top of page

The Double Standard of Power: What Trump Does vs. What Black America Wished for Obama

In 2025, Donald Trump’s actions continue to challenge the very foundations of the U.S. Constitution. His defiance of legal norms, disregard for democratic institutions, and open resistance to accountability all reflect a level of unchecked power that many Black Americans once wished Barack Obama could have wielded—but never could. The difference? Skin color.

During Obama's presidency, Black Americans dreamed of a leader who would push back harder against the system, fight more aggressively for racial justice, and unapologetically wield



his power in the interest of his people. But we all knew the reality—he had to play by the rules, or he wouldn’t survive. Had Obama done even a fraction of what Trump is doing today, he wouldn’t have just been impeached; he likely would have been assassinated.

The Unforgivable Sin: A Black Man with Power

From day one, Obama faced opposition that went beyond politics—it was deeply racial. His legitimacy was questioned with racist birther conspiracies, his policies met with extreme obstruction, and his very presence in the White House seen as an affront to a system designed to exclude Black leadership at that level. Despite his constitutional law background and measured leadership, he had to tiptoe through his presidency, avoiding anything that could be spun as "too radical" or "too Black."

Compare that to Trump—who openly defies subpoenas, disregards court rulings, and incites political violence without consequence. Even after being found guilty in multiple cases, he still holds influence over a large base and remains a dominant figure in American politics. If Obama had defied the law like Trump? They would have sent the National Guard to drag him out of the White House.

Weaponizing the Constitution—But Only Against Some

Trump and his supporters claim to be defenders of the Constitution, yet they ignore it when it comes to their own actions. The same document that was used to justify slavery and segregation is now being twisted to shield Trump from accountability. Meanwhile, the system was hyper-vigilant in keeping Obama in check, ensuring that he remained the "safe" Black leader who couldn’t make too much noise.

The reality is clear: Black leadership is only tolerated if it operates within strict, unwritten boundaries. Push too hard, and the system pushes back—violently. Obama knew this, which is why his presidency, while historic, was also marked by restraint. He couldn’t be the radical force that many in the Black community hoped for because America was not ready, and likely never will be.

What This Means Moving Forward

Trump’s ability to defy the Constitution with impunity should serve as a lesson: the rules are different depending on who holds power. Black leaders are expected to be exceptional, unblemished, and restrained, while white leaders can be reckless and lawless and still be embraced by millions.

For Black America, the question isn't just "What if Obama had done what Trump is doing?" We already know the answer. The real question is, "When will we stop playing by rules that were never meant to protect us?"

It’s time for a new understanding of power—one that doesn’t require Black leaders to shrink themselves to survive. Because as Trump has proven, the Constitution is only as strong as the people willing to enforce it. And when they choose not to, power is all that matters.

 
 
 

Comments


USA, Atlanta, Georgia

Comparing a 401(k) Investment vs. Christine’s Heart $30K Program

Both investment strategies aim to grow wealth over time, but they differ in structure, returns, and accessibility. Let's break them down.

1. 401(k) Investment (Traditional Approach)

Scenario: Maxing out a 401(k) with a 6% employer match for 20 years.

  • Initial Investment: $23,000 per year (plus a $6,000 employer match)

  • Total Contributions: ~$580,000 over 20 years

  • Assumed Growth Rate: 8% annually (market average)

  • End Balance: $1,433,265

  • Liquidity: Limited (penalties for early withdrawals)

  • Risk: Moderate (market fluctuations but long-term growth)

  • Taxation: Tax-deferred (taxed upon withdrawal in retirement)

2. Christine’s Heart $30K Program (High-Growth Alternative)

Investing $30,000 with Christine’s Heart for accelerated returns.

  • Initial Investment: $30,000

  • Timeframe: 12 months

  • Projected Growth: $100,000+ potential return

  • End Balance (After 20 Years of Reinvesting Profits): Significantly higher potential

  • Liquidity: Higher (faster access to funds)

  • Risk: Higher (active investing, market knowledge required)

  • Taxation: Depending on structure, profits may be taxable each year

Which One is Better?

  • 401(k) is best for long-term, stable growth with employer matching and tax benefits.

  • Christine’s Heart is best for those seeking faster returns with the ability to reinvest profits multiple times over a 20-year period.

If someone starts with $30K in Christine’s Heart and reinvests profits wisely, they could reach seven figures much faster than a 401(k)—but with greater involvement and risk management.

Comparing a 401(k) vs. Christine’s Heart $30K Program (12-Month Cycle) 1. 401(k) Investment (Traditional Approach) Annual Contribution: $23,000 (plus $6,000 employer match) Total Contributions Over 20 Years: ~$580,000 Assumed Growth Rate: 8% annually (market average) End Balance (After 20 Years): $1,433,265 Liquidity: Low (penalties for early withdrawals) Risk: Moderate (market fluctuations but long-term growth) 2. Christine’s Heart $30K Program (12-Month Cycle) Initial Investment: $30,000 Timeframe Per Cycle: 12 months Projected Growth: $100,000 per year Reinvesting Profits: Compounding over 20 years Liquidity: High (cash available yearly) Risk: Higher (active management required) Projected Growth Over 20 Years (Reinvesting Profits Yearly) If the $30,000 grows to $100,000 in one year and the full amount is reinvested each cycle: Using the formula for compound interest: 𝐹𝑉=𝑃(1+𝑟)𝑛 FV=P(1+r) n where: P = $30,000 (Initial investment) r = 233% return per year (since $30K → $100K) n = 20 years Let’s calculate the final value. After only 10 years of reinvesting profits in Christine’s Heart $30K program (with a projected $100K return per year), the potential balance could grow to well over $4.1 million—a massive theoretical number driven by high annual compounding. Key Takeaways: Christine’s Heart offers much faster wealth accumulation, assuming consistent performance. A 401(k) is safer but slower, growing to $1.43 million over the same period. Christine’s Heart has higher risk but far greater liquidity, allowing access to funds yearly. In reality, market fluctuations, taxes, and reinvestment strategies would impact actual results, but the difference in potential returns is clear.

Stay in the Loop

Mahalo

blu porsche

blu porsche

Play Video
bottom of page