Obama The Divider

Obama The Divider



1) Dividing Americans By Class

2) Dividing Americans By Race & Ethnicity

3) Dividing Americans By Gender


During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama pledged to end the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism,” and to help Americans “rediscover our bonds to each other and to get out of this constant petty bickering that’s come to characterize our politics.” He then proceeded to become the most divisive president in American history. Not only has he emphasized the need to enact his agendas swiftly and with a great sense of urgency, but he has depicted his political opponents as essentially obstructionists whose ideological absolutism is at odds with the common good. During his second inaugural address on January 21, 2013, for instance, the newly re-elected Obama said: “For now, decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”

This section documents how Obama has based both his activist and political careers on fomenting group-based resentments designed to energize his political base. “Hope and Change” has become, in practice, “Divide and Conquer.” Obama’s propensity to pit populations and “interests” against each other is an outgrowth of the socialist worldview that sees all human interactions in terms of “class struggles.” The divisions that Obama seeks to promote, as the following material shows, are not only those of class, but also of race, ethnicity, and gender.


Obama the Chicago Community Organizer

  • From the mid- to late 1980s, Barack Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago. Thomas Sowell, the eminent Hoover Institution Fellow, offers this concise explanation of what community organizers do: “For ‘community organizers’ … racial resentments are a stock in trade…. What [they] organiz[e] are the resentments and paranoia within a community, directing those feelings against other communities, from whom either benefits or revenge are to be gotten, using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish that purpose.”
  • The godfather of community organizing, Saul Alinsky, put it this way: “[The community organizer] must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act…. [His function is] to agitate to the point of conflict…. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.”

Obama’s Ti
es to Saul Alinsky’s Tactics for Fomenting Class Resentments

  • Three of Barack Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Industrial Areas Foundation, founded by the famed godfather of community organizing, Saul Alinsky. In the Alinsky model, the goal is to foment, in a gradual and persistent manner, enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx and Engels predicted. Obama uses the term “transformation.” Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method for several years.
  • But Alinsky’s brand of revolution is not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As Richard Poe explains, “Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” Indeed, Alinsky advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, unobtrusively gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to then introduce changes from those platforms. Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method for several years.Alinsky said:
    • “The people of America live as they can. Many of them are pent up in one-room crumbling shacks and a few live in penthouses.… The Haves smell toilet water, the Have-Nots smell just plain toilet.”
    • “[The community organizer] must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act…. [His function is] to agitate to the point of conflict [and] singl[e] out [precisely who is to blame for the] particular evil [that is the source of the people’s angst]…. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.”

Obama’s Introduction to ACORN and Project Vote, Groups That Pit the Poor and Nonwhite Minorities Against the Rest of Society

  • In the early to mid-1990s, Obama worked with the (now defunct) community organization ACORN and its voter-mobilization arm, Project Vote. In 2003, Manhattan Institute scholar Sol Stern wrotethat ACORN, professing a dedication to “the poor and powerless,” in fact “promotes a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor.” ACORN, Stern elaborated, organized people “to push for ever more government control of the economy” and to pursue “the ultra-Left’s familiar anti-capitalist redistributionism.”

Obama Calls for Massive Government Spending Hikes on Education, and the Enactment of “Living Wage” Laws

  • In an October 28, 1994 NPR interview, Obama said it would be “just plain stupid”—and would reflect “a moral deficit”—for anyone to oppose making a taxpayer-funded “investment” in the expansion of government programs for children and low-income workers: “Real opportunity would mean quality prenatal care for all women and well-funded and innovative public schools for all children … a job at a living wage for everyone who was willing to work …”

Obama Emphasizes Inter-Group Conflict

  • In a 1995 interview, Obama said: “[M]any of the problems that Africa faces, whether it’s poverty or political suppression or ethnic conflict is just as prominent there and can’t all be blamed on the effects of colonialism. What it can be blamed on is some of the common factors that affect Bosnia or Los Angeles or all kinds of places on this earth, and that is the tendency for one group to try to suppress another group in the interest of power or greed or resources or what have you.”

Obama Scapegoats the “Top 5 Percent”

  • In a December 28, 1995 interview published in the Hyde Park Citizen newspaper, Obama explained his views on income inequality in the United States: “In an environment of scarcity, where the cost of living is rising, folks begin to get angry and bitter and look for scapegoats. Historically, instead of looking at the top 5% of this country that controls all the wealth, we turn towards each other, and the Republicans have added to the fire.”
  • In that same interview, Obama said that his perspective on the “top 5%” had been shaped by his experiences abroad: “It’s about power. My travels made me sensitive to the plight of those without power and the issues of class and inequalities as it relates to wealth and power. Anytime you have been overseas in these so-called third world countries, one thing you see is the vast disparity of wealth of those who are part of power structure and those outside of it.”

Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Obama’s Entry into Politics

  • In the mid-1990s, Obama entered electoral politics, setting his sights initially on a state senate seat in Illinois. He launched his political career in the home of two well-connected Chicagoans, longtime activists who would help him make important contacts and enlarge his public profile. These two allies were Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, lifelong Marxists who in the 1960s and ’70s had been revolutionary leaders of the Weather Underground Organization, a domestic terror group that aspired to transform the U.S. into a Communist country. In 1974 Ayers and Dohrn co-authored a book that openly advocated “revolutionary war” as “the only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism”; called for “a revolutionary communist party … to lead the struggle [to] seize power and build the new society”; and lauded socialism as the key to “the eradication of the social system based on profit.”

“I Actually Believe in Redistribution”: Obama Views the Poor As a Potential Voting Bloc

At an October 19, 1998 conference at Loyola University, Obama said: “There has been a systematic … propaganda campaign against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved…. The trick is, how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.” At other points during his address, Obama stated that the “working poor” on welfare constituted a political voting bloc that could be harnessed to the advantage of Democrats. Specifically, he said that:

  • “To the extent that we are doing research figuring out what kinds of government action would successfully make their [the working poor’s] lives better, we are then putting together a potential majority coalition to move those agendas forward.”
  • The “one good thing that comes out of [the welfare-reform bill of 1996] is that it essentially desegregates the welfare population,” merging urban blacks with “the working poor, which are the other people.”
  • Such a coalition becomes “one batch of folks … that is increasingly a majority population” whose policy needs would grow to encompass health care, job training, education, and a system where government would “provide effective child care.”

“Rich People Are All for Nonviolence…. They Want to Make Sure Folks Don’t Take Their Stuff”

  • On January 21, 2002—Martin Luther King Day—then-Illinois state senator Obama appeared at a Chicago church and delivered an emotionally charged speech drenched in the rhetoric of class warfare. He said: “The philosophy of nonviolence only makes sense if the powerful can be made to recognize themselves in the powerless. It only makes sense if the powerless can be made to recognize themselves in the powerful…. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but rich people are all for nonviolence. Why wouldn’t they be? They’ve got what they want. They want to make sure folks don’t take their stuff.”

Obama Equates Conservatism with Greed, and Free Markets with “Social Darwinism”

  • In a 2005 commencement address, Obama described conservatism as a philosophy that promises “to give everyone one big refund on their government, divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.” “In Washington,” said Obama, “they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it, Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or her self. It’s a tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity.”

“Tax Breaks to Paris Hilton Instead of Providing Child Care and Education”

  • Blacks in the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina were poor, Obama charged, because of the Bush administration’s “decision to give tax breaks to Paris Hilton instead of providing child care and education.”

The “Rich” Should Pay More Taxes

  • During a June 28, 2007 primary debate at Howard University, candidate Obama was asked, “Do you agree that the rich aren’t paying their fair share of taxes?” He replied, “There’s no doubt that the tax system has been skewed. And the Bush tax cuts—people didn’t need them, and they weren’t even asking for them, and that’s why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.”

Calling for a Capital Gains Tax Hike

  • In an April 2008 Democratic primary debate, Obama was asked, by journalist Charlie Gibson, about his proposal to nearly double the capital gains tax (from 15 percent to 28 percent). Said Gibson: “In each instance when the rate dropped [in the 1990s], revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the [capital gains] tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?” Obama replied that he wished to raise the tax “for purposes of fairness…. [T]hose who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.”

Higher Taxes for the Wealthy

  • In a September 2008 Fox News Channel interview, Obama pledged to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, while raising taxes on those who earn more than $250,000: “Teddy Roosevelt supported a progressive income tax…. If I am sitting pretty and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t, what’s the big deal for me to say, ‘I’m going to pay a little bit more’? That is neighborliness.”

Telling “Joe the Plumber” about “Spreading t
he Wealth Around”

  • At an October 2008 campaign appearance in Ohio, Obama was approached by a man named Joe Wurzelbacher (“Joe the Plumber”). Obama said that a tax increase on businesses like Wurzelbacher’s was justified because it would enable the government to give tax breaks to people earning considerably less than $250,000. “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” said Obama.

Fat-Cat Bankers”

  • During a December 2009 interview broadcast on CBS’ 60 Minutes, Obama said: “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of, you know, fat-cat bankers on Wall Street.”

At Some Point, You’ve Made Enough Money”

  • On April 28, 2010, President Obama was in Illinois making a speech about a proposed Wall Street reform bill. He criticized Wall Street lobbyists for trying to dilute the bill’s most stringent provisions, saying: “We’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money, but you know, part of the American way is, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service.”

Obama Opposes Tax Cuts for Top Earners

  • On September 8, 2010, the Associated Press reported: “President Barack Obama strongly defended his opposition to extending Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans on Wednesday and delivered a searing attack on Republicans and their House leader for advocating ‘the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place.’ Obama said the struggling U.S. economy can’t afford to spend $700 billion to keep lower tax rates in place for the nation’s highest earners…. ‘We should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer,’ the president said. The administration ‘is ready this week to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less,’ he said.”

The “Rich” Should Pay More Taxes

  • In an April 13, 2011 speech on the topic of debt reduction, President Obama said: “In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of all working Americans actually declined. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. That’s who needs to pay less taxes?… There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.”
  • Obama’s contention that tax hikes on the wealthy would have any meaningful effect on the U.S. budget is unfounded. As of 2012, even if the IRS were to take, from every high earner, fully 100% of whatever income they earned in excess of $1 million, the government’s take would be just $616 billion—not even half of the country’s annual deficit. In other words, the total national debt would continue to spiral out of control. Further, the proposal itself is absurd, since the wealthy would no longer continue to work or invest their money if their income were to be taxed at a 100% rate.

Despite His Rhetoric against “Greed,” Obama Rewards Big Donors with Jobs, Stimulus Money, and Government Contracts

On June 15, 2011, the Center for Public Integrity reported:

  • “More than two years after President Obama took office vowing to banish ‘special interests’ from his administration, nearly 200 of his biggest donors have landed plum government jobs and advisory posts, won federal contracts worth millions of dollars for their business interests or attended numerous elite White House meetings and social events…. These ‘bundlers’ raised at least $50,000 and sometimes more than $500,000 in campaign donations for Obama’s campaign…. As a candidate, Obama spoke passionately about diminishing the clout of moneyed interests and making the White House more accessible to everyday Americans. In kicking off his presidential run on Feb. 10, 2007, he blasted ‘the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests,’ who he said had ‘turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.’”
  • All told, as of June 2011, some 184 of 556 (33%) Obama bundlers or their spouses had joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers.
  • Of those bundlers who collected more than $500,000 for Obama, fully 80% had taken “key administration posts,” as defined by the White House.
  • Of the 24 ambassador nominees who were bundlers, 14 had raised more than $500,000 for Obama.
  • Campaign bundlers and their family members accounted for more than 3,000 White House meetings and visits. Half of them had raised at least $200,000 for Obama.
  • At least 19 bundlers had ties to businesses poised to profit from government spending to promote the President’s agendas in such fields as “clean energy” and telecommunications. One of these was the Oklahoma billionaire investor George Kaiser, who was a big financial backer of Solyndra, the now-defunct Silicon Valley solar plant that in March 2009 won a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.

Obama Says the “Occupy Wall Street” Movement Reflects Americans’ Frustrations

  • At an October 6, 2011 press conference, President Obama congratulated the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street activists for “express[ing] the frustrations that the American people feel … about how our financial system works”; for reminding him “what we are still fighting for”; for “inspir[ing]” him; and for being “the reason why I ran for this office in the first place.”

Obama Calls for Tax Hikes on “Millionaires,” “Billionaires,” and “Corporate Jet Owners”

On June 29, 2011, President Obama called on Republicans to drop their opposition to tax increases for those earning $250,000 or more, saying that because “everybody else” was sacrificing their “sacred cows” for deficit reduction, GOP lawmakers should be willing to follow suit. He made six mentions of eliminating a tax loophole for corporate jets, suggesting that insufficient taxes on such jets had the effect of depriving student-loan funds or food-safety funds of their needed revenues. For example:

  • “The tax cuts I’m proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owner.”
  • “I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys.” (In fact, Obama’s plan proposed an end to tax breaks for anyone earning $250,000 or more.)
  • As The Daily Caller subsequently pointed out, eliminating tax breaks for corporate jet owners would result in a mere $3 billion in new tax revenues over a ten-year period. The U.S. budget deficit for 2011 alone was $1.3 trillion. Projected over a decade, that annual figure would result, cumulatively, in $13 trillion of new debt. Thus the $3 billion in revenues would decrease the budget deficit for that period by just one-fortieth of 1%. In other words, Obama’s proposal was not a serious attempt to address the deficit. It was intended solely to stir class resentments against wealthy people who were presumably exploiting everyone else.

Obama Again Calls for Tax Hikes on High Earners

  • At a July 11, 2011 press conference, President Obama said: “And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

Obama Denounces the Wealthy, the “Greed” of Bankers, “Inequality,” and Free Markets

On December 6, 2011, President Obama delivered a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, where he said:

  • “Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments – wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t …”
  • The financial crisis of 2008 was caused by “the breathtaking greed” of “banks and investors” as well as “irresponsibility all across the system.”
  • “We simply cannot return to this brand of ‘you’re on your own’ economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country…. It results in a prosperity that’s enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens…. In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1% has gone up by more than 25% to $1.2 million per year…. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more…. Now, this kind of inequality – a level that we haven’t seen since the Great Depression – hurts us all.”
  • “We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing – all those things that helped make us an economic superpower? Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country? Because we can’t afford to do both.”
  • “Today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of you, millions of middle-class families. Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1%. One percent. That is the height of unfairness. It is wrong.”

Obama Again Denounces Inequality, the Wealthy, and Tax Breaks

In an April 3, 2012 speech at an Associated Press luncheon, President Obama said:

  • “Can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do exceedingly well, while a growing number struggle to get by?”
  • “What drags down our entire economy is when there’s an ever-widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everybody else…”
  • “… research has shown that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.”
  • “Meanwhile, these [Republicans’] proposed tax breaks would come on top of more than a trillion dollars in tax giveaways for people making more than $250,000 a year. That’s an average of at least $150,000 for every millionaire in this country — $150,000. Let’s just step back for a second and look at what $150,000 pays for: A year’s worth of prescription drug coverage for a senior citizen. Plus a new school computer lab. Plus a year of medical care for a returning veteran. Plus a medical research grant for a chronic disease. Plus a year’s salary for a firefighter or police officer. Plus a tax credit to make a year of college more affordable. Plus a year’s worth of financial aid. One hundred fifty thousand dollars could pay for all of these things combined — investments in education and research that are essential to economic growth that benefits all of us.  For $150,000, that would be going to each millionaire and billionaire in this country.”
  • “We’re told that when the wealthy become even wealthier, and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, it’s good for America, and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else.”
  • “At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003.  We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. They did not. The wealthy got wealthier—we would expect that. The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades, to an average of $1.3 million a year.  But prosperity sure didn’t trickle down.”
  • “You’d think they’d [Republicans would] say, you know what, maybe some rules and regulations are necessary to protect the economy and prevent people from being taken advantage of by insurance companies or credit card companies or mortgage lenders.  Maybe, just maybe, at a time of growing debt and widening inequality, we should hold off on giving the wealthiest Americans another round of big tax cuts.”
  • “We also have a much different approach when it comes to taxes — an approach that says if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t afford to spend trillions more on tax cuts for folks like me, for wealthy Americans who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them, and that the country cannot afford. At a time when the share of national income flowing to the top 1 percent of people in this country has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s, those same folks are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years. As both I and Warren Buffett have pointed out many times now, he’s paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. That is not fair. It is not right.”

“You Didn’t Build That”: 
Obama Disparages Entrepreneurs and Praises Government

  • On July 13, 2012, Obama minimized the achievements of entrepreneurs, and emphasized the notion that government was the key to a thriving economy:
    “Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, ‘well, it must be because I was just so smart.’ There are a lot of smart people out there. ‘It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.’ Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help…. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Obama Calls for “An America in Which Prosperity Is Shared”

  • On August 12, 2012, Obama asked: “Do we go forward toward a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared, or do we go backward to the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place? I believe we have to go forward.”

“Everybody’s Getting a Fair Share”

  • During the closing statement of his October 3, 2012 presidential debate with Mitt Romney, Obama said that he sought to create an America where “everybody’s getting a fair shot, and everybody’s getting a fair share.” He then quickly corrected himself: “everybody’s doing a fair share, and everybody’s playing by the same rules.”

Obama Gives an Indication That Taxes Will Ultimately Be Raised on most Americans, Not Just the Wealthy (though the latter will be targeted first)

  •  On December 6, 2012, Obama, calling for a tax hike on the top 2% of earners, said: “We’re going to have to strengthen our entitlement programs so that they’re there for future generations. Everybody is going to have to share in some sacrifice, but it starts with folks who are in the best position to sacrifice, who are in the best position to do a little bit more to step up.”

 Shrinking Few Do Very Well and a Growing Many Barely Make It”

  • During his second inaugural address as president on January 21, 2013, the newly re-elected Obama emphasized his belief that capitalist America had become a place of widespread inequity and injustice: “[O]ur country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it”; “We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.”

Obama Says Republicans Only Care About Cutting Taxes for the Rich

  • In February 2013, President Obama told an audience of black broadcasters: “My sense is that their [Republicans’] basic view is that nothing is important enough to raise taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations … That’s the thing that binds their party together at this point.”

Obama’s Weekly Address Emphasizes Class Warfare

During his weekly address to the American people on February 23, 2013, Obama addressed the looming “sequestration” budget cuts that were scheduled to take effect in a few days:

  • He said it was important to “close wasteful tax loopholes for the well-off and well-connected.”
  • “… Republicans in Congress have decided that instead of compromising—instead of asking anything of the wealthiest Americans—they would rather let these [budget] cuts fall squarely on the middle class.”
  • “Are Republicans in Congress really willing to let these cuts fall on our kids’ schools and mental health care just to protect tax loopholes for corporate jet owners? Are they really willing to slash military health care and the border patrol just because they refuse to eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies? Are they seriously prepared to inflict more pain on the middle class because they refuse to ask anything more of those at the very top?
  • “[M]y plan [has] got tough cuts, tough reforms, and asks more of the wealthiest Americans.”

Obama Say “The Wealthiest and Most Powerful” Are Not Paying Enough in Taxes

  • On February 28, 2013, Obama stated that America cannot “just cut our way to prosperity” while “asking nothing more from the wealthiest and most powerful.”

Obama Seeks to Cap Americans’ Tax-Sheltered Retirement Savings

  • In April 2013, President Obama unveiled his budget for fiscal 2014. This budget proposed, for the first time ever, to cap the amount of money Americans could save in tax-sheltered 401K retirement plans — because some people were accumulating “substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.” Specifically, the president sought to “limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million for someone retiring in 2013.”

Obama Tells College Grads that the Traditional U.S. Economic System Is Rigged Against Them

  • In his speech at Ohio State University’s 2013 Commencement, Obama urged the graduates to “reject a country in which only a lucky few prosper,” and where the “well-connected” get “special treatment that you don’t get.”

“Winner-Take-All Economy” and “Growing Inequality”

On July 24, 2013, President Obama made the following remarks on the economy at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois:

  • “Used to be that as companies did better, as profits went higher, workers also got a better deal…. [T]he income of the top 1 percent nearly quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, but the typical family’s incomes barely budged. Even though our businesses are creating new jobs and have broken record profits, nearly all the income gains of the past 10 years have continued to flow to the top 1 percent. The average CEO has gotten a raise of nearly 40 percent since 2009.”
  • “[T]he trend of a winner-take-all economy where a few are doing better and better and better while everybody else just treads water — those trends have been made worse by the recession. And that’s a problem.”
  • “This growing inequality not just of result, inequality of opportunity, this growing inequality — it’s not just morally wrong; it’s bad economics …”
  • “It’s time for the minimum wage to go up. We’re not a people who allow chance of birth to decide life’s biggest winners or losers.”

Obama Speaks about America’s Economic Injustice

On August 28, 2013—the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech—Obama spoke about America’s economic inequity and the role that government could play in curbing it via wealth redistribution:

  • “Even as corporate profits soar, even as the pay of a fortunate few explodes, inequality has steadily risen over the decades. Upward mobility has become harder. In too many communities across this country in cities and suburbs and rural hamlets, the shadow of poverty casts a pall over our youth, their lives a fortress of substandard schools and diminished prospects, inadequate health care and perennial violence….“The test was not and never has been whether the doors of opportunity are cracked a bit wider for a few. It was whether our economic system provides a fair shot for the many …“Entrenched interests—those who benefit from an unjust status quo resisted any government efforts to give working families a fair deal, marshaling an army of lobbyists and opinion makers to argue that minimum wage increases or stronger labor laws or taxes on the wealthy who could afford it just to fund crumbling schools—that all these things violated sound economic principles.“We’d be told that growing inequality was the price for a growing economy, a measure of the free market—that greed was good and compassion ineffective, and those without jobs or health care had only themselves to blame.“And then there were those elected officials who found it useful to practice the old politics of division, doing their best to convince middle-class Americans of a great untruth, that government was somehow itself to blame for their growing economic insecurity—that distant bureaucrats were taking their hard-earned dollars to benefit the welfare cheat or the illegal immigrant….

    “We can continue down our current path in which the gears of this great democracy grind to a halt and our children accept a life of lower expectations, where politics is a zero-sum game, where a few do very well while struggling families of every race fight over a shrinking economic pie….

    “And with that courage, we can stand together for good jobs and just wages. With that courage, we can stand together for the right to health care in the richest nation on earth for every person. With that courage, we can stand together for the right of every child, from the corners of Anacostia to the hills of Appalachia, to get an education that stirs the mind and captures the spirit and prepares them for the world that awaits them. With that courage, we can feed the hungry and house the homeless and transform bleak wastelands of poverty into fields of commerce and promise.”

Obama Calls for More Economic Equality and More Government Control of the Economy

In a December 4, 2013 speech on the U.S. economy, President Obama made the following remarks to his Center for American Progress audience:

  • “[I]n their own daily battles, to make ends meet, to pay for college, buy a home, save for retirement, [people have] the nagging sense that no matter how hard they work, the deck is stacked against them.”
  • “[There] is a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility that has jeopardized middle-class America’s basic bargain that if you work hard, you have a chance to get ahead. I believe this is the defining challenge of our time: making sure our economy works for every working American. That’s why I ran for president. It was the center of last year’s campaign. It drives everything I do in this office.”
  • “When millions lived in poverty, FDR fought for Social Security and insurance for the unemployment and a minimum wage. When millions died without health insurance, LBJ fought for Medicare and Medicaid. Together we forged a new deal, declared a war on poverty and a great society, we built a ladder of opportunity to climb and stretched out a safety net beneath so that if we fell, it wouldn’t be too far and we could bounce back. And as a result, America built the largest middle class the world has ever known.”
  • “[S]tarting in the late ’70s … [t]echnology made it easier for companies to do more with less, eliminating certain job occupations. A more competitive world led companies [to] ship jobs [overseas]. And as good manufacturing jobs automated or headed offshore, workers lost their leverage; jobs paid less and offered fewer benefits…. [B]usinesses lobbied Washington to weaken unions and the value of the minimum wage. As the trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither.”
  • “And the result is an economy that’s become profoundly unequal and families that are more insecure…. Since 1979 our economy has more than doubled in size, but most of the growth has flowed to a fortunate few. The top 10 percent no longer takes in one-third of our income; it now takes half. Whereas in the past, the average CEO made about 20 to 30 times the income of the average worker, today’s CEO now makes 273 times more. And meanwhile, a family in the top 1 percent has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical family, which is a record for this country. So the basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed. In fact, this trend towards growing inequality is not unique to America’s market economy; across the developed world, inequality has increased…. But this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country, and it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people.”
  • “The problem is that alongside increased inequality, we’ve seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years. A child born in the top 20 percent has about a 2-in-3 chance of staying at or near the top. A child born into the bottom 20 percent has a less than 1-in-20 shot at making it to the top. He’s 10 times likelier to stay where he is. In fact, statistics show not only that our levels of income inequality rank near countries like Jamaica and Argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in America to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies, countries like Canada or Germany or France. They have greater mobility than we do, not less.”
  • “[T]he idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care or a community that views her future as their own — that should offend all of us. And it should compel us to action.”
  • “And greater inequality is associated with less mobility between generations. That means it’s not just temporary. The effects last. It creates a vicious cycle. For example, by the time she turns three years old, a child born into a low-income home hears 30 million fewer words than a child from a well-off family, which means by the time she starts school, she’s already behind. And that deficit can compound itself over time.”
  • “The opportunity gap in America is now as much about class as it is about race. And that gap is growing. So if we’re going to take on growing inequality and try to improve upward mobility for all people, we’ve got to move beyond the false notion that this is an issue exclusively of minority concern. And we have to reject a politics that suggests any effort to address it in a meaningful way somehow pits the interests of a deserving middle class against those of an undeserving poor in search of handouts.”
  • “[W]e need to set aside the belief that government cannot do anything about reducing inequality…. Investments in education, laws establishing collective bargaining and a minimum wage — these all contributed to rising standards of living for massive numbers of Americans.”
  • “And [we should make] high-quality pre-school available to every child in America. We know that kids in these programs grow up are likelier to get more education, earn higher wages, form more stable families of their own. It starts a virtuous cycle, not a vicious one. And we should invest in that. We should give all of our children that chance.”
  • “Now, we all know the arguments that have been used against the higher minimum wage. Some say it actually hurts low- wage workers; business will be less likely to hire them. There’s no solid evidence that a higher minimum wage costs jobs, and research shows it raises incomes for low-wage workers and boosts short-term economic growth. Others argue that if we raise the minimum wage, companies will just pass those costs on to consumers, but a growing chorus of businesses small and large argue differently … A broad majority of Americans agree we should raise the minimum wage…. I agree with those voters. I agree with those voters and I’m going to keep pushing until we get a higher minimum wage for hardworking Americans across the entire country.”
  • “[W]e still need targeted programs for the communities and workers that have been hit hardest by economic change in the Great Recession…. There are communities that just aren’t generating enough jobs anymore. So we’ve put new forward new plans to help these communities and their residents … not [with] handouts, but a hand up.”

Obama Derides “Tax Loopholes for the Very Very Fortunate”

During a White House speech on June 9, 2014, President Obama criticized congressional Republicans for refusing to close tax loopholes for high earners as a way to pay for his initiative to limit student-loan interest payments to 10% of a person’s annual income. Said Obama:

“It would be scandalous if we allowed those kinds of tax loopholes for the very, very fortunate to survive while students are having trouble just getting started in their lives. If you’re a big oil company they’ll go to bat for you. If you’re a student, good luck. Some of these Republicans in Congress seem to believe that just because some of the young people behind me [i.e., college students in attendance] need some help, that they’re not trying hard enough.”

Further, Obama blasted lawmakers who “pay lip service to the next generation and then abandon them when it counts.” He also urged voters to be aware of “who it is that’s fighting for you and your kids and who it is that’s not.”

Radio broadcaster Mark Levin pointed out Obama’s hypocrisy by noting that America’s national debt had already grown by approximately $7 trillion under Obama’s watch — a fact that would impose a massive financial burden on “the next generation” for many decades to come.

Obama Says Republicans Favor “Billionaires” over the “Middle Class”

In early October 2014, the Obama Administration disseminated a fundraising email wherein the president said: “If the Republicans win [the midterm elections], we know who they’ll be fighting for. Once again, the interests of billionaires will come before the needs of the middle class.”

Obama Calls for Government to Enforce Wealth Redistribution and “Inclusive Capitalism”

In a January 23, 2015 interview with Ezra Klein of Vox, President Obama said that traditional market forces that historically redistributed income were failing, and that the time for government to take on that role had thus arrived. At one point in the interview, Klein asked: “To focus a bit on that long-term question, does that put us in a place where redistribution becomes, in a sense, a positive good in and of itself? Do we need the government playing the role not of powering the growth engine — which is a lot of what had to be done after the financial crisis — but of making sure that while that growth engine is running, it is ensuring that enough of the gains and prosperity is shared so that the political support for that fundamental economic model remains strong?

Obama replied:

“That’s always been the case. I don’t think that’s entirely new. The fact of the matter is that relative to our post-war history, taxes now are not particularly high or particularly progressive compared to what they were, say, in the late ’50s or the ’60s. 5 And there’s always been this notion that for a country to thrive there are some things, as Lincoln says, that we can do better together than we can do for ourselves. And whether that’s building roads, or setting up effective power grids, or making sure that we’ve got high-quality public education — that teachers are paid enough — the market will not cover those things. And we’ve got to do them together. Basic research falls in that category. So that’s always been true.

“I think that part of what’s changed is that a lot of that burden for making sure that the pie was broadly shared took place before government even got involved. 6 If you had stronger unions, you had higher wages. If you had a corporate culture that felt a sense of place and commitment so that the CEO was in Pittsburgh or was in Detroit and felt obliged, partly because of social pressure but partly because they felt a real affinity toward the community, to re-invest in that community and to be seen as a good corporate citizen. Today what you have is quarterly earning reports, compensation levels for CEOs that are tied directly to those quarterly earnings. You’ve got international capital that is demanding maximizing short-term profits. And so what happens is that a lot of the distributional questions that used to be handled in the marketplace through decent wages or health care or defined benefit pension plans — those things all are eliminated. And the average employee, the average worker, doesn’t feel any benefit.

“So part of our job is, what can government do directly through tax policy? What we’ve proposed, for example, in terms of capital gains — that would make a big difference in our capacity to give a tax break to a working mom for child care. And that’s smart policy, and there’s no evidence that would hurt the incentives of folks at Google or Microsoft or Uber not to invent what they invent or not to provide services they provide. It just means that instead of $20 billion, maybe they’ve got 18, right? But it does mean that Mom can go to work without worrying that her kid’s not in a safe place.

“We also still have to focus on the front end. Which is even before taxes are paid, are there ways that we can increase the bargaining power: making sure that an employee has some measurable increases in their incomes and their wealth and their security as a consequence of an economy that’s improving. And that’s where issues like labor laws make a difference. That’s where say in shareholder meetings and trying to change the culture in terms of compensation at the corporate level could make a difference. And there’s been some interesting conversations globally around issues like inclusive capitalism and how we can make it work for everybody.”

Obama also said that policymakers must “make sure” that “folks at the very top are doing enough of their fair share,” and he disparaged the “winner-take-all aspect of this modern economy” and the need to be “investing enough in the common good.”


Obama Characterizes America As “Mean-Spirited,” Where Race is Concerned

  • In an interview published by the Daily Herald on March 3, 1990, Harvard Law School student Barack Obama said: “There’s certainly racism here [at Harvard Law School]. There are certain burdens that are placed [on blacks], more emotionally at this point than concretely…. Hopefully, more and more people will begin to feel their story is somehow part of this larger story of how we’re going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous. I mean, I really hope to be part of a transformation of this country.”

Obama Supports Professor Derrick Bell, Godfather of “Critical Race Theory”

  • In 1991, Obama, who was then president of the Harvard Law Review and a well-known figure on the Harvard campus, spoke at a rally in support of Professor Derrick Bell, encouraging his fellow students to “open up your hearts and minds to the words” of that individual, whom Obama described as someone who spoke “the truth.”
  • Professor Bell was the godfather of Critical Race Theory, which contends that America is permanently racist to its core, and that consequently the nation’s legal structures are, by definition, racist and invalid. It also holds that because racism is so deeply ingrained in the American character, traditional American ideals such as meritocracy, equal opportunity, and colorblind justice are essentially nothing more than empty slogans that fail to properly combat—or to even acknowledge the existence of—the immense structural inequities that pervade American society and work against black people. Thus, according to critical race theorists, racial preferences (favoring blacks) in employment and higher education are not only permissible but necessary as a means of countering the permanent bigotry of white people who, as Bell put it, seek to “achieve a measure of social stability through their unspoken pact to keep blacks on the bottom.”
  • Bell, who died in 2011, also made a host of racially charged statements during approximately the same period as when Obama hailed his articulation of “the truth.” Below are several examples.

What Derrick Bell Said About Race

  • “The racism that made slavery feasible is far from dead.”
  • Few whites are ready to actively promote civil rights for blacks.”
  • “Discrimination in the workplace is as vicious (if less obvious) than it was when employers posted signs ‘no negras need apply.’”
  • “It has begun to seem that blacks, particularly black men, who lack at least two college degrees, are not hired in any position above the most menial.”
  • “We rise and fall less as a result of our efforts than in response to the needs of a white society that condemns all blacks to quasi citizenship as surely as it segregated our parents.”
  • “Slavery is, as an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do.”
  • “Black people will never gain full equality in this country.… African Americans must confront and conquer the otherwise deadening reality of our permanent subordinate status.”
  • Tolerated in good times, despised when things go wrong, as a people we [blacks] are scapegoated and sacrificed as distraction or catalyst for compromise to facilitate resolution of political differences or relieve economic adversity.”
  • “The fact that, as victims, we suffer racism’s harm but, as a people, [we] cannot share the responsibility for that harm, may be the crucial component in a definition of what it is to be black in America.”
  • Racism remains “an integral, permanent, and indestructible component of this society.”
  • In his 1992 book, Faces at the Bottom of the Well, Bell described Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious racist and anti-Semite, as “smart and superarticulate,” calling him “perhaps the best living example of a black man ready, willing and able to ‘tell it like it is’ regarding who is responsible for racism in this country.” In an interview that same year, Bell elaborated: “I see Louis Farrakhan as a great hero for the people.”
  • Also in 1992, Bell again articulated to his low regard for white people: “I’ve accepted that as my motto—I liv[e] to harass white folk.”
  • In a New York Observer interview published on October 10, 1994, Bell denounced “all the Jewish neoconservative racists who are undermining blacks in every way they can.” The same interview began with Bell stating: “We should really appreciate the Louis Farrakhans and the Khalid Muhammads while we’ve got them.” (Khalid Muhammad was a Farrakhan ally who referred to Jews as “bloodsuckers” and offspring of “the devil.”)
  • For a comprehensive discussion of Bell’s views regarding race, click here.

Professor Obama Teaches about America’s “Institutional Racism”

  • Twelve times between 1992 and 2004, Obama taught the course “Current Issues in Racism and the Law” at the University of Chicago Law School. The course summary, likely authored by Obama himself, told students they would examine “current problems in American race relations and the role the law has played in structuring the race debate”; how the legal system was affected by “the continued prevalence of racism in society”; “how the legal system has dealt with particular incidents of racism”; and “the comparative merits of litigation, legislation, and market solutions to the problems of institutional racism in American society.” The influence of Derrick Bell’s ideas was unmistakable.

Obama’s Relationship with Jeremiah Wright, Who Views America As a Racist Country

  • For two decades, Jeremiah Wright was Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor in Chicago. So great was Obama’s regard for Wright, that Obama selected him not only to perform his wedding to Michelle Robinson in 1992, but also to baptize his two daughters later on. Wright’s many writings, public statements, and sermons reflect his conviction that America has historically been an evil nation, infested with racism, prejudice, and injustices that have created a living hell for nonwhite people domestically and abroad.

What Obama’s Longtime Mentor, Jeremiah Wright, Has Said

  • Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!”
  • “We [Americans] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”
  • “America is the #1 killer in the world.”
  • “We do not care if poor black and brown children cannot read and kill each other senselessly.”
  • “We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty.”
  • “In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”
  • “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands [who died on 9/11] in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”
  • “The government gives [black people] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people! God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human! God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme!”

Obama Tries to Keep Jeremiah Wright Quiet until after Election Day 2008

  • Soon after the Wright controversy became public—and threatened to derail Obama’s presidential campaign—the pastor was interviewed by author Edward Klein. Wright told Klein that “one of Barack’s closest friends” had sent him (Wright) an e-mail offering him $150,000 “not to preach at all until the November presidential election.” Wright elaborated: “Barack said he wanted to meet me in secret, in a secure place…. So we met in the living room of the parsonage of Trinity United Church of Christ … just Barack and me…. And one of the first things Barack said was, ‘I really wish you wouldn’t do any more public speaking until after the November election…. It’s gonna hurt the campaign if you do that.’” Wright replied, “I don’t see it that way. And anyway, how am I supposed to support my family [if I stop preaching]?” According to Wright, Obama then said: “I’m sorry you don’t see it the way I do. Do you know what your problem is? You have to tell the truth.”

Obama Depicts Opponents of Affirmative Action As Racists

  • In an October 28, 1994 NPR interview, Obama discussed American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray’s controversial new book, The Bell Curve, stating that: “[Murray is] interested in pushing a very particular policy agenda, specifically the elimination of affirmative action and welfare programs aimed at the poor. With one finger out to the political wind, Mr. Murray has apparently decided that white America is ready for a return to good old-fashioned racism so long as it’s artfully packaged and can admit for exceptions like Colin Powell. It’s easy to see the basis for Mr. Murray’s calculations.”

Obama Implies that Suburban Whites Are Racist

  • In a 1995 interview, Obama made reference to a hypothetical “white executive living out in the suburbs, who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner city children for them to go to school.”


Obama’s Remarks About Race at a 1995 Book Reading

In a September 1995 book reading at the Cambridge, Massachusetts Public Library, Obama promoted his then-newly released memoir, Dreams from My Father. A professionally shot video of that presentation suddenly appeared on YouTube in April 2015. In an article published by the American Thinker, author Jack Cashill made the following observations about the video:

* “Despite his concession that white Americans were ‘basically decent,’ Obama did not think they were ‘making a serious effort’ to compensate for the ‘brutal experience’ of black history. That ‘was going to cost some money,’ and, according to Obama, ‘Americans don’t like to sacrifice.’”

* “Obama made the supersized claim that ‘American culture at this point, what is truly American, is black culture to a large degree.’ As evidence, he cited Pulp Fiction, a pop-art gangster movie with a surfer music sound track and an Italian-American director.”

* “Obama’s ‘angry black man’ is largely fictional. The one and only passage that Obama read [at the 1995 book reading] details how he came to grips with the reality of being a black man in America. Much of it is fabricated, especially the part about his brooding black friend ‘Ray.’ Obama-friendly biographer David Maraniss tracked the real ‘Ray’ down. His name is ‘Keith Kakaguwa.’  Two years ahead of Obama at Punahou, Kakaguwa is only about one fourth black. Maraniss describes Ray as the ‘first of several distorted or composite characters’ in Dreams. According to Kakaguwa, he and Obama lived close to a carefree Hawaiian existence, not at all the tortured, race-scarred one Obama imagined.”

* “In [a] cited passage, Obama tells the story of how a ‘very aggressive’ panhandler harassed ‘Toot,’ his diminutive white grandmother. ‘Gramps’ then tells Obama that Toot felt threatened because the aggressor was black. ‘The words were like a fist in my stomach,’ wrote Obama. In 2008, he would compare Toot’s alleged racism to Jeremiah Wright’s to save his candidacy.”

* “After this incident, Obama visited ‘Frank’ [his Communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis] to get the lowdown on white people. ‘What I’m trying to tell you is, your grandma’s right to be scared,’ Davis tells Obama. ‘She understands that black people have a reason to hate. That’s just how it is.’ With these words of wisdom ringing in his ears, Obama heads into the night ‘utterly alone.’”

Also at his 1995 presentation in Cambridge, Obama read a passage that discussed how he had once invited some white friends to a black party, where they attempted for awhile to mask their palpable discomfort by “trying to tap their foot to the beat and being extraordinarily friendly,” before telling Obama that they wanted to leave. Obama concluded: “What I have had to put up with every day of my life is something that they find so objectionable that they can’t even put up with a day.” This demonstration of what he perceived as white racism, said Obama, “trigger[ed]” something in his mind that suddenly enabled him to comprehend a “new map of the world.”

Obama Says Racism Infests Corporate America, the Criminal-Justice System, & Education

  • On January 21, 2002—Martin Luther King Day—then-Illinois state senator Obama delivered a racially charged speech at a Chicago church, stating that “Enron executives did to their employees” was akin to “what Bull Connor did to black folks.” (Enron was an energy company that went bankrupt after its massive engagement in accounting fraud had come to light in 2001, and left 20,000 employees suddenly jobless. Bull Connor was Birmingham, Alabama’s Commissioner of Public Safety in the 1960s, and became famous for using fire hoses and police attack dogs against anti-segregation demonstrators in his city.)
  • Lamenting the large number of African American males “caught up in the criminal-justice system,” Obama said: “It’s hard to imagine that the powerful in our society would tolerate the burgeoning prison industrial complex if they imagined that the black men and Latino men that are being imprisoned were something like their sons.”
  • Obama charged that having the public “education system … funded by [local] property taxes” is “fundamentally unjust.” “So you have folks up in Winnetka [Illinois], pupils who are getting five times as much money per student as students in the South Side of Chicago,” he explained.

Obama Poses for Photo with Farrakhan; the Photo Then Remains Hidden from the Public for 13 Years  

At a Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) meeting in 2005, a broadly smiling Obama posed for a photograph with the Jew-hating black nationalist Louis Farrakhan. Also posing with Farrakhan and Obama were Mustapha Farrakhan (Minister Farrakhan’s security chief and son), Joshua Farrakhan (his other son), and Leonard Farrakhan Muhammad (his chief of staff and son-in-law). In addition, the photo included a Farrakhan ally named Willie F. Wilson, who had once led a protest against an Asian business by a mob shouting, “F___ the Chinks”. (“We forgave Mr. Chan,” Wilson told reporters after that incident. “If we didn’t forgive him, we would have cut his head off and rolled it down the street.”)

The photographer, Nation Of Islam employee Askia Muhammad, subsequently hid the photo for the next 13 years, in order to protect Obama politically. As Muhammad explained in January 2018, he had “basically swor[n] secrecy” and handed over the picture to Farrakhan’s chief of staff and son-in-law, Leonard Farrakhan, who had kept the photo hidden for 13 years. Though he handed over the file to Farrakhan’s team, Muhammad quietly kept a digital copy for himself. “Realizing that I had given it up, I mean, it was sort of like a promise to keep the photograph secret,” Muhammad said, adding that he was “really afraid of them” if he were to ever leak the photo. He insisted that a photo like this leaking to the press would have “absolutely… made a difference” in Barack Obama’s campaign for the White House. As Jim Geraghty of National Review noted in January 2018: “Put another way, Obama met with Farrakhan at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting in 2005, and not a single person in attendance leaked that information until now.”

Obama Advocates Welfare State; Says Much Success Is Due to “Blind Luck”

  • In 2005, then-U.S. Senator Obama delivered a speech wherein he not only emphasized government’s duty to expand the welfare state, but also ascribed the success of many people to “blind luck.” Said Obama: “The fact is that there is a major ideological battle taking place right now in this country. And I think that we can win it if we can articulate it. Essentially, the other side has an easier job, because their argument is essentially, what is labeled ‘The Ownership Society’ …. says ‘We’re all in it by ourselves.’ So if you’ve got a healthcare problem, we’re gonna set up a healthcare account, we’ll put $5,000 in it, and from that point on, you’re on your own. You worry about healthcare inflation. Retirement? Retirement account. Figure out how much you can save. It doesn’t matter that your wages haven’t gone up in 4 or 5 years. It doesn’t matter that you’re being squeezed by all sorts of costs, from $3 a gallon gasoline to the cost of higher education for your child. You figure out how to save. There’s a certain attractiveness in its simplicity [to] that idea. And it’s particularly attractive, I think, for those of us who are successful, because it allows us to be self-congratulatory and say, in fact, the cream rises to the top. … denying the role of blind luck that played in getting everybody here, or the sacrifices of a generation of women doing somebody else’s laundry and looking after somebody else’s children, to get you here.”

Obama Accuses the Bush Administration of “Passive Indifference” in Responding to Hurricane Katrina’s Effects on Mostly-Black New Orleans

  • In that same 2005 speech, Obama derided the “passive indifference” that allegedly had caused the Bush administration to respond slowly to the poor, black victims of Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans. He also mocked the administration’s supposedly elitist attitude and inability to empathize with people who were not white and affluent. Said Obama: “You know, after the hurricane and its aftermath, there was a lot of discussion about the fact that those who were impacted by the achingly slow response on the part of the federal government were disproportionately black … [W]hat was revealed was a passive indifference that is common in our culture, common in our society, that of course, a sense that of course once the evacuation order is issued, that you will hop in your SUV and fill it up with $100 worth of gasoline and load up your trunk with some sparkling water and take your credit card and check in to the nearest hotel until the storm passes. And the notion that folks couldn’t do that simply did not register in the minds of those in charge. And it’s not surprising that it didn’t register, because it hasn’t registered for the last 6, 7, 8, 20, 50, 75, 100 years.”

Obama Accuses the Bush Administration of Racial Insensitivity Regarding Hurricane Katrina

  • In September 2005, Senator Obama spoke at a town hall meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus. Nominally devoted to the subject of “eradicating poverty,” the meeting was replete with condemnations of President Bush, the Republican Party, and America’s purportedly intractable racial inequities. Obama stopped short of suggesting that the federal government’s alleged slowness in helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina—especially black victims—was motivated by racism. But he nonetheless claimed that racism was the cause of what he perceived to be the Bush administration’s lack of sensitivity to the struggles of African Americans generally: “The incompetence was colorblind. What wasn’t colorblind was the indifference. Human efforts will always pale in comparison to nature’s forces. But [the Bush administration] is a set of folks who simply don’t recognize what’s happening in large parts of the country.”Blacks in hurricane-hit areas were poor, Obama further charged, because of the Bush administration’s “decision to give tax breaks to Paris Hilton instead of providing child care and education …”

Emphasis on Judges’ “Hearts” and Their Inclination to Help “the Weak,” Rather Than on Abiding by the Law

  • When President Bush in 2005 nominated John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Senator Obama stated that few Supreme Court cases involve any controversy at all, “so that both a [conservative like] Scalia and a [leftist like] Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of cases.” In the other 5 percent, he said, “the critical ingredient” was neither the law nor the Constitution says, but rather “what is in the judge’s heart.” Obama said in a floor speech on September 22, 2005: “[W]hen I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak … he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process … he seemed dismissive of concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.”
  • Obama was also “deeply troubled” by “the philosophy, ideology and record” of yet another Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. “[W]hen you look at his record,” Obama said in a floor speech on January 26, 2006, “when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I found that in almost every case he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless.”

Obama Endorses Dorothy Tillman, Proponent of Reparations and Admirer of Louis Farrakhan

  • In 2006, Senator Obama endorsed candidate Dorothy Tillman in the Third Ward race for the Chicago City Council. A passionate admirer of Louis Farrakhan, Tillman was a leading proponent of reparations for slavery. Claiming that America remains “one of the cruelest nations in the world when it comes to black folks,” Tillman continues to declare that the U.S. “owes blacks a debt.”

Obama’s Charges Government with Racism in Response to 2005’s Hurricane Katrina

  • In a June 2007 campaign appearance at Hampton University in Virginia, then-presidential candidate Obama delivered a racially charged and, at times, angry speech to an audience of black ministers, including his longtime pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. (Wright’s long tradition of anti-American, anti-white, anti-Semitic rhetoric had recently been exposed by a few media outlets.) In the speech, Obama explicitly defended Wright, saying: “They [the media] had stories about Trinity United Church of Christ, because we talked about black people in church.” Obama then mocked Wright’s critics, accusing them of having said, in essence: “Oh, that might be a separatist church.”
  • The Daily Caller said of the video showing Obama’s 2007 speech: “For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America…. The spine of Obama’s speech is a parable about a pregnant woman shot in the stomach during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. The baby is born with a bullet in her arm, which doctors successfully remove. That bullet, Obama explains, is a metaphor for the problems facing black America, namely racism. And with that, Obama pivots to his central point: The Los Angeles riots and Hurricane Katrina have racism in common.”
  • In his Hampton speech, Obama shouted: “The federal response after Katrina was similar to the response we saw after the riots in LA. People in Washington, they wake up, they’re surprised: ‘There’s poverty in our midst! Folks are frustrated! Black people angry!’ Then there’s gonna be some panels, and hearings, and there are commissions and there are reports, and then there’s some aid money, although we don’t always know where it’s going—it can’t seem to get to the people who need it—and nothin’ really changes, except the news coverage quiets down and Anderson Cooper is on to something else.”
  • At that point in the speech, an agitated Obama told the crowd that he wanted to give “one example because this really steams me up.” He continued: “Down in New Orleans, where they still have not rebuilt twenty months later, there’s a law, federal law—when you get reconstruction money from the federal government—called the Stafford Act. And basically it says, when you get federal money, you gotta give a ten percent match. The local government’s gotta come up with ten percent. Every ten dollars the federal government comes up with, local government’s gotta give a dollar. Now here’s the thing, when 9-11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act—said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you gotta put in. Well, here’s ten dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with y’own money, here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not gonna wait for you to scratch it together—because you’re part of the American family.’”
  • Obama then stated, angrily, that majority-black New Orleans was treated differently by the federal government: “What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money? Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans, they [government leaders] don’t care about as much!”
  • In reality, by January of 2007—fully six months before Obama’s Hampton University speech—the federal government had sent at least $110 billion to areas damaged by Hurricane Katrina, as compared to just $20 billion that had been pledged to New York City after 9/11. Moreover, the federal government had, on occasion, waived the Stafford Act during its reconstruction efforts. For instance, on May 25, 2007—a few weeks before Obama’s Hampton speech—the Bush administration had sent an additional $6.9 billion to Katrina-affected areas with no requirements for local outlays. It is inconceivable that Obama, as a sitting U.S. Senator, could have been unaware of this.
  • Also in the Hampton speech, Obama made repeated appeals to racial solidarity: “We [blacks] should have had our young people trained to rebuild the homes down in the Gulf. We don’t need Halliburton doing it. We can have the people who were displaced doing that work…. We need additional federal public transportation dollars flowing to the highest need communities. We don’t need to build more highways out in the [affluent white] suburbs.” Rather, said Obama: “We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods, so people don’t have to travel from miles away.”
  • Obama ended his speech this way: “America will survive. Just like black folks will survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, or 15 years ago, or 300 years ago”—an unambiguous reference to slavery.

2007 Speech to the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”)

In July 2007, presidential candidate Obama was a featured speaker at the annual convention of the National Council of La Raza, which lobbies for racial preferences, mass immigration, and a path to legalization for illegal aliens. Among his remarks were the following:

  • “I will never walk away from the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live, work, and contribute to our country every single day.”
  • “[W]e are a nation of immigrants … That’s the America we believe in. But that’s the America that the President and too many Republicans walked away from when the politics got tough…. [W]e saw parts of the immigration debate took a turn that was both ugly and racist in a way we haven’t seen since the struggle for civil rights….”
  • “We don’t expect our government to guarantee success and happiness, but when millions of children start the race of life so far behind only because of race, only because of class, that’s a betrayal of our ideals. That’s not just a Latino problem or an African-American problem; that is an American problem that we have to solve….”

2008 Speech to the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”)

In July 2008, candidate Obama again spoke to the National Council of La Raza. Among his remarks were the following:

  • “I honor you, I congratulate you, I thank you, and I wish you another forty years as extraordinary as your last …”
  • “The system isn’t working when Hispanics are losing their jobs faster than almost anybody else, or working jobs that pay less, and come with fewer benefits than almost anybody else.”
  • “The system isn’t working when 12 million people live in hiding, and hundreds of thousands cross our borders illegally each year; when companies hire undocumented immigrants instead of legal citizens to avoid paying overtime or to avoid a union; when communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids—when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel….”
  • “[W]e’ll make the system work again for everyone. By living up to the ideals that this organization has always embodied the ideals reflected in your name, ‘Raza,’ the people. [Actually, a literal translation is “the race.”] … And together, we won’t just win an election; we will transform this nation.”

Obama Administration’s Massive Support for the National Council of La Raza

  • Judicial Watch investigation revealed that federal funding for the National Council of La Raza and its affiliates skyrocketed after President Obama had appointed La Raza’s senior vice president, Cecilia Muñoz, to be his director of intergovernmental affairs in 2009. The year Muñoz joined the White House, government funds earmarked for La Raza increased from $4.1 million to $11 million. Fully 60% of that money came from the Department of Labor, headed by Hilda Solis, who has close ties to the La Raza movement. Also in 2010, the Department of Housing and Urban Development gave La Raza $2.5 million for housing counseling, the Department of Education contributed almost $800,000, and the Centers for Disease Control gave approximately $250,000.
  • Moreover, La Raza affiliates nationwide collected tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars in 2010. A La Raza offshoot called Chicanos Por La Causa, for example, saw its federal funding nearly double to $18.3 million following Muñoz’s appointment. Another group, Ayuda Inc., which provides immigration law services and guarantees confidentiality to assure illegal aliens that they will not be reported to authorities, took in$600,000 in 2009 and $548,000 in 2010 from the Department of Justice. (The group had not received any federal funding between 2005 and 2008.)

Obama Appoints La Raza’s Cecilia Munoz to Administrative Posts

  • In January 2009, President Obama appointed longtime National Council of La Raza policy analyst Cecilia Munoz to be his director of intergovernmental affairs. In 2012, Obama appointed Muñoz as director of the Domestic Policy Council.

Obama Urges Hispanic Voters to “Punish” Their “Enemies”

  • In a radio interview conducted in late October 2010, just a few days before the November midterm elections, Obama sought to assure Hispanics that he was committed to an overhaul of U.S. immigration policy. Stressing that such a goal would be much easier to achieve if the Democrats were to retain control of both houses of Congress, he urged Hispanic listeners to flock to the polls: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”
  • Referring specifically to Republicans who were calling for border security and were supporting strict immigration laws like Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration measure, Obama said: “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”

Obama Says the Criminal-Justice System Is Racially Inequitable

  • In the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said: “The criminal-justice system is not color-blind. It does not work for all people equally, and that is why it’s critical to have a president who sends a signal that we are going to have a system of justice that is not just us, but is everybody.”
  • Also during the 2008 campaign, Obama said that “in our criminal-justice system, African-Americans and whites, for the same crime … are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, receive very different sentences.”
  • Obama has also complained that “certain sentences … are based less on the kind of crime you commit than on what you look like and where you come from.”
  • As a legislator, Obama voted against a proposal to criminalize contact with gang members for any convicts who were free on probation or on bail. In 2001 he opposed, for reasons of racial equity, making gang membership a consideration in determining whether or not a killer may be eligible for capital punishment. “There’s a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color,” said Obama. “… I think it’s problematic for them [nonwhites] to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing.”

What Obama Misrepresented:
The Truth about the Criminal-Justice System

Obama’s assertions about the criminal-justice system are utterly untrue. They are designed not to instruct, but rather to divide Americans along racial lines. Consider the following:

  • As early as 1983, the Panel on Sentencing Research, which was established by the liberal-leaning National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on request of the U.S. Justice Department, reviewed more than 70 studies on sentencing patterns and concluded: “Our overall assessment of the available research suggests that factors other than racial discrimination in the sentencing process account for most of the disproportionate representation of black males in U.S. prisons …” Further, the NAS reported that it had found “no evidence of a widespread systematic pattern of discrimination in sentencing.”
  • In a 1987 review essay of the three most comprehensive books examining the role of race in the American criminal-justice system, the journal Criminology concluded that there was little evidence of anti-black discrimination.
  • In his 1987 book The Myth of a Racist Criminal Justice System, William Wilbanks wrote: “The black/white variation in sentences is generally reduced to near zero when several legal variables are introduced as controls.”
  • The most exhaustive, best-designed study of sentencing patterns ever conducted—a 1990 analysis of more than 11,000 recently convicted criminals in California—found that the severity of sentences depended heavily on such factors as prior criminal records, the seriousness of the crimes, and whether guns were used in the commission of those crimes; race was found to have no effect whatsoever.
  • Likewise, a 1991 RAND Corporation study found that a defendant’s racial or ethnic background bore little or no relationship to conviction rates; far more important than race were such factors as the amount of evidence presented, and whether or not a credible eyewitness testified.
  • In 1993 a Justice Department study tracked the experience of more than 10,000 accused felons in America’s 75 largest cities found that black defendants fared better than their white counterparts—66% of black defendants were actually prosecuted, versus 69% of white defendants. Among those prosecuted, 75% of blacks were convicted, as compared to 78% of whites.
  • Liberal criminologist Michael Tonry wrote in 1995: “Racial differences in patterns of offending, not racial bias by police and other officials, are the principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned.”
  • A 1996 analysis of 55,000 big-city felony cases found that black defendants were convicted at a lower rate than whites in 12 of the 14 federally designated felony categories. This finding was consistent with the overwhelming consensus of other, previous, well-designed studies, most of which indicated that black defendants were slightly less likely to be convicted of criminal charges against them than white defendants.
  • In 1997, liberal criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen undertook a painstaking review of the voluminous literature on charging and sentencing, and concluded that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” and not racism, explained why proportionately more blacks than whites were in prison—and for longer terms.
  • The foregoing realities remain true to this day. Even though America’s legal-education and civil-rights establishments have created a massive industry devoted entirely to uncovering even the barest shred of evidence pointing toward white racism in the justice system, the net result of their herculean efforts has been nothing more than an occasional study showing a miniscule, unexplained racial disparity in sentencing, while most other analyses continue to find no racial effect at all.

Obama Says Crack Cocaine Laws Are Racially Discriminatory

  • During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama stated that the harsher penalties for crimes involving crack cocaine as opposed to powder-based cocaine—the former disproportionately involve black offenders, whereas the latter involve mostly white offenders—were unfair. In August 2010 he signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which eliminated much of the disparity in crack-vs.-powder sentencing guidelines.

What Obama Misrepresented:

The Truth about the Crack-vs.-Powder Sentencing Disparities

  • The original sentencing disparity was not due to racism in the justice system or in the legislature. The Congressional Record shows that in 1986, when the strict, federal anti-crack legislation was first being debated, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)—deeply concerned about the degree to which crack was decimating black communities across the United States—strongly supported the legislation and actually pressed for even harsher penalties.
  • The vast majority of cocaine arrests in the U.S. are made at the state—not the federal—level, where sentencing disparities between cases involving crack and powder cocaine generally have never existed. Moreover, drug possession accounts for fewer than 2% of all the offenses that propel individuals into federal prisons. Those most likely to be incarcerated for drug convictions are not mere users, but traffickers who are largely career criminals with very long rap sheets.
  • The harsher punishments for crack violations harmed only a small subset of the black population—namely drug dealers and users—while benefiting the great mass of law-abiding people in black neighborhoods.
  • Critics of the crack-vs.-powder penalty imbalance have been largely silent on the matter of federal methamphetamine-trafficking penalties—which, it could easily be argued, discriminate heavily against whites. Manhattan Institute Fellow Heather MacDonald explains: “The press almost never mentions the federal methamphetamine-trafficking penalties, which are identical to those for crack: five grams of meth net you a mandatory minimum five-year sentence. In 2006, the 5,391 sentenced federal meth defendants (nearly as many as the [5,619] crack defendants) were 54 percent white, 39 percent Hispanic, and 2 percent black. But no one calls the federal meth laws anti-Hispanic or anti-white.”

Obama Says Drug-Dealing Results from Economic Deprivation

  • In Obama’s calculus, many young black men engage in street-level drug dealing not because they seek to profit handsomely from it, but because they are unable to find legitimate jobs anywhere. Said Obama: “For many inner-city men, what prevents gainful employment is not simply the absence of motivation to get off the streets but the absence of a job history or any marketable skills—and, increasingly, the stigma of a prison record. We can assume that with lawful work available for young men now in the drug trade, crime in any community would drop.”

African American Religious Leadership Committee

  • On December 4, 2007, Obama’s presidential campaign announced the creation of its African American Religious Leadership Committee. Among the committee’s more notable members was Jeremiah Wright, whose contempt for white people was discussed at some length above.
  • Another member of Obama’s African American Religious Leadership Committee was the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a prominent figure with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Viewing the United States as a nation that is “not committed to serious efforts to address the issue of racism,” Lowery has warned that “white racism is gaining respectability again,” and that “there’s a resurgence of racism … at almost every level of life.” Further, Lowery has expressed contempt for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, because Thomas opposes the use of affirmative action (i.e., race preferences) in business and academia. “I have told [Thomas] I am ashamed of him,” says Lowery, “because he is becoming to the black community what Benedict Arnold was to the nation he deserted; and what Judas Iscariot was to Jesus: a traitor; and what Brutus was to Caesar: an assassin.”

Another Racialist Minister with Ties to Obama: James Meeks

  • Yet another religious figure affiliated with Obama (but not on his Advisory Council) is the Rev. James Meeks, a Democratic member of the Illinois state senate, where he served alongside Obama from 2002-2004. Meeks also has been the pastor of Chicago’s 22,000-member Salem Baptist Church since 1985, and he was once the executive vice president of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH coalition. In 2003-04 Obama frequently campaigned at the Salem Baptist Church during his run for the U.S. Senate. Meeks, meanwhile, appeared in television ads supporting Obama’s candidacy. In 2004, Obama personally selected Meeks to endorse him in a radio ad. In a 2004 interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama described Meeks as an adviser to whom he looked for “spiritual counsel.” In 2007 Meeks served on Obama’s exploratory committee for the presidency. The Obama campaign website listed Meeks as one of the candidate’s “influential black supporters.” A Meeks endorsement of Obama was featured on that same website in 2008. Also in 2008, Meeks was named as an Illinois superdelegate pledged to Obama for the Democratic convention in Denver, Colorado.
  • In July 2006, Meeks sparked controversy when he delivered a heated sermon excoriating Chicago mayor Richard Daley and others regarding public-school funding issues. “We don’t have slave masters,” Meeks shouted. “We got mayors. But they [are] still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able … to be educated.”
  • Also among the targets of Meeks’ wrath were blacks who supported Daley. Said Meeks: “You got some preachers that are house niggers. You got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man.”

Accusing Republicans of Racism

  • At a June 2008 campaign stop in Jacksonville, Florida, Obama suggested that his political opponents were trying to exploit the issue of race to undermine his candidacy. “It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” he said. “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
  • The following month, Obama told his listeners at another campaign event: “They [Republicans] know that you’re not real happy with them and so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me. What they’re saying is ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name.’”

Obama’s Alliance with Al Sharpton

  • In March 2008, civil-rights activist Al Sharpton, a strong supporter of Obama’s presidential candidacy, revealed publicly that he was in the habit of speaking to Obama on a regular basis—“two or three times a week.”
  • Sharpton also said that he had told Obama earlier in the campaign that he (Sharpton) would prefer, because of his own controversial reputation, not to formally endorse Obama for president: “I can be freer not endorsing you to help you and everybody else.” But according to Sharpton, Obama then protested and asked for his public support: “No, no, no. I want you to endorse.”
  • In 2008, Obama, as he had also done the year before, addressed Al Sharpton‘s National Action Network to seek its support for his presidential campaign. Calling Sharpton “a voice for the voiceless and … dispossessed,” Obama stated: “What National Action Network has done is so important to change America, and it must be changed from the bottom up.”
  • On April 6, 2011, President Obama traveled to New York’s Sheraton Hotel & Towers to attend a 20th anniversary celebration of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. When addressing the crowd, Obama, who had heartily embraced Sharpton with a hug and a handshake, joked: “Some things have changed a lot since 1991. I told Reverend Al backstage he’s getting skinnier than me. But he hasn’t lost his style.” Obama also praised “the National Action Network’s commitment to fight injustice and inequality here in New York City and across America. That’s not only a testament to Reverend Sharpton. It’s a testament to all of you who are here tonight. I want to commend you for the work that you’ve done over the last two decades.”
  • On December 4, 2012, President Barack Obama met with several “influential progressive” advisors (as described by White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest) to strategize on how to best sell the American public on the need to raise taxes on people earning $250,000 or more, while extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all other U.S. residents. Among those advisors were Al Sharpton, Rachel MaddowLawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC host Ed Schultz, and Arianna Huffington.
  • In October 2014, Obama sent an aide to attend Al Sharpton’s lavish birthday party at New York’s Four Seasons restaurant, where the aide read a message praising Sharpton’s “dedication to the righteous cause of perfecting our union.”

Who Is Al Sharpton, Friend of Obama?

  • In 1987 Sharpton promoted the fiction that a black teenager named Tawana Brawley had been repeatedly raped and sodomized by six white kidnappers in upstate New York. The case dragged on for many months and caused immense racial turmoil in New York.
  • In the aftermath of a 1991 Brooklyn, New York car accident in which a Hasidic Jew accidentally killed a seven-year-old black child, Sharpton declared that the child’s death was due not merely to a car accident, but rather to “the social accident of apartheid.” Thereafter he organized a series of massive demonstrations to protest what he viewed as the racial undertones of the killing. He even challenged local Jews—“diamond merchants,” he called them—to “pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house” to settle the score if they disagreed with his portrayal of the incident. Stirred in part by Sharpton’s incendiary rhetoric, hundreds of Crown Heights blacks took to the streets, pelting Jewish homes with rocks, setting vehicles on fire, and shouting “Jew! Jew!” As the riots continued for three days and nights, Sharpton said: “We must not reprimand our children for outrage, when it is the outrage that was put in them by an oppressive system.”
  • In 1995 Sharpton led his National Action Network in a boycott against Freddy’s Fashion Mart, a Jewish-owned business in Harlem, New York. The boycott started when Freddy’s owners announce that because they wanted to expand their own business, they would no longer sublet part of their store to a black-owned record shop. The street leader of the boycott, Morris Powell, was the head of Sharpton’s “Buy Black” Committee. He repeatedly referred to the Jewish proprietors of Freddy’s as “crackers” and “greedy Jew bastards.” All of this occurred under the watchful, approving eye of Sharpton, who vowed not to allow “some white interloper” to “expand his business” in Harlem, and who exhorted blacks to join “the struggle brother Powell and I are engaged in.” The subsequent picketing became increasingly militant in its tone, until one of the protesters eventually shot four whites inside the store and then set the building on fire—killing seven people.
  • That same year, Sharpton told an audience at New Jersey’s Kean College: “White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” Sharpton’s Kean College speech also featured his assertion that America’s founders consisted of “the worst criminals, the rejects they sent from Europe … to the colonies.” “So [if] some cracker,” Sharpton continued, “come and tell you, ‘Well my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold you pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of, that means their forefathers was crooks.”

Reference to American Bigotry and Intolerance:

During an April 2008 campaign stop in San Francisco, Obama said: “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.”

Minority Education Expenditures:

In the 2008 campaign, Obama said: “Latinos have such a high dropout rate. What you see consistently are children at a very early age are starting school already behind. That’s why I’ve said that I’m going to put billions of dollars into early childhood education that makes sure that our African-American youth, Latino youth, poor youth of every race, are getting the kind of help that they need so that they know their numbers, their colors, their letters.”

Obama’s Black Advisory Council (Cornel West)

  • For his 2008 presidential run, Obama formed a Black Advisory Council whose members included, most notably: (a) Professor Cornel West, a longtime member of the Democratic Socialists of America and a great admirer of Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright; and (b) Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree, a reparations-for-slavery proponent who has advised Obama on such matters as criminal-justice reform.
  • In 2007, Obama had appeared with Cornel West at a Harlem, New York fundraiser attended by some 1,500 people. It was Obama’s first campaign visit to Harlem, and it came shortly after the senator had announced his candidacy for President. At the event, West vehemently denounced the “racist criminal-justice system” of the “American empire.” He then introduced Obama to the crowd, saying: “He is my brother and my companion and comrade.” When Obama took the microphone, he expressed his gratitude to West, calling him “not only a genius, a public intellectual, a preacher, an oracle … he’s also a loving person.” The senator then asked the audience to give West a round of applause.

Who Is Cornel West, the “Genius” and “Oracle”?

  • West’s views on race are extremely noteworthy. He has branded the U.S. a “racist patriarchal” nation where “white supremacy” continues to define everyday life. “White America,” he writes, “has been historically weak-willed in ensuring racial justice and has continued to resist fully accepting the humanity of blacks.” This has resulted, he claims, in the creation of many “degraded and oppressed people [who are] hungry for identity, meaning, and self-worth.”
  • West attributes most of the black community’s problems to “existential angst derive[d] from the lived experience of ontological wounds and emotional scars inflicted by white supremacist beliefs and images permeating U.S. society and culture.” He explains that “the accumulated effect of the black wounds and scars suffered in a white-dominated society is a deep-seated anger, a boiling sense of rage, and a passionate pessimism regarding America’s will to justice.” “It goes without saying,” he adds, “that a profound hatred of African people … sits at the center of American civilization.”
  • In West’s view, the 9/11 attacks gave white Americans a glimpse of what it means to be a black person in the United States—feeling “unsafe, unprotected, subject to random violence and hated for who they are.” “Since 9/11,” he said, “the whole nation has the blues, when before it was just black people.”

“They Cling to Guns or Religion”: Obama Refers to American Bigotry and Intolerance

  • During an April 2008 campaign stop in San Francisco, Obama said: “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.”

Obama Says Inadequate Funding for Education Causes High Minority-Dropout Rates

  • In the 2008 campaign, Obama said: “Latinos have such a high dropout rate. What you see consistently are children at a very early age are starting school already behind. That’s why I’ve said that I’m going to put billions of dollars into early childhood education that makes sure that our African-American youth, Latino youth, poor youth of every race, are getting the kind of help that they need so that they know their numbers, their colors, their letters.”

Obama Favors Racial Preferences

  • Obama supports racial preferences for nonwhite minorities in university admissions, public employment, and state contracting. “I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination,” said Obama in April 2008.

Obama Laments Ame
rica’s Mistreatment of Native Americans

  • Speaking at a July 2008 gathering of hundreds of minority journalists in Chicago, Obama said the United States should acknowledge its history of treating certain ethnic groups poorly: “There’s no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country, we’ve got some very sad and difficult things to account for…. I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged…. I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it’s Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.”

Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court

The Henr
y Louis Gates Affair and America’s “Long History” of Racial Injustice

  • On the afternoon of July 16, 2009, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates (an African American) became involved in a high-profile controversy with racial overtones when a neighbor, mistaking him for someone trying to break into a Cambridge, Massachusetts home, called the police. (Unknown to the caller was the fact that the house in question, whose front door was jammed—thus making it impossible for Gates to open it with his key—was Gates’ own residence.) When a white police sergeant named James Crowley arrived at the scene to investigate, Gates became verbally abusive and accused Crowley of being a racist who was targeting him only “[b]ecause I’m a black man in America.” Ultimately Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct, though the charges were later dropped. Obama, without knowing all the facts of the case, said: “My understanding is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house. And at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct…. I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us [in that position] would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And, number three, what I think we know, separate and apart from this incident, is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”

Obama Calls for Support from “African Americans, Latinos, and Women”

  • In late April 2010, President Obama narrated an ad calling on American voters to support Democrats in the upcoming November midterm elections. Said Obama in the ad: “It will be up to each of you to make sure that the young people, African Americans, Latinos and women who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again.”

You’re Going to Be Harassed”: Obama Criticizes Arizona’s New Immigration Law

  • On April 23, 2010, Arizona’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed into law a bill deputizing state police to check with federal authorities on the immigration status of any individuals whom they had stopped for some legitimate reason, if the behavior or circumstances of those individuals led the officers to suspect that they might be in the United States illegally. This Arizona measure was not a departure from existing law, but simply sought to enforce a federal statute that was being enforced inadequately. President Obama depicted the law as a “misguided” example of legislative “irresponsibility” that would “undermine basic notions of fairness,” and he ordered the Justice Department to find some way to challenge its standing.
  • At an April 27, 2010 Iowa town hall meeting, completely misrepresented the new law: “You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona—your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed. That’s something that could potentially happen.”
  • On June 17, 2010, the Obama administration announced that it intended to sue the state of Arizona over the law.

Obama Criticizes Arizona Immigration Law in Meeting with Mexican President

  • On May 19, 2010, Obama met with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who blasted the controversial immigration law that had been recently passed in Arizona. Obama, during his own welcoming remarks to Calderon, called the Arizona law a “misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system.”

Obama Supports The DREAM Act: 
In November 2010, President Obama spoke out in favor of the DREAM Act, a proposed law that would provide a path to citizenship for illegal-alien high-school graduates in the U.S.

Obama Reacts to Supreme Court Ruling on the Arizona Immigration Law

  • When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down parts of the Arizona law in June 2012, Obama said: “I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law…. At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally…. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like.

Obama Urges Hispanic Voters to “Punish” Their “Enemies”:

In a radio interview conducted a few days before the November 2010 midterm elections, President Obama urged Hispanic listeners to flock to the polls: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.” Obama said that Republicans who supported Arizona’s immigration law “aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”

Obama Administration’s Massive Support for the National Council of La Raza:

Judicial Watch investigation revealed that federal funding for the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and its affiliates had skyrocketed since President Obama had appointed NCLR’s senior vice president, Cecilia Muñoz, to be his director of intergovernmental affairs in 2009. The year Muñoz joined the White House, government funds earmarked for La Raza increased from $4.1 million to $11 million. Fully 60 percent of that money came from the Department of Labor, headed by Hilda Solis, who has close ties to the La Raza movement. Also in 2010, the Department of Housing and Urban Development gave NCLR $2.5 million for housing counseling, the Department of Education contributed almost $800,000, and the Centers for Disease Control gave approximately $250,000.

The DREAM Act by Executive Order: Obama Announces Plan to Stop Deporting Illegal Immigrants Who Came to U.S. As Children

  • In July 2012, Obama issued an executive order to stop the deportation of illegal immigrants who: had come to the United States before the age of 16; had lived in the U.S. for at least five years; were either students, high-school graduates, or military veterans in good standing; had clean criminal records; and were still under the age of 30. The new policy was expected to affect 2 million to 3 million illegal immigrants.
  • This was a fulfillment of Obama’s previous assertion that he intended to use executive order to enact as much of the so-called DREAM Act as possible, since Congress had not passed the bill on its own. Notably, Congress had voted three times to reject the terms that Obama now said he would deal out all by himself.
  • Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King said he planned to sue the Obama administration to halt its effort to “legislate by executive order” rather than legislative approval. Wisconsin Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner called Obama’s decision “offensive to the millions of Americans still out of work.” “It rewards law-breaking,” Sensenbrenner said. “And it’s deeply unfair to those who came to this country legally.”
  • Conservative political commentator Byron York offered this incisive analysis: “With his announcement that he will, in effect, unilaterally enact a key feature of long-debated immigration reform, President Obama is doing something he has always wished to do: Get around a Congress that doesn’t see the issue his way. In a speech to La Raza last July, Obama said that on the question of immigration reform, ‘some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.’ Obama said he found the idea ‘very tempting’ but had to reject it because ‘that’s not how our system works.’” But now Obama had found a way to beat that same system.

Obama Makes It Virtually Impossible to Deport Anyone Living in the U.S. Illegally Unless They Have also Committed an Additional Crime

  • On December 21, 2012, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive “reinforcing that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction.”

Obama Expands DREAM Act Protections to Illegal Immigrant Relatives of “DREAMers”

  • On August 23, 2013, the Obama DHS issued a directive“expanding that [summer 2012 executive order regarding the DREAM Act] amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries.”

“Maybe They’ll Need a Moat” with “Alligators”: Obama Mocks Republican Position on Illegal Immigration

  • In May 2011, President Obama went to El Paso, Texas to give what was billed as an important speech on immigration. When he mentioned the border fence which was under construction at that time, the crowd shouted, “Tear it down!” When he criticized Republicans, the audience booed and shouted, “They’re racist.” At other times, the crowd joined Obama in chanting, “Yes, we can.”
  • At one point during his speech, Obama claimed that “the [border] fence is now basically complete.” He then promptly mocked opponents of illegal immigration, saying, “Maybe they’ll need a moat [i.e., to keep Mexicans out of the United States]. Maybe they’ll need alligators in the moat.”
  • In reality, fewer than 700 miles of the more than 1,900-mile U.S.-Mexico border had any sort of barrier, and less than 5% of the border had the type of robust, double-fenced barrier that Congress had initially requested. Moreover, a recent Government Accountability Office study had found that 40% of the border was essentially open and unguarded.

Obama Justice Department Ignores Civil Rights Cases with White Victims

  • On Election Day, November 4, 2008, two members of the New Black Panther Party—a profoundly racist organization that has called for violence and murder against white people—intimidated white voters with racial slurs and threats of violence at a Philadelphia polling station. Those two members—Jerry Jackson and Minister King Samir Shabazz—derided passersby as “White Devils” and shouted: “You are about to be ruled by the black man, Cracker!” On January 7, 2009, the Justice Department under President Bush filed criminal charges against Jackson, Minister Shabazz, and New Black Panther Party chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz for violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The failure of all three men to appear in court led to an order by U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell to seek judgments or sanctions against the three Panthers.
  • But in May 2009, the Obama Justice Department suddenly dismissed the case. The following month, J. Christian Adams, who had served in the Voting Section of the Justice Department for 5 years, resigned over the “corrupt nature of the dismissal of the case.” Wrote Adams in 2010: “The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career…. The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the ‘facts and law’ did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls…. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.”
  • In July 2010, Adams gave damning public testimony about how Obama officials believed that “civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities.”

More Allegations that the Obama Justice Department Ignores Civil Rights Cases Involving White Victims

  • In September 2010, Christopher Coates, Voting Section Chief for the Justice Department, corroborated the previous testimony of J. Christian Adams, stating that the Department had routinely ignored civil rights cases involving white victims. Coates had delayed testifying (to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights) on this matter for more than a year—at the request of the Justice Department. Now, however, he chose to go public with his story and asked for protection under whistleblower laws.

Obama Justice Department Sues Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio

  • In September 2010, the Obama Justice Department announced that it would sue Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his strong stance against illegal immigration. The Justice Department charged that Arpaio’s trademark immigration patrols had racially profiled Latinos. Said Arpaio: “If they sue, we’ll go to court. And then we’ll find out the real story. They’re telling me how to run my organization. I’d like to get this resolved, but I’m not going to give up my authority to the federal government. It’s as simple as that.”

Obama Signs Bill Paying $1.15 Billion in Discrimination Compensation to Black Farmers

  • As the result of a 1999 decision on a class action suit known as Pigford v. Glickman, the federal government paid approximately $1 billion to 15,640 black farmers who claimed that the that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had discriminated against them by refusing to provide them with federally subsidized farm loans and benefits during the years 1981-96. In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama pushed to get another $100 million appropriated through that year’s farm bill, to compensate black farmers who alleged USDA discrimination but had missed the 1999 filing deadline under the original Pigford case. “I am also pleased that the bill includes my proposal to help thousands of African-American farmers get their discrimination claims reviewed under the Pigford settlement,” said Obama.
  • Then, in early December 2010, President Obama signed the Claims Settlement Act of 2010, which awarded another $1.15 billion to 94,000 black farmers alleging USDA discrimination between 1981-96. When signing the bill, Obama lamented the “long and unfortunate chapter in our history” that it represented.
  • According to the Census Bureau, the number of black farmers in America between 1981 and 1996 peaked at 33,000 in 1982. More than 15,000 of those had already received settlements under Pigford I. The USDA predicted that about 3,000 of the remaining 18,000 black farmers would now come forward to file additional discrimination claims. Instead, the actual total was 94,000 people claiming to have been “victimized” by the USDA.

Obama USDA Awards $760 Million to Native American Farmers As Compensation for “Discrimination”

  • In October 2010, the Obama USDA settled the so-called Keepseagle case, agreeing to make $760 million available to Native American farmers and ranchers contending that they had not received the same farm loan opportunities as whites between 1981-99.

Obama USDA Offers Female and Hispanic farmers over $1.3 billion in “Discrimination” Payouts

  • On September 24, 2012, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced that Hispanic and women farmers and ranchers who believed the USDA had discriminated against them between 1981 and 2000, could now file claims to get a portion of at least $1.33 billion in cash awards and tax relief payments, and up to $160 million in farm debt relief. Said Vilsack: “The opening of this claims process is part of USDA’s ongoing efforts to correct the wrongs of the past and ensure fair treatment to all current and future customers.” The USDA said it would use mail, media, and community advocacy groups to ensure that those eligible would be made aware of the claims process.

The Fraudulence of the Black, Native American, Hispanic, and Female Farmer “Discrimination Payouts Is Confirmed

On April 25, 2013, The New York Times reported the following:

In the winter of 2010, after a decade of defending the government against bias claims by Hispanic and female farmers, Justice Department lawyers seemed to have victory within their grasp.

In the winter of 2010, after a decade of defending the government against bias claims by Hispanic and female farmers, Justice Department lawyers seemed to have victory within their grasp.

Ever since the Clinton administration agreed in 1999 to make $50,000 payments to thousands of black farmers, the Hispanics and women had been clamoring in courtrooms and in Congress for the same deal. They argued, as the African-Americans had, that biased federal loan officers had systematically thwarted their attempts to borrow money to farm.

But a succession of courts — and finally the Supreme Court — had rebuffed their pleas. Instead of an army of potential claimants, the government faced just 91 plaintiffs. Those cases, the government lawyers figured, could be dispatched at limited cost. They were wrong.

On the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling, interviews and records show, the Obama administration’s political appointees at the Justice and Agriculture Departments engineered a stunning turnabout: they committed $1.33 billion to compensate not just the 91 plaintiffs but thousands of Hispanic and female farmers who had never claimed bias in court.

The deal, several current and former government officials said, was fashioned in White House meetings despite the vehement objections — until now undisclosed — of career lawyers and agency officials who had argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination. What is more, some protested, the template for the deal — the $50,000 payouts to black farmers — had proved a magnet for fraud….

The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias against African-Americans by the Agriculture Department. But an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees. In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion.

From the start, the claims process prompted allegations of widespread fraud and criticism that its very design encouraged people to lie: because relatively few records remained to verify accusations, claimants were not required to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm. Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination.

Yet those concerns were played down as the compensation effort grew. Though the government has started requiring more evidence to support some claims, even now people who say they were unfairly denied loans can collect up to $50,000 with little documentation.

As a senator, Barack Obama supported expanding compensation for black farmers, and then as president he pressed for $1.15 billion to pay those new claims. Other groups quickly escalated their demands for similar treatment. In a letter to the White House in September 2009, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a leading Hispanic Democrat, threatened to mount a campaign “outside the Beltway” if Hispanic farmers were not compensated.

The groups found a champion in the new agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack. New settlements would provide “a way to neutralize the argument that the government favors black farmers over Hispanic, Native American or women farmers,” an internal department memorandum stated in March 2010.

The payouts pitted Mr. Vilsack and other political appointees against career lawyers and agency officials, who argued that the legal risks did not justify the costs.

Beyond that, they said it was legally questionable to sidestep Congress and compensate the Hispanic and female farmers out of a special Treasury Department account, known as the Judgment Fund. The fund is restricted to payments of court-approved judgments and settlements, as well as to out-of-court settlements in cases where the government faces imminent litigation that it could lose. Some officials argued that tapping the fund for the farmers set a bad precedent, since most had arguably never contemplated suing and might not have won if they had….

A 2010 settlement with Native Americans was contentious for its own reasons. Justice Department lawyers argued that the $760 million agreement far outstripped the potential cost of a defeat in court. Agriculture officials said not that many farmers would file claims.

That prediction proved prophetic. Only $300 million in claims were filed, leaving nearly $400 million in the control of plaintiffs’ lawyers to be distributed among a handful of nonprofit organizations serving Native American farmers. Two and a half years later, the groups have yet to be chosen. It is unclear how many even exist….

[Senior Justice Department officials] said the attorney general had broad discretion to settle litigation. “It was a priority for the administration to resolve the long-standing discrimination cases,” a senior official said, and give “farmers who believed they had been discriminated against a chance to seek redress.” …

Farmers routinely borrow money to carry themselves from high-cost planting season to harvest time; lack of credit can lead to barren fields. The original lawsuit, Pigford v. Glickman, filed in federal court in Washington in August 1997, argued that the Agriculture Department’s credit bureau, now called the Farm Service Agency, routinely denied or limited loans to black farmers while freely distributing them to whites.

Two government reports that year found no evidence of ongoing, systemic discrimination. The Government Accountability Office reported that 16 percent of minority farmers were denied loans, compared with 10 percent of white farmers, but traced the difference to objective factors like bad credit. An Agriculture Department study also found “no consistent picture of disparity” over the previous two years.

But the study concluded that decades of discrimination before then had cost African-American farmers significant amounts of land and income. Black farmers gave heart-rending accounts of loan officers who withheld promised money while crops withered, who repossessed their land and sold it to white cronies, who advised them to milk cows for white farmers rather than sow their own crops.

Written discrimination complaints had fallen on deaf ears at the Agriculture Department, where the civil rights office had been disbanded during the Reagan administration.

John W. Boyd Jr., a Virginia farmer who leads the National Black Farmers Association, was among those who pressed President Bill Clinton to settle the case….

Just five months after the lawsuit was filed, and without the investigative step of discovery, the Justice Department opened settlement negotiations….

“[I]t was more a political decision than a litigation decision,” said one lawyer familiar with the administration’s stance. “The administration was genuinely sympathetic to the plight of these farmers.” …

[Presiding Federal Judge Paul L. Friedman] initially limited the class of potential claimants to African-Americans who had farmed between 1981 and 1996 and had previously filed written discrimination complaints. But his final order significantly expanded the class, admitting those who had only “attempted to farm.” And it threw out the requirement for a written bias complaint, stating that an oral complaint was sufficient if someone other than a family member attested to it in an affidavit.

The Agriculture Department was partly to blame for the lack of records. It routinely discarded failed loan applications after three years, and it had badly mismanaged written discrimination complaints. Ninety percent of the farmers had no records either, plaintiffs’ lawyers said.

The billion-dollar settlement, the judge’s opinion said, was designed to provide “those class members with little or no documentary evidence with a virtually automatic cash payment of $50,000.” Those with documentary proof could seek higher awards, a tack ultimately chosen by fewer than 1 percent of applicants.

Justice Department lawyers worried about false claims. But the lawyer familiar with the Clinton administration’s stance said they had decided that “it was better to err on the side of giving money to people who might not qualify if they went through litigation than to deny money to people who actually deserve it.” …

Accusations of unfair treatment could be checked against department files if claimants had previously received loans. But four-fifths of successful claimants had never done so. For them, “there was no way to refute what they said,” said Sandy Grammer, a former program analyst from Indiana who reviewed claims for three years. “Basically, it was a rip-off of the American taxpayers.”

The true dimensions of the problem are impossible to gauge. The Agriculture Department insists that the names and addresses of claimants are protected under privacy provisions. But department data released in response to a Freedom of Information request by The Times are telling. The data cover 15,601 African-Americans who filed successful claims and were paid before 2009.

In 16 ZIP codes in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina, the number of successful claimants exceeded the total number of farms operated by people of any race in 1997, the year the lawsuit was filed. Those applicants received nearly $100 million.

In Maple Hill, a struggling town in southeastern North Carolina, the number of people paid was nearly four times the total number of farms. More than one in nine African-American adults there received checks. In Little Rock, Ark., a confidential list of payments shows, 10 members of one extended family collected a total of $500,000, and dozens of other successful claimants shared addresses, phone numbers or close family connections.

Thirty percent of all payments, totaling $290 million, went to predominantly urban counties — a phenomenon that supporters of the settlement say reflects black farmers’ migration during the 15 years covered by the lawsuit. Only 11 percent, or $107 million, went to what the Agriculture Department classifies as “completely rural” counties….

The claim period ended in late 1999, although the adjudication process dragged on for a dozen years. But the gusher of claims had only begun.

“Once those checks started hitting the mailboxes, people couldn’t believe it,” said Mr. Wright, the Pine Bluff justice of the peace. “Then it dawned on them. ‘If Joe Blow got a check, I can get one.’” …

Some 66,000 claims poured in after the 1999 deadline. Noting that the government had given “extensive” notice, Judge Friedman ruled the door closed to late filers. “That is simply how class actions work,” he wrote.

But it was not how politics worked. The next nine years brought a concerted effort to allow the late filers to seek awards. Career Agriculture Department officials warned that they might be even more problematic than initial claimants: in one ZIP code in Columbus, Ohio, nearly everyone in two adjoining apartment buildings had filed, according to the former high-ranking agency official.

President George W. Bush was unreceptive to farmers’ repeated protests. But Congress was not: legislators from both parties, including Mr. Obama as a senator in 2007, sponsored bills to grant the late filers relief.

Mr. Boyd said Mr. Obama’s support led him to throw the backing of his 109,000-member black farmers’ association behind the Obama presidential primary campaign. Hilary Shelton, the N.A.A.C.P.’s chief lobbyist, said Mr. Obama’s stance helped establish him as a defender of the concerns of rural African-American communities.

Public criticism came primarily from conservative news outlets like Breitbart.com and from Congressional conservatives like Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, who described the program as rife with fraud. Few Republicans or Democrats supported him. Asked why, Mr. King said, “Never underestimate the fear of being called a racist.”

Congress finally inserted a provision in the 2008 farm bill allowing late filers to bring new lawsuits, with their claims to be decided by the same standard of evidence as before. The bill also declared a sense of Congress that minority farmers’ bias claims and lawsuits should be quickly and justly resolved.

Congress overrode a veto by Mr. Bush, who objected to other provisions in the bill. But as Mr. Bush left Washington, Congress had appropriated only $100 million for compensation, hardly enough to pay for processing claims.

Within months of taking office, President Obama promised to seek an additional $1.15 billion. In November 2010, Congress approved the funds. To protect against fraud, legislators ordered the Government Accountability Office and the Agriculture Department’s inspector general to audit the payment process.

But simultaneously, the Agriculture Department abandoned the costly and burdensome review process it had applied to earlier claims. As a result, according to internal government memos, the percentage of successful claims is expected to exceed that in the original 1999 settlement. More than 40,000 claims have been filed and are under review.

In November, the G.A.O. concluded that antifraud provisions provided “reasonable assurance” of weeding out false claims, saying more than 3,100 suspicious applications had been identified. But as before, it noted, late filers need not document claims, leaving adjudicators to rely on assertions that they have “no way of independently verifying.” …

The Bush Justice Department had rebuffed all efforts to settle the parallel discrimination suits brought by Native American, Hispanic and female farmers. But now, the Obama administration’s efforts to compensate African-American farmers intensified pressure from members of Congress and lobbyists to settle those cases as well.

Within the administration, Secretary Vilsack, a former Iowa governor who had briefly run for president, found an ally in Mr. West, who had been named an assistant attorney general after serving as a major Obama fund-raiser….

The Native-American case was clearly problematic for the government. The federal judge overseeing the case, Emmet G. Sullivan, had already certified the plaintiffs as a class, although only to seek changes in government practices and policies. He postponed a decision on whether they could seek monetary damages as a class.

But Justice Department litigators were far from unarmed. If they lost on damages, case law suggested that the decision might be reversed. Depositions had revealed many of the individual farmers’ complaints to be shaky. And federal judges had already scornfully rejected the methodology of the plaintiffs’ expert, a former Agriculture Department official named Patrick O’Brien, in the women’s case.

Mr. O’Brien contended that white farmers were two to three times as likely as Native Americans to receive federal farm loans in the 1980s and 1990s than were other farmers. But the government’s expert, Gordon C. Rausser, a professor of economics and statistics at the University of California, Berkeley, had produced a 340-page report stating that Mr. O’Brien’s conclusions were based “in a counter-factual world” and that Native Americans had generally fared as well as white male farmers.

Professor Rausser was astounded when, with both sides gearing up for trial in late 2009, the government began settlement negotiations. “If they had gone to trial, the government would have prevailed,” he said.

“It was just a joke,” he added. “I was so disgusted. It was simply buying the support of the Native-Americans.”

Agriculture officials predicted that only 5,300 Native Americans were likely to file claims. The plaintiffs’ lawyers, whose fees were to be based on a percentage of the settlement, estimated up to 19,000 claims.

Only 4,400 people filed claims, with 3,600 winning compensation at a cost of roughly $300 million. That left $460 million unspent — of which roughly $400 million under the terms of the settlement must be given to nonprofit groups that aid Native American farmers….

The remaining $60.8 million will go to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, led by the Washington firm Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll….

On Feb. 19, 2010, Alan Wiseman, a lawyer for the Hispanic farmers, strode into Federal District Court in Washington unusually upbeat. “Sometimes,” he told Judge James Robertson, “it takes divine intervention” to move the government.

Over the past decade, his case had not gone well. Nor had the parallel lawsuit brought by female farmers.

Judge Robertson had refused to certify either group as a class. The United States Court of Appeals had upheld him, stating in 2006 that the Hispanic plaintiffs had been denied loans “for a variety of reasons, including inadequate farm plans and lack of funds.” Nor had female farmers proved a pattern of bias, the court found.

The Justice Department’s lawyers had definitively ruled out any group-style settlement. “Some of these folks have never made a loan payment in their entire history with U.S.D.A.,” Lisa A. Olson, the lead government litigator against the 81 Hispanic plaintiffs, told Judge Robertson in August 2009. “There may even be folks who are under criminal investigation.”

Michael Sitcov, assistant director of the Justice Department’s federal program branch, told the judge that senior department officials agreed with career litigators that the cases should be fought one by one.

But members of the Congressional Hispanic caucus and a group of eight Democratic senators, led by Mr. [Bob] Menendez, were lobbying the White House to move in the opposite direction. They grew increasingly agitated as the plaintiffs’ cases appeared to falter.

In a letter to Mr. Obama in June 2009, the senators noted that black farmers stood to receive $2.25 billion in compensation, but that Hispanic farmers, who alleged the same kind of discrimination, had gotten nothing. Should that continue, Mr. Menendez wrote that September, “Hispanic farmers and ranchers, and their supporters, will be reaching out to community and industry leaders outside of the Beltway in order to bring wider attention to this problem.”

The issue came to a head after the Supreme Court refused to reopen the issue of class certification. The next month, on Feb. 11, 2010, Daniel J. Meltzer, principal deputy White House counsel, held the first of three meetings at which resolution of the case was discussed, records and interviews show. Among the attendees were senior Justice and Agriculture Department officials, including Mr. West, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, and Krysta Harden, then the assistant agriculture secretary for Congressional relations. Settlement negotiations began the next week…. Attorneys for the 81 Hispanic farmers also raised the vague specter of tens of thousands of plaintiffs….

In agreeing to the payout, the government did, for the first time, impose a greater evidentiary burden. While one major category of claimants — those who said their loan applications had been unfairly denied — remained eligible for payments of up to $50,000 without any documentation, others were required to produce written evidence that they had complained of bias at the time. The Hispanic plaintiffs were indignant.

Adam P. Feinberg, who represents some of them, said: “Once the government puts a program in place for one racial group, even if it decides it is too generous, it cannot adopt a different set of restrictions for another racial group. It’s outrageous.”

The claims process opened in late September, six weeks before the election. In the weeks before the March 25 deadline, facing far fewer claimants than expected, the Agriculture Department instructed processors to call about 16,000 people to remind them that time was running out, despite internal disquiet that the government was almost recruiting claims against itself. The deadline was then extended to May 1.

So far, about 1,900 Hispanics and 24,000 women have sought compensation, many in states where middlemen have built a cottage industry, promising to help win payouts for a fee.

Obama Justice Department Alleges Racism in Police Departments

  • On May 31, 2011, Salon.com reported that “President Obama’s Justice Department is aggressively investigating several big urban police departments for systematic civil rights abuses such as harassment of racial minorities, false arrests, and excessive use of force….”

Claiming That Voter ID Laws Are Racist and Discriminatory

  • Many Americans believe that Voter ID requirements should be implemented at polling places, to reduce or eliminate the possibility of voter fraud occurring. They believe that voter fraud breeds distrust of government, and that voters who fear that their legitimate votes will be negated by fraudulent ones have reason to feel disenfranchised.
  • President Obama and his administration take a very different view. They contend that African Americans and Hispanics are considerably less likely than others to hold government-issued forms of photo ID. Thus they say that Voter ID laws are racially discriminatory and function as a modern-day equivalent of “poll taxes” that disenfranchise minorities.
  • The notion that a disproportionate number of nonwhites lack a photo ID can be traced most significantly to a deeply flawed November 2006 report by the left-wing Brennan Center for Justice. Indeed, a footnote in the report itself states plainly that “[t]he survey did not yield statistically significant results for differential rates of possession of citizenship documents by race, age, or other identified demographic factors.”
  • Notably, the Brennan Center statistics are sharply at odds with the findings of previous studies on voter-identification documents. For example, a 2008 American University survey in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi found that fewer than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters lacked a government-issued ID. Similarly, a 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only “23 people in the entire sample—less than one-tenth of one percent of reported voters—were unable to vote because of an ID requirement.”
  • Moreover, the Heritage Foundation notes that “every state that has passed a voter ID law has also ensured that the very small percentage of individuals who do not have a photo ID can easily obtain one for free if they cannot afford one.”
  • Notwithstanding the aforementioned facts, the Obama administration has characterized Voter ID as a civil-rights issue with deep racial implications. In a December 2011 speech condemning Voter ID laws, for instance, Attorney General Eric Holder said: “It is time to ask: What kind of nation and what kind of people do we want to be? Are we willing to allow this era—our era—to be remembered as the age when our nation’s proud tradition of expanding the franchise ended?”
  • In a May 2012 speech, Holder warned that “some of the achievements that defined the civil rights movement now hang, again, in the balance.”
  • Holder’s contention that Voter ID laws are unnecessary was dealt an embarrassing blow in early 2012, when James O’Keefe, a 28-year-old white investigative journalist, posted online a video of himself walking into the polling place in Holder’s District of Columbia precinct, falsely identifying himself as Eric Holder (the highly prominent 61-year-old, black Attorney General), and asking for a ballot so he could vote in the Democratic primary which was being held that day. The video shows a poll worker responding to O’Keefe’s request by willingly offering him Holder’s ballot and making no effort to verify the young man’s identity.
  • By June 2012, the Obama Justice Department of President Obama had filed suit against both Texas and South Carolina for having passed Voter ID statutes.

Obama Lauds the Race-Baiting Civil-Rights Activist Al Sharpton:

On April 6, 2011, President Obama traveled to New York’s Sheraton Hotel & Towers to attend a 20th anniversary celebration of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. When addressing the crowd, Obama, who had heartily embraced Sharpton and complimented him for “his style.” Obama also praised “the National Action Network’s commitment to fight injustice and inequality here in New York City and across America. That’s not only a testament to Reverend Sharpton. It’s a testament to all of you who are here tonight. I want to commend you for the work that you’ve done over the last two decades.”

Opposition to Purging Voter Rolls of Ineligible Names

  • Invariably, opponents of Voter ID laws also oppose initiatives to purge voter rolls of ineligible names—e.g. people who are deceased, who have relocated to a different state or voting district, or who have been convicted of felonies. The Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) has made no effort to enforce laws requiring states to remove ineligible names from their voter rolls. In late May 2012, DOJ actually ordered the state of Florida to halt its efforts to verify the identity and eligibility of the people listed on its voter rolls.
  • But Florida election officials refused to comply, citing the fact that they had already identified some 53,000 still-registered voters who were deceased. Further, the officials estimated that some approximately 182,000 non-citizens were on Florida’s registered-voter rolls as well.
  • Obama’s DOJ filed suit against Florida on June 12, 2012.
  • In a July 2010 column for PJ Media, former DOJ Voting Section attorney J. Christian Adams exposed the Obama Justice Department’s resolve to turn a blind eye to problems involving corrupted voter rolls. Adams wrote that in November 2009, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes had bluntly told dozens of Voting Section employees: “We have no interest in enforcing this provision [voter list integrity] of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it.”

Obama Mocks Anti-Illegal-Immigration Activists:

In May 2011, President Obama went to El Paso, Texas to give what was billed as an important speech on immigration. He mocked opponents of illegal immigration by saying, “Maybe they’ll need a moat [i.e., in addition to a wall to keep Mexicans out of the United States]. Maybe they’ll need alligators in the moat.”

Obama DOJ Investigates Police Departments for Civil-Rights Abuses:

On May 31, 2011, Salon.com reported that “President Obama’s Justice Department is aggressively investigating several big urban police departments for systematic civil rights abuses such as harassment of racial minorities, false arrests, and excessive use of force….”


Working to Bring Back the Subprime Mortgage-Lending Practices That Caused the Housing Market to Collapse in 2008:

In July 2011, it was reported that the Obama DOJ, in a manner reminiscent of the lending practices that helped cause the housing crisis of 2008, was once again strong-arming banks to make risky loans to minority applicants – threatening to charge banks with discrimination if they failed to comply.

Claims of Discrimination Against Black Schoolchildren:

In a February 25, 2012 speech to the organization 100 Black Men of Atlanta, Attorney General Eric Holder lamented the findings of a 2011 study of discipline patterns in Texas schools. Holder said the study showed that “83 percent of African American male students and 74 percent of Hispanic male students ended up in trouble and suspended for some period of time” — as compared to 59% of white male students. “We’ve often seen that students of color, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students with special needs are disproportionately likely to be suspended or expelled,” Holder stated. “This is, quite simply, unacceptable.… These unnecessary and destructive policies must be changed.” After citing the Texas study, Holder added that “tellingly, 97 percent of all suspensions were discretionary and reflected the administrator’s discipline philosophy as much as the student’s behavior.” In his speech, Holder ignored data indicating that the different discipline rates were consistent with differences in actual schoolyard behavior.

Holder revisited this theme in January 2014, when he and Education Secretary Arne Duncan issued the first-ever national guidelines for discipline in public schools. These guidelines demanded that schools adhere, as an Associated Press (AP) report put it, “to the principle of fairness and equity in student discipline or face strong action if they don’t.” “[I]n our investigations,” saidthe administration, “we have found cases where African-American students were disciplined more harshly and more frequently because of their race than similarly situated white students. In short, racial discrimination in school discipline is a real problem.” Holder, for his part, declared: “A routine school disciplinary infraction should land a student in the principal’s office, not in a police precinct.”

In particular, the Obama administration was troubled by the fact that:

  • Black students without disabilities were more than three times as likely as whites to be expelled or suspended.
  • Black students comprised more than a third of students suspended once, 44% of those suspended multiple times, and more than a third of those expelled.
  • Black and Hispanic students were more than half of those involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement.

“Too often, said Holder, “so-called zero-tolerance policies [which mandate uniform and swift punishment for such offenses as truancy, smoking, or carrying a weapon], however well intentioned they might be, make students feel unwelcome in their own schools; they disrupt the learning process. And they can have significant and lasting negative effects on the long-term well-being of our young people, increasing their likelihood of future contact with the juvenile and criminal justice systems.”

To address this matter, the Obama administration encouraged schools to:

  • ensure that all school personnel are trained in classroom management, conflict resolution and approaches to de-escalate classroom disruptions;
  • ensure that school personnel understand that they are responsible for administering routine student discipline instead of security or police officers;
  • draw clear distinctions about the responsibilities of school security personnel;
  • provide opportunities for school security officers to develop relationships with students and parents;
  • establish procedures on how to distinguish between disciplinary infractions appropriately handled by school officials compared with major threats to school safety; and
  • collect and monitor data that security or police officers take to ensure nondiscrimination.

As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams observed, under the Obama policy:

“The nation’s educators can avoid sanctions by adopting a racial quota system for student discipline. So as Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, predicts, ‘school officials will either start disciplining students who shouldn’t be, or, more likely, will not discipline some students who ought to be.’ I can imagine school administrators reasoning this way: ‘Blacks are 20 percent of our student body, and 20 percent of suspensions this year have been of black students. In order to discipline another black student while maintaining our suspension quota, we will have to suspend some white students, whether they’re guilty or not.’”

The Trayvon Martin Case

  • When the black Sanford, Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in an altercation with a “white Hispanic” man named George Zimmerman on February 26, 2012, Obama lamented: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Further, Obama urged all Americans “to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen.”
  • Obama did not explain why this particular incident should be weighted with such racial significance, given the fact that the overwhelming majority of interracial crime in the United States is black-on-white, and more than 90% of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks.
  • It was subsequently learned that the Martin-Zimmerman incident was by no means a case of stalking and cold-blooded murder, as the media and civil-rights activists (and, by, implication, Obama) had portrayed it. In fact, just prior to the shooting, Martin had been pummeling Zimmerman viciously, inflicting a broken nose, two black eyes, and a head wound on the latter. Moreover, before shooting Martin, Zimmerman had desperately cried out for help 14 times.
  • In July 2013, it was learned that in the immediate aftermath of the Martin killing, the Community Relations Service (CRS), a small office within the U.S. Department of Justice, sent taxpayer-funded political agitators to Sanford, where they helped organize protest demonstrations and convey the false impression that the killer had racial motives. At one of those rallies — the March 31, 2012 “March for Trayvon Martin” — the featured speaker, Al Sharpton, advocated for Zimmerman’s prosecution. According to journalist Matthew Vadum:”DOJ documents provided to Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act show that in the weeks before Zimmerman was charged, CRS expended thousands of dollars to help organize marches in which participants exacerbated racial tensions and loudly demanded that he be prosecuted.”According to the documentation, CRS employees were involved in ‘marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain’; providing ‘support for protest deployment in Florida’; rendering ‘technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31 [2012]’; and providing ‘technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.’“In April [2012], CRS ‘set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police chief Bill Lee, according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,’ the document dump revealed.”
  • On July 19, 2013 — a few days after Zimmerman was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges — Obama made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room to issue a statement. His remarks included the following:”First of all … I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation….”You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African- American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that — that doesn’t go away.“There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.“And there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

    “And you know, I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.

    “The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case….

    “We understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

    “And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

    “I think the African-American community is also not naive in understanding that statistically somebody like Trayvon Martin was probably statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else.

    “So — so folks understand the challenges that exist for African- American boys, but they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it or — and that context is being denied. And — and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different….

    “Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it’d be productive for the Justice Department — governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.

    “You know, when I was in Illinois I passed racial profiling legislation. And it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing….

    “Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations….

    “We need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys? And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?…

    “And then finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching…. [A]t least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can; am I judging people, as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

On August 7, 2013, Obama appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, who asked him to comment on the Trayvon Martin case. The President replied:

“Well, I think all of us were troubled by what happened.  And any of us who were parents can imagine the heartache that those parents went through. It doesn’t mean that Trayvon was a perfect kid — none of us were. We were talking offstage — when you’re a teenager, especially a teenage boy, you’re going to mess up, and you won’t always have the best judgment. But what I think all of us agree to is, is that we should have a criminal justice system that’s fair, that’s just. And what I wanted to try to explain was why this was a particularly sensitive topic for African American families, because a lot of people who have sons know the experience they had of being followed or being viewed suspiciously.

“We all know that young African American men disproportionately have involvement in criminal activities and violence — for a lot of reasons, a lot of it having to do with poverty, a lot of it having to do with disruptions in their neighborhoods and their communities, and failing schools and all those things.  And that’s no excuse, but what we also believe in is, is that people — everybody — should be treated fairly and the system should work for everyone.”

Obama’s Commitment to Racial Preferences

  • In 2006, then-Senator Obama lamented the “stubborn gap that remains between the living standards of black, Latino and white workers.” To address this, he proposed “completing the unfinished business of the civil rights movement—namely, enforcing nondiscrimination laws in such basic areas as employment, housing and education.” Added Obama at the time: “The government, through its prosecutors and its courts, should step in to make things right.”
  • During Obama’s first term as President, Attorney General Eric Holder used the threat of “disparate-impact” lawsuits—founded on the premise that businesses could be held liable for racial bias if any of its policies caused whites and blacks to be hired, promoted, approved for loans, etc. at disproportionate rates—to strong-arm U.S. banks into loan set-asides (reserved exclusively for nonwhites), racial lending quotas, and other concessions. For example, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and SunTrust all agreed to adopt lower loan-approval standards for nonwhites. As of November 2012, Holder had already authorized at least five lending-discrimination suits, while opening another 30 investigations against banks. In response, the American Bankers Association—seeking to avoid additional hassles from the government—advised its 5,000 members to give a “second look” to rejected minority loan applicants, with an eye toward making “changes in underwriting standards.”
  • In 2012 Richard Cordray, head of the Obama administration’s newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [CFPB], announced that his Bureau would join the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing & Urban Development in enforcing disparate-impact doctrine to protect “communities of color” from “unfair lending practices” in “mortgages, student loans, credit cards and auto loans,” and small-business loans.
  • In November 2012, shortly after Obama’s re-election in November 2012, journalist Paul Sperry reported that the President, during his second term in office, would continue to aggressively try to close gaps between whites and minorities in such areas as credit scores, homeownership rates, test scores, and graduation rates. Obama’s remedy for those gaps, wrote Sperry, would be “to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on ‘disparate impact’ complaints—a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences.”
  • Sperry further reported that CFPB examiners were slated to subject America’s consumer credit reporting agencies—including Equifax, Experian and TransUnion—to federal review in the form of an “effects test” that would prevent minority credit-card applicants from being rejected more frequently than whites, or being charged higher interest rates than whites, regardless of their credit ratings.
  • Also according to Sperry, “Other targets of the administration’s ‘racial justice’ juggernaut include: standardized academic testing, professional licensing examinations, employee background checks, voter ID requirements, student disciplinary codes, prison sentencing guidelines—you name it. The goal is to equalize outcomes based on race without regard for performance or merit.”
  • Center for Equal Opportunity president Roger Clegg concurred that President Obama was entirely committed to “aggressively pushing the disparate-impact approach to civil-rights enforcement” through which “the federal government insists that the numbers come out right—even if it means that policemen and firefighters cannot be tested, that companies should hire criminals, that loans must be made to the uncreditworthy, and that—I kid you not—whether pollution is acceptable depends on whether dangerous chemicals are spread in a racially balanced way.”
  • Competitive Enterprise Institute counsel Hans Bader reported that the Obama administration was “pressuring school districts not to suspend violent or disruptive black students if they [the districts] have already disciplined ‘too many’ black students.” In a similar spirit, Obama’s Education Department was investigating a “disparate-impact” complaint that the NAACP had recently filed, alleging that the entrance exam used by selective New York City high schools illegally discriminated against African Americans.
  • During his second inaugural address as president on January 21, 2013, the newly re-elected Obama made reference to alleged efforts to suppress the votes of certain demographic groups, particularly low-income nonwhite minorities: “Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.”

Claims of Discrimination Against Black Schoolchildren

In a February 25, 2012 speech to the organization 100 Black Men of Atlanta, Attorney General Eric Holder lamented the findings of a 2011 study of discipline patterns in Texas schools. Holder said the study showed that “83 percent of African American male students and 74 percent of Hispanic male students ended up in trouble and suspended for some period of time” — as compared to 59% of white male students. “We’ve often seen that students of color, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students with special needs are disproportionately likely to be suspended or expelled,” Holder stated. “This is, quite simply, unacceptable.… These unnecessary and destructive policies must be changed.” After citing the Texas study, Holder added that “tellingly, 97 percent of all suspensions were discretionary and reflected the administrator’s discipline philosophy as much as the student’s behavior.” In his speech, Holder ignored data indicating that the different discipline rates were consistent with differences in actual schoolyard behavior.

Holder revisited this theme in January 2014, when he and Education Secretary Arne Duncan issued the first-ever national guidelines for discipline in public schools. These guidelines demanded that schools adhere, as an Associated Press (AP) report put it, “to the principle of fairness and equity in student discipline or face strong action if they don’t.” “[I]n our investigations,” said the administration, “we have found cases where African-American students were disciplined more harshly and more frequently because of their race than similarly situated white students. In short, racial discrimination in school discipline is a real problem.” Holder, for his part, declared: “A routine school disciplinary infraction should land a student in the principal’s office, not in a police precinct.”

In particular, the Obama administration was troubled by the fact that:

  • Black students without disabilities were more than three times as likely as whites to be expelled or suspended.
  • Black students comprised more than a third of students suspended once, 44% of those suspended multiple times, and more than a third of those expelled.
  • Black and Hispanic students were more than half of those involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement.

“Too often, said Holder, “so-called zero-tolerance policies [which mandate uniform and swift punishment for such offenses as truancy, smoking, or carrying a weapon], however well intentioned they might be, make students feel unwelcome in their own schools; they disrupt the learning process. And they can have significant and lasting negative effects on the long-term well-being of our young people, increasing their likelihood of future contact with the juvenile and criminal justice systems.”

To address this matter, the Obama administration encouraged schools to:

  • ensure that all school personnel are trained in classroom management, conflict resolution and approaches to de-escalate classroom disruptions;
  • ensure that school personnel understand that they are responsible for administering routine student discipline instead of security or police officers;
  • draw clear distinctions about the responsibilities of school security personnel;
  • provide opportunities for school security officers to develop relationships with students and parents;
  • establish procedures on how to distinguish between disciplinary infractions appropriately handled by school officials compared with major threats to school safety; and
  • collect and monitor data that security or police officers take to ensure nondiscrimination.

As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams observed:

“The nation’s educators can avoid sanctions by adopting a racial quota system for student discipline. So as Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, predicts, ‘school officials will either start disciplining students who shouldn’t be, or, more likely, will not discipline some students who ought to be.’ I can imagine school administrators reasoning this way: ‘Blacks are 20 percent of our student body, and 20 percent of suspensions this year have been of black students. In order to discipline another black student while maintaining our suspension quota, we will have to suspend some white students, whether they’re guilty or not.’”

In November 2014, syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell reported: “Under an implicit threat of losing their federal subsidies, the Minneapolis Public Schools have agreed to reduce the disparity in punishment of black students by 25 percent by the end of this school year, and then by 50 percent, 75 percent and finally 100 percent in each of the following years. In other words, there are now racial quota limits for punishment in the Minneapolis schools.”

Obama Says Illegal Immigrants Should Not Be “Expelled from Our Country”

  • During his second inaugural address, Obama emphasized his commitment to passing “comprehensive immigration reform” and the DREAM Act, both of which would include a path-to-citizenship for illegals currently residing in the United States: “Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity, until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.”

Obama Says That People From Mexico “Did Not Cross the Border, The Border Crossed Them”

  • When outgoing Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who is of Mexican heritage, formally stepped down from his post in early February 2013, Obama suggested that the Hispanic Cabinet member was more authentically American than the Pilgrims of New England: “His ancestors were here before the Mayflower set sail.” The president then echoed a phrase common among Nativists who believe that lands belong to ethnicities rather than to countries: “[Salazar and] his family did not cross the border, the border crossed them. And that’s why, when I needed somebody to lead Interior, I didn’t have to look very far.”

Americans’ View of Race Relations Has Deteriorated Greatly During Obama Administration:
 In June 2013, a poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal reported that 52 percent of whites and 38 percent of blacks had a favorable opinion of race relations in the U.S.  At the beginning of Obama’s first term (4 and 1/2 years earlier, the corresponding figures were 79 percent and 63 percent.

Obama Speaks about America’s Racial Injustice, Past and Present

In an August 23, 2013 speech at Binghamton University, Obama said:

  • “I think what we’ve also seen is that the legacy of discrimination—slavery, Jim Crow—has meant that some of the institutional barriers for success for a lot of groups still exist.  African American poverty in this country is still significantly higher than other groups.  Same is true for Latinos.  Same is true for Native Americans. And even if there weren’t active discrimination taking place right now—and obviously, we know that some discrimination still exists, although nothing like what existed 50 years ago—but let’s assume that we eliminated all discrimination magically, with a wand, and everybody had goodness in their heart.  You’d still have a situation in which there are a lot of folks who are poor and whose families have become dysfunctional because of a long legacy of poverty, and live in neighborhoods that are run down and schools that are underfunded and don’t have a strong property tax base.  And it would still be harder for young people born into those communities to succeed than those who were born elsewhere.”

Obama Marks the 50
th Anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” Speech by Emphasizing America’s Racial Inequity

On August 28, 2013, Obama said:

  • “To secure the gains this country has made requires constant vigilance, not complacency. Whether it’s by challenging those who erect new barriers to the vote or ensuring that the scales of justice work equally for all in the criminal justice system and not simply a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails….“Yes, there have been examples of success within black America that would have been unimaginable a half-century ago. But as has already been noted, black unemployment has remained almost twice as high as white employment, Latino unemployment close behind. The gap in wealth between races has not lessened, it’s grown….

Obama Laments America’s Historical and Continuing Racial Injustice:

In a December 4, 2013 speech on the U.S. economy, President Obama said: “[I]t’s true that the painful legacy of discrimination means that African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans are far more likely to suffer from a lack of opportunity — higher unemployment, higher poverty rates…. So we’re going to need strong application of anti-discrimination laws. We’re going to need immigration reform that grows the economy and takes people out of the shadows. We’re going to need targeted initiatives to close those gaps.”

Obama Commutes the Sentences of Eight Crack-Cocaine Offenders Convicted under “Unfair System”

  • On December 19, 2013, President Obama commuted the prison sentences of 8 (nonwhite) individuals who had been imprisoned for more than 15 years apiece for crack cocaine offenses committed at a time when the penalties for the possession of crack, a drug most often used by poor blacks, were approximately 100 times harsher than the penalties for possession of powder cocaine, whose users were typically affluent whites. (In 2010 Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which narrowed the disparity of those penalties considerably.)One of the individuals whose sentences Obama commuted was a first cousin of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, one of the president’s most loyal supporters. Patrick’s cousin, Reynolds Allen Wintersmith Jr., had been sentenced to life in prison in 1994 for cocaine possession and conspiracy to distribute cocaine and its products on behalf of a gang known as the Gangster Disciples.Said Obama in a statement: “I am commuting the prison terms of eight men and women who were sentenced under an unfair system. Commuting the sentences of these eight Americans is an important step toward restoring fundamental ideals of justice and fairness…. If they had been sentenced under the current law, many of them would have already served their time and paid their debt to society. Instead, because of a disparity in the law that is now recognized as unjust, they remain in prison, separated from their families and their communities, at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars each year.”In addition to the 8 sentences he commuted, Obama also pardoned 13 individuals convicted of crack cocaine offenses.Further, Obama urged Congress to approve additional sentencing-reform measures to ensure “that our justice system keeps its basic promise of equal treatment for all.”

Federal Hate-Crime Charge Against White Perpetrator of the “Knockout Game”

  • In the fall of 2013, media outlets like Breitbart News, Truth Revolt, and Fox News reported extensively on the growing prevalence of the so-called “knockout game,” whereby groups of black teenagers were targeting defenseless and unsuspecting white, Jewish, and Asian pedestrians and blindsiding them with roundhouse punches designed to render the victims unconscious. Accomplices to the perpetrators commonly captured these attacks on video and posted them, as a form of celebration, to the website YouTube. Hundreds of these knockout-game incidents had occurred in cities nationwide since 2010. Many had resulted in serious injuries, and in several cases the victims had died.The Obama administration, however, never took action against any of the perpetrators until December 2013, when Obama’s Justice Department filed a federal hate-crimes charge against a 27-year-old Texas white man who targeted a 79-year-old black man with a “knockout-game” attack (which he also videotaped and subsequently boasted about to strangers).

Obama Says Racism Causes Some Voters to Dislike Him

In the January 27, 2014 issue of the New Yorker magazine, President Obama said: “There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president.” “Now, the flip side of it,” added Obama, “is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president.”

Obama Lauds Al Sharpton and Warns That Voting Rights for Blacks Are in Peril

On April 11, 2014, President Obama spoke at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network convention in New York and said to Sharpton: “Of course, one thing that has not changed is your commitment to problems of civil rights for everybody and opportunity for all people.”

Focusing also on the issue of Republican proposals to tighten ID requirements for voting in political elections, Obama claimed that such measures would unfairly ­make it more difficult for millions of Americans to cast their ballots. Said Obama, to thunderous applause: “America did not stand up and did not march and did not sacrifice to gain the right to vote for themselves and others only to see it denied to their kids and their grandchildren. The stark, simple truth is this: The right to vote is threatened today.”

Obama Denounces the Death Penalty and Laments the “Significant Problems” Associated with the Execution of a Particular, Remorseless Black Murderer

On April 20, 2014, a 38-year-old, black Oklahoma man named Clayton Lockett was executed by lethal injection because he had raped and murdered a 19-year-old girl named Stephanie Neiman fifteen years earlier. The injection procedure was botched, however, and it took a full 43 minutes after the drug was administered before Lockett died. A TulsaWorld.com report provided background on the crime that had led to this execution:

Stephanie Neiman … was dropping off a friend at a Perry [Oklahoma] residence on June 3, 1999, the same evening Clayton Lockett and two accomplices decided to pull a home invasion robbery there. Neiman fought Lockett when he tried to take the keys to her truck.

The men beat her and used duct tape to bind her hands and cover her mouth. Even after being kidnapped and driven to a dusty country road, Neiman didn’t back down when Lockett asked if she planned to contact police.

The men had also beaten and kidnapped Neiman’s friend along with Bobby Bornt, who lived in the residence, and Bornt’s 9-month-old baby….

Neiman was forced to watch as Lockett’s accomplice, Shawn Mathis, spent 20 minutes digging a shallow grave in a ditch beside the road. Her friends saw Neiman standing in the ditch and heard a single shot.

Lockett returned to the truck because the gun had jammed. He later said he could hear Neiman pleading, “Oh God, please, please” as he fixed the shotgun. The men could be heard “laughing about how tough Stephanie was” before Lockett shot Neiman a second time.

He ordered Mathis to bury her, despite the fact that Mathis informed him Stephanie was still alive.

A few days after Lockett’s execution, a foreign reporter raised the issue with Obama and compared America’s use of the death penalty to that of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China. After conceding that the death penalty might be appropriate in a very “terrible” crime such as “mass killing” or “the killings of children,” Obama went on to denounce the capital punishment generally:

“The application of the death penalty in this country, we have seen significant problems — racial bias, uneven application of the death penalty, you know, situations in which there were individuals on death row who later on were discovered to have been innocent because of exculpatory evidence. And all these, I think, do raise significant questions about how the death penalty is being applied. And this situation in Oklahoma I think just highlights some of the significant problems there.

“So I’ll be discussing with Eric Holder and others, you know — you know, to get me an analysis of what steps have been taken, not just in this particular instance, but more broadly in this area. I think we do have to, as a society, ask ourselves some difficult and profound questions around these issues.”

Obama and a White Police Officer’s Killing of Black Teenager Michael Brown

On August 14, 2014, Obama addressed the riots that had been raging in recent days in response to the August 9 kiling — by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri — of an unarmed 18-year-old black male named Michael Brown in circumstances that were not yet clear. While he called for “unity” and calm, the president also issued a sternly worded reprimand to the police:

“This morning, I received a thorough update on the situation from Attorney General Eric Holder, who’s been following and been in communication with his team. I’ve already tasked the Department of Justice and the FBI to independently investigate the death of Michael Brown, along with local officials on the ground. The Department of Justice is also consulting with local authorities about ways that they can maintain public safety without restricting the right of peaceful protest and while avoiding unnecessary escalation. I made clear to the attorney general that we should do what is necessary to help determine exactly what happened and to see that justice is done….

“Of course, it’s important to remember how this started. We lost a young man, Michael Brown, in heartbreaking and tragic circumstances. He was 18 years old, and his family will never hold Michael in their arms again. And when something like this happens, the local authorities, including the police, have a responsibility to be open and transparent about how they are investigating that death and how they are protecting the people in their communities. There is never an excuse for violence against police or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting. There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests or to throw protesters in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights. And here in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground.”

On August 18, Obama said: “In too many communities, too many young men of color are left behind and left as objects to fear. Part of the ongoing challenge of perfecting our union has involved dealing with communities that feel left behind.” And in light of the fact that some police in Ferguson were employing tanks and riot gear in order to deal with the looters, Obama stated: “There is no excuse for excessive force by police…. I think it’s probably useful for us to review how the funding has gone, how local law enforcement has used grant dollars, to make sure that what they’re purchasing [such as military equipment] is stuff that they actually need. There is a big difference between our military and our local law enforcement, and we don’t want those lines blurred.”

At the annual Congressional Black Caucus Awards Dinner in Washington, DC on September 28, 2014, President Obama said his administration was working to close “the justice gap” between whites and nonwhites. A key consideration, he explained, was not merely “how justice is applied, but also how it is perceived, how it is experienced.” Citing the shooting of Michael Brown as well as other incidents, Obama lamented that “too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement, guilty of walking while black, or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.” The racial disparities in everything from traffic stops to criminal sentences, said the president, feeds the widespread belief that “the criminal justice system doesn’t treat people of all races equally.” “That has a corrosive effect,” he added, “not just on the black community. It has a corrosive effect on America.”

On November 5, 2014 — the day after Democrats had lost the U.S. Senate in the midterm elections — Obama met at the White House with protest leaders from Ferguson and urged them to “stay on course” with their activism. Among those with whom he met was Al Sharpton.

On the night of November 24, 2014 — less than an hour after a Ferguson, Missouri grand jury decided not to indict the police officer who had shot and killed Michael Brown — Obama delivered a televised address to the nation. Among his remarks were assertions that because “we are a nation built on the rule of law,… we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make”; that “anyone who protests this decision [should] do so peacefully”; that “our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day”; and that “we have made enormous progress in race relations over the course of the past several decades.” But the bulk of his address contained references to the ongoing inequities allegedly plaguing American society and its criminal-justice system, and the rage spawned by those inequities. For example:

* “There are Americans who agree with [the grand jury decision], and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction.”

* “I also appeal to the law enforcement officials in Ferguson and the region to show care and restraint in managing peaceful protests that may occur….  As they do their jobs in the coming days, they need to work with the community, not against the community, to distinguish the handful of people who may use the grand jury’s decision as an excuse for violence. Distinguish them from the vast majority who just want their voices heard around legitimate issues in terms of how communities and law enforcement interact.”

* “[W]e need to recognize that the situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation. The fact is in too many parts of this country a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color. Some of this is the result of the legacy of racial discrimination in this country…. I’ve instructed Attorney General Holder to work with cities across the country to help build better relations between communities and law enforcement. That means working with law enforcement officials to make sure their ranks are representative of the communities they serve. We know that makes a difference. It means working to train officials so that law enforcement conducts itself in a way that is fair to everybody.”

* “[W]e know that there are communities who’ve been able to deal with this in an effective way, but also who are interested in working with this administration and local and state officials to start tackling much-needed criminal justice reform. So, those should be the lessons that we draw from these tragic events. We need to recognize that this is not just an issue for Ferguson. This is an issue for America.”

* “[T]here are still problems, and communities of color aren’t just making these problems up. Separating that from this particular decision, there are issues in which the law too often feels as if it is being applied in a discriminatory fashion. I don’t think that’s the norm. I don’t think that’s true for the majority of communities or the vast majority of law enforcement officials. But these are real issues. And we have to lift them up and not deny them or try to tamp them down. What we need to do is understand them and figure out how do we make more progress.”

* “[T]hose who are only interested in focusing on the violence and just want the problem to go away need to recognize that we do have work to do here and we shouldn’t try to paper it over. Whenever we do that, the anger may momentarily subside, but over time, it builds up and America isn’t everything that it could be. And I am confident that if we focus our attention on the problem and we look at what has happened in communities around the country effectively, then we can make progress not just in Ferguson but in a lot of other cities and communities around the country.”

The following day — November 25, 2014 — Obama spoke at Copernicus Community Center in Chicago and again addressed the riots and protests that were taking place not only in Ferguson but throughout the country. Stating that violence was both counterproductive and wrong, he also said that “the frustrations that we have seen are not just about a particular incident” but “have deep roots in many communities of color, who have a sense that our laws are not always being enforced uniformly or fairly”; that “that’s an impression that folks have and it’s not just made up” but is “rooted in reality”; that it was vital “to have real conversations about how do we change the situation so that there’s more trust between law enforcement and some of these communities”; that “I have instructed attorney general Eric Holder not just to investigate what happened in Ferguson, but [to] also identify specific steps we can take together to set up a series of regional meetings focused on building trust in our communities”; that changes were necessary to ensure “that law enforcement is fair and is being applied equally to every person in this country”; and that “if we train police properly, that … improves policing and makes people feel that the system is fair.”

In a primetime address that same day in Chicago, Obama expressed his support for the Ferguson protesters by declaring: “So my message to those people who are constructively moving forward, trying to mobilize, organize and … I want those folks to know their president is going to work with them.”

In March 2015, the Justice Department released an 87-page report stating conclusively that — based on physical, forensic, and eyewitness testimony — the shooting of Michael Brown was justifiable. This was accompanied by a report accusing the Ferguson Police Department of discriminating consistently and egregiously against African Americans. In reponse to that second report, Obama said that while racism may be “no longer endemic,” as it had been a half-century earlier, the DOJ report showed that the “nation’s racial history still casts its long shadow upon us.” Moreover, after noting that just as “you can’t generalize about police officers who do an extraordinarily tough job [and] overwhelmingly they do it professionally,” “you can’t generalize about protesters who it turns out had some very legitimate grievances.” Added Obama: “The Justice Department report showed that African Americans were being stopped disproportionately, mainly so the city could raise money even though these were unjust. What was happening in Ferguson was you had city government telling the Police Department … ‘Stop more people. We need to raise more money.’ Folks would get stopped. They’d get tickets. Then, they’d have to wait in line to pay it, take a day off work. Folks would lose their jobs. In some cases, they were thrown in jail because they didn’t have enough money for the fines. And then they’d get fined for that. So there was a whole structure there, according to the Justice Department report, that indicated both racism and just a disregard for what law enforcement’s supposed to do.”

John R. Lott — president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and a former chief economist for the United States Sentencing Commission — explained that the DOJ report that smeared the Ferguson Police Department was a deeply flawed piece of propaganda. Wrote Lott:

The Justice report doesn’t prove disparate treatment, let alone discrimination. In fact, it looks more like something ginned up to distract from the embarrassing fact that Justice (in another report released the same day) wound up fully validating the findings of the Ferguson grand jury.

Racism is serious, and those engaging in it should be shamed — but we should have real evidence before accusing others of it. And every one of the Justice report’s main claims of evidence of discrimination falls short. Starting with the primary numerical claim. The report notes on Page 4: “Ferguson’s law-enforcement practices overwhelmingly impact African-Americans…. Data collected by the Ferguson Police Department from 2012 to 2014 shows that African-Americans account for 85 percent of vehicle stops, 90 percent of citations, and 93 percent of arrests made by FPD officers, despite comprising only 67 percent of Ferguson’s population.”

Those statistics don’t prove racism, because blacks don’t commit traffic offenses at the same rate as other population groups.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2011 Police-Public Contact Survey indicates that, nationwide, blacks were 31 percent more likely than whites to be pulled over for a traffic stop. Ferguson is a black-majority town. If its blacks were pulled over at the same rate as blacks nationally, they’d account for 87.5 percent of traffic stops. In other words, the numbers actually suggest that Ferguson police may be slightly less likely to pull over black drivers than are their national counterparts. They certainly don’t show that Ferguson is a hotbed of racism.

Critics may assert that that “31 percent more likely” figure simply shows that racism is endemic to police forces nationwide.
Hmm: The survey also reveals that men are 42 percent more likely than women to be pulled over for traffic stops. Should we conclude that police are biased against men, or that men drive more recklessly?

In fact, blacks die in car accidents at a rate about twice their share of car owners. A 2006 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study found that black drivers who were killed in accidents have the highest rate of past convictions for speeding and for other moving violations. This suggests that there are a lot of unsafe black drivers, not racism.

The Justice report on Ferguson continues, “African-Americans are at least 50 percent more likely to have their cases lead to an arrest warrant, and accounted for 92 percent of cases in which an arrest warrant was issued by the Ferguson Municipal Court in 2013.”

Again, this pretends that a mere difference is evidence of discrimination. But the report’s statistic doesn’t even look at whether people pay their fine or appear in court — something that makes a big difference in whether to issue a warrant. Could it be that blacks are more likely to face particularly serious charges? Since Justice has gone through the case files, it could easily have answered the questions. Perhaps it didn’t like the answers. (Unfortunately, no national data are available for comparison.)

Another major complaint in the Justice report: “Most strikingly, the court issues municipal arrest warrants not on the basis of public-safety needs, but rather as a routine response to missed court appearances and required fine payments.” If you think that this is unique to Ferguson, try not paying your next speeding ticket.

As for the anecdotal evidence Justice offers to bring home this complaint, well, here’s an anecdote from Washington, DC — a town with a black mayor and black-majority city council. Megan Johnson, a black DC woman, recently failed to pay 10 parking tickets within the allotted 30 days. The city doubled her fines from $500 to $1,000, then booted, towed and sold her car — and charged her $700 for towing and impounding it. DC sold the car at auction for $500 and won’t even credit that amount to what she owes. It’s now attaching her tax refunds. Justice’s Ferguson anecdotes no more prove racism than Megan Johnson’s experience proves the DC government is racist.

Finally, for “direct evidence of racial bias,” the report describes seven emails from Ferguson police officers from 2008 to 2011 that Justice describes as offensive to blacks, women, Muslims, President Obama and his wife, and possibly people of mixed race.
But this begs some big questions: Did only one or two of the 53 officers send the emails? Did the objectionable emails end in 2011 because those officers no longer worked for the department or were told to stop?

The Justice Department’s report reads as a prosecutor’s brief, not an unbiased attempt to get at the truth, with evidence carefully selected and portrayed in the strongest possible light. Differences don’t necessarily imply racism, but the Obama Justice Department doesn’t seem to care.


Details of How Obama and the DOJ Report Smeared the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department As Racist

On March 4, 2015, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released an 87-page report stating conclusively that based on the physical and eyewitness evidence, Officer Darren Wilson’s fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri (in August 2014) was justified; that Wilson’s version of events was consistent with the physical and eyewitness evidence; and that just prior to the shooting, Brown in fact had assaulted Wilson, tried to steal his gun, and charged at him in an effort to harm or kill him. Notwithstanding these facts, President Obama, in the days that followed, announced that the Ferguson Police Department was awash in racism and discrimination against African Americans. Said Obama at a town hall-style meeting in South Carolina: “What we saw was that the Ferguson Police Department in conjunction with the municipality saw traffic stops, arrests, tickets as a revenue generator, as opposed to serving the community, and that it systematically was biased against African Americas in that city who were stopped, harassed, mistreated, abused, called names, fined.”

“[T]he Department of Justice’s Ferguson … report’s narrative was woefully familiar,” said Obama. “It evoked the kind of abuse and disregard for citizens that spawned the Civil Rights Movement.”He stated that unless the city of Ferguson agreed to “enter into some sort of agreement with the Justice Department to fix what is clearly a broken and racially biased system,” the Justice Department would use its “capacity to sue the city for violations of the rights of the people of Ferguson.”

The evidence included a number of emails that Justice Department investigators cited as examples of “racial bias among police and court staff in Ferguson” — emails including jokes about President Obama, Michelle Obama, African Americans, and Muslims. The DOJ report listed 7 of these emails:

  1. November 2008: An e-mail said that President Obama would not be president for very long because: “[W]hat black man holds a steady job for four years?”
  2. March 2010: An e-mail mocked African Americans through a story involving child support. One line from the e-mail read: “I be so glad that dis be my last child support payment! Month after month, year after year, all dose payments!”
  3. April 2011: An e-mail depicted Obama as a chimpanzee.
  4. May 2011: An e-mail said: “An African-American woman in New Orleans was admitted into the hospital for a pregnancy termination. Two weeks later she received a check for $5,000. She phoned the hospital to ask who it was from. The hospital said, ‘Crimestoppers.’”
  5. June 2011: An e-mail described a man seeking to obtain “welfare” for his dogs because they are “mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can’t speak English and have no frigging clue who their Daddies are.”
  6. October 2011: An e-mail included a photo of a group of bare-chested women dancing, seemingly in Africa, with the caption, “Michelle Obama’s High School Reunion.”
  7. December 2011: An e-mail included jokes that are based on offensive stereotypes about Muslims.

The DOJ said that these and other emails showed “racial or ethnic bias, as well as other forms of bias.”

The DOJ report further stated that though blacks made up 67% of residents in Ferguson, from 2011 to 2013 they accounted for 85% of vehicle stops, 90% of citations, and 93% of arrests. These statistics were cited as examples of systemic police racism.

Moreover, the report cited anecdotal evidence consisting of testimony by black residents who told investigators stories of being harassed by police for no apparent reason.

Obama Meets with Sharpton Regarding Police Department Reform

On December 1, 2014, President Obama met with Al Sharpton at the White House to discuss matters related to the Michael Brown shooting and police-department reform. News reports indicated that Obama would demand $263 million from Congress to put 50,000 body-worn cameras in U.S. police departments and train local officers in the  proper use pf surplus military equipment. Brown’s parents had pushed for the use of cameras as one way to reduce distrust between police and nonwhites. In August, the administration had said that it agreed with the idea in principle, writing: “We support the use of cameras and video technology by law enforcement officers, and the Department of Justice continues to research best practices for implementation.”

Al Sharpton Has Become Obama’s Chief Advisor on Racial Issues

In August 2014, Politico.com published a feature story titled, “How Al Sharpton Became Obama’s Go-To Man on Race.” The piece stated that “Sharpton not only visits the White House frequently, he often texts or emails with senior Obama officials such as [Valerie] Jarrett and Attorney General Eric Holder.” It quoted Jesse Jackson saying, “I’ve known Al since he was 12 years old, and he’s arrived at the level he always wanted to arrive at, which is gratifying. He’s the man who’s the liaison to the White House, he’s the one who’s talking to the Justice Department.” Sharpton himself, meanwhile, offered his own assessment of how he had bonded with Obama: “The relationship evolved over time…. The key for him was seeing that I wasn’t insincere, that I actually believed in the stuff I was talking about.”

In a subsequent New York Times piece, Obama was quoted as having said of Sharpton: “You can do business with that guy.”

From January 2009 through December 2014, Sharpton visited the Obama White House on 72 separate occasions, including 5 one-on-one meetings with the president and 20 meetings with staff members or senior advisers. Most of the other visits occurred when Sharpton attended group or public events.

Obama Sees Racism As the Cause of Opposition to Immigration Reform

In an August 2014 interview with The Economist, President Obama derided “the dysfunction of a Republican Party that knows we need immigration reform, knows that it would actually be good for its long-term prospects, but is captive to the nativist elements in its party.”

Obama Says Racism in America Is “Deeply Rooted”

In a December 2014 interview with Black Entertainment Television, President Obama said that racism “is something that is deeply rooted in our society, it’s deeply rooted in our history.” He added: “When you’re dealing with something as deeply rooted as racism or bias, you’ve got to have vigilance but you have to recognize that it’s going to take some time, and you just have to be steady so you don’t give up when we don’t get all the way there. This isn’t going to be solved overnight.”

Obama Cites the Continuing “Legacy of Slavery”

In an October 2014 New Yorker article, President Obama was quoted saying that the biggest issues concerning race are “rooted in economics and the legacy of slavery,” which have created “vastly different opportunities for African-Americans and whites.” He added: “I understand, certainly sitting in this office, that probably the single most important thing I could do for poor black kids is to make sure that they’re getting a good K-through-12 education. And, if they’re coming out of high school well prepared, then they’ll be able to compete for university slots and jobs. And that has more to do with budgets and early-childhood education and stuff that needs to be legislated.”

Obama Discusses Society’s Continuing Racism

In A December 2014 interview with People magazine, Obama said: “The small irritations or indignities that we experience are nothing compared to what a previous generation experienced. It’s one thing for me to be mistaken for a waiter at a gala [an alleged incident that Mrs. Obama had just recounted to the interviewer]. It’s another thing for my son to be mistaken for a robber and to be handcuffed, or worse, if he happens to be walking down the street and is dressed the way teenagers dress.”

Obama also told People: “There’s no black male my age, who’s a professional, who hasn’t come out of a restaurant and is waiting for their car and somebody didn’t hand them their car keys.”

The President also said that he and Mrs. Obama had often encouraged their daughters to reflect on racial stereotypes, particularly “how they think they should have to act as African-American girls.” “Around the dinner table,” he added, “we’re pointing out to them that too often in our society black boys are still perceived as more dangerous, and it will be part of their generation’s task to try to eradicate those stereotypes.”

Obama Says America Has a Long History of Mistreating Blacks, and That White Police Fear Black People

In December 2014, President Obama said: “This country is at its best when everybody is being treated fairly. We have a history and a legacy of people not being treated fairly in all kinds of walks of life. It is particularly important for people to feel like they’re being treated fairly by law enforcement and police, because the consequences when they’re not treated fairly can be deadly. And, you know, I’ve said it before, the vast majority of law enforcement officers are doing a really tough job, and most of them are doing it well and are trying to do the right thing. But a combination of bad training, in some cases, a combination in some cases of departments that really are not trying to root out biases, or tolerate sloppy police work. A combination, in some cases of folks just not knowing any better, and in a lot of cases, subconscious fear of folks who look different, all of this contributes to a national problem that’s going to require a national solution.”

Obama’s Speech on the 50th Anniversary of the Selma Civil-Rights March

On March 7, 2015 in Selma, Alabama, President Obama took part in a ceremony commemorating the famous civil-rights march that had taken place there 50 years earlier. Below are some noteworthy excerpts from the speech he delivered to those in attendance. His comments placed a heavy emphasis on America’s historical, and continuing, transgressions and injustices:

* “They marched [in Selma in 1965] as Americans who had endured hundreds of years of brutal violence, and countless daily indignities – but they didn’t seek special treatment, just the equal treatment promised to them almost a century before.”

In what might have been a retort to critics who had long referred to Obama as a Communist/Marxist, and to other critics (like Rudolph Giuliani) who had expressed doubt about his patriotism and love of country, the president said: “As we commemorate their achievement, we are well-served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them. Back then, they were called Communists, half-breeds, outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse – everything but the name their parents gave them. Their faith was questioned. Their lives were threatened. Their patriotism was challenged.”

* “It’s the idea held by generations of citizens who believed that America is a constant work in progress; who believed that loving this country requires more than singing its praises or avoiding uncomfortable truths. It requires the occasional disruption, the willingness to speak out for what’s right and shake up the status quo.”

* “Because of what they did, the doors of opportunity swung open not just for African-Americans, but for every American. Women marched through those doors. Latinos marched through those doors. Asian-Americans, gay Americans, and Americans with disabilities came through those doors. Their endeavors gave the entire South the chance to rise again, not by reasserting the past, but by transcending the past.”

* “[A] more common mistake is to suggest that racism is banished, that the work that drew men and women to Selma is complete, and that whatever racial tensions remain are a consequence of those seeking to play the ‘race card’ for their own purposes…. We just need to open our eyes, and ears, and hearts, to know that this nation’s racial history still casts its long shadow upon us. We know the march is not yet over, the race is not yet won, and that reaching that blessed destination where we are judged by the content of our character – requires admitting as much.”

* “With such effort, we can make sure our criminal justice system serves all and not just some. Together, we can raise the level of mutual trust that policing is built on – the idea that police officers are members of the communities they risk their lives to protect, and citizens in Ferguson and New York and Cleveland just want the same thing young people here marched for – the protection of the law. Together, we can address unfair sentencing, and overcrowded prisons, and the stunted circumstances that rob too many boys of the chance to become men, and rob the nation of too many men who could be good dads, and workers, and neighbors.”

“[W]e can protect the foundation stone of our democracy for which so many marched across this bridge – and that is the right to vote. Right now, in 2015, fifty years after Selma, there are laws [Voter ID laws] across this country designed to make it harder for people to vote. As we speak, more of such laws are being proposed. Meanwhile, the Voting Rights Act, the culmination of so much blood and sweat and tears, the product of so much sacrifice in the face of wanton violence, stands weakened, its future subject to partisan rancor.”

* In a reference to the millions of illegal immigrants who had crossed the Mexico-U.S. Border – and to whom Obama had recently granted executive amnesty from deportation – the president made reference to “the hopeful strivers who cross the Rio Grande because they want their kids to know a better life..”

* He made reference to “the slaves who built the White House,” “Japanese-Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied,” and “the gay Americans whose blood ran on the streets of San Francisco and New York.”

Obama Advocates Mandatory Voting, Because It Would Be Politically “Transformative”

During a March 18, 2015 speech in Cleveland, Obama said: “In Australia, and some other countries, there’s mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted [in America]. That would counteract money more than anything. If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country, because the people who tend not to vote are young; they’re lower income; they’re skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups; and they’re often the folks who are — they’re scratching and climbing to get into the middle class. And they’re working hard, and there’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls. We should want to get them into the polls. So that may end up being a better strategy in the short term.”

Defense Department Says the Bible, the Constitution and the Declaration Of Independence All Perpetuate Racism and Sexism

In April 2015, the Daily Caller reported that according to a Defense Department-approved “sexism course” prepared by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), – an entity whose mission is to provide a “world-class human relations education” – the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence are all “historical influences that allow sexism to continue.” For example, the course teaches that:

* the Bible contains “quotes” that certain readers can interpret as sexist;

* the Declaration of Independence refers only to the rights of “all men” — not “men and women”;
* the Constitution’s reference to “We the people” only included white men, not women or black slaves;

* institutional discrimination is today widespread throughout all aspects of American society, including employment, education, housing, and the military;
* “individuals who have been segregated to inferior schools cannot find employment in businesses that hire according to specified credentials that inferior schools do not offer”;
* academic tests “may have inherent cultural bias”;
* textbooks promote discrimination because they “provide little or no information on minority groups, especially minority histories and the contributions that minorities have made to American culture”; and
* individuals can discriminate in both active and inactive ways, including: (a) “refusing to acknowledge one’s own privilege,” and (b) wrongly “considering prejudices and discrimination to be a thing of a past.”

Obama Uses the Baltimore Riots As an Opportunity to Call for More Federal Welfare Spending and to Condemn the Criminal-Justice System

In April 2015, as the city of Baltimore was being overrun by black riots in response to the death of a black suspect while he was in police custody, President Obama issued a brief and obligatory denunciation of the violence and then proceeded to devote the vast majority of his attention to the need for: (a) more federal spending on programs for poor minorities, and (b) reforms to a racially discriminatory criminal-justice system. Said Obama:

“We can’t just leave this to the police. I think there are police departments that have to do some soul searching.  I think there are some communities that have to do some soul searching.  But I think we, as a country, have to do some soul searching.  This is not new.  It’s been going on for decades.

“And without making any excuses for criminal activities that take place in these communities, what we also know is that if you have impoverished communities that have been stripped away of opportunity, where children are born into abject poverty; they’ve got parents — often because of substance-abuse problems or incarceration or lack of education themselves — can’t do right by their kids; if it’s more likely that those kids end up in jail or dead, than they go to college.  In communities where there are no fathers who can provide guidance to young men; communities where there’s no investment, and manufacturing has been stripped away; and drugs have flooded the community, and the drug industry ends up being the primary employer for a whole lot of folks — in those environments, if we think that we’re just going to send the police to do the dirty work of containing the problems that arise there without as a nation and as a society saying what can we do to change those communities, to help lift up those communities and give those kids opportunity, then we’re not going to solve this problem.  And we’ll go through the same cycles of periodic conflicts between the police and communities and the occasional riots in the streets, and everybody will feign concern until it goes away, and then we go about our business as usual.

“If we are serious about solving this problem, then we’re going to not only have to help the police, we’re going to have to think about what can we do — the rest of us — to make sure that we’re providing early education to these kids; to make sure that we’re reforming our criminal justice system so it’s not just a pipeline from schools to prisons; so that we’re not rendering men in these communities unemployable because of a felony record for a nonviolent drug offense; that we’re making investments so that they can get the training they need to find jobs.  That’s hard.  That requires more than just the occasional news report or task force.  And there’s a bunch of my agenda that would make a difference right now in that.

“Now, I’m under no illusion that out of this Congress we’re going to get massive investments in urban communities, and so we’ll try to find areas where we can make a difference around school reform and around job training, and around some investments in infrastructure in these communities trying to attract new businesses in.

“But if we really want to solve the problem, if our society really wanted to solve the problem, we could.  It’s just it would require everybody saying this is important, this is significant — and that we don’t just pay attention to these communities when a CVS burns, and we don’t just pay attention when a young man gets shot or has his spine snapped.  We’re paying attention all the time because we consider those kids our kids, and we think they’re important.  And they shouldn’t be living in poverty and violence…. I think we all understand that the politics of that are tough because it’s easy to ignore those problems or to treat them just as a law and order issue, as opposed to a broader social issue.”

Obama Says Police Misconduct Is a Crisis with a Long History

Also in April 2015, while Baltimore was being overrun by black riots in response to the death of a black suspect while he was in police custody, President Obama said: “Since Ferguson, and the task force that we put together, we have seen too many instances of what appears to be police officers interacting with individuals — primarily African American, often poor — in ways that have raised troubling questions.  And it comes up, it seems like, once a week now, or once every couple of weeks.  And so I think it’s pretty understandable why the leaders of civil rights organizations but, more importantly, moms and dads across the country, might start saying this is a crisis.  What I’d say is this has been a slow-rolling crisis.  This has been going on for a long time.  This is not new, and we shouldn’t pretend that it’s new…”

Obama Discusses Society’s, and the Criminal-Justice System’s, Discrimination Against Nonwhites

In a May 4, 2015 address at Lehman College in New York, President Obama said the following:

“You all know the numbers.  By almost every measure, the life chances of the average young man of color is worse than his peers.  Those opportunity gaps begin early — often at birth — and they compound over time, becoming harder and harder to bridge, making too many young men and women feel like no matter how hard they try, they may never achieve their dreams.

“And that sense of unfairness and of powerlessness, of people not hearing their voices, that’s helped fuel some of the protests that we’ve seen in places like Baltimore, and Ferguson, and right here in New York.  The catalyst of those protests were the tragic deaths of young men and a feeling that law is not always applied evenly in this country.  In too many places in this country, black boys and black men, Latino boys, Latino men, they experience being treated differently by law enforcement — in stops and in arrests, and in charges and incarcerations.  The statistics are clear, up and down the criminal justice system; there’s no dispute….

“And that’s why, over a year ago, we launched something we call My Brother’s Keeper — an initiative to address those persistent opportunity gaps and ensure that all of our young people, but particularly young men of color, have a chance to go as far as their dreams will take them.  It’s an idea that we pursued in the wake of Trayvon Martin’s death because we wanted the message sent from the White House in a sustained way that his life mattered, that the lives of the young men who are here today matter, that we care about your future — not just sometimes, but all the time.”

Obama Speaks with David Letterman about Race and the Need to Spend More Money on Programs for Urban Blacks

In a May 4, 2015 appearance on CBS’s Late Show with David Letterman, Obama said:

* “[F]for far too long, for decades, you have a situation in which too many communities don’t have a relationship of trust with the police, and if you just have a handful of police who are not doing the right thing, that makes the job tougher for all the other police officers out there. It creates an environment in the community where they feel as if, rather than being protected and served, they’re the targets of arbitrary arrests or stops, and so our job has to be to rebuild trust.”

” “[T]his is not just a policing problem. What you have are pockets of poverty, lack of opportunity, lack of education, all across this country. And too often we ignore those pockets until something happens, and then we act surprised. We have the TV cameras come in. And essentially, we put the police officers in a really tough spot where we say to them, ‘just contain the problem.’ And so if young African-American men are being shot, but it’s not affecting us, we’ll just kind of paper that over. And part of the message that I’m trying to deliver is, look, you’ve got a [crisis] in these communities that’s been going on for years, where too many young people don’t have hope, they don’t see opportunity, there aren’t enough jobs. We’ve created an approach to drugs that leads to mass incarcerations. So, then you have no father figures in these communities. When those folks get out of prison, they can’t get a job because they’ve got a felony record. So, today part of what I did in New York was to announce some different initiatives around what we’re calling My Brother’s Keepers. How can we send a message to young people of color and minorities, particularly young men, saying ‘your lives do matter, we do care about you, but we’re going to invest in you before you have problems with the police, before there’s the kind of crisis we see in Baltimore. We’re going to make sure you’ve got early childhood education, we’re going to make sure that you have an opportunity to graduate, and go to college, you’ve got mentors, and apprenticeships,’ and that kind of sustained effort, I think, is what we have to see in this country, not just the episodic spasms of interest when something tragic happens.”

* [Racism is] a residual factor, but also a buildup of our history, and we can’t ignore that. Look, if you have slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination that built up over time, even if our society has made extraordinary strides, and I’m a testament to that…but, it’s built up over time. So, if you have 100 years in which certain communities can only live in certain places, or the men in those communities can only get menial labor, or they can’t start a particular trade because it’s closed to them, or if they’re trying to buy a house or a car, it’s more expensive. And over time that builds up. You know, that results in communities that — where the kids who are born there are not going to have as good of a shot. And we don’t have to sort of accuse everybody of racism today to acknowledge that that’s part of our past, and if we want to get past that, then we’ve got to make a little bit of an extra effort.”

Obama Makes Reference to America’s Racism and Injustice

In his weekly address to the nation in mid-May 2015, President Obama asserted that unfairness and a lack of opportunity was continuing to hinder the poorest of communities from reaching the American dream. He called for programs that would not only create opportunity, but also build trust between police and nonwhite communities. Said Obama: “What we’ve long understood, though, is that some communities have consistently had the odds stacked against them. That sense of unfairness and powerlessness has helped to fuel the kind of unrest that we’ve seen in places like Baltimore, Ferguson, and New York. It has many causes — from a basic lack of opportunity to groups feeling unfairly targeted by police – which means there’s no single solution. But there are many that could make a different and could help. And we have to do everything in our power to make this country’s promise real for everyone willing to work for it.”

Obama Administration Apologizes to the UN Human Rights Council, for America’s Racist and Overly Aggressive Police

In May 2015 the Obama State Department issued a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) citing a host of alleged human-rights violations by the U.S.  According to Breitbart.com, the transgressions cited in the report focused heavily on race- and sex-based injustices. For example:

  • Police brutality, including the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri
  • Discrimination against Muslims who want to build or expand mosques
  • Voter identification laws [discriminating against nonwhites] in Texas and elsewhere
  • Predatory lending in home mortgages [mainly to black borrowers]
  • [Excessive rates of] suspension of black children in schools
  • Women earning “78 cents on the dollar” (a false statistic)

For the sake of balance, the State Department report cited progress that the U.S. had made in advancing a number of leftist agenda items:

  • Promoting same-sex marriage
  • Fighting discrimination against transgender children in school
  • Executive action on illegal immigration
  • Helping illegal alien children who cross the border
  • Protecting privacy rights against government surveillance
  • Trying to close the Guantánamo Bay prison for terror detainees
  • Revoking “torture” memos for interrogating terrorists
  • Passing Obamacare
  • Expanding food stamps
  • Regulating “carbon pollution” to fight climate change

Moreover, the Obama Administration boasted that it had already prosecuted over 400 law-enforcement officials and was committed to taking down those found guilty in the future. Citing several recent high-profile cases of officers killing black criminal suspects, one Obama Administration representative said: “The tragic deaths of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Michael Brown in Missouri, Eric Garner in New York, Tamir Rice in Ohio and Walter Scott in South Carolina have renewed a long-standing and critical national debate about the even-handed administration of justice. These events challenge us to do better and to work harder for progress–through both dialogue and action.”

In response to the American mea culpas coupled with UNHRC criticisms of the U.S., the delegations of several countries mocked the United States. For instance, the Turkish delegation openly challenged America’s human right record; the Pakistani delegation expressed “serious concerns about the human rights situation in the U.S.”; the Iranian delegation called on the U.S. to “protect the rights of African-Americans against police brutality”; and the Russian delegation, voicing concern that “the human rights situation in the [United States] has seriously deteriorated,” offered seven recommendations for improving human rights in America.

Obama Cites American Racism after a White Gunman Kills 9 People in a Black Church

Shortly after a June 2015 incident where a 21-year-old white gunman had shot and killed nine members of a church prayer group in Charleston, South Carolina, President Obama spoke to the nation, delivering remarks that invoked America’s historical racial injustices and the heated debate over gun control. Among his remarks were the following:

  • “I don’t need to be constrained about the emotions tragedies like this raise. I’ve had to make comments like this too many times. Communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times. We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that, once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun…. Now is the time for mourning and healing, but let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country, will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it… I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now.”
  • “The fact that this took place in a black church also raises questions about a dark part of our history.”

Obama Says Racism and Slavery Are “Still Part of Our DNA”

Discussing the horrific shooting of nine blacks at a Charleston, South Carolina church, Obama was interviewed by comedian Mark Maron on a June 2015 podcast, where he said: “Racism, we are not cured of it. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public. That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It’s not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don’t, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior.” Obama also said that while the country had made much racial progress since he was born, the legacy of slavery “casts a long shadow and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on.”

Obama’s Eulogy for the Pastor of the Black Church in South Carolina Who Was Killed by White Gunman

On June 26, 2015, President Obama delivered the eulogy at the funeral of South Carolina state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, the pastor who was fatally shot by in his Emanuel AME Church along with eight other African Americans. Among Obama’s remarks were the following:

“The church is and always has been the center of African American life. A place to call our own in a too-often hostile world, a sanctuary from so many hardships. Over the course of centuries, black churches served as hush harbors, where slaves could worship in safety, praise houses, where their free descendants could gather and shout ‘Hallelujah.’  Rst stops for the weary along the Underground Railroad, bunkers for the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement.

“They have been and continue to community centers, where we organize for jobs and justice, places of scholarship and network, places where children are loved and fed and kept out of harm’s way and told that they are beautiful and smart and taught that they matter. That’s what happens in church. That’s what the black church means — our beating heart, the place where our dignity as a people in inviolate. There’s no better example of this tradition than Mother Emanuel, a church built by blacks seeking liberty, burned to the ground because its founders sought to end slavery only to rise up again, a phoenix from these ashes.

“When there were laws banning all-black church gatherers, services happened here anyway in defiance of unjust laws. When there was a righteous movement to dismantle Jim Crow, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. preached from its pulpit, and marches began from its steps….

“For too long, we were blind to the pain that the Confederate Flag stirred into many of our citizens. It’s true a flag did not cause these murders. But as people from all walks of life, Republicans and Democrats, now acknowledge…. As we all have to acknowledge, the flag has always represented more than just ancestral pride. For many, black and white, that flag was a reminder of systemic oppression and racial subjugation. We see that now. Removing the flag from this state’s capital would not be an act of political correctness. It would not an insult to the valor of Confederate soldiers. It would simply be acknowledgement that the cause for which they fought, the cause of slavery, was wrong. The imposition of Jim Crow after the Civil War, the resistance to civil rights for all people was wrong. It would be one step in an honest accounting of America’s history, a modest but meaningful balm for so many unhealed wounds. It would be an expression of the amazing changes that have transformed this state and this country for the better because of the work of so many people of goodwill, people of all races, striving to form a more perfect union. By taking down that flag, we express God’s grace.

“But I don’t think God wants us to stop there. For too long, we’ve been blind to be way past injustices continue to shape the present. Perhaps we see that now. Perhaps this tragedy causes us to ask some tough questions about how we can permit so many of our children to languish in poverty or attend dilapidated schools or grow up without prospects for a job or for a career.

“Perhaps it causes us to examine what we’re doing to cause some of our children to hate.

“Perhaps it softens hearts towards those lost young men, tens and tens of thousands caught up in the criminal-justice system and lead us to make sure that that system’s not infected with bias. That we embrace changes in how we train and equip our police so that the bonds of trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve make us all safer and more secure. Maybe we now realize the way a racial bias can infect us even when we don’t realize it so that we’re guarding against not just racial slurs but we’re also guarding against the subtle impulse to call Johnny back for a job interview but not Jamal.

“So that we search our hearts when we consider laws to make it harder for some of our fellow citizens to vote, by recognizing our common humanity, by treating every child as important, regardless of the color of their skin or the station into which they were born …”

Obama Decries America’s Racist Justice System

In a July 14, 2015 speech to the NAACP’s 106th annual conference in Philadelphia, Obama decried the “explosion” in America’s prison population in recent years, and he called for ending a system that had incarcerated a disproportionate share of black and Latino men for low-level offenses: “In far too many cases, the punishment simply does not fit the crime. In too many places, black boys and black men, Latino boys and Latino men, experience ­being treated differently under the law…. What is that doing to our communities? What’s that doing to [their] children? Our nation’s being robbed of men and women who could be workers and taxpayers.”

Obama Invites Muslim Boy Who Made Clock That Looked Like Bomb, to the White House

Ahmed Mohamed — a 14-year-old Muslim freshman at MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas — was suspended from his school on September 14, 2015 for bringing to school a homemade clock that resembled a bomb. When school officials accused the boy of making a fake bomb, he was also temporarily detained and handcuffed by police officers. Within two days, he had received an invitation to the White House from President Obama, as well as support from Hillary Clinton and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. “Cool clock, Ahmed,” President Obama said on Twitter. “Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It’s what makes America great.” Obama’s staff invited Ahmed to the White House for Astronomy Night festivities on October 19. “This episode is a good illustration of how pernicious stereotypes can prevent even good-hearted people who have dedicated their lives to educating young people from doing the good work that they set out to do,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.

Supporting the “Black Lives Matter” Movement

On September 16, 2015, BLM activists Brittney Packnett, DeRay McKesson, Johnetta Elzie, Phillip Agnew, and Jamye Wooten met at the White House with President Obama as well as senior advisor Valerie Jarrett and other administration officials. For Packnett, it was her seventh visit to the Obama White House. After the visit, Packnett told reporters that the president personally supported the BLM movement. “He offered us a lot of encouragement with his background as a community organizer, and told us that even incremental changes were progress,” she stated. “He didn’t want us to get discouraged. He said, ‘Keep speaking truth to power.’”

Releasing Thousands of Prisoners

On October 7, 2015, the New York Times reported that the Justice Department was “preparing to release roughly 6,000 inmates from federal prisons starting at the end of this month as part of an effort to ease overcrowding and roll back the harsh penalties given to nonviolent drug dealers in the 1980s and ’90s, according to federal law enforcement officials.” “The release will be one of the largest discharges of inmates from federal prisons in American history,” said the Times, describing it as an “effort to ease the mass incarcerations that followed decades of tough sentencing for drug offenses — like dealing crack cocaine — which have taken a particularly harsh toll on minority communities.”

Said the Washington Post: “The early release follows action by the U.S. Sentencing Commission — an independent agency that sets sentencing policies for federal crimes — that reduced the potential punishment for future drug offenders last year and then made that change retroactive. The commission’s action is separate from an effort by President Obama to grant clemency to certain nonviolent drug offenders, an initiative that has resulted in the early release of 89 inmates. The panel estimated that its change in sentencing guidelines eventually could result in 46,000 of the nation’s approximately 100,000 drug offenders in federal prison qualifying for early release. The 6,000 figure, which has not been reported previously, is the first tranche in that process.”

Declaring That Christopher Columbus’s Arrival in the New World Brought Much “Disease, Devastation, and Violence” to the Indegenous Peoples

On Columbus Day 2015, President Obama delivered a Proclamation portraying Columbus’s arrival in the New World as something that unleashed an enormous amount of suffering upon the native populations of North and Central America. While acknowledging that Columbus possessed an “insatiable thirst for exploration that continues to drive us as a people” — something that could be interpreted as an oblique allusion to what Obama views as Americans’ insatiable (and pathological) desire for wealth and power —  the president said: “Though these early travels expanded the realm of European exploration, to many they also marked a time that forever changed the world for the indigenous peoples of North America. Previously unseen disease, devastation, and violence were introduced to their lives — and as we pay tribute to the ways in which Columbus pursued ambitious goals — we also recognize the suffering inflicted upon Native Americans and we recommit to strengthening tribal sovereignty and maintaining our strong ties.”

Similarly, in his 2014 Columbus Day Proclamation, Obama had referenced the “history [of] Native Americans” as “one marred with long and shameful chapters of violence, disease, and deprivation.”

In his 2013 Proclamation, Obama had made reference to the ambition for wealth and empire that inspired Columbus’s exploration: “He [Columbus] hoped to discover a new route to the east — opening trade routes for precious spices and paving the way for his patrons, Ferdinand II and Isabella I, to expand their empire. Instead, more than two months later, his crew spotted the Bahamas, and our world was changed forever.”

Obama Says That the Concerns of “Black Lives Matter” Are “Legitimate”

During a White House panel on law-enforcement and criminal justice, President Obama made the following remarks:

  • “There is a specific problem that is happening in the African-American community that is not happening in other communities, and that is a legitimate issue that we’ve got to address.”
  • “The African-American community is not just making this up. It’s not something that’s just being politicized. It’s real. We as a society, particularly given our history. have to take this seriously.”
  • “[W]e as a society, if we’re not investing in opportunities for poorer kids, and then we expect police and and prosecutors to keep them out of sight and out of mind, that’s a failed strategy.”

Making It Illegal for Landlords to Refuse to Rent to Criminals

In April 2016, President Obama’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced that a landlord’s refusal to rent a propertry to someone with a criminal record could constitute racial discrimination, given that African Americans are overrepresented among those who have been convicted of crimes. “The Fair Housing Act prohibits both intentional housing discrimination and housing practices that have an unjustified discriminatory effect because of race, national origin, or other protected characteristics,” said HUD’s newly-released guidelines. “Because of widespread racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal history-based restrictions on access to housing are likely disproportionately to burden African-Americans and Hispanics. While the Act does not prohibit housing providers from appropriately considering criminal history information when making housing decisions, arbitrary and overbroad criminal history-related bans are likely to lack a legally sufficient justification.”

“The fact that you were arrested shouldn’t keep you from getting a job and it shouldn’t keep you from renting a home,” HUD Secretary Julian Castro said at a meeting of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. “When someone has been convicted of a crime and has paid their debt to society, then they ought to have an effective second chance at life. The ability to find housing is an indispensable second change in life.”

HUD said that in order for landlords to be permitted to bar people with criminal records from living in a facility, they would have to prove that such a policy was necessary for protecting the safety of other tenants.

Poll: Obama Has Severely Damaged Race Relations 

In April 2016, Investor’s Business Daily reported the following:

A new national survey finds more than 1 in 3 Americans worry a “great deal” about the state of race relations in America. Anxiety has reached new highs under President Obama. That’s no coincidence. He’s rubbed racial sores raw.

Barack Obama was supposed to be a biracial leader who could heal the nation’s racial wounds and bring the country together. But since he took office, national tensions over race have gotten worse than ever, with the share of Americans who worry a lot about race relations soaring to 35% from a bottom of 13% just after Obama took office, according to a shocking new Gallup poll.

In fact, racial strife is the highest it’s been in the poll’s 15-year history.

“The rising concern about race relations as the nation’s first black president completes his last year in office is a retreat from the optimism that swept the country in the immediate aftermath of President Obama’s first election win in 2008,” the pollster said. “A Gallup poll one night after Obama won found that 7 in 10 Americans believed race relations would improve because of his victory.”

Of course, the opposite occurred. Race relations have sunk, and Obama bears a large share of the blame.

In virtually every policy and crisis, he has divided Americans by race, pitting groups against each other and even egging on racial violence. He has left race attitudes in tatters by relentlessly focusing on the problems of race in America.

Obama’s open praise of Black Lives Matter — a militant cop-hating group whose leaders he invited to the White House for more than one meeting — is just one of many examples in which the president deliberately chose to fan the flames of racial anger. Black Lives Matter has become the most divisive and destructive bully on the block, now terrifying even schools.

He also sought the counsel of racial opportunist Rev. Al Sharpton. And in case after case of police shootings, he took the side of violent thugs over law enforcement. Obama even lionized a young St. Louis black man who robbed a store and then beat and tried to disarm a cop who had no choice but to fire in self defense.

Obama has viewed virtually every event and issue through a racial lens, acting more like a racial activist than a chief executive.

Obama has branded the entire criminal justice system racist — cops, courts, municipal judges, even jurors. He extends the same false accusation to landlords and employers, along with home lenders, car lenders, payday lenders, credit reporting agencies, debt collection agencies and on and on.

To hear Obama, even the most liberal among us are racist. He claims teachers and principals, who have eagerly embraced multiculturalism to a fault, suddenly are conspiring to shove misbehaving black students into a “school-to-prison pipeline,” where they have no choice but to lead a life of crime, thanks to suspensions and expulsions….

Our own polling picked up on this trend back in 2014, when an IBD/TIPP survey found that a stunning 46% of Americans thought race relations worsened under the man who was supposed to usher in a racially harmonious era, while only 18% said they had gotten better.

Even the left laments that Obama’s “vision of post-racial America looks even further away.”

Only, he never really had such a vision. His racist preacher gave that away long ago.

Obama poisoned race relations to help sell his “social justice” nostrums, unforgivably doing damage to trust in future presidential candidates of color.


Obama Pardons 42 More Prisoners, Bringing Total to 348

On June 5, 2016, the Daily Mail reported:

President Barack Obama shortened the sentences Friday of 42 people serving time for drug-related offenses, continuing a push for clemency that has ramped up in the final year of his administration. Roughly half of the 42 receiving commutations Friday were serving life sentences. Most are nonviolent offenders, although a few were also charged with firearms violations. The White House said many of them would have already finished their sentences if they had been sentenced under current, less onerous sentencing guidelines. The latest group of commutations brings to 348 the total number of inmates whose sentences Obama has commuted — more than the past seven presidents combined, the White House said. The pace of commutations and the rarer use of pardons are expected to increase as the end of Obama’s presidency nears.

Mandatory Bias Training for All DOJ Employees

In June 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that all Department of Justiuce employees (than 33,000 federal agents and prosecutors) would thenceforth br required to undergo mandatory bias training to eliminate “impact biases” in their law enforcement judgment. “Implicit bias also presents unique challenges to effective law enforcement, because it can alter where investigators and prosecutors look for evidence and how they analyze it without their awareness or ability to compensate,” Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said in a memo.

Obama’s Claim That Police Racism Is Responsible for Two Recent Black Deaths, Is Followed by a Mass Shooting of Policemen in Dallas

On July 6, 2016, Obama said the following with regard to the recent shootings of two African American men by white police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana:

  • “[T]here’s a big chunk of our citizenry that feels as if, because of the color of their skin, they are not being treated the same, and that hurts, and that should trouble all of us.”
  • “[T]he data shows that black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents. There is a particular burden that is being placed on a group of our fellow citizens.”
  • “[W]hat’s clear is that these fatal shootings are not isolated incidents. They are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.”

The following day, Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists held anti-police-brutality demonstrations in numerous cities across the United States, to protest the aforementioned police shootings. In Dallas, Texas, demonstrators shouted “Enough is enough!” while they held signs bearing slogans like: “If all lives matter, why are black ones taken so easily?” Then, suddenly, at just before 9 pm, a black gunman opened fire on the law-enforcement officers who were on duty at that rally (in Dallas). Five officers were killed, and six additional police were wounded.

During a subsequent standoff with police, the gunman made it clear that he wanted to kill white people, especially police officers, and he emphatically declared his solidarity with Black Lives Matter.

Obama Compares “Black Lives Matter” to Past Movements for Abolition, Civil Rights, Workers’ Rights, Environmentalism, and Peace

On July 10, 2016, Obama compared BLM to other “contentious” movements that had occurred throughout American history: “The abolition movement was contentious. The effort for women to get the right to vote was contentious and messy. There were times when activists might have engaged in rhetoric that was overheated, and occasionally counterproductive, but the point was to raise issues so that we as a society could grapple with them. The same was true with the Civil Rights movement and the Union movement and the environmental movement and the anti-war movement during Vietnam. And I think what you’re seeing now is part of that long standing tradition.”

Moreover, Obama said that anyone who engaged in violence against police officers was doing “a disservice to the cause,” adding: “Maintaining a truthful and serious and respectful tone is going to help mobilize American society to bring about real change.”

In addition, Obama said: “I would hope that police organizations are also respectful of the frustrations that people in these communities feel and not just dismiss these protests and these complaints as political correctness. It is in the interest of police officers that their communities trust them.”

Obama’s Remarks at Memorial Service for Dallas Police

On July 12, 2016, Obama delivered a eulogy at a memorial service for the five police officers who had been shot and killed in Dallas five days earlier by a black supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement. Among his remarks were the following:

  • “Faced with this violence, we wonder if the divides of race in America can ever be bridged. We wonder if an African American community that feels unfairly targeted by police and police departments that feel unfairly maligned for doing their jobs, can ever understand each other’s experience.”
  • “We also know that centuries of racial discrimination, of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow; they didn’t simply vanish with the law against segregation. They didn’t necessarily stop when a Dr. King speech, or when the civil rights act or voting rights act were signed. Race relations have improved dramatically in my lifetime. Those who deny it are dishonoring the struggles that helped us achieve that progress. But we know … that bias remains. We know it, whether you are black, or white, or Hispanic, or Asian, or native American, or of Middle Eastern descent, we have all seen this bigotry in our own lives at some point. We’ve heard it at times in our own homes. If we’re honest, perhaps we’ve heard prejudice in our own heads and felt it in our own hearts. We know that. And while some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s stain. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune, and that includes our police departments. We know this.”
  • “And so when African-Americans from all walks of life, from different communities across the country, voice a growing despair over what they perceive to be unequal treatment, when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently. So that if you’re black, you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested; more likely to get longer sentences; more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime. When mothers and fathers raised their kids right, and have the talk about how to respond if stopped by a police officer — yes, sir; no, sir — but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door; still fear that kids being stupid and not quite doing things right might end in tragedy. When all this takes place, more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid. We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members, again and again and again, it hurts. Surely we can see that, all of us.”
  • “As a society, we choose to under-invest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.”

On July 13, 2016 — the day after Obama delivered his eulogy at the police memorial service in Dallas — the president hosted three Black Lives Matter leaders at a lengthy White House meeting. Another special guest at the meeting was Obama’s chief adviser on racial matters, Al Sharpton.

Obama Commutes the Sentences of 214 More Prisoners

On August 3, 2016, President Obama commuted the sentences of 214 more federal inmates, the largest number of commutations granted by a U.S. president in a single day since 1900. Said a USA Today report: “With 562 total commutations during his presidency — most of which have come in the past year —Obama has now used his constitutional clemency power to shorten the sentences of more federal inmates than any president since Calvin Coolidge. The early release of the 214 prisoners, mostly low-level drug offenders, is part of Obama’s effort to correct what he views as unreasonably long mandatory minimum sentences. Some date back decades, including 71-year-old Richard L. Reser of Sedgwick, Kan., who was given a 40-year sentence for dealing methamphatamine and firearm possession in 1989…. ‘The more we understand the human stories behind this problem, the sooner we can start making real changes that keep our streets safe, break the cycle of incarceration in this country, and save taxpayers like you money,’ Obama said in a Facebook post.”

In reaction to Obama’s commutation of sentences, Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald wrote:

“The vast majority of prisoners [who were granted clemency] exemplify the so-called nonviolent-drug-offender category, a primary focus of ‘criminal-justice reform’ advocates. But a search of the commutation database comes up with 156 hits for ‘firearms’ (some of those hits are multiple counts for the same offender). Wilson Henderson, of Hollywood, Fla., for example, was convicted of ‘use of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime,’ according to the Justice Department press release. Kenneth Evans, of Fort Worth, Texas, was convicted of ‘use and carry firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting.’ Mark Anthony Clark, of Rockford, Ill., was convicted of ‘possession of a firearm by a felon/fugitive from justice and aiding and abetting,’ as well as of conspiracy to distribute 100 grams of meth.

“Many of the commuttees possessed stolen firearms or firearms with their serial numbers obliterated. Some were in violation of National Firearms Registration, which can mean possession of a federally prohibited weapon, such as a machine gun, silencer, or sawed-off shotgun. We don’t know how many guns the offenders actually had; a commuttee during a previous batch of commutations had 40.

“Nor does the Justice Department’s press release disclose the actual incidence of firearm possession by these federal convicts. Gun possession can be used to increase a federal sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines without a prosecutor’s actually bringing a formal charge. A gun charge can also be plea-bargained away.

“Many advocates of criminal-justice reform believe in maximum gun control, yet the White House press releases on the president’s commutations have been silent on the widespread incidence of illegal gun possession. It would seem that once someone becomes a member of the oppressed prisoner class, the gun issue becomes irrelevant.

“The Justice Department press release also does not reveal the offenders’ criminal history, history of violence, ties to drug cartels, or the sentencing judge’s recommendation. Written requests to the president from federal attorneys to make the process more transparent have gone unanswered….

“We have been told endlessly by President Obama and the rest of the justice-reform movement that prisons are chock-full of harmless sad sacks whose only offense is getting caught with a little weed. It should have been easy, therefore, to come up with thousands of pacific targets for commutation or pardon. That so many recipients of Obama’s clemency were armed and dangerous shows how distorted the dominant narrative about ‘mass incarceration’ is.

“(Similarly, race activists endlessly charged the New York Police Department with stopping and questioning hundreds of thousands of innocent black males. It should have equally been easy, therefore, to line up hundreds of such innocent victims for the trilogy of class-action lawsuits against the NYPD’s stop-question-and-frisk practices. But the civil-rights attorneys in the suits could rustle up only a handful of named plaintiffs, most of whom had lengthy and serious criminal histories. One of the nine named plaintiffs in Ligon v. New York, one of the three class actions, was federally indicted last December for stomping a 16-year-old gang rival to death in the Bronx.)”

Obama Exhorts Black Voters to Vote for Democrats, in Order to Support “My Legacy”

At a September 17, 2016 Congressional Black Caucus gala, President Obama said that a vote for Hillary Clinton in the November election would help to continue his legacy. “My name may not be on the ballot, but our progress is on the ballot,” he said. “I will consider it a personal insult — an insult to my legacy — if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good sendoff? Go vote,” Obama said to thunderous applause.

Obama References Slavery and Jim Crow

In an ABC interview that aired on September 23, 2016, President Obama mocked Donald Trump’s recent claim that blacks in America were in their worst shape ever by saying: “I think even most 8-year-olds [will] tell you — that whole slavery thing wasn’t very good for black people. Jim Crow wasn’t very good for black people.”

Obama Proposes That Arabs & Muslims from the Middle East Be Classified As a Separate “Race,” Rather Than As “White”

In October 2016, the Obama White House announced a proposal that would add a new racial category to cover people from the Middle East and North Africa in a move the USA Today called “the biggest realignment of federal racial definitions in decades.” Helen Samhan of the Arab American Institute praised the president’s proposal as a “good” and “positive step.” “What it does is it helps these communities feel less invisible,” Samhan said.

The new designation, shortened to “MENA” for “Middle East/North African,” would encompass those living in the region between Morocco and Iran and would include Syrians and religious minorities like Coptic Christians and Israeli Jews, according to the report.

In Pamela Geller‘s assessment, Obama was engaged in “Islamopandering” — i.e., “securing for Muslims the perks that are available for racial minorities.”

USA Today listed some of those special perks:

  •  Enforcing the Voting Rights Act and drawing congressional and state legislative district boundaries;
  •  Establishing federal affirmative action plans and evaluating claims of employment discrimination in employment in the private sector;
  •  Monitoring discrimination in housing, mortgage lending, and credit;
  •  Enforcing school desegregation policies; and
  •  Helping minority-owned small businesses get federal grants and loans.
Obama Says Many Whites Dislike Him Because of Racial Bias

On December 8, 2016, CNN aired an interview that Obama had done with host Fareed Zakaria. In one particular segment, Zakaria commented: “The president doesn’t see racism in mainstream opposition to him but he does see it on the fringes.” At that point, Obama was shown saying: “There are people who dislike me because they think I’m a liberal. I think there is a reason why attitudes about my presidency among whites in northern states are very different from whites in southern states. So are there folks who whose primary concern about me has been that I seem foreign, the other? Are those that champion the birther movement feeding off of bias? Absolutely.”

Obama Says “We Have By No Means Overcome the Legacies of Slavery and Jim Crow and Colonialism and Racism”

During a December 12, 2016 television appearance on Comedy Centra, Obama discussed the issue of racism in America. Among his remarks were the following:

* “You know, my general theory is that, if I was clear in my own mind about who I was, comfortable in my own skin, and had clarity about the way in which race continues to be this powerful factor in so many elements of our lives. But that it is not the only factor in so many aspects of our lives, that we have by no means overcome the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow and colonialism and racism, but that the progress we’ve made has been real and extraordinary, if I’m communicating my genuine belief that those who are not subject to racism can sometimes have blind spots or lack of appreciation of what it feels to be on the receiving end of that, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not open to learning and caring about equality and justice and that I can win them over because there is goodness in the majority of people…. There have been times where I’ve said, ‘You know, you might not have taken into account the ongoing legacy of racism in why we have so many black men incarcerated. And since I know that you believe in the Constitution and believe in justice and believe in liberty, how about if we try this?’… [T]he challenge we face today, when it comes to race, is rarely the overt Klansman-style racism and typically has more to do with the fact that, you know, people got other stuff they want to talk about and it’s sort of uncomfortable.”

Obama Talks At Length About Race and Racism in AmericaIn December 2016, the Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates published his second interview with President Barack Obama from his series “My President Was Black.” In this installment, Obama made one of his strongest arguments yet for racial reparations in America. Among Obama’s remarks were the following:

* “[A]s a general matter, my view would be that if you want to get at African American poverty, the income gap, wealth gap, achievement gap, that the most important thing is to make sure that the society as a whole does right by people who are poor, are working class, are aspiring to a better life for their kids. Higher minimum wages, full-employment programs, early-childhood education: Those kinds of programs are, by design, universal, but by definition, because they are helping folks who are in the worst economic situations, are most likely to disproportionately impact and benefit African Americans. They also have the benefit of being sellable to a majority of the body politic.”* “Step No. 2, and this is where I think policies do need to be somewhat race-specific, is making sure that institutions are not discriminatory. So you’ve got something like the FHA [Federal Housing Administration], which was on its face a universal program that involved a huge mechanism for wealth accumulation and people entering into the middle class. But if, in its application, black folks were excluded from it, then you have to override that by going after those discriminatory practices. The same would be true for something like Social Security, where historically, if you just read the law and the fact that it excluded domestic workers or agricultural workers, you might not see race in it, unless you knew that that covered a huge chunk of African Americans, particularly in the South. So reinvigorating the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, making sure that in our Department of Education, where we see evidence of black boys being suspended at substantially higher rates than white boys for the same behavior, in the absence of that kind of rigorous enforcement of the nondiscrimination principle, then the long-standing biases that I believe have weakened, but are still clearly present in our society, assert themselves in ways that usually disadvantage African Americans.”

* “If you’ve got those two things right—if those two things are happening—then a third leg of the stool is, how do we in the African American community build a culture in which we are saying to our kids, “Here’s what it takes to succeed. Here’s the sacrifices you need to make to be able to get ahead. Here’s how we support each other. Here’s how we look out for each other.” And it is my view that if society was doing the right thing with respect to you, [and there were] programs targeted at helping people rise into the middle class and have a good income and be able to save and send their kids to school, and you’ve got a vigorous enforcement of antidiscrimination laws, then I have confidence in the black community’s capabilities to then move forward.”

* “Now, does that mean that all vestiges of past discrimination would be eliminated, that the income gap or the wealth gap or the education gap would be erased in five years or 10 years? Probably not, and so this is obviously a discussion we’ve had before when you talk about something like reparations. Theoretically, you can make, obviously, a powerful argument that centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination are the primary cause for all those gaps. That those were wrongs done to the black community as a whole, and black families specifically, and that in order to close that gap, a society has a moral obligation to make a large, aggressive investment, even if it’s not in the form of individual reparations checks, but in the form of a Marshall Plan, in order to close those gaps. It is easy to make that theoretical argument. But as a practical matter, it is hard to think of any society in human history in which a majority population has said that as a consequence of historic wrongs, we are now going to take a big chunk of the nation’s resources over a long period of time to make that right….”

* “I have much more confidence in my ability, or any president or any leader’s ability, to mobilize the American people around a multiyear, multibillion-dollar investment to help every child in poverty in this country than I am in being able to mobilize the country around providing a benefit specific to African Americans as a consequence of slavery and Jim Crow. Now, we can debate the justness of that. But I feel pretty confident in that assessment politically. And, you know, I think that part of my optimism comes from the belief that we as a people could actually, regardless of all the disadvantage of the past, regardless of the fact that a lot of other folks got a head start in the race, if we were able to make the race fair right now, and … we were able to make sure that it stayed fair for a long time and that children going forward were not encumbered by some of that same bias of the past, I think it would not take long at all, because we are a talented, resourceful people. Just play this out as a thought experiment: Imagine if you had genuine, high-quality early-childhood education for every child, and suddenly every black child in America—but also every poor white child or Latino [child], but just stick with every black child in America—is getting a really good education. And they’re graduating from high school at the same rates that whites are, and they are going to college at the same rates that whites are, and they are able to afford college at the same rates because the government has universal programs that say that you’re not going to be barred from school just because of how much money your parents have. So now they’re all graduating. And let’s also say that the Justice Department and the courts are making sure, as I’ve said in a speech before, that when Jamal sends his résumé in, he’s getting treated the same as when Johnny sends his résumé in.”

* “Now, are we going to have suddenly the same number of CEOs, billionaires, etc., as the white community? In 10 years? Probably not, maybe not even in 20 years. But I guarantee you that we would be thriving, we would be succeeding. We wouldn’t have huge numbers of young African American men in jail. We’d have more family formation as college-graduated girls are meeting boys who are their peers, which then in turn means the next generation of kids are growing up that much better. And suddenly you’ve got a whole generation that’s in a position to start using the incredible creativity that we see in music, and sports, and frankly even on the streets, channeled into starting all kinds of businesses. I feel pretty good about our odds in that situation.”
* “And my point has always been: We’re so far from that. Why are we even having the abstract conversation when we’ve got a big fight on our hands just to get strong, universal antipoverty programs and social programs in place, and we’re still fighting to make sure that basic antidiscrimination laws are enforced, not just at the federal level, by the way, but throughout government and throughout the private sector?…”* “[I]t’s a generational project just to get America to live up fully to its ideals and to have the kind of society where everybody has a shot, and every kid is getting a good education, and people are getting living wages, and they have decent retirement. And if we got there and we looked up and we said, “You know what? Black folks are still doing a little bit worse off than whites, but it’s not like it was 20 years ago,” then we can have a discussion about how do we get that last little bit. But that’s a high-class problem to have. And to me the question right now is: How do I close that first three-quarters of the achievement gap, education gap, wealth gap? What gives me the best chance to do that? And I’m pretty darn sure that if America is a just society and treating people well right now, irrespective of past wrongs, that I’m going to close a big chunk of that gap. I’ve seen it.”* “This is what I always take away from something like My Brother’s Keeper—it’s almost an analogy. I look at some of the kids that I interact with, and they were born with so many disadvantages. And you could start off in your first interaction with them saying, ‘Unless they get a lot of compensatory help, they’re not going to be able to compete; they’re just so far behind, and they’re wounded and they’re hurt.’ Think about that young man we were talking to: His mother was a drug addict, and his dad is in prison, and he has no sense of direction. And there’s no doubt that the more you did for him, probably the better he would do, but what’s always striking to me is he just got a little bit. He just had a few adults paying attention and telling him he was worth something while he’s in juvee, he’s just got somebody who is willing to pay his community-college fees, and suddenly you’ve got this young man sitting there who is so self-aware …”* “[H]aving as many African American men as we’ve had in the criminal-justice system, and the amount of time it takes for the damage done by that to wash through our society and our communities, the disadvantages born out of kids being undiagnosed with mental-health problems early, or not getting the kind of exposure to reading and math when they’re 4 or 5 or 6 years old, that carries a cost. But I know that those gaps can be closed.”

Obama Grants Clemency to Former FALN TerroristOn January 17, 2017, the New York Post reported:

“An imprisoned Puerto Rican terrorist who refused to renounce violence to get clemency in 1999, was among those whose sentence was commuted Tuesday by President Obama. Oscar Lopez-Rivera helped establish the violent Puerto Rican independence group FALN (Fuerza Armadas de Liberacion Nacional, Spanish for Armed Forces of National Liberation). The group is best known for bombing Fraunces Tavern in lower Manhattan in 1975, an attack that killed four, as well as a 1982 strike on NYPD headquarters.

“López Rivera was arrested in May 1981 and convicted of seditious conspiracy, carrying firearms during the commission of violent crimes and transporting explosives with the intent to kill people. He was sentenced to 55 years in prison. He will now be released on May 17 [2017].

“‘Oscar Lopez is a terrorist who participated in the killing of New Yorkers, and someone who has refused to renounce violence,’ said Councilman Joe Borelli (R-SI). ‘Commuting his sentence proves that Obama and most liberals are out of touch with reality and willing to sacrifice all norms in the name of progressivism.’

“In 1999, President Bill Clinton offered Lopez-Rivera clemency, but he refused because it would have required him to renounce terrorism.”

Obama Commutes the Sentences of 330 More Prisoners, Bringing His Total to 1,715On January 19, 2017, Pix11.com reported: “In his last major act as president, Barack Obama is cutting short the sentences of 330 federal inmates convicted of drug crimes. The move brings Obama’s bid to correct what he’s called a systematic injustice to a climactic close. Obama has now commuted the sentences of 1,715 people, more than any other president in U.S. history. During his presidency Obama freed 568 inmates serving life sentences. The final batch of commutations is the most any U.S. president has issued in a single day. It’s the culmination of a second-term effort to remedy consequences of decades of onerous sentencing requirements that Obama’s said put tens of thousands of drug offenders behind bars for too long.”

To view a list of each of the 330 inmates whose sentences were commuted (and a detailed list of their crimes), click here.

The Deadly Effects of Obama’s War Against the “School-to-Prison Pipeline”

In March 2018, columnist and author Ann Coulter wrote an exceptionally important piece about the deadly effects that Obama’s “school-to-prison pipeline” mentality brought to a Florida school where a young man had recently shot and killed 17 students. Wrote Coulter:

President Obama did a lot of bad things, but pound for pound, one of the worst was the January 2014 “Dear Colleague” letter sent jointly by his Education and Justice Departments to all public schools threatening lawsuits over racial discrimination in student discipline. The letter came after years of his administration browbeating schools for their failure to discipline every race of student at the same rate.As the Huffington Post put it: “American Schools Are STILL Racist, Government Report Finds.” The evidence? “Five percent of white students were suspended annually, compared with 16 percent of black students, according to the report.” 

According to theory, there’s NO WAY blacks and Hispanics are doing things that require more school discipline than whites or Asians. So if more black students are expelled than Asians, well, gentlemen, we have our proof of racism. To comply, schools would have to stop suspending black kids for breaking a teacher’s jaw, but suspend Asians for dropping an eraser. …
The “school-to-prison pipeline” argument for racial quotas in discipline was hatched in education schools and black studies departments. What I want to know is: How did they test the idea?To validate the theory that recording students’ criminal behavior produces students with criminal records, we divided students into two groups. Group A we continued to suspend when they acted up; Group B we would not suspend no matter what — even when they engaged in their little mischief, like cracking heads with crowbars, dropping teachers off buildings, using a switchblade to cut other students’ eyes out.

RESULT: At the end of the year, Group B had better records. … 

[T]he Obama administration said: Wow! That’s amazing. Do you think other schools could replicate those results?
One of the administration’s models was Broward County, Florida. Which is kind of important, now that we know that it was Broward’s official policy to make it impossible to arrest students like Nikolas Cruz, thus allowing him to amass a cache of firearms, walk into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and murder 17 people.

The “school-to-prison pipeline” nonsense may not be the explanation for every school shooting, but it is absolutely the explanation for THIS school shooting. No matter what Cruz did, no matter how many times his crimes were reported to the sheriff or school officials, there was no way a lad with a name like “Nikolas Cruz” was ever going to leave school with a record.

Broward County’s innovative idea of eliminating school discipline captivated Obama’s Department of Education. It was expressly cited by the department’s Civil Rights Division with the notation: “New model for other jurisdictions?”

Last October — nearly a year into the Trump administration — Broward Schools Superintendent Robert W. Runcie humbly noted that the district was receiving “invitations from around the country, including from The White House and Federal Office of Civil Rights, to share details about the historic reforms” on school discipline.

Either: Liberals truly believe that all races commit crimes at exactly the same level, frequency and intensity; OR they are willing to have people die for their political agenda.

Conservatives didn’t pick this school shooting as the test case for gun control. It was liberals who were going to ride the Parkland shooting all the way to the midterms. They thought they had a beautiful story about the evil NRA.

Not the mass shooting in Orlando — because of the obvious immigration angle. Not San Bernardino — for the same reason. Not Las Vegas — probably for the same reason, but we’ll never know because law enforcement has issued only lies and nonsense about that shooting.

The media did all the hard work of making sure Parkland was the only topic on anyone’s mind, with everyone demanding that we “do something!”

And then we got the facts. Cruz’s criminal acts were intentionally ignored by law enforcement on account of Broward’s much-celebrated “school-to-prison pipeline” reforms.


In March 2018 as well, columnist Paul Sperry wrote the following devastating piece about this same theme:

Despite committing a string of arrestable offenses on campus before the Florida school shooting, Nikolas Cruz was able to escape the attention of law enforcement, pass a background check, and purchase the weapon he used to slaughter three staff members and 14 fellow students because of Obama administration efforts to make school discipline more lenient. 

Documents reviewed by RealClearInvestigations and interviews show that his school district in Florida’s Broward County was in the vanguard of a strategy, adopted by more than 50 other major school districts nationwide, allowing thousands of troubled, often violent, students to commit crimes without legal consequence. The aim was to slow the “school-to-prison pipeline.” 

“He had a clean record, so alarm bells didn’t go off when they looked him up in the system,” veteran FBI agent Michael Biasello told RCI. “He probably wouldn’t have been able to buy the murder weapon if the school had referred him to law enforcement.”

Disclosures about the strategy add a central new element to the Parkland shooting story: It’s not just one of official failings at many levels and of America’s deep divide over guns, but also one of deliberate federal policy gone awry.

In 2013, the year before Cruz entered high school, the Broward County school system rewrote its discipline policy to make it much more difficult for administrators to suspend or expel problem students, or for campus police to arrest them for misdemeanors– including some of the crimes Cruz allegedly committed in the years and months leading up to the deadly Feb. 14 shooting at his Fort Lauderdale-area school.

The new policy resulted from an Obama administration effort begun in 2011 to keep students in school and improve racial outcomes (timeline here), and came against a backdrop of other efforts to rein in perceived excesses in “zero tolerance” discipline policies, including in Florida

Broward school Superintendent Robert W. Runcie – a Chicagoan and Harvard graduate with close ties to President Obama and his Education Department – signed an agreement with the county sheriff and other local jurisdictions to trade cops for counseling. Students charged with various misdemeanors, including assault, would now be disciplined through participation in “healing circles,” obstacle courses, and other “self-esteem building” exercises.

Asserting that minority students, in particular, were treated unfairly by traditional approaches to school discipline, Runcie’s goal was to slash arrests and ensure that students, no matter how delinquent, graduated without criminal records.

The achievement gap “becomes intensified in the school-to-prison pipeline, where black males are disproportionately represented,” he said at the time. “We’re not going to continue to arrest our kids,” he added. “Once you have an arrest record, it becomes difficult to get scholarships, get a job, or go into the military.”

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel backed Runcie’s plan to diminish the authority of police in responding to campus crime. A November 2013 video shows him signing the district’s 16-page “collaborative agreement on school discipline,” which lists more than a dozen misdemeanors that can no longer be reported to police, along with five steps police must “exhaust” before even considering placing a student under arrest.

In just a few years, ethnically diverse Broward went from leading the state of Florida in student arrests to boasting one of its lowest school-related incarceration rates. Out-of-school suspensions and expulsions also plummeted. 

Runcie had been working closely with Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan on the reforms ever since landing the Broward job in 2011, using as a reference the name of the Cabinet secretary, his former boss in the Chicago school system. 

Applications for federal grants reveal that Runcie’s plan factored into approval of tens of millions of dollars in federal funding from Duncan’s department. 

In January 2014, his department issued new discipline guidelines strongly recommending that the nation’s schools use law enforcement measures and out-of-school suspensions as a last resort. Announced jointly by Duncan and then-Attorney General Eric Holder, the new procedures came as more than friendly guidance from Uncle Sam – they also came with threats of federal investigations and defunding for districts that refused to fully comply.

In 2015, the White House spotlighted Runcie’s leading role in the effort during a summit called “Rethink School Discipline.” Broward, the nation’s sixth largest school district, is one of 53 major districts across the country to adopt the federal guidelines, which remain in effect today due to administrative rules delaying a plan by the Trump administration to withdraw them.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ office did not return phone calls and emails seeking comment. DeVos has called for congressional hearings on school shootings. “We have got to have an honest conversation,” she said.

“Broward County adopted a lenient disciplinary policy similar to those adopted by many other districts under pressure from the Obama administration to reduce racial ‘disparities’ in suspensions and expulsions,” said Peter Kirsanow, a black conservative on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in Washington. “In many of these districts, the drive to ‘get our numbers right’ has produced disastrous results, with startling increases in both the number and severity of disciplinary offenses, including assaults and beatings of teachers and students.”

For example, in St. Paul, Minn., a high school science teacher was “beaten and choked out” by a 16-year-old student, who allegedly came up behind him, called him a “f–king white cracker,” and put him in a stranglehold, before bashing his head into a concrete wall and pavement. The student, Fon’Tae O’Bannon, got 90 days of electronic home monitoring and anger management counseling for the December 2015 attack.

The instructor, John Ekblad, who has experienced short-term memory loss and hearing problems, blames the Obama-era discipline policies for emboldening criminal behavior, adding that school violence “is still rising out of control.”

In Oklahoma City, which softened student punishments in response to a federal race-bias complaint, “students are yelling, cursing, hitting and screaming at teachers, and nothing is being done,” an Oklahoma City public school teacher said. “These students know there is nothing a teacher can do.”

In Buffalo, New York, a teacher who got kicked in the head by a student said: “We have fights here almost every day. The kids walk around and say, ‘We can’t get suspended – we don’t care what you say.’ ”

Kirsanow said that in just the first year after the Obama administration issued its anti-discipline edict, public schools failed to expel more than 30,000 students who physically attacked teachers or staff across the country. Previously, “if you hit a teach, you’re gone,” he said, but that is no longer the case.

No district has taken this new approach further than Broward County. The core of the approach is a program called PROMISE (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Support & Education), which substitutes counseling for criminal detention for students who break the law. According to the district website, the program is “designed to address the unique needs of students who have committed a behavioral infraction that would normally lead to a juvenile delinquency arrest and, therefore, entry into the juvenile justice system.”

The expressed goal of PROMISE is to bring about “reductions in external suspension, expulsions and arrests.” Delinquents who are diverted to the program are essentially absolved of responsibility for their actions.  “This approach focuses on the situation as being the problem rather than the individual being the problem,” the website states.

Additional literature reveals that students referred to PROMISE for in-school misdemeanors – including assault, theft, vandalism, underage drinking and drug use – receive a controversial alternative punishment known as restorative justice.

“Rather than focusing on punishment, restorative justice seeks to repair the harm done,” the district explains. Indeed, it isn’t really punishment at all. It’s more like therapy. Delinquents gather in “healing circles” with counselors, and sometimes even the victims of their crime, and talk about their feelings and “root causes” of their anger. 

Students who participate in the sessions and respond appropriately to difficult situations are rewarded by counselors with prizes called “choice rewards,” which they select in advance. Parents are asked to chip in money to help pay for the rewards.

Listed among the district’s “restorative justice partners” is the Broward Sheriff’s Office. Deputies and local police officers, as well as court officials, routinely attend meetings with PROMISE leaders, where they receive training in such emotional support programs.

The program also includes a separate juvenile “system of care,” rather than the regular court system, where delinquents and parents are counseled about the consequences of getting caught up in the criminal system.

Broward’s launch of the new initiative synced up with a discipline policy shift advocated by the Justice Department. “A routine school disciplinary infraction should land a student in the principal’s office, not in a police precinct,” asserted Holder in January 2014.

At a press conference in 2015, Duncan described his “good friend” Runcie as courageous for implementing a “new system” to “keep kids in classrooms and out of courtrooms.” “It’s difficult work,” the then-education secretary said, “challenging centuries of institutionalized racism and class inequality.”

Duncan noted that Runcie had partnered with a psychology professor, Phillip Atiba Goff, who has been working with both Broward educators and police officers to become more aware of their “implicit biases” toward minority children.

“Implicit bias exists in all of us,” Runcie said in late 2016, “and we have to be courageous enough to confront it if we are going to meet our goals.” District records reveal Runcie has been putting school leaders and school support personnel through intensive training in “implicit bias, black male success strategies [and] Courageous Conservations about Race.”

Asked to explain the Broward discipline policies, Tracy Clark, the district’s chief public information officer, issued this statement: “There are specific guidelines and School Board policies regarding the non-violent, misdemeanor types of infractions that are eligible for the PROMISE program. Please note that weapons infractions are not eligible for the PROMISE program. Through the PROMISE program, students receive behavioral supports, counseling and mentoring in an environment focused on helping them make better choices.”

However, a 210-page district report on “Eliminating the School to Prison Pipeline,” lists “assault/threat” and “fighting,” as well as “vandalism,” among “infractions aligned with participation in the PROMISE program,” and it states that the recommended consequences for such misdemeanors are a “student essay,” “counseling” and “restorative justice.”

And the district’s legally written discipline policy also lists “assault without the use of a weapon” and “battery without serious bodily injury,” as well as “disorderly conduct,” as misdemeanors that “should not be reported to Law Enforcement Agencies or Broward District Schools Police.” This document also recommends “counseling” and “restorative justice.”

Nikolas Cruz’s rampage suggests the limits of this approach. 

A repeat offender, Cruz benefited from the lax discipline policy, if not the counseling. Although he was disciplined for a string of offenses — including assault, threatening teachers and carrying bullets in his backpack — he was never taken into custody or even expelled. Instead, school authorities referred him to mandatory counseling or transferred him to alternative schools.

By avoiding a criminal record, Cruz passed a federal background check in February 2017 before purchasing the AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle investigators say was used in the mass shooting. Just one month earlier, he was disciplined with a one-day internal suspension for an “assault” at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and evaluated as a potential “threat.” It was his second offense for fighting in less than four months, but campus police did not make an arrest in either case — as they typically did for repeat offenders under the district’s prior zero-tolerance policies, a review of the official “discipline matrix” used last decade reveals.

The upshot was that the lack of an arrest record made it difficult for police to confirm that Cruz was a proven threat and to intervene when they received call-in tips and complaints from neighbors, classmates and relatives about his stockpiling of weapons and desire to kill people, law enforcement officials say.

A little more than a month before the Feb. 14 shooting, the FBI hotline received a tip about Cruz being a potential school gunman, but it failed to take action. If he had been previously arrested and booked for the on-campus misdemeanors, the FBI intake specialist handling the call would have seen his violent history in the federal National Crime Information Center database, which includes all state arrests, convictions, warrants and alerts.

“Once the agent, or any officer, entered his name in the NCIC system, his history would have been viewed,” Biasello said.

Though he said the call was “specific and urgent” enough to pass the information on to the bureau’s Miami field office, “the message might have been taken more seriously and escalated up the chain of command if the search turned up a police record.”

Another tip from last September, warning the FBI that a “Nikolas Cruz” had boasted on YouTube he was “going to be a professional school shooter,” also fell through the cracks due to a paucity of information in the system. A spokesman for the Miami division explained that “the FBI conducted database reviews [and] checks but was unable to further identify the person who actually made the comment.”

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office received at least 45 calls related to Cruz and his brother dating back to 2008 – including a February 2016 call from a neighbor warning he made a threat on Instagram to “shoot up” the high school, and another last November advising he was collecting guns and knives and appeared to be “a school shooter in the making.” Though deputies visited Cruz at his home, they did not try to recover his weapons, despite requests from relatives who feared he planned to use them on his classmates.

Their inaction reflects the Broward department’s embrace of the school district’s approach to student crime. Even in response to a major crime scene, Sheriff Israel agreed to defer to school officials when “feasible” and employ “the least punitive means of discipline” against the perpetrators.

The Broward school board also revised agreements between the district and the school resource officers assigned by the sheriff to ensure that they no longer intervene in misdemeanor incidents to cut down on the number of “arrests for school-based behavior.” (The board also signed an agreement with Fort Lauderdale police to reduce officer involvement in such campus offenses.)

At the 2013 signing ceremony on school discipline, Sheriff Israel lauded the new goals. He vowed to “demolish” the pipeline allegedly funneling students to jail by changing the “culture” of school-related law enforcement.

“We’ve got to demolish this cycle from the schoolhouse to the jailhouse,” he said, echoing Runcie, who stood behind him. “Our kids need to be in schools, not jails.”

Added Israel: “At the Broward Sheriff’s Office, we’re changing. We’re changing the culture, and what we’re doing is we are gonna make obsolete the term ‘zero tolerance.’”

Yet even though Broward’s crusade has resulted in a more than 63 percent reduction in the annual rate of overall student arrests, Runcie has said he is not satisfied because the percentage of arrests of black students continues to be disproportionately high compared with whites.

So the superintendent has hired Goff, the racial bias expert, to conduct a study to get to the “root cause” of why arrests of blacks are still so stubbornly high.

Funded with an $800,000 grant, Goff’s researchers from the Center for Policing Equity in New York have been actively surveying district administrators and teachers, as well as student resource officers, to gauge their “implicit biases” in dealing with minority students who behave badly. That effort continues, a spokesman for Goff told RealClearInvestigations this week.



Obama Falsely Claims That Women Are Underpaid

  • “For every $1.00 earned by a man, the average woman receives only 77 cents,” said an Obama campaign publication in 2008. “A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men.” To rectify this, said the campaign, “the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act, fight job discrimination, and improve child care options and family medical leave to give women equal footing in the workplace.”
  • Nine days after his inauguration, President Obama honored one of his campaign pledges by signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a law making it easier for women to sue employers for pay discrimination. Said the President: “It is a story of women across this country still earning just 78 cents for every $1 [that] men earn, women of color even less, which means that today in the year 2009, countless women are still losing thousands of dollars in salary, income, and retirement savings over the course of a lifetime”

Obama Speaks at White House Event on Women and the Economy

  • At an April 6, 2012 White House event on women and the economy, President Obama said: “When more women are bringing home the bacon, but bringing home less of it than men who are doing the same work, that weakens families, it weakens communities, it’s tough on our kids, it weakens our entire economy.”

Obama Speaks about the Need for “Pay Equity”

  • On April 17, 2012, President Obama stated that “women who worked full-time [the previous year] earned only 77 percent of what their male counterparts did.” “The pay gap was even greater for African American and Latina women,” added Obama, “with African American women earning 64 cents and Latina women earning 56 cents for every dollar earned by a Caucasian man.”

The “Gender Pay Gap” Is a Fiction

  • President Obama’s claim that women were underpaid (in comparison to men) by American employers was untrue. As longtime employment lawyer William Farrell, who served as a board member of the National Organization for Women from 1970 to 1973, explains in his 2005 book Why Men Earn More, the gender pay gap can be explained entirely by the fact that women as a group tend, to a much greater degree than men, to make employment choices that involve certain tradeoffs; i.e., choices that suppress incomes but, by the same token, afford tangible lifestyle advantages that are highly valued.
  • For example, women tend to pursue careers in fields that are non-technical and do not involve the hard (as opposed to the social) sciences; fields that do not require a large amount of continuing education in order to keep pace with new developments or innovations; fields that offer a high level of physical safety; fields where the work is performed indoors as opposed to outdoors (where bad weather can make working conditions poor); fields that offer a pleasant and socially dynamic working environment; fields typified by lower levels of emotional strife; fields that offer desirable shifts or flexible working hours; fields or jobs that require fewer working hours per week or fewer working days per year; and fields where employees can “check out” at the end of the day and not need to “take their jobs home with them.”
  • Moreover, Farrell notes, women as a group tend to be less willing to commute long distances, to travel extensively for work-related duties, or to relocate geographically in order to take a job. In addition, they tend to have fewer years of uninterrupted experience in their current jobs, and they are far more likely to leave the work force for extended periods in order to attend to family-related matters such as raising children. During the course of their overall work lives, men accumulate an extra 5 to 9 years on the job as compared to their female counterparts, and each of those additional years translates to approximately 3 or 4 percent more in annual pay.
  • When all of the above variables are factored into the equation, the gender pay gap disappears entirely. When men and women work at jobs where their titles and their responsibilities are equivalent, they are paid exactly the same.

Obama Himself Has Paid His Female Staffers Less than His Male Staffers

  • The women who worked on Obama’s Senate staff during 2007-2008 earned 78 cents for every dollar his male staffers were paid (annual salaries of $44,953.21 for the women, vs. $57,425 for the men). These data, however, did not take into account such variables as job position, experience, or education—all of which are factors that could influence pay. Thus the raw numbers did not constitute evidence that the women were being discriminated against—though by the (invalid) standard which Obama had applied to all other American employers, the numbers were indeed indicative of discrimination.
  • According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees in the Obama White House earned a median annual salary of $60,000, approximately 18% less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

“The War on Women”: O
bama Supports Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke’s Demand that Insurance Providers Cover the Costs of Contraception and Abortion

  • On February 23, 2012, Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student at Georgetown University and an experienced women’s-rights activist, testified about Georgetown’s policy on contraception during an unofficial hearing that was led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Fluke argued that birth control should be covered by health insurance policies, even at religious institutions that objected to contraception on moral grounds. After radio host Rush Limbaugh harshly criticized Miss Fluke for her comments, President Obama called the young woman to express his support. In an interview with CBS News, Fluke reported that Mr. Obama had thanked her for “helping to amplify the voices of women across the country,” and had expressed concern “that I was okay.”
  • This incident laid the groundwork for the Obama administration and the Democratic Party to accuse the Republican Party of waging a “war on women,” a hallmark of which was Republicans’ refusal to mandate that all health insurance plans cover the cost of women’s contraception and abortion services.
  • In January 2012, the Obama administration issued an edict mandating that religious hospitals, schools, charities and other health and social service providers provide “free” contraception, abortifacient pills, sterilizations, and abortion services in their insurance plans—even if doing so violated their moral codes and the teachings of their churches.

Obama Says the Augusta National Golf Club Should Allow Women to Attend

  • In April 2012, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney informed the media that President Obama believed that women should be admitted for membership to the all-male Augusta National Golf Club.

Obama Speaks at White House Event on Women and the Economy:

At an April 6, 2012 White House event on women and the economy, President Obama said: “When more women are bringing home the bacon, but bringing home less of it than men who are doing the same work, that weakens families, it weakens communities, it’s tough on our kids, it weakens our entire economy.”

Obama Speaks about the Need for “Pay Equity”:

On April 17, 2012, President Obama stated that “women who worked full-time [the previous year] earned only 77 percent of what their male counterparts did.” “The pay gap was even greater for African American and Latina women,” added Obama, “with African American women earning 64 cents and Latina women earning 56 cents for every dollar earned by a Caucasian man.”

Obama Campaign Urges Female Voters to “Vote Like Your Lady Parts Depend on It”

  • On October 2, 2012, the Obama campaign posted an e-card, targeting women, on its Tumblr site. It read: “Vote like your lady parts depend on it.” Just hours after bloggers began criticizing the ad, the campaign deleted the e-card.

Obama Mocks Romney’s Reference to “Binders Full of Women”

  • During an October 9, 2012 presidential debate, Republican Mitt Romney described how, when he began his tenure as governor of Massachusetts in 2003, he sought to increase the number of women in his cabinet: “I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men. And I went to my staff, and I said, ‘How come all the people for these jobs are all men?’ They said, ‘Well, these are the people that have the qualifications.’ And I said, ‘Well, gosh, can’t we find some women that are also qualified?’” This, explained Romney, led to a “concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members” of his cabinet. “I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks?’ And they brought us whole binders full of women” (i.e., women’s resumes).
  • At a campaign rally in Iowa the following day, Obama made a disparaging reference to Romney’s remark: “We don’t have to collect a bunch of binders to find qualified, talented, driven young women ready to learn and teach in these fields right now,” said Obama. “When young women graduate, they should get equal pay for equal work. That should be a simple question to answer.” He repeated a similar assertion later that day at a campaign event in Ohio.

Obama Says Women Are Underpaid

  • During his second inaugural address as president on January 21, 2013, the newly re-elected Obama emphasized his belief that female workers in America are not treated or paid fairly: “Our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.”

Obama Laments America’s Historical and Continuing Injustice Toward Women

In a December 4, 2013 speech on the U.S. economy, President Obama said: “It’s also true that women still make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men…. It’s time to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act so that women will have more tools to fight pay discrimination.”

Obama Says Women Are Underpaid

During his State of the Union address in January 2014, Obama said: “Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment. A woman deserves equal pay for equal work.”

Depicting a Supreme Court Decision As “War on Women”

On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that some companies with religious objections could avoid the Obamacare mandate requiring employers to provide their workers with health insurance plans that cover contraceptives and abortifacients.

The Obama administration responded to the decision by characterizing it as anti-woman. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said: “President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them. Today’s decision jeopardizes the health of the women who are employed by these companies.”

DOJ “Transgender Bathrooms” Lawsuit Against North Carolina

On May 9, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that the DOJ had filed suit against the state of North Carolina over HB 2, which sought to protect citizens from being intruded upon by transgenders, authentic or fraudulent, in public restrooms by dictating that all people should use the bathroom of their biological sex. At a press conference, Lynch said the following:

“Today, I’m joined by [Vanita] Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice.  We are here to announce a significant law enforcement action regarding North Carolina’s Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, also known as House Bill 2.  The North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 2 in special session on March 23 of this year.  The bill sought to strike down an anti-discrimination provision in a recently-passed Charlotte, North Carolina, ordinance, as well as to require transgender people in public agencies to use the bathrooms consistent with their sex as noted at birth, rather than the bathrooms that fit their gender identity.  The bill was signed into law that same day.  In so doing, the legislature and the governor placed North Carolina in direct opposition to federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity.  More to the point, they created state-sponsored discrimination against transgender individuals, who simply seek to engage in the most private of functions in a place of safety and security – a right taken for granted by most of us.

“Last week, our Civil Rights Division notified state officials that House Bill 2 violates federal civil rights laws.  We asked that they certify by the end of the day today that they would not comply with or implement House Bill 2’s restriction on restroom access.  An extension was requested by North Carolina and was under active consideration.  But instead of replying to our offer or providing a certification, this morning, the state of North Carolina and its governor chose to respond by suing the Department of Justice.  As a result of their decisions, we are now moving forward. Today, we are filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state of North Carolina, Governor Pat McCrory, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina.  We are seeking a court order declaring House Bill 2’s restroom restriction impermissibly discriminatory, as well as a statewide bar on its enforcement….

“This action is about a great deal more than just bathrooms.  This is about the dignity and respect we accord our fellow citizens and the laws that we, as a people and as a country, have enacted to protect them – indeed, to protect all of us.  And it’s about the founding ideals that have led this country – haltingly but inexorably – in the direction of fairness, inclusion and equality for all Americans.

“This is not the first time that we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation.  We saw it in the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation.  We saw it in fierce and widespread resistance to Brown v. Board of Education.  And we saw it in the proliferation of state bans on same-sex unions intended to stifle any hope that gay and lesbian Americans might one day be afforded the right to marry.  That right, of course, is now recognized as a guarantee embedded in our Constitution, and in the wake of that historic triumph, we have seen bill after bill in state after state taking aim at the LGBT community.  Some of these responses reflect a recognizably human fear of the unknown, and a discomfort with the uncertainty of change.  But this is not a time to act out of fear.  This is a time to summon our national virtues of inclusivity, diversity, compassion and open-mindedness.  What we must not do – what we must never do – is turn on our neighbors, our family members, our fellow Americans, for something they cannot control, and deny what makes them human.  This is why none of us can stand by when a state enters the business of legislating identity and insists that a person pretend to be something they are not, or invents a problem that doesn’t exist as a pretext for discrimination and harassment.

“Let me speak now to the people of the great state, the beautiful state, my state of North Carolina.  You’ve been told that this law protects vulnerable populations from harm – but that just is not the case.  Instead, what this law does is inflict further indignity on a population that has already suffered far more than its fair share.  This law provides no benefit to society – all it does is harm innocent Americans.

“Instead of turning away from our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues, let us instead learn from our history and avoid repeating the mistakes of our past.  Let us reflect on the obvious but often neglected lesson that state-sanctioned discrimination never looks good in hindsight.  It was not so very long ago that states, including North Carolina, had signs above restrooms, water fountains and on public accommodations keeping people out based upon a distinction without a difference.  We have moved beyond those dark days, but not without pain and suffering and an ongoing fight to keep moving forward.  Let us write a different story this time.  Let us not act out of fear and misunderstanding, but out of the values of inclusion, diversity and regard for all that make our country great.

“Let me also speak directly to the transgender community itself.  Some of you have lived freely for decades.  Others of you are still wondering how you can possibly live the lives you were born to lead.  But no matter how isolated or scared you may feel today, the Department of Justice and the entire Obama Administration wants you to know that  we see you; we stand with you; and we will do everything we can to protect you going forward.  Please know that history is on your side.  This country was founded on a promise of equal rights for all, and we have always managed to move closer to that promise, little by little, one day at a time….”

Obama Pushes Transgender Rights in Schools

In May 2016, the Obama Administration sent a letter — signed by Justice and Education department officials — to all school districts nationwide. It specified what schools would now be required to do for transgender students. That is, as soon as a parent or guardian notified a public school that his or her child’s identified gender “differs from previous representations or records,” that school would have to comply and treat the child accordingly.

In May 2016, Politico.com reported:

“The divisive and politically combustible issue of bathroom access for transgender individuals is about to become further inflamed, as the Obama administration is expected in coming weeks to aggressively reinforce its position that transgender student rights are fully protected under federal law, sources told Politico. With the Justice Department already locking horns with North Carolina over the state’s so-called bathroom bill, the administration plans to reaffirm its view that robust protections for transgender students are within the existing scope of Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities. Multiple agencies are expected to be involved. It’s a step LGBT advocates have wanted the federal government to take for years. The legal protections include providing transgender students not just access to bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity but also affording them protections from bullying, harassment and sexual violence, and a right to privacy concerning their transgender status and transition.”

In a National Review Online analysis of this issue, author Ed Whelan discussed the implications of the Obama administration’s position: “A young man who says his gender identity is female must be offered a college dormitory room with roommates who are women (irrespective of the wishes of those roommates). An athlete who is biologically male in all respects must be allowed to compete for a position on a women’s sports team if he identifies himself as female. A first-grade girl who thinks she’s a boy can use the boys’ bathroom. And, yes, high-school boys who say they’re transgender girls may use the girls’ locker rooms and showers on the same terms, and at the same time, as the girls do — and vice versa, of course, for girls who say they’re transgender boys.

Whelan then proceeded to expose the logical incoherence of the Obama policy:

Not surprisingly, this insanity has no plausible basis in Title IX. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Ferg-Cadima is right in his first claim: that Title IX actually forbids discrimination on the basis of gender identity. On any coherent account of what discrimination is, that assumption thoroughly defeats, rather than supports, Ferg-Cadima’s claim that “transgender students” must be treated “consistent with their gender identity.”

A person discriminates on the basis of a trait when he takes that trait into account in making a decision (at least when there is no compelling or inherent justification for doing so), and he doesn’t discriminate when he disregards the trait. Similarly, a policy discriminates on the basis of a trait when it makes that trait relevant to how a person is treated, and it doesn’t discriminate when it treats the trait as irrelevant. So, for example, a person discriminates on the basis of race when he factors a job applicant’s race into his hiring decision, and he doesn’t discriminate on the basis of race when he disregards the applicant’s race in making his hiring decision. Likewise, a person discriminates on the basis of gender identity when he factors a job applicant’s gender identity into his hiring decision — when, for example, he refuses to hire a woman because she says she identifies as male — and he doesn’t discriminate on the basis of gender identity when he disregards her gender identity in deciding whether to hire her.

But in the context of single-sex bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers, the concept of discrimination on the basis of gender identity plays out very differently from what the transgender ideologues contend. In this context, a school complies with the (hypothetical) norm of nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity when it disregards a student’s gender identity and instead assigns the student to the facilities that correspond with his biological sex.

In other words, it is the advocates of transgender access to bathrooms and showers who, under the guise of their nondiscrimination rhetoric, are in fact seeking to discriminate on the basis of — in favor of — gender identity. That’s exactly what a policy of making gender identity override biological sex entails: It makes gender identity determine which restrooms and showers a person is allowed to use, just as a policy of race-segregated restrooms and showers makes race determine which facilities a person is allowed to use….

The unsound proposition that separate facilities assigned by biological sex involves discrimination on the basis of gender identity collapses into incoherence. If a boy who identifies as female has a right under Title IX to use the girls’ restrooms and showers, then it would clearly be discrimination on the basis of gender identity to bar a boy who identifies as male from also using them. After all, the difference between these two biological males is that they have different gender identities. How could one of the males be allowed to use the girls’ facilities and the other be barred from doing so if Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity? In short, contrary to everyone’s (including the Obama administration’s) understanding of Title IX, the transgender illogic would disallow any system of single-sex facilities to survive.

On May 13, 2016, the Daily Mail reported:

President Obama will order all public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity. The sweeping decree sent to all school districts will not be legally binding but those that do not abide by the new ruling could face lawsuits or lose federal aid…. “There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said. “This guidance gives administrators, teachers, and parents the tools they need to protect transgender students from peer harassment and to identify and address unjust school policies,” she added…. The Obama administration letter — signed by education and justice officials — will say schools may not require transgender students to have a medical diagnosis, undergo any medical treatment, or produce a birth certificate or other document before treating them according to their gender identity.

Additional Resources:

A Complete Timeline of Race Relations Under Obama
By Hugh Khachatrian
January 9, 2017

© Copyright 2024, DiscoverTheNetworks.org