Obama the cool morphs into Obama the cold
In discussions on this blog and others about the Fort Hood shooting, quite a few people have noted Obama’s lack of appropriate affect in his remarks right afterwards, as well as in his introduction to those remarks (a light-hearted “shout out” to certain members of the audience, for example).
Here’s a description of the latter:
But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a “shout-out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow — that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.” Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?
Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned.
I didn’t see or hear the banter, but I did hear his official remarks. I say “hear” because I was in my car at the time and missed the video. Nevertheless, even without the oddness of the introduction, I found his tone strange. It’s hard to describe, but the best I can do is to call it inappropriately flat.
I’m not expecting a president to emote; they all don’t sound like Reagan, who was, after all, an actor. But I cannot escape the impression that there is something missing in the emotional department with Obama. I don’t think this extends to all parts of his personal life (for example, he seems to be a good and loving father). But I feel a coldness in him that is fairly global, a chill that goes pretty deep.
I try to be honest with myself and ask whether it’s because I don’t like his policies that I view him as a cold man, and the answer is no, as best I can tell. In fact, there’s nothing that precludes emotional intensity in an opponent (“the worst are full of passionate intensity“). Take a look at Hitler’s speeches and you’ll see a frightening amount of it, for example.
I think Peggy Noonan nailed it best. She was an early Obama admirer, remember, and in some ways still is. But back in September she wrote this WSJ piece, in which she observed:
I watched with great interest much of Teddy Kennedy’s wake and funeral, and saw in a clearer way than I had in the past a big cultural difference between the elites of the two parties, or rather the Democratic and Republican establishments. Pretty much the entire Democratic establishment was at the Kennedy services, and the level of shown affection among those in the pews and the audience was striking””laughing, hugging, telling stories, admitting weaknesses, weeping. It was Irish, and old-time…
The president walked into the funeral and moved toward the front pews nodding, shaking hands. He hugged Mrs. Kennedy, nodded some more, shook more hands. He was dignified and contained, he was utterly appropriate, and he was cold.
He is cold, like someone who is contained not because he’s disciplined and successfully restrains his emotions, but because there’s not that much to restrain. This is the dark side of cool. One wonders if this will play well with the American people. Long-term it is hard to get people to trust your policies if they think you’re coolly operating on some intellectual or ideological abstractions.
Cold is the dark side of cool. Obama was cold yesterday when speaking about the Fort Hood massacre, but it was not a special case. He is cold in general.
During the campaign this was interpreted by supporters as a good thing; having a cool head in a crisis, for example, and being able to think calmly. It was also an excellent foil to John McCain’s far more emotional style, exemplified in McCain’s suspending his campaign and racing down to Washington to manage the financial crisis, versus Obama’s non-engagement.
But even some of Obama’s previous supporters can’t help but see now that Obama’s coolness is not mere calm; it is an indication that something important is missing. And that should trouble us all.
…it is an indication that something important is missing.
Neo, I suspect you know a hell of a lot more about psychiatry and emotional make-up than I, but could an almost malignant narcissism account for much of that, by not leaving much room for empathy?
(MY gut feeling is that I may be partially right, but probably oversimplifying things.)
–
Paul in Houston: there are a great many possibilities, none of them especially good. But I wouldn’t be able to diagnose Obama from afar. I only have hunches. He certainly is a narcissistic person, for example, and a cold one. But these are just adjectives. I’d have to be a fly on the wall when he is talking in private to really understand what makes him tick, and even then I think it would be difficult, as he is a complex person who plays his cards close to the vest even in private (at least, that’s what I suspect).
Oddly enough, “V”, a new sci-fi series, started last Tuesday in which aliens arrive in huge motherships above the major cities of earth. The aliens come in peace, they tell us, and they are picture-perfect serene and friendly — especially their leader — but there’s a chill too and a sense that they are withholding important information.
They foster a cult-like following among humans. They call it “spreading hope.” They even promise to share the secrets of universal health care!
I can’t tell if the writers intended the parallels with Obama and his movement, but I’ll be interested to see how this show develops.
I noticed this disconnection from Obama too — really pissed me off.
huxley — sounds cool!
Cotton candy. No accumulation of hardened and wizened character. No there there. No struggle to accomplish which is followed by accomplishment – and by all which accomplishment implies, entails, and imparts. Thank God the Constitution limits the power wielded by this fluff.
neo, Obama’s disconnection is of a piece with another we discussed during the campaign: his inability to connect with normal Americans.
He seemed (and seems) almost to calculate his response (“Gee, what would an American do here? I’ll do that.”). It doesn’t come naturally and viscerally to him. It’s more like poor method acting. Unfortunately, he hadn’t read the script for the Fort Hood situation.
My wife and I watched Obama’s comments on television and we both agree that it was one of the most bizarre things we have seen in a long, long time. What we have is not just a President, but an administration, with no sense of the office – and no feeling for the people they are tasked with serving. We are, as a people, mere props in the narrative that is Obama.
We are, as a people, mere props in the narrative that is Obama.
Well put. Sigh.
So what’s the reading on the Obama Tyrann-O-Meter these days?
Do commenters still believe that Obama is plotting to take over the US and has a shot (never mind how, that’s an entirely absurd question I am told) of doing so?
Obama can’t even drag Gov. Corzine over the finishing line with five personal appearances and Corzine outspending his opponent 3:1.
Oh yes, you can see the enormous populist appeal Obama still commands and his deft, sure touch in front of the cameras and at the controls of government and foreign policy.
When Obama gets weak enough (that’s probably part of the plan), scooping up supreme control of the United States will be a breeze, a real treat as the Master shows us how it is done.
While I, too, have to question myself about my reaction in that for myself he could do nothing ‘right’. But watching him yesterday and this morning I could not help but think back. Reagan would have likely been down there today as would W. Heck, even bill Clinton would have been there, grieving with the Ft. Hood residents. I’d even go so far as to think even Carter would have made an appearance. Yet Obama seems to think with a few very scripted remarks he has done his part. Grieving with and among us is something I expect from my President. the very idea of doing so seems totally foreign to Obama. I simply have no trust at all in the man.
Yes, Highlander, you put your finger on it, “not only a president, but an administration.with no sense of the office…” That’s what’s really chilling. There are no wiser, savvier heads in Obama’s circle, nobody with a sense of history or precedent or decorum, just a bunch of hopped-up Alinskyites, all competing to see who can get away with being the most outrageously leftist.
My guess….
∅bama probably feels like he is being lynched every day in the press and is having a hard time coping with what is happening.
The lynching term is referencing Clarence Thomas’s remarks who was clearly receiving a high tech lynching where &empth;bama is having a hard time dealing with reality – he was in fake world previously.
How will ∅bama come out of this? It’s either by hearing enough alternative viewpoints and having a core belief change or sinking further into a soft tyranny mindset.
Neo said: “But I wouldn’t be able to diagnose Obama from afar. I only have hunches.”
Yes, I deeply respect your caution and honesty. You grew up as a Jew; I grew up in the religious tradition that produced Obama, albeit he from a later, vastly changed generation of that once-New England tradition. His grandparents were of the sick, Berkeley devolution of that collapsed tradition. And, not unimportantly, he did his teenage years in an Hawaiian private-school largely peopled by multi-racials.
He is merely one of many types one might expect from such a background, and bitterly-admirable in how he has so used the very people who left him hanging out in the cold of multiculturalism.
Clinton and Reagan were incredibly gifted in communicating their empathy at times like this, to such a point that, with Clinton, “I feel your pain” became a joke. Bush was quieter about it, but if you ever happened to see video of him interacting with someone who was grieving, you’d have to hate him very much indeed to doubt that he was feeling real pain, sympathy, and urge to comfort.
Obama is an entirely different kettle of fish — and very cold fish, at that. He clearly lacks the natural empathy that should have led him to feel pain and loss over what had happened to his troops. But worse, he didn’t even seem to realize that most people in his situation would feel something and would act as if they felt something. He seemed to fail to grasp that, at a minimum, he should have pretended that he cared. If nothing else at all, I would have thought that by his time of life, he would have acquired better manners.
You have to wonder where his advisers are in these situations — though I guess, as I think about it, that it would be a hard thing indeed to march up to your boss just before he goes on stage and tell him, “Okay, now, most people would be sad in this situation, and Americans will be looking for comfort, so please, do your best to pretend that you feel something.” Maybe they are going to have to start putting gestures into the TelePrompter script: “Wipe Tear Away Here.”
“V” has it right. Obamalinsky is a cold-blooded lizard.
I cannot really speak to how I percieved his remarks for I detest the man. However he “is” the Commander In Chief, we are at war, and this is the U. S. Army. In that light alone his response is very questionable. I believe this episode will have effects far beyond what can be seen.
My wife and I were joking that one of his advisors should have kneed him in the groin and then shoved onto the podium, so he wouldn’t have to fake a pained expression.
∅bama probably feels like he is being lynched every day in the press and is having a hard time coping with what is happening.
Puts me in mind of Commodus in Gladiator, lamenting why the people don’t all love him.
I suspect he finds showing sympathy in this case a very annoying task. It gets in the way of his agenda. But he knows he has to say something.
And what most everyone missed was that Obama was wrong, Dr. Joe Medicine Crow is NOT a medal of honor winner.
I always had the impression that he was a bit emotionally defective, and told folks so before the election. And, given his childhood, it was to be expected. I’m a bit that way myself and recognized the symptoms.
John in Dublin CA Says:
November 6th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Not only that, but the term “Medal of Honor winner” is also wrong. The correct term is “recipient”. It’s not something to be “won” like an Olympic medal.
Addendum to my 9:20 comment: I learned that on another site where some military veterans took exception to that terminology.
Maureen Dowd defended Obama the other day:
But now Limbaugh calls Obama the “man-child president.”
The 48-year-old Obama is skinny and getting skinnier, but there’s nothing childish about him. He more or less raised himself and came to terms with his Oedipal demons on his own, and he radiates a hard-won maturity.
I don’t think Dowd is looking very close, especially at moments like yesterday’s appearance. Obama radiates something that is hard, but it’s not maturity, and it’s not wholeness. There is something missing in the dude.
I’d like to think that Obama could fill in those empty places — I also don’t get the impression he is a happy person — but as Sarah Palin pointed out, the presidency is not a voyage of personal discovery.
My first impression of Obama was favorable, and it came at what now seems a long time ago. I saw a video of him standing in the back of an auditorium, a theater I think, leaning up against the back wall, with his arms crossed, and he laughed in an unselfconscious, relaxed, and disinterested way as he listened to Ted Kennedy, who was on the stage warbling on and on, referring to Obama as “Osama Obama.” I thought, “Now there’s a man who has enormous self-confidence, who knows himself and is not intimidated by the eternal jerkiness of the Big Massachusetts Guy.” I cheered inside when he told Hillary that she was “likable enough,” because back then I thought Hillary was the big threat. I don’t think I can point to a moment when I began to understand what Obama as President might actually mean. It was a continuum.
Then there came his references to a civilian national security corps, as well-funded as the military. And his telling Joe the Plumber that we need to “spread the wealth around.” And his mention of bitter gun- and religion-clinging fools. And his occasional bird-flipping. Small, unguarded and telling moments that amounted to a collection rather than a single revelation. And then, on election night last year, his declaration that “change. . .has come. . .to America.” One sensed, or began to realize, that there was a lot he wasn’t saying about what he thought of the people he aspired to govern, and of what he intended. It also became clear that he didn’t mind lying through his teeth. I forget the precise moment I realized that, but it was during some one of the debates.
I recall reading somewhere, during the campaign, that he had said something to a Democrat gathering, something telling about election results, that the Dems in power needed to stop fighting about getting programs through Congress and “just do it.” It had come to be time to “just do it.” He was talking about implementing a revolution that the American people didn’t really want, and doing it by main force. That’s what we see playing out. It’s clear that the Dems in Congress, and the Obama Administration itself, know very well that the American people don’t want what they, the Dems, are trying to enact, but it’s equally clear that they don’t care. They are determined to rule us. I’m not even sure they think it will be for our own good, but they may. It’s a chilling prospect (there’s that aspect of “cold” again). Huxley is right that Obama isn’t winning any popularity contests these days, and to the extent that the leadership (rulership?) of this country depends upon popular assent, he will fail (although he may not do so without a fight). But–it would not be the first time in the history of the world that a basically unpopular (indeed, hated) group fought their way into control.
As I watch Pelosi in action these days, I (along with no doubt many others) am reminded of one of the ancient Greeks who said, “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” She strikes me as being not much removed from madness. I await eagerly the implicit destruction.
If these guys aren’t destroyed, we may find ourselves living in a seldom-matched coldness.
Today we had yet another affect-free statement about the Fort Hood shootings from Obama, delivered in a near-monotone without any mobility of facial expression.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8347501.stm
(Click the video.)
He appears only barely capable of saying “we” or even acknowledging “you”. The statement was almost entirely in the first person singular.
As a lay person, I could not say whether we are dealing with narcissism, high-functioning autism, or simple unconcern with an institution he does not understand and for which he has no empathy. Whatever the reason, the impression is terrible. He might have done better to send out a spokesman. If he cannot do better, his appearance at the Ft. Hood memorial service is likely to be a public relations disaster.
The other terrible side is the clear message to our soldiers: “Your lives don’t matter enough to me to forego the folksy, joking preamble to my speech. Nor do I or my staff care enough to get the name of the medal correct that Joe Medicine Crow was awarded.”
Who believes Obama has the heart and the grit to lead our soldiers into a renewed war in Afghanistan without losing interest halfway through if it doesn’t go swimmingly?
Obama has many problems on his plate and a good working relationship with the military is not the least of them.
I fear for our soldiers being led by Obama.
I also note that his citizen cult army of volunteers has melted away too. Obama and his staff have made various distracted, sometimes bizarre attempts to reignite those volunteers back into action but to no avail.
Outside a campaign, the man just does not know how to lead.
Huxley says:
Outside a campaign, the man just does not know how to lead.
I agree. And–what may be more to the point, considering current circumstances–so does my husband, who was once, and remains (as they are wont to do) a Marine (semper fi!).
I imagine it must be frightful to be a military man (or woman) these days. You have not the first assurance that your titular leader cares a fig for you. And all the while, your life is on the line.
The truth is, he does not even seem to understand that leadership matters with respect to our warriors. It’s all a photo op.
Neo, we have almost an exact duplicate of Obama in a local office here – swept in by activists, all his materials prepared for him – he is “cool” because he does not care, he knows he is not fit or worthy, but he plays the game, he lies as easily and as automatically as he breathes, when it is entirely unnecessary, does not like women who disapprove of him – – you can imagine him as a child, and something about his Mom, something about her disapproval, a Dad who may have had issues, the Mom who protected him… not sure, but it is a tragedy to see what this type of person does once in office.
I get the exact same vibe from Obama. I think the Nobel Prize actually was a supreme embarrassment for him, he knows he will never measure up.
They could hide this during the campaign, now he is on his own. increasingly. It will become more and more evident.
betsybounds: You reminded me of something else. After the election and during the transition process, one of his aides (I don’t remember who, but I think it was a woman) said, “He is ready to rule.” At the time she was taken to task for her poor choice of words; that she should have said “govern”, not “rule”.
But I thought at the time, and still do, that she really did mean “rule”.
Huxley:
Outside a campaign, the man just does not know how to lead.
No he does not. Few leaders are born. Most people have to learn how to lead. Other than campaigns, where he pretty much followed the advice of Axelrod et al, Hhs only executive experience was in doling out funds for educational research in his capacity as chairman of the Annenberg Challenge. Judging by the results, ∅bama could have achieved as much by handing out the funds for Vegas trips instead of educational research.
What you see is what you get, at least when it comes to his executive experience.
Even the Boston Globe editorialized (here) that Obama’s empathy was too long in coming and too cool when delivered.
It takes more than scripted eloquence for presidents to connect with their fellow Americans. It requires a visceral ability to grasp the scope of tragedy, calculate its impact on the national psyche, and react swiftly to it.
It is #1 on the Globe’s Most E-Mailed list right now.
If I bothered to search the Globe archives, I’m sure I could find editorials praising Obama’s cerebral coolness, apparent serenity, and appearance of calmly mastering any situation. All while never bothering to dig into his past or ask questions about experience, actions and beliefs. Mainstream Media: guilty.
The other guilty party: the leftward drift of the U.S. education system, pushed by teachers and tolerated by parents.
Obama was on the cutting edge, the first generation that grew up taught to embrace multiculturalism and moral relativity, and blame America without learning about what was good and different about this country.
In his response to the Fort Hood tragedy, at the Tribal Nations Conference and since then, I look and listen and think, “He’s not an American.” And I don’t mean birth certificate-wise. I mean, he doesn’t feel it. He’s not patriotic. There is no visceral connection to this country, pride, identity.
Why is this?
I believe it’s in part because of how he was raised and what he was taught – and we have a generation or two now with many, many people who feel the same.
My daughters are 20 and 16 and attended public schools (in three states, NC, FL and NH). It was aggravating when they celebrated every obscure holiday from other countries but deliberately ignored American holidays (especially if Judeo-Christian) – but I never did anything about it. The only virtues ever mentioned or emphasized were tolerance and sharing. As for American history, I spent plenty of time explaining after school, or at bedtime, “no, ‘we’ didn’t ‘kill all the Indians,'” for example.
We have to stop putting up with this crap – consuming it from the media; tolerating it in schools. Political correctness is not just funny and irritating, it has corrupted many Americans’ ability to think, and draw distinctions, and know what is worthy of our support and sacrifice.
Obama is above the country. His emphasis is always on him. His use of “I” is so evident that it probably is no longer counted. He never uses “we”, as a reference to the country as a whole.
Michelle gave a speech to the Olympic Committee that was criticized for, among other things, how many times she said “I” in making a presentation on behalf of the USA. It was all about her just as Obama’s speech was all about him. What the hell do they talk about when they are alone? Do they talk to each other or at each other? Are they “best” friends? Are such narcissistic people capable of having best friends? Does Obama have any friends as opposed to good acquaintances? Is the “cool” exterior just an excuse for a complete lack of empathy for others. Such feelings would be dismissed by him as merely a distraction. But from what? Being human?
I used to wonder what it would be like to be fly on the wall when Jimmie Carter had lunch or dinner with Rosalynn. But that thought caused me to shudder. I think that Michelle brought her mother to live with HER in the White House so that she could talk about herself and have a captive and, perhaps, a willing audience. Being a fly on the wall in the White House dining room when the Obamas dine alone would most likely be boring in the extreme.
“Being a fly on the wall in the White House dining room when the Obamas dine alone would most likely be boring in the extreme.”
Being a fly on the wall… Would make one long for the relief of a fly swatter. 🙂
All jokes aside, I can’t offer an objective comment as I simply dislike the policies he pushes and following a close second- dislike him.
That is why, I laughed outload when Driver said
““V” has it right. Obamalinsky is a cold-blooded lizard.”
As far as the “lone wolf” terrorist in TX. He was part of Obama’s transition team. Sort of makes you wonder what other types were on his transition team. 🙁
NEW YORK — Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in yesterday’s massacre at Fort Hood, played a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama’s transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document.
“Outside a campaign, the man just does not know how to lead”
In a campaign, the candidate isn’t the leader…he is the *product*.
Neo, I have an in-law who is apparently a loving father—he even quit his job to stay home with their first son! Of course, my sister had to leave her infant ASAP and work full-time to support them. What looked to some in her family like doting fatherhood, was more accurately intense possessiveness of what was “his.” No babysitter that was not a family member. No discipline of the boys from him—just a smiling buddy face, which only cracks when a child shows any sign of individuality. I fear our President is much like him—a handsome, affable, acquisitive being without self- understanding or insight.
If Obama grieves, it is for what is lost to him; no surprise that the Fort Hood murders don’t move him. The military are not HIS political base. He is charming when victorious and feted, but peevish and graceless when met with opposition. He responded to McChrystal’s going public, but only on his way to somewhere “more important”, like the Daddy who has to issue a smack down. Now that’s a meeting I would like to have witnessed: we might have seen a side of Obama that is otherwise carefully concealed. We would have seen an actual leader of men answering to a CinC who only plays a leader of men on TV.
If I had a child in the military now, I would pay anything, do anything, to get them out. If he uses them, when he uses them, he will do so as callously as he is now ignoring their needs in the Middle East: a campaign stop, a shout-out to an ally, a f***ing golf game seems more real to him than the anguish of Americans. My in-law is narcissistic, but not malevolent; if the best we can hope for is that Obama is merely narcissistic, rather than malevolently so, God help us all.
rickl Says:
Good recall. That woman is Valerie Jarrett, who said it to Tom Brokaw on Meet The Press.
I would agree with you that she meant “rule.” One of those Freudian slips. As Valerie Jarrett is ∅bama’s most trusted aide, the quote has some some consequence. ∅bama would no more throw Valerie Jarrett under the bus than he would his wife. You may throw Grandma, Reverend Wright, or Van Jones under the bus, but neither Valerie nor Michelle may be thrown under the bus. They are among the unthrowable.
Amy wrote: “The other guilty party: the leftward drift of the U.S. education system, pushed by teachers and tolerated by parents.”
I think it’s the other way around. Full disclosure: I’m a teacher, first at a parochial school and now at a public school. My best mentors are now all retired, and every one of them said that when they began teaching in the ’60s, the parents were different. They thought of themselves as their children’s first teachers and the BEST models of civil behavior and civic responsiblity. By the ’70s, the parents had changed but the children hadn’t – yet. By the early ’90s, the children were like the then-popular Nirvana lyrics – “Here we are now, entertain us” – and the parents frequently were angry when teachers called home with concerns about Little Johnny’s education – not because they didn’t think it was the teacher’s place, but because they were too busy to be bothered. That’s the model the parents were giving to their children.
That’s the statist dream, right there: people who follow the path of least resistance and/or don’t care what happens, as long as they are left alone to their personal fun and games.
The only leftist teachers I’ve known weren’t good teachers (with the exception of a liberal special ed teacher who also knew the value of tough love and personal responsibility). Most left teaching to administrators or “educational consultants” who flee the classroom as soon as they get a lucrative offer.
Take a look at the most highly acclaimed “experts” on education and you’ll see what I mean. I never read a book by Bill Ayers, but I had “Freedom Writers” shoved in my face, for example. That particular writer taught for little more than a year – and her teaching method began with a leftist novelty: Letting her angry students write about a proposition that would have denied illegal aliens (like themselves) being denied benefits from American taxpayers. They didn’t have to consider the other side of the coin: how Americans and legal aliens feel about footing the bill.
And ultimately, that’s the problem with the president’s reaction. He doesn’t seem to care about the “other side” – in this case, Americans who are grieving or outraged by the massacre. (However, I’m sure in the next few week we’ll get a warning that questioning how to avoid future massacres is a form of bigotry against fully-integrated, peace-loving Muslims.)
Whoa! I pushed “submit” too soon – my post is full of typos. Sorry! It’s a good thing I don’t teach English. 🙂
Obama is a Manchurian Candidate. I’m referencing the original one with Laurence Harvey, and not the remake. Soros and Ayers, et al, are pulling the strings and Obama’s the puppet. He was the same way in Chicago. Everyone else did the hard work on the legislation, and then Emil Jones put Obama’s name on it. The guy is weak, lazy, and not as bright as he thinks. He IS wily and clever, but only as it benefits himself.
Since I’m referencing old films, I can’t help but think of the end of “The Candidate,” when Robert Redford wins the election, looks at his campaign manager, and says “Now what?” Basically, the guy has no clue as to what he’s doing, and no one else does, either. This job is the first one he’s had where there is enough opposition around to tell him “no,” and he doesn’t know how to deal with that.
It was announced that the President will attend the memorial service for the victims of the Fort Hood massacre next week. That dispensed with, the Obamas headed off for Camp David for the weekend.
George W. and Laura Bush quietly went to the hospital to meet with those who were wounded in the attack, as did Governor Perry.
A lot of people have wondered how come the Major was promoted from Captain to Major when his record seemed so dubious. Apparently, for Medical Corps, it’s automatic.
Others have wondered about the absence of guns on an Army Base, when the Police had to be called in. Michael Ledeen reported in the Corner that the Marines at Quantico have Marines (with guns) patrolling the base at all times, and particularly where people congregate.
Meanwhile, the media goes through unbelievable contortions to avoid mentioning that the shooter is a Muslim, attended the same mosque that the 9/11 hijackers did, and insist that mentioning his religion is beyond the pale. Strange and bewildering times.
Obama hasn’t “morphed” from cool to cold. He’s had Freon running in his veins for a long, long time. If you want to hear true coldness, go to http://www.bornalivetruth.org, and click on the audio of Obama’s speech on the floor of the Illinois Senate in 2003, defending the practice of infanticide of born-alive, breathing, squirming babies who had the “audacity” to survive their mothers’ attempts to abort them in the 3rd trimester. Obama’s argument was essentially that when a woman signs up for an abortion, she’s entitled to a dead baby. So any baby who comes out alive has an obligation to die.
I don’t care what your opinion is about abortion, anyone who could make the argument above–and with absolutely no emotion in his voice–is one frighteningly cold human being. Frankly, I think he’s a sociopath.
Pingback:Tours