April 16, 2024
SELLERS: What the Next ‘Obama’ Term Would Mean for 5 Key Issues (Plus 1 Theory)

SELLERS: What the Next ‘Obama’ Term Would Mean for 5 Key Issues (Plus 1 Theory)

(Ben Sellers, Headline USA) It’s past time to end this preposterous delusion that Joe Biden will be the Democratic presidential nominee

Just as the best proof of the stolen 2020 election was the effort that Democrats made to tamp down all discussion and examination of it, the clearest indicator of Biden’s imminent exit may, paradoxically, be the way they are trying to oversell his candidacy.

Simply put, Biden’s advanced age notwithstanding, the abject failures of his administration should be prohibitive to a second term. There is absolutely no way that in a normal scenario we would not see a flood of viable Democrats into the primary field—whether they truly see former President Donald Trump as an existential threat or, conversely, as an easy mark.

The radio silence, paired with the pantomime that Biden is their guy and that they are willing to take the gambit on a 2016 repeat, tells us by virtue of omission that something is amiss.

The New York Post recently became the first major newspaper out of the gate to state the obvious: that a long forecasted Michelle Obama run may be in the pipeline.

Yet, even the Post column Wednesday by Cindy Adams coyly treated this as if it were some organic decision that had spontaneously sprung from the Obamas’ growing concern about a Trump victory, and not a carefully choreographed plan to finish the Marxist makeover that began in 2008.


It is highly likely that the original plan to run Michelle in 2020—when she started sending some of the same smoke signals as she is currently—got derailed by the pandemic.

COVID-19 threatened to throw the entire script out of sequence, calling into doubt the orchestrated chaos of migrant caravans and race riots that they had carefully planned out, and demanding the sort of genuine leadership of the Obamas that was “above their pay grade.”

At any rate, Joe Biden—the man who has spent the past 50 years boasting of his willingness “to prostitute himself” to the highest bidder, and of whom Obama told a donor in the 2020 primaries, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up”—was the perfect patsy for a four-year reign of terror that would function as a “sort of transitional” period.

Biden’s specific path of destruction seems custom-made to build on the agenda that Obama set in motion but lacked the fortitude to implement on his own.

The Left will try to pitch Michelle Obama as a blank slate, and those who have framed the current race as a choice between a doddering empty suit and a Nazi dictator will, undoubtedly, suggest that she falls in the exact center between the two.

Because Biden, by design, has systematically violated many norms, it will seem at surface level to be a return to normalcy, with Michelle making a point of refusing to “go low” while giving her many surrogates carte blanche to do precisely that on her behalf.

Yet, in reality, a Michelle Obama presidency would be a continuation of the Biden presidency, which is, in turn, a continuation of the Barack Obama presidency. It would be the third and final act in the wokest, most epic Higher Ground Media disaster movie ever made.

Here are five things that America could expect to see from the next Obama term, when the Biden “transitional” phase ends and the real work begins.

The topics: immigration, the judiciary, censorship, gas prices and Israel, plus one speculative “wild card” that has about a 50–50 chance of coming to fruition.


From 2014 onward—despite what the gaslighting, goalpost-moving Left will claim— Obama was advancing an open-border policy by refusing to enforce federal immigration law.

On Friday, Biden said as much, telling a bipartisan group of mayors that the border hasn’t been secure for the “last 10 years,” according to The Hill.

Trump saw some minor successes in stemming the flow of illegals during the pandemic. Nonetheless, the outright resistance he faced from leftist “sanctuary” cities and the activist legal challenges via George Soros-backed “nonprofits” left open the possibility that another caravan could come at any moment and overwhelm the system—which they did, after Biden rolled back Trump’s border policies on day 1 of his presidency.

It was Obama, though, who pioneered the plan of releasing “unaccompanied minors” that, in turn, offered the legal and moral justification for Biden to shimmy open the Overton window on the current administration’s relentless pursuit of the Great Replacement.

That effort is now in full throttle, and as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez noted recently, with policies like Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” off the table, there is not much that can be done about the more than 10 million illegals who have gained access to the U.S. on Biden’s watch and are now awaiting asylum hearings set for years, if not decades, in the future—except to declare blanket amnesty.

This, of course, has always been the end game. Once these illegals are in the American system for long enough, the courts continue to rule that they are entitled to a sort of de-facto citizenship.

Democrats could wait another 20 years and hope that the second generation in this permanent sub-class of government dependents remains loyal to them; or, under the next Obama administration, they could hold the border hostage until Congress agrees to make amnesty a political concession.


It was shocking news when, in 2010, Barack Obama scolded the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address for not supporting a political agenda.

But who—except for those who planned it out—would have imagined that Obama’s subtle swipe at the court would evolve into a full-fledged assault on American jurisprudence?

As with open borders, it was Obama’s administration that paved the way for the current two-tiered justice system. Former Attorney General Eric Holder was the first DOJ leader to openly use political beliefs for selective enforcement of the laws as a matter of policy and principle.

Moreover, the Obama judges installed in the D.C. district court via Harry Reid’s implementation of the “nuclear option,” which ended filibusters on most Senate judicial confirmations, have been instrumental in the development of lawfare as a powerful tool of the Left.

Nearly all accountability for the permanent bureaucracy—including the corrupt national intelligence apparatus—must go through notorious activist-judges like Tanya Chutkan, Beryl Howell, Christopher Cooper and Amit Mehta, whose allegiance is to their radical worldview and not the rule of law.

The one and only backstop is the U.S. Supreme Court, which the Left is urgently trying to destabilize and delegitimize.

Biden already laid the framework for radical “reform” with a controversial court-packing commission.

But it seems to be the fraudulent charges against Trump that offer the most likely path for pushing this objective, along with imposing new congressional oversight of the high court and term limits to further dilute the co-equal branch of government.

If the Supreme Court overturns the predetermined guilty verdicts against Trump, the Left will cry foul and insist the court has been tainted and politicized. If the high court upholds them, Democrats win the election—and proceed to pack the court, regardless.


The divisive “ultra-MAGA” rhetoric that Biden has made central to his campaigning comes straight from the Obamas, with Barack first breaking the long tradition of presidents who avoided direct insults on the American people.

In April 2008, the soon-to-be president drew backlash for characterizing his opponents as frightened backwoods rubes who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Ironically, given the red-state “antipathy” her husband spoke of, Michelle Obama had told an audience just two months before, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.”

Leftists have since taken their attacks on the opposition to dark and alarming places, while growing increasingly intolerant of criticism that’s redirected their way as being an attack on “democracy” itself.

As hundreds of prosecutions of Jan. 6 political dissidents reveal—along with similar persecutions of pro-life demonstrators, school-board soccer moms, anonymous online pranksters and elderly grandfathers who happen to post the wrong thing on social media—there is no limit to what the government will do to suppress and punish dissent under the new regime.

The push to censor opponents under the guise of “disinformation” has been a particular pet project of Barack Obama in his post-presidency. During a 2022 summit he organized at the University of Chicago, Obama praised Russian President Vladimir Putin—who is notorious for murdering his critics—over his “absolute control of information.”

While the Department of Homeland Security’s attempts to establish a so-called Disinformation Governance Board during the Biden administration appeared to backfire—with public outrage and legal backlash forcing it to go underground—the brazen censorship efforts of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas have not abated.

In fact, that mission recently has been embraced by the World Economic Forum, which endorsed the creation of a global blacklist for alleged sources of disinformation.

And who will be the arbiters of truth? The Global Disinformation Index, an initiative funded by the Biden State Department, frequently surfaces as a leading candidate.

However, in order to give the censorship push an aura of “independence” needed to circumvent the appearance of First Amendment violations, it will likely collaborate with “nonprofit” partisan activist groups like the George Soros-linked NewsGuard and the Check My Ads Institute, which appears to have been behind a recent push to smear Twitter owner Elon Musk.


During his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama faced criticism for appearing to support the spike in gas prices to $4 a gallon that happened during the George W. Bush administration.

“[T]he only way we’re going to deal with these high gas prices is if we change how we consume oil,” Obama said in a June 2008 CNBC interview. “And that means investing in alternative fuels, it means that we are raising fuel efficiency standards on cars, that we’re helping the automakers retool …  but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly.”

Essentially, Obama sought to artificially impose regulations and gas taxes that would make gas-powered vehicles prohibitive in order to help jolt the tepid consumer demand for electric vehicles. In 2016, when there was little political risk involved for him, the lame-duck president finally got the guts to attempt a 24-cent-per-gallon gas tax.

Similarly, his cap-and-trade plans to force corporations to pay carbon credits, woven into the fabric of the controversial Paris Climate Accords, aimed to further drive up energy costs and incentivize greater reliance on solar panels from companies like the government-subsidized Solyndra.

Biden not only has funneled massive amounts of federal spending toward new green-energy boondoggles and regulatory roads to nowhere (with automakers now revolting over the president’s EV mandates), but has also virtually cut off all U.S. energy production, achieving on the supply side the same price-gouging that his boss envisioned on the demand side.

Meanwhile, California has notably embraced Obama’s plan for draconian regulations and gasoline surcharges—including one that raises billions of dollars for the state coffers, despite the fact that nobody knows what its actual purpose is. The state plans to end sales of gasoline-powered cars completely by 2035.

In June 2022, California also set its average monthly record with gas prices at $6.16 a gallon, but at individual stations they’ve been spotted for as high as $8.49 a gallon.

California’s Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom acknowledged that by keeping the gas tax in place, even when the prices themselves spiked due to supply-chain issues, the state could effectively redistribute its wealth to others, including illegal immigrants.


The Obama administration’s ascension in the U.S. coincided with conservative Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s election, resulting in an unprecedented frosting of relations between the two traditionally close allies.

While it’s safe to assume diplomacy behind the scenes had not always been perfect, there had never, prior to 2009, been any doubt about where the U.S. stood in its unequivocal support of the beleaguered Jewish nation-state.

But all that changed after the Obama administration, led by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, made clear its support for a Palestinian state. In a June 2009 speech in Egypt, Obama himself said, “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

Even as the U.S. maintained a strong military presence in the Middle East, the Obama foreign policy seemed determined to destabilize the region. The CIA-backed series of color revolutions in 2010, collectively known as the “Arab Spring,” claimed to be bringing “democracy” to Muslim countries, but it had the effect of turning them even more hostile to the West by electing extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

Through his inaction, Obama also appeared to tacitly support the rise of ISIS, the vicious terrorist insurgency that he initially dubbed the “JV squad,” in Syria and Iraq.

In 2014, a Hamas rocket attack led Israel to retaliate in Gaza, resulting in Netanyahu’s complete shunning by the Obama administration. The White House refused even to receive him when the Israeli leader delivered a speech before Congress in 2015, a year Netanyahu was up for re-election.

Shortly thereafter, in July 2015, the Obama administration unveiled its Iran nuclear deal, unfreezing billions of dollars and even supplying the rogue Islamic regime with pallets of cash that it could use to fund terrorist operations throughout the region.

Biden’s administration has continued along the same trajectory, helping Iran to secretly plot and fund Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by announcing its plan, inexplicably, to unfreeze billions more in Iranian assets.

The recent expressions of overt anti-Semitism at places like Harvard University (where Obama was secretly behind the effort to protect disgraced ex-president Claudine Gay) reveal how radical leftists have been priming the pump for a complete betrayal of Israel when the moment is right, after the country’s military might and Netanyahu’s political clout have been thoroughly undermined by the current conflict.


Headline USA has yet to uncover the incontrovertible, “smoking-gun” evidence that would confirm the longstanding rumors surrounding Michelle Obama’s gender identity—nor, for the sake of public decency, do we ever hope such evidence comes to light.

However, the preponderance of circumstantial evidence builds a compelling case.

One thing is certain: If the rumors of “Big Mike” are true, then the Obamas will not flinch from letting the truth be known in their next term.

The push to force acceptance of transgenderism as a “mainstream” issue and not a mental illness has been unprecedented.

Many things can be considered Orwellian about the current regime, but nothing has been quite so bold as attempting to redefine the basic science—and the empirical reality—that, while masculinity and femininity may fall on a relative spectrum of varied temperamental identities, gender itself is inherently binary.

The promotion of the transgender fiction is yet another Marxist mean leading to and end. Perhaps it is part of a gradual push to tear down all sexual boundaries and taboos, including things like pedophilia, which has been linked to powerful global influence peddlers in the past.

Or maybe it is setting the stage for Michelle’s big reveal. That not only would make “her” the first transgender president, but also allow Barack Obama to make history (again) as the first openly gay former president.

Such an admission would finally track with the firsthand accounts of people including Barack’s former alleged lover, Larry Sinclair, as well as his own written confessions in a letter to an ex-girlfriend.

Ben Sellers is the editor of Headline USA. Follow him at twitter.com/realbensellers.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *