I watched a recent clip of Barack Obama defending Democrats and their agenda, and as I began to consider all the things he said and did during his terms and how it seems evident now that he was neck-deep in the Russiagate hoax, and continued pulling the strings through a shadow government until it all crashed after President Doughbrains wrapped the entire Democrat clown car around a telephone pole in June 2024, it reminded me of why I really, really dislike the guy.
It has nothing to do with race, or even the fact he is a racialist and a stealth communist; it has to do with the one characteristic that I truly hate in people.
Let me give you an example before I define and describe that characteristic and what backs it up.
I was on the road a fair amount from 2014 to early 2020, so I never had time or the inclination to watch much regular TV. But I remember watching a few episodes of a 2018 TV series called “You” on Netflix (I looked, and it is still streaming there) when I was working up in Vancouver. “You” was a psychological thriller series based on the books by Caroline Kepnes (I know nothing about her other than that this series is based on her books).
The first season, based on the first novel in the series, You, follows Joe Goldberg, a bookstore manager and serial killer who develops an extreme obsession with Guinevere Beck, a woman he meets at his bookstore.
Goldberg proceeds to stalk Beck, invades her privacy, and murders people he regards as obstacles to their relationship. When Beck discovers what he has done, Joe attempts to persuade her that his crimes were acts of love, committed for her benefit. His inability to distinguish devotion from possession is central to the building suspense and horror.
What makes the device so interesting is its moral inversion: the perpetrator presents himself as the benefactor and the victim as an ingrate. The person harmed is now expected to feel gratitude for the harm inflicted.
There is a particularly useful psychological concept behind it: moral disengagement, often involving moral justification and displacement of responsibility. The perpetrator transforms a selfish or destructive act into a supposed moral obligation, then implicitly transfers responsibility to the person who never requested it.
That makes it a powerful device not only in crime fiction, but also as a metaphor for paternalism, coercion, and political movements that insist that their victims should appreciate what has been done to them.
Pretty much every “Criminal Minds” episode was based on some form of this plot device.
I recognize a lot of the Joe Goldberg character in Obama. The same moral inversion and disengagement is alive and well in him — and in the political party he still leads (and let’s be honest, he is still pulling the strings because nobody has the courage to challenge him). More than likely, Obama is still behind much of the policy development for the Democrats.
Some of you might be “Breaking Bad” fans; the series never clicked with me. But I did watch a few episodes so I would know what people were talking about, and I did see the final episode.
What struck me was that throughout the series, Walter White justifies his descent into manipulation, criminality, and murder by insisting that everything he has done was for his family. His supposed selflessness becomes his moral permission slip for increasingly monstrous behavior.
In the series finale, however, he finally confesses the truth:
“I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it. And I was really... I was alive.”
You will never hear that admission from Obama because that kind of “Perry Mason” admission of guilt in front of the jury doesn’t really happen, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aware the guilt exists.
Where we find ourselves today is, in my opinion, a direct result of a bunch of left-wing sycophants who thought it would be cool to have a mixed-race president, simply as a way to “own the cons.” Other than that, the man they elected in 2008 had no qualifying credentials, experiences, or character to be in the Oval Office.
A quick review of how he won his first election shows it was not through his excellence and brilliance. Somehow his benefactors engineered the release of the divorce and child-custody records of actress Jeri Ryan and her former husband, Republican Senate candidate Jack Ryan, just in time to force Ryan to drop out, paving the way for Obama’s two years in the U.S. Senate before running for president.
The scandal wasn’t really necessary because Ryan was behind in the polls, and it was likely that Obama was going to win easily. But this disclosure wasn’t about this race; it was about sending the message that the Obama team had the power to destroy his opposition by any means necessary, a theme carried forward through his administration and to today.
The damage has been done and like the television and book villains, I’m sure what Obama is trying to say is that he doesn’t understand why we don’t appreciate him more because he did it all for us.
