Scott Brown vs. Obama: with friends like these…
The other day I was watching an in-depth personal profile of Scott Brown by Fox’s Greta Van Susteren. It featured interviews with the newly-elected senator’s friends, neighbors, former colleagues in the state senate, ex-coaches, and even the guy who fixes Brown’s truck.
They all seemed to genuinely love the guy (the car mechanic also verified the authenticity and antiquity of the famous vehicle). Person after person spoke warmly and even joyously of Brown’s depth of character (in many cases, going back to his high school days): his work ethic, his integrity, his drive, his intelligence and affability, and his just-folks quality despite all this. The consensus was: what you see is what you get, and it’s all good.
It struck me that, less than a week after the Brown election, we’ve already heard more good things from friends of the previously-unknown Brown than we’ve heard about Obama from his friends in the more than two years he’s been in the spotlight. In fact, if it weren’t for Obama’s shady friends—the ones he suddenly wasn’t all that friendly with, or whose dirty deeds he hadn’t really known that much about after all, such as Ayers, Rezko, and Wright—we’d think him nearly friendless.
He’s not; if one searches hard enough, friends such as this man can be found. He seems a relatively recent acquaintance, however. Perhaps the paucity of articles about old friends can be explained by looking at this early one, featuring interviews with some college roommates and former classmates of Obama’s.
It doesn’t present a glowing picture—and remember, these are Obama’s friends speaking:
The young man [Obama’s Occidental friend] Mifflin remembers was “an unpretentious, down to earth, solidly middle-class guy who seemed somewhat more sophisticated than the average college student. He was slightly reserved and deliberate in a way that I sometimes thought betrayed an uncertainty.”
But another former Occidental classmate, Robert McCrary, now general manager of a contract sewing company, saw him differently: “He definitely had a cocky, sometimes arrogant way about him. … He was not open to others.”
A roommate from Obama’s Columbia years, a Pakastani named Siddiqi (who was not a Columbia student), adds:
[Obama would] give me lectures, which I found very boring. He must have found me very irritating.”
Siddiqi offered the most expansive account of Obama as a young man.
“We were both very lost. We were both alienated, although he might not put it that way. He arrived disheveled and without a place to stay,”….
And then there’s Andrew Roth, whoever he is:
Andrew Roth knew Obama at Occidental and in New York. He speaks bluntly: “The thought, believe me, never crossed my mind that he would be our first black president.”
I’m not just cherry-picking quotes; even the more positive ones tend to indicate that Obama had an oddly detached and off-putting air. In other words, there is very little warmth or exuberance expressed, even from friends. Obama seems to have been admired for his intellect, but the human notes are discordant. Something was missing.
Why am I beating this tired and perhaps dead horse? For me, the impetus was the powerful contrast between Obama’s friends and acquaintances and Brown’s. The latter demonstrated an abundance of the exact qualities Obama’s friends’ descriptions lacked: a deep and abiding human connection.
Before this, I’m not sure I would have thought this especially important in a president. But in Obama’s case, it takes on even greater significance in retrospect. Before the election, we focused on the number of his dubious connections—the Ayers/ Rezko/Wright triumvirate. Now, one year into his term, and more familiar with his coldness and distance from the concerns of his fellow Americans, we start to see at least as much significance in what’s missing from his more ordinary relationships.
Now that you mention it, I don’t recall reading much about Michelle’s friends either. Both of them seem to be disconnected from others; as you put it, something is indeed missing here.
If i could have a single change, i would remove obama, and put ken chenault in his place.
This is like Sherlock Holmes observation about the dog who did not bark. something is going on here and we might not figure out the answer until it is to late.
It might already be to late! I wonder if his dog likes him.
I recall reading before the election a report by a fellow who graduated from Columbia in the same year and department as Obama. He said he has been unable to find anyone in his class who has any recollection of Obama.
He said he has been unable to find anyone in his class who has any recollection of Obama.
Mr. Frank: I read that too; I’ve forgotten in which blog.
However, if you google “did obama really attend Columbia” you discover it is such a frequent query that it is a Google preset in the dropdown autocomplete window.
Actually I believe that Obama did attend Columbia, but it is clear that he didn’t relate to others in the normal way of undergraduates. However, I am on board with the suspicions that Obama first met Bill Ayers in NYC at that time.
I’ve been studying him for 2 years and a couple of months ago it occured to me what BO is really hiding. It’s not his left wing associates, it’s his homosexuality. He never had even 1 girlfriend only a fictional one in Dreams created by Ayers, but that’s another story.
Granny Jan: actually, that’s an old rumor you’re pushing. I’ve never seen anything the least bit convincing about it.
Lack of girlfriend is hardly a convincing ‘argument’ for homosexuality. Perhaps he did not meet anyone willing to worship him as he saw fit until Michelle entered his life.
I think your interest in this is quite meaningful, Neo. Friends are a very important barometer of a person’s personality and character. For instance, I find that women who don’t appreciate friendships with other women tend to focus too much on themselves and be superficial.
As for Granny Jan’s comment, while I don’t think Obama is hiding anything about his sexuality, I do think he’s a definite chauvinist who has a tendency to romanticize men.
We still do not know a lot about this particular President. He’s like Gatsby.
Excellent, holmes (to paraphrase Dr. Watson). The Gatsby/Obama comparison is very apt.
(See this for other great minds that have meandered down the Obama-Gatsby path.)
Do you think they should interview Ellie Light about this?
Sasha Abramsky is a leftist writer who has written a book, “Inside Obama’s Brain,” and for the first anniversary of Obama’s presidency Abramsky contemplates “Obama and the Long View” in an article for The Nation:
So funnily enough, at least to those of us who read history outside the Chomsky-Zinn catechisms, Obama considers himself a student of history.
Elsewhere the Abramsky article also says:
That ought to be an embarrassing admission, yet Abramsky is an admirer of Obama.
Q.E.D. Obama a man obsessed with his vision of himself heroically transforming America. He is not a pollwatcher. He is in it for the long haul. He will not stop fighting — his latest verb of choice — and he will not turn to the center unless he is completely beaten, and maybe not even then.
And this is what we are seeing.
Columbia, spy central of the colleges
new home to the frankfurt school, who went there.. the teachers college where they validated who would go out and change teaching to indoctrination. actually bella dodd and the teachers union did that in 41.. they voted on it… indoctrination won.
Frankfurt school
Group of thinkers associated with the Institut fé¼r Sozialforschung (Institute for Social Research), founded in Frankfurt in 1923 by Felix J. Weil, Carl Gré¼nberg, Max Horkheimer, and Friedrich Pollock. Other important members of the school are Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, and Jé¼rgen Habermas. After the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, Horkheimer moved the institute to Columbia University in New York City, where it functioned until 1941; it was reestablished in Frankfurt in 1950. Though the institute was originally conceived as a centre for neo-Marxian social research, there is no doctrine common to all members of the Frankfurt school. Intellectually, the school is most indebted to the writings of G.W.F. Hegel and the Young Hegelians (see Hegelianism), Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Wilhelm Dilthey, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud. See also critical theory.
any of that sound familiar?
and bella dodd:
In June 1925 I was graduated with honors. Commencement had brought the necessity of thinking about my immediate future. I had already taken the examinations for teaching in both elementary and high schools in New York City and because of the scarcity of teachers I was certain of a position.
The day after commencement I was at Ruth Goldstein’s home. We had both enrolled for the summer session at Columbia University, intent on getting masters’ degrees
she became head of the teachers union, and was a spy, and defected, as well as head of CPUSA!!!
[hey! and she is talking about college degrees and such and she is a woman.. thats 1925… the feminists said women couldnt go to school. thats why my granmother was a chemist in the 20s.. a lot of that history is BS… but you will get a lecture that they remember. but what they forgot is whats important… being kept ot of a good school and protesting to change so all can go, and now all go to a bad school, wasnt an improvement. at least when the women came out of these schools they had real talent and ability.]
The Lost Spy: An American in Stalin’s Secret Service
http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Spy-American-Stalins-Service/dp/product-description/0393060977
Former Time Moscow correspondent Meier (Black Earth: A Journey Through Russia After the Fall) tells a remarkable story about Cy Oggins, a Columbia University undergraduate who joined the fledgling Communist Party in 1920. Recruited by Soviet intelligence in 1926, he went to Europe in the guise of an academic; his residences acted as centers for Soviet espionage. After 1930 he sailed to China and Manchuria for various undercover schemes, then traveled to Moscow in 1939 during Stalin’s purges. Despite long, loyal service, he was arrested and sent to an Arctic gulag and despite frantic pleas for Oggins’s release from his wife, and more modest U.S. government efforts, the Soviets murdered Oggins in 1947 to keep his story from getting out. In Soviet archives, Meier saw a heavily censored fraction of Oggins’s 162-page file, supplemented by the FBI’s massive records, compiled thanks to J. Edgar Hoover’s lifelong fixation on Communists. These files plus the author’s extensive research have produced a rich account of American communism’s early years as well as the bizarre, tragic odyssey of an American who devoted his life to serving the U.S.S.R
hey! and where did franz boas, get tapped so he can tap mead? he was at columbia!!!
Franz Boas, professor emeritus of anthropology at Columbia University
Franz Boas is considered both the founder of modern anthropology as well as the father of American Anthropology. It was Boas who gave modern anthropology its rigorous scientific methodology, patterned after the natural sciences, and it was Boas who originated the notion of “culture” as learned behaviors.
yes, it was he who got us all to deny IQ and genetic differences as not existing!!! the soviet trope… he was the lysenko in our midst. As a teacher, principally at Columbia University, he served as mentor to many of the top names in American anthropology, including such luminaries as Alfred Kroeber, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Robert Lowie, and Edward Sapir. Many of these went on to found, or profoundly influence, departments of anthropology at other universities.
anyone want to go down that short list and see what they ALL were connected to? It was, in addition, his hope that people could learn to be tolerant of difference, and to see so-called primitives not as inferior or less developed, but as a source of diversity that had new ideas to offer. .and it was the ford foundation taht funded them!!! same ford foudnation that funded geithners father and duhham in indonesia… who also is connected to obama!! who also attended columbia.. but if you wanted to get close to the ruling class of the soviet control in america, columbia is where you go!!!
But while he felt scientists should be allowed a political stance, he was staunchly against any political activity that compromised scientific integrity. He had a letter published in The Nation that criticized scientists who use their fieldwork as a cover for spying, decrying it as unscrupulous and dishonest, and arguing that it could also bring suspicion and harm in the future to others who do fieldwork. He may have been right, but many other anthropologists were outraged that he would make such a remark so publicly, thereby putting other anthropologists presently out in the field (not merely actual spies) in very real and imminent danger. This act of impassioned imprudence harmed his reputation, damaged his clout at Columbia and in the larger anthropological community as well.
like lattimore, he protesteith too much.. lattimore was a spy who coined mccarthyism to help us beleive that there were no spies.
Notable faculty
en.allexperts.com/e/l/li/list_of_columbia_university_people.htm
these are columbia people…
*Franz Leopold Neumann–Political science professor, Communist spy in Redhead group
*Victor Perlo–Economics professor, Soviet spymaster involved in Harold Ware spy ring and Perlo group as shown in Venona list of suspected subversives in the U.S.
*Whittaker Chambers–Accused Soviet spy in the Ware group, famously testified against Alger Hiss
*Morris Cohen–Soviet spy, subject of Hugh Whitemore’s drama for stage and TV Pack of Lies
*Bernard Redmont–(M.S. 1939) Soviet spy
*William Remington–(M.A. 1940) convicted Soviet spy in the Sound and Myrna groups; killed in prison
*Harry Dexter White–senior Treasury official for FDR, helped found World Bank/IMF, alleged in Venona list to be Soviet spy
*William Malisoff–(Ph.D.) Scientist accused of being a Soviet spy in the Venona project
*Bela Gold–Economist on Venona list of suspected Soviet subversives who operated in the U.S.
the list goes on and on..
if you know communism, and what it does and who did it, you would know to gravitate to columbia to join the band….and if you read through the rest of notables, and realize that they got a lot of ideas and help from being there… you then can se that the franfurt school was in the right place to cahnge the teaching and to change us.
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
I think I must just have a great memory, Neo, not a great mind. I am certain I did not come up with the comparison independently, but I don’t remember reading great articles such as this, by Krauthammer:
http://www.therocky.com/news/2008/Sep/01/krauthammer-obama-dazzling-gatsby/
And of course this blog has covered the idea that it’s not Daisy this Gatsby is after.
Bob T
It might already be to late! I wonder if his dog likes him.
The dog very much appreciates the protracted, involved decision-making process that took six months to decide that here is just the dog for the White House.
Myself, I would have spent five minutes at a shelter or a pound. Even a pet store. Or asked if a colleague in Congress had a puppy to unload.
The other day, in the comment section of the Belmont Club blog (highly recommended) a psychiatrist mentioned that the more he studied Obama the less convinced he was that Obama was merely a narcissist and the more convinced he was that Obama exhibited many if not all of the traits of a sociopath.
Out of curiosity, I googled “Sociopath”…the very first cite listed was quite illuminating;
Profile of the Sociopath
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
Consider the following:
“Profile of the Sociopath
This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.
* Glibness and Superficial Charm
* Manipulative and Cunning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
* Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”
* Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
* Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
* Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
* Incapacity for Love
* Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
* Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
* Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
* Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
* Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
* Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
* Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
* Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
Other Related Qualities:
1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim’s affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)”
A few of these traits are unclear as to whether they apply or not. Some of them, like paranoia, may yet manifest; as Obama’s disapproval numbers continue to plummet, liberal disdain for him intensifies and 2010 mid-term elections turn into a debacle.
That said, my perception is that the great majority of these traits DO apply. Which leads me to fear that we may well have elected, to the most powerful position on earth, a sociopath…and that, under certain circumstances, could be extremely dangerous.
We can only pray that events do not conspire against us too badly or the American people could pay a price too terrible to contemplate.
Neo-neocon + 13 comments: 1530 words
Artfldgr in one comment: 2250 words
Well you know what they say–if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog. 🙂
it took six months to pick out the pooch.
Re: Obama being gay. Neo, I know about the old rumors. I’ve never read Larry Sinclair. I came to the conclusion after studying him closely in order to make my videos.
I’m not pushing anything. That you would dismiss it outright smacks of political correctness on your part. BTW, I live in Amherst, MA and came to conservatism 40 years ago after reading Commentary.
I actually have an open mind.
I’m going to make a wild assertion without any evidence except my own conclusory statements. If you dismiss me outright, you are likely close-minded.
Another odd thing about Obama is how we are always reading comments about his extraordinary intelligence. The press are always always talking about his fierce intelligence. It’s peculiar because if they did not say that, no one would think he was intelligent, because he never says anything that sounds particularly bright. There is absolutely no evidence that he is a exceptionally bright person. Everything the guy has done has been quite mediocre. He can’t even speak off the cuff. When Joe the Plummer asked him a pretty easy and normal question he just sort of stammered and then said something like “spread the wealth around.” Yikes. What a stupid answer. He was completely unable to engage in a substantive dialogue. Hillary would have answered that question with a zillion facts and figures and policy wonk stuff. Because she’s got some brains. But our boy just kind of went “uh duh”. Well, we’re stuck with him for now.
GREAT point, Neo, about the friends. It speaks to the meme that Obama is possibly a sociopath. He also fits in with the psychological profile of many other Leftists, who had few real friends (this is covered in Jamie Glazov’s book “United in Hate”, in which Glazov shows how many on the Left came from truly dysfunctional families, not that in itself is causative). David Horowitz talks about how his Communist parents had no real friends, only those who cared about their causes.
Obama fits the bill. A messed-up childhood, and only befriended by the likes of Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist, and then by Ayres and the rest of the disaffected, hate-filled types, the Jeremiah Wrights et al.
All of these people are full of rage. They gladly applaud totalitarian regimes, killing and suppressing of the people of those regimes, and don’t find it ironic in any way with their avowed ideals about oppression of victims.
Those who supported Stalin even after finding out he was a mass murderer, or willfully suppressed in their own minds that murder was going on…and then cheered on Pol Pot and Mao and the entire rogue’s gallery of Leftist murderers…they are sociopaths. They have no concept of right or wrong, at least not what most of us would see as right or wrong.
They do not care if some die to help along the “Revolution”, they dont’ care if millions die; what’s the death of these people to them? Most of us recoil in horror at the thought of what went on, and what goes on in places like Cuba or North Korea. But to the sociopathic Leftists, it’s all just fine.
And that’s our mendacious “I cannot tell a truth” President, who lies with practiced ease, who is cold as could be to those around him, or what warmth he exudes is similar to what other sociopaths are described as doing. They can even be likable, but…something is just not right with them. People feel it as an instinct; something is just…off. The eyes are empty, there is no real soul there…or something in the way the person speaks…
I’m just reading Erik Larson’s “The Devil in the White City” and it’s partially about Dr. H.H. Holmes, a serial killer who charms…almost everyone he meets, initially, but Larson describes the vague misgivings of some who met Holmes. I am NOT suggesting Obama is a murderer or serial killer, but there is something SO odd about the lack of friends…it’s very scary that this man is our President.
Granny Jan: I have not dismissed it outright. I’ve dismissed it after reading about it and thinking about it; I’m open to compelling evidence if it ever appears.
But more importantly, you are correct that I don’t care whether Obama is gay. If that makes me politically correct, so be it. What I do care about is his secrecy in general, and what it means. He has been very secretive about a great many facts that should be revealed, such as his school records.
Neo–how about the influence of Obama’s beloved mentor from age 10 or 12 through 17, the “Frank” he writes about in “Dreams From My Father,” who has since been identified as Frank Marshall Davis, a hard drinking and drug using black journalist and poet, who was not only a self-admitted “pervert,” a bisexual, sadomasochist, voyeur, pedophile and pornographer, and also an active member of the Communist Party?
A further piece of information might be pictures of what Obama looked like as a child and teenager (see, for instance, http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/00415/Obama_grosseltern_D_415220g.jpg and http://www.uslaw.com/docs/obamagradschool.jpg ).
I also remember that you yourself pointed out and discussed the very revealing and disturbing poem about his grandfather, but actually about “Frank,” that Obama had written in college (http://neoneocon.com/2009/04/03/obama-and-the-disturbing-influence-of-frank-marshall-davis/).
How do you square all this with your reply to commenter Granny Jen above, when you said that “I’ve never seen anything the least bit convincing about it.” i.e. the idea that Obama might be a homosexual.
Huxley,
you keep complaining and i might write them long rather than the short ones your looking at and scrolling by. Enjoy this one hux. cause this ones for you.
i have been quiet lately, or havent you noticed?
you brought up columbia and obama being there…
i just made it clear why columbia and not another place.
If you want to go back to before this blog even knew of obama to the very first of him, and you will see that i had him pegged. period. want me to recite some of your more reasonable remarks from back then?
you been playing side shuffle trying to sound reasonable, but not be left all the way out on the end of the jeddi by staying put. The tide has been rising against your POV, and each time you shift. Shall i quote of you what i remember?
so give me a break on the childish long post is a problem thing. its only a problem for someone like you and remedial reading people, others who are not so challenged can cope with it, and maybe learn a lot more than with your posts. most of the time i am quoting history… not trying to be glib and be BMOC by entertaining you. i am not an entertainer, if you want that, then pay me.
last friday we have fox news giving us progressive history and came out covering ukraine starvation, the pacts, the posters and how the same both hitler and stalin were. the tearing down of the lie that hitler was on the right.. interviewing edvard (a latvian documentary producer of soviet story), and others, and pretty much reciting the history that i have been trying to edumacate you.
an education that you dont even see fit to wonder why your lacking. why do you know so much of nazi history, but nothing as to china and soviet union? despite them killing order of magnitude more people than hitler, you dont know much about them.
and as far as not seeing whats going on. here is a list of “The Lies of Obama” from the times. even they are coming around faster than such reasonable others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/22banks.html
The accumulated weight of Obama’s deceit is overwhelming:
* During his campaign for the presidency and since, Obama repeatedly assured us that he would protect Medicare against cuts; but he now presses for passage of bills that include savage cuts in Medicare.
* To obtain passage of his first stimulus bill, Obama assured us that 90% of the jobs created would be in the private sector; but as he well knew, most of them were to be in the public sector….
[note from neo-neocon: for the rest of the lengthy list, see this.]
you still havent caught on to him.. and i knew all about his game and what he is pulling before he was even elected.
so whine on man… whine on.. i dont give a rat’s patootie..
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
Wolla Dalbo: Even if Davis had abused Obama, that doesn’t tell us much about Obama’s eventual sexual orientation. The statistics on this sort of thing are unclear and the conclusions drawn tend to follow the agenda of those citing them (see this for an example of some research).
sorry i meant polls, not poles
Two insights into Obama.
Richard Epstein discusses Barack Obama
Richard Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1972. He was a colleague of Barack Obama when Obama taught as an instructor. Epstein had mutual friends with Obama, and talked to Obama about some issues. His main description is that Obama is under complete self-control
“Obama worked as a community organizer and was in many cases very constructive. He organized public/private partnerships to help the homeless and downtrodden.”
“But, the difficulty you get, for someone who has only worked in that situation, is that he believes the creation of private wealth is something the government cannot influence or destroy. He has many fancy redistribution schemes, in addition to his health plan and new labor laws, which are all wealth killers.”
Obama and God
When God talks to you through your inner voice, it is better than prayer. Obama experiences this every day, in his own words, revealed in a March 2004 interview with a reporter on religious issues. Obama declares his submision to God, and further claims to have a daily conversation.
“Historical materialism” I’ll believe, but history? He’s got to be kidding. My kids know that Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets, and the older one isn’t even in high school yet.
Geoffrey, that profile fits…well, practically all of Congress, for openers.
Exactly. Furthermore, someone who is actually bright doesn’t need to have others informed of the fact; it is apparent without having been mentioned. And conversely.
I suspect a fundamental factor in Obama’s personality is his lack of identification with, well, anyone. His first memories must have been of Indonesia, where he was a quasi-outsider because he wasn’t a straight-up Indonesian. At age 10 he moved back to the U.S., where he once again was a quasi-outsider, because he wasn’t a straight-up American either, and kids that age are acutely sensitive to that sort of thing among their peers. (My younger son is about that age, and my wife and I agree that if he were to move to her homeland now, he would still be an American — he’s past the age when allegiance forms.) This history may explain why Obama doesn’t seem to have deep and abiding ties with anyone, or anything.
Maybe Obama thinks the best way for him to get friends is to buy them. He’s not giving up on health care, but my guess is that he’s prepared to let it sleep for a bit and then muscle it through in the dead of night a little later in the year.
Meanwhile, he’s moving on another part of his program: He’s got ideas to increase existing, and create new, dependencies on government. One doesn’t want to over-interpret, of course, but consider his reported new initiatives, to be unveiled in the State of the Union Address: Cutting the costs of child care for working parents, “helping” people save for retirement (as if Social Security weren’t bad enough on its own), lowering payments on college loans for middle class students, extra “community services” for people caring for aging parents (I heard counseling mentioned as among these–increased dependency plus a jobs program for social workers), and other government programs. Many have thought that he intends to make people as dependent on government as possible, and this bunch of measures certainly fits that description. No mention of tax cuts or anything that might remotely serve to foster self-reliance in the heretofore famously self-reliant American people. One can predict that, somewhere along with all this, there will be some nice tax increases on those who don’t need all that money.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
“Obama the less convinced he was that Obama was merely a narcissist and the more convinced he was that Obama exhibited many if not all of the traits of a sociopath.”
Or to bang my drum, step it the other direction (less severe), [just] a schizoid. Problems with personal connections, reading and wanting to be a historical figure, overly cerebral, late bloomer with dating, et cetera… fits right in with those I’ve known.
Still not someone to trust… but not a sociopath either.
Neo–not to hit too hard on the possible sexual abuse and homosexuality thing, but my point is that this is one more additional disturbing data point, joining those like his apparent hatred for Whites–Obama, after all, agreed with the Rev. Wright’s diagnosis that “White greed rules a world in need,” his “father hunger” and idolization of his drunken (and Socialist) and absent biological father, and Blacks in general, his rootlessness and sense of alienation, his early childhood experiences and education as a Muslim, having both biological parents being essentially absent in his life, his apparently Leftist, perhaps far Left, American family members–his mother and grandfather, his coterie of Marxist/terrorist/far left friends, 20 years in the Black Liberation Theology church of the Rev. “God Damn America” Wright, friendships with anti-Jewish Muslims Edward Said and the “ex-PLO operative Rashid Khalidi, his close. long-lasting and personal friendships with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the massive holes, omissions, cover-ups and rewrites in his biography and life, and his performance over the last several years, all of which point to what seems to me could be a very disturbed individual, and, in any case, not an individual who should ever have been allowed anywhere near the Presidency, much less elected President, and able to effect all of our lives and, indeed, the lives of everyone on this planet.
Wolla Dalbo: yes indeed, there are certainly plenty of disturbing points about Obama without postulating a veiled homosexuality.
It still astounds me that he managed to be elected, knowing what we did already know then.
It is peculiar that anyone would attribute a knowledge of history to Obama. As an above commenter and Gore Vidal noted his ignorance of even basic history seems profound. That he does not understand history is blatantly obvious from his behavior.
As for his personality, two terms come to mind, delusions of grandeur and marginal personality. Someone with a psych degree correct me but I seem to recall that a marginal personality is a person caught between two cultures and not being integrated into either one.
Two things for sure, he remains a cipher, more than any man who ever held the presidency, and two, unknown qualities have no business be in positions of responsibility.
Me, too. If you were looking for a financial advisor, would you hire someone about whom you knew as little as we knew/know about Obama, especially given that what little we do know is disturbing? I wouldn’t. Not a chance.
A friend of mine is an earnest liberal (hard to believe, I know — we implicitly agree not to talk about politics). He himself is sensible and prudent financially, yet (still) supports a President who makes drunken sailors in whorehouses look like paragons of probity. I hope to live long enough to figure that one out.
Rudyard Kipling’s “The Law of the Jungle” discusses “A Servant When He Reigneth”; I could not help but think of our current president when I read that portion.
I wonder how future historians will explain the behavior of the American electorate in 2008? I am sure a generation of prosperity and peace allowed us to be immature. The lefty media helped but a lot of people, as you mentioned Occam, should have known better.
Someone like Obama would be laughed off the stage in Israel. It is not an accident that the Israelis were pro-McCain during the last election. War has taught them how to size up a man’s character, as prosperity and peace taught us we could get away with silly decisions and not worry about consequences.
Maybe this is at least a partial explanation for his election.
Submission to God? Isn’t islam translated into that? I’m a devout Catholic trying to live God’s will, not mine. I consider it obedience, not submission.
That’s an odd choice of words.
Paul Hinderaker at PowerLine posted the following tonight:
Berry’s anecdote reminds me of something a friend told me about Obama. This friend met Obama when they were both summer associates at the same law firm. Years later, as Obama’s campaign for president was picking up momentum, he gave me his impressions from that summer.
At this point (2007), Obama struck me as pretty likeable. In addition, prominent conservative lawyers who had worked with Obama on the Harvard Law Review were saying nice things about his willingness to cooperate with them and to treat them with respect.
Since my friend is not inclined to say harsh things about others, I expected him to give a favorable account of Obama too. Instead, he described Obama as “the most arrogant person I’ve ever met.”
I have a friend who ran for congress in Illinois and also met Obama. He was also offended by Obama’s arrogance and made the following prediction “they will try and run the country the way they ran Chicago and it won’t work.”
“Cutting the costs of child care for working parents, “helping” people save for retirement (as if Social Security weren’t bad enough on its own), lowering payments on college loans for middle class students, extra “community services” for people caring for aging parents (I heard counseling mentioned as among these—increased dependency plus a jobs program for social workers), and other government programs.”
And what will happen is that he will get some bump to his poll numbers and some initial support. Those are probably going to be how he puts it – who isn’t for helping poor people get on their feet? Obama is great at delivering a speech with vision, if he could follow up with that vision at all he would have been the most popular president ever.
Further the specifics will be Obamacare like. Again, who doesn’t want everyone to have good health care? Yet how many like Obamacare?
I do not think it will be a big bump, nor will it last long, and then slide afterward will be deeper. Too many learned with Obamacare yet I can assure a good rousing speech will give them hope once again that Obama finally gets it. The stimulus really doesn’t “belong” to him, Obamacare does so this will be his second chance.
Nearly everyone gets a second chance and I can assure you that when given the podium like that Obama can make a good speech. For a group of people that are really really wanting to think they didn’t get hoodwinked that bad it will take another time or two to fully learn.
Expect to be an “evil conservative” for a little bit again as you are not given people HopenChange, indeed you are crushing it with bitter reality. If movies like Avatar have taught us anything people do not like reality a whole lot if they think they can ignore it (unlike many here I liked avatar, while I did see those messages I thought they were so clumsily delivered to be amusing and, like most that are liking it I was blown away by the SFX).
From what is being told/leaked to the press, Obama’s State of the Union will be a mix of still fighting–and even harder-for his agenda, a placatory bone or two thrown to the middle class, and perhaps a little class warfare, and a faux populist “two minute hate” session directed at those “fat-cat bankers.”
I don’t know whether the glamour of Saruman’s silver tongue has worn off just yet, but I believe that, after our experiences of rough handling by Obama & Co., the expiration date may have arrived or will arrive shortly.
We do not like a liar or someone who thinks he can put one over on us because we are all dolts, and that is Obama & Co.’s default assumption.
Reading the profile of a sociopath I was struck by the realization that it described Bill Clinton to a “T”.
It is peculiar that anyone would attribute a knowledge of history to Obama. As an above commenter and Gore Vidal noted his ignorance of even basic history seems profound. That he does not understand history is blatantly obvious from his behavior.
Bob from Virginia: Worse yet, Obama attributes to himself a deep knowledge history and believes he is playing out his role epically against that backdrop.
We’ve now heard Obama or his reps drop the hint that Obama is OK with being a one-term president:
Obama will not be restrained by second-term concerns.
Fancying yourself as a major part of history is not the same as understanding the lessons from the past.
I notice he didn’t say anything about being an abysmal one-term President, which he’s on course to being.
I notice he didn’t say anything about being an abysmal one-term President, which he’s on course to being.
O.B.: True enough, but that option is not on Obama’s radar at all.
Obama believes he has simply hit the inevitable resistance that major historical leaders, like Lincoln and MLK, meet. Therefore, rather than listen to voters who don’t like any of his policies, Obama will push on. He will renew his commitment, sharpen his message, and continue to attack.
It’s the old leftie Ghost Dance, played out in the Oval Office. 2010 will be even worse for Obama than 2009.
the inevitable resistance that major historical leaders, like Lincoln and MLK, meet.
Obama isn’t fit to wash Lincoln’s jockstrap. That of King – who is overrated, IMO – maybe.
Art wrote, “i have been quiet lately, or havent you noticed? ”
I’ve noticed… And i’ve actually read more of your comment ! 😉
After the haven’t you noticed phrase – I stopped reading that post.
To all,
Yes, “Profile of a Sociopath “could be stretched to cover just about everyone in Congress but then they’re politicians. A certain amount of narcissism goes with the job, after all inherent to the job of politician is emphatically stating; “look at me!, vote for me! I can do the job because I’m special!”
Yes, Obama may be a ‘schizoid’ or merely a narcissist. I suspect all of those categories lie on a scale of increasingly dysfunctional symptoms.
I didn’t mean to imply that the diagnosis of Obama as a sociopath was conclusive, just that it does seem to fit when viewed from afar. Perhaps by 2012 the diagnosis will be far more certain.
“Why am I beating this tired and perhaps dead horse? For me, the impetus was the powerful contrast between Obama’s friends and acquaintances and Brown’s.” Neo
Are you serious? Are you seriously suggesting that I, troglaman, couldn’t dig up testimonials about Obama that were just as glowing?
Besides that, so the f**k what? Are we comparing comments made by Brown’s posse vs Obama’s posse? So what? Jesus.
Neo’s comments venture into ‘Express Hollywood’ territory. They’re irrelevant.
“Yes, Obama may be a ’schizoid’ or merely a narcissist. I suspect all of those categories lie on a scale of increasingly dysfunctional symptoms.” Geoffrey Britain
Fascinating. Out of curiosity, when do the onset of symptoms of a ‘schizoid’ personality take place? I’d also be interested in knowing the commonality of symptoms shared by both a schizoid and narcissistic personality.
You have some experience with this, Geoffrey? Or are you just making shit up? Be careful, my friend.
Oh, a troll.
“It still astounds me that he managed to be elected, knowing what we did already know then.”
The most frightening part of this is not Obama, it’s the fact that approximately half of the voters in America, many of whom should have been more intuitively sophisticated in their judgement, given that much of this information was easily available throughout the early campaign, chose to support him. Additionally, much of the leadership at the top of the Dem party have long standing issues as serial liars and political opportunist hypocrites. The hate campaign against Bush was the mirror and model for the indoctrination of Obama’s election. I give the black culture, because of their history, a half-hearted pass for focussing only on his “black” identity; but others, especially the MSM, above all the MSM; as well as the almost 80% of Jews who were apparently eager Obama voters, placing Democratic Party loyalty above the early obvious security issues concerning Israel, while Israel (also Honduras and Columbia and others) is now paying the price of that misjudgement (if you’re offended, note that I make this comment as an Israel concerned Jew); as well as academia who should be champions of intellectual integrity above all, not just dedicated left-wing idealogues; and as well a wide variety of voters who didn’t stop to consider that their own fiduciary responsibility should be ultimately apolitical, focussed first and foremost on the demand for honesty and integrity in government. Instead, Obama’s election has reflected an unprecedented display of deliberately oblivious, deceptive and hypocritical political maneuvering by the entire Democratic Party, and others who facilitated the election.
Incidentally, I sometimes learn a lot from Art’s often voluminous material; when I’m tired and in a hurry, and a quick glance doesn’t stand out, then I simply skip quickly past his comments, which takes negligible effort; anyone has the option of simply skipping his comments. Ultimately it’s Neo’s call, she continues to keep his contributions, while frequently editing for length, over a long period of time, which I take as an indication that she also values his work similarly (to my own perspective).
“Cutting the costs of child care for working parents, “helping” people save for retirement (as if Social Security weren’t bad enough on its own), lowering payments on college loans for middle class students, extra “community services” for people caring for aging parents (I heard counseling mentioned as among these—increased dependency plus a jobs program for social workers), and other government programs.”
He’s just gonna “spread the corn where the hogs can see it,” to use Bill Clinton’s charming expression (and we see thereby just what Clintoon thinks of us “hogs”).
@Perfected Democrat: Good post. The takeaway, for me, is that there will always be people like Obama seeking high office. It is the job of the electorate to sniff them out in spite of the MSM’s attempts at obfuscation, so in the aggregate, we do indeed get the leaders we deserve.
Of course, that is no comfort to those of us who saw through the facade. But perhaps the electorate at large will learn a lesson from this. (Yes, that’s a mighty shaky “perhaps,” and a mighty expensive lesson. C’est la vie.)
I have no comment on Art, other than to say I skip right over his posts.
This is one of the best comments/posts ever. Everybody has dug deeply to unlock the cipher that is Obama.
I have come to savor Artfldgr’s comments-he is a treasure–though I was a length-whiner, at first. I would happily get him a top-shelf vodka.
Huxley has cogent and pithy comments and I am sorry I ever got sideways with him. I want to treat him to a good single malt.
Obama is not likeable enough to be a sociopath.
I have had the pleasure, and it is a pleasure, to know a few sociopaths: as long as you keep them at arm’s length! Sociopaths are guile and chutzpah incarnate; danger and fun; on the edge of disaster. They are charismatic, great leaders and chameleons. Knowing them is like having an alpha carnivore as a pet and you are on the menu.
Obama is not that. As he stated, he is a blank slate for the true believers to project their desires upon. He is a reflection, and only a reflection, of The Left. The Left first gave him affirmation and then power. His managers, his handlers, his image-makers are sociopaths. He is the victim. They built a political animal. A political virus for which the American body politic had no defenses.
As I have said before, everything he touches turns to shit. He has the reverse Midas Touch. His political enablers, his “handlers” have simply used him as a disease vector–to insert their pestilent collectivist ideas into our government.
I don’t love our government, but I do love our foundations, our Constitution. I think this country as constituted is strong enough to repel these repellent ideas.
@Troglaman: Are you serious? Are you seriously suggesting that I, troglaman, couldn’t dig up testimonials about Obama that were just as glowing?
No, I don’t believe you can. Not from anyone who knows him, or knew him.
Just because he has what you want doesn’t mean that’s what he is. He’s Whatever.
I’m getting uneasy with all this anti-banker, anti-wallstreet, anti-moneymen, anti-fatcats talk.
It smacks of Krystallnacht.
I know I’m not the only one who feels this.
But, wait, Gray… just saying that makes you an anti-semite. Look out for Abe. He’ll be coming for you next.
Having recently been diagnosed with Asperger’s at age 55 it occurs to me that certain people exhibit the same behaviors I do. Which leads me to ask, is the difference between George Washington and Barack Obama because George was a well socialized Asper, while Barack is a poorly socialized one?
Neo,
I also watched the Greta show on Scott Brown with great interest. One of the most important parts of the show was the interview with Scott Brown’s campaign strategist. He said that although Brown’s senate campaign was going well in early December, it REALLY caught fire when two events occurred…(1) the Senate passed the healthcare bill with all its special deals, etc. and (2) the “Christmas Bomber Incident” occurred.
He was definitely in a position to know why Brown won the senate race and his comments in that interview destroys the Obama administration leaders’ claim that Brown won because of some general feeling of anger equal to that directed against Bush.
They continue to live in another universe than the real one we all live in and it’s gonna cost ’em big time…in 2010 and 2012.
I not only predict that Obama will be a one term president but that he won’t even run in 2012 because his ego won’t be able to handle a defeat.
I too enjoy Artfldgr’s posts, long though they be, for he brings up a lot of detailed information–pertinent to our discussions here–that many of us did not know about; “you can’t tell the players without a program.”
It is critical that we are able to identify the dots, as well as seeing those connections made, and Artfldgr helps us do this.
Knowing that Columbia University has been a major center for recruitment and a home for many Communists and CPUSA members, just as Oxford and Cambridge in England were recruiting centers and homes for Communists, allows us to reevaluate the part they played in past and contemporary history, and the motives, roles, initiatives, theories, actions and statements of people from those institutions.
It is one thing if “scholars” from those institutions are merely ordinary academics–researchers and scientists who are trying to do honest, objective work–it is quite another thing if they are committed Communists, and doing their best–however disguised–to subvert, undermine and destroy our country and our democracy, and to take away our freedom.
Personally, I heart Art, badly. And this will be my last words on this site – or not.
Gray . . .
I reacted the same way about the “fatcat bankers” talk. This term seems straight out of the 1930s.
Ditto the Big Pharma, Big Insurance, phraseology. These silly terms remind me of the antique phrase “Malefactors of Great Wealth.”
Firstly, Alan, congratulations on being diagnosed. I work with Aspergers clients and I know that diagnosis can mean a big change in your life. Hope you and your family are getting to understand yourself a lot better.
And no, neither Bush nor Obama are aspies. Aspergers make terrible politicians – they are blunt, frank and too honest. If you ask them “Does this make me look fat?” – they say what they think and then don’t understand why people’s feelings get hurt. Professions aspergers are good at: science, accounting, technical fields, fact based and where there are right and wrong answers. Professions aspergers are not suited for: diplomacy, politics, fields dominated by emotion, gray areas where right and wrong are not clear or may not apply.
Politicians need to be good at understanding people and reading the mood of the electorate. Scott Brown’s recent campaign was just about picture perfect. He presented himself as an underdog – not a loser, tilting at windmills. He was a man of the people, available, accessible. He spoke about things that people were concerned about. And in the end he drew support from Republicans, Independents – and Democrats. His opponent presented herself as elitist, distant, aloof, cold, dismissive of the people and thought her election was a forgone conclusion so she didn’t need to even pretend to care. If this was a Hollywood movie – everyone in the audience would be pulling for Brown. (Although if Hollywood made it – Brown would have been a Dem and Coakley would be a rich Republican…gotta stick to the leftist script at all times you know).
In comparison, Obama has shown that he has little connection with the electorate. But then again, I don’t think Obama ever was the ‘man of the people’ that he was portrayed as in Dem propaganda. He went to an expensive private school, an Ivy League University, he made connections with rich and powerful people. And these connections were his ticket to success. This lead to him being involved in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge which spent $150m to no effect. He has never really earned a paycheck, never run a business, never even been a bureaucrat that had to deal with the public. Other than his limited time in “Community Organizing” which he left because he felt he wasn’t achieving heroic successes, when has Obama been involved in anything where he worked with ordinary people and not wealthy leftist elitists?
He seems to be a politician whose rise and career has been stage managed by handlers all seeking to use him to further their own goals. Elections were “fixed” by eliminating and destroying rivals. His great legislative achievements were all someone elses’ work. And now the puppet is starting to look like exactly what he is – a puppet whose strings are broken.
I always believed that Obama’s supporters were destined to be disappointed. I mean the man was built up as a political messiah. The man to lead us to a lefty Promised Land of milk, honey and government handouts for all. It was never going to work. And Obama has never demonstrated that he is the genius that people wanted to believe. The Change guy was actually just a “more of same old failed Left wing ideas” guy. There was nothing really new here. Old leftist ideas were repackaged – but they have all been tried and failed before. What is supposed to be different this time is the Obama will weave a magic spell and suddenly failed ideas will transform into new and exciting breakthroughs!
Obama alway felt comfortable with the adoring fans. He has never understood those who oppose him – don’t those people get it ? He is BARACK, he is the anointed one. The Destined Great Leader. The One. Those who oppose him are evil and wrong. Look at all the attacks – Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the Tea Parties – these aren’t fellow citizens who happen to disagree with you – they are enemies to be attacked. Fox News isn’t a real news network – since “real” networks are pro-Obama 24/7. Tea Parties ? – Tea Baggers and we’ll hit back twice as hard – sounds like Hitler ordering his brownshirts into the streets. Opposition to Barack is “racist” since those who oppose him are preventing him from attaining the Destiny to which he is surely entitled.
So I don’t think Obama is an asperger nor do I think he is a sociopath. Aspergers are too honest, and not nearly manipulative enough. And sociopaths are smarter, read people better and are more adept at achieving their goals than Obama. Obama’s greatness was always manufactured from his media campaign, playing up his future achievements and downplaying his past failures and suspect associations.
No, I would tag Obama as a delusional narcissist. He doesn’t hear the people, because his is too busy listening to the voices in his head, telling him how great he is, and how only he can lead the American people out of the desert and into a Leftist Paradise.
The anti-banker, anti-fat-cat hate talk is definitely scary, in a way that you might think that Obama, with his refined grasp of history, would appreciate. Or perhaps he does, which is even scarier.
And as for his grasp of more recent history, you’d think he might have considered the immediate negative impact of his let’s-hate-the-bankers talk on the retirement and tuition-savings accounts of millions of middle-class Americans!
Oh, and troglaman — by all means, bring us your dozens of links to the laudatory comments of Obama’s many friends. Seriously, if they’re out there, many of us would like to see them. Find them for us. We’re waiting.
I think there is a paralle to JF Kennedy here.
In `Death of a President’, William Manchester quotes from notes written by a cabinet secretary who, on Nov 22 1963, was travelling back from the Far East, where he and the rest of the cabinet were headed when they heard news of the assassination.
Without naming the secretary, Manchester quotes him to the effect that, `Kennedy was able to connect with people in general, in spite of his diffident New England manners…’
Being against bankers and Big Pharma and so forth is an interesting process.
Among other things, if you’re going to nationalize practically everything, the big corps are going to be on YOUR side, if they know what’s good for them. See Big Pharma in MA…for Coakley.
Zero, as one poster put it on another thread “crushed” McCain in big corp donations. These guys know which end is up.
And being against them in public is a not very veiled threat good for wringing more money out of them, all the while convincing the rubes you and they are united against the malefactors of great wealth.
Old, possibly still effective.
It is obvious that without the essential, the conscious and active connivance of the overwhelmingly Left MSM to shape Obama’s image, to cover for him and to turn their heads the other way, to shield him from inquiries that would have doomed his candidacy, and also to whip up the quasi-religious fervor and “hope” that buoyed up his candidacy, Obama would not have been a viable candidate, much less elected.
A few examples that come to mind:
To this day, the existence of what was by far Obama’s longest–at three plus years, and most relevant “executive experience,” his far Left advocacy and disastrous tenure as the head of the Annanberg Challenge in Chicago, a charitable effort founded by Obama’s close friend and political supporter, unrepentant domestic terrorist and Communist Bill Ayers, that was supposed to reform Chicago’s abysmal public school system, but wasted over $100 million, and some say over $200 million dollars of donor money, channeled almost exclusively to far Left people, organizations and programs focused on the Leftist political agenda and black identity politics; an effort that all agreed failed utterly, is hardly even known. The MSM allowed Obama to get away with not even mentioning this very relevant experience when he was asked during the campaign to give an example of his “executive experience”; instead of citing being Executive Director of the Annanberg Challenge, he was allowed to give the lame example of “running his own campaign”–gee, I thought that was what campaign managers were for–as that example of executive experience, and, of course, no focus by the MSM, either, on the fact that he was daily working for and with Bill Ayers all those three plus years.
Then, there was the issue of Obama’s Muslim relatives and background. No one from the MSM was interested in or took the time, it seemed, to travel to Indonesia to find and interview Obama’s school mates and friends, and to look at his school records. The few curious citizens who did go to Indonesia and investigated, found that Obama was registered in Indonesian school records as a citizen of Indonesia, and that in the situation and laws then prevalent in Indonesia, had he not been believed to be an Indonesian citizen, he would not have been allowed to go to elementary schools there. Moreover, Obama–then named Barry Soetoro, was registered as a Muslim, which meant he had to take mandatory instruction in the Qur’an and Islam at school, and his classmates and friends recounted that they saw him going to the Mosque with his stepfather Lolo Soetoro and that they regarded him as serious about Islam, and that he even took the extra, after school classes in reciting the Qur’an in Arabic (mangaji) that only the most pious Muslims took. All this very important and significant information about candidate Obama yet, somehow, the MSM was not only not interested in finding it; it was definitely not interested in publicizing it once it was found.
Meanwhile, despite the fact that in Obama’s own autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama wrote about taking those mandatory Qur’anic classes in his Indonesian elementary school, our incurious MSM allowed Obama’s campaign website to get away with claiming that Obama had never been a Muslim, studied Islam or had a Muslim background, and during the campaign a major newsmagazine was profiling Obama’s paternal grandmother and saying that she was a Christian, even though all but one of Obama’s paternal relatives, members of the majority Muslim Luo tribe in Kenya, and his step relatives as well, were all Muslims. In fact, a later profile of Obama’s paternal grandmother in the New York Times had her quoted as saying that not only was she and had always been a Muslim, but that she was “strong in Islam.”
There was also the MSM’s curious lack of curiosity about certain members of Obama’s maternal family, which consisted of his mother Stanley, his grandfather, “Gramps” and his grandmother, “Toots.” Except for coverage of the conventional family breadwinner, Toots,” MSM coverage of Stanley and Gramps was infrequent, scanty and superficial–with a lot of the material coming from Obama’s own autobiographies; there were hints about Stanly and Gramps radical ideas, but all was buried under a ton of gauze and impossible to clearly discern.
Finally, there was Obama’s very influential and beloved mentor of his teen aged years, Frank Marshall Davis, whose very disturbing sexual and political background, so important for giving hints as to who candidate Obama might be, was only investigated on and reported by the British press, reportage never picked up by our MSM.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea. The guilty parties responsible for this massive con job are Obama & Co. and our MSM. You want to know why we are deep in shit right now, look to the traitorous MSM.
OB: Lincoln’s jockstrap? Too funny!
Gray: Yes, everytime BO makes a negative remark about the Banks, the markets fall down like shouting Boo! in a chicken house.
And speaking about our MSM and con jobs.
It is my contention that, even before and certainly since 9/11, we have been attacked on U.S. soil by many more Muslim Jihadis–from overseas and home-grown–than we are aware of, and that this wave of attacks–which seem to be growing in number and frequency–is being covered up as a matter of government and MSM policy–wouldn’t want to get us all riled up, and suspicious of and hostile to Islam and Muslims, would we?–by the simple expedient of just not reporting sufficient details, by delaying the reporting of significant details, by blowing off the significant details that would tell us this is a Muslim waging Jihad against us, or, finally, by just flatly declaring, before all the facts can even be gathered, much less known, that terrorism was not involved, much less terrorism prosecuted by a Muslim against us unbelievers as an act of Islamic Jihad.
Thus, the attackers names are sometimes not revealed or not revealed until interest from the initial reporting has died down, the attackers are uniformly portrayed as “nuts” and disturbed or distraught “loners,” the statements made by the attacker during the attack just somehow almost never get reported, and certainly not immediately–Maj. Hasan’s cry of “Allahu Akbar” as he mowed those unbeliever soldiers down just got away from the MSM–the attacker’s Muslim religion and Islam are not or are hardly even mentioned, and, if mentioned, are immediately downplayed as a possible motive, or we are told–way before any person would have enough evidence to make a reasonable determination–that “terrorism was not involved.”
This was the FBI spin during the first few hours of what the government has still not fully admitted was a straightforward Jihadi terrorist attack by Muslim Maj. Hasan that killed 13 and wounded 30 at Ft. Hood–in fact, the 85 page DOD report on this incident apparently calls Hasan–not, by the way, mentioned by name–an “alleged attacker” and does not mention Islam, or Jihad, or terrorism once in its pages; it was just a guy who “went postal,” a normal workplace incident, really.
Yesterday, an Ethiopian airplane took off from Beirut airport and blew apart in the air a few minutes later, and before the bodies and wreckage could even be found, authorities said that they did not believe terrorism played any part in the “accident.”
A few minutes ago, FOX news was reporting on the apprehension an hour or so ago, in New Jersey, of a heavily armed man in body armor, turned in by a suspicious customer at a convenience store, a man who had a cache of ammo and weapons–modified to be more lethal, and with filed off serial numbers–in his hotel room in New Jersey, plus a map of military bases and other potential targets, and a kaffiyeh i.e. Arab headdress, and that more arms and ammunition were found in his residence in Reston, VA. Yet, the news anchor reported the good news that authorities had already told reporters that “they did not believe that any terrorism was involved.”
Wake up people!
he was a quasi-outsider because he wasn’t a straight-up Indonesian
this is projecting modern american culture as representative.. its not…
i am 6’3″… red hair, and as white as ganesha is represented…
the indonesians are mostly tanned, short, thin, asians.. (of which obama would blend in)
feel like an outsider is not something that is easy to experience in indonesia.
and i think that has made a problem in obama. he doesnt realize that this cultural attitude comes from them and the richness of them. while obama thinks it comes from the poverty (in disonnant existence with poverty causes crime doctrine)
go to indonesia…
if a 6’3″ red headed man who towers over everyone (and can barely speak their language) never felt like he didnt belong, or was not afforded a wealth of respect that became very infectious and enjoyable to return.
its why i think if obama doesnt bankrupt me i may retire there. i will be the only one on the mountain that looks like me, but unlike the places your used to, no one will notice.
waltj,
anything to add to my assesment?
[i am a realist, i do know that those kinds ofpeople are everywhere, but in indonesia, they tend to focus on the chinese that way. and here in the US, its dominant not rare – because the politicos beat dead horses and cut old wounds to make it]
Jennifer Rubin has another good article with the blunt title, “Why is Obama Acting So Weird?”
Rubin usually avoids pondering the Obama Enigma, preferring straight-up political analysis while presuming that Obama is a rational political actor, even if on the far left for American Presidents. However, even she can be nonplussed by Obama and forced to speculate what goes on beneath that immaculately short Obama haircut.
So at first she considers the “Out-to-Lunch” theory that Obama is just not in contact with reality and perhaps requires an intervention. But her heart seems set for the second explanation, that:
It is peculiar that anyone would attribute a knowledge of history to Obama. As an above commenter and Gore Vidal noted his ignorance of even basic history seems profound.
your confused.. i know.. and i know why…
he DOES study lots of history…he IS AN EXPERT in history
so whats the issue? why the dissonance? because he is an expert in stalinist (revisioned) history not history as it happened. remember, he is a progressive and the progressives rewrote history to change focuses, exagerate things, minimize other things. all in a desire to make us behave today as if we lived in the false world they created, rather from the world we actually came from.
so, his historical knowlege is the stalinist kind negationism, where america is imperialist. lenins russia was a democratic state, as was stalins (sovereign democracy). where america made aids to kill black people, but black ministers are not fomenting eugenics using abortion. (meanwhile the aids thing was a russian gig to hide their anthrax production wich continues to today).
I know what history he has.. how? easy… i know russian history, american history, european history… and if you study all that in detail, you learn the historical dialects of deviation from that history that different regimes, movements, and so forth accentuated or created over the ages.
this is the difference between huxleys imaginative means to knowing, and my historical means to understanding… i can even tell sometimes which era of soviet life they grew up in! because different eras had different histories and so can be identified by which deviancies they spout.
Historical revisionism is either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about an historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favourable light. For the former, i.e. the academic pursuit, see historical revisionism.[1] This article deals solely with the latter, the distortion of history, which–if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes–is also sometimes (but not commonly) called negationism.[2][3]
that paragraph basically says: when we do the soviet thing, its good, and so its a ligitimate act of academia. when they do it, its bad, and so its an illigitimage act of state.
the truth: when any one does it they have an agenda, and the agenda is removed from the truth. usually the agenda is to move material (people) to do somethign that without it they would not do.
In revising the past, illegitimate historical revisionism (“negationism”) appeals to the intellect–via techniques illegitimate to historical discourse–to advance a given interpretive historical view. The techniques include presenting known forged documents as genuine; inventing ingenious, but implausible, reasons for distrusting genuine documents; attributing his or her own conclusions to books and sources reporting the opposite; manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view; and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist’s).[4] Practical examples of negationism (illegitimate historical revisionism) include Holocaust denial and some Soviet historiography.[5][6] Contemporarily, hate groups practice negationism on the Internet. In literature, the effects of historical revisionism are usually described in science fiction novels such as Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell). Moreover, some countries have criminalised the negationist revision of certain historical events.
since obama was raised by people steeped in this alternative universe… which education and corrections do you think a populus stalinist red baby would get?
by the way, if you read the wiki on negationism… and then read the articles on russian dezinformatsiya and (anotehr word that starts with an M)…
Dezinformatsia: active measures in Soviet strategy. – book reviews
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_v36/ai_3348685/
YOU WILL NOT find the word “disinformation” in the Oxford English Dictionary nor in the OED supplement published in 1972. Nor could I find it in Webster’s Third, or in the 1973 Webster’s New Collegiate. So, very wisely, the scholarly authors of this fascinating volume on one aspect of Soviet intelligence–media activities and political-influence operations–decided to use the transliterated Russian form of the neologism in their book title. “Dezinformatsia” describes an important and successfull exploited weapon in the Soviet war against the West.
To define “disinformation” one must first understand the organizational structure for carrying out what the Kremlin calls “active measures.” These include an “integrated array of overt and covert techniques for influencing events and behavior in, and the actions of, foreign countries.”
The basic aim of “active measures” (or AMs) is “to deceive the target and to distort the target’s perceptions of reality.”
AMs are executed on two levels:
1) Overt: diplomatic exchanges, officially sponsored propaganda channels, international cultural activities.
2) Covert: the attemp to influence media in foreign countries by placing soviet-authored or Soviet-inspired articles in foreign publications with attribution to a non-Soviet writer or without any attribution at all; sponsorship of clandestine radio broadcasts; use of international front organizations; military maneuvers and paramilitary operations, such as support of insurgency movements and terrorist groups.
of course if your ignorant of all this, you will argue with people as to what is real and what isnt. and so you find yourself in the plaec where obama is as a fellow traveler raised on the teat of western reds, whose images and ideals have been carefully crafted and played with (ergo the defectors later in life when they are no longer useful and they learn whats real).
and lastly that brings me to Soviet historiography
Soviet historiography is the way in which history was written by historians within the Soviet Union. Soviet historiography is also the practice of current historians studying how historians wrote history in the Soviet Union.[1] Soviet historiography is marked by alternating periods of freedom allowed and restriction imposed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and also by the struggle of historians in the Soviet Union to conduct history by their own estimates.
you see.. you can tell that obama is on a certain side since obama knows a certain contrived history. thats one of many reasons why i knew what he was representing from day one. and why people like hux refuse to conclude it, since they are absent the detailed education which would let them make that decision and have it be OBVIOUS.
if you read these other histories, and stories, you start to pick up turns of phrase… then you see those who are also raised on these sanitized and revisioned histories, also pick up those turns of phrase. you also notice other things. (like when you see anita dunn at the comencement speech. watch her mouth… if you grew up in the inner cities like i have you recognize that behavior and why it is done on someone without that as a tic]
Party line [russian term for politically correct]
(PC started with the feminists and their conciousness raising, another soviet term. they renamed the totalitarian term and then pretended they werent making totalitarian soviet style government despite that being the open end of the leaders. we follow and seldom pay attention)
Historians are dangerous and capable of turning everything upside down. They have to be watched.
Nikita Khrushchev, First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1956[8]
in this way… obama was raised as a russian from the soviet era… …
and so they did the same thing here as they did in russia. they got control of the ideas and then erased the hsitory that you would have gotten. THIS is why hux cant conclude anything that so manyh of us from there or from families there can. and why he gets upset at my long histories, like this post.
why? becayuse i know that so much of the history has been pushed off. and this is why glenn becks 4 milloin viewers at 5 pm is such a landmark thing. so now, perhaps to some, its clearer why i know what i know and am concluding what i am concluding. i can tell which history and period your from by which history you spout.
in order to learn and live with my family, i had to learn the real history… and learn the soviet one as i corrected it for the others… AND learn the new sovietized one in the US so that i could get As and get into bronx science (As leftist teachers crush you for trying to teach them!)
sigh
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
sorry i forgot to include the link to more BASIC information (that we dont learn)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_historiography
who makes drunken sailors in whorehouses look like paragons of probity
thats casue you have the description wrong..
drunken sailors in a whore house are spending their own leave money..
no..
obama spends like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse with someone elses credit card.
All those who wish to ponder the diagnostic possibilities, please know that I second GMF’s assessment, and I also work with such folk to earn my daily bread.
Wolla, you well know that there were complaints from the right early in the campaign for that information to be investigated, but it was contemptuosly dismissed. Your recitation as a reminder is certainly valuable. You may be called on to say it again many times over the next few years. Grow not weary.
The problem with the collection of questions about Obama is that all (or at least most) of them taken individually could be unimportant. Lots of people knew radicals, or even had radical parents. Lots of people had unusual circumstances of early childhood, including instruction in religion. Lots of people have had nontraditional jobs. Lots of people screwed up their lives for awhile when young. Each one of these could be dismissed contemptuously by his supporters if it were standing alone.
But they don’t stand alone. Taken as an aggregate, they are damning. Try, for example, to uncover any positive evidence that he has any sympathy (or even neutrality) about anyone outside his favored groups. Ever. There is none. There are no acts of generosity of spirit. There are no acts of forgiveness or mercy, no gestures of goodwill. He tells us he is that sort of good person, but nothing ever comes of it. It is always jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today.
It is always jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today.
Well, he’s finally delivered. We’re certainly in a jam today.
by the way..
the effort to set the state as the arbiter of truth in the obama government is how the soviets got control of history to revision it.
to a person with no interest in entomology, a locust, grasshopper, katydid, and others are not that differentiated.
they may even say that a grasshopper is a socialist, a locust is a communist.. (and never know that grasshoppers become locusts).
to a person with a passing fancy of such, they would know that grasshoppers become locusts, and that a katydid is a different class of creature.
and to those who study in detail..
they can tell you what kind of grasshopper you have, if its one that can become a locust, and can indentify which type of katydid.
when i argue as to all of this. i feel like a person who is an entymologist talking to those that know very little about their subject of discussion, and who are trying to teach me that they are all the same, and so forth.. while i cant make any headway in showing them the details, ins and outs, and facts as to their subject.
i try to show them that a katydid and a grasshopper are not the same… they say they are… and bristle..
i then try to show them that a lucst and a grasshpper are the same creature under diffeent circumstances (grasshppper when they dont haev power, locust when they ahve all the power.. and that one leads to the other)
got to go… cant finish..
have work to do.
sigh
neo-neocon: It still astounds me that he managed to be elected, knowing what we did already know then.
I guess the 52 (53?) % who voted for Obama should be on the couch together with their idol. What made them ignore ALL the signs?
There are 25 – 30% who always vote with the D candidate, regardless of who he might be. What about the rest? Why did they do it?
Yeah, Obama can speak. Yeah, the media covered for him. There are many (valid) excuses. Yet… I believe it would be just as interesting to know why so many people fall for demagogues.
All those who wish to ponder the diagnostic possibilities, please know that I second GMF’s assessment, and I also work with such folk to earn my daily bread.
and so where where you when this was written?
March 20th, 2009
What’s behind Obama’s Teleprompter addiction?
neoneocon.com/2009/03/20/whats-behind-obamas-teleprompter-addiction/#comment-104427
“a key thing with sociopaths is that their desire to ingratiate themselves exceeds their desire to get things right… so if you watch carefully, their act breaks down… ”
in a long post..
March 11th, 2009
Camille Paglia learns…
neoneocon.com/2009/03/11/camille-paglia-learns/#comment-103515
this is rule by psychopaths…
and it always goes bad… becasue they have no real skills, they are cargo cult parasites. and they do GREAT as long as they are in some whole system in which its easy to cheat… but let them rule, they arent even aware of what they are, and they fantasize what others thoughtfuly plan.
September 28th, 2009
Halloween comes early: the Obama mask
neoneocon.com/2009/09/28/halloween-comes-early-the-obama-mask/#comment-127204
the first post in the thread and not a long one.
Sociopaths copy cues from others.
though i cant speak for all i have met a few and some of them i was able to tell in that they were copying social cues. that is, they didnt laugh first, they laughed a split second after others.
they get good at practicing the perfect poses that convey something. so they cry when caught. they will laugh if they see the group laugh. they will feign emotions they dont have to create a reality for others who do not realize whats within reach.
and the long more explanitive
neoneocon.com/2009/09/28/halloween-comes-early-the-obama-mask/#comment-127208
All sociopaths wear a mask. The mask of kindness. The mask of generosity. The mask of romance. The mask of attraction. The mask of intimacy. The mask of seduction. And so on.
This is what reels us in. The pretense. The acting. The mask. The mask of perfection. And we, in our infinite loving goodness, reflect that mask back to them. The perfect mirrored reflection of beauty and adoration.
And then one day, that mask cracks. You remember the moment.. The moment when you look in their eyes and you KNOW the truth about them. The moment you recognize the pathological lies, the deception, the manipulation, the con. The game is up. And from that moment on, your relationship with the sociopath is forever changed.
i ended up putting up more about it in the thread and a lot more explanations and historical references too.
also see:
March 14th, 2008 notice the date
Obama vs. McCain: profiles in courage
neoneocon.com/2008/03/14/obama-vs-mccain-profiles-in-courage/#comment-60940
Obama is a primary sociopath, hillary is a secondary sociopath. if you take a step back, you can see hillary progress from thinking at best she was up against a secondary, but she couldnt rattle his cage cause he has none. her cage can be rattled cause she supressed or disconnected it.
a short while before she started offering a team place, i said that was what she would do if they were sociopathic. because sociopaths crush competition once their power base is formed. once hill realized what he was she went bonkers realizing that if she doesnt win, he will make sure that she never ever gets a chance to run.
even sergey chimed in…
Art, you are absolutelly right about old Russians. Those who lived under terroristic dictatorship are scared to death to reveal their thouhts and keep any contacts with foreigners, this is a life-long obsession.
February 25th, 2009
Madoff and Hanssen: you can fool some of the people
in this article neo mentions sociopathy, then i do.
neoneocon.com/2009/02/25/madoff-and-hanssen-you-can-fool-some-of-the-people/#comment-102313
and here
August 27th, 2008
Obama: champion of freedom of speech–except if that speech is against him
its a very long post so i understand why it wasnt read. going back to the 1850s and bakunen, and other details.
neoneocon.com/2008/08/27/obama-champion-of-freedom-of-speech-except-if-that-speech-is-against-him/#comment-83137
March 12th, 2008
Mamet, change, and Eliot Spitzer
i think this was the longest post i ever put up
neoneocon.com/2008/03/12/mamet-change-and-eliot-spitzer/#comment-60725
November 5th, 2009
Shooting at Fort Hood
What exactly do you call it, technically speaking, when a person is completely incapable of empathy for the tragedies of others, and can only see others in light of what they can do for his own advancement?
neoneocon.com/2009/11/05/shooting-at-fort-hood/#comment-132636
i know i am not neo, so forgive…
Sociopathy, Psychopathy…
January 23rd, 2009
Obamaphiles: it’s only love, and that is all
neoneocon.com/2009/01/23/obamaphiles-its-only-love-and-that-is-all/#comment-99708
he is loved the way a polished sociopath is loved because he cultivates things that way. he is a foil, he forces you to fill in the blanks, and if your used to filling them in with whatever you LIKE rather than something by principal, then your going to love him or rather be infatuated in him.
so many bring up the concepts of style over substance, what i refer to as cargo cult… it can be exhibited by the sociopath originator, or the follower that adopts the ‘logic’ or points without examination.
parasites are incomplete people as are symbionts, the difference is whether they like each other. if you look at life and entities as a competition of genomes and lineages (which it is) all running on a treadmill to knowhere (till we leave planet), then some types of people makes some interesting sense. as the bulk size of the species grows, sorting occurs, and these types start to link up against the ‘norm’. the norm is basically the mean in a small group… NOT the sum in a huge population. put this way…. a sociopath, or a autistic, would be so rare as to not be noticed.
July 11th, 2009
Flying pigs: a non-conservative journalist is fair to Palin. How about being fair to Obama?
neoneocon.com/2009/07/11/flying-pigs-a-non-conservative-journalist-is-fair-to-palin-how-about-being-fair-to-obama/#comment-116054
it parallels the article that you just commented on.
I just went off to look for some articles on sociopathy and how to spot it. yes trite and not clinical, but interesting never the less.
Red flags: flattery, inflated credentials
Fast talking for fast decisions
Sooner or later, you will have a run-in with a sociopath. There are just too many of them–possibly between 3 million and 12 million sociopaths in America. And they aren’t necessarily locked up in jail. Sociopaths roam through all parts of society, all areas of the country, all walks of life.
the headings are enough to get the gist.
Lavish flattery
Credentials–exaggerated and fabricated
Builds your trust
The story doesn’t quite add up
there are many more references and points on that.
i think that in the future i will just post a link to a prior thread where i already put the info.
it will sae me a lot of time in repeating myself over and over and over..
🙂
too funny…
What made them ignore ALL the signs?
people like hux who said it was not reasonable to think that way, or in those terms agbout the subject. they said that that was the past, has no relevence. when it had relevence he was a differnt person. when it was his friends, he could be different, you never know, be reasonable. in every case, the extremist is proteced in his extreme acts!!! why? the resonable stop action
when hitler grabbed his first country, the reasonable said, let him have it, no sense fighting after the fact, he wont take more. and when he did, they kept at it each stage of the way.
the game for them is to keep moving the goal they put down… so what happens is if they are right, its all good. and if they are wrong, they play a game of inching on the subject so eventually when it does stop, they seem like they were right all along
when in truth they were wrong all along and the only reason you think they are right is that after 100 wrong guesses the right one they finally hit is the one they settle on and say they knew it all along. its a social game… hard to see unless you stake as tep back and remember what they said each time! which is why i see them, if i can remember a tiny detail about a history few know and recite it from one glance 20 years ago, i can easily keep up with such BS games!!!!!!
they serve a positive role in society…they keep a cap on nutty behavior during good times.. that is, when things are pretty good, they keep the unreasonable from making unreasonable conclusions and committing unreasonable acts to match that. but they are not developed for living in a world that is not always good. like a domesticated animal, you take them out of the home, and they keep applying the same method.. they find out the hard way and usually its so hard that they dont become feral they become dead.
those of us who have had the displeasure of the benifit of not always living in such a world. have a different set of things. they know that when situations change, what worked in the other realm is completey useless and negated in the real world.
you see it all the time with some dip who gets killed trying to reason with a sadist who is robbing them. you see it when a person climbs over a fence to hug a polar bear. you see it in apocolyptic movies as the reasonable person goes out to strike a deal with a superior force willing to use it…
as the mobster said, “i tink dey is not in a position to make such demands.”
so basically, our habits and things become our enemy. our acclimatized to meritocracy meant that we didnt hold up a skeptical eye as we should (and were warned to do). we become domesticaed and lazy, they take advantage of the ignorance that taht bringts, and they are not scared as that ignorance defends itself. and since its in greater numbers, the ignorance uses force and other means to win (like taking the time to count the letters in my posts rather than real points)…. so the ignorant reasonable use our honest hesitancy to be wrong, to confuse and create an endless waiting game.
lenin discovered this when the people did not rise up, they analysed it.. and it became part of their political science of tools of understanding masses. it became something they could bank on. as the human nature of that is stronger than the human nature to defer to someone that knows more, and be one off.
🙂
From the folks I know, much of the motivation is that the Cool Kids were for Obama. They didn’t have the autonomy to stand for themselves. They needed the approbation of the Cool Kids.
It made them superior to the rednecks, the bitter clingers.
Had some of them visit recently. They are self-described outdoorsmen/women. Got all the stuff.
One left his xcountry ski gear in his car. Catastrophe. His long underwear was cold. He borrowed my wife’s hair dryer to heat it up to avoid what must have seemed to him a looming assault on his bodily sovereignty.
They’re superior because they have all the stuff. They’re even superior because they need to be coddled.
They’re so superior that it doesn’t even embarrass this guy to carry on about cold long underwear.
It’s not like he’s in a phalanx putting on cold armor or something….
His son is a climate scientist, an arrogant little !@#$.
And they think Palin is just so….common at best.
Eesh.
“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.” From 1984, by George Orwell.
The latest news is that the New Jersey guy in body armor also had a rocket launcher in his hotel room but, hey, doesn’t everyone? No, no terrorism here, absolutely not.
“What made them ignore ALL the signs?”
My Bay area Democrat cousin told me to stop believing everything I read…..
its not terrorism till something blows up…
in other words, just as they played with other terms and things to change what we see into something else
its a form of stretching definitions and meaning till they break…
what makes a real terrorist act?
the preparing?
the collecting junk for the act?
the moving into position?
the carrying of the weaponry?
no… you can play a game with words and intents and until he actually pulls the trigger, its not a terrorist act..
its just a man with a lot of stuff tha a terrorist might also have, but who has yet to do anything.
technically that still makes him a man with a lot of stuff a terrorist might also have… but technically innocent till we PROVE it.
so in truth, the way they are persuing this, one cant charge a person with terrorism until they finish the act, and even then, one has to prove it was a terrorist act, and not just a nasty bad action by a non terrorist that seems to appear the same.
but if your a crypto marxist, and a crypto islamic jihadi, then this all makes sense to make this argument.
i mean, really, can you just stand up and say what your for? no. thats the wrong side of the argumetn for public consumption.
so you try any excuise till you find one that works, and then keep plinking that.
why? because under socialism reality is artificially augmented so as to control people. we USED to call them lies, but lies in the servicve of utopia are not lies, they are just cause, just as stealing becomes just cause, murder, assasination (guess who committed suicide), and really anything under the sun or not…
you guys rocked on this thread!
Artfl, your evidence to the contrary, narcissist fits better than sociopath. If I had the faintest belief you could listen as well as expound, I would explain it to you.
i would agree with you AVI
i am not sure myself on that
only sure that socialism attracts the more vicious kind as it affords the guiltless an advantage. couple this with duping delight of a big kind, and the fringe freak benefits. i just dont know. psych is not my forte.. and i admit it.
my point was that i was juggling these questions a long time ago… been trying to move us along a bit.
and yes, AVI, i do read and listen to points.
ask occam, walla, waltj, etc..
cant please everyone though..
It is my contention that, even before and certainly since 9/11, we have been attacked on U.S. soil by many more Muslim Jihadis–from overseas and home-grown—than we are aware of, and that this wave of attacks–which seem to be growing in number and frequency–is being covered up as a matter of government and MSM policy
possibility… that seems to be the point of why AQ does multiple strikes at the same time. gets around the problem of burying news and details which dont go national.
there is also the issue of idiots retaliating against people who have nothing to do with this. and thats pretty much 99.999% of most people they would attack or cause problems for.
Helpful analysis , I loved the information ! Does someone know if my business might be able to locate a blank NFPA Fire Alarm System Record of Completion copy to use ?