BARREL, this video of Steve Jobs says it all. Steve speaks from beyond the veil of death to us. He really describes what POTUS Trump is doing and Steve says to the democrats and equally to the republicans where their focus ought to be if they are to be relevant in this world.
So everybody chill out and take a good look at what Steve says and how he responds to an insult and overlay this on the current approach of so many people in dealing with and misunderstanding POTUS Trump.
BARREL, all POTUS TRUMP and FLOTUS TRUMP are saying to the naysayer critics in both parties, including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, as well to any who are obvious communists and socialists, as well to all of the media, Hannity, Carlson, Maddow, CNN anchors, MSNBC anchors, Fox News anchors, Drudge, Breitbart, WSJ, New York Times, Infowars, the list goes on and on, all POTUS TRUMP and FLOTUS TRUMP are saying is:
“HELP US AMERICANS BE FREE, SAFE, AND PROSPEROUS OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!”
BARREL, are you interested in voting for Joe Biden? No, PORK. I have 103 reasons not to.
Then BARREL, who has a chance of beating POTUS Trump in 2020?
PORK, I follow the news regularly – Fox, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Drudge, Breitbart, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., and I have no interest whatsoever in voting for Joe.
I find the following negatives about Joe in the news in one form or another:
1. Joe is a gaffe disaster waiting to happen. His 1973 full audio has shown up with his “politicians are more virtuous than doctors,” his slavery joke, his woman joke, his self-praise repeatedly, his admission that he is a “phony liberal.”
2. He’s a career federal government politician.
3. Amy Lappos, the congressional aide accused him of inappropriately touching her.
4. He’s ancient.
5. Anita Hill sexual harassment inquisition on his watch was a debacle.
6. He apologizes for mishandling things thereby admitting he mishandled things.
7. His apologies are too little too late.
8. Biden’s brother and the $1.5 billion government contract conflict of interest looms large.
9. Biden’s son, Hunter, joining the board of the Ukrainian gas producer conflict of interest looms way too large.
10. Biden’s son Hunter’s with the $billion from China intersects Joe’s political office conflict of interest according to Peter Sweizer.
11. He is big on paid speaking gigs.
12. He bragged about his role in policies that have devastated black communities.
13. Caitlyn Caruso is on record that he inappropriately touched her.
14. He can’t keep his hands off young girls.
15. His China conflicts are fatal.
16. He claimed he was a civil rights activist when he wasn’t.
17. Now he’s tied to a climate plan plagiarism “scandal.”
18. He had to know and thus was complicit in FISA surveillance of POTUS Trump. One news note says his National Security Advisor was present in the Oval office with Obama so Joe could be kept up to speed when the Russian narrative and surveillance and “take down of Trump” was discussed and furthered. From Isikoff and Corn new book: Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, chaired the principals meeting, which the authors write included Kahl, who served as Biden’s national security adviser from October 2014 to January 2017. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/06/book-joe-bidens-national-security-advisor-participated-in-secretive-early-russia-probe-meetings/
19. Joe was complicit in all of Obama’s failed policies. E.g. the health care debacle – the you can keep your own provider prevarication.
20. He apparently unsuccessfully considered running for president five times.
21. He carries the name Creepy Uncle Joe.
22. Creepy is a hard name to live down.
23. D.J. Hill is another woman who is on record accusing him.
24. He packs decades of old school negative political baggage.
25. He can’t point to anything of real value he did while he was Vice President – before or after.
26. He failed in his run for President in 1984.
27. He failed in his run for President in 1988.
28. He failed in his run for President in 2008.
29. The party just did not rise to the occasion and support him which tells me when push finally comes to shove Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and the rest of the DNC and the party won’t do so this time either.
30. He now pushes the false narrative that he is “the most progressive candidate” which he is not.
31. Per Peter Sweizer, he is really just focused on money making ventures.
32. He can’t help drain the swamp and get rid of corruption in Washington because he is the inside player who is up to his elbows in the swamp of corruption in Washington.
33. He can’t fix the mess in Washington because he is the personification of the mess in Washington.
34. He can’t run on Obama’s legacy because Obama thinly if at all endorses him and besides Obama has a highly questionable legacy.
35. He failed relative to Iraq.
36. He failed relative to Libya Ben Ghazi.
37. One news account says he helped give us ISIS.
38. He did indeed given the fact that he helped Obama give the Iranians billions which they use to fund their military and fight us by sponsoring terrorism.
39. He is a repeat of the H. Clinton debacle.
40. He is an Iraq hawk guilty of spending trillions of our money down the middle east military industrial complex rat hole.
41. He is in the banking industry pockets.
42. He is old.
43. He is the Bill Clinton look alike although without the cigar.
44. He is the Democratic party run by and for white men.
45. He is the Hillary Clinton failed candidate.
46. He is the worst candidate for democrats.
47. He is too little too late when it comes to reinventing himself.
48. He keeps showing us pictures of himself when he was young as though he wants us to think of him as young when he is not.
49. He is uniquely ill-suited as a leader.
50. All this again because he symbolizes the old Democratic party.
51. One news source says he’s just another buckraker like the Clintons.
52. His contrived “will-he-won’t-he” announcement was a joke.
53. Again, his last presidential campaign crashed and burned.
54. His presidential campaign before that crashed and burned.
55. His promises are not worth much. Just look at:
56. His record on abortion – flip flopper – now he’s against – now he’s for – after criticism from Planned Parenthood — whatever will tease a vote.
57. His record on busing
58. His record on Blacks and civil liberties
59. His record on immigration
60. His record on mass incarceration
61. His record on war
62. He is the inappropriate touching Presidential candidate.
63. He is the insider veteran who is part of the problem not part of the solution.
64. He is the kissed senator’s teenage daughter on side of head
candidate who says I won’t do it again.
65. He misused his office by leaning on the Ukrainians to fire their top prosecutor just as their top prosecutor was set to investigate the gas company which included his son Hunter.
66. Lucy Flores is on record accusing him.
67. Through the years he has moaned about government spending yet has done nothing to curb it.
68. He can’t point to his past and say “I am a statesman.”
69. In fact, he has a muddy past.
70. He has a murky past.
71. He carries no future media $ value to Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Drudge, Breitbart, Infowars while POTUS Trump for or against is worth billions and billions to them.
72. He is not a fresh face.
73. He is not a reformer.
74. He simply is not inspiring.
75. He was not especially popular during Obama’s time in office.
76. He is one of the oldest candidates.
77. He is one of the worst candidates.
78. He is part of the deep establishment state.
79. He is that quintessential professional politician.
80. He has a questionable endorsement from Obama.
81. He is ridiculed for his many gaffes.
82. He is ridiculed for his political I’m going to beat Trump up machismo.
83. He is an out of touch with reality senior citizen.
84. He is a stereotypical old school Democrat.
85. There is nothing extraordinary about his career.
86. His Ukrainian conflicts are fatal.
87. His Chinese conflicts are fatal.
88. He is Uncle Joe.
89. He is uniquely ill-suited as a leader.
90. He used his office to enrich himself and his family.
91. He voted for NAFTA.
92. He voted for Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which put an inordinate number of people of color in jails for drug-related offenses.
93. He voted to support the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq in 2002 that cost America untold treasure.
94. His voting record is discriminatory
95. He is best known for whispering in the ear of a senator’s teenage daughter.
96. It looks like he may be in bed with the DNC which is again seeking to marginalize Bernie.
97. He has no capacity to go toe to toe with the young candidates.
98. He has little capacity to keep us free.
99. He has little capacity to help keep us safe.
100. He has little capacity to help us be prosperous.
101. He is running on the tired, worn out, negative, wasteful Schumer and Pelosi platform of bashing POTUS Trump.
102. His thought about mediating between republicans and democrats and “calming the nation” is eyewash.
103. PORK, these above thoughts are the messages I am finding over and over in the media. I suppose you can argue “fake news.” I suppose you can argue “not true.” Regardless of true or false enough of them are true. Besides:
104. Joe has no chance of beating POTUS Trump because POTUS Trump is one of the few presidents who has kept his campaign promises. POTUS Trump has kept more than 300 of his campaign promises and it looks like POTUS Trump will even make serious progress on the wall despite the fact that the democrats have withheld funding and support for the wall.
105. My conclusion, PORK, is this.
106. Joe has no chance of beating POTUS Trump because Joe can’t point to one positive promise he has kept over his long career that helps us be free, safe, and prosperous today.
107. He has no chance of beating POTUS Trump because the media is making billions of dollars if not trillions collectively off the POTUS Trump gravy train. And they will continue to do so after POTUS Trump is reelected.
108. A number of these same thoughts apply to Bernie
as well.
109. BARREL, who then among democrats can beat POTUS Trump in 2020, BARREL?
110. Well, I’m not certain anyone can. But let’s at least look at the others in the democrat field.
111. PORK. I will narrow the field to my four picks.
112. I think the democrats need to take a hard look at Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Jay Inslee, and Amy Klobuchar not in that order.
113. And of the four, BARREL?
114. I think the democrats will be well advised to field Jay Inslee for President with Amy Klobuchar or Julian Castro as Vice President.
PORK, it is my conclusion that Christine Blasey Ford is a consummate liar and that her story is a calculated, fabricated effort to take down Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a man with an unblemished record.
After 36 years, did she “remember” and claim that she drank only “one beer?” Yes. Could she remember the day of her alleged polygraph even though it was a couple of weeks earlier on her grandmother’s birthday? No.
After 36 years, did she “remember” music was playing in the room where allegedly she was assaulted? Yes.
Can she show us the house on a map? No.
Can she tell us how many people were there at the house? No.
Can she tell us how old she was? No. She said 17. Then she said 15.
Can she tell us how she got home? No.
Can she tell us the address where the alleged assault took place? No.
Can she tell us the date of the alleged party? No.
Can she tell us the month the alleged party happened? No.
Can she tell us the place? No.
Can she tell us the year the alleged assault took place? No.
Can she tell us who drove her home? No.
Can she tell us who drove her to the alleged party? No.
Can she tell us who owned the house the alleged party was in? No. Can she drive us to the house? No. Can she tell us the color of the house or the landscaping? No.
Can she tell us how many persons were in the room where she was allegedly assaulted? No. First it was 4 and then 2.
Did she leave who her parents and brothers are off from her Wikipedia site? Yes.
Did she admit that she was drinking at the alleged party? Yes.
Did she explain why she is alleged in yearbooks and internet sites to have been a serious alcohol drinker during high school? No. Did she address whether she is currently an alcoholic? No.
Did she explain to us why she is a liberal activist? No.
Did she explain to us why she is anti-Trump? No.
Did she explain to us why she is alleged to have written the words “Scalia-types must be banned from law” on her Facebook page in 2016? No.
Did she explain to us why she is alleged to be portrayed in Holton Arms yearbooks as a binge drinker and a promiscuous wild party girl with multiple partners, as many as 54, during high school to college? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that she asked that the letter not be disclosed and then personally disclosed the letter? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that she colluded with Senator Feinstein and or her staff to create and leak the letter? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that her father Ralph Blasey II worked and still works for the CIA? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that her father Ralph Blasey II was vice president for the National Savings and Trust “black budget bank” known for funding CIA deep state operations? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that her grandfather was a key figure in the CIA? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that she heads up the CIA undergraduate internship program at Stanford University? No.
Did she explain why she has now raised $750,000 off her story when her attorneys are allegedly working pro bono and travel at most costs a few thousand dollars? No. And did she explain that she is or soon will be a millionaire because she “came forward” like Anita Hill who became a millionaire writing books for Doubleday? No. And did she explain why her attorneys are now being investigated? No.
Did she explain why there are at least 14 serious errors in the letter she claims to have written, errors no PhD would make, errors that would be made by an inexperienced writer, perhaps an inexperienced writer from another country, or an old person of another generation like Senator Feinstein? No.
Did she state that she left the alleged party without telling anyone there were two rapists in the building? Yes.
Did she lie about being afraid to fly? Yes.
Did she fly long distances for vacations yet use the excuse of fear of flying to put off the hearing and buy the democrats added time? Yes.
Did she or her accomplices diligently try to scrub the internet of anything incriminating about her binge drinking and promiscuity as a teen? Yes.
Did she reveal her alleged harm to democrats only? Yes. Did she explain why she did not go to the police at any point? No.
Did she reveal herself to the anti-Trump Washington Post? Yes.
Did she state that she came forward because she saw Judge Kavanaugh’s name on POTUS Trump’s list? Yes.
Was Judge Kavanaugh’s name on POTUS Trump’s list at the time she alleges? No. It was added later so she would not have seen it and thus lied about it.
So did she lie about the reason she came forward? Yes.
Did she tell anyone at the time of the alleged incident? No.
Did she tell anyone there were two “rapists” in the house? No.
Did she tell her brothers? She says not
Did she tell her father? She says not.
Did she tell her mother? She says not.
Did she tell us why it is alleged that her brother Ralph Blasey III worked for the International Law Firm of … Baker Hostetler; the firm that created FusionGPS, the company that wrote the infamous “Russia Dossier”? No.
Did she tell us who her brothers are and what they do for a living and what they did when she was in high school? No. Did she tell us how many times her brothers drove her to parties or other places? No. Did she tell us her brothers’ involvement in such parties? No.
Did she tell us who her father is? No.
Did she tell us who her mother is? No.
Did she turn over her therapist notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee? No.
Did she withhold essential details about the alleged polygraph? Yes.
Does any person she lists as being at the alleged party confirm her story? No.
Does any witness from anywhere in the world corroborate any element of her story? No.
Does her life-friend support or deny her story? Denies.
Is her “little girl voice” demeanor during her testimony credible? No.
Is her lack of emotion during her testimony credible? No.
Is her polygraph uncorroborated and as such is it worthless? Yes. Does she tell us who ordered her polygraph? No.
Is her Safeway reference credible? No.
Is her slight show of emotion during her testimony credible? No.
Is her tucking of the head demeanor and tongue pushing during her testimony indicative that she was and is not credible? Yes.
Is she specific after 36 years that she locked herself in the bathroom? Yes. Has she explained why the two “rapists” did not follow her? No.
Is she an accomplice and shill of the far left? Yes.
Was she raped? No. Was she assaulted? May have been but it wasn’t by Brett Kavanaugh.
If she was Holton Arms High School promiscuous during her teenage years as alleged in immense detail in “her” school yearbooks, does this negate her alleged assault and attempted rape story completely? Yes. Has she explained the “erotic” details about Holton Arms High School girls alcohol binges to blackout and multiple sex partners and break beach parties/black out orgies even involving older men? No. Has she explained why two other men have come forward to say they assaulted her? No.
If she is tied to the CIA and the law firm that created the infamous “dossier” and the Clintons in multiple ways as alleged (Judge Kavanaugh called out the Clintons), if she colluded with the democrats as is apparent from the Kavanaugh Ford hearing, if she colluded with Senator Feinstein (who went out of her way to set herself apart with plausible denability, yet Senator Feinstein duplicitously withheld the alleged Ford letter from Senator Grassley and the committee, thereby obstructing justice, and if she colluded with Senator Feinstein’s staff, does even a fraction of such conduct negate her story that she was assaulted, that two men attempted to rape her? Yes.
Did she collude with others including Senator Feinstein, whose attempt at plausible deniability was blatant and whose intent and conduct was to obstruct justice, and did Mrs. Ford collude with Senator Feinstein’s staff, and others she refers to as friends in California? Yes.
Did she fabricate her story about Judge Kavanaugh? Yes.
Is she responsible for the trauma caused to Judge Kavanaugh and his family including daughters and wife and others? Yes.
What happens now? Wait and see what the FBI reports and applaud Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation by the Senate in the next few days. Although Mrs. Ford may have been assaulted sometime in the past, there is no corroborating evidence whatsoever that Christine Ford was assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh.
