Your right. All the way until the end when you ask for the evidence before you believe anything someone else has to say. For those that have looked into whom this president O is, they have done their homework, might have references to show you, but to do so would take you over three years of reading just what that person has done for you to see what someone else knows. Pros or cons. They are all out there for anyone that wants to see through who this person really is and most likely you will find yourself reading all of the wrongs he has done more then anything that has benefited the U.S./world public.

The article says: "we distort what he truly is---a human."

Obama is not human, not in the strictest sense, he is a psychopath, which means he is not fully human: he lacks conscience. An understanding that this is accurate and what it means is absolutely essential in understanding his actions and attitudes, his motivations rather than his justifications. Meghan, I challenge you to do some study of psychopaths and see if you don't end up agreeing. Psychopaths are rarely psychotic; they are not insane humans; they are a different kind of humanity.

Thanks for your input. I think you missed the point TheRockster. You are mistaken, Obama is not a psychopath. There is a difference between psychopath and sociopath: Psychopaths are born with temperamental differences such as impulsivity, cortical underarousal, and fearlessness that lead them to risk-seeking behavior and an inability to internalize social norms. On the other hand, sociopaths have relatively normal temperaments; their personality disorder being more an effect of negative sociological factors like parental neglect, delinquent peers, poverty, and extremely low or extremely high intelligence.

I believe you are trying to make the case that Obama is a sociopath, not psychopath. I can agree to that, but while most authoritarian types happen to be sociopaths, they are still humans. When we put these divisive labels on someone we disagree with, it ruins our credibility and also gives them power over us. I think I made it pretty clear through past articles that I vehemently disagree with Obama on just about everything, and I refuse to give the president power over me and am not afraid of him. Saying he's a psychopath is inaccurate and can indicate instability when trying to explain to others why you disagree with him instead of using logic and reason to display how his actions make him unworthy of support.

To James17: I have spent five years researching this man named Obama, and much of my posting on this site reflects that. I know he is causing so much harm to people in other countries, and my point is that we need to focus on the gross injustices committed by him and our military as a way to sway his supposedly anti-war base. All I was saying is we need to focus on facts, not fantasies.

I get the feeling you both grossly misunderstood my article, and reacted to certain parts instead of looking at it in its entirety. I have been a Ron Paul supporter since 2007, so trust me I knew Obama was going to be just as bad as Bush before he was even elected. To accuse me of being uninformed is silly, and emotional reactions to Obama based on sensationalized facades created by Fox News or MSNBC only make you look unstable to those who are not as informed. This is an information war we are in, and the enemies' tactics are emotional appeal and other logical fallacies. In order to affect change in the hearts and minds of the people, we have to work with what we know for sure Obama has done, which does include a whole list of immoral actions like passing the NDAA, more wars and sanctions, drone strikes, etc. Don't let your emotions or other sources control you with fear. He really is just some guy, and you give him power over you when you fear him. No man is your leader unless you let him be. I hope I was able to clarify my position.