Connect with us


Obama Says Reparations ‘Justified’

The former president blames ‘politics of white resistance and resentment’ for doing nothing during presidency



Barack Obama

Former President Obama says reparations for descendants of slaves are justified, but talk is cheap. Many are asking, where was that sentiment when he was, you know, President of the United States and leader of the free world. His explanation, or excuse rather, is shocking.

Obama has a podcast with music legend Bruce Springsteen called “Renegades: Born in the U.S.A” where the two discussed the topic. “So, if you ask me theoretically: ‘Are reparations justified?’ The answer is yes” said Obama.

“There’s not much question that the wealth of this country, the power of this country was built in significant part – not exclusively, maybe not even the majority of it – but a large portion of it was built on the backs of slaves” stated Obama.

As is typical of Barack, he had a smooth answer satisfactorily pleasing to liberals as to why he did nothing about it during his eight years in office. “What I saw during my presidency was the politics of white resistance and resentment, the talk of welfare queens and the talk of the undeserving poor and the backlash against affirmative action,” he said.

Obama continued, “all that made the prospect of actually proposing any kind of coherent, meaningful reparation program struck me as, politically, not only a non-starter but potentially counterproductive.” Pretty typical for the left; use race and cry racism as a justification for one’s own inaction. Nonetheless, Democrats and Obama fans surely have no qualms with his excuses.

As for the current Biden administration’s position, White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters earlier this month that Biden supports “a study of reparations.” She added he “continues to demonstrate his commitment to take comprehensive action to address this systemic racism that persists today.”


Continue Reading


  1. John

    February 27, 2021 at 9:46 am

    The Democrat party should be held solely responsible for the payment of reparations. They are the only institution that still exists from this era. They and they alone promoted slavery. Not only slavery but also Jim Crow laws as well. Make the Democrat party pay.

  2. Jim Morris

    February 27, 2021 at 10:00 am

    Obama, who is no descendent of a slave, is a Kenyan mulatto. That begs the following questions: what percent Black do you have to be to receive reparations? Does a mulatto or a quadroon qualify? What if your Black descendent arrived after 1865? Shouldn’t a Black have to prove they are actually descendent from a slave? Who should pay? Asians, Hispanics, American Indians? Probably ‘no’. ‘White people’. There was no slavery west of the Mississippi. Why should westerners have to pay? There was no slavery west of the Mason-Dixon line. Why should ‘Yankees’ have to pay? A lot of white people had their descendants immigrate after 1865 (e.g.: Irish, Italian, German, Polish, Scandinavian immigrations were late 19th and early 20th century). Why should they have to pay? Did the Great Obama address any of this? You know the answer! He’s a race hustler pandering for more Black Democrat votes.

  3. MA

    February 27, 2021 at 10:44 am

    Leo – please come and post on Gab and Parler. Many who left twitter are there.

  4. Richard

    February 27, 2021 at 11:03 am

    Obama is vulture puke.

  5. John R

    February 27, 2021 at 12:29 pm

    Anything that punishes or rewards based soley on skin color is undeniably racist, therefore, confiscating money from white people, who’s families immigrated to the USA long after the end of slavery, would be making them pure victims of racism. This is what Mr. Barack Obama, and his like minded cohorts, are proposing, which makes them in fact, racists because they want to hold all white people responsible for the wrongs of some people long ago, who happened to be white. Ironically, they would be engaging in the very evil they claim to detest. A big question is why now? I believe the answer may lie in all the categorizing the left is engaging in. Race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, etc. They are intent on categorizing everyone into groups, and then herding the groups politically. Notice how they never speak about “individuality.” Do you ever hear the words “individual sovereignty” come out of their mouths? No, you don’t. You also never hear the words “Liberty” or “Freedom” come from their mouths either. The USA was founded upon the concept of Freedom and Liberty for the Individual, and the resulting “Individual Sovereignty” recognized in the process. The founders, God fearing people, understood there are no white people, there are no black people, there are no genders, there are only “individuals” created in the image and likeness of God. No two are the same, we are all unique “individuals” with rights as individuals to believe what we want, to say what we want, to work the job that we want, to attend the church that we want, to live where we want, and to pursue happiness as we want. Who can be opposed to Individuality? Only the enemies of Freedom and Liberty could stand in opposition to it. Only those who want to dominate and control the people could be opposed to it. You can’t herd “individuals” anymore than you can herd cats. Individual rights no longer exist when there is no individuality, and therefore no God given individual rights, as are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. Sheep on the other hand, are easy to herd, and have no individual rights. By focusing on superficiality, such as race, gender, or even political affiliation, and brow beating the populace into these herds of sheep, they gain political control over us. Stoking racial animosity, political animosity, gender animosity, etc., which they have been doing for a long time now, appears to be their strategy for accomplishing their ultimate goals. All of We the People, need to expose, speak out, and push back against these blatantly un American tactics. P.S. It would be interesting to have some one trace Barack Obama’s white roots. Wouldn’t it be something if he is a descendant of slave owners?

  6. Rhagen

    February 27, 2021 at 3:30 pm

    I wonder if he would have elected President of Kenya?

  7. Andrew H Mahoney

    February 27, 2021 at 7:04 pm

    Reparations are nuts. Absolutely divisive. May cause the second Civil War, but will definitely cause economic chaos.

  8. MS

    February 28, 2021 at 7:42 pm

    Obama was one of the most derisive presidents in modern history. Where Trump stood for rising the people by empowering them, Obama stood to divide the country based upon race. Be it Ferguson, MO or Trayvon Martin, Obama was quick to lay blame anywhere he could to leverage blacks against whites.
    Reparations are a laughable excuse to provide something to those black people that were never slaves. And, to punish those that had nothing to do with that portion of our history either. Consider the native Americans, the Japanese, and so many other throughout history that were seized upon. Imperialist growth of all countries was accomplished by those that held more power over another group. What about the black slave owners in America? Is that forgotten?
    Race pandering is all the Obama is good for. Perhaps he should get Biden to appoint Al Sharpton, Spike Lee and other black bigots to lead that charge. All this will do is further divide our country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


‘Every Word Of This Is False’: Ted Cruz Factchecks Ilhan Omar’s Attack On Coach Kennedy Prayer Case



Rep. Ilhan Omar

On Monday night, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) factchecked Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) after she made multiple false claims about the Supreme Court ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which the Court ruled 6-3 that a public high school football coach in Washington state had his First Amendment rights violated when he was punished by his school district for praying on the field after games where students could see.

As previously reported, “In 2008, high school football coach Joseph Kennedy began a tradition of praying at midfield after each game. Over time, his players and even members of the opposing team began to join him. In September 2015, a school administrator addressed the matter with Kennedy after an opposing team complained and the coach briefly stopped his prayers.”

“On October 14, 2015, Kennedy told the school district that he was planning on resuming his prayer tradition at the next game. The school district told the coach that his prayers violated the district’s policy, but Kennedy continued to pray at the next two games. The school district subsequently placed him on administrative leave, banned him from participating in the football program, and refused to renew his contract for the following season. Kennedy took the issue to federal district court, arguing that the school district had violated his First Amendment rights,” the report added.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Kennedy, Omar tweeted, “The Supreme Court just ruled that public school teachers can pressure students to join in prayer at public school events but can also retaliate against those that don’t join in. Religious freedom is dead in America.”

“Every word of this is false,” Cruz responded.

Omar’s claim that the Supreme Court’s decision allowed to teachers to “pressure students to join prayer” is false. The Court’s ruling just protected Coach Kennedy’s religious freedom to pray publicly.

Omar was also incorrect in claiming that there would be retaliation against students who did not join Kennedy in prayer – the coach’s tradition of praying after games began with him praying alone at midfield after football games. Kennedy’s school district even noted that Kennedy had “not actively encouraged, or required, participation.”

Additionally, in contrast to Omar’s claim that “religious freedom is dead in America,” the Supreme Court ruling actually strengthened protections of religious freedom.

Writing for the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch explained, “Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head.”

“Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment,” Gorsuch added. “And the only meaningful justification the government offered for its reprisal rested on a mistaken view that it had a duty to ferret out and suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. Mr. Kennedy is entitled to summary judgment on his First Amendment claims.”

Continue Reading


Leo Terrell: Not One Democrat Can Justify Roe V. Wade



Leo Terrell: Not One Democrat Can Justify Roe V. Wade

Continue Reading

Leo's Hot List