Share This Article with a Friend!


Presidential Horse Race 2016: Objectively speaking, Crooked Hillary fails mental fitness test

In this most bizarre of all presidential races, it should come as no surprise that the health of the respective candidates’ brains is coming under scrutiny of late.

Everyone knows Donald Trump’s odd behavior has received more than its share of media attention since the beginning of the primary race, but now some are questioning whether Trump’s non-traditional political campaign Hillary Clintonmight have more of a clinical explanation for it.

Eddie Scarry of the Washington Examiner reports, “Kathleen Parker, conservative columnist for the Washington Post, once suffered trauma to her brain and she thinks Donald Trump may have, too.

“In an op-ed for the Post over the weekend, Parker said the symptoms she had after falling down a flight of stairs and hitting her head are similar to some aspects of the Republican nominee's personality.”

In her article, Parker didn’t necessarily indicate head trauma was the definitive cause of Trump’s strange behavior and that it could just as easily be due to atrophy or senility. How sweet…according to Parker, he’s not crazy -- he’s just losing his mind.

Scarry also reported that political analyst (and psychiatrist) Charles Krauthammer commented on Trump’s “unusual” conduct.

After having closely observed Trump (in the media) since he announced his presidential run, I don’t think there’s any merit to Parker’s theory. Trump is neither suffering from dementia nor exhibiting anything out of the ordinary in terms of behavior.

My explanation for Trump’s off the wall comments and tendency to get himself in hot water is none other than him being an “outsider” candidate who firmly believes in crushing political correctness at every turn. Trump does these things not necessarily because he’s trying to insult anyone in particular, but as a campaign tactic. Simply put, Trump believes speaking in such a brash and unusual manner will bring success.

In essence, I think Trump is merely saying and doing what he believes people want to hear. He may be a first-time politician, but he’s a lifelong entertainer and celebrity. Trump knows how to give people what they want.

Specifically regarding Trump’s Khizr Khan comments, most of what he said that would be considered “controversial” by the media came in response to specific questions from interviewers such as George Stephanopolous. Trump was merely saying what he thought, which in today’s media is considered strange and outside the norm.

In fact, it can be argued that many of the statements Trump has gotten in trouble for in the past year have come as the result of him simply answering questions (as opposed to statements from scripted speeches). That’s an unusual thing in today’s political environment when most politicians are so used to answering direct queries with whatever they want to talk about instead of addressing what was actually asked of them.

Trump’s candor has gotten him in trouble numerous times, perhaps starting with his infamous “blood coming from her wherever” statement on Megyn Kelly a little over a year ago.

Americans have become conditioned to office seekers speaking in a style that won’t offend people. It’s an unwritten decorum, a form of gentleman’s agreement where certain boundaries won’t be crossed. Well, Trump doesn’t recognize those boundaries. In some ways, it’s been refreshing; in others, he’s shot himself in the foot.

Pretty much all conservatives and Republicans agree Trump needs to stay on message; but there’s nothing wrong with his mind.

Much more serious concerns surround Hillary Clinton’s brain health, however.

Apprehensions about her state of fitness perhaps started back in January when Hillary took an extended “bathroom break” during a debate with Bernie Sanders.

Alex Swoyer of Breitbart reported on January 6, “Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s disappearance from the debate stage last month left people speculating that the former First Lady took a long bathroom break, but now a law-enforcement source with inside connections is alleging that Clinton was missing from the stage due to health issues stemming from a previous brain injury.

“These long-lasting symptoms stemming from a concussion and blood clot, according to a neurologist, suggest Clinton is suffering from post-concussion syndrome, which can severely impact her cognitive abilities.”

The issue seemed to go away for a while until recently resurfacing when Clinton “short-circuited” during a post Democrat convention interview and again at a campaign rally.

If you don’t believe it, look at the video. Her eyes are rolling around in her head. There’s no way she’s faking it.

Whether it’s a true seizure or just the residual effects of a concussion, it seems clear that Hillary is suffering from something that’s not normal.

Seeing as she’s only about a year and a half younger than Donald Trump, I wonder why no one is bringing up premature aging in her regard. When taken together with the concussion she suffered in December of 2012, there’s a good chance Hillary’s got some neurological issues that are worth exploring.

When Dick Cheney suffered a mild heart attack in July of 2000, shortly after being named as George W. Bush’s running mate, the media went crazy with speculation that Cheney wasn’t physically fit enough to handle the vice president’s duties.

But it’s clear from the lack of media scrutiny in her case that Hillary’s potential brain issues aren’t taken seriously. Here we have someone who is favored to be the next president of the United States who may not be mentally “all there” and our journalist watchdogs aren’t asking any questions.

In every presidential election cycle people openly speculate as to the extent of the candidates’ mental health. This time, at least in reference to Hillary Clinton, those concerns are very warranted.

Trump says Second Amendment should take care of Hillary, media freaks out

Yet another example of a bizarre statement from Trump that the media completely blew out of proportion took place on Tuesday.

Eli Stokols of Politico reports, “At a rally in North Carolina on Tuesday, Trump applied his signature sarcasm to a political third rail, stating that ‘the Second Amendment’ may be the only way to stop Clinton from getting to appoint federal judges if she defeats him in November.

“’Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,’ he said. ‘By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.’”

The media took the tidbit and ran with it, claiming Trump is now telling people to assassinate Hillary if she gets elected. Just when you thought it couldn’t get any more stupid in this year’s campaign, the talkers prove us wrong once again.

Should Trump have said it? Probably not, but only from the standpoint most people could gather in advance how the media would spin such a statement.

Trump’s campaign answered shortly after that he was referring to the political power of Second Amendment advocates, not asking people to shoot Crooked Hillary if she becomes president.

Democrats used Trump’s words to further their attempts to define Trump as “dangerous.” Anyone who’s been watching Clinton’s commercials lately knows the “danger” label is the one they’re hoping will stick to Trump. With their willing accomplices in the media and more Trump loose-lipped declarations, they’re getting a lot of help in this regard.

What’s the real danger in 2016? That Hillary Clinton will be allowed to gut the Constitution with Supreme Court appointments, just as Trump was talking about in the first place. The media ignores the substance of what he was saying in order to sensationalize ONE statement that will make the nightly news.

It’s disgusting, but that’s the state of American politics today. The outrage police are out in full force waiting to beat Trump with rhetorical nightsticks every time he says something that might be construed as “dangerous”. It’s absurd, but Democrats are trying desperately to distract attention from Crooked Hillary’s own potential medical issues and her real scandals.

As a shining example, Clinton is being sued by the families of two of the Benghazi victims. What’s more newsworthy, Trump’s off-the-cuff joke about the Second Amendment and Hillary or her being sued for wrongful death and defamation (amongst other things) from her tenure as Secretary of State?

The media’s persistent out-of-proportion blowups remind me of the time in August of 1984 when Ronald Reagan joked to radio technicians that bombing of the Soviet Union would commence at any moment.

From Wikipedia, Reagan said, “My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” The joke was a parody of the opening line of that day's speech: “My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you that today I signed legislation that will allow student religious groups to begin enjoying a right they've too long been denied — the freedom to meet in public high schools during nonschool hours, just as other student groups are allowed to do.”

Truth didn’t matter in that case. Reagan was skewered for the joke. He then went on to win 49-states against Walter Mondale less than three months later.

The bottom line with Trump on his latest comment isn’t any different than it was yesterday, last week, last month or last year. He’s going to throw out some strange things that garden variety politicians typically don’t say. Get used to it. Back in the days before social media and everyone having ready access to video from hand-held devices, politicians could say all sorts of things and not be accused of being “dangerous”.

Not so in 2016. Trump isn’t like other politicians. Ultimately, the voters will decide how outraged they should be…not the overtly biased mainstream media.

A new Independent candidate emerges, but even #NeverTrump doesn’t want him

Speaking of absurd, it looks like the anti-Trump forces are dredging up the possibility of running someone – anyone – as a third party alternative to Trump.

This time it’s CIA veteran and Republican hill staffer Evan McMullin, a guy I’m confident that 99.999999999% of Americans have never heard of. You might remember National Review writer David French was trotted out a few months ago as a possible Independent candidate…but it didn’t go very far.

Compared to McMullin, French looks like a well-known quantity.

Even #NeverTrump wasn’t impressed with the news of McMullin’s candidacy. Leon H. Wolf of RedState wrote, “I wish the people who are behind this effort all the best of luck, and it certainly seems by his resume that McMullin is a serious person - more serious than Donald Trump, by a mile. However, this late in the game, the ballot access issues alone are nearly insurmountable.

“Maybe if this had been in the works since March, it could have caused some actual damage but it's hard to see this getting off the ground to any significant degree, even with a significant influx of cash, which Rick Wilson alleges they have.”

Since March, Wolf suggests? Hmmm…. Didn’t we already have several viable Republican alternatives to Trump back in March including conservative favorite Ted Cruz? Had McMullin thrown his hat into the ring back then people would have been laughing almost as hard as they are now at the prospect some no-name without a story could engender any real support.

The Republican primaries are over. Trump won. He’s been officially nominated. Only the more ridiculous-by-the-moment #NeverTrump forces are still holding out hope that Trump and Hillary can be stopped.

They cling to hope for a movement to start after the election. I’m confident even if one does start, they won’t be invited to take part in it. They’ve shot their load where most conservatives are concerned.

Trump stirs the pot on debate conditions again

Finally today, Donald Trump made headlines on several occasions during the primaries for saying he may or may not participate in the Republican debates (including one which he didn’t show up) and he’s doing it again. This time, he’s playing a game of chicken with the fall general election debates.

Ben Kamisar of The Hill reports, “Donald Trump is promising to participate in three presidential debates this fall but is floating the possibility that he could protest the debates’ conditions…

“Trump specifically told the magazine that he may object to the Commission on Presidential Debates' moderator choices, noting that ‘certain moderators would be unacceptable.’”

I doubt he’s talking about Megyn Kelly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if several of the major networks’ usual suspects are on his no-moderate list.

Trump has to realize that the debates will be his best and perhaps only opportunity to cut through the media censors to reach the American people directly. They can easily turn the race around, making the recent polls all the more irrelevant.

That doesn’t mean Trump’s going to change his tactics, however. I would expect the fall forums to be hard-hitting affairs where he prominently exposes all of Crooked Hillary’s character issues.

It should be good entertainment, hardly “dangerous” at all.

Share this

Trump Almost Sounds Like Jefferson

Trump’s statement was vague enough to be construed as a Second Amendment enthusiasts' political challenge.

But, a well respected Thomas Jefferson, prior to becoming President of the United States, very clearly accepted armed rebellion as a curative for the loss of liberty.

God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. – Thomas Jefferson

The battle for life, liberty, and the pursuit of righteousness must be fought by every generation. It is unavoidable. At some point that struggle may warrant the use of violence, as it did for the founding fathers of the country. Jefferson expected it to happen more often than it has.

It is not inevitable that the grand experiment in American self government will continue past this generation. Especially, if it accepts, without rebellion, legislative decrees, not from representative Congress, but from a majority of nine unelected people in black robes.

Perhaps, as an initiative to win the support of some #NeverTrump folks, Donald Trump could hint at leading the political rebellion to diminish the reach of the federal government in the affairs belonging to the individual states.

Jim Gilmore has more credibility than #NeverTrump's choices

A nice conservative author, a completely unknown creature of the deep state.
David French at least had some credibility with conservatives, even if they weren't buying the #NeverTrump line.
Evan McMullin has exactly the wrong qualifications in this year of the outsider (Goldman, CIA).

Even Jim Gilmore, candidate #17, has more credibility and is much better suited for the job than any candidate advanced by #NeverTrump

Dear #NeverTrump-ers, please get your own brains scanned first.

As for me, I'll take non-PC over the other choices, any time.

Trump

I will take a real nonscripted true American over the lying, rape enabling, scripted to the max, Queen of corruption ANY day! And anyone who won't is a pure idiot or traitor, take your pick!