I must confess, I was not impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time
I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked
youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident, a wholesome presidential
package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also
because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor
that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his
empty words. Obama’s speeches are un;like any political speech we have heard
in American history.
Never a politician in this land had such a quasi “religious” impact on so
many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero
accomplishment makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an
ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact, he is quite ignorant on most
important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist. Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author
of “Malignant Self Love,” also believes, “Barack Obama appears to be a
narcissist.”
Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands it and describes
the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about
narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama’s language, posture and
demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, nearest and dearest suggest
that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have
narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones,
the charismatic leader of People’s Temple, the man who led over 900 of his
followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own
children was also a narcissist. Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara,
Joe Stalin, Saddam, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong IL, and Adolph
Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a
tremendous influence over their fanciers and followers. They created a
personality cult around themselves, and with their blazing speeches elevated
their admirer’s souls, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in
their minds a new zest for life. Those men gave their followers hope! They
promised them the moon, but alas, they invariably brought them to their
doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don’t know it
until it is too late.
One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse.
“Obama’s early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and
mentally bruising dislocations,” says Vaknin. “Mixed-race marriages were
even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an
infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died
in a car accident. His mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to
Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by
a stepfather. He was raised as an only child, full of himself and no others.
He never had to share the spotlight with any siblings. At the age of ten, he
was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his
mother only intermittently in the following few years and
then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995.”
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological
narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms
those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become
like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at
his service. The narcissist shapes the world around him and
reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of
personality; his admirers become his co-dependents.
Narcissists have no interest in things that do not hel7 them to reach their
personal objectives. They are focused on one thing alone, and that is power.
All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their
precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath
them and does not deserve their attention. If an issue raised in the Senate
does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The
“Present” vote is a safe vote; he used the “Present” all the time as a
member of the Illinois legislature. No one can criticize him if things go
wrong. Why should he implicate himself in issues that may become
controversial when they don’t help him personally?
Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about
him.
Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led
to a contract and an advance to write a book about race relations. The
University of Chicago Law School provided him with a fellowship and an
office to work on his book. The book took him a lot longer than expected and
at the end it devolved into., guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of
writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been
paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He
entitled the book “Dreams from My Father.”
Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was
still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as
his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about
insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as
himself? Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they
lack conscience. This is evident from Obama’s lack of interest in his own
brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury,
who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly a
half billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history)
has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? His brother cannot be
used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.
This election is like no other election in the history of America. The
issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more
dangerous than having a man bereft of a conscience, a serial liar, and one
who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the
leader of the free world?
I hate to sound alarmist, but one must be a fool if one is not alarmed. Many
politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply
self-serving and selfish. [Witness Al Gore's Income Tax; it reveals that he
gave away NO MONEY to charities, not even to a church!] Obama evinces
symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the
run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton, for example.
To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue,
not just a character flaw.
Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even
intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous. [Look up the
word 'treachery.']
Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could
put an end to their party [and to this great nation]. The great majority of
blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that
their support for him is racially driven.
This is racism, pure and
simple. The truth is that, while everyone carries a misconceived collective
guilt towards blacks for wrongs done centuries ago by a bygone people to a
bygone people, the blacks carry a collective rancor, enmity or vendetta
towards non-blacks, and to this day want to “stand up” to the white man.
They seem to be stuck in 19th century [encouraged by race baiters like Al
Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others].
The downside of this is, that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I
predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks
are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is
pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and
blame Obama’s detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the
whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and
they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four
years, racial tensions will increase to levels not seen since the turbulent
1960s. Obama will set the clock back decades. Americais the bastion of
freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its
weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue
nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Maoist
Castroists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo
terrorists, and virtually all sworn enemies of America are
so thrilled by the prospect of “their man” in the White House. America is on
the verge of
destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological
narcissist as president.
You can Google Dr. Sam Vaknin and get the same information.
Only two definning forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and American Soldier one died for your soul the other for your freedom
http://www.investorsiraq.com/attachm…2&d=1198628312
4 Myths About the Obama-Geithner Bailout Plan
So far, it’s an epic disappointment. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has pledged to harness the “full force of the U.S. government” to stabilize the financial system and set the stage for an economic recovery. The ultimate cost could be $2.5 trillion, a number so big that many Americans couldn’t tell you how many zeroes it entails.
Yet Wall Street hissed, the press piled on, and critics groaned that the still-evolving plan is far too sketchy to inspire any confidence. If they had it to do over, no doubt Obama and Geithner would wait till they could offer more specifics instead of staging the faux-dramatic show of governmental force that they’ve managed so far.
[See why Geithner's missteps might work in his favor.]
But a big reason the Obama bailout plan has landed with such a thud is that we’ve been expecting way too much of it. Excessive expectations always breed disappointment, which is why smart leaders learn to underpromise and overdeliver. Here are some of the myths about the Obama bailout plan that we’ve been clinging to:
Obama has a secret formula. We have a new president promising to take America in a new direction and solve the problems that vexed the last president. That means there must be some new and improved way to rescue the banks, right? Wrong.
Obama and Geithner have one advantage over Bush and his Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson: The virtue of hindsight and lessons learned from past mistakes. But the Troubled Assets Relief Program has been an unprecedented, trial-and-error intervention in the banking system since Paulson first devised it last fall. And it still is, to some extent.
[See how Wall Street continues to doom itself.]
Geithner – who worked closely with Paulson on the original TARP – doesn’t know something that Paulson didn’t. He doesn’t have a secret weapon. The range of solutions now are the same ones Paulson considered: Investing money directly in banks, helping them get bad loans off their books, and taking steps to stimulate consumer credit. Geithner can call if a fresh start, but he knows that it’s really a restart at best.
More accountability will solve the problem. Another advantage Obama and Geithner have is they’re not working in the midst of pandemonium. The original bailout did accomplish one thing: It forestalled a financial panic after Lehman Brothers failed and AIG almost did. That means Obama’s team can be more deliberate, and take more time to get it right. Paulson didn’t have that option last fall: The clock was ticking, the markets were plunging, and value was being destroyed minute-by-minute.
[See what 8 bailout CEOs need to explain.]
Requiring more accountability from banks that get bailout money is an essential step forward at this point. Ideally, that would have been baked into the bailout at the beginning, but it wasn’t. If done right, more accountability will improve confidence in the government and the markets. But it won’t change the essential problem, which is that many banks – including some of the biggest, like Citigroup and Bank of America – still face deep losses that constrain their ability to lend, and maybe even their viability. An insolvent bank is a disaster, whether its books are open or closed.
The bailout will be good for Wall Street. The markets enjoyed a bailout bump in the days prior to Geithner’s leaden announcement. Why? Apparently Wall Street expected a renewed bailout plan to generate stability or other conditions favorable to investors.
[Want to land a plum job without paying taxes? Here's how.]
But Geithner ended up sending the message that under Obama’s terms, bailouts will be tough on banks. They’ll have to pass a “stress test” to prove they’re worth investing taxpayer money in, and explain how the investment will be in taxpayers’ interest. That’s good for the economy and it’s good for taxpayers, but the unstated message is the government WON’T be willing to help banks in the worst shape. And those on the margin will bear most of the responsibility for fixing their own problems.
For bank shareholders, that’s terrible news, because they could lose much or all of their investment. Eventually, a stronger economy will benefit Wall Street, because stocks will rise once the banks and their borrowers are healthier. But traders don’t want results eventually. They want results now.
The bailout will fix the housing problem. We keep falling for this one. There have been several government and industry programs so far that have been designed to reverse the housing bust, slow the ballooning foreclosure rate, and keep more homeowners in their homes. None have worked on a large scale. There’s a reason: This is an extraordinarily difficult problem to solve.
There may be as many as 5 million mortgages still at risk of foreclosure. Workouts and loan modifications may help save a small portion of them. But the vast majority of troubled mortgages aren’t held by the banks that issued them. These are the mortgages that have been broken into components, bundled into securities (now derided as “toxic assets”), and sold to investors around the world. To renegotiate any one of those mortgages requires the participation of multiple parties, including some who will lose money and expect to be compensated. Now, multiply that by 5 million.
[See why the feds rescue banks, not homeowners.]
Obama has to take a stab at solving the problem, because doing nothing would make it look like he’s helping the bankers while sacrificing the little guy. That was the rap against Bush and Paulson. But even the most ambitious plans would only help homeowners indirectly, by creating stronger incentives for lenders to help them out. And there’s mounting evidence that about half of all modified loans end up in foreclosure anyway.
It’s possible that a complex loan-modification program – with more moving parts than most people in Washington will be able to understand – might help roll back the foreclosure problem. But it won’t be a quick fix. Instead, it will take time, diligence, and more tolerance of trial-and-error than most of us have shown so far. And it still might not work. So lower your expectations, or prepare to be deeply disappointed. Again.
