFL football and encourage all like minded Americans to boycott the NFL as well.

National boycott of the NFL for Sunday November 12th, Veterans Day Weekend. Boycott all football telecast, all fans, all ticket holders, stay away from attending any games, let them play to empty stadiums. Pass this post along to all your friends and family. Honor our military, some of whom come home with the American Flag draped over their coffins.

See also (“Crush the NFL!“) and (“Football participation declines for the second consecutive year nationally“)


6 10 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

If Dems Lose Again, Obama’s Legacy Is Gone Forever


This is the title of an article written by Jonathan Alter for the Daily Beast:

It’s one of this autumn’s pleasant surprises. Two years after Donald Trump’s election as president and 10 years after his own, Barack Obama is gracefully re-entering our consciousness, reminding us of what we have lost and may yet recover.

The contrast between Obama and Trump—decent vs. despicable; incisive vs. ignorant; honest vs. humbug; classy vs. clownish—is now the critical subtext of the 2018 campaign. With Obama’s current approval ratings more than 20 points higher than Trump’s, the aching memory of his presidency will help energize Democrats in the midterms.

But Obama’s return is also a reminder that some of his admirable qualities—modesty, prudence, deliberateness—have inadvertently helped Republicans endanger everything he built.

If Obama’s reputation is secure, his legacy is not. Many of his accomplishments in office are in danger of being wiped out in November. The personal stakes for him and his place in history are high.

As he campaigns around the country, Obama seems to have two immediate goals: First, to help elect Democrats up and down the ballot—to check Trump in Congress but also to rebuild the Democratic Party at the state level so that after the 2020 census it can undo some of the gerrymandering that has so often hindered his party.

Second, and related, Obama hopes to educate the public about the origins of our present ills, not just Trump lying about his birth certificate (which Obama still downplays) but a Republican Party that grew increasingly radical and obstructionist long before its new hero entered politics. And the former president wants to remind voters that the so-called “economic miracle” we keep hearing about is just another of what are now more than 5,000 confirmed lies by Trump since he took office; the economy today is creating roughly the same number of jobs than it did in the last two years of the Obama presidency—and fewer, in fact, than in 2014.

Obama’s arguments are welcome, but they raise the question of why he didn’t make them more aggressively when he was in office. Michelle Obama, whose post-election book tour means she won’t be stumping this fall for candidates who have invited her into their districts (she will work instead on voter registration and turnout), famously told the 2016 Democratic Convention, “When they go low, we go high.” In hindsight, this looks noble but a tad naive. When they went low, why didn’t her husband at least ridicule them, as he did so mercilessly to Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner?

The answer is that as the first black president, he thought it was important not to sound strident or excessively partisan. And he didn’t want to demean his office and risk his reputation by descending to Trump’s level. Even now, he’s reluctant to mention Trump’s name, for fear of becoming a useful foil for the president. If Democrats fall short, historians may fasten on his reluctance to mix it up more when he had the chance.

To understand why so much is on the line this fall, it helps to briefly review Obama’s eight years in office:

His first year as president was historic. After the 2008 financial collapse threw millions out of work and threatened another Great Depression, Obama stabilized and then re-regulated (through Dodd-Frank) the banking system and—largely forgotten—also offered help for underwater homeowners. His $787-billion stimulus package and simultaneous bailout of the auto industry (which ended up costing the taxpayers nothing) revived the cratering economy. It included middle-class tax cuts and huge new spending on green energy, medical research, and scores of other important investments. And in early 2010 he achieved what had eluded every Democratic president since Harry Truman—universal health care coverage. Amazingly, all of this money was spent without scandal.

But when the Republicans took the House in 2010—the most fateful midterm election in the history of the Democratic Party—Obama’s ability to move legislation through Congress ended after only two years. From then on, just about all he could do on the domestic side was issue executive orders, which have been easy for Trump to reverse. The GOP united to block comprehensive immigration reform (an idea many conservatives had favored under Bush) and any new stimulus (including critical infrastructure spending) to hasten the recovery, which then—not coincidentally— remained anemic for four more years. Beyond that, Republicans developed a habit of reflexively rejecting everything the president proposed, even if they had recently favored it.

Obama’s key mistake after the Great Recession was to go along with Republicans and elite opinion when they prematurely changed the subject to deficit reduction. In 2011, the Tea Party, anticipating Trump, hijacked the GOP and moved it to crazy town by shutting down the government and nearly defaulting on the national debt—all in the name of fiscal responsibility they were faking, as proven by their unanimous vote in 2017 to slash taxes and balloon the deficit that Obama had cut in half.

Obama managed to get reelected in 2012 but he did so without engaging in the party-building activities necessary to retake the House. He had several international successes: killing Osama bin Laden, winding down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, delaying Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons with a deal that worked, helping save millions of Africans from dying of AIDS and Ebola. Obama policies in Syria and Libya could be chalked up as failures, but the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal was a huge long-term advance for the American economy (not to mention an effective check on China) and the U.S. led the way in securing the Paris Accords on Climate Change, which eventually included every country in the world.

After the GOP took the Senate in the 2014 midterms, which proved almost as bad for Democrats as 2010, Sen. Mitch McConnell, became majority leader. McConnell then proceeded to decree, in effect, that a presidential term lasted only three years instead of four. In early 2016, he announced that Republican senators would not even meet with Judge Merrick Garland, Obama’s moderate and impeccably-qualified nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

It was here, in the last year of his presidency, that “No Drama Obama” most failed to fight for himself—and for the rest of us. Why didn’t he dramatically travel down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Senate with Judge Garland in tow and inform McConnell before the cameras that he was violating his constitutional duty and must meet with them? It probably wouldn’t have changed anything, but he needed to try harder to exploit the theater of the presidency. He didn’t turn pugnacious because he—like so many others—was confident Hillary Clinton would win.

The same reticence applied to Russian intrusion on Trump’s behalf in the 2016 election. When Obama learned of it, he told Vladimir Putin to “cut it out,” but never went to the American people in prime time to explain the threat. With Hillary the likely winner, he figured, why convey to the world that the election had been compromised? He also rightly feared that Trump would argue that he was taking a late, unfair partisan shot.

It seems from his recent speeches that Obama understands he didn’t do enough in 2016. He apparently regrets, for instance, that he didn’t brag more about his record 75 months of economic growth. Democrats don’t like to seem indifferent to those left behind in the recovery, so they get bashful about their achievements. This makes it easier for Republicans to deny them altogether.

Now it’s nut-cutting time for the Obama legacy. If Republicans repeat the pattern of 2010 and 2014 and win the House, an emboldened Trump will move quickly to obliterate Obamacare, including the ban on insurers discriminating against anyone with a preexisting condition. Obama would no longer be remembered as the president who ended a long and shameful era in American history where people were forced to sell their homes or declare personal bankruptcy when someone in the family got sick.

Alternatively, if Democrats prevail, a program that has already insured more than 20 million people will muddle through and be strengthened when Democrats regain the presidency. Even if undermined further by the Roberts Court, it will remain, as Vice President Joe Biden said on the day Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, “a big fucking deal.”

The same stakes apply across the board, from the Mueller investigation (which will be shut down or ignored if Trump claims vindication by the voters) to the Iran nuclear deal, TPP, NAFTA and the Paris Accords, none which would be spared from further torching. If the GOP wins, Trump will face no resistance to his plans to free polluters, predatory lenders, fly-by-night colleges and other miscreants from the common-sense regulations implemented by Obama. The damage he has done so far in those areas will seem small by comparison. Also potentially emboldened: the white nationalists and other racist fringe groups who feel vindicated by Trump’s indulgence of them.

If, on the other hand, Democrats control at least one house of Congress, they have many ways to tie the Trumpsters up in knots every day while protecting the health and safety of the public and the record of their president. Obama initiatives in the Trump crosshairs like fuel economy standards, regulation of carbon emissions, and protections for Dreamers would be much harder to target. The border wall, new tax cuts and new libel laws would be DOA on Capitol Hill, and the House could use its power of the purse to curb disgraceful policies like work requirements for Medicaid recipients. Norms applied by Obama’s steady hand might even make a comeback, reinforced this time by empowered Democrats.

Most important, perhaps, Obama’s definition of the rule of law would return, even if Trump is not impeached. As president, Obama so believed in an independent Department of Justice that he wouldn’t even discuss prosecutions of bankers with his friend, Attorney General Eric Holder, for fear of being seen as interfering in cases beyond his authority. A Democratic House could restore the independence of law enforcement agencies with a blizzard of subpoenas and splashy hearings. If Trump fired Robert Mueller, House Democrats could immediately hire him and a large staff to continue his investigation.

When he was a candidate, Obama liked to quote Martin Luther King saying that “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” He doesn’t talk that way so much any more. The arc of the last two years has been bending toward tragedy, for the world and for one man—a student of Shakespeare—watching much of his handiwork turn to dust.

Now, just weeks away, comes a fork in road. One way leads to the validation of Donald Trump and makes his reelection more likely. Six more years of him as president would mean the extinction of nearly everything Barack Obama achieved beyond becoming the first black president. The other path offers a chance at redemption. If enough Democrats stop knocking on wood and start knocking on doors, the president they revere may yet live large in history for more than the content of his character.

See (emphasis added)

What drug was Alter taking when he wrote this? It is sickening just trying to make one’s way through this utter tripe.

Alter worked for the down-and-out Newsweek magazine; and he has been a “card-carrying” Leftist for essentially all of his career.

As I wrote in the article above, about the man Barack Obama:

In the final analysis, will he be viewed as a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history? Will his naïveté have been matched by his overarching narcissism, and will he be considered more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter? Will his presidency be considered a sad watershed in history? Or will he succeed and prove his detractors wrong, and be viewed as the “anointed one” and a true political “messiah”? Even Abraham Lincoln was never accorded such accolades, much less during his lifetime. And Barack Obama’s core beliefs are light years away from those of Ronald Reagan.

Obama’s only legacy will be as a traitorous, un-American, despicable black racist, and the very worst president in our great nation’s history, who should be convicted for his many crimes including treason, and imprisoned for the rest of his life.

See, e.g., (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“) and (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?“) and (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“)


11 10 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

The Donald Trump-Kanye West Lunch [UPDATED]

An editorial of The New York Sun states:

Call it Trump meets the Yeezy Effect — the president’s astounding rendezvous with Kanye West. The rapper sat in the Oval Office on the visitor’s side of the Resolute Desk, across from the leader of the Free World. Suddenly Mr. West went into an epic, 10-minute rant in favor of Trump style capitalism and all that it could mean for minorities in this country. Drudge was all over it. What an only-in-the-Trump-Era moment.

It started with Mr. West challenging the notion that if one is black one has to be a Democrat. He then attributed that notion to the welfare system. Then he started talking about Chiraq, the sobriquet for the violence-racked American heartland city of Chicago. Then he spoke of how it took courage for him to wear, as he was wearing, a Make America Great Again hat.

The rapper was just getting tuned up. Before long Mr. West was soaring in praise of capitalism and the vistas that have been opened up for him by his shoe venture with Adidas. He said the market cap of the Adidas has shot up to $38 billion. Then he was on to the importance of bringing manufacturing “onshore” into America. Then mental health and educational curricula.

Before the president or anyone else in the room could catch his breath, Mr. West started talking about the “trap door of the 13th Amendment.” He did, he said, say abolish the amendment that ended slavery in America. We took this part of his rant to mean not that he wants to bring back slavery but that the 13th Amendment has failed to end the travail of African Americans.

At one point Mr. West pointed out that the authors of the 13th Amendment didn’t look like the people they were liberating. Then he said that because it was illegal for slaves to read they were prohibited from reading the document of their liberation. Then he was talking about how African Americans need partners. “We need to talk to people,” he said. He sketched how he was misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder.

Then he was onto the opportunities in the pharmaceutical industries. Then bringing not only Adidas onshore but Foxconn and automobiles. Then he pulled out his cell phone and showed the president plans for a hydrogen powered plane and how he could use it for Air Force One. Then more talk about the importance of bringing jobs to America, so as to avoid the “cheapest factory ever,” the prison system.

It was an amazing performance, even for Kanye West. Not to mention President Trump. We wondered whether the Secret Service was going to cut Mr. West short. The president, though, sat listening to him seriously, occasionally cocking an eyebrow or looking at some members of the press crowding around, to make sure they were getting the import of what was happening.

It was happening, after all, with less than a month to go before a midterm election in which control of both houses of Congress is in the balance. How important is pop culture in all this? Hard to say, but the day before the newswires were agog over the decision of Taylor Swift to endorse the Democratic candidate for senator in Tennessee, Phil Bredesen.

We wouldn’t want to overestimate all this. The hustings, we’ve often said, are littered with failed predictions that one politician or another might break the grip the Democrats have on minority voters. The fact is, though, Mr. West echoed themes Mr. Trump struck during the 2016 campaign, during which he importuned African Americans to join his cause and try something new. Looks like Mr. Trump might have found his partner.

See (“The Trump-Kanye-West Lunch“) (emphasis added)


West is not the black racist discussed in my article above about Barack Obama.

Like former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke, the first African-American in the Senate since Reconstruction after our Civil War—with Obama being the third—West thinks for himself.

See (“Edward W. Brooke Is Dead“)


4 11 2018
Timothy D. Naegele



The dark and sinister shadow of Barack Obama hangs over our great nation, like the plague that never seems to go away, or abate.

Martin Walsh has written for the American Mirror:

Former President Barack Obama has had a hard time staying focused on the campaign trail lately.

While stumping in Miami, Florida, with Sen. Bill Nelson, D-FL, and Florida Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum, the former president tried his best to deliver a home run speech before Tuesday’s midterm elections.

“The real reason I came down to Miami is because this Tuesday might be the most important election of our lifetimes. Politicians will always say that. But this time it’s actually true. The stakes really are that high. The consequences of any other staying home really are more dangerous,” Obama said.

In less than 90 seconds, Obama defended Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to send and receive classified information, downplayed the severity of the Ebola virus, defended the migrant caravan trekking north toward the U.S., and attacked President Donald Trump.

“We all try to put a positive spin on things, but what we have not seen the way we are seeing right now is politicians just blatantly, repeatedly, baldly, shamelessly lie. Just making stuff up. That’s what they’re doing now all the time. By the way, it’s not the first time. They do this every election cycle. Try to terrify folks and then the election comes and problem suddenly magically vanishes,” Obama said.

“In 2010, they said Bill and I were setting up death panels to kill your grandma. Remember that? In 2014 they said Ebola is going to kill all of us, shut the borders. In 2016, it was Hillary’s emails. They were all wound up about that. Now in 2018m they’re telling you the existential threat to America is a bunch of poor refugees a thousand miles away. They’re even taking our brave troops away from their families for a political stunt at the border,” he added, with the crowd cheering him on.

Obama, without a whiff of self-awareness, went on to claim Republicans and Trump have been “shamelessly lying.”

“Don’t be Charlie Brown. Don’t fall for the okey doke. Don’t be bamboozled. Don’t be hoodwinked. Because when you get distracted, while you’re distracted with all this stuff they’re making up, they’re also robbing you blind. It will be like, look, look, look over there, and then they’re giving tax cuts to billionaires,” Obama added.

Last Friday, Obama attempted to launch into another anti-Trump diatribe, but had troubling given his voice cracked several times.

While speaking during a rally in Wisconsin for Democratic candidates, the former president launched into a bizarre rant when trying to attack the president without his teleprompter, where his voice cracked several times.

After accusing Trump and Republicans of “shamelessly lying” about the migrant caravan marching toward the United States, he implied the issue wasn’t a big deal ahead of the election.

“You know, as soon as the election’s over, everybody will be like, ‘What, what happened? We were being invaded. Where’d it go?’” Obama said. “We’ve got to stop falling for this stuff. We’re like Charlie Brown with the football. . . . Don’t fall for that kind of fear-mongering.”

No one loves Obama more than Obama, and he continues to prove that argument given he tends to make every speech all about himself.

See (“OBAMA UNHINGED: Mocks Hillary’s emails, Ebola, Trump, migrant caravan – in under 90 seconds!“) (emphasis added; Tweet and video omitted); see also (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“) and (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?“) and (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“)


28 05 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Martin Luther King, Jr. Was A Fraud And Disgrace: Will His Honors Be Removed?

Like the Kennedys who were total frauds, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a thug and despicable. Indeed, WND has reported:

Dozens of American cities in recent years have removed war memorials to Confederate leaders.

Statues are gone. Plaques have been taken down. Streets renamed. Plazas given new titles.

It’s because it’s no longer politically correct to allow public recognition of someone who would not fit in today’s society.

But talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday raised a question that’s going to be uncomfortable for many.

“Quick question, ladies and gentlemen, should all the statues of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King now come down? Should all of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King boulevards throughout America be renamed?” he asked.

“I ask this because of a story that you can’t find in the Drive-By Media. You cannot find it. It ran over the weekend, but you can’t find it. ‘Sealed FBI audiotapes allege the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had affairs with 40 women and watched while a friend raped a woman, according to a report.’ FBI documents from the sixties. . . . And we don’t doubt the FBI, do we?” he told his audience of millions.

He explained that biographer David Garrow claimed in memos that King engaged in orgies, solicited prostitutes and looked on and laughed as a pastor he knew raped a woman.

“Not a word from the Drive-By Media on this story,” Limbaugh said.

“Imagine what they would say if these things were recorded about Reagan or Jefferson or Washington!”

“Extramarital affairs with 40 to 45 women. Let’s see, in whose league would that put him? Clinton? I’m trying to think … Wilt Chamberlain? We’re close. Who am I leaving out here? Oh, the Kennedys. Yeah, how could I forget? Yes.”

The news comes amid #MeToo claims of sexual harassment by women against politicians, Hollywood personalities, business executives and others.

Limbaugh pointed out that the person who apparently ordered the surveillance of King was then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

“Once again, the Democratic Party. Robert Kennedy was the attorney general; he ordered this surveillance of Martin Luther King. And everybody blames J. Edgar Hoover for this. But in this case it was actually Bobby Kennedy.”

He said, however, the Democrats are “never, ever gonna turn” on King, but that may not matter any more.

“The left and the Democrats have already moved on from what Dr. King really believed in and who he really was long ago. Dr. Martin Luther was known for many things, but one of the most profound things he said in that great ‘I Have a Dream’ speech was that he looked forward to a day where his kids and everybody would be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

“Well, the Democrat Party has at no time embraced that. They’ve erased that. They have erased that from what Dr. King said. They have totally reconstructed what Dr. Martin Luther King believed in, starting with his devout Christianity, his devotion to Christ. They have totally remade the image of Dr. King. The Democrat Party has become exactly what he hoped to overcome. They have become wedded to and embedded in racial identity and sexual identity politics. The content of one’s character is of the least consequence.”

See (“Should MLK statues come down amid ’40 sexual affairs'”); see also (“It’s the story America can’t bear to hear: As newly released FBI files report civil rights champion Martin Luther King sexually harassed dozens of women, TOM LEONARD probes the troubling truth behind the shaming of an icon“) and (“The Truth About Martin Luther King, Jr. Emerges . . . Finally“) and