mweiss

2016 Obama's America - Is O Psychologically Unfit for Office?

28 posts in this topic

My wife and I watched this documentary tonight.

Some things struck me:

The man is damaged goods, in the mental area. He's emotionally damaged (abandonment by his father) and he's doing what he's doing to fulfill a personal psychological need, rather than because it's what he feels is right for America.

Second item: when he's caught off mike talking to Vladimir Putin, he speaks as if the results of the election upcoming were already decided! "I'll have more flexibility in my second term"..

Here's what I wrote to a Liberal friend of mine:

Barack Obama draws a lot of his ideology from his father. Psychologically, Obama is a man in pain. The abandonment by his paternal father, coupled with his desire to connect with that father, makes him a blind follower of his father’s strong anti-colonial roots.

Everything Barack is doing—from preventing the oil pipeline for America, to offshore drilling for America, whilst funding offshore drilling for south American countries, to destroying our economy with unlimited debt, to cutting back our nuclear inventory—is all in payback to those nations that ‘suffered’ in his view, under colonialism. His desire to unite with the Muslims is toward a goal (which is is well along in achieving) of a united states of Islam in the Middle East. Iran will have their nuclear weapon. Israel will be destroyed, left to fend for itself. The middle east will revert to pre-Reagan era debauchery and war.

This president is not about making things better for America. He is about payback for the countries that were under the rule of colonialism. He will do this by weakening our nation, both militarily, politically and economically. He will destroy our currency, destroy the wealth of not just the rich, but America’s middle class—and the poor—because in Barack’s mind, our poor are rich compared to the people in Kenya.

This man is very clever, but he is damaged goods. He carries emotional baggage that no sitting president should bring into his job. In his mind, the only way to right the ‘injustices’ he sees are to bring down America, as in the immortal words of Jeremiah Wright, “Goddamn America!”.

His brother, George, doesn’t agree with him. That is why Barack leaves him to fend for himself. You would think a successful man like Barack would help and uplift his brother. But he is afraid of his brother’s ideas, because they expose Barack’s flawed view of the world. Barack is a psychopath, and such people are very clever at fooling large numbers of people.

The complicity of the media worked to cover up his mistakes, while selectively hammering the opposing candidate. Even the moderator of the debates was biased in favor of Obama, acting more like his coach and secretary, than a moderator who should be unbiased.

And the public at-large, we have reached a tipping point, where the Free Stuff Army has outnumbered the producers. This is something the rest of us did not contemplate happening so soon.

It is over for America. Pretty soon, the Soviets will invade us, once Barack has reduced our nuclear arsenal to 300, while the Soviets have 1500. His off-camera comments to Vladimir Putin “I will have more flexibility in my next term” are a clue to what’s in store for us.

Wake up and shake yourself free of this cult illusion you are under! This man is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the US, and by extention, the world, because when the US goes down, there will be no check on the middle east and the savage and vicious wars to come.

I think we have a serious threat to national security here. He needs to be removed from office and quick! The problem is, Dems have the Senate under their control, so impeachment is impossible. Nothing like this has ever happened before, where we need to remove a sitting president but the houses are ignorant. The only other thing I can think of is some sort of military intervention. If what Dinesh D'Souza presents is true and correct, then we're in for possible handover to the Soviets, and maybe even nuclear attack.

I can't sleep. I don't know what to do. This situation may be FAR worse than I ever imagined, if this documentary is factually correct.

There is not time for a grass roots educational effort. There needs to be a military action to remove this person from office in the next couple of weeks before he signs any treaties. He's moving fast so far with several dangerous orders and I think he knows he may be ousted and is rushing to complete his intended goals. What do we do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I think you are going overboard with your psychological analysis. Second, I think your solution of military action is completely unrealistic and off-base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0bama explicitly intends to try to unilaterally nuclear disarm America. This is not surmise or a conspiracy theory, it's his explicitly stated intentions.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/04/obamas-unilateral-nuclear-disa

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/24/the-obama-administration-plan-to-disarm-america-nu/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lawmakers-urge-obama-abandon-unilateral-nuclear-disarmament-study_630062.html

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/10/president-obamas-dangerous-dream-of-a-nuclear-free-world/

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/obama_seeking_unilateral_nucle.html

etc. etc.

Most of the miserable idiots who re-elected him are unaware of this, or if they were aware, would approve, but disarming American nukes would *permanently* put America in thrall to Russia and China. Period. They could dictate whatever terms they wanted and would nuke America with impunity to stop it from re-arming in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more worried about one nuke in the hands of Iran than 10000 in the hands of Russia and China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have a serious threat to national security here. He needs to be removed from office and quick! The problem is, Dems have the Senate under their control, so impeachment is impossible. Nothing like this has ever happened before, where we need to remove a sitting president but the houses are ignorant. The only other thing I can think of is some sort of military intervention. If what Dinesh D'Souza presents is true and correct, then we're in for possible handover to the Soviets, and maybe even nuclear attack.

I can't sleep. I don't know what to do. This situation may be FAR worse than I ever imagined, if this documentary is factually correct.

There is not time for a grass roots educational effort. There needs to be a military action to remove this person from office in the next couple of weeks before he signs any treaties. He's moving fast so far with several dangerous orders and I think he knows he may be ousted and is rushing to complete his intended goals. What do we do?

You are advocating a military coup? That would complete the transformation of the U.S. into a banana republic in the

temperate zone. The people of this country still have their basic civil rights especially the right of free speech and the right

to bear arms. Until they are infringed or suppressed there is no justification for a military take over. And what makes you

think our liberties would be safe if their is a military coup.

Fie upon your proposal. It is worse than we have now.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry Goldwater was skunked in 1964 because there was a campaign impugning his sanity. You are making the same error. Obama is not insane nor is he mentally deficient. He is a bright man (brighter than Ken Doll Mitt) and he is as sane as you are. Unfortunately he is wrong minded and is bound to set of values and ideas that will do this nation no good.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not advocating a traditional military coup. This is more of an emergency police action, to remove a president who has been found to be committing treason.

If you're on a jetliner, and the pilot has decided to put the plane into a suicide dive, do you wait until landing to have him court-marshaled (can't happen if everyone dies in the crash), or do you grab the controls and restrain the pilot?

Perhaps most here are not of the opinion that the situation is that dire. I hope it's not, but if Dinesh D'Souza's analysis is correct, then the situation is FAR worse than we have contemplated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The situation is orders of magnitude worse than most think. If you can make the opportunity to live far away from America, 2013 is a good time to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not advocating a traditional military coup. This is more of an emergency police action, to remove a president who has been found to be committing treason.

It always starts with "emergency" measures.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can make the opportunity to live far away from America, 2013 is a good time to do it.

My wife and I considered doing this, but decided against it. Part of the reason is because it is kind of difficult to find a country much better, and it's also difficult to find a country that is "far away from America." By that I mean, economically at least, what happens here, affects the entire globe. Places like Switzerland and Australia have stable currencies, and many other perks, but for most people, actually uprooting and moving there is not a practical option. Good luck getting a work permit in the EU. Companies there have to prove that they looked all over Europe first before they can hire you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's that hard to find better countries at this point. Check out the income tax rate in Singapore. And "practical" is a relative term. Moving overseas is going to be difficult. Staying in America is going to be lethal. Take your pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ann Barnhardt stated in the last part of her video

that there is NO PLACE that will be safe, once the US goes down. The Dark Ages will reemerge like wildfire without the USA there to police the world and moderate events. Maybe it's better to stay here and fight, rather than leave with nothing but the shirts on our backs, and starve to death in some airport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving overseas is difficult depending on one's current situation with regard to employment and family. I moved to Australia in June of 2008 on a sponsored visa with the company I was working for at the time. For me it wasn't especially difficult, but I was also single and had been to Australia a few times before moving down. I understand that for many people it is trickier and requires a lot more planning than it did for me. I also had a specialised skill in demand which couldn't be found locally.

The question now remains for me: do I keep my American citizenship after I become a naturalised Australian or do I not? I've heard many arguments for and against, but at this point in history, remaining an American may well be a detriment, not an asset.

Thoughts, anyone, on this last point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This matter has plagued me for a while. I cannot even afford to move across state. My house is not legally saleable (in ground fuel tanks, garbage dump, non-approved septic, never had a C of O in 47 years, makeshift, self-built house, land is now under the wetlands laws, so could not be built upon today, and $102K in back taxes and interest/liens on it. I'm pretty badly encumbered. Then there's the horror of moving my massive sound system, electronics laboratory, etc. I made less than $3K this past year (the worst of my declining business in the Obama years) and we're buying food on credit cards now, with no hope of paying them off. Moving has become a non-option. Too poor to move. Too far behind in taxes for them to let us stay.

As for American citizenship, you renounce, else the IRS has dominion over you wherever you live. Imagine having to file in two countries? Definitely, I would renounce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard the "world will go in flames if U.S. collapses" thing many times. I think it's hogwash from people who believe that the center of the universe is America. It's a once-relatively-free country with 4% of world population that decided to commit suicide. The rest of humanity is going to keep on going, the way it has for the past 8000 years without America - some places better than others. Despite having the best technology, America has *lost* every major conflict it's engaged in since WW2. It let various dictatorships arm with nukes, and it's still doing so. It left 9/11 unavenged. It can't/won't even defend itself much less the entire planet. Once that illusion has been thoroughly stripped away, any of the rest of the world who dreamily believed that America would protect them will have to face the reality that it never could, and provide for their own defense, and be better for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add that the 8000 year figure is from the start of recorded history in Sumer - I'm not talking about pre-national humanity. In case anyone who doesn't know me thought I was a fundie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Despite having the best technology, America has *lost* every major conflict it's engaged in since WW2.

Respectfully, I think you're buying into far too much leftist narrative on our recent military history. The Gulf War and the more recent War in Iraq were crushing losses for Saddam and his regime. Furthermore, those two wars had some of the lowest casualty rates for US soldiers in American history. With the recent War in Iraq, it was only the subsequent "nation building" that became the hyperbolic "quagmire". But the war that preceded it was quite ruthless: we invaded Saddam's country, captured him, then allowed him to undergo trial and execution, with the method of execution being a grisly one for American standards.

Granted, Vietnam was a total failure, with an order of magnitude larger combat deaths than Iraq.

It let various dictatorships arm with nukes, and it's still doing so. It left 9/11 unavenged. It can't/won't even defend itself much less the entire planet. Once that illusion has been thoroughly stripped away, any of the rest of the world who dreamily believed that America would protect them will have to face the reality that it never could, and provide for their own defense, and be better for it.

Our initial military response to 9/11 was hardly toothless, and years later Bin Laden is now dead, thanks mostly to long-term intelligence efforts started under the GW Bush administration. While I agree our retaliation should have been less restrained, it was hardly a disaster in the Vietnam sense.

The toothless responses from the US are probably only entertained to the extent that the military action is confined entirely to foreign soil, such that Americans and politicians can view the conflict abstractly and feel comfortable about moralizing how a "proper war" should be fought. The moment the bloodshed spills onto American soil, like it did on 9/11, we get pretty damn aggressive and bloodthirsty. Remember that the initial war effort following 9/11 was supported almost uniformly across party lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The toothless responses from the US are probably only entertained to the extent that the military action is confined entirely to foreign soil, such that Americans and politicians can view the conflict abstractly and feel comfortable about moralizing how a "proper war" should be fought. The moment the bloodshed spills onto American soil, like it did on 9/11, we get pretty damn aggressive and bloodthirsty.

As another example of this larger idea, look at the food industry. The majority of Americans enjoy their food in a very "clean" way; they never see manure-filled feed lots, the bloody act of butchering livestock, etc. When they cook their meat, they find it clean, bloodless and neatly sliced in the grocery store. The entire agricultural process which precedes the act of eating meat becomes abstract to them, and they feel comfortable lecturing and moralizing about how agriculture should be "properly" done, where every chicken and pig has its own spacious field to wander in, every cow is hand fed corn and carrots and then combed daily. This is because they have no idea of the grisly and dirty practical reality of raising livestock in an efficient way; civilization totally insulates them from this reality.

I think the same thing has happened to warfare, which is what leads Americans to want "humane" wars, and moralize against harsh interrogation tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I moved to Australia in June of 2008 on a sponsored visa with the company I was working for at the time.

The Woz is working on residency there.

And, from what I understand, there's a movement to mandate the study of Asian languages in primary ed, as the influence of the English speaking world is expected to take second place to emerging giants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respectfully, I think you're buying into far too much leftist narrative on our recent military history. The Gulf War and the more recent War in Iraq were crushing losses for Saddam and his regime.

I'm not talking about the short term perspective. What is the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? With Iran taking over and the Taliban re-emergent? The central players were untouched, and the war was - once again - lost. And it was the wrong war in any case, since neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia nor Pakistan had a hair on their heads touched.

Victory doesn't consist of winning battles but not the war. It isn't a technology issue, it's a will issue. But loss is loss.

This can be contrasted with what happened in post-WW2 Japan. That was a total win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the American military did win the Vietnam War. It was the civilian populace's antiwar propaganda and demonstrations that led to the ultimate loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respectfully, I think you're buying into far too much leftist narrative on our recent military history. The Gulf War and the more recent War in Iraq were crushing losses for Saddam and his regime.

I'm not talking about the short term perspective. What is the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? With Iran taking over and the Taliban re-emergent? The central players were untouched, and the war was - once again - lost. And it was the wrong war in any case, since neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia nor Pakistan had a hair on their heads touched.

Victory doesn't consist of winning battles but not the war. It isn't a technology issue, it's a will issue. But loss is loss.

This can be contrasted with what happened in post-WW2 Japan. That was a total win.

What was the long-term perspective of WW2? We let the Soviets take over eastern Europe, and allowed them to build up into a major military and ideological presence thereby resulting in the ensuing Cold War. You could even say that WW2 got as dire as it did simply because the Nazis were appeased for too long and decisive action wasn't taken sooner.

I agree the US military is often not aggressive enough and acts with too much restraint, but I just don't see this sudden irreversible decline post-WW2 in our military aggressiveness and assertiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought: in WW2 the Japanese were a very concrete and identifiable enemy. Their nation officially attacked ours, and we responded aggressively with focus on a single target.

Islamofascism though is a very delocalized and abstract enemy. It's an ideology that doesn't uniquely belong to a single given nation, and at any given time different nations are pretending to be diplomatic while under-the-table they are sponsoring what is effectively an unofficial military force. Lacking a concrete target, our military efforts have been lacking in focus and effectiveness. Probably part of the problem is failing to think in principles and recognize the abstract principles tying these Islamic terrorists groups together and identifying the source of these principles (Iran in the middle-east). If the attacks were as direct and official as those of Japan, I would expect our response to be more direct and forceful. i.e., if bomber-jets painted with Iran's colors raided NYC, I think we'd turn Tehran into a sheet of glass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This can be contrasted with what happened in post-WW2 Japan. That was a total win.

Last random thought on Japan: the context of our war with Japan and how it might have motivated using The Bomb is very different from that of today. Today we are an unrivaled military force, and we can easily invade and obliterate any country without any use of Nukes. That was not the case with Japan, and without using the bomb we were looking at a land invasion of a country with a fanatical kamikaze die-before-dishonor attitude. A land invasion with Japan then would probably have been horrid.

Consider also that the nuclear weapon was a new experimental weapon, and the long-term effects of radiation were not fully known. It was also an opportunity to display ourselves as an unrivaled military power to the world.

With the above considered, I don't see why it's immediately necessary that we'd want to use Nukes in fighting the Islamofascists, and their absence shouldn't be considered as a toothless or restrained military response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites