In an unexpected yet strategic development, former President Barack Obama has been significantly increasing his involvement in President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign. This surge in activity from Obama comes amidst growing concerns within the Democratic Party about Biden’s ability to secure a second term in the face of mounting political challenges.
The Catalyst for Obama’s Engagement
Reports indicate that Obama’s heightened engagement is fueled by a combination of personal concern for Biden’s political future and a broader anxiety about the Democratic Party’s prospects in the 2024 election. According to sources close to the former president, Obama is particularly worried about the party’s ability to galvanize its base and attract the crucial swing voters necessary for a decisive victory.
As noted in New York Magazine, Obama’s involvement is not merely symbolic. He has been actively advising the Biden campaign on strategy, messaging, and policy focus. This level of engagement marks a significant departure from the traditional role of past presidents, who typically maintain a more hands-off approach to their successors’ campaigns.
****
What Democratic Party – you mean the Marxist Party? The old Democrats have left the scenes of the crimes. They call themselves Progressives which reflects they are trying to hide the fact of illegal or illicit activity?
As you might know the enemy is keeping US from being creative. They are so afraid of themselves.
6/25/2024
It is a photo of Biden pointing at the Marxists/Old Democrats statistics and saying – I DID THAT:
Compare the following:
MARXISTS/OLD DEMOCRATS:
Inflation Rate 17%
Gas Prices $3.96
Average Rent $2,395
NASDAQ – UP 13.8%
Grocery Prices +25%
Electricity Up 21.43%
Real Avg Hourly Earnings -3.5%
****
REPUBLICANS:
Inflation Rate 1.9%
Gas Prices $2.17
Average Rent $1,096
NASDAQ Up 62%
Grocery Prices +3.5%
Electricity No Change
Real Avg Hourly Earnings 7.1%
They won’t allow copying their charts – so I had to type this to show the American people how the Marxists/Old Democrats are screwing the American people.
Folks, it is not going to get any better. Biden/Obama/Susan Rice/Billary/Schumer hate the country and its people and are making everyone suffer. A good example is the money they are printing and giving away to the world and trying to make everyone poor. You can’t be rich and live in the outside world. They refer to the citizens outside of the U.S. – SLAVES. They are told how to think and what they can do.
The following tells you how the Marxists/Demcrats think:
What a mess the Progressives have made in our country. Trillions of dollars wasted. They really bit off more than they can chew as we see in all of the blue states – especially Cal-ee-faurnia.
We will call that state the biggest screw-up in the history of politics at the hands of Pelosi’s nephew with her influence. Just like Jan6 – which is still not settled.
In Revolutionary France, Maximilien Robespierre emerged as a passionate advocate for the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. But despite his initial commitment to justice, overreach made him synonymous with a catastrophic “Reign of Terror,” providing a lesson on the dangers of extremism. America’s progressives might want to put TikTok aside, crack a history book, and learn from this cautionary tale.
The lawyer and politician focused his rhetoric on the protection of the common people from abuses of the monarchy. But the Reign of Terror, which began a few years after the 1789 revolution, was itself abusive, characterized by his Committee of Public Safety’s efforts purge France of perceived enemies of the revolution. They imprisoned and guillotined thousands, including ex-allies and innocents, equating dissent with treason.
Robespierre’s insistence on ideological purity and absolutely loyalty, and his uncompromising insistence on a “Republic of Virtue,” where the unvirtuous were harshly dispatched, alienated many of his own allies, who began to fear for their own lives—and brought him to a sorry end.
The modern progressive movement, like the French Revolution, began with admirable goals: social justice, equality, and the protection of marginalized communities. Progressives have pushed for significant changes, addressing systemic issues like police brutality, racial discrimination, gender inequality, and environmental destruction.
Related video: Far-right in France is fully unprepared to come to power, says the former spokesperson of the country’s Socialist Party (CNBC)
What we have here is an alliance of the Socialists,
CNBC
Far-right in France is fully unprepared to come to power, says the former spokesperson of the country’s Socialist Party
They shared many goals with the classic liberals who still form the core foundation of the U.S. Democratic Party: affordable and perhaps universal healthcare, access to abortion, gun control, a more equitable sharing of the pie. When Bernie Sanders railed against “millionaires and billionaires” he was absurd to conflate the categories—but also right about inequality’s ills.
But in recent years, the movement he championed has overreached, alienating many liberals and risks undermining its own objectives. It is pushing voters to the right to such an extent that it can be fairly stated that former President Donald Trump would not be so competitive if not for the progressives.
What could be so annoying and dangerous that many are putting aside concerns like gun control and abortion?
Perhaps a good place to start is the call, quite popular a few years ago, to “defund the police.” This slogan, intended to provoke a reevaluation of policing practices and redirect funds to community services, has been interpreted by many—including within the movement—as an outright abolition of law enforcement. Certainly, it sounds that way. While there are legitimate concerns about police misconduct and racism, the “defunding” notion is impractical and hugely unpopular.
Like Robespierre’s uncompromising approach toward perceived enemies, the “defund the police” movement has alienated moderate supporters who agree with the need for reform but not with such radicalism. It has also provided ammunition for critics who argue that progressives are out of touch with the realities of crime and public safety—for if taken literally it would make the most vulnerable people still more vulnerable to crime—more than they were ever menaced by any officer.
While the “defund” mantra has mercifully receded, permissiveness on crime in Democrat-run cities has handed the Republicans more political gifts: Progressive district attorneys prioritizing alternatives to incarceration; “sanctuary city” policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; bail reform measures aimed at reducing pretrial detention for non-violent offenders, which may sound reasonable but undermines deterrence. The poster child is San Francisco, where open drug use, homeless encampments, and property crimes like shoplifting have been tolerated, with some stores even closing due to the financial impact.
Another contentious issue is the rise of “cancel culture,” where individuals or organizations are ostracized to the point of societal excommunication for views or actions deemed unacceptable by a vocal minority policing a progressive orthodoxy—which is capable of insisting that non-women can give birth. While accountability is important, the punitive nature of cancel culture often resembles the Reign of Terror’s purges. It may not result in actual killings—but careers and reputations are destroyed with little due process, echoing the revolutionary tribunals’ summary executions.
This culture of intolerance fosters a climate of fear where people are afraid to speak out or engage in meaningful discussions. Just as Robespierre’s reign created a society rife with suspicion, repression, and resentments, so too does cancel culture undermine free speech and debate.
Next up: The progressive movement’s intense focus on identity politics—prioritizing race, gender, and sexual orientation above all else. While it’s good to address the unique challenges faced by different groups, this all-encompassing preoccupation can be devastating to building a cohesive society. It is driving away many who might otherwise be partners in the fight for overall social justice.
The progressive stance on immigration, perceived as advocating for open borders, has been another area of overreach. While compassion for immigrants and refugees is understandable, indiscriminate immigration can strain resources and social cohesion, upsetting ordinary people who have concerns about preserving a national culture. Ignoring legitimate concerns about integration and national security can draw a backlash—as is currently happening in France, where the far right is ascendant.
Robespierre’s indifference to the practical consequences of his policies ultimately led to his downfall. A coalition rose against him claiming his methods had become impractical and tyrannical and that the relentless purges were destabilizing France, undermining the very revolution they aimed to protect. He was quickly tried and executed by guillotine on July 28, 1794, along with 21 allies, ending the Reign of Terror and ushering in a period of relative moderation and stabilization.
Some believe to this day that he was scapegoated. But in effect, Robespierre’s “progressives” were whacked by a version of “liberals”—who wanted many of the same goals and once shared his revolutionary zeal, but were more moderate, tolerant, and introspective in their approach.
Progressives in the United States would be wise to heed that lesson. Today, they project a version of indifference and even disdain for the liberals who are still a majority in the American left and center. Because the progressives are a youthful movement, they may indeed represent the future—and so they readily dismiss liberal critics as “Boomers,” an ageist and arrogant slur.
It may not turn out so well for the progressives and their goals if the liberals conclude (perhaps after the excruciating Trump is gone) that they’re more dangerous than the right, and break up the alliance. Moderation is not helpful in all things—it will not bring you a Nobel Prize or a Wimbledon championship. But it is certainly advisable in politics at this turbulent, complex time.
Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press. Follow him at danperry.substack.com.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
Newsweek senior editor-at-large and host, “The Josh Hammer Show”FOLLOW
During the Constitution ratification debates between the Federalists (who supported ratification) and the Anti-Federalists (who opposed it), one of the most strident areas of disagreement was the extent to which the proposed position of president of the United States was actually an ersatz king. Leading Anti-Federalists thought the new president would be a thinly veiled monarch. In response, leading Federalists—including those who would eventually hold radically different views of presidential powers—joined forces to assuage Anti-Federalist concerns.
Multiple essays of The Federalist Papers, the Federalists’ eponymous effort to publicly promote the ratification of the Constitution, were dedicated to explaining the nature of the office of the presidency. In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton—who would in subsequent years take a much stronger view of Article II presidential power than his contemporary and Federalist Papers coauthor James Madison—dedicated an entire essay to arguing that the president is not nearly as powerful as the British king. In making his case, Hamilton noted that the president “can confer no privileges whatever,” whereas the king “can make denizens of aliens” and “noblemen of commoners.”
This must be emphasized: During the fledgling nation’s constitutional ratification debates, which assumed existential importance after the failure of the Articles of Confederation, Federalists felt compelled to distinguish the presidency from the Crown on the grounds that the king “can make denizens of aliens” but the president has no such power. Indeed, the Framers cared so much about this that they explicitly accorded to Congress, in Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” The message was clear: The president is not a king.
Well, so much for that. This week, President Joe Biden became the second straight Democratic president to unilaterally engage, absent any authorization from the Congress, in the quintessentially kingly act of “mak[ing] denizens of aliens.”
In June 2012, former President Barack Obama issued his signature Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive amnesty, notwithstanding the fact that Congress had expressly rejected the DREAM Act amnesty legislation on which DACA was predicated. Two years later, Obama followed it up with Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), another executive amnesty that lacked any congressional authorizing legislation. Former President Donald Trump repealed DAPA in 2017; DACA has consistently been stymied by the federal courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 2022.
This Tuesday, Biden joined his former boss in unilaterally promulgating a mass amnesty for the ages—this time, for an estimated half million illegal aliens now married to U.S. citizens and who have lived in the U.S. for a decade or more. In a radical departure from extant law, Biden’s amnesty would allow those illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. while they seek a green card—as opposed to forcing them, as the law requires, to return to their home country while applying for permanent residency (and thus eventually citizenship).
NEWSLETTER
The Josh Hammer Report
Top Weekly Conservative Takes
Senior Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer shares top conservative viewpoints weekly. I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek
By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek’s Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.You may unsubscribe at any time.
U.S. President Joe Biden participates in a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in the Oval Office of the White House on June 17, 2024 in Washington, DC. Stoltenberg is meeting with Biden and… More KEVIN DIETSCH/GETTY IMAGES
Biden’s amnesty is blatantly, flagrantly, and offensively unconstitutional. Only Congress, not the president, can “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Prosecutorial discretion, which Biden (like Obama before him) laughably invokes, is only legitimate when applied on an individualized, case-by-case basis. Prosecutorial discretion does not apply to a blanket refusal to enforce large swaths of immigration law—an act which itself violates the president’s Article II, Sec. 3 prerogative to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The president has plenary statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1201 to deport any alien (legal or illegal) at any time for any reason, but he does not have any reciprocal power to naturalize aliens outside of Congress.
In addition to its lawlessness, Biden’s amnesty is also profoundly unjust. It rewards lawbreaking by prioritizing those who break the law over those who follow the law. It saps national sovereignty and vitiates the single most consequential decision any self-governing people can ever make: who else is allowed to join the community. It magnetizes illicit mass migration, incentivizing millions to throw in their lot with nefarious criminal cartels, human trafficking rings, and smugglers in the hopes that they too can cross our border in the shadows, plead “asylum,” and attain amnesty. The cartels are enriched and emboldened; Americans, by contrast, pay for it in the form of increased crime, drained public sources, lost jobs, and cultural balkanization.
Unsurprisingly, recent public polling shows the American people have had enough. A much-discussed CBS/YouGov poll taken earlier this month revealed that a whopping 62% of Americans—including 53% of Hispanics—support deporting all illegal aliens. Biden’s executive amnesty is thus not merely illegal and immoral. It will also backfire.
Biden, like Obama before him, may view himself as a king. But unlike Britain’s king, America’s president must face the voters when he seeks reelection. And therein lies the rub.
Related video: Far-right in France is fully unprepared to come to power, says the former spokesperson of the country’s Socialist Party (CNBC)
CNBC
NEWSLETTER
Exclusively Available to Subscribers
