Will Obama Trash The White House? Loser Lashes Out Over Legacy


By ilana mercer

You’re witnessing a fantastic fit of pique from Barack Hussein Obama. This American president is watching a legacy of statism, Islamism, globalism, elitism, blackism, post-Americanism, post-Christianity slip away, and he’s fighting tooth-and-nail for the ideological sludge in which he has mired America.

Obama is having a terrific tantrum, the effects of which President-elect Donald Trump must reverse. Why so? Aside from a few laudable initiatives—trade with Cuba and a lesser involvement in the Syrian civil war—Obama has fought for nothing but the dreadful propositions already mentioned. Trump has promised to fight for the American people. Never the twain shall meet.

To Trump, making America great means making the American people great. To Obama, making America great means making government great and aggrandizing himself in the process.

But the metrosexual Obama has finally met his match. Two Alpha Males, Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, are causing the world’s wunderkind to unravel. Both represent the interests of their voters; while Obama fights for the coercive ideology he shares with Angela Merkel and George Soros. Looking for a brawl with the Russian Bear certainly works against the interests of the American people, and for Washington, Brussels and the “expert” and think-tank internationalist industry.

And so, in the words of a Kremlin spokesman, “Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen.” This, as a spiteful Obama punishes Russia for infractions the American people, by-and-large, don’t believe the Russians committed. Differently put, “The proof is not in the Putin.”

Ordinarily, to mouth about someone’s “motivation” is to make a logically invalid argument. The reason being that the motivation behind an individual’s deeds can seldom be divined. But, “Barack Obama, it’s not as though we hardly knew thee.” We know the outgoing president all too well.  Obama is a case study in hubris. He began his presidency by claiming, in 2008, that his crowning was “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

“[T]his was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth,” Obama vaporized. “This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.”

His eight lean years Obama ended with similar arrant and arrogant nonsense: “I’m confident that if I had run again and articulated [my vision of progressive change], I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it.”

It’s perfectly plausible, then, to posit that Obama’s retaliation against Russia, three weeks before the inauguration of his successor, is a last-ditch attempt to gain one-upmanship over Trump, who is dominating the news cycle, a thing the narcissistic incumbent can’t abide.

Essentially, B. Hussein Obama is crashing about like a maniac in trying to retain his unwarranted status. Lo and behold, in the course of BHO’s flailing, we discover that government is perfectly capable of deporting foreigners when it wants to. Witness Obama’s petulant expulsion of Russian diplomats, payback for that country’s alleged harassment of American diplomats (no proof provided). This from the man who did nothing about Muslims murdering an American diplomat in Afghanistan.

Likewise, Obama’s Russophobic lickspittles—establishment conservatives and neoconservatives included—screamed blue murder when Trump merely threatened trade tariffs, as part of a clever negotiation strategy. Trump would launch a trade war, they hollered. The same sorts think nothing of risking real wars by inflicting sanctions that starve children and radicalize entire countries against the US.

In the context of our America-First interests, let’s look briefly at the significance of Obama’s dust-up with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel, seeing a weakness in Obama’s crumbling facade, has pounced. Here’s the sequence:

First came the UN’s unremarkable resolution, condemning the establishment of West Bank settlements as a flagrant violation of international law and a major obstacle to that ever-elusive peace with the MOPE (Most Oppressed People Ever, the Palestinians). Security Council Resolution 2334 was one among countless over the years. Passing anti-Israel resolutions is a popular UN parlor game.  

Next was the US’s “decision to abstain” from vetoing that resolution.

Last but not least was Netanyahu’s well-timed fury. The Israeli prime minister has asserted that the US orchestrated the UN vote against Israel. Helping to cement Obama’s legacy as an enemy of the Jewish State was Alan Dershowitz. The prominent pro-Obama civil libertarian has accused B. Hussein of personally lying to the law professor (Dershowitz), early in 44’s presidency, about being friend to Israel.

To top the blows to the outsized Obama ego, the UN cheerily kicked Obama and Secretary Kerry to the curb: It endorsed a truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and Turkey, sans Obama.

So Obama is spinning out of control. His parting shot at Russia has been described in the Russian press using bon mots like “impotent,” “political corpse,” “illiterate in foreign policy,” presiding over a “campaign of disinformation,” as badly behaved as a tenant trashing an apartment he no longer rents; his goal being to “create new problems for President-elect Trump.”

Hissed one Russian political commentator: “Obama has nothing else to do but break all the windows in the White House and deposit a pile of […] on the steps.”

Why is all this good for America Firsters? The dynamic “Process of Trump,” delineated in “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed,” is ongoing. Trump, inadvertently yet tactically, has chipped away at the Obama legacy, as the Left, steered by the nitworks, desperately galvanizes court historians to reinflate this empty vessel of a president.

**

ILANA Mercer is  a paleolibertarian writer and thinker based in the US. Her weekly column was begun in Canada in 1999. (Her website’s here.) Ilana is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June 2016), the first libertarian book of Trump, and of Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow ilana on  https://twitter.com/IlanaMercer, on  https://www.facebook.com/PaleolibertarianAuthorILANAMercer/
& Gab https://gab.ai/ILANAMERCER, where all subversives should gather.
Subscribe to ilana’s YouTube channel

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Will Obama Trash The White House? Loser Lashes Out Over Legacy

  1. Pingback: Will Obama Trash The White House? Loser Lashes Out Over Legacy | The Libertarian Alliance Blog | rudolfblog

  2. There is a Youtube clip doing the rounds captioned “Obama’s mother was a Muslim” or some such nonsense. It consists of a short talk by a very young Barry Obama followed by a reading from his autobiography. It runs for about 28 minutes, and the one thing that runs through all 28 minutes is that here is an young man who is utterly consumed by hatred of the White Man. It is what he is all about. It is what defines the man. Nothing but a long whinge about how awful it is being a Black man in a White man’s country. He is negativity personified. The sooner he and that dreadful wife of his get off our property the better it will be for everybody.

    • I agree, and I think on foreign policy he is probably very frustrated, as his instincts are patently more in line with the masses than with the elite. It is on the foreign policy front where he showed the most promise, and where he is perceived as having let everybody down, but I tend towards the view that that is not his fault. It’s just the machine he works for and the moneyed interests he had to win over to back him in his presidential race left him compromised.

      Another thing that counts in his favour is that he is basically a genuinely nice guy. This can be surmised from his off-hand behaviour. You might wonder why I mention this, but I do think it is of significance and explains why he came so far. People put their faith in him because they recognised his finer qualities, which are real.

      That tells us nothing either way in regard his competence, but genuineness and niceness is a rare thing at that level. Personally I would be inclined toward the view that, as a general rule (and allowing for exceptions), one’s niceness is inversely proportional to one’s competence, but Obama could be seen as a muddled exception.

      As a fanatic and true believer, but also a nice person, he seems to have done a great deal of ‘good’ for his own side (as they would define it). Whether it really is good for them is a different matter. It’s certainly not good for us – but it’s unclear how much of that Obama himself intended. I don’t think he is a particularly malicious person, at least not by elite standards.

      • I have to strongly disagree with you. I think he is a nasty piece of work, and that ghastly wife of his is even nastier. They are very much like the Blairs in my view. Both partnerships (particularly the distaff side) are driven by hatred and envy. With the Blairs it was class hatred, with the Obamas it is racial hatred. The Obamas both are driven by a visceral hatred towards the White Man – he provides the front of ‘niceness’ that masks a very large chip on their collective shoulders. Just like ‘Pretty straight kinda guy’ Tony. This is of course largely a subjective perception, and I would not want to insult you by claiming you had been fooled by them. Trouble is I don’t know how to say it without insulting you, so I hope you will indulge me! Actually it is not entirely subjective – I base it on my observation of all the little things they say and do, which taken together paint a very unflattering picture. Maybe it is too early for the picture of the Obamas to have come into such sharp focus as that of the Blairs, but time will tell.

        • I think you’ve misunderstood. Admittedly, often my posts are apt to be misunderstood, but I do word my contributions carefully.

          I didn’t say I like Obama and I haven’t been fooled by him, and I don’t like what he’s done. All I said is that he seems like a nice person. So what?

          I’ve not met him. Have you? If not, then how are you in a position to judge him as thoroughly as you do here?

          • I too try to choose my words carefully. But there seems to be something inherent in internet communications that scrambles the meaning of words anf phrases, so that a person may say one thing and a reader may see something quite different.
            But I still disagree with you. The word ‘nice’ must be one of the most mis-used in the language. But by any reasonable definition I don’t regard the Obamas (nor the Blairs for that matter) as ‘nice’ people at all. Quite the opposite in fact. I think Mr Obama merely presents a ‘nice’ front for some very unpleasant views, policies and ambitions, both his own and belonging to that race-baiting wife of his. Unless you define hatred and envy as being ‘nice’ characteristics, of course.
            There was a recent post doing the rounds containing a quote from Mrs Obama, in which she described her husband as a sort of father figure to the American people. His job, as she saw it, was to soothe them and to give them hope ‘when they bumped their head’ as you would a child.
            I am reasonably sure this was not the role the Founders had in mind when they created the office of president.
            The Obamas are the personification of elite entitlement. They are the Wise Ones, and we poor illiterate peasants should be thankful that we have such ‘nice’ people to watch over us, to think for us and to soothe us when we hurt ourselves.
            As I said earlier, the sooner these people get off our property, the happier America will be.

          • I forgot to add that I do not think it is requisite to meet a person in order to form an opinion of them. You seem to have formed an opinion of Mr Obama without meeting him. So have I.

            • However I have not formed the opinion that he is nasty – which is something that I think would require at least one meeting to establish, even tentatively. ‘Nasty’ is an overused word too.

              I think what you actually mean is that you don’t like his politics, and thus – in your eyes – he has done, or advocated or condoned some reprehensible things. We must remember that any U.S. president must take unpleasant decisions, whether he likes it or not, and must also serve agendas that he might not approve of. That’s the political and geopolitical reality of the role. The idea, for instance, that Trump is anything other than practically neo-conservative seems fanciful to me, based on my understanding of America’s position and geopolitical situations.

              But on the point about Obama seeming, or being, ‘nice’, I think we’re misunderstanding each other. I’m not an Obama supporter. A lot of my comments do seem to get lost in translation.

              The problem is that observations work on different levels. That’s what’s led to a misunderstanding here.

              If I say that I think he’s a nice man, that doesn’t mean I’m saying I like him. I’m not indulging in gossip or triviality. Some murderers are nice, and I can acknowledge it without approving of their criminal acts or professing to like them. A person of average or low intelligence might interpret the comment that way, but that’s not what I mean. I was making a more subtle observation.

              The reason why a lot of these people come to power is because they have some very fine qualities. You mention Tony Blair. I met Tony Blair a few times. I’m not name-dropping, as I can’t claim to have known him from Adam and I’m a nobody, but I saw enough of him to realise that he’s basically a nice man, and quite genuine.

              And that’s part of the problem.

              It’s possible to be a nice person and do nasty and unpleasant – even criminal – things.

              In my experience, the two aspects are not correlative and can co-exist.

              To take another example – Hitler was privately a nice man. Most serious historians, I think, agree on this. He was also very sincere. The significance of these personal qualities, beyond the trivial, is that they may partly serve to explain his political abilities. People who really believe in what they are saying, and who are ‘nice’ (can project niceness, charisma and other pleasant qualities) can manipulate people more easily, and probably believe in their own manipulation. [As an aside, my own views about Hitler are positive, but that’s not pertinent to my point here and I don’t wish to start another tedious argument about the merits or otherwise of the Third Reich and National Socialism].

              Richard Nixon was an unpleasant man – though maybe that’s too strong, a more precise way of putting it would be that he was a cynical man. Manifestly so. He also got up to some nasty stuff. The Watergate incident itself was blown out-of-proportion and amounted to little or nothing, but was the means to get rid of him. However, I expect that most white Americans would (hypothetically) still vote for Nixon on the strength of what he did in office (if we adopt a balanced view), much of which was (or appeared to be) very positive.

              • Too much here for one post, so I’ll break it down into bite-sized chunks. I think your logic is a bit dodgy when you conclude that it is possible to form a favourable opinion of a man without meeting him, but not an unfavourable one. I am going to steer clear of ‘nice’, especially since you mis-used the word in the first place! No I do not like Obama’s politics, but I have made no mention of that in my replies. I have discussed only the character of the man. And I don’t like that either.
                I believe Blair and Obama are of the same ilk, and their ‘genuineness’ is nothing but a giant and very good con trick. As Groucho Marx said, the most important thing is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made. They are both convincing phoneys in my view. But I am just repeating myself. I am sure my subconcious mind will overnight dredge up some specifics to support my argument.
                Oh, by the way, when you said you didn’t know Blair from Adam, did you mean he didn’t know you from Adam? Or had you been living in a cave for a while? Reminds me of Beethoven’s quote (referring to Almighty God) “Every tree speaks through thee”.

                • Either of us can believe or disbelieve what we like about a person’s character. Neither of us really knows what goes on inside somebody’s head. What I’m saying is that I believe you have come to this conclusion about Obama and Blair because you don’t like their politics. I stand by that assessment.

                  • “Neither of us really knows what goes on inside somebody’s head.” I agree. Yet you are telling me what is going on inside mine.
                    I utterly contradict your assertion (that my dislike of the Blairs and the Obamas is based on their politics). I don’t think you are doing yourself any favours by offering such a shallow analysis. I like Jeremy Corbyn though I profoundly dislike hs political views. Ditto Frank Field. Ditto Dennis Skinner. I dislike Trump although I agree with his politics. I think you might give my powers of reason a bit more credit, to be honest.
                    The only sense in which you might be correct is that in both cases (Obama/Blair) I believe their politics is driven by hatred – race hatred and class hatred respectively. The politics of envy, to coin a phrase. It was Andrew Neather, I believe, a New Labour researcher or some such, who promised to “rub the Right’s noses in diversity” by inviting the world’s flotsam and jetsam to come to these shores. Anybody who is motivated by such hatred is never going to earn my respect.
                    In each case also, I believe, you have a husband who is a first rate front man, presenting a smiling face that hides a nasty spiteful woman who is actually driving the agenda. Whatever else you can say about Blair and Obama, their presentational skills are unsurpassed in each case.

                    • This is the last comment I am going to make on this topic.

                      The point I’m making is subtle and it’s difficult to express, but I will try again.

                      Politicians are not, on the whole, these cackling villains sat around a table plotting. Obviously there’s an element of that in that they have to plan how to get from A to B and how to get things done, and they must do this within the context of the system. But if politicians were just villains and nothing else, then our political system wouldn’t be what it is. It would look more like a technocratic republican system and there would be no ideological/philosophical disputes or arguments. But there are? It could be that they’re all just acting and it’s all entirely fake, but I find that a bit of stretch. Politicians manifestly believe in things – and that’s what makes them so dangerous. If they really were the people you imagine them to be, they would actually be less dangerous and there would probably be less problems in the world.

                      Both you and Neil Lock are wrong, I think. They’re not psychopaths (at least, not on the whole). What makes them dangerous is that they’re the opposite – they mostly genuinely believe in what they say. Of course, it may be that they have to convince themselves of this, and that deep down they’re not really genuine, or whatever, but my point is that in order to advance up the political ladder they have to have these qualities where they can convince people. I don’t accept this necessarily makes somebody a psychopath or even a bad person (though in some cases, they may be).

                      Obama has done a lot of bad things (though personally I’m sceptical about how far any American president can actually execute policy), but that’s just my opinion. It doesn’t follow that I should think of him as a nasty person (whatever that means). Looking at this objectively, he may be a very nice person who thinks that he is doing good. All the evidence I have seen of him suggests to me that he is a genuine person, and I doubt he could have got as far as he has otherwise.

                      A serial killer who goes round killing prostitutes might think he’s doing God’s work – and may genuinely believe this. Obama isn’t quite the same thing, but he probably believes most of what he says.

                      I will ignore any future comments as I am spending too long on this.

    • The Mills of God grindly slowly but they grind sure.

      One can’t say on this evening how God’s Mills will get to grind Obama, how finely, or how soon. But I bet his historical reputation goes the way of other Presidents whose legacies, unlike that of Richard Nixon for example, will ultimately vanish into the blown dust of time’s oblivion.

      • Psychopaths? I never said they were psychopaths! I believe they are pursuing an agenda, one which is deliberately intended to be injurious to certain sections of the population. With Obama it is White society, with Blair it was ‘The Rich’. And yes, they probably do believe they are doing good. Obama probably believes he is redressing the balance against the Negroes in America. But he forgets that there never was a balance – the Africans were never meant to be there in the first place – they were taken to the Colonies as captives, and the young United States inherited them. It was almost universally agreed that they could not integrate with White society, and that the best thing to do was to deport them back to Africa, or to Panama in Lincoln’s case, but that proved easier said than done. That situation has thankfully changed over the past couple of hundred years, so that not only have the Negroes fully integrated, they have demonstrated that they can achieve the highest office in the land. For that I believe they should be thankful – not the Obamas though. They still regard themselves as oppressed by the White Man. They may believe they are helping the Black population, but they have left a legacy of division, and knocked race relations back fifty years and more.
        I have heard Blair described as Jesus Christ with a better tailor. He sees politics as a way of getting into show business. I don’t know what he believes in, other than his own infallibility, but he is just a front for that hideous wife of his, and she is a nasty, nasty woman.
        Many politicians believe they are dong good. There is a wonderful quote by C.S.Lewis about tyrants who believe they are doing good.
        Islamic Jihadis believe they are doing good. If they kill homosexuals they are preventing them from sinning further.
        Adolf Hitler believed he was doing good, and I believe to a certain extent he was. But that is another subject for another day.
        The Blair and Obamas of this world are trying to punish people, and that is not good. Not in my eyes, anyway.

  3. Once he’s in office I would strongly advise Trump to use the nuclear option on Obama. The cold case posse of Sheriff Arpaio has already discovered that Obama’s birth certificate is a phony and there is only one birth certificate that appears to be real and that shows him being born in Kenya. If he is declared to be illegal alien then everything that he has done in office in the last 8 years should be considered null and void including the two Supreme Court Justices that he placed on the bench. Go get him Donald!

    • This is very interesting. I have heard all the usual theories about the birth certificate, and, while I hate anything that smacks of a conspiracy theory, I have to say there are a few things that leave me unsettled. My starting premise is that Obama is a phoney from top to bottom, so it wouldn’t surprise me to find that his birth certificate is fake also. One small detail that sticks in my mind is that his race is allegedly recorded as ‘Black’. I am told that at the time he was born, he would have been registered as a ‘Negro’. I have not verified this, but I thought I’d mention it anyway.

    • None of his “race background” would or should matter at all, so long as he was actually at birth, legally an American Citizen. If there was falsification of his BC to the extent that he actually was not an American , then that is where Trump should step in.

      Trump should then be aware of the risk that the “Democrat” Nazis will want to rerun every election since 2008 … They have a Dynasty-in-Waiting already, to fight each one.
      2008 = Bill,
      2012 = Hillary,
      2016 = Chelsea. …

      • Hugo Miller, there are a number of problems with his birth certificate showing that who ever forged it didn’t do any or at least very little research. Two that I remember was that his fathers nationality was from Kenya when in 1961 the state of “Kenya” didn’t exist and was under British protectorate rule. The second was that the hospital that Obama was “born” in wasn’t called the name that it has now in 1961!

  4. David Davis, I want to state for the record that this is NOT about race. The birth certificate is a phony, end of discussion. Why would anyone forge a birth certificate and then place it on an official government website and doing so commit a felony? The only logical reason it seems to me would be if there WAS NO AMERICAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Why then is there a birth certificate for him at Coast General Hospital in Mubassai (spelling) Kenya? Because that is where Obama was REALLY BORN. That would at least on the surface make Obama an illegal alien and not eligible to be president.

  5. Come now, the outgoing administration might really be throwing tantrums all over the place, but that resolution vote is hardly an example of such. Isn’t the usual critiques that the US is far too subservient to Israeli pressure? Well, one must avoid damning if they do and damning if they don’t.

  6. To Tom Rogers (8 January, 2017 at 1:57 pm)

    Tom,

    Anyone that promotes or supports an aggressive war is not a good person.

    Anyone that promotes or supports any political policy, that harms innocent persons, is not a good person.

    Anyone that promotes or supports any lie, deception or falsehood put forward as truth, is not a good person.

    Obama is not a good person.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s