1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.
2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!
3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straight forward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada.
4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada .. God forbid!
5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he DOES, not what he says.
6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President, ever, who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!
7. He is now handing out goodies. He would like to blame all problems on Bush, from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist. (the Dr. IS a psychiatrist)
8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense and State's Rights.
9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The Media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a Pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.
10 When Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.
11. If the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country before it's far to late.
Look what's coming
Here's looking at you kid
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Thursday, January 1, 2015
The True Meaning Of "Scapegoat"
As The World Turns
Ancient Israel had a Day of Atonement, in which the sins of the nation were transferred to the scapegoat:
"And they made a ramp for it [the scapegoat] on account of [the pilgrims] because these used to yank at its hair, and cry out to it, 'Take our sins and go!' 'Take our sins and go!' " (Mishnah Yoma 6.4)
And after the scapegoat had died, the sins of the people were considered to have perished with it; the people were thus cleansed and righteous.
Today we have no less need for a scapegoat; and some portions of our society have already found convenient targets on whom to impute their sins.
There is crime in the inner city, but there are no criminals there, because the perpetrators are all innocent; their conduct is someone else's fault. Poverty, drug abuse, fatherlessness -- the blame for all this rests not on the drug seller or the husband who abandoned his family or those who decried education; for these are all righteous since their guilt has been transferred.
There are mobs forming in the streets, but all of them are innocent. They proclaim their righteousness with every shout, and point the finger of guilt at those who would restrain them: "Take our sins and go!"
Who is more innocent than someone who has just robbed a convenience store, and then assaulted a police officer?
Who is more righteous than someone who quarrels with police, and resists their lawful orders?
And who is more guilty than the great-grandson to the fifth generation, whose ancestors once dabbled in the slave trade? Or who ancestors never traded in slaves but who has the same outer color as those who did? Why should not all the imperfections of the descendants of slaves be transferred to them?
Who is more culpable than someone who would rob these perpetrators of their innocence? Who is more wrong than an officer of the law, whose very function would deprive men of their scapegoat, and tell them they have to retain their own sins? Why is this considered among the greatest of lies? Because for these righteous with their scapegoats, there can be no crime.
Writing in the 19th century, Dostoyevsky put these words into the mouth of the holy monk Zossima:
...for even if the uneducated man of the people is depraved and cannot abstain from his foul sins, he knows that his sins are cursed by God and that he is doing wrong when he sins. (The Brothers Karamazov)
Within a culture delineated by biblical norms, even the "depraved" could locate the dividing line between right and wrong. But we no longer think in such terms; today the line passes only between oppressors and oppressed. Someone else is to always to blame; we are innocent.
We are conditioned by politicians and media to believe that breaking the law is not misconduct, it is really just an expression of social protest, a right to which one is entitled; a primeval cry for -- of all ironies -- justice. I took shoes or goods and broke windows, but I am righteous. You are the guilty ones. Your white privilege is responsible, therefore you bear the sin, and not I.
Dostoyevsky has Zossima continue:
But this is not true of the upper classes. They want to. . . devise a system of justice based on pure reason, not on Christ, as before, and they have already declared that there is no such thing as crime and that there is no sin. And from their point of view, they are right -- for how can there be crime if God does not exist? In Europe the masses are rising against the rich; their leaders are inciting them to blood and violence and are teaching them that theirs is a righteous anger.
Cleansing anger must always convince itself it is righteous. It is that cleansing anger that purged Dostoyevsky's Russia, a few decades later, resulting in millions of deaths. But their killers were not murderers, they were righteous men who had no sin. "Take our sins and go!"
Having dispensed with God in our public life, and nourished politics which explicitly exclude Christ or any other biblical principles, why should we expect anyone to believe that they should be held individually accountable? We have reduced humanity to membership in one of two groups: the victims, or their taskmasters. The pure, or the unblemished. We batch people neatly into these generic lumps. Were you born into the wrong class? Your guilt is inherited and can never be discharged. Were you born into another class? You have no guilt, you are forever immaculate no matter what you do, because it is others who will be made responsible for your deeds. "Take our sins and go!"
But in doing away with God, we also do away with the only acceptable scapegoat.
"But they cried out together, saying, Away with this man..."
(Luke 23:18)
Malcolm Muggeridge observed:
The Christian religion . . . for two thousand years persuaded Western man that he existed as one of a human family whose father was in Heaven. As in a family, each individual was separately and particularly loved. The most sacred, the most inviolable thing on earth was a human soul, any and every one, whether it inhabited the flesh of rich or poor, clever or foolish, well or sick. Thus, to incorporate a man into a herd, and put him under the necessity of following the herd's destiny, was to destroy the purpose of his being. He was himself or he was nothing. Of the herd, the fearful image stands forever -- the Gadarene swing rushing to destruction. (Things Past)
How long before our own culture plunges over the cliff, in a mad race to escape guilt, and to insist that it can find its own path to righteousness without God?
Ancient Israel had a Day of Atonement, in which the sins of the nation were transferred to the scapegoat:
"And they made a ramp for it [the scapegoat] on account of [the pilgrims] because these used to yank at its hair, and cry out to it, 'Take our sins and go!' 'Take our sins and go!' " (Mishnah Yoma 6.4)
And after the scapegoat had died, the sins of the people were considered to have perished with it; the people were thus cleansed and righteous.
Today we have no less need for a scapegoat; and some portions of our society have already found convenient targets on whom to impute their sins.
There is crime in the inner city, but there are no criminals there, because the perpetrators are all innocent; their conduct is someone else's fault. Poverty, drug abuse, fatherlessness -- the blame for all this rests not on the drug seller or the husband who abandoned his family or those who decried education; for these are all righteous since their guilt has been transferred.
There are mobs forming in the streets, but all of them are innocent. They proclaim their righteousness with every shout, and point the finger of guilt at those who would restrain them: "Take our sins and go!"
Who is more innocent than someone who has just robbed a convenience store, and then assaulted a police officer?
Who is more righteous than someone who quarrels with police, and resists their lawful orders?
And who is more guilty than the great-grandson to the fifth generation, whose ancestors once dabbled in the slave trade? Or who ancestors never traded in slaves but who has the same outer color as those who did? Why should not all the imperfections of the descendants of slaves be transferred to them?
Who is more culpable than someone who would rob these perpetrators of their innocence? Who is more wrong than an officer of the law, whose very function would deprive men of their scapegoat, and tell them they have to retain their own sins? Why is this considered among the greatest of lies? Because for these righteous with their scapegoats, there can be no crime.
Writing in the 19th century, Dostoyevsky put these words into the mouth of the holy monk Zossima:
...for even if the uneducated man of the people is depraved and cannot abstain from his foul sins, he knows that his sins are cursed by God and that he is doing wrong when he sins. (The Brothers Karamazov)
Within a culture delineated by biblical norms, even the "depraved" could locate the dividing line between right and wrong. But we no longer think in such terms; today the line passes only between oppressors and oppressed. Someone else is to always to blame; we are innocent.
We are conditioned by politicians and media to believe that breaking the law is not misconduct, it is really just an expression of social protest, a right to which one is entitled; a primeval cry for -- of all ironies -- justice. I took shoes or goods and broke windows, but I am righteous. You are the guilty ones. Your white privilege is responsible, therefore you bear the sin, and not I.
Dostoyevsky has Zossima continue:
But this is not true of the upper classes. They want to. . . devise a system of justice based on pure reason, not on Christ, as before, and they have already declared that there is no such thing as crime and that there is no sin. And from their point of view, they are right -- for how can there be crime if God does not exist? In Europe the masses are rising against the rich; their leaders are inciting them to blood and violence and are teaching them that theirs is a righteous anger.
Cleansing anger must always convince itself it is righteous. It is that cleansing anger that purged Dostoyevsky's Russia, a few decades later, resulting in millions of deaths. But their killers were not murderers, they were righteous men who had no sin. "Take our sins and go!"
Having dispensed with God in our public life, and nourished politics which explicitly exclude Christ or any other biblical principles, why should we expect anyone to believe that they should be held individually accountable? We have reduced humanity to membership in one of two groups: the victims, or their taskmasters. The pure, or the unblemished. We batch people neatly into these generic lumps. Were you born into the wrong class? Your guilt is inherited and can never be discharged. Were you born into another class? You have no guilt, you are forever immaculate no matter what you do, because it is others who will be made responsible for your deeds. "Take our sins and go!"
But in doing away with God, we also do away with the only acceptable scapegoat.
"But they cried out together, saying, Away with this man..."
(Luke 23:18)
Malcolm Muggeridge observed:
The Christian religion . . . for two thousand years persuaded Western man that he existed as one of a human family whose father was in Heaven. As in a family, each individual was separately and particularly loved. The most sacred, the most inviolable thing on earth was a human soul, any and every one, whether it inhabited the flesh of rich or poor, clever or foolish, well or sick. Thus, to incorporate a man into a herd, and put him under the necessity of following the herd's destiny, was to destroy the purpose of his being. He was himself or he was nothing. Of the herd, the fearful image stands forever -- the Gadarene swing rushing to destruction. (Things Past)
How long before our own culture plunges over the cliff, in a mad race to escape guilt, and to insist that it can find its own path to righteousness without God?
Ancient Israel had a Day of Atonement, in which the sins of the nation were transferred to the scapegoat:
"And they made a ramp for it [the scapegoat] on account of [the pilgrims] because these used to yank at its hair, and cry out to it, 'Take our sins and go!' 'Take our sins and go!' " (Mishnah Yoma 6.4)
And after the scapegoat had died, the sins of the people were considered to have perished with it; the people were thus cleansed and righteous.
Today we have no less need for a scapegoat; and some portions of our society have already found convenient targets on whom to impute their sins.
There is crime in the inner city, but there are no criminals there, because the perpetrators are all innocent; their conduct is someone else's fault. Poverty, drug abuse, fatherlessness -- the blame for all this rests not on the drug seller or the husband who abandoned his family or those who decried education; for these are all righteous since their guilt has been transferred.
There are mobs forming in the streets, but all of them are innocent. They proclaim their righteousness with every shout, and point the finger of guilt at those who would restrain them: "Take our sins and go!"
Who is more innocent than someone who has just robbed a convenience store, and then assaulted a police officer?
Who is more righteous than someone who quarrels with police, and resists their lawful orders?
And who is more guilty than the great-grandson to the fifth generation, whose ancestors once dabbled in the slave trade? Or who ancestors never traded in slaves but who has the same outer color as those who did? Why should not all the imperfections of the descendants of slaves be transferred to them?
Who is more culpable than someone who would rob these perpetrators of their innocence? Who is more wrong than an officer of the law, whose very function would deprive men of their scapegoat, and tell them they have to retain their own sins? Why is this considered among the greatest of lies? Because for these righteous with their scapegoats, there can be no crime.
Writing in the 19th century, Dostoyevsky put these words into the mouth of the holy monk Zossima:
...for even if the uneducated man of the people is depraved and cannot abstain from his foul sins, he knows that his sins are cursed by God and that he is doing wrong when he sins. (The Brothers Karamazov)
Within a culture delineated by biblical norms, even the "depraved" could locate the dividing line between right and wrong. But we no longer think in such terms; today the line passes only between oppressors and oppressed. Someone else is to always to blame; we are innocent.
We are conditioned by politicians and media to believe that breaking the law is not misconduct, it is really just an expression of social protest, a right to which one is entitled; a primeval cry for -- of all ironies -- justice. I took shoes or goods and broke windows, but I am righteous. You are the guilty ones. Your white privilege is responsible, therefore you bear the sin, and not I.
Dostoyevsky has Zossima continue:
But this is not true of the upper classes. They want to. . . devise a system of justice based on pure reason, not on Christ, as before, and they have already declared that there is no such thing as crime and that there is no sin. And from their point of view, they are right -- for how can there be crime if God does not exist? In Europe the masses are rising against the rich; their leaders are inciting them to blood and violence and are teaching them that theirs is a righteous anger.
Cleansing anger must always convince itself it is righteous. It is that cleansing anger that purged Dostoyevsky's Russia, a few decades later, resulting in millions of deaths. But their killers were not murderers, they were righteous men who had no sin. "Take our sins and go!"
Having dispensed with God in our public life, and nourished politics which explicitly exclude Christ or any other biblical principles, why should we expect anyone to believe that they should be held individually accountable? We have reduced humanity to membership in one of two groups: the victims, or their taskmasters. The pure, or the unblemished. We batch people neatly into these generic lumps. Were you born into the wrong class? Your guilt is inherited and can never be discharged. Were you born into another class? You have no guilt, you are forever immaculate no matter what you do, because it is others who will be made responsible for your deeds. "Take our sins and go!"
But in doing away with God, we also do away with the only acceptable scapegoat.
"But they cried out together, saying, Away with this man..."
(Luke 23:18)
Malcolm Muggeridge observed:
The Christian religion . . . for two thousand years persuaded Western man that he existed as one of a human family whose father was in Heaven. As in a family, each individual was separately and particularly loved. The most sacred, the most inviolable thing on earth was a human soul, any and every one, whether it inhabited the flesh of rich or poor, clever or foolish, well or sick. Thus, to incorporate a man into a herd, and put him under the necessity of following the herd's destiny, was to destroy the purpose of his being. He was himself or he was nothing. Of the herd, the fearful image stands forever -- the Gadarene swing rushing to destruction. (Things Past)
How long before our own culture plunges over the cliff, in a mad race to escape guilt, and to insist that it can find its own path to righteousness without God?
Ancient Israel had a Day of Atonement, in which the sins of the nation were transferred to the scapegoat:
"And they made a ramp for it [the scapegoat] on account of [the pilgrims] because these used to yank at its hair, and cry out to it, 'Take our sins and go!' 'Take our sins and go!' " (Mishnah Yoma 6.4)
And after the scapegoat had died, the sins of the people were considered to have perished with it; the people were thus cleansed and righteous.
Today we have no less need for a scapegoat; and some portions of our society have already found convenient targets on whom to impute their sins.
There is crime in the inner city, but there are no criminals there, because the perpetrators are all innocent; their conduct is someone else's fault. Poverty, drug abuse, fatherlessness -- the blame for all this rests not on the drug seller or the husband who abandoned his family or those who decried education; for these are all righteous since their guilt has been transferred.
There are mobs forming in the streets, but all of them are innocent. They proclaim their righteousness with every shout, and point the finger of guilt at those who would restrain them: "Take our sins and go!"
Who is more innocent than someone who has just robbed a convenience store, and then assaulted a police officer?
Who is more righteous than someone who quarrels with police, and resists their lawful orders?
And who is more guilty than the great-grandson to the fifth generation, whose ancestors once dabbled in the slave trade? Or who ancestors never traded in slaves but who has the same outer color as those who did? Why should not all the imperfections of the descendants of slaves be transferred to them?
Who is more culpable than someone who would rob these perpetrators of their innocence? Who is more wrong than an officer of the law, whose very function would deprive men of their scapegoat, and tell them they have to retain their own sins? Why is this considered among the greatest of lies? Because for these righteous with their scapegoats, there can be no crime.
Writing in the 19th century, Dostoyevsky put these words into the mouth of the holy monk Zossima:
...for even if the uneducated man of the people is depraved and cannot abstain from his foul sins, he knows that his sins are cursed by God and that he is doing wrong when he sins. (The Brothers Karamazov)
Within a culture delineated by biblical norms, even the "depraved" could locate the dividing line between right and wrong. But we no longer think in such terms; today the line passes only between oppressors and oppressed. Someone else is to always to blame; we are innocent.
We are conditioned by politicians and media to believe that breaking the law is not misconduct, it is really just an expression of social protest, a right to which one is entitled; a primeval cry for -- of all ironies -- justice. I took shoes or goods and broke windows, but I am righteous. You are the guilty ones. Your white privilege is responsible, therefore you bear the sin, and not I.
Dostoyevsky has Zossima continue:
But this is not true of the upper classes. They want to. . . devise a system of justice based on pure reason, not on Christ, as before, and they have already declared that there is no such thing as crime and that there is no sin. And from their point of view, they are right -- for how can there be crime if God does not exist? In Europe the masses are rising against the rich; their leaders are inciting them to blood and violence and are teaching them that theirs is a righteous anger.
Cleansing anger must always convince itself it is righteous. It is that cleansing anger that purged Dostoyevsky's Russia, a few decades later, resulting in millions of deaths. But their killers were not murderers, they were righteous men who had no sin. "Take our sins and go!"
Having dispensed with God in our public life, and nourished politics which explicitly exclude Christ or any other biblical principles, why should we expect anyone to believe that they should be held individually accountable? We have reduced humanity to membership in one of two groups: the victims, or their taskmasters. The pure, or the unblemished. We batch people neatly into these generic lumps. Were you born into the wrong class? Your guilt is inherited and can never be discharged. Were you born into another class? You have no guilt, you are forever immaculate no matter what you do, because it is others who will be made responsible for your deeds. "Take our sins and go!"
But in doing away with God, we also do away with the only acceptable scapegoat.
"But they cried out together, saying, Away with this man..."
(Luke 23:18)
Malcolm Muggeridge observed:
The Christian religion . . . for two thousand years persuaded Western man that he existed as one of a human family whose father was in Heaven. As in a family, each individual was separately and particularly loved. The most sacred, the most inviolable thing on earth was a human soul, any and every one, whether it inhabited the flesh of rich or poor, clever or foolish, well or sick. Thus, to incorporate a man into a herd, and put him under the necessity of following the herd's destiny, was to destroy the purpose of his being. He was himself or he was nothing. Of the herd, the fearful image stands forever -- the Gadarene swing rushing to destruction. (Things Past)
How long before our own culture plunges over the cliff, in a mad race to escape guilt, and to insist that it can find its own path to righteousness without God?
Friday, December 26, 2014
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
There is a difference.
The main difference between liberalism and our democratic form of government is the former robs us of the right to express our God given individuality and the latter gives us freedom to discover, develop and demonstrate those divinely endowed talents. Liberals try and convince us that by denying our individuality we will "blend in" with others instead of causing them to feel "left out". We're told that by "leveling the playing field" we're producing fairness, equality, and peace. (As in Plato's description of creating a utopian state). What we're really producing is a people who can be freely manipulated and used by the ruling powers. This results in the loss of our ability to think for ourselves and a willingness to let others do our thinking for us. As so many in our present day society have allowed to happen to them already. and since The liberal media does their thinking for them now, they just "go along". Next will be chaos, as with any society which manipulates it's citizens soon will experience. Stopping the free thinking of individuals soon gives way to them being led by some fanatical pied piper. And as any societal scholar will tell you, that is what happened to Cuba. And Cuba is a perfect example of a society where a moronic pied piper led the unthinking masses to their destruction.
Yielding to the ambitions of liberalism results in mediocrity and a gradual overall loss of initiative and self respect. And as Ms. Spenser says, "suppressing individual specialness and our God given uniqueness to achieve unity would reverse the steady development mankind has experienced in the thousands of years since the days of Abraham". In spite of these verifiable historical truths, the left "still argues that unity, equality, inclusiveness and peace among men are best achieved by suppressing diversity, uniqueness and specialness". (Ms. Spenser's writings in quotations).
The liberals' message sounds good, kind, loving, caring and inclusive but instead is superficial and a subtle means of manipulating unsuspecting followers and gaining power and control for themselves. It's full of good intentions but results in costly failures, both to the economy and the human progress. We each one have an individual uniqueness. By denying our "specialness" (or being denied our specialness by the powers that be) in order to "blend in" we are denying our divine purpose and endangering the future of our country. We must constantly be alert to the harmful suggestions of the far left and constantly build a defense against them. We must protect and honor our God given individualities and not concede them to a "nanny" government.
The main difference between liberalism and our democratic form of government is the former robs us of the right to express our God given individuality and the latter gives us freedom to discover, develop and demonstrate those divinely endowed talents. Liberals try and convince us that by denying our individuality we will "blend in" with others instead of causing them to feel "left out". We're told that by "leveling the playing field" we're producing fairness, equality, and peace. (As in Plato's description of creating a utopian state). What we're really producing is a people who can be freely manipulated and used by the ruling powers. This results in the loss of our ability to think for ourselves and a willingness to let others do our thinking for us. As so many in our present day society have allowed to happen to them already. and since The liberal media does their thinking for them now, they just "go along". Next will be chaos, as with any society which manipulates it's citizens soon will experience. Stopping the free thinking of individuals soon gives way to them being led by some fanatical pied piper. And as any societal scholar will tell you, that is what happened to Cuba. And Cuba is a perfect example of a society where a moronic pied piper led the unthinking masses to their destruction.
Yielding to the ambitions of liberalism results in mediocrity and a gradual overall loss of initiative and self respect. And as Ms. Spenser says, "suppressing individual specialness and our God given uniqueness to achieve unity would reverse the steady development mankind has experienced in the thousands of years since the days of Abraham". In spite of these verifiable historical truths, the left "still argues that unity, equality, inclusiveness and peace among men are best achieved by suppressing diversity, uniqueness and specialness". (Ms. Spenser's writings in quotations).
The liberals' message sounds good, kind, loving, caring and inclusive but instead is superficial and a subtle means of manipulating unsuspecting followers and gaining power and control for themselves. It's full of good intentions but results in costly failures, both to the economy and the human progress. We each one have an individual uniqueness. By denying our "specialness" (or being denied our specialness by the powers that be) in order to "blend in" we are denying our divine purpose and endangering the future of our country. We must constantly be alert to the harmful suggestions of the far left and constantly build a defense against them. We must protect and honor our God given individualities and not concede them to a "nanny" government.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
wild pigs
A thought to remember, Marx said:
"Remove one freedom per generation and soon you will have no freedom and no one would have noticed."
There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class.
One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter.
The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime. In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question.
He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.
The young man said that it was no joke. "You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free food.
"When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.
"They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side.
"The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity."
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America . The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare entitlements, medicine, drugs, etc., while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.
One should always remember two truths: There is no such thing as a free lunch, and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
If you see that all of this wonderful government "help" is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America , you might want to share this with your friends.
If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life, then you will probably not share this.
BUT, God help us all when the gate slams shut!
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Nothings Changed Except Everything
What to write about? There's so much going on, so many revelations that it's hard to narrow it down to one item. Let's see, the Emir, scuse me, the president has convinced us that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, white cops are cold blooded murders of black innocents, and it only took 1 month for him to blind the GOP as to meaning of the 2014 victory. This latter topic really gets me boiling. Today's GOP leadership knows nothing but "hands up, I surrender". The dems have laughingly set back in disbelief and watched these empty suits almost totally destroy conservatism, the very foundation of the party. Even tho landslide elections in 2010 and 2014 have vividly illustrated that the vast number of Americans prefer conservatism to liberalism, the RINOs just don't get it. The people said "stop Obama and his policies"! They think the people said compromise with the liberals and quit being obstructionists.
Mark Styne said only 1 election in recent years really changed the direction of the country. The election of Ronald Reagan. Obama made the 2010 GOP landslide victory meaningless by governing in total defiance of the law and the constitution. The GOP, with the passage of the Omnibus Bill fully funding Obama's immigration order and ObamaCare, have proven the 2014 landslide victory meaningless. Unbelievably 20 republican senators voted with Obama and against the overwhelming wishes of the American people.
Of course we hear that this is not the time to take a stand. Wait until 2015 and then we'll make our stand. Since Obama took office in 2008 we've continuously watched the republicans say, "now isn't the right time". Unfortunately, the "right time" has never materialized for this group of sell outs.
The question obviously is, do we have any patriotic, value based republicans left with courage, initiative and leadership? Can you name the ones who do? Lets see, there's Cruz, Goudy, Lee and a handful of others. Fat chance the doormat wing of the democrat party (our beloved RINOs) would ever support any of these guys as our presidential nominee. No, they're more apt to join the democrats in trashing them into obscure footnotes.
If the founding fathers had been like our GOP leadership, and the people who support them, we'd still be under British rule. We are facing the most critical time in our history. Islamic Jihad attacks on our homeland, blacks out to destroy "white" America, rampant immorality, socialist/Marxists controlling our media, education, judiciary, and government in general, and we have nobody (very few) willing to stand up and save the country from this liberal cancer. Nope, saving the party and controlling all the power, that's what's important. God help us..
Read your Bible....pay attention.... The word from God is all there:
Isa 37:25 I have dug wells in foreign lands and drunk the water there. With the soles of my feet I have dried up all the streams of Egypt.'
Isa 37:26 "Have you not heard? Long ago I ordained it. In days of old I planned it; now I have brought it to pass, that you have turned fortified cities into piles of stone.
Isa 37:27 Their people, drained of power, are dismayed and put to shame. They are like plants in the field, like tender green shoots, like grass sprouting on the roof, scorched before it grows up.
Isa 37:28 "But I know where you are and when you come and go and how you rage against me.
Isa 37:29 Because you rage against me and because your insolence has reached my ears, I will put my hook in your nose and my bit in your mouth, and I will make you return by the way you came.
Mark Styne said only 1 election in recent years really changed the direction of the country. The election of Ronald Reagan. Obama made the 2010 GOP landslide victory meaningless by governing in total defiance of the law and the constitution. The GOP, with the passage of the Omnibus Bill fully funding Obama's immigration order and ObamaCare, have proven the 2014 landslide victory meaningless. Unbelievably 20 republican senators voted with Obama and against the overwhelming wishes of the American people.
Of course we hear that this is not the time to take a stand. Wait until 2015 and then we'll make our stand. Since Obama took office in 2008 we've continuously watched the republicans say, "now isn't the right time". Unfortunately, the "right time" has never materialized for this group of sell outs.
The question obviously is, do we have any patriotic, value based republicans left with courage, initiative and leadership? Can you name the ones who do? Lets see, there's Cruz, Goudy, Lee and a handful of others. Fat chance the doormat wing of the democrat party (our beloved RINOs) would ever support any of these guys as our presidential nominee. No, they're more apt to join the democrats in trashing them into obscure footnotes.
If the founding fathers had been like our GOP leadership, and the people who support them, we'd still be under British rule. We are facing the most critical time in our history. Islamic Jihad attacks on our homeland, blacks out to destroy "white" America, rampant immorality, socialist/Marxists controlling our media, education, judiciary, and government in general, and we have nobody (very few) willing to stand up and save the country from this liberal cancer. Nope, saving the party and controlling all the power, that's what's important. God help us..
Read your Bible....pay attention.... The word from God is all there:
Isa 37:25 I have dug wells in foreign lands and drunk the water there. With the soles of my feet I have dried up all the streams of Egypt.'
Isa 37:26 "Have you not heard? Long ago I ordained it. In days of old I planned it; now I have brought it to pass, that you have turned fortified cities into piles of stone.
Isa 37:27 Their people, drained of power, are dismayed and put to shame. They are like plants in the field, like tender green shoots, like grass sprouting on the roof, scorched before it grows up.
Isa 37:28 "But I know where you are and when you come and go and how you rage against me.
Isa 37:29 Because you rage against me and because your insolence has reached my ears, I will put my hook in your nose and my bit in your mouth, and I will make you return by the way you came.
We are reaping what we sow and God will turn his wrath against us if we continue to mock him. We have a president who is a fool, a congress who cares not for anyone but their own, and a house whose job it is to not oppose our ignorant, defiant, emperor for fear that they may lose what they have. We have no one to lead us and God will destroy us if we continue in our obstinence against him.
Isa 30:1 "Woe to the obstinate children," declares the LORD, "to those who carry out plans that are not mine, forming an alliance, but not by my Spirit, heaping sin upon sin;
We could go on for hours but I think we already know what is going to happen if this country does not turn back to God as our leader, defender, and friend. He will allow our destruction.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
What is the truth? Definition Please.
Dec 2 at 6:29 PM
I don't always agree with Charles Barkley but he hit the nail on the head when being interviewed on a local Philly radio station. Something to the effect that Ferguson protestors aren't blacks, they're "scumbags". He went on to say (sic), "what would our inner cities be like if there were no cops. They'd be like the old west."Yes, and he said that he spoke his mind and that he
All one has to do is to observe the Ferguson unrest and see the outrage that blacks are experiencing even in the face of the truth that the black bully that was killed was in fact on drugs (marijuana, PHP) and had enough of it in his system to be hallucinating. That is the truth. And another fact, is that the bully had just robbed a convenience store and assaulted the clerk who had tried to stop him from stealing a box of cigars. There is video evidence of that event. That is the truth. There is also evidence of his parading down the middle of the street, the reason for the policeman to have stopped, was to seek to avoid a tragedy of him being run over and a real incident being started. That is the truth. And If there is a convenience store on a street, no matter where it is, you can be sure of one thing. A lot of traffic is on that street or the store would not be there. We are not talking about a rural community of just three or four stores, we are talking about a busy suburb of St.Louis. That is the truth. As to the rumor of his being shot in the back, and of his hands being in the air. No one has evidence of that false representation, and those statements are proven to be lies and rumors. Further evidence from the scene, his DNA in the police car, the struggle he had with the officer of the law who has stopped him. because he was breaking the law, and the wounds to his hand, and his body would indicate that there must have been a struggle. That forensic evidence suggests that the officer of the law was telling the truth about being rushed and accosted by the insolent law breaking 300 lb. bully. The officer of the law, did not stand over him and shoot him several times. and that testimony is believable. And further testimony suggests he was reputed to be a trouble maker, and not a gentle giant.
Obama has shown us just how objective he is regarding race relations when Al Sharpton (i.e. the black Yassar Arafat) has been to the WH 82 times as a "race relations advisor". He meets Obama's requirements: White hater, America hater, "scumbag" revolutionary who wants to destroy the country.
With all the rhetoric about what happened in Ferguson, it's expected that the blacks don't believe anything said in the Grand Jury testimonies, and if the whites do believe it that just proves they're racists. It's obvious that Obama, Holder, Sharpton and their Marxist followers want to use this event to further separate the races, just as Sal Alinsky proposed. However, it's my opinion that the motive for their racial hatred towards whites goes beyond this. I think the agenda here is nationalizing law enforcement just as they've nationalized health care, education, media, environment, oil/gas/coal production, etc. Obama has already started the ball rolling by insinuating that the police are the problem (not the black rioters, drug dealers, looters, arsonists, crooks, etc), and has suggested enacting federal laws that train law enforcement to be more attuned to and understanding of black "plight". In other words it's law enforcement's job to "make friends" with black communities. His $75M for body cameras is a joke. The soul purpose of that is to control and punish the cops.
Remember in his 2007 campaign he said we needed a civilian military as well funded, armed and manned as the national military? By nationalizing law enforcement, his goal could very well be achieved.
I think it's time to acknowledge that the bulk of racial problems in this country are not due to white racism, it's due to the hip hop, in your face, drug infested, gang infested, criminal culture that's grown out of the inner city. Is it any wonder that responsible whites and blacks are afraid of the violence that could be directed at them at any moment for any reason?
Let's not forget that the big losers in today's racial unrest are the responsible, productive, patriotic blacks who want to live in peace and see their kids get the same opportunity. Good luck with that.
I don't always agree with Charles Barkley but he hit the nail on the head when being interviewed on a local Philly radio station. Something to the effect that Ferguson protestors aren't blacks, they're "scumbags". He went on to say (sic), "what would our inner cities be like if there were no cops. They'd be like the old west."Yes, and he said that he spoke his mind and that he
All one has to do is to observe the Ferguson unrest and see the outrage that blacks are experiencing even in the face of the truth that the black bully that was killed was in fact on drugs (marijuana, PHP) and had enough of it in his system to be hallucinating. That is the truth. And another fact, is that the bully had just robbed a convenience store and assaulted the clerk who had tried to stop him from stealing a box of cigars. There is video evidence of that event. That is the truth. There is also evidence of his parading down the middle of the street, the reason for the policeman to have stopped, was to seek to avoid a tragedy of him being run over and a real incident being started. That is the truth. And If there is a convenience store on a street, no matter where it is, you can be sure of one thing. A lot of traffic is on that street or the store would not be there. We are not talking about a rural community of just three or four stores, we are talking about a busy suburb of St.Louis. That is the truth. As to the rumor of his being shot in the back, and of his hands being in the air. No one has evidence of that false representation, and those statements are proven to be lies and rumors. Further evidence from the scene, his DNA in the police car, the struggle he had with the officer of the law who has stopped him. because he was breaking the law, and the wounds to his hand, and his body would indicate that there must have been a struggle. That forensic evidence suggests that the officer of the law was telling the truth about being rushed and accosted by the insolent law breaking 300 lb. bully. The officer of the law, did not stand over him and shoot him several times. and that testimony is believable. And further testimony suggests he was reputed to be a trouble maker, and not a gentle giant.
Obama has shown us just how objective he is regarding race relations when Al Sharpton (i.e. the black Yassar Arafat) has been to the WH 82 times as a "race relations advisor". He meets Obama's requirements: White hater, America hater, "scumbag" revolutionary who wants to destroy the country.
With all the rhetoric about what happened in Ferguson, it's expected that the blacks don't believe anything said in the Grand Jury testimonies, and if the whites do believe it that just proves they're racists. It's obvious that Obama, Holder, Sharpton and their Marxist followers want to use this event to further separate the races, just as Sal Alinsky proposed. However, it's my opinion that the motive for their racial hatred towards whites goes beyond this. I think the agenda here is nationalizing law enforcement just as they've nationalized health care, education, media, environment, oil/gas/coal production, etc. Obama has already started the ball rolling by insinuating that the police are the problem (not the black rioters, drug dealers, looters, arsonists, crooks, etc), and has suggested enacting federal laws that train law enforcement to be more attuned to and understanding of black "plight". In other words it's law enforcement's job to "make friends" with black communities. His $75M for body cameras is a joke. The soul purpose of that is to control and punish the cops.
Remember in his 2007 campaign he said we needed a civilian military as well funded, armed and manned as the national military? By nationalizing law enforcement, his goal could very well be achieved.
I think it's time to acknowledge that the bulk of racial problems in this country are not due to white racism, it's due to the hip hop, in your face, drug infested, gang infested, criminal culture that's grown out of the inner city. Is it any wonder that responsible whites and blacks are afraid of the violence that could be directed at them at any moment for any reason?
Let's not forget that the big losers in today's racial unrest are the responsible, productive, patriotic blacks who want to live in peace and see their kids get the same opportunity. Good luck with that.
Friday, September 5, 2014
Barack Hussein Obama Has A Mental Disorder
Subject: Fwd: Israeli Doctors Say Barack Hussein Obama Has A Mental Disorder
It would be difficult not to agree with these assessments of the man-child who runs wild in the White House.
Israeli doctors say Obama has a mental disorder
Haberman and Vaknin are legitimate. Check them out on Google.
Written by Dr. Michael A. Haberman, M.D.
This Israeli doctor says Obama has a mental disorder. Labels him a
pathological narcissist and there is no greater insanity than electing one as President said Dr. Sam Vaknin who is an Israeli psychologist.
Dr. Sam Vaknin States, "I must confess I was impressed by Obama from the
first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident, a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words.
Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with Zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming.
Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite
ignorant on most important subjects. Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the "Malignant Self Love," believes Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist. Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest friends suggest that the man is either
a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler area few examples of narcissists of our time.
All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created
a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life.
They gave them hope!
They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to
their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations, "says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant two years old. Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia , a
foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father.
At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. "She died of cancer in 1995."
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological
narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service..The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his codependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to
reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention. If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he as no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not aout him.
Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led
to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father. Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still a nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as
important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius
writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?
Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack
conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.
This election was like no other in the history of America . The issues were
insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world? I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed.
Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are
simply self-serving and selfish. Obama evidences symptoms of pathological
narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined.
This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological
narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous. Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks voted for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig
their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This
will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support.
I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to
levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's. Obama will set the clock back decades. America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America , and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists, and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction.
There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as
president.
Michael A. Haberman, M.D.
It would be difficult not to agree with these assessments of the man-child who runs wild in the White House.
Israeli doctors say Obama has a mental disorder
Haberman and Vaknin are legitimate. Check them out on Google.
Written by Dr. Michael A. Haberman, M.D.
This Israeli doctor says Obama has a mental disorder. Labels him a
pathological narcissist and there is no greater insanity than electing one as President said Dr. Sam Vaknin who is an Israeli psychologist.
Dr. Sam Vaknin States, "I must confess I was impressed by Obama from the
first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident, a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words.
Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with Zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming.
Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite
ignorant on most important subjects. Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the "Malignant Self Love," believes Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist. Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest friends suggest that the man is either
a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler area few examples of narcissists of our time.
All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created
a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life.
They gave them hope!
They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to
their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations, "says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant two years old. Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia , a
foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father.
At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. "She died of cancer in 1995."
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological
narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service..The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his codependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to
reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention. If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he as no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not aout him.
Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led
to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father. Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still a nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as
important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius
writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?
Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack
conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.
This election was like no other in the history of America . The issues were
insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world? I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed.
Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are
simply self-serving and selfish. Obama evidences symptoms of pathological
narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined.
This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological
narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous. Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks voted for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig
their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This
will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support.
I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to
levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's. Obama will set the clock back decades. America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America , and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists, and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction.
There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as
president.
Michael A. Haberman, M.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)