Category Archives: Election

Trends

Posted on by

The world came close to nuclear war fifty years ago this week. That crisis was known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I was in high school at the time in Southern Illinois and I  remember those times well.

I was reminded of this with the arrival of today’s Morning Bell from the Heritage Foundation that spoke of the anniversary of that crisis. That e-mail caused me to remember the runup to that crisis—of reports of Russian bombers and then IRBM missiles being based in Cuba. Those reports were followed by the release of reconnaissance photos by our Ambassador to the UN, Adlai Stevenson.

As the crisis grews, we examined the missile coverage mapped in our local daily paper. I remember noticing St. Louis, 90 miles to our northwest was within range of those missiles. Our local Red Cross distributed plans for building fallout shelters and a number of our neighbors built them.

We also practiced “duck and cover” in school…handy during tornado season but that practice suddenly acquired new meaning. I remember standing in our yard one clear, cool afternoon and watched four B-52s circling far overhead. during lunch-time at school we brought our maps to see where there were likely targets in our area.

To say that everyone was tense was an understatement.

If it weren’t for the events last week, those memories would be just that—a remembrance of a long past event. But, now, we see just how important it is to have competent people as our national leaders. Joe Biden’s maniacal antics last week brought that home.

This idiot—Joe Biden—is next in line to lead us in a crisis!?!?

For all the multitude of reasons to remove Obama, Biden and the democrats from power, the revelation of Joe Biden’s instability is sufficient reason why the nation must wrest power away from the democrats.  We fear that it’s likely in a crisis Obama will do nothing. On the other hand, if Joe Biden rose to the Presidency, he, in a crisis, would do anything!

The revelation of Joe Biden has helped change the trend of this election. That trend shifted after the first Presidential Debate. Biden’s arrogance, disrespect and strange behavior during the VP Debate increased that trend. We all hope and pray that tomorrow’s 2nd Presidential Debate will accelerate the trend towards a ‘Pub win three weeks from tomorrow.

With the increased tensions in the Middle-East, with a resurgent, militaristic Russia, with continued Chinese resource imperialism in the South China Sea, the last thing we need is continuing incompetence in the White House.

Facebook

Friday Follies for July 13, 2012

Posted on by

I didn’t realize until this moment that today is Friday the 13th!  Heh!  I don’t care. I’m not superstitious. 

***

Last night was the local ‘Pub monthly meeting.  It was held in the new county HQ. There were few chairs—standing room only. To say “crowded” was an understatement. Our meetings are usually more for meetin’ ‘n greetin’, the politician’s favorite past-time. This one was no exception. I’m not much of a talker. My leg had been hurting all day so we slipped out after grabbing a yard sign for a friend who’s running for office.

One thing struck me.  The “usuals”, those who come to almost every meeting, were there.  There too were some who rarely attend. The reason they were attending is that the Missouri primary is less than a month away and a number of the office holders have primary opponents. I saw several office holders present that I haven’t seen since the county ‘Pub Christmas dinner. Funny how the hot breath of unemployment, in this case losing office, makes a politician more visible to the public.

Many of these folks have become good friends. I’ve supported many with cash, passed out flyers, stood outside polls to help persuade those who arrive still undecided on a candidate. I do my bit, small though it be, to support those who have the same ideals as my wife and I.  But I will describe these events as I see them and will undoubtedly ruffle a feather or two.

I’m not criticizing. It’s human nature. The closer we come to an election, the greater the need to meet with other candidates, make or reaffirm alliances, and for some, to do a little plotting.  I have named myself an Observer of these events. I’m not interesting in running for public office, with one minor exception. But frequently, these meetings make great theater.

***

Some news on the national front. Romney has finally gotten some backbone.  He has publicly called Obama a liar.  It’s about time! As others have said, Romney should treat Obama with the same tactics he treated Santorum, Gingrich and others.  Those were Romney’s fellow Republicans. He must not be less lenient to Obama.

Whether this tactic is working won’t be known from some time yet but there is some early indications that Obama is in deep, deep trouble. His tactics aren’t working.

Polls Prove Romney Outsmarted the Media … Again

For weeks, all we’ve heard in reference to the media/Obama-led attacks against Romney’s so-called outsourcing and offshore accounts is the following: “Romney needs to respond… Romney doesn’t have a response… It’s time for Romney to respond.” Across the media spectrum, we’ve heard this from Obama’s Media Palace Guards on Twitter, in op-eds disguised as straight news, and from television’s talking heads. The media has quite purposefully turned this call for Romney to respond into an incessant drumbeat. But…

It’s a trap.

You see, the outsourcing charge is a bald-faced lie and the offshore-account charge is nothing more than a smear. It was the Washington Post that started the outsourcing lie and it was an Occupy-supporter in Vanity Fair who started the offshore-account smear.

A lie is a lie is a lie.

And a lie can’t gain much traction because, other than the false charge, there’s nothing else for the corrupt media to talk about. But one way to extend a false narrative is to pressure the victim of the lie to respond. A response automatically gives the narrative another few days of life, but as a result only does more damage to the victim. Therefore… a trap.

By not responding, the Romney campaign played a nerve-wracking (for his supporters) game of chicken but ultimately made the wise decision not to feed this narrative fire — to not be the ones who gave the lies artificial life through the pointless act of trying to prove a negative.

And today, polls show Romney made the exact right decision:

Two things have become clear in the presidential race over the past month. One, it’s evident that President Obama’s campaign team believes, with good justification, that attacking Romney’s record at Bain Capital to portray him as a wealthy, out-of-touch millionaire is their most effective line of attack. Second, it’s becoming clear that the attacks are doing more to buy the Obama campaign time than seriously change the trajectory of the race.

For all the attention paid to the effectiveness of President Obama’s Bain-themed attacks, it’s remarkable how Obama has been stuck right around 47 percent for a very long time.  As the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza documented, the president’s team has handily outspent Romney and his allied super PACs, pouring in $91 million into eight swing states in an early spending barrage intended to make Romney seem an unacceptable challenger.  But for all that effort, the numbers haven’t moved much at all: The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll out today shows the race deadlocked at 47 percent. Yesterday’s USA Today/Gallup swing state poll showed Obama statistically tied with Romney, the exact same result the survey showed one month ago.

Meanwhile, in the coming months, Romney should have a spending advantage, having significantly outraised Obama over the last two months.  Along with the RNC, the campaign has $160 million cash-on-hand, a total that will likely be greater than the Obama team’s money. (The Obama campaign tellingly didn’t release their cash-on-hand figures.)  That will allow Romney to match or surpass Obama on the airwaves, having survived a period when he was outgunned.

One of the pieces of bait the media used to try and get Romney to respond was to bring up the damage the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did to John Kerry in ’04. The myth is that Kerry ignored the criticism of his war record for too long and that this cost him the election.  

But that is a myth. The difference between the Swift Boat Vets questioning Kerry’s biography about his time in Vietnam and the media/Obama led outsource/offshore attacks is that the Vets were telling the truth and Obama and the media are lying. There’s absolutely no upside for Romney to breathe life into a false narrative from a defensive crouch. None.

According to that new Washington Post poll, both men are tied at 47/47.   But had a gullible Romney blinked and been fooled into letting himself get wrapped ’round the axle of these false charges, not only would the media have blown both stories up into something much bigger and longer-lasting (which is why they were begging Romney to respond), but today’s poll numbers would likely look entirely different. Obama and the media had set up a no-win situation.

But what they didn’t count on was Romney refusing to play.

If you look at the state of the race today, we have 119 days to the election, Romney and the Republicans raised $106 million last month, $35 million more than Obama and the Democrats.

Obama has already spent a ton of money and begun to punch himself out with his best attacks.

Romney, however, hasn’t even gotten started and has 16 weeks to expose before the voting public this president’s failed record. And to do so only after people are paying attention.

The media is brilliant at creating a false reality that has nothing to do with what’s happening out there in the world. If you watch CNN and MSNBC, you would think the roof was caving in on Romney over outsourcing and his personal wealth, but that’s what the media wants us to believe in order to control the narrative and to get Romney to dance to their tune. 

Thank heaven, Romney isn’t falling for it.

Right now it’s Obama who’s acting erratic and panicked and like a loser, not Romney.

I like our chances and I love the discipline I’m seeing from Team Romney.

***

This will be a bit short.  It caught my eye. Due to my experiences with Sprint before I retired, I have had some exposure to this issue.

The core issue is buying Chinese chips and telecom equipment. The intelligence community is concerned those items may contain Trojans that could provide the Chinese a gateway into our innermost secure voice and data networks.

Sprint, like most of the telecom providers, have governmental contracts to create private and secure voice and data networks for various federal agencies, like the FBI and IRS, as well as for the Department of Defense.  By contractual requirement, the hardware, the equipment used to created these private networks must be domestic.  In cases of a unique requirement, a waiver can be granted if there is sufficient justification. That is rare, however. There really isn’t a requirement that can’t be fulfilled with a domestic product.

The question arises with those domestic vendors.  Does their equipment contain Chinese components?  In many cases, since the US chip production has mostly fled overseas, the only source for some specialized components is…Chinese.

Now it appears that the fears of our Intelligence Agencies that those Chinese components do contain Trojans, gateways to external communications monitors, have been verified.

 

FBI Targets Chinese Firm Over Iran Deal

Feds: Telecom giant ZTE illegally shipped U.S.-made components

JULY 12–The FBI has opened a criminal investigation targeting a leading Chinese telecommunications firm that allegedly conspired to illegally ship hardware and software purchased from U.S. tech firms to Iran’s government-controlled telecom company, a violation of several federal laws and a trade embargo imposed on the outlaw Islamic nation, The Smoking Gun has learned.

The federal probe, launched earlier this year, has also uncovered evidence that officials with the Chinese company, ZTE Corporation (ZTE), are “engaged in an ongoing attempt to corruptly obstruct and impede” a Department of Commerce inquiry into the tainted $130 million Iranian transaction, according to a confidential FBI affidavit.

Officials with ZTE allegedly began plotting to cover up details of the Iranian deal after Reuters reported on the transaction in late-March. The news agency revealed that the telecom equipment sold to Iran was a “powerful surveillance system capable of monitoring landline, mobile, and Internet communications.” Included in the material sent to Iran were products manufactured by U.S. firms like Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco Systems, Dell, and Symantec.

Concerned that they could no longer “hide anything” in the wake of the Reuters report, ZTE lawyers discussed shredding documents, altering records, and lying to U.S. government officials, according to an insider’s account provided to FBI agents by a Texas lawyer who last year began serving as general counsel of ZTE’s wholly owned U.S. subsidiary. ZTE, the world’s fourth largest telecom equipment manufacturer, is publicly traded, though its controlling shareholder is a Chinese state-owned enterprise.

The FBI probe is being run out of the bureau’s Dallas office by agents assigned to a counterintelligence and counterespionage squad. Like the Department of Commerce investigation (and a related congressional inquiry being conducted by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence), the FBI opened its case following the March 22 Reuters story by reporter Steve Stecklow.

…

During a May 2 interview with two FBI agents, Yablon provided a startling account of his interaction with ZTE representatives who were once eager to devise strategies that would allow them to sell phones containing U.S. made components to “banned” countries. But following the Reuters story, Yablon recalled, the Chinese officials sought to obscure details of the illegal backdoor Iranian deal and, in the process, stymie U.S. government investigators circling the multinational company.

The FBI affidavit reveals that ZTE recently informed the Department of Commerce that it would not comply with an administrative subpoena served on the company seeking records of the nine-figure Iran transaction. Yablon told the FBI that he learned that ZTE officials “had contacted the PRC [People’s Republic of China] government, which was prepared to advise [the company] that if it complied with the DoC administrative subpoena, it would be violating PRC law.”

Days after the Reuters story was published, Yablon recalled, he spoke with ZTE lawyer Xue Xing Ma (also known as “Marsha”), who said the company was concerned about how the news outlet obtained a copy of the 907-page packing list for the system shipped to Telecommunication Company of Iran (TCI).  “Marsha told Yablon the corporation was concerned because it could no longer ‘hide anything,’” reported Agent Carwile.

The story gets more weird as it progresses. Evidence now in FBI hands appear to prove the Chinese have sold, illegally, US technology to countries under export and technology embargoes.  It also presents information that the systems were designed to provide monitoring gateways to allow those governments to spy on their citizens.

This issue will not be resolved soon.  Government regulations that has driven our production overseas, or has driven our production out of business must be abolished. We’ve become our own worse enemy under a government who appears to be a willing accomplice to our foreign and domestic enemies.

Missouri Political Status: Good or Bad?

Posted on by

Missouri has been a bellwether state for over a hundred years, . That label has drawn attention to the state from across the nation.  This year it’s different.

In past elections, Missouri’s status has brought millions of dollars into the state, buying TV, Radio and Ads across the state. This election year the funding is going to other states like Ohio, Virginia and those called, “Purple” states.

In past election cycles, Missouri was a purple state too.  But the excesses of liberal policies at the state and federal level have had consequences. Missouri is now a solid Red state. We have not a hint of Blueness left. A column in USA Today expands on that shift.

Missouri slips from political bellwether status this fall

By Deirdre Shesgreen, Gannett Washington Bureau

Missouri has been a bellwether state for more than 100 years, with presidential candidates lavishing attention on Show-Me State voters and spending millions on field operations, glossy campaign mailers, and TV ads. But this election? Not so much.

This year, Missouri isn’t on the list of top swing states — those vote-rich battlegrounds that political experts and campaign strategists say will determine who wins the White House on Nov. 6. Most political handicappers instead have Missouri in the “leans Republican” column.

So even though Barack Obama lost Missouri by fewer than 4,000 votes in 2008, the president’s re-election campaign isn’t expected to make a major investment in Missouri this time around. And Mitt Romney probably won’t be tromping through the state for a bevy of big rallies or small meet-and-greets, either.

“We used to look to Missouri,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “We don’t anymore.”

There’s no question that other states, such as Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado, have bumped Missouri aside as an electoral battleground, because of demographic changes and political shifts within their borders. Virginia, for example, has seen a spike in affluent and politically moderate residents, particularly in the suburbs at its northern tip, outside Washington. And Colorado and Nevada have seen increases in their Hispanic populations, giving those Western states a purple hue.

An assumption in this column is that the influx of Hispanics will shift the demographics to the democrats.  In other words, the assumption is that voting Hispanics will be supporting more government handouts. More gimmes. The fact those handouts are paid by others is lost to them. That assumption says Nevada and Colorado are more likely to shift to the democrat camp.

I think that is a poor assumption.

More and more, Hispanic leaders are repudiating the left’s liberal policies and agenda.  They, like any other taxpayer, realize the hazards of the left’s unlimited and unsupported spending. It is foolish to think all Hispanics, like all Blacks, will vote, in lockstep, for democrats.  Some will. But all?  I don’t think so.

“Missouri is not on the presidential TV radar screen right now,” said Elizabeth Wilner, who conducted the analysis and is vice president at CMAG.

Wilner said to the extent some Missourians in the northern part of the state are seeing presidential ads, it’s “spillover” meant to influence voters in Iowa. That stands in sharp contrast to previous presidential contests, when Missouri airwaves were swamped with presidential TV spots early in the election season.

Wilner said the “issues menu” in this election, such as ballooning deficits and opposition to Obama’s health care law, make Missouri a tough state for Democrats.

Others echoed that assessment, saying Missouri hasn’t undergone any major demographic changes, but has seen a few subtle political shifts. — USA Today.

Subtle changes.  Yes, like a solid ‘Pub majority in both state houses. Roy Blount’s 13 point victory in his 2010 election for the US Senate.

The democrats poo-poo that shift. They refuse to acknowledge that Claire McCaskill’s three ‘Pub opponents all poll higher than she. If I remember correctly, Sarah Steelman polled 12 points higher than McCaskill a few weeks ago.

No, it should not be a surprise than Missouri is no longer a bellwether state.  The state must have the possibility of falling into either camp, to be borderline for either party. No more for Missouri. We’re solidly Red, now.

Missouri’s goal, now, is to shed the last tentacles of the left from our state and local governments. Come the Fall, I believe we will make solid progress towards that goal…if we don’t achieve it completely.

Facebook

None of the Above

Posted on by

Libertarian writer L. Neil Smith wrote a series of science fiction novels about a world based on pure Libertarian principles. In one such book a review of their history was being discussed and the high-light of that history was when “None of the Above” won the election for President. That election was pivotal in the weathering away of the central government—a confederation in that story based on the Articles of Confederation.

In many ways the upcoming election in November has elements of Smith’s theme—None of the Above.  Obama continues to lose ground.  In West Virginia, a felon, still imprisoned in Texas, acquired 40% of the votes in the West Virginia primary.  A democrat US Senator refused to answer when asked whom he had cast his vote.

  Obama’s flip-flop on homosexual marriage didn’t gain him any support either.  One, he didn’t commit to do anything in support of the issue and second, it was clearly a statement to alleviate pressure from the LGBT niche supporters.  Most of those supporters recognized the ploy for what is was—nothing, and in fact the ploy lost Obama more of the LGBT faction. For democrats, None of the Above is becoming more and more attractive.

On the other side, the ‘Pubs, Romney’s rise to be the leading contender (Ron Paul hasn’t thrown in the towel yet,) still hasn’t gained him more support from the Santorum and Gingrich conservatives. For those conservatives, the only thing they like about Romney is that he isn’t Ron Paul.

Romney’s main support appears to come from the ‘Pub establishment.  They view Romney as being “controllable.” They seem to believe Romney will be a rubber stamp for whatever they put before him.

The ‘Pub establishment has invested a huge amount of time, money and resources to insure Romney wins the candidacy in August.  And…along the way created great discord in the party due to Romney’s negative campaign tactics against all the other ‘Pub candidates. As each candidate rose to be a contender…Bachman, Perry, Cain, Gingrich and finally Santorum, the Romney campaign did their best to smear that opponent. When it came time for unity, for those who dropped out to endorse Romney, there wasn’t much unity floating around. Some of those drop-outs, to the best of my knowledge, haven’t yet endorsed Romney. 

Instead of the usual, and expected, presser and photo-op, Santorum dispatched an e-mail.  In the middle of the night. A luke-warm endorsement at that. 

Gingrich’s endorsement was only slightly better. I think he hoped Romney would help to pay off some of  his campaign debt. I haven’t heard that Gingrich has received any assurances of financial aid from Romney.

It is becoming clear that people have long memories. They are not flocking to Romney’s banner. There is still a large segment, 40% according to some pundits, that would rather vote for None of the Above.

The job for Romney and the ‘Pub establishment is how to gather that 40% back into the fold.  Most voters in the coming election, will hold their nose and vote for Anyone But Obama (aka ABO.)  The question to the ‘Pub establishment is if ABO equates to Romney…or to Ron Paul.

Will this election be like Reagan’s 1982 landslide or will be be like 1992 when Ross Perot split the ‘Pub votes from G. W. H. Bush allowing Clinton to win. That is the question.

Facebook

Snicker!

Posted on by

Perfect after this week.  From Glenn McCoy…

What’s Wrong with Obama?

Posted on by

So just what is wrong with Obama? We all make jokes about it. That he’s a socialist, a narcissist. That he’s inexperienced as an executive and lacks leadership skills. The list can continue for much longer.

The questions begs a more serious response. My first degree was in Clinical Psychology. It’s easy to pick out neurosis just from watching him. Narcissism is a real clinical condition. Paranoia is another. Many of Obama’s responses to situations reveal other symptoms. Last Friday, Robin of Berkeley (obviously a pseudonym) wrote an article for The American Thinker. After reading her article, it was apparent how she listed the same observations as I and expanded on them.

From Robin of Berkeley…

June 11, 2010

A Shrink Asks: What’s Wrong with Obama?

By Robin of Berkeley

So what is the matter with Obama? Conservatives have been asking this question for some time. I’ve written a number of articles trying to solve the mystery.

Even some liberals are starting to wonder. James Carville railed about Obama’s blasé attitude after the catastrophic oil spill. The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd revamped Obama’s “Yes We Can” motto into “Will We Ever?”


The liberal women of the TV show “The View” have expressed sympathy for Michelle Obama’s living with a man so out of touch. Peggy Noonan, hardly a vehement Obama foe, recently pronounced him disconnected.


Obama’s odd mannerisms intrigue a psychotherapist like me. He also presents a serious diagnostic challenge.


For one, Obama’s teleprompter and the men behind the Blackberry keep him well-scripted. We know so little about the facts of his life.


But it’s more than just a lack of information. Obama himself is a strange bird. He doesn’t fit easily into any diagnostic category.


Many people attribute Obama’s oddness to his narcissism. True, Obama has a gargantuan ego, and he is notoriously thin-skinned.


Yet a personality disorder like narcissism does not explain Obama’s strangeness: his giggling while being asked about the economy; his continuing a shout-out rather than announcing the Ft. Hood shootings; or his vacations, golfing, partying and fundraising during the calamitous oil spill.


Take also Obama’s declaring on the “Today Show” that he wants to know whose ass to kick. Consummate narcissists would never stoop to this vulgar display of adolescent machismo.


Obama is flat when passion is needed; he’s aggressive when savvy is required. What’s most worrisome is that Obama doesn’t even realize that his behavior is inappropriate.


So if it’s not just simple narcissism, what is wrong with Obama? Since I’ve never evaluated him, I can’t say for sure. But I can hazard some educated guesses.


If I saw a client as disconnected as him, the first thing I would wonder: Is something wrong with his brain? And I’d consider the following theoretical diagnostic possibilities.


—Physical problems: There are a multitude of physiological conditions that can cause people to act strangely. For instance: head injuries, endocrine disturbances, epilepsy, and toxic chemical exposure.


It makes me wonder: Did Obama ever have a head injury? His stepfather in Indonesia was purportedly an alcoholic abuser. Was Obama subject to any physical abuse?


— Drugs and alcohol: Damage to the brain from drugs and alcohol can also cause significant cognitive impairments. Obama once said that there were 57 states — and didn’t correct himself. Memory problems can be caused by both illicit and prescription drug use.


Obama admits to a history of drug use in his youth. Did his usage cause some damage? Does Obama still use?


—Asperger’s Syndrome: Also known as high-functioning autism, Asperger’s causes deficits in social skills. A person with Asperger’s can’t read social cues. Consequently, he can be insensitive and hurtful without even knowing it.


Could Obama have Asperger’s? He might have some mild traits, but certainly not the full-blown disorder. In contrast to Obama, those with Asperger’s get fixated on some behavior, like programming computers. Obama lacks this kind of passion and zeal.


–Mental Illness: Obama’s family tree is replete with the unbalanced. His maternal great-grandmother committed suicide. His grandfather, Stanley Dunham, was particularly unhinged: He was expelled from high school for punching his principal; named his daughter Stanley because he wanted a boy; and exposed young Barry to not just drunken trash talk, but unrestricted visits with alleged pedophile Frank Marshall Davis (who might or might not be Obama’s biological father). Barack Sr. was an abusive, alcoholic bigamist.
Since mental illness runs in the family, does Obama have any signs? Yes and no. No, he is not a schizophrenic babbling about Martians. But there are red flags for some other conditions.


While Obama doesn’t appear to hallucinate, he seems to have delusions. His believing he has a Messiah-like special gift smacks of grandiose delusions. His externalizing all blame to conservatives, George W. Bush, or the “racist” bogeyman hints at persecutory delusions.


Along with a delusional disorder, Obama may fit for a mild psychotic disorder called schizotypal disorder. It may explain some of Obama’s oddness.


People with schizotypal disorder hold bizarre beliefs, are suspicious and paranoid, and have inappropriate and constricted affect. They have few close friends and are socially awkward. A schizotypal is someone like your strange cousin Becky who is addicted to astrology, believes she is psychic, and is the oddball at social gatherings.


Schizotypal Disorder does ring some bells vis-à-vis Obama. One way the diagnosis doesn’t fit, however, is that schizotypals are generally harmless, odd ducks. Not so with Obama.


—Trauma: My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.


But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can’t prove it, the degree of Obama’s disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.


With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociates — that is, disconnects from his being — in order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.


Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of Communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, “Pop,” that evoked images of sexual abuse — for instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and “Pop’s” shorts.


Would trauma explain Obama’s disconnect? In many ways, yes. A damaged and unattached child may develop a “false self.” To compensate for the enormous deficits in identity and attachment, the child invents his own personality. For Obama, it may have been as a special, gifted person.


Let’s return now to my original question: What is wrong with Obama? My guess is a great deal. The answer is complex and likely includes some combination of the above.


Along with the brain issues are personality disorders: narcissism, paranoia, passive-aggressiveness. There’s even the possibility of the most destructive character defect of all, an antisocial personality. Untreated abuse can foster antisocial traits, especially among boys.


If my assessment is accurate, what does this mean?


It means that liberals need to wake up and spit out the Kool-Aid…and that conservatives should put aside differences, band together, and elect as many Republicans as possible.


Because Obama will not change. He will not learn from his mistakes. He will not grow and mature from on-the-job experience. In fact, over time, Obama will likely become a more ferocious version of who he is today.


Why? Because this is a damaged person. Obama’s fate was sealed years ago growing up in his strange and poisonous family. Later on, his empty vessel was filled with the hateful bile of men like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.


Obama will not evolve; he will not rise to the occasion; he will not become the man he was meant to be. This is for one reason and one reason alone:


He is not capable of it.

Obama is dangerous. Not because of his political views. He’s dangerous because he’s unstable. No nation or organization can risk having such an individual as its chief executive. However, Obama is being propped up by another corrupt, unstable political organization—the democrats. We can no longer afford nor tolerate either in a position of power.

Remember come November.

What’s Wrong with Obama?

Posted on by

So just what is wrong with Obama? We all make jokes about it. That he’s a socialist, a narcissist. That he’s inexperienced as an executive and lacks leadership skills. The list can continue for much longer.

The questions begs a more serious response. My first degree was in Clinical Psychology. It’s easy to pick out neurosis just from watching him. Narcissism is a real clinical condition. Paranoia is another. Many of Obama’s responses to situations reveal other symptoms. Last Friday, Robin of Berkeley (obviously a pseudonym) wrote an article for The American Thinker. After reading her article, it was apparent how she listed the same observations as I and expanded on them.

From Robin of Berkeley…

June 11, 2010

A Shrink Asks: What’s Wrong with Obama?

By Robin of Berkeley

So what is the matter with Obama? Conservatives have been asking this question for some time. I’ve written a number of articles trying to solve the mystery.

Even some liberals are starting to wonder. James Carville railed about Obama’s blasé attitude after the catastrophic oil spill. The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd revamped Obama’s “Yes We Can” motto into “Will We Ever?”


The liberal women of the TV show “The View” have expressed sympathy for Michelle Obama’s living with a man so out of touch. Peggy Noonan, hardly a vehement Obama foe, recently pronounced him disconnected.


Obama’s odd mannerisms intrigue a psychotherapist like me. He also presents a serious diagnostic challenge.


For one, Obama’s teleprompter and the men behind the Blackberry keep him well-scripted. We know so little about the facts of his life.


But it’s more than just a lack of information. Obama himself is a strange bird. He doesn’t fit easily into any diagnostic category.


Many people attribute Obama’s oddness to his narcissism. True, Obama has a gargantuan ego, and he is notoriously thin-skinned.


Yet a personality disorder like narcissism does not explain Obama’s strangeness: his giggling while being asked about the economy; his continuing a shout-out rather than announcing the Ft. Hood shootings; or his vacations, golfing, partying and fundraising during the calamitous oil spill.


Take also Obama’s declaring on the “Today Show” that he wants to know whose ass to kick. Consummate narcissists would never stoop to this vulgar display of adolescent machismo.


Obama is flat when passion is needed; he’s aggressive when savvy is required. What’s most worrisome is that Obama doesn’t even realize that his behavior is inappropriate.


So if it’s not just simple narcissism, what is wrong with Obama? Since I’ve never evaluated him, I can’t say for sure. But I can hazard some educated guesses.


If I saw a client as disconnected as him, the first thing I would wonder: Is something wrong with his brain? And I’d consider the following theoretical diagnostic possibilities.


—Physical problems: There are a multitude of physiological conditions that can cause people to act strangely. For instance: head injuries, endocrine disturbances, epilepsy, and toxic chemical exposure.


It makes me wonder: Did Obama ever have a head injury? His stepfather in Indonesia was purportedly an alcoholic abuser. Was Obama subject to any physical abuse?


— Drugs and alcohol: Damage to the brain from drugs and alcohol can also cause significant cognitive impairments. Obama once said that there were 57 states — and didn’t correct himself. Memory problems can be caused by both illicit and prescription drug use.


Obama admits to a history of drug use in his youth. Did his usage cause some damage? Does Obama still use?


—Asperger’s Syndrome: Also known as high-functioning autism, Asperger’s causes deficits in social skills. A person with Asperger’s can’t read social cues. Consequently, he can be insensitive and hurtful without even knowing it.


Could Obama have Asperger’s? He might have some mild traits, but certainly not the full-blown disorder. In contrast to Obama, those with Asperger’s get fixated on some behavior, like programming computers. Obama lacks this kind of passion and zeal.


–Mental Illness: Obama’s family tree is replete with the unbalanced. His maternal great-grandmother committed suicide. His grandfather, Stanley Dunham, was particularly unhinged: He was expelled from high school for punching his principal; named his daughter Stanley because he wanted a boy; and exposed young Barry to not just drunken trash talk, but unrestricted visits with alleged pedophile Frank Marshall Davis (who might or might not be Obama’s biological father). Barack Sr. was an abusive, alcoholic bigamist.
Since mental illness runs in the family, does Obama have any signs? Yes and no. No, he is not a schizophrenic babbling about Martians. But there are red flags for some other conditions.


While Obama doesn’t appear to hallucinate, he seems to have delusions. His believing he has a Messiah-like special gift smacks of grandiose delusions. His externalizing all blame to conservatives, George W. Bush, or the “racist” bogeyman hints at persecutory delusions.


Along with a delusional disorder, Obama may fit for a mild psychotic disorder called schizotypal disorder. It may explain some of Obama’s oddness.


People with schizotypal disorder hold bizarre beliefs, are suspicious and paranoid, and have inappropriate and constricted affect. They have few close friends and are socially awkward. A schizotypal is someone like your strange cousin Becky who is addicted to astrology, believes she is psychic, and is the oddball at social gatherings.


Schizotypal Disorder does ring some bells vis-à-vis Obama. One way the diagnosis doesn’t fit, however, is that schizotypals are generally harmless, odd ducks. Not so with Obama.


—Trauma: My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.


But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can’t prove it, the degree of Obama’s disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.


With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociates — that is, disconnects from his being — in order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.


Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of Communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, “Pop,” that evoked images of sexual abuse — for instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and “Pop’s” shorts.


Would trauma explain Obama’s disconnect? In many ways, yes. A damaged and unattached child may develop a “false self.” To compensate for the enormous deficits in identity and attachment, the child invents his own personality. For Obama, it may have been as a special, gifted person.


Let’s return now to my original question: What is wrong with Obama? My guess is a great deal. The answer is complex and likely includes some combination of the above.


Along with the brain issues are personality disorders: narcissism, paranoia, passive-aggressiveness. There’s even the possibility of the most destructive character defect of all, an antisocial personality. Untreated abuse can foster antisocial traits, especially among boys.


If my assessment is accurate, what does this mean?


It means that liberals need to wake up and spit out the Kool-Aid…and that conservatives should put aside differences, band together, and elect as many Republicans as possible.


Because Obama will not change. He will not learn from his mistakes. He will not grow and mature from on-the-job experience. In fact, over time, Obama will likely become a more ferocious version of who he is today.


Why? Because this is a damaged person. Obama’s fate was sealed years ago growing up in his strange and poisonous family. Later on, his empty vessel was filled with the hateful bile of men like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.


Obama will not evolve; he will not rise to the occasion; he will not become the man he was meant to be. This is for one reason and one reason alone:


He is not capable of it.

Obama is dangerous. Not because of his political views. He’s dangerous because he’s unstable. No nation or organization can risk having such an individual as its chief executive. However, Obama is being propped up by another corrupt, unstable political organization—the democrats. We can no longer afford nor tolerate either in a position of power.

Remember come November.

Facebook