Disconnect: While Trump Is Banned for Questioning Election, Obama Claims GOP Is ‘Rigging the Game’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by chayka1270 from Pixabay

Remember the charismatic, young African-American senator from Illinois who electrified crowds with his rhetoric, who called for a new kind of politics that would heal the United States? Unfortunately, the audacity of hope quickly devolved into the audacity of bitter partisanship and division following his historic victory.

The Honorable Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th President of the United States, spoke at an event sponsored by The Economic Club of Chicago on Friday where he sharply condemned the new voting reform laws passed recently in Georgia and Florida and currently under consideration in the state of Texas and elsewhere.

Republicans are “rigging the game,” Obama declared. “That’s the kind of dangerous behavior that we’re going to have to push back on.” (Time stamp: 31:42)

Addressing what he called the Jan. 6 “insurrection,” he said, “And you had one of the major American political parties not only fail to condemn some of that behavior, but embrace a patently false narrative about the election being stolen that is being still perpetuated and now that same major political party being willing to initiate legislative – you know – actions across the country – you know – where they’re saying we’re going to let partisan legislatures decide whether or not to certify an election, uh, and institute voter suppression measures directly targeted at cities in those states, so there’s a different set of rules for how votes are counted in Atlanta versus how they’re counted in the rest of Georgia.” (Time stamp: 30:30)

“I think the corporate community has a responsibility to at least call folks out on that. Because that transcends policy. …  Do the basic rules by which we all have agreed to keep this diverse, multiracial democracy functioning.” (Time stamp: 31:50)

“Are we going to stick to those rules or are we going to start rigging the game in a way that breaks it?,” he asked rhetorically? “And that’s not going to be good for business, not to mention not good for our soul.” (32:10)

 

 

Memo to Obama: What was “not good for our soul” was watching the chaos that ensued last November after Democrats changed the rules. Unprecedented numbers of absentee ballots overwhelmed the system resulting in major chain of custody issues in all of the swing states, providing a gaping opportunity for both voter and electoral fraud.

Regarding the Republicans’ failure to condemn the “behavior” on Jan. 6, my recollection is a bit different. To an almost nauseating degree, every Republication politician and pundit prefaced virtually every comment uttered about the Capitol riot with strong condemnation. It was as if they were required to issue a disclaimer before any discussion could begin.

The former president is gaslighting when he says that asking voters to show an ID is “rigging the game.” He and every other Democrat are well aware that if only legal votes had been counted, former President Donald Trump would have been reelected.

During an interview last week with New York City WABC 770 AM radio’s “The Cats Roundtable,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “The only reason you don’t want people to have a photo ID is that people can cheat. That’s the only rational answer as to why certain people want no photo ID requirements.”

In a Friday interview with The War Room’s Steve Bannon, Paxton claimed that, had his office not blocked several Texas counties from mailing out absentee ballots to every registered voter as they had planned, Biden would have won Texas in November.

“… [C]ertainly critical to my state and that’s why we fought off these twelve lawsuits. We had them in Houston, we had them in San Antonio, we had them in Austin, we had them in the counties where you’d have the most liberal judges,” Paxton told Bannon.

“And it was a concerted effort, nationally, with lots of money going into it, and just knowing that we had twelve lawsuits that we had to win, and if we lost one of them, like if we lost Harris County (home to Houston). Trump won by 620,000 votes in Texas. Harris County mail-in ballots that they wanted to send out were 2.5 million, those were all illegal and we were able to stop every one of them.”

“Had we not done that,” Paxton explained, “we would have been in the very same situation—we would’ve been on Election Day, I was watching on election night and I knew, when I saw what was happening in these other states, that that would’ve been Texas. We would’ve been in the same boat. We would’ve been one of those battleground states that they were counting votes in Harris County for three days and Donald Trump would’ve lost the election.”

 

 

There were too many “irregularities” in each of the swing states to count. Everyone knows that. Why else would the Democrats have fought tooth and nail to stop the forensic audit currently underway in Maricopa County, Arizona?

Now that what I call “audit fever” is starting to catch on in other swing states such as Georgia and Pennsylvania, liberal heads are exploding.

The bigger issue is the epic double standard between Democrats and Republicans. Based on the allegations made in over 1,000 sworn affidavits from poll watchers in all of the swing states, Trump questions the results of November election and so do the majority of Republicans. He is ridiculed by the press and has been banned from social media platforms.

Obama claims that by asking voters to show an ID in order to cast their vote, Republicans are trying to rig the next election. An adoring press agrees with him.

Voters around the world are asked to provide identification. I posted about voting requirements in other parts of the world on Friday here.

Identification is required for everything we do in today’s world. Why should our most sacred right as U.S. citizens be treated differently?

I know, because then Democrats can’t cheat. And if they can’t cheat, they won’t win.

Additionally, contrary to the left’s narrative, the legitimacy of the November 2020 election is not settled. In the same way that Democrats and the media worked feverishly to take the lab leak theory off the table in the early days of the pandemic, they’re trying to kill “The Big Lie” theory. It just may turn out to be “The Big Truth,” as I wrote about last week.

Please spare us your drama, Obama.

 

A previous version of this article was published by The Western Journal.

Straight Down the Leash

Advertisements

 

Photo Credit: Image by Merio from Pixabay

Ah yes, the coveted ‘day off’ – no labor in the garden plot of the fourth first, no books to balance, no yardwork and my new cat has just re-entered her daily, 22-hour period of slumber.

It’s “Richard Edward time” now; coffee and a slow, steady ingestion of the news, punctuated by quick trips to the fridge to steal another piece of my only culinary triumph; a home-marinade, grass-fed, dehydrated-in-my-very own-oven beef jerky. All while the fourth first is occupied on a call to her sister in Ukraine.

News intake routine activated? Yes. Initial news scan results? Yes, the news is as annoying today as it is on any other day – and as horrifyingly predictable … or is it predictably horrifying. One article in and I am already running from an avalanche of stupid.

Our friends at Fox News tell us that “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) led a group of her House Democratic colleagues in a letter to federal immigration officials demanding an overhaul of immigration policies and objecting to gang members in the country illegally being targeted for deportation.”

The group further posits that:

The lawmakers claim an interim enforcement memo issued by ICE “does not adequately protect the liberty interests of asylum seekers” and presumes an illegal migrant — including those convicted of aggravated felonies — to be a “border security and enforcement and removal priority.”

“It is well documented that law enforcement’s practices of labelling people as gang-involved is often faulty, based on arbitrary and racist factors, and not subject to due process,” the lawmakers claimed.

“We are in a moment of racial reckoning in this country, with communities across the country calling for an end to mass incarceration and racist policing,” the group continued. “It is time to end the carceral approach to immigration, which relies on these same flawed systems.”

What in the blazes? Dems don’t want illegal gang members to be deported? Did I read that right? Border patrol and ICE personnel aren’t capable of identifying the MS-13 gang tattoo on some illegal’s neck and forehead anymore? Is this insanity or some twisted ploy to distract from a more nefarious plot to destroy —

Mr. Narrator (interrupts): “Richard Edward you did read that ‘right’ and you read it correctly, too. The Squad and many other social justice Democrats are concerned that illegals who have been convicted of aggravated felonies are presumed, by DHS, to be a ‘border security and enforcement and removal priority’; a DHS priority that they opine is trampling all over those poor dear’s rights.”

Richard Edward: “This is crazy talk, reflecting crazy thinking. This isn’t difficult. Even I can determine the difference between a young, central American male covered in gang tattoos from one with crazy Nancy’s ‘spark of divinity’ on his face. Who is the leader of this particular social justice cult that is telling the American people that wrong is right, bad is good, hoodlums are choirboys, and that seasoned law enforcement officers only super-power is one that always ends in the mis-identification of ‘good’ criminal illegals for ‘bad’ criminal illegals?”

Mr. Narrator: “Think about if for a minute, Richard Edward. Think about the groupthink of those 35 Democrats and their rote quotation of their social justice catechism. What do you really hear? Where do you think it begins? How uniform does their litany seem to be and who may have trained these mongrels, the ones who howl at the moon of laws and righteousness? Use your knower, try hard to remember.”

Richard Edward: “Yes, I remember now. Back in the day I used to say I could match any of my squadron’s working dogs with their handlers by simply observing the handler’s behavior. I believed then, and still do, that the personality of the handler goes right down the leash! Tactical training is critical; but the subtle attitudes, approach and response to situations that complete the effectiveness and credibility of the unit start with the attitude and personality of the handler.”

Mr. Narrator: “I knew you’d remember Richard Edward! Now, think a little harder – who is the ‘handler’ for the social justice Democrats?  Who holds the leash? Who dictates the training? Who gives the commands? Who issues the talking points and sets the goals for the group? I’ll help you Richard Edward. It’s not AOC. She is a parrot and a mixologist, not a handler. Think further up the leash.”

Richard Edward: “It can’t be Joey Robinette, Mr. Narrator. He is far too muddled in his thinking to come up with such a preposterous perversion of professional policing and border control. Joey wouldn’t be able to hold even an incoherent thought long enough to come up with this kind of woke poop.”

Mr. Narrator: “I’ll give you one last hint, Richard Edward. It’s got to be someone with a more sinister thought process, someone who was trained year after year in the dark arts of Marxism, someone who embraces Cloward-Piven strategy as the ‘final solution’ to America’s wonderful culture and history’s best-ever living experiment. It’s someone who must still remember his Muslim roots, who believes that America owes the world an apology for its racist, colonial behavior and that an individual’s wealth is something to be re-distributed to those who didn’t labor to earn it.”

Richard Edward: “Okay, I get it. But how can Obama be the handler? He isn’t in office anymore.”

Mr. Narrator: “Richard Edward, you are so naïve. He has to do something while he waits for the ocean to rise and engulf his new house on Martha’s Vineyard. Don’t you remember, he (joked?) stated in an interview on the CBC how wonderful a third term would be if he could sit in his jammies in his basement and pull the strings of government to someone sitting in the White House, communicating via an earpiece? Why do you think Biden says he’ll be in trouble if he answers press questions? In trouble with who, perhaps his old boss?”

Richard Edward: “Okay, you are spot on. Look at Obama’s personality and his attitude towards America; then look at what Biden and the social justice Dems say and do. I was also correct. It goes right down the leash, after all.”

If you think that dozens of American legislators responding to a hidden handler’s commands can lead to a crisis, please leave a comment and let Mr. Narrator and Richard Edward know your thoughts.

—  Richard Edward Tracy

Throngs of Supporters Showed Up to Welcome Biden at First Stop of ‘Help is Here’ Tour

Advertisements

No, not really.

Biden arrived in Chester, Pennsylvania on Tuesday for the first stop on his “Help is Here” cross country tour to promote his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief plan. In the video below, a group of approximately 30-40 supporters are shown waiting for the President’s arrival.

Inexplicably, The New York Times’ Jonathan Martin reports that Democrats believe this stimulus package is going to be so “transformational” for so many Americans that even Republicans and Independents will flock to Democratic candidates in 2022.

Martin argues:

Triumphant over the signing of their far-reaching $1.9 trillion stimulus package, Democrats are now starting to angle for a major political payoff that would defy history: Picking up House and Senate seats in the 2022 midterm elections, even though the party in power usually loses in the midterms.

Democratic leaders are making one of the biggest electoral bets in years — that the stimulus will be so transformational for Americans across party lines and demographic groups that Democrats will be able to wield it as a political weapon next year in elections against Republicans, who voted en masse against the package.

Martin writes that Democrats are a bit worried because of their party’s results in the 2010 midterms. Prior to the election, they held the presidency and both chambers of Congress, as they do today. The Obama Administration had rammed through a $787 billion stimulus plan and Obamacare. Consequently, Democrats lost 63 seats and their majority in the House. While they still held the majority in the Senate, they lost six seats. The loss of control in the House prevented them from enacting the rest of their agenda – fortunately.

Anyway, it appears that Democrats have taken the wrong lesson from their 2010 experience and they’re moving full-steam ahead. Martin tells his readers that, “It has become an article of faith in the party that Obama’s presidency was diminished because his two signature accomplishments, the stimulus bill and the Affordable Care Act, were not expansive enough and their pitch to the public on the benefits of both measures was lacking. By this logic, Democrats began losing elections and the full control of the government, until now, because of their initial compromises with Republicans and insufficient salesmanship.”

Recently, Martin notes, President Biden discussed the 2009 Recovery Act with House Democrats and said, “We didn’t adequately explain what we had done. Barack was so modest, he didn’t want to take, as he said, a ‘victory lap.’ ”

If you say so Joe.

Americans understood precisely what they had done in both cases and didn’t like it. And Barack Obama was not exactly a shrinking violet. He also had a stable of surrogates who were happy to shill on his behalf.

I hope Democrats do run on it. Most voters won’t see it as they do. Americans aren’t going to be so happy to learn they’re now on the hook for the financial mismanagement of Democrat-run cities and states and union pension funds. Moreover, much of the spending from this boondoggle of a plan won’t even begin until 2022 or later.

Democrats, perhaps knowing they may lose (at least) the House next year, want to ram through as much of their agenda as they can before the midterms. They can still do a lot of damage without control of Congress.

If the scant showing of support in Chester, PA is any indication for their excitement over the relief plan, I’d say that Jonathan Martin is likely wrong and they may not want to remind people of this misguided, one party, piece of legislation in 2022.

Read Martin’s article here.

Obama: Although reparations are ‘justified,’ subject was a ‘nonstarter’ due to ‘politics of white resistance’

Advertisements

During a 2008 primary debate for the Democratic presidential nomination, the candidates were asked to discuss their positions on reparations.

Barack Obama replied, “I think the reparations we need right here in South Carolina is investment, for example, in our schools.” The crowd roared. “I did a town hall meeting in Florence, South Carolina, in an area called the ‘corridor of shame…'”

He described the dilapidated conditions of the buildings he’d seen and told his swooning audience there were corridors of shame all across the country and that his administration would right this wrong.

“That’s the kind of reparations that are really going to make a difference in America right now,” Obama said.

Well, that was then.

The former president is currently collaborating on a new Spotify podcast with long-time friend Bruce Springsteen. The name of the eight-part series is “Renegades: Born in the USA.”

The pair discussed reparations during an episode released on Monday. Contrary to the exemplary response which had drawn so much praise nearly thirteen years ago, he told “The Boss” he believes reparations are justified.

He never raised the issue of reparations during his presidency due to what he saw “as the politics of white resistance and resentment. The talk of ‘welfare queens’ and the talk of the ‘undeserving’ poor. And the backlash against affirmative action.”

“All that made the prospect of actually proposing any kind of coherent, meaningful reparations program struck me as, politically, not only a nonstarter but potentially counterproductive,” he said.

In Obama’s opinion, “There’s not much question that the wealth…the power of this country was built in significant part — not exclusively, maybe not even the majority of it, but a large portion of it — was built on the backs of slaves.”

Later in their discussion, he said “it’s perfectly understandable why working-class white folks, middle-class white folks, folks who are having trouble paying the bills or dealing with student loans, wouldn’t be too thrilled” with the idea of “a massive program that is designed to deal with the past but isn’t speaking to their future.”

Rather than healing the racial divide in America, the first black U.S. president actually drew attention to racial tensions in the country and, in my opinion, magnified them.

Then, circa 2016, when Democrats learned that the label “racist” could be so useful in denigrating  not only President Donald Trump, but most Republicans, systemic racism suddenly took center stage in U.S. politics.

Racism, of course, is present in America, as it is in every society. But the truth is, the opportunities for minorities in America are greater than in any other country on the planet. If that weren’t so, why would so many people want to live here?

Elizabeth is the founder and editor of The American Crisis. She is also a contract writer at The Western Journal and a previous contributor to RedState, The Dan Bongino Show, and The Federalist. Her articles have appeared on HotAir, Instapundit, RealClearPolitics, MSN and other sites. Elizabeth is a wife, a mom to three grown children and several beloved golden retrievers, and a grandmother!