Support This Website! Shop Here!

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

American Rebellion and the Voter Fraud Study

So the Democrat talking heads, that is, the MSM, are saying voter fraud doesn't happen, and they want to cite this study to make the argument that it doesn't. According to this study, there have been only 31 alleged incidents of voter ID fraud out of the 1 billion votes cast since 2000 AD.

Unfortunately, the man writing the study admits what the MSM doesn't want you to know. That is, the professor in question actually doesn't say anything close what the MSM wants you to think he says. These are his actual words:
Election fraud happens. But ID laws are not aimed at the fraud you’ll actually hear about. Most current ID laws (Wisconsin is a rare exception) aren’t designed to stop fraud with absentee ballots (indeed, laws requiring ID at the polls push more people into the absentee system, where there are plenty of real dangers). Or vote buying. Or coercion. Or fake registration forms. Or voting from the wrong address. Or ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam. In the 243-page document that Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel filed on Monday with evidence of allegedly illegal votes in the Mississippi Republican primary, there were no allegations of the kind of fraud that ID can stop.
Instead, requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot. This is a slow, clunky way to steal an election. Which is why it rarely happens. 
When he says  "voter fraud doesn't happen", what he means is "people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else" - that doesn't happen. But he acknowledges that this is all he is looking at. He isn't looking at all the other ways to defraud the vote.

Unfortunately for this conversation, when most people talk about "voter fraud", they mean a lot more than his narrow definition. They mean not only "voting while pretending to be someone else" but also:
  • fraud with absentee ballots. 
  • vote buying
  • coercion
  • fake registration forms
  • voting from the wrong address
  • ballot box stuffing by officials.
But the professor's study doesn't look at any of those ways, as he himself admits.

But it gets worse. Contrary to the MSM assertion, the professor doesn't say "Election fraud doesn't happen." Instead, he says exactly the opposite: "Election fraud happens" and he certainly knows that these other methods are being used widely everywhere to commit that fraud. Even the Elections Commissioner of New York (a Democrat) much: 

The professor isn't a complete fool. Election fraud happens. This is not news. Does anyone honestly think Tammany Hall didn't exist? That Chicago is not run by a Democrat machine that habitually falsifies the vote? How many senators and Congressman have been elected to office by more votes than there were registered voters? Heck, it happened in the congressional district where I grew up, was reported on the front page of the local paper, and no one was ever indicted, much less prosecuted.

Everyone knew the Congressman was fraudulently elected and everyone knew he had spent years buying up every judge in the county, so everyone knew he couldn't be touched, no matter what was on the front page of the paper. The Congressman served his multiple terms and is now, as far as I know, safely retired and collecting his Congressional pension, after serving himself in Congress for decades and having survived being an unindicted co-conspirator to at least one major Congressional scandal.  This is just business as usual, it is common throughout America, and everyone knows it.

So, when the MSM tells us "there is no substantial voter fraud", we all know they are either using a definition no one else uses, OR they are lying through their pearly-white teeth. Or both. In this case, both.

Now, I am going to go out on a limb and agree that voter ID laws won't stop any of the myriad ways to commit vote fraud that the good professor lists above. But when someone tells us that American citizens do not need photo ID at the polling booth when we absolutely MUST present it for every other single transaction we conduct with the government or its flunkies, when someone says THAT, then we feel as if we are being mocked.

And no one likes to be mocked.

You see, it's pretty simple. If you want to conduct voter fraud and you want everyone to look the other way while it happens because you want the job, its salary and - more important - its perqs, well, that's America. Americans are used to graft. It's the American way. After all, how many voters have inflated their resume, overstated their income on a bank loan, or similarly mis-represented themselves to get money they wanted? American voters are generally willing to do whatever it takes to turn a buck. As can be seen by our propensity to vote for murderous abortion-lovers, we Americans are money-grubbing, venal jackasses who don't care if children have to die as long as the economy stays in the black. If killing children is the price we must pay to maintain our way of life, then kill the little bastards and grind them up in the Insinkerator. In short, we understand ballot-stuffing, we are willing to overlook that because we can easily see ourselves doing the same, if that were necessary to get the job or the promotion or the loan or whatever.

But when you tell American voters, to our faces, that all that photo ID stuff is nonsense for purposes of voting, we start to think that maybe it is nonsense for everything else too. And if it is nonsense for everything else, then why are you requiring it of us for all those other transactions? If it isn't necessary for the most basic civic function there is, voting, then why are we forced to carry this crap at all? If you're going to break the rules to get what you want by using all of the fraudulent methods above, then cut us some slack and dump rules that are designed to prevent us from wriggling around the system the same way you do.

And if you aren't willing to dump the other stupid rules, then at least allow us to save face by pretending that photo ID is as important here as you pretend it is everywhere else.  We don't mind hypocrisy, we just want consistency in our hypocrisy. Without that, how can we look at ourselves in the mirror the morning after we have elected another child-murderer?

Americans just want a level playing field, that's all.
It's our way of life that is at stake here. 

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

An Inexpensive Alternative to Obamacare

Unable to afford your health insurance increases this year? Consider Liberty Health Shares, an alternative to health insurance that is much more affordable and more reliable than regular insurance. A family of six on the most expensive share plan will have a maximum monthly fee significantly under $500, with an annual “deductible” (AUA) of $500 per person or $1500 per family (more on that in a bit).  The least expensive plan is just over $100 a month.

Liberty HealthShare participants don’t pay a ‘premium’ each month, they pay a monthly fee. The fee is  shared among participants who have medical expenses for that month. So instead of having a private company pay the bills, all the people who belong to Liberty together pay everyone’s bills for that month – they share each other’s medical expenses. If you were a participant and had medical bills, other participants’ monthly contributions would fund your medical expenses and vice versa.
There’s an annual unshared amount (AUA) for each participant, similar to a deductible, which is an amount that cannot be shared. Once you pay your AUA, which is $500 per individual, $1500 per family, Liberty Health Share will cover all of your doctor appointments, medical tests, and any other medical expenses according to the plan you choose.  They will also renegotiate your bill to reduce the total cost to everyone involved, them and you.

Participants receive a free wellness check-up. Hospital stays, medical tests and x-rays are all covered. As a participant, I can also choose which doctor or facility I want to go to. With an HMO or PPO I would have to find a doctor within that specific network. Now I have the option to choose any quality care provider that accepts my health share card. If the provider chooses not to accept the card, keep the receipts and send them into Liberty; Liberty reimburses the expense. There is a discount card for prescriptions.

Participants in this cooperative fulfill the requirements of the Obamacare mandate and do not pay any penalty or tax for non-participation in the ACA.

The 3 Different Plans Include:

Liberty_complete-Liberty Share: $70% of eligible medical costs are shared up to $125,000 (Medical costs are shared on a per person, per incident basis, for illnesses or injuries incurring medical expenses when treated by physicians, urgent care facilities, clinics, emergency rooms, or hospitals (inpatient and outpatient)

-Liberty Plus: 100% of eligible medical costs are shared up to $125,000. Participants also qualify for pharmacy, chiropractic, dental, hearing, and vision services through Envision Medical Solutions (EMS)

-Liberty Complete: 100% of eligible medical costs are shared up to $1,000,000, Same services as above are available through EMS

If you would like to receive more information on this, send me the following information and I refer you to Liberty. I am providing this information because:
  1. It may help some people find affordable medical care and 
  2. Liberty Health Share gives a $100 bonus for every person signs onto Liberty when I send them the individual’s contact information below.
We have personally used Liberty for our health coverage over the last two years and have found that it covers our medical bills at least as well as regular insurance ever has. The monthly payment hasn't increased in the two years we have been on it. If I had any serious qualms about the product, you wouldn't be receiving this message.

If you find this information useful, and would like to learn more, please consider helping me financially - at no cost to yourself – by allowing me to refer you to Liberty Health Shares. Whether you end up joining is entirely your decision. That’s none of my business.

Please send me:
First Name
Last Name
Email address

If you do find this useful and do ask me for a referral, I will thank you by sending you a coupon for 20% off any purchase at I only get paid if you become a Liberty customer. But no matter what you ultimately choose to do, you get the coupon

Thanks for reading this.
My email is 

Emotionally Gifted Children

We need to start calling 
Down's Syndrome kids 
what they are

Emotionally Gifted

How to Stop Vote Tampering

As early voting begins in the 2016 election, there have been numerous reports of electronic voting machines "changing" the on-screen vote. Voters are being warned to pay close attention and keep a hold on their paper ballots.

That advice is a complete waste of time.

Look, any trivially competent programmer can print one result to the screen or the paper while storing an entirely different result in the database.

These reports that the "screen changed" are just demonstrations that whoever hacked that particular voting machine was completely incompetent. If a trivially competent programmer were involved, you wouldn't even know your vote had been hacked. The piece of paper you clutch in your fist would be as useful, and as valuable, as Monopoly money.

The only tech I know of that can stop vote tampering cold is the blockchain technology developed in 2009 for Bitcoin. There are some procedural issues to work out, but if blockchain were used, no vote could be compromised, the person who voted would be able to change his/her vote at any moment right up until the close of polls, all votes would be instantly accessible so anyone could count the vote and satisfy themselves as to the accuracy, and the vote would remain relatively (although not absolutely) anonymous.

The vote could not be broken by a programmer, a virus or a DDoS attack. Only a 51% attack could violate the integrity of the vote, and such an attack would be bloody obvious to anyone paying attention.

The electronic voting machines we have now are ludicrously easy to beat, as is the process by which they are used. The vote cannot be secured by returning to paper ballots - that's just stupid. Paper ballots were also ludicrously easy to beat. I know of no other technology that has even a hope of securing the integrity of an election.

Until we implement blockchain for our elections, the elections will not be decided by voters. Rather, every election will be decided by whoever employed the best hackers. Whether you like it or not, that's where we are now. Ignoring this reality is not helping anyone.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Catholics and American Politics

"Are you a Democrat, Republican or Independent?"
"Oh, none of the above."
"Excuse me?"
"I said, 'None of the above. I am Catholic.'"

Anti-Catholic Bigotry: A Proud History

Catholics have an odd political history. The Catholic outlook does not fit any particular American political movement, which is why Catholics have long been considered politically suspect. Everyone remembers the Democrat party invented the KKK to suppress the black vote, but few recall that it also suppressed the Catholics and the Jews. In fact, the largest lynching in the history of the American south was not a mass lynching of blacks, but of Catholics - in 1891, eleven Italian-Americans were lynched for allegedly killing a police officer.

Similarly, the national Know Nothing party was founded exactly one year after the Republican party, and the two had close ties. The Know Nothings were famously and virulently anti-Catholic. The Know-Nothing penchant for violence is perhaps best remembered in the success of a local chapter in burning down an Ursuline Convent in 1834, Almost exactly twenty years later, they destroyed a marble block donated by the Pope for use in the construction of the Washington Monument, The Know-Nothings "kidnapped" the block and threw it into the Potomac to keep Washington's Monument free of "popish" influences.

Modern Bigots: Clinton/Trump

Whether Democrat or Republican, political advancement in America has long been tied to displaying one's anti-Catholic credentials to a frequently bloodthirsty audience. Thus, it is no surprise to see Trump's hypocritical attack the Pope (to see Trump's complete statement, go here): 

Of course, the Pope did not question Trump's faith. In fact, the Pope publicly refused to believe that Trump was as bad as the press portrayed him, and publicly chastised the press for portraying him that way. The only way one could construe the papal remarks as an attack on Trump's faith is by assuming the reporter's caricature of Trump's faith was not a caricature at all, but rather absolutely accurate. In fact, the Pope did not confirm the caricature, on the contrary, he specifically questioned the accuracy of the reporter's caricature.

So, why did Trump respond so viciously, pretending he had been attacked when Pope Francis had actually questioned the reporter's veracity?  Trump responded that way precisely because Trump knows what all politicians know - in certain circles, you get more mileage for attacking the Pope than for agreeing with him.

Now Hillary Clinton is on the dock because the highest members of her staff had virulently anti-Catholic conversations, with the following documented example demonstrating the bias:
“It’s [i.e., Catholicism is] an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy,” Mr. Halpin said.
“I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they become evangelicals,” Ms. Palmieri responded.
“Excellent point,” Mr. Halpin wrote back. “They can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.”
Actually, Catholics expect a well-educated person to be familiar with basic terms like "subsidiarity" and "Thomistic thought". Every politician claims to be well-educated. Clinton's emails demonstrate that Clinton's "best" people function at or below the educational level usually attributed to Trump supporters.

In General, What Does a Catholic Stand For?

An excellent question. For Catholics, Faith comes before country. We have a duty to Christ that supersedes any duty to secular authority. If it is a choice between obeying God and man, we obey God. Still, as Scripture says, we must also acknowledge that our leaders have power only because God permits them to, thus we are called to work within the law whenever possible.

Responsibility should be shouldered at the lowest possible level - the players at the lowest level of society, e.g., parents, teachers, etc., the people out on the street, doing the work, these are the people who should have the greatest voice in a process. Higher levels of authority exist not to rule over those in the street, but to help allocate resources so that those who know the problem best have what they need to resolve the problem. This is called the "principle of subsidiarity."

Since revolution, especially armed revolution, disrupts society, such movements always harm innocents, Acting with this in mind, Catholics are required to avoid fomenting rebellion or revolution if it can possibly be avoided. We are required to work within the system, not subvert it. These political principles, and many more, were clearly explained by Thomas Aquinas. In fact, Catholic political principles are drawn largely from his clear, logical analysis, analysis which summarized how human and divine action should interact. His summaries of political and theological principles are together known as "Thomistic" thought.

Catholics on Specific Issues

So, can some major principles, as regards America's culture, be enunciated?

Quasi-Democrat principle
All people have the right to attempt to better their lives, so immigration must be as free as possible. Vatican City models this principle by not even having a passport check on its border with Italy. Anyone can freely enter the country at any time, and many of Italy's homeless take advantage of that fact every night, walking across the Vatican City border for shelter and food.

Quasi-Republican principle
That having been said, insofar as those laws are just, and do not violate human rights, immigrants have a duty to obey the laws of their host country

Quasi-Democrat principle
Everyone has the right to live their life as they think best, according to the primacy of a well-formed conscience.

Quasi-Republican principle
However, for anyone's actions to be acceptable, their conscience must be "well-formed." The state has every right to restrict actions which someone freely undertakes, but which would not pass the test of a well-formed conscience.

Quasi-Democrat principle
We all have a duty to care for the poor. This duty is bound by the principle of subsidiarity, that is, the poor should be taken care of by local organizations, not far-away government agencies. HOWEVER, higher organizations, such as city, county, state and federal government, have a duty to assist those local organizations. The government's duty towards those local organizations includes the duty to provide necessary resources, such as funding.

Quasi-Republican principle
Innocent life is always to be preserved, so crimes against innocent persons can never, under any circumstances, be justified. Thus, all forms of deliberate abortion, euthanasia, etc., must be illegal. There can be no exceptions. Period.

No. Really. Period. Done.

Quasi-Democrat principle:
While the state has the right to exercise the death penalty, that penalty should not be used if it can possibly be avoided. God is the giver of life. Since a criminal is one who makes war on the state and its citizens, we have to use the same principles in applying the death penalty that we use in the application of "just war." If we apply those principles, it is impossible to justify the death penalty in most cases.

Quasi-Republican principle
Marriage exists not only for the good of the spouses, but also for the good of procreating children. It follows both that (a) children have a right to grow up with their biological parents, and (b) parents have a duty to raise their children. For these and other reasons, homosexual "marriage" is a contradiction in terms.

Both parties like this:
It is legitimate to wage war, but only according to the principles of just war. Democrats got America into most of the last century's worth of wars, and Republicans have made sure the American war machine stayed funded. Both parties benefit from war. Unfortunately, neither party has ever shown great interest in restricting themselves to waging a just war.

Both parties hate this:
Contraception is an intrinsic evil and should not be permitted. However, contraception does not always directly take innocent life. As both St. Augustine and St. Thomas point out, in cases like this, the state may permit one evil in order to avoid a larger evil. For instance, the state may permit prostitution in order to avoid a greater violence. Since, as even Mahatma Gandhi recognized, contraception turns a woman into a prostitute, the state might permit legal contraception (i.e., legal prostitution) in order to avoid some other evil. Both of America's political parties want legal contraception, but they don't want anyone pointing out that they have thereby turned women into prostitutes.

Both parties SAY they like this, but both actually hate it:
Women must be respected.

Making contraception available turns them into prostitutes. Making abortion available turns them into accomplices to murder. Treating women like exchangeable prostitutes by engaging in serial divorce and re-marriage is likewise not respectful. Treating the vocation of mother as a trash job for someone too incompetent to make it in the business world is not respectful. Pretending that "male" and "female" are simply social constructs is not respectful. Electing politicians who treat the women around them in this way (all previous presidents in the last century except, perhaps, George W. Bush, please call your office. Hillary, get out from under the smears and coverups you have committed against your husband's rape victims and pick up the phone - this includes you.) is not respectful.


This is why Catholics hate both Trump and Clinton. Both candidates violate very basic principles of Catholic Faith. Hillary is the worst offender, because she calls for the murder of children. Trump is barely above her, for he calls for committing war crimes against innocent civilian families. But numerous additional violations in any number of subjects could be piled on.

America used to produce candidates who at least publicly pretended to stand behind principles that were recognizably Catholic. Today, both major parties have surrendered these principles. Catholics have no viable major party choice. Even Gary Johnson, of the Libertarian Party, essentially matches Hillary in his/her "murder-for-hire" attitude towards children.

Catholics have to get our heads around this fact: Barack Obama is correct.

With the 2016 presidential candidates, it is now clear we are no longer a Christian country.
Catholics do not now, and will not soon, have a viable presidential candidate to vote for. We have been, and will continue for the foreseeable future to be, living in Churchill's Wilderness Years. We simply cannot expect to see a viable candidate that Catholics can morally support for a long, long time.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Bye-Bye Miss American Pie

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


"Oh, screw that. Put up a wall, and send us only your very best, the ones who can really help turn a buck for us. You keep the wretched refuse on your teeming shore, we'll skim the cream off the top."

America... I don't know you anymore.... 

Thursday, October 06, 2016

Pastors: Stop Complaining

Some Catholic pastors are whining that their congregations treat them badly.

You wanted involvement from the laity.
You got it.
Stop complaining.

The Second Vatican Council asked for the laity to get more involved. The Council did NOT mandate that the laity agree with all the priest's/bishop's decisions, nor did it assert that one side or the other would always be right in how they acted.

Priests and bishops model behaviour to the congregation. If priests and bishops abuse the liturgy, then the laity see and understand the basic principle: abuse is acceptable! Thus, the congregation abuses the priests and bishops.

If priests and bishops question the Magisterium's authority, if they pick and choose which teachings of the Church they will endorse, if they cast aspersions on the Pope from the ambo, then the congregation will question the priest's and bishop's authority. The congregation will pick and choose which pronouncements of the pastor they will honor, the congregation will cast aspersions (or make Youtube videos) of the pastor and the bishop and post those on the Internet.

That's how life works.
With ubiquitous video recording devices, what goes around will come around with a vengeance.

The sheep drink from the same stream as the shepherd.
Shepherds should keep that in mind when they choose their streams.

If the pastor doesn't like how the congregation acts, it's because he can't stand looking at his face in the morning mirror. You want an obedient, respectful flock? Be obedient and respectful to the Church. If you aren't, then devil will take the hindmost, and that might well be you.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Voting and the Moral Act

When we say "voting is a moral act," we have to define our terms. The "moral act" means different things depending on what philosophy you espouse and how you define morals. Notice that "morality" is not the same as "ethics." Morality is a divinely revealed code of conduct. Ethics is a humanly agreed upon code of conduct. There is overlap between the two, but the two are not identical. I can do something that is moral, but unethical, and I can do something that is ethical, but immoral.

Take the example of the doctor who sleeps with his patient. Immoral? Unethical? Both? Neither? We can't tell from just the example. If the doctor's patient is his wife, then the act is perfectly moral, but it might be unethical if his particular specialty (for example, surgery) requires that doctors not accept close relatives as patients. On the other hand, if the patient is NOT his wife, the act is certainly immoral, but might be ethical because his particular specialty (for example, podiatry) lays no specific prohibitions on doctors having emotional relationships with patients.

So, if we accept that morality is a divinely revealed code of conduct, then the moral act, at least in Christian tradition, is made up of three elements: circumstances, intention and the act itself. Notice that the outcome is most definitely NOT part of the moral act. Again, in Christian tradition, God is the one who brings about the outcome, not man. Man proposes, God disposes. We do our best, but our best is not expected to be good enough to always accomplish our intention.

And so it is with voting. When we vote, we are not responsible for the outcome. Whether the person for whom we vote wins or loses is not our concern. We vote (act) for the candidates who fulfill the legal requirements of office (circumstance) with the intention of placing them in office. Whether they actually make it into the office, or even have a chance to make it into office, is not relevant to the morality of the act, which is my vote. As long as I vote with the intention that my vote helps this person get into office, I have provided the third element of the moral act.

In order for a vote to be a morally good act, all three elements have to be good, or at least morally neutral. For example, I have no right to intend to put an unqualified person into office. An unqualified person is not just someone who doesn't satisfy the laws of the state concerning the office. After all, a person may fit the secular qualifications (correct age, mental capacity, etc.), but still be unfit because that person is known to be morally unqualified. Perhaps he abuses power, perhaps he regularly and without remorse uses power to injure and/or kill others. Such a person is not worthy of my vote.

Now, I am aware that my vote is one out of hundreds of millions cast. There is simply no reasonable probability that my vote alone will actually put anyone into office or prevent anyone from taking office. Given the number of votes cast, my vote has essentially zero effect on the outcome of any election. In fact, as we have seen, even if it were otherwise, even if I were reasonably certain that my vote would accomplish my intention, the placement of a specific person into a specific office as a result of my vote would be an outcome, and outcome isn't part of the moral equation.

So, when I vote, I don't vote in order THAT someone may win. Rather, I vote in order to express the idea that this person is someone I know well enough and I trust well enough to act correctly while they are in office (whether they get that office or not). My vote is a statement about how much I trust another person, a statement that asserts the office-seeker's values are close enough to my own that I have good reason to believe he will serve others well while in office.

It is only in THAT sense that my vote is a moral act. My vote is a short-hand letter of reference. I don't look at the office-seeker and say "Well, he's not as bad as the others, and someone has to do the job, so I suppose he will have to do." Rather, I look at the office seeker on his own, without reference to the other office-seekers. Based on the assessment I make of this seeker alone, I determine if I know him well enough and trust him well enough to endow him with the power of the office.

This is the important part: If none of the office seekers are trustworthy enough, then none of them get my vote.

If voting is a moral act, then my vote is my personal moral statement.
That is all it is - it can be no more.
But neither can it be any less.

As a Catholic, I have a duty to make publicly clear that I am Catholic. If I can do that by voting for a particular candidate, thereby declaring that this candidate's values match true, substantial Catholic values, then I am bound to vote for the candidate. I cannot not vote for him. However, if I cannot find a candidate whose values are substantially Catholic, if I see all the candidates have values that substantially violate Catholic faith, then I am duty-bound not to vote, I am duty-bound NOT to endorse them with my vote. I am duty-bound NOT to contribute to handing them the power of office.

I do not have to choose between Lenin and Stalin, between Pol Pot and Mao tse Tung, between Goehring and Hitler. If these are the choices, then the Catholic thing to do is to imitate St. Thomas More, retire to my estate and refuse to make any public endorsement of anyone.

If I predicate my vote on what the outcome will be, I am playing God. I have, at that moment, become a consequentialist, a modernist, a fool. I am representing to myself that I have control over outcomes that I do not, in fact, have any control over at all. By the very fact that I already know my vote will not, and never can, be the single deciding vote in an election involving 330 million people, then pretending my vote is necessary for a specific outcome is farce. It is just me trying to convince myself that a dreamworld is reality, that my vote means more than it actually does. I represent myself as having more power than I could ever, even in the wildest reality, actually wield.

The choice in 2016 is between Lenin and Stalin, between Pol Pot and Mao tse Tung, between Goehring and Hitler. Thus, for the time being, I retire.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Just A Mild Case of Pneumonia?!

On Sunday, 68-year old Hillary Clinton collapsed from what her handlers claim was a case of pneumonia that was diagnosed on Friday. Despite video which clearly shows her essentially unconscious as she is being dragged into her van, she was not taken to a hospital.

Instead, 90 minutes after she was taken to her daughter's apartment (!), she was out on the sidewalk, bending over and greeting a small child. This is amazing, given that pneumonia causes low oxygen saturation in the blood, increases the probability of dizziness while standing or bending over, and therefore increases the risks of falls.

An elderly patient who has just collapsed from pneumonia will not be bending over to greet a small child. This sequence of events does not comport with pneumonia. Below are some medical website quotes about pneumonia in the >65 crowd. Links are at the beginning of the paragraphs:
A number of studies have confirmed that there is a high rate of morbidity and mortality associated with pneumonia in the elderly (Fig. 1).[1-5] These high rates have continued to impede the efforts of healthcare professionals, despite significant improvements in therapeutic options and public health practices. One-sixth of the six million pneumonia cases that are reported each year occur primarily in those individuals 65 years and older requiring hospitalization for pneumonia.[6] Over 90% of all deaths from pneumonia occur in this older population.
Community-acquired pneumonia is one of the most common reasons for admission to a general intensive care unit (ICU). Up to 22% of patients hospitalized with pneumonia are admitted to the ICU,[3–5] approximately 18–56% of whom will die during hospitalization. Appropriate delivery of critical care services for patients with pneumonia is particularly topical and important given how common community-acquired pneumonia is in elderly patients, with approximately one million cases per year in those ≥65 yrs in the United States.
Older people have higher risk of getting pneumonia, and are more likely to die from it if they do. For US seniors, hospitalization for pneumonia has a greater risk of death compared to any of the other top 10 reasons for hospitalization.
While successful pneumonia treatment often leads to full recovery, it can have longer term consequences. Children who survive pneumonia have increased risk for chronic lung diseases. Adults who survive pneumonia may have worsened exercise ability, Cardiovascular disease, cognitive decline, and quality of life for months or years. (emphasis added)
The pneumonia and influenza mortality rate is much higher for those aged 65 years and older compared to younger age groups. About 85 percent of all pneumonia and influenza deaths occur in this age group, and it represents the seventh leading cause of death in this age group.
Her people didn't seem to be very upset about her "pneumonia", nor did they treat it with very much concern. They certainly did not exhibit the level of concern that would be warranted if this were a recently diagnosed condition that had just rendered their candidate unconscious. And how does someone recover in 90 minutes from that level of incapacitation, especially if it were induced by pneumonia? How does a 68-year old woman manage that? Receiving no apparent medical care during or after the episode? Seriously?
Whatever Hillary has, it is:
  • deeply debilitating (obvious from the first video)
  • rapid onset with "halo" (victim can feel upcoming episode, thus she made it to the van)
  • transient (obvious from the second video)
There are a lot of things that can do that.
Pneumonia isn't one of them.