The conspiracy to deify Barack Obama backfired and rightly so.
Media mouths and Democrats once cared about Obama. Networks will always have a soft spot in their U.N.-loving hearts for the Chicago sewer rat, while Democrats are dropping their spiritual leader like a used condom. Happily, Democrat weirdos are hopping in bed with a dead horse:
No one cares about former president Barack Obama anymore, least of all the Democratic Party's most fashionable influencers. It's almost as if his presidency never happened.
Last week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) said President Joe Biden's first 100 days in office "have been impressive" and "exceeded" the expectations of trendy young progressives such as herself. Historians, journalists, and other liberals have anointed Biden the next FDR or LBJ—a once-in-a-generation "transformative" leader.
Not that long ago, it was Obama who was considered a hot young progressive and was hailed as the next coming of the 20th century's most transformative leaders. The similarly fawning coverage of Biden, the former running mate whose presidential ambitions he repeatedly sought to discourage, must be utterly humiliating for Obama and his excessively large ego.
ANALYSIS: No One Cares About Obama Anymore
Andrew Stiles
April 26, 2021 5:35 pm
https://freebeacon.com/politics/sad-obama/
Barack Hussein Obama first caught my attention in his first floor speech as a U.S. Senator when he objected to Janice Rogers Brown going to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Brown was finally confirmed after being stalled for two years by Senate Democrats. Obama voted against her confirmation.
In 2017:
The Wall Street Journal and Buzzfeed are both reporting that Judge Janice Rogers Brown will retire from active service on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This decision will create a vacancy on the 11-member court and an opportunity for President Trump to nominate someone to this important court.
Brown has sat on the D.C. Circuit for a dozen years, after serving on the California Supreme Court and in state government. Brown was first nominated to the D.C. Circuit by President George W. Bush in 2003, though she was not confirmed until 2005 due to active opposition from Senate Democrats (including a filibuster of her nomination). Here, for instance, is then-Sen. Barack Obama’s speech against her confirmation.
D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown to step down
By Jonathan H. Adler
July 7, 2017 at 9:10 p.m. EDT
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/07/d-c-circuit-judge-janice-rogers-brown-to-step-down/
NOTE: I suggested Janice Rogers Brown as Scalia’s replacement. As it turned out, Brown was not included in Trump’s list of choices. Presumably, Brown was either too brown or too conservative.
I posted my first objection to BHO before he became the country’s self-appointed spiritual leader. It did take long after being sworn in that Obama quickly turned glib horse manure into superficial inspiration, nor did it take a political genius in 2005 to know that he was bad news for the country. Sad to say, he confirmed my worst fears.
In fact, it was the lying sack of shit’s first floor speech in 2005 that told me everything I needed to know about then-unknown Obama:
http://obamaspeeches.com/021-Nomination-of-Justice-Janice-Rogers-Brown-Obama-Speech.htm
God only knows who was giving Obama advice. Certainly not people who believe judicial decisions have to be based on precedent and on law. Obama once said that, but I knew he was lying. When it came to the High Court legislating a Socialist objective Obama’s insincerity was exposed easily enough.
Discard everything else Obama said in his first and floor speech except real property Rights. The ‘constitutional scholar’ knew just enough about the U.S. Constitution to pervert it much like atheists who know just enough about the bible to claim it is a fraud. Obama’s opinions should have told every American homeowner who voted for him that he does not understand the only Right that counts. Put it in perspective this way: Without property Rights every other Right is meaningless. Indeed, what in hell good is freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press without property Rights? (To Democrats the Rights of criminals and Muslim combatants is more sacred than property Rights.)
NOTE: Obama’s EPA spent more time and resources attacking private property than it did cooling off the planet.
Here is the gist of a message I posted on another board June 2005:
Senator Barack Obama’s remarks on the Senate floor about Janice Rogers Brown before she was confirmed caught my attention. The Democrat party’s apprentice guru gushes the party line on the usual Socialist positions. The Left’s positions have been sliced and diced so many times by others more qualified than I there is no point in going over them again. Two of Barack’s critiques of Justice Brown are worth addressing.
As you will see in the excerpts, Obama employs the technique of Mix & Match in his floor speech. In the first excerpts, I am only interested in separating his views on private property from his mix of social engineering and Justice Brown’s judicial view of property Rights. The excerpts are taken from different parts of his speech. I put them together for my convenience.
Here are the excerpts about private property mixed in with the usual litany of Socialism’s window dressings:
So when it comes to laws protecting a woman's right to choose or a worker's right to organize, she will claim that the laws that the legislature passed should be interpreted narrowly. Yet when it comes to laws protecting corporations and private property, she has decided that those laws should be interpreted broadly.
XXXXX
XXXXX
It is simply intellectually dishonest and logically incoherent to suggest that somehow the Constitution recognizes an unlimited right to do what you want with your private property and yet does not recognize a right to privacy that would forbid the Government from intruding in your bedroom. Yet that seems to be the manner in which Justice Brown would interpret our most cherished document.
Let me first deal with the Dred Scott decision. Where would black race hustlers and American Communists be without it? To American Socialists/Communists Dred Scott is justification for abolishing all private property as Communism demands. Were Obama intellectually honest he would have admitted that the on-going destruction of real property Rights should have ended after the Civil War ended. I feel confident in saying that those who effectively overturned Dred Scott by freeing the slaves never intended to abolish all property Rights. Instead of the Dred Scott decision’s ultimate irrelevance conveying finality, Communists later seized upon that decision as a wedge they could use in bringing Communism to a free people. Socialists hellbent on abolishing private property never miss an opportunity to bring up Dred Scott. Obama did not show any originality in trotting out that one.
More importantly, Obama plays the Left’s class envy card. He denounces corporations and private property. I took him to mean commercial property. The way he plays the envy card more than implies he either does not understand, or that he does not recognize, the property Rights of tens of millions of homeowners. Democrat Party’s leaders do not recognize the real property Rights of homeowners. Obama gives no indication that he believes differently on that score.
Obama said that Justice Brown will use any tool in her arsenal on behalf of powerful property owners. He does not say if Ms. Brown will also rule in favor of typical property owners —— homeowners. I cannot speak for Justice Brown. I can pray that she holds everyone’s real property Rights in the same high esteem.
The second topic I want to address is classic Communist misdirection:
Justice Brown believes, as has already been stated in the Chamber, that the New Deal, which helped save our country and get it back on its feet after the Great Depression, was a triumph of our very own "Socialist revolution." She has equated altruism with communism. She equates even the most modest efforts to level life's playing field with somehow inhibiting our liberty.
Obama falsely claims altruism on behalf of New Deal Socialists while distancing Communism from the Left’s self-proclaimed altruism. That is one hell of a neat trick. I think he was annoyed by Justice Brown because she dared connect Communism to social engineering. Obama does tentatively agree that Socialism and Communism are the same.
Leading Democrats have always called tax dollar altruism “leveling the playing field” whenever they took away a private sector Right, or transferred resources from one group to another. Either of the two takings most certainly inhibits the liberty of some —— usually the majority. The question is: Who does “our liberty” exclude in Obama-world?
From what I gathered from Obama’s comments he joined the queue with Democrat dinosaurs lined up for extinction.
Finally, the first full-blown parasite to become president convinced himself that he was smarter than all those evil white boys that created a form of government that included authentic Rights:
Why the Fuss? Obama Has Long Been On Record In Favor Of Redistribution
Paul Roderick Gregory
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulro...cord-in-favor-of-redistribution/#39ba4776593a
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...China%92s-Parasite-Army&p=2860435#post2860435
Judge Napolitano destroyed Obama’s Commie bullshit:
VIDEO ▼
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5351398755001/?#sp=show-clips
It is an entitlement not a Right when someone else is forced to pay for it. Note that not one Right in America’s original Bill of Rights had to be paid for by someone else. Those Rights are negative Rights according to Obama and Sanders. Their positive Rights must be paid for with tax dollars.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...agiarized-The-Sewer-Rat&p=3203692#post3203692
In short: Parasites do not want your labor, they want your money:
Media mouths and Democrats once cared about Obama. Networks will always have a soft spot in their U.N.-loving hearts for the Chicago sewer rat, while Democrats are dropping their spiritual leader like a used condom. Happily, Democrat weirdos are hopping in bed with a dead horse:
No one cares about former president Barack Obama anymore, least of all the Democratic Party's most fashionable influencers. It's almost as if his presidency never happened.
Last week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) said President Joe Biden's first 100 days in office "have been impressive" and "exceeded" the expectations of trendy young progressives such as herself. Historians, journalists, and other liberals have anointed Biden the next FDR or LBJ—a once-in-a-generation "transformative" leader.
Not that long ago, it was Obama who was considered a hot young progressive and was hailed as the next coming of the 20th century's most transformative leaders. The similarly fawning coverage of Biden, the former running mate whose presidential ambitions he repeatedly sought to discourage, must be utterly humiliating for Obama and his excessively large ego.
ANALYSIS: No One Cares About Obama Anymore
Andrew Stiles
April 26, 2021 5:35 pm
https://freebeacon.com/politics/sad-obama/
Barack Hussein Obama first caught my attention in his first floor speech as a U.S. Senator when he objected to Janice Rogers Brown going to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Brown was finally confirmed after being stalled for two years by Senate Democrats. Obama voted against her confirmation.
In 2017:
The Wall Street Journal and Buzzfeed are both reporting that Judge Janice Rogers Brown will retire from active service on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This decision will create a vacancy on the 11-member court and an opportunity for President Trump to nominate someone to this important court.
Brown has sat on the D.C. Circuit for a dozen years, after serving on the California Supreme Court and in state government. Brown was first nominated to the D.C. Circuit by President George W. Bush in 2003, though she was not confirmed until 2005 due to active opposition from Senate Democrats (including a filibuster of her nomination). Here, for instance, is then-Sen. Barack Obama’s speech against her confirmation.
D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown to step down
By Jonathan H. Adler
July 7, 2017 at 9:10 p.m. EDT
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/07/d-c-circuit-judge-janice-rogers-brown-to-step-down/
NOTE: I suggested Janice Rogers Brown as Scalia’s replacement. As it turned out, Brown was not included in Trump’s list of choices. Presumably, Brown was either too brown or too conservative.
I posted my first objection to BHO before he became the country’s self-appointed spiritual leader. It did take long after being sworn in that Obama quickly turned glib horse manure into superficial inspiration, nor did it take a political genius in 2005 to know that he was bad news for the country. Sad to say, he confirmed my worst fears.
In fact, it was the lying sack of shit’s first floor speech in 2005 that told me everything I needed to know about then-unknown Obama:
http://obamaspeeches.com/021-Nomination-of-Justice-Janice-Rogers-Brown-Obama-Speech.htm
God only knows who was giving Obama advice. Certainly not people who believe judicial decisions have to be based on precedent and on law. Obama once said that, but I knew he was lying. When it came to the High Court legislating a Socialist objective Obama’s insincerity was exposed easily enough.
Discard everything else Obama said in his first and floor speech except real property Rights. The ‘constitutional scholar’ knew just enough about the U.S. Constitution to pervert it much like atheists who know just enough about the bible to claim it is a fraud. Obama’s opinions should have told every American homeowner who voted for him that he does not understand the only Right that counts. Put it in perspective this way: Without property Rights every other Right is meaningless. Indeed, what in hell good is freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press without property Rights? (To Democrats the Rights of criminals and Muslim combatants is more sacred than property Rights.)
NOTE: Obama’s EPA spent more time and resources attacking private property than it did cooling off the planet.
Here is the gist of a message I posted on another board June 2005:
Senator Barack Obama’s remarks on the Senate floor about Janice Rogers Brown before she was confirmed caught my attention. The Democrat party’s apprentice guru gushes the party line on the usual Socialist positions. The Left’s positions have been sliced and diced so many times by others more qualified than I there is no point in going over them again. Two of Barack’s critiques of Justice Brown are worth addressing.
As you will see in the excerpts, Obama employs the technique of Mix & Match in his floor speech. In the first excerpts, I am only interested in separating his views on private property from his mix of social engineering and Justice Brown’s judicial view of property Rights. The excerpts are taken from different parts of his speech. I put them together for my convenience.
Here are the excerpts about private property mixed in with the usual litany of Socialism’s window dressings:
So when it comes to laws protecting a woman's right to choose or a worker's right to organize, she will claim that the laws that the legislature passed should be interpreted narrowly. Yet when it comes to laws protecting corporations and private property, she has decided that those laws should be interpreted broadly.
XXXXX
If the claimant is powerful -- if they are a property owner, for example -- then she is willing to use any tool in her judicial arsenal to make sure the outcome is one they like. If it is a worker or a minority claiming discrimination, then she is nowhere to be found.
XXXXX
Judicial decisions ultimately have to be based on evidence and on fact. They have to be based on precedent and on law.
In the Lochner case, and in a whole series of cases prior to Lochner being overturned, the Supreme Court consistently overturned basic measures like minimum wage laws, child labor safety laws, and rights to organize, deeming those laws as somehow violating a constitutional right to private property. The basic argument in Lochner was you cannot regulate the free market because it is going to constrain people's use of their private property. Keep in mind that that same judicial philosophy was the underpinning of Dred Scott, the ruling that overturned the Missouri Compromise and said that it was unconstitutional to forbid slavery from being imported into the free States.
In the Lochner case, and in a whole series of cases prior to Lochner being overturned, the Supreme Court consistently overturned basic measures like minimum wage laws, child labor safety laws, and rights to organize, deeming those laws as somehow violating a constitutional right to private property. The basic argument in Lochner was you cannot regulate the free market because it is going to constrain people's use of their private property. Keep in mind that that same judicial philosophy was the underpinning of Dred Scott, the ruling that overturned the Missouri Compromise and said that it was unconstitutional to forbid slavery from being imported into the free States.
XXXXX
It is simply intellectually dishonest and logically incoherent to suggest that somehow the Constitution recognizes an unlimited right to do what you want with your private property and yet does not recognize a right to privacy that would forbid the Government from intruding in your bedroom. Yet that seems to be the manner in which Justice Brown would interpret our most cherished document.
Let me first deal with the Dred Scott decision. Where would black race hustlers and American Communists be without it? To American Socialists/Communists Dred Scott is justification for abolishing all private property as Communism demands. Were Obama intellectually honest he would have admitted that the on-going destruction of real property Rights should have ended after the Civil War ended. I feel confident in saying that those who effectively overturned Dred Scott by freeing the slaves never intended to abolish all property Rights. Instead of the Dred Scott decision’s ultimate irrelevance conveying finality, Communists later seized upon that decision as a wedge they could use in bringing Communism to a free people. Socialists hellbent on abolishing private property never miss an opportunity to bring up Dred Scott. Obama did not show any originality in trotting out that one.
More importantly, Obama plays the Left’s class envy card. He denounces corporations and private property. I took him to mean commercial property. The way he plays the envy card more than implies he either does not understand, or that he does not recognize, the property Rights of tens of millions of homeowners. Democrat Party’s leaders do not recognize the real property Rights of homeowners. Obama gives no indication that he believes differently on that score.
Obama said that Justice Brown will use any tool in her arsenal on behalf of powerful property owners. He does not say if Ms. Brown will also rule in favor of typical property owners —— homeowners. I cannot speak for Justice Brown. I can pray that she holds everyone’s real property Rights in the same high esteem.
The second topic I want to address is classic Communist misdirection:
Justice Brown believes, as has already been stated in the Chamber, that the New Deal, which helped save our country and get it back on its feet after the Great Depression, was a triumph of our very own "Socialist revolution." She has equated altruism with communism. She equates even the most modest efforts to level life's playing field with somehow inhibiting our liberty.
Obama falsely claims altruism on behalf of New Deal Socialists while distancing Communism from the Left’s self-proclaimed altruism. That is one hell of a neat trick. I think he was annoyed by Justice Brown because she dared connect Communism to social engineering. Obama does tentatively agree that Socialism and Communism are the same.
Leading Democrats have always called tax dollar altruism “leveling the playing field” whenever they took away a private sector Right, or transferred resources from one group to another. Either of the two takings most certainly inhibits the liberty of some —— usually the majority. The question is: Who does “our liberty” exclude in Obama-world?
From what I gathered from Obama’s comments he joined the queue with Democrat dinosaurs lined up for extinction.
Finally, the first full-blown parasite to become president convinced himself that he was smarter than all those evil white boys that created a form of government that included authentic Rights:
In sum, Obama views the Constitution as a flawed document from which we must “break free.” We need, instead, a “living” Constitution that refocuses from “negative rights” to requiring income redistribution from the Haves to provide “positive economic rights” to the Have Nots.
Why the Fuss? Obama Has Long Been On Record In Favor Of Redistribution
Paul Roderick Gregory
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulro...cord-in-favor-of-redistribution/#39ba4776593a
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...China%92s-Parasite-Army&p=2860435#post2860435
Judge Napolitano destroyed Obama’s Commie bullshit:
VIDEO ▼
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5351398755001/?#sp=show-clips
It is an entitlement not a Right when someone else is forced to pay for it. Note that not one Right in America’s original Bill of Rights had to be paid for by someone else. Those Rights are negative Rights according to Obama and Sanders. Their positive Rights must be paid for with tax dollars.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...agiarized-The-Sewer-Rat&p=3203692#post3203692
In short: Parasites do not want your labor, they want your money: