Not everyone has a mother named Stanley.
Not everyone has a mother named Stanley.
WATCH: Old Interview With Heavy-Drinking ‘Thug’ Obama Puts Wild-Man Brett Kavanaugh To Shame. Where you will find this text:
Remember all the hubbub about Brett “Party Man” Kavanaugh? The guy who was a boozer loser in his teens and, therefore in part, has no business being on the Supreme Court in his 50’s? Well, move over bacon — now there’s something meatier.
A video of the Left’s savior, Barack Obama, has resurfaced. And Barry is talkin’ up a storm about his partying days as an adolescent. The hits:
“I think I was a thug for a big part of my growing up.”
“[I] reacted by engaging in a lot of behavior that’s not untypical of a lot of black males across the country.”
What? That’s racist.
“I didn’t take school that seriously.”
Say it ain’t so!
“I got into fights.”
That sounds a lot like toxic masculinity.
“I drank and consumed substances that weren’t always legal.”
SHUT THE FRONT DOOR.
“Some of my behavior was self-destructive — I might drink a six-pack in an hour before going back to class.”
Certainly unfit to be president, but that we know because he was president and showed just how unfit he was. As in:
And at the link.
On Inauguration Day, 2017, President Donald Trump’s first act in office was to mobilize the military’s “Legacy Disposal Team” to undo the damage caused by Barack Obama. In this video, you’ll see and hear the run-up to the team’s action as stockpiles of Obama’s broken promises, failed policies, and unconstitutional executive orders are collected in isolated areas…followed by the explosive beginnings of what will surely be a very long process.
But there are still places he can show his face and feel he’s among friends: ‘Obama! Obama!’: Barack Obama is back on Martha’s Vineyard. Everywhere else he is Mister Zero.
And then there’s this: Barack Obama Gets Another Peace Prize: Here Are 5 Reasons He Doesn’t Deserve It. This is Number 5:
5. Praising South Africa’s Newest Dictator
While the media slobbered all over him…again…there were a few remarks he presented at a recent speech in South Africa—that the media naturally ignored—that revealed the true nature of Barack Obama:
In a highly controversial speech in South Africa, a nation on the brink of catastrophe amid racist land grabs and brutal massacres that experts have linked to the ruling regime, former U.S. President Barack Obama showered praises on President Cyril Ramaphosa (shown here with Obama) and other highly controversial figures. The adulation poured out on Ramaphosa went far beyond normal diplomatic courtesy. In fact, Obama claimed the radical left-wing strongman, who is right now leading the charge to steal land from minority farmers without compensation, was “inspiring new hope in this great country.” In reality, critics say he is driving it over the edge of a cliff.
Perhaps even more alarming, Obama appeared to praise Ramaphosa’s dangerous efforts to supposedly reduce inequality in South Africa — efforts that mimic the disastrous land-expropriation schemes pursued in neighboring Zimbabwe by genocidal Marxist dictator Robert Mugabe that practically destroyed the nation. Touting the Marxist Goal 10 in the United Nations Agenda 2030 scheme, which calls for national and international wealth redistribution, Obama told the crowd in Johannesburg that “we’re going to have to figure out how do we close this widening chasm of wealth and opportunity both within countries and between them.”
Irony and self-reflection are obviously not characteristics of the left. On the other hand, there is this: Saturday Was Obama’s Birthday. Here’s The *Best* Card He Got.
Happy birthday @BarackObama. Thank you for all you did.
Like millions of Americans, you probably did not know that Saturday was Obama’s birthday. With the economy booming, and unemployment numbers at historic lows, people were either relaxing on the weekend, or shopping…with the extra money in their paychecks, thanks to the Trump tax cuts.
Although Obama’s fans sent him birthday greetings, this one has got to be the best 🙂
And then there’s this: Top Ten Reasons to Be Nostalgic for Obama. Here Number 10.
Ahh, remember when massive, unsustainable debt was cool because Obama did it? When he took office in 2009 his answer to the recession was to spend, spend, spend… and spend he did. For the next three years America had deficits over $1 trillion with very little to show for it. The recession officially ended in June 2009, but the actual recovery was the slowest since the Great Depression. Wages remained low and flat. Who wouldn’t miss that?
Now go read the other nine.
Eight years on top but as gone as any politician has ever been. But I have to say, his supporters are more insane than is truly believable. This is the moronic Maureen Down writing in the NYT more than a year into the Trump presidency: Obama – Just Too Good for Us. I looked everywhere for a trace of irony but none I could find. Try yourself, read through the whole article, but this really is what she believes:
We just weren’t ready for his amazing awesomeness.
Let us hope we can also add his kind shall not pass this way again. And then this as a keepsake.
Ben Rhodes on election night hearing that DJT is about to become PDT. How detached these people are from reality is possibly the strangest revelation this election has brought to light. But savour this while you can. In about a year I suspect you will be unable to find this video no matter how hard you look. On the other hand, it may become the most common parody video of all time, beating even Hitler’s Downfall. For example:
Alas eight years goes by really quickly, and four years even more quickly. With such people everywhere, you never know just how badly things can turn out.
AND LET ME NOW ADD THIS: I realise how hard it can sometimes be to believe that those on the left believe the things they do. Satire is impossible since they are more unintentionally satirical than anyone could make up about them. There is no irony on the left. So let me therefore bring your attention to this article by the great Roger Kimball: A Clueless “Final Year”. To be read through yourself, but this gets to the point:
The breathtaking presumption of virtue, the unshakeable confidence in one’s moral election, is patent throughout this documentary. It is also vividly on view in a New York Times story from a couple of days ago about Obama’s reaction to Donald Trump’s triumph in the 2016 election: How Trump’s Election Shook Obama: ‘What if We Were Wrong?’. The irony in the title is that no one involved in the story, not Obama, not Ben Rhodes, not the Times reporter seriously entertains the question “What if we were wrong?”
Yes, Obama wonders whether “we pushed too far.” “Maybe,” he says, “people [though not, of course, his people] just want to fall back into their tribe.” But there is no suggestion he might not think he is traveling in the vanguard of history. “Sometimes I wonder whether I was 10 or 20 years too early,” he said. If only the world were elevated a little higher towards my plane of enlightenment, then people like me would still be in power and all would be right with the world! Amazing.
Is this not the most formidable scandal of our time?
Hillary Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.
Well no, it’s actually worse:
It was all covered up for years by the same three people who are now involved in the investigation of President Donald Trump over so-called Russian “collusion.”
It gets better and better:
The FBI gathered a multitude of documents, secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitnesses accounts showing that Russian nuclear officials directed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Clinton during the very time that Hillary Clinton presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.
And how deep does this scandal grow. Think of this:
The FBI and the Department of Justice reportedly had the evidence in their possession before the uranium sale, but kept the matter secret and never notified Congress which would surely have stopped the transfer of uranium to Russia.
So here is THE question.
Why has there been no prosecution of Clinton? Why did the FBI and the Department of Justice during the Obama administration keep the evidence secret? Was it concealed to prevent a scandal that would poison Barack Obama’s presidency? Was Hillary Clinton being protected in her quest to succeed him?
The answer may lie with the people who were in charge of the investigation and who knew of its explosive impact. Who are they?
Yes, who are they?
Holder, Mueller, Comey & Rosenstein
“Eric Holder was the Attorney General when the FBI began uncovering the Russian corruption scheme in 2009.”
“Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the time of the Russian uranium probe.”
“So was his successor James Comey who took over in 2013 as the FBI was still developing the case.”
“Rod Rosenstein, then-U.S. Attorney, was supervising the case.”
And the punchline:
Mueller (now special counsel) and Rosenstein (now Deputy Attorney General) are the two top people currently investigating whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election. Mueller reports to Rosenstein, while Comey is a key witness in the case. . . .
Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey may have covered up potential crimes involving Clinton and Russia, but are now determined to find some evidence that Trump “colluded” with Russia.
Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn’t want to follow!
Absolutely the biggest and you can hardly read about it anywhere else at all. It is subterfuge on such a vast scale that it is almost impossible to believe it’s true, but true it seems to be. The Obama Administration may have been the most corrupt in American history.
This is the sub-title which explains the point of the article: Obama had to spy on Trump to protect himself. Here are the last three lines:
The left is sitting on the biggest crime committed by a sitting president. The only way to cover it up is to destroy his Republican successor.
A turning point in history is here.
If Obama goes down, the left will go down with him. If his coup succeeds, then America ends.
Now read the rest.
From the caption:
Tucker’s Thoughts: Empty promises – Republicans have failed to defund Planned Parenthood, don’t want to build a border wall and now want to preserve DACA. They clearly have more affinity for Obama than Trump.
There is something so pathetically inane among the supposed right side of the political spectrum that I am at a loss to understand how to get others to see what is right before their eyes. The left knows its own. They can tell from the phrases they all use, their uniformity of perspective on every issue, their inability to reason and make sense of a contrary argument, that they are part of that side of the political world. The comments on my post on John Brennan dealing with Guess who was “a supporter of the American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War” has led me to put up this post as a response.
The first of these comments is just empty rhetoric from some Democrat/Hillary troll (however he might deny it) and is hardly worth a moment’s thought. But given that I had been on the left in my youth, one of the many things I have learned is that the most perfect dye-marker of someone who no longer has those views is that they never leave anyone in doubt about the ways their political beliefs have changed by their unrelenting criticisms of the left. Brennan has never said a word to indicate he has changed his political beliefs and was appointed by Obama! If you think he was ideologically a different man in 2013 than he was in 1976, when he could not even bring himself to vote for Carter for heaven’s sake, you really ought to rethink these things again.
This comment is purely incoherent:
You can’t have it both ways Kates. On one hand you are complaining that a pinko ran the CIA. On the other you defend Trump’s assertions that Putin’s Russia is no worse than the USA! Make up your mind (if that’s at all possible).
These others, however, make a valid point, I suppose, but seem to be merely a preference to do nothing even as a three-alarm fire is raging right before them. Those asking that we investigate further whether the beliefs that John Brennan hold have changed in a more benign direction are, I’m afraid, forms of rhetorical junk. What genuine point do they make unless they have some reason to think that if we spent time and effort looking more closely at Brennan’s current views that there is something else we might find?
Christopher Hitchens was a Trotskyist around the same time.
Steve do you agree with what you thought in 1976?
The traffic from left to right is very thin. With no exception I can think of, all of the people I associated with in my student days have not changed their politics in any way other than to follow whatever the modern fashion might be. To remain friends, we just have to stay off certain topics, which is all right since I see them only every year or so at the most. I have a friend from my university days who went on to become Vice-President of a major Canadian insurance company, but when he retired he immediately went back to overtly expressing the political beliefs of his (and my) youth, beginning his instant return to the far left by reading every Chomsky book he could find. No doubt almost every corporate boardroom has imbeciles just like him. There is no country that would not be turned into Venezuela if these people had their way. They are as unable to understand the workings of a free market as they are to understand how hydrogen and oxygen turn into water.
If after eight years you still want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, and John Brennan along with him, I cannot think what can be done to make you see how you are playing into the hands of the left assuming you are not actually part of the left already. And to be quite honest, I am anyway unable to distinguish you from these leftist loons, although I am willing to hear in what way I may be wrong.
Can this possibly be true and not common knowledge? From: This is the open scandal that Congress should investigate:
John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia.
A supporter of the American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War, Brennan brought into the CIA a raft of subversives and gave them plum positions from which to gather and leak political espionage on Trump. He bastardized standards so that these left-wing activists could burrow in and take career positions. Under the patina of that phony professionalism, they could then present their politicized judgments as “non-partisan.”
This is just a throw-away para and is entirely by-the-way in discussing the role of international agencies in trying to subvert Trump’s run for president which is in and of itself an extraordinary scandal. From Wikipedia:
In 1976, he voted for Communist Party USA candidate Gus Hall in the presidential election; he later said that he viewed it as a way “of signaling my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change.”
And this was the man who headed the CIA from 2013 until January! How does one keep up with all of the skulduggery and deceit? You can read the entire episode here told by Brennan himself from his own perspective. How did this man get top security clearance never mind the job running the CIA?
FWIW I picked this up at Instapundit where none of the comments even so much as glanced at Brennan’s personal history. Does none of this any longer even matter?
Who is the enemy? Damned if I any longer know. This is from Mike Whitney, described as ” a contributor to “Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion“. The title: Putin Forces Obama to Capitulate on Syria:
The Russian-led military coalition is badly beating Washington’s proxies in Syria which is why John Kerry is calling for a “Time Out”.
On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called for an emergency summit later in the week so that leaders from Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could discuss ways to avoid the “total destruction” of Syria. According to Kerry, “Everybody, including the Russians and the Iranians, have said there is no military solution, so we need to make an effort to find a political solution. This is a human catastrophe that now threatens the integrity of a whole group of countries around the region,” Kerry added.
Of course, it was never a “catastrophe” when the terrorists were destroying cities and villages across the country, uprooting half the population and transforming the once-unified and secure nation into an anarchic failed state. It only became a catastrophe when Vladimir Putin synchronized the Russian bombing campaign with allied forces on the ground who started wiping out hundreds of US-backed militants and recapturing critical cities across Western corridor. Now that the Russian airforce is pounding the living daylights out of jihadi ammo dumps, weapons depots and rebel strongholds, and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is tightening their grip on Aleppo, and Hezbollah is inflicting heavy casualties on Jabhat al Nusra militants and other Al Qaida-linked vermin; Kerry’s decided it’s a catastrophe. Now that the momentum of the war has shifted in favor of Syrian president Bashar al Assad, Kerry wants a “Time out”.
Keep in mind, that Putin worked tirelessly throughout the summer months to try to bring the warring parties together (including Assad’s political opposition) to see if deal could be worked out to stabilize Syria and fight ISIS. But Washington wanted no part of any Russian-led coalition. Having exhausted all the possibilities for resolving the conflict through a broader consensus, Putin decided to get directly involved by committing the Russian airforce to lead the fight against the Sunni extremists and other anti-government forces that have been tearing the country apart and paving the way for Al Qaida-linked forces to take control of the Capital. Putin’s intervention stopped the emergence of a terrorist Caliphate in Damascus. He turned the tide in the four year-long war, and delivered a body-blow to Washington’s malign strategy. Now he’s going to finish the job.
Putin is not gullible enough to fall for Kerry’s stalling tactic. He’s going to kill or capture as many of the terrorists as possible and he’s not going to let Uncle Sam get in the way.
These terrorists–over 2,000 of who are from Chechnya–pose an existential threat to Russia, as does the US plan to use Islamic extremists to advance their foreign policy objectives. Putin takes the threat seriously. He knows that if Washington’s strategy succeeds in Syria, it will be used in Iran and then again in Russia. That’s why he’s decided to dump tons of money and resources into the project. That’s why his Generals have worked out all the details and come up with a rock-solid strategy for annihilating this clatter of juvenile delinquents and for restoring Syria’s sovereign borders. And that’s why he’s not going to be waved-away by the likes of mealy-mouth John Kerry. Putin is going to see this thing through to the bitter end. He’s not going to stop for anyone or anything. Winning in Syria is a matter of national security, Russia’s national security…..
The entire US political establishment supports the removal of Assad and the breaking up of Syria. Kerry’s sudden appeal for dialogue does not represent a fundamental change in the strategy. It’s merely an attempt to buy some time for US-backed mercenaries who are feeling the full-brunt of the Russia’s bombing campaign. Putin would be well-advised to ignore Kerry’s braying and continue to prosecute his war on terror until the job is done.
That bit in bold. I didn’t know that. Is it true? Is that really what they want? Seems perfect for ISIS to me, but what do I know? But given Obama’s approach to Libya, Egypt and Israel, whatever the “US political establishment” wants, I am inclined to take the other side.