“Mr. President, on what occasion do you lie?”
That was Barbara Walters during her painfully fawning interview with Barack and Michelle Obama last Dec. 23.
For ABC News “20/20′s” “Christmas at the White House” segment, the president and first lady were seated on a couch – relaxed, jovial, holding hands – their West Wing surroundings magnificently decorated for the holidays with dozens of exquisitely adorned Christmas trees and “visions of sugar-plums” everywhere.
Walters got the interview rolling with tough questions like (to Obama), “If you were a superhero and you could have one super power, what would it be?” (Answer: “flying.”) And (to the first lady), “If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would you want it to be?” (Answer: “Bo,” the family dog.) And (to both of them), “I’m looking at you. You’re holding hands. That’s very sweet. How many years married?”
“Twenty, next year,” said Obama. “And [you] still hold hands?” rejoined the adoring Walters. “Absolutely,” replied Obama.
Then, against this backdrop of irresistible holiday warmth and good cheer, came the big question:
“Mr. President,” Walters inquired delicately, “on what occasion do you lie?”
“Usually, the only time I lie,” responded Obama, “is very personal interactions with family members, [when] you say, ‘You look great,’ and they don’t. ‘Wonderful dress …’ Uh, not so much.”
Chimed Michelle: “Things where the truth would hurt other people.”
“Right,” echoed Obama, “the things where truth would hurt other people. Not too many big things. I said during the campaign that I’ll always tell you what I think, and I will, always tell you where I stand. I’m not perfect, but you’ll know what I believe.”
There you have it, folks. Welcome to The Matrix – where the elite media specialize in creating virtual reality scenes like this one, which are so pleasant and seem so real … except that they bear virtually no resemblance to reality.
For there, seated in the midst of this elegant, Norman Rockwell-esque Christmas setting, was Barack Obama, the perpetually churning and discontented radical, taking a needed break from his relentless campaign to “fundamentally transform” – that means destroy – the American way of free enterprise and free people. Barack Obama, the man who lies as easily as breathing – a serial deceiver regarding his birth, his childhood, his education, his influences and associations, his religion, his accomplishments, his policies, his true beliefs and his plans for America’s future. Barack Obama, the man whose entire presidency has been a seamless fabric of deception and duplicity, tells Barbara Walters and the American people that the only time he lies is to protect a family member from hurt feelings by occasionally offering reassurance that an unflattering dress is “wonderful.”
The level of ongoing media dishonesty in covering Barack Obama is, of course, surreal. But let us now focus our attention on the man who is, in all likelihood, the most perfectly dishonest person ever to occupy the Oval Office.
After all, the correct answer to Walters’ question is obvious. When does Obama lie? Every single time he speaks to the American people.
Indeed, as another long-time ABC News personality, Pulitzer prize-winning columnist George Will, pointed out recently in the Washington Post: “Barack Obama’s intellectual sociopathy – his often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truth – should no longer startle.”
“Sociopathy” is a strong word, but used by many to describe Obama – not necessarily as a clinical psychiatric diagnosis, but just because the symptoms fit so darn well, as per this typical description: “Sociopaths are often well-liked because of their charm and high charisma, but they do not usually care about other people. They think mainly of themselves and often blame others for the things that they do. They have a complete disregard for rules and lie constantly. They seldom feel guilt or learn from punishments.” Remind you of anyone?
A vital, creative power
One veteran psychiatrist I know suggested a slightly different diagnosis for Obama, but similar to “sociopathy” in many ways – namely, “malignant narcissistic personality disorder.” The modifier “malignant” signifies the version of “narcissistic personality disorder” that may cross over into criminality, he explained.
He even reviewed with me a list of some of the major symptoms of NPD, comparing them with Obama’s behavior as president. Among the key markers: 1) a grandiose view of one’s achievements (everything with Obama is “historic”), 2) an utter inability to handle criticism (everyone criticizing Obama or his policies is attacked as extremist or racist, his White House even condemning Fox News as “not a real news organization”), and 3) lack of genuine empathy (Obama gave a televised speech on the day of the Fort Hood terror attack in which a Muslim U.S. Army major shot 45 Americans, 13 fatally. With the entire nation reeling in shock and yearning for strong, reassuring words from their commander in chief, Obama instead engaged in small talk and an inane “shout-out” for two full minutes before even mentioning that the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11 had just occurred hours earlier.)
To be sure, many mainstream analysts, including Pulitzer-winning columnist and former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer, have repeatedly pointed to Obama’s extreme narcissism. Regardless of the “diagnosis,” one thing is certain: We’re talking about a person who absolutely does not consider serial lying to be in any way immoral or problematic.
Far from it. For a super-ambitious and vainglorious person such as Obama, lying is a vital and creative power. Lies open doors that would otherwise remain shut. Thus in a very real sense, for Obama, lies are “magic words,” the invocation of which represents the exercise of real power – power to impress voters, raise money, demonize critics, win elections, pass legislation and transform a nation. Ordinary people don’t possess this power, as they are constrained from such brazen lying by their conscience and/or the fear of being caught. But a highly narcissistic person like Obama feels he has the freedom – indeed, the mandate – to reshape America by creatively speaking into existence his preferred version of reality, without regard for any higher standard of truth. In other words, to lie.
Here’s how psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, M.D., explains it in his classic best-seller, “People of the Lie”:
Malignant narcissism is characterized by an unsubmitted will. All adults who are mentally healthy submit themselves one way or another to something higher than themselves, be it God or truth or love or some other ideal. They do what God wants them to do rather than what they would desire. “Thy will, not mine, be done,” the God-submitted person says. They believe in what is true rather than what they would like to be true.
… In summary, to a greater or lesser degree, all mentally healthy individuals submit themselves to the demands of their own conscience. Not so the evil, however. In the conflict between their guilt and their will, it is the guilt that must go and the will that must win.
The reader will be struck by the extraordinary willfulness of evil people. They are men and women of obviously strong will, determined to have their own way. There is a remarkable power in the manner in which they attempt to control others.
As we will now see, Obama has been preparing to “control others” for a long time.
‘I serve as a blank screen’
In his second autobiography “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama makes an audacious admission: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” While it’s amazing that anyone could openly brag about such a manipulative life-strategy, Obama has long cultivated his appealing yet ambiguous public persona in preparation for a career as political messiah. For instance, he voted “present” no less than 129 times while a member of the Illinois state Senate to avoid taking a position that might alienate one side or the other – including on bills he had supported and even sponsored! Taking a position, you see, might have compromised the purity and universality of his “blank screen,” which would one day serve to reflect the aspirations for “hope” and “change” of millions of Americans.
Appearing as all things to all people has been key to Obama’s meteoric rise, requiring constant deception. As one blogger put it recently:
He is Muslim, he is Christian, he is a capitalist, he is a socialist, he is black, he is white, … he is a constitutional professor, he is an average collegian who smoked dope and did cocaine, he is a foreigner, he is American-born, he is “EVERYMAN.”
With America now in precipitous decline on his watch, many have tried to explain the enigma of Obama and his prodigious ability to lie so confidently, comfortably and continually:
Some cite the disturbing degree to which Obama manifests full-blown clinical symptoms of narcissism and/or sociopathy, as previously discussed.
Some cite his far-left ideology: Whether you label it liberalism, progressivism, socialism, left-wing radicalism, Marxism, communism, anti-capitalism, European-style social democracy or statism, leftist “true believers” have always justified as moral not just lying, but ruthless suppression of dissent, violence and tyranny – as long as these measures seemed to advance their glorious utopian cause. “Exhibit A” for this point would be the entire 20th century.
Some cite Obama’s childhood, which was awful, and others cite his early influences, which were more awful. A Berkeley, Calif., psychotherapist who writes under the pseudonym Robin of Berkeley weighs in this way:
My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.
But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can’t prove it, the degree of Obama’s disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.
With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociates – that is, disconnects from his being – in order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.
Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, “Pop,” that evoked images of sexual abuse – for instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and “Pop’s” shorts.
Would trauma explain Obama’s disconnect? In many ways, yes. A damaged and unattached child may develop a “false self.” To compensate for the enormous deficits in identity and attachment, the child invents his own personality. For Obama, it may have been as a special, gifted person.
Some cite Obama’s religious background – his 20-year affiliation with his “spiritual mentor,” the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who preached raw hatred of America, capitalism and white people, and whose “black liberation theology” gospel amounted to Afro-centric Marxism dressed up with Bible verses. Complicating this picture and suggesting even more questions is the well-documented fact that during his youth in Indonesia, Obama was raised and schooled as a Muslim.
Some cite his background in “Chicago politics” – a euphemism for wall-to-wall corruption and criminality. Indeed, the state of Illinois, where a staggering total of four recent governors – Otto Kerner, Dan Walker, George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich – have gone to prison for corruption, remains a political cesspool to this day, as confirmed by a recent study from the University of Illinois at Chicago’s political science department. Obama is a product of this legendarily corrupt “Chicago machine” and played the game ruthlessly while rising in the ranks there.
Some cite Obama’s education, the most important part of which, by his own admission, came via Saul Alinsky. During the 2008 campaign, Obama said of his years steeped in the Chicago Marxist’s revolutionary “community organizing” methods: “It was that education that was seared into my brain. It was the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School.”
In “Rules for Radicals,” Alinsky counsels wannabe revolutionaries that they must be willing to ignore the dictates of their own conscience to advance the left’s agenda:
In action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation”; he doesn’t care enough for people to be “corrupted” for them.
That, friends, is one of the most twisted things I’ve ever heard. To believe it and act on it is to abandon your greatest gift, your moment-to-moment connection with the Living God – your conscience. Maybe that’s why Alinsky dedicated “Rules for Radicals” to “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”
In the final analysis, Obama lies because that’s how he gets his way, and getting his way is all he cares about.
Written by David Kupelian and published at World Net Daily July 11, 2012.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www. law. cornell. edu/uscode/17/107. shtml