Introduction: Remember When I Posted the Article From Psychology Today Claiming the Conservatives are Lacking in Intelligence?
Two months ago, I authored an article titled "Article from 'Psychology Today' Suggests and Supports the Claim that Racism and Conservatism Lead to Low Intelligence" in response to an editorial authored by Dr. Goal Auzeen Saedi in the online publication Psychology Today titled "Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?" where the good psycho-analyst declares in rather elaborate-yet fallacious details how conservatives tend to be racists, that we are lacking in intelligence and therefore have lower I.Q.s than those who are liberals. Upon reading this article, I found it greatly ironic how Dr. Saedi perpetuated a generalization in the form of a stereotype. Why I found this to be an irony is because the Left claims to be the political ideology of tolerance and acceptance for all walks of life. As you know what I love to say when I find something a liberal says to be erroneous and fully of fallacy, "You and I know better." Apparently, though, it is fine for the Left to discriminate against Christians and Jews; those who believe in the Second Amendment and seek to vote accordingly; and lastly, those who identify with the righteous idea of the sanctity of life and fight against the evil institution of abortion that has led to 50 million or so deaths to unborn children, and the genocide of 1.5 billion worldwide since World War II. If humanitarianism is a characteristic of a low I.Q., I will go on record as saying that I will gladly accept the designation of being a "a dumb ass."
As I stated, conservative-libertarians such as you and I are Nature's victims of a low I.Q. To dare question the logic of these demagogues in society located in the press, Hollywood, and in local, state, and federal governments will result in social and public ostracism. The Left in our federalized-form of government has succeeded in trickling down its influence through public policies regulating every facet of the medical community. No longer are doctors and nurses free and unfettered to adhere to the sacred Hippocratic Oath to which they are sworn upon graduation from medical school; they are now bound to the omnipotence and supremacy of the federal government in diagnosing and prescribing the proper treatment for their patients. We have seen this through decades of creating federal and state bureaus and socialized programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and now the ominous Obama Care sure to create more chaos through massive job layoffs and the controversial "death panels," thus taking the decision of what course doctors feel should be the fashion in which a patient should be treated for his or her maladies out of the hands of the medical professionals. Let us not forget, either, that the decision of what doctor a patient wishes to treat him or her belongs to the government and not the patient.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called for all Americans to celebrate July 4th, just three short days ago, as the holiday for independence, not for the foundation our great nation 237 years ago, but in health independence. But what independence do the people gain from Obama Care? It is a form of taxation, according to Chief Justice John Roberts, and thus this was how he justified it as constitutional. However, perhaps the greatest Chief Justice in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Marshall, stated the following (Courtesy of FEE):
“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create….”The article from which I found this quote (which I actually knew for years, but not the exact wording) was authored by Clarence B. Carson on October 1, 1976. He continues his analysis of the ruling by stating the following:
- That a power to create implies a power to preserve.
- That a power to destroy, if wielded by a different hand, is hostile to, and incompatible with, these powers to create and preserve.
- That where this repugnancy exists, that authority which is supreme must control, not yield to that over which it is supreme….
The article is fascinating, but I suspect that I probably runs afoul with the Left in America.
As I have done so often, I will once again quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract, which states one of the most frightening paragraphs in the history of political philosophy:
In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimises civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses.
Does the social compact we form with our government upon electing our public officials mean that we give ourselves to our country and thus secure ourselves against all personal dependence? I think not. Ronald Reagan stated in his first inaugural speech on January 20, 1981, "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government IS problem." In stating his disdain for the Tea Party, which promulgates its desires based upon the principles of our nation's founding, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) referred to the conservative-libertarian interest group as "anarchists." While I will willingly acknowledge that there is a need for government, for there is an inherent tendency within men and women to take an inch someone gives and push it a mile, anarchy is actually preferable and more just than the form of government the Left is slowly creating today. If that desire for independence is a sign of a low I.Q., again, I will gladly accept the generalized stereotype bestowed upon me by the Left-dominated society at large.
Is President Obama Mentally Unstable?
As I have been reading the online conservative publication aptly-titled Mr. Conservative, I find that it not only gives a candid account of the issues facing America today from a conservative perspective, but does so through a saucy, humorous lense. In today's article published at 7:49 PM EST, the site posted a most humorous and equally-ironic article much like the one I discussed posted in Psychology Today, and yet it is so complete different in the level of its quixotic zeal as it is supportive of the conservative-libertarian plight. The title of the article, "Is Barack Obama Mentally Unstable?", speaks volumes for what so many of us have desired to see in printed format. A conservative publication, unlike so many others of greater notoriety, dared to use medical science in order to attack the president, a practice that, like the article and the psycho-therapist author Dr. Saedi in Psychology Today, is traditionally associated as the Left's practice to embarrass and humiliate the Right. For years, conservatives have been decried as "dumb," "dunces," and now according to Sen. Reid, "anarchists"; even Ronald Reagan was not immune to this, and he even had to suffer through the indignity of being referred to as "senile." But as you and I know that I love to say when we see the fallacy in the Left's logic and rhetoric, "You and I know better." President Reagan had the audacity to act the part of the salmon who swim upstream, many of whom to their deaths, in order to complete their natural migration for the ocean to their destiny, and upon delivering his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 11, 1989, he declared that the people who sought to limit government and voted according not only changed the nation, but also the world.
You may watch his eloquently-delivered address to the nation in the video below:
He dared to dream, and because of that, he was ostracized by the Left in the form of insults and claims of promoting bigotry and racism because he believed the people should be free and unfettered to live as they choose, free and unfettered from the auspices of government. He was a ideologue, what the Left feared the most, and this was what was most dangerous to them. They knew that he was not a "dunce" or "dumb," but a throwback to the Founding Fathers who espoused many of the same things Thomas Jefferson did. He spoke of the "shining city on a hill," and the American people responded. For 13 years, 1980 until 1993, the end of George H.W. Bush's presidency in ignominious defeat because he refused to believe in the American people's sovereignty, there was "Morning in America," and now there is only a twilight. We are a nation regressed to the days of Jimmy Carter, when it was our fault that the nation was struggling. This is the culture promoted by the Left, and you and I who dare to question its modus operandi are branded as unintelligent.
The psychology issue, again, is one to which I will return the focus of my energies, though I really do not believe that last detour was anything but an expounding upon a principle long in need of discussing. Mr. Conservative dared to write an article discussing what a mental health professional believes to be the president suffering from a form of mental instability. If you read my article titled "Sarah Palin and Her Son Trig: Their Quest to End Liberal Hostility Toward Disabled Individuals,", you also know that I suffer from the mental illnesses bipolar disorder and OCD, so I find this article rather intriguing. The expert, named Dr. Sam Vaknin, who is the leading expert on narcissism and the author of Malignant Self Love, discusses this topic in rather great detail and confirms though his medical opinion what we have long believed to be true about the president: He suffers from narcissism.
The article will be posted below (Courtesy of Mr. Conservative):
Is Barack Obama Mentally Unstable?
July 7, 2013 4:49pm PST
Who is Barack Hussein Obama, the man in the White House? Without a doubt, Obama is the most unvetted, unaccomplished, unqualified person to ever to occupy the Oval Office in American history. Bill Clinton (in reference to Obama’s inexperience) is reported to have told Ted Kennedy during the 2008 campaign, “A few years ago this guy (Obama) would have been carrying our bags.” Aside from Obama being completely and totally unqualified to be the leader of the free world do we even know for sure that Obama is mentally stable? Dr. Sam Vaknin the world’s leading expert on narcissism and the author of “Malignant Self Love ” has said that ” Obama’s language, posture and demeanor and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that Obama is a narcissist or he may have Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” Narcissists have a grandiose, inflated, messiah like self image and cannot stand to be criticized. Obama’s Christ like view of himself is very clearly revealed in his Democratic nomination victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota on June 3, 2008 in which he tells a worshiping audience, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Clearly, this is a delusional statement. At the end of Barack’s Super Tuesday speech in Chicago on February 5, 2008 Obama makes another ludicrous and insane pronouncement telling his followers “We are the ones that we have been waiting for.” This is narcissistic double speak; in translation what Obama is really saying is, “I am the one the world has been waiting for.“
Why is so much of Obama’s past shrouded in secrecy and why is there such a plethora of unanswered questions about Barrack. For instance:
1) Why are all of Obama’s college records sealed?
2) Did Obama receive government aid as a foreign exchange student when he attended Occidental College?
3) Obama admits he traveled to Pakistan at age 20 in 1981. Well then, what passport did Obama use to fly to Pakistan since Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s no travel list at that time?
4) Why did Obama surrender his law license in Illinois after attending prestigious Harvard University to attain one? After attending such a prestigious university like Harvard to obtain a law degree, why did Obama surrender his law license in Illinois in? With so much of Obama’s past hidden and shrouded in secrecy, how can we find out who Barack Obama really is? There is no better way to know a person than by what he says. So let us see what is revealed about Obama by his own words, in his own book “Dreams from My Father.
On page 145 in ‘Dreams from my Father” Obama recalls a trip with his mother to a museum in Chicago.
“At the Field Museum, I saw two shrunken heads that were on display. They were wrinkled but well preserved, each the size of my palm, their eyes and mouths sewn shut, just as I should have expected. They appeared to be of European extraction: the man had a small goatee, like a conquistador; the female had flowing red hair. I stared at them for a long time (until my mother pulled me away), feeling with the morbid glee of a young boy—- as if I had stumbled upon some sort of cosmic joke. Not so much as the heads had been shrunk — that I could understand; it was the same idea as eating tiger meat with Lolo**, a form of magic, a taking of control. Rather, the fact these little European faces were here in a glass case, where strangers, perhaps even descendants, might observe the details of their gruesome fate. That no one seemed to think that odd.”
Above is a picture shrunken human head. The man has a goatee like the shrunken head Obama observed. This is what gives Obama a thrill, a sense of “morbid glee.” How ghoulishly frightening and completely bizarre! Does any sane person think Obama’s reaction is a normal one? What mentally balanced, stable human being enjoys seeing the shrunken heads of dead people from another race? Obama, himself, even seems to understand that there is something mentally wrong with him. Barack realizes that is abnormal to take delight in such a macabre sight. He uses the term “morbid-glee” which is almost an oxymoron. Normal people feel sadness and repulsion over morbid sights. This is unquestionably and most definitely a sign that Obama is not of a sound mind. It is irrefutable evidence of emotional imbalance and mental illness. He says, “I stared at them for a long time” until his mother had to pull him away. So we can see Obama was transfixed and mesmerized by viewing decapitated white people. The brutal fate and violent end of these white people gives Obama a feeling of “morbid glee.” And he is in the White House? Obama makes an analogy between seeing mutilated white people to “eating tiger meat”. What an incredible and frightening psychological revelation. A tiger in the wild is a natural enemy to man. Eating a tiger is eating your enemy. Obama makes the analogy between the sight of dead white people as “the same as eating tiger meat with Lolo.” (Lolo is an Obama’s Indonesian step father and his mother’s second Muslim husband) Obama’s own words clearly expose that he views white people as his enemy. The “gruesome fate” of these whites was so pleasurable and satisfying to Obama that he actually describes his feelings as “a form of magic, of taking control.” Obama has deep-seated emotional problems. It is absolutely undeniable that Barack Obama is an anti-white racist.
(** Lolo was Obama’s Indonesian Muslim step father and his mother’s second husband)
Question for Obama supporters:What if Mitt Romney wrote in a book that he was in a museum saw the shrunken heads of black people and admitted that it gave him a thrill? Would you be okay with that?
Wouldn’t a white person be condemned as a racist for making such a sick revelation as Obama did?
Observation: The name of Obama’s book is “Dreams from My Father.” Obama’s Black Muslim father deserted him when he was two and did not return to see him for __ years when he visited Hawaii for two weeks. His white mother and grandparents loved him, fed him, took care of him, nurtured and raised him. The maternal side of his family is American. If Obama is an American, why does not he identify with the American side of his family? Why isn’t the name of his book, “Dreams from my Mother?”
Question: Where do Obama’s loyalties and allegiances truly lie? We have all seen the picture of Barack Obama on a podium during the national anthem with other Democratic leaders. All the other politicians patriotically have their hands over their hearts except for Barrack Obama. Why not Barack? Does Obama have a problem with America’s national anthem, with American values, with American beliefs? Doesn’t Obama pledge allegiance to the United States of America and all her citizens — regardless of their race, creed or color?
Obama’s makes it clear that his allegiance is not to all of America’s citizens. He admits his racism writing on page 101: “No it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names,”
Note: In Obama’s own words his loyalties are to blacks. The church that Obama attended for twenty years under Rev. Wright reflects Obama’s racist, separatist attitude and Black Nationalist doctrine in the church’s pledge. On the web site of Trinity Church in Chicago which Obama and his family attended for ——20 years, it states:
“We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.”
Question: What if Mitt Romney attended an all white church that only wanted to address the concerns of the white community? Wouldn’t the liberal press be in a rabid, frenzy and immediately label Governor Romney a racist?
Role models are important, they shape our lives. The people we admire, look up to and aspire to be like are an expression of our souls, our inner core values and describe who we are as human beings. So who are Obama’s life time role models? On page 220, Barack lets us know, in no uncertain terms, who has shaped his political views and thinking:
“Yet I had seen weakness in other men — Gramps (white grandfather) and his disappointments, Lolo (Indonesian Muslim stepfather) and his compromise. But these men become object lessons for me, men that I might love but never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates speak didn’t speak of my own, It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandella.”
Observation: Obama admits he is incapable of admiring and aspiring to be like another human being just because of their merits and accomplishments. Does this sound like the great uniter the American people hoped for?. His “father’s image, the black man, son of Africa” (not American) that “I’d packed all my attributes”. Obama seeks in himself the attributes of Martin and Malcom, Dubois and Mandella. That’s funny. I am an American and I admire and have always emulated great men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. If Obama is an American, why does he not aspire to be like great American leaders and patriots?
Question: Does Barack Obama condone hatred of white Americans? Does Obama actually hate white people himself?
A display of Obama’s hatred, animosity and anger towards whites is on page 195:
“The stories I had heard had been hearing from the leadership, all the records of courage and courage and strength and sacrifice and overcoming great odds, hadn’t simply risen from struggles with pestilence or drought, or even more poverty. They had risen out of a very particular experience with hate. That hate hadn’t gone away; it formed a counteractive buried deep within each person and at the center of which stood white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimesjust a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives. I had to ask myself whether the bonds of community could be restored without collectively exorcising that ghostly figure that haunted black dreams.”
Question: Has Obama’s hate gone away? Does Obama think whites are the ghostly figures that haunt, stifle and stand in the way of blacks fulfilling their dreams? If so, then give an example of how whites do that? When he speaks of blacks “exorcising” the ghostly figure (white people) is Obama promoting separatism?
Is Barack Obama a ticking time bomb? Does he have suppressed Black rage that could explode on America while in the White House? ON Page 81, Obama admits that he does have rage for white people as he writes:
“Ray (Obama’s friend) was winking at me, letting me in on the score. Our rage at the white world needed no object, he seemed to be telling me, no independent confirmation, switched on and off at our pleasure?”
Obama’s confessed “rage at the white world that needs no object”. Throughout Obama’s entire life, he has socialized, befriended and been a companion of people that hate America. (Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis) Obama feels that Black rage against whites is justifiable. This is a consistent pattern in Obama’s life. Obama constantly associates with and is in the company of anti-white racists. The facts prove that Barack Obama feels completely comfortable in the company of, “haters of America.” The only time Obama has ever broken ties with America haters is when his association with them becomes a political liability. This treasonous pattern in Obama’s close friends, associates, mentors, church, spiritual leaders and role models must be taken into account. Why? Because, it is a direct reflection of Obama’s himself. The wise old adage, “Birds of a feather flock together” is relevant in Obama’s case and it is justly applied. It must be, it is the key to discovering who Obama really is. It is glaringly apparent in looking at Obama’s life and reading his words that he gravitates towards militants, radicals and anarchists and that he likes those that hate America. It is impossible to deny this reality about him.One of Obama’s “life stories” that he discusses in his book is an episode when his grandmother was harassed and frightened by an aggressive black panhandler asking her for money at a bus stop. When Obama’s grandfather tells him his grandmother was scared by someone that was black Obama describes his reaction to the news, “The words were like a fistinmy stomach, and I wobbled to regain my consciousness.” Page 88. Obama is troubled by his grandparents’ fear of black and writes, “And yet I knew that men who might easilyhave been my brothers could still inspire their rawest fears.” Page 89. Obama relates this story of his grandparents fear of Blacks Black friend, Frank. Frank responds by saying, “Your grandmother is right to be scared. She’s at least as right as Stanley is. (Stanley is the grandfather) Sheunderstands the blacks have a RIGHT to HATE. That’s just how it is. For your sake I wish it were otherwise. But it’s not.” Then Frank advises him, “So you might as well get used to it.” Page 91.
Question: Does Obama agree with his friend Frank’s racist ideology that Blacks have a RIGHT to HATE white people? Has Obama embraced Frank’s advice and does he now believe that blacks have a Right to Hate whites?
Obama’s silence is deafening! Notice the man who occupies the office of the Presidency of the United States does not resist, dissent or offer any argument at all. Obama does not protest even slightly to the idea that Blacks have a right to hate whites.
An article in “Life Magazine” causes Obama to have a violent reaction. What is the cause of Obama’s turmoil? On page 51 he describes it:
“I came across the picture in Life magazine of a black man who tried to peel his skin off. I imagine other black children, then and now, undergoing similar moments of revelation. Perhaps it came sooner for most — the parent’s warning not to cross the boundaries of a particular neighborhood, or the frustration of not having hair like Barbie, no matter how long you tease and comb, or the tale of a father’s or a grandfather’s humiliation at the hands of an employer or cop, overheard while you’re supposed to be asleep. Maybe it’s easier for a child to receive the bad news in small doses, allowing for a system of defenses to build up – although I thought I was one of the luckier ones, having been given a stretch of childhood free from self doubt. I know that seeing that article was violent for me, an ambush.”
“But that one photograph had told me something else: that there was a HIDDEN ENEMY out there, one that could reach me without anyone’s knowledge, not even my own.”
Question:
What does Barack consider the “bad news” for Black children to be?
Does he mean Black racial qualities like their hair?
Who does Barack Obama’s imagine are his “HIDDEN ENEMIES” — White people?
Just how dysfunctional is, and exactly how much pent up anger does Obama really have?
On page 110: He writes:
“I had stopped listening at a certain point, I now realized so wrapped up had I been in my own perceived injuries, so eager was I to escape the imagined traps that white authority had set for me. To that white world, I had been willing to cede the values of my childhood, as if those values were somehow irreversibly soiled by the endless falsehoods that white spoke black.”
“White authority?” Does Obama have a problem with Western Civilization? Is Obama bothered by “Law and Order?” Is Western jurisprudence the “white authority” that Obama complains about and rebels against?
Obama has, “Perceived injuries,” “Hidden enemies” and he sees “imagined traps.” Wouldn’t a person with unreal, “perceived injuries;” “hidden enemies” and someone that sees non-existent “imagined traps” be diagnosed as suffering from paranoia? Anyone with these kinds of bizarre thoughts has serious issues. What a danger Obama is in White House? Barack Obama with power is an accident waiting happen.
Question: Would Obama incite violence and like to see blacks attack whites? Does Obama thrive on racial tension?
It would seem as though he does. On page 191 the torn and divided, plagued and emotionally troubled.
Obama writes:
“In a sense, then, Rafiq (Obama’s friend) was right when he insisted that deep down all blacks werepotential nationalists. The anger was there, bottled up and often turned inward.”
Obama reflects, “I wonderedwhether, for now at least, Rafiq wasn’t also right in preferring that anger be redirected; whether a black politics that suppressed rage towardswhites generally, or one that failed to elevate race loyalty above all else, was a politics inadequate to the task.”
Question: So are we to understand that Barrack Obama actually wonders, is undecided and thinks maybe Black politics should direct Black anger towards whites and encourage Black rage against whites? Obama thinks that any politics that suppress black rage or fails elevate Black race loyalty is inadequate?
And Obama is the man who is supposed to bring racial healing to our nation?
Does Obama consider himself to be an American? On page 199 he writes: ‘All the Black people who it turned out, shared with me a voice that whispered inside them—“You don’t really belong here.”
So Obama has a voice inside him that tells him doesn’t really belong in America? Then why does he want to be President of the United States?
On page 301 Obama reaffirms his unstable and insecure self identification: “but that for me only underscored my own uneasy status: a Westerner not entirely at home in the West, an African on his way to a land full of strangers.”
Note: He identifies himself not as an American, but as an African.
Question: If Obama says he does not feel “entirely at home in the West” then why does he delude himself into thinking that he should be the leader of the Western World?
Question: Where does Obama feel he belongs? On page 305, Obama tells us of his trip to the Kenya. At the Kenyan airport he is asked to fill out a form by an attractive black woman airline employee. Upon reading his form, the woman recognizes his last name and asks Barack if he is related to Dr. Obama. Obama says, “Well yes, that’s my father.” Obama states, “That had never happened to him before, I realized; not in Hawaii, not in Indonesia, not in L.A. or New York or Chicago. For the first time in my life, I felt the comfort, the firmnessof identity that a name might provide, how it could carry an entire history in other people’s memories, so they may nod and say knowingly, ‘Oh so you are so and so’s son’ No one here in Kenya asked how to spell my name or mangle it with an unfamiliar tongue. My name belonged so I belonged….”
In Kenya, Obama reveals for the “first time in his life” he felt he belonged. After Barack’s nomination to be the Democratic Presidential candidate, his wife, Michelle, said that for the first time in her adult life was proud of America. Never before proud of your country?? Not even when the generosity of our educational system provided you with the scholarships that permitted you to attend the finest American colleges in the world and obtain your law degree?
Suggestion: Barack Obama should run for President of Kenya, not America.
Question: What world leader was the greatest influence in Obama’s life?
You might think that since Obama ran to be the President of the Unites States, his biggest heroes in life would be great Presidents like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln, right? Sorry! The man who had the greatest effect on Obama’s thinking seems to be the radical, racist, Black Nationalist Muslim leader Malcolm X. On page 86 Obama admits and confesses his identification with Malcolm X in a spiritual fervor that borders on idol worship:
“Only Malcolm’s autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated actsof self creation spoke to me; the blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will.”
No compromise? A“New Order”? Martial discipline? Who does that remind you of? Zieg Heil Barack!
Continuing in his adoration and spell bound allegiance to the militant Malcolm. X Obama writes on pg. 86 “And yet, even as I imagined followingMalcom’s call, one line in his book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he’d once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence might somehow be expunged.
Expunging their white blood through acts of violence? That doesn’t sound very emotionally well adjusted to me. How does it sound to you Obama supporters?
If Obama has answered the call to follow the revolutionary ideas of the Black Nationalist Malcolm X; does America want Obama leading us?
Obama has such anger that he finds himself incapable of concealing his resentment or containing his wrath. Obama’s reveals more of his dangerous support for Black Nationalism, their extreme agenda and their radical views. The “Rage of Obama” explodes as he further reveals his alignment and concurrence with racist ideologies and potentially violent views. The threat against whites in Obama’s book is on page 198:
“Nationalism (Black Nationalism) provided that history an unambiguous morality tale that was easily communicated and easily grasped. A steady ATTACK on theWHITE RACE, the constant recitation of black people’s brutal experience in thiscountry, served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair. Yes, the nationalist would say, whites are responsible for your sorry state, not any inherent flaws in you. In fact whites are so heartless and devious that we can no longer expect anything from them. The self loathing you feel, what keeps you drinking or thieving is planted by them. Rid them from your mind and find your true power liberated. Rise up, ye mighty race.” This sounds like the promotion of race war.
Obama attended a Black Nationalist church for twenty years. With few exceptions, the leaders Obama follows and admires most are black militants, racists and violent radicals. Logic forces us, and reason compels us, to deeply suspect that Obama subscribes to the Black Nationalist’s idea of a “steady attack on the white race.” It would be extremely unwise for Americans to ignore Obama’s own words. At their own peril, people didn’t pay attention to “Mien Kamph” either.
Obama heralds and has promotes himself as, “Change we can believe in?” Is “The constant recitation of black people’s brutal experience in this country” change? “Constant recitation” means repeating over and over the same thing. “The constant recitation of black’s brutal experience” means never forgiving, never forgetting, and continually living in the past, never moving forward; it means: NO CHANGE!
“The self loathing you (blacks) feel, what keeps you drinking, what keeps you drinking or thieving is planted by them (whites).” Pg. 198.
Does Obama believe we, white Americans, make Blacks hate themselves, drink, drug and carry out the crimes they commit? This sounds like a page out of Jeremiah Wright’s playbook who accuses the US Government of giving blacks drugs.
If you met Obama in college would Barack even socialize with you or be your friend?.
On page 100 Obama explains what kind of people are on his “list of friends”:
“To avoid being mistaken for a sell out, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets.”
Obama is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt a radical; he cloaks himself as a moderate to attain his hidden agenda. “the fundamental transformation of America.” In college and throughout his entire adult life, all the people he surrounded himself with, were far left wingers, anarchists, communists and anti-Americans. This is who Obama is. These habitual lifelong choices of “America haters” by Obama cannot be overlooked. To do so would be shear insanity
On Memorial Day, 2008 (the then Senator Obama) told a group of veterans in Las Cruces, New Mexico his uncle fought during WW II and was part of the American Army that liberated the Nazi death camp in Auschwitz Poland:
“I had an uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps, and the story in our family was is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn’t leave the house for six months, right. Now obviously something had really affected him deeply but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain. That’s why you know the, this idea of making sure that every single veteran when they are discharged are screened for post traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need, that’s why its so important.” Barack Obama May 2008.
Obama isn’t even smart enough to know modern history and that it was the Russian Red Army and not the US Army that liberated Auschwitz. So was this statement an Obama gaffe or an Obama lie? The reality is Obama just says whatever he wants, whenever he wants, whatever is convenient. He has absolutely no compulsion to tell the truth. Here is a short list of Obama lies:He won’t take PAC money, he will close Gitmo his first year in office, there will be no lobbyists in his White House, he’ll cut the US federal deficit in half, his father was a goat herder, his father was a freedom fighter, his mother died of ovarian cancer because she was denied health insurance, Obama claimed in a speech in an Alabama church that he was born because his parents got together during the Selma Civil Rights marches. (Ooops! The first “Selma to Montgomery civil rights march” was on March 7 in 1965. Obama was born on August 4, 1961) Obama’s fabrications are delusional. Is Barack so out of touch with reality that he does not realize someone in America is going to check to verify the authenticity of his fantastic stories?
Obama’s vehicle of choice, a PITCH BLACK campaign bus (made in Canada) without a single American flag on it anywhere. Would FDR, Harry Truman or JFK tour across America on this bus? What is Obama running to be “Emperor of the Dark Side”? Does Obama thinks that he is Darth Vader?
Final Analysis: So what is the answer to the question
“Who is Barack Hussein Obama?”
Barack Obama is an emotionally unbalanced, racist. His own words make this an undeniable fact. Many Republican leaders make an exerted effort to fall over themselves so that they can grovel and proclaim that they think Obama is a “nice guy.” Obama is not a “nice guy”. He is an intrinsically evil human being. Obama is a pathological liar (his word is worthless) and he is not intelligent. He views the world through a leftist ideology and he sees American history as an ongoing “white vs. black” racial conflict due to white suppression and oppression of blacks. He believes social justice will be attained through economic redistribution of wealth He has a radical, militant Black Panther mentality. Obama has taken his hatred for whites and rather than release it in domestic street violence he has channeled his rage into politics. Obama’s destruction of America is intentional. Obama, being the Resident of the United States, is his way of conquering the people he hates. For Obama, occupying the Oval Office and flying on Air Force One is the ultimate victory and final triumph over white Americans, whom he views as his enemy. It is his supreme satisfaction of, “eating tiger meat” once again with Lolo. (pg. 145) Obama’s rage is the burning energy and the driving force behind his quest for power and the White House! Obama was caught off microphone giving a secret message to the Russian ambassador Medvedev for the Russian President Vladimir Putin. Obama whispered that when he is re elected, he will have “greater flexibility.” Greater flexibility to do what? To further weaken the American economy and destroy our national defense. Obama is dangerous because he is capable of doing anything to stay in power (including creating a national emergency, imposing Martial Law and declaring himself President for life.) Another four more years of Obama and the “fundamental transformation” of America that Obama promised will be completed and the United States of America that we grew up in will be no more. Our national survival is dependant [sic] upon Obama being deposed.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them.” Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:15.16)
Author: Rock Peters
(H/T) To GodSaveUSA
___
Conclusion: Stating the Obvious of What Most Conservative-Libertarians Have Long Believed to Be True of Obama
While I am a patient suffering from two mental illnesses, I will also go on record by saying that I am also a realist about life. I know that life is not perfect; if it were, it would not be life. At the same time, though, do we really want someone with an ax to grind with the majority of the American people simply because they are white and he is half-black? There have been plenty of presidents over the past 100 years whom I have read to have been racists or bigots: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson (he was an opponent to civil rights for blacks prior to developing a political conscience), and Richard M. Nixon. Conservatives are generally the political demographic in America tagged with this label; I know I have been, because a former friend who is currently a Ph.D., student at the University of Michigan in Medieval English Literature claimed that a political cartoon I posted on Facebook of two men -- one a farmer with a double-barrel rifle, the other a man dressed in what someone might associate a person as an urban thug who was carrying a pistol -- were displayed, and on one side of the picture both men had the firearms while on the opposite side, only the urban thug did. As a result, he told me that I was guilty of perpetuating a racist stereotype. Apparently, he did not know that neither of the men were black or Hispanic, so race could not possibly be part of the equation. As he kept reading me the riot act over the issue, I simply replied to him that if two white men in a picture with guns on one side and only the urban thug on the opposite end having a firearm make me a racist, I would gladly accept that designation. Of course, upon my saying this, he was horrified, and backtracked in his attempt to engage in damage control. But the damage was already done; I had lost virtually all respect for the guy who had been my friend for over 13 years, and about a month later while we were in a heated argument over his reference to University of Virginia students as "entitled douchebags" and then his objection to my later comments criticizing those engaged in the Greek life (aka. fraternities and sororities) are that and then he told me that my statement was unfounded and I was too angry against people I perceived to have done me wrong, I replied that he was a hypocrite and then brought up the time he branded me a"racist," our friendship ended.
Political arguments, as I have experienced first, can and will end friendships just as I told you of the one I had with that person. As a rule, though, I do not base my friendships on people's political beliefs so long as they respect what I believe as my own opinion as it is my right as a free man to do so. In return, I will recognize their own sovereignty over their thoughts. I generally will not discuss politics with my grandmother because she is a New Deal era Democrat who was born the year prior to Black Tuesday and the beginning of the Great Depression, though she sometimes tries to engage in conversations with me, which I will then state what I believe in no uncertain terms much to her chagrin. The same goes for my being accused of "racism" or "bigotry." The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln, for "free labor, free land, free men," and for equal rights under the law, and I firmly stand by those principles. They have not changed over the 159 years of the party's existence, but because the party platform refuses to support subsidizing idolatry and the lack of initiative found in portions of any demographic of the population -- the black community included -- 95% of the black community's votes went to Obama in 2008, and 93% just last November. When a politician guarantees to his constituents that he will provide them "a house, two cars, and two car garage," it is easy for him to get elected, and that was the case for the Democratic Party after the election of FDR in 1932.
We are not a free nation anymore, but have we really been in a long time? The closest our country has come to a true unity as a population of individuals was during the Reagan Revolution. Unfortunately, those days are in the rear view mirrors of our cars, and any gains economically we have made during the four and a half years President Obama has served have not been credited to the will of the American people, but to the president himself; in fact, Obama said so in a speech during his 2012 reelection campaign:
The difference in the Reagan Revolution and the "Change we can believe" by Obama, then, is night and day. He gives no credit to the American people for economic progress, and how can he? We have experienced little or not growth since he has been in office, but rather likely an economic retraction. The American people are poorer now than they were under George W. Bush, with 58% of those who manage to procure jobs after having been laid off from their previous one earning less than at their new occupation than at the one they lost. The Left claim that during the Reagan Revolution the richer got richer while the poorer got poorer, but you and I know better because all levels of income were better off when Reagan left office in 1989 than it was upon his inauguration day in 1981; the same cannot be said, though, for the Obama presidency. If there is anything the American people deserve credit for from him, it is to be thank for being the sheep to his pack of wolves.
In conclusion, then, the article stated the obvious about what conservative-libertarians such as myself have long believed to be true about the president. While I will stop short of stating he suffers from a psychiatric disorder per se, I do believe he views himself as a messianic figure, as the great unifier. Unfortunately, he has proven to be anything but that. He is the most corrupt president in modern times, more corrupt than Nixon for sure. If he has an anger issue based upon his perception that he is "racially inferior" because he is black, well, I have news for him: the civil rights laws that have been passed over the past 49 years do not simply guarantee equal rights to all people regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity, it makes the more equal than the majority of the population. And as George Orwell stated in his immortal dystopian book Animal Farm (1948):
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
The party construed to having championed the causes of civil rights now for 50 years just found its greatest opponent, who happens to be a Trojan Horse with designs on a utopia. Unfortunately, he will find no other phenomena to be true than that of the Orwellian phenomena we read as youngsters in Orwell. We are, therefore, on the precipice of an American brand of Apartheid wrought on by the ruling minority, and we have no one to blame but ourselves due to our recent voting behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment