Tag Archives: Reince Priebus

Beware of Obama, the wounded vengeful narcissist

Politics and show business attract narcissists because they feed on the adulation of crowds like vampires feed on blood.

Many politicians are not just narcissists, they are high-functioning psychopaths — charming and glib, amoral users of people, remorseless, and utterly devoid of a moral compass or conscience. In other words, their narcissism is not just excessive self-love and grandiosity, it is malignant. And psychiatrists tell us malignant narcissists have “a tendency to destroy everything that is good.”

It now should be commonplace knowledge that Obama is a narcissist and a psychopath. In 2008, millions of Americans and people across the world fell for his sorcery and, oh, how he drank in their adulation. Remember this?

July 24, 2008, Berlin, Germany

July 24, 2008, Berlin, Germany

(Side note: Obama’s homosexuality is also a source of his narcissism. Psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons , a consultant to the Vatican Congregation for Clergy and a leading expert with more than 35 years of clinical experience treating homosexual priests, said that “Narcissism — a personality disorder in which an insatiable need for admiration often leads to attention-seeking behavior — is prevalent among men who struggle with homosexuality.” See “Joan Rivers: We all know Obama is gay and Michelle is a tranny“, “Mom of Murdered Obama Gay Lover Speaks Up“, and “Washington Insider: Obama Member of Chicago Gay Man’s Club“)

When experiencing a severe setback (“narcissistic injury”), garden-variety narcissists retreat from the world into a depression. After the narcissist has licked his wounds, he typically emerges from his retreat with his narcissism redoubled.

Malignant narcissists, however, go into a rage that psychiatrists appropriately call “narcissistic rage.” Nursing their wounded pride, malignant narcissists seek revenge — to punish those who refuse to recognize his superiority and reject his wonderfulness.

The warnings are already out there.

evil angry ObamaObama was already scary angry when he campaigned for Pat Quinn in Chicago on Oct. 19. Imagine his frightening rage now.

Writing for the Washington Examiner a day before the November 4 midterm elections that delivered a resounding rebuke of Obama and the Democratic Party (see “2014 Midterm Election Final Results“), Philip Klein warns:

“No matter what the exact outcome of Tuesday’s elections, there is little doubt that President Obama will come out of it wounded. [...]  Obama will be a lame duck president. Voters will have rebuked him and his policies. [...]

But being a lame duck president isn’t the same as being without power. [...] If there were anything holding him back up to this point, it was either that he was facing re-election or he was somewhat hesitant to weaken Democratic chances in an election year that would determine the composition of Congress during his last two years in office.

But his name won’t be on the ballot in 2016 and he won’t have to deal with the Congress that gets elected that year, either. This means he has every reason to take more aggressive executive actions.”

For his part, writing for The Washington Times a day after the midterm elections, Charles Hurt warns:

America now enters the two most dangerous years of her existence — or certainly the most dangerous since the Great Depression and possibly going all the way back to the Civil War. [...]

Voters clearly and forcefully rejected the party, politics and policies of President Obama. They slapped his socialist agenda back into the days of Soviet gulags, where it belongs.

His grand visions of mighty government ruling unchecked over desperate ghettos have been snuffed out. [...]

And this is where things get very, very dangerous for America. President Obama still has two more years left in his final term.

Already, he has demonstrated again and again that he has no regard for the constitution or the legitimacy of laws when they do not suit his agenda. He flaunts his disregard for the constitutional process, dismisses laws he doesn’t like and rewrites others.

He mocks the powers of Congress. The Supreme Court has slapped him down more than any president in recent times. All of this as he tells us he is an expert on constitutional law.

Now come his very explicit threats to pass more illegal and unconstitutional presidential edicts to grant amnesty to illegal aliens already in the United States. This, in turn, will issue invitations for millions more illegals to come streaming across the border.

It will not end at immigration. Unchecked power is addictive.

Disowned by Democrats and made to feel irrelevant in this election, President Obama’s enormous and unjustified ego is deeply wounded. He is frustrated and feels caged, cornered. This is when people like him are most dangerous.

Buoyant Republicans will make an effort to engage him.

But President Obama is not a listener. He is not a negotiator. He is not a learner. He will just take what he wants. It is easier that way.

Even before Americans went to our voting booths and gave the Republican Party control of both houses of Congress, there were already warnings that Obama plans to unleash millions of green cards on those who are here illegally.

Matthew Boyle reports for Breitbart, Nov. 3, 2014, that top sheriffs from across the country warn that if Obama succeeds with his plans for an executive amnesty – that is amnesty via a presidential executive order — there will be a flood of new illegal immigration into America the likes of which this country has never seen before.

Pinal County Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu said in a statement provided to Breitbart News, “We already have our hands full because the border is not secure: imagine what the situation will look like when the President gives executive amnesty to those already here. It would unleash a tidal wave of illegal border crossings, overwhelming law enforcement. It will be open season for the cartels. Again: the border is not secure now – to give a presidential amnesty would be to make matters dramatically worse for our officers who are trying to do the job the President won’t.”

Maryland’s Frederick County sheriff Chuck Jenkins said that Obama’s planned executive amnesty will turn every county in America into a border county: “In my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, every county in America will become a border county. What we’re going to see from the President’s action is not only the cost to healthcare, social programs, and education, but the increase in criminals coming into our country. You’re going to see increases in crime, infiltration from transnational gangs, the drug trade and human trafficking.”

Sheriff Sam Page of North Carolina’s Rockingham County said America should prepare for a “surge” of illegal immigration—and the criminal activity that comes with it.

Hidalgo County, Texas, sheriff Eddie Guerra said America should prepare for a “terrible situation” if Obama succeeds in his plans:

“We are going to see what I’m seeing here on the border in larger and large numbers, which is a huge increase in illegal immigration coming across our border. An amnesty order is going to create more people an incentive to come into the US. The drug cartel will exploit any opportunity to come into the United States, and this will create the cover for them to continue exploiting our porous border. This will create the opportunity for kidnapping, trafficking, sexual abuse, prostitution, and smuggling. These smugglers have no regard for human life. They destroy private property. They have no respect for law enforcement. They circumvent US checkpoints.”

Sheriff Tom Hodgson of Bristol County, Massachusetts, said even states as far away from the border as his Bay State are not safe: “It will dramatically increase the draw for illegal immigrants to come into our country, because you have the President of the United States sending out a message that we have no problem with people ignoring our immigration laws…. It is the worst message you can possibly send. Come in, don’t worry about the laws, don’t wait your turn. You invite people to ignore our laws. We have no knowledge of these individuals’ background or criminal histories. We have minors coming in right now who have confessed to murder. We in these communities are left trying to find out: who are these people? If didn’t learn anything else post-9/11, it’s that we need to know who is in our communities and what they’re purpose is. The President’s planned order is a formula for national disaster and public safety. When the President of the United States is sending a message that he’s not concerned with lawbreaking, those words are the beginning of the destruction of our democracy.

Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Reince Priebus, in a recent interview with Breitbart News and tele-town hall with TheTeaParty.net, promised Americans that if we deliver the Senate Majority to the GOP then Republicans will stop Obama’s planned executive amnesty:

“While I can’t speak for the legislature, I’m very confident we will stop that. We will do everything we can to make sure it doesn’t happen: Defunding, going to court, injunction. You name it. It’s wrong. It’s illegal. And for so many reasons, and just the basic fabric of this country, we can’t allow it to happen and we won’t let it happen. I don’t know how to be any stronger than that. I’m telling you, everything we can do to stop it we will.”

Mr. Priebus and the Republican Party, we are holding you to your promise.

UPDATE:

From The Daily Mail, Oct. 5, 2014:

Just 14 hours after a Republican wave swept over the U.S. Congress in an election that largely repudiated his policies, Obama came out swinging on Wednesday, threatening to veto Congress’s bills and hinting at executive orders that will enrage conservatives. He said, “Congress will pass some bills I cannot sign. I’m pretty sure I’ll take some actions that some in Congress will not like.”

Like the narcissist he is, Obama framed the midterm election results as a mandate for Republicans to work with him, instead of the other way around.

At a press conference today, Obama was also very rude and dismissive toward National Journal reporter Major Garrett during his press conference. He said to Garrett, “I’d rather hear it from them than from you. Major, you know, uh… conceivably I could cancel my meeting on Friday because I’ve heard everything from you.”

~Eowyn

Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud

Friends and Patriots,

It’s major duct tape time ’cause you’ll need it to keep your head from exploding.

Are you ready for this?

Here we go….

There is now compelling and undeniable evidence that MAJOR vote fraud had been perpetrated in the November 2012 Election. See FOTM’s posts chronicling the extensive pervasive fraud by going to our “2012 Election” page below our FOTM masthead, and click on those post links colored dark green.

But our screaming and hollering are to no avail. No one is listening to us. Not even the Republican Party.

Here’s why….

The Republican Party made an agreement 30 years ago with the Democrat Party NOT to ensure voting integrity and NOT to pursue suspected vote fraud.

Yes. You read it correctly.

In fact, legally the GOP cannot ensure voting integrity, nor can it prevent vote fraud.

Here’s the astounding reason, which is kept from the American people.

PolitiJim writes for Gulag Bound, November 13, 2012, that during the weekly True the Vote webcast, Catherine Engelbrecht (see her photo below) related a meeting she had with Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), asking what the GOP would do about voter integrity.  The answer?

Nothing.  They aren’t legally able to.

True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht (read more about her, here)

This all goes back to a lawsuit 31 years ago, in 1981. The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.

In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).

The lawsuit alleged that:

  • The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.
  • The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.
  • The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.

To settle the lawsuit, in 1982 — while Ronald Reagan was President (1981-1989) — the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:

[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:

(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;

(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;

(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;

(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.

The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”

As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”

Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back yearly for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year.

U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise

In 2010, the RNC unsuccessfully appealed “to vacate or modify” the Consent Decree in “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615 (C.A. 3, Mar. 8, 2012). (I paid The Judicial Review $10 for the PDF of Case No. 09-4615 and uploaded the 59-page document to FOTM’s media library. To read Case No. 09-4615, click here!)

This is a summary of the appeals judge’s ruling, filed on March 8, 2012:

In 1982, the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) entered into a consent decree (the “Decree” or “Consent Decree”), which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The RNC appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying, in part, the RNC’s Motion to Vacate or Modify the Consent Decree. Although the District Court declined to vacate the Decree, it did make modifications to the Decree. The RNC argues that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying the Decree as it did and by declining to vacate the Decree. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Surprise! The judge who denied the RNC’s appeal to “vacate” the 1982 Consent Decree is an Obama appointee, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit

Guy Benson of Townhall.com points out that in last Tuesday’s election, Obama only won by 406,348 votes in 4 states:

  • Florida: 73,858
  • Ohio: 103,481
  • Virginia: 115,910
  • Colorado: 113,099

Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a substantial margin, all of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had experienced  problems with voting machines.

This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud. Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely silent about it.

Now you know why.

I’ll leave you with one last, even more disturbing thought:

The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in 1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined.

The Democrat Party knew this 30 years ago, more than enough time to put a plan in place to identify and groom their “perfect candidate” — in the words of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2008, a “light-skinned” black Democrat who has “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”

  • Being a black Democrat, this perfect candidate would get the support of almost all black Americans (96% in 2008!) and other racial minorities (two-thirds of Hispanics in 2008).
  • Being a “light-skinned” black with “no Negro dialect”, this perfect candidate would get the support of white Americans perpetually guilt-ridden about America’s original sin of slavery.

It doesn’t matter if this “perfect candidate” has dubious Constitutional eligibility to be president. They would see to it that his original birth certificate (if there is one) would never see the light of day. The same with his other documents — his passports, school and college records, draft registration, and medical records (so we’ll never know why Obama has that very long scar running from one side of his head, over the crown, to the other side).

Now, we understand the significance of the account Tom Fife wrote during the 2008 presidential campaign. Fife, a U.S. government contractor, claims that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.

Now, we finally understand the cryptic remark made in May 2010, by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan: “Obama was selected before he was elected.”

In 2008, this “perfect candidate” won the presidential election. And despite his many failures in his first term, he would be reelected in 2012 for a second term via massive vote fraud. But nothing would be done about the vote fraud, because of that Consent Decree signed by the RNC 30 years ago.

The Republican Party is dead — and with it, the U.S. two-party system as well — and the sooner we voters recognize that the better.

The question that remains is whether the American Republic is also dead.

UPDATE (Nov. 16, 2012):

Since I published this post yesterday, we’ve been asking each other: “What can I/we do about this?” Here are my suggestions:

1. If you are a registered Republican, QUIT! Switch your voter registration ID to non-partisan Independent.

2. Stop donating money, not even one penny, to the GOP. Tell them why.

3. Spread the word. Please send the URL of this post (http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/) to:

  • EVERYONE on your email list.
  • Media people for whom you have email addresses.
  • Tea Party groups you know.
  • Post the link on your Facebook page.
  • Post the link as your comment on websites and blogs you visit.

4. Write your state’s attorney general and ask him/her to investigate vote fraud in your state. Click here!

UPDATE (Nov. 21, 2012):

5 days after I’d published this and 7 days after PolitiJim of GulagBound published his acount, someone in the conservative establishment media is writing about this — WND’s Bob Unruh. Click here for his article, “GOP Legally Barred From Fighting Vote Fraud”. But it’s still the sound of crickets from conservative talk radio, even though I’ve sent my post to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and a reader had also sent it to Mark Levin.

Just so you know: It makes no monetary difference to us how many people read this post. Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM) is an ad-free blog. We don’t make even a penny in revenue because we deliberately don’t have ads. In fact, I paid WordPress a $99 annual fee so WordPress can’t insert ads on FOTM either. All of our writers work our butts off, for no pay, as a labor of love for our country.

~Eowyn