Violent Barack Obama Rejects the Idea of Violence

Everything Barack Obama interjects into public discourse always appears neutral on its face, but in truth is delivered within a systemic context or tone.

Jeannie DeAngelis | April 28, 2026

Throughout his grueling presidency, Barack Obama assigned motives to any incident involving a white person and a black person. From Henry Louis Gates to Trayvon Martin to Jussie Smollett to George Floyd, until further notice, the person with the most melanin was always presumed innocent. By contrast, Caucasians were usually deemed worthy of special mention, especially in Obama’s April 2009 treatise on right-wing extremism, where Christians, prolifers, ex-military, and white people on the whole were suspected of contemplating terrorist acts because the first African American was elected President of the United States.

Right-wing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many right-wing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Right-wing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, right-wing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

Right-wing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many right-wing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Right-wing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, right-wing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama has failed to acknowledge the truth that it’s left-wing extremists who have tried and failed three times to assassinate a sitting president who happens to be white.

Now, after three serious attacks on the life of one high-profile white person, Barack Obama steps forward to inject calm into a volatile situation by reminding the world that there are no “details about the motives behind” a radicalized leftist traveling cross-country by train, charging into the lobby of the Washington Hilton, armed to the teeth with weaponry that his published manifesto implied he planned to use on the guy sitting with his wife and press secretary at the head table.

Here is what Obama’s grammatically incorrect statement had to say:

Forgetting to place an apostrophe after “Correspondents” and an “of” between “all” and “us,” and, in addition, calling a Constitutional Republic “our democracy.” Once again, this rushed Tweet is telling because it is a classic example of Barack Obama's innuendo.

For starters, the plural, inclusive language of “we” and “us” signals to individuals that, if they view themselves as separate from the collective, they must be in the minority. Therefore, it’s understood that every American believes the “details about the motives behind” Saturday night’s shooting are unknown.

Again, this man is telling “us” that it’s “incumbent” upon all of us to “reject the idea that violence has any place in our democracy.”

But isn’t Obama the one who hung around with radical, violent Weather Underground extremist Bill Ayers? Isn’t it Obama who believes that babies born alive in botched abortions should be left to die without hydration, warmth, and oxygen? Isn’t this the guy whose policies to target 500 militants in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia resulted in the killing of 3,000 people in drone air strikes? Under his administration, wasn’t an American citizen killed in a drone attack? Wasn’t “Mr. Reject the Idea of Violence” behind a catch-and-release program that later cost many Americans their lives?

Didn’t Obama send $1.7 billion dollars to a genocidal regime in Iran that has recently slaughtered 30,000 of its own people? And isn’t Barack Obama the guy whose cartel gun-tracking strategy failed, with upwards of 2,000 guns going missing and later found at violent crime scenes? Wasn’t he and his administration behind the famine in Yemen?

Not to mention his and Hillary’s bumbling in Benghazi.

Don’t we have the details about all of that? So much for “rejecting the idea of violence.”

It’s no secret. Barack has made his feelings about Donald Trump very clear. Obama has contributed to the vitriol by accusing Trump and ICE of pulling American citizens off the streets.

Once again unable to keep his big mouth shut, Obama has inserted himself into the most recent assassination attempt by proclaiming, as if it’s true, that when a fully armed individual who attended No Kings protests rushes through a hotel lobby hosting an event featuring the President of the United States, it doesn’t mean there was a motive behind those actions. With all the hatred directed toward Trump, Obama, who is usually quick to jump to conclusions when political violence is directed toward anyone of his race or party, seems very measured and astoundingly restrained when a perpetrator misses the target and it’s Trump.

Obama is very clever at accusing Americans of systemic racism and at implying that any incident involving a person of color is automatically an act of bigotry. Before details are made public, Obama usually issues a broad social analysis of injustice toward Black people and calls for impartiality and equality. He does this consistently, without knowing any of the details. Remember the Henry Louis Gates incident, when, before having all the details, Obama accused a white cop, Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department, of “acting stupidly?”

In essence, Obama has made many a decision and has craftily spun many an accusation without details, consistently implicating skin color as the motive.

With Jussie Smollett, implying a hate crime instead of a racist hoax had taken place, Obama jumped to conclusions and said, “@JussieSmollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery. This is an affront to our humanity…” Then, after it was exposed that Jussie Smollett had staged the event, Obama conveniently failed to follow up his “affront to humanity” comment with a clarifying public statement.

In like manner, on March 23, 2012, when Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, Obama quickly brought racism and skin color into the conversation by saying, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Obama then went on to imply injustice toward Trayvon, without any information about what actually happened.

I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this. …All of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how something like this happened.

I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this. …All of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how something like this happened.

Never once encouraging a racially unified America, Obama, who now claims no known motive regarding Trump, almost always stressed racial inequality and black vs. white as the motive. Even after George Zimmerman was acquitted, Obama gave a longer, more personal set of remarks, self-identifying with the deceased teen, saying, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”

Obama’s response to George Floyd’s death was predictable. It framed the event as a civil rights issue and evidence of structural inequality and never once mentioned Floyd’s fentanyl addiction or criminal background. In his Medium essay, titled “How to Make This Moment the Turning Point for Real Change,” Obama focused on systemic racism in policing and criminal justice and the importance of sustained civic action, not just protest.

If Donald J. Trump were our second black president and a Democrat, Barack Obama would be the first to insinuate the day after the event that the aggressor's intention was racially and politically motivated.

Everything Barack Obama interjects into public discourse always appears neutral on its face, but in truth is delivered within a systemic context or tone as an indirect or implied remark -- consistently phrased to suggest meaning without stating it outright. So, saying that we “lack details” concerning motives when a third attack on Donald Trump’s life takes place is just more of Obama being Obama.

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannieology.us

SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER

Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.

© American Thinker