[Click above to embiggen: the First Presidential Debate, available to watch on the YouTubes via the Internets on your computer.]
For those of you who can’t get enough of the First Presidential Debate, you can watch it on the YouTubes for yourself. I also wrote a live thought stream of what I observed as it originally aired, which you can find here. It’s an hour or so now after the debate ended and I thought I would take the time here to circle back and highlight some of what I believed was most important from tonight’s event.
Here are the Top Ten Takeaways from the Hofstra University Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump debate on 9/26/16:
10. What the Hell is wrong with Republicans that they allow known Media figures (aka, Democrat operatives) to moderate these debates? I ask this every four years…and feel like I will have to keep asking it every four years for the rest of my life. It’s similar to how I keep asking why the Hell we allow the Iowa Caucus to be first every time and wield such disproportionate influence over the nominating process…or why we even allow the ridiculous caucuses to exist in the first place and we don’t mandate secret ballot primaries for all elections. It’s things like this that make the conspiracy theorists amongst us believe that the deck really is stacked and some globalist overlord like George Soros really does dictate how we all must live…and that our elections are all just a fraud and facade. I really don’t understand why Republicans go along with all the things they go along with. It makes me wistfully miss the days when I used to be a Democrat, because it sucks being on the side of people who are so stupid that they refuse to stop doing things that help their opponents. Sometimes, being a Republican since 2008, I feel like I’m best friends with Lindsay Lohan: I see all the things she needs to stop doing — or at least seriously address — but nothing I say or do can ever get her to stop doing these things. It’s like being in an especially cruel and inventive corner of Hades, with the Cassandra-like eternal damnation of having to watch people repeat the same destructive mistakes forever…with them refusing to change and becoming instantly amnesiac soon after the same recurring problems befall them over and over and over again. Forever.
For the life of me, I will never understand why known Media figures like Lester Holt are allowed to moderate these presidential debates. This is no fault against Holt per se — who behaved himself better than Candy Crowley did, but more on Holt later — but rather my astonishment that Republicans keep allowing Democrat operatives to play Lucy to their Charlie Brown and consistently snatch the football away. Why are big-name Media stars used when someone completely unknown (but experienced and proven to be neutral) could handle being a debate moderator much better?
It’s not like the big name Media people are needed to draw ratings. No one is tuning in to a presidential debate to see Lester Holt. Those eyeballs are there to see the candidates (and hope for fireworks). I think the debate moderators should be completely unknown individuals. They should be used once and only once and someone else should be chosen the next time. These people should be professionals of some sort, but with a neutral bias and a need to maintain their professional credentials. Maybe they are attorneys, administrative judges, or arbitration moderators. I would look for this type of person: someone who is used to the pressure of being in a high-stakes environment and who has a lot of practice with combative parties and who is skilled at adhering to rules and enforcing rules in a professional way. I would hope that someone like that would not want to look foolish on television and would, thus, behave in a dignified and professional way while moderating a presidential debate.
The problem with consistently using big Media stars is that these people are entertainers in a sense: they have their fans and their niche audiences and they play to that. Lester Holt came into moderating this debate with admonitions from the Left about not letting Trump get away with anything and instructions from fellow Hillary supporters to go easy on her…and Holt played to that. He knows where his bread is buttered and who does his buttering. Having a totally unknown person fill the role of moderator would remove all of this. I wouldn’t even allow the person to be known before the debate started. The moderator is irrelevant anyway. Why not publish the questions in advance so there are no “Gotcha!” nonsense moments? It really should be the two candidates squaring off, with each one responsible for making their cases for their own candidacies.
Really, these debates should just have an administrative time-keeper and someone to gently step in to tee up the next topic of conversation between the two candidates. In that sense, it should function like two opposing attorneys in a courtroom delivering closing remarks to a jury, with a judge just sitting up there presiding over the order of the proceedings but not fact-checking anyone or rigging things one way or another.
9. Trump didn’t go for Hillary’s throat or ask her about any of her major lies…does someone tell Republican candidates to not go for the throat? This to me is like Mittens Romney back in 2012 not going after Obama over Benghazi or John McCain not doing anything memorable during his own debates in 2008. I feel like someone takes the Republican candidate aside and tells that person not to hit the Democrat too hard…or else. Were all of Trump’s kids accounted for tonight? Was anyone missing and being held captive somewhere as insurance that Trump wouldn’t go for Hillary’s throat? What else explains no questions to her about Benghazi, her many strange lies about her emails, her odd relationship with Saudi Arabian operative Huma Abedin, her bizarre health problems, etc. I feel that Trump has GOP consultants (who are best known for losing, not winning, elections) in his ear telling him not to do this and not to do that. But, this is why Republicans lose elections. The people watching want a good show. They want to hear hard-hitting questions being asked and see politicians be truly grilled.
I think that Trump was cautioned to not become another Rick Lazio. Remember him? He was the strange little man who went up against Hillary in her first run for the Senate. That race was competitive until he came at her with some weird piece of paper, giving her the chance to make a concerned and shocked face at him that implied she was afraid for her physical safety. Lazio was toast after that and Hillary comfortably sailed to victory. Every few years, Lazio threatens to run for something else again and people pretty much beg him not to and remind him that he’s terrible. He is a lawyer at some firm that few people have ever heard of and will go to his grave being “That Guy Who Was a Jerk in the Debate With Hillary Sixteen Years Ago.” Even I had to look his name up. I thought it was Lasko at first.
Was Trump told not to be a new Lazio/Lasko/Whatever? I really hope that Donald Trump is not listening to GOP consultants. To me, that is like taking sportsball advice from the Washington Generals. Why take advice from the people who couldn’t win to save their lives?
Read the rest of this entry »
What: The First Presidential Debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
When: Monday 9/26/16 at 7pm CST
Where: Livestreaming on CSPAN, here.
Why: Taking notes on this debate so you don’t have to watch the whole thing if you don’t want to. Because we are friends like that.
Before we get into the debate tonight, it’s worth taking a few moments to note just how surreal all of this is. In so many ways. I put my heart and soul into Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign…which is something that I will never regret doing. It was the right move at the time and back in 2008 she would have made a better president than Barack Obama. In that moment of time, the Democrat Party was at a crossroads: would the moderates in the party survive and would Democrats continue to be forced to ameliorate and hone to the middle…or would the lunatics of the Left take over the DNC and relentlessly wield the Alinsky cudgel openly in everyday politics forever. Clearly, the Left won and it owns the Democrat Party now and forever.
Victim of Forced-Euthanasia Attempt at Joliet Area Community Hospice Doing Well, Regaining His Strength
Chester Siniawski, the man who survived a forced-euthanasia attempt on his life at the Joliet Area Community Hospice, continues to regain strength after his son, Chet, managed to free him from the JACH and move him into a hospital (where medical professionals actually work, not ghouls who try to kill people who want to keep living). Chester’s being fed three times a day now and is making huge steps in his recovery. A man who was cruelly denied food and starved for over two months is being given as much to eat as he wants and is loving it! He’s regained the use of his left side and, every day that he’s receiving proper nourishment and physical therapy, he gets closer to being the person he used to be, before his stroke in April.
The reason I care so much about this man is because of how horrific what was done to him truly is: he had a non-terminal stroke that he could recover from…but his own wife (who appears to have some kind of mental illness) wanted him to die and never recover, because she didn’t want to be bothered with having a husband in a wheelchair. Being a widow sounded more fun and a better time for her than having to care for a man who needed rehabilitation to regain use of his body after a stroke. That whole “in sickness and in health” part of the wedding vows didn’t seem to register with this woman. That right there is terrible enough…but on top of it there is actually a place in Illinois where someone this despicable can take her husband and staff will go along with a plot to withhold food and water from the man in order to euthanize him against his will. Just because his wife already has a black dress picked out and wants to put the “fun” back in funeral.
Forced-euthanasia has another, simpler name: MURDER. People who starve someone to death, when that person wants to live and be fed, are MURDERERS.
The Chester Siniawski case ended up being this perfect storm of horror and stupidity:
1. A man’s wife wants to be a widow and not a caregiver, so she decides it would be best that her husband be starved to death in a hospice instead of going to a hospital/rehab center where he would get better. This is the kind of thing that Alfred Hitchcock would have cooked up for a movie he could never have made…because no one would have believed it was possible to get away with.
2. The government of Illinois allows this demented woman to put her husband into the Joliet Area Community Hospice and check him in as a “resident,” because he legally could not be coded as a “patient”…due to the fact that he was not terminal. Only terminal patients can be coded as “patients”…so Chester was locked into this place to be starved to death as a “resident,” with his demented wife paying $250/day out of pocket to keep him in there until he could be euthanized against his wishes.
3. The whole time, Chester could speak and was begging to be fed. The ghouls working at the JACH would keep food of out his reach and allow his wife to eat the food instead of Chester. When visitors would bring Chester Muscle Milk protein shakes to drink or try to give him other food like soup broth, the visitors would be banned from visiting because they were trying to keep Chester alive and the wife/JACH wanted Chester to starve to death.
4. The Joliet police refused to get involved, even though a man who begged to live was slowly being murdered in a facility in their jurisdiction. The police claimed that because it said “hospice” above the door that they were not allowed to enter. Like it’s the movie The Ten Commandments and writing “hospice” on the doorframe in lamb’s blood has a magical power to keep an entity as powerful as the police from crossing a threshold.
5. No elected official in the entire state of Illinois or government agency would get involved because the place Chester was being slowly murdered in was called a “hospice.” Every one of these people said exactly the same thing: “Since people die in hospices all the time, no one can be murdered in a hospice. We won’t get involved if he’s being starved to death in a hospice because there must be a reason he is in there. If he was at home being starved, we’d send the SWAT team to help him of course. But because it says ‘hospice’ on the door, we are not allowed in there.”
6. Apparently, murder is legal if the building says “hospice” on it. Imagine the ramifications of that. The mob or drug lords could just buy a building, write “hospice” on it, and take people there…check them in as “residents” and then kill them. Since they died in a “hospice,” presumably no one in Illinois will care (since people die in hospices all the time and every state official we spoke with during this ordeal said that their jurisdiction stops at a hospice’s doors).
7. This really weird thing would happen when speaking to any of these officials and authorities where they would get really quiet, start to sweat a little, and their breathing would change. That happened when we would tell them that in Illinois euthanasia is illegal and that state statutes specify that deliberately withholding food, water, and other life-sustaining substances from a person with the intention of killing that person is murder. Chester Siniawski wanted to live and was begging for food and water, yet staff at the JACH listened to his wife and not him and would keep life-sustaining materials away from Chester so his body would shut down, with the goal of killing him. Officials would get really nervous and they’d even gulp as they tried to think about what to say next…since people are probably euthanized all the time in Illinois hospices with no one complaining. The reason this was an issue with Chester is that Chester did not want to die and his son and other relatives did not want him to die. So all the other people who are so used to looking the other way when euthanasia is happening didn’t know what to do when someone like Chester was actually being murdered.
8. The Joliet police only got involved when they were told they would have liability if Chester Siniawski, who was not a terminal patient, died and family members had repeatedly told the Joliet police that he was being murdered. The Illinois State Police had to actually intervene and tell the Joliet police that they would be liable for wrongful death and other lawsuits if they refused to speak with Chester and ascertain if food and water were being withheld from him against his wishes as family members claimed.
9. Not long after this happened, all the dominoes started falling. The JACH found a crooked judge that had some personal connection to the hospice who threw an unconstitutional gag order on the Siniawski family and forbade them from making any more videos of Chester begging for food and saying he wanted to live. The JACH did not want any more video evidence that Chester wanted to live and wanted to be fed. The fact that Chester asked for food and stated clearly that he wanted to live prohibited the JACH from continuing to starve Chester, the way that other people in that horrible facility are no doubt starved by whoever wants to euthanize them.
10. What I think happened at the JACH is that the staff just got used to people being brought there who no longer wanted to live or who had stopped resisting efforts to kill them. So the staff probably felt they were do-gooders in helping people end their lives by doing things like withholding food so their bodies would shut down. They pump these people full of drugs, keep food away from them, and end their lives. No doubt they go home each night believing they are angels of mercy and don’t see themselves as murderers or ghouls. But, when a man like Chester Siniawski begs to be fed and says over and over again that he wants to live and staff members instead listen only to his wife (who states clearly she prefers him to be dead), then there is a serious problem.
11. A guardian ad litem was appointed to Chester and at first seemed to side with the JACH and the efforts to starve Chester to death, since — again– I think that these people are all so accustomed to looking the other way so that people who really want to die can “end their lives with dignity,” despite euthanasia being illegal in Illinois. All of these people working in the legal system or in government seem to want to keep places like the JACH open so that they have somewhere to take a spouse or relative when they want to kill them in the future, should that person become too much of a hassle to care for when they are sick. Or, they want to have a place to go to have their own lives snuffed out if they suffer an illness or just get bored with being alive.
12. After speaking with Chester and observing things that his wife was doing, the guardian ad litem had no choice but to agree with Chester’s son Chet that Chester wanted to live, wanted to be fed, and should be moved to a hospital.
13. At the hospital, Chester’s wife continued trying to kill him by insisting that he have a Do Not Resuscitate order placed on him and she lied to nursing staff, claiming she still had Power of Attorney over Chester. Nursing staff were accustomed to just accepting things that a spouse says as true, so Chet had to bring in the doctor and show him that Chester’s wife no longer had any legal authority to make any decisions for him and that she was in fact delusional and wanted him dead. This woman is so hell-bent on killing Chester that she even refused to admit he was getting better and making progress in the hospital, when he clearly was rebounding after being allowed food and hydration again.
14. The doctors concluded that Chester was able to speak, think, answer questions, process information, and make his own decisions. Any papers saying otherwise were ripped up. Chester can read and can write his own name. He asked for Chet to be his guardian if anything else happens to incapacitate him.
15. The hardest part of all of this is the fact that Chester can’t wrap his head around the fact that his wife of 30+ years wanted him to die and not recover from the stroke. In his wife’s mind, the fact that Chester will have to be in a wheelchair at least temporarily meant that he shouldn’t live and it would be better and easier for everyone if he was taken to the cemetery instead of a rehab center. Chester’s in his 60s and could live another 20 years, but his wife would tell people that if he can’t play ball with dogs out in the backyard and can’t walk on his own, then it would be better if he was just dead. Meanwhile, Chester kept saying he wanted to live and didn’t want to die…but his wife would not listen.
The whole thing was like that Monty Python sketch about the Black Plague, where a cart was pushed through the streets demanding people bring out their dead…and one of the people tossed into the cart kept pleading, “But, I’m not dead! Don’t take me! I’m not dead!” Chester’s wife essentially insisted that he should be dead and the ghouls working at the Joliet Area Community Hospice went along with that and allowed Chester to be starved and denied life-sustaining materials for months. Police and other officials refused to listen after hearing the word “hospice,” because they said that whatever’s going on in the JACH must be okay because they trusted the staff to not be murderers. But…what if they are murderers? Why just trust that they aren’t doing anything wrong when family members come forward and plead to authorities that a man like Chester Siniawski was being starved to death and forcibly euthanized against his wishes?
I still can’t believe this all happened in America in the year 2016. It’s all like something that would happen in a Muslim country or the Soviet Union back in the day. It is my most fervent hope that once he is well enough and fully recovered that Chester sues the Joliet Area Community Hospice out of existence and also files whatever civil rights suit he can against the Joliet police and other government entities that refused to listen and wouldn’t help him when he was pleading to live and not be murdered.
The ONLY reason this man is still alive is because of GoFundMe, Twitter, Facebook. YouTube and other social media. I also credit Andrea Shea King for talking about Chester’s plight on her popular radio show and Tea Party groups around the country who also shared the video of Chester asking for food and begging to live. Once that video got out there to as many people as it did, it became impossible for the Joliet Area Community Hospice to keep food away from Chester.
Once Chester started being allowed to eat, he got strong enough to progress from Muscle Milk to soup. After soup came stew. And then fully solid foods. The JACH staffers had managed to starve this man to the brink of death, but that video of him begging for help made them back off…and that created a window where Chet and other visitors were able to bring Chester nourishment. He would have certainly died without that video….which is a video that a crooked Joliet judge tried to suppress and keep people from ever seeing.
The lessons from all of this are really clear:
A. If you have not done so, you should craft a living will that expresses what you want to happen to you if ever you are in a situation like Chester Siniawski. You’ve suffered a stroke or other injury/ailment…and you are in a bed but are not terminal. You can breathe on your own and can speak, but you are not your usual self. Do you want to be starved to death and denied life-sustaining nourishment/hydration and euthanized? You might even want to include a reference to Chester Siniawski specifically and what happened to him…and say what you want to happen to you if ever you are in Chester’s place. Personally, I do not want to ever be starved to death. I want to be fed. I want to be given water. I want the chance to recover as much as I can if ever I am struck down by a stroke or some other trauma. I do not want to be euthanized as long as I can speak, answer questions, and my brain is still working.
B. If you are ever in a situation where you are incapacitated, try your best to have someone take a video of you expressing your wishes. And put that video on YouTube and get it out there. Make it impossible for a facility like the Joliet Area Community Hospice to forcibly-euthanize you against your wishes. Prevent authorities and officials from being able to look the other way as you are murdered. Forget vanity. Beg for your life on camera. State clearly that you want to live and want to be fed.
C. If anyone you love is in a situation like Chester’s, get video! The video is what saved this man. Whip out your phone, talk to your loved one, get the person to answer questions about whether or not he/she wants to live, and if the person wants to live then make sure that video is public so the whole world knows. It’s the only way to save that person’s life, as Chester’s case proves. If it’s not on video, then it didn’t happen. That’s the biggest lesson to learn from all of this.
I really don’t feel comfortable getting into what happens if someone actually wants to die and be starved to death or euthanized. In Illinois, all of that is illegal…and that is the law on the books. Clearly, authorities don’t enforce this just like the government has chosen to ignore and not enforce immigration law. We’re in an age where our culture is seemingly deciding that some laws will be followed and others won’t be, particularly when emotions run high and people feel passionately about things on personal levels. I doubt the Joliet Area Community Hospice is making money off selling body parts like Planned Parenthood does, so the staff’s motivation in starving people to death isn’t one of profit…but instead these ghouls think they are doing something good and providing a needed service, regardless of what the law says. They are secure in the belief that they will never be prosecuted for killing anyone by starvation/dehydration because every representative of law and government is clear in stating that they will always look the other way. If you want to die in Illinois in a hospice or if your family wants to kill you in a hospice, then no one will ever consider that murder, regardless of what the law says. Whether or not Illinois ever formally legalizes euthanasia, the fact is that it’s clearly happening here and has been for years and everyone in power is fine with that. This is where we are as a culture and a society. Until giant lawsuits happen against euthanasia centers and local government that allows this, nothing is going to change. Maybe people don’t want this to change.
I just come back to the fact that life is such a precious gift. Every day, each of us ages. We’ll never be who we were at 18 or 25 or 30 or whatever. Our health deteriorates. We lose abilities. In time, we become ghosts of our former selves. As an American, I just don’t like the idea of ever giving up…and so I won’t ever give up. That’s my choice. I want to keep fighting and living for as long as I can. I hope that the people I love want that too for themselves. And if they do want to fight and keep living but staff at a facility and other actors try to kill them, you better believe I will do whatever I can to keep them alive. How sad it is that our elected officials and trusted public servants don’t feel the same way and operate under the kind of “death is better” mentality that the Soviet Union would have subscribed to.
I’m so troubled by this video of Hillary Clinton in some kind of coffee shop where she had a seizure episode while speaking to reporters that it’s worth giving it the Zapruder treatment and analyzing it section by section.
Section #1: Nothing weird is happening at first. Hillary’s wearing a blue pantsuit, standing in some kind of coffee shop, and she holds up an iced chai drink to her mouth and takes a sip. There is a bearded man asking her questions about Obama endorsing her. This part is actually funny because Hillary hates Obama (and the feeling is mutual), but the reporters are clearly all Obamabots and adore him (just look at the reporters…they are all the Ivy Tower-dwelling utopian types who still drink Obama’s Kool-Aid). Hillary then has to say something nice about a person she hates with never-ending passion, because she needs the Obamabot idiots to get what she wants, which is the presidency. It really amazes me sometimes that these reporters have jobs (and get paid a lot of money). The questions they ask are so insipid. They remind me of eager-beaver honor students at some prep school interviewing someone for the school paper, The Weekly Clamshell or whatever.
Section #2: Keep watching the strange-looking female reporter with the frizzy red hair (I have no idea who she is, but let’s call her Buffy. And her dark-haired colleague can be Muffy). Watch Buffy’s face as Hillary starts to do bizarre things. This reporter missed her calling in life: she should have been a clown at preschoolers’ birthday parties. She is whimsically expressive.
Section #3: The trouble starts 13-seconds into the video, when the bearded man stops asking questions, Hillary stops trying to pretend she gives a damn about Obama, and Buffy & Muffy start shouting rapid-fire at Hillary while jabbing their iPhones at her to record her. All of this activity (the noise, the rapid movements, the pushing of objects towards her) overwhelms Hillary and triggers the seizure.
Section #4: Watch Buffy! Hillary’s making weird faces, so Buffy makes weird faces back. At first it was involuntary and Buffy was genuinely surprised and shocked…then Buffy seems to think that Hillary was playing around and joking, so Buffy then plays back and makes weird faces too. The whole thing is so strange. I’m 40 years old now. I’ve been actively following politics for my entire adult life and writing about politics for almost 10 years now. I’ve never seen anything as strange as this Buffy-Hillary moment. Of course no one in the Media is reporting on any of this. But, it’s easily the strangest damn thing I’ve ever seen two people do in public. And I live in Boystown.
Read the rest of this entry »
Before we get into any of this, let’s be clear that I’m not a medical professional and I am only following clues left by others and working off my own observations of Hillary Clinton’s strange behavior lately. I’ve been observing Hillary since the 1990s, as I used to admire her, root for her, and for many years I wanted her to become the first female President of the United States. So, it stings more than you could ever know for me to say that here in 2016 I am deeply concerned that Hillary Clinton could be gravely ill or otherwise now have some strange brain problem that would dangerously impact her abilities to be president.
This is a large part of why I am not supporting her bid for the White House this year.
A theory that makes a lot of sense to me is that Hillary Clinton is experiencing what are known as “absence seizures.” Two examples of these are her strange behavior after her convention acceptance speech in Philadelphia (the bizarre faces she made looking at all the balloons, like she had become a toddler staring at a mobile above her crib) and the unsettling moment at a campaign stump event where she zoned out, looked frightened, and needed a Handler to walk her back to reality and calm her down.
Compare Hillary’s behavior in these instances with the behavior of these children afflicted with ABSENCE SEIZURES, where the children have been diagnosed as being prone to absence seizures:
Example #1: Hillary zoning out = Watch how her face just goes blank. The Media reported this as Hillary becoming afraid of something or someone in the crowd, but is that what really happened? Watch how the large black man who is her Handler sweeps in. He pushes the Secret Service agents away because he knows what is happening. Hillary is not in danger. She is not afraid of anything. She is having an absence seizure. Listen to what he says to her to calm her down. And then watch the video of the boy “Tyler” having an absence seizure and listen to what Tyler’s dad says to him. It’s very similar to what the Handler said to Hillary.
Absence Seizure Video-1 = Listen to what Tyler’s dad says to him. Compare it to what Hillary’s Handler said to her during the weird moment in her campaign speech.
Example #2: Hillary with balloons = In this video, Paul Joseph Watson (my new crush in life) runs through several of Hillary’s bizarre episodes recently where he argues that she is having strokes/seizures that the Media refuses to report on. Compare her bizarre laughing to the laughing in the second ABSENCE SEIZURE video.
Absence Seizure Video-2 = Watch all things happening to this child who is afflicted with ABSENCE SEIZURES. Compare to the things happening to Hillary Clinton. It seems likely this is what her problem is.
According to the Epilepsy Foundation, absence seizures are often referred to as “petite mal seizures” (as opposed to grand mal seizures). They involve briefly losing consciousness and coming back quickly, but with memory loss from the time surrounding the seizure. The “absence” is a mental absence, as if the person left their body for a moment or two. People around that person bring them back to reality by calling out to them, directing them to come back around, and propping them up so they don’t fall while they are “absent” during the petite mal seizure.
Overbreathing or photic stimulation can bring on the absence seizures. So, if Hillary over exerts herself, she experiences these. If she has too much optical stimulation with too many things coming at her at once or whirl of things around her, she has a seizure.
Just imagine her standing there on the stage at the convention and all the confetti and balloons come down. That’s probably what triggered that bizarre reaction from her. During the campaign event, her eyes were overstimulated by everyone in the crowd and she then experienced a resulting seizure.
Something called ethosuximide is used to treat absence seizures, as well as another drug called clonazepam. At this point, we’ve reached the limit of any medical knowledge I have. I don’t feel comfortable speculating on these drugs and if it’s likely that Hillary Clinton is being administered either of these (or others). However, after she had her freak out with the balloon at the convention, there were photos of her and her Handler walking down a corridor with Bill Clinton behind them. The big black Handler had some kind of syringe in his hand, ready to administer it. So, he’s there to give her a shot of something when she needs it.
There are days when Hillary seems to be wearing very heavy and bulky coats where she’s clearly hiding something. She never did this back in 2008. I don’t think she’s trying to hide weight gain, as she’s mostly the shape/weight she was in back in 2008. On some days, does she need to hide some kind of medical device or other personal thing related to absence seizures? Out of respect for her, I don’t want to speculate on what the bulky coats could be hiding…but if she’s losing consciousness is she also losing control of functions during those episodes…and so could the bulky coats be hiding something she’s wearing in case she has an embarrassing issue during the seizures?
Are some days worse for the seizures than others? Can they predict them somehow? Or does she wear the big bulky coats on days when she can’t get away quickly if something bad happens or she has to be on stage longer than she would like to be, so she wears protection during those events and the coat hides what she’s wearing? On days when she can just do a quick speech and then get off the stage maybe she does not need to wear whatever it is and chances not having it. Lately she does seem to hide under heavy, bulky coats even when it is 80-degree+ weather if she’s going to be at a long event. When she’s walking on to a stage and leaving in less than an hour, she’s in the pantsuits that she always used to wear all the time.
I have no idea what causes absence seizures/petite mal seizures. Are these in any way linked to blood thinners or head injuries? Sometime in 2010, it seems that Hillary started falling down a lot. She fell going into the White House one time, I believe in 2010. Then in 2012, she fell going onto her plane after climbing many stairs. Did that climb cause her to have an absence seizure due to overbreathing? In 2013, she apparently received treatment for a blood clot.
Is this a chicken/egg situation, where the blood clot causes the seizures…or did the seizures and the falling down cause the blood clot?
Read the rest of this entry »
[Click above to embiggen: one of the rewards offered for information leading to the conviction of Seth Rich’s murderer. It’s doubtful anyone will ever come forward because it seems likely that Rich was murdered either to keep the DNC’s secrets or to punish him for handing over information to WikiLeaks. This was not a random street crime that anyone witnessed; it was a premeditated and intentional hit job/assassination.]
One of the few movies I own on DVD and watch on a regular basis is the 1993 Julia Roberts thriller The Pelican Brief, which was based off a John Grisham novel of the same name. I like it so much that no matter what stupid things Julia Roberts says or does in real life, I can still watch and enjoy her in this movie. The same goes for Denzel Washington. They were perfectly cast in roles they thrived-in and the movie zips along through twist after twist, leading to one of the best endings to any political movie I’ve ever seen (where Washington/Roberts make a series of phone calls from a news room informing various bad guys that their house of cards is collapsing and there’s not a damn thing they can do about it). Take that, Skeletor!
The 1990s were great for legal thrillers (a genre that Hollywood lost interest in long ago but that remains my favorite kind of movie) and the very best of them all were the Grisham film adaptations. His early books were all centered around these elaborate conspiracies where organized crime, corrupt government officials, and unscrupulous business interests intersected. Grisham’s heroes were always plucky lawyers, law students, or other decent people who stumbled by accident into the story of the century (that no reporter wanted to tell). Murder was used to silence people when they got in the way of the plot, whatever that particular plot involved. The bad guys were always tripped up in some clever way and the schemes collapsed in the end.
After watching The Pelican Brief again last night (and marveling at how well it holds up, all these years later), I’m struck by just how many John Grisham conventions are alive and well in the 2016 presidential election. I remember when the movie first came out, around Christmas in 1993, and how back then the thought of the government being involved in murder plots seemed so outrageous and unthinkable. In the 1990s, people still talked about Watergate and everything the Nixon White House did…and we of course at that point had the Iran-Contra mess and the Clintons’ Whitewater saga and Travelgate and all of that…but people at the highest levels of government casually murdering people on US soil was a totally alien concept, a peek into BizarroWorld. We lived in America — the United States — not a South American banana republic where the government behaved that way and got away with it.
I’m torn on whether or not the Grisham style political thriller is even fun anymore or if our world has gotten so surreal and strange in the last few years that we might not still even need fiction like this. Maybe that’s why Hollywood stopped making these Pelican Brief sort of movies. They aren’t needed because people can just flip on the news and see something even more bizarre than Grisham could ever conceive.
I tend to believe that what we are experiencing is not an increase in bizarre murder plots…but that we’re just hearing about these kinds of things and are able to connect the dots in 2016 in ways we never could before, due to social media mainly. Perhaps the government has always been killing people like this and the Media would just not report on it…and anyone who put some of the pieces together would just be called crazy and told to shut up. People can be scared easily into being quiet. There was a quote somewhere that I can’t find now attributed to Bill Clinton at some point where he bemoaned the rise of the Internet and how it made it harder to control the narrative. Politicians liked it much better when the Media controlled what people were allowed to know. Everything was much easier to spin and cover-up than it is now. But, even with all the access to information, it still feels like we’re putting puzzle pieces together in the dark (while forces in our own government endeavor to keep us from ever figuring it all out). None of this is exciting or fun the way it is in a movie or book. It’s all pretty exhausting and soul-crushing. We’re really in uncharted territory as a country, because our real-life political process now seems ripped from the pages of a political thriller.
Did anyone want this? I didn’t sign up for this. Don’t look at me, I was the one perfectly happy watching Pelican Brief once in a while. I didn’t need any of the following to keep me entertained:
1. How stupid does the government think we are, like we can’t see that people are clearly being murdered all over the place because the government wants them murdered? John Grisham books have a lot of murders in them. The Pelican Brief starts off with the assassination of two SCOTUS Justices. One of them was an ancient man who was the arch-Leftist Justice on the court…and the other was a closeted gay Justice. Since the movie came out in 1993, the gay Justice was murdered in a sleazy porno theater and when the president learned of the assassination he was told that the Justice was killed in “some queer club.” The president then makes a weird remark later about being willing to attend his funeral anyway, even though he was “like that” or something to that effect. It’s really interesting watching how differently movies from when I was in high school treated gay people compared to today…no way they would have gotten away with any of this now. After those two assassinations, there are a lot of other murders too. An environmental lawyer figures out that the firm he works for is linked to the assassinations and he makes a videotape revealing everything he knows (and then hides the tape in a safety deposit box). He’s murdered, of course…and the tape becomes a McGuffin that Washington/Roberts have to find. Other people are murdered who don’t really know much, but just kind of got in the way here and there. Because the people doing all the killing are so closely linked to the White House, they don’t even bother to make any of this stuff look like accidents or suicides or anything. They blow people up, shoot them in broad daylight, etc.
Read the rest of this entry »
[Click above to embiggen: people are specifically chosen based on race/appearance/Diversity! quotient to be on-camera during a political candidate’s speeches. There is no way that the Muslim Orlando Shooter’s father, Seddique Mateen, was not purposely hand-selected to stand where he was during Hillary’s speech.]
Everyone is talking about the bizarre occurrence of the Muslim Orlando Shooter’s father, Seddique Mateen, being prominently positioned directly behind Hillary Clinton at a campaign rally in Florida. The Media is trying to write this story as if it was just a coincidence and it happened by chance…but that’s not how these rallies work. The people standing behind the candidate are heavily stage-managed for optics and “Diversity!”.
The truth is that every campaign has someone who creates a human backdrop for a candidate…and that means if a white candidate is running, they want to have as many black people and Hispanic people or Asian people as possible directly behind the candidate so they appear in every shot like props. (If a black candidate is running, then the opposite is true…and as many old white people as possible are shoved into the frame to create the optics that white people love that particular black candidate.) The campaign wants nice looking people in that spot. People who do not look crazy. People who look like the type of neighbors and friends everyone wants to have.
There’s an article on Yahoo that calls this “creating a tapestry,” but what it’s really about is avoiding any problems with optics. A campaign wants to take away Internet trolls’ ability to call the candidate racist for not having any black people at the rally…so staffers obsessively look for black people to stand behind the candidate. Next, they look for brown people after they’ve got the black people covered. Then they look for Asians. They must have someone who is in a wheelchair or has Down Syndrome or has some other visual handicap as well. If possible, they find a flamboyantly young, cute gay guy to throw in there too. After that, they fill the “tapestry” with nice-looking people of different ages who seem like they would be good on camera, would pay attention, and would cheer where appropriate. None of this is random or is ever left to chance.
The way these people are selected is simple: as attendees are lined up to get into the event, there are staffers looking at the people lined up like they are casting agents selecting the perfect “Diversity!” mix for the show. All the staffers have clipboards and charts of the event seating area. I don’t know how the Clinton campaign is operating in 2016, but back in 2008 I went to many events and staffers would hand out VIP wristbands or VIP tickets of some kind and that would get people into the special areas that would be on camera. It was HEAVILY controlled. No one would get into that area behind a candidate unless the campaign wanted that person there and the person was given the right ticket or wrist band to go over there. The event attendees who are ugly, strange in any way, or who were not the right look “Diversity!”-wise would be shunted off like cattle away from the cameras and never thought about again.
I don’t think the campaign has the names of most people who come to these events. In 2008, you could either register in advance to get in (and get a ticket to print out) or you could just show up and wait in line. Back then, Hillary Clinton events were VERY well-attended. That does not seem to be the case this go-around (because she’s apparently only attracting crowds in the hundreds and not the thousands), but in 2008 she would get large throngs of people. Sometimes it would just be for the musical guest or other celebrities she had in attendance. I remember one event I went to in Indianapolis had John “Stop calling me Cougar” Mellencamp singing; people were actually fighting to get into that campaign stop, but they would openly admit they were just there to hear a free Mellencamp concert. People in Indiana go nuts over John “My name is not Cougar no more” Mellencamp.
Today Drudge Report is really hammering Hillary’s health problems hard. A recap:
1. Article about how JFK hid all his own health problems before the election; it wasn’t until years later that the full extent of how messed up Kennedy was physically was known.
2. The bizarre videos showing Hillary having freak-outs or stumbling mentally at campaign stops:
None of Hillary Clinton’s behavior matches up with the person she used to be back in 2008. She also now has a large black man who seems to go everywhere with her, but he does not appear to be Secret Service. He wears a pin on his lapel like all the Secret Service guys wear, but to me he seems to be too overweight and out of shape to be an SS agent. I have never seen an SS agent protecting a presidential candidate be that overweight. He’s not muscular. That man is round. He also is not charged with protecting Hillary but instead seems to be babysitting her, which is something the SS does not do. People are speculating on who this “Handler” is, with comparisons being made to the kind of “doctors” that Michael Jackson always had around him.
This man, whoever he is, was not part of Hillary’s 2008 campaign. He also does not appear to be a “bodyman,” like Reggie Love was for Barack Obama during his campaigns. This man appears to serve some kind of medical purpose for Hillary and is one of the people who was photographed helping her climb up some stairs (where she looks like she is going to collapse). In another photo, taken after Hillary’s speech accepting the nomination at the DNC in Philadelphia, this same Handler was seen carrying some kind of syringe as he walked with Hillary. This was shortly after she had her weird episode where she was making strange faces at the balloons (while her VP pick himself chased after balloons like he was a toddler).
There are so many bizarre things happening that it’s hard to keep track of it all. It’s hard to keep up.
I think it’s also hard to figure out when this all started. People like to point to the video of Hillary falling as she boarded her plane in 2012, but she clearly didn’t hit her head and damage herself here:
She seemed to have trouble walking up those steps and when she got to the top she appears to have been dizzy and lost her balance. So something is wrong, and it was wrong before she boarded the plane. Have you ever climbed steps like those leading up to an airplane? They are tough…like walking up stairs in an old house that are very steep. When you get to the top, you are out of breath even if you are in good shape.
The last time I ever saw Hillary Clinton in person was in December 2008 at an event in NYC hosted by America Ferrara called “A Conversation with Hillary Clinton.” It had been announced that she would become Secretary of State at that point. The event was a fundraiser to raise more money to go towards retiring her campaign debt. Hillary seemed like herself then: she had a long conversation on the stage with America Ferrara asking questions. Nothing strange happened. Afterwards, I got to have a picture with Hillary and talk to her for a few moments and she was exactly the same as she was during the campaign when I would encounter her in person. She wears a lot of makeup, to the point where in person she looks like an actress who got off the stage after doing a play. It’s much more makeup than women typically wear and it’s more than politicians usually wear (where even male politicians wear makeup to events where they know they will be photographed). Hillary’s makeup was always caked-on. She would look great from far away where the cameras were, but up close you could see how heavy it was.
I never — not even once — picked up on anything being wrong with how she talked, how she responded to people, how she walked, or how she acted. She was always very much in command in 2008. I saw her up close working a rope line, where people would say bizarre or horrible things to her and she would listen and not even blink and would say “Thank you for your opinion” and keeping moving in a very professional way. Multiple people would be shouting at her — saying TERRIBLE things about her husband, her marriage, Vince Foster’s murder, etc. — and she would not miss a beat. She’d keep shaking hands, she’d look people in the eye, she’d smile, she’d thank them for coming, etc. There was no weirdness, shakiness, awkwardness. None of that.
She wasn’t making strange faces then. She didn’t get rattled. There was one event in Indianapolis where it started pouring rain and she delivering an extemporaneous barn-burner of a speech with lightning popping in the distance. That’s probably the most indelible image of her in the 2008 campaign for me. It was incredible. She was at the top of her game.
Today I am trying to figure out when Hillary started acting strangely. It was before the 2012 fall on the airplane. For some reason I remember her falling in 2009 or 2010 as well, but I don’t see anyone making mention of that. I believe she had a fall prior to 2012 that was not caught on camera and I think that during that fall either something awful happened to her or the fall was the result of something awful happening earlier.
I believe she had some kind of brain trauma or stroke at some point. I’ve read speculation about her having some kind of blood clot. I don’t know very much about those, but having a stroke or ongoing seizures apparently requires medication that sometimes carries the side effect of uncontrollable coughing fits. That’s something else that Hillary never had an issue with back in 2008. I must have gone to 60 or 70 campaign rallies where I heard her speak, many of which I saw her face to face in person up close, and I don’t remember any coughing fits during any of them (not even the one in the thunderstorm when it was pouring rain). She just didn’t have these problems during the 2008 campaign.
Something is definitely wrong with her. I think the public has a right to know what it is. I think candidates should release their medical records or at the very least have an independent person vet them and sign off on whether there is any concern that the person running for president isn’t healthy enough for the job or able to last the full term. Voters have a right to know that.
Today, make a list of all the latest twists and turns and craziness in this election (because we are friends like this and where I come from friends help each other make lists of other people’s craziness). One of the biggest problems with politics today is how oversaturated we are with information…which causes everything to blur, fall through the cracks, get lost in the din, etc. What I’d like to do over the next 96 days is keep track of every punch the Left takes on behalf of the Globalists and evaluate how effective each was…while also charting what the Americanist side did in response or rebuttal. My operating assumption will continue to be that this is an election being waged between GLOBALISTS (Hillary Clinton) and AMERICANISTS (Donald Trump).
Many Establishment Republicans are in the Globalist ranks and are helping Hillary win; to my knowledge, there do not seem to be any Americanists in Democrat ranks. Democrats are a party united behind Globalism. Independent voters seem to be Americanist at heart, but don’t seem to understand that term or realize what they really are. In my opinion, if they fell in line with Globalist thought they would be out and proud Democrats. I think the reason there are so many Independents in the first place is because Republicans have been too Establishment and that Cocktail Party ethos has alienated people who were gung-ho proud Americans under Ronald Reagan. Since the first Bush presidency, Republicans decided to be a party that a lot of Americans didn’t want to have anything to do with…since Republicans became a Cocktail Party for elites that just served the interests of Big Business. There was nowhere for people to go who loved America and wanted the US to be the best country in the world, dominating all others. So those people became Independent. What I believe we are seeing in 2016 is the first-ever confrontation of this Globalist vs. Americanist ideology…and the big question over the next 96 days is if Donald Trump is savvy enough to tap into this at a micro level. If he does, he could unleash a tsunami of support that could sweep the Globalists from power and tear down the Establishment and Cocktail Party for good. It’s a big “IF,” however…because the Establishment sure won’t go down without a fight and getting Americans to feel safe expressing their contempt for Globalism and political correctness will be very difficult. But not impossible.
Here’s a recap of some of the craziness I’ve noticed being covered to some degree in recent days:
1. The Democrat National Committee had to fire three top officials who were busted plotting with Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders to rig the primaries. WHY IT MATTERS: It’s rare for Democrats to fire anyone. Of course, these people being fired will have new jobs by Monday with higher salaries somewhere. That’s how life in politics works. But, publicly chopping off these people’s heads seemed to be needed to quiet down the Bernie Sanders Cult (BSC). If WikiLeaks has more DNC emails, it could reignite the anger of the BSC. Enough Democrats voting for the Green Party in key states could cost Hillary electoral votes she would otherwise have locked up if not for the WikiLeaks scandal regarding the DNC’s plots and schemes to rig the primaries.
FREE ADVICE TO TRUMP: There is real opportunity here to fracture Democrats by continuing to pound Hillary over how the primaries were rigged for her and how the DNC was caught red-handed. He should also raise questions about whether or not the NSA has Hillary’s 33,000 deleted emails and if the FBI can get those from the NSA to see them. He should say: “Come on. We all know the NSA has been spying on everyone and gathering up emails. They must have Hillary’s 33,000 deleted emails. Nobody believes she was talking about Yoga. Does she look like she does Yoga? You got to be kidding me. She does as much Yoga as Rosie O’Donnell does Yoga. I doubt the two of them were emailing each other about Yoga. Who was Hillary emailing that she doesn’t want you to see? Ask the NSA. They have the emails. It’s a mess what’s in them. Let’s see them.”
Read the rest of this entry »
What: Citizen Soldier, a movie about the Oklahoma soldiers who served in Afghanistan
Why: One of the best documentaries ever honoring service members who sacrifice for us
A new military documentary is worth your valuable time and support. It is available for pre-order now on Amazon and I ask that you consider making it part of your collection. Amazon has it available both as a digital download HERE and also as a DVD, if you prefer physical DVDs.
Sometimes I hear from people who say they do not like Amazon or they choose not to support Amazon, so before I talk about why Citizen Soldier is such a great movie I’d like to tell you something you might not know about Amazon: it is single-handedly responsible for allowing conservative writers and filmmakers to get their work to market in ways that were never possible before Amazon. Amazon’s publishing and distribution platforms allowed Megan Fox and me to publish our own conservative book, SHUT UP! The Bizarre War that One Public Library Waged Against the First Amendment, which let us bypass the whole agent/publisher/marketing/distributor network and completely take control of the publication of our book (cutting out scores of middlemen who would have stood in the way of the project in the old days). Conservative writers who were always excluded from publication because of the ideology infecting publishing houses now have a chance to flourish and reach their audiences, all because of Amazon. Similarly, conservative filmmakers can also cut out the middlemen and take advantage of Amazon to reach their viewers. None of this would be possible without Amazon. To me, the awesomeness of conservative voices being allowed to use Amazon to be distributed with such ease outweighs other beefs that people may have with Amazon. Books and movies are being released today through Amazon that would have never seen the light of day if Amazon didn’t exist…and that is miraculous to me.
Citizen Soldier is a film directed by Christian Turead and David Salzbert, who also made the movie Hornet’s Nest (which is also worth your valuable time). Turead and Salzbert specialize in bringing the human emotion behind events to the forefront of the story. They explore military conflict, relating it back to the personal lives and sacrifices made by the service members. They are compelling storytellers who encourage a deep appreciation and respect for military service.
With Citizen Soldier, they honor service men who answered the call of duty from Oklahoma, specifically members of the “Thunderbirds” Oklahoma National Guard 45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team who were dispatched to Afghanistan. The movie uses helmet cams and real footage from combat, along with personal interviews with the soldiers and their families. It is more powerful than any Hollywood war movie…and it tells the story of how these guys are one day just living their lives and working their day jobs and the next they are being called up as reservists and being sent off to the worst part of Afghanistan during the surge several years ago.
The movie is having a few screenings in August in Oklahoma. So far, I’ve not seen it scheduled for any wider release. But if you pre-order it then you can have it the day that it is released. You should also check Moviefone or other local listings to see if the movie is going to play near you. If so, you should see it in the theater.
The reason I feel it’s so important to spread the word about this movie is that the Oklahoma National Guard lost a lot of good men in Afghanistan. I don’t think we as a society show the military reservists the respect that they deserve. I don’t think we show military service men and women the respect they deserve either, but the reservists occupy a special niche where they are living their lives and then suddenly, when they are needed, get yanked out of their lives and families and deposited somewhere like Afghanistan with little notice. It is an awesome thing they agreed to do to defend our freedom, to put themselves on the line like that and sacrifice everything. I am awed by that. They are the very definition of heroes.
I have never seen a movie about reservists before, which is what makes Citizen Soldier of so much interest to me. Reservists were called up for the big surge in Afghanistan…and if you followed politics in recent years, “The Surge” was something that was bandied about and debated in generic terms. This movie puts human faces on “The Surge.” I think it should be required viewing for every member of Congress who ever casts votes on military matters or any politician who opines about the military. They should all have to watch this movie and any other documentaries like it.
I think we as a grateful nation should watch it as well. I hope you support the production by pre-ordering it. I almost never buy movies, but I pre-ordered this one myself digitally and will be able to watch it the day it comes out. I’m also asking the Chicago Public Library to stock it too. That’s something else you could do to support the film: ask your own local public library to order Citizen Soldier. Most library directors are Leftists and they have a subtle way of keeping conservative books and movies out of public libraries by just choosing not to order these materials. They will order Leftist works instead, because no library can have every book or movie ever released. However, if you specifically request that your local public library carry a movie like Citizen Soldier then it’s pretty hard for the library director to say NO (especially since there is a paper trail left by your emailing, writing, or using an online form to request the library order the movie). Making your local public library carry the movie means it will end up on a shelf…and someone who may have never heard of the movie otherwise would see it and watch it because of you. It’s a small way of leveling the playing field and getting around the Left’s ability to control our culture by controlling what information ends up in front of the public.
Full disclosure on my part: I love the state of Oklahoma and its people. I’ve seriously thought of moving there in the future because I just adore it so much. I knew about this movie being made for a while now because I personally know some of the people who served in the Oklahoma National Guard and they are, to a person, the finest human beings I have ever had the honor and privilege of knowing. This movie is important to me on a very personal level, so I am trying my best to make sure as many people know about it as possible. It is a film that honors the sacrifices of so many brave Americans who are greater than most people (myself included) could ever hope to be. As a friend, I ask you to please watch it and support these filmmakers. I know of no better way that anyone could spend two hours this August.