Return of the Obamas

2024’s Democratic candidate for President? (Photo from Michelle Obama’s Facebook page.)

1,916 words

Joe Biden’s plan to occupy the White House for a second term has most likely been upended by by Special “Emperor has no clothes” Counsel, Robert Hur. He officially opined recently that the President is too old and his memory much too defective to be tried before a jury. Dr. Jill’s husband is visibly decrepit and so demonstrably cognitively impaired that he should not be permitted to testify in a court of law. Could the majority of American voters want a POTUS who talks to dead people, babbles incoherently, and regularly falls down in public? His minders must be fearful that a “John Fetterman”-style campaign might be too risky.

It is therefore a safe wager that the big Democrat party kahunas are currently scheming to give J. Robinette the heave-ho, and that at the top of the November 2024 Democrat ballot will be Michelle Obama. That rumor has been flying around for some time, but Donald Trump’s seeming inevitability as the Republican nominee, and the sheer terror that the Don Rickles of American politics could defeat the feeble and demented Biden, requires a drastic, emergency sleight-of-hand operation. Michelle’s installation would solve the Democrats’ other big problem in the form of Kamala Harris, a grotesque affirmative action stooge who, though comparatively young, appears to have even less brain power than her boss and has managed to be even less popular.

With the possibility that the Hope and Change Express will again be parking in the White House garage next January, it may be worthwhile to jog our memories and remind ourselves of what we got with Barrack Obama the first time around. Sure, Michelle will manage the invitation lists for hip-hop sing-alongs in the East Room and read the teleprompter scripts, but we know who will be running the big show.

In 1989 Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, a premier theorist of totalitarian political systems, published The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century. He lived a long and eventful life and unfortunately sold the services of his formidable Polish intellect to the likes of Lyndon Johnson and the failed rabbit slayer, James Earl Carter, Jr. (For those taken with odd coincidences, Brzezinski was awarded his Harvard doctorate with a dissertation on Lenin’s terror-command state in 1953, the same year Stalin turned room temperature, leaving his second-string in charge of the one Lenin had created.)

You can buy Stephen Paul Foster’s novel When Harry Met Sally here.

One also cannot help but wonder: Did Brezezinski ever come to regret that portion of the sub-title he gave to his book — the “Death of Communism”? He died in 2017 a couple of months after Barack “Mugabe” Obama was done with the “transformation” he had earlier promised of the United States of America in 2008. In his mistitled book, Brezezinski did, however, make an observation that really jumps out at a discerning reader: “Communism thus appealed to the simpletons and the sophisticates alike . . .” Yes, except for the verb’s past tense. Moreover, these days it can be a challenge to distinguish the sophisticates from the simpletons.

This insight does help to dispel the mystery of Obama’s rapid ascendency — from a no-account, back-bench, corrupt state Senator to “heal the planet” President of the United States. Obama is a simpleton who passed himself off as a sophisticate with a great deal of assistance from highly-placed establishment sophisticates such as New York Times columnist David Brooks. Recall that it was Brooks who, after interviewing candidate Obama, was so smitten with the combination of his blackness and well-pressed slacks that he gushed that that Obama was destined be a “great President.” Then, of course, there was Senior Newsweek Editor Evan Thomas’ comment on Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech: “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above –above the world, he’s sort of God.” The “sophisticates” in the fourth estate had discovered a simpleton rock star posing as a savior — and saviors require worship.

Here is a clue as to how Obama’s ascension to divinity unfolded as happily documented for us by, again, the New York Times. This was long before the thin street agitator from South Chicago, Hawaii, Indonesia, or wherever he was really from proclaimed himself as “The One”:

BOSTON, Feb. 5, 1990 — The Harvard Law Review, generally considered the most prestigious in the country, elected the first black president in its 104-year history today. The job is considered the highest student position at Harvard Law School.

The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago’s South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.

What the NYT scribblers omit in this article — one of their typical “first black fill-in-the-blank” panegyrics — is more interesting and relevant than what we get to read. But skipping through the boilerplate, reverential tripe, here, luckily, we have Obama captured, unaware, on record as the self-promoting simpleton he is and has always been. “The fact that I’ve been elected,” he said, “shows a lot of progress . . . It’s encouraging.” Perhaps, but the little we know about Harvard and the lot we know about Obama suggest that this election had nothing to do with what most people think of as “progress.”

His remarks in fact tell us all we need to know about the career path Obama had in mind and the fake sophistication that would be layered around him as he hustled his way up to the highest rung on the boss-ladder. In Obama-Speak, “progress” points to the equation of his career aspirations with the “arc of the moral universe that bends toward justice.” Recall, this was a Martin Luther King, Jr. apothegm. It was a favorite of BHO, used during his reign to keep reminding those “folks” out there that the course of his presidency and the “moral arc of the universe” were pretty much on the same track. This sort of theatrical moralizing of yourself into the woven fabric of the world is a common adolescent trait, usually forgivable because most adolescents grow up and wise up, which may account for his popularity with the young voters.

Obama did neither, and ended up convinced that the banalities that always seemed to be popping into his head and then out of his busy mouth were profound moral revelations. “If you’re walking down the right path and you’re willing to keep walking, eventually you’ll make progress.” Okay, well, maybe this lofty inspiration came to Obama after channeling that old Nancy Sinatra tune: “These boots are made for walking / and that’s just what they’ll do. / One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you” — which, when you think about it, is what happened to the American people when President Obama started walking down his path.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here.

But, on to “It’s encouraging.” Always the master of misdirection and condescension, even at 28 years old Obama was already posing as the sage elder who has divined the “right way” everyone needs to go and, if politely asked, is willing to point in that direction.

It was certainly encouraging for Obama, enabling him to later tout himself in quest of another presidency as a constitutional law scholar, even though during his tenure as editor of this “most prestigious” journal he had skipped on one of its standard expectations, never publishing a single paragraph on the law or anything remotely related. In fact, he never published anything other than two books later on about his favorite subject – himself — and there is ample reason to suspect that, even with those, he had a lot of help. All of this was fairly common knowledge, but for the sophisticates in journalism and the commentariat (Brzezinski’s sophisticates, including his airhead daughter, Mika, it seems), it was time for white America to atone for its racist past. Obama was the right black, platitude-polishing slickster to make it happen, endorsed by Senator Harry Reid for his “light-skinned” appearance and speaking patterns “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

During Obama’s presidency, with its culmination in Cult-Marx, identity politics vastly expanded the population of Brzezinski’s simpletons who swoon when the “free stuff for everyone guy” comes along and says things such as, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Identity politics, crudely reductionist in its approach and primitive in its emotional appeal, makes the natives even more restless. The mad scramble is on. All the incentives are to join, if you can, one of the communities of the marginalized and oppressed, articulate your grievances, agitate for revenge, and demand the assistance of the state in taking it. If no victim class has openings for you, more are under development — transgenderism, most recently — and barring that, you can resort to being a self-flagellating, virtue-signaling advocate for one of them. There are many self-serving options.

Those moralists who now call the shots are all about structuring this new social order so as to protect and reward those they have judged to be oppressed, and then punish the oppressors after they are outed. Most importantly, in such an order it is obviously neither healthy nor prudent for anyone to risk being branded as an oppressor, or even suspected as one. Which is why in the post-Obama era, not-being-a-racist certification has become the most coveted social prize. “Please, really, I am not a racist. How can I convince you? I’ll do anything.” Consider for a moment the power dynamics in play here, and then you quickly understand why political resistance to the moral-extortion racketeering that Obama and his minions institutionalized and which now operates openly in both parties has almost completely collapsed. Just a couple of weeks ago, civil rights attorneys in St. Louis put the squeeze on the Jesuits who run my alma mater, St. Louis University, for 70 billion dollars as compensation for the descendants of slaves who helped build the campus. Rather than telling these racketeers “Thanks, but go look for another mark,” the foxes guarding this university chicken coop waved the white flag of surrender with The Slavery, History, Memory, and Reconciliation Project:

We are motivated by a desire to uncover the truth of people’s stories, to honor their memories and heal relationships. We hope that together, descendant communities, Jesuits, and Jesuit institutions can act in partnership to address the prejudice and structural racism that endure from slavery throughout the United States.

It’s clear from this delusional capitulation to self-flagellation with the requisite “healing” mumbo-jumbo that the Jesuits, who have a reputation for being intellectually and politically astute, have no clue about the kind of people with whom they are dealing. Subjugation, not “reconciliation,” is the endgame.

The post-Obama era has all been downhill. The eight- year-long lobotomy his mafioso performed on the country was successful. How else to explain that in the 2016 presidential election campaign the Obama-endorsed candidate, who was under a federal criminal investigation with a decades-long history of graft, influence peddling, and subornation, got almost 66 million Americans — the plurality in the country — to vote for her? Then there was the Trump Twitter presidency. Then COVID, and finally the life-long kleptocrat Joe Biden, whose brain appears to have been extracted and replaced by a coagulum of Bud Light and Hamburger Helper.

Inauguration Day, January 21, 2025: a day to think about Brzezinski and his simpletons, and to plan for the disasters ahead.