Tag Archives: David Axelrod

Barack the Brick-Thrower

Originally posted at American Thinker

Note Tied to Brick with Broken Glass — Image by © Randall Fung/Corbis

The same Saul Alinsky-style community organizing methods that served Barack Obama well on the Southside of Chicago became indispensable tools in his quest to “fundamentally transform” the whole world from “what it is” into “the world as it should be.”

It was Barack Obama’s friend and former chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, who confessed to NPR that community organizers in Chicago would throw bricks through the window of Democrat campaign headquarters and call a press conference to blame the opposition.  So when Obama accused Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin of colluding to steal an election, the brick that landed on the accuser’s toe was one he planted there himself.

Let’s not forget that although the International Court of Justice deems interfering in a foreign election a violation of international law, and notwithstanding the fact that U.S. regulations ban the use of tax dollars to sway foreign elections, it was brick-throwing Barack, not Donald Trump, who repeatedly defied the law on behalf of a larger global agenda.

In 2006, U.S. senator Obama traveled to Kenya on the taxpayer’s dime at a time that coincidentally corresponded with Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) leaders strategizing to help Muslim-sympathizer Raila Odinga unseat incumbent President Mwai Kibaki.

Obama delivered the $1 million he had raised for the Luo tribesman’s bid for the presidency and showed up at rallies with Odinga, where he criticized Kibaki and preached “hope and change.”

After Obama’s alleged distant cousin lost by more than 200,000 votes, Kibaki appointed Odinga prime minister in a power-sharing deal, but not before Alinsky-style chaos broke out in the streets.  When it was over, the new prime minister’s sharia-supporters had killed thousands of Kenyans, destroyed 800 Christian churches, and incinerated fifty Christian believers inside an Assemblies of God.

Apparently, tossing blocks of cement through his own window for all these years has caused Obama to forgot that in 2009, the late Hugo Chávez’s friend, Honduran president Manual Zelaya, decided to ignore term limits and keep his presidency open-ended.

In response, the Honduran Supreme Court decided to have Zelaya forcibly removed by the military – a decision Barack Obama referred to as a “coup d’état.”  In an attempt to both punish and persuade the Honduran people to reinstate the deposed Zelaya, a vindictive Obama made permanent the suspension he imposed on non-humanitarian aid.

Obama’s large-scale efforts have not been limited to aiding and abetting Luo tribesmen from Africa and leftist dictators from the Americas.

In February of 2011, Obama decided to oust Moammar Gaddafi from power by instructing the State Department, headed by Hillary Clinton, to interfere in Libya’s political and military affairs.  President Obama spent a billion dollars to fund the operation, which included the U.S. military joining jihadi rebel groups to topple and ultimately kill the Libyan leader.

As a result, Barack managed to community organize a nation and “fundamentally transform” Libya from a moderate Islamic regime, that was no longer a threat to America, into a safe haven for ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Egypt saw transformational community organizing at its best.   Obama spent $200 million dollars supporting Mohammed Morsi, Islamist opponent of  the largely secular/pro-American President Hosni Mubarak.  By channeling money through the trusty Hillary Clinton-led State Department and with the help of cover organizations, Obama was able to boost to victory the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, whose leadership advocated implementing Sharia Law.  Obama’s community organizing skills were so well honed he was able to transform the Muslim Brotherhood into the Islamist wing of ACORN.

But Obama’s success was short-lived. A year after Morsi won the rigged election a military coup ensued, the president was ousted, and a pro-American Muslim-moderate named Abdel Fattah al-Sisi replaced the toppled leader.

From there, President BO moved his world as it should be operation further east to deliver a sucker punch in a dispute over Israel’s refusal to acquiesce to the community organizer’s demands concerning the Palestinian state.

Not once, but twice, in 2009, and again in 2015, the Alinsky acolyte sharpened his election-meddling skills, enlisted the US State Department, and deposited thousands of dollars into the coffers of Bibi Netanyahu opposition groups. In hopes of blocking Netanyahu from being reelected Obama even dispatched to Tel Aviv his grassroots National Field Director from two successful presidential campaigns, Jeremy ‘Anyone But Bibi’ Bird, who joined forces with like-minded Israeli activists.

Undeterred by failing to keep his nemesis from becoming Prime Minister, just prior to the 2016 Brexit referendum, America’s erstwhile egomaniac moseyed on over to Britain to issue “back of the queue” threats to Brits contemplating the benefits of exiting the European Union.

Although Obama’s efforts failed more than they succeeded, the late Saul Alinsky would still be proud.

Then, in 2017, during the French presidential election, on behalf of Macron, Obama resurrected his 2009 inauguration speech that appealed to “people’s hopes and not their fears.” Philip Gordon, Obama’s assistant secretary of state for Europe, said in an interview with The Guardian, that Emmanuel Macron “represents everything [Obama] is for and Le Pen everything he is against.”

Barack Obama’s illegal use of government money and resources for nefarious purposes inspired a group of Republican senators to petition Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, to investigate the former president’s habit of siphoning and redirecting tax money to leftist “extreme and sometimes violent political activists” that are oftentimes tied to liberal billionaire George Soros.

According to a March 2017 article in the Washington Free Beacon, the six Republican Senators wrote Tillerson a letter citing personal conversations with foreign diplomats who disclosed incidents of political interference by the Obama State Department.  Allegations included Obama’s “use of taxpayer funds to support leftist causes in countries like Macedonia, Albania, Latin America, and Africa.”

Stateside, Obama now is assisting the effort to destabilize the current president. That’s why, based on the former president’s history of illegally influencing foreign elections, it does not seem implausible that it was Barack Obama who recruited the FBI, the DOJ, and the US State Department to perform their own versions of the ACORN, Organizing for Action (OFA), and the New Black Panthers dance. At the end of the day, the former president has  track record of applying Alinsky-tactics to promote sociopolitical change, which may be why Putin and Trump were blamed for throwing bricks through windows that, under closer scrutiny, appear to be covered with Barack Obama’s fingerprints.

The Dog Daze of Obama

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Before saying anything about dogs, or making an issue over Mitt Romney transporting his Irish Setter Seamus on the roof of the family car, it seems someone in the Obama campaign should have known that in the second chapter of the President’s best-selling autobiography,  Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, he described his childhood in Indonesia in the following way:

With [stepfather] Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chili peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.

Taking on the “powers of whatever he ate” certainly explains the President’s dogged determination, slithering political style and grasshopper agility when it comes avoiding blame.  That aside, the Barack Obama “eats dog” controversy not only reveals a primitive side to the President’s Indonesian upbringing, but it’s also a prime example of the dichotomy that exists within the ideology of liberalism in America today.

Condemning the transportation of a dog in a pet crate on a car roof while supporting a President with a history of eating dog is indicative of the imperious elitism the left often promotes. In due time, it is usually revealed that outspoken liberals either participated in worse behavior then the one they vehemently denounce or walk a fine line between support and denunciation based on political expediency.

For instance, the left has a habit of displaying self-righteous resolve when defending abortion rights. Then, if a child happens to fully emerge from the birth canal, in a matter of seconds, it all changes. The liberal determination to slaughter the unborn switches to concern over what right-to-choose mommies pack in Junior’s lunch bag.

That tendency is why, while Mrs. Obama is out spearheading a breastfeeding initiative and preaching the benefits of organic baby food, the President has no problem defending the merits of government funding for Planned Parenthood. Proving once again that either liberals have defective reasoning skills, or consider whatever they do, regardless of how illogical or contradictory, to be beyond criticism.

Championing opposing causes like abortion and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) seems disjointed at best. What are we doing here – killing or curing the kids, grilling or walking the dog?

Chaotic instability from the left isn’t surprising, because selective kindness is what liberals are about: some children live, while in the interest of convenience others die. Certain pets become stars on the White House website while, in days gone by, others were served up on a pup-pup platter.

Dog jokes aside, if the President were truly concerned about dogs’ well-being, he would still to this day be sickened at the thought of the lunch his stepfather Lolo served him 40+ years ago.  Therefore, when signing the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act, Obama could have redeemed himself by citing his personal exposure to animal cruelty as a child in Indonesia.  The fact that Obama never mentioned eating dog meat is an illustration of how liberals excuse their own past offenses and feel justified standing up for contradictory arguments, even if that defense is accomplished by merely failing to expose past wrongdoing.

Think about it. Who else, knowing full well that at some point in his life he dined on Rover for lunch, would allow his campaign to express disapproval for the sin of letting a dog ride in a crate on the top of a car?  Who, other than liberals, would dare to condemn the treatment of a family pet being taken on vacation, however the dog arrived there, after the candidate they support nonchalantly described snake meat as a little tougher than a mutt burger?

Nonetheless, living in America where dining on dog meat is unthinkable may explain why a man who’s actually eaten it ‘feeds’ off PetSmart photo ops, gets a bellyful of campaign cash through “Throw Bo a Bone” fundraising, and offers up the family pet on a platter as a politically correct poster child for Presidential Doggy Love – not to be confused with Reggie Love.

Exploitation aside, the larger problem arises when the guy who put bunny ears on his Portuguese water dog and who, just to be polite, would probably sample canine cutlet Parmigiana, then allows his chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, to portray Mitt Romney as an animal abuser.

That is the type of distorted reasoning that would disparage the decision to let Seamus Romney ride on the roof of the family car while failing to mention the fact that little Barry Soetoro once snacked on butchered dog.

In the end, if one tries to comprehend the rationale behind supporting a dog-eater while protesting cruelty to animals, the only justification can be that America’s polymathic president is excused because his life experience includes a sincere reverence for an ancient animist tradition.

Therefore, in lieu of the tiger meat Lolo promised but never delivered, if Bo ‘Diddley’ Obama manages to avoid being featured on the White House lunch menu, it must be because the President believes the liberal “every child [should be] a wanted child” standard should also apply to dogs.

Axelrod Gets Axed on Fox News

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Sunday, prepared for a cardio workout, I ventured to the gym. And lo-and-behold, I was just in time for Chris Wallace’s “Fox News Sunday.”  Truth be told, I had prepared myself for the pain of jogging uphill on a treadmill, but what I hadn’t anticipated was the torture of listening to Barack Obama’s chief campaign advisor, David Axelrod being interviewed.

Alas, the grief was impossible to avoid. Just as I was warming up, Chris Wallace began the segment by showing a 2008 video clip of then- candidate Barack Obama criticizing John McCain for doing what he’s incessantly done since 2008 — “painting” the philosophy of his political adversaries as something the American voter “should run from.”

Now, in 2012, Obama is still insisting that “The [GOP] budget [is] so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal.” According to Rachel Weiner of the Washington Post, Obama is now warning of the Republican “radical vision” and citing “social Darwinism,” claiming that the Ryan plan, by “radically transforming social welfare programs, would pit Americans against each other for resources and let the poor and weak die out — ‘dog eat dog’ capitalism.”

Chris Wallace challenged the obvious double standard and was countered by Axelrod, who defended Obama as merely “tak[ing] a look at the proposals on the other side and critiqu[ing] them.”

Then, Axelrod shifted into his own brand of “scare tactics,” telling Wallace that with a Republican budget, “a decade from now we would have a third less spending for example on Medicaid and that will hit people with disabilities. It will hit people in nursing homes very, very hard.”

Right about then, the treadmill mysteriously shifted to an incline of 10+, which eased the growing pain I was experiencing listening to David Axelrod’s verbal gyrations.

Wallace then pointed out that Obama’s “Buffett Rule” doesn’t work out mathematically because “millionaires [would] pay a minimum tax of 30 percent [which] would bring in $47 billion over the next decade, while the president’s budget adds $6.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade,” and that “according to one estimate — the money you would get from the Buffett Rule would cover just 17 days of the increased deficit under the Obama budget.”

A forceful Wallace challenged Axelrod, saying that Obama said the “Buffett Rule would, quote, ‘stabilize our debt and deficit over the next decade’ — that wasn’t true.” Axelrod responded, “No, what he said was that it’s part of an overall plan [to] stabilize our debt and deficit,” to which Wallace shot back, “That is not what he said.”

Chris Wallace had the audacity to insert logic and truth into the discussion?

On that note Axelrod, who, like Barack Obama, hasn’t a clue how to create an economic environment that benefits all Americans, wandered straightaway into “fairness” and “piece of a larger pie” territory, saying “But nobody can argue — nobody can argue, Chris — nobody can argue that it makes sense for people who are making $1 million a year or more to pay less than the average middle class worker in this country.” Then, predictably, David endorsed the need for more “fairness in our tax system.”

Axelrod never mentioned that in less than three years, Obama grew the national debt by $4.2 trillion; instead he asserted that the president’s plan would cut “deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade.”

Right then and there, for relief, I adjusted the treadmill to the grueling “Mt. Everest” setting. My blood sugar started to plummet when Axelrod somehow forgot to mention a predicted $500 billion Obamacare price tag while remembering to claim $800 billion in savings by eliminating the Bush tax cuts.

Axelrod’s fuzzy math was getting fuzzier, so in an effort to knock Chris Wallace off balance he tossed out the trusty Planned Parenthood/women’s health/Mitt Romney-hates-women hardball.

Those comments, along with the revelation that Obama “paid a tax rate of 20.5 percent, which is a lot less than the 30 percent he talks about…[and]… lower than what his secretary pays,” got me thinking:  During the State of the Union address, why didn’t Obama sit his secretary in the gallery with the other secretaries who pay more in taxes than their bosses?

Then Wallace zinged Axelrod again, when he asked, “if the president feels so strongly about tax fairness, is he going to contribute money to the Treasury, and they have a special department just for this, to help with the deficit?” Ouch!

Whoa, and double whoa.  Clearly miffed, spinning and spewing talking points like a carnival cotton candy machine run amok, an irritated Axelrod responded “Listen, Chris, first of all, the reason that his tax rate was so low was in part because 22 percent of his income was donated to charity.” Curiously, in an election year, Barack Obama’s charitable contributions suddenly skyrocketed to an impressive 22%.

Nonetheless, the always fair and balanced Chris Wallace reminded Axelrod that Mitt Romney contributes millions, making Obama’s recent philanthropic efforts a moot point.  Axelrod’s response? A flustered “Yeah, but there’s no proportionality there.”

Gotcha Wallace then brought up that the “president has the worst unemployment rate and second worst growth rate” of four prior presidents who consequently only served one term. That hard truth was countered with “those numbers are coming down,” which is sort of like Axelrod insisting that it’s better to drown in 6 feet of water than 10.

After three-plus years of what Dick Cheney characterized as “unmitigated disaster,” the newest hopeful change pledge from Axelrod/Obama is a middle-class-friendly economy where stagnant wages will miraculously increase and hard work will no longer be punished and the irresponsibility-rewarding policy Obama spent three years nurturing will magically disappear.

Winding down, Wallace cited a Fox News poll after which, speaking in treadmill terms, Axelrod continued: “The choice in this election is between an economy that produces a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead … and … continues down the road we are on, where a fewer and fewer number of people do very well, and everybody else is running faster and faster just to keep pace.”

Clearly, the bigger issue for David Axelrod isn’t the President’s culpability for America’s Obama-induced problems, nor “where we’ve been,” but looking ahead to where we’re going. Strangely, as I watched David Axelrod’s lips moving, the ending of the movie “Thelma and Louise” flashed before my eyes.

In the end though, it wasn’t all that bad listening to David Axelrod’s twaddle. In fact, the President’s chief campaign advisor actually motivated me to run, not walk, to the polls this fall to vote for anybody but Barack Obama.

Feminists Looking for Handouts Now Define ‘Working’

Liberals have no problem taking money from hardworking people and handing it over to those who won’t work. Unless of course you’re a self-made millionaire and the person you’re supporting happens to be the mother of your children; then the left feels justified in mocking women who choose to be stay-at-home moms.

In another stunning example of the right-to-choosers ridiculing a woman if her choice doesn’t include abortion or female careerism, DNC adviser Hilary Rosen – a woman who, like Hillary Clinton, obviously would never lower herself to “have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas” – discussed Ann Romney’s lack of working experience on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360.

Working-woman advocate and liberal shill Hilary Rosen sat down with Anderson to bandy about the subject of the alleged Republican War on Women, a battle in which liberal feminists with high-paying career aspirations fight for taxpayer-funded contraceptives. During the conversation, Rosen lobbed a gender-denigrating grenade in Mrs. Romney’s direction, saying “Guess what, [Romney’s] wife has actually never worked a day in her life.”

Democrats want to be viewed as distinct individuals yet they invariably categorize people by race, gender, age, and sexual orientation. Now, according to a unique set of liberal standards, they have also assumed the role of deciding what does and does not constitute “work.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the rise of women in the workplace the direct result of the economic need for two salaries? Are liberals officially taking the position that the mothers in families who do not require two salaries choosing to have children and dedicate their lives to responsibly raising those children are not working?

In an article for the Huffington Post entitled “Ann Romney and Working Moms,” Rosen responded to the firestorm that erupted in response to her ‘Ann Romney never worked’ comment expressed on AC360.  Judgmental and disparaging, Hilary defended the remark by saying “Spare me the faux anger from the right who view the issue of women’s rights and advancement as a way to score political points.” Now that’s a stunning comment in itself, especially coming from someone whose political party uses anything available to score political points.

Nevertheless, if given the choice of either raising their children or dropping them off at a daycare center/Petri dish, wouldn’t most women, if they were honest, choose to marry someone whose income allows them to stay home with their babies, at least until they’re of school age?

Truth be told, nowadays most women aren’t fortunate enough to have the option Ann Romney enjoyed, possibly including Hilary Rosen. In a vulnerable moment, Rosen admitted that if given the choice, when raising her adopted twins Jacob and Anna with former partner Elizabeth Birch, she’d have preferred Ann’s lifestyle to her own.

Now let’s be clear on one thing. I have no judgments about women who work outside the home vs. women who work in the home raising a family. I admire women who can stay home and raise their kids full-time. I even envy them sometimes. It is a wonderful luxury to have the choice. But let’s stipulate that it is NOT a choice that most women have in America today.

So there you have it – according to the choice crowd, the right to choose excludes any choice the Hilary Rosen types disagree with. Rosen, and women like her, pretend to abhor gender discrimination and then they discriminate against women who make choices that deliver rewards that do not include guest spots on CNN and whose compensation far exceeds both title and money.

As far as the “work” aspect of the debate, in a Salary.com article entitled “Mom Deserves a Raise in 2007,” it was estimated that if paid a salary, a stay-at-home Mom would earn $138,095 a year.

Facts like these matter little to Democrats as they attempt to portray Mitt Romney as an ostentatious square with his family automatically guilty by association.  The objective is to render Romney out of touch with the common folk President Obama identifies with while attending $40,000-a-plate Democrat fundraisers.

Kudos to Ann Romney; she promptly addressed the pandering idiocy of a woman proving to be yet another in a long list of self-righteous liberal feminists. After hearing Rosen’s remarks, Mrs. Romney defended the choice to raise her children at home, which was thanks to a husband who, rather than bilk the government, worked hard to provide for his growing family.

By way of @AnnDRomney at Twitter, Mrs. Romney, mother of five and grandmother to 16, informed Ms. Rosen when she said “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

Ann’s tweet came just as “Mitt wrapped up a second day of campaigning that all but entirely focused on the ‘war against women.’”  At events packed with “female business leaders,” Romney accused the Obama administration of economic policies that “hurt women” – which they do.

Reluctantly, many mothers are forced to work outside the home to pay for gasoline and taxes and to support husbands who, thanks to Barack Obama, remain chronically unemployed.

Yet, despite Democrats that include campaign strategist and close Obama advisor David Axelrod’s and Obama 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina’s criticism of Rosen’s inappropriate comments, if Hilary really cared about women she would discuss those who are denied the choice to raise their own children because of the economic catastrophe Obama has foisted upon American families.

Maybe the next time Ms. Rosen appears on AC360, after she discusses the crime of Mitt Romney providing for his family, she can also expound upon how liberals can defend hardworking Americans, be they male or female, supporting those who refuse to work.

And then after frequent White House visitor  Hilary Rosen discusses how American taxpayers should help pay for contraceptives for supposedly self-sufficient women who are cash-strapped because of exorbitant daycare bills, maybe she can cap off the segment by reviewing Michelle Obama’s largely taxpayer-funded vacation schedule and explain how hosting state dinners, modeling haute couture, and dancing exuberantly on Nickelodeon’s iCarley constitutes “working.”

%d bloggers like this: