Category Archives: Conservatives

City Officials Order Black Couple to Perform KKK Wedding

Now All I can say is this is a beautiful thing. In the “Immortal” words of That trailblazer of Racial Harmony , Rodney King…

Can’t We All Get Along?

—————————————————————————————————-

Posted on October 20, 2014 by
http://godfatherpolitics.com/

A black couple that owns a wedding chapel has been offering their facility to couples for years. People from around the country visit the charming chapel set in a beautiful wilderness area to get hitched.

But a few months ago, a couple came in wanting to do a KKK-themed wedding. At first, the couple, Roy and Esther Black, thought it was a joke, something from a David Chappelle comedy routine. They wondered where the hidden cameras were.

To their surprise and shock, however, they found out that the couple was serious. They wanted to dress in their KKK garb and have the Blacks perform the ceremony. The best man and maid of honor would also be dressed in KKK attire but, like the couple, without hoods.

Very Charming Chapel.

Very Charming Chapel.

Umm, now this is uncomfortable.

Umm, now this is uncomfortable.

How Dare you discriminate against me?

How Dare you discriminate against me?

As nicely as they could, the Blacks said they couldn’t do it. They were opposed to the beliefs of the KKK. They suggested that if they really wanted a KKK-themed wedding that they should go elsewhere.

The couple was irate and decided to file an anti-discrimination lawsuit against the Blacks.

“The chapel was open to the public,” Blake Atkinson told a reporter for KLKA TV, “and since the chapel is advertised for weddings, the Blacks should be forced to perform our wedding. Public accommodation laws demand it”

“City officials told the Blacks, both ordained ministers who run The Chapel in the Pines, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its ‘non-discrimination’ ordinance requires the Blacks to perform wedding ceremonies for anybody that asks no matter what their beliefs are regarding the people who are asking to be married.”

Civil rights groups around the country are outraged over the decision of city officials. How is it possible for a couple like the Blacks to be forced to perform a wedding for a couple whose lifestyle and belief system they abhor?

Good question. The same can be asked of people who oppose same-sex marriage.

The above story is fictional but based on a true account related to same-sex marriage. It is designed to show the absurdity of new laws being passed and enforced to mandate that the owners of places like the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, perform weddings for same-sex couples or go to jail or face stiff fines.

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

“‘The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,’ explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. ‘The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.’”

What’s next? How will the tyranny be expanded? Look what’s happening in Houston, Texas. If the government can force the Knapps to go against their beliefs, then they can force others to do the same.

Homosexuals and the civil officials of Coeur d’Alene will argue that there’s no law protecting the KKK, and that’s the point. If the government can make up laws protecting one class, it can make laws to protect any class or any belief or nay group and make us pay dearly for any opposition.

~Steve~
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/

 

U.S. bishops betrayed the unborn, fearing Catholics would leave Democrat Party

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.”
-2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Mark Gallagher had worked with the Government Liaison Office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Washington from 1974 to 2007. He was mainly responsible for lobbying Congress on abortion and programs for the poor.

In a stunning article for Crisis Magazine, Oct. 22, 2014, Gallagher gives a first-person account that after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade ruling opening the floodgates to the killing of unborn human beings by legalizing abortion in the name of women’s “right to privacy,” Catholic bishops — putting “social justice” before the right to life — made a collective decision not to aggressively warn and inform the laity because they feared doing so would drive American Catholics away from the Democratic Party into the GOP.

Our Lord Jesus the Christ had warned: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-16)

These bishops have nothing less than the blood of innocents on their hands. They will be called to account for their grave sins before God.

Here is Gallagher’s article in its entirety.

JesusHoldingBabyClose

The Bishops’ Fateful Decision Respecting the Unborn

Mark Gallagher – Crisis Magazine – Oct. 22, 2014

In 1973 the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion. It was projected that the decision would not just replace illegal abortions with legal ones, but that the total number of abortions would dramatically increase (it turned out by approximately a million a year). It was clear that there were only two remedies: the Supreme Court reversing it; or a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress and ratified by the states to overturn it. This required the election of presidents who would nominate Supreme Court justices not interested in creating constitutional rights to legal abortion, and the election of pro-life members of Congress to confirm the justices, and to propose a constitutional amendment. Elections were the key. How were the bishops to proceed?

The bishops’ conference staff provided two conflicting recommendations. As their pro-life lobbyist, I recommended that the bishops conduct a major campaign to educate and correctly form the consciences of American Catholics to their responsibility to elect candidates who support the Common Good, which is protecting the human life and respecting the human dignity of every person created by God (including the unborn). And those candidates who refused to support the Common Good would be morally unacceptable for public office. The laity’s responsibility included being involved in their political party so that Common Good candidates would be recruited and nominated for office.

The Social Development and World Peace staff at the bishops’ conference disagreed with this approach. They dealt with the economy, poverty, food policy, housing, human rights, military expenditures, and U.S. foreign policy, and felt their goals and prudential judgments were more reflected by the Democrats in Congress. I was told sometime later of their concern that Roe v. Wade would cause Catholics to seek the protection of the unborn by voting for Republicans (most were pro-life [90+ percent]) instead of Democrats (about 2/3rds were pro-abortion then [94 percent now]). This shift in the Catholic vote would necessarily hurt their legislative agenda. So a campaign should be undertaken to convince Catholics that there was justification to vote for pro-abortion candidates. Their view prevailed and they pursued with the relevant bishops’ committees the first-ever Catholic voters guide published in 1976, called the “Political Responsibility Statement” (now called Faithful Citizenship). It would be the primary tool to achieve their objective. The document:

(1) Did not call upon Catholics to vote against a candidate who opposed the Common Good by supporting abortion. It cited no intrinsic evil that if supported would render a legislator morally unacceptable for office. And It did not include relevant Catholic moral theology: (a) that the constant teaching of the Church is that there are “certain choices that are always intrinsically evil” (i.e. abortion: … if one could eliminate all poverty in America at the cost of permitting the killing of one innocent person, that cost was too high and morally wrong); and (b) the applicability of proportionalism. According to one authoritative source, it holds that “the moral quality of an action is determined by whether the evils brought about by proposed action are proportionate to the goods the action effects. If the goods effected by the action are not in proportion to the evils caused, then the action is evil, but if they are, then the action is morally good.” First, there are no proportionate goods achieved by the killing of a million unborn each year. Second, voting American Catholics are not faced with any moral evils equivalent to abortion that might warrant voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Voters have never been faced with the dilemma of choosing between a pro-abortion candidate and, for example, a rival candidate that would permit the killing annually of a million citizens through starvation or freezing. Or, by way of another example, Catholic voters do not have to choose between a pro-abortion candidate and a candidate advocating an unjust war that would involve a first-strike nuclear attack on millions of innocent persons. Voting for pro-abortion candidates in America has never been, and still cannot, be justified under the principle of proportionality.

(2) Listed everything they hoped a legislator would support (at least a dozen). This marginalized protecting human life by making it just one of many important issues. The candidate who supported abortion could say (and routinely did), that they supported 90-95 percent of the bishops legislative agenda.

(3) The current voter guide explicitly permits Catholics to vote for candidates who support intrinsic moral evils. It says, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil” like abortion, “if the voter’s intent is to support that position.” But what if a voter supports a pro-abortion candidate for some other reason? “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.” The moral reasons must be “truly grave,” yet as I have argued, there are no grave moral reasons that trump protecting the unborn. Also would it really be far fetched to imagine that a Catholic voter, following the guide’s exception, might support a pro-abortion candidate because, for example, his position on “climate change” echoes that of the bishops who have said that saving the planet by reducing carbon emissions was a moral obligation?

In addition to this voters’ guide, the national Social Development and World Peace staff, as well as their diocesan counterparts, informed Catholics that there was justification to vote for pro-abortion candidates. This education campaign included workshops to persuade the laity that it was better to use their vote to achieve a good (helping the poor) rather than to oppose an evil (abortion).

A final step that helped pro-abortion Catholic candidates was the bishops giving them, or permitting them to receive, Communion. Many laity concluded that these legislators’ votes for abortion were morally acceptable, and that Catholics could vote for them in good conscience. Regular reception of Communion in the Catholic Church conveys that the person is a practicing Catholic, in the state of grace, in good standing, in communion with the Church.

All of these actions decreased the number of churchgoing Catholics voting pro-life, and this prevented (and still prevents) achieving sufficient votes to legally protect the unborn.

From a political science perspective the division of the Catholic vote (those voting for pro-life candidates and those voting for pro-abortion candidates) has severely limited if not completely neutralized the effect of the Catholic vote for good. If a significant majority of Catholics were united in only supporting Common Good candidates, as the Jewish community is largely united in only supporting candidates who support the State of Israel, then Catholics would legislatively achieve protection for the unborn and many other goals. When a group can decide the outcome of elections on one issue, then it will command serious consideration of whatever it pursues. The divided Catholic vote has prevented this.

The bishops have continued on their failed course for forty years, with fateful, disastrous results. If the bishops would change course, the legal killing, now at 56 million, could be stopped. The bishops need to teach that: (a) Legislators have the compelling moral responsibility to pursue the Common Good, protecting the human life and respecting the human dignity of every person created by God, born and unborn. And those who do not, are morally unfit for office; (b) “Catholic” legislators who support abortion are not in communion with the Church and they will not be given Communion until they are; and (c) Catholic citizens cannot in good conscience elect legislators who support the killing of the unborn (for there are no proportionate reasons to justify it).

H/t California Catholic Daily

~Eowyn

Russia begins large-scale militarization of the Arctic

Dr. Eowyn:

While Russia is systematically preparing and positioning itself in the Arctic region by militarizing, the Obama administration has done nothing to implement U.S. National Strategy on the Arctic.

Surprise! Not.

At a House hearing on “Implementing U.S. Policy in the Arctic” in July 2014, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Chair of the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, said “The National Strategy calls for a strong U.S presence in the Arctic, but the Implementation Plan that accompanies it fails to identify what specific infrastructure or capabilities are required to meet those goals, or how or when they will be funded.”

Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

A new frontier is becoming a center of great power rivalry.

It is the Arctic, believed to have vast untapped natural resources and increasingly is at the center of disputes between the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark in recent years, as rising temperatures lead to a reduction in sea ice, opening up access to lucrative offshore oil and gas deposits.

ArcticResourceBasinArctic Resource Basin

Ed Adamczyk reports for UPI, Oct. 21, 2014, that Russia has begun a large-scale militarization of the Arctic Ocean region, after recent discoveries of oil and natural gas reserves under the ocean floor, as well as the possibility that a potential Northern Sea Route — an alternative to the Suez Canal — could soon be established as global climate change causes melting of Arctic ice.

The Russian news agency RIA reports that Russia is planning to build a military command structure in…

View original 762 more words

2014 election fraud has already begun in Chicago

India voter ID

And we call India a third world country?

Shame on America’s Demonrats!

But then how else can the Demonrats carry out vote fraud?

Speaking of vote fraud, the Great 2014 Vote Fraud has already begun.

In Illinois, early voting began on Monday, Oct. 19, 2014. So Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote at Chicago’s Schaumburg Public Library using a touch-screen voting machine. Every time he tried to vote for a Republican, including for himself, the machine registered his vote as for a Democrat. (Read more here.)

In the great DisUnited Corrupt States of Amerika, you’ll vote Democrat, even if you’re not.

And what will the Republican Party do about this?

Nothing! (See “Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud“)

H/t Rebel Mouse

~Eowyn

That’s rich: After hiring Ebola crisis actors, NYT decries Ebola conspiracy theories

The august New York Times used paid “crisis actors” in its video report on the Ebola epidemic from Liberia — and, in so doing, feeds conspiracy theories about Ebola. But the paper has the audacity (Obama’s favorite word) to publish an article decrying Ebola conspiracy theories.

Beginning at the 8:08 mark in the video above, you’ll see the New York Times‘ video report of a young man wearing a neon-green t-shirt supposedly sick with Ebola, who flung himself to the ground outside a health clinic. Note that he displays none of the symptoms of Ebola: no sweat, no vomit, no diarrhea.

Most damning is the fact that, beg. at the 12:42 mark in the video, as he was walking away from the camera, the young man’s father stuffed a handful of cash into his back pocket.

Ebola cash

My post on this, “Is Ebola pandemic a false flag?,” also dealt with CNN similarly resorting to crisis actors in its reporting on Ebola. Ask yourself this question:

Why would NYT and CNN hire Liberians to PRETEND they’re deathly ill with Ebola? 

See also these other fake reportings by CNN at Sandy Hook and the Gulf War.

Below is Alan Feuer’s hypocritical New York Times article of Oct. 18, 2014, on Ebola conspiracy theories.

~Eowyn

do as i say

The Ebola Conspiracy Theories

The spread of Ebola from western Africa to suburban Texas has brought with it another strain of contagion: conspiracy theories.

The outbreak began in September, when The Daily Observer, a Liberian newspaper, published an article alleging that the virus was not what it seemed — a medical disaster — but rather a bioweapon designed by the United States military to depopulate the planet. Not long after, accusations appeared online contending that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had patented the virus and was poised to make a fortune from a new vaccine it had created with the pharmaceutical industry. There were even reports that the New World Order, that classic conspiracy bugbear involving global elites, had engineered Ebola in order to impose quarantines, travel bans and eventually martial law.

While most of these theories have so far lingered on the fringes of the Internet, a few stubborn cases have crept into the mainstream. In the last few weeks, conservative figures like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham have floated the idea that President Obama had sent aid to Africa, risking American lives, because of his guilt over slavery and colonialism. And just days ago, the hip-hop artist Chris Brown took to Twitter, announcing to his 13 million followers: “I don’t know … but I think this Ebola epidemic is a form of population control.”

Conspiracy theories have always moved in tandem with the news, offering shadow explanations for distressing or perplexing events. Though typically dismissed as a destructive mix of mendacity and nonsense, they often reflect societal fears.

“Conspiracy theories don’t have to be true to tell us something about ourselves,” said Michael Barkun, a professor emeritus of political science at Syracuse University and the author of “Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America.” “They’re not effective as accurate accounts — they’re effective as expressions of anxiety.”

The notion, for example, that health officials are conspiring with Big Pharma to consciously spread — and then cure — Ebola as a profit-making venture might sound like the plot to a cheesy summer thriller, but in fact it touches on a genuine aspect of our health care system, said Mark Fenster, a professor at the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law and the author of “Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture.”

“The truth is that we do rely on private corporations to develop and produce our pharmaceuticals,” he said. “While we may not like that fact, it’s not so hard or paranoid to imagine private companies acting in their own best interests.”

The theory works, Professor Fenster added, because it is “truthy,” to borrow from the comedian Stephen Colbert. Which is to say, it has just enough veracity “that it rings true when carried to Ebola,” he said.

It’s not surprising that populist and anti-government conspiracies are rampant at a moment when opinion polls suggest that our trust in government has reached a record low. In fact, most theories pit those who perceive themselves as powerless against a dominant cabal of secretive elites.

That model certainly seems to fit the allegation that the Department of Defense created Ebola in a military lab to loose on the world as a Malthusian device to reduce the population. “Conspiracies against the powerless tend to be effective because the masses often feel that way,” James F. Broderick, an English professor at New Jersey City University and co-author of “Web of Conspiracy: A Guide to Conspiracy Theory Sites on the Internet,” said. “They reflect and reinforce the idea that ordinary citizens are victims of the government.”

Viral outbreaks, as a genre, have long attracted conspiracy theorists, beginning in medieval times when the Jewish leaders of Toledo, Spain, were blamed for having spread the Black Plague. More recently, the AIDS epidemic was also said to have been caused by a government plot.

The Ebola virus, experts say, is classic conspiracy theory fodder: a silent killer that penetrates the body undetected and lies dormant for weeks. Its sources are obscure, its symptoms horrific.

“Diseases in particular are suited to conspiracy because they are invisible and invisibly transmitted,” Professor Barkun said. “Our senses can’t tell us exactly how the danger spreads. The theory has an answer for what mystifies and frightens.”

Many conspiracy theorists pride themselves on having inside information, but in the case of Ebola such alleged information, or misinformation — the government is in on it! — can erode the public trust when it’s needed most.

“If these were just opinions that people spouted off on talk radio or at dinner parties, you could argue that there wasn’t much harm,” Professor Broderick said. “But to have the C.D.C. debased in public as a puppet of the New World Order or of major corporations is obviously a dangerous proposition.”

 Nonetheless, some scholars find value in conspiracy theories because they allow us to vent and give voice to hidden fears.

“I view these things as a way of framing the world, of offering us narratives,” Professor Fenster said. “And they’re not necessarily a bad thing. Conspiracy theories are something that’s available in American discourse as a way of telling stories, as a way of explaining who we are.”

A revolution in politics is coming

Technology drives social and political change.

Just as newspapers and magazines are going out of business because of the Internet, and brick-and-mortar store sales increasingly are eclipsed by online shops, the day will soon come when how Americans do politics will also be up-ended.

That’s what long-time journalist Ron Fournier predicts in “The Era of Political Disruption,” in National Journal, Oct. 21, 2014. Below is his article:

From time to time in this column, I predict that the United States is entering an era of great political disruption, a bottom-up revolution on the scale of what upended the music, television, movie, media, and retail industries. Fueled by the radical connectivity of the Internet, abrupt new actors in those fields dismantled the status quo, shifted power downward, and created an explosion of options for consumers.

Consider what just one change wrought. You can now choose any musician’s song from any album, download it instantly and from virtually anywhere on earth for less than the price of a candy bar, and store it on a device with thousands of other tracks from just as many different singers. That’s power.

I ask you, how long until Americans recognized they’re no less equipped to disrupt politics and government? How soon before we stop settling for an inferior product in Washington and at statehouses? When do we demand more and better from the Democratic and Republican parties—or create new political organizations that usurp the old?

I don’t know the answers. I do believe it’s a matter of when, not if. Because, while we may be a presidential cycle or two away from the Great Disruption, you can already spot green shoots of populism emerging from an otherwise bleak midterm landscape.

Unsatisfied consumers: Disruption thrives when the status quo is not serving the needs of a changing public. Netflix, Amazon, and Buzzfeed wouldn’t exist if people had been satisfied with the way the entertainment, retail, and media industries were operating. The same American public that forced change on those industries is equally, if not more, annoyed with the political system.

A majority of Americans hold a negative view of the GOP, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey. The Democratic Party’s image is underwater, meaning that more people disapprove than approve of the party. The percentage of Americans identifying themselves as independents is rising steadily, from 31 percent in 2004 to 44 percent in September, according to a Gallup study cited by Democratic consultant Doug Sosnik.

“Americans’ long-brewing discontent shows clear signs of reaching a boiling point,” Sosnik wrote a year ago. “And when it happens, the country will judge its politicians through a new filter—one that asks, ‘Which side of the barricade are you on?’ “

While many independents will vote Democratic or Republican, they’re doing so out of a lack of choice. Last year, NBC/Esquire commissioned a nonpartisan analysis of the electorate and determined that a full majority, 51 percent, make up a “New American Center,” voters whose attitudes and ideologies leave them without a natural home inside either the GOP or the Democratic Party. These voters share common values that run counter to the polarized, zero-sum ways of the two major parties.

Exacerbating this disconnect between the parties and the people is the public’s sour mood. Huge majorities of Americans say the country is on the wrong track. They see a grim future for themselves, their children, and their country. They believe their political leaders are selfish, greedy, and short-sighted—unable and/or unwilling to shield most people from wrenching economic and social change.

Ambitious disruptors: A handful of politicians are looking over the horizon and offering themselves as an alternative to the GOP and the Democratic Party. Independent candidate Greg Orman threatens to unseat GOP Sen. Pat Roberts in heavily Republican Kansas. Republican-turned-independent Larry Pressler has put the South Dakota race into play. A libertarian pizza delivery man may gobble up enough voters to determine the Senate race in North Carolina. In Alaska, Democrats are backing an independent Republican for governor.

In governor’s races, nearly a dozen incumbents are in various levels of danger; their challengers seizing the mantle of change.

Still, this year’s elections won’t result in a wave of newly elected independents, nor will a record number of incumbents lose their jobs. The Old Guard will conclude that the status quo is safe. But the Old Guard is a ship of fools, living on borrowed time. They remind me of smug newspaper publishers, music moguls, and bookstore-chain operators who were abruptly disrupted out of business.

“Look beneath the surface, and you’ll see this is more of an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment year than people realize,” said Joe Trippi, who helped bring modern technology to the political system while running a 2004 Democratic presidential campaign for Howard Dean. “Change is coming. Big change.”

Young disruptors: The ranks of the congressional candidates include a dozen or so millennials, people who came of age after 9/11. They include Elise Stefanik, 30, a Republican who helped me research a 2006 book about leadership when she was a Harvard undergraduate. Nick Troiano, 25, is running as an independent in Pennsylvania. “If I win, it will send a signal to Washington that you’d better watch out, that there’s a huge generation of millennials poised to disrupt politics as usual,” Troiano told me in April.

Even if the Old Guard defeats Stefanik, Troiano, and every other young candidate in November, they can’t stop the changes millennials would make to the system. This generation of Americans is relatively civic-minded, pragmatic, tolerant, diverse, and less interested in ideology than results. The only thing that can stop millennials from disrupting the system is the generation itself; young Americans are deeply disillusioned with politics and government, and their inclination to solve problems outside of traditional institutions could create a severe brain drain in Washington.

Conventional wisdom argues against even the remote possibility of an independent presidential bid; against the dismantling of old party structures and the creation of new ones; and against any structural reform to government. I get it. There are thousands of reasons why you might place your bets on the status quo.

I’ll put my money on the people. Trippi is right. Change is coming.

~End of Fournier article

the-powers-that-be-copy

The question, of course, is how this political revolution will come about. We haven’t yet figured out the way.

I propose that we begin by each of us going independent, i.e., registering as Independents unaffiliated with either of the two main parties. I did that 10 years ago.

For conservatives, the Democrats are demon rats. Voting for any Democrat is completely out of the question.

But if you think the Republican Party is the answer, think again. Please acquaint yourself with a curious legal agreement that the GOP entered into with the Dems — the 1982 Consent Decree — in which the Republican Party agreed to neither contest nor combat voter fraud. See my post, Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud.”

See also “America’s Bipartisan Ruling Class vs. the People.

~Eowyn

The demon is coming out of Obama again

Four years ago in mid-October, less than 3 weeks before the mid-term elections of 2010, it wasn’t looking good for the Democrats. Indeed, that was the election in which the Republicans wrestled a House majority away from Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Demonrats.

In campaign rallies during the weekend of Oct. 15-16, 2010, Obama was angry.

More than angry, he was frightening looking — which was noted by Drudge Report as well as Rush Limbaugh, who said, “An American president has never had facial expressions like this. At least we’ve never seen photos of an American president with facial expressions like this.”

These were some of the pics taken of Obama in those 2010 rallies. Trust what your instincts tell you.

Flash forward four years to another mid-term election campaign rally.

As in the midterm elections of 2010, once again it’s not looking good for the Demonrats.

The pic below was taken of Obama when he spoke at a rally for Gov. Pat Quinn, D-Ill., at Chicago State University on Sunday, Oct. 19, 2014, in Chicago.

Look at his eyes!!! Trust what your instincts tell you.

evil angry ObamaAP Photo/Evan Vucci (Source: WOKV)

Here’s a close-up of those eyes.

evil angry Obama eyes Oct. 2014

I see anger, desperation, madness….

And behind those eyes, there’s nobody there.

Just emptiness. A vacuum.

Earlier that day, Obama was at a campaign rally in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for the gubernatorial campaign of Maryland lieutenant governor Anthony G. Brown, in which members of the audience walked out while the president of the United States of America was still speaking. (See “Mainly black crowd walks out on Obama at Democratic campaign rally“)

As in 2010, once again Obama’s mask — the narcissistic psychopath’s charming social mask — is slipping and what emerges sure ain’t pretty.

It’s unholy and demonic.

See also:

~Eowyn