Are You Voting for Revenge or for Love of Country? (Videos)

By Kasey Jachim

I am sure most of you have seen Obama’s latest campaign hate speech. Instead of listing his accomplishments (ummmm, Obamacare and doubling the national debt), he chose to tear into Mitt Romney.  His disregard for civility regarding Romney, Conservatives, Congress, the Constitution, and even voters never ceases to amaze me.  Obama recently asked his supporters to help him win another term by voting.  Not just to vote for him, but to seek revenge by voting against the evil Republican.  “Voting is the best Revenge” is his latest mantra.

 

 

In contrast to this petulant, narcissistic, finger-pointing, Bush-blaming man-child, Governor Romney gave supporters a positive list of his past accomplishments in business, the Olympics, and as Governor of a Democratic state.  He laid out his plans and even said he would begin day one by accepting responsibility and not blaming his predecessor!  Rather than counter Obama’s whiney appeal with another negative message, Mitt Romney is asking voters to “Vote for Love of Country” not revenge!

The following ad contrasts the main differences between the two men:

 

 

Which man would you rather vote for? I know who I want – the man with a positive message who will cross the aisle and bring America back to the standard of excellence we are used to!  The man who is actually PROUD of America – Mitt Romney.  Pray and vote – I can see him in the White House from my back yard!

Obama’s narcissism a danger to America, and the world

Reblogged from Counter Jihad Report

By

I must confess that, in 2008, I was impressed by Barack Obama. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared confident and was as smooth as a rock star. He commanded the stage and screen. I was really confident that this man, being black and having a possible semi-Muslim upbringing, was the perfect candidate to make lasting peace in the Middle East. I was sure that Israel was going to see a much-needed peace with the Palestinians, and my visits to eat great humus in Tulkarem — a small Palestinian town near Netanya — would one day soon be possible again.

But I was put off very soon after President Obama took office. The first time I began to look more closely at him was when I watched his speech in Cairo. I listened in awe and disbelief, but I thought that this may be a ploy to embrace the Muslim world and develop a mutual respect with the Arabs. Perhaps, I thought, this was a great tactic in showing friendship and commitment to the Muslim masses.

All too soon, my hopes started to fade. As I began watching President Obama’s body language and listened more closely to his tone of voice, I noticed a shallowness and an air of haughtiness that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his words. It stunned me to watch his speeches, which were filled with such “religious” inflection that it struck me in a why it no doubt did for so many others.

I watched and watched and saw how things in this volatile region of heated debate and steady but almost controlled violence started spiraling way out of control. What I thought were going to be U.S. accomplishments in this historic and religious global epicenter turned out to be deadly failures with long-term consequences.

I went back to watch the Cairo speech, watching over and over again, and I noticed that President Obama is really not an ordinary man. Hischaracter is indeed unique in that he has the ability to impress or frustrate. Even though I felt that at times he was quite ignorant to the most important subjects relating to Israel, like the 1967 borders, he never really spoke like a lawyer or politician but rather someone who was out to prove that he was the epicenter and not the problem.

Obama’s language, posture and demeanor seemed wrong to me. This was supposed to be a president who gave hope to so many, who was supposed to implement change in a positive way for all. It was as if President Obama was projecting a grandiose posture that was not his. He looked out of place and suddenly was not the presidential figure representing the free world.

It seemed that he created a sort of personality cult around himself, elevating his admirers blindly, presenting a somewhat false trust of enthusiasm that led followers to believe that no matter what he said in his speeches, he was free to do as he wished, unaccountable at all times. These admirers would follow at any cost, blindly as if in a daze or hypnotized. He promised the moon but delivered doom, and people were missing the real-life threats taking place, unfolding as an optical illusion of a beautiful spring dubbed “the Arab Spring.”

In searching for answers to find out what Obama’s real agenda on Israel was, I became swamped with irrelevant accusations, doctored pictures and cartoons. The mainstream media was promoting Obama, pushing him forward into the sphere that he sought to be. They, too, were blinded. I found an interesting observation by chance when I came across the behavioral patterns of narcissism. This disorder was common in the likes of other world leaders, but more so in dictators and power-seekers, those who wanted control as if it meant everything.

I am by no means a professional psychologist, nor have I ever had any training other than simple body language classes and perhaps a more in-depth profiling education based on the work I carried out as an Israeli police officer. Having said this, I started noticing alarming signs that perhaps indicate a slight narcissistic trend in President Obama. I base this assumption on the president’s speeches and statements, both on and off the record.

Obama’s imposing personality overwhelms those around him. He charms with his charisma. He shapes those around him and reduces others in his own inverted image (as we saw with his snubbing of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu).

I drew from my readings that narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them reach their personal objectives. They are focused on one thing alone, and that is power and control.

All other issues are meaningless to them, and they do not like to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention (remember President Obama’s recent comments when he snubbed Netanyahu’s request for action on the Iranian nuclear weapons program?).

Take a look at his attitude while serving in the U.S. Senate. If an issue was raised in the Senate that did not help Obama in one way or another, he had no interest in it. “Present” was a safe vote. No one could criticize him if things went wrong. Those issues were unworthy by their very nature because they were not about him.

A study by a leading psychologist found that Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected, and at the end, the project evolved into his own autobiography. Instead of a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama it seems could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He titled the book, “Dreams from My Father.”

Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is perhaps evident from Obama’s lack of interest in his own brother, who lives in poverty. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii and who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because his brother cannot be used in his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.

There is no doubt this election has been like no other in the history of America. The main issues are really insignificant compared to what is at stake in the form of lives being spared and countries disappearing and, yes, the global economy. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality, as the leader of the free world?

Read the rest here.

Hypocrisy Alert! Obama voted “present” on protecting rape victims in ’99 state Senate vote

The man who claims to champion women’s rights failed to protect them while in the Illinois Senate.  As a State Senator Obama fought harder for partial birth abortion than he did for the privacy of a rape victim.  His campaign suggests voting for him for the first time is the equivalent of a woman’s ‘first time’ of having sex – how did that work out for you?  Obama is no defender of women or children – he is an egomaniacal narcissist who is hell-bent on destroying the most wonderful nation on earth.  Read between the lines – he doesn’t like us – let’s send him the same message on November 6th!

By Matthew Boyle at The Daily Caller

Barack Obama was the sole state senator to not vote for a bill that would protect sexual assault victims from having the details of their cases revealed publicly.

On May 11 of that year, Obama voted “present” on a bill, ultimately made law, that allows victims of sex crimes to request that their cases be sealed from public view following a criminal conviction. Illinois Senate voting records show that Obama was the only senator who did not vote in favor of the bill.

Obama’s unique objection to voting for a bill meant to protect victims of sex crimes is a substantial departure from the picture he has attempted to paint for women voters.

The future president, it was reported then, questioned the bill’s  constitutionality.

The legislation’s intent was to prevent public consumption of the explicit  details of sex crimes without “good cause.”

“Under the bill, the trials involving sex crimes would remain open, but upon  a conviction, a victim of a sex crime could ask a state’s attorney to petition a  judge to seal the records of the case,” reporter Joe Mahr wrote for The State  Journal-Register. “If the judge agreed, the public could not open those records  unless someone petitioned the court and showed good cause.”

The Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault led the charge for the law,  Mahr reported, adding that the group “pushed the bill after a victim’s co-worker  researched the details of her assault in court files. The victim later realized,  to her horror, that anyone could look up court files on criminal cases,  including sex crimes.”

Read more at the Daily Caller

Obama’s Libyan Lies – Cover-Up Peeling Away

President Obama is so arrogant and narcissistic that he is just about the only person in the administration clinging to the story that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous event due to some pathetic movie trailer no one had seen – until he promoted it.

Even though his Secretary of State, his Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the U.N. Ambassador, and the White House spokesman have all reversed the claim and actually admitted the murders were an act of terrorism; Barack Obama is adamantly determined to accept no blame nor will he use the word ‘terrorism’.  In his mind, the events in Benghazi that killed four Americans must have been another incidence of ‘workplace violence’ since the movie trailer theory has been debunked.

Shame on him!  A CNN reporter found a seven-page notebook belonging to Ambassador Stevens. According to the network, the diary said he was concerned about the “never-ending” security threats in Benghazi and wrote that he was on an al Qaeda
hit list. This was no isolated incident!

The PJ Tatler reported the US received threats earlier than that claimed by the administration:

Terrorists demanding the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman threatened the Cairo embassy on Sept 8. We posted an English translation of that threat on Sept 10. The jihadist threat to burn the US embassy in Cairo to the ground turned out to be very similar to what the jihadists in Benghazi actually did to the consulate there. That similarity points to a possible connection between the attacks.

One possible motivation for the administration to paint over the possible connection between the Cairo and Benghazi attacks, is the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the Cairo attack. The Brotherhood was initially supportive of the “demonstration” and Egyptian President Morsi lent his personal support in the early going. The US embassy even caught the Brotherhood tweeting peace in English while exhorting the “demonstrators” in Arabic. If, it turns out, the Egyptian government had anything to do with the attack in Cairo, the probability that it had something to do with the attack in Benghazi as well has to be looked into. Our government might prefer to lie about that, though, than acknowledge that the new Egypt has perpetrated an act of war on the United States, on the anniversary        of 9-11.

Not only would the entire Arab Spring idea finally and deservedly unravel, but the administration would then have a major foreign policy crisis very much of its own making on its hands. The similarity between how Jimmy Carter lost Iran, and how Barack Obama would have lost Egypt, would be impossible to ignore.

Everyone in the administration seem to be tripping over their words and themselves.  According to Alexander Higgins:

From day one, the Obama administration was aware that the September 11 assault on the US consulate in Benghazi was a pre-planned terrorist attack, despite offering up conflicting explanations in the weeks since.

  Unnamed officials confirm to Fox News that the White House knew that al-Qaeda-linked terrorists were behind the murder of four Americans in Libya, but only today did US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta publicly acknowledge the truth.

Secretary Panetta now admits that the Pentagon knew within hours of the assault on America’s Benghazi consulate that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others dead that it was an act of terrorism.

The Obama administration has altered their explanation repeatedly in the weeks since Mr. Stevens and three others were killed on September 11, 2012 while on assignment in Libya. On Thursday, the Defense Department confirmed the attack as having been hatched by terrorists, despite earlier statements made by the White House that suggested an anti-American film produced in the US had triggered a spontaneous assault.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested earlier in the week that the attack in Benghazi may have been hatched by an al-Qaeda affiliate, yet another drastic change of heart from an Obama appointee this week.

In New York City on Wednesday, Secretary Clinton told attendees at a special United Nations meeting that the September 11 assault first thought by the White House to be a spontaneous response to an Anti-Islam film made in America could have been orchestrated by extremists in North Africa, specifically those subscribed to an off-shoot of al-Qaeda.

The Washington Post reported a timeline of the ever-changing lies and cover-up.  I have included a few of them:

“I think it’s important to note with regards to that protest that there are protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. As Secretary Clinton said today, the United States government had nothing to do with this movie. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. America has a history of religious tolerance and respect for religious beliefs that goes back to our nation’s founding. We are stronger because we are the home to people of all religions, including millions of Muslims, and we reject the denigration of religion. We also believe that there is no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence.”

— White House spokesman Jay Carney, news briefing, Sept. 13

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

— Clinton, transfer of remains ceremony, Sept. 14

“I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.  That report is false.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 14

“Based on the best information we have to date … it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent…. We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

— Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sept. 16

“We had a substantial security presence with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”

— Rice, on ABC’s “This Week,” Sept. 16

(Note: the U.S. post was not a consulate and its precise role is still a mystery.)

“The way these perpetrators acted and moved, and their choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, this leaves us with no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”

— Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, president of Libya’s General National Congress, Sept. 16

“Well, you’re conveniently conflating two things, which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation and the cause and motivation behind them will be decided by that investigation.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 17

Suddenly, a shift to a ‘terrorist attack’

“I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy….The best information we have now, the facts that we have now indicate that this was an opportunistic attack on our embassy. The attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours at our embassy — our diplomatic post in Benghazi. It evolved and escalated over several hours.

“It appears that individuals who were certainly well-armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded that evening and into the — into the morning hours of September 12th. We do know that a number of militants in the area, as I mentioned, are well-armed and maintain those arms. What we don’t have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.

“We are focused on who was responsible for this attack. At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area, as well. We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda’s affiliates; in particular, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”

— Mathew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, testimony before Congress, Sept. 19, after being asked a direct question.

CNN reports on Sept. 19 that Ambassador Christopher Stevens had been worried by the security threats in Benghazi. CNN later acknowledged the information came from Steven’s journal.

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that’s self- evident. “He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has — and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence — we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 20

CBS News reports there never was anti-American protest.

“Witnesses tell CBS News that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead they say it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account.”

— Margaret Brennan CBS News correspondent, CBS News report aired Sept. 20

But Obama resists saying the ‘t’ word…

OBAMA: “What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans. “And my number-one priority is always to keep our diplomats safe and to keep our embassies safe. And so when the initial events happened in Cairo and all across the region, we worked with Secretary Clinton to redouble our security and to send a message to the leaders of these countries, essentially saying, although we had nothing to do with the video, we find it offensive, it’s not representative of America’s views, how we treat each other with respect when it comes to their religious beliefs, but we will not tolerate violence.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?” OBAMA:  “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

— President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20

“What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

— Clinton, statement at a  meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Sept. 21, 2012

Read the full timeline here.

If their motto is ‘FORWARD’, why are Dems walking so much back?!?

Now that all the excitement and hoopla have died down following the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, I have been trying to understand why the Democrats have spent so much time walking back recent comments and actions.  Isn’t their motto ‘FORWARD’?

 

Let’s take Obama’s remarks in Roanoke, VA in which he proclaimed that if you were successful in life “You didn’t do that on your own” and “You didn’t build that”.  Although the MSM and team Obama have consistently refuted his comments and claimed they were ‘taken out of context’, he is on record saying exactly that!

 

 

Then we had the DNC poster child, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was caught in a big lie by CNN’s Anderson Cooper.  After DWS accused the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein of taking her out of context, Klein released the audio proving her a liar.  Here is her interview with Anderson Cooper.

 

This was followed by the DNC’s sudden change of Thursday night’s venue from the Bank of America Stadium (seating 70,000) to the Time Warner Cable Arena (seating 20,000). The official reason was a prediction of possible severe weather. However, according to Charlotte’s WCNC TV Chief Meteorologist, Brad Panovich, the chance of rain was only 20% and there was no prediction of severe weather. Many wonder if the change of venue was more about ‘empty chairs’ and less about the weather.

 

 

And who didn’t love the supposedly heartfelt speech by  ‘Steelworker’, David Foster, who told the story of how he and 750 steelworkers lost their jobs when the Bain-controlled company GST steel filed for bankruptcy in the early 1990s.  Funny thing, Foster never worked for GST!  According to ABC News, “David Foster was never an employee of GST Steel’s Kansas City plant. He was employed by the United Steelworkers of America as their regional union director to represent GST Steel.”  BUSTED!!!

Finally, we have the DNC’s removal of ‘God’ and ‘Jerusalem’ from their platform.  Following criticism and pressure from conservatives, the DNC hastily moved to add them.  Following three votes (which in the opinion of many did NOT meet the 2/3 majority requirement) and multiple ‘boos’, God and Jerusalem were reinstated.  I wonder just how prophetic the following scenario was – the majority of attendees ‘denied’ God three times……

 

 

In spite of a slate of young Hollywood stars and abortion supporters, the D ‘n C appeared to be more of a convention of contradiction than conviction. They seem to be perfecting the ‘Moonwalk’ – even though they are supposed to be moving FORWARD!

New York Times Proves Clint Eastwood Correct — Obama Is Lousy CEO (But World Class Narcissist)

Either you loved Clint Eastwood’s speech or you didn’t, but one thing you cannot argue is his belief that if someone is doing a lousy job you need to let him go.  Sports teams do it, businesses do it, even some educational institutions do it.  Now the voters need to fire the inept and unqualified.  I don’t care how likeable someone is or how smart they (think they) are, if they are failing they must go.  However, I don’t think our Narcissist in Chief will acknowledge his failures – he hates to lose – and he will not go down without a nasty fight.  I think the following article is a great insight into the world of our man-child president.

By Rich Karlgaard via Forbes

A Sunday New York Times front page story — New York Times! — might have killed President Obama’s re-election hopes.

The story is called “The Competitor in Chief — Obama Plays To Win, In Politics and Everything Else.” It is devastating.

With such a title, and from such a friendly organ, at first I thought Jodi Kantor’s piece would be a collection of Obama’s greatest political wins: His rapid rise in Illinois, his win over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries, the passage of health care, and so on.

But the NYT piece is not about any of that. Rather, it is a deep look into the two outstanding flaws in Obama’s executive leadership:

1. How he vastly overrates his capabilities:

But even those loyal to Mr. Obama say that his quest for excellence can bleed into cockiness and that he tends to overestimate his capabilities. The cloistered nature of the White House amplifies those tendencies, said Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, adding that the same thing happened to his former boss. “There’s a reinforcing quality,” he said, a tendency for presidents to think, I’m the best at this.

2. How he spends extraordinary amounts of time and energy to compete in — trivialities.

For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits. He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).

His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the White House alley.

Kantor’s piece is full of examples of Obama’s odd need to dominate his peers in everything from bowling, cards, golf, basketball, and golf (104 times in his presidency). Bear in mind, Obama doesn’t just robustly compete. The leader of the free world spends many hours practicing these trivial pursuits behind the scenes. Combine this weirdly wasted time with a consistent overestimation of his capabilities, and the result is, according to NYT’s Kantor:

He may not always be as good at everything as he thinks, including politics. While Mr. Obama has given himself high grades for his tenure in the White House — including a “solid B-plus” for his first year — many voters don’t agree, citing everything from his handling of the economy to his unfulfilled pledge that he would be able to unite Washington to his claim that he would achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Though he never ran a large organization before becoming president, he initially dismissed internal concerns about management and ended up with a factionalized White House and a fuzzier decision-making process than many top aides wanted.

Kantor’s portrait of Obama is stunning. It paints a picture of a CEO who is unfocused and lost.

Imagine, for a minute, that you are on the board of directors of a company. You have a CEO who is not meeting his numbers and who is suffering a declining popularity with his customers. You want to help this CEO recover, but then you learn he doesn’t want your help. He is smarter than you and eager to tell you this. Confidence or misplaced arrogance? You’re not sure at first. If the company was performing well, you’d ignore it. But the company is performing poorly, so you can’t.

Read more at Forbes.

Obama (Narcissist in Chief) will have 16 foot Sand Sculpture of Self at DNC!

 

Is there no limit to this man’s vanity and arrogance?  Forget the giant Greek columns – this year’s Democratic National Convention will feature a giant 16-foot sand sculpture, made from 15+ tons of sand, in honor of our narcissistic man-child President.  I thought the self-serving picture of him staring at the moon when Neil Armstrong passed away was about as low as one could go, but I was wrong.  Contrast the humility of Mitt Romney to the arrogance of Barack Obama and you will get a taste of the differences between the two parties.  The liberals flaunt, the conservatives do!

To Honor Neil Armstrong, Obama Posts Photo of Himself – Shame on Him!

Our narcissistic man-child president is at it again.  A true American hero, legendary Neil Armstrong, recently passed away.  What does the Narcissist in Chief do – he uses the popularity of Armstrong for his own photo-op.  No picture of Armstrong, just Obama gazing at the moon. I would say ‘the balls of this man’ if he had any!

The following is by Mike Flynn via Breitbart

The thing that most bothers me about Barack Obama is his unearned narcissism. His smugness and arrogance are beyond the ability of science to measure. I don’t mind someone being a bit cocky or even arrogant, IF they have the accomplishments and achievements to back up the attitude.

Obama’s greatest achievement, though, is creating his own personal narrative. He is his own personal touchstone. Even when honoring a great American hero, Obama can’t help but thrust himself into the event.

On Friday, America and the world lost a true hero. Neil Armstrong, who died of heart complications at the age of 82, was the first human to walk on the moon. His steps onto the lunar surface were watched by the largest television audience in history. His statement “one giant leap for mankind” echoed throughout the world, allowing people everywhere to step back from the clutter of their daily lives and pause to dream big things. People who witnessed it will never forget it.

Armstrong’s heroism wasn’t the lunar walk, though. It was how he comported himself afterwards that showed the true measure of the man. He was among the more famous human beings in history. Yet he retired to a quiet and private life teaching aeronautical engineering and tending to his farm. His walk on the moon wasn’t a personal achievement, per se, but an accomplishment for all of humanity.

He made few public appearances. He gave very few speeches or interviews. His resignation from the public square made his lunar walk something mankind achieved rather than something Neil Armstrong achieved. His walk was the culmination of the work, not only of the thousands of engineers and scientists who directly worked on the mission, but also of the countless others throughout the ages who looked up at the skies and dreamed. Armstrong understood this.

How many of us could have resisted the siren song of global celebrity? How many of us would have chosen to withdraw and ensure the walk is remembered as mankind’s greatest triumph rather than a personal glory?

Certainly not Barack Obama.

Obama took to his tumblr page to offer a tribute to Neil Armstrong. The words–two sentences–are fine in a generic politician way. But, Obama being Obama, he injected himself into the tribute. He included a photo, not of Armstrong or the iconic step onto the lunar surface, but of himself, gazing up at the moon.

Obama is a literary construct. It’s as if Zelig jumped off the movie screen and took up residence in the Oval Office. He puts himself in the frame of historical events, even if he has only the smallest cameo. He let Democrats in Congress construct the stimulus package, as well as his signature legislation, Obamacare. He comes on the scene just in time for the photo-op, after others have done the heavy lifting.

Neil Armstrong did the heavy lifting. Even a tribute to his death is just another photo-op for Obama.

Read more at Breitbart

Video: Detailed History of Barack Obama’s Left-wing Background – “It’s a Miracle”

Barack Obama said something stunning. He thinks that government is responsible for private sector success, not individual initiative and hard work. This doesn’t surprise Bill Whittle, who reminds viewers that Obama was surrounded by socialists growing up, and even started his political career in the living room of a radical, violent socialist. See a detailed history of Barack Obama’s left-wing background, on this Afterburner.

 

It is a miracle this man was ever elected!!!

Dirty Harry’s Chicago-Styled Tactics Aren’t Working

This is your Senate Majority leader telling you what he thinks of us!

There is no doubt in my mind that Harry Reid’s recent unsubstantiated statement regarding Mitt Romney’s taxes is the work of David Axelrod and the Chicago Obama machine.  I believe Reid is the puppet and Axelrod is the ventriloquist.

Just the fact that Dirty Harry made the allegation that ‘Mitt Romney paid no taxes in ten years’ on the Senate floor proves to me that it is false. Otherwise Reid would have made his unfounded statement in a more public forum and not hide behind the protection of voicing whatever you want without consequences from the Senate floor.  If similar possible libelous allegations had been made against Obama using the Senate floor for cover the press would have been screaming abuse of power. Reid is protected from a libel suit by using his position as Senate Majority leader and using the Senate floor as his pulpit.

Again, I believe if the allegations were true, Prince Harry would have made them publicly instead of the cowardly way he did it.  The man is a vile, incompetent, narcissistic leader whose abuse of power almost equals that of President Obama.  Even liberal Comedy Central host, John Stewart, was repulsed by Dirty Harry’s underhanded tactics.