Connect with us

Politics

More People Call To End Obama’s Presidential Library

Published

on

(Via Washington Examiner)

The Obama Foundation released plans last week for the presidential center it plans to build in Chicago’s Jackson Park, but behind the scenes, a battle is taking place to keep the former Democratic president from building on that specific lot of land, and there’s still a chance that it gets delayed when it seeks federal approval.

What initially started out as a library has morphed into a 20-acre private “center,” and some environmentalists and historians are unhappy with the Obama Foundation’s plans to swoop in and take over a national historic place.

The Obama Foundation originally said it would house a presidential library on the property and vowed to have the National Archives oversee the facility because of its placement on public land. But that’s no longer the case, and some are balking at the change in plans.

[Obama Foundation’s presidential center will include sledding hill, Women’s Garden, sports center]

“Here’s our bottom line. If the Obama Foundation wishes to construct this center on Chicago’s South Side, that’s fine, but not on parkland held in public trust. The University of Chicago, which orchestrated the winning bid for the project, has plenty of land on the South Side that they could and should use. Instead, they’ve been adamant since day one that they must have historic public parkland for the purpose,” Charles Birnbaum, president and founder of D.C.-based nonprofit, the Cultural Landscape Foundation, told the Washington Examiner in a written statement Saturday.

The foundation is not alone. The group is working alongside a number of others, including Friends of the Parks, Jackson Park Watch, Openlands, National Association for Olmsted Parks, Save the Midway, Landmarks Illinois, and Preservation Chicago, all of whom have raised concerns about the project.

In addition, 200 faculty members from Obama’s former employer, the University of Chicago, issued a formal letter last Monday stating its opposition to the presidential center being built at this location.

As a first step, the center’s proposal must be approved by Chicago’s planning department and the city council. That process is not expected to sit any snags, as Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is Chicago’s mayor.

“If past is prologue, municipal officials will rubber-stamp their approvals,” Birnbaum said.

But the federal process will be more complicated, and that’s where Birnbaum’s argument becomes especially relevant.

The Obama Foundation will have to get approval from the Environmental Protection Agency under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. A spokesperson for Birnbaum’s group said it is difficult to predict how the Trump administration’s EPA will handle it.

The first verification process will determine if the Obama Presidential Center would have “adverse effects” on Jackson Park. The State Historic Preservation Office will ask “official consulting parties” to provide opinions.

“This will play out over 2018 and involve several meetings of the ‘official consulting parties’ along with extensive written input from those parties,” Birnbaum explained in an email. “A determination could be made that this are no adverse effects and the OPC would proceed (highly unlikely); a determination could be made that there are adverse effects and a process of mitigation could be developed and approved by all of the consulting parties in a formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); a determination could be made that there are adverse effects, but the consulting parties don’t agree on mitigation, then this would likely end in litigation.”

From the perspective of the landscape foundation, Jackson Park and the surrounding parklands are quintessential examples of historic property.

“This isn’t just any public open space; this is historic parkland originally designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr., and Calvert Vaux (of New York’s Central Park fame),” the organization’s website states. The park system was designed in 1871, and Olmsted wrote in 1895 that the Museum of Science and Industry was intended to be the only “dominating object of interest” in the park.

In 2012, Jackson Park was at the center of another Section 106 compliance review, and officials decided it should not be touched.

“As currently designed, the park retains a great deal of its integrity. While some of the original features have been modified, or removed, the remaining defining characteristics such as the overall plan … depicted on the 1905 map must be respected,” the document stated.

The foundation is expected to spend much of this year engaged in federal-related approval processes. The Chicago City Council will take up the issue this week.

Meanwhile, Obama’s team last week released more information about the center it hopes to open soon. In July 2016, the Obamas announced the selection of Jackson Park, a 500-acre park on Chicago’s South Side next to the University of Chicago, as their preferred site for his presidential library.

The spot is near the Museum of Science and Industry, Lake Michigan and the eastern edge of the university campus, where Obama used to teach constitutional law. The location is also near Woodlawn, a low-income black neighborhood that recently has begun to gentrify. The Obamas are longtime Chicago residents, and sought a part of their hometown that needed revitalization but could also benefit from the addition.

This week, the Obama Foundation shared dozens of changes to its proposal, including road closures within the park, a revamping of the picturesque landscaping, and a newly designed main building would stretch 23 stories high at 235 feet tall.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Iowa

Randy Feenstra Built on Kim Reynolds’ Betrayal of Steve King: The Artificial Replacement Who Ousted a Conservative Warrior

Published

on

In the summer of 2020, Iowa’s 4th Congressional District witnessed one of the most brazen establishment takeovers in recent Republican politics. Nine-term Congressman Steve King—the fiery, unapologetic voice of rural conservatism, border security, and Western civilization—was unceremoniously dumped by his own party. In his place? State Senator Randy Feenstra, a polished, establishment-backed challenger who cruised to victory in the June 2 primary with 45.5% of the vote to King’s 35.8%.

This wasn’t a grassroots revolt. It was a calculated betrayal orchestrated by the very insiders King had helped elevate—including Governor Kim Reynolds, whom he had proudly endorsed and supported just years earlier.

The Endorsement: King Lifts Reynolds When She Needed Him Most

Flash back to 2017-2018. Kim Reynolds was running for a full term as governor after ascending from lieutenant governor. Steve King didn’t just back her—he went all-in. Reynolds named King a statewide campaign co-chair and proudly touted his endorsement. In a November 2017 press release, she gushed: “Congressman Steve King is a strong defender of freedom and our conservative values. He’s independent, principled, and is fighting the good fight in Washington, D.C. You never have to question where he stands.”

King delivered for Reynolds in the heavily conservative 4th District. She rode that support to victory in 2018. Their alliance was public, mutual, and mutually beneficial—classic Republican teamwork, or so it seemed.

The Betrayal: Reynolds Stabs King in the Back

Fast forward to January 2019. After years of King being smeared by the media for his blunt defense of immigration enforcement and cultural issues, House Republican leadership stripped him of his committee assignments over remarks questioning why “white nationalist” had become a slur. King’s enemies pounced. Enter Randy Feenstra, who announced his primary challenge against the incumbent.

Governor Kim Reynolds? She didn’t lift a finger to defend the man who had co-chaired her campaign. Instead, she publicly washed her hands of him. In an interview with WHO-TV, Reynolds declared she would “stay out of the primary” but pointedly noted King’s surprisingly close 2018 re-election as a “wakeup call.” Translation: She wasn’t backing King over Feenstra.

Prominent Iowa Republicans like Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst followed suit and stayed neutral—abandoning the pattern of past support for King. Meanwhile, Feenstra raked in cash from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Right to Life, the Republican Jewish Coalition, and other establishment heavyweights. He painted King as “caustic” and ineffective, precisely the line the D.C. and Des Moines insiders wanted to hear.

Steve King, the guy who had carried water for the party through thick and thin, was left twisting in the wind. The same Reynolds who once called him a “strong defender of conservative values” now stood aside while the machine dismantled him.

Feenstra: The Artificial Candidate

Randy Feenstra didn’t storm onto the scene as a populist firebrand with grassroots rage behind him. He was the safe, scripted alternative. A state senator from Hull whose district overlapped King’s, Feenstra resigned a powerful Ways & Means committee chairmanship to run full-time—signaling deep establishment buy-in. He outraised King dramatically and dominated his home turf, but the broader narrative was clear: this was the party clearing out the “problematic” incumbent for someone who wouldn’t rock the boat or make national headlines for the wrong reasons.

Feenstra’s campaign pitch boiled down to “effectiveness” over principle. He criticized King’s rhetoric while promising results—code for “we’ll keep the seat Republican without the drama.” National GOP groups poured in to protect the safe red district from any general-election risk. King, stripped of power in Washington, was portrayed as the reason the district lacked a “seat at the table.”

The voters in the primary bought it. Feenstra won. King was out. The establishment had its man.

Why This Still Matters: The Pattern of Artificial Republicans

This wasn’t about ideology—Feenstra and King both cast conservative votes. It was about control. Steve King represented the raw, unfiltered voice of the heartland that made the Republican Party a fighting force. The insiders—Reynolds, the Chamber, the national PACs—wanted someone more manageable. Someone who wouldn’t embarrass them on cable news. Someone “artificial”: manufactured by money, party machinery, and calculated neutrality from the very people King had once helped.

Fast-forward to today, and the irony is thick. Feenstra is now running for governor in 2026, positioning himself as the heir to the Reynolds legacy. Meanwhile, Steve King—still influential in conservative circles—has thrown his support behind a challenger attacking Feenstra as the ultimate establishment candidate.

The 2020 primary wasn’t a rejection of conservatism. It was the establishment’s successful coup against one of its own most outspoken warriors. Randy Feenstra didn’t earn that seat through pure populist fire—he was handed it after the party betrayed the man who had helped build their machine.

Iowa conservatives should never forget: when the insiders decide you’re too loud, too principled, or too effective at exposing the real threats facing America, they’ll find a “cleaner” replacement. Steve King learned that the hard way. The rest of us should learn from it before the same machine installs more artificial candidates across the country.

Continue Reading

Crime

Texas AG Ken Paxton Sues ActBlue (Democrat Funding Machine)

Published

on

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton just dropped a landmark lawsuit against ActBlue, the Democratic Party’s favorite fundraising machine, for systematically deceiving Americans about its donation processes that enable rampant fraud, including illegal foreign contributions and untraceable gift card schemes. On Monday, April 20, 2026, Paxton filed suit in Texas state court, accusing the platform of violating consumer protection laws by lying to donors and the public about the strength of its verification safeguards. This isn’t some minor paperwork dispute — it’s a direct assault on the integrity of our elections, where ActBlue has funneled over $16 billion into Democratic campaigns and causes while turning a blind eye to straw donations, identity fraud, and cash from overseas that has no business influencing American politics.

For years, everyday patriots have watched as Big Tech-enabled platforms like ActBlue operated with impunity, raking in small-dollar donations that often smelled fishy — thousands of identical contributions from the same IP addresses, elderly donors suddenly maxing out limits they never touched before, and untraceable gift cards flowing through after the platform claimed to Congress it had shut that door in 2024. Paxton’s investigators proved otherwise, successfully pushing small gift card donations through to the DNC and Democratic candidates as recently as February 2026 without a hitch. The radical left has relied on this dark money pipeline to subvert election laws, compromise sovereignty, and flood campaigns with cash that real Americans never authorized. Paxton nailed it: “The radical left has relied on ActBlue as a way to funnel foreign donations and dark money into their political campaigns to subvert our laws and compromise the integrity of our nation’s elections.”

This lawsuit exposes the deeper betrayal of the ruling class against working families and honest voters who play by the rules. While border communities in Texas and across America suffer under waves of illegal immigration and crime, Democrat elites in Washington and blue strongholds use tools like ActBlue to bankroll their open-borders agenda, woke indoctrination in schools, and endless attacks on traditional values — all funded by processes riddled with fraud that they publicly deny. Paxton’s action builds on his multi-year investigation that uncovered suspicious donation patterns and prompted calls for FEC reforms to ban straw donations. The consequences are clear: eroded trust in elections, stolen voice for American citizens, and a tilted playing field that favors globalist interests over national sovereignty.

What needs to happen now is full accountability and sweeping reforms to protect election integrity. Paxton’s suit should force ActBlue to clean house or face real penalties, while Congress and the FEC must step up with ironclad rules banning foreign nationals, unverified gift cards, and obscured identities from touching U.S. campaigns. States should follow Texas’s lead and launch their own probes. True election security starts with secure borders, verified voters, and transparent fundraising that puts American citizens first — not shadowy platforms serving the America Last crowd. Patriots everywhere should celebrate fighters like Ken Paxton for refusing to let the radical left rig the game. The fight for fair elections and a sovereign nation isn’t over; it’s just getting started. Demand your representatives back real reforms, or watch the fraud machine keep humming along at the expense of every hardworking family in this country.

Continue Reading

Europe

Populist Warning: Hungary’s Nationalist Fortress Falls

Published

on

In a stunning upset on April 12, 2026, Hungarian voters delivered a crushing blow to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party after 16 years of defiant nationalist leadership. The opposition Tisza Party, led by Péter Magyar—a slick former insider turned “change” candidate—stormed to victory with around 53% of the vote and a projected supermajority of 138 seats in the 199-member parliament. Orbán conceded defeat, calling it “painful,” as record turnout hit nearly 80%. What was sold as a grassroots revolt against “corruption” and “illiberalism” looks far more like a coordinated elite operation to drag Hungary back into the EU’s suffocating embrace. This isn’t just a Hungarian story; it’s a flashing red alert for every nation fighting to preserve its sovereignty against globalist machine politics.

The real story behind this result is a classic elite betrayal of working families who once rallied behind Orbán’s unapologetic defense of borders, traditional values, and resistance to endless migrant invasions and Brussels diktats. Magyar’s Tisza outfit, dressed up as “centre-right” and “pro-reform,” promises to “bolster the rule of law” and unlock frozen EU billions—code for surrendering Hungary’s hard-won independence on migration, family policy, and foreign affairs. Orbán built a bulwark against demographic replacement, gender ideology, and Ukraine war escalation that threatened to bleed Europe dry. Now, with high turnout fueled by anti-Orbán mobilization and possible foreign-backed campaigns, that wall is cracking. They—the Davos crowd, EU bureaucrats, and their media allies—painted Orbán as an authoritarian boogeyman while ignoring how his policies protected Hungarian workers from the cheap labor floods and cultural erosion devastating Western Europe. This shift reeks of the same globalist playbook we’ve seen time and again: undermine leaders who put citizens first, install pliable figures who prioritize “European values” over national survival.

The consequences for everyday Hungarians—and the broader populist movement—could be dire if this new regime follows through. Expect a rapid pivot toward open-border policies lite, accelerated EU integration that funnels sovereignty to unelected officials in Brussels, and a rollback of pro-family incentives that kept Hungary’s birth rates from total collapse. Hungarian families already squeezed by inflation and energy costs from green fantasies will face more “reforms” that benefit multinational corporations while eroding national identity. On the world stage, this weakens the America First alliance; Orbán stood as a rare European voice skeptical of forever wars and mass migration pacts that hurt American workers too. A pro-EU supermajority in Budapest hands globalists a propaganda win, signaling that even resilient populists can be toppled through relentless pressure, funding, and narrative control. For the U.S., it’s a reminder that our own battles against Big Tech censorship, bureaucratic overreach, and demographic swamping demand eternal vigilance—Trump’s return notwithstanding.

Patriots must treat Hungary’s fall as a cautionary tale, not a death knell. What needs to happen now is a fierce counter-mobilization: expose the foreign influences and elite capture behind Magyar’s rise, double down on securing borders and sovereignty wherever populists hold ground, and reject any “moderate” surrender that trades short-term EU cash for long-term national suicide. America First means learning from this—strengthen election integrity, rally working-class voters against cultural Marxism, and back leaders who refuse to bend the knee to globalist overlords. Hungary showed that high turnout can be weaponized against defenders of the nation; we must ensure ours delivers victories for citizens, not Davos. The fight for Western civilization isn’t over, but complacency invites exactly this kind of betrayal. Time to wake up, organize, and push back harder than ever before.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.