It’s Trenchant Original Reader Commentary And Plausible Conspiracy Theory Thursday!

I don’t have time to come up with a better name.

It’s 4:40 AM, I’m in Sacramento, and my cab is on the way. I’ll be on a plane for about the next 8 hours, and I can’t plan in in-flight internet, so you are on your own for the day. Ethics issues only, please. No political rants. Substance, and please, keep it civil.

Meanwhile, tell me what you think of this.

Particularly, I am interested in hearing from those who would discard it as conservative nonsense what they would call it IF it were true.

See you soon.

80 Comments

Filed under Health and Medicine

80 responses to “It’s Trenchant Original Reader Commentary And Plausible Conspiracy Theory Thursday!

  1. sirmont

    I’m not sure I’m going to sleep tonight.

  2. Glenn Logan

    Your link looks like a right-wing conspiracy theory to me. Oh, I’m not saying some of his facts and speculation might not be right, but I’m not going to buy an argument that Obama is trying to run a shadow government. This:

    Obama Anonymous conducted its coup in layers. The first layer partnered congressional Democrats with OA personnel to retain control of as much of the government as possible by the Obama Deep State. They did it by blocking Trump’s nominees with endless hearings and protests. The second layer partnered congressional Democrats with the deeper layer of Obama operatives embedded in law enforcement and intelligence agencies who were continuing the Obama investigations of Trump.

    … is just way too much for me to swallow, even if I really wanted to. Much of the resistance we have seen to Trump’s nominees is exactly what the Democrats led us to expect. I’m about as surprised about this as the fact the sun showed up in the sky this morning.

    I will agree that Obama is working to undermine Trump, but that’s what he does — “community organizer,” hello! He’s worked all his life to undermine something.

    In terms of further news of interest, there is http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/14/female-drake-u-student-initiates-sex-wit:

    There are fundamental deprivations of justice, and then there’s what happened to a male student at Drake University. The student, “John Doe,” was expelled for sexual misconduct—ostensibly because he engaged in nonconsensual sex with a female student, “Jane Doe.”

    In truth, John was punished for failing to realize quickly enough that he was actually the victim in the encounter. Drake officials still refuse to fix their mistakes.

    Hat tip: Instapundit

    It’s easy to mock left-liberal college administrators for being the bad guys here, and for a fact, they are. But this speaks to a deeper problem we all have with bias, fairness, and fear. Rape on campus and elsewhere is no doubt a concern worthy of attention, but we have (and I mean the collective “we” that includes everyone) allowed a rational fear and loathing of bad behavior to boil over into a literal witch-hunt that is destroying innocent lives unfairly. That can’t be allowed to continue unredressed.

    Congress could do far worse than to attempt to deal this problem. The infamous “Dear Colleague” letter has already inspired colleges to go way too far, and is making too many headlines in outlets that don’t reflexively reject reporting on such scandals involving such Obama-era over-escalations like “It’s on us.” No matter how worthy, even the best of intentions can morph into something unethical and even evil, and that’s what’s happening here.

    • I think that’s a fair assessment Glenn. If I had to bet, I’d say you will be proved correct. But..

      1. There is a load of circumstantial evidence.
      2. The progressive/Democrat use of “resistance” is sinister.
      3. The Democrats have no other plausible leader.
      4. The party and the left have been trending totalitarian for a while now, and are desperate.
      5. Obama has a personality cult, which is needed to sustain this kind of thing.
      6. I do not buy the excuse for him staying in DC. He hates DC.
      7. I don’t trust Obama, or his motives…or his respect for US institutions.
      8. As a narcissist, Obama must be desperate to preserve his legacy, such as it is.

      The theory could be debunked in a trice by legitimate, objective investigative reporting.

      Oh. Right.

      • Glenn Logan

        The progressive/Democrat use of “resistance” is sinister.

        Hmm. Yes, it is. Still not going there, but that is a truly dismaying description.

      • Chris

        1. There is a load of circumstantial evidence.

        There is far more circumstantial evidence that the Trump team colluded with Russia then there is for the theory that Obama wiretapped Trump, and you’ve dismissed all of it.

        6. I do not buy the excuse for him staying in DC. He hates DC.

        How do you know this? And how do you know if his hatred of DC would trump what he thinks is best for his daughter’s education?

        8. As a narcissist, Obama must be desperate to preserve his legacy, such as it is.

        I would think if that were true, then the best thing would be to do nothing and let Trump fail. I don’t see how illegally interfering with his administration would help preserve Obama’s legacy at all.

        • I have seen no circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, and the story has never made any sense. The Democrats are actively trying to overturn the election; Obama has remained in DC, the Trump administration has been beset with unprecedented sabotage and unethical conduct from holdovers. There is motive and there is means. There has been cheerleading for insurrection from the likes of Loretta Lynch and Hillary’s VP. Obama, who should have shot this down long ago, has not. No dots connected. Probably just unconnected bad conduct.

          2. He hates DC because all Hawaiians hate DC. He got of the city at every opportunity. And the daughter excuse is just not plausible.

          3. Obama has almost no positive legacy items: Obamacare (dubious), the Iran deal (horrible) and that’s it. “Let him fail” presumes he will. Trump will do a lot of damage, but erasing Obama’s legacy won’t be hard. If you were right, the Democrats wouldn’t be risking looking like the biggest hypocrites in recorded history. Refusing to accept the election results, vowing to block everything Trump proposes, opposing a qualified SCOTUS nominee, threatening to shut down the government, painting Russia as the dire villain Obama mocked Romney for describing—it would be coical if it wasn’t so tragic.

          • Chris

            I have seen no circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, and the story has never made any sense.

            The multiple campaign aides and cabinet staff who have been discovered having contacts with Russian officials and then denying it is circumstantial evidence. The fact that changing the RNC’s policy on Ukraine was the Trump camp’s only significant contribution to the platform is circumstantial evidence. Trump’s constant cheerleading for Putin is circumstantial evidence. The Trump administration hiring Flynn and keeping him on even after they knew he was a foreign agent is circumstantial evidence.

            There’s more, and each of them individually can be explained through more innocent means, but taken together they paint a pretty damning picture.

            The Democrats are actively trying to overturn the election;

            I think that’s an exaggeration. Have they filed impeachment proceedings? Proposed any bills that would remove him from office? Several have engaged in stupid over-the-top rhetoric, but no Democrats in Congress have actually made formal proceedings for Trump’s removal.

            Obama has remained in DC,

            You still haven’t convinced me that this matters.

            the Trump administration has been beset with unprecedented sabotage and unethical conduct from holdovers.

            True, but that requires no campaign of collusion; it only requires individuals who think Trump is worth sabotaging, and that the ends justify the means.

            There is motive and there is means. There has been cheerleading for insurrection from the likes of Loretta Lynch and Hillary’s VP. Obama, who should have shot this down long ago, has not. No dots connected. Probably just unconnected bad conduct.

            It’s connected by their shared animus of Trump. This animus is justified even though their conduct is not.

            2. He hates DC because all Hawaiians hate DC. He got of the city at every opportunity.

            This isn’t convincing to me.

            And the daughter excuse is just not plausible.

            Sure it is.

            3. Obama has almost no positive legacy items: Obamacare (dubious), the Iran deal (horrible) and that’s it. “Let him fail” presumes he will. Trump will do a lot of damage, but erasing Obama’s legacy won’t be hard.

            We’re finding out how hard it is right now. Republicans are avoiding town halls because their constituency is so pissed at them for threatening to take away their healthcare. People are realizing that they actually do like the benefits Obamacare affords them; even many Trump voters are saying they regret their votes. I don’t think this is a dubious legacy at all, and I don’t think Obama is in much danger of losing this part of his legacy.

            Then again, I’ve long doubted that Republicans would ever actually pull the trigger on repealing Obamacare, since they’d be crazy to do so; as I suspected, the promise of doing it at some point in the far future has proven far more popular than the imminent reality of doing so. Republicans are much more likely to win elections by using the spite and paranoia motivated by Obamacare’s existence than they are by actually getting rid of it.

            • Frank Stephens

              I’ll only respond to your first biased comment. Evidently it is only Republicans meeting with the Russian Ambassador that bothers you. Here is a list of Democrats who also recently met with Kislyak that you don’t care to acknowledge:

              1. Senior Obama advisor John Holdren
              2. Senator Claire McCaskill
              3. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
              4. Former Senator Mary Landrieu
              5.Senator Amy Klobuchar
              6. Senator Dianne Feinstein
              7. Senator Jack Reed
              8. Senator Bob Casey
              9. Senator Maria Cantwell
              10. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
              11. And other Democrats we are discovering who have met with the Ambassador.

              • Chris

                Frank, none of those people later lied about meeting with Russian officials in the midst of an intelligence investigation over whether they colluded with Russia to help their boss win. Total false equivalence.

            • The multiple campaign aides and cabinet staff who have been discovered having contacts with Russian officials and then denying it is circumstantial evidence.

              Oh, please. People in international business had contacts with Russian officials. What lies? Flynn lied to ence, another member of the campaign. Sessions had two meetings in his capacity as US Senator. Absolute manufactured zip.

              The fact that changing the RNC’s policy on Ukraine was the Trump camp’s only significant contribution to the platform is circumstantial evidence.

              That’s not evidence of anything.

              Trump’s constant cheerleading for Putin is circumstantial evidence.

              Was Obama’s dismissing Russia as an enemy n the 2012 debates evidence of collusion? Lame. All confirmation bias at best. At worst, just a smear.

              The Trump administration hiring Flynn and keeping him on even after they knew he was a foreign agent is circumstantial evidence.

              He was a foreign agent of Turkey! And we don’tknow they knew he was a foreign agent.

              There’s more, and each of them individually can be explained through more innocent means, but taken together they paint a pretty damning picture.

              I guess you really believe this. It makes no sense, and is proof of Trump-hysteria eating your brain.

              The Democrats are actively trying to overturn the election;

              I think that’s an exaggeration. Have they filed impeachment proceedings? Proposed any bills that would remove him from office? Several have engaged in stupid over-the-top rhetoric, but no Democrats in Congress have actually made formal proceedings for Trump’s removal.

              They can’t do any of this because they have nothing, and don’t have the votes. They have supported recounts, falsely claimed irregularities, tried to hijack the Electoral college, organized Not My President rallies (and riots), had their agents in academia propose absurd impeachment theories, had their agents in the mews media push the dumb disability theory, boycotted the inauguration, had a protest/riot to try to stop the inauguration, had their component groups, the feminists and illegal immigrants hold grandstanding protests, and used the worst of the ideological judiciary to block legitimate presidential actions, had Obama holdovers in the Justice Department obstruct the government, and done exactly what they accused, falsely, Mitch McConnell of advocating against Obama “from day one.” They have continued to push a phony treason conspiracy theory…gee, what else? None of which has any precedent in US history.

              • Chris

                Jack, you keep conflating legitimate protest with dirty tactics. You weaken your argument when you put “protests” on the same level as “riots,” because it makes it look like you think *any* organized effort to oppose the president’s policies is unjust and unethical. That is not a defensible stance.

                • Protests of the sort we re talking about are often designed to provoke riots. The Inauguration protest in DC was a riot, and intentionally so. Most protests are Constitutionally protected dirty tactics, inconveniencing innocent citizens and costing municipalities money for simple-minded grandstanding, with misleading messages.

              • Chris

                That article literally says that it was the Trump camp that rejected the language in Denman’s amendment.

                • It does not. That’s your own fake news. The amendment was proposed, not voted on, and the result was not the love-letter to Russia you asserted. The statement that the platform language was altered to be pro-Russia is flat out false.

                  • Chris

                    It was altered to take out the more aggressive language Denman suggested. You are right that it’s not quite “pro-Russia,” but it’s closer than what Denman proposed, and that story (and many others) indicates that Trump’s people are the only ones who suggested that happen.

  3. That Daniel Greenfield: Obama’s Third Term is Here article reminds me of things I was hearing during the Presidential campaign season back in 2012, “If Obama gets elected again, I don’t think we will EVER get rid of him.”

    • Matthew B

      The left often accuses the right of doing things that the left is actually doing. During Bush 43’s administration, a common refrain was that Bush was planning on not leaving office at the end of his term.

      Just note that Bush went home and disappeared into obscurity. Obama, on the other hand, is indeed still in Washington.

      I do think that there is a sliver of truth to the theory, but only a sliver. Places like the EPA and IRS no doubt have sympathizers. But not so much in the law enforcement ranks.

  4. It sounds like a Black List plot.

  5. Other Bill

    I guess Obama did in fact listen to what Congress people were thinking after all.

  6. Aaron paschall

    Obama’s being the head of the deep state, while plausible, is the only part of this that I’m not willing to accept at face value. A bit of proof would confirm it, but take his involvement out, and everything else would make me say “of course they are.”

  7. It is quite simplistic to look at this situation as an Obama operation. He may be a key player organizer, but he is not the boss. Men such as Soros, on both the left and the right, are behind this effort. President Trump, although a billionaire, is a rogue outside the power elite. To them, he is a threat to the religiosocioeconopolitical control structure they have been building for hundreds of years.

    • You have to understand that part of the propaganda campaign is creating a limited or false story that explains things that are observed to happen in order to satisfy a nation’s curiosity and, thus, to prevent further investigation into what is actually occurring.

      • valkygrrl

        *whistles the X-files theme*

      • Why is it that so many persons do not grasp the fact that the most likely place for something to happen is in the place where the highest percentage of its inhabitants assume that it cannot happen there? You have been trained your entire lives to believe that it cannot happen here.

        The simplest explanation for why you never get the government you want despite who you elect is that there is something behind the scenes controlling the political parties. Individual politicians don’t have to know the full picture; they just have to now the agenda that they are paid through campaign contributions to support. We are given two “opposing” banners around which to gather; we are happy because we think we have a choice.

        How often has that “choice” actually given you the government that you want?

        • valkygrrl

          How often has that “choice” actually given you the government that you want?

          Never. But as it turns out, I’m the only person who wants me to be the queen. No one else wants me to be absolute monarch of planet Earth.

        • joed68

          I’m with you, for what that’s worth. When you consider the vast amounts of wealth concentrated in such a small proportion of people, it’s almost unthinkable that there WOULDN’T be a lot of sinister shit keeping it all aloft.

    • JRH

      There’s no doubt there’s a very organized campaign against not only Trump, but the Right – Conservatives. Agree that it’s funded and organized by the Professional Left, like Soros, but also many other financial backers. I believe Obama is the titular “leader” of this movement, but I really think it is being directed by those forces who have been doing it since Reagan’s days, with the object to fundamentally change the US into a Socialist State. That’s been the plan for decades, and it’s just pure luck that Obama came along with the same plan, and was an attractive candidate and President that could move that plan forward like never before. The Left will never give in and certainly not as long as the Right doesn’t organize and plan as well as the opposition. We’ve had just 2 “change agent” GOP Presidents, Reagan and now, hopefully, Trump, but there’s no desire in Congress to make the necessary changes back to a Constitutional Republic. Also the Right doesn’t have the funding and organization to compete with the Leftists and as long as we keep returning the same set of Politicians to Congress every 2 years, nothing will ever change. The current GOP “Leaders” in Congress are just not interested in that type of battle and prefer “business as usual”. The Left has taken the “long view” on this and while Obama may be a figurehead, he’s really only the current proponent who can assist in achieving the Socialist dream.

  8. Frank Stephens

    Former Presidents have an established record of not commenting on sitting Presidents. With former President Obama’s running commentary on Trump that is no longer true.

    We have former President Barack Obama saying he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests and he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Why does Obama have a private army? Oh, that’s right, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight Trump on every issue large and small. And where is Obama’s command center? Less than two miles from the White House – another first for a former president.

    Unlike previous former presidents, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington, he’s working behind the scenes to use his former staffers still on government payroll and still working in the White House and other government agencies to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the Trump administration.

    Conspiracy? No. Former President Obama has openly admitted to much of this and bragged about his network of nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after the candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Nope, it’s gearing up for battle, with money flooding in to war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

  9. Spartan

    Obama’s youngest daughter will be a senior next year at one of the best high schools in the United States. My guess is that the primary reason they are sticking around is for her. And if they do want to live here, so what? Trump is spending a lot of time in NYC and FL — you can run the actual government from anywhere. I imagine shadow imaginary governments are even easier to run from afar.

    • deery

      Agreed. Obama indicated that he was staying in DC for the sake of his youngest daughter last spring, before the election of Trump, or even his nomination. He hasn’t even personally spent a lot of time in DC after the election, instead spending time in the Caribbean, NYC, and currently, Hawaii.

      I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but has to hold together. I still haven’t seen a convincing explanation of why Obama being in DC is so key to him running this “shadow government.” Every agency has access to phone, emails, and texts. If he was really running a shadow agency, wouldn’t it be better for him to be less visible?

      I do think Trump, Bannon, and co have not endeared themselves to the bureaucracy who work at the various agencies. But that tends to happen when you are planning on defunding them or eliminating them entirely. It doesn’t take some genius running a complicated shadow government for opposition to occur. People tend to react with hostility when their livelihoods are imperiled by someone. It’s a thing.

      I just don’t find the whole “Obama runs a shadow government” thing to be all that persuasive. I have no doubt that Obama is not fond of Trump, for both personal and professional reasons. And even if he wasn’t, with our two party system, he is probably going to oppose most of Trump’s policies. But if Democrats were really this organized, rich, and all-powerful, they probably wouldn’t have lost the election in the first place. They would *be* the government, not some stupid “shadow government.” Or as Will Rogers put it, “I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.” I don’t much has changed as far as that trait goes from his days.

      • Ash

        > I still haven’t seen a convincing explanation of why Obama being in DC is so key to him running this “shadow government.” Every agency has access to phone, emails, and texts. If he was really running a shadow agency, wouldn’t it be better for him to be less visible?

        Don’t you answer your own question?

        Had he moved to the volcano as originally planned, you would twigged to the game much sooner!

    • Other Bill

      Name any high school or prep school in the country that wouldn’t fall all over themselves to let an Obama child attend their school. For free. These kids are all Superlegacies.

      • Other Bill

        Wait a minute. So a person works for the government and the executive of the government decides that person’s job is not good for the country, that person has the right to sabotage the executive by any means necessary? I think you’ve just described “the deep state” in a nutshell and proved its existence.

        • deery

          Wait a minute. So a person works for the government and the executive of the government decides that person’s job is not good for the country, that person has the right to sabotage the executive by any means necessary?

          No, I don’t think they have the right. I just don’t think it requires any complex conspiracy theory to see where some of the animus toward Trump arises in that situation.

          • Other Bill

            It doesn’t require any complex conspiracy theory to see where some animus toward Trump arises, but that’s irrelevant. The point is, acting upon such animus is wrong. Period.

            • deery

              Ok. But the point of the theory that Jack linked to was that there was this “shadow government”, headed by Obama, that is acting in concert to bring down the Trump administration.

              I think the conspiracy theorist are severely (deliberately?) underestimating both bureaucratic stubbornness, as well as Trump incompetence. There is no there, there.

      • deery

        Name any high school or prep school in the country that wouldn’t fall all over themselves to let an Obama child attend their school. For free. These kids are all Superlegacies.

        I’m sure they would. The problem is, most kids want to spend the last years of high school with the same friends they went to junior high/high school with. The Obama, rightly believe they have uprooted their daughters enough, and want their youngest to finish high school at the same one she started. And, they announced this way in advance of any election.

        • Other Bill

          Let’s see if they move in June of 2018. Frankly, I’m surprised they haven’t moved to suburban NYC like the Clintons. Or Manhattan. I think that’s what Valerie Jarrett has been militating for. I also think Obama will spend most of his time playing golf on famous, exclusive courses all over the world. But nonetheless, I think he’ll willingly make derogatory comments about the Trump administration and act as titular head of “The Reisistance,” which is, pardon the pun, really bush.

        • Wayne

          This doesn’t really answer why Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to Obama is living in the Obama’s new home. It’s probably not to help him write his memoirs. Something stinks here.

      • Spartan

        Are you kidding? Think of the kid! She has lived in DC since she was 9 and is now set to graduate high school. You want to uproot her from all her friends her SENIOR YEAR just to calm down the tinfoil hat crowd? I would never do that to my daughters.

        • Other Bill

          Oh come on, S. They’re the children of a president. They’re on a gravy train with biscuit wheels for the rest of their lives. If Obama thought leaving town was important, he’d just tell the kids, “Sorry, you don’t get a vote, we’ve got to move. You can stay in touch on what’s app.”

          • deery

            If Obama thought leaving town was important, he’d just tell the kids, “Sorry, you don’t get a vote, we’ve got to move. You can stay in touch on what’s app.”

            Yes, but the whole thing is…leaving town isn’t important. There doesn’t seem to be any real reason for him to leave DC that anyone can articulate, other than, “it makes some people feel uncomfortable.” Which doesn’t seem to be a good enough reason to ruin his child’s senior year.

            Plus, it doesn’t even seem as if Obama himself is physically present all that often in DC. He actually seems to be enjoying private life just fine.

            • Other Bill

              If I were president, I’d leave town and ruin my kid’s senior year. Tough shit. And I suspect if Sparty were president, she’d do the same thing. It’s a teachable moment, to use one of the former Con Law professor in chief’s favorite phrases. If Obama’s not staying there for nefarious reasons, it’s the symbolism that’s important. I’d say the orderly and successful transfer of power in a democracy takes precedence over a kid’s senior year in high school. But when you’re entire presidency has been primarily about therapy, I guess a kid’s senior year in high school is more important. And if government employees are randomly pissed and trying to save their jobs (whether it’s a concerted, led effort or not) the outgoing president should tell them to either do their jobs or resign in protest.

              • deery

                I’d say the orderly and successful transfer of power in a democracy takes precedence over a kid’s senior year in high school.

                “…the orderly and successful transfer of power in a democracy” has already happened, several months ago. Obama is no longer the President, Trump is. And as a private citizen, Obama’s child takes a renewed precedent.

                And I note that no one has managed to articulate exactly why Obama staying in DC is a problem. If he is running a shadow government, that is a problem, no matter he would be located. And if he is, as everything indicates, simply living his life, why not stay in DC, or anywhere else that he chooses? Because of the ravings of a few crazy conspiracy theorists? Not good enough.

                • You characterize that as orderly?

                  Maybe you only recall how the opposition behaved with Obama’s 2 elections.

                  I wouldn’t characterize the Left’s conduct since their loss in 2016 as anything near “orderly”….

                  • deery

                    Yes, it’s been pretty orderly. No government buildings bombed, no assassinations, no competing Presidents. Trump is firmly ensconced within the White House, and is the acknowledged President. For a person who has surrounded himself with staff with no real political experience, with historical disapproval ratings, elected by a minority of the voters, and is intent on issuing unpopular decrees, it is actually going pretty well for him.

                  • Chris

                    tex, the initial claim was that Obama has interfered with the orderly transfer of power. There is no evidence for that claim.

                    • Erm. The context of deery’s response is somewhat expanding on the dichotomy presented. By breaking precedence and “hanging around”…what is it you lefties call it? A “dog whistle”? Yeah, by breaking precedence and “hanging around”, Obama inadvertently sends the dog whistle which is just one more drop in the flood that never blames itself for the flood that is the Leftist melt-down over their entire post-election temper tantrum fiasco that any objective observer would not describe as “orderly”.

                      You’ll note I didn’t even address the efforts to undermine Trump even being the president in nascent moves to have him evicted from the position as going against deery’s claim of “successful”.

                    • Frank Stephens

                      Well said, tex, and I agree.

              • Spartan

                Don’t speak for me Other Bill. My children are my world — no way would I uproot them senior year.

                • Spartan wrote, “no way would I uproot them senior year.”

                  After suffering through 6 High School, there were more before that 17 total, I agree with that! I did everything possible to keep my children in the same school system their entire K-12 education, it was quite a chore, lots of sacrifices, but it was accomplished, and it was worth it.

                  I have absolutely no problem with the Obama’s keeping their daughter in the same High School for her senior year; in fact I respect them for doing so regardless of the political storm, family is #1.

                  • If family is #1, then nobody would be President. In that realm, the nation comes first. This is a rationalization, pure and simple.

                    • I understand what you’re saying; however, Obama is actually not currently President.

                    • That’s not what a lot of Democrats think who have declared Trump “illegitimate” think. And Obama knows it. Funny: every other President, some with small kids, left DC after leaving the White House. Every one.

                    • Spartan

                      Look at me, agreeing with Zoltar! Yes, he is no longer President and he can make decisions that are best for his family.

                    • Look: you and Zoltar are dead wrong, and for exactly the same reason! He is, like it or not, still the former President, still the closest thing to the leader of his party the party has, still with power to influence and still a factor in the dangerously divided political landscape that he helped create. He knows that staying in DC exacerbates the problem, thus hurting the country, potentially badly.

                      I’m pretty sure his daughter could learn to tolerate going to school in Hawaii…

                    • Spartan wrote, “Look at me, agreeing with Zoltar!”

                      It’s not the first time and, knowing the person I am, I think I can reasonably predict that it won’t be the last. 🙂

                    • Jack Marshall wrote, “Look: you and Zoltar dead wrong, and for exactly the same reason! He is, like it or not, still the former President…”

                      I truly think you’re wrong about this particular point; so we disagree, okay.

                      I have no problem with Obama’s family staying in DC, no problem whatsoever; that said, I do have an issue with Obama exerting political pressures to undermine the current President of the United States, mere presence does not do that; I see these things as completely separate issues.

                      I’ll leave you with this theoretical and rhetorical question: if a person was born, raised, and lived in Washington DC their entire life and that person was elected President of the United States, why should that person be basically “politically” evicted from continuing to live in their life long home town of Washington DC?

                      I’m moving on.

                    • The answer to your question, if his presence would undermine the authority of the new President, is “Yes.”

                      Obama in a District where he received 98% of the vote and Trump received about 4% might as well be king…and you can only have one king.

                  • Chris

                    Principled stance, Zoltar.

                    • Not really though. Jack is correct. Family is primary. But even then some choices in life compel some previously important family concerns to be demoted.

                      Finishing a senior year in high school is one of those.

  10. Well, I think it probably is mostly conservative fear-mongering.

    But, if it were completely true, I’d call it treason. To the extent that it’s only partially true (which I think is the most likely), it’s treasonous.

  11. Ash

    If this were true, I’d have to call it “great”, in the sense that Voldemort did great things – terrible, yes, but great.”, and also in the sense of Private Hudson on the plains of LV-426.

  12. Rich in CT

    My thoughts:

    * President Obama could barely run the *government*; why would he be able to run a *shadow government*

    * Presidencies are tough on the kids. I think it perfectly likely that Obama would sacrifice a few more years in the swamp to make his daughter’s life a bit easier.

    * The :”resistance” screams leadership vacuum to me. Obama left office, Clinton was defeated, Wassermann-Shultz was ousted, Tim Kaine is a duck, Bernie Sanders is alienated.

    ** Random Obama appointees are doing backflips to be noticed so they have a shot at filling the void. US Attorney’s are publicly rebuking their clients. Senators and Representatives are in a shouting match to see who can say the nastiest, loudest thing against the President of the United States.

    ** If these are the covert agents of the so-called “Deep State”, do we really have anything to fear from these clowns (besides, of course, the destruction of civil society). They seem to be doing their best to blow there own cover.

    * What, exactly, might this “Deep State” even do? Are they going to continue auditing conservative groups when the President is a pen-stroke away from defunding their agency? Are they going to continue blocking pipelines the President publicly endorses and whose appointees are overseeing their agencies?

    * The Democrats in Congress are running around like chickens without heads, shouting fire at everything the President does. Anyone who speaks up against the madness are themselves placed on the chopping block.

    * The media is mad at being proven feckless, so it also shouting fire at everything the President does.

    * The rest just seem to like watching the world burn.

    * If Obama is in charge of all this, then that just proves how feckless he really is, because it looks to me like it would if he were on planet Mars. His only contribution is the failure to strongly and consistently condemn it.

    * The Outgoing President’s only public statements on this matter came during his farewell address, where he stated that the peaceful transition of power is critical to the nation. Not even Democrats would respect him if he so flatly contradicted himself by leading a coup. Nobody trusts a traitor.

    * I firmly, and will forever, believe that no President of these United States will doing anything but earnestly work towards his betterment. Nothing during Obama’s Presidency convinced me otherwise, feckless as his earnest efforts may have been, and will not subscribe to petty theories that are predicated otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s