“This is a serious disease, but we can’t give in to hysteria or fear …”
– Barack Obama, Oct. 18, 2014
The Jews who had emerged from cattle cars, alarmed because they’d just been ordered to remove their clothes, were also reassured by the Gestapo. They’d had a long, hard trip, they were told, and were only being stripped down for a “common shower.” Of course, the “shower” was a gas chamber, and the rest is history.
This is a hell of a psycho-dynamic Obama is using, in my humble opinion. Telling a population that has every reason to be alarmed not to be alarmed and to trust him and his minions when everything they’ve said to date has been a lie (or at least inaccurate, to those who aren’t fully awake yet) is not only audacious, but it smacks of the subtle manipulation one might encounter from a seasoned domestic abuser or crack interrogator.
Speaking of psycho-dynamics: We’re in the final crucial weeks before an election, and Democrats running for office or re-election don’t want Obama to campaign for them for some reason. One could logically argue that the aversion of Democrats toward Obama is political expedience – but this is Obama, the messianic figure who was going to usher in that bright, new age of peace and prosperity. What could have happened?
By all traditionally employed measures, Obama is unpopular. A recent poll found an overwhelming majority of voters in the most competitive 2014 election states saying that events in the United States are “out of control.” At an event last week for one of the few Democrat candidates that would have him (Anthony Brown, who is running for governor of Maryland), Reuters reported “a steady stream” of people walking out of the venue.
This would explain to some degree the political expedience of Democratic politicians avoiding Obama. But what brought Democratic lawmakers and candidates to this point in the first place? What brought Obama supporters to the place where they would prematurely bail on an event at which their heretofore larger-than-life messiah was physically present?
As reported in WND, this week, leftist media icon and feminist Tina Brown harshly criticized Obama’s so-called governance, claiming the president is actually making women feel unsafe. “They feel unsafe economically,” Brown said. “They’re feeling unsafe with regard to ISIS. They’re feeling unsafe about Ebola. What they feel unsafe about is the government response to different crises.”
Considering that this is the same Barack Obama whom the liberal press has been shielding for six years with a practically religious zeal, this was analogous in the political sense to burning the president at the stake.
I would also argue that there’s far more to this desertion of Obama by Democrats than political expedience itself.
Back in July, black residents from Chicago’s Southside held a protest in front of the Chicago Police Department decrying violence in their communities. The protest was catalyzed by President Obama’s handling of the Central American “unaccompanied minor” border crisis and the intention of Obama crony Mayor Rahm Emanuel to house said young illegal immigrants in Chicago.
“Barack will go down as the worst president ever elected,” one resident declared. So there’s no shortage of Obama betrayals among those who once worshiped him.
Last weekend, Obama addressed the threat to America from the Ebola virus during his weekly television and radio address. Leaving aside the gross inaccuracies and misrepresentations contained therein, what caught my attention was a photograph from the video of the address released by a news agency in which Obama looks completely deranged.
Now, in all fairness, a single-frame representation of an individual blinking (which I believe Obama was doing at the time) can be deceptive. There are many who believe that Obama has deep psychological problems, but my question is this: Out of a video of tens of thousands of frames, why would a news agency choose one that made the president look like a long-term psychiatric patient?
Well, Obama has been slighting news agencies for a long time. Perhaps they’ve had enough.
Next example: During a radio interview on Monday, Obama claimed Democratic candidates who are avoiding him on the campaign trail nevertheless are “all folks who vote with me” and who have “supported my agenda in Congress.”
Are we now to believe that this blisteringly brilliant individual is unaware that such an admission potentially amounts to some of the most effective ammunition GOP opponents of Democratic candidates could hope for? It reinforces the tie between them and Obama in voters’ minds, and will no doubt be eagerly picked up by Republican public-relations and advertising organizations.
Like taking the press for granted and chronically treating them dismissively, Obama’s reaction to Democrats’ acts of self-preservation is a symptom of his malignant narcissism. He’s been abandoned, and as psychologists will tell you, the narcissist’s modus operandi in such situations is to strike back. It’s revenge, pure and simple.
Obama’s actions have spoken for themselves. Without the inordinate level of support of the press and his party, he would not have been re-elected in 2012 (at the very least) and would probably be undergoing impeachment proceedings on any number of charges right now. Perhaps the collective realization that Obama is profoundly dangerous to them has brought Democratic politicos and the press – at least, some of them – to the determination that they no longer wish to shield him from the consequences of his manifest instability, or the actions resulting from same.
Media wishing to interview Erik Rush, please contact [email protected].