posted October 08, 2013 11:54 AM            

The Marxist Messiah's temper tantrum machine fined a runner $100 for running in a park. Imagine that, these clowns wheeze, whine, screech and shriek about American's health and fitness, then fine a runner seeking fitness.

I suppose fittness can only be achieved in a government run fittness program.

Daffy Duck is more rational than the Marxist Messiah and his Socialist comrades in Congress.

Runner Fined $100 At Valley Forge Amid Government Shutdown
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/10/07/runner-fined-100-at-valley-forge-amid-shutdown/

posted July 19, 2014 09:45 AM            

‘This Is A Very Sick Man’
July 17, 2014
Mark Levin

Radio host Mark Levin is furious with both President Barack Obama’s response to recent global turmoil, calling him “a very sick man.”

“None of this has to happen like this,” Levin said. “None of it.”

Levin started by saying that the Obama administration’s “incompetence” has caused the turmoil in Iraq, al-Qaida resurgence in Libya, China’s advances, and the border being flooded by “poor” and “sick” illegal aliens. He then turned his focus on the shot-down Malaysian plane.

“Does it not remind us, yet again, of 9/11 and acts that can occur in this country?” Levin asked. “I’m just saying, these tragedies are not tragedies. They are attacks, they’re intentional.”

The conservative talk show host warned that an attack is going to happen in the U.S. because, “among other things, Obama is into his fundraisers, like tonight. In the middle of all of this, he cannot cancel it!”

Obama’s fundraising during the international turmoil was similar to his fundraising trip to Las Vegas after the Benghazi attacks, according to Levin.

“This is a very sick man, this Obama,” Levin said. “There’s something out of kilter. There’s a screw loose. Something’s not right if you are president of the United States, and something like this happens.”

After ripping propagandists for “fascist” Russian President Vladimir Putin, Levin declared that the Cold War is back, due to Putin’s making and Obama’s “impotence and incompetence.”

“You liberal Democrats out there, this is what happens when you take a man who a few years earlier was nothing but a community organizer and a state senate backbencher, and put him into the office of the presidency,” Levin steamed. “You nominated him! You elected him! You elected him twice!”

Levin concluded by noting that future generations would suffer as a result of Obama’s presidency.

posted August 15, 2014 08:26 AM            

Of course, he...the Marxist Messiah O'Bomber, is just right for the far left drooling loons and Kool-Aid drinkers of O'Bomber's marching band.

They think the Marxist Messiah O'Bomber is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The Callow President
RICH LOWRY
August 06, 2014

“‘Stop just hatin’ all the time.” If you haven’t been following the news, you might not know whether this bon mot was uttered by a character on the ABC Family show “Pretty Little Liars” or by the president of the United States.

Of course, it was the leader of the free world at a Kansas City rally last week, imploring congressional Republicans to start cooperating with him. The line struck a characteristically — and tellingly — juvenile and plaintive note.

How many books and articles have been written by conservatives seeking to divine the philosophical beliefs and psychological motivations lurking beneath the president’s smooth exterior?

It’s certainly true that the president is much further left than he’d ever admit, but the deepest truth about Obama is that there is no depth. He’s smart without being wise. He’s glib without being eloquent. He’s a celebrity without being interesting. He’s callow.

It’s a trope on the right to say that Obama has quit, that he’s not interested in the job anymore. It isn’t true. If you are smug, overly self-impressed and unwilling to bend from your (erroneous) presumptions of how the world works, this is what presidential leadership looks like.

Obama is incapable of the unexpected gesture or surprising departure. He evidently has no conception of the national interest larger than his ideology or immediate political interests. In terms of his sensibility, he’s about what you’d get if you took the average reader of The New Yorker and made him president of the United States.

The notion that Obama might be a grand historical figure was always an illusion, although at the beginning his rousing words lent it some superficial support. He gave a truly inspired convention speech in 2004 and a few defining campaign speeches in 2008. But that was long ago.

Once the magic wore off, it became clear he’s not really an orator. Few of his big speeches as president have been memorable or remarkable, and he’s almost always failed to move public opinion.

His greatest rhetorical skill turns out to be mockery. The man who once promised to transcend political divisions is an expert at the stinging partisan jab. What Churchill was to thundering statements of resolve, he is to snotty put-downs.

During the 2012 campaign, he hit Republican nominee Mitt Romney with relish over his promise to cut funding for public television: “Elmo, you better make a run for it.” He has called the Ryan budget a “meanwich.” He has made the Republican reaction to his lawlessness an ongoing joke.

His natural venue is the fundraiser or campaign rally, any gathering of adoring partisans who don’t need convincing that he’s the greatest wit since Oscar Wilde. They soak up his faux folksy, g-droppin’ assurances that he’s working for ordinary “folks,” and laugh at anything they suspect might be one of his brilliant barbs. Not since Jefferson took snide swipes at the Federalists …

The president’s constant complaints about everyone else in Washington playing politics while he high-mindedly devotes himself to substance have all the maturity of Holden Caulfield’s plaints about “phonies.” Please, grow up.

Ever since he lost the House in 2010 and could no longer operate on the basis of sheer brute force, the president has relied almost entirely on tactical cleverness. It has been impressive on its own terms, whether it involves the invention of the “war on women” in 2012 or the double-dog dare to Republicans to impeach him now.

But this is basically all he’s got. After 2010, Obama had two options if he wanted to revivify his presidency: either work with the opposition, which would have required making truly painful compromises, or crush it. He couldn’t bring himself to do the former and didn’t have the power to do the latter, so all he can do now is wield his “pen and phone” — and whine.

He has already expanded the powers of the office beyond their legitimate bounds and may well take another quantum leap with an executive amnesty. But rarely has the presidency felt so small, at the same time discontents at home and chaos abroad loom so large.

Chris Cillizza wrote a post for The Washington Post the other day titled, “It’s virtually impossible to be a successful modern president.” This echoes analysis from the late 1970s that America had become ungovernable. It hadn’t. It just had puny presidents not up to the challenges of the day.

posted August 22, 2014 07:02 AM            

Utterly lawless too.

Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap
Joel Gehrke
August 21, 2014

President Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday.

“[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.”

The GAO rejected the idea that the action was legal and sidestepped the Obama team’s suggestion that the law is unconstitutional.

posted November 02, 2014 11:18 PM            

"The President Needs To Be Spanked" Sarah Palin
November 02 2014
iizthatiiz

Obama Declares Stay-at-Home Moms Aren't Worth a Hill of Beans; Says It's a Choice We Don't Want Americans to Make

Well that just takes the cake. Sure, Obama's latest shot across the bow in his own War on Women" is easily deflected by women like my friends and me testifying to the most precious, irreplaceable seasons of our lives when we were BLESSED to be "stay-at-home moms" (though I don't remember any of us actually "staying home" in those busiest times of our children's lives), but Friday's jab deserves something right back nonetheless. On behalf of former and current stay-at-homers, including my girlfriends who still get together to bake cookies for the bake sale (see photos in my kitchen above), and volunteer to coach kids ball teams, and man the church's food bank, and entertain latchkey kids, and all that other obnoxiously "housewifey" stuff, the President needs to be spanked.

Barack, do you not know any stay-at-home moms? Are you and Michelle so disconnected from the real world that you think women will accept your intolerant view that we should not have a choice in how we wish to live our lives? You have a way of arrogantly demanding that we fall in line with your sad opinion of today's American woman. It seems you'd shackle us by your snobbish shunning of one traditional lifestyle choice while taking advantage of power to manifest your liberal view by manipulating public opinion and resources to diminish moms who put career on hold to raise a family. You are really messed up. And you're so 1960s.

Yes, the 60s are calling and they want their ardent yet narrow sexist confines back. See, you just set the women's movement back a few decades, and I think it's hilarious because for being the smartest man in the room, you ain't too smart.

Do you even understand that many stay-at-home moms also run businesses out of the home? Welcome to modern technology where you don't have to go to a physical office to work. You can run a business from a laptop these days!

You've repeatedly suggested that women aren't capable or responsible, starting, for example, with your classic "punished with a baby" offensive declaration in the 08 campaign. Add your attempts to convince America that only guys in government should control birth control since free women aren't capable in a free market of walking down the drug store aisle to find it ourselves. Add, too, your shameless silence on the deplorable human rights violations in countries you'd befriend even though women are treated mercilessly there. Seriously, not a peep from atop your soapbox about the common practice of radical Islamist men going all jihad, literally, on females who'd dare cross their male "masters"? And in that creepy way you prioritize your time and our resources, instead of using your Nobel peacenik creds to influence the misogynist crazies in some of these Islamic death cults, you're out playing hoopsˇ­ with the guys. Oh, also add your good ole boys club (aka the White House) that still pays women less than men, and I'll stop with the nonstop examples.

You really are stuck in a contorted kind of 60s feminism where you obviously don't trust women to make their own decisions, so you're frustrated. Despite your view and policies that government must lord over women, in keeping with radical liberalism, you have to fake support for our equal rights; so you do it in a militant sort of way to compensate for your confusion. On pretending to know what's best for us you've got nothing but a silent scream demanding, "Hear me roar." Your stubbornness and the Obama priorities prove this. While Michelle's busy telling "incapable" stay-at-home moms what to feed their kids (hey, if you don't know how to feed your kids, maybe you shouldn't be having kids) you're busy broadcasting that hypocritical misogynist view that women really shouldn't have a choice in what we want to do in life, and you're administering anti-growth, debt-inducing policies that crush young women's future opportunities.

Now, I'm sure your star struck female minions in the media will writhe and wiggle in defense of you on this, they always do, even though you just marginalized a most valuable sector of American society while having the gall to admit that, for you, it's only all about the money. Work at home or not? It's not about kids or quality of life or personal opinion. You said homemakers will be paid less than women working outside the home (well, duh), and that's not a choice we want Americans to make.

Why not, Barack? What's to fear from letting go of some control you'd want over the women of America and trusting us just a wee bit to make a personal child-rearing choice, despite your disclosure that in your infinite wisdom you conclude staying home just "isn't a choice we want Americans to make." Isn't it every woman's right to choose to make a sacrificial decision to put careers temporarily on hold to raise their kids how they see fit?

Besides you proving the liberal double-standard in regards to choice and sexism, you demean some of the hardest working women on the planet. Perhaps you never witnessed the benefits a "full-time mom" provides a family, a community, our schools, our nation, but you're a big boy now so figure it out yourself without me lecturing you on the beauty of a homemaker. Suffice it to say "stay-at-home moms" make the world go round.

posted November 03, 2014 01:58 PM            

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/31/obama-dings-stay-at-home-moms-n ot-a-choice-we-want-americans-to-make-video/

Talk about twisting ...the link quotes him and it sounds like he thinks women shouldn't have to choose between time to care for their kids and equal respect/pay at work. He says nothing about women being incapable of choosing except that workplace ethics and discrimination mean she will be penalized for caring for her family with lower wages for the rest of her life.

Palin doesnt HAVE to work for a "living" like the women he's trying to get equal pay for. Nor is she a stay at home mom. But she didn't even take time off when in labour. ..think of the money she would have had to return if she had been more cautious about her special needs child's birth! Exactly the choice Obama is talking about tho she already has plenty of money.

Yes please, GO Sarah, as far away as possible with your forked tongue attention seeking motormouth.

posted November 04, 2014 07:34 AM            

So much for the Republican War on Women. Demoscat whiners and shriekers pay woman less than men...including the Sicko Head Socialist Shrieker in the White House.

posted November 04, 2014 12:13 PM            

Where your source suggested Obama isnt a "real black" like Michele because he wasnt raised in poverty in Chicago... and you insisted their was no racism in his remarks.

posted November 04, 2014 03:14 PM            

Oh dear, offended by facts I see!

We learned this from O'Bomber's book..."Dreams from my Father" written for him by his buddy...the domestic revolutionary communist terrorist bomber Bill Ayers.

posted November 04, 2014 08:56 PM            

Like members of Congress calling him "BOY" and memes with bones through his nose...all of which you appear to heartily endorse and see no racism in. But hey, if it sells, its okay, right?

posted April 14, 2015 11:54 AM            

Does 'propaganda' photo show Obama with divine power?
'This would make any Third World dictator proud'
1 day ago

Social media went wild over a photo of Obama with a rainbow shooting from his arm.

Twitter users took to task a presidential photo released from the White House that appears to show the commander in chief shooting a rainbow from his finger as he embarks on a plane trip.

The photo catches Obama with his arm raised high, ostensibly saying goodbye. But the photographer captured a rainbow in the background, strategically placed in line with his arm. The White House tweeted the photo with this text: “‘With hard work and hope, change is always within our reach.’ – President Obama.”

Social media users were quick to comment.

One wrote: “Holy propaganda, Batman. This would make any third-world dictator proud,” Mediaite found.

Another: “@WhiteHouse I’m absolutely speechless, because I’m laughing too hard to speak. Seriously?”

A third: “Worst thing about the @WhiteHouse Obama rainbow shot: that they still see him this way, or that some still fall for it?”

posted May 14, 2015 08:40 AM            

So now the Marxist Messiah is threatening America's press. You know, those news outlets and individuals protected by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

This Constitutional Dunce now says we have to change the way news is reported.

You know, just like they did in the old Soviet Union, like they do in Communist China, like they do in Communist Cuba, like they do in Communist Venezuela.

Yes, wouldn't it be wonderful if the White House/President could require the American press to get Presidential approval before they broadcast news OR before they go to press with newspapers?

Ummmmm, YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!
Ummmmm, YOU CAN'T REPORT THAT!

Right! Check!

May 13, 2015
Obama: 'We're going to have to change how the media reports'
Rick Moran

Somehow or other, these sorts of utterances from Obama never quite find their way into the mainstream media.

Speaking at his recent summit on poverty, the president ripped into Fox News for their coverage of poverty issues:

Speaking of Fox News, the poor, and the way GOP leaders think, Obama said, [W]e’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues.”

Here is the full transcript:

I think that the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. And look, it’s still being propagated. I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant venue. They will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re all like, “I don’t want to work. I just want a free Obama Phone, or whatever.” And that becomes an entire narrative that gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress, which is much more typical — who is raising a couple of kids and doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.

And so, if we’re going to change how Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like. And how budgets connect to that. And that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news.

After seven failed years, to watch Obama sit there and discuss the poor as though he is part of the solution and not the problem, is laughable.

Indeed, as Jim Nolte points out:

For going on seven years we have learned three things about President Obama: 1) He loves the poor so much he continues to create more of them. 2) He loves the poor so much he does everything in his power to keep them poor. 3) He doesn’t see the opposition as loyal, but as bad players — his enemy.

posted May 18, 2015 09:29 AM            

May 18, 2015
Is Obama Calling for Media Control?
Steve Chambers

President Obama launched an extraordinary, gratuitous attack on Fox News at a panel discussion on poverty at Georgetown University on May 12, 2015. That portion of his remarks has received considerable media attention, particularly from Fox itself. But the most disturbing part to me came shortly after that assault when he said (according to Real Clear Politics’ report), “And so if we’re going to change how John Boehner and Mitch McConnell think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues…” (emphasis added).

So, Obama wants to compel the media to change how it reports on social issues in order to force his political opponents to change the way that they think. Let that sink in. Is that a policy a president should advocate? Is that the way our media should operate?

It might be easy to ignore or shrug off this remark, but one should consider its context. Not only have their been numerous calls on college campuses to limit discourse considered unhelpful to the “progressive” agenda, through free speech zones, broad bans on topics (as at Harvard), or banning speakers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Obama himself called for limiting free speech in a forum at Harvard Law School as long ago as 1991.

This would not be a surprise at all to people who have researched his radical past, such as Stanley Kurtz and Joshua Muravchik. Kurtz literally wrote the book on Obama’s radical past, exposing relationships with Marxists and other denizens of the far Left much deeper and more extensive than mainstream reporters had bothered themselves to uncover.

Muravchik independently corroborated those findings and concluded that “Obama comes to us from a background farther to the Left than any presidential nominee since George McGovern, or perhaps ever.” He then immediately and presciently predicted, “This makes him an extremely unlikely leader to bridge the divides of party, ideology, or, for that matter, race.”

When Alinskyite Obama, the farthest Left president in our history, talks about how “we’re going to have to change how the media reports,” we should all sit up and listen – and take due precautions to prevent him from doing just that. He evidently wants the news media to be even more obedient and supportive than it has been so far, which is chilling.

posted June 02, 2015 07:41 AM            

Obama: I’ve Restored the US as the ‘Most Respected Country in the World’
Pam Key
1 Jun 2015

Monday while President Barack Obama was answering questions at a town hall with YSEALI Fellows, an exchange program for community leaders from ASEAN, The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, he said his administration has restored the Untied States as the “the most respected country on earth.”

posted July 04, 2015 09:48 AM            

The lies just keep spewing out of O'Bomber's lower orifice. He's a congenital LIAR!

Obama Tells Another 'Whopper' — He Did Not Create 12.8 Million Jobs
David Stockman
Friday, 03 Jul 2015

America is better off when President Barack Obama is out on the stump bloviating and boasting rather than in Washington actively doing harm.

But the whoppers he just told the students at the University of Wisconsin are beyond the pale.

Said our spinmeister-in-chief:

And the unemployment rate is now down to 5.3 percent. (Applause.) Keep in mind, when I came into office it was hovering around 10 percent. All told, we’ve now seen 64 straight months of private sector job growth, which is a new record — (applause) — new record — 12.8 million new jobs all told.

That’s a pack of context-free factoids. There is still such a thing as the business cycle, and only economically illiterate hacks — like those who work on the White House speech writing staff — would measure anything from the deep V-shaped but momentary bottom that happened to occur during Obama’s second year in office.

What counts is not that we’ve had a bounce after a terrible bust, but where we are now on a trend basis.

The answer is absolutely nowhere!

We are now 29 quarters from the pre-crisis peak and total non-farm labor hours utilized by the U.S. economy are no higher than they were in Q4 2007.

In other words, if you use a common unit of measure — labor hours rather than job slots which treat coal-miners and part-time pizza delivery boys alike — there have been no new units of employment at all.

Our TelePrompter-reading President is actually tooting his own horn about recycled hours and “born again” jobs and doesn’t even know it.

And, no, he can’t take credit for digging us out of the hole created by the Great Recession, either.

The long, slow climb back to square one was due to the natural resilience of our capitalist economy — notwithstanding the tax, regulatory and massive debt hurdles that Washington policies have thrown at it.

The truth of the matter is that America’s employment machine has been failing for this entire century. As shown below, the number of non-farm labor hours utilized during the most recent quarter was only 1 percent higher than in the spring of 2000 — way back when Bill Clinton still had his hands on things in the Oval Office.

In short, we have gone through two business cycles and have essentially added zero new employment inputs to the US economy.

And that marks a sharp and devastating reversal of previous trends. In fact, the BLS’ own data convey an out-and-out crisis that the President should have been lamenting, not a cherry-picked simulacrum of growth based on born-again, apples-and-oranges jobs slots.

Thus, during the comparable 29 quarters after the 1990 business cycle peak (Q2 1990 to Q3 1997) non-farm labor hours had increased by 12 percent and during the same period of time after the 1981 peak (Q3 1981 to Q4 1988) labor hours expanded by 17 percent.

That’s what employment growth used to look like, and absolutely nothing like that has happened on Obama’s watch.

When you get right down to it, however, even labor hours do not fully capture the actual jobs disaster happening in America. That’s because we keep shedding high productivity hours in the full-time jobs sector in favor of low-skill, low-pay gigs in bars, restaurants, Wal-Marts and temp agencies.

So notwithstanding another month of 200,000 plus headline job gains, here’s where we actually are. The number of breadwinner jobs full-time positions in energy and mining, construction, manufacturing, the white collar professions, business management and services, information technology, transportation/distribution and finance, insurance and real estate — is still 1.7 million below the level of December 2007; in fact, it is still lower than it was at the turn of the century.

There is no mystery as to how the White House and Wall Street celebrate year after year of “jobs growth” when the long-term trend of full-time, family-supporting employment levels is heading south.

It’s called “trickle-down economics,” and not of the good kind, either.

What is happening is that the Keynesian money printers at the Fed are fueling serial financial bubbles. This generates a temporary lift in the discretionary incomes of the top 10 percent of households, which own 85 percent of the financial assets, and the next 10-20% which feed off the their winnings.

Accordingly, the leisure and hospitality sectors boom, creating a lot of job slots for bar tenders, waiters, bellhops, etc.

I call this the “bread and circuses economy,” but it has two problems. Most of these slots generate only about 26 hours per week and $14 per hour. That’s about $19,000 on an annual basis, and means these slots constitute 40 percent jobs compared to the breadwinner category at about $50,000 per year. Besides that, a soon as the financial bubble goes bust, these jobs quickly disappear.

This is reason enough for Obama to pipe down on the boasting, but he actually went in the opposite direction claiming a big recovery in manufacturing jobs:

And after a decade of decline, thanks to some of the steps we took…….we’ve added nearly 900,000 new manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing is actually growing faster than the rest of the economy. (Applause.)

But that one is not even a whopper; it’s a bald-faced lie.

There has not been one “new” manufacturing job created during Obama’s term in office; and, in fact, the 12.3 million manufacturing jobs reported for June was still 10 percent below the level of December 2007, and nearly 30 percent lower than the 17.3 million manufacturing jobs reported in January 2000.

So the actual facts are not evidence of a trend reversal; they’re an exercise in political hogwash.

Indeed, if you take the entire high-productivity, high-pay goods production sector — energy, mining, manufacturing and construction — the trend is even worse.

The 19.6 million goods producing jobs in June was 5 million lower than in January 2000.

Is there any wonder that the median real household income has declined by 7 percent over the last 15 years?

Here’s the real truth beneath the bloviation issuing from stumping politicians and Wall Street stock touts alike. The June BLS report showed that the HES Complex (health, education and social services) generated another 48,000 jobs in June. This figure is nearly dead on the 42,000 monthly average for this sector since the turn of the century.

The minor problem with that trend is these jobs pay on average only $35,000 per year — a level that does not remotely support a middle class standard of living, especially after payroll and income taxes are extracted from this gross pay figure.

The much bigger skunk in the woodpile, however, is that these jobs are almost entirely “fiscally dependent.” Yet the public sector in America is broke, and the total public debt just keeps on climbing higher.

To wit, the 32.2 million jobs in the HES Complex are funded by $1.5 trillion annually of Medicare, Medicaid and other health and social services entitlements.

On top of that there is also about $1 trillion of public sector education funding, $200 billion per year of government guaranteed student loans and $250 billion annually in tax subsidies for employer provided and individual health insurance plans and Obamacare tax credits.

In effect, the public sector borrows and taxes to create low productivity jobs within the nation’s highly inefficient, wasteful and monopolistic health and education cartels — but in the process squeezes everything else.

In fact, there have been virtually no new jobs — even on a headcount basis — outside of the HES Complex during the entirety of the 21st Century to date!

One of these days the public sector is going to exhaust its capacity to tax and borrow, and to thereby finance job growth even in the HES Complex.

Needless to say, Washington and Wall Street will be as clueless then as they are now.

posted August 03, 2015 08:55 AM            

August 3, 2015
Psychopathy in the White House
By Noel S. Williams

Personal Psychology principles prove psychopathy pervades presidency.

It’s clear that Barack Obama is a narcissist, so I wasn’t surprised when he paraded around the White House making faces to his selfie stick then stopping to admire his gaunt profile in the mirror the way an insecure teenager might. Selfie obsession, however, can be a symptom of something more sinister – the Dark Triad of personality traits

The Dark Triad consists of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, and it turns out Obama is riddled with all three, especially the darkest category -- psychopathy. Narcissists generally cause themselves harm, and one could easily argue that to become president one must be a bit self-absorbed, if not cocky. But psychopathy is particularly pernicious as the perpetrator appears normal, and often quite charming, which even Obama’s detractors admit he occasionally exudes.

Personality psychologists have constructed a “Dirty Dozen” scale to identify the Dark Triad. Let’s take a look, focusing especially on the behaviors associated with psychopathy, behaviors that Obama exhibits in abundance.

M = Machiavellianism, N = Narcissism, P = Psychopathy.
1.I tend to manipulate others to get my way. (M)
2.I tend to lack remorse. (P)
3.I tend to want others to admire me. (N)
4.I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions. (P)
5.I have used deceit or lied to get my way. (M)
6.I tend to be callous or insensitive. (P)
7.I have used flattery to get my way. (M)
8.I tend to seek prestige or status. (N)
9.I tend to be cynical. (P)
10.I tend to exploit others toward my own end. (M)
11.I tend to expect special favors from others. (N)
12.I want others to pay attention to me. (N) (…continued below)

Obama would score highly in each measure. For example, for number 5, the Washington Post awarded him the Lie of the Year “award” for “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it." Similarly, his real-time obsession with his legacy supersedes most presidents’ conceit -- who heretofore mostly focused on policy first then later massaged it for posterity.

But it is Obama’s proclivity for P which is particularly disconcerting; whereas most politicians have N, and a more devious minority exhibit some M, far fewer wallow in P. Furthermore, whereas N infects the victim with self-destructive, perhaps supercilious visions of grandeur, P envelops those under his influence in the dark side.

Consider number 2 in the scale: “I tend to lack remorse.” Well, politicians at various points along the ideological spectrum may disagree wholeheartedly, but still have remorse should something untoward befall an opponent.

But there is evidence that Obama is remorseless. Charles Woods, father of a Navy SEAL killed in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was only looking for some emotional support from the Commander in Chief. Instead, here’s how he described his meeting with Obama at Andrews Air Force base: “His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye," Woods says of meeting Obama. "I could tell he was not sorry. He had no remorse."

Want more recent evidence of Obama’s lack of remorse? On 21 July, 2015, he had the impudence to deny that there was anything wrong with the IRS targeting conservative groups. His lack of remorse that the IRS caused turmoil to American citizens’ lives is pathological because when it seemed politically expedient he condemned the IRS abuses and found the inspector general’s findings “inexcusable.”

Now consider number 4 on the scale: “I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions.”

That pretty well captures Obama’s un-American grounding in morality. Perhaps his umbrage at American exceptionalism was instilled while he was a child in Indonesia, or from lurking on the periphery of American society in Hawaii or in Chicago’s Saul Alinsky-inspired radical community organizations. Something definitely warped his confused soul to apply this bizarre moral equivalence: Obama compares medieval Christian actions to present-day Islamic barbarism.

Obama’s actions, or lack thereof, in deploying resources to combat radical Islamic jihadists are ultimately immoral. Another AT author did an exemplary job of exposing his immorality.

Number 6 on the scale is the next measure of psychopathy: “I tend to be callous or insensitive”

It was truly unbecoming as well as insensitive when Obama, during his 2010 State of the Union address, criticized SCOTUS for their Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. The justices were sitting ducks in this unprecedented presidential petulance that sullied an event in which members from all three branches of government are under one roof. Magnanimity is clearly not in his makeup.

Obama seems to relish the callous and insensitive tactic of attacking others who are constrained from immediate rebuttal. He also invited Paul Ryan to a budget speech (though Obama later lied about that) then proceeded to criticize his budget plans severely, knowing Ryan couldn’t respond. At least not until after, when Ryan said this:

“I’m very disappointed in the president. I was excited when we got invited to attend his speech today. I thought the president’s invitation… was an olive branch. Instead what we got was a speech that was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate and hopelessly inadequate in addressing our country’s fiscal challenges… Rather than building bridges, he’s poisoning wells.”

Obama also demonstrated a callous indifference to the family of Kate Steinle who was shot dead by an illegal immigrant given sanctuary in San Francisco. Ironically, unlike other personal tragedies where he promptly intruded for political gain, this one actually had some federal policy overtones.

Number 9 on the scale is another measure of psychopathy: “I tend to be cynical.” Unlike the first three, where Obama occupies rarified territory, this is a bit more common amongst politicians. Nevertheless, he out-cynics most.

This headline says it all: President Obama lied about gay marriage, Axelrod says. This is why we’re cynical

Delaying action on immigration executive actions until after 2014 mid-term elections is the height of cynicism -- if it was a good idea after the elections then why wasn’t it a good idea before? This was also immoral given the squalid conditions in which illegal women and children -- that he encouraged to come with illegitimate promises of aid -- were held.

Our Cynic-in-Chief slipped into the dark abyss even as the Charleston community rallied for forgiveness and redemption following the tragic church shooting. He exploited the situation to haughtily call for gun control laws that would absolutely not have prevented this abhorrent, evil crime.

Obama is in the Dark Triad stratosphere. Many politicians exhibit narcissism and Machiavellianism, but, at least in America, are generally free of psychopathy. Obama is not only in the stratosphere on the first two, but he’s also immersed in psychopathy. For each example above you could probably insert many more.

posted January 13, 2017 11:21 AM            

How else could anyone be described who attempted to use "Fake News" to drive a wedge between an incoming President and our ally in the Middle East, Israel. Pure psycho!

Report: Obama Intel Officials Used ‘Russia Blackmail’ Claims to Warn Israel About Trusting Trump
Aaron Klein
12 Jan 2017

TEL AVIV – U.S. intelligence officials warned their Israeli counterparts not to trust President-elect Donald Trump with intelligence secrets, citing alleged fears that Russia held blackmail information over Trump, according to a report today in Israel’s respected Yediot Ahronot daily newspaper.
The alleged blackmail information that U.S. officials reportedly warned Israel about seems to be in part referencing details contained in a debunked document of mysterious origin purporting to be an intelligence report alleging that Russia collected compromising videos and information on Trump.

In the report, investigative journalist Ronen Bergman writes of a meeting that took place “recently between Israeli and American intelligence officials (the date of the meeting is not mentioned to protect the sources of the report).”

Continued Bergman:

During the meeting, according to the Israelis who participated in it, their American colleagues voiced despair over Trump’s election, as he often lashes out at the American intelligence community. The American officials also told the Israelis that the National Security Agency (NSA) had “highly credible information” that Russia’s intelligence agencies, the FSB and GRU, were responsible for hacking the Democratic Party (DNC) servers during the elections and leaking sensitive information to WikiLeaks, which hurt Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The American officials further added that they believed Russian President Vladimir Putin had “leverages of pressure” over Trump – but did not elaborate. They were apparently referring to what was published Wednesday about embarrassing information collected by the Russian intelligence in a bid to blackmail the president-elect.

The Americans implied that their Israeli colleagues should “be careful” as of January 20, Trump’s inauguration date, when transferring intelligence information to the White House and to the National Security Council (NSC), which is subject to the president. According to the Israelis who were present in the meeting, the Americans recommended that until it is made clear that Trump is not inappropriately connected to Russia and is not being extorted – Israel should avoid revealing sensitive sources to administration officials for fear the information would reach the Iranians.

BuzzFeed on Tuesday published the un-redacted document claiming Russia had collected blackmail information on Trump, including videos of the president-elect in compromising positions.

“The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors,” a BuzzFeed sub-headline cautioned.

Contacted by Breitbart Jerusalem, Bergman said that according to his sources, the meeting between U.S. and Israeli officials took place before the publication of the dossier on Tuesday and that the dossier wasn’t specifically mentioned to the Israelis, only the charge that Russian President Vladimir Putin has some sort of unspecified “leverage” over Trump.

Bergman said that after the dossier was published, he contacted his sources again and they told him that they themselves were speculating that the “leverage” claim could have in part referred to the dossier. Bergman is the author of a forthcoming book on the history of the Mossad set to be published later this year by Random House.

BuzzFeed’s publication of the document prompted a flurry of news media reports drawing attention to the salacious and unproven details. CNN fanned the flames by reporting that “classified documents” presented to President Obama and Trump included “allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information” on Trump, the news network claimed, citing “multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings.”

The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday reported the author of the dossier was Christopher Steele, who serves as a director at the London-based Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd., which has refused to comment on the reports of the document’s origin.

In October, Mother Jones reported on the contents of the dossier, writing the information was produced by a former Western intelligence officer who was assigned to the task for the purpose of an “opposition research project originally financed by a Republican client critical of the celebrity mogul.”

posted January 13, 2017 04:08 PM            

So, after this fake news story you're pushing here, floated all over Washington, at every news outlet for months and months and months, not one media outlet was able to confirm a single detail in the pile of crap.

Sorry leftists, you crapped out again.

posted January 13, 2017 05:41 PM              

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

posted December 07, 2017 09:37 PM            

December 06, 2017
Invoking the specter of Nazi Germany, Obama warns against complacency
Greg Hinz

American democracy is fragile, and unless care is taken it could follow the path of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

Mixed in with many softer comments, that was the somewhat jaw-dropping bottom line of Barack Obama last night as, in a Q&A session before the Economic Club of Chicago, the Chicagoan who used to be president dropped a bit of red meat to a hometown crowd that likely is a lot closer to him than the man whose name never was mentioned: President Donald Trump......

....The danger is "grow(ing) complacent," Obama said. "We have to tend to this garden of democracy or else things could fall apart quickly."

That's what happened in Germany in the 1930s, which despite the democracy of the Weimar Republic and centuries of high-level cultural and scientific achievements, Adolph Hitler rose to dominate, Obama noted. "Sixty million people died. . . .So, you've got to pay attention. And vote."....
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20171206/BL OGS02/171209933/barack-obama-invokes-nazi-germany-in-economic-club-remarks

posted December 08, 2017 09:58 AM            

They just cannot get over the fact that a Democratically Elected Black Man led this Great Nation for 8 years. Crushing 2 Old White Men in the process. Crushing them..

Most Old White men are even ready to elect alleged Pedophiles to get some therapy...next they will vote for Ted Bundy copycats...