On whose side is Obama on? Black Matters' Murder!

When there is unrest in the Middle East, who does Obama back?  
He backs the Islamic faction.  
When there's unrest at home, who does Obama back?
 He backs the most radical leftist factions. 
 In Egypt, the secular military took out the Muslim Brotherhood; Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood.  
In Iran, the Iranian people rose up in what was called a Green Revolution. Obama backed the mullahs and then made a nuclear deal with them, granting them $150 billion of unfrozen assets via the end of sanctions and the green light to developing nuclear weapons

In Iraq, the US military provided stability after a long war to secure a secular-leaning government.  Obama pulled up stakes. He pulls out, left Iraq vulnerable to Islamists within and vulnerable to Iran next door -- and hello, ISIS. 

 In Turkey, the military attempted an Egypt-like coup.   This prime minister, Erdogan, is trying to take Turkey into unfettered Sharia land.  He is trying to make it Islamic  nation,  and let's talk about Erdogan...

There are some people who think he may have orchestrated that coup in order to be able to get rid of every one of his military and police and diplomatic opponents, 'cause he's purged something like 15 or 20,000 people after this coup.
  It didn't ever have a chance and now people thinking maybe Erdogan actually sponsored this whole thing to make it look like he had tamped down a serious opposition effort.  But now he's got smooth sailing towards taking Turkey into primo Islamist supremacism and away from the secular identity that it has always had.  

Who did Obama back?  Erdogan.   

Here at home, Obama always sides with the most radical leftists.  Black Lives Matter over the cops.  Occupy Wall Street over the Tea Party.  Illegal immigrants over citizens.  Refugees over citizens.  Planned Parenthood's baby butchers over the rule of law.  Bureaucrats over doctors.  Teachers unions over students.  We're dealing here with a guy who is a radical leftist, divisive by choice.  It's how he advances his vision of transformation.

And yet he's sitting there at 56% approval in the polls.  

The  Media was able to take George Bush down to the low thirties with four to five years of daily pummeling on every aspect of his presidency. Leading with Iraq, followed by torture, followed by Abu Ghraib, followed by Afghanistan, followed by the War on Terror, followed by the economic collapse. Virtually everything that was going on wrong was pointed and laid right at the feet of George W. Bush. 

But  Obama is perceived to have no responsibility for anything.  He's perceived to have no cause effect on anything that's happening.  It's thought by a majority of Americans that all of the stuff going wrong is Bush and that poor old Obama has been doing everything he can! He's swimming upstream, swimming against the tide, doing everything he can to fix these horrible problems for social justice and whatever.

But there are these rascally Republicans in opposition and the conservative media and the Tea Party and the Trumpists and everybody trying to stop our first African-American president from his appointment with destiny, when in fact he is the architect of this decline.  

And yet nothing attaches to him! No accountability whatsoever.  The media hasn't hit him on anything like they did Bush, and it wasn't expected that they would. 

 I'm just illustrating how this is done. It took 'em five years to take Bush down to the thirties. 

With all of this... , it's stunning.  Every terror attack that you can remember here and abroad -- the plummeting US economy, 94 million Americans not working, LGBT bathrooms, gay marriage, you name it -- 56% approval. 

 Now, what does that tell you?  What does it tell you about the people of this country and what they know?

What does it tell you about the people of this country and what they think?  

What does it tell you about where we're headed as a country? 

I mean, if all of this can generate a 50% and more? If all of this can generate a 56% approval rating, I shudder to think what real progress would result, what kind of approval rating would result from real progress.

Look at Sunday's headline!

"Marine Kills Three Policemen in Baton Rouge." 

It is not "former Marine," it is not "former Nation of Islam member," not "former African-American radical."  No, no, no, no! "Marine Kills Three Policemen in Baton Rouge."
That he was a former Marine is the most important thing, not that he was a former member of the Nation of Islam.
 Can you imagine if somebody had been a member of the Klan and shot up something like this? Can you imagine what the headlines would be? 

"Klan Members Kills Three Whatever in Baton Rouge."  This is just how it happens.  And now we've got Obama out there saying the police can make the job of being a cop a lot safer by admitting their failures.  What does that tell you?  You may say, "But,  he didn't say that yesterday!  I saw his speech." I know he didn't say it yesterday.  He said it June 10th. He said it a different venue, different time.  Yesterday was the first time he actually sounded like he was pro-police.  But he couldn't help himself.

He dialed that back and still had to blame it all on "rhetoric."  He wouldn't go anywhere near blaming the shooter.  He wouldn't go anywhere near... It took everything he had, I'm certain, to not blame guns.  I mean, you know how often that probably had to be taken out of the teleprompter? His speechwriter would put it in there or Obama would put it in there, "I gotta say guns!" The speechwriter'd take it out. "No, not today. Not appropriate." I wonder how many times "guns" was taken out of that prompter yesterday before he went out and made his address.