Tag Archives: liberals democrats

Recent Posts

Hypocrisy at it’s Finest

2 Comments

Derrick Wilburn is the founder and Chairman of the Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives and the Conservatives of All Colors Internship Program. His organization’s and personal mission are to bridge the gap that exists between conservative political causes, parties, candidates and officeholders and ethnic-minorities in the USA. He is published nationally everyday on AllenBWest and  is heard across America on Red State Radio.

“I can’t fault them for wanting to live in a beautiful home in a beautiful neighborhood.  It’s the hypocrisy that gets me. Campaign against the top 1% and then lose and fall in line with the top 1%.

Something STRANGE happens when Democrats leave the White House… After their exodus from the White House, the Obamas joined another rarified club, that of the ruling liberal elite class owning multiple ultra-expensive homes in highly exclusive communities that none in America can afford, save the one percenters.  The very same one percenters whom they rant and rail against as being the greedy, egocentric millionaires who simply have too much – following the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton who (despite Hillary’s claim that they left The White House dead broke) somehow managed to educate their daughter at Stanford, Oxford, NYU and Columbia ($500,000?), acquire a $1.7 million estate in Chappaqua and a $2.85 million mansion in Georgetown and then Bernie Sanders who, shortly after ending his 2016 presidential bid, bought his third home, a $600,000 lakefront vacation house on Lake Champlain.

Barack and Michelle have real estate designs of their own.  Earlier this year it was revealed that upon his leaving the presidency the Obamas will not be returning to Chicago. They will instead be moving into a $6 million, 8,200-square foot, 9-bedroom 12-bathroom mansion in Kalorama, one of the Washington District’s most posh, desirable and exclusive neighborhoods in the heart of one of America’s wealthiest zip codes.  With daughter Malia off to college, that leaves just Barack, Michelle and Sasha until the younger daughter graduates high school in 2018. 

Nothing says they care about climate change, energy consumption and our CO2 footprint more than keeping an 8,200-square foot house heated and air-conditioned year round for just three people. The hypocrisy and ‘do as I say not as I do’ hubris of all these wealthy climate change proponents is sickening.  By the way, the Obamas’ new home is just two doors down from Clinton campaign manager, John Podesta, who recently lost the most significant campaign of his life.

But that’s not the new news.  We have now learned Barack and Michelle are the proud owners of yet another home, this one on the Left Coast.  As reported by Page Six and other sources, the Obamas have a new home in Rancho Mirage, California.  Rancho Mirage is a popular golf getaway which would explain its attraction to the soon-to-be ex-golfer-in-chief.  By some counts this makes the Obamas’ fifth home.  Also from Page Six, The Obamas are also said to have bought a holiday getaway in Obama’s childhood home state of Hawaii.  How many American families own five of anything, let alone houses in Hawaii that they see once a year or so.  Most of us are blessed if able to rent a hotel room or condo in Hawaii once a decade or a life time. 

The relocation habits of Democrats leaving office is very interesting.  For example, having been voted out of office in 2014, Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu didn’t return to Louisiana.  Instead she made her 7,300-square foot $2.5 million Washington DC mansion her new home.  Rather than returning to Little Rock, when Bill and Hillary left the White House, they chose the liberal, ultra-wealthy haven of Chappaqua, New York with its average household income of $285,801 and average household net worth of $1,564,366 for their new residence. 

Now it’s the Obamas’ turn.  Are they going back to Chicago to live amongst the little people and take their chances becoming yet another statistic (total number shot as of this writing this year: 3,961)?  No, not so much. They, like the others, are moving into a private, secured community to live in a house big enough for five families where they will host cocktail parties for golf buddies and other millionaire and billionaire friends.

Yet like the Sanders, Landrieus and Clintons of the world, they will accept exorbitant five-, six-, even seven-figure speaking fees to give speeches about how the rich in our country are steadily pulling away from everyone else and increasingly isolating themselves.  About how the concentration of wealth at the top is allowing some Americans to own multiple houses, vacation when and as they please and live lives most of the rest of the country cannot fathom.

They’ll blather on and on about how the rich are a big part of the problems in our country but they gladly join them hoping no one will notice.  Well, we did!”

(Harry Truman once said, “One cannot become wealthy being a president unless you are doing something crooked”.) 

Harry sure didn’t die rich, but the scumsuckers today all leave the WH unbelievably rich, even some of the GOP presidents as well. What’s amazing to me is that none of them went back home to their roots where it all started. I guess they don’t want to hobnob with the old crowd anymore. Interesting to say the least

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted 2017-08-20 16:51:46.

Recent Posts

Parents Beware!

5 Comments

From one of the few newspapers that tell it like it is — the Wall Street Journal. Make no mistake about it parents and grandparents, your children are at risk

Merrick Garland Has a List, and You’re Probably on It

By Gerard Baker

Merrick Garland’s got a little list.

The attorney general is compiling a steadily lengthening register of “society offenders who might well be underground and who never would be missed,” as Ko-Ko, the hypervigilant lord high executioner, sings in Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The Mikado.”

Mr. Garland’s list of society offenders is compendious. At the top are right-wing extremists who’ve been officially designated the greatest domestic threat to U.S. security, but whose ranks seem, in the eyes of the nation’s top lawyer, to include some less obviously malevolent characters, including perhaps anyone who protested the results of the 2020 election. Then there are police departments not compliant with Biden administration law-enforcement dicta, Republican-run states seeking to regularize their voting laws after last year’s pandemic-palooza of an electoral process, and state legislatures that pass strict pro-life legislation.

They’d none of them be missed.

Oddly, the list doesn’t seem to extend to the hundreds of thousands of people who have crossed the southern border so far this year and are now presumably at large somewhere in the U.S. without a legal right to be in the country. Nor to those benevolent folk who have reduced several of the nation’s urban centers to crime-infested wastelands.

Which is presumably why the latest names on his roll are those parents who have had the temerity to challenge local school boards about the mandates they are imposing on their pandemic-ready classes and what the children are learning.

That wasn’t how the attorney general presented it when he announced the news. Citing a “disturbing trend” in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school-board members, teachers and other school employees, he declared that he was directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to work with local and state law enforcement to develop “strategies” for dealing with the problem.

The announcement looked as though it had been carefully coordinated with the National School Boards Association (NSBA), which had asked the Biden administration to do exactly this.

Decent people everywhere acknowledge that violence is intolerable—whether perpetrated by Black Lives Matter agitators torching buildings, Trump supporters smashing federal property, or parents who throw projectiles at school board members.

But the letter from the NSBA contained barely any evidence of actual violence. It cited mostly antisocial behavior and threats, and some of the offenses referenced—such as a parent making a mock Nazi salute to a school board—are, however offensive, constitutionally protected speech.

And, as has been widely noted, when acts of violence occur, they can and have been dealt with by local or state law enforcement. There is no federal interest in any of these infractions.

All this merely underscores what the real objective of the attorney general’s action was—and we don’t need to engage in speculation because it was recently spelled out to us by another leading member of President Biden’s party, Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate for governor of Virginia.

In a rare moment of honesty from a politician, Mr. McAuliffe made clear, in a television debate with Republican Glenn Youngkin, the Democrats’ conception of the role that parents should have in their children’s education: none whatever.

“I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

Aside from the jaw-dropping disdain for families, Mr. McAuliffe’s prescription is at odds with Article 26.3 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the sort of grand multilateral pronouncement the Democrats usually fetishize, which states: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

This flagrant attempt to intimidate parents into handing their children over to the mercies of the state is as sinister as anything the modern progressives who now control the Democratic Party have done.

The message is clear, and it has been the character of education in totalitarianism systems through history: These are not your children; they are wards of the state, and the state (in this case through the teachers unions that fund the Democratic Party) will determine what they learn and how.

Democrats like Mr. McAuliffe insist that pernicious racial doctrines teaching the ubiquity of white supremacism and the inherent racism of American society and encourage racial segregation aren’t actually taught in schools. But this is laughable. The same Democrats have spent the last year insisting on racial “equity” as the defining objective of their social program. Why would they leave it out of the schools they mostly control?

Mr. Garland’s brazen attempt to intimidate will likely backfire as more parents—including many who aren’t especially conservative—become alarmed by what they see and hear in their children’s schools. By placing them on his little list, he may have done us all a favor.