This site supports the "No National Animal ID System" Campaign! Click here to find out what you can do to stop THEM from RFID chipping your livestock animals! Because if THEY can chip your chickens or horses, they can CHIP YOU!
Thinking of moving to a rural remote location? Then read this first! Learn what you need to consider before you buy your land and homestead!
February 2, 2008Newsletter
Dear John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama: Good Grief! You Folks Really Want to Be President? Now?? Are You Nuts??? If You Had Any Sanity You'd Just Let Ron Paul Do It!
WARNING: THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE IN NO WAY CONSTITUTES A DIAGNOSIS, AND IS FOR OPINION PURPOSES ONLY! It now appears at long last that Rudy Giuliani has acquired some sanity, for he is bowing out of the Presidential race, having come in third, not first, in Florida, about the only place he did serious campaigning; last I heard he was endorsing McCain, who is almost on par with the serial cross-dresser psychopathologically. That is, the Bomber wants to blow up the rest of the planet almost as much as Rudy does, and I often wonder if McCain has any clue as to how he's gonna nuke Iran without sending an environmental holocaust onto his beloved Israel. Geez, John, don't you think the Jews have suffered enough?
Polls claim that something close to a vast majority of Americans want us out of Iraq. Gallup, we have a problem! If this is true, then how is it that Bomber McCain, he of "bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran" fame, is getting enough support from independents--that same independents you Paulians thought your man would get!--who the media claim are "anti-war" (!)--, that he is now the frontrunner with the most delegates to the Republican convention? Sorry, it doesn't wash. Either: a) those "independents" are not anti-war after all, or at least do not consider the war the top issue; b) McCain is not seen as "anti-war", but is seen as a "moderate" pro-war person who "straight talks" (just ask some Vietnam vets what kind of "straight talker" McCain is!); c) McCain is involved with vote fraud; or d) McCain is being "fixed" to win because THEY are setting him up to lose to the Democrats. Not that I care, because "other than Paul", whoever wins will carry out the policies they are told to carry out. But I think, everything else being equal, that McCain is being set up. He will most certainly lose to Hillary. I mean, would you rather have a cold calculating politician with just enough spine to hold on to the saddle (Hillary), or would you rather have the biggest hot-head politician in the US who will have to be dragged from using "the button" to solve even the slightest problem with our erstwhile Islamic-Arab "enemies"? I absolutely loathe Hillary Clinton, and yes, that includes personally. She is a bitch, pure and simple, with all the personality of Janet Reno doing Carrie Nation impersonations--totally humorless while she tells everyone what's good for them. Okay, okay, Anna Pauka of Hungary who, when the commies took over that country, made like the female commandant of Bechenwald. But at least with Hillary the planet Earth should pretty much be in the same shape it was when she took over. Un-obliterated! And it's not like McCain really, really wants to destroy the Earth, it's just that he's not going to be able to control himself--even if handler Hank Kissinger and Joe Lieberman are attempting to hold him off that "button."
So I think it is pretty clear Hillary will beat McCain. But will Barack Obama? The black JFK (okay, okay, half-black JFK!? The half-white MLK?)? Sorry, folks, but I just don't see a huge number of whites voting for a black politician with a bit of Muslim background. In fact, I could even see these whites who, possibly detesting McCain because he's not sufficiently xenophobic enough, will vote for him anyway. America is still a racist country. Not only that, but for some strange reason (his pro-amnesty stance maybe?) Hispanics like McCain...well, more than they like Obama anyway. You don't need to live in LA to know Hispanics and blacks do not get along well. So, while Hillary will beat McCain, Obama is less likely to do so...but then again it's a matter of Zbigniew Brezinsky (Obama's CFR/New World Order handler) beating out Hank Kissinger. Yet I may be wrong regardless of race: women, who do not necessarily provide a natural audience for Hillary, would, IMHO, prefer a JFK-type to a hard-core cold-warrior type. Tell the mothers of the USA that McCain means "military draft" and I think, that should Obama follow this strategy, he will clobber McCain no matter what race hs is!
On the other hand...what if it's Hillary vs. Romney? Both are flip-floppers of extraordinary magnitude, both are seriously beholden to corporate interests (Romney, btw, owns part of Clear Channel Communications, Burger King (of Immokalee, Florida worker enslavement infamy), and many other oligarchical playgrounds. Though Romney is more moderate than McCain, he is more snake-like. Hillary v. Romney really is a toss-up. Obama vs. Romney? Since there are more blacks than Mormons, Obama wins hands down.
I doubt seriously that Mike "God wants me for President" Huckabee will last that long, but what if the Evangelical Fundamentalists come out in a fury to back their man who basically has run out of money on "Super Tuesday"? Both Hillary and Obama would annihilate "God's Candidate" because, number one, there are not enough Evangelical Fundamentalist "rapture" lovers in the United States to propel him to the Presidency (or enough comedians and bass players, for that matter!), and, number two, God isn't voting. I am not blaspheming here!
Having written all that, I'll get ot my point. Dear John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Hucakbee, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama: I'd like to do a "psych-eval" on every single one of you. Of course, legally, I'd need a license in Professional Counseling to do so...alas, I only have certification in School Guidance Counseling for the State of Texas. But I know the Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, and licensed professional counselors use to diagnose and treat those referred to them. Let's just say I have enough knowledge to make an "informal" off-the-cuff "diagnosis" or at least an informed opinion. Mustn't get into legal trouble over this should one of you try to sue me. Before I go onto my informed opinion, I need to list the characteristics of psychopathy from the DSM-IV (the latest DSM). WARNING: THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE IN NO WAY CONSTITUTES A DIAGNOSIS, AND IS FOR OPINION PURPOSES ONLY!
Remarkably similar to the DSM is Robert Hare's "Psychopathy Check List-Revised (PCL-R)" which lists nine more easily understood criteria, and I list them below.
WARNING! THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE IN NO WAY CONSTITUTES A DIAGNOSIS, AND IS FOR OPINION PURPOSES ONLY! Before I continue I want you to notice that "craving power" is not on the list of criteria for being a psychopath. Actually (and I don't want to get into this right now because this article is going to be long enough!), "craving power" would more than likely make you a "sociopath," which is similar to "psychopath" but, I would think, less harmful. Yet the fact that anyone would want to be President of supposedly the most powerful country on Earth (militarily, but no longer morally, economically, or socially, that is), and have all those nukes at his or her disposal pre-disposes them to this sort of designation. And, while all of these individuals might be fairly decent people at a barbecue (certainly, W. Bush would be) where they didn't have to let THEM run their lives, we aren't talking about picnics here. Actually, anyone who would want to run any country would have to have similar characteristics, or have, at the very minimum, a Type-A personality (that is, desire to be a control freak). Still, the above nine criteria are all characteristics of those who somehow and in some way want power over others. These are indeed VERY DANGEROUS characteristics in someone who will control the world's largest nuclear stockpile.
WARNING! THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE IN NO WAY CONSTITUTES A DIAGNOSIS, AND IS FOR OPINION PURPOSES ONLY! And now, for my "informed opinion": Every single candidate ("other than Paul") exhibits several of these characteristics, particularly "pathological lying", "superficial charm", "lack of remorse" (for instance, regarding the Palestinians, as all of the front-runners except maybe Obama have done nothing or said anything or at least ever showed any sympathy at all for these people, and all are rabidly pro-Zionist in the hip pockets of AIPAC, and also for the destruction of Iraqis, Afghanis, and others), "lack of empathy" (see my comment on "lack of remorse"; empathy means the ability to put yourself in the other guys shoes, and no one who is beholden to oligarchical interests can possibly put themselves in the shoes of those they help destroy), and "failure to accept responsibility for own actions" because none of these people will own up to the fact that it is they who are causing so much misery; they'd rather blame "al Qaida" or "Hamas". On the home front, they blamed Katrina victims for their own inability to foresee that hurricane and NOT live in a city that was below sea level in the first place, and today blame lower income people from wanting a piece of the "American Dream" by buying a house they couldn't afford, and therefore "let 'em eat cake." Since I don't know these people personally (and I don't want to know them!), I can't actually say which one is the most psychopathic, but I'll hazard a guess and say Obama is the least psychopathic, with Huckabee right behind him. Huckabee probably won't be there at the end, and Obama, due to his "lack of experience" in the Senate, hasn't been around long enough to develop serious psychopathology. But do not construe this as an endorsement for Obama. I am tired of voting for evil, lesser or greater, and I have no intentions of voting for the Senator from Illinios.
Finally, my statement that "if you had any sanity you'd let Ron Paul do it." Well, clearly neither McCain nor Romney nor Huckabee want Dr. No to do it, seeing as how they all ganged up against him in the Louisiana Caucuses with their "Family Values Coalition" slate of combined caucus delegates. If they had any sanity, they'd let Ron Paul take the fall for what is about to befall the US economy: recession, dollar crisis and maybe collapse from the world's reserve currency, crisis of conficence, heavy duty inflation or perhaps deflation or both, and, as some say, possibly even a depression, possibly even a depression the likes of which this country has never seen. If they had any sanity, they'd let Ron Paul become President, bring the troops home, but not be able to carry out most of the reforms he has pledged to (get rid of the IRS, Homeland Security, Dept. of Education and Dept. of Energy, and do something about the Federal Reserve privately owned Bank) because Congress will stop him at every step. There is no way Congress will let Paul stop aid to Israel. Now, if they had any sanity, they'd let the Congressman they hate just fall flat on his face so that the American people would begin to hate his Presidency. But, they won't do this, because they aren't sane after all. IMHO.
Like what you read? Then subscribe to the Something Happening Here Newsletter! I do not have a set time for it to come out, but I try to make a newsletter once a week or as much as possible with hints and tips on how to live better and more naturally on your rural remote land. From handling garden insects to collecting valuable resources like water and firewood to raising your children to dealing with neighbors, I believe my 25 years experience living on the land can help you make the most of your rural remote life.
