Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Obama’s Authenticity Shines Through Bombastic Inquisition

Obama’s Authenticity Shines Through Bombastic Inquisition

Please Share...Twitter0Facebook0Google+0LinkedIn0Pinterest0tumblrStumbleUpon0Reddit0Email

President Barack Obama has been called many things by many people who don’t know him and many who have never met him. He has also been accused of many things by seemingly crazy people. He has been called a socialist by some conservative politicians. He is viewed as a foreigner by people known as birthers. A large number of Americans say that they think that he is a Muslim—even a secret Muslim. Obama has been portrayed at the same time in protest crowds as Hitler and Stalin. He has been accused of wanting to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor (read “black”). His health care plan has been described as a kind of reparations to black people for slavery. One well-known man even accused the president of having a deep-seated hatred for white people, though he has since retracted that statement. A cute delusionary woman fear-hustler portrays herself as being on the presidential level in knowledge and gravitas, only to hustle speaking fees from low-information voters. Low-information white people hate Obama, they say, because he is destroying America.

Barack Obama has consented to be interviewed by conservative commentators who are largely responsible for these negative views of him that have taken hold. He does this knowing how shabbily they will treat him and his office. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, interviewed the president on Sunday, February 7, 2011. During the interview, O’Reilly sat on the edge of his chair like an eager, over-sugar-fed child with attention deficit disorder. He pummeled the president with disrespect and interruptions. At one point O’Reilly’s behavior remind me of the “smart-ass white boys” ambassador Andrew Young described in the administration of Jimmy Carter, who shut him out from Carter. Finally O’Reilly became so obnoxious he resembled a drunken St. Patrick’s Day reveler stumbling out of a mid-Manhattan Blarney Stone Pub looking for a fight.

He asked the president how it felt to be hated by so many, a feeling O’Reilly has gotten to know very well himself. The president’s answer was sober. He said that people who hate him don’t know him. What they really hate are those distorted characterizations of him floating around out there, the same characterizations which O’Reilly helps to construct and perpetuate. Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC said that O’Reilly interrupted the president 43 times during the interview—he counted them on air. It antagonized many Americans to see the president of the United States handled in this manner by a person whose journalism methods are deceptive and meaningless.

Professor Harry G. Frankfurt, formerly of Princeton University, opens his thesis on deceptive drivel with these words: “One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit,” and he titled the book that resulted from the thesis On Bullshit.

I have come to the conclusion that Barack Obama sees through the bullshit. He is connected to the Universal Laws of self-actualization and this is why he is able to take all of this in good stride and stay way above the bullshit. I believe that Obama knows what I know (hang in there, this is slippery), and what is known by many of the world’s scientists and spiritual thinkers. That is, that everything in the cosmos is made of molecules. Science has been able to break down the composition of molecules to atoms and atoms to subatomic particles. From there, they have deduced that at the core of these subatomic particles is energy. Everything in the cosmos is energy: that tree, George Bush (both of them), a bone, a flower, humans and our thoughts, everything is comprised of energy, everything in the cosmos is comprised of energy. We are all made from the same subatomic particles. We are all the same thing connected like an infinite haze. This connection being absolutely total, the instant energy sends out a message from somewhere, it is received throughout the cosmos, processed through the Universal Laws, and manifested back at the point of origin all in an instant. O’Reilly’s insincere questioning is instantly registered and manifested in his karma; similarly all the other bullshit from bullshit people comes right back at them instantly. You’re an unhappy miserable human being because that’s the message you send to the cosmos; you are the energy that goes into what you think of yourself. You’re a confused middle-class infidel for the same reason. Why, there are even unhappy rich obstructionists not yet reconciled with the Universal Laws. People live the miserable lives they have because they are living in a dream state and unawakened to the Universal Laws that govern everything in the cosmos. To be happy and productive, you have to be consciously in sync with the Universal Laws—what’s known as the awakened state. President Obama is clearly in an awakened state of being.

About Horace Mungin

  • Horace Mungin

    Alan, I appreciate your sentiment – thank you. I don’t feel discriminated against until I read “some” of the comments on my articles, I’m 69 years old so I’m kind of used to dealing with these kind of people. I do wonder will it ever end?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    Horace, I do believe it will end. Maybe not in your lifetime or mine (I’m 65). But someday. Meanwhile, for however long we have left, we owe it to both our generation and to those that follow to call out such attitudes wherever we can and stomp them into dust.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    Horace, please see comments 1 through 3 on the linked thread. The assistant politics editor asserts that your finished article did not “just sit there” awaiting publication for a week. If that is true, I retract my comments 49 and 50 above.

  • Horace Mungin

    The article in question was first submitted 2/11 in the Culture Category. After it was not published in two days I emailed asking that it either be published or rejected – no response. I moved the article to the Political category without any response there, so I sent another email. I had given up, but while I was at the “Y” on the 18th. I received notice on my phone that the article had been published. I then braced myself for what was to come. Hey, guys, this isn’t that important that I should lie. Andy, I am not, have never been and will never be anyone’s victim – things are what they are. I am a man who takes care of himself even under very trying circumstances, something of which I am very proud.

  • Clavos

    I moved the article to the Political category without any response there, so I sent another email.

    Horace, there is a log of all actions taken on each article. That log indicates that your article was placed in Draft at Politics on February 14th. You received no response from us because its status was Draft. It then sat there, still in Draft, until February 17th, at which time you changed its status and it was immediately worked on by another editor that day and published on the 18th.

    Horace, if you leave an article in Draft, it will not get published (and we will not communicate with you) because being in Draft indicates to the editors that the article is not yet ready for publication, so be sure to put your submissions in Pending as soon as you’re ready for them to be edited and published.

    In any case, no one is accusing you of lying; I’m sorry if you got that impression.

  • Horace Mungin

    Think you Clavos, now I see how the mix up played out. Clavos, I’m thinking of writing a review of Prof. Frankfurt’s book mentioned in my article. Alan, does 49 and 50 remain retracted?

  • Horace Mungin

    Thank you