Obama’s New Bolsheviks: His Vanguard of “Radical Change” (A KJ Op Ed)

AFBrancoConsequences111714Back in the 1990s, I worked in the Education/Media Services Department, of one of the largest hospitals in America. The department was overseen by an older lady, who had an educational doctorate. This lady was full of energy, was very sweet, and very smart. However, she became notorious for what my manager labeled “crisis management”. Meaning, that when the president of the hospital wanted her to undertake a major project and wanted a report of her plans before she began, she would wait until the last cotton picking minute to get her act together and her report as well, sending the whole department into a frenzy which was reminiscent of the chase scene at the end of The Benny Hill Show.

I remembered that story, as I was trying to get a handle on United States President Barack Hussein Obama’s management style. Obama, as we all know, has a management style that is reactive, instead of being proactive. His management of our nation’s resources leaves a lot to be desired. And, I am being very kind when I say that.

Perhaps there is a purpose in Obama’s slapdash method of handling his job duties.

We have all come to recognize that Obama does not handle criticism of his job performance very well. Let’s face it, Obama’s ego is as big as the great outdoors. And, of course, when you are a super genius such as Barack Hussein Obama, you don’t have to listen to peons like you and me, anyway.

The thread that ties together the story which I began today’s blog with and Barack Hussein Obama’s management style, is the fact that when you practice crisis management, more times than not, you do it in the fervent hope that by doing such, no one can question your management style until everything is said and done. In other words, until it is too late to do anything about it.

Obama, while practicing this management style, hopes to circumvent the Constitution of the United States, by portraying the “plight” of people who have trespassed into our country as an “emergency humanitarian situation”. If news had not leaked out last week that Obama was going to grant Amnesty by Executive Order, he probably would have just come on television this Friday and explained his whole brilliant plan to all of us. And, by the time we finished watching his pronouncement slack-jawed, in his mind anyway, it would have been too late for us to do anything about it.

When you have a crisis manager such as Obama, it is a very natural reaction for them not to take criticism well, and for them to be surprised when somebody bucks them on what they believe is a brilliant idea and a brilliant game plan.

Hence, the Presidential Temper Tantrums that Scooter throws every time somebody tells him “NO”.

However, in our present situation in America, I believe that this may be more than the simple case of a crisis manager’s plans being thwarted.

When you have an orderly structure already in place, such as our System of Checks and Balances, which was set up to provide a mechanism which protects our sovereign nation from usurpation of our Constitution, and provided for us in the founding of this country by our forefathers, it is not easily circumvented.

It hit me yesterday, after I wrote a blog about Obama’ s meeting with the protest leaders who are presently chomping at the bit to write it in Ferguson Missouri over the shooting of the young thug, Michael Brown.

What Obama was running for president, he promised to “radically change” the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave into a vision which he had for America. I believe that not only this upcoming amnesty on Friday, but the racial upheaval in Ferguson and across the country, which Obama’s irresponsible use of the rhetoric of race and class warfare has directly caused, as well, are both political tools, which he wishes to use as a Vanguard for his own revolution, whose sole purpose is to usher in the “radical change” which he spoke of all those years ago.

Just as was the case in the Russian Revolution, any “Democratic Socialist” nation we see around our Modern World, went through a course-altering revolution, whether through a violent overthrow of the Government or through a “radical change” in the political ideology of their nation and the way that their populace voted in the subsequent election.

I firmly believe that the mission of Barack Hussein Obama, from the moment he became President of United States to this very day, has been exactly what he said it was during his first presidential campaign: to “radically change” our nation into something that every patriotic American will no longer recognize.

With citizenship and voting rights granted to illegal aliens and with Obama’s covert and overt support of these perpetually-grieved protesters, fueled by racial animus, Obama has created his own version of Lenin’s Bolsheviks.

That is why the election earlier this month was so very important. No matter what the puppets of the Obama Administration, the Main Street Media proclaims,  the reason that Americans elected Republicans to both Houses of Congress was not to work with Barack Hussein Obama, but to oppose him at every turn.

America’s survival as a free nation depends on it.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Riot Preparation For the Verdict in Ferguson. Obama Secretly Meets with Ferguson “Protestors”.

Ferguson1Missouri State Authorities are getting their assets in place as the decision by the Grand Jury, who are deliberating, after hearing the evidence for or against indictment in the case of the shooting of Ferguson , Missouri young thug, Michael Brown, by Police Office Darren Wilson looms nigh.

The New York Times reports that

Since August, a disparate array of demonstrators — some from longstanding organizations, others from new groups with names like Hands Up United and Lost Voices — has been drawn here to protest not just the shooting of Mr. Brown, but also the broader issues of racial profiling and police conduct.

Now, with the grand jury’s decision expected in the coming days, the groups are preparing with intricate precision to protest the no-indictment vote most consider inevitable. Organizers are outlining “rules of engagement” for dealing with the police, circulating long lists of equipment, including bandages and shatterproof goggles, and establishing “safe spaces” where protesters can escape the cold — or the tear gas.

Graphic | What Happened in Ferguson?Why did the police shoot an unarmed black teenager in a St. Louis suburb, and what has unfolded since then? Here’s what you need to know about the situation in Missouri.

Yet the most important part of the planning may also be the hardest: how to prevent demonstrations from turning violent. Organizers say they want their efforts here to blossom into a lasting, national movement. So they say they hope for the protests to be forceful, loud and unrelenting, but without the looting or arson that could undermine their message. But they also know that some among the ranks may be more volatile and harder to control.

“We’ve come to the conclusion that we really don’t want violence,” said one organizer with Lost Voices, who goes by the name Bud Cuzz. “We want to fix this. We still want to fight to make the laws change. We still want to raise awareness. But we don’t want the city to turn upside down.”

Montague Simmons, a leader of theOrganization for Black Struggle, said there was a growing circle of demonstrators with “a clear message about what we are about and what kind of behavior we are looking for.” Yet beyond their carefully orchestrated plans for a series of shows of protest and civil disobedience, leaders here acknowledge that there are disagreements about what form of response is fitting and whether militant acts might spill over into violence.

At least one group has said on Twitter that it was offering a reward for information on the whereabouts of the officer, Darren Wilson, and, at another point, that it was “restocking on 7.62 & 9mm ammo.” Law enforcement authorities said they would not discuss individual groups, but that they were “constantly looking,” at several groups, according to Brian Schellman of the St. Louis County Police, “trying to separate the rhetoric from the actual threats.”

Immediately after Mr. Brown’s death on Aug. 9, protests began. For days, people marched and chanted along West Florissant Avenue, not far from where the shooting took place and, for brief periods, the protests grew violent. Stores were looted, and the police said demonstrators threw gasoline bombs and tried to set fires. The police used tear gas and rubber bullets. Protesters said the police response was an overreaction to just a few in the otherwise peaceful crowd.

Though the confrontations quieted, the demonstrations have continued nearly nightly since. About 50 organizations, including Mr. Simmons’s, have joined forces in a “Don’t Shoot Coalition,” and the level of planning is intense.

And what is the First Black President of the United States of America doing about this incendiary situatio0n?

Why, Barack Hussein Obama is throwing kerosene on it, of course.

Jim Hoft at gatewaypundit.com reported yesterday that,

President Obama met with Ferguson protest leaders on November 5th, the day after the midterm elections. The meeting was not on his daily schedule. He was concerned that the protesters “stay on course.”

What does that mean?

And why is the president meeting with the violent Mike Brown protesters before a verdict is reached in the court case?

The Ferguson protesters have looted over 100 businesses in the St. Louis area.

The New York Times hid this in the 21st paragraph of their report:

But leaders here say that is the nature of a movement that has taken place, in part, on social media and that does not match an earlier-era protest structure where a single, outspoken leader might have led the way. “This is not your momma’s civil rights movement,” said Ashley Yates, a leader of Millennial Activists United. “This is a movement where you have several difference voices, different people. The person in charge is really — the people. But the message from everyone is the same: Stop killing us.”

At times, there has been a split between national civil rights leaders and the younger leaders on the ground here, who see their efforts as more immediate, less passive than an older generation’s. But some here said relations have improved in recent weeks.

Some of the national leaders met with President Obama on Nov. 5 for a gathering that included a conversation about Ferguson.

According to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has appeared frequently in St. Louis with the Brown family and delivered a speech at Mr. Brown’s funeral, Mr. Obama “was concerned about Ferguson staying on course in terms of pursuing what it was that he knew we were advocating. He said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”

Obama wants the protesters to stay on course?

Unbelievable.

I have watching in fascination…and disgust…as the situation in Ferguson, Missouri has devolved into some sort of bizarre rush to judgement, for the purpose of some kind of strange racial reparation.

As the evidence against Michael Brown makes its way into the harsh light of day, the professional race-baiters, who have besieged the tiny town of Ferguson, and their supporting Liberal Pundits and sycophants on the World Wide Web, have continued their chorus of “innocence due to perpetual victimhood”, in the case of Michael Brown, proving that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

You see, boys and girls, at this point in the Liberal fairy tale narrative of “Mike the Gentle Giant”, with all of the blood-thirsty Liberal Trolls, who have descended upon the town of Ferguson, publicly writhing in anticipation of a presumed guilty verdict in the trial of Officer Darren Vinson, anything less than a guilty verdict will not satisfy their blood lust.

Of course, Obama will not tell the terminally aggrieved to stand down.

Since he took office, Obama has combined the political philosophies of Marx and Alinsky, and used them to turn a rhetorical political mixture of the rhetoric of Class Warfare and “perceived racial discrimination”, fueled by racial animus, into a political weapon, a skill which he learned during his time as a community organizer in Chicago.

That is why President Barack Hussein Obama sent Attorney General Eric Holder down to Ferguson. Holder went there to make sure that Officer Vinson was indicted in the “wrongful death” of “Gentle Giant” Michael Brown.

Even if the shooting of the 6’4″, 290 lb. thieving, store owner-bullying, dope-smoking, 18 year-old thug was justified.

Decades ago, when the Ku Klux Klan rode through the nation, innocent black men were hung from the nearest tree, simply because of the color of their skin.

Today, in 2014, it appears that those roles have been reversed.

And, it has been sanctioned by Presidential Decree.

President Barack Hussein Obama, who swore an oath, at least twice, to defend this nation, seems determined to tear it apart.

Two wrongs do not make a right…”civil” or otherwise.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Attorney General Eric Holder and the Glass House of Liberal Racism

RacismThe Attorney General of the United States, speaking on ABC yesterday, keeping in line with the political strategy of his boss, the “First Non-Racial President”, used the excuse of  “racial animus”, i.e., RACISM, in a weak attempt to protect him and the President from well-deserved criticism and opposition.

TheHill.com has the story…

Attorney General Eric Holder said Sunday he and President Obama have been targets of “a racial animus” from some of the administration’s political opponents.

“There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me [and] directed at the president,” Holder told ABC. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.”

Holder said the nation is in “a fundamentally better place than we were 50 years ago.”

“We’ve made lots of progress,” he said. “I sit here as the first African-American attorney general, serving the first African-American president of the United States. And that has to show that we have made a great deal of progress.

“But there’s still more we have to travel along this road so we get to the place that is consistent with our founding ideals,” he said.

He also stood by his controversial comments made during Obama’s first year in office, in which he said the U.S. was a “nation of cowards” when it comes to race.

“I wouldn’t walk away from that speech,” Holder said. “I think we are still a nation that is too afraid to confront racial issues,” rarely engaging “one another across the color line [to] talk about racial issues.”

The attorney general also pointed to Republican efforts to enact stricter voter ID laws in southern States as evidence that more needed to be done to protect minority rights. Republicans have maintained the efforts are designed to prevent voter fraud, while Democrats say instances of fraud are exceedingly rare, and far outpaced by the minority population that does not have identification that would be unable to vote.

Holder called the laws “political efforts” designed to make it “more difficult” for “groups that are not supportive of those in power” to “have access to the ballot.”

“Who is disproportionately impacted by them? Young people, African Americans, Hispanics, older people, people who, for whatever reason, aren’t necessarily supportive of the Republican Party,” Holder said, adding that “this notion that there is widespread in-person voter fraud is simply belied by the facts.”

Holder said the Justice Department was planning legal challenges of new voting laws in Ohio and Wisconsin. It has previously filed suit in Texas and North Carolina.

“I’m attorney general of the United States. … I will not allow people to take away that which people gave their lives to give, and that is the ability for the American people to vote,” Holder said.

About this “racial Animus” thing, Mr. Attorney General…nice Glass House you have there.

By the way, you do remember the New Black Panther Party case, don’t you?

During Obama’s first Presidential Election in 2008, it seems like there was a wee bit of “racial animus” going on, but not in the direction you were speaking of on television yesterday.

According to foxnews.com, there was

…an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force — one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.

The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he “supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews.”

AG Holder, in an article posted on washingtonpost.com, on 1/27/11, Jennifer Rubin summed up what you did and did not do, regarding this example of “racial animus”:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights came out in December with a draft of its interim report on the New Black Panthers Party scandal. Earlier today a final report was posted on the commission’s website, and with it, a flurry of rebuttals and separate statements from a number of the commissioners. The import of these statements should not be minimized.

The statements indicate several points: 1) the New Black Panther Party case brought by career Justice Department employees was meritorious on the law and the facts; 2) there is voluminous evidence of the Obama administration’s political interference in the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party case; 3) there is ample evidence that the Obama administration directed Justice Department employees not to bring cases against minority defendants who violated voting rights laws or to enforce a provision requiring that states and localities clean up their voting rolls to prevent fraud; 4) the Justice Department stonewalled efforts to investigate the case; and 5) vice chairman Abigail Thernstrom has, for reasons not entirely clear, ignored the evidence and tried to undermine the commission’s work.

Unfortunately, Attorney General Holder, you’re not the only member of the Administration residing in that Glass House of Liberal Racism.

Back in February of 2007, Vermont Senator Joe Biden described his future boss, contender for the Democrat Presidential Nomination, Barack Hussein Obama, in the following manner…

I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.

Speaking of our first “Non-Racial President”, remember Obama’s infamous “bitter clinger” statement about rural Americans at an elite fundraiser in San Francisco in 2008?

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I have lived in the Memphis Area all of my 55 years. I remember this fellow named Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose words set the town on fire…literally.

On August 28, 1963,  Dr. King gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, in which he said,

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

On July 18th, 2012, during the heart of  Obama’s Re-election Campaign, Breitbart.com’s John Nolte wrote the following

…By screaming racism (which is what “birther” really means) and claiming perfectly valid criticism of Obama is “dangerous,” this is how the media protects Obama from effective criticism and spins that criticism around into an attack against Republicans.

In 2008, using this partisan tactic, the media was able to intimidate and cow John McCain into submission. In fact, when Sarah Palin started hitting Obama for his relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, out of whole cloth the media made up the charge that someone at a Palin rally screamed, “Kill him!,” in reference to Obama.

You see, this is how the corrupt media attempts to snuff out criticism Obama can’t weather. If they can’t call the criticism racist they call it dangerous. And if they have to, the media will simply create a narrative based on what they know is a lie.

The corrupt media refuses to vet Obama, because they know that if they did, he would lose. This means that they must also stop Republicans from discussing Obama’s past by any means necessary. And this includes bullying Obama’s critics by declaring their criticism “racist” and “dangerous.”

Today’s Liberals use Racism as both a sword and a shield.

If you attack Obama’s performance as President, or any other Liberal Black Leader’s performance, you’re a RAAACIIIST! 

However, when the subject of removing affirmative action requirements comes up, as it recently did in Michigan, a hue and cry comes up from Liberals, using their cries of “Racism” as a shield against any attempts to remove Uncle Sugar from our day-to-day lives.

While, all the time, as the quotes above show, our “tolerant” Liberal Friends are the most intolerant of all of us.

That is probably why Dr. King was a Republican.

Until He Comes,

KJ