Posted on 05/18/2009 10:13:08 PM PDT by Scanian
Democrats hold the White House and comfortable majorities in both houses of Congress. Their new president comes from humble beginnings. He grew up without the moral influence of a father. Unlike Gore and Kerry, who were born with silver spoons in their mouths, or even Carter, Dukakis, Mondale, or Humphrey, who came from upper middle class homes, Barack Obama has little in common with presidential candidates of either political party, except for one: Bill Clinton. Both men transcended their humble roots by receiving elite education and succeeding in electoral politics.
Watch how "Barry" behaves. Listen to his words. Ignore the inflection in his voice, his body language, his facial expressions, the fawning media, and all the distractions of meaning: listen to his words. He says nothing, just as Bill Clinton said nothing, and if you aren't really paying attention, it sounds good.
Long before Clinton was president, I introduced him as a speaker at a regional convention in Little Rock. He knew absolutely nothing about the convention or the organization he was addressing (and I mean nothing.) Yet Clinton got up, gave an engaging conversational speech, and sat down next to me to loud and sincere applause. Then-Governor Clinton turned to me and asked "What do we do now?"
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
What a surprise - another empty suit.
Good column - couldn’t have said it better myself. :-)
Very well written as usual. American Thinker, Canadian Free Press and a few others are outstanding.
I just can’t decide/figure out how much Barry is about any agenda and how much is about his own personal ambitions and fulfillment (at the cost of the nation). I’ve pretty much come to this conclusion-that thanks to the bitter angry vindictive influence of his wife, making use of insecurities already present in him, the only thing he probably really believes in is his black racism. He is more dependent upon her than Bill was on Hillary, and I think she probably influences him a lot regarding his black racism, or at least keeps it fermenting. I think the things he’s done and will do that are hurting middle class tax payers and working people-who are majority white and minority black-stem from that more than any sweeping socialism. But the result is the same in what it’s doing to the nation.
I could be all wet, but this is how it appears to me so far. There may just be nothing to discern about him because there’s nothing there at all, but I do think his black racism informs his thinking and agenda more than anything.
Indeed, it was well written.
...and apparently can’t deliver a coherent speech without a teleprompter. No substance here, moving right along.
His Grandfather was the manager of several furniture stores. A respectable job that has a tendency to pay decent to better than average wages. His grandmother was V.P. of the Bank of Hawaii, definitely a job paying more than minimum wage. He was enrolled at the most expensive prep school in Hawaii. He was moderately successful and then dropped off the radar until he somehow ended up in Chicago working for the Alinski drones. From there he B.S’d his way into Harvard on an affirmative action quota and was somehow appointed to be head of the Harvard Law Review even though there is no record of his ever writing a coherent paragraph in said review.
This is not a rags to riches story. This is the story of a not too bright 1/2 black kid who was affable enough and happened to be in the right place at the right time.
Actually his mother abandoned his bigamist African Marxist father (if he was his father) before he had a chance to abandon her. She was in Seattle within 3 weeks of his birth date and did not return to the island until after 0 Sr. had left for Harvard and back to Africa.
Every patriotic American should hope that the essential Barack Obama is, as the author suggests, a narcissistic redo of Bill Clinton because the alternative means that we have leftist ideologue in the most powerful position in the world whose motives border on treason. There is a third possibility, namely the Barak Obama is merely what he shows the world that he is, a left of center liberal with conventional notions that big government is needed to solve big problems.
In arguing for the Bill Clinton model, the author argues entirely by analogy. Argument by analogy may be persuasive but it is not cogent. To count up the parallels between the two biographies and conclude that they are both narcissists and will govern according to the same mold because they come from broken homes or because of their wives are lawyers is just fatuous. The argument has to be, they are this kind of men because they came from this kind of broken home and because they are this kind of men they will govern this way. Their broken homes make them narcissists and, because they are narcissist, they will govern as opportunists.
The problem with this kind of argument by analogy is that it is simply unscientific. Many men come from broken homes, endure similar biographies as these two, and do not become narcissists. Take a look at Winston Churchill's background, it would psychologically scar anybody, it might have made him solipsistic, but he did not govern that way. Abraham Lincoln's youth of deprivation and isolation, not to mention his relationship with his father, would lead one to suppose he should be counted a narcissist. But he was not and he certainly did not govern that way. Each man is rightly revered for his courage against all odds-hardly the characteristic of a narcissist.
This business of psychoanalyzing politicians is treacherous. When done by analogy it is entirely unpersuasive. It smacks of Rush Limbaugh's satirizing the numerology of Louis Farrakhan. I think it is is far more productive to get out of these swamps and look at what the subject actually does and says.
Here is where this business gets Kafka-like. If Barak Obama truly is narcissistic, it is pointless to look at anything he says because he is by definition a consummate liar and a deft manipulator. Certainly no one would dispute the truth of that as it applies to Bill Clinton; not even leftist Joe Klein who caught it early on when he wrote, anonymously, Primary Colors which is a paen of grudging admiration for the master manipulator even as he manipulated the author. A narcissist who denies his narcissism is merely playing out his neurosis.
The law has a presumption which might be of use here. When a party makes an admission against his own interest that admission is thought to be reliable. So if Barak Obama tells us that he is not a socialist, the denial is not worth much and would not be worth much even if he were not a narcissist. But when Barak Obama tells Joe the Plummer in an unguarded moment that the nation's wealth should be redistributed, that is an admission against his interest in appearing to be centrist and it is highly credible. Likewise his admission that higher taxes do not increase revenues but are nevertheless desirable because they redistribute wealth, should be regarded as very revealing.
Of course the safest method of analysis is to ignore what the candidates say on their own behalf and look at what the hell they do. Obama's biography betrays at every turn that he is a Manchurian Marxist. His profound associations have been with communists from his mentor Frank Marshall Davis to William Ayres. He made another admission against interest in his biography when he admitted that he associated with Marxists on campus. His associations include long and intimate attachment to the Black Liberation Theology preacher, Rev. Wright. This is simply a black face on Marxism.
His record in the Illinois Senate and in the United States Senate as an extreme leftist confirms his biography. Since entering the Oval Office I know of nothing that I can think of domestically that President Barak Obama has done which is not consistent with the thesis that he is a Marxist. His record on foreign affairs is more mixed and less conclusive but I think that if one regards his apparent moves to the right in, for example, Afghanistan as moves to protect his own existing power rather than ideological shifts to the right, the Marxist model still fits. In other words, American impotence abroad is one thing if one is a leftist seeking power and quite another thing if one is a leftist already in power.
I think the real question is how committed a Marxist is Barak Obama? Is he so rabid an acolyte of the Saul Alinsky School that he will actively contrive a crisis to seize ultimate power? Or will he will he merely govern on the left but seize an opportunity only if circumstances serendipitously offer?
In other words, so long as we continue as we are I think our representative democracy will survive Obama. My fear is that we will have a profound financial crash with huge unemployment numbers; or we will experience a wave of the Weimar Republic like inflation which destroys virtually every institution; or we sustain a severe or series of severe terrorist strikes; or there is an atomic attack somewhere in the world; or the Iranians or some other crazies, possibly possessed of the bomb, possibly in league with Russia and/or Venezuela, manage to shut off the world supply of oil; or there are assassinations in America.
An event like one of these could be the occasion for Obama to seize ultimate power. I believe he is psychologically prepared to do so but I cannot be sure. If he were to do so, the grab would be rationalized as a move to save the country and an opportunity to finally put the country right. I believe he is psychologically ready to do so because he is a leftist and a God player an acolyte of Saul Alinsky. This is what the Frankfurt school and the Alinsky school have been striving for without respite for decades.
It is hard to believe that if Obama is offered the ultimate prize that he would walk away like Cincinnatus or Washington.
Obama was mostly raised by his white grandmother who made sure he attended Punahou school on Oahu, easily the most expensive elite private school on that island. I can back this up because I was born and raised on Oahu and know that school very well.
The MSM is a freaking joke for trying to protray him as some black child who came from a ghetto and a rags to riches story. His entire education from Punahou and Harvard was paid for by other people and affirmative action programs.
David Condon's 1959 The Manchurian Candidate sent along a sleeper with control using Solitaire as a trigger.Enter now the Mansourian Candidate whose funding suggests both Marxist and Islamist sources.
This forum has presented speculation Grandfather Stanley was provided a Soviet stipend.
Surely there's more to his association with known CPUSA member Frank Marshall Davis than a shared affinity for whiskey, marijuana and perversion.
Mother was an atheist with a marked propensity for Muslims.
Wright for two decades followed the decade of Davis (ages 9 through 18).
The relationship with the bisexual bomb-thrower no doubt began much earlier than either admits.
Alinsky the sleeper whose ends were identical with Marx yet whose methods are slick marketing and propaganda--just like Axelrod.
Parallels with Bill Clinton? Clinton gave missile guidance and warhead data to ChiComs; Hussein will throw away our missile defense and warhead deterrent.
Hussein isn't heterosexual as is Bill Clinton. Hussein is an invertebrate of indeterminate sexuality.
Both are without soul in any recognizable sense.
Hussein is the aggressive anti-Christian, the battler against the national character.
Any attention Hussein gives to military foundation of national security is all by way of the glorious Red Army advancing socialism a la Davis' pathetically sick homage in verse.
Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty states Hussein's newthink:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
Hence the teleprompter to be sure nothing is said--for when it is said, it is Marxist--or it is Muslim:
I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
My Muslim faith. . . .57 states. . . .the sweetest sound in the world.
And finally, actions: acta non verba
Sucking on the ring of the Keeper of the Holy Sites.
Telling an interviewer the Founders' Constitution "failed to redistribute wealth".
This DICK (Doper Islamo-Commie Kenyan) is of course a vessel of codified hate and tyranny.
He despises himself but is willing to eliminate millions in his denial.
Witness his megaphone mouth on behalf of Odinga's Christian-incinerating tire-burning machete wielders.
A billion for Hamas to execute the destruction of the Jews.
The crushing of the corporations, the banks, the stock markets.
And of course the truly diabolical, the killing of the babies, even those who survive the first attempted murder.
What rude beast slouches toward Bethlehem.
Clinton and Obama had wealthy childhoods, hardly "humble."
every other major party presidential nominee since Stevenson had either served in the military, the National Guard, or tried to enlist in the military. Not these guys.
Adlai Stevenson was in the Navy in WWI.
Glad you liked the post
I think that, having had Marxism drilled into his head from the cradle, he’s love to socialize US society. But, should he fail to do that, he’ll simply enjoy the adulation of being prez, a la ‘der Slickmeister.’ All the foreign trips are more about massaging his tender ego than anything else.
I’d love to see an investigation into all the Social Security numbers in the name of “Barack Obama” that have been found with different addresses around the country. Did Hussein’s banker grannie enable him to get multiple ID’s and somehow draw benefits to support himself as he moved up the ladder? ID theft was a whole lot easier 25-30 years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.