Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Barack Obama in Hawaii
Texas Darlin reports that Barack Obama has gone to Hawaii ostensibly to visit his ailing grandmother. Coincidentally, Andy Martin has filed legal papers to force release of Obama's birth documents the very week that Obama has appeared there.
Would Obama Be The First President to Be Removed?
The McCain-Palin ticket has a good chance of winning despite its continuing sag in the polls. But an Obama-Biden win is certainly a possibility. Senator Obama has engaged in considerable deception concerning his upbringing. As well, ACORN, the community activist group with which he has been directly involved, is engaging in criminality and voter fraud on his behalf and has been doing so for months. Senator Obama's close friend, Tony Rezko, has been convicted of criminal fraud. Senator Obama engaged in fraud in connection with a real estate purchase with Mr. Rezko. At the same time, the Obama campaign has engaged in an unprecedented degree of election fraud. The media has been lying on Obama's behalf for months, to the point where it has been willing to sacrifice its own paper-thin credibility in order to further Senator Obama's candidacy. All of this caps off a candidate whose grasp of the issues is as paper thin as the media's reputation, which was exemplified, for example, when Senator Obama became confused over the status of Jerusalem in the Middle Eastern conflict.
I have worked with individuals engaging in fraud before and so have gradually become attuned to sociopathy's practical implications. In teaching, I have integrated some of my experiences into several classes, including conflict and negotiation and organizational behavior. The psychological construct of sociopathy plays an important but not carefully investigated role in business. As well, the annals of history and politics are littered with sociopathic personalities.
Many sociopaths rely on deception. When unethical behavior, be it repeated lying as in the case of Barack Obama, stealing, fraud or more serious crimes, is part of a conscienceless individual's way of behaving, it is imperative to keep such behavior secret and for the sociopath to move on when his behavior is uncovered. In the case of Senator Obama, he will occupy the most visible office in the United States, so moving on will not be an option.
It is true that for the next two years both houses of Congress may remain Democratic and so an impeachment is unlikely. It is also true that the Constitution's restraints on political power have eroded to the point where a sociopath in the presidency would probably be able to abridge or attack rights that are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The Progressives started the nation along that path a century ago, and now the door is open for a convincing sociopath to become a dictator. Obama may be that dictator. Moreover, the nation is going to be going through several strains, particularly in the all-important economic realm, where we are likely to see brisk inflation and reduced economic performance. This will be exacerbated if the Democrats impose heavy taxation and punish small business through regulation. As well, there may be a terrorist strike or an attack on Israel in response to a president who is soft on terrorism.
Any disruption is likely to give a President Obama a pretext to impose martial law and constraints on speech. Attacks on his opponents would be consistent with the way his campaign has acted toward McCain supporters. The angry comments, the willingness to stifle the speech of any who disagree, the threats, the vulgarity and the violence associated with the Obama campaign expresses an underlying thugishness on the candidate's part.
Should Obama win, as his sociopathy reveals itself through strikes against opponents, incompetence and corruption, there may be many surprised Americans, who have thought that by "change" Obama meant better living standards and better ethics. In turn, corruption associated with his administration would open the door for impeachment as Americans, many of whom will get past the "denial" characteristic of victims of con men, will be filled with anger that they have been duped. The force for impeachment will be greater than it was for Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush because the distance between how Senator Obama has represented himself and who he really is is far greater than has been the case for any previous President. As well, the criminality, corruption and cynicism that surrounds Senator Obama's presidential campaign exceeds that of President Richard M. Nixon, who resigned. The result will be massive social division within the United States and very likely a turning over of both houses of Congress in two years. The anger may be sufficient for Congress to act constitutionally, despite a President Obama's efforts to suspend the Constitution.
Americans must be vigilant as to any efforts by the mainstream media to encourage further erosion of Constitutional liberties.
I have worked with individuals engaging in fraud before and so have gradually become attuned to sociopathy's practical implications. In teaching, I have integrated some of my experiences into several classes, including conflict and negotiation and organizational behavior. The psychological construct of sociopathy plays an important but not carefully investigated role in business. As well, the annals of history and politics are littered with sociopathic personalities.
Many sociopaths rely on deception. When unethical behavior, be it repeated lying as in the case of Barack Obama, stealing, fraud or more serious crimes, is part of a conscienceless individual's way of behaving, it is imperative to keep such behavior secret and for the sociopath to move on when his behavior is uncovered. In the case of Senator Obama, he will occupy the most visible office in the United States, so moving on will not be an option.
It is true that for the next two years both houses of Congress may remain Democratic and so an impeachment is unlikely. It is also true that the Constitution's restraints on political power have eroded to the point where a sociopath in the presidency would probably be able to abridge or attack rights that are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The Progressives started the nation along that path a century ago, and now the door is open for a convincing sociopath to become a dictator. Obama may be that dictator. Moreover, the nation is going to be going through several strains, particularly in the all-important economic realm, where we are likely to see brisk inflation and reduced economic performance. This will be exacerbated if the Democrats impose heavy taxation and punish small business through regulation. As well, there may be a terrorist strike or an attack on Israel in response to a president who is soft on terrorism.
Any disruption is likely to give a President Obama a pretext to impose martial law and constraints on speech. Attacks on his opponents would be consistent with the way his campaign has acted toward McCain supporters. The angry comments, the willingness to stifle the speech of any who disagree, the threats, the vulgarity and the violence associated with the Obama campaign expresses an underlying thugishness on the candidate's part.
Should Obama win, as his sociopathy reveals itself through strikes against opponents, incompetence and corruption, there may be many surprised Americans, who have thought that by "change" Obama meant better living standards and better ethics. In turn, corruption associated with his administration would open the door for impeachment as Americans, many of whom will get past the "denial" characteristic of victims of con men, will be filled with anger that they have been duped. The force for impeachment will be greater than it was for Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush because the distance between how Senator Obama has represented himself and who he really is is far greater than has been the case for any previous President. As well, the criminality, corruption and cynicism that surrounds Senator Obama's presidential campaign exceeds that of President Richard M. Nixon, who resigned. The result will be massive social division within the United States and very likely a turning over of both houses of Congress in two years. The anger may be sufficient for Congress to act constitutionally, despite a President Obama's efforts to suspend the Constitution.
Americans must be vigilant as to any efforts by the mainstream media to encourage further erosion of Constitutional liberties.
What Is Biden Talking About?
Jim Crum just sent me the following e-mail. What is Biden talking about?
>Both Presidential campaigns have received security briefings last week.
Common sense would be to keep your pie hole shut and say nothing. Not Biden, nope.
He comes out firing today stating:
"Gird your loins….Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. We’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”
I heard the recording- twice. It was spoken clearly and forcefully, there was no misstatement here.
So what "community" is he speaking of?
What can he mean "it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right"?
>Both Presidential campaigns have received security briefings last week.
Common sense would be to keep your pie hole shut and say nothing. Not Biden, nope.
He comes out firing today stating:
"Gird your loins….Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. We’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”
I heard the recording- twice. It was spoken clearly and forcefully, there was no misstatement here.
So what "community" is he speaking of?
What can he mean "it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right"?
Monday, October 20, 2008
Why Did the New Deal Make the Rich Richer and the Poor Poorer?
Howard S. Katz has an excellent blog this week concerning what he terms the liberty-benevolence split. Katz poses an interesting question to New York Times editor Abe Rosenthal:
"Explain this to me Mr. Rosenthal. In the great days of America, the gap between rich and poor kept getting narrower. An originally poor man would invent a new product, make a million dollars and raise the standard of living of the American people...Explain, Mr. Rosenthal. Before the New Deal the gap between rich and poor shrank. But today the gap between rich and poor grows. How could this possibly be happening?"
The answer, of course, is the fallacious "liberty-benevolence split" between libertarians of left and right. Freedom of contract and free markets are the greatest protection that the poor have. In contrast, government programs like the Federal Reserve Bank have impoverished the poor. Programs like urban renewal have created slums and excluded minorities from "white" neighborhoods. Regulation has prevented working class entrepreneurs from inventing new products and moving up the ladder. In contrast, the feudalistic "aristocracy" that Progressivism and the New Deal establishes, the corporate elite who accomplish nothing but have fancy credentials and degrees and state-bestowed authority, but are almost inevitably incompetent, have come to dominate our society. In particular, the Times has cheered the allocation of massive amounts of credit to incompetent Wall Street and banking interests who have paid themselves large sums at public expense (because the credit is ultimately private property that the Fed has expropriated) and so impoverished the average productive worker. It is not enough for the Times, Wall Street and its army of quack economists that inflation has exploited the public for decades. They cheer ever more aggressively for direct bailouts so that incompetent bankers can lend ever more money to hedge fund managers. And note that there is little difference between "conservative" Progressives of the "right" and social democratic Progressives of the "left".
Howard's blog is excellent. Read it here.
"Explain this to me Mr. Rosenthal. In the great days of America, the gap between rich and poor kept getting narrower. An originally poor man would invent a new product, make a million dollars and raise the standard of living of the American people...Explain, Mr. Rosenthal. Before the New Deal the gap between rich and poor shrank. But today the gap between rich and poor grows. How could this possibly be happening?"
The answer, of course, is the fallacious "liberty-benevolence split" between libertarians of left and right. Freedom of contract and free markets are the greatest protection that the poor have. In contrast, government programs like the Federal Reserve Bank have impoverished the poor. Programs like urban renewal have created slums and excluded minorities from "white" neighborhoods. Regulation has prevented working class entrepreneurs from inventing new products and moving up the ladder. In contrast, the feudalistic "aristocracy" that Progressivism and the New Deal establishes, the corporate elite who accomplish nothing but have fancy credentials and degrees and state-bestowed authority, but are almost inevitably incompetent, have come to dominate our society. In particular, the Times has cheered the allocation of massive amounts of credit to incompetent Wall Street and banking interests who have paid themselves large sums at public expense (because the credit is ultimately private property that the Fed has expropriated) and so impoverished the average productive worker. It is not enough for the Times, Wall Street and its army of quack economists that inflation has exploited the public for decades. They cheer ever more aggressively for direct bailouts so that incompetent bankers can lend ever more money to hedge fund managers. And note that there is little difference between "conservative" Progressives of the "right" and social democratic Progressives of the "left".
Howard's blog is excellent. Read it here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
