Eggs vs. Idiots

An interesting battle is shaping up between what I call the “Eggs” and the “Idiots.” The significance of the terms and which team you are on will become clear shortly.

American Thinker discussed the intelligence of President Obama and concluded:

As far as Barack Obama being smart as a whip goes, he has no clue in economics, nor has he any understanding of foreign policy; he is supremely arrogant and doesn’t care if it rubs people the wrong way; he has few political skills and no administrative ability, nor does he have any desire to engage in the day-to-day drudgery of ruling, preferring to reign instead; and he revels in the luxury of presidential perks and delights in flaunting his excess. Other than that, he is a true genius.

Another article from American Thinker saw the Obama Presidency as downhill from here:

The past two years are the best Obama will ever see. The real crises of his presidency are still to come, and they are easily visible as they move toward us — Iran, terrorism, the economy, the collapse of the national health care system hastened by his own policies. He will meet them under a cloud of his own making, attempting to overcome them as a president who takes endless vacations, who will not defend his country’s borders, who sat out the Gulf oil crisis, who overlooks the sacrifices of his own countrymen in favor of dubious foreign figures.

Even the hapless Jimmy Carter would have considered this a trough rather than a peak. Yet, it is likely to be viewed as Obama’s peak.

Those invested in this man-child are unwilling to accept such evaluations. These include much of the mainstream media, the Democrat Party and government dependents who expected a ride to riches without work. Some may never see the truth, but recognition is setting in amongst most Democrats standing for re-election. For them, Obama is considered toxic.

President Obama is a blatant fraud in the sense that he is not what he proclaimed. In the vernacular, there is no “there” there, and there never was. His secretive past may or may not contain unsavory aspects. Regardless, it was necessary to hide because it contained no accomplishments.  In the end, history will view Obama’s Presidency as some giant, inexplicable mistake, akin to mass delusion or hypnosis.

Kyle Anne Shiver, as quoted by Joan Swirsky, summarized the early ramifications of the Obama presidency:

We have yet to see a more perfect collision of Murphy’s Law with the Peter Principle. In only three weeks’ time, [he] has signaled to every terrorist on the planet that we are a sorry, groveling, ashamed nation ready to come to the diplomatic confessional. He is closing Gitmo within one year, has suspended trials there, and dismissed the charges against the U.S.S. Cole plotter. [He] has just put our money where his mouth is and is using $20.3 million to bring in Palestinian refugees from Gaza…[he] had the gall to pronounce the so-called economic stimulus bill absolutely free of `earmarks’ and `make-do work’…but according to the Congressional Budget Office [this bill] will do worse to our overall economy than no government action whatsoever.

Obama’s only skill is making a teleprompter sound good. Oratory is defined in different ways in the Microsoft Word dictionary. The first definition is “the art of speaking in public with style, cogency and grace.” That was a perfect description of Obama 1.0, the campaign version. In that venue it was possible to avoid specifics and scrutiny under the umbrella of a fawning media.

Another definition is “pompous, boring, or inappropriately long speech.” While it seems like an antonym, it is not presented as such. Regardless, it is a perfect description of Obama 2.0, the presidential version. His performances (with emphasis on that word) are increasingly viewed as “pompous, boring, or inappropriately long.”

Obama’s intonations no longer mesmerize the population. He still believes style is a substitute for substance. But delivery, sound and stage props are not content. “Vacuous” describes both his speeches and the man. Contradictions and outright lies are now called out, at least by some of the press. When things become obvious to the masses, the media changes, if only to survive.

The happiest man in the country is probably former President Carter. His first ranking in the Presidential Pantheon of Shame has been lost. President Carter’s gain is the American peoples’ loss. We have a President whose only skill is that of a newsreader, a Dan Rather on steroids with a Red Button nearby and (what he believes to be) a bottomless supply of money.

Increasingly, the world recognizes the absurdity of our situation. Allies chastised his economic policies at the last G-7 meeting. Enemies openly ridicule him. Polling indicates that George Bush is now more popular. While the domestic press attempts to protect their investment, international papers don’t. The Telegraph (UK) provided an article dealing with “the stunning decline” and “meltdown” of Obama:”

The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House.  … many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party.

Tragically, many supporters voted their hearts rather than their minds and still believe. In a world of (non) reality TV shows and bread and circuses, 30% of the US population would likely believe anything. Fortunately, our presidential problem will be resolved in a couple of years. Unfortunately, there is no simple solution or time limit on the ignorance of so much of the population.

Tragic describes the President. He appears oblivious to the fact that his shtick, which played well during the campaign, works no longer. It doesn’t play well in Peoria or anywhere else outside of extreme liberal conclaves. Like a one-trick pony, he continues to perform even as his once-large audience dwindles.

Psychiatry and psychology are beyond my expertise. My guess is that pathological narcissism is at play. Numerous others, both professional and amateur, have had similar thoughts. One such analysis appeared in American Thinker where it was speculated that Obama might a “fanatic type” of narcissist:

fanatic type – including paranoid features. A severely narcissistically wounded individual, usually with major paranoid tendencies who holds onto an illusion of omnipotence. These people are fighting the reality of their insignificance and lost value and are trying to re-establish their self-esteem through grandiose fantasies and self-reinforcement. When unable to gain recognition of support from others, they take on the role of a heroic or worshipped person with a grandiose mission.

It does not require the “fanatic type” to endanger the country. Extreme narcissism by itself is dangerous. Certainly Obama has shown this with his insistence on throwing “Hail Mary” passes regardless of the consequences for the country or his own party. It is clearly all about him as we have seen former friends and allies thrown under the bus.

The AT article concluded:

This man has been entrusted with the greatest power in the world. He will have that power for the next [two] years at least.

But he may not be able to emotionally tolerate any real limits on his need for self-aggrandizement and power. And still he can’t be allowed to beat the country into submission.

If indeed pathological narcissism is a correct diagnosis, someone should intervene, both for the good of the man and the country. Surrounded by ideologues who seem willing to sacrifice anything to achieve their goals, intervention is unlikely. Obama is a mere puppet, a useful but expendable tool. As stated by Kaganovitch, one of Josef Stalin’s right-hand men:  “Why wail over broken eggs when we are trying to make an omelette !”

In the larger scheme of things, Obama is nothing more than an egg; actually he is more. In Lenin’s terminology, he is also a “useful idiot.” While his personal tragedy may ultimately be enormous, it pales in comparison to the tragedies that are being inflicted upon the economy, the Rule of Law and the citizens of the country.

Just as Obama, we are considered merely eggs to be broken as this aberration of history unfolds. Fortunately, the supply of eggs is reproducible and greatly outnumbers the idiots. Liberty will not be extinguished here, despite the desires of the idiots.

Another attempt to impose Socialism will fail, but not before inflicting wanton destruction.

Related Posts

6 Comments

  1. like all political writing this is just more completely unobjective and pathetic commentary – the same writers no doubt championing Bush’s utter and complete failures at foreign and domestic policies (8 years of it – not just 1) as well as HIS arrogance, unending trips to Crawford, and religious mania. So as always the clueless media are part of the problem and not part of any solution. In the end, the sheeple, with media’s help, will always be happy to trade in hookers for whores in the next elections and ridiculously expect anything to ever change…and it never does. I have never been an Obama supporter but still recognize this silly article as utter trash.

  2. I have to say its a great pity

    Obam enabled by pelosi/team is a calamity and I don’t know that recovery can be soon

    Here in africa we see this type of leadership all the time: everywhere

    But in the us of a this is astonishing 60 years after ww2!!

  3. There is a revolutionary playbook, and it has not changed from 1933. The players even appear to be related. Garet Garrett wrote of them back in the day:

    The revolutionary mind that evolved was one of really superior intelligence, clothed with academic dignity, and at ease in all circumstances. It was neither creative not inventive; therefore there was no profit for him in the capitalistic scheme, and his revenge was to embrace Old World socialism. As a teacher, writer of textbooks, master of the popular diatribe of discontent, he was primarily a sower of contrary and perverse ideas.
    In a revolutionary situation mistakes and failures are not what they seem. They are scaffolding. Error is not repealed. It is compounded by a longer law, by more decrees and regulations, by further extension of the administrative hand. When you have passed one miracle you have to pass another one to take care of it, so it was with the New Deal. Outwitted were those who kept trying to make sense of the New Deal from the point of view of all that was implicit in the American scheme, charging it therefore with contradiction, fallacy, economic ignorance, and general incompetence to govern, but it never intended to make that kind of sense. Its meaning was revolutionary and it had no other.

Post a Comment