Obama Bares His Sharp Teeth
Barack Obama has been a bit agitated lately. According to the Washington Post, public opinion polls in the past few days have shown that Americans’ approval rating of his work has fallen to a new low of 43 percent.
In mid-term elections to be held four months from now, the Democratic Party may suffer the most miserable defeat in 16 years because of Obama’s inept performance. Since assuming his role as the U.S.’s first black president, Obama has clearly understood the importance of holding power and treating others affably. His political style is seen in his dignified bearing, refined speech, powerful presence, stately conduct and amiable nature. However, this is all just a façade.
Obama’s enchanting, snow-white teeth are becoming sharper. One day, he is eating a hamburger and chatting cheerfully with Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev, and the next day, he reveals to the public that over ten Russian spies have been captured, leaving the world dumbfounded and the Russians totally confused. In the medical world, this is characteristic of a split personality.
Looking at Obama’s upbringing can help us analyze the development of his split personality. At the age of two, Obama was separated from his father, Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan exchange student who left Obama Jr.’s mother Ann Dunham in 1963 to study at Harvard. He never returned to Hawaii. Meanwhile, Dunham married Indonesian student Lolo Soetoro. In 1967, at the age of six, Obama went to Indonesia with his mother. At the age of 10, Obama left Indonesia to return to Hawaii, and from this point on, his maternal grandparents took care of him. For most of his childhood, Obama grew up without the love of a father or a mother. According to American psychologist G. Stanley Hall, a person will create an idealized self-image in order to compensate for a sense of worthlessness and incompetence. This will lead to neurotic arrogance and demands, a tyrannical sense of what one “should” do, and ultimately self-hatred. Obama fits this psychological profile.
While Obama was in middle school in Hawaii, he was often very reserved, not saying a word. However, he sometimes talked so much that other students didn’t have any room to say a word. Regarding tasks that he felt he absolutely had to do, he often used ruthless, even brutal tactics to achieve his goal. He was the victor of many fights, and of course, he was also a drug user. Obama claims that this was a period in which he had gone off the right track. From a psychological standpoint, a person who grew up in a broken household has a tendency for depression and neuroticism. Such a person also has a great capability for acting and adapting to life.
Let’s take a look at Obama’s genes, specifically those of his father Obama Sr., who was Kenyan. However, his mother, Ann Dunham, was a European Caucasian. Dunham’s paternal family members were Anglo-Saxons from England. According to American research in anthropology, Obama is a surprisingly close blood relative of past U.S. presidents Bush and Clinton and is a descendant of England’s Queen Elizabeth. In the U.S.’s 234-year history, there have been 44 presidents. Except for two presidents who were Italian or German, not English, the other 43 presidents were all of Anglo-Saxon descent. Indeed, the U.S. is a machine controlled by English descendants.
Behind Obama’s handsome, smiling demeanor lays a merciless, brutal inclination. Why does Obama have such a tough attitude toward China’s issues regarding the U.S.-Taiwan arms sale, the Dalai Lama, trade and currency, human rights, etc.? Why is he putting so much effort into a military exercise involving aircraft carriers in the Yellow Sea, right next door to Beijing? People can find the answer to these questions in Obama’s genes. Obama is the same as past U.S. presidents. He is a member of the Anglo-Saxons, the English-speaking race whose inherent desire to invade and conquer runs in the blood. In other words, the blood flowing through the body of an Englishman is rife with hostile tendencies. This genetic trait is defined by a desire to invade other countries, expand boundaries, plunder natural resources and build up strength. This was once the defining trait of England’s historical development. Now, it is the defining trait of the U.S.’s historical development. This trait is exactly what Marx described when he defined the typical features of imperialism.
Recently, Obama has achieved two guarantees: That all Western countries agree to use military force when the U.S.’s economic sanctions against Iran are no longer in effect, and that Congress will use military force against Iran if economic sanctions are ineffective.
The U.S. economy is still in a recession. With unemployment rates as high as 9.5 percent, the ruling Democratic Party’s approval rating continues to drop. Soon, in November, the U.S. will hold a mid-term election, and President Obama has already put on his sharp fangs, ready to use military force to fight a war against Iran. The estimated time of military action would be September or October of this year, most likely the middle of October. This is because waging war during this time would be most beneficial toward increasing the Democratic Party’s approval rating. Ever since President Reagan issued an order in 1983 to attack Granada, each U.S. president has waged a foreign war. Obama is prepared to do the same.
According to Frans de Waal, a primatologist who studied behavior, human males have a strong motive to obtain a superior position and will often use various tactics to obtain such a position. Whenever their position in society increases or decreases, their body will have a physical and emotional reaction. When a man prepares to fight, his body will produce a large amount of testosterone, a hormone that increases physical strength and aggressiveness. Various indications show that Obama’s body must have the highest levels of testosterone.
Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” states, “Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.” The U.S. has already completed the first three stages. The U.N. Security Council supports the economic sanctions against Iran. In particular, the fact that Russia and China support the economic sanctions against Iran scores a point for U.S. foreign affairs. From the very beginning, Obama also criticized Israel, but recently in the White House, Obama gave Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu a warm hug. Now, Congress supports military action, making Obama happier than he expected. On a moral level, public opinion is in support of military action, forming a united international front against Iran.
Currently, the U.S.S. Harry S. Truman is approaching the Persian Gulf, reaching a total of four U.S. military aircraft carriers in that area. Military preparations are publicly underway and in full force. In addition, the U.S. has 140,000 soldiers in Iraqi barracks, and not a single one has returned home. Each soldier has long been eagerly preparing and waiting for Commander-in-Chief Obama to give the order to attack Iran.
German military theorist Carl von Clausewitz pointed out in “On War” that war is an extreme version of politics; in his words, “War is a mere continuation of politics by other means.” Taking into account various factors, we can find five major motives for the U.S.’s determination to wage war on Iran:
1. Solving the U.S.’s high unemployment rate and the domestic economic problem of factories operating under capacity. U.S. politics is war politics; through war, the U.S. GDP can increase by 2 percent.
2. Attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and armed forces and destroying the leader of Islamic countries, who would no longer dare to confront Christian civilization.
3. Occupying Iran. The major goal is to occupy the world’s second largest source of oil. The U.S. has already occupied Iraq, the country with the world’s third largest source of oil. Therefore, the U.S. could control the world’s economic lifeline.
4. Trapping and blackmailing China. When President Bush started the war in Iraq, China had just signed a $1.7 billion oil supply agreement with Saddam Hussein’s government. In 2009, China signed an oil supply agreement with Iran, totaling several billion dollars. If the U.S. occupies Iran, China would not be able to get its oil supply, and China’s contract with Iran would be invalid. Currently, 60 percent of China’s oil is imported each year. This would accomplish the U.S.’s goal of “subduing the enemy without battle,” as Sun Tzu’s The Art of War states.
5. Raising the Democratic Party’s approval rating.
The U.S.’s military exercises in the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea are just decoy tactics. Attacking Iran is Obama’s true goal.
Therefore, Obama is currently preparing to start a war. His pure white teeth are looking more and more pointed. In order to face the economic recession, huge unemployed population, and continually dropping public approval rating, Obama will use war to shift the focus of domestic problems and achieve reelection.
Let’s review what Obama said when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize: “The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms…. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war.”
Obama’s innate hostility is in accordance with his psychological profile of neurotic arrogance and demands, a tyrannical sense of what one “should” do, and ultimately self-hatred. Besides, long ago, Obama already foreshadowed the upcoming war that he will wage.
In mid-term elections to be held four months from now, the Democratic Party may suffer the most miserable defeat in 16 years because of Obama’s inept performance. Since assuming his role as the U.S.’s first black president, Obama has clearly understood the importance of holding power and treating others affably. His political style is seen in his dignified bearing, refined speech, powerful presence, stately conduct and amiable nature. However, this is all just a façade.
Obama’s enchanting, snow-white teeth are becoming sharper. One day, he is eating a hamburger and chatting cheerfully with Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev, and the next day, he reveals to the public that over ten Russian spies have been captured, leaving the world dumbfounded and the Russians totally confused. In the medical world, this is characteristic of a split personality.
Looking at Obama’s upbringing can help us analyze the development of his split personality. At the age of two, Obama was separated from his father, Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan exchange student who left Obama Jr.’s mother Ann Dunham in 1963 to study at Harvard. He never returned to Hawaii. Meanwhile, Dunham married Indonesian student Lolo Soetoro. In 1967, at the age of six, Obama went to Indonesia with his mother. At the age of 10, Obama left Indonesia to return to Hawaii, and from this point on, his maternal grandparents took care of him. For most of his childhood, Obama grew up without the love of a father or a mother. According to American psychologist G. Stanley Hall, a person will create an idealized self-image in order to compensate for a sense of worthlessness and incompetence. This will lead to neurotic arrogance and demands, a tyrannical sense of what one “should” do, and ultimately self-hatred. Obama fits this psychological profile.
While Obama was in middle school in Hawaii, he was often very reserved, not saying a word. However, he sometimes talked so much that other students didn’t have any room to say a word. Regarding tasks that he felt he absolutely had to do, he often used ruthless, even brutal tactics to achieve his goal. He was the victor of many fights, and of course, he was also a drug user. Obama claims that this was a period in which he had gone off the right track. From a psychological standpoint, a person who grew up in a broken household has a tendency for depression and neuroticism. Such a person also has a great capability for acting and adapting to life.
Let’s take a look at Obama’s genes, specifically those of his father Obama Sr., who was Kenyan. However, his mother, Ann Dunham, was a European Caucasian. Dunham’s paternal family members were Anglo-Saxons from England. According to American research in anthropology, Obama is a surprisingly close blood relative of past U.S. presidents Bush and Clinton and is a descendant of England’s Queen Elizabeth. In the U.S.’s 234-year history, there have been 44 presidents. Except for two presidents who were Italian or German, not English, the other 43 presidents were all of Anglo-Saxon descent. Indeed, the U.S. is a machine controlled by English descendants.
Behind Obama’s handsome, smiling demeanor lays a merciless, brutal inclination. Why does Obama have such a tough attitude toward China’s issues regarding the U.S.-Taiwan arms sale, the Dalai Lama, trade and currency, human rights, etc.? Why is he putting so much effort into a military exercise involving aircraft carriers in the Yellow Sea, right next door to Beijing? People can find the answer to these questions in Obama’s genes. Obama is the same as past U.S. presidents. He is a member of the Anglo-Saxons, the English-speaking race whose inherent desire to invade and conquer runs in the blood. In other words, the blood flowing through the body of an Englishman is rife with hostile tendencies. This genetic trait is defined by a desire to invade other countries, expand boundaries, plunder natural resources and build up strength. This was once the defining trait of England’s historical development. Now, it is the defining trait of the U.S.’s historical development. This trait is exactly what Marx described when he defined the typical features of imperialism.
Recently, Obama has achieved two guarantees: That all Western countries agree to use military force when the U.S.’s economic sanctions against Iran are no longer in effect, and that Congress will use military force against Iran if economic sanctions are ineffective.
The U.S. economy is still in a recession. With unemployment rates as high as 9.5 percent, the ruling Democratic Party’s approval rating continues to drop. Soon, in November, the U.S. will hold a mid-term election, and President Obama has already put on his sharp fangs, ready to use military force to fight a war against Iran. The estimated time of military action would be September or October of this year, most likely the middle of October. This is because waging war during this time would be most beneficial toward increasing the Democratic Party’s approval rating. Ever since President Reagan issued an order in 1983 to attack Granada, each U.S. president has waged a foreign war. Obama is prepared to do the same.
According to Frans de Waal, a primatologist who studied behavior, human males have a strong motive to obtain a superior position and will often use various tactics to obtain such a position. Whenever their position in society increases or decreases, their body will have a physical and emotional reaction. When a man prepares to fight, his body will produce a large amount of testosterone, a hormone that increases physical strength and aggressiveness. Various indications show that Obama’s body must have the highest levels of testosterone.
Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” states, “Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.” The U.S. has already completed the first three stages. The U.N. Security Council supports the economic sanctions against Iran. In particular, the fact that Russia and China support the economic sanctions against Iran scores a point for U.S. foreign affairs. From the very beginning, Obama also criticized Israel, but recently in the White House, Obama gave Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu a warm hug. Now, Congress supports military action, making Obama happier than he expected. On a moral level, public opinion is in support of military action, forming a united international front against Iran.
Currently, the U.S.S. Harry S. Truman is approaching the Persian Gulf, reaching a total of four U.S. military aircraft carriers in that area. Military preparations are publicly underway and in full force. In addition, the U.S. has 140,000 soldiers in Iraqi barracks, and not a single one has returned home. Each soldier has long been eagerly preparing and waiting for Commander-in-Chief Obama to give the order to attack Iran.
German military theorist Carl von Clausewitz pointed out in “On War” that war is an extreme version of politics; in his words, “War is a mere continuation of politics by other means.” Taking into account various factors, we can find five major motives for the U.S.’s determination to wage war on Iran:
1. Solving the U.S.’s high unemployment rate and the domestic economic problem of factories operating under capacity. U.S. politics is war politics; through war, the U.S. GDP can increase by 2 percent.
2. Attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and armed forces and destroying the leader of Islamic countries, who would no longer dare to confront Christian civilization.
3. Occupying Iran. The major goal is to occupy the world’s second largest source of oil. The U.S. has already occupied Iraq, the country with the world’s third largest source of oil. Therefore, the U.S. could control the world’s economic lifeline.
4. Trapping and blackmailing China. When President Bush started the war in Iraq, China had just signed a $1.7 billion oil supply agreement with Saddam Hussein’s government. In 2009, China signed an oil supply agreement with Iran, totaling several billion dollars. If the U.S. occupies Iran, China would not be able to get its oil supply, and China’s contract with Iran would be invalid. Currently, 60 percent of China’s oil is imported each year. This would accomplish the U.S.’s goal of “subduing the enemy without battle,” as Sun Tzu’s The Art of War states.
5. Raising the Democratic Party’s approval rating.
The U.S.’s military exercises in the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea are just decoy tactics. Attacking Iran is Obama’s true goal.
Therefore, Obama is currently preparing to start a war. His pure white teeth are looking more and more pointed. In order to face the economic recession, huge unemployed population, and continually dropping public approval rating, Obama will use war to shift the focus of domestic problems and achieve reelection.
Let’s review what Obama said when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize: “The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms…. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war.”
Obama’s innate hostility is in accordance with his psychological profile of neurotic arrogance and demands, a tyrannical sense of what one “should” do, and ultimately self-hatred. Besides, long ago, Obama already foreshadowed the upcoming war that he will wage.
“the blood flowing through the body of an Englishman is rife with hostile tendencies”
wow…that’s about the point when I stopped taking this author seriously…