Obama Derangement Syndrome – Embrace it

I was so unhappy with the behind the scenes politics and personal life of President Clinton that I could not wait for the 2000 election for a Conservative to be elected to Office. Too my surprise Vice President Al Gore had enamored the American voters.

I suspect Gore’s popularity was an after affect of Clinton’s popularity. The popularity of both was a remarkable mystery to me.

Clinton had a series of scandals pertaining to infidelity that he denied. Then he was busted when the result of DNA placed Clinton sperm on Monica Lewinsky’s clothes. Of course Clinton tried to spin the “I did not have sex with that woman” by implying the sexual gratification of a fellatio induced ejaculation was not sex.

Well that Presidential explanation became an example for Middle School and High School teens giving and receiving fellatio because after all … it is not sex.

If President Clinton lied followed by justifying sex with a White House intern what else might he have lied about?

Anyway I’m beginning to slide away from that which is more current. The point is this though about Clinton: his scandals ran the gambit from licentious immorality, criminal activity and even murder. AND America loved this guy anyway. Even the embarrassing hissy fits he provided for wife Hillary in her Presidential run did not dissuade his popularity.

This popularity of Clinton is the only fathomable reason I can think of that enabled twilight zone Al Gore to win more votes than G.W. Bush but fortunately not more Electoral Votes.

Then the MSM and the Left began what turned out to be a frenzy of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) that went through two Bush Administrations and continues today.

I am betting Left will begin to blame failed President Barack Hussein Obama goal implementations on Obama Deranged Syndrome. Especially this will happen when (or if) Obamacare directives fail to pass Congressional legislation.

I suspect I suffer relish in Obama Deranged Syndrome.

As in the case of Clinton, BHO simply has a past deserving of closer scrutiny. BHO has way too many associations and mentors that most people would agree are anti-American in their beliefs and/or rhetoric. BHO has spent millions of dollars to lawyers to keep many things private should have and should be available to public scrutiny. It is not like BHO is private citizen entitled by the Constitution to protect his privacy. If that were the case I would be the first to support BHO’s rights to privacy. However, we all know that the Office of President of the United States of America is a public servant leadership role. “Public” means there is a certain degree of privacy that must be shed to vet for the highest Public Office under the Constitution of the USA.

The radical Left and an amazingly cooperative MSM has aided BHO to not publicize the reality of associations and mentors as well as the insane secrecy of things such as Long Form Birth Certificates and College papers.

I am guessing BDS was (and still is) so virulent that the MSM promoted an eloquently smooth talking Afro-American with a lot of charisma as the man to discredit the Conservative Right. Why? The Conservative Right is considered the political by-product responsible for eight years of President G.W. Bush. The election of an Afro-American as President is a HUGE success story of the American Way evolving past racism at least to the degree that a non-White person could land that Highest Office. In fact Americans should be proud to have progressed to the point of the election of an Afro-American as President. I know I am.

There is just one problem with BHO that stretches way beyond America’s racist past to the chipping away of racism in the present. That problem goes back to something I consider a big mystery. How do American voters embrace a man whose associations and mentors have either been Marxists or racists or both? AND how can American voters not clamor for the openness of documents and papers that define what BHO’s character and core beliefs have evolved to shape the person?

When Barack Hussein Obama promises “Change” for American politics as usual, Americans need to comprehend the potential of BHO’s concept of “Changed.

I personally am convinced BHO’s associations and mentors mean “Change” is an egalitarian Marxist bent to transform America into some form of socialist utopia.

Frankly part of Marxist ideology is to lie to the masses to get them on board unwittingly to a plan that the masses may find to be economically, socially and politically abhorrent. The good Marxist believes that their concept of the greater good will eventually bring the masses (I guess really the “proletariat” in Marxist terminology) on board. The lie then becomes the necessary evil of means to justify a fanciful good utopian end.

Consider these brief phrases on Marxism:

Although so clearly seeing that lying to the masses was an essential ingredient of Stalinist policy, and so solemnly abjuring it for yourself, you continued to run with the Stalinist chiefs. You never exposed their political lies, or said publicly what you said to me in private. For a very long time you played friends with both Lie Communists and Truth Communists, and gave your money with one hand to the Stalinists and with die other to independent revolutionary papers which still believed that scientific integrity and honest education of the masses is essential to the proletarian movement. Anybody who plays both sides in quiet times will be found in a crisis on the side with power. And in the issue between truth and political lying, between science and Jesuitism, between intelligence and blind bigotry, between education and indoctrination, between the enlightment and manipulation of public opinion, between the life of reason and the totalitarian state of mind – and that is the paramount issue upon which in this day the fate of civilization rests – the Moscow trials are a crisis. They carry the whole cult, art, ideology and technique of political and party lying to so hideous an extreme that every man in the labor and radical movement must take his stand for or against. And you have taken yours with those whom you yourself so clearly defined as the “Lie Communists”, because they are in the ascendant, and because you lack the moral force to stand against them for the truth. (Max Eastman: A Letter to Corliss Lamont – April 1938)

Here is one Communist telling another there “Truth Communists” and “Lie Communists.” Any Marxist or Communist who considers them self a Truth Communist walks in a fantastical delusion. The only Marxism that is real is described in the next phrase:

So, from whatever point of view we look at this question, it always comes down to the same dismal result: government of the vast majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, the Marxists say, will consist of workers. Yes, perhaps of former workers, who, as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers' world from the heights of hte state. They will no longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretensions to govern the people. ...

But those elected will be passionately committed as well as learned socialists. The words "learned socialist" and "scientific socialism," which recur constantly in the writings and speeches of the Lassalleans and Marxists, are proof in themselves that the pseudo-popular state will be nothing but the highly despotic government of the masses by a new and very small aristocracy of real or pretended scholars. The people are not learned, so they will be liberated in entirety from the cares of government and included in entirety in the governed herd. A true liberation!

The Marxists sense this contradiction, and, recognizing that a government of scholars, the most oppressive, offensive, and contemtuous kind in the world, will be a real dictatorship for all its democratic forms, offer the consoling thought that this dictatorship will be temporary and brief. They say that its sole concern and objective will be to educate the people and raise them both economically and politically to such a level that government of any kind will soon become unnecessary and the state, having lost its political, that is, ruling, character, will transform itself into a totally free organization of economics interests and communities.

There is a flagrant contradiction here. If their state is to be truly a people's state, then why abolish it? But if its abolition is essential for the real liberation of the people, then how do they dare call it a people's state? Our polemics against them have forced them to recognize that freedom, or anarchy - that is, the voluntary organization of the workers from below upward - is the ultimate goal of social development, and that any state, including their people's state, is a yoke which gives rise to despotism on the one hand and slavery on the other.

They say this state yoke, this dictatorship, is a necessary transitional device for achieving the total liberation of the people: anarchy, or freedom, is the goal, and the state, or dictatorship, the means. Thus, for the masses to be liberated they must first be enslaved.

For the moment we have concentrated our polemic on this contradiction. They claim that only a dictatorship (theirs, of course) can create popular freedom. We reply that no dictatorship can have any objective than to perpetuate itself, and that it can engender and nurture only slavery in the people who endure it. Liberty can be created only by liberty, by an insurrection of all the people and the voluntary organization of the workers from below upward. ... (Marx’s Program of State Dictatorship, Mikhail Bakunin)

Frankly I neither wish to live in a godless moral relativist society nor do I want my descendants to live in that society in which choice is limited to what the State gives you to choose from.

Well that is my Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) emotional release of the day. I pray ODS infects all of America. A good start for that infection is reading an AmericanGrandJury.org piece on one of Barack Hussein Obama’s favorite teachers of Community Organization – Saul Alinsky.

JRH 8/21/09