The Third Obama Term

What role is Barack Obama playing in America’s election crisis? This is arguably the most underreported aspect of the extraordinary effort to take down Donald Trump and demolish America. The more you research this question, the more you realize: “All roads lead to Barack Obama.”

In his new book, “A Promised Land”, Barack Obama heaps praise on David Plouffe, his former campaign manager. Obama has publicly lauded Plouffe as the unsung hero and supreme architect of his presidential campaigns. Plouffe was the strategic mastermind behind Team Obama’s extraordinary 2008 grassroots campaign and its pioneering digital program.

When Obama took office in January 2009, Plouffe took a sabbatical. But he never left Obama’s orbit; he remained an outside senior adviser to the Obama administration. In 2011, Plouffe returned to the White House and did a two-year stint as an assistant to the president and senior adviser. Reading Obama’s book, it’s obvious that he and Plouffe are “kindred spirits and are very close.”

In January 2017, at the same time President Obama left the White House, David Plouffe was hired by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to be the head of policy and advocacy at the “Chan Zuckerberg Initiative” (the Zuckerberg’s philanthropic organization). In this role, Plouffe was responsible for leading CZI’s effort to support political and policy reform across America. Plouffe retired from his full-time position at CZI in October 2019, but remained with the organization in the part-time role of “resident strategist.”

So, here’s what we know so far: Barack Obama and David Plouffe are close, and David Plouffe and Mark Zuckerberg are close. There is also plenty of evidence to show that Obama and Zuckerberg have a strong relationship, so it’s reasonable to conclude that all three know each other well. These men have worked together for years now. And most significantly, these three are “political and ideological brothers.”

Now, let’s skip ahead to this past September and October. This is when the “Chan Zuckerberg Initiative” gave $350 million in two installments to the “Center for Tech and Civil Life” (CTCL). Established in 2012 and headquartered in Chicago, CTCL is a nonprofit organization that works with citizens, community groups and local governments to promote greater participation in federal, state and local elections. Its mission is to “connect Americans with the information they need to become and remain civically engaged, and ensure that our elections are more professional, inclusive and secure.”

Among its various activities, the CTCL helps local governments and community groups implement election legislation, educate voters, equip voting locations with new technology, train poll workers, collect and analyze election data, and tackle cybersecurity concerns. In some states, election workers are paid directly by CTCL grants.

The CTCL claims to be nonpartisan, but as you will see, it doesn’t take much digging to learn that it leans heavily to the left.

Back to Zuckerberg’s money. Prior to receiving his gigantic donation, CTCL received an average of around $1 million per year. Only a pittance of what it received from Facebook’s CEO this fall. How did Zuckerberg learn about this relatively small nonprofit in Chicago? It’s hard to imagine David Plouffe, as former head of policy and advocacy and the resident “strategist” at Zuckerberg’s organization, not being involved in the decision to donate $350 million to CTCL. After all, this was exactly the type of work he was brought on to do.

It’s even plausible that Barack Obama himself put CTCL on Zuckerberg’s radar. CTCL and some of its principal staff have multiple connections to the former president, even going as far back as his 2008 presidential campaign. Tiana Epps-Johnson, CTCL’s founder and executive director, is an Obama Fellow at the “Obama Foundation” in Chicago.

Here’s what we do know: “When CTCL received Zuckerberg’s first donation, it immediately gave at least $75 million to local authorities in heavily Democratic areas in battleground states!”

“The vast majority of the money handed out by CTCL—especially in the early days of its largesse—went to counties that voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in 2016,” wrote Ken Blackwell in Breitbart.

In Plouffe’s “A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald Trump”, released earlier this year, he wrote that “the contest for the presidency may come down to block-by-block street fights in Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia.” Is it a coincidence, as Blackwell wrote, that “some of the biggest recipients of CTCL’s money, in fact, were the very locales Plouffe had identified as the linchpins of the Democrat strategy in 2020”?

A recent study by the “Amistad Project” listed the 20 largest publicly identified recipients of CTCL funds. Remarkably, the counties and cities that received Zuckerberg’s money is virtually the same as the counties and cities where the voter “fraud and corruption” occurred!

This list includes the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Delaware County, Pennsylvania; Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; Fulton County, Georgia; Cobb County, Georgia; DeKalb County, Georgia; the city of Detroit, Michigan; the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota; and the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Do these names sound familiar? They’ve been in the news constantly since November 4.

All these are overwhelmingly Democratic counties or cities in four key swing states. And all of these cities and counties received at least $2 million from Mark Zuckerberg via CTCL less than two months before the election!

In September, not long after the CTCL began distributing the money, lawsuits were filed against the organization in four states. These suits were filed by the “Election Integrity Fund” in Michigan, the Wisconsin Voters’ Alliance, the Minnesota Voters’ Alliance and by a group of candidates and office-holders in Pennsylvania. These lawsuits argued that the local governments were prohibited by federal law from accepting private federal election grants.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits were worried that the money donated by Mark Zuckerberg—who was counseled by David Plouffe and Barack Obama—would be used to commit fraud!

And rightly so. Amistad Project director Phillip Kline obtained a court order from the Middle District of Pennsylvania that allowed him to view Philadelphia’s communications with CTCL. “Those communications show that CTCL dictated the way the election would be run in Philadelphia, how many polling places they would have, they paid the election officials, they paid the satellite election officials, they paid the judges, they brought in these drop boxes,” said Kline.

The lawsuit filed in Michigan claimed that Zuckerberg’s money was given to county officials in the battleground state to print and distribute absentee ballots and mail-in ballots, and to add extra drop boxes in Democratic areas. The lawsuit stated that the purpose of the money was to increase ballots cast “in only certain urban and predominantly Democratic precincts” and to “selectively influence the outcome of the 2020 general election.”

Unfortunately, all four lawsuits were dismissed. The reasons for this varied, but the judges across all states generally rejected the notion that the money would be used to manipulate the election. In the end, that’s exactly what happened!

Under the advice of David Plouffe and Barak Obama himself, Mark Zuckerberg paid election officials in heavily Democratic counties in Pennsylvania. He paid for extra drop boxes in heavily Democratic counties. He paid for extra polling places in Democratic areas. As Ken Blackwell wrote, “Zuckerberg and CTCL left nothing to chance. Writing detailed conditions into their grants that dictated exactly how elections were to be conducted, down to the number of ballot drop boxes and polling places.”

In this article, we have considered only one of the paths of evidence that suggests Barack Obama lies at the epicenter of this election crisis. There are others. The fact that the media is not seriously investigating evidence like this, nor exposing what figures like Obama, Plouffe, Zuckerberg and the entire radical left are doing, is itself a massive scandal!

Over the next few weeks and months, you should expect to see more evidence of Barack Obama’s fingerprints on this “election coup.”

“This is not a third Obama term.” — Joe Biden, November 24, 2020

Joe Biden says “this is not a third Obama term” in first sit-down interview.

He has a funny way of showing it. Biden’s recent moves provide little comfort for Americans looking for a way out of the polarization, acrimony, catastrophism, and hysteria that have characterized politics lo these many years.

Not only is Biden filling his administration with the same people who made such a hash of things from 2009 to 2017. He has also selected, for some of the most important offices, progressive ideologues who believe it is the bureaucracy’s job to pick new fights in the culture war. And he’s doing it all while his family and his party face new questions about their entanglement with the People’s Republic of China.

You are right to feel anxious.

Obama’s appointees were known for their elitism, imperiousness, and cocksure expertise. What does Biden do? He brings them back. John Kerry becomes a special envoy for climate—though if you assume he will restrict himself to that portfolio, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn you might like to buy. Janet Yellen gets Treasury—and a sure-to-be awkward relationship with her replacement as head of the Federal Reserve. Alejandro Mayorkas was deputy secretary of Homeland Security when he became ensnared in a visa scandal. Biden wants to promote him.

Jeffrey Zients salvaged Healthcare.gov from its catastrophic launch. He’ll be coronavirus czar. Having lied about both Benghazi and Bowe Bergdahl while coordinating national security, Susan Rice will apply her mendacious talents to domestic policy. Denis McDonough was Obama’s chief of staff during the Syrian “red line” debacle. He’ll be secretary for Veterans’ Affairs. A few officials—Vivek Murthy, Tom Vilsack—will be nominated for exactly the same jobs they held during the Obama years.

The cases where Biden has struck his own path are either strange or disturbing. Biden chose retired general Lloyd Austin, the former CENTCOM commander, for secretary of defense because he played a crucial role in bringing 150,000 American troops home from the theater of war and because he had a good relationship with Beau Biden.

The selection, which requires a congressional waiver, not only raises the fraught subject of civil-military relations. It also guarantees a replay of the debate over America’s 2011 withdrawal from Iraq and the subsequent growth of the Islamic State. And it’s already created friction between Biden and members of his own party, as well as between Biden and members of the bipartisan foreign-policy elite who backed his candidacy.

Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services was notorious for rules, such as the 2012 contraceptives mandate, that restricted religious freedom in ways calculated to benefit the Democratic Party. Our second “Catholic-in-Name Only” president might try to reduce tensions between traditional believers and Washington, D.C., by appointing a nonpolitical HHS secretary with a directive to cope with the pandemic above all else.

Instead, Biden picked Xavier Becerra, the far-left attorney general of California, who when not filing lawsuits against President Trump has targeted religious and pro-life organizations. The Becerra nomination is a rebuke to social conservatives. It puts the lie to Biden’s call for unity. Obama must love it.

What Obama can’t be happy about is Hunter Biden’s admission that the U.S. attorney for Delaware is looking into his taxes. The reality of Hunter Biden’s shady overseas business dealings, despite media and tech-sector attempts to suppress the information in the days before the election, can be avoided no longer.

And Hunter’s revelation came during the week that Axios released a blockbuster report on Chinese infiltration into West Coast political circles, and disclosed that one Chinese spy became so close to Democratic congressman Eric Swalwell that the FBI gave him a defensive briefing about her in 2015. Swalwell will remain on the House Intelligence Committee. “When that was made known to the members of Congress, it was over,” said Nancy Pelosi.

Well, then. That settles it.

In truth, Biden’s denial that he would be the caretaker of Obama’s third administration was exaggerated. He made it in an interview with Lester Holt of NBC. His reasoning deserves a second look. “We face a totally different world than we faced in the Obama-Biden administration,” he said. “President Trump has changed the landscape.”

What will make his presidency novel, Biden revealed, is neither personnel nor approach. It’s circumstances. The world is “totally different.” Trump transformed politics, economics, diplomacy. Hence a Biden term will be unlike Obama’s simply because it’s four years later.

This is begging the question. Of course the world is different. It always is. But similar objects can inhabit varying landscapes. What matters is whether Biden will diverge from Obama in people, policy, and style. Not because he holds any animus toward the forty-fourth president. Because the success of his own presidency depends on it.

Biden may not think so. He shares Obama’s goals. He’d like to enjoy Obama’s popularity. He forgets that Obama’s good marks were personal. They never translated to the Democratic Party. As Obama pressed ahead with his agenda despite public ambivalence and hostility, his party lost one chamber of Congress, one governor’s mansion, one state legislature after another.

Deprived of allies in Congress, Obama relied on judicial and bureaucratic means to achieve his ends. But this approach enraged the Republican base while creating the widespread sense that the electorate no longer controlled its government. The result was Trump. Who promptly unwound Obama’s executive orders.

Biden seems eager to reboot this sordid drama. But he’s playing a weaker hand than Obama enjoyed at the outset. When the next Congress convenes in January, Democrats will have their smallest House majority since 1893. The best case scenario for Democrats is a 50-50 Senate. In 2009, Obama had a huge majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. He still couldn’t get everything he wanted.

Unusual staffing decisions, needless fights, the specter of corruption, the promise of gridlock—and inauguration is still over a month away. Biden gives us the same team and plans as his former boss, but with more awkward presentation and additional scandal.

The “Third Obama Term” is on track to be as disappointing as the first two.

The “Antichrist” Barack Obama Said: “If I Ran For A Third Term, I’d Win!”‏ He Wasn’t Joking either!

It Was Biden All Along
If Biden had the election bought for him, whom does he owe?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: