Tag Archives: cheating

Bipartisanshitt

There is an urban myth out there that needs to be addressed.

“Binge drinking is bad.”  No, wait.  Wrong one.

“Compromise is good.”

If you’re a product of the public schools (like I am) it should be expected you believe we should all get along.  You probably think our elected representatives should be having dinner together, holding hands and making out in the back of dark movie theaters.  You might even think it is GOOD when they all get together and create legislation effecting the rest of us.

In other words, you might believe passing lots of bills is a terrific way to judge their productivity.  You think the government should “do something”… You might have been taught that the founders of this country wanted our leaders to strip down and embrace each other every time they met so they could create lots of really cool law.  If any of this rings true for you, what you “know” is wrong.  You should demand a refund on that free public education.

Here’s the truth, our system of government was designed specifically to be slow, cumbersome and rarely produce laws.  It was created to make sure no single branch could run rampant over the others with this purpose in mind.  It was designed for a fight… over everything… in the hopes that whatever came out was only what was absolutely necessary.  Less was more.  Nothing getting done was fine, if not preferred.  (I’ve floated this idea around the house but have not had much traction.)

We have come a long way from that original intent.  Over the last 100 years we have entitled our politicians to do whatever they want.  They have learned to routinely create law outside of the Constitution because they know that the odds are no-one will challenge it.  And, if their law does get challenged it will take too long and the American people will lose interest, or more often think they are owed whatever the law might “give” them.

These same politicians also know they can slow down the process of any legal challenge by appointing judges who also don’t care what limitations the Constitution puts in place.  Such judges then present their rulings utilizing previous unconstitutional rulings they or their fellow travelers passed down earlier.  Amazingly, they are also not above using foreign law for validation… which I’m very sure the Founding Fathers did not intend.  The fact that we revel in our lack of understanding and promote such behavior in our leaders should be frightening.  It has brought us to a very scary place.  Haven’t you wondered why alcohol sales are up? We’re frightened, but too uninformed to know why.  It’s like a horror movie where the person about to get killed runs around the house and turns all the lights… off.

There has been a determined movement over the last 80 years to position the U.S. Constitution as too restrictive.  (Our current president is on the record promoting this very idea.)  But you will most often find it repeated by the “open-minded” who have not taken the 5 minutes needed to read it, let alone try to discuss and understand it. (They don’t need to read it… their hearts tell them what they need to know… what’s scary about that is they vote…)   These are also the people who think we should all give each other big wet sloppy kisses… all the time.  To them, getting along to “help the country” sounds so nice it requires no further exploration on their part.

To make things worse, there are too many people who want to be led and then insist you must be led as well.  These people have found a home on both sides of the aisle.  The Founders were aware this would always be a reality. The defense they gave us against such people was an extremely well-defined and very restrictive document, that could be changed, in other words amended, if needed… but it would take an act of congress. (Yes, that’s where the phrase came from.)

What it comes down to is that you have two sides to choose from.  One side subscribes to individual freedom and one does not.  What makes one side somewhat sinister is that it wants to control you with “the best of intentions”.  Bear in mind, those who believe the sheep need to be led never seem to count themselves among the sheep….

So there must always be a war between those who know you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself  (Statists/Socialists) and those of us who think you are the only person who knows what’s best for you. (Free-market Capitalists)   If you give it a moment of thought, does it  make sense that a person who subscribes to individual freedom be buddies with a person who believes in the soft slavery of statism?  It’s really as simple as that.  The line in the sand is Force.

In conclusion, we are not supposed to get along.  We are not supposed to compromise our individual freedoms.  Ever.

If you need proof, compromise with Socialists is what got us here today… bankrupt, having our e-mail and phones call tapped, “intelligence agents” looking at our daughters cell phone pictures and Facebook pages while your grandmother is getting molested at the airport.  And the useful idiots continue begging for more Bipartisanshitt…

(Originally Posted 012012.  Reposted yet again because it needs to be.)


Voter Fraud is Real

Voter Fraud Is Real. Here’s The Proof
Data suggests millions of voter registrations are fraudulent or invalid. That’s enough to tip an election, easily.
John Gibbs as published in The Federalist
By John Gibbs
October 13, 2016

This week, liberals have been repeating their frequent claim that voter fraud doesn’t exist. A recent Salon article argues that “voter fraud just isn’t a problem in Pennsylvania,” despite evidence to the contrary. Another article argues that voter fraud is entirely in the imagination of those who use voter ID laws to deny minorities the right to vote.

Yet as the election approaches, more and more cases of voter fraud are beginning to surface. In Colorado, multiple instances were found of dead people attempting to vote. Stunningly, “a woman named Sara Sosa who died in 2009 cast ballots in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.” In Virginia, it was found that nearly 20 voter applications were turned in under the names of dead people.

In Texas, authorities are investigating criminals who are using the technique of “vote harvesting” to illegally procure votes for their candidates. “Harvesting” is the practice of illegally obtaining the signatures of valid voters in order to vote in their name without their consent for the candidate(s) the criminal supports.

These are just some instances of voter fraud we know about. It would be silly to assume cases that have been discovered are the only cases of fraud. Indeed according to a Pew Research report from February 2012, one in eight voter registrations are “significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.” Since there are 146 million Americans registered to vote, this translates to a stunning 18 million invalid voter registrations on the books. Further, “More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters, and approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.” Numbers of this scale obviously provide ripe opportunity for fraud.
Don’t Let Data Contradict My Narrative

Yet in spite of all this, a report by the Brennan Center at New York University claims voter fraud is a myth. It argues that North Carolina, which passed comprehensive measures to prevent voter fraud, “failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina.” However, this faulty reasoning does not point to the lack of in-person voter fraud, but rather to lack of enforcement mechanisms to identify and prosecute in-person voter fraud.

The science of criminal justice tells us that many crimes go unreported, and the more “victim-less” the crime, the more this happens. The fact is, a person attempting to commit voter fraud is very unlikely to be caught, which increases the incentive to commit the crime.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a sophisticated, comprehensive effort to catalog “the number and types of crimes not reported to law enforcement authorities.” However, it tends to deal mostly in violent crimes. As complex as the NCVS is, gathering accurate data for unreported victim-less crimes such as voter fraud is even harder, since 1) outside of the criminal, no one may know a crime has taken place, and 2) there is no direct victim to report the crime in the first place. Yet we are expected to believe that, unlike violent crime, voter fraud is limited only to the cases that are actually reported and prosecuted? This is a senseless position.

Further, the Brennan Center report argues that because prosecutor Kris Kobach’s review of 84 million votes cast in 22 states found only 14 instances of fraud referred for prosecution (which amounts to a 0.00000017 percent fraud rate), voter fraud is so statistically small that it’s a non-issue. Let’s follow this logic. Does the fact that 109 people were cited for jaywalking in Seattle in 2009 mean that only 109 people jaywalked in Seattle that year? Does the fact that 103,733 people were cited for driving without a seat belt in Tennessee in 2015 mean that only that many people were driving without seat belt in Tennessee in 2015?

Absolutely not. This can be proven easily because in 2014, the previous year, only 29,470 people were cited. The disparity is largely due to increased enforcement efforts in 2015. In other words, increasing enforcement of the crime revealed a much larger number of people committing the crime.

The exact same is true for voter fraud. We have no reason to believe that the low number of prosecutions means only that exact amount of voter fraud is happening. Rather, it could mean a lack of enforcement is failing to reveal the bulk of the violations that are occurring. Thus, as with many types of crimes, especially victim-less crimes, the real number of cases is likely significantly higher than the number reported.
How to Effectively Target Voter Fraud

So now that we know voter fraud is a serious issue, what are some solutions to this problem? States like Michigan have Poll Challenger programs, where observers from both parties may be present at voter check-in tables at precincts. They check each voter’s ID against a database of registered voters for that precinct to ensure the person attempting to vote is actually legally qualified to vote in that precinct. If there’s a discrepancy, the poll challenger may officially challenge the ballot. Other states should implement similar programs.

States should sponsor initiatives to remove dead voters and correct the registrations of people registered in multiple states (make them choose just one state). Since many local jurisdictions are reluctant to clean their voter rolls, federal or state oversight with teeth may be necessary.

Further, voter ID laws, such as the one implemented by North Carolina, but (wrongly) struck down by three liberal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit— one appointed by Bill Clinton and the other two appointed by President Obama—are needed to ensure there’s no cheating with votes. States should continue to press the issue regardless of recent setbacks by liberal activist judges.

Finally, some have claimed that strong voter ID laws are racist, because they disproportionately impact minorities and would prevent minorities from voting. As a black person, I’m naturally interested in this claim. Thankfully, it turns out to be false. The Heritage Foundation has shown that black voter turnout actually increased after North Carolina passed its voter ID law.

Not only was the claimed negative outcome false, but the reasoning was faulty as well. The fact that the law disproportionately impacts minorities does not mean that it is discriminatory. It means, unfortunately, that fewer minorities are in compliance with common-sense safeguards to protect the integrity of our elections (i.e., having a driver’s license or photo ID).

To mitigate this concern, states can offer a service that will take people without valid ID to their local government office to apply for proper ID, free of charge. Users could schedule the pickup with their smartphone or a phone call. That way there will be as few barriers as possible to those who want to vote and are capable of obtaining a valid ID, but cannot due to transportation concerns (a reason often given by those who claim voter ID laws hurt minorities).

So let us not believe false claims that voter fraud doesn’t exist. It’s real, and we must work to stop it, while making sure those who are eligible to vote but without proper ID are accommodated fairly.

(H/T Butcher)


Preserving my right to Cheat!

 

There is no reason to oppose voter ID laws unless you intend to preserve your ability to commit voter fraud.

You cannot present a single reason why every person choosing to vote should not have a state issued, or otherwise verifiable, identification card with a picture which is required to be presented prior to practicing one of the most important acts imaginable in a Democratic Republic.

Not a single reason.
I must present picture ID to enter a bar.
I must present picture ID to rent a car.
I must present picture ID to get a hotel room.
I must present picture ID to fly in an airplane.
I must present picture ID when in every other country. (And they do not allow me to vote in their elections.)
I must present picture ID to purchase a home.
I must present picture ID to open a savings account.
I must present picture ID when pulled over for speeding.
I must present picture ID to get a job.

But… to “legally” screw up your life with my vote by electing idiots?

I can be anybody, and everybody, with no proof necessary… even dead… and vote.

Priceless.

The process of free and honest elections is a Pillar of Freedom.

If you vote for, or support the appointment of, these horrible people who want to preserve their right to cheat, you need to admit to yourself that you are also a horrible person.  (We already know it.)

(Some issues just never go away… originally posted 031212)


Was Hillary’s Step Stool a back up plan?

This is an Article from The American Thinker, written by Jay Michaels.

It is the best summary of what can only be considered a serious issue afflicting one of our Nation’s Leaders and a person vying for the Office of the Presidency.

It is thorough.  It is worth the read if one wishes to understand.  My thoughts, as small as they are, are at the end.

September 24, 2016
Dr. Lisa Bardack’s Faustian Bargain
By Jay Michaels

“Oh what tangled webs we weave, when we first practice to deceive.” Sir Walter Scott

When Dr. Lisa Bardack[*] was asked to become Hillary Clinton’s personal physician in 2001, it had to have been a crowning moment in the career of the Mt. Kisco internist. Dr. Bardack could have anticipated little downside. She already had the responsibility — and legal obligation under HIPAA — to protect the privacy of her patient. She and her staff would have to be especially scrupulous in the case of a senator with presidential ambitions, but this should not have posed a serious problem.

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton corrupts everyone who serves her. And this year Bardack encountered difficulties she could not have foreseen in 2001:

1. Clinton developed serious medical issues.

2. The candidate was being videoed, not only during campaign stops, speeches, townhalls, and the rare press conference, but before and after events — by individuals with cell phones who were under no obligation to obey orders given to servile journalists to turn off their cameras.

3. The internet not only permitted the mass distribution of these videos and photos, but it enabled those who were curious to check Bardack’s reports against information available on reputable medical sites. It also enabled skeptical physicians to share their doubts with hundreds of thousands of readers.

In July 2015, the Clinton campaign asked Bardack to give the candidate a clean bill of health. She was to disclose, selectively, some of her patient’s medical history. But the letter was not widely analyzed until after the disturbing September 11 video by Zdenek Gazda, the Zapruder of 2016. It was no longer possible to dismiss those asking questions about Hillary’s health as right-wing conspiracy theorists, and the campaign now requested a second letter from Dr. Bardack explaining the event. The physician duly issued a report on September 14. Now her real problems began.

Let’s take a look at the two letters and some of questions doctors have asked about the diagnoses and treatment.

I. The letter of 12 July 2015

Bardack’s summary revealed a couple of major health problems that had not been previously disclosed. We had been told that Clinton suffered an elbow fracture in 2009 and a concussion in 2012. The fact that a woman in her mid-60s would fall twice ought perhaps to have raised some red flags. In particular, unless you’re being tackled or attacked, a concussion can usually be avoided by the body’s reflexes. Arms are extended to break the fall.

But now the public learned that some time in 2009 and in December 2012, the month of the concussion, Clinton had suffered blood clots.

She already had a history of clotting. Running for the Presidential nomination in the fall of 2007, Hillary gave an extended interview on her 60th birthday in which she disclosed that she’d had a life-threatening medical emergency in 1998. The crisis had been kept a secret not only from the public, but from her staff, who were told she had a sprained ankle. Clinton’s foot had swollen and she was in great pain. A White House doctor told her to rush to Bethesda Naval Hospital, where the diagnosis of a blood clot was made. “That was scary,” Hillary said, “because you have to treat it immediately — you don’t want to take the risk that it will break lose and travel to your brain, or your heart or your lungs. That was the most significant health scare I’ve ever had.” Clinton assured the reporter that she was no longer on blood thinners. This was probably the last time Hillary spoke candidly about her health.

What Clinton had was a deep vein thrombosis, or venous thromboembolism (VTE). The blood clot is usually in the leg, and in Hillary’s case, it was behind the right knee.

Now Dr. Bardack revealed that Hillary had had two others. The first, in 2009, was another VTE, but the second was still more serious. It was a right transverse cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). This is a clot in one of the two channels between layers of the dura, the membrane enclosing the brain, which receive blood and cerebrospinal fluid. A clot here means that blood flow out of the brain is impeded, and there is the potential for a hemorrhage if there’s leakage into the cerebral tissues. The Johns Hopkins Health Library refers to it as a rare form of stroke affecting only five in one million individuals. It’s treated with anti-seizure medicines as well as anticoagulants, and the complications range from impaired speech, difficulty moving parts of the body, and vision problems to death.

There were two problems in the 2015 letter relating to the clot:

1) Clinton, her physician wrote, “began anticoagulation therapy to dissolve the clot.” But this is not something anticoagulants do. Two of these drugs are mentioned by Bardack: Lovenox, which was discontinued in 1998, and Coumadin (warfarin).

Bristol-Myers-Squibb, its manufacturer, says explicitly that the medication doesn’t dissolve clots:

COUMADIN has no direct effect on an established thrombus, nor does it reverse ischemic tissue damage.

Every doctor prescribing Coumadin knows this. Because of patient expectations, all reputable medical sites, like the NIH’s PubMed, repeat the warning.

There are thrombolytic (clot-dissolving) drugs, injected by catheter or infused through an i.v., but none are mentioned by Bardack. In any case, the embolisms for which thrombolytic agents are indicated don’t correspond to Clinton’s, and these drugs are never referred to as anticoagulants.

2. A second problem comes with the duration of the symptoms. Bardack says that these lasted for less than two months. But according to Bill Clinton, his wife’s injury “required six months of very serious work to get over.”

Of course it could be that the four addition months of symptoms were the result not of the concussion, but the CVST. However, it would not be easy to differentiate these symptoms. One is instinctively disinclined to take the former President’s word on anything, but there’d be no reason for him to exaggerate the length of time it took his wife to recover.

In any case, what the public was told was an elbow fracture (Hillary sported a State Department sling) and a concussion (she was jokingly presented with a football helmet by her minions) coincided with problems much more ominous.

3. A third issue in the 2015 letter is Bardack’s final evaluation of her patient. Twice she calls Clinton “a healthy female” and concludes that “she is in excellent physical condition and fit to serve as President of the United States.”

While Bardack could hardly have been expected to write otherwise, the truth is that anyone who is on lifelong Coumadin is not in excellent physical condition. As is well known, warfarin was developed as a rat poison, and increases significantly the risk of intercranial bleeding. A recent ten-year study of 32,000 veterans found that nearly one-third developed intercranial bleeds while on warfarin. The vets were over 75, but the high figure was still very disturbing, though probably not surprising to most physicians.

Dr. Milton Wolf, a board-certified radiologist, writes, “Coumadin carries a substantial risk for patients, particularly those with fall risk. Spontaneous hemorrhage common, intracranial and elsewhere. I see it commonly, including life-threatening brain bleeds. Normal, healthy patients are NEVER, NEVER prescribed Coumadin.” There are safer anticoagulants. “Coumadin is typically given to those who can’t afford the newer drugs or reserved for cases that are refractory to the safer drugs.” Wolf speculates that Clinton probably has a hypercoagulable blood disorder. Coumadin would otherwise be given only to patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (like the vets) or with prosthetic heart valves, both of which can cause hypercoagulation.

The interactions with warfarin are also sobering. In addition to avoiding both NSAIDs and acetaminophen, users are advised not to use, or to use with caution, antibiotics, anti-fungal medications, anti-depressants, and seizure medication — carbamazepine (Carbatrol, Equetro, Tegretol), phenobarbital (Solfoton), and phenytoin (Dilantin).

Whether or not Hillary has been put at risk by seizure medications, the whole world now knows about her propensity to fall. The airplane and podium stumbles and her being helped up a short flight of steps had gone viral long before the 9/11 collapse. And we know nothing about the falls that have occurred off-camera, except for the one that gave her a concussion. Family friends have told Ed Klein these falls are frequent. And head trauma is the number one concern for patients on Coumadin.

4. Still another disclosure in Bardack’s July 2015 letter raised eyebrows. In addition to taking Coumadin for the rest of her life, Hillary will also be on Armour thyroid until she dies. Unlike CVST, hypothyroidism, an underactive thyroid gland, is common. In fact, the most frequently prescribed drug in the U.S. (though not the most lucrative) is Synthroid, synthetic levothyroidoxine, the major hormone the gland produces.

Armour thyroid is an extract of desiccated pig’s thyroid. The therapy dates to the 19th century, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists recommends that it not be used. But a case can be made for natural thyroid therapy, and one recent study found that more patients prefer it, though there was no difference in the control of symptoms. These include memory problems and difficulty thinking clearly. A physician who is one of the most vocal advocates of natural thyroid switched to a different brand of natural thyroid after Armour changed the tablet formula in 2009.

II. The letter of 14 September 2016

1. Bardack disclosed that Clinton was given a brain scan for an ear infection after she had “experienced significant improvement in her symptoms.” The physician of a patient “in excellent health” would not normally order a CT scan for an ear infection that was being successfully treated by antibiotics and a myringotomy tube. Bardack’s caution, however commendable, suggests she was worried about some underlying problem.

2. Bardack then discusses Hillary’s pneumonia. When an upper respiratory infection persisted for a week after Clinton had been prescribed antibiotics and allergy medicine, Bardack, on Sept. 9, ordered “a non-contrast chest CT scan, including a CTA calcium score.”

According to Dr. Wolf, a CTA (a CT angiogram) scan always requires a contrast. On the other hand, a CT calcium score study must always be non-contrast, otherwise “the coronary calcifications would be masked by the contrast in the arteries.” The radiologist concluded that “Hillary’s doctor just claimed Hillary got a perfect score on a test that does not exist.”

It’s likely that Bardack misstated what she’d ordered — though one would think she would be extraordinarily careful in a letter that would be read by millions. A coronary calcium scoring CT does not use contrast, while a CTA requires it. A simple thoracic CT, which is what Hillary must have received, may or may not be done with contrast.

3. Then there’s the finding from the scan: “a small right middle-lobe pneumonia,” further described as “a mild non-contagious bacterial pneumonia.”

Doctors immediately questioned this diagnosis. There is no such thing as a non-contagious pneumonia, tweeted Dr. Wolf. How did Hillary pick it up? What about all the reports the campaign circulated about staffers who’d come down with pneumonia, including manager Robbie Mook?

While bacterial pneumonia is not as contagious as viral pneumonia, there is no test to determine whether or not a patient is contagious. A doctor defending Bardack listed three types of bacterial pneumonia not likely to be contagious. The only one that Hillary could possibly have had was aspiration pneumonia.

The dubious adjective “non-contagious” may have been dictated to Bardack by Clinton. The problem, obviously, was that after her collapse, the candidate went directly to her daughter’s apartment, where she presumably exposed her grandchildren to pneumonia, then, 90 minutes later, bounced out of the building, exulting that it was a beautiful day in New York, and embraced a little girl, exposing her, too, to the infection.

Other doctors have also pointed out how the photo-op undercut the “pneumonia” explanation. “I’m feeling great,” Hillary said three times, not something a pneumonia patient is likely to exclaim.

4. Apart from a case of “mild non-contagious pneumonia,” what felled Clinton on September 11th, wrote Bardack, was that “she became overheated and dehydrated.” Even MSM reporters questioned the “overheated” pretext. The day was partly cloudy and the temperature about 80, with a slight breeze. Dehydration is hardly less suspicious. First of all, it’s been used repeatedly for other falls. And medical science has come up with a cure for dehydration. While Marco Rubio was ridiculed for taking a swig of water in the middle his reply to the President’s 2013 State of the Union address, no one who valued his job would criticize Hillary for “re-hydrating” during an event. One would expect that someone who had experienced multiple falls and was on Coumadin would take every precaution to avoid dehydration — especially when it’s such a simple matter.

5. If Hillary’s dramatic recovery casts doubt on Bardack’s diagnosis, so does the fall itself. It was not a swoon, as one might expect, where Clinton appeared woozy, lost consciousness, and her knees buckled. Instead, she becomes stiff and immobile. She is propped up against a bollard. It’s only when the Secret Service agents attempt to propel her forward that she falls. It’s not clear she’s lost conscious; she is just frozen, unable to move.

6. Pictures taken of Clinton en route to the van also undermine Bardack’s explanation. In one, Hillary is being given what appears to be a finger squeeze test.

The test is a neurological exam, sometimes used also as a test for arthritis. There would be no reason to administer it to a patient suffering from pneumonia.

In the second photo, the same woman, Christine Falvo, appears to be monitoring Clinton’s pulse as they walk. Hillary has her other hand pressed against her chest, an unusual position for someone in motion, but a good way to disguise the pill-rolling tremor associated with Parkinson’s disease.

Also present in the photos, inevitably, is the bulky African-American Secret Service agent who clearly has had some medical training. When Hillary froze during a speech on August 4, it was he who rushed to her side, put his hand on her back, kept repeating, “Keep talking, keep talking,” and then shooed away the other agents. Some sites have posted pictures of him holding what appears to be a diazepam injector, used for seizures, but the images are too blurry to positively identify the object.

There is no photo of either the Secret Service medic or Falvo offering the dehydrated Hillary a bottle of water.

7. Bardack’s 2015 letter mentioned the Fresnel prism glasses Hillary wore to eliminate double vision. The 2016 letter makes no mention of the Zeiss Z1 blue lenses she was wearing on September 11th. These are used to help prevent seizures, particularly in photosensitive epilepsy, and improve motor control. They are not normally prescribed for patients with pneumonia or seasonal allergies.

8. Also unmentioned by Bardack are Hillary’s repeated coughing episodes, going back at least to January of this year. Here’s video of eight. Has Clinton had pneumonia for nine months? Or is this a symptom of a neurodegenerative problem causing pulmonary aspiration?

9. Finally, the fact that Hillary was not rushed to a hospital after the collapse and given another CT suggests that her handlers knew exactly what was going on. And it wasn’t pneumonia.

The physician who has put forward the most plausible case that Hillary is suffering from Parkinson’s disease is Dr. Ted Noel, whose videos I linked in a recent blog post.

Though there’s been no sign so far of the pill-rolling tremor or the shuffling gait characteristic of Parkinson’s, other evidence suggests Clinton is suffering from the disease, or experiencing side effects associated with the drug most commonly used to manage it, levodopa, which include disorientation and confusion and dyskinesia (involuntary muscle movements).

Examples of the latter are Clinton’s spasmodic head movements while being questioned by several reporters (attributed by Hillary to her cold chai tea) and, less dramatically, her response to the light show at the end of the Democratic convention.

Dr. Noel has a newer video out that further undercuts Bardack’s credibility. In addition to mentioning Wolf’s point about CT angiography, he carefully describes problems with the oxygen saturation levels reported by Hillary’s physician, and her use of an outdated test to manage Clinton’s hypothyroidism.

If she doesn’t have Parkinson’s, Hillary clearly has some major neurological disorder.

Bardack has already been targeted by Google reviewers. Purportedly coming from Chelsea is a one-star rating and the comment, “My mother died of Parkinson’s after she was diagnosed with pneumonia.”

Lisa Bardack will be fortunate if satiric reviews are the worst consequences for the disinformation campaign she has helped wage in Hillary’s behalf.

[*] Bardack was raised in Larchmont, NY, in affluent Westchester County, the daughter of Lester Bardack and Judith Frankle. Her father was president of Ulano Industries, a Brooklyn chemical manufacturer, and her mother a rabbi, formerly of Congregation B’nai Elohim in Scarsdale and later an instructor at Western Connecticut State. Bardack’s sister Amy, also a Conservative rabbi, was recently appointed Director of Education for the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh. Both sisters married doctors who were themselves the sons of doctors.

Bardack graduated from Penn and NYU Medical School. She did her residency at Cornell University Medical Center in New York, now Weill Cornell, was board certified in 1993, and joined Mt. Kisco Medical Group, later CareMount Medical, the largest medical group in the state, with over 500 physicians and 500,000 patients, where she’s Chair of Internal Medicine.

Given the above information, could it be supposed that the request for a step stool during the upcoming Presidential debates, versus the normal adjustment to the podium height accommodating a candidates stature, might be related to a ‘back-up plan’ of sorts?  I make no bones about being a cynic.  It has, and continues, to work for me… so follow along.

Let’s say things go south, medically, for Mrs. Clinton during the 90-minute live televised debate Monday night 9/26.  In the unfortunate event of a seizure would it not be easier to claim a fall from the step stool versus an impromptu collapse or stumble?  Anyone can fall off of a stool… (I have done so many times in Bar’s spanning the globe.)  but just suddenly falling over requires a bit more explanation, particularly when you’re wearing flat shoes, standing still on a level stage and you have a podium to hold onto.  In other words, Standing at Attention in the quad for hours on end this is not.

I had thought a couple of weeks ago we would be hearing about a deluge of ridiculous debate demands coming from the Clinton Camp in the hopes there could be no agreement reached thus canceling the events… but I believe the dropping poll numbers combined with the light being shone upon Hillary’s genuine health issues, which up to now have been intentionally hidden from public view, have placed her Campaign in a difficult position.

They Know…

The Show Must Go On.

And she’s faced with debating P.T. Barnum…

Which could be very bad for her.

(Also… a small note to the Trump Campaign; If I were you guys I would have an unmarked SUV roaming around outside with some jamming equipment designed for short-wavelength UHF radio waves in the ISM band from 2.4 to 2.485 GHz.  If you locate any errant signals that sound like prompts for answers on a State Department screening, I suggest a mask of 90-minute looped call to prayer, but plain old interruption should work fine.)


Bipartisanshitt

There is an urban myth out there that needs to be addressed.

“Binge drinking is bad.”  No, wait.  Wrong one.

“Compromise is good.”

If you’re a product of the public schools (like I am) it should be expected you believe we should all get along.  You probably think our elected representatives should be having dinner together, holding hands and making out in the back of dark movie theaters.  You might even think it is GOOD when they all get together and create legislation effecting the rest of us.

In other words, passing lots of bills is a terrific way to judge their productivity.  You think the government should “do something”… You might have been taught that the founders of this country wanted our leaders to strip down and embrace each other every time they met so they could create lots of really cool law.  If any of this rings true for you, what you “know” is wrong.  You should demand a refund on that free public education.

Here’s the truth, our system of government was designed specifically to be slow, cumbersome and rarely produce laws.  It was created to make sure no single branch could run rampant over the others with this purpose in mind.  It was designed for a fight… over everything… in the hopes that whatever came out was only what was absolutely necessary.  Less was more.  Nothing getting done was fine, if not preferred.  (I’ve floated this idea around the house but have not had much traction.)

We have come a long way from that original intent.  Over the last 100 years we have entitled our politicians to do whatever they want.  They have learned to routinely create law outside of the Constitution because they know that the odds are no-one will challenge it.  And, if their law does get challenged it will take too long and the American people will lose interest, or more often think they are owed whatever the law might “give” them.

These same politicians also know they can slow down the process of any legal challenge by appointing judges who also don’t care what limitations the Constitution puts in place.  Such judges then present their rulings utilizing previous unconstitutional rulings they or their fellow travelers passed down earlier.  Amazingly, they are also not above using foreign law for validation… which I’m very sure the Founding Fathers did not intend.  The fact that we revel in our lack of understanding and promote such behavior in our leaders should be frightening.  It has brought us to a very scary place.  Haven’t you wondered why alcohol sales are up? We’re frightened, but too uninformed to know why.  It’s like a horror movie where the person about to get killed runs around the house and turns all the lights… off.

There has been a determined movement over the last 80 years to position the U.S. Constitution as too restrictive.  (Our current president is on the record promoting this very idea.)  But you will most often find it repeated by the “open-minded” who have not taken the 5 minutes needed to read it, let alone try to discuss and understand it. (They don’t need to read it… their hearts tell them what they need to know… what’s scary about that is they vote…)   These are also the people who think we should all give each other big wet sloppy kisses… all the time.  To them, getting along to “help the country” sounds so nice it requires no further exploration on their part.

To make things worse, there are too many people who want to be led and then insist you must be led as well.  These people have found a home on both sides of the aisle.  The Founders were aware this would always be a reality. The defense they gave us against such people was an extremely well-defined and very restrictive document, that could be changed, in other words amended, if needed… but it would take an act of congress. (Yes, that’s where the phrase came from.)

What it comes down to is that you have two sides to choose from.  One side subscribes to individual freedom and one does not.  What makes one side somewhat sinister is that it wants to control you with “the best of intentions”.  Bear in mind, those who believe the sheep need to be led never seem to count themselves among the sheep….

So there must always be a war between those who know you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself  (Statists/Socialists) and those of us who think you are the only person who knows what’s best for you. (Free-market Capitalists)   If you give it a moment of thought, does it  make sense that a person who subscribes to individual freedom be buddies with a person who believes in the soft slavery of statism?  It’s really as simple as that.  The line in the sand is Force.

In conclusion, we are not supposed to get along.  We are not supposed to compromise our individual freedoms.  Ever.

If you need proof, compromise with Socialists is what got us here today… bankrupt, having our e-mail and phones call tapped, “intelligence agents” looking at our daughters cell phone pictures and Facebook pages while your grandmother is getting molested at the airport.  And the useful idiots continue begging for more Bipartisanshitt…

(Originally Posted 012012.  Reposted yet again because it needs to be.)


The State of 2015

I tuned into the SOTU speech and initially thought I was watching something produced by Aaron Sorkin. Then recognizing the production values were not as good as I would expect from him, I thought I might be seeing something from another country given the rosy state of everything the guy speaking was talking about.  (I even broke out into a few bars of ‘Everything is Awesome‘)

It was only after I noticed what had to be a shiny silver liquor decanter sitting in front of an old orange man just off the left shoulder of the guy speaking that I knew I had the right speech.

I lasted about 10 minutes.

Being told that up is down, black is white and right is wrong only works with me for about that long… and that’s making an effort. It’s possible I lasted a bit longer as I remember the President of the United States taking credit for low gas prices. Much like a serial killer taking credit for all of your good deeds after he decides not to kill you.

I didn’t watch the rest.

So I would rather talk about Deflated Balls.

Look, I know that steroids have played a major role in the NFL, but I just can’t understand how Deflated Balls helps anyone.  Possibly the wide receivers, but then only marginally at best.  How much friction and drag do you actually lose?

Then Yesterday I learned that Tom Brady “liked” deflated balls.  Fine… whatever floats your boat… but again, whatever your thing is should have no place on the football field.  Today Joe Biden chimes in that he also likes ‘a Softer Ball’.  OK Guys… enough already.

Now, apparently, there are all kinds of accusations flying around about the Boston Patriots having Deflated Balls.

I can’t decide if this is just trash talk or frankly stated observations.  If it’s trash talk, save it for the game.  If it’s statements of fact, I think these are issues to be dealt with when the players are ready and then only if they choose to deal with them.  Leave them alone.

So there you have it…

We should all stop talking about Balls.

That’s the State of the Union for the first 3-weeks of 2015.

Deflated Balls… a metaphor?

Kind of sums it up.


Get Ready Colorado!

And Everywhere Else…

“Voter fraud is incredibly difficult to detect and prosecute, absent a direct confession…” – Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler

Well James O’Keefe has done some detecting…

And, The Democrats have solidified Their Right to Cheat.

Here’s some ‘Direct Confession’ Video.

Voter Fraud is the biggest problem we have here in the United States as it undermines the integrity of the process. The Liberals, like those in the above video, will tell you it doesn’t exist. For Them, the Ends Justifies the Means. In other words it’s Good to Cheat because Socialism is the Answer. Thus whatever achieves their Socialist Goals… Lying, then lying about lying, Cheating, Stealing and undermining the Integrity of the Electoral Process by diluting your vote is OK… in fact, it’s promoted!

You must understand who these people are.  You must come to grips with the reality that these people exist.  You must finally accept that they will look you right in the eye and lie about their very existence.

We have to find a cure for the Benevolent Victor Syndrome suffered by those we elect.

Voter Fraud is the Root of All Evil.

People need to go to jail… in a highly visible way.