Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 37

Machiavelli advanced the accurate observation that deception may provide the

weak with their only means to obtain success. ”..Nor do I believe that there was
ever a man from obscure condition arrived at great power by merely employing
open force, but there are many who succeeded by fraud alone...”

Obama, just days away from possibly being elected president,


continues to stonewall a growing chorus of information requests for
documents about his legislative, personal health, education, financing,
and background -- leaving many voters to cast ballots based on
incomplete information.

And serious questions about his past continue to swirl as Election Day
looms, fueled in part by his own campaign’s refusal to make relevant
documents available.

And the press, usually banging at the door for candidates to make “full
disclosure” is strangely quiet about Obama’s stonewalling.
A Newsmax survey of key Obama aspects of Obama’s public and private
life continued to be shielded from the public.

Among the examples:

 Obama has released just one brief document detailing his


personal health. McCain, on the other hands, released what he
said was his complete medical file totaling more than 1500 pages.
After criticism on the matter, last week the Obama campaign also
released some routine lab-test results and electrocardiograms
for Obama. All test results appeared normal, but many details
about his health remain a mystery.
 Obama has refused to offer his official papers as a state
legislator in Illinois, and has been unable to produce
correspondence, such as letters from lobbyists and other
correspondence from his days in the Illinois state senate. There
are also no appointment calendars available of his official
activities. “It could have been thrown out,” Obama said while on
the campaign trail during the Democratic primary. “I haven’t been
in the state Senate now for quite some time.”
 Obama has not released his client list as an attorney or his billing
records. Obama has maintained that he only performed a few
hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony
Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June. But
he has not released billing records that would prove this
assertion.
 Obama won’t release his college records from Occidental College
where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia.
 Obama’s campaign refuses to give Columbia University, where he
earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to
release his transcripts. Such transcripts would list the courses
Obama took, and his grades. President George W. Bush, and
presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry, all released
their college transcripts. (McCain has refused to release his
Naval Academy transcript.)
 Obama’s college dissertation has simply disappeared from
Columbia Universities archives. In July, in response to a flurry of
requests to review Obama’s senior thesis at the Ivy League
school, reportedly titled “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament,” Obama
spokesman Ben LaBolt told NBC News “We do not have a copy of
the course paper you requested and neither does Columbia
University.”
 The senator has not agreed to the release of his application to
the Illinois state bar, which would clear up intermittent
allegations that his application to the bar may have been
inaccurate.
 Jim Geraghty of the National Review has written extensively
about Obama’s unwillingness to release records related to clients
he represented while he was an attorney with the Chicago law
firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill, and Gallard. Obama was required to
list his clients during his years in the Illinois senate. “Obama
listed every client of the firm,” Geraghty reported, making it
impossible to discern which clients he represented.
 Obama has never released records from his time at Harvard Law
School.
 Obama also has not disclosed the names of small donors giving
$200 or less to his campaign. An exception to the finance-
reporting laws exempts the campaign from reporting those who
donate less than $200, but that law never envisioned the more
than $300 million that has been raised by Obama in small
amounts. The Republican National Committee has released its
small donors, as well as McCain’s, on a public database.

On several occasions, the Obama campaign has offered to provide


additional information to reporters if they have specific questions or
issues. And in some cases, it has done so.
When Internet rumors began to fly that perhaps Obama was born
outside the United States, for example, the campaign released images
of a birth certificate that verified his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii.
When that led to suggestions the birth certificate had been altered,
the campaign again responded, allowing reporters to examine the actual
birth certificate, complete with raised seal. (In late July, according to
FactCheck.org, a researcher uncovered an announcement of Obama’s
birth in the August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser).

Such instances of cooperation pale, however, compared to the many


unanswered questions surrounding Obama, such as the financing of his
education, and requests for the complete release of all donors to his
campaign.

Of course, candidates are often reticent to disclose any information


that opposition researchers could use against them.

But Politico.com notes that the Obama’s failure to share documents is


“part of his campaign’s broader pattern of rarely volunteering
information or documents about the candidate, even when relatively
innocuous.”

The hue and cry from the media for disclosure usually forces
candidates to release sought after documents. But the press has
largely acquiesced to Obama’s stonewalling.

Psychological Study of Hussein Obama

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 sing-song, 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 Expert Body Language assessor

If you have been watching Obama speaking and being interviewed 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 and sometimes sneers 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 red flags that he is acting a part. He is narcissistic, but

why?
Here are other narcissistic nonverbal and behavioral cues that have been written

about Obama.

Voters must 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.

 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.

 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 emotion-laden 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).

 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 self-

image (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 are frequently liked

(except by those they’ve injured). However, there is no evidence that Obama is

liked. The adoring crowds have appeared to honor the most evil men in the world

since the persona presented to the crowd frequently has nothing to do with the

real person. A person like Obama that refuses to anwer the personal questions
required of all candidates and is supported by a leftist press that ferrets out the

most microscopic failing of Republicans, cannot be viewed with anything less than

suspicion. The narcisstic 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.

Obama’s well Staged Electoral Rallies Afford Insight Into His Psyche

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. Obama is

“chameleon”-like, deceitful and exhibits many of the characteristics of a

psychopath. . According to Sorokin and Lundeen that ruling group's moral

behavior,"...tends to be more criminal than that of the ruled population...the lack of

morals and apparent lack of guilt characteristic of psychopaths can be found to

exist among persons of power and influence..." The influential, everywhere, share a

common elitist bond. They manipulate the masses for personal gain, self-esteem

enhancement and the satisfaction derived from destroying or dominating others.

According to Harvey Cleckley, psychopaths are difficult to detect: "...There is

nothing odd or queer about him, and in every respect he tends to embody the

concept of a well-adjusted, happy person...She/He looks like the real thing...More

than the average person, he/she is likely to seem free from the minor distortions,

peculiarities, and awkwardness so common even among the successful...Everything

about him/her is likely to suggest desirable and superior human qualities, a robust

mental health..."

It is only possible to identify psychopaths by their behavior over time . That

behavior also reveals underlying psychopathic attitudes.


Clinicians have identified, "...the core of psychopathy: an inability to develop warm,

genuine relationships with others, a lack of empathy, and a callous disregard for

the rights and feelings of others..."

The 12 Characteristics Applicable To Soviet Deception From Cleckley's 16


Psychopathic Characteristics
1. Superficial charm and good intelligence.
2. Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking.
3. Absence of "nervousness" or other psychoneurotic manifestations.
5. Untruthfulness and insincerity.
6. Lack of remorse or shame.
7. Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior.
9. Pathologic eccentricity and incapacity for love.
10. General poverty in major affective reactions.
12. Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relationships.
13. Fantastic and uninviting behavior with drink and sometimes without.
14. Suicide rarely carried out.
15. Sex life impersonal, trivial and poorly integrated.

Hussein also exhibits sociopathic behavior. "...The sociopath is said to be: a con-

man, manipulative, a facile and convincing liar, selfish, callous, charming, disarmingly

capable of understanding others and their motives...a blamer of others rather than

oneself...unaccepting of ordinary social norms with respect to...agreements and

social contracts, incapable of significant...enduring attachment of warmth and

responsibility to others..."

.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 hate-

filled 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 15-

second 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

statement.)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.