"Obama" Goes to Plan B on Racial Socialist Health Care, Confusing His Own Supporters
Print Friendly and PDF

The man calling himself ”Barack Obama” now says that he has given up on his ambitious ”Obamacare” health care program, and is ready to ”compromise.” Don’t be fooled by this ruse for a minute. He has no intention of quitting on this idea, and his idea of compromise is, ”What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine.’

However, in a quirkily positive development, the ruse has apparently succeeded at fooling many of ”Obama’s” own white, leftwing followers.

One of the motives behind Obamacare is to provide aliens–illegal and legal alike–with ”free” healthcare, i.e., entirely at the expense of the citizen taxpayers.

The ”compromise” plan foresees health care ”cooperatives,” private non-profit insurers. Only they aren’t private; they are to be paid for, initially, to the tune of ”$3 billion to $4 billion,” by the taxpayer (”With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government…”). The real tab will be anywhere from that range to a gazillion dollars, and the taxpayer in question will be white, and possibly Asian.

”Obama” has endured some of his most vociferous opposition from leftists who failed to read between the lines of his ”compromise” plan. Meanwhile, some major media operations, such as Yahoo News, have sent the original ”compromise” story down the memory hole. I can’t even access it via my own download; instead of ”Obama Backs Away from Public Health Insurance Plan,” the file that comes up on my screen is the new AP talking point, ”Health care concession riles left; right unmoved.” The original AP talking point story is still up at Republican CNS News.

(Apparently, to be sure of saving news stories from certain powerful media outlets, one must now either take a screen capture shot, save the page as a photo, or copy and paste it, and save it as an email.)

As ”Obama” has himself testified, he got his ”dreams”–our nightmares–from his father. What the son neglected to mention was that although the father had a Harvard M.S. in economics, he was a racist and an economic illiterate. In the father’s 1965 racial socialist economics manifesto, ”Problems Facing Our Socialism,” he called on the Kenyan government to seize all white and Asian-owned property, and implied that all government action must be based on the goal of dispossessing, robbing, and generally harming all whites and Asians (Indians), and giving all power to blacks. Since the son knows he can't seize whites' property directly, he plans to do so through confiscatory taxes to pay for racial socialist schemes in education and health care, whereby he forces American whites to fund their own dispossession.

Whether out of expediency (as I believe), or a broader kind of racism, the son has embraced Hispanics, while his attitude towards Asians has been ambiguous. However, he is as unambiguously racist toward whites as his father was. His devotees have only been able to suppress criticism of his racism through constantly vilifying the critics, and projecting onto them the label of ”racists.”

In the summer of 2004, when David Axelrod initially rolled out his media campaign for president for the man who was then only an Illinois state senator, I exposed ”Obama’s” racism.

To me, Barack Obama comes off like Bill Clinton, a former professor of constitutional law who also apparently never read the document. Like Clinton, Obama also is a man of great charm. That charm and a historical decline, such that policy proposals that once would have been publicly denounced as racist nonsense are now taken seriously, makes Obama so much more dangerous, than if he were simply a crudely vicious racist like Gus Savage.

At the moment, many of ”Obama’s” white supporters apparently find him to be insufficiently racist on health care. The question arises: Is Axelrod about to impose discipline on the ranks, or is the split the result of his failure to do so?

Print Friendly and PDF