Connect with us


Obama and the depravity of human nature



Obama, hypocrite in chief at the National Prayer Breakfast, and orchestrator of a bodyguard of lies

Barack Hussein Obama is not merely incompetent. He set out to destroy America. To beat him, his opponents must make the American people understand that.

What can make Obama a one term president? Active belief in the “depravity of human nature” Hint:  (Obama is evil)

Obama has this advantage over the American voter. Many of them cannot intelligently and morally conceive of the destruction of traditional / patriotic America.  They cannot conceive that Obama is a corrupted person and actually downright evil.

For 8 years the leftist liberal extremist media pummeled the G. W. Bush presidency.  Much of it was cheap propaganda which painted the picture of a devil incarnate.  Along comes Obama with a catchy “hope and change” message. He set the stage and prepared the Democrat dinner. If you criticized Obama, you were a racist pig according to the left’s politically correct standards.  Frankly, many people voted for Obama to show their family members that they weren’t prejudiced and racist.  [A very moronic reason]

Obama’s ascendancy brought about an “over-kill” with voters

Voters could not resist voting for something and someone who sold himself to them as a better future for America, than what the “evil” Bush, Cheney and Halliburton had [supposedly] brought them. Hence, enough voters helped form the majority that swept Obama into office.  Even most Christian Catholic voters voted for him, thinking him a “Christian,” when he has proved otherwise. [1] But what voters ended up receiving, to their frustrations and utter disappointments, was not the “hope and change” he promised.  Obama did not change the corruption in Washington D.C.  Instead, under his “regime” the corruption and overreach exponentially increased. One has no further to look than to note how the national debt has grossly increased under Obama’s watch.

Voters who voted for Obama and expected their “hope and change,” soon realized that BO was changing traditional America — not changing the corruption overreach of bureaucratic elitist government.  Not only have many Independents and Libertarians abandoned him (as polling data shows), but younger first time, (now, “experienced”) voters.  The second time around, they will be voting against the one who had snake charmed them.


Will history repeat itself?

Barack Obama.

Barack H. Obama. Photo: Pete Souza, January 13, 2009

Barack Hussein Obama has a knack for playing the Chameleon-in-Chief.  He would not get away with this, if it were not for his accomplice kiss-up mass liberal extremist media [2] and gullible unpatriotic voter mass.  By playing the game of continued deceit, Obama zeros in on voter’s human nature to believe for the best — or, at least, better. It’s called, that Christian virtue, of “hope.”

If Obama’s re-election campaign can spin his first four years of failure to make it seem that he did all he could to gain a clear footing out of the Republican G.W. Bush swamp, [blame Bush tactic] and that he is now actually changing America for the better — then, he has a chance to convince enough voters, dishonestly, that he deserves a 2nd term.

On the other hand, in order for Republicans, to be successful, they must continually remind the electorate that Obama is a colossal failure for traditional and conservative America.  They need to continually remind the electorate that unemployment is staggering and America is not energy independent, under Obama’s failed and flaccid leadership.  Also, that BO has corrupted the federal government by his sweeping edicts, regulation and appointment of czars. They also need to remind the voters of all of Obama’s failed promises. [3]

If the Republicans can do all this, in the light that Obama kills business, employment, and energy independence — they have a winning formula — providing, they nominate someone competent [unlike McCain] who will go all out in campaigning against Obama. Oh, yes – Republicans need to remind the electorate of Obama bowing before foreign leaders.

Voters need to understand the depravity of human nature, when they make their 2012 voting choice. They need to hold Obama responsible and accountable for the utter mess he has created. But, [alas], voters, often and mistakenly allow the virtue of “hope” to blind them.  That’s how Obama won in the first place.  Voters didn’t want to bother with Obama’s Illinois voting record; his questionable (people) associations and, other multiple negatives. [4] [5] It made little difference to them that Obama supported Infanticide as an Illinois senator. And, it seems to make little difference to the mass of voters that Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirement (for president) of being a “natural born citizen.”  And, I fear that the GOP nominee will soft pedal and campaign like milquetoast, avoiding the Achilles heel of Obama — that being his illegitimate presidency. [6]

Note:   The “depravity of human nature,” was first referenced in Genesis, chapter 3, of the Hebrew Scriptures, commonly known as the first book of the “Bible.”  It’s the “sin nature” of humanity. And, that “sin nature” is on full display in the person and destructive actions of the White House occupier, Barack Hussein Obama.


Related:  Why this blog author without hesitation calls Obama, “evil:”

What did Senator Kennedy have in common with President Obama and the late Abortionist, George Tiller? –

The President of the United States: A Sex Offender? – Why Obama’s support of the abortion industry is the worst molestation of youth –

The Infanticide / Abortion Genocide US “President” Obama –

Please note 2 informational links:

U.S. Constitution Online –

The Complete List of Email Addresses and Fax Numbers for the U.S. Congress and Governors –


See also:

[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378, 1936488299″ /]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Website | + posts

Contented baby boomer; like working on my "The Christian Message" site:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RoseAnn Salanitri

As a Christian I realize that I cannot look into a person’s heart – only God can do that. HOWEVER, we are told that we can know what a person is by looking at their fruits. In other words, it’s not what they say; its what they do that tells us who they are.

Obama’s fruits were abominable from the beginning but America was so intrigued with his charisma – and dare I say it – with his skin color, that they overlooked the facts. He has been called a great orator while G.W. was continually mocked for mispronouncing a words here and there. Here comes another “however” – HOWEVER, all I see is a man that can’t put two words together without stammering or reading from a teleprompter and yet he is called a great communicator. That alone is an indication that people aren’t seeing the man as he truly is; they are seeing what they want to see in him.

So what about his fruits? Well, let me see, I believe he voted to disregard babies that were born alive after botched abortions – as if they were just a pile of trash. What kind of human being that is supposed to care so much about his fellow citizens would vote for that kind of thing? I doubt if even many pro-choice people would think that anything less than barbaric.

Okay, let’s go a bit further, he would bankrupt this country by forcing another absurd tax upon us all in the name of helping our fellow citizens, but what about his aunt who is living in the slums of Massachusetts, or his brother who is living in a hut in Kenya? If he cares so much about others, why hasn’t he (a man of means) taken care of those in his own family?

So, yes, Terry and Pastor Bickel, when you look at his values (and I mean what he does and not what he says), and all the lies he has told, I would agree, this man is evil.


why would i care if Obama is a christian? Our founders would be appalled if they knew we cared so much about petty things. Obama didn’t fool people with skin tone or charisma, people just really didn’t want George Bush version 2.

All politicians are inherently evil. If they were good people they would not be capable of winning primaries or getting enough support to get on the ballet in all 50 states.

I don’t like Obama, but you guys are fools and melodramatic. Obama gains nothing by destroying America, to think he wants to is as crazy as thinking GWB planned 9-11

We need to end the two party system. We need to have a government willing to change it’s policies and (dare I say it) constitution to fit the current needs and wants of the people.

Grow up guys.

Terry A. Hurlbut

If the Constitution is that changeable, it fails to protect people’s liberties.


Hitler was evil. Stalin and Pol Pot were evil. Bin Laden was evil.

Obama is many things to many people, but you forfeit the ability to persuade when you characterize the man as evil.

I felt really uncomfortable about George Bush when he was elected, and the list of things he and his administration did to confirm those fears is long and well-documented. He also mocked the Constitution with warrantless wiretaps, extraordinary rendition, and the use of signing statements to sidestep laws even as he enacted them. The man wasn’t evil, though.

Hate Obama all you want, but this kind of inflammatory rhetoric makes it hard to have a reasoned discussion about the policy differences that Obama has compared to Romney, who’ll be his opponent barring some misfortune or black swan event.

Here’s the key – we’ll have to choose between the two, and quite honestly, all you’re doing is saying “No way to Obama!” without addressing what the alternative would be.

The people who didn’t want Obama in 2008 only had McCain as an option, who in your own opinion was incompetent. Do you really think the nation would have been better under his leadership? Here’s a clue – he had such a poor grasp of what was happening with the economy that his own actions & statements during the early part of the crisis tanked his polling, even among fiscally-aware conservatives.

Romney is running a campaign that follows three rules:

1) Ignore what he’s said and done in the past, as if his flip-flopping record and pandering to different bases doesn’t matter.

–Romneycare. It’s only different in scale, not approach or philosophy.
–“I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country”
–Lets his Massachusetts Governor’s Office staff buy their state computers at the end of his term, which all the senior staff conveniently do and then immediately destroy the hard drives.

2) Promise whatever people want to hear from him now. He’s a pandering weathervane with no core.

3) Don’t tell anyone what you’d actually do if you were in charge, because that becomes a position you’d have to justify to the voters now and deliver on later.

— He’d repeal Obamacare, but replace it with things that are already in Obamacare minus the means to fund it.
— His economic plan would worsen the deficit, but he says that’s not true when you include the spending cuts he’d make – except that he’s not willing to tell you what those cuts would be until after he’s elected. Smoke and mirrors have more substance.
— He won’t say what he’d do about immigration, because at least one major group of voters will be offended no matter what.

You’re also dancing around the fact that most of the Republican leaders in the Senate and House who worked with Bush to tank the economy are still there, and you don’t seem to mind if they get re-elected. Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and others were all architects of the mess we’re in when the GOP ran the House, Senate and White House from 2001-06. Why are you only focused on fixing one leg of the triangle and leaving the other culprits in power?

So in case I didn’t make the point clearly enough, feel free to campaign against Obama all you want, but you had also better start addressing what you’d be getting if he loses to Romney. Your feeling of righteous victory won’t last long, and you’ll be spending the next four years listening to “I told you so”.

Terry A. Hurlbut

And for whom will you campaign?

Warning: I cannot accept you as a libertarian if you answer, “Obama.”


And for whom will you campaign?

Warning: I cannot accept you as a libertarian if you answer, “Obama.”

At the present moment, with the choice between Romney and Obama, my vote is for Obama. My mind remains open until the moment I pull the lever in the voting booth, but it would take some serious convincing to change my mind given what I’ve seen of both men to date.

When I look at the facts concerning the economy, spending, managing the deficit, addressing the economy, foreign policy, and the fight against terrorism, I see someone who could have done better, but given the circumstances upon entering office and an opposition party in Congress dedicating itself to thwarting any positive accomplishment on his watch, he’s done pretty well.

More importantly, I’m not bound to vote only Democratic, and would have no problem voting for a GOP candidate I considered better. That’s a key difference between us – you’re all about “anyone but Obama”, and I’m about “which one is better”. Voting based on “anyone but ‘X'” ignores that “Mr. Anyone” could actually be worse.

This cycle produced a truly horrible selection of GOP candidates to choose from, and Romney won by attrition, not merit. I see in him a man with great latent talent & ambition but no real core, who’s willing to say whatever it takes to get elected rather than having the principled stand of saying “I believe in ‘X'”, and convincing others why he’s right. Men don’t lead, but instead are so beholden to the people he pandered to in order to win that the presidency will be an exercise in paying back political markers, and not in any real leadership.

Many of the GOP players in Congress who helped Bush run the nation into the ground have clung to their seats for the past 4 years, and with a GOP president to rubber stamp their agenda the travesty will only continue. All the “new” policies they offer sound like the old policies, or even a doubling-down on them in some cases, and I’ll do what I can to prevent that from happening.

It’s a shame – I really wanted to be faced with a good choice on a new direction, but going backwards with an out-of-touch , shameless panderer who won’t take a stand on any current issue in the news? Who won’t put out detailed policy plans? Who hides in a protective bubble of handlers in the middle of his campaign? Not even a contest.

And frankly, Terry, I couldn’t care less what you “accept me as”. As I’ve stated recently, labels like “conservative”, “liberal”, and “libertarian” are pretty useless to begin with because they’re based on subjective values. Because of that, I learned long ago that it’s a waste of time trying to convince any other person what label I should be described by, and I don’t use them to describe myself as a matter of habit.

When I used “libertarian” to describe myself the other day, it was only in the most general of contexts, and my point was that while I actually hold some views in common with the CNaV editors, you tend to focus on the differences instead.

If you need a clear example of why these types of labels are pointless, say I mention a friend of mine named Pat, and that this is someone who considers themself a Christian. What does that actually tell you about Pat? Do you focus on the things that Christians generally hold in common, or reserve forming an opinion until you know more about Pat’s faith and actual beliefs.

Pat could be a Catholic, and Evangelical, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, an Episcopal, and to some, even a Mormon. Pat could be a member of an Episcopal church that opposes gay clergy, or one that embraces it. “Pat” could be a female minister in some Christian sects, even as others like Catholicism forbid that.

Ronald Reagan wouldn’t even be considered a conservative by today’s standards, even as GOP candidates today battle to claim the mantle of being a “true Reagan Conservative”. What a joke.

So forget I ever said anything about leaning libertarian, go back to thinking of me as a liberal or whatever you want in you mental image of me, and I’ll just keep on being “DinsdaleP” – the only label that matters here.

Terry A. Hurlbut

Here’s the problem: Obama was more than just a well-meaning but less-than-competent and inexperienced executive. He is a Cloward-Piven-style mole. No one can allege anything in mitigation of the deliberate, vindictive policies of this administration.

I would give you more credit for being a libertarian, had you said you would vote and campaign for Ron Paul.


I haven’t been drinking anyone’s Kool-Aid, Pastor. I’ve also never claimed that Obama is without flaws, and certainly not “portrayed in a grandmother’s homemade apple pie fashion”. As I’ve said to Terry, it’s a poor form of debate to put words in my mouth and then attack those words. I’ll respond to any critique of what I actually said, though.

The right to safe and legal abortion, repugnant as that may be to many people, has been maintained under every administration since Roe v Wade in 1972. None of those people were labeled as evil for condoning “infanticide” on their watch.

That includes not only both Bushes, but conservative icon Ronald Reagan, who as California Governor signed the Theraputic Abortion bill into law. He could have vetoed it and dealt with an override, but instead chose to sign the law if he could have a hand in defining the conditions under which abortions would be acceptable, including the mental well-being of the woman requesting one. Not a principle that would pass today’s conservative litmus tests, and as a result legal abortions in California went from 518 in 1967 to over 100,000 per year at the end of his term as governor.

As governor, Reagan was a direct agent in annual legal abortions in his state growing by 19,305% – that’s over nineteen thousand percent – but he’s not held up as someone enabling infanticide, as someone evil. Just Obama.

That’s why you forfeit the ability to persuade.

Terry A. Hurlbut

Ronald Reagan repented of his association with abortion. That’s the difference.


Repentance only counts if you do something about it.

Reagan didn’t change the law in California as soon as he saw it had results he didn’t expect, and as President he talked, but didn’t effect change.

The same goes for the GOP leadership in Congress that only cared about deficits and spending when a Democrat was in the presidency. There’s no sincere set of values driving this, only political posturing.

Terry A. Hurlbut

I don’t have a brief for Republicans qua Republicans. But right now, it is enough that Democrats have incurred higher deficits than have Republicans. With one single exception, and that exception did it because he, unlike the present occupant of the White House, “got the memo” from a recent mid-term election.



Reagan exploded the deficit; Bush Sr followed in his footsteps. Clinton cut it. W really, really exploded it. Obama is dealing with those consequences.

link to

And before you mention Roosevelt, even you have got to admit that spike was caused by WWII.

FACT: this mess is the fault of three GOP presidents.

Terry A. Hurlbut

I will admit no such thing. Eight years before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt put in one budget-busting program after another. Indeed he called for programs to inflate the currency deliberately.


I noticed that the point about Reagan has been deftly sidestepped. Abortions in the USA haven’t gone up by over 19,000% since Obama took office as president, but that’s what they did under Reagan when he was Governor.

Despite claiming to have regretted his action, he never did anything to actually reverse that growth either as governor of California or President of the U.S.

You’ve also not disputed the actual statistics for deficit growth under Reagan provided by rpeh.

So Terry and Pastor Bickel, on the abortion (or “infanticide” as you like to regard it) issue alone, why is Obama regarded as evil but Reagan is not?

Terry A. Hurlbut

You notice that Reagan, sometime between his governorship and his Presidency, changed his mind radically about that. Anyone can change his mind. The hard part is admitting that one was wrong the first time.


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x