Category Archives: liberal racism

Just Tell The Filthy, Stinkin' Truth, Mr. Obama

by David Kupelian

David Kupelian is an award-winning journalist, managing editor of WND, editor of Whistleblower magazine, and author of the best-selling book, The Marketing of Evil His newest book, How Evil Works, released to much critical acclaim in the spring of 2010. “Mr. President, on what occasion do you lie?”

Obama Grin
President Obama Loving the Limelight

That was Barbara Walters during her painfully fawning interview with Barack and Michelle Obama last Dec. 23. For ABC News “20/20′s” “Christmas at the White House” segment, the president and first lady were seated on a couch—relaxed, jovial, holding hands—their West Wing surroundings magnificently decorated for the holidays with dozens of exquisitely adorned Christmas trees and “visions of sugar-plums” everywhere. Walters got the interview rolling with tough questions like (to Obama), “If you were a superhero and you could have one super power, what would it be?” (Answer: “flying.”) And (to the first lady), “If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would you want it to be?” (Answer: “Bo,” the family dog.) And (to both of them), “I’m looking at you. You’re holding hands. That’s very sweet. How many years married?”

“Twenty, next year,” said Obama. “And [you] still hold hands?” rejoined the adoring Walters. “Absolutely,” replied Obama.

Then, against this backdrop of irresistible holiday warmth and good cheer, came the big question:

“Mr. President,” Walters inquired delicately, “on what occasion do you lie?”

“Usually, the only time I lie,” responded Obama, “is very personal interactions with family members, [when] you say, ‘You look great,’ and they don’t. ‘Wonderful dress…’ Uh, not so much.”

Chimed Michelle: “Things where the truth would hurt other people.”

“Right,” echoed Obama, “the things where truth would hurt other people. Not too many big things. I said during the campaign that I’ll always tell you what I think, and I will, always tell you where I stand. I’m not perfect, but you’ll know what I believe.”

There you have it, folks. Welcome to The Matrix – where the elite media specialize in creating virtual reality scenes like this one, which are so pleasant and seem so real—except that they bear virtually no resemblance to reality. For there, seated in the midst of this elegant, Norman Rockwell-esque Christmas setting, was Barack Obama, the perpetually churning and discontented radical, taking a needed break from his relentless campaign to “fundamentally transform”—that means destroy—the American way of free enterprise and free people. Barack Obama, the man who lies as easily as breathing—a serial deceiver regarding his birth, his childhood, his education, his influences and associations, his religion, his accomplishments, his policies, his true beliefs and his plans for America’s future. Barack Obama, the man whose entire presidency has been a seamless fabric of deception and duplicity, tells Barbara Walters and the American people that the only time he lies is to protect a family member from hurt feelings by occasionally offering reassurance that an unflattering dress is “wonderful.”

Wow. The level of ongoing media dishonesty in covering Barack Obama is, of course, surreal. But let us now focus our attention on the man who is, in all likelihood, the most perfectly dishonest person ever to occupy the Oval Office. After all, the correct answer to Walters’ question is obvious. When does Obama lie? Every single time he speaks to the American people. Indeed, as another long-time ABC News personality, Pulitzer prize-winning columnist George Will, pointed out recently in the Washington Post: “Barack Obama’s intellectual sociopathy—his often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truth—should no longer startle.”

“Sociopathy” is a strong word, but used by many to describe Obama – not necessarily as a clinical psychiatric diagnosis, but just because the symptoms fit so darn well, as per this typical description: “Sociopaths are often well-liked because of their charm and high charisma, but they do not usually care about other people. They think mainly of themselves and often blame others for the things that they do. They have a complete disregard for rules and lie constantly. They seldom feel guilt or learn from punishments.” Remind you of anyone?

A vital, creative power

One veteran psychiatrist I know suggested a slightly different diagnosis for Obama, but similar to “sociopathy” in many ways – namely, “malignant narcissistic personality disorder.” The modifier “malignant” signifies the version of “narcissistic personality disorder” that may cross over into criminality, he explained.

He even reviewed with me a list of some of the major symptoms of NPD, comparing them with Obama’s behavior as president. Among the key markers: 1) a grandiose view of one’s achievements (everything with Obama is “historic”), 2) an utter inability to handle criticism (everyone criticizing Obama or his policies is attacked as extremist or racist, his White House even condemning Fox News as “not a real news organization”), and 3) lack of genuine empathy (Obama gave a televised speech on the day of the Fort Hood terror attack in which a Muslim U.S. Army major shot 45 Americans, 13 fatally. With the entire nation reeling in shock and yearning for strong, reassuring words from their commander in chief, Obama instead engaged in small talk and an inane “shout-out” for two full minutes before even mentioning that the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11 had just occurred hours earlier.)

To be sure, many mainstream analysts, including Pulitzer-winning columnist and former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer, have repeatedly pointed to Obama’s extreme narcissism. Regardless of the “diagnosis,” one thing is certain: We’re talking about a person who absolutely does not consider serial lying to be in any way immoral or problematic.

Far from it. For a super-ambitious and vainglorious person such as Obama, lying is a vital and creative power. Lies open doors that would otherwise remain shut. Thus in a very real sense, for Obama, lies are “magic words,” the invocation of which represents the exercise of real power—power to impress voters, raise money, demonize critics, win elections, pass legislation and transform a nation. Ordinary people don’t possess this power, as they are constrained from such brazen lying by their conscience and/or the fear of being caught. But a highly narcissistic person like Obama feels he has the freedom—indeed, the mandate—to reshape America by creatively speaking into existence his preferred version of reality, without regard for any higher standard of truth. In other words, to lie.

Here’s how psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, M.D., explains it in his classic best-seller, “People of the Lie”:

Malignant narcissism is characterized by an unsubmitted will. All adults who are mentally healthy submit themselves one way or another to something higher than themselves, be it God or truth or love or some other ideal. They do what God wants them to do rather than what they would desire. “Thy will, not mine, be done,” the God-submitted person says. They believe in what is true rather than what they would like to be true.

...In summary, to a greater or lesser degree, all mentally healthy individuals submit themselves to the demands of their own conscience. Not so the evil, however. In the conflict between their guilt and their will, it is the guilt that must go and the will that must win.

The reader will be struck by the extraordinary willfulness of evil people. They are men and women of obviously strong will, determined to have their own way. There is a remarkable power in the manner in which they attempt to control others.

As we will now see, Obama has been preparing to “control others” for a long time.

‘I serve as a blank screen’

In his second autobiography “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama makes an audacious admission: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” While it’s amazing that anyone could openly brag about such a manipulative life-strategy, Obama has long cultivated his appealing yet ambiguous public persona in preparation for a career as political messiah. For instance, he voted “present” no less than 129 times while a member of the Illinois state Senate to avoid taking a position that might alienate one side or the other—including on bills he had supported and even sponsored! Taking a position, you see, might have compromised the purity and universality of his “blank screen,” which would one day serve to reflect the aspirations for “hope” and “change” of millions of Americans.

Appearing as all things to all people has been key to Obama’s meteoric rise, requiring constant deception. As one blogger put it recently:

He is Muslim, he is Christian, he is a capitalist, he is a socialist, he is black, he is white, he is a constitutional professor, he is an average collegian who smoked dope and did cocaine, he is a foreigner, he is American-born, he is “EVERYMAN.”

With America now in precipitous decline on his watch, many have tried to explain the enigma of Obama and his prodigious ability to lie so confidently, comfortably and continually:

  • Some cite the disturbing degree to which Obama manifests full-blown clinical symptoms of narcissism and/or sociopathy, as previously discussed.
  • Some cite his far-left ideology: Whether you label it liberalism, progressivism, socialism, left-wing radicalism, Marxism, communism, anti-capitalism, European-style social democracy or statism, leftist “true believers” have always justified as moral not just lying, but ruthless suppression of dissent, violence and tyranny—as long as these measures seemed to advance their glorious utopian cause. “Exhibit A” for this point would be the entire 20th century.
  • Some cite Obama’s childhood, which was awful, and others cite his early influences, which were more awful. A Berkeley, Calif., psychotherapist who writes under the pseudonym Robin of Berkeley weighs in this way:
  • My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.

    But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can’t prove it, the degree of Obama’s disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.

    With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociates—that is, disconnects from his being—in order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.

    Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, “Pop,” that evoked images of sexual abuse—for instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and “Pop’s” shorts.

    Would trauma explain Obama’s disconnect? In many ways, yes. A damaged and unattached child may develop a “false self.” To compensate for the enormous deficits in identity and attachment, the child invents his own personality. For Obama, it may have been as a special, gifted person.

  • Some cite Obama’s religious background—his 20-year affiliation with his “spiritual mentor,” the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who preached raw hatred of America, capitalism and white people, and whose “black liberation theology” gospel amounted to Afro-centric Marxism dressed up with Bible verses. Complicating this picture and suggesting even more questions is the well-documented fact that during his youth in Indonesia, Obama was raised and schooled as a Muslim.
  • Some cite his background in “Chicago politics” – a euphemism for wall-to-wall corruption and criminality. Indeed, the state of Illinois, where a staggering total of four recent governors—Otto Kerner, Dan Walker, George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich—have gone to prison for corruption, remains a political cesspool to this day, as confirmed by a recent study from the University of Illinois at Chicago’s political science department. Obama is a product of this legendarily corrupt “Chicago machine” and played the game ruthlessly while rising in the ranks there.
  • Some cite Obama’s education, the most important part of which, by his own admission, came via Saul Alinsky. During the 2008 campaign, Obama said of his years steeped in the Chicago Marxist’s revolutionary “community organizing” methods: “It was that education that was seared into my brain. It was the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School.”
  • In “Rules for Radicals,” Alinsky counsels wannabe revolutionaries that they must be willing to ignore the dictates of their own conscience to advance the left’s agenda:

    In action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation”; he doesn’t care enough for people to be “corrupted” for them.

    That, friends, is one of the most twisted things I’ve ever heard. To believe it and act on it is to abandon your greatest gift, your moment-to-moment connection with the Living God—your conscience. Maybe that’s why Alinsky dedicated “Rules for Radicals” to “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”

    In the final analysis, Obama lies because that’s how he gets his way, and getting his way is all he cares about.

    Editor’s note: The preceding is excerpted from a longer piece by David Kupelian in the July issue of Whistleblower magazine, “WHY OBAMA LIES: Exploring what’s behind the president’s glaring and unprecedented dishonesty.” One of Whistleblower’s most popular issues ever, “WHY OBAMA LIES” features groundbreaking analysis of President Obama by multiple psychiatrists who reveal him to be a seriously damaged, fundamentally dishonest and even delusional person, as well as a comprehensive list, running throughout the entire magazine, of Barack Obama’s lies, each followed by PROOF of the statement’s falsehood.

    Severing Islam From The Fevers Which Harm All

    Islam Protests
    Islam Protests
    ON THE TIN PLATED HEELS OF AN ANNOUNCEMENT, surprising many, by British prime minister Tony Blair that the country needed to debate the impact of Islam on British soil and modernism, I just watched an interesting report on CNN. They showed a large gathering of Muslims protesting outside a prominent Catholic church in London. They were protesting against the Pope. How long has this churlish tantrum been going on now, two, three weeks?

    The Muslims were screaming obligatory death threats against anyone who dared speak out against their ruthless prophet or their Allah, carrying signs reading "Islam will defeat Rome."

    Another scrawled placard read: Bush, Blair and the Pope = Evil Trinity

    —and more of the usual rhetoric that is finally becoming recognized as the common political signature of Muslims spanning across the globe thanks to the latest wave of Islamic ascendency.

    What struck me about this report is that they actually showed a few outraged British citizens who were brave enough to briefly say to hell with political correctness in order to argue with some of them. One man said: "Could you just imagine if WE were to protest and threaten like this, and in front of a mosque? Oh no, that would not be tolerated".

    No, it wouldn't. We would have our heads cut off. Perhaps Britain will shake a leg, and imagine itself proper to the task in making a good debate after all.

    This article is from the Scenewash Project archives, originally published in 2007.

    Post-Modern Racism: A False Flag of Manufactured Sanctimony

    Jeremiah Wright
    Jeremiah Wright
    WHILE MANY OF US POST-BECKSNIFFIANS are familiar with the shocking news that great things and great people of color have participated as free men in this nation since its beginnings, among his many impoverishing 20th Century shaping deeds, President Wilson fired all the blacks who had found a niche in the US Postal Service. He attempted the same with the Navy, where blacks had found a place as ship's stewards. Astute American Thinker J.R. Dunn continues:

    Millard Tydings is a liberal hero for opposing the monstrous Joe McCarthy. He was also a racist of the type who couldn't bear having a black individual enter the same room. Tailgunner Joe financed his defeat at the hands of a political neophyte who ran on a civil rights platform—something the libs never see fit to mention.

    While never die-hard crusaders for civil rights, the GOP did strive to act fairly when opportunity presented. It was Eisenhower who enforced the Brown decision in 1954, and it was Eisenhower who attempted to pass a civil rights bill in 1956, which went down to defeat at the hands of the segregationist Dixiecrats. When the Democrats did get around to offering a civil rights bill eight years later, it was Republican minority leader Everett Dirksen who got the bill passed after liberal Democrat Hubert Humphrey failed.

    This is the outfit that has set itself up as judge, jury, and lord high executioner of American racists. Which means simply "Americans," since the vast majority of them, like Rick Perry, the GOP rank and file, and the Tea Party members, are not racists at all.

    But are instead, honest folks who refuse to be cowed by the true racists, those who see nothing but race agitation in the perfunctory colors of a rather natural rainbow.

    The Perils Of Liberal Creationism

    Let's begin with Conviction I: what I call Liberal Creationism or, as the oft-invoked cliché, people are the same all over.

    ACCORDING TO THIS GOSPEL, modern humans emerged roughly 180,000 years ago in Africa and eventually populated almost the entire globe. According to evolution, via mutations and selective breeding, humans adapted to varied conditions. For example, in colder climates, white skin and blue eyes facilitated vitamin D absorption. So far, so good. But, though evolution tells us that traits most valuable for survival are more susceptible to change, the human brain remains fixed despite thousands of years of evolutionary pressure in widely unlike settings.
    Da Vinci Sketch
    Da Vinci Sketch
    Yes, pygmies in central African may be anatomically unlike Swedes, but the brains are identical. So, send the pygmies to Sweden and enroll them in Swedish schools and provide all the benefits of Swedish society, and after a generation or two they will be just like Swedes, albeit a bit shorter and with a darker complexion (or send Swedes to central Africa and they will become blond, blue-eyed "pygmies").

    It then follows, according to this Liberal Creed, that those differences in educational attainment, income and social status, and even crime rates and other pathologies must be artificial. If third-generation pygmies living in Sweden lag behind their taller countrymen, the only explanations are discrimination, racism, lack of opportunities, and similar fixable environmental obstacles. Going one step further, since all people have the same brains, equality of intellectual accomplishment is human nature. A multi-billion-krona initiative by the Swedish government to bring pigmies up to the Swedish average in income and education does not contravene nature; it is a social engineering enterprise to restore, not reverse the human default condition of equality. And, the Liberal Creed tells us, this will be accomplished only if Swedes are willing to make the effort.

    I recall a more tranquil time in my life (I am only 55) when liberal dogma insisted that the West leave pygmy and other recently "discovered" cultures untouched, (except for vain purposes of Western study), free to continue existing within their own crude but provocative cultures, now being endangered by Western intrusion on upon lands and way of life in order to expose its tribal units to inequality victimhood and Marxist yearnings.

    This laissez faire approach was definitely the persuading viewpoint expressed in popular magazines and literature of the day. When and why did this approach change, given that NWO infrastructure informed by Global Marxism had always been a part and parcel of the Frank Boas, Margaret Meade, Margaret Sanger assault on humanity, to bring all these variations of human expression under one roof, so to speak?

    Perhaps, I put too fine a point on the author's example of clashing Sweden and Pygmy cultures, but in importing thousands of unvetted "refugees" of a certain uncouth cultural heritage upon the Tennessee and Minnesota constitute the same jarring effects of instant culture clash.

    Read the entire piece on liberal fundamentalism here.

    Party Of The First Part

    We here at the Scenewash Project offered this article as a bread crumb...

    ...and were confronted by another attempt by a "universalist" friend to stall the game, transfer too much of the blame, and take a pass on the shame...

    13judges
    Music For Patriots
    Poor petulant white brother, how might we comfort you?

    Our response:

    A black man wrote that piece, friend. So your response to his observation is your own world view in a word or two, comfort thyself white man, but beware, there are others who cannot no matter how much they try, so you must deny, defy, belie all fair chance and do it for them. Ah, the old white man's burden argument, all knotted up Gordian-style to keep tight the rope where one is one's one hangman...

    You be the judge. But let's consider another false play by those who play tricks with the American value system, in this case Muslims who tend to identify themselves as Muslim Americans. Gloria Gilson writes:

    We should only call Muslims as “Muslims who live in America,” NEVER EVER “Muslim Americans” or "American Muslims." No other faith believer so self-stylizes him/her|self in this manner. Methodist American, Christian American, Jewish American, Sikh American. None of that. Muslims do this as another avenue to push their political religion by co-opting the well-deserved decent-ness of America. In short, Muslims are stealing yet something else, this time our reputations.

    Muslims are not Americans; they are not here for the opportunities and the freedoms that the concept of Americanism—limited government, personal responsibility—has given to so many. Rather, Muslims are here for colonization and conquest. They cannot be considered Americans because of their adoption of Islam. Sharia (total government) and American constitutional law (government contained/controlled by the people; hey, at least that's the theory) couldn’t be farther apart.

    By their own admissions Muslims tell us repeatedly that their one and only allegiance is to Islam. On this score I believe them.

    To be sure. It's no secret to thorough readers of our work that we prefer to call an American an American. But our particular generation of immigrant is in great numbers bringing with it a peculiar baggage we prefer to be left among the political reeds of one's origin when staking a claim on American soil and spirit. As Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1919:

    "In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...

    "There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...

    "We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...

    "And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

    Let's All Play Blind Man's Bluff, Shall We?

    Donald Trump
    Donald Trump

    OR PERHAPS, AN INTIMATE GAME OF PIN THE BIRTHER'S TALE ON THE DONKEY. So little miss Whoopi Goldberg is playing the race card (again, again)? Is that supposed to be teeth-rattling news? Shall we all play Blind Man's Bluff, instead? Is this the new nursery rhyme American life streaming gently across the rocks of realpolitik where only the government really knows your name?

    Tentative GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump referring to Obama's penchant for playing basketball instead of working at his job is simply an empirical observation, a cold, inalienable fact, a personal distinction of the president's well-publicized behavior!

    How many US Presidents have played basketball as much as Obama the Windjammer, hogged the spotlight, and then bragged about their prowess of the game. Which President in history has had to get medical attention while in office from basketball. Which President has spent more time studying his Final Four Brackets at the cost of his war plans against a nation, let's say, Libya.

    Sorry but that's not racial stereotyping to point this stuff out. These are specific facts particular to Obama. Should the Donald have referred to golf instead, because the little white ball in the hole is a safe reference? Doesn't all this chatter subtly pointing to the size and color of one choice of ball references run much too close to the preposterous racist theories of Dr. Florence Cress-Welsing? The fact that Obama is black or half white is immaterial. These phony racist charges dribble in from a phony leftist ideology eaten up by the stereotypes they employ against others...

    There's probably no hope for Whoopi's latest excellent adventure into political speech, but recently ascendant Juan Williams, with his uncharacteristic pile-on at Fox News, should be roundly ashamed of himself, given his recent firing at NPR. As another American Thinker wit put it ever so delightfully, "Juan Williams needs to spend some serious time in the presence of Congressman Allen West. He would be a better American for it."

    Breaking Free Of The Stupid Undergrounds

    Arguing Against Groupthink
    Arguing Against Groupthink
    THIS IS, NEEDLESS TO SAY, NOT how one should approach a discussion over what is sure to be a difficult sell to those who already feel they know everything they need to know on a difficult topic, and instead presume you are just an idiot, a racist, and probably both.

    In this photo, let's suppose we have a husband and wife, or perhaps two old friends, each professionals, a college professor and a bank executive, and let's agree it's not germane which job is whose. Woman or man, based only on what you see in the photo and what you already ascertain about the general culture, who do you think is the person more knowledgeable, who is concerned about a serious topic worthy of analysis?

    Here's our profile. Based on what we know about how certain evidence breaks in this PC society, we presume the man to be the calm but vigilant anti-jihadist who prefers evidential persuasion leaving the woman to be a hardcore politically correct leftist claiming the higher moral ground, tooth and nail, certain of her superiority. If the roles were reversed, and it was she who was frightened of jihad, Islam, and its strategies for conquering the world, she would win no argument with this sort of display, even if this cowardly friend of hers is a wimpish hollow man of the politically correct variety, stoned on his own ignorance.

    So read on...

    FOLLOWING 9/11, FOLLOWING MADRID, FOLLOWING the London bombing, following Bali, in fact following the whole panoply of Muslim violence at that point, I listened and listened to political and media reaction.

    Tiny minority. Religion of Peace. Rich Diversity. Untold wealth brought by immigration. Vibrant communities.

    On and on the cliched excuses fell from establishment mouths, their voices united in a wholesale pass for what the rest of us saw as a religion intent on getting its way and killing as many possible in the process. Something was grossly askew. Something was missing. Why was our collective intelligence being so badly insulted by politically correct morons, parroting the same old fables?

    Then the thought occurred. These people, wallowing in dire ignorance are merely talking heads and spewers of easily demolished platitudes. They do it because they all do it. It's the easy route. However, apart from what my eyes and ears told me about the current situation I was quite unaware of the history and true doctrine of Islam.

    So off to Amazon and a few clicks later up it popped. Robert Spencer's Politically Incorrect guide to Islam and the Crusades. The cover alone gave the aura that this would be no half assed apologist's polemic so I bought it.

    That was about five years ago, and what refreshment? What revelation?

    Thus armed, my argument with friends either riled them mildly or aroused such anger that I realised something was not quite right. These were educated people. Lecturers, photographers, TV people, a couple of (largely unsuccesful) actors, senior managers plus of course the remoras and hangers on. One thing did unite them and that was the left.

    My epiphany started at that point. Buoyed by the great introduction Robert's insight's offered, I bought more. And more. And despite all of this well researched truth they still didn't believe me. I was a racist and that was that.

    For me that was when their bubble burst. All that came out was hot air and dogma. In other words the lies of self preening liberals, basking in self proclaimed liberality. And nothing more

    They were [TS] Elliot's Hollow Men devoid of any individuality of thought and addicted to the groupthink which infests their brand of society.

    A few years down the line I jettisoned the dross. If the unvarnished truth could not persuade them, why bother? I'd say this experience is quite informative. It obviously changed me. What was that thing about truth setting you free?

    And all because of Robert's book...

    Logdon

    Who are we to improve upon this piece of brilliant writing? What better critique of the often undulating process of sorting out the real from the unreal can we offer to those who will not heed a word of it, but will resort to vile slanders, misinformation, hyperbole, and logical fallacies to thwart our insistence on using the fullest measure of our intelligence, not merely a caricatured obedience to some counterfeit ideal?

    A Jihad Watch commentator transcribes a personal but oh so familiar path to intellectual sanity when trying to figure out why what we must process day in and day out on nearly every subject pertaining to Islam when filtered by the mainstream media just doesn't meet the smell, much less the taste test. Leftism is a cult of wishful thinking, and is no longer a ridiculous clique, but is now the deep-rooted establishment.

    The courage and resolve so many of us must muster in breaking free of ANY of the stupid undergrounds described by Paul Mann is no different than breaking free of the groupthink of this so-called religious or political cult known as Islam and its new best friends, the radical Left of the West.