While “lecturer-in-chief” may be Barack Obama’s most apt title, a close second would be “projector-in-chief.” Few American politicians have blasted and smeared their political opponents with the very behavior they themselves are marked by with the gusto of Obama.

His latest projection came in a speech wherein he plugged “pluralism.” He opined: “What happens when the other side has repeatedly and abundantly made clear they’re not interested in playing by the rules? It’s a problem. And when that happens, we fight for what we believe in. There are going to be times, potentially, when one side tries to stack the deck and lock in a permanent grip on power, either by actively suppressing votes, or politicizing the armed forces, or using the judiciary or criminal justice system to go after their opponents. And in those circumstances, pluralism does not call for us to just stand back and say, ‘Well, I’m not sure, that’s okay.’ In those circumstances, a line has been crossed, and we have to stand firm and speak out and organize and mobilize as forcefully as we can.”

In one sense, it’s the same old play. When Democrats lose, they are quick to call for greater bipartisanship. Yet when they win, they press their majority advantage, calling on Republicans to quickly get in line and heed the voice of the American people. Or, as Obama repeatedly chided Republicans not to be on the “wrong side of history.”

Here, we have Obama engaged in that same politically disingenuous argument as he praises the supposed virtues of “pluralism.” However, what Obama says is revealing, as he exactly describes the situation in Washington over the last four years of the Biden administration.

But Biden didn’t orchestrate this all on his own. As many have noted, the Biden administration was, in many ways, simply a third term of the Obama administration. Under Biden, the continued push to radically transform the nation began under Obama.

This included advocating globalism over nationalism, vilifying our nation’s past history, and pressing forward in spreading the Marxist woke ideology across government as hard as possible.

Like his wife, Obama has seemingly never felt anything but shame for America. The country never deserved its wealth, power, and position in the world because it is little other than a nation built on the foundation of slavery and capitalism. The problem is that Americans are getting sick of this fallacious narrative. They’re getting tired of this sly racism couched in erudite language. Obama’s insults are not a winning formula.

One wonders how many votes Obama cost Kamala Harris when he disparaged black men for failing to give her their support in higher numbers. He was plying in balled-faced identity politics. It was as bad as Biden’s demeaning comment in 2020, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

Now, here Obama is, once again using his demeaning style to ridiculously imply that it is Republicans and Donald Trump who are seeking to “stack the deck and lock in a permanent grip on power” and that they have been seeking to suppress votes and most ridiculously of all are “politicizing the armed forces, or using the judiciary or criminal justice system to go after their opponents.” Project much?

Was it not the Obama administration that helped set up the whole Trump/Russia collusion hoax? Was it not Democrats who sought to impeach Trump over a legitimate phone call to a foreign leader? Was it not the Biden administration that weaponized the Justice Department to go after Trump in a failed effort to keep him out of the White House?

Obama aims to shame Republicans and the Trump administration against implementing their policy agenda. Obama hopes to preserve the deep state he fostered by appealing to a pluralism that he himself rejected when he was in power. As he infamously stated just three days into his first term, “Elections have consequences.”

Of course, they do, which is why appealing to some vague ideal of pluralism is nothing but a ploy to shame the winners into catering to the policy demands of the losing side.