IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 361the right to know everything but everything about presidential nominees who are asking for our
votes. We have a right to know their full personal histories, with no exceptions, no omissions, and
no withheld documents. We have a right to know if they are HIV-positive and whether they ever
registered for the draft. We want to know if they have received electroshock, psychopharmaca, and
whether they have been treated by a psychiatrist. We have a right to see their birth certificate, their
college transcript, their senior thesis if they wrote one, their law school transcript, their passport,
papers from earlier times in public office, and all other relevant documents. We have a right to
know about their mother, their father, their sister, their brother, their Aunt Tilly, their best friends at
all stages of life, their boyfriends, their girlfriends, their pets, their backers, their sponsors, their
gurus, their controllers, and their associates of every kind. We want to know what religions they
have professed or not professed. More than a right to know these things, we have an imperative duty
to find them out. For they are asking to get their hands on the thermonuclear button, the misuse of
which can unleash a thermonuclear fireball that will not respect any aspect of the privacy of
ourselves and our family. Naturally, candidates are free to make their own choices in life just like
everybody else: they can choose their religion, their personal associations, their forms of recreation,
and all the rest in any way that they like. But none of this — absolutely nothing — can be claimed
as a secret off limits to the attention of the public. All of it must be thoroughly investigated, aired,
and published when the presidency is at stake. An Air Force crewman at a missile silo in the
Dakotas goes through a background check which leaves scant room for privacy. We must demand
nothing less from presidential candidates.
OBAMA’S COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT AND ALLEGED COCAINE USE
Larry Sinclair alleges that Obama has indulged in crack cocaine. Those familiar with the public
literature about the current tenant of the White House know very well that there are many
indications that his extraordinarily low level of performance may derive from cognitive impairment
brought on by habitual cocaine use. How many more coke fiends in the White House are
compatible with the further national survival of the United States? Ronald Reagan notoriously
suffered from cognitive impairment and constantly made his remarks off index cards which he kept
hidden in his hands. Those index cards were a low-tech version of the glass plates of the
Teleprompter upon which Obama relies. As soon as he cannot read his words off those glass plates,
Obama begins to stutter, to stammer and babble, to hem and to haw, repeatedly losing his syntax
and constantly interjecting “um” and “you know.” What if Obama’s cocaine use really did not stop
in 1981, as he suggests in his memoir, and continued all the way to late 1999 at the very least, as
Larry Sinclair has alleged? That might suggest that Obama suffers from greater cognitive
impairment than Bush, as Obama’s incredible series of gaffes at the end of the primaries also
indicates. Larry Sinclair stressed during his press conference that he has been a gay man all his life,
and that he regarded the crack cocaine issue as the central one, at least until the time of the Donald
Young murder. During the press conference, Sinclair announced that he was willing to make his
own personal medical records, including mental health records, available to responsible
representatives of accredited news organizations, at their own expense. That means that Sinclair is
much more forthcoming about his medical history than Obama, who has withheld his medical
records and offered a single meaningless page of advertising copy signed by his personal physician.
And remember that Sinclair was not running for any office, while Obama wants to be president. In
the meantime, Larry Sinclair was still the target of frame-up operations, threats, and harassment.
What kind of a presidential campaign would we have when critics of the most radical subversive to
ever get this close to the presidency have to worry about a knock on the door in the middle of the