The man has much in common with Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Khomeini and yes even the “H-word”.

All of them played on their countrymens hopes and fears in order to obtain power. All of them created a “religion”. Stalin and Mao created a totally new “religion” where the state replaced the church and they were the “God”. Hitler used elements of different religions and twisted them to suit his purposes. Mussolini used the pride of Italians in their ancient history to create his own little Roman Empire complete with Roman emblems. Khomeini twisted a religion into a tool to achieve supreme power-he was proof of the adage “Even the Devil can quote scripture to suit his own purposes”.

And if you look into all of their eyes you will see a dead soul staring back at you.

The one thing that has struck me about the Obamaniacs is how much they remind me of the members of the People’s Temple.

And he shares this incredible naivete with most of the West’s cultural elites. I think this derives from some 60 years of wealth and security, such a coddled life that, when the Ayatollah Khomeini demanded the head of the Shah, we simply did not take him seriously. He will be a disaster of a President, and weaken the USA, perhaps beyond redemption.

In a weird way, this decadence is preparing these cultural leaders for the coming future. They have embraced the anti semitic narrative about Israel, and so , when the Iranians drop the Big One on Israel, the predominate feeling will be relief that that ‘shitty little country’ isn’t going to cause us any more problems.

Oh, God, wouldn’t it be pretty to think so?

He does, however, *appeal* to a lot of self-defined intellectuals, many of whom place a very high value on glibness with words.

We probably need to think about retiring the word “intellectual,” or at least greatly restricting its meaning, and reviving the medieval “clerk” and the Greek “sophist.”

For instance, consider his use of the term ìunityî. When he utters a call for ìunityî to blacks, it means ìletís all stand together against the white oppressorsî. When he uses the term with whites, it means, ìyou can make up for your past racism by agreeing to give us things nowî.

Sticking strictly to ìfloating abstractionsî is also the key to the root of Obamaís appeal: it allows him to pitch socialism with a straight face, as if the twentieth century never occurred and socialism didnít fail in spectacular fashion all over the world. Since socialism is the animating philosophy of the Democratic party, Obama is the most effective leader that party could possibly have. His ability to help evade socialismís record and make it appear to be some bright, shiny new ideal will rally the most of the party once he gets past Clinton.

With the media firmly in his pocket and the party base energized, I see Obama easily overcoming McCainsí ability to attract moderate Democrats. I see him winning and the Democrats with strong majorities in Congress.

The American people will then discover that what Obama has actually ìunifiedî are two seperate but similar groups: one is the group of anyone and everyone who has a grievance they want government to ìsolveî at the taxpayerís expense; the other is the anti-war, pacifist, internationalist leftists that want America humiliated, defenseless and subject to international control. Then we will witness the termination of a war against those who threaten us and an intensification of the on-going war against the taxpayers and the businesses that employ us.

Look how he transformed himself into a Malcolm X clone when the polls called for it. Look how he says the most rancid, contemptuous, vicious stuff, just like John F. Kerry, but in a more reasonable tone.

Look how he trumpets his difference, as he makes rotten deals with the teamsters and consorts with American-hating ministers, professors, intellectuals, authors, and pundits.

He’s a snake, more amoral than the Clintons, even. If anything he envies the mullahs and Assad because of the absolute power they wield.

Obama emphasizes his religion but doesn’t seem too put off by the horrific atrocities committed by Iran, Syria, Hamas, the janjaweed, al Qaeda, North Korea, China…

McCain doesn’t present himself as being particularly religious, but he burns with a sometimes messianic rage at evil doers.

We need a president who’s not afraid to identify evil, and who knows that the way to deal with it is to destroy it, not drink tea with it.

If you would like to better understand Obama, try reading TRAPPED IN THE MIRROR by Elan Golomb. This book will help you understand why Obama has chosen both Michelle as his spouse and Reverend Wright as his mentor. Cherchez la mere.

Neobuzz

I do not think Obama is an intellectual. If he was, he would be tormented by his lack of consistency and coherency. He would also have a grasp of basic economics versus his appeals to his “sense of fairness” for making economic policy.

Regarding Roger’s point, Obama has no faith, and, if he does, it is certainly not what I would consider a Christian faith. I don’t think Jesus would subscribe to black liberation theology (which is just a political philosophy wrapped in the cloak of religion).

Consequently, Obama does not understand that the Islamists really believe that Allah has called them to pursue world domination. Because his faith is not real, he projects that on others. He thinks that Ahmedinajad uses religion to manipulate people just as Obama would. It is a gross miscalculation.

Obama’s is naive and it will get a lot of people killed if he is elected. In addition, his intellectual deficiency in economics (shown in his economic illiteracy – Charlie Gibson revealed this) will have a horrific impact as Obama, if elected, raises taxes and drastically expands government entitlements with the help of a Democratic Congress.