Excerpt:
Obama’s lack of affection and affinity will increase:The narcissist’s natural affinity with the criminal – his lack of empathy and compassion, his deficient social skills, his disregard for social laws and morals – now erupts and blossoms. He becomes a full fledged antisocial (sociopath or psychopath). He ignores the wishes and needs of others, he breaks the law, he violates all rights – natural and legal, he hold people in contempt and disdain, he derides society and its codes, he punishes the ignorant ingrates – that, to his mind, drove him to this state – by acting criminally and by jeopardizing their safety, lives, or property (emphasis added)
This is our experience, too: Obama has reacted to Americans’ concerns by appointing more and more individuals antithetical to our values, Constitution, and government; by moving to socialize more sectors of our society; by openly breaking the law, and by taking other actions that penalize individuals, whole classes of society, and our Nation.Narcissists feel entitled to money, power, and honours incommensurate with their accomplishments or toil. The world, or God, or the nation, or society, or their families, co-workers, employers, even neighbours owe them a trouble-free, exalted, and luxurious existence. They are rudely shocked when they are penalized for their misconduct or when their fantasies remain just that.
Read it all HERE.
The comments and links provided are a must read too!
Here is a copy of my comment:
This is an excellent post! It captures what millions of Americans are thinking, feeling, and worrying about regarding Obama the narcissist and his evil cohorts.
Hope you don't mind if I add one thing, however. All of Obama's obvious problems - mental, emotional, social, political, etc. - which have been so eloquently listed in the original post here, as well as within many of the comments and links provided - have one thing in common. They are rooted in the fact that he (and all of the radical leftist progressives who agree, follow, and support him) and they have a severe spiritual problem.
The fact that Islam has its roots in paganism, shows us how well acceptance of its radical ideals fit in with the ideology of Marxism.
While participating in the ongoing discussion at Sarah Palin's FaceBook page I noticed the horror that most commentators have been sharing there. They wonder how any sane American could even consider the ludicrous idea of building a mosque at Ground Zero. I also noticed that several lefties wrote "we all worship the same God." I tried to educate them with a link to my blogpost so that they could read some facts and see how wrong they are. I also included links to an Australian Christian scholar's blog who wrote two excellent blog posts that the "we all worship the same God" myth is absolutely not true - and why it logically can't be true!
[See Bill Muehlenberg's Culture Watch blog and these two posts:
Culture Watch Blog: No, We Do Not Worship the Same God
Culture Watch Blog: What to Make of Allah ]
There is no way one can equate our Judeo-Christian God with the false pagan moon-god they label as "allah." If you are interested in reading these posts, please visit Talk Wisdom: Why Muslims Don't Worship the Same God as Christians. I hope that after reading these essays that you will spread this information far and wide in order to dispel that myth which is being spread by people are are, quite frankly, ignorant about the subject.
The fact is, Obama's narcissism and terrible political ideology is rooted within himself as a spiritual problem. Think of it as a kind of spiritual oblivion. The type of mindset that Obama possesses is totally anathema to the God of the Bible and the Judeo-Christian roots upon which our Founders built our Constitutional Republic. The United States of America, and Her Founding Documents were built upon Judeo-Christian morals, laws, and values. The lack of recognition of these facts and the spiritual deception that Obama and his ilk are under is the main reason why he and his cohorts are wreaking havoc upon this nation.
I want to know - when will we reach the point where enough is enough? We must stand up against this radical takeover of America and oust the perpetrators!
I continue to pray each day that this national nightmare will end soon. What Obama and his evil cohorts are doing to America is OUTRIGHT CRIMINAL and they all belong in jail because they are traitors to this nation!
Hat Tip:
Dr Kates View
*******
Update: A new comment over at DrKatesView led me to a comprehensive post over at Atlas Shrugs: Sharia (Islamic) Law in New Jersey Court: Muslim husband rapes, beats, sexually abuses wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex.
This emphasizes even more why Muslim "laws" don't belong here in America...EVER!!!!
Excerpt:
On a lengthy note bene in the form of a short comparative law analysis: it should be stressed that this is another classic example where Islam/Shariah departs radically from the Judeo Christian tradition. Now, I cannot speak directly to Catholic canon on this subject or Christian Ecclesiastical law (although we do know that English common law, carried to the US, has long had a spousal rape exception—that is, husbands cannot be charged with raping their wives), but at least the Judeo portion of the Judeo Christian tradition is absolutely clear.
According to Jewish law, any form of coerced sexual relations between married couples is absolutely forbidden. (Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 100b: Rami b. Hama citing R. Assi further ruled: “A man is forbidden to compel his wife to the [marital] obligation, since it is said in Scripture: ‘Without consent the soul is not good; and he that hurries with his feet sins’” (Prov. 19:2). (Ba’ailei ha-Nefesh, Sha’ar ha-Kedushah; Code of Jewish Law, Hil. De’ot 5:4; Even ha-Ezer 25:2.)
Thus, even if the wife is not forced outright, as long as she is not amenable to intercourse, sexual relations are prohibited. (From authoritative Ashkenazi ruling on the Code of Jewish Law: Magen Avraham, Orah Hayyim 240, no. 7; from the leading Jewish mystical source, Kabbalah, Zohar, Bereshit 49b, 148b, Va-yikra 225b.) The greatest Jewish legal authority, the Sephardic Maimonides (known by his Hebrew acronym to Jews as the Rambam), rules, “[Her husband] should not coerce her [to have relations] when she does not desire to do so. Rather, [they should engage in intercourse only] when there is mutual desire and pleasure.” (Maimonides’ Code of Jewish Law, the Mishne Torah, Hil. Ishut [Laws of Women] 15:17.) Further, even if the wife is ambivalent about her desire, relations are forbidden. (Masekhet Kallah Rabbati 1:11; Tur, Orah Hayyim 240 and Even ha-Ezer 25.) Keep in mind that Maimonides is from the 11th-12th centuries and even the most recent of these (Code of the Jewish Law) is from the 15th-16th centuries. Old law is not necessarily bad law and “progressive law” is not necessarily good law. Shariah is not bad because it is old. It is bad because it is bad.
[An important digression: I make this latter point about old vs. new law because we often hear the criticism of Shariah that it is bad and primitive because it is “Medieval law” as if that is enough to condemn it. But by implication, the person who makes this criticism, is in effect embracing the “progressivist” or Hegelian teaching that Time/History is the one transcendence that saves us from the nihilism of relativism (all morals are relative except that a new moral is better than an old one), which allows the Leftist/Elites to clamor on about “progress” and the latest version of this, “hope and CHANGE”. And, if you give it a half-second’s worth of thought, you’ll realize why the progressivism of the Elite is tyranny [hint: there are no transcendent boundaries only time as a measure of progress]. It also impacts our constitutional jurisprudence. If old is bad simply, then granting the Supreme Court the authority (to which Marbury v Madison effectively opened the door) to “re-interpret” [read: re-write or amend by judicial fiat] the Constitution to mirror the “progress” and “change” in society must be a good thing. That kind of hollows out the originalist/conservative view of the Constitution, no?]
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment