Jim Crum has forwarded a post from Ghost of a Flea that makes the following allegation:
"The October Surprise is Here: Obama is Hiding Mental History in His Medical Records...
"Information is leaking that Barack Obama was treated for mental related illnesses in the 70's and early 80's and may have been prescribed anti-psychotic medications. Schizophrenia is the main reported diagnosis with possible case severe depression...
"Yesterday the big talk in political chat rooms was Obama's yet to be released medical record. Obama may still need prescribed medications for mental related issues. It is suspected that he has not been taking his medications consistently because of several episode at recently campaign rallies...
"Barack Obama stands alone in the last three elections as the only candidate to not release medical records to the public.
"Senator Barack Obama released, in May, a one-page letter from his primary care doctor, who had not even seen him in 18 months. The Obama campaign has stated that no medical records will be released, the letter from the stating that he his currently in good heath will have to suffice..."
I have several times suspected that Barack Obama is a sociopath, and recently read a blog that asserted a noted psychiatrist has contemplated whether Senator Obama suffers from narcissistic personality disorder, which overlaps with sociopathy. This latest rumor will be dismissed, but none of those who dismiss will have seen Senator Obama's medical records. This has been a year of ex post rationalization, and wide-eyed willingness to be conned. It is still possible for the Electoral College to demand a review of Obama's records.
I think the Electoral College ought to demand a review of both Obama's birth information and his medical history. This election has made me appreciate the founding fathers' wisdom as well as the incompetence of popular discourse. It is unfortunate that the Electoral College has become a figurehead process.
Barring some Electoral College steps, I see 4 possibilities for the coming 4 years:
1. Obama's not as bad as we fear, and his election will be for the good. He could be the next Reagan. If the Fed raises interest rates in year one and shakes out the economy, then he may not be so bad.
2. He's a corrupt Chicago hack, protege of Mayor Daly, a crook, and so the country stagnates but not irremediably. We've had crooked presidents before.
3. He's a true believer, a follower of either his socialist Bill Ayers background or radical Islam or both, in which case we're in trouble
4. 3 + a mental case as Ghost of a Flea and others, including myself, have contemplated and rumored. In that case things will be worse than 3.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Dr. Vieira's Electoral College Strategy
I just received the following e-mail from Contrairimairi. Dr. Vieiras has proposed an electoral college strategy. Does anyone know how to get the names and addresses of the electoral college delegates? We can send them letters proposing a demand for an investigation:
Dear Mitchell,
I spoke with Dr. Vieira just a while ago. I am very impressed with his knowledge about BO's citizenship standing. He has offered some GREAT insight into handling the problem.
His first idea is to have a member or members of the electoral college demand proof of the citizenship to verify that they are able to legally vote for him. Most of us already knew that one.
His second idea is to file the suit after he signs a piece of legislation that directly affects us as individuals, challenging his authority to do so. He says in that case, the Judge cannot deny standing.
He says Berg's suit will be thrown out, and if people continue to file the suits, the Court will label them "frivolous" and begin fining anyone who brings a suit.
I asked him about Sarah Palin bringing suit, and he claims she does not even have enough standing, that it would have to be filed now by a presidential candidate, (we can BANK JMC won't bring it!), or by a major contributor to BO's campaign, who may not be able to get what they were promised if BO is challenged and loses the challenge.
He told me he is "very certain" that BO will be challenged when he signs a piece of legislation, if he is not challenged by either the electoral college, or one of the other presidential candidates first.
I believe him. We spoke for a very long time, and he is very firm in his convictions. He told me not to pursue filing in Illinois at this time. I think he is hoping that the suits that may be labeled "frivolous" will end, and that we will wait and be patient until the timing is absolutely correct for a "WIN" on a challenge.
Thank you for convincing me to contact him. I feel very confident now that we will not suffer too much longer. It is just a shame that BO is going to allow this to be much more damaging and divisive than it should ever have been, but Americans will need to remember that it was BO's choice to be hurtful, not that of his opposition.
His own arrogance is likely to put a world of hurt on this Country, but once again, I have to say that I believe it is our generation's turn to defend America, only this time, in a way our predecessors could barely have imagined!
It is going to be difficult to be patient. Have you heard from Steve Marquis if the electors have filed suit?
Hope this is good news for you.
Mairi
Dear Mitchell,
I spoke with Dr. Vieira just a while ago. I am very impressed with his knowledge about BO's citizenship standing. He has offered some GREAT insight into handling the problem.
His first idea is to have a member or members of the electoral college demand proof of the citizenship to verify that they are able to legally vote for him. Most of us already knew that one.
His second idea is to file the suit after he signs a piece of legislation that directly affects us as individuals, challenging his authority to do so. He says in that case, the Judge cannot deny standing.
He says Berg's suit will be thrown out, and if people continue to file the suits, the Court will label them "frivolous" and begin fining anyone who brings a suit.
I asked him about Sarah Palin bringing suit, and he claims she does not even have enough standing, that it would have to be filed now by a presidential candidate, (we can BANK JMC won't bring it!), or by a major contributor to BO's campaign, who may not be able to get what they were promised if BO is challenged and loses the challenge.
He told me he is "very certain" that BO will be challenged when he signs a piece of legislation, if he is not challenged by either the electoral college, or one of the other presidential candidates first.
I believe him. We spoke for a very long time, and he is very firm in his convictions. He told me not to pursue filing in Illinois at this time. I think he is hoping that the suits that may be labeled "frivolous" will end, and that we will wait and be patient until the timing is absolutely correct for a "WIN" on a challenge.
Thank you for convincing me to contact him. I feel very confident now that we will not suffer too much longer. It is just a shame that BO is going to allow this to be much more damaging and divisive than it should ever have been, but Americans will need to remember that it was BO's choice to be hurtful, not that of his opposition.
His own arrogance is likely to put a world of hurt on this Country, but once again, I have to say that I believe it is our generation's turn to defend America, only this time, in a way our predecessors could barely have imagined!
It is going to be difficult to be patient. Have you heard from Steve Marquis if the electors have filed suit?
Hope this is good news for you.
Mairi
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Inflation and the New President
The Wall Street Journal Online (paid access) has an editorial about the racial and economic implications of the presidential race. WSJ notes:
>"While Mr. Obama lost among white voters, as most modern Democrats do, his success is due in part to the fact that he also muted any politics of racial grievance... The Democratic temptation will be to interpret this victory as a mandate for renewed liberal government. Republicans hope they do. The last three times the Democrats won this kind of victory -- in 1964, 1976 and 1992 -- they overreached and suffered big losses two years later...
>"We'd note in particular that Mr. Obama ran as a tax-cutter for '95% of workers,' promising tax rates 'less than they were under Ronald Reagan.' This is only one of the ways that the skillful candidate was able to disguise the details of what was the most left-of-center Democratic agenda since the early 1970s. The exit polls showed that among the 70% of voters who believe their taxes will go up under Mr. Obama, 55% voted for Mr. McCain. Democrats raise taxes in a recession at their peril..."
The cause of the economic decline that led to the Democratic victory, in WSJ's view, goes:
>"back to the causes of the housing bubble. Republicans -- specifically, Mr. Bush's Federal Reserve nominees and Treasury Secretaries -- forgot about the value of money. They failed as stewards of the dollar, unleashing a credit mania and panic that collided in colossal bad timing with a Presidential campaign."
The response of Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke has been more spending and more monetary expansion. Barack Obama was elected not by the lower income strata, who were less friendly to him than anticipated, but by those earning over $75,000 who are concerned about their 401ks.
The Democratic response will be to increase the money supply even further. This will enable them to boost the stock market, reduce financial pressure and possibly make possible their policy goals. The result will be inflation. If the Democrats choose to act like conservatives, which the Journal proposes, then the stock market will fall and there will be somewhat less inflation, although the fundamentals for a large inflation are already in place. Moreover, the real estate market may have a lot more to fall, resulting in "stagflation".
I am not a fan of either Republicans or Democrats but view the Republicans as the lesser of two evils. The public remains committed to the current Progressive regime, which subsumes both parties, and can expect poor economic performance, increasing income inequality and reductions in freedom regardless of who is in power.
>"While Mr. Obama lost among white voters, as most modern Democrats do, his success is due in part to the fact that he also muted any politics of racial grievance... The Democratic temptation will be to interpret this victory as a mandate for renewed liberal government. Republicans hope they do. The last three times the Democrats won this kind of victory -- in 1964, 1976 and 1992 -- they overreached and suffered big losses two years later...
>"We'd note in particular that Mr. Obama ran as a tax-cutter for '95% of workers,' promising tax rates 'less than they were under Ronald Reagan.' This is only one of the ways that the skillful candidate was able to disguise the details of what was the most left-of-center Democratic agenda since the early 1970s. The exit polls showed that among the 70% of voters who believe their taxes will go up under Mr. Obama, 55% voted for Mr. McCain. Democrats raise taxes in a recession at their peril..."
The cause of the economic decline that led to the Democratic victory, in WSJ's view, goes:
>"back to the causes of the housing bubble. Republicans -- specifically, Mr. Bush's Federal Reserve nominees and Treasury Secretaries -- forgot about the value of money. They failed as stewards of the dollar, unleashing a credit mania and panic that collided in colossal bad timing with a Presidential campaign."
The response of Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke has been more spending and more monetary expansion. Barack Obama was elected not by the lower income strata, who were less friendly to him than anticipated, but by those earning over $75,000 who are concerned about their 401ks.
The Democratic response will be to increase the money supply even further. This will enable them to boost the stock market, reduce financial pressure and possibly make possible their policy goals. The result will be inflation. If the Democrats choose to act like conservatives, which the Journal proposes, then the stock market will fall and there will be somewhat less inflation, although the fundamentals for a large inflation are already in place. Moreover, the real estate market may have a lot more to fall, resulting in "stagflation".
I am not a fan of either Republicans or Democrats but view the Republicans as the lesser of two evils. The public remains committed to the current Progressive regime, which subsumes both parties, and can expect poor economic performance, increasing income inequality and reductions in freedom regardless of who is in power.
Obamanomics
Dymphna of Gates of Vienna (h/t Larwyn) offers this lesson on "spreading it around":
Obama’s leaky plumbing
Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Joe the Plumber to come and fix it.
Joe drives to Obama’s house, which is located in a very nice neighborhood and where it’s clear that all the residents make more than $250,000 per year.
Joe arrives and takes his tools into the house. Joe is led to the room that contains the leaky pipe under a sink. Joe assesses the problem and tells Obama, who is standing near the door, that it’s an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes.
Obama asks Joe how much it will cost.
Joe immediately says, "$9,500."
$9,500?" Obama asks, stunned. "But you said it’s an easy repair!"
"Yes, but what I do is charge a lot more to my clients who make more than $250,000 per year so I can fix the plumbing of everybody who makes less than that for free," explains Joe. "It’s always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied government to pass this philosophy as law, and it did pass earlier this year, so now all plumbers have to do business this way. It’s known as ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act of 2008.’ Surprised you haven’t heard of it, senator."
In spite of that, Obama tells Joe there’s no way he’s paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Joe leaves.
Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book looking for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses listed have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Joe’s price, Obama does nothing.
The leak under Obama’s sink goes unrepaired for the next several days.
A week later the leak is so bad that Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and there’s a risk that the room will flood, so Obama calls Joe and pleads with him to return.
Joe goes back to Obama’s house, looks at the leaky pipe, and says "Let’s see - this will cost you about $21,000."
"A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!" Obama quickly fires back.
Joe explains the reason for the dramatic increase. "Well, because of the ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act,’ a lot of rich people are learning how to fix their own plumbing, so there are fewer of you paying for all the free plumbing I’m doing for the people who make less than $250,000. As a result, the rate I have to charge my wealthy paying customers rises every day.
"Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work from the group of people who get it for free has skyrocketed, and there’s a long waiting list of those who need repairs. This has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, and they’re not being replaced - nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they won’t make any money. I’m hurting now too - all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won’t pay their fair share."
Obama tries to straighten out the plumber: "Of course you’re hurting, Joe! Don’t you get it? If all the rich people learn how to fix their own plumbing and you refuse to charge the poorer people for your services, you’ll be broke, and then what will you do?"
Joe immediately replies, "Run for president, apparently."
Obama’s leaky plumbing
Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Joe the Plumber to come and fix it.
Joe drives to Obama’s house, which is located in a very nice neighborhood and where it’s clear that all the residents make more than $250,000 per year.
Joe arrives and takes his tools into the house. Joe is led to the room that contains the leaky pipe under a sink. Joe assesses the problem and tells Obama, who is standing near the door, that it’s an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes.
Obama asks Joe how much it will cost.
Joe immediately says, "$9,500."
$9,500?" Obama asks, stunned. "But you said it’s an easy repair!"
"Yes, but what I do is charge a lot more to my clients who make more than $250,000 per year so I can fix the plumbing of everybody who makes less than that for free," explains Joe. "It’s always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied government to pass this philosophy as law, and it did pass earlier this year, so now all plumbers have to do business this way. It’s known as ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act of 2008.’ Surprised you haven’t heard of it, senator."
In spite of that, Obama tells Joe there’s no way he’s paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Joe leaves.
Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book looking for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses listed have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Joe’s price, Obama does nothing.
The leak under Obama’s sink goes unrepaired for the next several days.
A week later the leak is so bad that Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and there’s a risk that the room will flood, so Obama calls Joe and pleads with him to return.
Joe goes back to Obama’s house, looks at the leaky pipe, and says "Let’s see - this will cost you about $21,000."
"A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!" Obama quickly fires back.
Joe explains the reason for the dramatic increase. "Well, because of the ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act,’ a lot of rich people are learning how to fix their own plumbing, so there are fewer of you paying for all the free plumbing I’m doing for the people who make less than $250,000. As a result, the rate I have to charge my wealthy paying customers rises every day.
"Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work from the group of people who get it for free has skyrocketed, and there’s a long waiting list of those who need repairs. This has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, and they’re not being replaced - nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they won’t make any money. I’m hurting now too - all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won’t pay their fair share."
Obama tries to straighten out the plumber: "Of course you’re hurting, Joe! Don’t you get it? If all the rich people learn how to fix their own plumbing and you refuse to charge the poorer people for your services, you’ll be broke, and then what will you do?"
Joe immediately replies, "Run for president, apparently."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
