Every statement a liberal makes comes under at least one of these three rules, the Liberal Rules of Truth:
1. Truth is whatever serve the party.
2. If you repeat something enough, that makes it true.
3. If the facts contradict the narrative, the facts lie.
Many enemies of Israel, including some in the United States Congress, see the U.S.-Israel relationship as one-sided. This is true of Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who, in interview with Steve Bannon earlier this month, stated, “I’m entering amendments to strike 500 million more dollars for nuclear-armed Israel. And it’s important to say nuclear-armed Israel, because they do have nuclear weapons. This is not a helpless country, and we already give them $3.4 billion every single year in the state — from the State Department. Three point four billion dollars every single year.”
The $500 million Rep. Greene is speaking of is for missile defense cooperation, and the U.S. Defense Department is a major beneficiary of Israeli research and development. As a result of the experience Israel has garnered from employing various missile defense systems — such as the Iron Dome, David Sling, and Arrow — the Pentagon has received valuable technological capability information, which has saved the U.S. millions — some even say billions — of dollars. President Trump has repeatedly called for a “Golden Dome for America,” which would utilize some of Israel’s missile defense research.
Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), the Somali Muslim native and member of the anti-Israel and anti-American “Squad,” posted on X, “The genocide of the people of Gaza continues as members of Congress vote to fund Israel’s defensive and offensive military capabilities. This is immoral and no amount of excuses will ever make it okay.”
Omar’s usage of the word “genocide” is not only outrageous, but a lie. Israel does not target civilians, but rather warns them to evacuate from combat zones. No other army, in the midst of war, has put itself at such a disadvantage in order to avoid hurting civilians. On the other hand, Hamas uses its civilians as human shields, hence the high casualty rates among Gazans. Omar, unlike her “Squad” colleague AOC (D-N.Y.), seeks to deny Israel funding for defensive arms, such as the Iron Dome.
Moreover, Omar ignores how the U.S. benefits from the $3.3 billion Israel receives in military aid, including supporting thousands of jobs for U.S. citizens. Alexander Haig, former secretary of State and U.S. Army general, notably remarked, “Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.”
Additionally, Israel provides the U.S. with valuable intelligence and, as “eyes and ears” in the Middle East, shares with the U.S. any anti-American moves by Israel’s neighbors and beyond. At the height of the Cold War, during the 1960s, Israel captured advanced Soviet Mig jets and turned them over to the U.S., which helped the U.S. Air Force combat North Vietnamese, Soviet, and Chinese Migs — and saved America lives.
U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) commander General Bantz J. Craddock stated on March 15, 2007 that Israel was America’s “closest ally” in the Middle East and that it “consistently and directly” supported U.S. interests. General George F. Keegan, a retired U.S. Air Force intelligence chief, disclosed in 1986 that the intelligence information he obtained from Israel was greater than what would have been possible had he had “five CIAs.”
Israel continues to help the U.S. deal with traditional security threats. The two countries share intelligence on terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and Middle Eastern politics. Israel’s military experiences have shaped the U.S. approach to counterterrorism and homeland security.
Israel’s military research and development complex has pioneered many cutting-edge technologies that are transforming the face of modern war, including cyberweapons, unmanned vehicles (such as land robots and aerial drones), sensors and electronic warfare systems, and advanced defenses for military vehicles. It is difficult to quantify the value of Israeli assistance to the U.S., but it clearly reveals a relationship between two allies that is a “two-way street.”
Another example of shared knowledge is with Oketz, Israel’s specialized canine unit, which trains dogs to perform life-saving tasks for soldiers by alerting them to potential dangers that include explosives and weapon caches. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has trained American G.I. canine units on how to use dogs without a leash, which saved American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan from improvised explosive devices.
Intel, Microsoft, Cisco, and Google have research and development offices staffed by Israeli engineers and programmers whose technological innovations are helping the U.S. maintain its economic competitiveness, promote sustainable development, and address a range of non-military security challenges.
Israel’s contributions to the U.S. are not limited to the spheres of intelligence and military innovations. The U.S. has benefited from technologies such as drip irrigation technology and wastewater recycling, which the U.S. has provided to third-world countries, which has enhanced American prestige worldwide.
Countless American lives were saved during the 1991 Desert Storm campaign in Iraq because in 1981, Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s Osirak nuclear facility.
During the 2023 Republican presidential debate, Vivek Ramaswamy argued for reducing U.S. military aid for Israel. Nikki Haley, Republican former governor of South Carolina, responded to Ramaswamy by stating that he was “completely wrong”: “Support for Israel is both the morally right and strategically smart thing to do. Both countries are stronger and safer because of our ironclad friendship. As president, I will never abandon Israel.”
Although friendship between Israel and the U.S. is grounded in shared democratic values, the strategic component is key. The Jewish state is one of America’s best investments abroad. The relationship is a two-way street, with Israel giving as much as it gets from Washington.
Joseph Puder, American Thinker
I have heard a lot of discussion about the potential ramifications of the One Big Beautiful Bill over the last few weeks. I bet you have, too.
Here’s something I’d wager you haven’t heard much about: of about 340 million Americans, 83 million are on Medicaid.
That’s one-fourth of us.
Forty percent of American children are on Medicaid. Forty percent!
Try to wrap your head around those figures. One in four of us has his healthcare paid for by the other three, who are also paying for their own healthcare. Two of every five children in the country have been brought into the world by people who are not in a condition to provide them healthcare, so the rest of us pick up the tab, in addition to paying for the healthcare of our own children.
If one adheres to broadly Christian principles, he should not object to helping people in demonstrable need—that is, those who, for reasons completely out of their control, genuinely cannot do for themselves or those close to them. But if we truly live in a society in which a quarter of us are incapable of providing for our most basic needs—something would seem to be dreadfully wrong. Something must be wrong with us.
In other words, something is wrong with some portion of that quarter of Americans who are perfectly able-bodied but cannot get themselves together sufficiently to handle even this basic aspect of adult life. And something must be wrong with those of us outside that quarter who think so little of that portion of able-bodied recipients that we consider them incapable and prefer, instead, to subsidize and infantilize them.
A closer look at usage of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is informative. The dependence on Medicaid is disproportionately high among blacks and Latinos, although white rates of dependence are also unacceptably high. Non-Hispanic whites are around 60 percent of the American population, and 43 percent of Medicaid/CHIP users. Latinos are 19 percent of the population, and 28 percent of Medicaid/CHIP users. Blacks are 12 percent of the population and 21 percent of the Medicaid/CHIP users.
Any society with even the slightest interest in cultivating self-reliance and responsibility in its population would wonder about these figures and endeavor to lower them. In the United States today, however, our media seldom mentions any of these facts.
Indeed, whenever someone raises the questions I am addressing here, you can reliably count on the standard narratives of victimhood, structural inequality, and white supremacy being trotted out, and you know at that point what you will be called if you even dare to ask for the evidence supporting those interpretations of the situation.
Fearmongering about the One Big Beautiful Bill from the left typically centers on those currently receiving Medicaid who, leftists insist, “will not be able to navigate the red tape” required to show they meet new work requirements. But why won’t they be able to navigate this? Why shouldn’t they have to prove their eligibility? In advancing these arguments, aren’t they admitting these people are not competent to function in the adult world?
The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid to everyone up to 138 percent of the poverty rate. What this means is that, if you are by definition not poor, but insufficiently far away from poor to satisfy the desires of progressive elites, you can get still Medicaid. Why are people who are not at poverty level getting taxpayer-supported healthcare that was meant for the poor? And why is the Trump administration’s attempt to undo this error viewed as some kind of moral monstrosity? Since when do we not require non-poor people to provide these basics for themselves?
The fact that there are this many Americans on the healthcare dole, frankly, should embarrass and shame the whole country. It is an indication that we have given up on the project of morally training our citizens to avoid relying on the state for their basic needs.
Walking around my middle-class neighborhood, I see yard signs reading “Hands off Medicaid.” I have perfect confidence that none of the solidly middle-class households that put those signs up on their lawns are receiving Medicaid. I have nearly as much confidence that none of them even know anyone who is receiving Medicaid, nor do they know how many Americans are on Medicaid. They have drunk the Kool-Aid our leftist political elites have mixed up for them on this issue. They believe the plain falsehood that the One Big Beautiful Bill is somehow relegating helpless people to the poor house merely by requiring Medicaid recipients to justify their presence on the rolls.
By contrast, I grew up poor, and I have known other poor people. The single thought that most dominated my consciousness for much of my youth was, “Being poor is a drag, I do not like it, so I am going to do everything I can to get myself out of this, and I am confident that if I commit myself to that goal, it can be reached.” I applied myself consistently to hard work in school and in all the various jobs I could get to help me accomplish that goal. I do not believe my story is anything particularly special or unique.
Unlike the patronizing left, which thinks of those at the bottom of the social hierarchy as grown-up children who are too incompetent to handle life, I give others enough credit as human beings to believe they are capable of rising out of poverty. I refuse to believe that we must bail them out and make excuses for them when they do not do what is necessary to make themselves independent.
Some people will fall into unfortunate circumstances beyond their control, and we have a moral obligation as a society to help them get back on their feet. But when 25 percent of us are on Medicaid and many, if not most, of them are perfectly able-bodied and capable of supporting themselves, we have to begin to wonder whether our elite class simply finds it desirable to infantilize people in this way. If we can’t even ask people receiving public funds to prove their indigent status, we have a problem.
Alexander Riley, The Chronicles
I applaud it all…BUT: until or unless we lock these people up and throw away the key (at a minimum), they and their kind will continue to wreck our freedom and steal from our prosperity. We must make tyrants PETRIFIED to victimize Americans. We have got a long way to go to make that happen.
BREAKING NEWS
The House Oversight Committee is compelling the following individuals to appear for depositions through issued subpoenas:
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: October 9
Former President Bill Clinton: October 14
Former U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland: October 2
Former FBI Director James Comey: October 7
Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr: August 18
Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: August 26
Former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions: August 28
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller: September 2
Former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch: September 9
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder: September 30
*******
“Communism doesn’t work because people like to own stuff.”
— Frank Zappa
*******
“The only entitlement I expect from my government is freedom.”
— Unknown
Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason
You are not — mostly — your race, your gender, your family-of-origin, your DSM-approved behavioral health label. You are not primarily your DNA. You are not your ancestry.
Mostly, you are your CHOICES. You are the sum total of your accumulated choices, large and small, over the course of your life. Your choices are always subject to change. But first: You must own them.
Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason
The murderous terrorist organization Hamas has harshly criticized comments made by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an interview with Fox News regarding Israel’s plans to take control of Gaza.
In the interview, Netanyahu was asked if Israel would take control of all of Gaza. He answered that “we intend to, in order to ensure our security, remove Hamas there, enable the population to be free of [Hamas], and to pass it to civilian governance that is not Hamas and not anyone who seeks the destruction of Israel. We want to liberate ourselves and the people of Gaza from the awful terror of Hamas.”
When asked if Israel wants to reverse the Disengagement from Gaza that was carried out 20 years ago this month, Netanyahu responded: “We don’t want to keep it. We want a security perimeter, [but] we don’t want to govern it. We don’t want to be there as a governing body. We want to hand it over to Arab forces that will govern it properly without threatening us, and giving Gazans a good life. That’s not possible with Hamas.”
In response, Hamas issued a statement claiming that substantial progress had been made toward a “final agreement” during recent negotiations. However, according to the statement, Netanyahu pulled out of the talks and exposed his true intentions.
The statement further accused Netanyahu of expanding Israel’s military campaign, asserting that he intended to “sacrifice the hostages for personal reasons and due to his extremist ideological agenda.”
Hamas also declared, “The Gaza Strip will not surrender, and the campaign will be tough and exact a heavy price from Israel and the IDF.”
Dalit Halevi, Israeli National News
The phrase “go woke, go broke” is often used by critics of corporate social responsibility. It implies that companies face a binary choice: embrace progressive values or pursue profit.
But this dichotomy between “wokeness” and capitalism is both simplistic and increasingly out of step with corporate reality.
Many companies are learning to navigate a middle path. They are embedding social, environmental and ethical considerations into their business strategies – not in spite of profit, but because it contributes to long-term value creation.
Understanding this shift – and the backlash to it – is fundamental to grasping modern corporate responsibility.
Our research examines the growing tension between evolving “woke” agendas within firms and the enduring demands of shareholder value, known as “shareholder revanchism”.
We explore this dynamic using academic Archie Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility, where economic responsibility forms the foundation for higher legal, ethical and philanthropic obligations.
Get newsletter
Ultimately, we argue for a reassessment of the prevailing emphasis on shareholder profit and short-termism. Directors should adopt a more balanced approach when pursuing profit and discharging their duties.
The idea that directors must choose between shareholders and stakeholders – between profit and progressive causes – has deep roots in law and economics.
For decades, shareholder primacy prevailed in global business. This principle was famously reinforced in court decisions such as the 1919 Dodge v Ford case in the United States. Henry Ford was found to have a duty to operate his company in the interests of shareholders. It was later popularised by Milton Friedman, who declared that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”.
A stark example of this tension came with the ousting of Emmanuel Faber, chief executive of food giant Danone in 2021. Faber was accused by some shareholders of failing to “strike the right balance between shareholder value creation and sustainability”. His critics felt he focused too much on people, the planet and social responsibility and not enough on profits.
Yet corporate law has begun to evolve. In the United Kingdom, section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 still requires directors to promote the success of the company “for the benefit of its members”. But the legislation also requires directors to consider employees, suppliers, communities and environmental outcomes.
This model – sometimes termed “enlightened shareholder value” – preserves profit as the goal, while recognising that broader factors shape how it is achieved.
New Zealand’s brief experiment with section 131 of the Companies Act 1993, which allowed directors to consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, is another example. The amendment was introduced under Labour before being revoked by the National-led coalition.
The phrase “woke capitalism” was popularised in a 2018 New York Times opinion piece about corporate activism.
It originally described how firms were supporting progressive causes to attract younger, values-driven consumers – not out of altruism, but to strengthen brand appeal.
In 2019, the US Business Roundtable – a group of 200 top chief executives – rejected shareholder primacy in favour of stakeholder governance. It pledged to run companies for the benefit of all stakeholders: customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders.
This followed a 2018 letter by Larry Fink, chairman of BlackRock, calling on firms to pursue a broader purpose and serve all their stakeholders.
Yet corporate activism carries risks.
Nike’s campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick boosted sales but sparked backlash over the American football player’s support for Black Lives Matter. Bud Light’s brief partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney triggered boycotts. Gillette’s “toxic masculinity” campaign alienated many long-time customers.
Jaguar’s sales plunged after a rebrand was criticised as pandering. Even ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s has clashed with parent company Unilever over the limits of its political expression.
These examples show that progressive branding is not always rewarded – but nor is silence. Companies now risk criticism for failing to speak out on issues their stakeholders care about. It is clear consumers are increasingly attuned to corporate social responsibility.
A central challenge in reconciling these tensions is the definition of profit itself. Traditional corporate law treats profit as the ultimate end of business activity.
But scholars such as Edward Freeman argue that profit is a precondition for continuity – not an end in itself. As he puts it, profit to a company is like red blood cells to a human: essential for survival, but not the purpose of life.
Under this view, profit becomes cyclical. It is a means of sustaining activity, not a fixed destination. This may seem open ended, but it avoids the fiction that companies ever reach a final “profit goal”.
Firms pursuing social impact are not abandoning capitalism; they are redefining it.
In a polarised climate, “woke capitalism” remains a lightning rod. But the supposed conflict between ethics and economics is a false one. Courts, lawmakers and firms alike are recognising that social responsibility can support, rather than undermine, long-term value.
Directors are no longer torn between duty and decency. They are navigating a broader understanding of corporate success – one in which “wokeness” and capitalism are not opposing forces, but interdependent elements of a sustainable business strategy.
This article is based on research completed with Dr Philip Gavin from the University College of London.
Example #1: The Democratic governor of New York is outraged that Republicans in Texas are redistricting to the advantage of their Party. She implied that Democrats have never done this in blue states, like her own. Hello?! Democrats have done this for decades, virtually out in the open while bragging about it. Republicans in Texas are merely acting in retaliation. “This is war,” the governor of New York thundered in her echo chamber. Yes it is — a war her Party started. Her shrieks are the equivalent of Hitler shrieking in 1941 that America and Western Europe have suddenly become violent.
Example #2: Republicans in Congress are afraid to change the U.S. Senate rules so President Trump can appoint members of his administration, as the Constitution demands. Republicans are afraid if they change the rules, then Democrats will change the rules too when they control the Senate again. Hello?! Democrats made all the rules in the Senate even when they had a 1 seat majority. All the rules were to their advantage, brazenly so. The Biden regime and its Senate tolerated no dissenters. Democrats follow no rules. They are lawless totalitarians, and these trembling Republicans know it.
You see why I call them the Uniparty? You see why even when Republicans win, they lose — with the lone exception of President Trump? The good guys will never win in Washington DC, because there are no good guys in the Imperial City, other than President Trump for 3 more years. At some point, we have to trash the city, lock them all up and start over.
As C3 pointed out on X:
I don’t think we’ve had legitimate elections in decades.
No way the Senate is 53-47.
No way the House is 220-215.
Dems are a 20% approval fringe party.
Nothing gets done with these fake margins and that’s exactly what DC wants.
A scam to slow progress.
Audit our elections.
Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason
Picture a seven-year-old girl living under communism in the 1980s. Her dad brings her to a local grocery store in the Ukraine, their home, in the old Soviet Union. He tells her to look around at the store and memorize the scene. This was described to me in a radio interview a few years ago by Marina Medvin, a successful D.C. area attorney and writer for Townhall and Forbes. She was that little girl.
Marina’s father told her, “Make a photograph of this in your mind.” She does. The walls are bare. There are some shelves, but the only food item is on a shelf way up top. It is a jar of pickled, green tomatoes. They look like they might be spoiled.
Fast forward to a year or two later. Now the family is in Newark, New Jersey—the first step in their move to America as a new home. Marina Medvin then enters a grocery store and is shocked by all the food and all the variety.
The difference between capitalism and socialism could not be clearer. And yet millions of Americans, including the young, fall prey to the siren song of socialism.
Could the old Soviet Union-type store with its bare shelves be coming soon to New York City?
As we all know, several weeks ago, Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old avowed Marxist Islamist, won the Democratic primary for NYC mayor. If his opposing candidates split the opposition vote in November, an avowed socialist could actually become the mayor of the nation’s largest city.
AOC and Bernie Sanders support him. So do many other prominent liberals. I believe Mamdani would be bad as mayor for many reasons, but this article will only focus on socialism.
Many young people today are disenchanted with capitalism. Socialism seems to have the better branding among the young. The Cato Institute even points out that one-third of people under 30 support communism. What an indictment on modern education.
Marxism begins with an atheistic premise. But today we have been so cut off from the premise of America, founded on the idea that our rights come from God, that many disillusioned Americans want to try and give socialism another shot.
Although some modern proponents of socialism might argue that even if it hasn’t work in other places, it will work this time around—given the right leader. Zohran or AOC or Bernie.
But haven’t we seen this before?
Socialism didn’t work under Lenin, maybe it will work under Stalin.
Socialism didn’t work under Mao, maybe it will work under Xi.
Socialism didn’t work under Chavez, maybe it will work under Maduro. And so on.
Socialism is often the gateway to communism—the redistribution of wealth by government force. As Winston Churchill observed, “communism is nothing but socialism with a gun at your back.”
I read about a T-shirt that says, “Communism has only killed 100 million people. Why not give it another shot?” This can be found in the book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Communism: The Killingest Idea Ever (Regnery, 2017) by my friend, Dr. Paul Kengor of Grove City College, whom I’ve interviewed multiple times.
Maybe it doesn’t work anywhere and never will because it runs contrary to human nature.
Human nature is sinful. And the best form of government recognizes that and therefore separates power, so no individual or small group can amass too much of it.
Why has America historically succeeded in granting us freedom? It’s because the founding fathers recognized the fact of human selfishness. They did everything in their power to limit how much power any one man or group of people might have. Belief in the sinfulness of man can be seen in the Constitution with its strict separation of powers.
Ben Franklin said, “There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh, get first all the peoples’ money, then all their lands and then make them and their children servants forever.”
Capitalism does not produce an equal distribution of wealth. No system does. But in the socialist schemes, it is only the rulers that do well, not the people.
The people are forced into breadlines for inferior bread—or pickled, green tomatoes.
For all of its warts and flaws, capitalism produces much greater prosperity for the greatest amount of people.
What does communism produce? Ultimately, a lot of dead bodies.
One might ask, “Why would God allow all the suffering that the socialists and communists have imposed on this world—not to mention the total loss of religious freedom in such places?” I would answer: “So that we don’t go down that road again.” We pray New Yorkers won’t go down that road.
Dr. Jerry Newcombe
Kamala had desperately wanted to become the next Obama and had obsessively pursued Obama’s approval, but despite the similarities in their backgrounds, both were the children of radical academics and absent foreign fathers, raised in an atmosphere of privilege before learning to blow racial dog whistles to win over black voters and guilty white liberals, he had remained cool to her. Kamala had been far more interested in Obama than he was in her.
And that had not changed just as Kamala was on the verge of following in his footsteps.
Obama could see the disaster coming a while away. Kamala was unpopular, as bad a speaker as her boss, lacked charisma and had no appeal to voters, from his perspective, she had nothing in common with him other than their tentative racial identification, but he was unable to convince top black Democrats who may have had their own private doubts about Kamala’s political skills, but were not about to pass up the opportunity of a second black president.
Kamala’s appointment, or at least that of a black VP, had been the promise they secured from Biden, and with the old white guy on his last political legs, they were determined to cash it in.
Even as the fallout grew from Biden’s debate performance, ‘Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House‘ revealed that Congressional Black Caucus members “laid down a marker: if Biden exited the race, they would accept no option other than Vice President Kamala Harris”.
Racial tensions exploded among Democrat insiders right after the debate. “I watched the black-white stuff start on Thursday night,” an elected official recalled.
At a private chat, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the first ranking House Democrat and Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third ranking House Democrat, “had watched next-generation white governors lay the groundwork to battle Harris for the nomination” and agreed that, “they would not let their party skip over the first Black woman vice president, not without a fight.”
Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile and other black Democrats who had been helping the campaign with black turnout began lobbying delegates to back Kamala even before Biden dropped out. “We’re not going to let anyone skip over the VP,” Brazile had warned.
Obama had helped touch off the takedown of Joe Biden. His allies, loyalists and operatives had seeded doubt about Biden’s functionality and jumped on him when he faltered at the debate. But Obama had not done it for Kamala, he had done it to replace Biden with one of his own people, and yet after pulling strings on white establishment players, like Pelosi and George Clooneyi, his path forward was being blocked by the Congressional Black Caucus members with whom he always had an uneasy relationship. The CBC had initially backed Hillary Clinton over him. And while it was forced to hail him as the first black president, the same old time Dems like Jesse Jackson who once bragged on TV, “I want to cut his nuts off”, resented him.
Biden’s debate collapse had created a historic moment of the worst possible kind. Dems needed to oust the man at the top of their ticket before his nomination could be confirmed and pick a replacement. Obama wanted a mini-primary process to pick his chosen candidate, but virtually every other powerful black Democrat wanted to rubber stamp Kamala for the position.
Obama did not want Kamala, but that made black Democrats want her even more. Elevating Kamala would eclipse Obama. And Obama’s opposition to her only reinforced their mistrust of his racial solidarity. Black political activists of any generation had never trusted Obama to stand with the black community and his campaign missteps once Kamala became the nominee, which included attacking black men, only reinforced their doubts whether he was really one of them.
And they had a point. Obama was far more comfortable with the white Democrat power players than with the old black establishment that was busy cutting off his plans by rallying for Kamala. Obama was heavily reliant on white operatives like David Axelrod or his Pod Save America cohort who were of far less use against Kamala and the black activists laboring for her. His white operatives were afraid of crossing racial lines and Obama preferred to work behind the scenes, but the former community organizer had never been good at actual organizing.
That ineptitude was part of a larger problem. Obama thought of himself as an idea man. He expected others to do the hard work. His efforts to interfere in the 2020 primary by putting forward his own candidate had collapsed badly. And whatever candidate he had in mind for his mini-primary shell game in 2024 went unnamed. Obama correctly warned that Kamala would lose but he never revealed who his dream candidate was going to be. And that may be because the candidate would not make an appearance unless Kamala had already been sidelined.
Some speculated that Obama was going to put forward his wife. There is no way to know, but it’s likelier that Obama’s dream candidate was not black or even a woman. The CBC had been right about Obama. He was a leftist before he was anything else and his allegiance to the black community had always been a political facade to advance his radical agenda.
Obama could have put his wife forward before he could put forward a white leftist woman or man up against Kamala. The only way that could happen was if black Democrats had joined him in opposing Kamala and despite his best efforts, Obama could not get any takers.
Click Here To Sign Up For FPM+ For $3.99/Month
Menu
“Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out”—David Horowitz
[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
In the 2024 election, Barack Obama found himself in the unexpected position of fighting against the rise of the second black president. Opposing him was nearly every black Democrat, from Rep. Jim Clyburn, who helped put Biden in the White House in exchange for promises to appoint a black woman as his VP and to the Supreme Court, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, who were determined to make Kamala the candidate.
Biden’s debate collapse had created a historic moment of the worst possible kind. Dems needed to oust the man at the top of their ticket before his nomination could be confirmed and pick a replacement. Obama wanted a mini-primary process to pick his chosen candidate, but virtually every other powerful black Democrat wanted to rubber stamp Kamala for the position.
Kamala had desperately wanted to become the next Obama and had obsessively pursued Obama’s approval, but despite the similarities in their backgrounds, both were the children of radical academics and absent foreign fathers, raised in an atmosphere of privilege before learning to blow racial dog whistles to win over black voters and guilty white liberals, he had remained cool to her. Kamala had been far more interested in Obama than he was in her.
And that had not changed just as Kamala was on the verge of following in his footsteps.
Obama could see the disaster coming a while away. Kamala was unpopular, as bad a speaker as her boss, lacked charisma and had no appeal to voters, from his perspective, she had nothing in common with him other than their tentative racial identification, but he was unable to convince top black Democrats who may have had their own private doubts about Kamala’s political skills, but were not about to pass up the opportunity of a second black president.
Kamala’s appointment, or at least that of a black VP, had been the promise they secured from Biden, and with the old white guy on his last political legs, they were determined to cash it in.
Even as the fallout grew from Biden’s debate performance, ‘Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House‘ revealed that Congressional Black Caucus members “laid down a marker: if Biden exited the race, they would accept no option other than Vice President Kamala Harris”.
Racial tensions exploded among Democrat insiders right after the debate. “I watched the black-white stuff start on Thursday night,” an elected official recalled.
At a private chat, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the first ranking House Democrat and Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third ranking House Democrat, “had watched next-generation white governors lay the groundwork to battle Harris for the nomination” and agreed that, “they would not let their party skip over the first Black woman vice president, not without a fight.”
Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile and other black Democrats who had been helping the campaign with black turnout began lobbying delegates to back Kamala even before Biden dropped out. “We’re not going to let anyone skip over the VP,” Brazile had warned.
Obama had helped touch off the takedown of Joe Biden. His allies, loyalists and operatives had seeded doubt about Biden’s functionality and jumped on him when he faltered at the debate. But Obama had not done it for Kamala, he had done it to replace Biden with one of his own people, and yet after pulling strings on white establishment players, like Pelosi and George Clooneyi, his path forward was being blocked by the Congressional Black Caucus members with whom he always had an uneasy relationship. The CBC had initially backed Hillary Clinton over him. And while it was forced to hail him as the first black president, the same old time Dems like Jesse Jackson who once bragged on TV, “I want to cut his nuts off”, resented him.
Obama did not want Kamala, but that made black Democrats want her even more. Elevating Kamala would eclipse Obama. And Obama’s opposition to her only reinforced their mistrust of his racial solidarity. Black political activists of any generation had never trusted Obama to stand with the black community and his campaign missteps once Kamala became the nominee, which included attacking black men, only reinforced their doubts whether he was really one of them.
And they had a point. Obama was far more comfortable with the white Democrat power players than with the old black establishment that was busy cutting off his plans by rallying for Kamala. Obama was heavily reliant on white operatives like David Axelrod or his Pod Save America cohort who were of far less use against Kamala and the black activists laboring for her. His white operatives were afraid of crossing racial lines and Obama preferred to work behind the scenes, but the former community organizer had never been good at actual organizing.
That ineptitude was part of a larger problem. Obama thought of himself as an idea man. He expected others to do the hard work. His efforts to interfere in the 2020 primary by putting forward his own candidate had collapsed badly. And whatever candidate he had in mind for his mini-primary shell game in 2024 went unnamed. Obama correctly warned that Kamala would lose but he never revealed who his dream candidate was going to be. And that may be because the candidate would not make an appearance unless Kamala had already been sidelined.
Some speculated that Obama was going to put forward his wife. There is no way to know, but it’s likelier that Obama’s dream candidate was not black or even a woman. The CBC had been right about Obama. He was a leftist before he was anything else and his allegiance to the black community had always been a political facade to advance his radical agenda.
Obama could have put his wife forward before he could put forward a white leftist woman or man up against Kamala. The only way that could happen was if black Democrats had joined him in opposing Kamala and despite his best efforts, Obama could not get any takers.
Black Democrats had colluded to put forward Kamala, not because they believed in her personal abilities or because they thought she was the best candidate, but because she was black. Time and time again, black establishment players emphasized that she was black, was the first black vice president and would be the first black female president rather than any rationale rooted in her actual candidacy. The same irrational tribal logic that had elevated Obama was now being used to elevate Kamala. And Obama couldn’t do anything to stop it.
After Kamala’s defeat, party narratives and campaign books have attached most of the blame to Biden. But it wasn’t Biden whom voters rejected on Election Day. It was Kamala.
And how did Kamala come to be the party’s standard bearer in 2024?
Biden had picked Kamala because he had been obligated to pick a black woman and his choices were sparse. It had been either Kamala, future Los Angeles Mayor (and Castro sympathizer) Karen Bass and, somewhat bafflingly, Obamaite operative Susan Rice who had never held elected office. When it came time to replace Biden, Kamala got in because of race.
Democrats picked Kamala as their vice presidential and presidential candidate for the wrong reason. The resulting political disaster had less to do with Biden’s health than their racism.
Racism made Kamala the candidate and cost Democrats the White House.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 