Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Pastor Who Linked Obama To Antichrist Says To Stop Demonizing Politicians – HuffPost

An evangelical leader who once said that Obama paved the way for the Antichrist now says its time to stop the demonization of public officials.

However, he doesnt believe those previous comments against Obama constitute demonization.

Dallas-based pastor Robert Jeffress made the request via Twitter after hearing about the gunman who opened fire on several Republican lawmakers Wednesday morning in Alexandria, Virginia.

The incident also highlights the fact that the unrelenting demonization of our legitimately elected political leaders could lead to tragedy, and I refer particularly to the mainstream media, our universities, and to Hollywood. Now is the time to tone it all down, embrace real tolerance, report objectively and stop provoking our nation to conflict.

Jeffress suggestion to not demonize elected officials sounds well and good, but it could be argued that he did just that in his 2014book, Perfect Ending,in whichhe made a connection between the Antichrist and Obamas support of LGBT rights:

For the first time in history a president of our country has openly proposed altering one of societys (not to mention Gods) most fundamental laws: that marriage should be between a man and a woman. While I am not suggesting that President Obama is the Antichrist, the fact that he was able to propose such a sweeping change in Gods law and still win reelection by a comfortable margin illustrates how a future world leader will be able to oppose Gods laws without any repercussions.

Jeffress also linked Obama to the Antichrist in a 2012 sermon, but he insisted he wasnt claiming that Obama is the Antichrist or not a Christian.

But what I am saying is this: the course he is choosing to lead our nation is paving the way for the future reign of the Antichrist, he said.

Although saying a president is setting up the world for the Antichrist might seem like an obvious attempt at demonization, Jeffress doesnt agree.

I was clear that Obama was not the Antichrist, and that I continue to pray for him, he told HuffPost. There was no call for violence or a belief that he was an illegitimate candidate. I believe God put him in office.

Jeffress also said he isnt asking people to stop criticizing politicians they disagree with.

I believe in the First Amendment, he said. But we shouldnt associate it with violence.

Read the original post:
Pastor Who Linked Obama To Antichrist Says To Stop Demonizing Politicians - HuffPost

How the Obama phenomenon and Trump earthquake happened – The Hill

Swift County, a small rural enclave about two and a half hours west of the Twin Cities, voted for President Obama twice, in 2008 and 2012. But in 2016, President Trump attracted 60 percent of the countys vote. And he just missed becoming the first Republican president to win Minnesotas electoral votes since Richard Nixon in 1972.

The shifting political terrain in Swift County offers a window into the nations broader political tectonics, shifts that have shaken up Washington on an increasingly frequent basis, shifts that gave us President Obama and President Trump.

In Swift County, hope dimmed when the Prairie Correctional Facility closed in 2010. More than 350 people lost their jobs, in a county of about 9,700. The unemployment rate jumped more than 2 percentage points virtually overnight, to almost 10 percent. But the community believed that an economic recovery would lift them once again.

A number of people, quite a significant number of former employees out there, were holding on as long as they could before they eventually moved away, hoping that facility would open, said Gary Hendrickx, a Swift County commissioner.

But Mark Dayton, the Democratic governor of Minnesota, threatened to veto legislation to reopen the prison. And the Obama administration said the federal government would cut back its use of private prisons. People left Swift County, the poverty rate grew and farmers felt the pinch when corn, wheat and soybean prices cratered along with the global commodity market.

At the same time, Hennepin County, the states largest and home to Minneapolis, is booming. The Twin Cities are attracting a new generation of migrants, both from places like Swift County and from overseas. Hennepin County has 2,000 more manufacturing jobs than it did five years ago. In that time, the annual median income has increased some $4,500.

Where Swift County shifted toward Trump, Hennepin turned a deeper shade of blue. Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonHow the Obama phenomenon and Trump earthquake happened Gingrich: Sessions 'didn't back down' during Senate testimony Gillespie edges out Trump-aligned candidate in Virginia gov primary MORE took more votes, and a higher percentage of the vote, than Obama did in 2012. Trump scored 50,000 fewer votes there than Mitt Romney did four years ago.

The election that sent Trump to the White House is replete with juxtaposing examples like those of Swift and Hennepin counties. Those glimpses of a changing America are evidence of a series of countervailing demographic, political and economic forces that have long exerted themselves on the nation and now define the quadrennial struggle between two sides of the political aisle that are deeply polarized along race, class, economic and educational lines.

On one side are aging rural and exurban counties, struggling to rebound from the worst economic collapse in modern times. On the other are large metropolitan powerhouses, increasingly diverse drivers of the American economy.

One side hates trade but depends upon it for economic success. The other embraces cultural liberalism and reaps the economic rewards of an ever more globalized system. One feels left behind. The other feels hindered as it strives for the future.

At the center of the divide are two sets of divergent trends.

The first set contrasts the changing face of America, which is being hastened by the rising influence of the most diverse generation in American history, with a radical political shift among the nations still-dominant cohort of older whites, who now act as a more homogenous voting bloc than ever before.

The second set reflects the changing nature of how Americans live, work and build economic power. A generations-long trend toward wage stagnation, automation and globalization is in the final stages of exterminating the blue-collar manufacturing jobs that once sustained Americas middle class in the heartland. At the same time, the nations largest cities are booming, creating staggering amounts of wealth and opportunity for those able to participate.

Together, these two sets of trends tell the story of the last half-century, an era in which a gap in what experts call the lived reality of different classes of Americans has diverged more than at any time since the Civil War.

That gap, fostered simultaneously by global economic trends and self-interested politicians, has conspired to create the poisonous partisan climate in which we now live.

It also offers hints about the options from which Americans must now choose: whether we will pursue the difficult course of unity and common prosperity, or the easy path of blame, division and a growing chasm between those in a position to take advantage of the evolving economy and those destined to be left behind.

In the course of reporting this series, we interviewed more than three dozen experts, including top demographers and leading economic thinkers, political leaders and their strategists, labor leaders and business executives.

The story they told is remarkably consistent. It is the story of a nation in flux not just this year, or for the last decade, but for more than half a century.

There are questions that define the American experiment: Who is an American? What does it mean to be an American? What is necessary to succeed in America today? Will my children live a better life than I have had?

The answers to those questions, these experts almost unanimously agree, are being redefined, creating new winners and new losers, and in the process upsetting a delicate political balance that existed for two generations.

The resulting uncertainty, anxiety and opportunity has created a nation almost equally divided along partisan lines, in which the battle for control of the White House, the Congress and states across the country is up for grabs in virtually every election.

This series does not aim to determine why Trump won, or why Clinton lost. Any of a hundred factors could have swung an election that produced a president who won 306 electoral votes but lost the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes.

But it will seek to understand how we got to this point, in which the nation is so narrowly divided that every election becomes fraught with possibility, and peril.

The divergent trends, the shifting answers to questions fundamental to American identity and the evidence of what is at stake is demonstrated in towns like Appleton, Minn., and Sacramento, Calif.: One is dying. The latter is thriving.

The impacts of the past are obvious in Miami, where a new generation of political leaders is beginning to take office, and in Detroit, where unoccupied homes in what was once Americas manufacturing hub are being demolished.

And the potential for the future is evident in Las Vegas, where Ruben Kihuen, a formerly undocumented immigrant, now holds a seat in Congress, and in rural eastern Connecticut, where automation is eliminating some of the best-paying jobs around.

These are stories of a changing America, represented in a thousand other communities across the country, towns and counties and cities where sharply different economic opportunities are changing the way we live, work and vote.

A half-century of changing economic prospects has led to the rise of dual-income households, a dramatic delay in the time when average Americans start their families and an explosion of credit card and student debt.

In some cases, that has led to clearly different experiences along class lines, setting those facing an economic tailwind against those who struggle to succeed as their parents did.

In others, it has led to a remarkably similar experience along racial lines, albeit an experience that is interpreted entirely differently: The children of blue-collar white workers believe their offspring will have a less successful life than they did. The children of those who suffered terrible discrimination in the Jim Crow South see the election of the nations first African-American president, and their own improving economic fortunes, as evidence that their offspring will live a better life than their own.

This series, Changing America, will explore those stories.

Read the rest here:
How the Obama phenomenon and Trump earthquake happened - The Hill

Ben Shapiro: Trump Didn’t Ruin The Media. Obama Did – Investor’s Business Daily

There is a widespread perception among those on the right that President Trump's myriad foibles, vagaries and outright prevarications are somehow justifiable because he is The Great Destroyer of the mainstream media. His fans say he is running the media around in circles and that is its own reward. Are you still waiting for extreme vetting? For the border wall? For tax cuts, ObamaCare repeal and a massive military buildup? Well, sit down and shut up. Just be grateful that Trump has the media hysterically following his tweets like a hormonal teenage boy frantically searching for internet pornography.

But this is wrong.

Trump isn't destroying the media's credibility. They already destroyed their own credibility, thanks to their allegiance to President Barack Obama.

Trump has the benefit of occupying the presidency after Obama. The media was highly critical of President Bill Clinton even they couldn't ignore the juicy scandals dripping daily from the White House in the 1990s. They were even more critical of President George W. Bush they were more than willing to misreport in order to undermine a war and destroy a presidency.

But then came Obama.

Obama was the first indicator that the media would simply refuse to cover stories they didn't like about a politician they did. The media covered Clinton's Chinagate and Travelgate. But they refused to cover the IRS scandal with the same level of vim as they would have under Bush; they downplayed the Obama administration's involvement in the botched "Fast and Furious" gun operation scandal; and members of the mainstream media openly mocked the right's anger over the administration's manipulation of the 2012 Benghazi terror attack. Obama had to be protected at all costs, including the cost of the media's credibility.

Meanwhile, the media savaged 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. They dug up a story from his high school days regarding him forcibly cutting a classmate's hair. They uncovered scandalous material about him strapping a dog to the roof of his car. They delved deep into his nefarious practice of investing in failing companies, and then cutting the dead weight to turn them around.

Then came Trump.

Trump didn't do anything aside from failing to comply with media's standards of behavior. He didn't pander to them or treat them with respect. And the media melted down. They treated Trump horribly, of course but they'd already treated Bush and Romney just as badly. More importantly, the media lost their ability to pretend having standards of honesty and decency after selling their souls to the Obama White House. It was difficult to take their cries of incipient tyranny seriously after they bent over backward to flatter a White House that cracked down on reporters from Fox News and The Associated Press.

Why does any of this matter?

It matters because conservatives would be wise to understand that Trump didn't destroy the media; he inherited the shell of a media ready to crumble. He tapped the shell, and it fell apart. But that's not enough. Trump now has a golden opportunity to promulgate an alternative narrative in place of the one pushed by the discredited leftist media if he can demonstrate credibility himself.

So far, he hasn't. And that means that his credibility will crumble at first contact from someone who hasn't already destroyed his or her credibility. Hence the media's renewed love for former FBI Director James Comey they believe that they can restore their own credibility by watching him destroy Trump's.

Trump can do significant damage to the media, but only if he tells the truth. Now would be an excellent time to start.

RELATED:

The Burgeoning Market For Anti-Trump Hoaxes

Poll Confirms Media's Bias: Is 'Fake News' The New Norm?

Are Democrats' Claims About Trump Colluding With Russians Collapsing

Visit link:
Ben Shapiro: Trump Didn't Ruin The Media. Obama Did - Investor's Business Daily

Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples – American Spectator

While the media obsess over an alleged Russian conspiracy to collude with Donald Trump to affect Americas 2016 presidential election, what about Obamas interference in the elections of other countries? Most Americans have no idea that President Obama meddled in elections all over the world. And apparently, the media decided theres no reason for Americans to know about this illegal activity.

Indeed, in 2016, the Los Angeles Times did a story on how America has interfered with other nations elections in the past, but they stopped short of mentioning the various foreign elections Obama tried to influence. But the same article reports that Obama slapped Russia with new penalties for meddling in the U.S. Presidential election by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing emails. Hypocrisy check, anyone?

Since that article appeared last December, it has essentially become fake news. The Republican National Committee was never successfully hacked into and evidence is mounting that the DNC was not hacked by Russia. Not only has Wiki Leaks itself insisted Russia was not the source, but a number of cyber security experts, including McAfee antivirus developer John McAfee, disputes this. McAfee says the hack on the DNC used a piece of malware a year and half old and was not an organized hack and certainly not a nation-state that did this. Moreover, the DNC has never allowed the FBI or any government agency to analyze the computers in question.

Nevertheless, Obama, operating on unconfirmed evidence, abruptly imposed new sanctions on Russia. Many observers believe he did so in order to set the stage for the left to initiate its phony Russian-Trump collusion narrative to be used to remove Trump from office or to defeat him in 2020.

Meddling in others elections is a violation of international law. In 1965, the United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed this with a resolution stating: No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal [] affairs of any other State. And the International Court of Justice also considers such intervention to be illegal. More importantly, U.S. law prohibits the use of tax dollars to influence foreign elections.

Nevertheless, the violation of both American and international law did not stop Obama from intervening repeatedly in the elections of other nations. Moreover, most of Obamas meddling was known by many foreign correspondents and if it was reported at all, it was downplayed. Most certainly, the media did not condemn it nor drop hints about impeaching Obama.

So lets get this straight. The media is hysterical about a flimsy conspiracy theory that Russia colluded with Trump to steal the 2016 election but was mostly silent about Obamas efforts to control the outcome of elections in at least six countries during his tenure. Media bias, anyone? Lets review the examples we know about:

Kenya

Investigative reporter Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily broke this story when he visited Kenya and was able to confirm that Obama, as a U.S. Senator, illegally used a taxpayer-financed trip to campaign for far-left presidential candidate Raila Odinga in Kenyas 2006 elections.

Odinga, according to the BBC, was distantly related to Obama and both families belonged to the Luo tribe. Indeed, both of their fathers served in the administration of Jomo Kenyatta in the 1960s. According to a document obtained by Corsi, Odinga promised Kenyas growing Islamic movement that if elected, he would rewrite the constitution of Kenya to recognize Sharia as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared religions. The secret agreement also called for the creation of Muslim madrassa classes, a crackdown on Christian evangelical events and gospel programs, and legal protections for Muslims suspected of terrorism, even international terrorism.

Obamas cheerleading for anti-American Odinga (who named his son after Fidel Castro) was more than reckless, wrote former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy, it was borderline criminal (and thats being generous). McCarthy also said Obamas intervention was an outrageous contravention of U.S. policy and, [referring to the Logan Act] probably, federal law.

By 2010, this tribal connection resulted in President Obama quietly transferring millions of U.S. tax dollars to Odingas government, including $2 million to convince Kenyan voters to vote for a new constitution. According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the new constitution would force Kenyans to be subjected to these [Islamic] tribunals merely by virtue of what religious community they were born into Some members of Congress actually called for an investigation but, typically, nothing ever came of it. By the end of 2010, hundreds of millions of dollars flowed to Kenya from a myriad of U.S. agencies such as USAID, all with the likely intent of boosting the popularity of the Odinga regime.

Israel

During Israels 2015 elections, the Obama administration led by Secretary of State John Kerry illegally intervened when they attempted to defeat the reelection of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by covertly funneling State Department grants to opposition groups. The Obama administration detested Netanyahu due to his refusal to cave into Palestinian demands, a group that even refused to recognize the existence of Israel.

Obamas State Department gave $350,000 to a group called the One Voice Movement (OVM), for supporting peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine. However, the State Department then used leftover funds to organize an effort against Netanyahus reelection. OVM contracted out a group called V15, which in turned hired five campaign experts from the U.S., including Obamas field director from his last presidential campaign. As the Weekly Standards Jim Swift wrote, once the infrastructure was built, it was used in an attempt to topple the government of one of Americas closest allies.

An investigation by the U.S. Senate found that the State Department failed to adequately guard against the risk that resources built with government grants would be deployed for political purposes. As with most investigations of Obama scandals, emails documenting this illegal election activity were destroyed. And, as usual, no one was held accountable.

Macedonia

The government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, obtained government documents that show the U.S. government has quietly spent millions of taxpayer dollars to destabilize the democratically elected, center-right government in Macedonia by colluding with leftwing, billionaire philanthropist George Soros. Indeed, Obamas ambassador to Macedonia, Jeff Baily, worked to funnel millions of dollars from the State Department and USAID to groups created by Soros which were, according to JW, working to overthrow the conservative government.

More details about this intervention were exposed by Victor Gaetan in a series of exposs in The American Spectator. Gaetan has confirmed that Soros, in conjuction with the Obama administration, financed a left-wing agenda to divide the nation and bring a socialist-Muslim coalition to power. Incredibly, Obamas USAID selected Soros Foundation Open Society Macedonia (FOSM) to manage $2.5 million in taxpayers dollars earmarked for oxymoronic democracy building, an amount increased to $4.8 million two years later.

This funding was directed to a coalition of socialist groups that work in conjunction with the Social Democrat Union of Macedonia (SDSM), a socialist party with close ties to Soros. The intervention is, incredibly, still ongoing with the result being chaos and disruptive street demonstrations. Gaetans investigative work also indicates that Obamas agencies intervened politically with a number of other Balkan counties, including Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Greece. It appears the Trump administration knows little about such interventions since many leftist Obama-appointed ambassadors continue to hold on to their positions. And USAID funds continue to pour into leftist political groups in the Balkans as if Trump never came to power. Indeed, as one Macedonia Member of Parliament quoted by Gaetan said, Under Obamas ideological programs, it [USAID] became the super crack of the left.

Libya

In 2011, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not only interfered politically in Libya but militarily as well, by orchestrating a series of policies designed to remove Muammar Gaddafi from power. While it would be a stretch to call Gaddafi a U.S. ally, he was cooperating with the U.S.A. in fighting Islamic extremists and had turned over all his WMDs to American officials. Western investment was flowing into Libya, the country was becoming more westernized and, most certainly, it was no longer a threat to the USA.

As NR wrote, all that vanished when Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice ordered the bombings that turned Libya into a terrorist paradise. One explanation for the abrupt attack on Libya was that Gaddafi was a rival to the Saudis over the leadership of the Islamic faith and since the Saudis had contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, Secretary Clinton had, as usual, a money motive to intervene in Libya.

The opposition to Gaddafis regime was led by the Libyan Transitional National Council, whose leaders include many radical Muslims such as Abdel Hakim Belhaj. Belhaj also headed an al-Qaeda affiliate called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was designated a terrorist organization by the State Department.

Nevertheless, Obama spent at least $1 billion to fund a military operation to topple Gaddafi, with American soldiers actually fighting alongside jihadist-dominated rebel groups. Moreover, the Washington Times reported that the CIA was providing covert assistance to elements of the Transitional National Council, again, a group dominated by radical jihadists. Under Obama, Libya was transformed from a moderate Islamic regime which posed no threat to the USA, to a violent wasteland dominated by various ISIS and al-Qaeda linked militias.

Honduras

Shortly after Obama was elected, leftist Honduran president Manual Zelaya attempted to illegally amend the Honduran Constitution so as to allow himself to serve as President longer than one term. Incredibly, Zelaya and a mob broke into a military installation where blank ballots were stored and tried to hold a constitutional referendum without the support of the election authorities. As a result, on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court, he was forcefully removed from office as Honduran law calls for.

Obama attacked Zelayas removal, falsely calling it a coup dtat and a WikiLeaks cable revealed that Obama backed Zelayas reinstatement in order to please Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, who, like Fidel Castro, was an ally of Zelaya. Instead of supporting the right of Hondurans to remove their president for unconstitutional actions, Obama tried to pressure Honduras into reinstating Zelaya by freezing all non-humanitarian aid. That didnt happen and Zelaya went into exile.

Eventually, new elections were held and a new president elected, but theres little doubt that the Obama administration meddled in the Honduran political process in an effort to support the hard left in that country. Indeed, when Obama announced that he supported the return of Zelaya from exile, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen announced Now that everything is in place for Zelayas return, there are no more false reasons for the Obama administration to continue its pressure tactics against those in Honduras who opposed Zelayas attacks on their countrys constitution and the rule of law.

Egypt

Like Libya, the Obama administration encouraged opposition to President Hosni Mubarak and intervened in elections to ensure that a radical Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohammed Morsi, was elected president. Obamas State Department even gave political training to MB leaders. Again, similar to Gadhafi, Mubarak was relatively secular and Egypt was becoming increasingly westernized. He was an ally of the U.S.A. and an opponent of radical jihadists.

And the Obama administration was open about its efforts. The Los Angeles Times reported that the Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned islamist organization The MBs mission statement states, Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Sounds like a group Obama would support. Indeed, one of the Egyptian MB leaders, Gehad el-Haddad, was actually on the Clinton Foundation payroll while working to help bring the MB to power. Once Morsi appeared to win what was likely a rigged election, Obama poured in $1.5 billion in foreign aid.

The Egyptian people were so upset with Obamas intervention, they forcefully removed Morsi and installed a pro-American moderate Muslim named Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as president. Morsi was then arrested by the Egyptian military for treason. But even after that, as reported by Western Journalism, Obamas State Department hosts Muslim Brotherhood-aligned leaders in order to work against this world-be reformers government.

So there you have it. Surprisingly, a group of Senators led by Mike Lee (R-Utah) has sent a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, demanding that he conduct a full scale investigation into the use of taxpayer funds to support leftist political movements around the world. As reported in the Washington Free Beacon, Senator Lee said the letter was written because over the past few months, elected officials and political leaders of foreign nations have been coming to me with disappointing news and reports of U.S. activity in their respective countries which included diplomats playing political favorites, USAID funds supporting extreme and sometimes violent political activity, and the U.S. Government working to marginalize the moderates and conservatives in leadership roles.

On the House side, a group of Congressmen led by Republican Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), visited the Balkans last month to investigate such blatant political manipulation but have yet to report on their findings.

Tillerson needs to clean house and expedite the appointment of new Ambassadors before Obama holdovers do any further damage. At the very least, he should cut off all funds to foreign political groups and seriously consider prosecuting State Department/USAID employees found to be involved with illegal political activity.

See the original post:
Obama's Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples - American Spectator

Has Racist Hatred of Obama Completely Broken Trump’s Mind? – TheStranger.com

"President Barack Obama walks through Old Havana, Cuba, Sunday, March 20, 2016." Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

This is the case with racism, which is a major part of our culture and has only one real function: to justify the economic domination of one group over another. The removal of that economic function leaves a void out of which nonsense and confusions spew. And matters are made worse when one plants the root of their being in the void of their race. When the nothingness of race is exposed by the violence of some counter fact or event or personality, an existential crisis erupts. Many of the Tea people in the early years of Obama's presidency experienced just this crisis. And if they were mentally unsound, the void of racism collapsed their fragile mind into the singularity of a madness. They became the void from which nonsense and confusions spewed. This is why you can't fight or argue with a mentally ill racist. There is nothing there to fight.

Trump, I think, is at this stage of madness. The signs are everywhere. Think of the bizarre cabinet meeting that happened yesterday. Think of how he praised himself and had members of his cabinet praise him. Many thought the whole performance had something to do with Comey's testimony. Trump was trying to show the public that he had survived the challenge and was working hard for all Americans. But I contend the reason for the performance was actually the sting of a statement made by John McCain the day before the cabinet meeting. The senator agreed that as far as American leadership is concerned," the US was on sturdier ground under President Obama. Trump does not have the kind of mind that can let a comment of that kind pass without a strong reaction. Obama is a black man. He is a white man. Being a white president means he is better than a black president. Before the cabinet meeting, Trump told reporters that he is the best and busiest president since F.D.R.

This Friday, Trump is to "announce changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba, possibly tightening restrictions on travel and trade that were loosened under former President Barack Obama." Think about this for a moment: six out of 10 Republicans are happy about the way things currently stand with Cuba. Combine those numbers with Dems, and you have a huge majority of Americans at odds with Trump's policy changes, which are nonsensical because Cuba poses no threat to US military and economic interests. But he has to do this thing because he can't think around, think through, think over, think under the black skin of his predecessor. This is the void talking. The mentally ill racist I would pass on the street is now in the Oval Office.

See the rest here:
Has Racist Hatred of Obama Completely Broken Trump's Mind? - TheStranger.com