Is Obama a BiPolar Personality Disorder?……Yes!…. in my humble opinion……

………..and it is comforting to know I am not alone, egotistically speaking…(writing), that is.    One needs ones safety nets, whether physical or psychological.         

 The following article is titled:  “TWO OBAMAS”.   I found it in my stash of notable articles I find too valuable to throw away.  It was published on an opinion page at the Wall Street Journal probably mid- summer, 2008, before this ‘disorder’ sufferer, Barack Hussein  became the 44th president of the United States.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE BEST ASSESSMENT OF THE OBAMA PERSONALITY DRIVING HIS PRESIDENCY DESPITE THE FACT IT WAS WRITTEN MONTHS BEFORE HE GATHERED HIS FLOCK, NOVEMBER, 2008.

TWO OBAMAS:   “God, Republicans are saps.   They think that they’re in running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church, where the pastor damned his own country.  They think they’re running against some naive university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today.  On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlet Johanson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now.  But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package; an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator.  He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent.  He speaks so calmly and polysyllablically the people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education for anybody who cares to pay attention.   Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues.  But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times.   From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Barack could have been a workhorse senator.  But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fase Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works.  John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings  around the country.   But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations.  Fast Eddie threw the newpolitics mantra under the truck.

And then Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour.  Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue.   He aspires to be a political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa.   He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing.   In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works.   In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee”……..

…….and so, dear citizens, Mr. Hyde recovered from his sanity to reject public financing of elections…..as most of you SHOULD know.    Ever since this Barack Hussein Hyde has managed to throw his country and its democratic insitutions under the bus to continue his prowling as president of our deeply damaged America to extract  more votes for his Jekyll moments, the smiling ones with sugar words  which make his tribes, the New York and California rich, the black racist  communities, mass media, and gays and single women swoon.

We are nearly four years later in knowing this Dr Jekyll-Mr. Hyde Barack Hussein Obama.   Every day, every week, every month evidence builds that this man has a profound personality problem……HE SUFFERS FROM BIPOLAR PERSONALITY SYNDROME!     Make your own deductions why he is so devious, so dishonest, so coniving rather than performing his workhorse duties to solve America’s problems, rather than causing them.

Charles Murray’s CSPan Review of his Own Book

THE COMING APART OF AMERICA,      by Charles Murray    

CSPAN VIDEO OF THE AUTHOR’S OWN REMARKS reviewing his research of the new BIPOLAR AMERICA

Click below  to view the CSPAN video, A VIDEO NO AMERICAN CAN AFFORD TO MISS!:      

(David Brooks’ Review of the Murray text can be found below as well.)

Heather Wilhelm wrote the following introduction to an article on Charles Murrays research for general readership, The Coming Part of America: 

“Charles Murray, the prominent political scientist, doesn’t shy away from awkward subjects — he’s best known for The Bell Curve, which stirred up a progressive hornet’s nest in the mid-1990s — and he tackles the charged issue of class in his new and important book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. America, Murray writes, “is coming apart at the seams — not ethnic seams, but the seams of class.” Culture, not money, divides the new upper and lower classes, which live in increasingly different worlds: one rarefied, walled-off, and at the helm of the country; the other dysfunctional, adrift, and hapless when it comes to the game of life.

Charles Murray, the prominent political scientist, doesn’t shy away from awkward subjects — he’s best known for The Bell Curve, which stirred up a progressive hornet’s nest in the mid-1990s — and he tackles the charged issue of class in his new and important book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. America, Murray writes, “is coming apart at the seams — not ethnic seams, but the seams of class.” Culture, not money, divides the new upper and lower classes, which live in increasingly different worlds: one rarefied, walled-off, and at the helm of the country; the other dysfunctional, adrift, and hapless when it comes to the game of life.”

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ApartT

The Great Divorce

By DAVID BROOKS

I’ll be shocked if there’s another book this year as important as Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart.” I’ll be shocked if there’s another book that so compellingly describes the most important trends in American society.

Murray’s basic argument is not new, that America is dividing into a two-caste society. What’s impressive is the incredible data he produces to illustrate that trend and deepen our understanding of it.

His story starts in 1963. There was a gap between rich and poor then, but it wasn’t that big. A house in an upper-crust suburb cost only twice as much as the average new American home. The tippy-top luxury car, the Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz, cost about $47,000 in 2010 dollars. That’s pricey, but nowhere near the price of the top luxury cars today.

More important, the income gaps did not lead to big behavior gaps. Roughly 98 percent of men between the ages of 30 and 49 were in the labor force, upper class and lower class alike. Only about 3 percent of white kids were born outside of marriage. The rates were similar, upper class and lower class.

Since then, America has polarized. The word “class” doesn’t even capture the divide Murray describes. You might say the country has bifurcated into different social tribes, with a tenuous common culture linking them.

The upper tribe is now segregated from the lower tribe. In 1963, rich people who lived on the Upper East Side of Manhattan lived close to members of the middle class. Most adult Manhattanites who lived south of 96th Street back then hadn’t even completed high school. Today, almost all of Manhattan south of 96th Street is an upper-tribe enclave.

Today, Murray demonstrates, there is an archipelago of affluent enclaves clustered around the coastal cities, Chicago, Dallas and so on. If you’re born into one of them, you will probably go to college with people from one of the enclaves; you’ll marry someone from one of the enclaves; you’ll go off and live in one of the enclaves.

Worse, there are vast behavioral gaps between the educated upper tribe (20 percent of the country) and the lower tribe (30 percent of the country). This is where Murray is at his best, and he’s mostly using data on white Americans, so the effects of race and other complicating factors don’t come into play.

Roughly 7 percent of the white kids in the upper tribe are born out of wedlock, compared with roughly 45 percent of the kids in the lower tribe. In the upper tribe, nearly every man aged 30 to 49 is in the labor force. In the lower tribe, men in their prime working ages have been steadily dropping out of the labor force, in good times and bad.

People in the lower tribe are much less likely to get married, less likely to go to church, less likely to be active in their communities, more likely to watch TV excessively, more likely to be obese.

Murray’s story contradicts the ideologies of both parties. Republicans claim that America is threatened by a decadent cultural elite that corrupts regular Americans, who love God, country and traditional values. That story is false. The cultural elites live more conservative, traditionalist lives than the cultural masses.

Democrats claim America is threatened by the financial elite, who hog society’s resources. But that’s a distraction. The real social gap is between the top 20 percent and the lower 30 percent. The liberal members of the upper tribe latch onto this top 1 percent narrative because it excuses them from the central role they themselves are playing in driving inequality and unfairness.

It’s wrong to describe an America in which the salt of the earth common people are preyed upon by this or that nefarious elite. It’s wrong to tell the familiar underdog morality tale in which the problems of the masses are caused by the elites.

The truth is, members of the upper tribe have made themselves phenomenally productive. They may mimic bohemian manners, but they have returned to 1950s traditionalist values and practices. They have low divorce rates, arduous work ethics and strict codes to regulate their kids.

Members of the lower tribe work hard and dream big, but are more removed from traditional bourgeois norms. They live in disorganized, postmodern neighborhoods in which it is much harder to be self-disciplined and productive.

I doubt Murray would agree, but we need a National Service Program. We need a program that would force members of the upper tribe and the lower tribe to live together, if only for a few years. We need a program in which people from both tribes work together to spread out the values, practices and institutions that lead to achievement.

If we could jam the tribes together, we’d have a better elite and a better mass.”

Comment:   The Brooks’ remark “we need a National Service Program.  We need a program that would force members of the upper tribe and the lower tribe to live together,”  is. of course, a totalitarian Marxist view of social manipulation.   Mr. Brooks, of course works at the New York Times which although does not practice pure Marxism, preaches it for American from the pulpits of its opinionators…….Mr. Brooks being a half-breed, to use an old time American expression.

I would like to “force” Mr. Brooks to work on a farm in North Dakots or a year at a Walmart, or spend a year among police officers or firemen in any major city in the United States.   But that would be mimicking his Marxist buddies in his neck of the woods, and I am not into that.  

Brooks is a good guy, but he usually writes as a Belmont SNOT……but, remember, such snots  have a right to their opinions, too……..even though they are the most powerful purveyors and protectors of   Political Correctness Censorship and its rules   they learned at university.