Antihonetus personality disorder (AHPD), more commonly referred to as factualpathy, is described by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as an Axis II personality disorder. It is characterized as a chronic and cerebrally fatal disease, manifested by an obsessive compulsion with disregarding facts and truths. The afflicted will present symptoms of manic cerebral paroxysms caused by a profound phobia of facts or truths. There is currently no known cure or treatment.
This country has endured Presidents of explicitly unacceptable character, dishonorable morality, indiscriminate ignorance, and eradicative designs on the Constitution. Barack Obama has governed as if the list was his compass.
Barack Obama, in the ensuing enumeration, supplies more evidence supporting his divorce from reality. But what should be investigated is whether or not he has actually ever participated in orthodox reality. His youth and college years were spent in a drug-induced artificial reality. He was coddled and afforded entrance to universities he was not academically qualified to attend, an artificial reality starkly contrasted with individuals who were forced to rely on merit, labor, and self-reliance for entrance. He has been elected to three public offices: he was Senator of the state of Illinois from 1997-2004, but had a notorious reputation for either being absent or voting present, and he also never stopped campaigning, hardly the reality of a statesman; he was a U.S Senator from 2005 until 2008, conducting himself as he did in the Illinois Senate, but spent more time campaigning; he was elected President in 2008, has been absent or voted present on each critical situation, and has been in either a perpetual campaign or vacation mode since being elected, a continuation of existing in a faux reality.
The calculus of predicting the results of electing a President with no discernible skills, a vacuous record of accomplishments, alienation from orthodox reality, and a well-established reputation as a subverter of our founding principles would be a basal mathematical calculation.
Just last week, at a fundraiser in San Jose, California, Barack Obama's phantom lucidity created three tortured distortions of reality about the Republican debates:
- "You've got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change. It's true."
- "You've got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don't have healthcare."
- "And booing a service member in Iraq because they're gay."
He polished off the three aberrations with the statement, "That’s not reflective of who we are," which is a true statement because the statements did not happen in a generally accepted reality. Barack Obama either does not know that his statements are baseless--which is a case for being unenlightened--or knows they are blatant lies--which is the case for being a garden-variety liar.
An investigation is warranted for each of the three benighted and fork-tongued statements emanating from Obama's teleprompter.
Rick Perry is the recipient of the first fantastical hallucination: "You've got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change. It's true." Obama is stating as fact that Texas' wildfires are the result of global warming, Rick Perry is denying the apocryphal science regarding man-made global warming, and thus, Rick Perry has caused Texas to burn because he does not believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Let's examine the facts regarding the Texas wildfires. The wildfires were the largest and most destructive in Texas' history. Wildfires are the result of drought conditions. Through the month of July, Texas was in a 10-month drought, and it was these conditions that caused the scope of the wildfires. So, to follow Obama's logic, global warming caused the 10-month drought in Texas, which in turn caused the unprecedented wildfires. Since the use of fossil fuels and the plethora of other man-made global warming whatnots are infinity greater now than in the early 20th century, anthropogenic global warming would have to be considered relatively new--but this is all dependent on the make and model of the foil hat one wears. So let's contrast Texas' 10-month drought to a time starting about 82 years ago.
The infamous Dust Bowl drought lasted from 1930 until 1936, and until 1940 in some areas, which caused a 10-year ecological devastation. From 1950 to 1957, Texas experienced a severe seven-year drought that spread to New Mexico, then spread to the Central Plains, the Midwest, and the Rocky Mountain states. Two hundred of Texas' 245 counties were declared disaster areas.
And what good are severe droughts and severe dry periods without devastating fires?
- 1871 Wisconsin: 2,500 lives were lost and four million acres burned.
- 1889 Seattle, Washington: fires destroyed 64 acres of the city and killed two people.
- 1894 Minnesota: forest fires destroyed over 160,000 acres and 6 towns, killing 600.
- 1902 Washington and Oregon: fires destroyed one million acres and killed 38.
- 1910 Idaho and Montana: fires destroyed three million acres of woods and killed 85 people.
- 1947 Maine: forest fires destroyed 206,000 acres of Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park, killing 16.
- 1956 California: fires destroyed 40,000 acres in Cleveland National Forest and killed 11.
Barack Obama used the tragedy of the devastating Texas wildfires to try to belittle a potential political opponent for the purpose of raising a few dollars at a liberal political fundraiser. The contrast between Obama and any legitimate leader of this country is that a true leader would acknowledge that not only is Texas Perry's state, but Texas, being a bonafide card-carrying member of the United States, is the President's state also.
The recipient of the second bizarre decoding of reality is Ron Paul:"You've got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don't have healthcare." Obama distorted reality with Paul's actual answer during a Republican debate. The transcript:
WOLF BLITZER (Debate Moderator): Ron Paul, so you’re a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.
A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.
Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?
CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL (R-Texas): Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.
BLITZER: Well, what do you want?
PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced --
BLITZER:But he doesn't have that. He doesn't have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?
PAUL:That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody --
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?
PAUL: No.
PAUL: I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.
(APPLAUSE)
Perhaps it was Chris Mathews of MSNBC that started this liberal meme directly after Paul said a society should not let someone die for lack of funds: "Ron Paul said he’d let someone die if they failed to pony up for health insurance."And perhaps Obama just took it and ran with it, which is problematic on many levels. Either way, the statements by these two liberal minds underscore liberals' pathological inability to absorb and process facts.
For Obama's third defamation of reality, "And booing a service member in Iraq because they're gay," it is rather hard to pin who the intended recipient was, though it was intended for those in league with the Founding Fathers.
During a Republican debate in Orlando, Florida, a question was asked to the Republican field via video message from Iraq by Stephen Hill, a gay soldier. Hill asked if they would seek to undermine the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" if elected President. There were boos. The liberal press' headlines the next day: Republican Audience Erupted in Boos and Jeers. Tea Party Audience Booed a Gay Soldier. The Night that Republicans Booed a Soldier. Audience Boos Gay Soldier.
The audience: 3,500 registered Florida GOP delegates. Two, and at the most, three people were responsible for the booing out of an audience of 3,500. The United States Senate has 100 members. One member would comprise .01 of the Senate. Would it be a fair assumption to state that the actions of one member are representative of the entire Senate? If one member of the Senate commits a felony, can the entire Senate be considered felonious? Before answering yes, please disregard all extraneous reasons. The three people that booed at the debate represented .000857 of the audience. It is apparent that in the reality in which Barack Obama and the left subsist, this is a representative percentage, but not quite so in the reality most people are forced to battle with each day.
Obama's summation of his three fantastical statements, "That's not reflective of who we are," sums up the reason for the pummeling the Democrats took in the 2010 elections: it was a referendum of Barack Obama, and because he is actually "not reflective of who we are."
In my generosity, I placed the blame on Obama's inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality as an acute psychological disorder, which may or may not be covered under ObamaCare. But Herman Cain may have made a more accurate diagnosis: "Can I be blunt? That's a lie. You're not supposed to call the president a liar. Well if you're not supposed to call the president a liar, he shouldn't tell a lie."
