Psychological Study Of Hussein Obama

Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin stand during the national anthem.Barack Hussein Obama's photo (that's his real name)... REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE.....how can an American-hater like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief

The media has said that Obama is the greatest orator ever seen. His verbal presentations have been called as exciting as Springsteen concerts, by Marxist journalists. Yet even children notice no such orator power emanating from Obama. He talks like a boring negro preacher. He uses that rhythm which the media calls “hypnotic” but objective people refer to as boringly crude and phony. He stumbles, over his rehearsed presentation as sane viewers look at the cheering section of white people behind him. They are well made up to look like working people but it is obvious that they have been recruited from the ranks of Marxist academia. Their faces continually reflect worshipful awe and reverence for the below average black man they call “the One.” Do you trust people who are so crazy about a man who is involved with Marxist terrorists, plans to re-distribute working men’s wages too the rich and blacks and oozes with deceit and evil?

Patti wood If you have been watching Obama speak and give interviews you may have noticed that he seems to reveal spot light more than even the most egotistical of political candidates. He spends a half hour going through the crowd after he is introduced, shaking hands like a Messiah. He has this condescending look down his nose at your sneer when he talks to interviewers and looks especially perturbed and angry when berating someone who he perceives is attacking him. He morphs his voice and body language to suit each audience in a manner that goes beyond customization to easily acting a part. I believe he is narcissistic. Here are other narcissistic nonverbal and behavioral cues that one of my blog readers wrote about Obama.One of my readers is getting his doctorate on evolution and ecology and wrote me: “I’ve spent years trying to recognize the most accurate indicators of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder). There are a handful that I’ve come to trust, though they’re a bit difficult to convey. 1. An amorphous expression that looks like a child, about three years old, needing approval. I’ve almost never seen this expression in someone who isn’t NPD (occasionally in Borderline Personality Disorder, a closely related type II personality disorder). To me, it’s an exceptionally good indicator. It’s often a fleeting micro-expression (hard to catch without practice). It’s an expression of yearning and need, directed toward the person they’re interacting with. In males, it makes the face look like that of a little boy. Some psychologists argue that a developmental stage goes awry in NPD, roughly around the age of three. 2. The eyes of NPDs usually have an unusual look. My face-reading friend describes them as “dead eyes”. I perceive NPD eyes as “no boundary between inside and outside”. Some people perceive them as magnetic. There’s reduced activity in some of the musculature around the eyes. This includes a reduced response to emotionladen scenes or speech (e.g. less of a startle response to disturbing visuals). At times, it can produce a “detached” appearance - or a languid, even slightly sleepy look. The startle response of pupils (e.g. to disturbing scenes) is often diminished relative to normal people (both less of a change in pupil diameter, and a longer lag before pupil size changes). I think people with NPD also spend less time playing through internal imagery (visible in eye tracking and facial expressions). 3. There’s also something I call “frozen cheeks”. Muscles in the cheek region aren’t as mobile as in normal people. This is partly due to a subtle expression of contempt and partly due to increased control over appearance. The contempt can often be an open clear-cut expression, but much of the time it’s just a subtle tensing of the musculature, underlying the “apparent” expression.

Obama displays all of these (the first as micro expressions). There’s also his entitlement body language, his glares, his cocked head and “looking down the nose”, etc.. He occupies quite a bit of space and also frequently initiates physical contact - e.g. putting his hand on someone’s back or arm. An assured smooth gesture - in a way that’s slightly unusual given our culture’s definition of personal boundaries. The anger in his face is kind of interesting. Sometimes it’s blatant, but more often it’s a subtle expression. When Hillary scores a solid point in a debate, or when a journalist challenges him in a question, you can see a sustained increase in the subtle expression of anger. People with NPD often have a high level of latent anger that can be triggered by any injury to selfimage (narcissistic injury). In case you haven’t seen these, here are a links to a couple of YouTube videos that people have put together capturing some of Obama’s more blatant anger/contempt expressions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9coNTKQi544 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvFSECcANZE&feature=related People with NPD are typically hypercompetitive and hate losing. One woman I know of would throw the checkerboard across the room if she lost a game of checkers with her eight year old son. Obama is clearly hypercompetitive and is known as a bad loser - people that he has played poker with comment on him being a poor loser, and he’s said to be a bad loser in politics as well (e.g. when he lost to Bobby Rush). Narcissists that I’ve known are generally charming and very well-liked (except by those they’ve injured). They often set up a cult of personality, though on a much smaller scale than Obama - a circle of admiring people. There’s a need for a high level of admiration. Paul Street, a progressive columnist, had the following observations after attending an Obama rally in Iowa: “So why wasn’t I dancing and singing along? Why did I have a terrible taste in my mouth two hours after Obama’s speech even as the sun shone and the warm spring breeze passed through my den just a mile east of the Pentacrest? Part of it was the narcissism of the self-presentation. Obama does this creepy thing after being introduced. He approaches the stage only after a good 5 minutes of passing through a parting sea of applauding audience members. Please. Candidates should stand humbly by the side of the stage and walk up right after being introduced. I do not attend political rallies to see a pretend savior savoring popular adulation as he dances through the cool stream of the multitude.” Though people with NPD often cultivate a circle of admirers, they tend to have few true friends. There’s often an odd hint of “aloneness” to them.

You mentioned that you found Obama “chameleon”-like. This is common in NPD.For someone with NPD, it’s predominantly about the surface - the image in the mirror. There’s less of a solid core. One perspective that many psychologists subscribe to is that in NPD, the “true self” is greatly diminished or largely absent, having largely been replaced by a “false self”. Another interesting characteristic, in my experience, is that people with NPD often take on a stance of amused indifference. Floating slightly above it all, sometimes with a slight bit of contempt. You can often see Obama doing this in interviews.The entitlement aspect comes through not only in his body language, but also in things he does and says.For example, he was interviewed about the tactics he used to first win elected office, as an Illinois State Senator. It was a very liberal Chicago district, so the only real opposition was in the Democratic primary. He had four opponents, including the incumbent (a woman named Alice Palmer - long time popular activist). Obama hired the best lawyers in Chicago and used aggressive legal tactics to challenge the nominating petitions of each of his opponents; knocking them all off the ballot so that he could run unopposed (it would have been very difficult for him to win the election if the incumbent remained on the ballot). In 2007 a reporter asked him about this:“Asked whether the district’s primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: ‘I think they ended up with a very good state senator.’And he defended his use of ballot maneuvers: ‘If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people’s business.’ In my experience, people with NPD use language in a very distinctive way. I have found the following description by Sam Vaknin to be pretty accurate (though the description is too flowery for my taste): “Narcissists …don’t talk, or communicate. They fend off. They hide and evade and avoid and disguise. In their planet of capricious and arbitrary unpredictability, of shifting semiotic and semantic dunes - they perfect the ability to say nothing in lengthy, Castro-like speeches. It is the fact that language is put by Narcissists to a different use - not to communicate but to obscure, not to share but to abstain, not to learn but to defend and resist, not to teach but to preserve ever less tenable monopolies, to disagree without incurring wrath, to criticize without commitment, to agree without appearing to do so. Thus, an “agreement” with a narcissist is a vague expression of intent at a given moment - rather than the clear listing of long term, iron-cast and mutual commitments. Communication through unequivocal, unambiguous, information-rich symbol systems is such an integral and crucial part of our world - that its absence is not postulated even in the remotest galaxies

which grace the skies of science fiction. In this sense, narcissists are nothing short of aliens. With cerebral narcissists, language is a lover. The infatuation with its very sound leads to a pyrotechnic type of speech which sacrifices its meaning to its music. Its speakers pay more attention to the composition than to the content. They are swept by it, intoxicated by its perfection, inebriated by the spiraling complexity of its forms.” Another interesting aspect of NPD is a desire and tendency to “merge” with others. With Obama this manifests, for example, in the nature of the personality cult he is encouraging. You can also see a bit of it in statements like “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for; we are the change that we seek.” One of the core deficits in NPD - perhaps the core deficit - is a deficiency in empathy. They can talk about empathy (e.g. one NPD woman I know likes to lecture others about empathy), and their cognitive empathy is intact (they can correctly interpret what others are feeling - often better than average), but there’s a deficiency in affective empathy. That Obama can be empathy-challenged has been noted by the occasional reporter. e.g. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7486.html Several genetic studies have been done to separate environmental from genetic effects in NPD (mostly studies using twins). These studies have consistently shown NPD to be highly heritable. Across the studies that I’ve seen, the median estimate of heritability is somewhere roughly around 0.7 (on a linear scale of 0 to 1, with 1 being perfectly heritable). This doesn’t mean that someone with an NPD parent will necessarily be NPD, but it does mean that they’re at substantially increased risk. There are also environmental risk factors (e.g. abuse or excessive adulation during childhood). Along these lines, the history of Obama’s father is really interesting (ignore the headline - the person composing the headline appears not to have read the article). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=4319 08&in_page_id=1770 Obama’s sister had an interesting comment: “Barack was a lot like my father - his hand movements, his gestures, how he talks, how he sits. He’s got certain quietness about him and he sits and he concentrates like my father. He can be in a room full of people and he withdraws on his own. And we’ve all got the Obama hands - the fingers and everything. So it was amazing to watch that, because I was meeting him for the first time but it felt like I knew him.” Another almost-universal feature of NPD is a strong sense of restlessness. Many psychologists attribute this to an internal feeling of emptiness. The feeling

of emptiness leads to a desire/need for new experiences, as well as a desire for adulation, and a tendency toward drug and alcohol abuse. Obama writes about his own restlessness, and it’s been commented on by others. e.g. from a Vanity Fair article: “A chronic restlessness, an inability to appreciate, no matter how well things were going, those blessings that were right there in front of me.” He has tried to turn this to his advantage. “I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington,” he said in announcing that he would run for president. “But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.” Obama’s restlessness is a quality that would lead him to conclude, again and again, that the time had come to make a move—to take a chance, to aim higher - when others told him to wait his turn.” Anyway, those are some of the reasons I think Obama has NPD. Though NPD is rare in the general population (1-2%), for a very complicated set of reasons I’ve ended up having contact with a pretty large sample size. So I’ve developed good recognition skills. I’ll include the DSM IV criteria for NPD. A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance 2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brillance, beauty, or ideal love 3. believes that he or she is “special” and unique 4. requires excessive admiration 5. has a sense of entitlement 6. is interpersonally exploitative 7. lacks empathy 8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her 9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes If you have extended personal contact with people diagnosed with NPD, you’ll find that it’s a really distinctive entity (unmistakable for garden-variety narcissism or other personality quirks).” Obama has stated that his backround, being the child of black and white parents, and his unique experience make him uniquely qualified to help unify blacks and whites; add the N-component and the argument takes on a different meaning: I am unique and all others ( he insinuates whites) who disagree with me are not – in fact,

they are typical ( and typical means not unique); I would propose he felt slighted at looking black, so he sided with the black community, black church, black wife, and black cause which the cause celeb is , Not to be equal, but better than - to be supremely unique… which for a N-person means to dominate — which is their end game; Narcissism comes in many different flavors, but it behaves the same, the control tactics are an arsenal of overt and covert manipulation, charm, flattery, slights, contrariness, one upmanship, adaptability, and more, all done to dominate; I find it interesting when Obama states what good ideas he and Clinton share, he declares he is the better candidate; he lifts her up when they are in agreement, and puts her down to undermine her credibility; this is part of the approach, assess, overvalue then devalue cycle that all Ns engage in on a cyclical basis…why? The N-person has a false-ego that requires constant bolstering and the N-person seeks out those he can use: to gleen expertise from, to get support from, or to control; More importantly, the N-person envies others who they perceive as truly better than they are…as in, more skilled, more astute, more successful, etc; the N-person sees themselves as perfect on an unconscious level, and any person who challenges their perfection ( their worldview and self-image, false as they may be) is considered the enemy; they are very poor losers and very poor team players; they are good at motivating, charming, encouraging…then they take the credit for other peoples accomplishments or achievements as though they had done those acts themselves; this boosts their false-ego and keeps their sense of self stable;

Obama's paralanguage is chameleon-like. He changes his voice so dramatically to suit his location, his audience, and his topic, that it is difficult to know just what his real voice is or who he truly is. Listen to how Obama's cadence has that certain rhythm like a Baptist preacher. Listen to how he speaks on beat and extends certain words. For example, "They saaaaaaaid this day would never come." Preachers have a special rhythmic pattern where their voices fluctuate up and down like a song and pause on a beat rhythmically like a paradiddle on a drum. His speaking is so musical and pleasing to the ear, that we can be moved by the rhythm and not even hear the words. In fact the words may actually lack substance and he can get by without really saying anything new in the speech. Obama’s vocal style is hypnotic, such that when his voice goes up and then he pauses, you almost want to cheer and say amen. You can’t help yourself. He actually

copies the feel and the cadence of Martin Luther King’s “I had a dream” speech. Listen to how to his volume goes up and up and up…stirring the crowd, and then he pauses for effect. He waits until the audience cheers before he moves on to the next sentence. Pausing makes the word before the pause, and sometimes the entire sentence before the pause, sound more powerful and important. And notice how he says particular words, like “you small towns and churches, Ameeerica, and affooordableeeee. As he draws these words out, he puts on a slightly more southern accent or he casually slurs the word. That makes him sound like one of the common folk. So even when we know that he came from an upper class family, when he says, “calloused hand by calloused hand,” he sounds like he was there with us working on the farm and plowing the field.

Body language analysis of Presidential candidate Obama One of the most interesting and dramatic aspects of Obama’s body and para language is that it changes so much from speech to speech and location to location. While many candidates slow down their speech slightly to charm their southern audiences and increase their rate for New York news shows, Obama transforms. For example, if you had never heard him speak before and watched him give his Selma Alabama speech you would note his voice is extremely slow and takes on the relaxed consonants and cadence of Alabama. When he is interviewed on1/10/2007 concerning his response to the Bush Speech his voice pace is face, his speech is clipped, and his consonants are crisp. When he is out in crowds he stops to talk to someone he laser focuses on them. He gives them significant extended eye contact, leans forward and stays in their intimate zone of space. These behaviors we observed in the “charismatic Clinton. Remember what makes a candidate look honest and powerful to us when we view him or her on the small screen, may be counter to what may look appropriate to the audience he or she is speaking to when they are taped in front of a live audience. When speaking, behind a podium or on a stage without he does something rather unusual he turns his face and body to sides or moves his entire body towards the audience to shows his desire to empathize and connect with them. However, when we view that on video we may read it differently subconsciously. For example, In the Selma speech he turns his face and body to his right side then left again and again, rather than focus to the front and center. Front and center speaking is read

as more honest, more forthright and powerful. On the tapes speech 2 of 5 on you/tube he actually leans his body from the waist up out towards the audience of students as he makes each point. Typically candidates stay straight up and down to show they are “Straight” and strong on issues. Obama’s body language cues are different in debates and interviews than in speeches. In Third televised debate Keys Obama becomes visibly angry he jabs out his finger at the interviewer in a symbolic weapon even a one time at the end of the interview. At one point he even puts up both hands with the forefingers out symbolically firing as if there were guns in each hand pushes his hand out toward, not just in a symbolic stop sign, but a more aggressive pushing away motion. Nonverbally when can see he is an emotional man. Look for interviews like his response to Bush speech. Watch his mouth goes up more on his left side. Our emotional right hemisphere controls the left side of he face when there is a split face and one side shows more than the other note which side. The mouth twisting up to his left says he was feeling very emotional and though he wished to control it he couldn’t. One of the most interesting and dramatic aspects of Obama’s body and para language is that it changes so much from speech to speech and location to location. While many candidates slow down their speech slightly to charm their southern audiences and increase their rate for New York news shows, Obama transforms. For example, if you had never heard him speak before and watched him give his Selma Alabama speech you would note his voice is extremely slow and takes on the relaxed consonants and cadence of Alabama. When he is interviewed on1/10/2007 concerning his response to the Bush Speech his voice pace is face, his speech is clipped, and his consonants are crisp. Remember what makes a candidate look honest and powerful to us when we view him or her on the small screen, may be counter to what may look appropriate to the audience he or she is speaking to when they are taped in front of a live audience. When speaking, behind a podium or on a stage without he does something rather unusual he turns his face and body to sides or moves his entire body towards the audience to shows his desire to empathize and connect with them. However, when we view that on video we may read it differently subconsciously. For example, In the Selma speech he turns his face and body to his right side then left again and again, rather than focus to the front and center. Front and center speaking is read as more honest, more forthright and powerful. On the tapes speech 2 of 5 on you/tube he actually leans his body from the waist up out towards the audience of students as he makes each point. Typically candidates stay straight up and down to

show they are “Straight” and strong on issues. Obama’s body language cues are different in debates and interviews than in speeches. In Third televised debate Keys Obama becomes visibly angry he jabs out his finger at the interviewer in a symbolic weapon even a one time at the end of the interview. At one point he even puts up both hands with the forefingers out symbolically firing as if there were guns in each hand pushes his hand out toward, not just in a symbolic stop sign, but a more aggressive pushing away motion. Nonverbally when can see he is an emotional man. Look for interviews like his response to Bush speech. Watch his mouth goes up more on his left side. Our emotional right hemisphere controls the left side of he face when there is a split face and one side shows more than the other note which side. The mouth twisting up to his left says he was feeling very emotional and though he wished to control it he couldn’t. At the beginning of the debates Obama was calm, blank eyed and seemed more coached and less passionate and at times although he kept gesturing, his eyes seemed dead eyed. Obama needed to be more cool, collected and in control. McCain showed more energy but overall did not seem presidential. He has more knowledge but his energy was wasted in attacks, verbal and nonverbal. He walked toward towards Obama as he attacked, but then would step back. Neither move showing strength. He often showed snarly smirking facial expressions as he walked toward Obama and pointed at him in little jabs. While discussing the Bush/Cheney-backed energy bill "stuffed full" of goodies for the oil companies. "Know who voted for it? That one," he says, not looking at Obama. "Know who voted against it? I did..." This was the biggest nonverbal memorable moment in the debate and was all negative for McCain. A big mistake. Powerful debaters let attackers come to them and smile or act bored. Obama smiled as if McCain's attack didn’t mean a thing. McCain needed to show his confidence and superior experience knowledge but with the exception of a few questions, like what we should do about Russia, his true deep knowledge was not shown. Obama attacked McCain during the debates by standing near his chair or walking forward using his hand to make fists. He didn’t look at him, and that worked. I didn’t like any of the attacks but Obama’s method of attack worked.

While McCain talked and Obama waited and listen for his next question, Obama sat on his stool with one leg down up with his foot resting on the bar with his legs spread open to take a posture of “cool power.” I could almost see a black and white photo of him in that same pose on the cover of a jazz CD. This was not the same pausing, awkward Obama. His coaching between the debates was clear. Answer the questions quickly and strongly. Often Obama leapt out of the chair and strode toward Moderator Brokaw as he answered Brokaw's question. Obama loves a podium. He was more awkward in the town hall. Remember, we tend to choose the winning candidate in a debate seconds after it begins. Typically, we make these choices based on the charismatic factors of Likeability, attractiveness and level of dominance. The media raves about Obama’s youthful virility and cHarisma. Yet all that normal people see is a flabby bent man who emits a listless lack of vigor. Instead of seeming like his 47 year old self, he seems like an old man who is sorry for what he is about to do. Look closely at Obama’s pallid face. It is sad and yet that sadness underscores a certain evil. The lines of his face are those found on the face of a deceiver. He looks like a man who is patiently waiting to exact revenge. He is not a loving man but a shallow construct of bigotry and hatred masquerading as genius The medoia says that “Hussein Obama is an immensely talented man.” Where are thos talents. Is it a mark of talent when a man has been largely devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his own life by leaving out such facts as his college grades, his birth certificate, why he has several bogus names and his citizenship in Kenya and Indonesia.? What he offers is: Not things. Not ideas. Not institutions. But himself. Those raving democrat hyenas who cheer him so passionately are either insane or they have a secret agenda. There is nothing wrong or even terribly odd about a man who hides his past and illegally hides his citizenship, the media tells us. The media refuses to investigate Obama and ignore his violation of campaign contribution laws. Even McCain, his PC opponent is afraid of him because he is black. That too is insane. Why aren’t they more worried that Hussein is laying claim to the job of crafting the coming history of the United States. A leapof such audacity by a criminal is odd. The air of unease at the Democratic convention this week was not just a result of the Clinton

psychodrama. The deeper anxiety was that the party was nominating a man who claimed many gifts but was not able to show them nor was he able to display even a precious few accomplishments -bearing even fewer witnesses. When John Kerry was introduced at his convention four years ago, an honor guard of a dozen mates from his Vietnam days surrounded him on the podium attesting to his character and readiness to lead. Such personal testimonials are the norm. The roster of fellow soldiers or fellow senators who could from personal experience vouch for John McCain is rather long. At a less partisan date in the calendar, that roster might even include Democrats Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy, with whom John McCain has worked to fashion important legislation. Eerily missing at the Democratic convention this year were people of stature who were seriously involved at some point in Obama's life standing up to say: 'I know Barack Obama. I've been with Barack Obama. We've toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.' Hillary Clinton could have said something like that. She and Obama had, after all, engaged in a historic, utterly compelling contest for the nomination. During her convention speech, you kept waiting for her to offer just one line of testimony: I have come to know this man, to admire this man, to see his character, his courage, his wisdom, his judgment. Whatever. Anything. Instead, nothing. She of course endorsed him. But the endorsement was entirely programmatic: We're all Democrats. He's a Democrat. He believes what you believe. So we must elect him -- I am currently unavailable -- to get Democratic things done. God bless America. Clinton's withholding the 'I've come to know this man' was neither vindictive nor supremely self-serving – it was jarring, because you realize that if she didn't do it, no one else would. Because there are inherent deficiencies in Obama's character. At the least, it is the reflection of a young, outsider life with a suspicious biography remarkably thin by the standard of presidential candidates.

Who was there to speak about the real Barack Obama? His wife. She could tell

you about Hussein the father, the husband and the family man, But Michele doesn’t speak in a winning and sincere way. Her voice frequently chokes with anti-semitic and anti-white hatred. She is one of those loud hate-filled and obnoxious black women that is found on every bus, aircraft or train. People avoid most black females because of their evil threatening manner. Such avoidance reinforces them as they warply assume that white people are afraid of them. Well are you, punk? So any boring study of Hussein the liar and straw man only takes you so far. It doesn't take you to the public man, the national leader. Who is to testify to that? Hillary's husband on night three did scream that Obama is 'ready to lead.' However, he offered not a shred of evidence, let alone personal experience with Obama. And although he pulled it off charmingly, everyone knew that, having been suggesting precisely the opposite for months, he meant not a word of it. Obama's vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, naturally advertised his patron's virtues, such as the fact that he had 'reached across party lines to ... keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.' But securing loose nukes is as bipartisan as motherhood and as uncontroversial as apple pie. The measure was so minimal that it passed by voice vote and received near zero media coverage. Hussein did not actually keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists he just got on the bus, up front, because his media advisors told him to.

Assume John McCain had retired from politics. Would he have testified to Obama's political courage in reaching across the aisle to work with him on ethics reform, a collaboration Obama boasted about in the Saddleback debate? 'In fact,' reports the Annenberg Political Fact Check, 'the two worked together for barely a week, after which McCain accused Obama of 'partisan posturing'' -- and launched a volcanic missive charging him with double cross. So where are the colleagues? The buddies? The political or spiritual soul mates? His most important spiritual adviser and mentor was Jeremiah Wright. But that crazy black nazi is out. Then there's William Ayers, the prominent and murderous terrorist who has had his picture made recently standing on a US flag.

The traitor Ayers, with whom Hussein served on Marxist directed “board” ? The rest of the story is hushed up. He's out. Where are the others? The oddity of the very undemocratic convention was that its central figure was supposed to be the ultimateself-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby. The palpable apprehension is that the anointed one is a stranger -- a slouching hatefilled straw man ready to sacrifice Americaa to his black bigotries. He stranger with whom the slutty Democrats have had a torrid affair. Having slowly woken up, they see the ring and wonder who exactly they married last night. Meanwhile, what is Obama’s bullet-point message? He doesn’t really have one. He’s spent the past months giving detailed speeches about seconadry or teriary subjects like public education policy. His refusal to speak about important issues like his own veracity, legitimacy and ability are not admirable. Thank God the 15second sound-bite version of this speech doesn’t register with those casual voters the same way McCain’s sound bites do. But will God intervene to save us. Where was he when the same Marxists seized Russia less than 100 years ago? Glowing reviews from education policy think tanks really aren’t going to do Obama much good right now. Isn’t Ayers the terrorist a well received felon of the American socialist education established. Say it now. He’s a killer and how. What’s worse, Obama’s delivery on the stump and when facing the press has been terrible. He shows strikingly little passion, litters his remarks with “uhs” and stretches out every fourth or fifth word in a way that deflates the impact of his sentences. But his biggest sin is that he lacks a simple, index-card justification for his candidacy, the kinds of powerful and understandable themes that McCain belts out with such intensity several times a day. Why does Obama want to be president? Those busy commuters hearing him for a few seconds on their car radio have no idea. They are told: “Listen bastard. Vote for Obama or you are a racist who will suffer!” They cringe and look away in sheer terror. These poor excuses for humanity are Obama’s people. Not that all is lost for Obama. The voters who will decide this election, for the most part, still like him because the media says he is likable and adoration of Hussein is only instinctive. It is a sick and ugly love they place on the altar of the new Archon. Yet, it is something that most recent Democratic nominees have not had going for them and they think its great. And they are still inclined to throw the G.O.P. out of the White House. But they also like McCain and they also are inclined to believe that he’s not a typical Republican. The difference, for now, is that McCain is making a much stronger and clearer case to them than Obama is.

Look at the face and body language of Hussein Obama there is nothing about the Democratic candidate is considered funny. At least not by the late-night television hosts Jay Leno and David Letterman, who supply 95 per cent of the domestic market in political gags. Analysts went through the archives and found that, even on the rare occasion of an Obama-related joke, it was usually at the expense of someone else, such as Hillary Clinton or Jesse Jackson. When a presenter on New York's public radio station appealed to his usually talkative listeners to ring in with their favorite Obama joke, the lines went dead. Various excuses have been supplied, some more convincing than others. Jon Stewart, liberal media pin-up and host of the The Daily Show, said that when he'd recently tried a Hussein joke, he had met with such dry mouthed and terrorized audience resistance that he had told them: "You know, you're allowed to laugh at him." Thank you media freak for giving me permission to react. There is terror afoot in America. It is the irrational stupid terror of the weak and disenfranchised. Only television insiders admitted that white writers, presenters and audiences are uneasy about making fun of a black man. They don’t want to be called racist. In other words these people have accepted blacks as some type of sacrosanct race, above accountability for anything they do. The consequences of such thinking will raise an African master race in America that will ruin the lives of millions of white people afraid to criticize unfair treatment or stand up for their rights. The fanatic defenders of obama and the black will to dominate by proclaiming that Obama is too new, too popular and, most of all, just too uncomedic. If he makes it to the White House, things will change, they promised. Yeah, for how long will the rat change his spots?I'll hold my breath in anticipation of uproarious laughter. A new analysis of Obama's voice patterns and the delivery of his speeches has been made available . The analysis found the Democratic candidate “somewhat restricted in his range of facial expression.” (that’s an under astatement.)Specifically, Obama's face is locked in an almost permanent attitude of anxiety, with his forehead muscles contracted. "In all topics Mr Obama displays a similar worried, serious-looking facial pattern. Even when talking about more positive subjects, his facial expressions do not signal positive affective states," said a report on the analysis, undertaken by the Vox Institute in Geneva for the Clearwater consulting group. The institute reviewed footage of Obama's speeches and those of the Republican candidate, John McCain. It relied on footage from four speeches conveying a range of emotions, as well as

digitised voice samples, to rate the effectiveness of the two candidates in connecting with voters on the campaign trail. The habitual worried look is a potential liability for Obama, undermining the image he is trying to project of a confident leader. The image could be disturbing for audiences, said James McBrien, the founder of Clearwater. It also undercuts Obama's tirelessly, media enunciated, extreme confidence. "There is an element of the fact that he is on the edges of his comfort zone here," McBrien said. "Going into a presidential campaign is not something he has done before, and you could say it is written all over his face." Despite that failing, Obama was the clear winner against McCain in the oratorical contest. The result is unsurprising, since McCain's own campaign team has gone to some effort to conceal his limitations as a speaker. A person with a speech defect could out talk McCain, as long as he is black! The Republican is restricted in his range of motion because of injuries sustained during the Vietnam war. He tends to keep his hands by his side when he speaks. Its payback for serving his country. The marxists say: “What goes arpound comes around.” McCain has had problems adapting to the Autocue, that staple of public speaking. He refuses to learn how to adapt to.On the campaign trail he has favoured smaller venues, where he can take questions from audiences, rather than the pompous venues and Church of Zion preacher speeches that have become Obama's signature. All of Obama’s siganature glares, ape brow stares and sarcasm is ignored by the experts convinced that obma is great.