Category Archives: liberalism

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.

    Barack Obama: Big Man On Campus

    President Obama
    President Obama
    FACE OFF, and let the American presidential sweepstakes begin. Mortal cracks are showing both stateside and abroad everywhere this ship of state blows and it appears that the once unsinkable Obama administration is taking on more water than it or its lap dog media can scoop out. Lots of it. The Left, particularly the Far Left, is turning against Barack Obama in droves. During this latest grumbling spate we hear from 1999 Pulitzer Prize winner Maureen Dowd, followed by the leading voice at Code Pink. No doubt, many of us independents are delighted in knowing that the recent shift showing the Big Man on Campus is beginning to falter politically, at least matches his loss of appetite for hands on governing.

    Obama’s winning was like a moon landing. You noticed it more when you’re overseas. America did it again, Brazilians told me. The world can elect women presidents. It’s happened before. But what advanced economy has ever elected a black man? None. Not Europe. Not Latin America. Not Australia. Not even close. They’re not even on the ballot. Only in America. What a country.

    Kenneth Rapoza

    “Why should the public believe what the Obama administration says about the people being assassinated by drones? Especially since, as we learn in the New York Times, the administration came up with a semantic solution to keep the civilian death toll to a minimum: simply count all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants. The rationale, reminiscent of George Zimmerman’s justification for shooting Trayvon Martin, is that “people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.” Talk about profiling! At least when George Bush threw suspected militants into Guantanamo their lives were spared.”

    —Medea Benjamin, CodePINK

    Introducing Fjordman As A Man Of Integrity And Insight

    islam-West Scrapfest
    Islam-West Scrapfest
    The next three articles are written and distributed freely by a Norwegian chap writing under the name of Fjordman, who once kept a well-received blog covering Islam, Scandanavian affairs, and global politics. We thank him for both his insight and his generosity. He has since closed down that blog but writes that he occasionally contributes to other blogs or websites such as Gates of Vienna, Viking Observer, and Jihad Watch.

    UPDATE: The announcement above, and the articles which follow are reposted from several sources, including Jihad Watch and the Project Scenewash, the latter on October 20, 2006. What follows below will be dated appropriately, consigned to this update.

    Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (born 11 June 1975) is a Norwegian far-right anti-Islamic blogger who writes under the pseudonym Fjordman. Jensen wrote anonymously as Fjordman starting in 2005, until he disclosed his identity in 2011. He has been active in the counterjihad movement, which argues that multiculturalism, particularly Muslim immigration, poses a threat to Western civilization. According to The Independent, Jensen "has written numerous screeds accusing Muslims of secretly planning to take over Europe." Notably, he has advocated the 'Eurabia' conspiracy theory in a self-published book titled Defeating Eurabia, and argued that all Muslims should be deported from Europe. The Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik quoted him extensively in his manifesto. According to the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, Fjordman is "considered a 'hero' among the bloggers and debaters constituting the new far right.

    An America Patriot Has Passed On A Legacy Worth Emulating

    Of course Andrew Breitbart, an American patriot extraordinaire, is worthy of all the words, those of favor and those of disgust hurled at him as a political man with drawn digit in the sand, before and after his life ended so suddenly, unexpectedly, mysteriously, tragically, unspectacularly just after midnight last Thursday as he was walking near his home. He collapsed, and at 43, still a young man, he was gone.

    We knew him through his untiring investigative journalism, his tough stances against the unhinged Left and against who and what he considered violent, seditious, determined enemies of the the state in many cases, but certainly enemies of the people, the people who still believe in constitutional loyalty, liberty, justice, courage, responsibility, and the American way. Protection from the government and the forces of the mob. But I'll step aside and let his friend, Robert Spencer share his version of Andrew Breitbart...

    Andrew Breitbart & US Flag
    Andrew Breitbart
    AMONG THE MANY THINGS that made Andrew Breitbart a great man was that he was not playing defense. So many, many times I have been speaking at anti-jihad events and heard other speakers saying, "We are not racists, we are not bigots, we are not Islamophobes..." We have allowed the jihadists and Islamic supremacists, and their Leftist allies, to put us on the defensive. We're always apologizing, tacitly accepting their narrative and responding to them in the parameters they set up. Even worse, many even among the anti-jihadists eagerly throw their colleagues under the bus—those colleagues whom the Left and the Islamic supremacists have started to zero in on. They're the ones we should be standing up for the most resolutely, for they are drawing fire because they are effective.

    Instead of bowing and scraping to the Islamic supremacists and feebly protesting that we're not really racists and hatemongers and all the other calumnies and canards they throw at us, we should be taking the fight to them, and standing up and saying, "You are fronting for the most oppressive ideology on the face of the earth. You are fronting for evil. You are carrying water and running interference for the denial of free speech, the denial of the freedom of conscience, the institutionalized oppression of women, the subjugation of non-Muslims, and worse. You're fronting for stonings, amputations, the murder of apostates, the treatment of women as possessions of men, the madness and senseless violence that we see in this furor over the Qur'an-burnings, and more. You shout us down on campuses and do everything you can to make sure we are not heard in the public square. And you call us fascists? You are the quintessence of fascism."

    Read it all.

    Engaging Muslims In Our Own Sphere of Influence

    Public Muslim Prayer
    Public Muslim Prayer

    Here's another thoughtful article from Citizen Warrior revisiting the question on how we are to treat Muslims living in our midst, now that we are familiar with what confronts both them and us in the everyday bustle of life, and life's enemy they, and now we, must call jihad:

    "Living among us, we have many Muslims who are undoubtedly as innocent of terrorism, political subversion, and Islamic supremacism as we are. But we have a problem, don't we? These innocent fellow countrymen—and the terrorists, subversives, and supremacists—all call themselves "Muslims."

    Many non-Muslims explain the situation to themselves that "there are extremists in every religion" and let it go at that. But those of us who have studied Islamic doctrine and Islamic history have discovered that "letting it go at that" would be a big mistake. And of course, those who simply look at the news can see that there must be something about Islam that produces more "extremists" than other religions."

    We certainly do not wish to live in a perpetual state of fear nor do we desire to live in a world rooted in hatred and suspicion. But we can avoid neither by ignoring the harsh realities on the ground, and we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that everyone is our friend. So what do we do?

    Read it all.

    Here is one writer's compact rebuttal to this whole concept of trying to figure out who is a peaceful Muslim and to what limits his own responsibility to Muslims goes. Consider this:

    I no longer consider it my responsibility to determine who is a muslim. If someone claims to be muslim then I assume they support the socio-political ideology of islam which is imperialistic, based on apartheid, decrees human chattel slavery as a legal and valid economic activity, and degrades all women as breeding and fornicating beasts in a man's personal bordello.

    If a person who claims to be muslim does not support these tenets then it is his/her responsibility to leave islam and no longer be a muslim.

    Bohemian Rhapsodi | September 4, 2011 3:28 AM

    No middle ground left is what many are saying.

    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.

    Noting The Rebirth An Ancient Ideology

    Death Skull
    Death Skull
    IT SEEMS IT WAS SOMETIME in the mid-1980s, that I first read a rather long article in the Washington Post about this budding ideology called political correctness that had began creeping out of the liberal university system of these very United States, and had now begun to infiltrate the public space, not that it was an American invention, by any means. But it was being hosted by college students. I don't recall any condemnation of the professors who were teaching these 1980s kids, but it the author seemed persuaded that the movement was being driven by grass roots youth. We now know that was a lie.

    This is not to say that this new, improved liberalism, still clinging to the rotting corpse of communism, was anything new. But with a fresh new name and a prime directive to assimilate all before it, PC & MC suddenly and quickly spread into the trendy mainstream, indoctrinating our youth, and other grievance-rich identity groups where it pretends to reign today.

    But multiculturalism ain't all it's cracked up to be, either.

    The Norway Massacre and Europe's War on Free Speech
    by Soeren Kern

    July 28, 2011 at 5:00 am

    ….But in recent years, the secular purveyors of European multiculturalism have moved far beyond their initial objective of creating an American-style "melting pot." European socialists now view multiculturalism as a means to eliminate the entire Judeo-Christian worldview. This is certainly the case in Spain, where socialists have joined arms with Islam in a "Red-Green Alliance" to confront a common enemy, Christianity, as represented, in this case, by the Roman Catholic Church....

    In Norway, large sections of Oslo are being turned into Muslim enclaves subject to Sharia law and to the dictates of local imams. The citizens of Oslo are also struggling to cope with an epidemic of rapes. According to recent statistics, 100% of aggravated sexual assaults which resulted in rapes over the past three years were carried out by Muslim immigrants. Norwegians are now trying to deal with the large-scale torching of automobiles, which, as in France, is being attributed to Muslim youth.

    In a Wall Street Journal essay titled "Inside the Mind of the Oslo Murderer," Bruce Bawer, an American analyst who lives in Oslo, writes: "Norway, like the rest of Europe, is in serious trouble. Millions of European Muslims live in rigidly patriarchal families in rapidly growing enclaves where women are second-class citizens, and where non-Muslims dare not venture. Surveys show that an unsettling percentage of Muslims in Europe reject Western values, despise the countries they live in, support the execution of homosexuals, and want to replace democracy with Sharia law. (According to a poll conducted by the Telegraph, 40% of British Muslims want Sharia implemented in predominantly Muslim parts of the United Kingdom.)"

    Bawer describes Norway as a country that stands out for its refusal to confront any of the real dangers posed by Islamic radicalism. He also says the failure of mainstream political leaders to responsibly address the challenges posed by Muslim immigration has contributed to the emergence of extremists like Breivik. Pressure cookers without a safety valve eventually will explode.

    Bawer writes: "In bombing those government buildings and hunting down those campers, Breivik was not taking out people randomly. He considered the Labour Party, Norway's dominant party since World War II, responsible for policies that are leading to the Islamization of Europe—and thus guilty of treason....