Obama's Monomania

The mark of a good bully is to leave a trail of destruction behind him. Obama is quite practiced at this. The bully pulpit is his and he uses it to his utmost advantage to maintain the shrill rant that "[r]ace remains a factor in the society. That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us."

And continuing in this vein, Obama has placed the mark of Cain on George Zimmerman, Officer Darren Wilson, and Cambridge Officer James Crowley, although each was found not guilty. Nonetheless, Obama never sees fit to apologize to these men who were found innocent of their alleged crimes. He besmirches their integrity and then walks away. 

In fact, Obama is setting the stage for his own defense when the Republican majority of Congress attempts to thwart his unconstitutional acts. If the premise is that no white person can be an objective and impartial individual when it comes to a black individual, then, ergo, the overwhelmingly white Republican representatives and senators cannot, in any way, shape, or form be qualified to judge the first black president's unconstitutional decisions. And, if they do so, they are genetically disposed to dislike blacks and are, therefore, inherently racist.

Thus, the facts be damned. Obama has won the perceptual argument before the Republicans can mount the lawful argument. Obama continues to twist the law to suit his purposes. But after all, according to Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, "the organizer's job is to inseminate an invitation for himself, to agitate, introduce ideas, get people pregnant with hope and a desire for change and to identify [himself] as the person most qualified for this purpose." When the most egregious lawbreaker in the country is the community-organizer president, it is abundantly clear the country is in deep trouble.

In Heather MacDonald’s book The Burden of Bad Ideas, there is a 1995 article entitled "Law School Humbug." MacDonald notes the trajectory that would undoubtedly influence a future president. Critical race theory (CRT) informs and predicts every move of Obama and Holder and even though free speech is a victim, critical race theory and its twin sister, feminist jurisprudence "are fundamentally antithetical to the very notion of law." According to the prescient MacDonald "the core claim of both critical race theory and feminist jurisprudence is that law is merely a mask for white male power relations."  Consequently, "law...is indistinguishable from politics; [and] the purported objectivity and neutrality of legal reasoning is a sham."

Fast forward to the ongoing attacks on white police officers even when the overwhelming evidence refutes the claims of the White House. Obama's massaging of the law to suit his own political agenda is repeatedly on display. It is a direct result of a movement known as Legal Realism. By the 1970s "leftist law professors refashioned Legal Realism and called it Critical Legal Studies (CLS) which included Marxist analysis, postmodern literary criticism, and American legal skepticism." Critical Legal Studies was quite dominant at Harvard Law School. MacDonald describes how "Harvard's Duncan Kennedy . . . called for breaking down law school hierarchies by rotating all law school jobs -- from dean to janitor -- on a regular basis and paying all employees the same salary."

Sounds very much like Obama's lectures on how to fix income inequality in order to even out the playing field. Yet, under Obama, there is a "perverse incentive to favor illegal employees over American employees" because "businesses that hire amnestied illegals will not have to pay the $3000 ObamaCare penalty for denying them healthcare coverage."   

The ideas of Critical Race Theory are the precursors of recent examples where white people now accept violent assault on their persons and absolve and even empathize with their attackers. After all, in the mid 1990s, a professor at SUNY/Buffalo asserted that he was going to "begin . . . with the question whether, given [his] whiteness, [he was] at all qualified to write about racism." What is frightening is how mainstream this thinking is becoming under the reign of the 44th President of the United States.

But let us extend the argument to its logical conclusion. A black doctor cannot possibly empathize with her white patients and should not be able to have them in her practice. A black teacher cannot possibly understand what white students perceive and should be banned from teaching them. Good Lord, why should we bother reading literature by black authors or listening to Duke Ellington since his harmonies could not possible be "white" enough?  Hence, in Obamaworld, one needs to marginalize white America and flood the country and change the demographics of the United States. What with cop-bashing, illegal amnesty orders and constant race-baiting, Obama is right on schedule.

And because "minorities can never hope for justice from whites. . .  integration, according to these race theorists, is an unworthy ideal [.]" And, ultimately, assimilation can never be expected from illegal immigrants --  nor even expected.

Obama's idea of pure justice is evident in his initiative "to systematically redistribute the wealth of America's suburbs to the cities." It is a microcosm of what he is doing with the illegal aliens. Thus, "suburban tax money will be directly redistributed to nearby cities and less-well-off  'inner-ring' suburbs." Euphemistic code words such as "regional equity" and "smart growth" are used, but as Stanley Kurtz writes in Forbes, it means "take from the suburbanites to give to the urban poor." The end game is the imposition of federal government regulations on housing, education, and economic growth. To see the illegal immigration picture from Obama's social justice worldview, one need only to understand this ideological commitment of his.

The distortion of language to obscure the truth does not change the fact that people who have broken American law are getting a free pass that hurts all Americans.

Is not Obama, by his actions, ignoring the very real improvements in race relations in America and setting the stage for continued unrest between the races? The browning of America via the lawless immigration actions by Obama only exacerbates the situation since "law . . . is just a 'story' told by white males" and has no merit anyway. Thus, empathy can never extend beyond racial lines and instead we are bombarded with "black lives matter" slogans thus inferring that other lives do not. What of the black lives of Ferguson shopkeepers who have seen their life's work destroyed? Who speaks for them?

Moreover, why doesn't Obama explain how under his administration black unemployment is sky high and more blacks are being brought under the government welfare umbrella thus

losing the most precious commodity of all -- the right to determine their own lives?

Ultimately, "factual accuracy is no longer important." Amazingly, according to MacDonald, in a Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities article, one discovers that "it is naive, if not disingenuous, to suggest that all that matters is the promotion of the truth."  What matters is not what actually happened but that victimization "could have happened... since law school is no longer a place for penetrating analysis but rather "should be a forum for self-expression."

As a forerunner to the recent demands for disparate disciplinary codes for black students, Pennsylvania law professor Regina Austin argues "that the black community should embrace the criminals within its midst as a form of resistance to white oppression."

Does this mindset explain the destructive forces that were unleashed at Ferguson with nary a word from Obama and Holder as Louis Farrakhan urged the throwing of Molotov cocktails? Hence, in Ferguson "the law was the greatest casualty." It is important to recall the words of Saul Alinsky: "means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, "[d]oes the End justify the Means?" but always has been "[d]oes this particular end justify this particular means?" Hence, Obama's world view becomes patently more clear.

There is a malice and vindictiveness in Obama that has no end. Everything he touches he destroys. Each day more damaging news about ObamaCare is revealed and when January 2015 arrives, Americans will not know what hit them. Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh writes that in northern Virginia a family of four would pay "at any income a deductible out of pocket of $12,600 and a premium of $7,224 per year."  But not to fret, "[i]llegal aliens, who were not 'supposed' to be covered by Obamacare as falsely reported, are getting their premiums for free or $2.71" per month.

No matter how much the "cool" President flashes his toothy smile, his spiteful screeds, racist diatribes, and nasty harangues cannot hide the malevolent actions aimed at all Americans.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

The mark of a good bully is to leave a trail of destruction behind him. Obama is quite practiced at this. The bully pulpit is his and he uses it to his utmost advantage to maintain the shrill rant that "[r]ace remains a factor in the society. That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us."

And continuing in this vein, Obama has placed the mark of Cain on George Zimmerman, Officer Darren Wilson, and Cambridge Officer James Crowley, although each was found not guilty. Nonetheless, Obama never sees fit to apologize to these men who were found innocent of their alleged crimes. He besmirches their integrity and then walks away. 

In fact, Obama is setting the stage for his own defense when the Republican majority of Congress attempts to thwart his unconstitutional acts. If the premise is that no white person can be an objective and impartial individual when it comes to a black individual, then, ergo, the overwhelmingly white Republican representatives and senators cannot, in any way, shape, or form be qualified to judge the first black president's unconstitutional decisions. And, if they do so, they are genetically disposed to dislike blacks and are, therefore, inherently racist.

Thus, the facts be damned. Obama has won the perceptual argument before the Republicans can mount the lawful argument. Obama continues to twist the law to suit his purposes. But after all, according to Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, "the organizer's job is to inseminate an invitation for himself, to agitate, introduce ideas, get people pregnant with hope and a desire for change and to identify [himself] as the person most qualified for this purpose." When the most egregious lawbreaker in the country is the community-organizer president, it is abundantly clear the country is in deep trouble.

In Heather MacDonald’s book The Burden of Bad Ideas, there is a 1995 article entitled "Law School Humbug." MacDonald notes the trajectory that would undoubtedly influence a future president. Critical race theory (CRT) informs and predicts every move of Obama and Holder and even though free speech is a victim, critical race theory and its twin sister, feminist jurisprudence "are fundamentally antithetical to the very notion of law." According to the prescient MacDonald "the core claim of both critical race theory and feminist jurisprudence is that law is merely a mask for white male power relations."  Consequently, "law...is indistinguishable from politics; [and] the purported objectivity and neutrality of legal reasoning is a sham."

Fast forward to the ongoing attacks on white police officers even when the overwhelming evidence refutes the claims of the White House. Obama's massaging of the law to suit his own political agenda is repeatedly on display. It is a direct result of a movement known as Legal Realism. By the 1970s "leftist law professors refashioned Legal Realism and called it Critical Legal Studies (CLS) which included Marxist analysis, postmodern literary criticism, and American legal skepticism." Critical Legal Studies was quite dominant at Harvard Law School. MacDonald describes how "Harvard's Duncan Kennedy . . . called for breaking down law school hierarchies by rotating all law school jobs -- from dean to janitor -- on a regular basis and paying all employees the same salary."

Sounds very much like Obama's lectures on how to fix income inequality in order to even out the playing field. Yet, under Obama, there is a "perverse incentive to favor illegal employees over American employees" because "businesses that hire amnestied illegals will not have to pay the $3000 ObamaCare penalty for denying them healthcare coverage."   

The ideas of Critical Race Theory are the precursors of recent examples where white people now accept violent assault on their persons and absolve and even empathize with their attackers. After all, in the mid 1990s, a professor at SUNY/Buffalo asserted that he was going to "begin . . . with the question whether, given [his] whiteness, [he was] at all qualified to write about racism." What is frightening is how mainstream this thinking is becoming under the reign of the 44th President of the United States.

But let us extend the argument to its logical conclusion. A black doctor cannot possibly empathize with her white patients and should not be able to have them in her practice. A black teacher cannot possibly understand what white students perceive and should be banned from teaching them. Good Lord, why should we bother reading literature by black authors or listening to Duke Ellington since his harmonies could not possible be "white" enough?  Hence, in Obamaworld, one needs to marginalize white America and flood the country and change the demographics of the United States. What with cop-bashing, illegal amnesty orders and constant race-baiting, Obama is right on schedule.

And because "minorities can never hope for justice from whites. . .  integration, according to these race theorists, is an unworthy ideal [.]" And, ultimately, assimilation can never be expected from illegal immigrants --  nor even expected.

Obama's idea of pure justice is evident in his initiative "to systematically redistribute the wealth of America's suburbs to the cities." It is a microcosm of what he is doing with the illegal aliens. Thus, "suburban tax money will be directly redistributed to nearby cities and less-well-off  'inner-ring' suburbs." Euphemistic code words such as "regional equity" and "smart growth" are used, but as Stanley Kurtz writes in Forbes, it means "take from the suburbanites to give to the urban poor." The end game is the imposition of federal government regulations on housing, education, and economic growth. To see the illegal immigration picture from Obama's social justice worldview, one need only to understand this ideological commitment of his.

The distortion of language to obscure the truth does not change the fact that people who have broken American law are getting a free pass that hurts all Americans.

Is not Obama, by his actions, ignoring the very real improvements in race relations in America and setting the stage for continued unrest between the races? The browning of America via the lawless immigration actions by Obama only exacerbates the situation since "law . . . is just a 'story' told by white males" and has no merit anyway. Thus, empathy can never extend beyond racial lines and instead we are bombarded with "black lives matter" slogans thus inferring that other lives do not. What of the black lives of Ferguson shopkeepers who have seen their life's work destroyed? Who speaks for them?

Moreover, why doesn't Obama explain how under his administration black unemployment is sky high and more blacks are being brought under the government welfare umbrella thus

losing the most precious commodity of all -- the right to determine their own lives?

Ultimately, "factual accuracy is no longer important." Amazingly, according to MacDonald, in a Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities article, one discovers that "it is naive, if not disingenuous, to suggest that all that matters is the promotion of the truth."  What matters is not what actually happened but that victimization "could have happened... since law school is no longer a place for penetrating analysis but rather "should be a forum for self-expression."

As a forerunner to the recent demands for disparate disciplinary codes for black students, Pennsylvania law professor Regina Austin argues "that the black community should embrace the criminals within its midst as a form of resistance to white oppression."

Does this mindset explain the destructive forces that were unleashed at Ferguson with nary a word from Obama and Holder as Louis Farrakhan urged the throwing of Molotov cocktails? Hence, in Ferguson "the law was the greatest casualty." It is important to recall the words of Saul Alinsky: "means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, "[d]oes the End justify the Means?" but always has been "[d]oes this particular end justify this particular means?" Hence, Obama's world view becomes patently more clear.

There is a malice and vindictiveness in Obama that has no end. Everything he touches he destroys. Each day more damaging news about ObamaCare is revealed and when January 2015 arrives, Americans will not know what hit them. Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh writes that in northern Virginia a family of four would pay "at any income a deductible out of pocket of $12,600 and a premium of $7,224 per year."  But not to fret, "[i]llegal aliens, who were not 'supposed' to be covered by Obamacare as falsely reported, are getting their premiums for free or $2.71" per month.

No matter how much the "cool" President flashes his toothy smile, his spiteful screeds, racist diatribes, and nasty harangues cannot hide the malevolent actions aimed at all Americans.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com