Mr. Obama, Mr. Cool?

During the 2008 presidential campaign, many media types bludgeoned us with the phrase “no drama Obama” which they usually presented as a high compliment.   They underscored the cool, cool, supercool Barack Obama as a counterpoint to the hot, hot, hothead John McCain.  News people forever chortled about how “comfortable” their guy was “in his own skin.”  (Their reality testing, then, was sufficiently intact for them to know that Barack was not inhabiting anyone else’s skin.)

Then came Jeremiah Wright.  When the good reverend viciously maligned whites and white America, Obama continued to maintain his iceman composure.  But when Wright impugned Barack’s disingenuous black identity by saying that the future president’s criticism of him was political double speak, Obama erupted like Mount Vesuvius, charring Jeremiah in the process.

Last week Vesuvius blasted back to life, and, again, black identity was its catalyst.  After months of intermittent tremoring, Barack belched fire.  At the September 24, 2011 Forty-first Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Legislative Conference, he excoriated the black audience for what he perceived as their lack of support for his policies, suggesting that they were doing too much “complainin',”  “grumblin',” and “cryin.'”  After all, Barack repeatedly has said that he is an unadulterated black man, and they clearly are a black organization, so they should not “diss” him in any way.

Black Congresswoman Maxine Waters spoke for many in the African American community, saying that Obama never would have unloaded on the Hispanic, Gay, or Jewish subcultures.  To my knowledge, Jesse Jackson, Sr.  remained numb, but I must wonder aloud whether he was thinking, “Barack is talking down to black people, telling niggers how to behave,” with visions of castration dancing in his head.

What got to the President?  The criticisms mostly were of his race-oriented decisions.   In short, the CBC believed that Barack Obama’s policies were not black enough.  And that criticism always was and always will be Obama’s Achilles’ heel. 

There is no cool Barack where race is concerned. 

Why so touchy?  Think about yourself.  What criticisms tic you off?  If secure in your intelligence, you do not flinch if someone calls you “stupid.”  If secure in your skill, you do not react if someone claims you are “incompetent.”  On the other hand, if you, yourself, question your intelligence or competency, those slurs slash you to ribbons.

Barack Obama has lived a life of racial insecurity and duplicity.  His neurotic repetition compulsion kicks in whenever there is any hint that he might not be black enough.  Do not expect Obama to make color-blind decisions for our country when he cannot make color-blind decisions for himself. Do not expect Obama to be Mr. Cool where his conflicted racial identity is concerned. 

What Context? Whose Context?

As many of you know, Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men exposes the doubles of Barack Obama and his band.  Among the many criticisms are that the President provides no leadership and that he and his group form their allegiances and allocate support based on identity—mostly a narrow notion of male, elitist identity.

How to counter that unflattering view of Barack and his boys?  The administration, of course, complains that Suskind took information out of context.  They could not use any other excuse to explain away the information, since Obama had given the Pulitzer Prize winning author carte blanche to conduct the interviews on which he based his book.

On the one hand, the demand for attention to context is quite reasonable.  We all have had moments when we suffered from out-of-context quotes.  On the other hand, how does one determine the context?  Should the challenged quote have included the sentence before it?  The sentence after it?  Should the quote have included previous or subsequent paragraphs, or chapters?  What about comments that the speaker had made after the interview ended?

To my way of thinking, the relevant parameters of context depend on the integrity and consistency of the person being quoted.  A speaker who clearly, honestly and reliably says what he believes is easy to accurately and fairly quote.  A speaker whose remarks deviate widely from day to day or audience to audience cannot be easily quoted.  The quoting person can never be sure what the speaker means nor whether the comments are real or contrived.  In short, whenever a writer attempts to document what a Barack Obama type says—a dark triad personality type characterized by traits of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism—the writer must consider the speaker's personality and purposes more than his words.

Our manipulative, conniving, arrogant President has proven repeatedly that we cannot trust his words.  Whether he is speaking about governmental transparency, the United States economy, international relations, or his own racial identity, Barack Obama double speaks incessantly. Honesty and reliability begins with acknowledging who we are—the whole us, flattering and unflattering, black and white.  If Obama is ever able to unapologetically and unfailingly refer to himself as biracial, rather than black, he will have gained enough credibility for me to listen to whatever else he has to say.

Context starts with personal identity and proceeds from there.

Identity Politics, Leadership, and Barack Hussein Obama

He campaigns as epitomizing the new, improved 21^st Century swaggering, informed and egalitarian emperor of the free world.  Obama underscores how he and his cohorts are the only reasonable alternative to evil, racist white old boy networks.  As a “person of color,” he, and only he, can save America from itself.  He, and only he, can lead America to the Promised Land, a land where, with him as role model and tutor-in-chief, we all learn to relate with dignity and respect.

That, however, is not quite the picture that emerges in the newly released Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President.”  The author, Ron Suskind, asserts that White House insiders paint a most unflattering picture of Obama and his administration.  Suskind views Barack’s brigade as roiling with dissension and discord.  He refers to a gaping leadership void, quoting Larry Summer, past White House economic adviser, as complaining, “There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.”  And as for equality, Suskind says that Anita Dunn, Obama’s former communications director, views the administration as sufficiently depraved to“… actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”  

Barack Obama lacks leadership and is hostile to women—sounds like Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.  Obama builds his White House around his notion of elitist masculine identity—consistent with Barack’s predilection for filling his cabinet and advisory positions with male Ivy-Leaguers from Chicago and the Northeast.  And, as for accomplishments, recall the 2008 presidential campaign when  Obama was criticized as having nothing to offer but rhetoric and his responding, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words! …”   

You also may remember how the Hillary Clinton coalition exposed the Obamafuscation and mendacity.   To be specific, Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, outed Barack Obama for having plagiarized the quote from a 2006 speech by the now Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick.

Could this blog merely be a thinly disguised political ad for Hillary Clinton?

When it comes to Presidents, Sometimes You Get What You Asked For

Sam Zell knows business, ranking as one of the 60 wealthiest men in America.  Among his accomplishments are that he leads or is a major shareholder of:  a private American investment firm, Equity Group Investments; Mexico’s most successful builder of low-cost housing; the USA’s largest waste-to-energy conversion company; and the planet’s largest telecommunications and cabling products distributor.

Barry Sternlicht is no business slouch either.  He is Founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of the private investment company Starwood Capital Group and chairman of Starwood Property Trust, the largest commercial mortgage REIT in the U.S.A. 

So, what do Misters Zell and Sternlicht think of Barack Hussein Obama?

According to Mary Pilon of the September 14, 2011 Wall Street Journal, Zell wants “Anyone But Obama” to win the 2012 presidential election.  Sternlicht says, “We’ve elected a community organizer that’s acting like a community organizer” and, therefore, is unable to deal with our country’s financial crises.

Both of these captains of industry imply what is patently true:  the curtain has been torn away to reveal the emperor who has no clothes. 

America chose for president a man estranged from reality: a Machiavellian who pretends to be black rather than biracial and who believes he is capable of any and all greatness.  Should we be surprised that a man with no effective reality testing enters the presidency convinced that he knows what is best for our country and then sets out to remake our country to his specifications regardless of the consequences?  Should we be surprised that Barack Obama is totally opposed to bipartisanship.  A man who cannot accept the simple truth of his biraciality, who cannot reconcile the black and white halves of himself, cannot be expected to deal with hard realities facing our nation or to cooperate with those who hold opinions different from his.        

Culturally Conditioned Anti-White Racism

If you think that hatred of white people began in response to lies perpetrated against the Tea Party, think again. 

Augustin Cebada,  in front of the Westwood, California Federal Building July 4, 1996:  “You old  white people.  It is your duty to die… They’re taking up too much space and air … Right now we’re [Hispanics] already controlling those elections, whether it’s through violence or non-violence.”

And if you think that vicious maligning of whites is not fashionable today, in the age of Barack Obama, consider this.

Last week at a local community center I am speaking informally with a mid-40s black man and an early-30s white woman.  Nothing new there, since the three of us chat regularly.  Both the man and woman are highly educated and always have presented as amicable, engaging, and entertaining.

In the midst of an unremarkable discussion, the woman mentions that recently she had to wait to see someone who was attending to an elderly woman.  The 30 something then complains that the old lady had slowed her down.  She adds, “I hate old people.  [A brief pause]  Well, not all old people.  I don’t hate old African Americans or Asians.  Just old white people.”

Neither I nor the black man say a word, but I can tell by his expression that he is shocked.

You and I both can speculate as why a rather “nice” white woman would make such a vicious comment about someone whom she did not know and would inject race into the event.  I can say unequivocally that I believe it is rooted in our culture’s doubles mentality that tolerates and even sanctions racism against whites and whites alone—even white against white racism—a social conditioning so pervasive and effective that it poisons the mind of an otherwise nice white woman.  

Crazy Racists: White and Black

There was a time in the not-so-distant past when white people could be racist and not crazy.  In those days widespread institutionalized racism did exist.  Many black people suffered discrimination merely because they were black.  Anti-black bigotry was common, frequent, and accepted.  That cultural milieu enabled many white racists to delude themselves into believing that they were morally proper and emotionally stable despite their hateful racist ideology.   

Today, anti-black racism still exists, but it is not nearly so common, frequent, or accepted.  Because our society has taken explicit and implicit stands against anti-black bias, today no sane white person can express anti-black opinions or actions and then pretend to be either rational or moral.

Not so for blacks.  For decades, raceketeer leaders, secular and religious, directly and indirectly have told African Americans that they should be inter-racially suspicious.  The purveyors of those ideas literally profited from them at least as far back as 1968 as was true with Black Rage by psychiatrists Cobbs and Grier, and at least as recently as 2008 with John L. Jackson's Racial Paranoia.  We all remember too well Jeremiah Wright's 2003 "God Damn America" sermon and how Barack Obama in his 1995 Dreams from My Father spoke of his communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis advising him that whites have reason to fear blacks.

So, while whites are discouraged from race-based suspicion and prejudicial judgments of blacks, African Americans are taught just the opposite concerning whites.  Blacks get a big green "go" for any and all anti-white paranoia.

Where does Barack Obama, Eric Himpton Holder, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Office of Civil Rights, the NAACP, and the thousands of other guardians of racial justice stand on this issue?   The silence is deafening

Barack Obama: Restrained and Unrestrained

In my Obama book I suggest that the President has a dark triad personality structure, meaning a composite of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, and I mention research showing that narcissists often present initially as charming.  We typically do not see the dark triad person for who he is until after we get to know him.

Over the past three years Barack Obama slowly and inadvertently has revealed his “dark” side not only to his detractors, but to many who previously had supported him.  Even a cursory investigation of one day’s news shows this to be true.

Consider September 4, 2011:  Leslie Kaufman of the New York Times asserts that environmentalists were “stung” by Obama’s having reneged on the air quality standards changes that he had promised them.  Supporting her impressions through a series of quotes, Ms. Kaufman mentions that John D. Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council perceives Obama’s environmental decisions as “brazen political sellouts.”  She says that Justin Ruben of MoveOn.org complains, “Stuff like this is devastating to the hope and passion that fuels the volunteers that made the president’s 2008 campaign so unique and successful.”  And Ms. Kaufman cites Bill McKibben of 350.org who not only laments the President’s lack of environmental policy support but also his arrogantly failing to even communicate with those who had stood shoulder to shoulder with Barack when he needed them.

Same day:  Sam Hananel of Huffington Post Obama writes that Obama is losing labor support.  Mr. Hananel implicitly criticizes Barack Obama’s failure to fulfill his campaign promises by endorsing trade agreements with Panama, Columbia, and South Korea that threaten union jobs.  Similarly, the article underscores that Barack has not followed through on his pledge to hike the minimum hourly wage from $7.25 to $9.50.  It also mentions Larry Hanley, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union, who says, "Obama campaigned big, but he's governing small.”  Finally, Sam Hananel points out that “It didn't help that Obama declined union invitations to go to Wisconsin, where thousands of protesters mobilized against the anti-union measure. Candidate Obama had promised to ‘put on sneakers’ and walk a picket line himself when union rights were threatened.”

So, on one day alone we find evidence of Barack Hussein Obama’s having performed dark triad, self-serving manipulations against two of his most powerful, most loyal supporter groups.  When he needs them, he says whatever it takes to get what he wants.  Afterwards, Obama has other personal needs that consume his attention. 

Consider this:  In late 2009 and early 2010, when secure in his presidency, Barack Obama sticks by his principles, jamming his health care bill down our throats without allowing time for anyone to read and understand it.  He knows what he wants, has the power, and uses it without restraint.  By contrast, in late 2011 when insecure in his office, he not only is willing to abandon his environmental and labor policies, but also to discard supporters who worked for him. 

Why the tactical change?  By abandoning the environmentalists and labor, he hopes to salvage his presidency and re-election prospects—to realize a net political gain by appealing to independents and others.  Believing that his base has nowhere to go but to him, he undoubtedly bets that he can sweet talk them before November 2012. 

For Barack, the presidency is not just a matter of re-election; it is a matter of identity and pride.  Barack Obama the narcissist loves himself above all others.  The Machiavellian in him manipulates mercilessly.  And the psychopath has no compassion for whomever he steps on.  If Obama fails in his bid for a second term, he will be gravely humiliated.  And when his self esteem is on the line, Barack is willing to throw anyone under the bus.  Just ask his beloved grandmother and his “uncle” Jeremiah Wright.

The incidents with environmentalists and labor provide valuable lessons for America.  The dark triad president Barack Hussein Obama is only constrained when he fears a humiliating loss of face and identity.  If he is re-elected, he no longer will need the electorate.  There will be no stopping him.  Obama will ram through every one of his pet projects as quickly and relentlessly as possible.  After all, dark triad persons regard themselves as righteous and infallible; they know what is best for everybody and they feel entitled to inflict their judgement on all of us.           

A New Blog to Counter the Obamafuscation Fog

Everyone has his limit, and I reached mine about one year ago.  Although hypocrisy in politics is as common as mosquitoes in summer, the buzzing had started to drive me crazy.  I was tolerating, although barely, the biracial president who thought he was exclusively black.  Then along came the disingenuous African American United States Attorney General, droning on about America’s racial cowardice.  Twenty-ten had become 1984; two plus two equaled anything other than four.  Rather than tear the hair from my knobby noggin, I resolved to use intellectualization to force the mosquitoes to buzz off.  The result was my book: Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama, Identity, and Racial Hypocrisy in America: Double Standards, Double Speak, and Double Binds.


It took until today for me to decide that I also need to start a blog.  That revelation came while I was driving along blissfully oblivious of Barack and his Obamafuscations.  Then Mara Liasson, a political correspondent for National Public Radio, introduced her commentary by stating that for the first time in our nation's history, the Speaker of the House had denied the President's request to hold a joint session of Congress next Wednesday.  More media double standards and double speak.  What Ms. Liasson failed to add was that it also was the first time in our nation's history that a president deliberately chose to have his address to the nation on the very day and at the very time previously reserved for a much anticipated debate among the Republican presidential candidates.  


Of course, Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney covered for Barack Obama saying, “It is coincidental.  There are a lot of factors that go into scheduling a Joint Session of Congress for a speech. You can never find a perfect time.”  


Just a coincidence?  I guess no one in the White House spends much time thinking about when and how the President will conduct his televised image and identity marketing.