Monday, May 26, 2008

Is Obama on Drugs?

Seriously, is Obama on drugs? . Dr Jack Wheeler just called for Obama to be drug tested. I think he's right and no, I am not referring to the Sinclair's sex and drug allegations.The mental mistakes Obama has been serially making are so serious a neuroscientist thinks they are consistent with the kind caused by chronic use of either amphetamines or cocaine. Wheeler makes no accusations - just says the suspicion must be allayed. We drug test employees in the work place. Shouldn't presidential candidates be held to the same basic vetting process. I mean really.

Obambi has been gaffe-ridden for some time. Another beauty occurred on May 8, 2007: In a campaign speech, he said 10,000 people had died in a tornado that hit Greensburg, Kansas a few days earlier. The death toll was 12.

In the past few weeks, however, the O-gaffes have been proliferating. On April 28 in Wilmington, North Carolina, he thought the month was "March" and that it was "nine months to November."

On May 13 in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, he claimed the war in Iraq was responsible for a shortage of interpreters in Afghanistan: "We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it is harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. Afghans don't, speaking Pushtu, Dari, and various tribal languages.

On May 16 in a press conference, he claimed, "When Kennedy met Khrushchev, we were on the brink of nuclear war." The two met in Vienna in June, 1961. The Cuba Missile Crisis, which Obambi claimed was resolved by the meeting, was in October 1962.

On May 18 in an interview to the Lexington (Ky) Herald-Leader, he said: "I'm not very well known" in Kentucky compared to Hillary because of her husband and "her coming from a nearby state of Arkansas." Illinois - the state he's a senator of - borders Kentucky; Arkansas does not (Tennessee's in between).

The champion O-gaffe was committed on May 9 in Beaverton, Oregon. You have to see it to believe he actually said that during his campaign, "I have now been to 57 states with one left to go," then says that one is "Alaska and Hawaii."

No matter how exhausted from campaigning you are, you don't make a mistake like that under any normal circumstances. Saying there are 57 states - actually 58, or is it 59? - is such an egregiously stupid error that it is evidence of brain malfunction.

A neuroscientist with years of research into drug abuse and brain chemistry tells To The Point that the behavior exhibited by Obama is consistent with the use of either amphetamines or cocaine. "His campaign's almost impossibly high level of activity, mental and physical, unrelenting day after day for month upon month is incredibly hard to maintain," he says. "The temptation to maintain it psycho-pharmacologically is great, especially for someone with a history of drug use. The drugs of choice would be amphetamines or cocaine, which can cause amazing mistakes, errors of incredible stupidity."

In his book, Dreams From My Father, Obambi admitted his drug use when young: "Pot (marijuana) had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow (cocaine) when you could afford it. Not smack (heroin), though." Teen-age drug use isn't, of course, evidence for its use in one's 40s. But when someone who may be elected President of the United States starts behaving suspiciously, then it's justified to ask that those suspicions be allayed.....

It's worth noting here the correlation between narcissism and stimulant drug abuse. Obambi exhibits an almost pathological narcissism, an ego wildly out of proportion to anything he has actually accomplished in his life. Someone with this personality defect is drawn to irrationally risky behavior because of a conviction of invulnerability, or superhuman superiority. Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer had such a syndrome. He chose to express it with hookers, but it's more common to see it expressed with drugs, cocaine in particular.

No accusations are being made here. To The Point is not accusing Barack Hussein Obama of illegal drug use. It is saying that he is behaving of late in such a way to cause suspicion that he might. That suspicion must be put to rest. Barack Hussein Obama's hair must be tested for drugs. If he refuses, it will add to the suspicion - as will every inexplicably stupid blunder he makes from now on.

More here

Leftist British foreign minister dubious about Obama

David Miliband has raised questions over Barack Obama's policy on Iran, which officials in Washington and Europe fear threatens to undermine the tough stance adopted by the West towards Tehran over recent years. The Foreign Secretary, on his visit to the US this week, has held talks with all three presidential campaigns, including those of Hillary Clinton and John McCain. But when he met Mr Obama's team of foreign policy advisers on Wednesday, Mr Miliband is understood to have queried the presumptive Democratic nominee's declared willingness to meet leaders from rogue states such as Iran.

They also discussed trade - with Mr Obama advisers saying that they still intended to renegotiate deals such as Nafta - and how much European support there would be for a US military surge in Afghanistan.

British intelligence chiefs are understood to have identified Iranian nuclear proliferation as the second greatest security threat, behind Islamic terrorism but ahead of renewed aggression from Russia. There is also deep concern about Iran's support for Iraqi Shia militias or terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. "The role of Iran as a source of instability in the region is undoubtedly a concern," Mr Miliband said this week. "No one can watch armed militias coming on to the streets in defiance of UN resolutions with equanimity."

Exact accounts of the conversation with Mr Obama differ and there is certainly acute anxiety on the part of the British not to be seen as stoking political controversy in America's presidential elections. In the past week Mr McCain has repeatedly hammered Mr Obama for what he claims is a "naive" commitment to hold direct talks with foreign dictators.

In a televised debate last summer, Mr Obama was asked if he would be willing to meet the leaders of countries such as Iran and Cuba without preconditions during his first year in office. He replied: "I would." But this week he appeared to pull back, saying he would still be willing to meet Iranian leaders but not before what he described as "preparations" - and not necessarily with President Ahmadinejad. Nevertheless, Mr Obama says that "tough but engaged diplomacy" - of the type carried out by President Kennedy or President Reagan with the Soviet Union - would represent "a different approach, a different philosophy" to the "failed Iran policy" of the current administration.

Mr Miliband, in a press conference with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reiterated Britain's support for the united front on Iran adopted by the US and its European allies, which he believes is beginning to pay dividends. "Our position, jointly, has always been that as long as Iran exercises responsibilities, then it will be able to forge a more productive and positive relationship with the international community," Mr Miliband said.

An aide later told The Times that the Foreign Secretary was being very careful to avoid direct criticism of any presidential candidate's positions. But the same source added: "We know Obama wants to engage more, but we don't know what route he will take or what he means by `no pre-conditions'. It has not unravelled yet and, when it does, we will be able to see where it converges or conflicts with what we're doing." A Foreign Office spokesman later said: "I just want to stress that David Miliband is not confused about Obama's policy. It would be quite wrong to say that."

Mr McCain's foreign policy chief, Randy Scheunemann, would not comment on his own meetings with Mr Miliband. But he said: "Obama's position is obviously different to that of Britain and France. Otherwise Prime Minister Brown and President Sarkozy would have already met the President of Iran without conditions.

Although Britain - unlike the US - maintains diplomatic relations with Iran, the West has been more or less united in seeking to isolate the Iranian leadership. The US, Britain, France and to some extent Germany have pressed for tighter sanctions against Iran, including measures directed against the country's ruling elite, for failing to comply with UN resolutions calling for a halt to its uranium enrichment programme.

British intelligence chiefs are understood to have identified Iranian nuclear proliferation as the second greatest security threat, behind Islamic terrorism but ahead of renewed aggression from Russia. There is also deep concern about Iran's support for Iraqi Shia militias or terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. "The role of Iran as a source of instability in the region is undoubtedly a concern," Mr Miliband said this week. "No one can watch armed militias coming on to the streets in defiance of UN resolutions with equanimity."


The press, Obama, and Wright

This election season would not be the first time that the media which shares the leftist views of a candidate has airbrushed his image and missed his considerable deficits. Sosays Michael Barone, who observes that even if the media tell us there's no consequence to Obama respecting the Wright story, there will be:
Most reporters are liberals, whose circles of friends and acquaintances have included people with views not dissimilar to those of Wright or William Ayers, the unrepentant Weather Underground bomber with whom Obama served on a nonprofit board and at whose house his state Senate candidacy was launched. Such reporters don't find these views utterly repugnant or particularly noteworthy. But most American voters do. And they wonder whether a candidate who associates with such people agrees with them - or disbelieve him when he says he doesn't. Though most in the press won't admit it, that's a problem - for the Obama candidacy and for the whole Democratic Party once it nominates him.

Please, DNC do not listen to this. Listen only to CNN,MSNBC and Newsweek. Have they ever steered you wrong?


Obama is descended from blacks who maintained an Arab identity

Post below excerpted from Kenneth E. Lamb. See the original for links

Sen. Obama's autobiography is filled with "composite" characters, rearranged timelines, and fantasy events that never occurred. I read that twice in the Washington Post - read Richard Cohen's columns of Jan. 1, 2008, and March 27, 2007, for yourself.

There are more articles than that, by more authors than just Mr. Cohen, but I wanted to get started by saying that what follows isn't just something I'm pulling out of thin air. What follows is serious, documented, and not at all what those who want to write history about the election of the first so-called "African-American" president, want in the least to admit is true - and why its truth matters more than their desire to ignore the truth for the sake of their desire to write history.

While his shrill wife objects, the truth is that Sen. Obama's life, as he wrote about himself in his autobiography, is, in fact, nothing but a fairy tale. Again, don't take my word for it - read Mr. Cohen's, and others, articles about it.

Why is the fact that Mr. Obama is only 6.25% African Negro not reported? Because to acknowledge it is to report this devastating truth about him: Mr. Obama is not legally African-American. It is impossible for him to be, in truth, America's first African-American president.

But no matter what he craves, no matter what he has used to propel himself through life, no matter the racist presumption of seeing his skin and without question calling him black, the hard, cold, genetically inarguable reality remains: he is not an African-American.

Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian, that from his mother. What those who want Mr. Obama to write history by becoming "America's first African-American president" ignore is that his father was ethnically Arabic, with only 1 relative ethnically African Negro - a maternal great-grandparent (Sen. Obama's great-great grandparent, thus the 6.25% ethnic contribution to the senator's ethnic composition.). That means that Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. Put another way, his father could honestly claim African-American ethnic classification. He was the last generation able to do so.

Sen. Obama could honestly say, "My father was African-American." Racist presumptions led an Ivy League admissions committee, and lazy "newspapers of record" factcheckers, to presume that if his father is African-American, then Sen. Obama must be African-American also. But it doesn't work that way. Racist presumptions coupled with sloppy vetting don't turn a lie into the truth. Sen. Obama is one generation too far removed from the ethnic African Negro input to make the same claim as his father, Harvard's Admission's stamp of approval notwithstanding. As you can see for yourself, Sen. Obama's African-American ethnic claim, when properly researched and documented, is a lie.

The question no one wants to answer - particularly Mr. Obama and his supporters, is, "Why do you think he has an Arabic name? Why does his father have an Arabic name? Why does every ancestor on his father's side have an Arabic name?" The answer is obvious: They have Arabic names because his father's side of the family tree is Arabic. Need proof? Research the Kenyan records for yourself. You will find that his father was officially classified as "Arab African" by the Kenyan government.

But in America's current political climate, that truth is heresy; that truth is "an inconvenient truth." It is the political equivalent in our time to what Galileo's scientific pronouncements were in his time: it is true, but nobody wants to know the truth because the lie is so much more comforting. That is why detractors of this truth will do everything to denounce it, except submit to the discipline of actually researching it. There's a reason for that: it proves he is not sufficiently Negro to earn classification under American law as an African-American.

Here is the truth about Mr. Obama's name, and his father's ancestors: True Negro tribal members of western Kenya where his father was born have Christian names, not Arabic. His father's decision to name him with an Arabic name is a matter of his father establishing his ethnic identity in Africa - it is done deliberately to separate him from the African tribes. He may live among them, but he is not one of them. His father's message is that he is Arabic, not Negro.

Many will find these truths unsettling. I'm often asked, "But I thought his father was Kenyan. How could Mr. Obama not be African-American, how could his ethnic composition be so Arabic?" The definitive clue to that answer is to look at his name, his father's name, and the names of all his ancestors on his father's side. They are all Arabic.

Researching his roots reveal that on his father's side, he is descended from Arab slave traders. They operated under an extended grant from Queen Victoria, who gave them the right to continue the slave trade in exchange for helping the British defeat the Madhi Army in southern Sudan and the Upper Nile region. Funny how circular is history; now the British again face the Madhi Army, albeit this time Shiite, not Sunni, as in nineteenth century Sudan.

But telling America's black community that while their ancestors were breaking the shackles of slavery, Mr. Obama's ancestors were placing those shackles upon their wrists would hardly play as an Oprah Winfrey best-seller.

Mr. Obama has struggled all his life trying to prove that he is black enough to be called black. The truth is that if Mr. Obama is elected, his primary ethnic composition is Caucasian, but of course, that carries no cachet. So if we look at his next predominant ethnic component, Mr. Obama would be America's first Arab-American president. The truth is that his name says it all.

Michelle Obama "Whitey" Tape?

Larry Johnson of Plame Game fame claims - through 'sources' that a tape of Michelle Obama getting all "Chris Rock" during a diatribe at the UCC is in existence.
"Four Republican sources have told me that the tape exists. I've also been informed that Karl Rove and his allies have a copy of it and are using it to raise funds for independent expenditure groups. The tape, I'm told, will be disclosed as the GOP October Surprise. It's a ticking time bomb.

And I've learned that a right-wing Republican billionaire has put a $1 million bounty on the video. He doesn't want John McCain to win, like a number of conservatives, and thinks Obama is a pathetically weak candidate. The billionaire wants that video released now.

Obama, speaking on ABC's "Good Morning America" showed fear through his name-calling: "If they think that they're gonna try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because, that I find unacceptable. . The notion that you start attacking my wife or my family - you know, Michelle is the most honest, the best person I know. She is one of the most caring people I know. She loves this country. And for them to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is . just low class."

Does Obama have a copy of the "whitey" video? We know that he knows that his wife knows. The video really does exist. If we have to wait until October to see it, Obama might explode before then from the tension."

I don't know if one exists but the bad news for Michelle is that most people wouldn't be surprised if one existed after seeing the evidence so far. That's a bad rep!



No comments: