Forget about Barack Obama’s ultra-liberal policies — should Americans now be worried about the mental health of the current occupant of the White House? That was the alarming suggestion Fox Business Network viewers heard Tuesday evening.

Talking about the bewildering decision to trade five “high risk” Taliban leaders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl on Lou Dobbs Tonight, psychologist Dr. Gina Loudon said she has become “very, very concerned” that President Obama has become “irrational, erratic and perhaps not exactly what we might want to deem sane.” [Video and transcript after the jump.]

Host Lou Dobbs asked Loudon about the case of U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, who is currently imprisoned in Mexico after accidentally crossing the border March 31 with guns in his vehicle, a case which seems much less urgent to the Obama administration than that of Bowe Bergdahl.

But instead of talking about the Tahmooressi case, Loudon made the much more disturbing observation that Obama is exhibiting signs of “irrational” behavior:

SNIP

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/...e#ixzz3435axZQD

I concur with the Dr. Zero isn't wired right.

I concur with the Dr. Zero isn't wired right.

Zero is as crazy - or sane - as his handlers allow him to be.

I'm more interested in how an obscure Illinois state senator with a murky background - in the space of 4 short years - goes on to the US Senate and then the WH.

Because front men/women like Zero (and Bill and Hilliary Xlinton before him) are a dime a dozen. Defeat Zero, and there will be 10 more to take his place.

The power behind him is what matters.

It's been fashionable for some time to categorize people who bring up the Trilateral Commission (or entities along those lines) as wackos, kooks or even worse.

It is their right, or course, to say such things - but I would ask this: How do YOU explain Zero, then? Or for that matter, the Xlintons (Bill, a failed one-term governor of a backwater state and Hilliary - whose accomplishments are nil)

I'll admit - I don't know who "THEY" are - but I am almost 100 percent certain "THEY" exist.

Think of it this way - which is "weirder"? To believe that billionaire family "citizens of the world" would seek and gain control - over dozens and even hundreds of years - of the biggest world economies? Or to naively believe that these same economies would be left alone and left to the whims of the masses?

I submit the latter is less likely.