Given the ongoing, fawning MSM coverage of our first black U.S. president, to revisit the “him” of this pair of peas in a political pod now seems inevitable. “Hers” was an appropriately appalled reaction to a Marie Antoinette-style sense of coddled, arrogant entitlement called Michelle’s chastising, honest mirror. Likewise, “his” will detail her fascist hubby as the antithesis of MLK’s dream. MLK would have advocated a positive, unifying figure who, through example, sees beyond superficial differences of color or creed. We got the opposite: a manipulative, divisively petty personage who stirs up current or “past grievances” (reflecting his personal biases) for a divisive political effect beneficial to Mr. Obama and his fellow travelers in the Democratic Party.
An important critique of Obama’s classless “character” such as it is: our black president ignores Lincoln, the Great Emancipator’s 150th anniversary rather than appropriating honoring a truly prescient American leader. (That was a president who knew how to use executive orders to good, long term effects.) Contrast an abolitionist decisively ending the horror of slavery with something beyond his wildest imagination: a black president who customary race-baits (same as differences of class, gender, orientation etc.) as political wedges to turn American society against itself. This ideologue’s reason? To distract from personal ownership of his abject failures domestically and abroad.
Specifically, Mr. Obama constantly changes the subject from his obtuse ineptness. To that end, he uses the visibility of the presidency to repeatedly elevate and exaggerate the import of minor, otherwise isolated and unfortunate incidences (read: Henry Louis Gates Jr.; Trayvon Martin; Darren Wilson UN speech) into full-blown scandals. Given his well established pattern, he perpetuates artificial crisis to short-circuit debate (read: demonized Republican objections to his “pen and phone” imperialistic change.) Indeed, Mr. Obama wields power to compel progressive change. This is the way of all law-violating fascists. (In retrospect, the “hope,” it turns out, was a pipe-dream; a superficial sound-good 2008 campaign slogan.)
Aided at every turn is the biased MSM, the Democrats’ slavish humpbacked creature who minimizes (or completely ignores) the virtual Noah’s Ark of unresolved pink elephant issues (illegal aliens; porous U.S. borders; potential terrorists re-settled here as Islamic migrants), and shrieking gorilla situations (read: ISIS; Iranian nuclear deal; 19 trillion debt). Then, there is the third category, those alternate-universe dupes who carry press badges like devotional rosaries who waste breath on the embers of this man’s presidency, and his shameful legacy. That’s The Washington Post’s Petula Dvorak.
Ms. Dvorak wrongly claims that Mr. Obama is the victim (rather than a perpetrator) of hate. Fallout, she assumes, from what is admittedly the most crassly juvenile, small-ball issue, unpredictable presidential race in modern history. Yet, given how these same dynamics have exactly mirrored Mr. Obama’s own contentious tenure, one would think he would be quite at ease.
In nature, what else would Mr. Obama be other than a parasitic organism, a bottom-feeder sapping America’s strength and poisoning her citizens’ good will? Look around at the carnage of a once thriving nation. From E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one — to the divisive Obama Doctrine of rewarding friends (read: cronies of now bankrupt Solyndra) and punishing enemies (read: the American people; Republicans; Israel and the West). What hasn’t fallen apart in his almost eight years of honing little more than his golf game? Truthfully, Mr. Obama has damaged our republic at every opportunity — perhaps beyond repair — with his nebulous “fundamental transformation of America.”
The only hate that truly exists is reflected back in Mr. Obama’s own gilded presidential mirror. What Ms. Dvorak is completely oblivious to is the simple logic that one does not “fundamentally transform” anything that is truly beloved in the first place. (I challenge Ms. Dvorak to try that tack on her significant other some time — and see where she ends up. I’m betting the dog house, if she is lucky.) Moreover, his hate-filled effort to change America from a capitalistic haven of upper-mobility to a full-on big-government socialistic hell, has been neither gentle or measured. It has been more than seven years of polarizing gale-force winds, boiling over American’s “melting pot.” In effect, he has pressure-cooked America’s First World golden goose status to a ruined, debt-laden husk.
As America’s first rabble-rousing president, Mr. Obama has intentionally exploited our society along its inherent fault lines. Specifically, he used his ethnicity to silence (and unfairly smear) detractors as innately intolerant, rather than respecting their legitimate right in a democracy to object. Case and point: on the campaign trail, he certainly objected to George W. Bush’s accumulated debt (4.899T) as irresponsible and unpatriotic. And how Mr. Obama — grand hypocrite that he is — has outdone Mr. Bush on these measures (to a degree the Republican could hardly fathom) is obvious. In any case, what loyal American would not take issue with Mr. Obama’s anti-American posturing (read: Castro Cuba trip). His job-killing economics (read: 93 million jobless; 8.63T Obama debt (difference between 10.6 debt at end of Bush II presidency and current escalating figure of 19.23T))? His wealth redistribution via the government’s bureaucratic ObamaCare take-over of the one-sixth of the economy (and the world’s best medical system)?
Have the well-heeled Obamas forgotten where or how they have lived for the better part of almost two presidential terms? Perhaps the greatest sin of these truly careless people is their complete disregard of the widespread suffering of average citizens during the Obama years. They forgot long ago that they work for us, not the other way around. It is we — not once, but twice — who have placed them in the rarefied air they frivolously waste. They are there by electoral votes, not divine right (much as they pretend otherwise.)
What is truly unseemly here is the lack of compassion, kindness or respect shown by the Obamas for the rest of us. We struggle to pay bills, and worry mightily about an uncertain future — caused, in large measure, by this president. Meanwhile, utterly tone-deaf, Mr. Obama has “transformed” the presidency into “lifestyles of the rich and famous.” His mindless extended vacations of golf games, tangos in far-flung tropical locales, and watching baseball with decades-old American’s geo-political foes are a complete embarrassment. The intrepid Ms. Dvorak makes a real funny with: “For someone who has been attacked the way Obama has… who has endured verbal assaults and [unrealized] physical threats to his family President Obama’s demeanor has been dignified.” So, one again, a Post columnist discloses that Mr. Obama shares his wife’s high class problem: what others say about them. In the final analysis, how dignified is a president who heartlessly abandoned Chicago families to record-setting, senselessly tragic killings of their children at the hands of their peers? Spinning no doubt restlessly in his grave, I wonder what colorful language MLK would have for Mr. Obama’s pampered sensibilities!
For her part, Ms. Dvorak does her “journalistic” duty as professional fluffer for Mr. Obama’s deservedly tattered reputation. She cites the meaningless measure of a weekly Gallup poll of presidential approval: Obama’s 53 percent compared to that of George W. Bush, his predecessor’s 32 percent during the same time frame. (A partisan swipe at Republicans for good measure.) Speaking of world leaders, I would dearly like a candid poll of their impressions regarding this current president. Out of Mr. Obama’s earshot how friend and foe alike must snicker at this apology-tour adventurer, this emperor with no clothes. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize a pervasive level of rightful resentment for this Tiger Woods-style fop literally “playing at being commander-in-chief.” (Incidentally, this precise, unfounded Ronald Reagan smear by liberals fits Mr. Obama to a golf link “tee.”)
Ms. Dvorak’s column reads like a ‘60s-style homage to the period piece “The Help.” A time now long past, when blacks were routinely marginalized and discriminated against solely due to their skin color. Her writing apes this warmed-over, superficial skin-deep claim. Specifically, for her ilk, race is always the causal factor for any negative attention directed at this first black U.S. president. Meanwhile, she completely neglects even the merest mention of Mr. Obama’s real-life track record of aforementioned failures: “Obama received triple the number of threats that previous presidents faced… [b]oth the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have seen huge jumps in threats against the president and the formation of hate groups during the past seven years.” The social and economic context — which this piece briefly details — is never even hinted at, stated explicitly or adequately explained.
Undercutting the serious nature of her subject matter, she uses slang unworthy of a precocious middle-schooler — let alone a major newspaper scribe — when she scribbles, “It’s impossible to utter a single word about the White House, the first family or the president without a blast from the fire hose of haterade.” (For those of us rare birds who confine ourselves to the use of proper English, the Urban Dictionary defines this absurd term as a figurative drink consumed by those who, in turn, are consumed by the negativity of their subject matter.) Beyond demonstrating that she truly is a bad writer, this half-wit is an insult to even the yellowest journalist. Ms. Dvorak is so out of touch — so hysterically blind as the man she thoughtlessly lionizes — she mistakenly assigns bile appropriately directed at him as a “sign of the times” rather than as a natural consequence of Mr. Obama’s own words, deeds and policies.
As spurious proof of “everybody else’s hate,” she cites one reader’s irate response to Mr. Obama, “Go back to Kenya.” The reader’s curious assertion brings up a salient, still unresolved point: Mr. Obama’s nebulous background and upbringing. (To make an analogy, Mr. Obama’s authentic-or-not released long-form birth certificate continues to be as controversial and uncertain as the “settled” science of “global warming,” now discredited, and re-labeled as vague “climate change.”) Likewise, Mr. Obama’s own wife publicly muddied the waters at a Denver luncheon during an August 2008 GLBT speech: “When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya… showing folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested, and we did it as a couple.” Would any worldly and educated spouse in a 20 year marriage ever misspeak her husband’s birth origin — and not bother to issue a correction? Moreover, would any American generally confuse a home country with somewhere else? No wonder the rumor persists to this day that Mr. Obama is a foreign-born Muslim. After all, that’s how he acts, and where his loyalties evidently philosophically lie.
Ms. Dvorak is encroaching dangerously on Courtland Milloy’s murky turf as the Post’s resident racial-scribbler. Not surprisingly, both of these progressive potted plants masquerading as journalists sing from the identical Democratic-sanctioned sheet music: both summarily condemn Americans as being secretly guilty of “racial contempt” regarding the Obamas. Yet, this is a factual impossibility. After all, by large margins, average Americans voted Mr. Obama into the highest office in the land through two election cycles. If race truly was a negatively pervasive element that could never have happened.
Therefore, the unfounded rumor and intangible innuendo these columnists wrongly engage in is nothing more than propaganda. They blame the “scenery” rather than the “star” of the show. In Ms. Dvorak’s case, she compares the current presidential campaign to a primordial swamp (another veiled, unworthy swipe at Republicans). Yet, the real problem remains where it always has been with Mr. Obama — likely the worst U.S. president in recent memory, if ever. Certainly, her unwarranted, sycophantic praise of a black man bereft of MLK’s content of character only mirrors a delusional true-believer with sludge stuck between her ears.
David L. Hunter is on Twitter and blogs at davidlhunter.blogspot.com. He has previously been published in multiple in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, FrontPage Mag, and extensively in Canada Free Press and American Thinker.
Start a conversation using these share links: