The trick is NOT to watch AND listen at the same time.
Both must be happening for Hussein to work his magic.
If you just hear the speech, your mind can dissect the flaws in logic.
Part of it is the back and forth of his head between teleprompter screens—that’s part of the mesmerizing process.
Another part is the obvious hand gestures.
Another part is the assault on logic, i.e.: Some say this, some say that, but I say a third way. The choices he lists are false to begin with, so he easily leads an uninformed audience to what he wants them to believe.
Just isolate either of the two sense mentioned above when viewing his speeches. It becomes readily apparent that he is a highly trained speaker in this techinique.
That is precisely why he HAS to have a teleprompter at all speeches. The script is written in a certain way, and reaches maximum effectiveness on the audience when the script is followed exactly as written.
Remember, Obama doesn’t believe any of what he is saying. He is used to getting by on his BS skills—they have served him well in life. He is highly trained in the Alinsky tactics and in the Cloward Piven strategy. That is why every issue has to be a CRISIS that must be solved, and there are VILLAINS standing in the way of “real progress”. People are lead to see what they WANT to see with Obama, not what is really there.
That is why he has been trained and positioned for his present job. Who he is fronting for is the real story of his Presidency. And that has yet to be revealed.
Both must be happening for Hussein to work his magic.
If you just hear the speech, your mind can dissect the flaws in logic.
I do believe that is the case. I never watch TV or listen to the radio and only get my news in written form (sorry El Rushbo, I only read your website, but do not listen to the show - no radio).
P.S. Love your tagline. Palin/Limbaugh in 2012 would be such an awesome ticket ... The Sum of All Fears.
I don't know who you are, but you have presented some real truths in your commentary. You are correct in that if one watches him AND listens to him speak and does not have a critically thinking mind, one can easily be deceived. And, the last comment you made is the most important of all and one which I have been ranting and raving about to my wife -- How in God's name did this man ever get the nomination for president with no real experience of ANY kind? Some group is behind him and wants him to be where he is or he never would have made it. Who paid the bills? That group needs to be exposed. I don't believe it is wholly made up of U.S. citizens.
“That is why he has been trained and positioned for his present job. Who he is fronting for is the real story of his Presidency. And that has yet to be revealed.”
***********************************************************************************************************
Here’s an old thread about an even older booklet, written in 1938. “The Revolution Was”, talking about FDR and the new deal. It is ALL happening AGAIN. Almost rote!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/929392/posts
The following excerpt pertains to FDR, but I believe it is the same for Obama:
There was a prodigious literature of revolutionary thought concealed only by the respectability of its dress.... A little communism on the newsstand like that might be good for us, in fact, regarded as a twinge of pain in a robust, somewhat reckless social body. One ought to read it, perhaps, just to know. But one had tried, and what dreary stuff it had turned out to be!
To the revolutionary this same dreary stuff was the most exciting reading in the world. It was knowledge that gave him a sense of power. One who mastered the subject to the point of excellence could be fairly sure of a livelihood by teaching and writing, that is, by imparting it to others, and meanwhile dream of passing at a single leap from this mean obscurity to the prestige of one who assists in the manipulation of great happenings; while one who mastered it to the point of genius that one might dream of becoming himself the next Lenin....
This revolutionary elite was nothing you could define as a party. It had no name, no habitat, no rigid line. The only party was the Communist Party, and it was included, but its attack was too obvious and its proletarianism too crude, and moreover, it was under the stigma of not belonging. Nobody could say that about the elite above. It did belong, it was eminently respectable, and it knew the American scene. What it represented was a quantity of bitter intellectual radicalism infiltrated from the top downward as a doctorhood of professors, writers, critics, analysts, advisers, administators, directors of research, and so on a prepared revolutionary intelligence in spectacles. There was no plan to begin with. But there was a shibboleth that united them all: “Capitalism is finished.” There was one idea in which all differences could be resolved, namely, the idea of a transfer of power. For that a united front; after that, anything. And the wine of communion was a passion to play upon history with a scientific revolutionary technic.
The prestige of the elite was natural for many reasons; but it rested also upon one practical consideration. When the opportunity came a Gracchus would be needed. The elite could produce one. And that was something the Communist Party could not hope to do.
**************************************************************
From Wikipedia: Tiberius Grasshus was born in 168 BC; he was the son of Tiberius Gracchus Major and Cornelia Africana. The Gracchi were one of the most politically connected families of Rome. As a plebeian tribune, he caused political turmoil in the Republic by his attempts to legislate agrarian reforms. Tiberius’ political ideals, compounded with a gesture that was perceived as a request for a crown, eventually led to his death at the hands of supporters of the conservative faction (Optimates) of the Roman Senate.
...”Part of it is the back and forth of his head between teleprompter screens.”...
I think he looks like a dog at a tennis match, watching the ball fly back and forth...