On the cover of The Globe, one of those checkout-counter tabloids at the grocery store, it said recently that ‘Obama’s Father was Murdered’ and that ‘Car accident was no accident’.
The car accident refers to the wreck that killed Obama’s father in Kenya long after he had abandoned his son in the United States.
And even though this appeared in one of those wacky tabloids, this sounds like it could well be true. Because Obama’s past and the past of all these leftist radicals is very questionable. You never know about these people. There is always a lot of darkness and uncertainty surrounding their lives and their deaths.
Just look at all the voter fraud and corruption in the Democrat party, particularly in cities. Or the murder in labor unions, like Jimmy Hoffa. Or the killings and lawlessness around organized crime, which is an arm of the Democrat party. Or the sky-high murder rate in strongly Democrat districts like inner cities. Or all the death and destruction around the Kennedy family.
So could Obama’s father really have been murdered?
Sure. These things happen to radicals because they are on The Dark Side of humanity. Just look at all the suspicion about Bill Clinton’s life from corruption in Arkansas to the alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick to harassment and then intimidation of countless women to communist Chinese money flowing into his re-election campaign in 1996 to the pardoning of Puerto Rican terrorists in 2000. And on and on. And that just covers some of what we know. Imagine what we don’t know.
Now consider Obama’s Dark Side. It is everywhere. He recently lashed out in very incendiary language saying that hispanics should go out to vote with this rationale:
“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.”
“Punish our enemies” means “punish conservatives” who want to protect our border. That means “white people”. This is a blatantly racist statement. This is Obama lashing out in anger as radicals always do and playing the race card again. And again. And this is supposed to be what Obama was going to move past. Except that that was never going to happen.
In another campaign stop, Obama said Republicans had hurt the economy and then stood by and criticized while Democrats saved it. He then said “we can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”
Wow. What if a conservative said that blacks should “sit in the back” with the implication being “sit in the back of the bus” as under segregation?
Answer: The blacks would go koo-koo like they always do at every slight and perceived slight. Because liberals can never take one shred of criticism or insult, but love to dish it out every minute.
Wasn’t this supposed be our ‘post-racial’ president? Since when do Americans call their political adversaries their “enemies” when referring to one specific group of people, in this case the understanding being “white people”? Imagine if Ronald Reagan called blacks the “enemies” of whites. There would be a firestorm to this very day.
It is angry, extremist people like Obama who call white people “our enemies” casually and without regret. Because Obama is overwhelmed with anger over his black side, just as his father was full of self hatred for being black African in white America and rage over the colonial occupation of Kenya.
Remember when Obama said he would confront his political opponents because “if they bring a knife, we bring a gun”?
Since when does the president of the United States use such violent metaphors?
Answer: When he comes from the hard left, which is an ideology of violence.
How about Joy Behar of The View TV show publicly calling Republican US Senate candidate Sharron Angle “a bitch”. Twice! Or a member of Democrat Jerry Brown’s staff calling California Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman “a whore”.
Nice people. Liberals. Democrats. The party of ‘compassion’ and ‘tolerance’.
How about media analyst Howard Kurtz reporting that Katie Couric of CBS is ‘touring what she calls “this great unwashed middle of the country” in an effort to divine the mood of the midterms’.
“Great unwashed middle?”
That is prejudiced code language directed against conservative white people who do not live on the East or West coast where Couric’s elite friends reside. Imagine if Rush Limbaugh talked about the “filthy ghettos” of America or the “dirty immigrants”. He would be run off the air.
Yet when a Democrat uses such inflammatory language, it is perfectly acceptable. This is how the left uses all the language and tactics that it seeks to censor in others, how, for instance, homosexuals character-assassinate anyone who opposes their agenda but then cover up the massive disease and death in their own communities spread by their own habits.
Dinesh D’Souza of National Review has written a book called The Roots of Obama’s Rage which traces Obama’s emotional makeup to his absent father’s anger. In an interview about his book, D’Souza said the following, including an interesting commentary on his own ancestral home of India:
“So this was my theory: Obama is a civil-rights guy, but his innovation was to take the black civil-rights agenda and remove the word “black.” It was only when I began to study Obama’s own background that I realized that my theory was wrong. Obama has little or nothing to do with the civil-rights movement. His roots are in Kenya, and he is shaped far more by anti-colonialism than by anything that Martin Luther King said or did…. For instance, there is a lot of speculation now about whether Obama will be a centrist after the midterm election, like Bill Clinton became after 1994. My theory says that he won’t because he cannot. Clinton was largely a non-ideological guy. If Obama came by his liberalism in the faculty lounge, then sure, he can see it hasn’t worked and he can modify it. But if Obama got his formative ideas when he was very young, and if they are the result of his traumatic relationship with his father, then they are built into his psyche. He’s not going to change because, to his anti-colonial mindset, meeting the Republicans halfway is a form of sellout. He would be untrue to his principles if he were to cut deals with a group that he considers to be the neocolonial party…
…Obama remains frozen in his father’s time machine. His anti-colonialism is the anti-colonialism of Africa in the 1950s: state confiscation of land, confiscatory taxation, and so on. My anti-colonialism is the anti-colonialism of India in the 21st century. Recently, the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, gave a speech at Oxford in which he gave two cheers for colonialism. He said India is growing fast and is on its way to becoming a superpower. How? Because the Indians speak English, they have technology, they have universities, they have property rights, they have democracy. And why do they have these things? They got them from the British. Now, Singh could never have said that a generation ago. But the world is changing. Poor countries today have a better solution to the legacy of colonialism. They are able to use their cheap labor costs to make what other people want to buy. This is what the economist Thorstein Veblen once called “the advantage of backwardness.” So the difference between Obama and me is that I have embraced the new world of globalization and free trade, and he continues to be haunted by his father’s ghost….
…My anti-colonial theory beautifully explains all these facts. If Obama views America as the neocolonial occupier of Iraq and Afghanistan, then Muslims fighting against America are anti-colonial resisters and deserve a measure of sympathy; no wonder Obama has no problem with releasing the Lockerbie bomber. Obama hates Churchill because Churchill was the prime minister who cracked down on an anti-colonial uprising in Kenya, one in which Obama’s father and grandfather were both arrested….
…Socialism is clearly part of the picture. Remember that many Third World countries, in opposing Western colonialism, allied themselves with the main alternative, which was Soviet socialism. Obama’s father, Barack Sr., was by his own account an African socialist. He wrote a paper in 1965 proposing tax rates of up to 100 percent. He said that there was nothing wrong with 100 percent taxation as long as the benefits accrue to the state and to society as a whole. Interestingly, Obama, who knows everything about his father, has never alluded to this paper in any of his writings or speeches.”
So to get back to the original question: Could Obama’s father indeed have been murdered?
Of course he could have. Because his and his son’s lives are filled with rage. But we will never know for sure what happened to Papa Obama. Because it happened in Africa and it happened to a leftist, and so there is always suspicion around it like the endless suspicion and darkness and questions around the murders or the deaths of progressives like the Kennedys, John Lennon, Indira Gandhi, Swedish prime minister Olaf Palme, and various rock stars and Hollywood celebrities like Marilyn Monroe and others.
Because when you live on The Dark Side, you are trapped by the darkness. And it is impenetrable.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can read excerpts from my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.