Saturday, June 30, 2018

NARCISSISM 101: Obama Says Dems Lost In 2016 Because ‘People Were So Focused On Me’


Ed. Barack Hussein…the true definition of self-infatuation. It's probably just KILLING this guy that he isn't allowed to run again in 2020; or maybe be appointed King for Life!


The following article appeared in Daily Wire.com

By Hank Berrien

On Thursday, former president Barack Obama offered his usual narcissistic perspective, this time as to why the Democrats got pounded in the 2016 election: “People were so focused on me.”


Yup, the fact that Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate, that much of America was sick of the Left’s identity politics, and that Donald Trump ran one of the most energized campaigns in recent years weren’t the prime cause of the Democrats’ woes; it was simply that Democrats couldn’t muster the energy to vote because of Obama himself. As Politico reports, speaking at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser, Obama intoned, “Do not wait for the perfect message, don’t wait to feel a tingle in your spine because you’re expecting politicians to be so inspiring and poetic and moving that somehow, ‘OK, I’ll get off my couch after all and go spend the 15-20 minutes it takes for me to vote.’ Because that’s part of what happened in the last election. I heard that too much. Boil it down … If we don’t vote, then this democracy doesn’t work.”

Politico writes, “He almost accepted some of the blame for the state of the party, though he framed it less as the DNC atrophying from years of benign neglect while he was in the White House and being saddled with his reelection campaign debt and more as people making the mistake of falling too much in love with him.” Obama pontificated, “I’ll be honest with you, if I have a regret during my presidency, it is that people were so focused on me and the battles we were having, particularly after we lost the House, that folks stopped paying attention up and down the ballot.”


Obama implied that President Trump has succeeded by stoking fear among his constituents, asserting, “Fear is powerful. Telling people that somebody’s out to get you, or somebody took your job, or somebody has it out for you, or is going to change you, or your community, or your way of life — that’s an old story and it has shown itself to be powerful in societies all around the world. It is a deliberate, systematic effort to tap into that part of our brain that carries fear in it.”

Then, the man on whose watch racial division became far more of an issue than it had been for years stated, “All these people that are out here kvetching and wringing their hands and stressed and anxious and constantly watching cable TV and howling at the moon, ‘What are we going to do?,’ their hair’s falling out, they can’t sleep. The majority of the American people prefer a story of hope. A majority of the American people prefer a country that comes together rather than being divided. The majority of the country doesn’t want to see a dog-eat-dog world where everybody is angry all the time.” Obama concluded of Trump and the GOP, “They’re mad even when they win.”

Author Ben Stein said of Obama in 2014:

What the White House is trying to do is racialize all politics and their especially trying to tell the African-American voter that the GOP is against letting them have a chance at a good life in this economy, and that’s just a complete lie. I watch with fascination — with incredible fascination — all the stories about how the Democratic politicians, especially Hillary, are trying to whip up the African-American vote and say, ‘Oh, the Republicans have policies against black people in terms of the economy.’ But there are no such policies … It’s all a way to racialize voting in this country. This president is the most racist president there has ever been in America. He is purposely trying to use race to divide Americans.

ILLEGAL POEM: By Illegal Immigrants


Hat Tip: navypatriot and Suzanne Eovaldi

I cross river,
Poor and broke,

Take bus,
See employment folk.

Nice man
Treat me good in there,
Say I need
Go see Welfare.

 
Welfare say,
'You come no more,
We send cash
Right to your door.'

Welfare checks,
They make you wealthy,

Medicaid
It keep you healthy!

By and by,
Got plenty money,

Thanks to you,
TAXPAYER dummy.

Write to friends
In motherland,

Tell them
'come, fast as you can'

They come in buses
And Chevy trucks,

I buy big house
With welfare bucks.

They come here,
We live together,

More welfare checks,
It gets better!

Fourteen families,
They moving in,

But neighbor's patience
Wearing thin.

Finally, white guy
Moves away,
..
I buy his house,
And then I say,

'Find more aliens
For house to rent.'

In my yard
I put a tent.

Send for family
They just trash,
....
But they, too,
Draw welfare cash!

Everything is
Very good,
Soon we own
Whole neighborhood..

We have hobby
It called breeding,

Welfare pay
For baby feeding.

Kids need dentist?
Wife need pills?

We get free!
We got no bills!

TAXPAYER crazy!
He pay all year,
To keep welfare
Running here.

We think America
Darn good place!
Too darn good
For white man race.

If they no like us,
They can go,
Got lots of room
In Mexico .

SEND THIS TO EVERY TAXPAYER YOU KNOW


Poll: 59% believe the left will resort to violence


Ed. The left will only resort to violence if they can hire volunteers to use those nasty, icky guns! After all, punching and kicking conservatives armed with Glocks will get old pretty damned quick...in fact, right after the first 3 or 4 shots!


The following article appeared in the American Thinker on June 28th


A poll by Rasmussen shows that 59% of Americans believe that the left will resort to violence in order to stop Trump.  The poll was taken following several high-profile confrontations by the left with high-level White House employees.

And 31% believe that the U.S. is headed for a second civil war.
Add caption


Of those people surveyed, 59 percent say that they're worried Trump critics will become violent; a third of everyone polled said that they're "very concerned" that things will come to that point.

Conversely, 16 percent said they aren't worried about it at all.

These percentages of people who think violence will be the direct result of policy disagreement are higher than they were under the Obama administration.  During President Obama's second year, 53 percent of people believed his opponents would turn toward violence while 28 percent stated that they were "very concerned" about the potential for violence.

The partisan breakdown of those numbers is striking:

Thirty-one percent (31%) of Likely U.S. Voters say it's likely that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years, with 11% who say it's Very Likely.  A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 59% consider a second civil war unlikely, but that includes only 29% who say it's Not At All Likely.  (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Democrats (37%) are more fearful than Republicans (32%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (26%) that a second civil war is at hand.

But 59% of all voters are concerned that those opposed to President Trump's policies will resort to violence, with 33% who are Very Concerned.  This compares to 53% and 28% respectively in the spring of Obama's second year in office.  Thirty-seven percent (37%) don't share that concern, including 16% who are Not At All Concerned.
The left resort to violence? Why how SILLY!

Most voters across the partisan spectrum are concerned about political violence from those opposed to Trump's policies, although Republicans are the most likely to be Very Concerned.  The level of concern is about the same among Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters when it comes to the threat of violence from those critical of the media's coverage of Trump.

The possibility of political violence against Trump officials and supporters is far larger than the prospect of a civil war.  The ideological divide between right and left is sharp, and there is no room for moderation.  There is also a significant cultural divide, although it falls short of the kind of schism that was represented by divided views on slavery.

But the political divide in 1860 was matched by a geographical divide not really present today.  We speak loosely of "red" and "blue" states, but in truth, no matter the state, there is a sizable minority from the other side living in the reddest and bluest states.  Chances of secession are close to zero.

While the prospect of a civil war is extremely remote, not so the probability of political violence roiling our streets.  One could easily imagine a Democratic takeover of the House and attempts to impeach the president sending hundreds of thousands into the streets, where it wouldn't take much to ignite a bloody conflagration.

The kind of confrontation between Trump-haters and administration officials we've seen recently is mostly unplanned and spontaneous.  But we should be aware that there are those on the left who have been salivating at the opportunity to throw the U.S. into chaos.  They may be planning on taking advantage of left-wing protests to goad the right into a violent reaction that would start a cycle of violence that authorities would be hard pressed to stop. 

We saw some of this during the 2016 campaign as Antifa and its allies sought to goad Trump-supporters into fighting back.  Imagine that today, with feelings running as high as they are on both sides.  It wouldn't take much for both sides to end up at each other's throats.

With prominent Democrats actually encouraging these confrontations, the chances of violence increases exponentially.  With the hysterical left having convinced itself that Trump is a personal threat, it may be inevitable that a Trump official or supporter is targeted and attacked.  Further, with the unhinged quality of opposition to the president, how many on the left will actually cheer if a Trump official is murdered in the street or outside his home?


There is something ‘fishy’ about one of Trump's potential Supreme Court nominees


The following article appeared in the American Thinker on June 28th


Judge Brett Kavanaugh sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  Several news articles, including those herehere, and here, mention him as a leading contender to be nominated by President Donald Trump to replace retiring justice Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh

The nomination of Kavanaugh would be ironic, given candidate Trump's disparaging comment about a death investigation in which Kavanaugh played a major role.  On July 20, 1993, Hillary Clinton's former law partner, and then deputy White House counsel for President Bill Clinton, Vincent Foster, was found dead in Virginia's Fort Marcy Park.  The official U.S. government conclusion is that Foster committed suicide in the park.  In May of 2016, candidate Trump stated that the circumstances of the death were "very fishy."  At the 2004 confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) stated: "Mr. Kavanaugh served in the Office of Independent Counsel under Judge Starr, where he conducted the office's investigation into the death of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr."  A 1998 New York Times article also states that Kavanaugh "led the investigation into the death of the deputy White House counsel Vincent W. Foster Jr."

Before Trump makes his decision, he should speak with Miguel Rodriguez, who was an assistant United States attorney in Sacramento, California when he was selected to lead the Foster death investigation for Kenneth Starr's Office of Independent Counsel for a time in the mid-1990s.  I wrote about Rodriguez in my AT article in May of 2016 discussing the Foster case and my Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to force public disclosure of photographs of Foster's deceased body taken at the park.
Foster and "friend"

After my lawsuit ended, documents were discovered in the National Archives that were written by Rodriguez, including a 31-page memorandum to his fellow prosecutors in the OIC dated December 9-29, 1994 on the subject of "November 29, 1994 Meeting Concerning Foster Death Matter And Supplemental Investigation Prior to Grand Jury."  The memorandum explains why the evidence does not support a conclusion of suicide in the park and states in its first paragraph that Kavanaugh was at the meeting.  At pages 18-20 of the memorandum, Rodriguez states that he has seen two photographs of Foster's neck that show a wound on the neck.  The government's official conclusion was that there was no wound on the neck.  Rodriguez states that one of the photos was an autopsy photo, and the other was taken when Foster was in the park.  As I stated in my AT article, Rodriguez's memorandum:

... states that one of the Polaroid photos "clearly depicts a dark, burnt appearing, blood area on VF's neck."  The memorandum states that Rodriguez was "confident" that this was caused by a stun-gun or Taser.  The memorandum states that an autopsy photograph (not a Polaroid taken in the park) shows two puncture wounds on the right side of Foster's neck, and that the District of Columbia Medical Examiner "observed the appearance of crater-like indentations on the right side of the neck."

Another copy of the Rodriguez memorandum, with different redactions, is linked at this page on the website maintained by citizen-researchers Hugh Turley, Patrick Knowlton, and John Clarke.  Also linked there is Rodriguez's resignation letter, dated January 17, 1995, which states that "the existing FBI interview reports and USPP [United States Park Police] interview reports do not accurately reflect witness statements" and that after "having refreshed their recollection with new photographic evidence," "four emergency medical personnel identified ... trauma each had observed on Foster's right neck area."
Miguel Rodriguez

An article by Turley at Accuracy in Media cites an article at Turley's website, which includes a link to an audio recording of the late Reed Irvine, founder of AIM, speaking with Kavanaugh about the Foster case.  In the conversation, Kavanaugh does a poor job defending the OIC's Foster investigation.

Kavanaugh may have a record of judicial opinions demonstrating fidelity to the rule of law, the relevant facts, and the United States Constitution.  But that is only his judicial opinions.  Any such record cannot excuse his work on the investigation into the death of Vincent Foster.

Rodriguez went back to the U.S. attorney's office in Sacramento, where, following a gender identity change, he is today serving the public and continuing to fight crime.

President Trump should find somebody to nominate who has fidelity to the rule of law, the relevant facts, and the United States Constitution, but who refuses to conduct "fishy" investigations that misrepresent the facts to the American people and make a mockery of the rule of law.

Kavanaugh may become a Supreme Court justice.  But I will teach my children about Rodriguez.