Adolf Hitler

No, there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's disease

oracknows — Wed, 07 Sep 2016 04:45:47 +0000

No, there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's disease

Remember Vox Day?

Vox Day is the pseudonym used by a truly vile man named Theodore Beale. I first encountered him 11 years ago on the precursor to this blog, thanks to his antivaccine stylings and outright misogyny. Later, I learned the depths of his wingnuttery, such as his accepting pseudoscientific claims that vaccines cause sudden infant death syndrome, and several others. Hilariously, his anti-science rants are inevitably accompanied by smug posturing about how scientists are arrogant (pot, kettle, black) and how science is a corrupt system that is ideologically driven (talk about projection). Basically, he seizes on any criticism of how science is practiced as an excuse to attack science itself. That doesn’t even take into account his odious suggestion, ten years before Donald Trump made it, that we should forcibly eject 11 million immigrants here illegally, because, hey, it worked for Hitler. It was a “classic” that briefly made Vox too much of a wingnut for WorldNetDaily. Sadly, the Overton window appears to have shifted, such that Vox would no longer be too much of a wingnut for many publications.

It’s not surprising, then, that Vox is a Donald Trump supporter.

Also, given his history of accepting any crank science or medicine that fits into his preconceived world view, that Vox has also jumped onto the “Hillary is unfit to serve” bandwagon. Three weeks ago, I noted two very unhelpful and bordering on despicable misuses of medicine, both involving armchair diagnoses of political candidates. First, there was the tendency of those on the left to assign psychiatric diagnoses to Donald Trump. That was bad enough, but what Trump supporters were doing was arguably worse, namely insinuating all sorts of dark conspiracies to hide serious illness in Hillary Clinton. The “evidence” used upon which the various “diagnoses” assigned to Clinton has been risibly lean, but that didn’t stop wingnuts like Dr. Jane Orient and Dr. Gerard Gianoli, both of the crank doctors’ organization the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). Basically, based on pure speculation, they did some fine JAQing off and asked if Clinton had post-concussive syndrome from a concussion and a cerebral venous thrombosis suffered after falling when she was ill with the flu in 2012 and from which she appears to have made a full recovery. There have also been insinuations that she has Parkinson’s disease, based on...basically nothing.

I guess it should come as no surprise that Vox is totally down with that observation because...”experts.” It’s hilarious to me how Vox castigates legitimate experts who point out that his beliefs are nonsense, but says this about people who support his beliefs, like Dr. Ted Noel, an anesthesiologist who has concluded through a fair amount of contortions of logic, that Hillary Clinton “probably” has Parkinson’s disease:

That is the conclusion of a a board-certified Anesthesiologist with 36 years of experience, backed up by the observations of a) a victim of Parkinson's Disease and b) a registered nurse who cares for patients with Parkinson's Disease.

First off, being a “board-certified anesthesiologist” has little or nothing to do with expertise in neurology or Parkinson’s disease. Yet, note how Vox emphasizes that he has 36 years of experience, presumably at anesthesia. I’m sure he’s a perfectly capable anesthesiologist, but he’s no more qualified to diagnose Parkinson’s disease than any other non-neurologist, probably less, given his high degree of specialization. Yet, none of that stops him from posting a ridiculous video:

And an equally ridiculous article to go with it:

Noel is hilarious. He claims that he does “exactly what the CIA” does and looks at publicly available records to determine if there is a story that fits the observations. Here’s the problem. He gets the method backwards in that what he does is to start with the story he wants to tell and then cherry picks bits of information and video to weave together to tell that story, namely that Clinton has Parkinson’s disease. He begins with the standard conspiracy theories, going back to 2005 when Clinton fainted onstage. Particularly silly is one point where Noel recounts an episode where Clinton fell down and struck her head, noting that to strike your head falling requires a “complete loss of protective reflexes” and that dehydration from an illness isn’t enough to do it:

It explains every one of the items listed above. Further, since it is a diagnosis primarily made by observation, the video record is sufficient to create a high degree of certainty.

The 2009 fall where HRC broke her elbow suggests that she had working protective reflexes, and her arm took the brunt of the fall. But three years later, she had a catastrophic fall where her reflexes were unable to help her. It is notable that this fall took place at home, where she would have been unstressed and in a familiar setting. Failing reflexes are common in PD. Poor balance is also common in PD, and a fall without working protective reflexes is a prescription for head injury. Her subsequent concerns with transverse sinus thrombosis are plausibly related to the fall. Her need for fresnel lens glasses also fits with post-concussion syndrome.

Uh, no. It happens all the time. People fall and hit their heads. Noel is really stretching here. There were a total of three falls, and Noel stretches to claim that the first one was due to early Parkinson’s, the second one due to a Parkinson’s freeze. Noel keeps going on and on about how “I am not her treating physician” but that Parkinson’s is the most likely explanation for Clinton’s behavior and that she is a politician who “lies about everything.”

His next bit of speculation is that a month after Clinton’s concussion she was experiencing occasional confusion, which he at least concedes is not uncommon after a concussion, but then he goes full on conspiracy wingnut. For instance, he shows video of Clinton nodding her head, pointing to that as evidence of Parkinson’s disease. Never mind that it’s something she’s done for a very long time, going back to the 1990s. To Noel, this isn’t just an odd tic; it’s a Parkinson’s tremor. Now, I’ve seen Parkinson’s tremors. Not surprisingly, Noel pulls up the video of Hillary with an exaggerated startle response, which Noel attributes to levodopa-induced dyskinesia. No, it’s not. I find it quite telling that nowhere in the video does Noel show video of actual Parkinson’s disease tremors or levodopa-induced dyskinesia to compare with Hillary Clinton’s movements. If he did, it would become obvious that Clinton’s behaviors are neither of these things.

Then there’s this:

PD is a chronic disease with a downhill prognosis. HRC’s instability and frequent cough suggest that her PD is advanced. This is not a good outlook for someone running for the Presidency. The office of the President is one of the highest stress jobs in the world. Stress sets off PD episodes, which render the sufferer incapable of proper response.

At this point, a bit of speculation seems appropriate. HRC talks about her yoga sessions. But no one we know of has ever documented one. It is possible that this is cover for sessions designed to teach her coping mechanisms for PD or for rest breaks. Exhaustion makes PD worse.

HRC’s coughing suggests that her swallowing disorder is advanced, placing her closer to an aspiration pneumonia that would disable or kill her. That’s bad enough, but PD has one more, even more dangerous step in its progression.

As PD continues, cognitive problems can develop. In time, they become full-blown dementia. The United States cannot survive if its President is mentally impaired.

Yes, the cough thing. Since I last wrote about this, conspiracy theorists have started to point out that Hillary Clinton coughs a lot. That’s prompted me to point out that I, too, cough a lot, because I have seasonal allergies and frequently get bronchitis in the wintertime and have for as long as I can remember. People who have seen me give talks certain times of the year probably noted that I usually had at least a low grade cough. Now think of it this way. Clinton has been on the campaign trail for over a year and a half, giving as many as several talks a day and, when not giving speeches, is forced to speak with campaign staff, donors, and others. So what if she has a cough? I bet if you looked hard enough you could find video of Donald Trump coughing or, going to past elections, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney coughing. Constant public speaking can do that.

No one seems to be asking if Newt Gingrich has Parkinson's, even though he coughed as he wondered if Clinton's coughing meant she was seriously ill.

Parkinson’s disease is indeed a serious, progressive, degenerative neurologic disease. Perhaps the best indication that Clinton almost certainly does not have Parkinson’s disease is how carefully Noel and the peddlers of this particular conspiracy theory had to cherry pick video of Clinton to find brief snippets that they could point to as Parkinson’s-associated tremors, “brain freeze,” and levodopa-induced dyskinesia. As Steve Novella, a board-certified neurologist, pointed out when I was on The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe three weeks ago, the exaggerated startle response pointed to by Noel is not a Parkinsonian freeze, nor was it dystonia or a seizure. As Novella points out, Parkinson’s is an “across the room” diagnosis that is easy for a trained neurologist to recognize, particularly if it is advanced, which, remember, is what Noel is claiming.

Ever wonder why none of these videos shows actual patients with Parkinson’s disease with dyskinesia or resting tremors for comparison? (And, no, a static photo of Michael J. Fox looking “bug-eyed” doesn’t count.) Ever wonder why, out of literally thousands of hours of video of Hillary Clinton taken over the last two years and then before, when she was Secretary of State, that these few snippets of video that can be tortured to sort of look like Parkinson’s disease symptoms are the best that Dr. Noel (and before him, Martin Shkreli and Dr. Jane Orient) could come up with? Did you ever wonder why not a single board-certified neurologist has stepped forward and say, “Yeah, that looks like Parkinson’s”? The reason is simple. It doesn’t. Those startled looks are not dyskinesia, and that head bob is probably a nervous tic, not resting tremor. Seriously. Advanced Parkinson’s disease is not something you can hide when you’re on video hundreds, if not thousands, of hours a year. It’s just not. the very fact that these few snippets of video are the best that the conspiracy mongers can come up with is excellent evidence that Hillary Clinton does not have Parkinson’s disease. If she had Parkinson’s disease, it would have been noticed long ago by someone other than a greedy pharmaceutical entrepreneur, the CEO of a crank physician organization, or an anesthesiologist with a political agenda who asks near the end of his video about who would run the country if Hillary Clinton were incapacitated and then shows a photo like this:

Yep, he insinuates. It’ll be Bill Clinton running the country again. Of course, the Constitution declares the line of succession, and if Hillary Clinton were elected and were to become incapacitated, her Vice President, Tim Kaine, would assume the duties of the Presidency, Dr. Noel's insinuation that if he were to do so the Clintons would "lose their juice," not withstanding or his "question" wondering whether Clinton had a "freeze" during the Benghazi attack and that's why it was such a disaster. (I just knew he'd manage to work Benghazi in there somewhere.)

Insinuations about the health of political candidates and leaders is nothing new. However, these conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s health from the fever swamps of Alex Jones territory take it to a level I do not recall ever having seen before. No wonder Vox Day eats them up. As brilliant as he thinks he is, he is the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect and the arrogance of ignorance.

oracknows Wed, 09/07/2016 - 00:45

Categories

Brain and Behavior

He asks the question at the video, while apparently never realizing that the Constitution has already provided the answer.
He also claimed that having a POTUS with dementia would be fatal to the nation, yet we somehow managed to survive Reagan.

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, every physician who wants to diagnose a candidate from online videos and even television videos in a diagnosis that's far afield of their specialty should have their state board take a shredder to their license.
For one, they're trying to diagnose something outside of their field of expertise, based upon low resolution video clips. That shows a mind boggling lack of good judgement.

My response:

Dear Dr Noel - I'm so embarassed that you apparently spout off all this nonsense not realizing that the Constitution has already stated how issues of succession are to be managed. Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but no, Mr Clinton would not take over if Mrs Clinton becomes incapacitated. The Vice President would. (Surely you are old enough to remember Nixon's resignation - Gerald Ford, who was VP, was sworn in, not Pat Nixon).

And diagnosing someone without having them as your patient is very unprofessional. Or else, that means I can diagnose you with delusions of grandeur and possible flights of fancy, maybe from exposure to too many anesthesia drugs.

Lay off the nitrous, doc, and do your job. Let Hillary's actual personal physician do their job.

Well, nitrous oxide does deplete vitamin B12, which can cause psychiatric issues... ;)

Seems like every year the White House releases the results of the current Presidents annual physical exam (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/08/us/politics/document-pres… ) .

Is this a requirement that the President have an annual physical and that the results be publicly disclosed? And (somewhat cynically) would what is disclosed necessarily be complete and accurate given the concern that enemies of the US might try and exploit a medical diagnosis of the President if disclosed?

I too have been annoyed at the armchair diagnosis of Trump for two reasons. It gives him an out to explain his behavior and vilifies people with similar diagnoses. Trump is an evil, racist bigot without a shred of human decency. His ability to convince others to agree with him is far more worrying than finding a root cause.

From an insurance company website: "More than 662,000 of adults who suffered from falls in 2010 [in the USA] were hospitalized due to non-fatal fall injuries."
People tumble at their homes like bowling pins all the time, but Clinton's accident was because of Parkinson's... Makes sense.

Obviously, looking at her birth certificate did not work this time.

#6, my wife took a spill in the house a week ago. Maybe we should show case reports and a hashtag, #NotParkinsons.
For her, it's herniated discs, a misstep and a poorly placed treat jar.
A couple of weeks before, I took a spill, as the cat was overjoyed to see me and knocked my cane out of my hand as I was just ready to put weight on it. #NotParkonsons.
The cat took a spill, when misjudging the distance to the chair. #NotParkinsons
A Carolina Anole was climbing up our sunroom window and lost his footing, #NotParkinsons.

Falls are rather common and rarely due to one single medical condition.

@ MI Dawn
I am quite disappointed to learn that Monica would not take over if both Mr and Mrs Clinton become incapacitated.

Orac got it wrong.

This doctor who has diagnosed HRC's hidden illness is a "board-certified Anesthesiologist with 36 years of experience"

Now if he wasn't board-certified I might doubt she has Parkinson's, but you can't argue with board certification. I also know of a tree specialist certified by the International Board of Arboriculture who has come to the same conclusion.

Dangerous @8 -- You had me going there for a while.

Here's a vulgar and very humorous take on all this, from a site that has developed what amounts to its own rhetorical universe of stylized snark:

http://wonkette.com/605279/what-is-hillary-clinton-dying-from-today

I’d take a Clinton with poor health (even if such were true) over the little-fingered One.

There are also much worse things than Clinton filling in for Clinton in spite of how silly this is--as pointed out above. It would make more sense than Melania filling in for He who has not really given us ANY health-related information.

As a board-certified anesthesiologist, I can state quite confidently that the American Board of Anesthesiology frowns upon any of its diplomates diagnosing a patient without doing a comprehensive history and physical examination. Moreover, I suspect that my board would agree that diagnosing a patient with Parkinson's Disease is outside our scope of practice.

That's very likely true, but if you have an MD, state laws don't really restrict your license to practice. If an anesthesiologist wanted to start treating Parkinson's patients, he could, although it's unlikely insurance companies would pay him for it or hospitals would accredit him to do that.

@DB

Don't forget to emphasize the 36 years of experience. That's the same argument Dr. Jay uses to back up his fact-free assertions, and we all know he's spot on.

I'm reminded of another conspiracy theory bandied about: that Clinton pays off her doctors to report a clean bill of health, and anyone who might disclose anything to the contrary is killed. There are whole websites devoted to the alleged "trail of bodies" left behind by the Clintons.

Well, yes. 36 years of experience as an anesthesiologist apparently "Trumps" everything else. :-)

You are being willfully blind and it makes a blog called "scienceblogs" look exactly the opposite.
It took all but an hour to thoroughly research Parkinsons symptoms and review all the photos and videos of Hillary acting strangely. Although a diagnosis cannot be made, there is ample evidence that she has Parkinsons. She even uses known coping mechanisms. The symptoms line up extremely well.

At the very least the public deserves a real medical report, and a recent one. I wager she will never ever release this because she doesnt in fact have Parkinsons. No one can look at that head bobbing video and with a straight face tell me there is nothing seriously wrong with her.

That last thing in the world I want to see is Trump elected, but if Hillary is being power hungry and selfish, doesnt step aside in time, is discovered and Trump wins im going to be pissed. If she stepped aside now, Sanders would win in a landslide. She could give this race to the Republicans by hiding her disease until its too late.

If she starts head bobbing and freezing like a moron when Trump viciously attacks her during the debates, its all over. If she has Parkinsons and is having a bad day, debating Trump is a nightmare scenario for her. It would trigger tremors, etc. Probably why she has been avoiding news conferences like the plague.

You are being willfully blind and it makes a blog called “scienceblogs” look exactly the opposite.
It took all but an hour to thoroughly research Parkinsons symptoms and review all the photos and videos of Hillary acting strangely. Although a diagnosis cannot be made, there is ample evidence that she has Parkinsons. She even uses known coping mechanisms. The symptoms line up extremely well.

No, they don't. Ever wonder why none of these videos shows actual Parkinson's disease patients in action for comparison? (And, no, a static photo of Michael J. Fox looking "bug-eyed" doesn't count.) Ever wonder why, out of literally thousands of hours of video of Hillary Clinton taken over the last two years and then before, when she was Secretary of State, that these few snippets of video that can be tortured to sort of look like Parkinson's disease symptoms are the best that Dr. Noel (and before him, Martin Shkreli and Dr. Jane Orient) could come up with? Did you ever wonder why not a single board-certified neurologist has stepped forward and say, "Yeah, that looks like Parkinson's"? The reason is simple. It doesn't. Those startled looks are not dyskinesia, and that head bob is probably a nervous tic, not resting tremor. Seriously. Advanced Parkinson's disease is not something you can hide when you're on video hundreds, if not thousands, of hours a year. It's just not. the very fact that these few snippets of video are the best that the conspiracy mongers can come up with is excellent evidence that Hillary Clinton does not have Parkinson's disease.

In reference to the "avoiding press conferences", her last press conference was 1.7 days ago.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/31/donald-t…

Your internet research skills stink about as badly as your medical diagnosis skills, as you have just contradicted a whole bunch of physicians on this site.
New hashtag to add, #NotADoctor

Remember twenty years ago when everyone was insinuating that it was Hilary running the White House.

Eric: your argument appears to boil down to "I think she has Parkinsons, so you're all idiots." Would you kindly go tell Steven Novella that? He's a neurologist, the discipline that actually and in fact diagnoses people with Parkinson's, as opposed to an anesthesiologist, the discipline that keeps people comfortable and alive during surgery.

MI Dawn:
"Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but no, Mr Clinton would not take over if Mrs Clinton becomes incapacitated. The Vice President would."

To give him the absolute barest thinnest benefit of the doubt, he might be remembering FDR. He was in very bad shape towards the end of his presidency, due to post-polio syndrome, and his wife Eleanor quietly handled a lot of business for him. This was kept out of the public eye just as much as his illness was, to avoid people losing confidence in the President during wartime.

Except I suspect that if Noel is anything like Vox Day, this is not the case. Vox Day is a notorious misogynist; he does not believe it possible for a woman to run the country, therefore she must be a front for a man. (And, of course, he takes pains to reference his philandering too. Because we don't want a philanderer in office. We should vote in a serial monogamist who surrounds himself with beautiful women other than his wives, and who publicly lusts after his own daughter instead, I guess, because surely that man isn't a philanderer. Or something.)

GiJoel -- yeah, that thought occurred to me to. It's rather amusing irony. ;-)

No one can look at that head bobbing video and with a straight face tell me there is nothing seriously wrong with her.

If you look at the video, especially individual frames, one can see any number of people with distorted looks on their faces. Does everyone have some kind of neurological disorder? These attempts to diagnose politicians they don't like is asinine. I don't know who's worse, numpty laypeople like Eric S here or physicians using their non-expert credentials.

I'm surprised there aren't more diagnoses for Clinton based on the countless hours of video evidence available to the public. You know, for the important stuff like secretly practicing satanism, being born in Kenya, or actually being a lizard person or whatever the current conspiracy fads might be. With enough cherry picking, anything is possible.

Lizard person, really? I'd have pegged her as a grey alien. ;)

Wait. Weird movements on one side, bizarre hair on the other, cunning conspiracies all over and everyone secretly being aliens... that's it! Clinton is secretly Trump! It all makes sense! They're really the same person, and the entire presidential election is nothing more than one grand conspiracy to put Clintrump in the oval office no matter who wins! Rise up, people of the United States! Rise up and safeguard our democracy!

Hey, that explains the short fingers! ;)
He's really a she or she's a he or something.
Yeah, or something. ;) *

*When I close with "Or something", see that wheelbarrow full of hyperbole over there. ;)
Or something.

The quickest way to determine whether this is nonsense - or not - is to shoot and post video of a clinical test where Hillary is subjected to strobe lights.

Ah, but doesn't a press conference quite resemble a strobe light test?
Especially for Trump, for the lights start flashing whenever he says something outrageous, which is... Always.

Oh, USAToday had a series of interviews in solid red voting counties, with plenty of disgust from the voters. A choice between Trump (yack!) and Clinton (no way!) and "I don't know what I'll do, but not Trump".

In other disturbing news, a teen wants to refuse further treatment of her terminal condition, as she's constantly in pain and only one end in sight, alas, special interest groups are fighting (complete with CPS calls) and an autistic child was murdered by his mother, while she was intoxicated on Meth. Once she sobered up, she admitted to the crime and expressed extreme horror and disgust in her own actions.

And diagnosing someone without having them as your patient is very unprofessional.

But sadly, not unprecedented, including the part about using such a diagnosis for political purposes. Recall that about ten years ago, then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, MD, was making a ludicrously incorrect diagnosis of Terry Schiavo from video being shown on the Senate floor. (I would have used "hilariously" there, but the Schiavo case was no laughing matter.)

For the last 25 years one of the best ways to gain insight into what Republicans are up to is to look at what they are accusing Democrats of. So I will venture to guess that Donald Trump is concealing something about his medical condition. Since I am not an MD, I will refrain from speculating about what exactly that might be. I'll just note that Trump is so vain, he probably thinks the old Carly Simon song is about him.

Yep. Both sides do it. They did it with John McCain in 2008 and his history of melanoma, for instance. This year, it's primarily Trump supporters doing it. I do notice that, for the most part, Hillary Clinton supporters seem to have toned down the psychiatric armchair diagnoses since the criticism reached a certain level.

Off topic, but I mentioned above. 14 year old girl with type 2 spinal muscular atrophy wants to go into hospice. Various groups fighting her. Agony is OK, hospice isn't.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/09/06/teens-plan-die-has…

Mom on meth kills her blind, autistic son.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/06/police-mom-adm…

Y'know, I don't specifically know if Clinton has Parkinson's or some other disorder or not, but just saying I knew someone who fell once, and they didn't have Parkinson's really is just sticking one's head in the sand.

The real issue at hand is how creepily extreme the bias in favor of Clinton is. It's not just the usual liberal media bias. The shilling CNN and others are doing for Clinton is way scary over the top. Don't any of you liberals wonder what's/who's ultimately behind that at all? Do you really think it's a bunch of enlightened visionaries fighting for the common man? Seriously, has that been your experience?

No, John, we realize that people slip on slick steps.
My wife falls quite frequently, it goes with damage from a disc compressing her spinal cord.
I've had my own spills, one not all that long ago when the cat knocked my cane out of my hand just as I was setting it in mid-stride to place my weight on it.
Neither my wife or I have any sign of parkinsonism. Just fouled up backs.
Is Ms Clinton's quite a bit older than we are, we'd expect a few missteps.
Of course, if Trump did the same, anyone capturing the event on video or still photo would be stuck in court and stuck with a gag order.

Now, here's the fun thing. Our Constitution has no health clause at all. Period. Nobody made a thing about FDR's health and he was quite frail in some ways. Hell, he died of a stroke so severe that people thought he was shot in the head!
We had over a half dozen other POTUS's that were extremely ill, not a biggie.
A woman runs for POTUS, everyone wets their pants.
Well, on the right, anyway.
Get some depends if it's that bad. I would.

Our judges would be very shocked to hear healthy people don't fall on their head. They've been dealing with cases of that kind for many years. Maybe some damage awards need to be refunded.

Well, my wife has been falling a lot more of late. Worse, she has several healed vertebral fractures and two new ones. Plus various other bones showing healed small fractures.
While I was reviewing the diagnostic imagery, I commented to my wife, "Wow! I'm amazed that they didn't think that I was beating you!". Apparently, they did ask while I was out for lunch and coffee.
Good for them!
No, just advanced osteoarthritis.

Although, back when we only had a full sized bed, it could almost seem that way when rolling over.*

*That's OK, the few times that she got my forearm crashing down on her were paid back with interest after her carpal tunnel surgery and she had a cast. I was sporting two black eyes, to some mutual embarrassment and laughter.
I'm still quite the active sleeper, flopping this way and that, but as we have a king sized bed, the only thing that happens is my knocking the fitted sheet off of my corner of the bed, to be replaced when I arise.
Occasionally, to find my head encased in said corner, when the elastic snaps it over me...

Seriously, they're going on and on about three falls in what, eleven years? I've sprained my ankle and gone down more frequently than that (and have done since age 10), and that's only a subset of the falling I do.

I've also seen plenty of perfectly healthy folks (teenagers, even!) pass out on stage just from locking their knees during choral concerts. It doesn't take much.

Oddly, I'm one infamous for locking knees and never passing out. Likely, a side effect of hypermobility.

Meanwhile, both of our daughters have laxity in joints, clinically notable laxity.
I have a suspicion, however, I'm not a physician.
I've nearly always deferred to a physician, when I didn't, said physician's management or supervisor overruled him or her.
That said, such an event was rare, only statistically significant.

Or in short, I don't challenge someone that's an SME until I'm damned sure that they're wrong. Then, all bets are off.
I've not lost that bet yet. But, I also recognize my educational and experiential level delta.

I was watching news with a live feed of HRC the other day when she couldn't start her talk due to having a coughing fit. It was so painful, thinking about what the unfit-to-serve folks would make of it, I turned it off.

If you wanted a long-distance armchair diagnosis of that coughing, I wouldn't go with Parkinson's but GERD, (since that's what gave ME similar coughing fits and laryngitis tied to trying to speak in public) and have Hilary checked for Barrett's.

@sadmar, full empathy. I have GERD in spades. I forgot, for only two days, my proton pump inhibitor. I currently feel like I thankfully drank battery acid.
For those not in the know, we're talking the lower esophagus being burned by rebound and propensity driven excesses of stomach acids, sloshing up the esophagus.
Having forgotten on day three, but remembering in the "morning", I took my proton pump inhibitor, went to work and literally drank three gallons of water to dilute the excess until I could heal.
Many, many, many bathroom visits later, I returned home, ate a few acid neutralizer tablets.
At this point, I'm nearly feeling somewhat, erm, normal (well, for me).
That means, in this condition, which I have well documented, it's a one in three chance that I'll projectile vomit, with minimal warning.
Said vomiting usually takes between ten and thirty seconds to occur with proton pump inhibitors and is largely mucus driven.

So... It's complicated.
My wife fares more poorly. She has reflux at night, coughs up a mouthful and erodes her face - literally.

Yep. I once fainted in the kitchen of the house I was renting with four other students when I was 21. Vasovagal, for no apparent reason other than perhaps burning the candle at both ends in the run up to exams.

If you wanted a long-distance armchair diagnosis of that coughing, I wouldn’t go with Parkinson’s but GERD, (since that’s what gave ME similar coughing fits and laryngitis tied to trying to speak in public) and have Hilary checked for Barrett’s.

GERD and undiagnosed asthma are two common causes of chronic coughs.

She could have caught her Parkinson's off Janet Reno during some sweaty Waco consult --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Xq-f-nd_0

Tim Cook just coughed during the Apple Event! He must have Parksinsons. Sell your Apple Stock!

Yeah, and that Huma b****, when she wrote "She's often confused." They jumped all over that, too. And they never asked how in the hell Huma would know this, as if she has a lot of access to Hillary. What a joke.

Forget Hillary, a vote for her is a vote for George Soros. A man far more evil than Trump!!!

Hey, dimbulb, Parkinson's isn't contagious. Go troll Reddit,with your fellow jerkface, MRA, gun-fetishist joint smoking friends.

The longer this election goes on, the more I wish the baby-boomers would just go away. It's funny, once upon a time they dreamed of making the world better, but all they did was make it massively worse. If the 1950s had been cut straight out of history, or if we'd had to spend it rebuilding like Europe did, we'd be a sight better off now.

@PGP, while we're trailing edge baby boomers, you'll greatly miss us when we're gone. :)
That said, our mutual predecessors did massively foul up.
Assigning blame while the fire is ongoing isn't how one addresses the fire. It's how one lets everything burn down, while investigating.
Not the most optimal solution.

Still, just a suggestion. :)

Hogwash. If your mother was having coughing fits like Hillary you wouldn't take her to the dr.....right? "Sorry to hear about your coughing fits mom...how's your lawn?"

Politics

Sonny, let me explain a few things, in as gentlemanly a fashion as I can.
First, my mother had chronic bronchitis and coughed a lot. Especially in spring, during allergy season.
And in late fall, when mold went up and the house was closed up
She also didn't have to yak on like a politician. At all, thankfully.

As for "how's your lawn", I'd love to read on how you expound on that mythical lawn.

If your a Trump supporter the video makes sense.

If your a Clinton supporter not so much.

But health looks like it could be an issue , there has been peculiar moments for Hillary if your honest and can get by your bias.

Erm, when you can speak in a literate sense, come back.
There's your and you're.
Mixing the two befuddles any point that you're trying to make, beyond the top of your already empty head.

For others reading, this is a precautionary note. Defective usage of a condom can and will create such deficient creatures, for the best part of that individual stays inside of the rubber.

I'm not a doctor. And I wouldn't attempt to diagnose her health. But it does make me really uneasy when I watch her head bob around, see her react to sudden stimulation and watch her cough without stopping for four plus minutes. And it isn't like the coughing has been constrained to one episode. Neither have her pretty bad falls. A busted elbow, a bad concussion, etc. Hell, she even had an aide stabilize her during a recent rally. We can't expect her to be in perfect health. She's 68. We can expect her to disclose her health records though. Ditto for him as he is even older. It's a serious job afterall.

You should have stopped at, "I'm not a doctor. And I wouldn’t attempt to diagnose her health."

One notes, as I pointed out, that the head bobbing was cherry picked from many thousands of hours with no head bobbing. Ditto the coughing.

On second thought, you should have stopped at, "I'm not a doctor."

No, John, we realize that people slip on slick steps.

Including US presidents. There was a famous incident in the 1970s when then-President Gerald Ford, alighting from Air Force One, slipped and fell to the bottom of the air stairs. That incident helped seal his reputation as a klutz. But nobody to my knowledge claimed that Ford had Parkinson's, either then or in the three decades between that incident and his death.

For that matter, I had a slip and fall earlier this year that, to an onlooker, would have seemed completely out of the blue. Do I have Parkinson's or some other neurological disorder that caused the fall? No, it turned out that the light coating of snow on the sidewalk concealed a patch of ice. No need to assume that anything was physically or neurologically wrong with me prior to the incident (I did sustain a hand injury in the fall).

So no, falling is not evidence of Parkinson's. Even if Parkinson's could cause someone to fall, that isn't the way to bet.

PGP@43: Please adjust your snark meter.

@Eric Lund, currently and admittedly, recently, I've been forced to walk with a cane.
Well, it's that or randomly be dumped flat on my face, when one leg randomly collapses.
So, having dad's old cane around, I use it. It retains a tip that I purchased for him. Flip the little metal bit around, there's a half centimeter steel tip to dig into ice.
Which was its purpose in life, grab into ice, not slip and drop dad to the ground.
That said, I still have plenty of wiggle room to fall. The cat knocked said cane out from under me when I got home for work once. *Just* as I was setting it down and shifting weight to rest upon it.
While, I didn't have enough time to prepare a martial arts guided landing, I did just go solidly down onto both knees and one elbow.

Obviously, that's parkinsonism, to idiots. For anyone with a mind, a history of disc disease suggests that bilateral collapse after injury might be potentially disc driven symptoms.
Well, for anyone, save an insurance company...

First, here's a link worth looking at:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/aug/04/dont-dia…
Now the most pointed example of a spouse taking over was Edith Galt Wilson after her husband's stroke. She allowed very few people to see him but claimed to be his intermediary. It is widely supposed that she was actually running the country herself. That couldn't happen today.
I find Trump's pretended concern for Clinton's health hypocritical, coming as it does from someone who looks like a jack o'lantern left out on the porch all winter.
Falls? When I hyperextend my neck I occlude one or both vertebrobasilar arteries, and if there's nothing in front of me to grab onto, I lose all motor control and I quite literally fall on my face - dirt on my nose and glasses, a sharply pointed branch scraping my face just millimeters from my eye, and so forth.
Now, John Jacobs, I don't know where you see a leftward bias in the media. I see false equivalency. Trump tells a huge lie about Mexicans = Clinton's email. Trump insults a war hero = Clinton's email. Trump goes racist on a judge = Clinton's email. Trump & his entourage repeatedly retweet Nazis and white supremacists = Clinton's email. Trump pays off state officials to steer them away form investigating Trump University = Clinton's email. And on and on it goes. Meanwhile, no matter how despicable, deceitful, or corrupt Trump gets, no matter how he lies about his own recorded statements, the bulk of the media pass on the ludicrous defenses made by and for him as if it were holy writ instead of Pravda-like falsehood.
I hoped electoral politics could be kept out of Orac's blog, but it's here, leading me to say that Donald Trump is the worst choice for President since Richard Nixon or Strom Thurmond and for more reasons than there's room to tell here.

I just got over 2 weeks of horrible coughing due, it turns out, to bronchitis. Never had that before (and I being a dumb male type person) I naturally ignored it as long as I could. Eventually after being unable to breath at times the coughing was so bad, I went to the doctor's office. A z-pack and some codeine cough syrup and fixed it all up.

While codeine is nice, I'm a bigger fan of promethazine. It's excellent at cough suppressing action, diarrhea, even antihistamine activity and more. It's a Swiss Army Knife of drugs, one can even use it as an adjunct for anesthesia. Great drug in the right hands, in the wrong hands, it's like any other powerful drug, potentially dangerous.
But, it was one of the elective drugs that I carried in my downrange treatment kit.

@PgP #46
"Hey, dimbulb, Parkinson’s isn’t contagious."

How do you know?

“The (human) brain diseases caused by prions include Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease), and other disorders known as frontotemporal dementias,” said Nobel Laureate Stanley Prusiner, who earned a Nobel Prize in Physiology in 1997 for discovering deadly prions.

http://alzheimerdisease.tv/parkinsons-transmissible-disease/

Let's just say that, if our plane crashed in the Alps, I'd feel a little extra trepidatious about eating her.

Erm, Gil, there's precisely zero evidence, in real world evidence, that parkinsonism is prion related.
Period.
A one-off, after a major tragedy? Seriously?
Dude, I've just lost a lot of respect for you.
Which is actually saying a lot.
Car talk was cool, you're willing to learn, but you really need to re-address your boundaries for accepting input.
We've got a pretty good handle on prion disease, it's transmissible via specific methods. Parkinsonism, just not happening. The latter is either prior brain damage that decompensates with age related loss or autoimmune, doing the same.
Seriously, we're talking brains, meat! Not rocket science!*

*Remember the hyperbole wheelbarrow? This is a double wide, triple load model, with sarcasm by the supertanker.
Albeit, in this instance, rightfully delivered.
Or, perhaps, he's right. Boxing gloves magically deliver a prion, injected, by magic, into the opponent.
Assuming, of course, that magic suddenly came to exist.

The cause of neuronal death in Parkinson’s disease is still unknown, but a new study proposes that neurons may be mistaken for foreign invaders and killed by the person’s own immune system ...

The results raise the possibility that Parkinson’s is partly an autoimmune disease, Dr. Sulzer says, but more research is needed to confirm the idea.

“Right now, we’ve showed that certain neurons display antigens and that T cells can recognize these antigens and kill neurons,” Dr. Sulzer says, “but we still need to determine whether this is actually happening in people.

http://newsroom.cumc.columbia.edu/blog/2014/04/17/parkinsons-autoimmune…
def. one-off: done or happening only once.

^^ What do you mean by that?

Wzrd1: while we’re trailing edge baby boomers, you’ll greatly miss us when we’re gone.
I will miss a number of members from the boomer generation, but not the generation itself. (the dimbulb is a prime example of his generation, for example.)
Wzrd1: Assigning blame while the fire is ongoing isn’t how one addresses the fire. It’s how one lets everything burn down, while investigating.

At this point, letting it all burn down seems like the only option. As I've said before, a lot of things need a rethink, including the idea of fifty states, and possibly closing all national parks to visitors.

Dimmy: Because we've done a metric fuck-ton of research on prions since they were discovered and guess where they aren't? They're not in Alzheimers' patients, or ALS patients or Parkinson's patients. Alzheimer's patients have *proteins* unravelling in the brain, but proteins aren't the same as prions.

Go get a new brain, yours is clearly not working. And people say pot is completely harmless.Maybe the Reagans were actually right about something for once.

#61

<blockquoteThe cause of neuronal death in Parkinson’s disease is still unknown, but a new study proposes that neurons may be mistaken for foreign invaders and killed by the person’s own immune system …

In other words, NOT a communicable disease. NOT a disease caused by prions.

Apologies for the block quote fail.

It is, of course, OK to post about something Theodore Beale has said -- it may even be an obligation if that thing has actually gained credibility somewhere. But it is usually OK to ignore him completely. Teddy Beale is in that category of stupid, evil people whose stupidity tends to make a lot of the evil ineffective. He only has a soapbox because his father, tax protester and arch-wingnut Robert Beale, is on the board of WND. As noted elsewhere, he is so crazy and vicious he even gets edited at that odious fishwrapper. He should be ignored.

@Wzrd1
"Erm, Gil, there’s precisely zero evidence, in real world evidence, that parkinsonism is prion related."
Have you ever heard of synuclein?

ORAC - It is no more unreasonable for me to be concerned by her many instances of odd behaviors, falls, coughing, etc. than it is for someone to proclaim there is nothing wrong. Both candidates should submit to physical exams by a team of physicians and allow the results to be made public. The job is too important. Acting smug about it won't change that fact. The job is too important for the public not to understand the health of two candidates who are way past the age for AARP membership.

Except that there is no evidence that Clinton has has "many" instances of odd behaviors, falls, and coughing. It's clearly all cherry picked by her political opponents. Diagnosing Clinton from a distance is just as dumb as diagnosing Donald Trump with psychiatric disorders from a distance.

Consider this. If it were Donald Trump showing identical behaviors to Hillary Clinton, would you think he was sick and be demanding he release his medical records? I highly doubt it.

Let’s just say that, if our plane crashed in the Alps, I’d feel a little extra trepidatious about eating her.

Me too. We all know that as a mammal ages, protein crosslinking makes the muscles tougher.

Only wussies are afraid of prions.

Can someone explain what the medical difference is between past and way past?
I guess I missed that in my coursework on documentation, but can start notating it in my patient charting.

Yeah but what if Dr. Noel is right, then what? I certainly don't have any "medical credit ability" except having been a nurse for 47 years and having a family member with Parkinson's disease. I think I deserve the truth but then again hiding the truth seems to be her biggest illness.

Why did Mrs. Clinton have some of her staff research Parkinson's Disease drugs which has been confirmed. Her symptoms are obvious. She can't climb a set of stairs without exerting much effort and help. She has uncontrollable head movements and the deer in headlights look that she can't control. Parkinson's or some other neurological disorder, the woman is not well.
As for the comment that "we survived" President Reagan's dementia. First, it is debatable whether Reagan was suffering from the disease while still in office. What is not debatable is that Reagan's policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs according to the Joint Economic Committee in 2000.

"...that the head bobbing was cherry picked from many thousands of hours with no head bobbing...."
No it wasn't. Neither were the uncontrollable hand movements, falls and incessant spit-choking.

Yes they were. And there aren't any uncontrollable hand movements, just a misinterpretation by a biased anesthesiologist. I have a board certified neurologist telling me this after having seen the video and telling me he saw nothing obviously abnormal and certainly no obvious movements characteristic of Parkinson's.

I wonder how long it would take someone to make up a video of Trump using selected pieces of his speeches to suggest he's suffering from severe dementia. Probably not very:
http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-sentence/

I declare Trump unfit because his obvious "disability" of never being able to tell the truth.....

@Jim

Well, we do have that pesky HIPAA law that would prevent anything like you propose, barring the candidates themselves disclosing the information. That said, the results of any physical examination wouldn't be anyone's business. The most that anyone could legitimately argue is for a fit/unfit results to be disclosed, but no details.

Of course, "no details" would not satisfy people opposed to the candidate, as they would simply claim that the doctors had been paid off (which is already being done).

And, quite frankly, while people might want to know if the person they elect is physically or mentally fit to govern, there is no legal requirement for such a test to be made.

That incident helped seal his reputation as a klutz.

Chevy Chase didn't hurt, either.

jre @65: Now that Vox Day has also totally failed in his attempt to "destroy" the Hugo awards (Science Fiction awards) it really is time for the internet to turn its collective back on his blathering.
What a loser.

Look, it's obviously mild cognitive impairment subsequent to chronic Lyme disease. High-dose antibiotics administered by a Lyme-literate doctor would clear it up in a few months to a year.

Regarding the Parkinson's/Prion debate - this is an actual hypothesis you can find in the literature, so plz don't bash on someone for mentioning it. I will say that's it's very premature to present it as a fact, but that's really a problem with Gilbert's source rather than with Gilbert.

Parkinson's has been linked to mutations in synuclein. The synuclein protein seems like it may form prions in the related disease multiple system atrophy (MSA), but no evidence for such prions has yet been found for Parkinsons (http://www.pnas.org/content/112/38/E5308).

Since I know there are a bunch of nerds here, does this "Hillary has Parkinson's" remind anyone of the Tenth Doctor and his "Don't you think she looks tired?" comment about the prime minister, which ended up with her being ousted from office?

(For non-Doctor Who nerds, eh, it would take forever to explain, but the episode is The Christmas Invasion.)

Ok so the Dr is not a Hillary supporter, but the author points out she's been political blogging going 10 yrs back.

Also interesting- her "take down" of the Vox day points to 2006 discussion of deporting "12 million" illegal aliens. 10 years later, the "accepted" illegal population is 11 million. ??
PEW Research estimates the illegal population grows by 500k per year.

So who exactly is lying about Amnesty for illegals? Bear Sterns estimated 20 million back in 2008. 20 million? 30 million? Add the population of Texas? Add the population of Canada, or more accurately in terms of voting habits, Venezuela?

The high ground on matters of national importance whether candidates health or who constitutes the voting population always seems to shift, per needs of the moment.

Justatech: Ugh, don't get me started on the Hugos. I'm ready to get up a petition to shut them down because of the incessent whining of the untalented puppies. If they want to win they need to stop whining and learn to write. Although it does help to keep my reading list trim, as I ax off writer after writer as the catastrophe continues. I'm beginning to be convinced that many science fiction writers want the fandom to be solely comprised of white 14-year-old boys.

Whether Orac is correct or not, his criticism of Dr Ted Noel being incapable of making a diagnosis of Parkinson's because he's a "First off, being a “board-certified anesthesiologist” has little or nothing to do with expertise in neurology or Parkinson’s disease. Yet, note how Vox emphasizes that he has 36 years of experience, presumably at anesthesia. I’m sure he’s a perfectly capable anesthesiologist, but he’s no more qualified to diagnose Parkinson’s disease than any other non-neurologist, probably less, given his high degree of specialization."

Of course Dr Gorski is an oncologist dealing with cancer. His criticism of Dr Noel would also apply to him. He has no business deducing anything about HRC either. See the quote below.

"It's hard to imagine two diseases more different than Parkinson's and cancer. Parkinson's disease, a progressive neurological disease that causes tremors, muscular rigidity, and loss of motor function, happens when neurons that release the neurotransmitter dopamine die in the tiny substantia nigra region of the brain.Mar 9, 2010

Parkinson's Disease and Cancer: The Unexplored Connection
jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/102/6/371Journal of the National Cancer Institute"

Orac is an oncologist, yes—and he's not diagnosing Clinton with anything. For the conclusion that Clinton doesn't have Parkinson's, he cited Steve Novella, who is a neurologist.

When someone waves irrelevant credentials around, I tend to conclude that this is because they have neither relevant credentials, nor an argument that would stand on its own without the dubiously claimed authority.

In referring to the anestheseologist, the author mistakenly referred to Ted Noel, the anestheologist as "Vox", wno is Ted Beal.
An understandable mistake given that Vox quotes Noel

Actually, no. Vox emphasizes that Dr. Noel has 36 years of experience. I pointed that out because Vox normally castigates experts, but when there's one that he likes he emphasizes what an "expert" he is. :-)

This reminds me of the Obama birth certificate issue. It could have been solved immediately but he spent 2 million dollars fighting the release of his birth certificate in court. The fight only seemed to confirm suspicions.

Same here. She could release hospital records and the suspicions would be allayed immediately. She can do more.

The number of former Senators that run for POTUS and were required to show their birth certificate = 1.
For every other candidate in US history, an attestation of a state governor and surgeon general was more than sufficient.
Now, for yet another first, the GOP now wants HIPAA protected documents.

Said to another republican, so long ago, but it bears saying today, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

It could have been solved immediately but [Obama] spent 2 million dollars fighting the release of his birth certificate in court.

Horse Apples.
Horse. Freaking. Apples.
Point me to proof that Obama fought the release of his birth certificate. in fact, if I remember correctly, the State of Hawaii released it to shut the birthers up.

I recall some resistance to releasing the birth certificate, as he'd then be the only candidate in US history to have had to release a document that was already sworn to by a republican governor and state surgeon general.
So, it got to the point where some brain trusts were claiming that Hawaii wasn't really a state (seriously!) and others, that two republican leaders in Hawaii were conspiring to elect a democrat that was an illegal alien or something.

It was embarrassing, internationally and when I thought things couldn't make the world wonder as to our nation's collective sanity, along bumbles Trump.

Hawaii released Obama's long-form birth certificate a long time ago...but the birthers continued their crusade, regardless.

I wonder what will be next?
Proof the candidate is baptised? Or proof the candidate attends the church?
Or perhaps proof the candidate is legally married?
Our premier is single and why should I care?

This Science Blog article is so incredibly politically biased as to destroy any credibility it ever had based on scientific rigor. It's authors are clearly Hillary supporters, making several statements that are patently false -- such as claiming the suggestion that Hillary has Parkinson's Disease is based on "basically nothing" -- except for the dozen or so incidents befalling Hillary that are entirely consistent with Parkinson's Disease. If you are going to call yourselves the "Science Blog" then you need to employ a little integrity and rigor when you diverge into the political arena.

Ah, Hillary related information needs "science", whereas anything else for you requires nothing.
Consider the worse profanity yours to keep, my compliments, my version is worse.
Go away, son, you bother me.

Seriously, that one annoyed me less than an ankle biter.

So. You are annoyed by a demand for political rigor to be taken as seriously as seriously as scientific rigor is taken by real scientists. If you are a leftist, that's typical or Hillary would be locked in a closet somewhere. If you are a realist, OTOH, you would agree the article open this thread is worthless garbage. And yes, I do require equal rigor when it comes to Trump. Applying equal rigor to both of these flawed candidates reveals Hillary to be the end of everything America stands for, beginning with liberty under the Rule of Law Obama has already trashed. And it reveals Trump to the only possibility, however weak it may seem to you, to turn our country around and restore it to its true promise. Not guaranteed, mind you, but the destruction under the Bitch of Benghazi is guaranteed and she has said so, promised so, and is using it as a campaign promise.

#94

I want definitive proof that Trump is not an alien.

Five will get you ten that after all is said and done, Hillary has great expectorations of being featured in Ricola commercials.

Bleh, Gil. My "Expectorations" are greater, I'm a pack a day smoker.
Hell, when ozone is high, I projectile vomit!
And?
Am I incompetent?
I also fall a lot, last week, the cat knocked my cane out from under me and down I went.
Wanna play, I have a pocket full of quarters. Let's play.
I have no love of Hillary, but I do love reality.

If you are going to call yourselves the “Science Blog” then you need to employ a little integrity and rigor when you diverge into the political arena.

The author has stipulated that diagnosing someone via videos, especially those with no training in the requisite areas is as ridiculous for Trump as it is for Clinton. The author writes for a collective called "Science Blogs", he had nothing to do with that name. What are you whingeing about again? I'd be more concerned with your reading comprehension than some perceived liberal bias.

Wonderful forgery, save that the use of language lacked, badly.
Might as well been in Russian.

Things just keep getting hilariouser and hilariouser.

- re the small handed ( orange) one
a television reporter visited NY's Mme Tussaud's which displays a casting of the aforesaid one's hands.
They measure 7 1/4 inches in length - smaller than most men's, similar to most women's ( according to the broadcast).
My hands are a tiny, tiny bit larger than the Donald's.
I am 5'6" tall and have NO penis.
- What is Aleppo, anyway?
- I noticed 2 political commenters coughing like mad the other day in unison- she must be wildly infectious!
- prn.fm's noontime frolic has devolved into a political commentary contra Clinton
We should be happy, he's not instructing followers in the finer points of BS-laden woo.

As a long time observer and commenter upon internet lunacy involving health and ( since 2008) politics -
I must say-
Crap has gone mainstream and come home to roost.

@Denice Walter, your final point is purely and finally valid.
Former points, I'll not discuss my variable penile length, depending upon mood, as it's not germane beyond excitement. ;)
Hand length, erm, I dunno.
But, point strength, dumb donald loses. Always. Sans a clue.

Strange you should say that. Every "dumb thing" Trump has said that the Marxist Mafia left outrages about has turned out to be true upon a little research. OTOH, everything the Marxist Mafia subaltern exhibiting the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease has said has been known to be a lie from the moment she said it. It is so consistently so that you can generally figure if her face flap is flapping, she's lying. She lies about her own actions; she lies about history, she lies about her opponent; she lies about her Clinton Foundation slush fund, and she lies about her lies.

Mr Cline speaks of "little research", therein lies the problem, with little research, he arrives at defective ideas.
Case in point, the "Benghazi bitch", despite a half dozen committees that were hostile to her finding precisely nothing against her performance of her duties when the tragedy in Benghazi occurred. Or for that matter, what the status of forces agreement permitted in Libya. Or general reality.
Just foaming at the mouth hyperbole.

At least when I use hyperbole, it's clear that I'm using it in a humorous context, not a closely held, albeit erroneous belief.
For, a little research can be as bad as no research at all if one does not uncover the facts of a matter of interest.

Do you think for one New York Second V. I. Lenin's depredations in the Ukraine in 1924, or Josef Stalin's murderous holocaust in that country, would have been exposed by an investigation into his crimes by his own equivalent to our "Department of Justice"? (See http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm for more information.) If not, why on God's green Earth would you expect the beneficiary and titular head of the biggest criminal regime on the planet to be challenged by our Department of Justice for giving aid and comfort to our enemies in Libya? Your comment reveals a total ignorance of just how complete the Marxist Mafia takeover of our federal government is. They don't play nice, Wrzd1. Approximately 90 people with evidence against the Clintons have already been murdered, four or five in the last couple of months. Eric Holder got out hoping he would be next. Rahm Immanuel got out, hoping he wouldn't be next. Jeff Comey refused to call for an indictment against Hillary hoping he wouldn't be next, and knowing that Loretta Lynch wouldn't have allowed it in any event. You have no idea how totally corrupt our rogue occupation government has become, Wzrd1.

Approximately 90 people with evidence against the Clintons have already been murdered, four or five in the last couple of months. Eric Holder got out hoping he would be next. Rahm Immanuel got out, hoping he wouldn’t be next. Jeff Comey refused to call for an indictment against Hillary hoping he wouldn’t be next, and knowing that Loretta Lynch wouldn’t have allowed it in any event.

All of those dead, powerful people, yet you know "the truth" and are somehow magically alive and protected. Is it the space aliens protecting you or the immortal militia or something?

I'm a private citizen presenting facts and political history anyone can verify for themselves. If I became a witness to specific acts of treason admissible in a court of law, I would definitely become a target.

Most likely she has discoordinated swallowing, resulting in pharyngeal cough fits (for layman - saliva got into the wrong pipe). This swallowing disorder is a part of ongoing (and progressing) pseudobulbar syndrome. Some of her other symptoms, as shown on videos, belong to Pseudobulbar Affect (PBA).
My guess is that her medics are not top notch ones, she could be managed better, but I agree this condition is difficult to fix.
So far there are no signs of PD or use of levodopa type medication.

Why, thank you, pseudo-doc!
I'll forward your pseudodiagnosis to my real physician, who will happily laugh at your non-diagnosis with me.
I'm also infamous for choking on my own spittle, something about cervical discs and all.

What is someone playing for pay again, a common whore, is it?
Save that I'd trust a street prostitute more than you, at least she'd be honest about who and what she does for a living. You're not.
Now, as my Brit friends would say, "Bugger off!".

For the record, I loathe Hillary. I loathe paid whores far more. Tovarich.

@ Lawrence:

I have a birth certificate copy ( my mother lost the original) that looks like she printed it up herself on nearly transparent green tissue paper.

It's funny to see these sites and read all the comments from the un-educated democrats! It's all just childish name calling and unproven garbage. Anyone with a brain can see Clinton has something going on. Even if she is in perfect health she is a dishonest person with little integrity. Certainly not something worthy of the highest office in the land.

@ Denice, my favourite DT hand epithet is still "short-fingered vulgarian", which tears The Donald apart to this day: http://www.npr.org/2016/03/07/469209254/decades-later-spy-magazine-foun….

Somehow I doubt that "Educated Democrat" was ever a Democrat...

@ Science Mom:

One of my gentlemen showed me a picture of twitter ( I forget to whom it belonged) which showed a close up of the Donald's hair which is held in place with hair/ bobby pins.

There's a new epithet just a-waiting

Somehow I doubt that “Educated Democrat” was ever a Democrat…

NEITHER WAS BERNIE!!1!1!!!

L-rd only knows what he has.

^ Rats, blew the blockquote.

ORAC - Yes, I would demand Trump release medical records. I've already stated I think both the candidates need to submit to physical exams. She is 68. He's even older. And, to be very clear, we do have multiple examples of her having odd issues. Getting old sucks. And this job is too important not to have these candidates be examined. What is wrong with calling for them to prove they are of sound mind and body? If there is nothing wrong, as they both claim, then they should have no issue submitting to an exam by impartial physicians.

Trump's doctor has already released his findings; if Trump was any healthier he would be illegal.

@Jim

What is wrong with calling for them to prove they are of sound mind and body?

Define "sound mind and body". Remember, use only objective measures, along with clear descriptions of why someone who does not meet those measures cannot fulfill the function of the office. And what about someone who is borderline? Who determines whether or not they meet the measures?

Remember, the average person is completely unqualified to determine, objectively, what would or would not make a person unfit for the job.

Next, how do you determine whether the physician is impartial? Does that one physician have the requisite knowledge of the candidate's medical history and current condition? Do they examine the candidate just once? Multiple times? How many?

Then, suppose the results are released. How are people to know that the results have not been doctored (no pun intended) in favor of one candidate over the other? Will it prevent armchair diagnoses from running rampant as we see now with both Trump and Clinton? Will each side accept the results of the other side? Will it make an objective difference in the outcome of the election?

Finally, what about HIPAA?

(see also my comment at #77)

"Define “sound mind and body”. Remember, use only objective measures, along with clear descriptions of why someone who does not meet those measures cannot fulfill the function of the office. And what about someone who is borderline? Who determines whether or not they meet the measures?"

We do. And we do so according to our own definition of "sound mind and body" without vetting it through you.

"Remember, the average person is completely unqualified to determine, objectively, what would or would not make a person unfit for the job."

So you say. I say a practicing member of the Marxist Mafia is by definition unfit for the job because he or she does not regard the U.S. Constitution, as written, binding upon his or her decisions and actions. (Witness the current Chicago bathhouse boy illegally infesting our White House.)

"Next, how do you determine whether the physician is impartial? Does that one physician have the requisite knowledge of the candidate’s medical history and current condition? Do they examine the candidate just once? Multiple times? How many?"

Trump's physician has been examining Trump annually for 30 years, and has proclaimed him to be in incredibly good health. You can't be sure of getting anyone impartial, whether physician or president. All you can be sure of is getting someone who is clever.

"Then, suppose the results are released. How are people to know that the results have not been doctored (no pun intended) in favor of one candidate over the other? Will it prevent armchair diagnoses from running rampant as we see now with both Trump and Clinton? Will each side accept the results of the other side? Will it make an objective difference in the outcome of the election?"

Doesn't matter. People will make their own decisions, even if those decisions are based upon the idiocy of voting for a confirmed Marxist or refusing to vote for the one person who can prevent the destruction of our nation. Rarely, if ever, are their votes founded upon the basic common sense God gave a goose.

"Finally, what about HIPAA?"

Does snot prevent any individual from releasing his own records.

@DB, I dunno, Mr Cline may actually be missing the fact that Joe McCarthy isn't around to be a candidate.
That entire "Commies" bit is highly telling and I've actually met more than a few who defectively, but recognizably paraphrased McCarthy.
Such people behave as though their denunciation should carry some sort of weight as well.

And you expect your denunciation of those who oppose Cultural Marxism taking over our nation to carry any weight?

Tell you what: How about you read the transcript of one witness called before McCarthy's House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC): http://www.frdmftr.net/rand.html

Then you can decide if McCarthy was justified or not. (That's the problem with liberty; your enemies use your recognition of liberty as a tool of your destruction. You tell me: How do you preserve your liberties without taking them away from your enemies? Tough question, isn't it?"

Hell, when ozone is high, I projectile vomit!

Would you believe, Wzrd1 #99, that I participated in the 1995 Southern Oxidant Study (SOS)? I advocated taking people into caves many square miles from traffic to show how one is re-sensitized to ozone as it has very limited persistance -- A few hours in the cave and coming back out would take your breath away -- Soil bacteria and plants on a summer day were the major drivers of NoX thus ozone production in sunlight. It well overshadows traffic and even agriculture.

A site recording ozone over a certain level would constitute that city falling under 'non-attainment' status; Forbidding industrial growth and killing the economy in the area. Never mind that most of the gasses responsible for the ozone derived many miles away from the site.

The solution was to destroy vegetation upwind of the sensors -- Many acres were destroyed south of Nashville and Atlanta while trees where planted downtown (lowers local temperature); all to mitigate that arbitrary O3 measuement. Everything was destroyed to satisfy EPA buerocratic stipends.

@Gil, don't get me started on ozone, I projectile vomit easil yat certain levels. Go back into my treated office, not at all. Must be the space aliens or ground or some other batcrap.
Rather than good air treatment.
My car, with the A/C on did the same.

Seriously, ionize oxygen a little, get ozone. Lightning does it. Ultraviolet does it. Humans make it a plenty, hell wires themselves do it at high voltage levels. My care makes it.
See my brain leaked out of my ears, you've added to it and you ain't my kid.

No need for a cave. Anyone bluewater sailing for the nearest foreign port can attest not only to the pollution, but to the loss of immunity from the common cold.

Oh, btw: The existence of the EPA, just like the ATF, the FBI, and numerous other federal agencies, is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States. Can I interest you in mounting an effort to demand that it be enforced as written?

"If there is nothing wrong, as they both claim, then they should have no issue submitting to an exam by impartial physicians."

Fortunately, there is a crack team of impartial medical professionals ready to tackle the job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDYautIQaEU

@DB, I'm pretty sure that those were my brain surgeons!
Maye that explains some modest issues... ;)

Oh wait, that brain leaked out of my ears when our girls were teens.
Nevermind.

Noel reminds me of the conspiracy nuts who still cling to the notion that George Bush knocked down the twin towers and with willful intent killed 3,000 innocent citizens so he could go to war in Iraq. Get a grip people, you have two choices for President....pick one and shut up, please.

@prose #118, while I'm far from thrilled about my choices, I have Trump, (not happening) or Clinton.
So, it comes down to batshit crazy vs a corporate democrat.
Not shutting up, just pissed off that, while I was deployed, you all let our nation devolve into this cloistersmurf!
Believe me, my inner Patton mouth wants to say a *lot* worse!
I was away, you remained home, things turned into this while I was away defending your worthless asses you sat at home and let this get this bad.
My first alarm was, "second amendment remedies", which badly frightened men going out on war patrol, fearing for their families and homes. I'll never forgive that one.
For the tea party or the rest of you for letting that happen.
Sit at home, let a nation turn into fascism, screw the lot of you!
I should've stayed home and let the "commies" take over!

Now, we have one part of the nation armed to the literal teeth, other parts batshit crazy, other parts, confused.
So, thanks for nothing for what we've returned to, you've done a lousy job taking care of the place while I lost very close friends protecting this now nearly worthless place!

If you've failed to notice my contempt, ask me again.

I sense a measure of contempt, there, Wxrd1, but I have to wonder to whom it is directed. I was with you until you claimed you would have allowed the Commies to take over instead of the fascists. Haven't you figured out yet that the Commies are the ones pushing the fascism? The line between the Marxist Mafia on the far left and the micromanaging fascists on the right is not linear; it is a circle: Regardless of the hair-splitting definitions of the political ideologies by university professors with "Piled-higher-and-Deeper" after their names, which they promulgated for the specific purpose of keeping us spinning our wheels in the definitive muck and accomplishing nothing, the fact is at the street level there is no discernible difference between Marxism (communism) and Fascism: Both are tyranny imposed by a system based on the Rule of Man. Our nation was founded to place individual liberty under the Rule of Law superior to the arbitrary whims of kings and princes and neighborhood Marxist/Fascist warlords. You want a free country, stop spinning your wheels and start demanding government obey the U.S. Constitution every time, no exceptions, no excuses. It is the only chance we have left before the Second Bolshevik Revolution is executed later this year.

Bush did not cause the events of 9/11. But his international handlers did, and they didn't tell him about it. They just advised him on how to deal with it.

Humans make it a plenty, hell wires themselves do it at high voltage levels.

You'd hate my Tesla coil which, in an enclosed space, can turn your black shirt grey within the timespan of just a few minutes.

Bush was going to invade Iraq regardless - 9/11 just made it easier.

I was in a Pentagon CENTCOM planning room in April, 2001 which contained large-scale computer maps denoting the intended invasion routes (at the time, it included an advance through Turkey - since at that time, they still expected that Turkey would allow transit through their territory).

Which proves nothing, Lawrence. It is military planning's job to wargame every possible future scenario. Wargaming doesn't prove they are planning to do it; all it proves is they are preparing for all potential future scenarios if any turn out to be appropriate.

Lawrence, what???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

PGP @84: Ah, but that was the great thing this year: The Rabid puppies (lead by VD) were totally trounced and the rules changed to prevent it from happening again. That's probably why VD has turned back to politics; because he can't win at sci/fi.

And I wouldn't ax everyone who ended up on the slates this year: a lot of it was trying to appear to win or tarring with a broad brush. And it introduced the world to Chuck Tingle, who writes hilariously-titled erotica.

Say what you want, snark away, but Hillary is obviously not well.

Now well physically or mentally. Anyone espousing her Marxist crap is either retarded or is a power-hungry narcissist, and that includes her fawning fans.

Lawrence -- I'm not disputing what you saw -- but remember, the DOD has contingency plans for the invasion of everywhere. I can remember working on invasion plans for Iraq (among other places) back in 1985.

"Somehow I doubt that “Educated Democrat” was ever a Democrat…"
Somehow I doubt that “Educated Democrat” was ever educated...
He is so behind on the news that he hasn't considered the possibility that the Never-Trumps here might just be wide-awake Republicans.

The "Never-Trumps" here might be "wide awake Republicans, but if they are "Never-Trumpsters" they are incredibly dumb and pursuing an objective that cannot be won -- unless their objective is to elect the head of the global criminal syndicate known as the Marxist Mafia (funded by the Clinton Foundation).

shay simmons: Yes, the Pentagon has all kinds of contingency plans, like every good general staff does (An Israeli intelligence officer once told me that Israel had plans for everything including Arctic warfare. I still don't know if he was kidding.).
But in the case of Bush, we have the testimony of Paul O'Neill, the Shrub's Treasury Secretary, that the invasion was being planned from the first week of the Bush administration, if not earlier.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

I have a close family member who has been suffering from Parkinson's for years. Nothing in what I've seen of Hillary Clinton suggests she's suffering from it, and quite frankly the suggestion serves to trivialize the condition as an insult you can hurl for political gain.

Believe me, if Hillary Clinton had Parkinson's there's no way she'd be able to hide it for very long considering how much time she spends in public.

And she is not hiding it, is she?

You realize that Trump is the best athlete in world? He can dance with both feet firmly in his mouth.

Ya gotta admit that he is more agile than the falling down tripping fainting forgetful opposition, dontcha?

Remember that while FDR was sick and enfeebled when he won a fourth term, for the twelve years before he had an extremely high-pressure job and he did it admirably.
Winston Churchill was Britain's wartime prime minister and minister of war while suffering prostrating bouts of depression and repeated episodes of pneumonia, much more serious then, in the early days of antibiotics.
William H. Taft for most of his adult life weighed between about 280 and 350 lbs. He served as the first American civilian governor of the Philippines, Secretary of War, President, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, all the while morbidly obese.
Defining what state of health a candidate should be in may not be much better than picking one based on arm-wrestling ability.
As an aside, I hate that whole tiny hands thing. It's exactly this kind of pseudo-macho posturing that we need to get away from. Marco Rubio should get his hands slapped for bringing that in to the campaign.

Rich Bly:
...and it's truly amazing that they aren't dislodged when his head is up his ass.

Guess we'll all know soon enough. Julian Assange likley has her medical records, and I'm sure some health concern will be front and center. After all, Assnge's sources hacked the NSA and a number of other government servers, so gainig access to a physician's client files shoud prove childs play.

I am not a believer in conspiracies - in this case, it was obvious from day one that Bush was going to finish what his father started....9/11 was merely a convenient excuse - and if it wasn't 9/11, it was going to be the WMD excuse.

When I was in the briefing room, it was also obvious that this was no mere contingency, it was active planning for an upcoming operation.....

Not to mention Wilson's stroke, which basically left him incapacitated.....

Man, this is pitiful. Perhaps Cline would be better syled as "vwlfghtr."

Really? I'm not sure what you think you are trying to say with your suggestion of a 'better syled" (sic) email name, but am I to understand you disapprove of the fundamental principles that established the first nation on the planet to elevate private individual rights superior to the arbitrary whims of kings, princes, kommissars, and neighborhood warlords? Please explain to the assembled multitudes here what you would like your roll to be in your fantasy dominion.

Mr. Cline, considering the URL in the comment and the oddly erroneous comprehension of our system of government, all rooted upon a lack of comprehension of why we have a Constitution...
If you agree with the concepts on that website, you've wandered down the merry path off of a cliff.
The states were indeed sovereign, bound into a temporary confederacy that was deemed too weak to stand, so a Constitutional convention was held and a Constitution drafted and ratified by the states, which created this nation by erasing parts of sovereignty of each state. Erase parts, they're no longer sovereign, but bound to the Constitution, within boundaries established by that Constitution.

You complained of several federal agencies being unconstitutional, whereas they were created under the interstate commerce authority of Congress, granted to Congress by the Constitution.
Pollution can be considered part of commerce and if any state were to pollute my state with impunity, that would then, without relief, set the stage for a civil war.
Indeed, the Constitution even mentions the public welfare, not once, but twice, once in the preamble, once in an article.
The Constitution may be amended, the process laid out in that Constitution, whereas that website denies that which is as old as our Constitution.

After quite a bit of effort tracking down what URL you are talking about, it appears you are referring to "Freedom Fighter Net at www.frdmftr.net, referenced by Narad. I was confused by your comment until I realized you aren't aware: That's my website. I wrote it, based upon over 40 years of research.
Your error is one of perspective based upon over a hundred years of advancing the theory that the U.S. government is sovereign over the States in all matters whatever when it is not, never was, and the Constitution says so.

The States were, indeed, sovereign, but they were not "bound" by the Articles of Confederation, and they proved it by every State doing whatever it damned well wanted to do, causing Washington to observe, on the eve of the Convention, "We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion."

You fail to understand two principles of compacts in general, and the Constitutional compact in particular: Sovereign States do not "erase" any of their sovereignty by agreeing to allow their creation, their proxy, to conduct certain specific sovereign actions in their name and under their authority. Indeed, it is a fundamental principle of law that should their proxy fail to fulfill its mandate, or exercise power not authorized, it is within the sovereign power of the State to exercise its sovereign power itself. That's the first principle.

The second principle is that the creation of its proxy out of the sole sovereign power of the nation-States in compact is not under any circumstances plenipotentiary: I quote:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment X.

You will note that not only does this Amendment establish that the federal government is to do what it is authorized to do and is NOT to do what it is NOT specifically authorized to do, it also confirms that the States created the federal government and own it. The federal government has absolutely zero authority not delegated to it by the States.

In short, the States created the federal government and the States can take it out.

The authority for the creation of federal agencies referenced does not come from the Interstate commerce authority granted to Congress by (Article I Section 8 Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution, which grants authority over COMMERCE between the States. It comes from a Roosevelt-packed rogue Supreme Court illegally ruling that the federal government has authority over private individuals growing wheat on their own land for their own use. See Wickard v. Filburn, (1945). The federal government has no authority whatever over private individuals not delegated to it in Article I Section 8.

I will add that even the federal government authority over commerce between the States does not authorize interference with the exercise of private rights of individuals -- i.e., the federal government cannot use its interstate commerce authority to interfere with the private right to keep and bear arms, for example, or interfere with travel between the States, or oppress the right to free speech between the States, etc., etc. Private individual rights peacefully exercised are beyond the reach of government every time, no exceptions, no excuses.

Lawrence -- just wanted to say you are absolutely correct.

This after reading Cline's posts because I would hate to be suspected of being on his side on anything

Oh, good! Have I found myself in a den of liberal vipers ready to attack the messenger of liberty under the Rule of Law? Or are you willing to discuss the fundamental principles as a decent human being rather than a minion of flame war? In short form, do you have two facts to rub together to support your smarmy comments about my thesis, or are you merely into shallow ad hominem attacks?

@Narad 148
Wow, looking at that makes me really glad my uncle doesn't know how to make a website. And that I have long since refused to discuss politics with him.

Smug liberal airheads always refuse to discuss politics with me. They have no facts upon which to base their side of the discussion, or when they do they derive meanings opposite to what the facts suggest. But I'm willing to discuss politics with y'all if you can do so in a adult manner and not try to turn it into a juvenile food fight.

Hey, Orac, this isn't about you and any correlation between your anecdotal health issues and those of Hillary Clinton. Here's a suggestion: How about Clinton and Trump undergo extensive physical examinations by an INDEPENDENT physician, since both of them are 70 years old, which justifies the public's knowing what kind of shape they're really in.

I would agree with that suggestion, but with the caveat that I seriously doubt an "impartial" physician (I assume that's what you mean by "independent" could be found. Nor do I think the results would make the slightest difference to any obsessives on either side.

Man, this is pitiful. Perhaps Cline would be better syled as “vwlfghtr.”

C'mon the dude has his own quote.

Narad @148.
What a whackaloon - but then the "Clinton is a Marxist" should have been a giveaway.

Hey, MA: Do you have anything of substance to contribute to the date beyond Marxist* juvenile name-calling?
(*A technique developed and taught at the University of Moscow in the 1930's by a -- wait for it -- Marxist -- by the name of Lavrenty Beria, First Deputy Premier of Soviet Russia under Josef Stalin and documented as the most ruthless murder that criminal regime had ever seen.) Do you want to perpetuate his evil legacy, or would you prefer to debate issues like a decent human being?

If there is nothing to see here, then please explain why she is traveling with a board certified neurologist, Dr. Oladotun Okunola. M.D., of Neuroscience Center of Northern New Jersey, who apparently has the power to go on stage with her and shoo off secret service personnel. Is that typical behavior for someone like Wzrd's wife who slips a lot? Do campaigns bring top end neurologists along as campaign staff customarily? Was Dr. Okunola carrying a diazepam auto injector pen while walking along side her? I wait to be educated on by the know-it-alls. I have a good idea they will deny any knowledge, or say they don't know, or that it makes sense a Neurologist would travel with the campaign I guess. It is funny how the know-it-alls know everything until they are asked to provide insight on inconvenient facts and they find themselves shrugging their shoulders.

Well said. And the shrug their shoulders because insight requires facts, and they don't have any. Pesky things, these facts; they keep getting in the way of their agenda.

Oddly, a visible only to you diazepam autoinjector.
Oh, I forgot, magic!
The diazepam autoinjector is a standardized beast, the military refer to it as a CANA injector, it's not palmable at all. But, let's keep on inventing shit.

Just saw in the Facebook "trending" feed that the AAPS says that 71% of it's doctors think Clinton is very sick, or something.

I thought of Orac. Yeah, the AAPS...

I’m willing to discuss politics with y’all if you can do so in a adult manner and not try to turn it into a juvenile food fight.

Why on earth would anyone want to "discuss politics" with you, of all people? For that matter, political subjects are rarely even on topic here, and this entry isn't one of those cases – it's about brain-dead armchair diagnoses.

Mr. Cline, if you want to discuss anything in an adult manner, I highly recommend you not use phrases like "Smug liberal airheads" and "Marxist Mafia subaltern".

Good riposte. Howsomever, I have been dealing with smug liberal airheads and Marxist Mafia subalterns since returning from the culturally-communist nation of Australia in 1974; and their identity factors haven't changed one iota in that period of time. The people on this board, and Zerobama and Killary and Biden and Warren and their ilk have nothing of substance to offer the American people beyond creative hucksterism, so the identity factors still apply. "Political correctness" is nothing but the cultural Marxism insurgency we've endured since COMINTERN in 1925, and I see no reason to not call a spade a spade just because you aren't historically educated enough to know what I am talking about.

Is anyone else having flashbacks to Spiro Agnew?

Why? Are you being investigated for political corruption?

If there is nothing to see here, then please explain why she is traveling with a board certified neurologist, Dr. Oladotun Okunola. M.D., of Neuroscience Center of Northern New Jersey

Time to tighten your colander.

in this case, it was obvious from day one that Bush was going to finish what his father started

They did make it pretty personal, Lawrence #146.

A tile mosaic depicting U.S. President George H.W. Bush with a look of astonishment on his face was installed on the floor of the lobby after the Persian Gulf War. This was intended to force any visitors to walk over his face to enter the hotel (a serious insult in Arab culture). On 17 January 1993, the hotel was damaged in a US missile strike and the attack resulted in civilian casualties. The artist, Layla Al-Attar, who did the mosaic died along with her husband and housekeeper when another stray US missile hit her house. After the invasion in 2003, the mosaic was smashed by U.S. soldiers, who left a portrait of Saddam Hussein behind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Tulip_Al_Rasheed_Hotel#History

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/10/world/baghdad-journal-a-new-graphic-m…

Narad #164: I'd like some context to go with that image, please.

If Mr. Cline insists on spouting insults like a small child, perhaps we should make him stand in the corner for a while.

Citing facts and relevant history is always insulting to a Marxist whore. It destroys their agenda, and they can't tolerate that.

I like standing in the corner. My back is covered, preventing cowardly attacks from the rear, for which commies are famous.

He is a rather uninteresting troll. Such boring, predictable political trolls are why I seldom blog about politics. Even this post wasn't so much about politics but rather conspiracy theories. However, because it's about the election, the political trolls are out in force. I wonder where this link was posted to draw the Trumpies in...

Your definition of "Political Trolls" doesn't meet the test of Occam's Razor. Political trolls are people -- usually the "useful idiots" as V.I. Lenin described his followers -- who go around not contributing to discussions or debates, but doing everything they can to disrupt them. You can't be referring to me, for I am inviting serious debate, in which so far the posters on this forum seem incapable of engaging.

I’d like some context to go with that image, please.

Certainly.

I have been dealing with smug liberal airheads and Marxist Mafia subalterns since returning from the culturally-communist nation of Australia in 1974; and their identity factors haven’t changed one iota in that period of time.

Pish-tosh. Some of us are now Marxist Mafia field-grades.

Don't give yourself airs. So far I haven't seen any Marxist mafia field grades on this pitiful list; I have only seen their useful idiots who are incapable of perceiving contrary facts to their thesis, much less presenting them. The field grades usually come in later when their useful idiots go whining to their handlers complaining "He's kicking our ass!"

The anarcho-syndicalists never get any credit from this lot.

I don't think that Vox Day's goal was to help HRC sort out her health problems via a public admission of Parkinson's disease. The point is to get her, or at least her propagandists, to deny it. From where I sit, it looks like it's working. Dunning-Kruger effect indeed.

Dunning-Kruger effect? Why not just call it what it is? Rampant vindictive narcissism.

"Was Dr. Okunola carrying a diazepam auto injector pen while walking along side her?"

I can think of another candidate who would benefit from such a device when the crazy strikes.

Is there even such a thing as a "diazepam auto injector pen?" Now I'm concerned a pharma company has a monopoly on it and is charging $600 per device.

*Can we be sure, completely sure, that Mike Adams is not lurking in Hillary Clinton's entourage, ready to inject her with a kratom auto-injector pen when her mu opioid receptors need stimulation?

@DB, curious as to the price and existence of the diazepam autoinjector.
It was originally invented for the US Armed Forces as an anticonvulsant to update the older MK I autoinjector kit for nerve agent poisoning.
Cost, $25.00/month.
The DoD repeatedly tried to get the FDA to remove the RX only status, without effect.
https://www.patientslikeme.com/treatments/show/13222-diazepam-autoinjec…
For a photo of the military unit, as originally issued as the "CANA unit".
http://www.meridianmeds.com/products/diazepam

Discussing politics with D. Cline would be like swapping recipes with Jeffrey Dahmer.

Do you have anything to contribute to the debate, or would you rather index your recipes?

TL;DR
But I'm 99% sure she has Parkinson's disease since she requested medication for that. She either has it or is crazy - you have to be crazy to request medication for an illness you don't have. Either way she's unfit to lead on oh so many levels.

How many Communists can you find in this picture? Mr. Cline found twenty!
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solid_blue.svg

You're cute, but you're a liar. Besides, I'm not a leftist; I don't conjure up images or motives that aren't there.

Mr. Cline, do you have any evidence that anyone is, in fact, a Marxist? Otherwise, you may as well be saying "reptile-man" instead of "Marxist".

Certainly. And when you read the Communist Manifesto and the resolutions of the COMINTERN, and learn the methods the communist insurgency has been using to infiltrate and subvert the citizens and institutions of the United States of America since 1925 -- and how those methods and efforts have redoubled in every election cycle since Reagan, you will too. There are other researches that are instructive also -- what kind of president, for example, do you think Nixon was? Conservative, Liberal, Communist, Fascist, what? Did you know that for all his seemingly fascist bluster, he was turning over State secrets and pushing programs in the U.S. benefitting the Soviet Union? You folks hold the wildly liberal fantasies about the real world that you hold because you have been lied to since birth. You ought to dig a little deeper and find out who is actually running this country behind the scenes. You might consider, as a starting point, the fact that Woodrow Wilson was a devout communist, FDR was a communist sympathizer, the federal government you mostly think should be micromanaging every aspect of our lives is actually, BY SUPREME LAW, the wholly-owned subsidiary of the sovereign States that created it; that Secretaries of State Philander Knox and William Jennings Bryan committed perjury and MUTINY against the sovereign States when they falsely declared the 16th and 17th Amendments ratified, and by doing so the federal government devolved into the rogue occupation government we endure (and you ignorantly rejoice in) today. These are not someone's hare-brained pipe dreams, ladies and gentlemen, these are facts and I can prove them by citations of supreme law and federal records anyone can look up. Discussion, anyone?

I hear his feetloaf is to die for.

Idk, Gray Falcon

Janet Yellen
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Janet+Yellen+QYyYtAw1bDvm.jpg

Slitheen
http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/tardis/images/6/68/Slitheen.jpg/rev…

"Do you have anything to contribute to the debate, or would you rather index your recipes?"
Disparaging you *is* a contribution to the discussion.
I wouldn''t call it a debate. It's mostly you rattling on about imaginary Marxists and deep, overarching plots and people here trying to introduce you to such unimportant things such as actual facts.

Really? Actual facts? What actual fact has been introduced to this discussion by you or anyone else on this forum? Not one, I suggest. Ad hominem and juvenile attacks as befits the typical Marxist method, yes, but not facts. And yes, I will agree this is not yet a debate because none of you have presented any facts to debate and I'm not sure you know how if you even have any, which I doubt. Now I just presented some facts in my last post, if you want to debate them, do so. No juvenile name-calling, please -- and if you make an honest attempt to discuss or debate, I will withhold calling you an airheaded liberal doofus or Lenin's "Useful idiot" because airheaded liberal doofusi and useful idiots are incapable of debating. They are terrified of honest discussion and debate because they might find themselves wrong.

I can't believe this is a science blog, This Dr is offering up his conclusion that HRC has Parksion then goes on to offer up ample proof of his claim. Nobody here does what Science does and refute this claim, of coughing fits, head bobbing, falls, bug eyes, needing assistance and a stool to climb into limos, nothing about he paramedic at hand with auto injector military grade,
No you all make stupid jokes and puns and at best you say Oh he is anesthesiologist. Need I remind you in-denial twats that Dr Drew Pinsky lost his HLN show just for question HRC's health. There is so much evidence that this lady is very sick that if it was snake it would bite you on the nose. Nobody on this thread has proven this Dr wrong, all you have done is giving weak excuses for falls, coughing fits, seizures, head bobbing, facial contortions and tics, Nodding up to 400 times.
It is amazing how people will lie to themselves to avoid facing the truth, HRC is a very sick woman.

Mr. Cline, why should we trust you?

Because my answers can be independently verified by your own research.

nothing about he paramedic at hand with auto injector military grade

Behold, tryptic67 has been out-shersoned, or something.

^ Oh:

Need I remind you in-denial twats that Dr Drew Pinsky lost his HLN show just for question HRC’s health.

You might want to be cognizant, going forward, that it's not possible to "remind" anybody of someone they've never heard of in the first place.

Not only is HRC using a Military Grade injector pen, she's covering up her drooling, head-wagging and butt-shaking with food grade hydrogen peroxide.

I have presented the facts, now you must refute them.

Ad hominem and juvenile attacks as befits the typical Marxist method, yes, but not facts.

Are you sure* that you're not confusing Marxism and Stalinism? Hell, perhaps rather than using the former as some sort of blobular-globular word-thing, you could set out what you think it means.

I'd unblock Sadmar for that.

* Heh.

Not at all; both are authoritarian fascism at the street level; hair-splitting differences are emphasized by elitist wonks for the purpose of engaging in useless debates that distract everyone from doing anything about the tyranny. Our founders were smarter than that, and created a form of government that prohibits both, and all other forms of tyranny.

Thank you for showing that you cannot tell the difference between Marxism and Stalinism. You've illustrated your ignorance quite well - repeatedly.

The difference at the street level is nonexistent. Nothing ignorant about that.

Orac @173: he's certainly got the jargon down pat. Do these guys have a stylebook that they all use?

No juvenile name-calling, please — and if you make an honest attempt to discuss or debate, I will withhold calling you an airheaded liberal doofus or Lenin’s “Useful idiot” because airheaded liberal doofusi....

Cool plural, bro.

If Mr. Cline could take a break from the insults, I would like to ask him if he knows what the actual language of the seventeenth amendment contains. 'Cause directly electing senators doesn't seem all that controversial to me. I think he may have confused it with the fourteenth or eighteenth amendments, since he seems like the type who has an extra pair of sheets that he wears on Sunday. And before he dismisses me as a Marxist, I'm actually a monarchist, so there.

Same difference; like Marxists, monarchists believe in the Rule of Man, prohibited in our nation. Our form of government is based on the Rule of Law being superior to the arbitrary whim of monarchs, their subalterns, and their street thugs. Yes, I know exactly what the 17th amendment says and what it does. Are you aware that it is specifically prohibited by Article V unless every State consents to being deprived of its suffrage in the Senate, and more than ten States did not consent? And no, I don't have an extra pair of sheets I wear on Sundays (whatever that means), so there.

the “useful idiots” as V.I. Lenin described his follower

He did? Where?

Quoted by Saul Alinsky in "Rules for Radicals." Ask him when you get to Hell.

I’m actually a monarchist

A philosopher-king, or what?

I’m actually a monarchist

You're hoping for a philosopher-king, or what?

C’mon the dude has his own quote.

Do you mean the hilarious use of himself as the source of an epigraph?

Is there a mathematician in the house?
,
I've been trying to figure out the Venn diagram which illustrates the overlap between two sets: reality and Mr Cline's ability to discern it.
.
How DOES one represent the conjunction of an infinite set and a null set?

One stops trying to pretend he has a "Piled-Higher-and-Deeper" after his name and does some useful work in defense of our liberties.

How DOES one represent the conjunction of an infinite set and a null set?

Easy enough, divide by zero.

Donald L. Cline @188: So you don't like the federal income tax, I can see why people might not like that. But what's wrong with directly electing senators? It's so much more democratic!

And while we're at it, how do you feel about the 19th amendment? Or the 13th amendment?

Democratic? Your brainwashing is showing. The founders were adamantly opposed to a democracy, describing it as follows, after describing its historical results: "A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." –James Madison, Federalist No. 10
The founders did not create a democracy. They created a Constitutional Republic with democratically-chosen representation. They were also specifically opposed to voter initiatives due to their vulnerability to manipulated factionalism, and subversive Michael Bloomberg is currently taking great advantage of those States foolish enough to have established voter initiatives in their Constitutions.

Facts, Mr. D. Cline? Every one of your so-called facts has been debunked as paranoid ramblings.
Here's a fact for you: calling me a Marxist or nearly any other kind of -ist is so far off the mark that it's ludicrous. You are about as accurate in identifying my politics as you are making a medical diagnosis from Fox News.
Since this blog and it's comments are pretty much intended to discuss nonsense masquerading as medicine, you are wasting our time and yours. No one but you believes or cares what you think about William Jennings Brian or Philander Knox.
Incidentally, I have read the Communist Manifesto more than once, and the US Constitution many times more than once. The former is a quaint little book that's about as relevant to this century as an 18th Century travel guide to Canada. The latter is very much alive and relevant, and your viewpoint on the relation of the states to the government was considered and decisively rejected while Alexander Hamilton lived on Earth. Most remaining doubts were quelled by the War of Southern Sedition. Further, even if you were right (which I firmly believe you are not), doing anything to overturn that view now would make landing an oil tanker in a kiddie pool look simple by comparison.

Never debunked at all. Illegally ignored by the rogue powers that be to our eternal detriment, but never debunked. To debunk them would require debunking the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Documents Illustrative of the formation of the Union of the American States. To the extent the federal government erroneously believes they are debunked, and acts upon that belief in a manner violative of the aforementioned documents, the federal government has not escaped their authority but has simply abdicated its lawful authority to govern and that authority is restored to the sovereign-nation States that created it and ratified it, and to the people inhabiting them. See the Tenth Amendment, Dave, for starters. Alexander Hamilton had no authority to debunk Constitutional principles and in fact did not, though he tried. What you call "The War of Southern Sedition" was a put up job by British operatives still trying to restore control over their colonies, and Abraham Lincoln violated every principle of the Constitution in his prosecution of that war and established the illegal precedent that presidents and government does not have to obey the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the other aforementioned documents. Words mean things, Dave, and nothing you have listed changes the meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution one iota. To the extent government violates that document, government has abdicated its lawful authority to govern, and it is time the States do not secede as the South tried to do, but rather declare the 16th and 17th Amendments null and void for lack of ratification pursuant to Article V, recall their imposter senators, choose new ones as the Constitution requires, and send them to Washington to represent them in the Senate. Even one State could do that and the rest would follow in an avalanche. The federal government is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the sovereign nation-States that created and ratified it, and nothing the federal government has ever done or will ever do can change that.

JP: No, I just think that constituitional monarchy works out pretty well in practice. It's certainly better than what we have now.

Bulldust. A Constitutional monarchy does not limit the monarchy and does not protect the rights and liberties of the people. Never has and never will. It's like reading the Constitution of the USSR, which lists dozens of rights of the people, none of which are protected by government because government issued those rights. They are not rights; they are privileges. Our Constitution Republic is founded on the theory that individual rights and liberties are a matter of birthright and beyond the reach of government. We have appellate and supreme court rulings (back when the Supreme still had some integrity) pointing out specifically that individual rights are flatly beyond the reach of government. Government has nothing to say about their exercise. A monarchy, founded upon a constitutional pretense or not. functions under the Rule of Man. Our liberties are under the Rule of Law no man or collection of men (or women), government thugs or not, has/have the authority to abridge. Why do you want a form of government that takes your right to choose your own path away from you?

ORD@209 - I would upvote you just for the reference to the War of Southern Sedition if I could.

As a card-carrying [ ;-) ] anarcho-syndicalist, I can say we don't get much credit from anybody.

And an anarcho-syndicalist doesn't deserve any from anybody. Anarcho-syndicalists do not recognize any authority higher than their syndicate, and the society they create is remarkably similar to Somalian warlords.

I once made a joke at work about us having to take a loyalty oath before being allowed to use a piece of equipment. You know, the one that starts "I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Communist party."
Except that most of my co-workers were adult immigrants from China and Ukraine.
Oops.

If you cannot, or are unwilling, to take that oath, or your adult immigrant co-workers cannot or are unwilling to, none of you should be here. Same with what the media calls "radical" Islam, which is not radical to the creed of Islam at all.

Wouldn’t prohibiting “Marxism” actually be a form of tyranny?

If you cannot, or are unwilling, to take that oath, or your adult immigrant co-workers cannot or are unwilling to, none of you should be here.

So, you advocate tyranny when it suits you, but when it doesn't, you don't. Gotya.
Marxism, which you've been unable to define, is OK, but loyalty oaths should be allowed, the very first amendment be damned.

So, what other parts of the Constitution do you consider optional or only to mean some Orwellian version of what they actually say? What other superseded documents are you going to reference, as you've referenced a declaration of war and a document that lost power when the Constitution was ratified?

Indeed, you cite Bloomberg starting a myth that we're a representative democracy, which requires him to have a time machine, as Jefferson himself acknowledged that which we are!

Oh, for the record, calling people Commies and whores isn't debating, it's pathetic ad hominem attacks with zero evidence, zero debating, just name calling like a brat in a schoolyard.

Your "Gotya" is premature and presumptuous at best.

You are reversing the order of posts in an effort to create an impression of culpability that suits you. I said "If you cannot, or are unwilling, to take that oath, or your adult immigrant co-workers cannot or are unwilling to, none of you should be here." I also added a caveat that the laws the oath swears to uphold have to be legitimate constitutional laws, not illegal government fiats.

THEN you (or someone) asked "Wouldn't prohibiting "Marxism" actually be a form of tyranny?" And I replied "Depends on whether they have declared war or not." (Or words to that effect.)

For your information, Wzrd1, as I have stated before, Marxism is already prohibited in this country by our Constitution, just as liberty we take for granted is prohibited in communist China, North Korea, etc.

You, I, everyone else, whether citizen or immigrant (legal or illegal) are subject to our law. You can practice Marxism in your own life if you want to, so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others, but it is a violation of the rights of others for it to be imposed upon them by the force of law. (That's how it is supposed to be, but our government is illegally giving quite a few illegal immigrants a pass on our law, and that is illegal. To the extent any of those illegal immigrants are enemy combatants, it is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of our nation, and that is the definition of Treason.

I have a U.S. Constitution open in front of me, Please advise where in the 1st Amendment an oath of allegiance to the United States of America, or simply an oath agreeing to uphold and defend legitimate U.S. and State law is prohibited.

If you think standing up for the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law and publicly saying so is a violation of your rights under the 1st Amendment, then you must be either a Democrat or an enemy agent, and in most cases I'm not sure there is any difference.

No part of the U.S. Constitution (which, btw, was to put into effect the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence among other reasons) is optional for any officer or agent of the United States government, State government, or local government. All such are sworn to uphold and defend it. All of it.

Now, you make an assertion I never made: You claim, "Indeed, you cite Bloomberg starting a myth that we're a representative democracy, which requires him to have a time machine, as Jefferson himself acknowledged that which we are!" HUH? I don't believe I ever said anything remotely like that sentence. I did say we are not a democracy (and I quoted James Madison who said so) and I pointed out that we are a Constitutional Republic, and that we choose our representatives democratically. I also decried the voter initiative process some States have foolishly added to their Constitutions, and pointed out that subversive Bloomberg is using that as a tool to sucker citizens into giving up their rights under the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments (which, btw, we have already been doing under the illegal Brady Act forcing us to ask permission of government to exercise our right to keep and bear arms and waiving the aforementioned rights to get that permission). That being said, your reference to a "time machine" and the rest of that sentence makes no sense at all.

Try not to put words in my mouth, Wrzd1. Ask and I will try to answer honestly.

Your last sentence: Oh. I should call commie whores and Marxist Mafia apparatchiks and their "useful idiots" who have been conducting an illegal insurgency against the supreme law of the land since before 1925 "just nice people who have our best interests at heart"? Bulldust, Wrzd1. I'm not going to give them that credit and neither should you if you have a shred of respect for what America stands for. Their agenda is evil and because of it we are right on the precipice of destruction as a free country. Trump is our last chance and frankly that last chance is incredibly thin, given the number of murder victims already racked up who have been prepared to testify against the culprits.

For oaths, the only oaths required under the Constitution are for legislators, officers of the executive or judicial branch and only to swear to support the Constitution of the United States of America.
That's Article Six.
Requiring people outside of that narrow grouping to swear any oath is inventing a section of the Constitution out of whole cloth and not permitted.

"For your information, Wzrd1, as I have stated before, Marxism is already prohibited in this country by our Constitution..."
Erm, Marxism is a political and economic system, the Constitution defines neither, only duties, rights and responsibilities, as well as limitations of each branch of government and the several states. Again, inventing Constitutional things out of whole cloth.
Declaring illegal aliens as unlawful combatants adds, yet again, out of whole cloth, that which has never been a part of our Constitution and indeed, is unlawful under ratified treaties, which are granted the force of law by our Constitution. Criminals are not by nature enemies of the state in a military sense, which is what you seek to define, I'm guessing that you yearn for martial law.

"If you think standing up for the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law and publicly saying so is a violation of your rights under the 1st Amendment, then you must be either a Democrat or an enemy agent, and in most cases I’m not sure there is any difference."

So, now you'd prohibit an entire political party! That's fine, the second amendment protects my rights, as well as the courts, the US Army, US Navy, US Marine Corps and US Air Force, as well as every law enforcement agency in the land, you'll not usurp my rights very easily and oh, I have my own copy of the Constitution with me at all times as well.
Forcing oaths, selecting authorized religions and prohibiting political parties are all using the first amendment as toilet paper.

"No part of the U.S. Constitution (which, btw, was to put into effect the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence among other reasons) is optional for any officer or agent of the United States government, State government, or local government. All such are sworn to uphold and defend it. All of it."

Bullshit. Again. Inventing entire Constitutional entries out of whole cloth. The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of war, just as the declaration of war against Japan and Germany were, we don't add those to our Constitution, nor did the Declaration of Independence suddenly gain standing in preference to the Constitution. Itexpired when the Constitution was ratified, as did the Articles of Confederation.

The only way that Bloomberg could make a fiction that we're a representative democracy would be for him to go back and tell Jefferson and the rest of the founders that "fiction", as everyone who didn't subscribe to the federalist papers disagreed with them. That wasn't the only opinion then at all, as is reflected in our Constitution.
Interestingly, I haven't had to petition anyone to purchase and own firearms. At all. Ever. The same is true for ammunition. I don't need permission of the federal government to go to a range, fire on my private property or the permission of any government to hunt on my own property. More inventions of a fevered mind, painted out of whole cloth.

Do see the Snopes article on the Clintons and how their "murder spree" (or whatever you want to call it) never happened, was entirely contrived and invented. The same is true of essentially every other claim of yours and honestly, you border on sedition in some of your statements. I haven't done any such thing.
Of course, when it comes to having each of our words weighed in a court of law, it's your fevered dreams and near-sedition vs my word, that of a cleared person and trusted agent of our government.
Why, I've even been trusted to handle nuclear weapons, I'm quite certain that you'd never be permitted anywhere near them.

Regardless, I have no more time to waste on you, it's bedtime.

Wzrd1: "For oaths, the only oaths required under the Constitution are for legislators, officers of the executive or judicial branch and only to swear to support the Constitution of the United States of America.
"That’s Article Six."
True.
"Requiring people outside of that narrow grouping to swear any oath is inventing a section of the Constitution out of whole cloth and not permitted. "
Not true. Oaths are also required by the 4th Amendment and Article I Section 3 Clause 6, and by Vattel's Law of Nations, which was well-settled law at the time of our nation's founding, which the founders were said to have constantly at their side during their deliberations, and which was incorporated by reference in the U.S. Constitution at Article I Section 8 Clause 10. (This is the same encyclopedia of international law accepted by all the civilized nations at the time of our founding, and which defines "Natural-Born Citizen" as one born on the soil of the country of parents who are both citizens of the country, making Zerobama (aka Barry Soetoro) ineligible to the Office of POTUS.)
"Erm, Marxism is a political and economic system, the Constitution defines neither, only duties, rights and responsibilities, as well as limitations of each branch of government and the several states."
The political and economic system of which violates the Constitution of the United States in multiple ways (as, btw, does Sharia Law.) It is therefore legal to profess a belief in it, but illegal to impose it by force, and when it comes to national security it is perfectly legal to compel an oath denying it as a precondition to engaging in work or activities of a sensitive (to national security) nature. No one is compelled to swear or affirm the oath. Neither does anyone have a "right" to be employed without meeting the requirements of the employer.

I did not declare illegal aliens as enemy combatants any more than Donald Trump declared illegal aliens a rapists, murderers, or drug pushers. I said, open borders allows enemy combatants to enter. Donald Trump said illegal immigration includes rapists, murderers, and drug pushers, and various atrocities committed around the country by illegal aliens proves him correct.
You clearly oppose a wall at the border to keep illegal aliens out. If I point out to you I don't like the idea of a wall at the border either because it can be used by our rogue occupation government to keep people in, will you change your accusation against me from "paranoid over illegal aliens" to "paranoid over illegal government?"
See what I don't like about apologists for tyranny? People like you would kick if you were being hung with a new rope.
If that political party seeks to destroy our Rule of Law, you are damned right I would prohibit an entire political party, or at least enforce the Constitutional prohibitions against its proposed laws, and so should you. The prohibitions are not currently being imposed against that party and its First Enemy Agent, and that is outrageous. If you believed in the liberties under the Rule of Law our nation was founded to preserve and protect, you would be outraged too.

I had to laugh out loud when I reached the place in your message in which you invoke the Constitution and your right to keep and bear arms and the military, yada yada yada to justify your right to advocate the destruction of all those institutions, and I shake my head wondering what you think you are accomplishing. Here's a test: Based on what you have said before, and what you say here about your rights, tell me: Does all that sanguinity about the rights of illegal aliens and enemy agents extend to supporters of ISIS? Are you prepared to allow ISIS soldiers onto U.S. soil without impediment of any kind? If you do, please forgive me for asking this, but what the hell kind of an idiot are you?

No one said anything about "forcing oaths." JustaTech described being required to swear he is not now nor has ever been a member of the Communist Party. He's not being "forced;" he is being given a choice: Swear the oath, and mean it, or collect your pink slip. Neither one is a violation of his rights.

No one said anything about "selecting authorized religions" Islam is not a religion; it is a political ideology and complete civilian infrastructure based the superiority of naked force, and it is masquerading as a 'religion' in an attempt to justify its "Divine Right to Govern." Even if you insist it is a religion, demanding adherence to the 1st Amendment in this regard is suicide. Islam will kill you as soon as it has the superior numbers to do so. "When they are in the minority, Muslims are obsessed with 'minority rights.' When they become the majority, there ARE NO minority rights." Turn on the news and watch what is happening in Europe right now because of their IDIOTIC open border policies and naiveté about "religious freedom."

Oh, boy. Wzrd1, you can do what you want and believe what you want, but I recommend you set yourself down and read the Declaration of Independence again. It was most certainly NOT a "declaration of war." It was a declaration of independence founded upon a litany of tyrannies imposed by the king and an assertion of right to self-government. It did not say "Declaration of War Against Great Britain;" it set forth the causes of the separation from Great Britain and left the arrogant little twerp of a king the choice of accepting it or throwing a tantrum. The fact they knew what the king would do doesn't change the reality, Wzrd1.

It is absolutely astonishing to me that anyone could think the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence ceased to exist when the Constitution was ratified. Every principle asserted in that document is established in the Constitution as a principle of governance. To claim otherwise is to claim the restoration of feudal government and the Rule of Man.

I'm almost as astonished by your next incredible claim as I am confused by how you came up with it: "The only way Bloomberg could make a fiction that we're a representative democracy ..." For a start, Bloomberg isn't "making that fiction;" he is abusing the DIRECT democracy some States have written into their Constitutions. "A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY is a form of government where the powers of the sovereignty are delegated to a body of men, elected from time to time, who exercise them for the benefit of the whole nation." (1 Bouv. Inst. n. 31.) Synonym: "INdirect democracy." That is what we have, Wrzd1, an INDIRECT Democracy in which the people do not vote directly on issues; rather, they vote to elect representatives to vote on issues and those representatives are sworn to uphold and defend the United States Constitution every time, no exceptions, no excuses.

The U.S. Senate is supposed to represent the States as a separate entity from the people with different interests, and who created the federal government in the first place or ratified it in the case of late-comers. That was the case until the Secretary of State illegally declared the 17th Amendment ratified in direct and egregious violation of Article V: A mutiny against the States.

Then I take it you have never purchased a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer since 1993? Because if you have, you had to complete an interrogation (which is a search) in violation of your right to be secure from search in the absence of probable cause of wrongdoing; you had to waive your right to due process by a Court of Law before your right to keep and bear arms could be permitted; you had to waive your right to be secure from having to give up any right in order to be allowed to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, and you had to waive your right to be secure from federal exercise of authority not delegated to the federal government. And after 1998, you had to endure a NICS search of government records in your name, which is also a 4th Amendment search in violation of your right to be secure from search in the absence of probable cause of wrongdoing.

None of the above is within the lawful delegated powers of the federal government, Wzrd1. What rights do you have left when the federal government revokes its permission it has granted you to keep and bear arms? (If you bought any from a licensed firearm dealer.)

If subversive Bloomberg wins to his prize of requiring the above of each of you every time you hand a firearm to a friend to marvel over and every time he hands it back, AS HE ALREADY HAS IN COLORADO, OREGON, AND WASHINGTON, then we have all (he thinks) lost the above rights at the State level as well. (He's wrong, because neither the federal government or State government or voter initiative has the authority to scam the people out of their rights either, but it is going to be a dust-up of magnificent proportions.)

Ah. Your second to the last paragraph says it all: "... my word, that of a trusted agent of our government. Why, I've even been trusted to handle nuclear weapons."

I'm sure glad not all government agents are as willing as you are to throw your weight around in confrontation with the Constitutional Rule of Law, but unfortunately too many are. They need -- and you need -- to read the U.S. Constitution from the point of view of a servant of the people, not a warlord in charge of the people. With the exception of Article I Section 8 Clause 3, government agents have precious little authority over private citizens, and virtually none within the borders of any State. The fact that government ignores its Constitutional limitations does not make it legal.

Sleep well. Dream of being powerless against the rights of the people.

Comedy gold here. I'm tellin' ya, ya can't make stuff like this up. (At least I can't.) Donald Trump is going to be on The Dr. Oz Show next week and reveal his health regimen:

http://www.joemygod.com/2016/09/09/instead-of-releasing-his-medical-rec…

Other than the fact that Trump doesn't smoke or drink alcohol, what does he do? I recall reading an article that revealed that Trump really, really loves fast food and while on the campaign trail frequently sends aides out to McDonald's to get him grub.

Why do I think that Trump's health regimen will sound like the script from "The effects of gamma rays on man-in-the moon marigolds"?

I just think that constituitional monarchy works out pretty well in practice.

Well all hail to princess Fuzzybutt.

That works. That's what Princess Fuzzybutts do. Anyone owned by one or more cats knows what I am talking about.

Your definition of "Political Trolls" doesn't meet the test of Occam's Razor. Political trolls are people -- usually the "useful idiots" as V.I. Lenin described his followers -- who go around not contributing to discussions or debates, but doing everything they can to disrupt them.

Another irony meter destroyed. Damn, I need to buy some backups.

You can’t be referring to me, for I am inviting serious debate, in which so far the posters on this forum seem incapable of engaging.

If your labeling people who disagree with you "Commies" or "Marxists" is "serious debate," you have a very different definition of the term "serious debate" than I do—and pretty much everyone else does.

Wars are not won by being nice, and we are at war. Communists and communist sympathizers -- whores, one and all -- have declared war on our nation and our liberties and have been conducting an insurgency to that end since 1925. I do not apologize for calling those who support that ideology, which is totally devoid of moral principle, integrity, or decency, whores. I also admit to using the term to wake up those who support it ignorantly, hoping they will defend themselves and be forced to examine their perspective. They must we awakened to the reality; we are on the very precipice of losing our Rule of Law permanently; we have already lost it temporarily.

Don't give yourself airs. So far I haven't seen any Marxist mafia field grades on this pitiful list; I have only seen their useful idiots who are incapable of perceiving contrary facts to their thesis, much less presenting them. The field grades usually come in later when their useful idiots go whining to their handlers complaining "He's kicking our ass!"

Apparently Mr. Cline considers this "inviting serious debate."

It was a serious answer to an attempt to dissemble. This is not a game and I am not here to get my jollies off. I'm here to advocate the restoration of the principles our nation was founded to preserve and protect. Except for Old Rock Dave (thank you for the substance in spite of your elitist contempt), nothing I've seen here from anyone rises to the level of a serious discussion, let alone debate. Anyone want to discuss or debate the repair of the first nation in the history of the planet to be founded on the principle that YOUR individual rights trumps the arbitrary whim of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords every time, no exceptions, no excuses?

You’re cute, but you’re a liar.

Another example of Mr. Cline's "serious debate."

Wasn't a debate; it was a statement of fact -- he or she was trying to be cute and claimed something about me that was clearly untrue.

I have a simple test for any wing-nut claiming any knowledge of Marx: Without looking it up, name the topic of Chapter 1 of Capital. None of the frothing doofusi* have passed yet.

* 'Doofusi' is indeed a cool plural, in the sense that using it for 'more than one doofus' (as opposed to the dictionary-proper 'doofuses') typically indicates a cool, ironic mock-erudition. Since our visitor is anything but cool, I suspect he doesn't get the ironic self-mocking connotation and is attempting-and-failing actual erudition.

Which "Capital"? And you are using obfuscation to analyze erudition; typical of a sophomore.

Dimbulb: I wasn't nominating myself. Maybe the time has come for the US to ask Britain to take us back.

Orac: Trump doesn't drink? How is that possible if he lives in New York?

Correct. He claims never to have drunk a drop of booze in his life, although I have a hard time believing that, given how ubiquitous alcoholic beverages are and how almost everyone has at least tried beer or wine by they time they're in college. I do believe that he doesn't drink and hasn't since he was a young man:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/1/donald-trump-touts-lifes…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2011/03/11/donald-trump-and-nine…

His older brother Fred struggled with alcoholism for many years and ultimately died of it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/us/politics/for-donald-trump-lessons-…

I have a hard time believing that because it's Trump. Also, since the 1920s, drinking has practically been a requirement for membership in New York's upper class. (I think, of the populous cities at the time, New York and San Francisco were totally non-compliant during Prohibition.)
Telling the truth is nearly impossible for Trump, but the whole not drinking thing explains a lot. Every time a teetotaller gets into office they manage to be disastrous.

Strange that you think telling the truth is nearly impossible for Trump; most everything he has said that has driven the left into apoplexy upon sober investigation has turned out to be either true or highly justified.

And please list the teetotalers in the White House history that have proven to be disastrous and in what way were they disastrous. Was it because they took the job seriously and paid attention to it like competent professionals?

It seems that Trump has had some memory problems for a while now. Perhaps dementia has set in.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/07/donald-trump-…

And you give credit to a smarmy leftist rag like the Post?

His older brother Fred struggled with alcoholism for many years and ultimately died of it

Am I the only one who is unable to locate an actual cause of death? He was 43. By contrast, Pigpen's medical history is rather well documented.

Maybe it's something inherited.

The world is considerably different than it was in the 2nd decade of the 20th. Century. Was this idiot thinking that if Hilary were incapacitated, Bill Clinton would - or would be allowed - to speak and act for her as Edlith Wilson did after Woodrow Wilson's (IIRC) stroke? Not possible in these days of, among other things, media saturation. To quote Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!"

Anything is possible if the American media is carrying the water for the traitor in chief. This has been proven every day for the last seven and a half years.

Oops. Didn't read entire thread of responses. I see someone already mentioned Mrs. Wilson.

No, I just think that constituitional monarchy works out pretty well in practice. It’s certainly better than what we have now.

I'm not sure what difference having a figurehead with little actual power makes, but whatever floats your boat.

Glad you clarified, though, because I have actually encountered died-in-the-wool Tsarists. I sh!t you not.

^There was also the Orthodox priest who, when somebody said that "democracy is the worst system of government in the world, except for all the other kinds," replied, "well, except for a godly monarch."

Okay...

The Orthodox priest was wrong. There is very little to recommend a theocracy, whether it is based on a religious foundation, or based upon an erroneous secular foundation, like the cultural Marxism nonsense that no prayer must ever be uttered in school. Is everyone aware that "the words "separation of church and States" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, and that the Washington DC capital buildings were used for religious services on Sundays for many years after the founding of our nation?

Our founders were smarter than that, and created a form of government that prohibits both, and all other forms of tyranny.

Our founders created a form of government that prohibits Marxism? There is a Communist Party USA, after all.

Wouldn't prohibiting "Marxism" actually be a form of tyranny?

Depends upon whether they are engaging in an insurgency or overt combat to overthrow our form of government or not. Ditto Islam.

It would certainly bollox dating opportunities for penumbral Sparts.

The Orthodox priest was wrong.

Sweet G-d, I wasn't suggesting that he was right. His comment had nothing to do with a theocracy, though; he was another one who was literally a Tsarist, inasmuch as he was in love with Nicholas the Second, who would have been lovely tending roses in Somerset.

But it isn't entirely clear that you're really responding to anybody at all here except yourself.

I certainly had not considered the possibility that you were a reflection of myself.

I see that dnldlcln's "location" has changed from (The Sovereign State Of) Arizona to, ah, "American."

The writing is on the wall. The darkness is at noon. Dress appropriately.

If the founders prohibited fascism, how do you explain Trump and Cline?

While the Constitution doesn't prohibit Marxism de jure, eminent early 20th Century historian Charles Beard did argue it was a counter-revolutionary move to secure power for the capital-holding elite, and undermine "the radical democratic tendencies unleashed by the Revolution among the common people, especially farmers and debtors." Maybe that's why, when Thomas Paine returned to America from France in 1802, "Federalists attacked him for his ideas of government stated in Common Sense, George Washington abandoned him, he was denied the right to vote as the Governor of New York "did not recognize him as an American", and only six mourners (two of them black) came to his funeral. (all quotes are from Wikepedia)

Calling yourself a radical-lefty is OK, but actually acting like one got you executed by robber barons (Homestead strikers), executed by the local Law (the Haymarket martyrs; Joe Hill; Harlan County War; Fred Hampton), executed by redneck goons (Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner; Greensboro), executed by the National Guard (Pullmann strike; Kent State), beaten-arrested-imprisoned-deported by the Feds (the Palmer raids), blacklisted (HUAC)...

So, yeah, for the de facto government stance on marxism, 'tyranny' might be an understatement.

As for the founders creating a form of government that prohibits all forms of tyranny that protects the individual from the whims of oligarchs and warlords "every time, no exceptions," I think Nat Turner and Taoyateduta would beg to disagree on the de jure point...

You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between the Rule of Law and outlawry. You seem to think if government (or the people) violate the law or the principle of the Rule of Law, then the law has been changed or is clearly defeated. That sort of view is the result of thinking that the Rule of Man is superior to the Rule of Law. Fundamentally, that is a false, fraudulent, and in many cases self-serving philosophy. If you wish to understand what I am saying, it would be better to adopt the position that the Rule of Law is our foundation of government and start demanding it be enforced rather than trying to claim it is irrelevant because rogue government and criminals (I repeat myself) violate it.

If you cannot, or are unwilling, to take that oath, or your adult immigrant co-workers cannot or are unwilling to, none of you should be here.

I'll join you in ignoring any mention of it being a joke about the oath. These are serious issues nobody should be allowed to jest about.

Guilt by association? How's that for individual's inalienable rights...

But given how you seem to believe even former membership would or should be grounds for exile (assuming your here meant the country), what' are your views on personal growth or ideological conversion?

Not to mention how little the Chinese "communist" party has resembled or even been related to marxism or communist ideology in decades.

Same with what the media calls “radical” Islam, which is not radical to the creed of Islam at all.

How would your muslim-free America work with personal freedom triumphing government enforcement? This is a serious question and I'm eagerly awaiting your educated insights; I assume the "go to hell" in your previous reply to me was merely a unthoughtful knee jerk reaction flowing from private feelings of insecurity, and not spite directed at me for asking a simple question.*

* There's no evidence that Lenin used the term "useful idiots", especially to refer to his followers, regardless of countless attributions (all without first hand sources).

In the order listed:

"Guilt by association?" Nothing I said advocates guilt by association. If they are foreign citizens on U.S. soil, they are subject to U.S. law regardless of their personal creed. If they cannot submit to our law then they shouldn't be here. If a citizen of our country cannot submit to our law then they should be legally sanctioned. OTOH, if either is willing to submit to our law then an oath to do so should not be impossible for them. (By 'law,' of course, I'm not referring to any fiat government decides to impose; I am referring to Constitutional law government is authorized to legislate and enforce and adjudicate.

Re "personal growth and ideological conversion": I believe in both, and I believe they can go either way -- i.e., to an appreciation for the principles of liberty under the Rule of Law our nation was founded to preserve and protect or to a hatred of it. Though I would not call the latter "personal growth," but that is merely an opinion.

Re "Chinese 'communist' party": Irrelevant. While the hair-splitting indicators of "true" Marxism may have become blurred as its leadership realizes the ideology is failing economically and in every other way, it remains an authoritarian tyranny at all levels, with neighborhood party apparatchiks holding the power of life and death over their "subjects." A couple of years ago villagers in a Chinese province became incensed over the local apparatchiks confiscating the property of villagers to sell to developers for their own profit, and started raising hell demanding to be "heard" by the Party. Finally the Party came in with force and promised to "listen" but "no more disruption on pain of death!" Okay, so they listened, saw what was going on, made a big show of "firing" the local apparatchiks (read "transferred them to another province after confiscating most of their ill-gotten gains, leaving them the balance as a bonus for good work"), and promising the locals that it would not happen again. A few weeks later the ringleaders of the demonstrations were quietly "disappeared" or found to be the victims of "unfortunate accidents." Whether it meets the precise definitions of "Marxism" or "Fascism" established by the Piled Higher and Deeper crowd or not, it is totalitarianism on steroids and once established can never be abolished.

Re "Muslim-free America." A few years ago my wife was advancing the corporate ladder as a purchasing agent. She had a string of successive positions in different companies, primarily due to the fact that she was treated like s--t by her corporate superiors, and seemed to have no recourse. She was talked down to, required to work overtime without overtime pay (being salaried), skipped over for raises and promotions, insulted, and generally mistreated. After six companies, the very first supervisor to treat her with respect, who rewarded her good work, who touted her qualities to upper management, who got her raises, who gave her excellent reviews, etc., etc., was a self-professed devout Muslim with a Master's in business administration from Egypt. I don't know his immigrations status, whether he was naturalized or not. This was, however, before ISIS, before Al Qaida, etc. Knowing what I know now about Islam, about the fact their Qu'ran REQUIRES them to lie, cheat, steal, and do whatever is necessary to gain dominance over the infidel, would I trust him? No, but neither would I restrict him absent hostile indications. But today we are at war. I don't think we were right to intern Japanese during WWII, and I don't think we should intern Muslim today. But we sure as hell don't need to admit any more without very careful vetting (which is impossible in many cases) and absolute prohibition against the rise of Sharia Law. If they want to live here they are subject to our law.

Re "go to hell": I don't tell people to "go to hell;" it does not lead to constructive dialogue. I therefore reject your quote.

Re Lenin's "useful idiot" quote. See the discussion at http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=135140

Democratic? Your brainwashing is showing. The founders were adamantly opposed to a democracy, describing it as follows, after describing its historical results: "A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." –James Madison,

Funny how much that sounds like what fueled the rise of Donald Trump.

By "funny" I presume you mean "strange."

But there is nothing funny or strange about it. Fundamental principles is exactly what has fueled the rise of Donald Trump.

Wars are not won by being nice, and we are at war. Communists and communist sympathizers — whores, one and all — have declared war on our nation and our liberties and have been conducting an insurgency to that end since 1925. I do not apologize for calling those who support that ideology, which is totally devoid of moral principle, integrity, or decency, whores. I also admit to using the term to wake up those who support it ignorantly, hoping they will defend themselves and be forced to examine their perspective. They must we awakened to the reality; we are on the very precipice of losing our Rule of Law permanently; we have already lost it temporarily.

Hmmm. Your words sound familiar:

Germany is today the next great war aim of Bolshevism. It requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent, and to stop the inner contamination of our blood, in order that the forces of the nation thus set free can be thrown in to safeguard our nationality, and thus can prevent a repetition of the recent catastrophes down to the most distant future.

If we pursue this aim, it is sheer lunacy to ally ourselves with a power whose master is the mortal enemy of our future. How can we expect to free our own people from the fetters of this poisonous embrace if we walk right into it? How shall we explain Bolshevism to the German worker as an accursed crime against humanity if we ally ourselves with the organizations of this spawn of hell, thus recognizing it in the larger sense?

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1924.

I see little or no comparison between the two either in purpose on in straight text. Given what is clearly going on in Europe because of their incredibly naïve and stupid open borders to Muslims, are you seriously suggesting America should suffer the same fate lest we sound like Hitler?

Except for Old Rock Dave (thank you for the substance in spite of your elitist contempt), nothing I've seen here from anyone rises to the level of a serious discussion, let alone debate.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Seriously, though. I'm laughing my posterior off at you. You whine about there not being "serious" discussion and debate here, and yet you call people whores, Commies, and all manner of other names. You, sir, are a flaming hypocrite unworthy of serious engagement.

In the words on one famous fantasy princess, "Laugh it up, Furball."

So prove me wrong. Prove to me those I am calling Commie whores, Marxist Mafia, etc., are not freaking whores selling out our nation for their own aggrandizement and power trip. You accuse me of "whining" about you not engaging in serious debate, and yet all you can do is whine about me calling our nation's internal enemies exactly what they are. Yet, contrary to your empty assertion; I am not whining: I am challenging. I expect this from you and some others on this board because that's what leftists have trained you to do since birth -- don't challenge what you are told; listen to authority, don't make people feel uncomfortable, government knows what's best for you, "I'm from the government; I'm here to help you." And when the entire infrastructure falls apart because of these adam henries, you are taught to blame not those who are leading you down the garden path; you are taught to blame those who are calling these rogue occupation government whores what they are. Yes, I am calling for a serious discussion. Are you up to it?

Which “Capital”? And you are using obfuscation to analyze erudition; typical of a sophomore.

Sadmar nailed it. :-)

Quoted by Saul Alinsky in "Rules for Radicals." Ask him when you get to Hell.

More of Mr. Cline's "serious debate," I believe.

Mr. Cline is definitely a troll, and what do we do with trolls? One thing we do not do is to feed them. I succumbed to the temptation just now. Sorry.

As for Mr. Cline's flooding the thread with numerous annoying comments, if it persists I might have to put him on the slow moderate filter. His comments will get through, but only when I get around to approving them, which could be anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours to overnight if he posts right before my bedtime. :-)

Your call. I wouldn't be surprised; that's what the Marxist mafia's 'useful idiots' always do when they can't debate the issues or face the discomfort of finding out they and their parents, grandparents, great grandparents -- however many back to at least Abraham Lincoln -- have been lied to since birth. It is the Marxist/Fascist/totalitarian way: If your thesis is challenged, shut off the challenger. And when they win, the challengers are not merely shut off; they are always locked up and most catch a bullet in the back of the head and a mass grave. Before you filter me out, do a little research and find out how many genocides have occurred in the world in the last one hundred years because the ideologies I'm fighting won, and how many innocent people have been murdered. Then you might want to decide if you want to help it happen again on our own soil.

I just knew an allusion to Alinsky had to appear, sooner or later (there is an offshoot of the Woo Order that loves to complain about "Alinsky tactics" whenever it is getting its rhetorical butt kicked).

Mr. Cline is probably disappointed that Lyndon Larouche isn't being discussed as a serious Presidential candidate this time around. :(

That's what the Alinsky model does, rhetorically -- i.e., without a shred of substance -- kick the butt of the opposition. Do I need to point out that Hillary Clinton's political science thesis paper was a swoon for Saul Alinsky, with the caveat that she didn't think he was willing to use naked force enough?
And btw, calling people who oppose political tyranny the "Woo Order" and other pejorative names does not limit the political tyranny they oppose; rather, it facilitates it. Using that technique marks you as a supporter of political tyranny.

Donny: What, did you pull a Rip Van Winkle from 2000 to 2008? Bush the younger was easily one of the worst presidents we ever had. Other dishonorable mentions include Warren G Harding, who spent his time in office cheating on his wife and ignoring both international politics and domestic scandals- look up teapot dome on Google,William Henry Harrison, who died in office because he decided to give a super long speech on a very cold day, leaving the office to an unprepared vice president, and Millard Fillmore, another president who certainly deserves to be considered as among the worst for his role in the Missouri Compromise which led directly to the Civil War. Sobering up does not make up for the years they spent killing brain cells, and the bizarre ways they compensated for the loss of their vice. In contrast, Ulysses Grant, who was pretty much a functioning alcoholic by today's standards, managed to be a competent, if unmemorable and unskilled president. Most of the post-Revolutionary war presidents would also be considered functioning alcoholics by today's standards, and yet they managed to keep the country together.

JP:I’m not sure what difference having a figurehead with little actual power makes, but whatever floats your boat.
It actually makes a fair amount of difference- look at England from 1900 on, or Japan post World- War 2. Humans are conditioned to want figureheads, and in emergencies, monarchs are good rallying points. In a constitutional monarchy, people are protected from the ruler's whims and the ruler is often perceived to be able to curb reckless politicians, regardless of their actual power. Also, politicians can occasionally influence the selection of an heir- for example, though Prince Charles of England is the first-in line to the British throne, odds are that in the event of the Queen's death, his son will actually inherit, since Charles has made too many enemies in Parliament.
Studying history has made me convinced that straight-up monarchy is a stupid idea, as for every good king or queen, there's ten bad ones. At this point, though, I'm kinda thinking that humans are too stupid to deserve good governance.

I gather you seem to be under the delusion that I support the presidency of George W. or H.W. Bush. I certainly do not; aside from his visible support for the military they were both atrocious presidents, almost as bad as Jimmy Carter but nowhere near as viciously bad as Clinton, who wasn't anywhere near as totally lawless and incompetent (or illegal by reason of lack of natural born citizenship) as ZeroBama (incompetent as a president; brilliant as an enemy agent), who will prove to be a piker compared to the vindictive narcissist destroyer Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I read the rest of your treatise and found nothing to dissuade me that there is one form of government that overcomes your "kinda thinking" that humans are too stupid to deserve good governance: You might be interested to know that in spite of your litany of complaints about presidents of old, the book "1900," published at the turn of the century, pointed out that the American Constitution, with its system of checks and balances, and in particular its monetary system of intrinsic value, had advanced the living standard of the average working man, woman, and child more than it had advanced during the previous 25 centuries. That for the first time in history a nation was able to peacefully transfer power from one leadership to the next without war, without scuffle, without conquest. Then the adam henries we fought of in the War for Independence got their corrupt hooks into us again and we lost State control of the federal government; we lost our right to enjoy the fruits of our labors, and we lost our monetary system of intrinsic value. Today the descendants of the same banking families to whom Great Britain was a wholly-owned subsidiary when we won our independence from them are once again owners of our entire economy. They predicted they would be by the year 1900 when Andrew Jackson kicked them out with extreme prejudice in 1832, but they were 13 years late, executing their economic and political 'coup' in 1913. They also predicted regaining political control in the year 2000. They're about that late again, and they are getting damned impatient.

Good Kings: Elvis, B. B., Carole.
Good Queens: Queen
Good Princes: Prince

As for the rest:

God save the queen / The fascist regime / Made you a moron / Potential H-bomb

God save the queen / She ain't no human being / There is no future In England's dreaming

Don't be told what you want / Don't be told what you need / There's no future, no future, / No future for you

Oh God save history / God save your mad parade / Oh Lord God have mercy / All crimes are paid

When there's no future / How can there be sin / We're the flowers in the dustbin / We're the poison in your human machine / We're the future, your future

God save the queen / We mean it man / There is no future
In England's dreaming

No future, no future, no future for you
No future, no future, no future for me
No future, no future, no future for you
No future
No future
For You!

It seems that Trump has had some memory problems for a while now. Perhaps dementia has set in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/07/donald-trump-…

And you give credit to a smarmy leftist rag like the Post?

I wasn't talking to you or about you. The subject of this post was the folly of diagnosis without even meeting the person in question. But your confusion is partly my fault - I forgot the sarcasm tags.

The Washington Post left leaning editorial position is well known, and not in dispute. However, it appears that when you are presented with a story you don't like, you think that saying "It's the Washington Compost" is enough of a rebuttal.

So let's do some fact checking -

The article notes Trump saying

Hillary and her top aides told the FBI and others related in the lawsuits that they couldn’t recall or remember -- can't remember anything! ... By the way, if she really can't remember, she can't be president! She doesn't remember anything! She doesn't even remember whether or not she was instructed on how to use emails. 'Were you instructed on how to use?' 'I can't remember.'

Do you deny the accuracy of this quote?

The article goes on the quote Trump's sworn testimony, where several of his answers were basically 'I don't remember'.

Do you deny the accuracy of the quoted portion of the transcripts? Do you think that Trump was lying about his ability to remember?

In short, can you point to a statement of fact in the article that is wrong, and back up that assertion with anything other than 'It's the Post, so they can't be trusted'?

I do not deny the accuracy of the first quote. (I heard him say it myself.)

I cannot testify as to the accuracy and inaccuracy of the second quote, and because of the Post's well-known left-leaning editorial stance I am suspicious of both its accuracy and of their intent in bringing it up. They support the Clinton criminal regime, and for that reason I am skeptical of anything they say and of the reasons they say it.

FWIW, I am also concerned about a Trump presidency. But I am terrified for my country at the prospect of a Hillary presidency regardless of whether she has Parkinson's or not. She's a freaking vindictive narcissist monster, and my only hope if she is elected is that she go off the rails so far and so fast that she is put in a padded cell somewhere before she can do much damage.

D'oh!

Stupid lack of preview...

Comedy gold here. I’m tellin’ ya, ya can’t make stuff like this up.

Yup, the very idea is already an auto-joke, and one can only imagine the unintentional absurdist joke that the actual show will deliver.

Friday evening, when Rachel Maddow reported that Trump will reveal his "health regimen" on The Doctor Oz Show, laughter erupted from off-camera when she said "Oz", and she did a sort of 'Yeah, I know. Oz take to the camera in response.

Perhaps The Donald will be announcing the creation of Trump Hospital on-line seminars, and a branded line of dietary 'Trumplements' to share his health secrets with the rubes masses, all endorsed by the great Oz, natch.

@Narad #177

"Hillary Clinton's handler is clealy not Dr. Oladotun Okunola" because he is really one touchy-feely secret service agent named Todd Madison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8yF4ckv92g

@ Lawrence:

Oh my. You have actually revealed your *other* career-
I've always suspected as much.

“personal growth and ideological conversion”: I believe in both,

So do I. Therefore I think the whole McCarthyist hunt for the Communist boogeyman, especially the "nor have I ever been..." part is stupid, fruitless and contrary to the great American values. I'd refuse to swear that oath - not because I'm a communist (I'm not, not that it matters) but because of it's witch-huntiness.

Which is the oath JustaTech made the joke about - I'm also making the wild assumption here that it was considerably later than the 40s and 50s (hence the joke - I doubt it was funny at the time).

Apologies to JustaTech for explaining the joke.

Re Lenin’s “useful idiot” quote. See the discussion at http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=135140

This is turning into mountain-out-of-a-mole-hill type of thing, but irregardless...

My estimation still stands; No first-hand evidence exists, only a tradition of attribution that is usually without source, or refers to other n:th-hand attributions. Could he have said it? Sure, but it's not in anything he has written, and to my knowledge no person has come forward as claiming they heard him say it. So I personally avoid quoting him saying it, and occasionally point this out when somebody does. Haven't read the History and Impact of Marxist-Leninist Organizational Theory mentioned in your link, and unless a copy conveniently appears before me, I probably won't - I have far too many unread books I actually want to read for that.

The term (or rather, "useful fools") was supposedly in use before Lenin was born, by Polish agents to describe nihilists before and during the January uprising of 1864.

Re “go to hell”: I don’t tell people to “go to hell;” it does not lead to constructive dialogue. I therefore reject your quote.

Your words: Ask him when you get to Hell.

For sure, go implies the journey, get the destination, but I still think that was an unnecessary addition hampering the chances of constructive dialogue.

Without adding to the 'mountain out of a molehill' you mention, I would like to correct a misapprehension on your part. I didn't intend my remark to be regarded as an admonition to "go to hell," though I can see now how you might have thought that. I was referring more to my certainty that Saul Alinsky is cooking there, and that failure to arise in opposition to tyranny and oppression will lead others there to meet him.

January Uprising of 1863 for those keeping count.

-btw-
As an active observer, I must note that woo-world has become thoroughly political, anti-Hillary propaganda whilst applauding the Orange One and/ or Third/ Fourth Party unlikely winners.

My own speculation ( see Natural News/ hear prn.fm) is that these guys are frightened of powerful women in charge and/ or HIGHER TAXES for high earners like themselves. Both would get a tax cut if Trump wins.. Increased taxes if she wins.

So right, our astute political freedom fighters are basically greedy - wanting to cling to their ill-gotten gains.

Well, that's an epic fail of gargantuan proportions.

First, I am certainly not in fear of powerful women in charge; I have always encouraged women to take command of their environment.

Secondly, why do you call "keeping the fruits of your labors" to be "ill-gotten gains"? And in the instant case, if you are including me in your perception of greedy producers who add to the gross national product, for your information I am retired on less than $15K a year. When you've been fighting illegal government in the courts and in the media as long as I have you can't afford to put anything away for retirement: Government will confiscate it. I don't think I'm being "greedy" to object to having to pay taxes on MY money that was illegally robbed from me by a socialist government program and is slowly doled back to me monthly in the Ponzi scheme known as "social Security." And I don't think I'm being greedy when I object to Keynesian economics designed, according to John Maynard Keynes' own words "to siphon off the wealth of a nation in a manner not one man in a million can detect."

It's bad enough to have a rogue occupation government; to have one that is itself but mere puppets of an international banking cartel is adding insult to injury.

I should note that if we do go with Mr. Cline's method of security, a group of troublemakers could simply spread rumors that firefighters, policemen, air traffic controllers, surgeons, and baristas are all Commie Mutant Traitors (TM), and let paranoia do the rest of the work.

Like the Democrats, you don't think much of the average American's powers of discernment, do you? On second thought, it appears to me we already have that level of bovine excrement in a communist-inspired movement called "Black Lives Matter." And almost none of the Americans I associate with give their B.E. the time of day.

@Denice:

I think the reason why the quacks and the woo crowd like Donald Trump so much is that they recognize him as one of their own, just as much a believer in ridiculous conspiracy theories as they are.

What "ridiculous conspiracy theories" are those? And when you list them, please recite chapter and verse why you believe each "conspiracy theory" is "ridiculous." Facts, now, not knee-jerk "conventional wisdom," which has never been conventional and has never been wisdom.

OK, Here's one (of many): Donald Trump believes that vaccines cause autism and there's a cover-up by pharma and government to hide that "fact." That Trump believes this pseudoscientific conspiracy theory is beyond a doubt. If you don't believe me, I can easily provide many quotes by The Donald himself posted on Twitter and quoted in news stories dating back at least to 2007 in which he says just that. Given how often Trump changes his position on so many other matters, I sometimes joke that the belief that vaccines cause autism is perhaps the only position that Trump isn't taken both sides of at one time or another.

I haven't heard him say that, so perhaps he has been informed that the study claiming that has been thoroughly debunked in peer review and has been withdrawn by its author.

I agree with P. J. O'Rourke:

"I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place. She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters.

He also wrote:

Better the devil you know than the Lord of the Flies on his own 757. Flying to and fro in the earth, with gold-plated seatbelt buckles, talking nativist, isolationist, mercantilist, bigoted, rude, and vulgar crap.

Another commentator addicted to the Kool-Aid. (And his "normal parameters" are so far out in left field you can't see him for the haze.)

And if a few minutes of edited video are proof of Parkinson's, can we agree that the various times that The Donald has forgotten his positions and come up with new ones indicates his dementia?

And not the good Dr. Demento kind.

No agreement there on either point.

This is not a game and I am not here to get my jollies off [sic]. I’m here to advocate the restoration of the principles our nation was founded to preserve and protect.

Yes, random threadjacking will most assuredly save the nation. You're here for attention, pure and simple.

Here for the attention to the issues, for sure.

the woo crowd like Donald Trump

Well I loathe him. Much to my chagrin, Infowars has become the Trump channel these past many months -- It is, after all, a driving force.

I don't like his wall talk; I don't like his 'law and order' police get tough talk. Prison populations exploded under and after the Clintons {omnibus crime bill} -- mostly pot smokers. I don't like Gary Johnson either. There simply is no palatible choice this cycle; It's all the same guff.

I will predict a rapid move to forced microchipping of the population under Clinton as that was the buzz following from her health care suggestions back in the '90s. -- Hell, they'll probably call it Hillary Chip just to rub it in.... that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. -- Revelation 13:17

Fair statement. Here is another, and it is not opinion; it is fact: Vote for Trump or you will get Hillary and probably her micro-chip plan, among others. Simple fact: Vote for anyone else or don't vote at all, and you get Hillarybeast.

Gilbert would get along great with the conspiracy theory guy from the psych ward, right down to the Biblical quotes.

( see Natural News/ hear prn.fm)

I'm tempted, but I don't know that it would be good for my mental health.

Oh, deer. Reading Mr. Cline is like listening to my almost 90 year old dad. It is bad enough my dad has Fox News blaring during every waking moment, I am just very glad he does not have a computer, nor desire to go on the internet.

Everything my dad does not like is "commie this" or "commie that." I cut him off short one time when I told hm that is was an economic model. It was exactly the same economic model we lived when we lived on base when he was an Army officer. You have your assigned housing, you shop in the PX/commissary and get to where certain clothing.

How did that cut him off? Your analogy is exactly correct. The difference is, under a commie government you don't have any choice about it. And Socialism is nothing but communism where the Kommissars haven't yet drawn their weapons. (In our case it's because they haven't yet conned us into giving up ours.)

"And you give credit to a smarmy leftist rag like the Post?"

The newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos, who tilts libertarian? That is hilarious.

Jeff Bezos only bought the Post nine days ago; that's hardly enough time for the Post's evil reputation to wear off.

Correction: Jeff Bezos bought the Post in 2013, and he is a Clinton Foundation donor. So much for "tilts libertarian."

So much for "tilts libertarian:" Correction: Bezos bought the Post in 2013, and he is a Clinton Foundation donor.

It's DADDY, sh!thead, and where's my grain water and alcohol?

^grain alcohol and water!!1!1!!, although I guess "grain water" is my new euphemism for beer.

^ Which I shouldn't drink, but am no longer legally prohibited from drinking, so there, expired LRA.

Mr. Cline: "Jeff Bezos only bought the Post nine days ago; that’s hardly enough time for the Post’s evil reputation to wear off."

Bah ha ha ha... Let's dance the time warp again! You obviously don't know that the blue letters are links. It is an article.

Here is a little song for you, since you are full of joy and laughter:

Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Rawhide!
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Though the threads are swollen
Keep them comments trollin',
Rawhide!

Move 'em on
(Head em' up!)
Head em' up
(Move 'em on!)
Move 'em on
(Head em' up!)
Rawhide!
Cut 'em out
(Paste 'em in!)
Paste'em in
(Cut em' out!)
Cut 'em out
Paste 'em in,
Rawhide!
Keep trollin', trollin', trollin'
Though they're disaprovin'
Keep them comments trollin'',
Rawhide
Don't try to understand 'em
Just rope, laugh, and ignore 'em
Soon we'll be discussin' bright without 'em

You obviously don’t know that the blue letters are links.

Oh, I think he does at least know what blue letters are; green ink, I'm not so sure.

I do wonder if he thinks my lifetime ban on firearm ownership due to SMI is legitimate or not, or if he thinks crazies like me should be allowed to own guns.

(I really shouldn't start something like this.)

Let's discuss it. I don't know what "SMI" is, but as a general philosophy, if you are not a proven threat to society, you have the right to keep and bear arms. And if you are a proven threat to society and a firearm is your weapon of choice, you are going to get one anyway, so what's the point of a ban? In the latter case, the way to deal with the offender is to lock him up, not deprive everyone of their 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment rights in the forlorn hope of keeping a thug from getting a gun.

Ah! So, you *are* aware of the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution.
One that undermines the notion that the states are sovereign by its very wording. What sovereignty that remains is because of that amendment.
Howinhell a person gives up that right because convicted felons are denied access to a firearm is a lot beyond me, not to mention the other oddly listed amendments.
Or are you advocating for ignoring the Constitutional prohibition of indefinite detainment without charge or ignoring sentencing limitations, again, to hell with what the Constitution says?

Of course I am aware of the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. I just wish government was, and would honor it. It is our fault, the people, for not requiring it.
It certainly does not undermine the notion that the States are sovereign by its very wording; The States wrote it and demanded it (and the other ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights, which was originally all one amendment) before they would agree to ratify the Constitution.
Here is an example of duplicitous governance, Wzrd1: The States demand the Bill of Rights, but right from the beginning the theory of government was that the Constitution only restricted the federal government; it did not restrict the State governments. In other words, the States were terrified that the federal government would become too powerful (and it certainly has!) yet they wanted to be total dictatorships themselves. This theory of government lasted right up until the 14th Amendment.
The problem is, the theory was bogus right from the git-go, and here is why: The theory was based on James Madison's claim, written before the Bill of Rights, and before the Constitution was even ratified, in an effort to get it ratified, that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." (James Madison, Federalist No. 45.)

This was a marketing effort to get the Constitution ratified. But Madison ALSO wrote, in the Constitution itself, the following (in pertinent part): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (Article VI Clause 2.) Thus the Constitution as amended has ALWAYS applied to the States as much as the feds, and the States ratified it with that wording.
Rights cannot be taken without due process of law (Amendment V), but unfortunately it has been assumed that rights may be taken WITH due process of law, and permanently, too, which I consider to be wrong. A person convicted of a criminal law should have his rights restored upon satisfactory completion of his sentence, and if his crime was so violent as to indicate an ongoing danger to society, then the solution is to keep him locked up, not let him out where he can ignore the weapon prohibition and wreak havoc.
You mention "indefinite detainment without charge," which is clearly not a felony conviction, and is illegal under the Fifth. I can't give you legal advice on how to proceed, but I strongly recommend a lawyer. OTOH, it sounded earlier like this was a previous circumstance, so if it was a felony, have you investigated getting your rights restored? Don't answer, none of this is anyone's business but yours; I'm just bringing it up for your consideration. Depending on circumstances, felons have on occasion gotten their rights back.

Anybody else remember a right wing doctor making a totally wrong diagnosis from video? If not let me remind you of Tennessee's former US Senator Bill Frist. He is a very well qualified doctor. He graduated from Princeton and then Harvard Medical School. He is a cardiothoracic surgeon. He has trained and practiced at some of the best hospitals in the world (Massachusetts General, Southampton General (England), Stanford University and Vanderbilt). Anybody questioning his ability as a cardiothoracic surgeon would be crazy.

That still did not qualify him to make a diagnosis that should have been made by a neurologist that actually saw the patient. He blew the Terri Schiavo diagnosis big time. He let his political and religious beliefs get in the way of his intelligence and common sense. He disagreed with Terri Schiavo's doctors after studying video of her. As expected by any clearly thinking person, he was proved wrong by her autopsy results. Medical ethicist at the time criticized him for making the diagnosis because he was not a neurologist and he had not examined the patient. Doctor Ted Noel should suffer the same criticizems for doing the same thing.

JP: "(I really shouldn’t start something like this.)"

No. Because it leads to what public services should allow those that are autistic, like my oldest, and those who have other disabilities (physical, mental, etc) to function in society.

If the fool wants to it make a matter of "choice", well newsflash: if we had to choose we would not choose the very real issues that impact our lives. The request is not special treatment, but accommodations to function and resources that actually help.

By the way, I have no intention of any direct interaction with him. He is a troll.

Too late. By calling me a "troll,' you are interacting with me, or trying to. But aside from that, my sympathies to you and your oldest for the autism. My grandson is on that spectrum as well, so I sympathize.

By the way, I have no intention of any direct interaction with him. He is a troll.

You're right, I shouldn't. But the house is clean, there are no oats to make a peach crisp (perks of letting your "adult" daughter stay with you), and the cat is asleep in a box.

BTW, you were right about Apple Health. It beats any insurance I've ever had, including the Cadillac coverage at U of M.

Anybody opposed to the border fence can't be all bad.

Anyone in favor of an open border policy cannot be any good.

Anyone who hates communism so that he goes on at excessive length, even about things utterly unrelated to communism, yet wants a New Berlin Wall at the US Southern border, well, I refer to that as being reality challenged.
Add in engineering and logistical barriers to building such a thing sufficient to cost more than a World War to overcome, fiscal responsibility is also a foreign term.

So how would you keep out illegal aliens? Or do you think we should have open borders, where ISIS is free to walk in unannounced?

This has actually gotten pretty old.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-has-parkinsons-disease/

http://www.snopes.com/clintons-secret-service-agent-holds-diazepam-pen/

There's more evidence in support of Hillary being a space alien than any of the above claims, which means, zero evidence.

I can believe that. :)

JP: "BTW, you were right about Apple Health. It beats any insurance I’ve ever had, including the Cadillac coverage at U of M."

:-)

Happiness is a good safety net.

Hmmm, reading the Cline Clatter reminds me that I need to write my dad. He does not do email (yay!), so in order to communicate to him I must write a snail mail.

I have some lovely stationary, so it is not a chore. I can't wait to tell him about our urban deer.

Gilly: Funny, you and Trump are developmentally the same age- you still think girls have cooties. Why not just join his campaign already? You can use the local office for smoking your brain-killing weed, since no one's there to notice.

Don-don: The 1964 John Birch Society called- they want their book and their platform back. You should really check your sources; I suspect the 1900 book is in the same genre as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion-- another fake history book for dimbulbs. I bet you hate flouride too.

You're hilarious. FYI, since you clearly are educationally-challenged in such matters, at every turn of the century since the invention of the printing press, a book is published (usually by a society formed to celebrate the turn of the century) describing the events, disasters, accomplishments, social and technological advancements, etc., of the previous one hundred years. The John Birch Society has nothing to do with it and nothing to do with me, though I am acquainted with a few of their members. And I use Stannous Fluoride daily. (Might I suggest you learn something before you try the know-it-all gig?)

Well thank goodness Our Little Donald included a quack Miranda warning (TP version*) on his website. Otherwise we might be misled into taking any of his delusions seriously.
.
Trivia question: What does an Arizona TP member yell at the neighborhood kids?
A. "Get off my lawn!"
B. "Get off my astroturf!"
C. "Get off my xeriscape!"
.
* Can stand for either toilet paper or Tea Party. Makes little difference in this context.

Readers may take the above insulting message as a textbook example of the Cultural Marxism method of curtailing dissent. It has worked for many years because most decent people don't care for political conflict, and tend to leave forums where this technique is used, leaving the political apparatchik as the last person standing forth and thus unopposed. However, in later years, having learned who designed this insidious and vicious technique of insurgency and why, people have learned how to deal with it: We deal with it as free men and women refusing to knuckle under to a bunch of thugs by calling them out for it and standing toe-to-toe with them slugging it out on any forum in which it is employed. Sorry, Opus (check that; I'm not sorry) but your game is exposed.

This is not a game and I am not here to get my jollies off [sic]. I’m here to advocate the restoration of the principles our nation was founded to preserve and protect.

Yes, random threadjacking will most assuredly save the nation. You’re here for attention, pure and simple.

Here for the attention to the issues, for sure.

"The issues"? Do you more mean trotting out the ingenious line "the Bitch of Benghazi" or the Bastiat–Birch spit-up? No, you're an attention whore. Not only that, it comes with a prima donna shake-shake-shake the yardstick up your ass routine so that people who never solicited your presence in the first place have to address you properly in order for you to Correct Their Misunderstanding of The Law.

Your rhetorical "high point" seems to be neither more nor less prose so gassy that it could be worked into that metaphor.

It's quite comical. I mean, not only are you apparently the Maurine Meleck of the Payson Roundup, you cherish your righteous little epistles so much that you get asshurt when they're not run.*

Then there's the failure to so much as figure out where you are, so long as the Bell of Onan is tolling, or something:

I just knew an allusion to Alinsky had to appear, sooner or later (there is an offshoot of the Woo Order that loves to complain about “Alinsky tactics” whenever it is getting its rhetorical butt kicked). . . .

[ . . . ]
And btw, calling people who oppose political tyranny the “Woo Order” and other pejorative names does not limit the political tyranny they oppose; rather, it facilitates it. Using that technique marks you as a supporter of political tyranny.

Well played, Mr "Words Have Meanings."

You're also weaselly:

If you cannot, or are unwilling, to take that [anticommunist] oath, or your adult immigrant co-workers cannot or are unwilling to, none of you should be here.

I’ll join you in ignoring any mention of it being a joke about the oath. These are serious issues nobody should be allowed to jest about.

Guilt by association? How’s that for individual’s inalienable rights…

“Guilt by association?” Nothing I said advocates guilt by association. [Hi, I'm a fantast. Allow me to change the subject.] If they are foreign citizens on U.S. soil, they are subject to U.S. law regardless of their personal creed. If they cannot submit to our law then they shouldn’t be here. If a citizen of our country cannot submit to our law then they should be legally sanctioned. OTOH, if either is willing to submit to our law then an oath to do so should not be impossible for them.

What the fυcking hell? Now it's "our law," lowercase? That's what you're whinging about in the first place. Did your shift key break? What is this law that is full of oathy goodness?

You're a low-rent operation even compared with the dental student babbling about praxeology, Cline. Oh, and if you reply, do it using the regular interface, not the broken nested-reply one, because I'm not you. Otherwise, don't hold your breath. Or do, I don't care.

* This one is fantastically ironic, BTW. Compare with this bit of spasmodic knee jerking:

As for Mr. Cline’s flooding the thread with numerous annoying comments, if it persists I might have to put him on the slow moderate filter. . . .

Your call. I wouldn’t be surprised; that’s what the Marxist mafia’s ‘useful idiots’ always do when they can’t debate the issues or face the discomfort of finding out they and their parents, grandparents, great grandparents — however many back to at least Abraham Lincoln — have been lied to since birth. It is the Marxist/Fascist/totalitarian way: If your thesis is challenged, shut off the challenger. And when they win, the challengers are not merely shut off; they are always locked up and most catch a bullet in the back of the head and a mass grave. Before you filter me out, do a little research and find out how many genocides have occurred in the world in the last one hundred years because the ideologies I’m fighting won, and how many innocent people have been murdered.

Yes, having one's comments on somebody else's site being set to "no instant gratification" is like being shot in the back of the head. Jesus Christ.

Anyway, I find it amusing that Meyer Weinberg has a "KeyWiki" entry. The whole skeleton Komsomol routine is priceless.

My, my! How you do go on! :) Okay, you've vented your terrible head of steam over the challenge to your worldview. Do you feel better now?

Reading my last message to Opus may be instructive to you, since you seem to have a desperate desire for attention yourself. But the difference is, you haven't said one thing that would advance or improve our liberties, our human condition, our protection from tyranny, our understanding of political intrigue or of political history. The only thing you know how to do is erupt in faux outrage at someone who is calling attention to those issues. And your faux outrage is so excessive you can't even put thoughts together that make sense or apply to any of the issues discussed or debated to date.

"shake-shake-shake the yardstick up your ass..." What the hell do you think that means? Sounds like some sophomoric high school drop out trying to be a rap artist.

The incredibly smarmy and intellectually deficient article that headed off this forum "solicited my presence in the first place". It is so typical of the misinformation propaganda crap that is currently infesting social media and the mainstream media these days and it is for the specific purpose of pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people so they don't know what to believe any more and won't stand up for their liberties or their principles. I am here to combat that crap, Narad, and your explosive juvenile outburst proves I am doing some good.

You don't like it when you find out you are no longer in a crowd exclusively made up of gigglefarts who laugh and nod their heads at every clever turn of phrase, do you? But I have to thank you for the link you label "get asshurt." In it I say nothing about getting "asshurt" by not being published, but I do address the same kind of principles I am addressing here. (BTW, it turned out that they weren't being run because they weren't being received: Something was wrong with the Roundup's email system. Once I started hand-carrying letters in, every letter I wrote was published.)

I don't want to challenge your writing ability as you challenge mine, Narad, but what exactly does "'neither more nor less prose so gassy it could be worked into that metaphor."? Especially since you didn't present a metaphor?

Then you call me "weaselly" and quote something I said that was a straightforward statement of principle. You compliment me on my 'words have meanings' assertion and then indicate you don't know what meaning words have.

All right, cutting this down to the chase, you ask one question that is in itself straight forward, though I would expect the answer to be obvious by now: What is this law that is full of oathy goodness?"

The United States Constitution, Narad. Ever heard of it? It is the document that represents the compact between our nation-States that created the federal government out of nothing. It prohibits in so many words practically everything ZeroBama has done and everything Hillary wants to do, and maybe about ten percent of what Trump wants to do. It prohibited a lot of what both Bushes did. It prohibited practically everything Bill Clinton did when he infested our White House. It is the document that conveys to the federal government the ONLY powers the federal government has, and the aforementioned presidents have trashed it and exercised illegal powers far beyond what are authorized.

And every president has, all the way back to the adam henry who started the trend, Abraham Lincoln. The trend, however, ever since has been to expand and refine and entrench the lawlessness and give it the illusion of legitimacy.

I will continue to reply as I have been replying, by clicking on the Reply button in the email notification.

"No instant gratification" is irrelevant, Narad. It would bother you far more than I. I'm here to raise issues of tyranny, not to brag about my exploits and not to freak out when someone challenges my worldview as you have done in this greatly garbled message.

Your last line, like several others, seems totally meaningless. What the heck does Meyer Weinberg having a "KeyWiki" entry have to do with anything? And what does "Komsomol routine" have to do with anything discussed here?

Don't bother to reply unless you feel greatly motivated, but if you do, try to get off of whatever you are taking that seems to render many of your comments nonsensical. Or don't. I believe in free will.

^ "neither more nor less than prose"

BTW, you were right about Apple Health. It beats any insurance I’ve ever had, including the Cadillac coverage at U of M.

I, for one, am not surprised.

Anarcho-syndicalists do not recognize any authority higher than their syndicate, and the society they create is remarkably similar to Somalian warlords.

You don't say. Which simile-enabling instantiations would those be?

Anyway, she is a zionist b...une horreur ! si, si, elle est malade !

It is definately SARS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lyok089gwk

Now that I'm home from work and have access to my references, for future reference on allegations of the Clintons long list of "murders", may I submit a Snopes article that I've reviewed a few times, laughing each time.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

For the rest of the conspiracies (omitting, for some reason, the space alien ones). ;)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/clintons.asp

Snopes has long been recognized as Clinton supporters and their "debunking" of any story casting a negative light on the Clintons has been well known for years. (That being said, the second link you provide is a litany of jokes and other nonsense that is widely understood to be such.)

Also, I have never heard of anyone claiming Bill Clinton is responsible for the deaths that have been occurring among his acquaintances since he was Arkansas Governor and allegedly organizing drug shipments by air into the Mena, AR airport at which two teenaged witnesses were murdered. Bill Clinton's' direct involvement is the thrust of Snopes' debunking effort. The claim has always been the murders were conducted by the Dixie Mafia to support him, and later became international (in the Ron Brown case, in which the ILS beacon for the landing aircraft was moved, causing the crash, and a nurse who survived the crash walked under her own power to the rescue helicopter and conveniently died on the way to the hospital.)

If you want to see a much more rational examination of the deaths of those associates of the Clinton regime, see https://www.truthorfiction.com/clintonfriends/, where the deaths are labeled both Truth! and Fiction! with a caveat you can read for yourself.

BTW, the "list" referenced by TorF is attributed to "Linda Thompson" of the "American Justice Federation." I have had dealings with Ms Thompson in the past, and she announced that I must be a "government agent" because I found some of her announcements about "concentration camps" to be bogus. However, I had the list of deaths, extensively footnoted with documentation, before she had it. It also documented the FBI's investigation into the Clinton's membership in the "--- Policy Institute," which the FBI described as a known terrorist front group sending explosive toys to the Sandinista dustup in Nicaragua to be dropped from helicopters so kids would pick them up and have their hands blown off -- that was Hillary's gig as chairperson of another bogus charity group like the Clinton Foundation. During Bill Clinton's first term, every member of his cabinet was also a former member of that Policy institute, and like Clinton, they resigned when they joined his cabinet. He changed his cabinet during his second term because of the rising furor over it. These are not nice people, folks.

I haven’t heard him say that, so perhaps he has been informed that the study claiming that has been thoroughly debunked in peer review and has been withdrawn by its author.

Uh, no. OK, you forced me to do this.

I've documented Trump's antivaccine ramblings several times over the last decade, going back to at lesst 2007. The guy is a certifiable antivaccine wingnut, complete with the "I'm not antivaccine claim" followed by spewing antivaccine pseudoscience. Here are just three examples of my noting this:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/09/15/the-long-sordid-antivaccin…

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/04/03/donald-trump-versus-vaccin…

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/05/03/the-republican-party-is-on…

And Donald Trump has been informed about the science. Many times. He simply refuses to believe it.

Okay. I didn't "force you" to do anything, but I accept the possibility that he believes that. A lot of people do, right or wrong, and it appears a resurgence of childhood diseases is occurring because of it. Too bad. It doesn't disqualify him, and he probably won't have time to investigate it once he is president.

Donnie said: "Readers may take the above insulting message as a textbook example of the Cultural Marxism method of curtailing dissent."
.
Note how carefully he avoided the point of the post: the disclaimer on his website. Instead, using the techniques taught by Saul Alinsky he has thrown up a smokescreen to disguise his inability to address the issue at hand.
.
Since he apparently has developed Hillarybitch Clintonwhore Memory Failure Syndrome (HBCWMFS) it is reproduced below.
.
"DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer . . . Nothing on this site should be considered legal advice.

Personally, I always wonder what the hell "cultural Marxism" is supposed to mean. Marxism was an economic and political ideology. From my experience, when a right-winger starts ranting about "cultural Marxism," it usually just means "things I don't like or agree with."

Do a Google search on "Cultural Marxism." You will learn a great deal. In the future it will help your understanding of the word if you don't automatically turn off your brain every time you hear someone you perceive to be a "conservative" make a statement. As an example, you might find it surprising to know I am not a "conservative." I am a Constitutionalist. You might also be surprised to learn the founders of our nation were not "conservatives." They were "liberals;" what we today call "classical liberals." The communists in Soviet Russia, what the political ideologists call the "Old guard," were the "conservatives" during the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the rebels were the "liberals." It's an oversimplification, but generally the conservatives want to keep what they consider the tried and true methods of governance, and the "liberals" want to change it.

Put simply, our "classical liberal" founding fathers believed in individual liberty and the conservatives of the time believed in the "Divine right of Kings to Govern" regardless of ability, integrity, respect for human rights, or whatever. We kicked the bastards all the way back to their City of London lair and replaced their bogus "Divine Right" with the Consent of the Governed. Once that was established for about a hundred years or so, the new "liberals" decided we would be better of under the authority of their arbitrary whim again. Ain't gonna happen. I'm trying to give you reasons to make damned sure it ain't gonna happen.

Oh, brother! Anything to cast aspersions. Okay, I'll address it. My website says, clearly, "DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer (though I have played one in court against a U.S. Department of (in)Justice attorney and won). Nothing on this site should be considered legal advice. Take no action and/or omit no action based on what you find here. If you want or need legal advice, consult your own lawdog or legal beagle. Don't believe anything the lawdog says, but get what your legal beagle says in writing. Then you have grounds to act on it even if he's making it up as he goes along."

There has been numerous cases of government thugs suing or even arresting people who address illegal government actions in public, for "giving legal advice."

I'm sure you would be happy, Opus, if I was holding myself out as a lawyer so some government goon could shut me up, but I don't allow that.

Clinton’s stumbled off the curb, her “knees buckled” and she lost a shoe

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/breaking-hillary-clinton-medica…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VnNzZQG2Tc

She's probably just plastered.

Funny, that very thing (sans losing a shoe) happened to me at work last night, when I went outside for a smoke.

At her age, she'd likely have discs starting to fail, just as I have one that has apparently failed.
It's a pity that those discs didn't study for the test of gravity.
Or something.

In other words, "grabbity got her."

This should be VERY simple, considering the "its" history of pathological lying, int'l grifting and attempt to RE-occupy the Dark House at 1600 Transylvania Av with "the rapist" in tow.
All "candidates" FULLY DISCLOSE I-M-M-E-D-I-A-T-E-L-Y OR BE G-O-N-E!

I don’t know what “SMI” is, but as a general philosophy, if you are not a proven threat to society, you have the right to keep and bear arms.

Severe mental illness. I'm not a proven danger to society, but I'm a proven danger to myself. (I personally think the legal standard for involuntary commitment should only be danger to others, not danger to self, but whatever.)

I was just wondering how absolute you were in your opposition to background checks, and it seems like you're about where I thought.

I do find it pretty bizarre that you apparently would rather have people locked up for life or something rather than disallow felons for having guns; I mean, what with being a "freedom fighter" and all. I personally have a hard time feeling good about people having to go to prison at all; it's a shame, to be honest, and it seems like there must be a better way to go about things.

Oh, if that's what you wondered, you should have asked that question. I am adamantly opposed to background checks as a precondition to "permitting" the exercise of a right government has no authority to permit or deny.
First, background checks have never in the history of the Brady Act that required them prevented a crime. Not even once. Anyone intending to commit a crime will find a way to do it, and if they need a gun to do it they will find a way to get one. (It has been shown that criminals rarely buy guns; they use one circulating among their criminal friends.)
Additionally, in the case of firearms, background checks are a violation of the 2nd Amendment (because we do not need government permission to exercise a right the peaceful exercise of which infringes on no one else's rights); they are a violation of our 4th Amendment right to be secure from interrogation and search or seizure in the absence of probable cause of criminal conduct; they are a violation of our 5th Amendment right to be secure from the loss of any right without due process of law (i.e., criminal prosecution); they are a violation of our 9th Amendment right to be secure from being required to give up a right in order to be allowed to exercise a right; and they are a violation of our 10th Amendment right to be secure from the federal exercise of authority not delegated.
The feds don't even have the authority to license firearm dealers.
Be off for a while; gonna go see "Sully."

I wonder if Donald L. Cline ignores any correspondence that comes with his name printed in ALL CAPS. He does seem to have that weird fixation on capitalization.

I haven't seen any posts with my name all in caps. I am notified by email of any new replies, and I examine all of them to see if any are worse answering.

Oops! WORTH answering, not 'worse' answering. :)

What is this law that is full of oathy goodness?”

The United States Constitution, Narad. Ever heard of it? It is the document that represents the compact between our nation-States that created the federal government out of nothing. It prohibits in so many words practically everything ZeroBama has done and everything Hillary wants to do, and maybe about ten percent of what Trump wants to do. It prohibited a lot of what both Bushes did. It prohibited practically everything Bill Clinton did when he infested our White House.

But it doesn't prohibit kicking out citizens and/or immigrants who would or could not swear the 'McCarthy oath'?

I think that was at least partly what Narad was talking about - that's my reading of it anyway. There was more, probably (it being Narad) but that was also my main point in my last comment you didn't directly answer. So I'll elaborate a little here.

To remind everyone...

JustaTech: "I once made a joke at work about us having to take a loyalty oath before being allowed to use a piece of equipment. You know, the one that starts “I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Communist party.
Except that most of my co-workers were adult immigrants from China and Ukraine.
Oops."

Donald L. Cline: "If you cannot, or are unwilling, to take that oath, or your adult immigrant co-workers cannot or are unwilling to, none of you should be here. "

How does that stance coincide with your emphasis on personal liberties? And what Constitutional basis there is for enforcing the eviction of oath-refusers, US-born or legally immigrated?

In spite of your smarmy pejorative "McCarthy oath", a nation that cannot control its borders or what non-citizens are allowed to remain is not a sovereign nation. And a refusal to swear or affirm an oath of submission to U.S. (and the appropriate State) law is certainly grounds to eject the alien with prejudice against re-entry. And it is not the only grounds; addiction to drugs, a history of alcoholism, an inability to show a marketable self-supporting skill, etc., are also reasons to refuse entry to an alien or to deport one already here. And if all other criteria is met, illegal entry into our country is grounds for criminal prosecution and deportation with prejudice. We must control our borders or we are not a sovereign nation.

The single, absolutely only, exclusive purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. An alien is a citizen of a foreign country, and his nation has first claim on protecting his rights. While here he is subject to our laws, but without an oath in support of our laws any action we take under our laws could result in an international incident. This is why we have immigration laws and tourist visas and temporary work visas and etc. -- to establish that we have superior lawful authority over the individual while he is here, both for his protection and ours.

The oath required of JustaTech and his co-workers is not an oath of fealty to the U.S. but is recognition of the fact that the Communist Party is inimical to our interests, just as is ISIS, and, strictly speaking, Islam. If an individual belongs to an organization of any kind promulgating a belief in the murder or enslavement of non-believers, then that individual by the strict application of law should not be allowed to be here. Now, the fact that thousands of Muslims have been allowed to remain here is a testament to the fact that we are very reasonable when it comes to that strict application of the law as long as they are taking no overt or covert actions to execute those beliefs. But we do have the sovereign authority to kick their asses all the way back to whatever sandpit they immigrated from if it suits us.

The thing you folks need to understand is that we are a free country because our citizens, most of them, VOLUNTARILY obey the law and obey the social protocols that protect everyone's liberty. When people stop obeying the law voluntarily, liberty goes out the window and that hurts everyone.

I will continue to reply as I have been replying, by clicking on the Reply button in the email notification.

In that case, don't expect them to be read by people who can tell the difference between a blog and what passes for E-mail these days.

Somebody must be reading them; I'm average 35-40 responses a day.

From my experience, when a right-winger starts ranting about “cultural Marxism,” it usually just means “things I don’t like or agree with.”

It started out as a paranoid reaction to the Frankfurt School (one thing I don't miss about grad school is having to read Lukacs) but yeah, that's basically it.

Maybe she was just trying to do the macarena. You know; for old times sake -- 79 degrees with low humidity is not overly 'hot'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yHyvrt7irM

Breaking: Hillary Clinton as decided to take a break from breathing today. Aids said that it will not affect her presidential run --#weekendatHillary's

There was more, probably (it being Narad)

Hey! Anyway, I find it mildly amusing that D. Cline was whining about prose stylings (it wasn't fυcking Kojève, Dee) and then turned around and coughed up an "answer" with a hard upper limit on signal-to-noise ratio of 2.6%. The only surprise is that it didn't contain more semicolons, which I suspect he thinks are very erudite, indeed.

Point of order, Narad: I wasn't "whining about prose stylings" -- I was responding to your whines about prose stylings.

Woa!!! What is going on/what am I missing here???

1st video, passenger side. 2nd video driver side?????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-EAzsGxgQ

I smell psyops.

Donnie said: " I’m sure you would be happy, Opus, if I was holding myself out as a lawyer so some government goon could shut me up, but I don’t allow that."

Not to worry, Donnie!! The odds of anyone who passed Political Science 101 (or the equivalent) mistaking you for an attorney are in the same range as the odds of you being elected President this November. Feel free to continue to misinterpret law and precedent without fear of the black helicopters coming for you.

I intend to continue supporting the United States Constitution as it was written, Opus. Unless you have a personal agenda to the contrary, if you do the research you will come to the same conclusions -- but you have to reject Supreme Court rulings not authorized by the Constitution. In other words, you must have more integrity and precision than they have had.

There was more, probably (it being Narad)

Hey!

You're right. Shouldn't have said probably.

Meant with respect. I'm the first to admit it usually takes me a while to parse the nuances of your comments (Those I manage to pick up, at least).

Opus: "The odds of anyone who passed Political Science 101 (or the equivalent) mistaking you for an attorney are in the same range as the odds of you being elected President this November."

Cline's "facts" are similar the Idiots in Oregon who Occupied a bird sanctuary with their pocket constitutions (their trial starts on Tuesday, it should be very entertaining). He is similar to my dad, also an 80+ living in Arizona, who is so extremely happy that his Tri-Care health insurance (military veteran) was pretty much free of charge, but ObamaCare is bad. Yeah, I love my dad, even if Fox News now has him living on Bizarro Land (aka Htrae).

Funny you should say that; I thought the protesters and occupiers in Oregon were a little too full of themselves after getting away with their fully justified confrontation with the BLM in Nevada. I didn't feel the protest was a good idea at all, in spite of the fact the whole thing was caused by the federal government once again trying to force everyone off the mountain nearby so they could turn the whole area into another 'no-human-beings-allowed' wildlife refuge in accordance with the UN Agenda 21 plan to herd all humans into confined little efficiency communities and turn the rest of the western States into wildlife refuges for re-introduced (half-dog) wolves. The Hammonds were the last hold-outs and there is considerable circumstantial and some eye-witness evidence that the BLM set the fires themselves to blame the Hammonds. But the protest was too much too soon after the success in Nevada, and when you poke the bear in the nose too many times he tends to get annoyed. And before anyone jumps to any conclusions, the death of Finicum was unnecessary because the road block shouldn't have been there, but that being said, Finicums death was suicide by cop.

Hillary Clinton has pneumonia and has been advised to rest, the Democratic presidential nominee’s doctor said on Sunday

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/11/hillary-clinton-leaves-…

People with Parkinson's often mostly die from pneumonia due to aspiration of spittle and lunch.

Troll: "People with Parkinson’s often mostly die from pneumonia due to aspiration of spittle and lunch"

Except she is responding to antibiotics. Antibiotics will do absolutely nothing for aspirated fluids.

True. Which means this will almost certainly happen again.

--"Except she is responding to antibiotics."

On Friday, during follow up evaluation of her prolonged cough, she was diagnosed with pneumonia. She was put on antibiotics, and advised to rest and modify her schedule.

I fail to see the 'responding' part here -- given on friday, doin' the trippin' macarena today. I guess the antibiotics themselves could cause such weakness; A weakness that does my misogyny good because she is obviously 'not strong'.

Chris, then she shouldn't be hugging and kissing a child today if it wasn't aspirational pneumonia as she would be virally infectious.

I saw that on the New York Times also.

There are lots of reasons people can get pneumonia and no particular reason to expect Parkinson's.

That article only mentioned her allergies and the concussion 4 years ago.

BREAKING NEWS

This just in from Breitbart.com and World Nut Daily:

CLINTON DEATH WATCH??!!??
Reports indicate that medical staff are concerned that Clinton's blood oxygen level has dropped below 100%. In addition, her carbon dioxide levels are higher on exhalation than on inhalation, possibly indicating an imminent loss of consciousness. Projections are that this loss of consciousness may last as long as eight hours. WILL SHE WAKE UP???

I wonder what she aspirated?

I think it was probably [vulgar comment removed by moderator].

Mr. Woll: "Chris, then she shouldn’t be hugging and kissing a child today if it wasn’t aspirational pneumonia as she would be virally infectious."

How would she know if she was overworked and has allergies?

Twenty three years ago I was working very hard to finish getting a house ready to move in, and I have allergies. I had a cough, which a attributed to my allergies. It kept me from sleeping sometimes, so I used that time to paint a bathroom with a triple color treatment.

It turned out I had bronchitis from an infection. I had no idea. I call that bathroom my "bronchitis paint job."

I also had bacterial pneumonia when I was in eighth grade. It came on in just a day or so. I had not aspirated on anything, and antibiotics really helped. Still my energy was sapped for a month.

So were those both indicative of Parkinson disease? Either a thirteen year old or a mother of two preschoolers who was doing some of the work of a house that we were actually building? Hmmm... how do those compare with someone who is now older than myself (late 50s) trying to run for president?

Yeah, all of you trolls seem to live through conspiracy theories with absolutely no relationship with reality. Larsy might have an "excuse", he probably aspirates window cleaning fluids.

'Marxism' is a loose term even among folks who know something about it, and 'cultural Marixism' is not a defined thing on the Left, nor a commonly used term. If you used the expression in legitimate academia, most folks would assume you meant The Frankfurt School (well, mainly Adorno), as JP noted, or the Birmingham School (Stuart Hall, Dick Hebdige, et al). In these uses, 'Marxism' (or 'marxism' as some of folks type it) means somehow-connected-to-a-vaguely-'marx-ish'-tradition, and not just (or even) the political economy theory of ole Chuck Whiskers. ('Karl' is the German equivalent of 'Charles', and one of my lefty profs in grad school always called him 'Chuck' to keep things in a down-to-earth perspective.) So you can't really smack DL for 'Cultural Marxism' not being square with Marx... BUT...

As you might expect, DL knows bupkiss about any actual Marxism, cultural or otherwise, and his use of "Cultural Marxism" does indeed come from somewhere else. It's a bit more specific than “things I don’t like", though. There's too much wingnuts don't like to fit under one umbrella term, no matter how falsely fanciful.

According to Wikipedia ( a pretty good idscussion 'Cultural Marxism" is the boogeyman in a far-fetched ultra-right anti-semitic conspiracy theory "in which The Frankfurt School are seen as having engineered the downfall of western society" via "Cultural Marxist control over the mass media" spreading the dreaded "multi-culturalism". The brilliant (and super-nice) intellectual historian Marty Jay has traced this back to a single 'documentary' from 1999, which has since spawned a host of YouTube videos:

which feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line. The message is numbingly simplistic: all the ills of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education and even environmentalism are ultimately attributable to the insidious influence of the members of the Institute for Social Research who came to America in the 1930's

This is hilarious because Adorno was as Ivory Tower as they come, having no interest in pragmatic political strategy (or clear, direct prose), and is known primarily for despising 'mass culture' which he considered inherently fascistic regardless whether the ostensible message was progressive or not. Adorno is also the favorite whipping boy of multi-culties and 'happy postmodernists': "an elitist defending esoteric aesthetic modernism against a culture available to all." (J. M. Bernstein). [12-tone music: politically good. Pop music (including jazz): politically bad.] No need for the wingnut conspiracy videos to be faithful to primary sources though: the quotes they common;y attribute to The Frankfurt School are actually from a book by Pay Buchanan.

The 'Cultural Marxism Conspiracy' is apparently a 'big thing' among Holocaust Deniers, LaRouchies and other wackos monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Maybe they're concerned because besides being a common theme at WorldNetDaily, it was a big inspiration for the Norwegian right-wing terrorist who went to a Labor Party youth camp dressed as a cop, got all the teenagers to gather round him for an announcement, then pulled out an assault weapon with high capacity magazines loaded with fragmentation ammo and began shooting the kids in the head, repeatedly shouting "You are going to die today, Marxists!" (Of course, they weren't Marxists: the Norwegian Labor Party are Tony-Blair-emulating neoliberals). He fired at least 186 rounds, leaving 54 teens and 15 older victims dead.

Yup, Cline's website features the de rigueur gun nuttery, too...
___________

note to JP:
Lucaks isn't 'Frankfurt School' (though reading Adorno, or worse Habermas, can be painful enough). Pretty much everyone disses Lucaks for either being too cozy with Stalinism, or being too 'vulgar', or just for his writing style. But his essay on 'Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat" contains some original and thought-provoking stuff I'll call 'essential' to any informed discussion in social and cultural theory. (The rest, honestly, I haven't bothered.)

What a bunch of fluffy crap!

Okay, Sadmar, in spite of your incredible hair-splitting obfuscations that have been developed over time specifically for the purpose of convincing people this or that public speaker has his head up his ass because his label doesn't match someone else's, the fact remains that at the street level none of that crap matters in the slightest. It is all "totalitarian" and a tyranny -- rather, multiple overlapping tyrannies.

And actually that matches my own observations, because the assholes -- er ... adam henries -- coordinating this crap, pulling the puppet strings, etc., don't give a flying Frisbee for political ideologies or political ideological labels: They'll sell you whatever horsepucky ideology you are sucker enough to buy as long as you let them run your life. Currently the suckers are buying cultural Marxism* under the pseudonyms of Democracy and political correctness and Progressives and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
*Google the phrase; you'll learn a lot well beyond Wikipedia and the Frankfort School. It also comes under the heading of "Political Correctness" and Maurice Strong and Agenda 21 and a whole bunch of realities you seem desperate to ridicule and denigrate.

Your thesis is also fluffy crap because I am not anti-Semitic -- in fact I wear a button that says "I Stand With Israel" and I am a member of Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (though not a Jew); I am not a Holocaust denier -- not of any of the twelve genocides of the last 100 years, some of which a current today -- I am not a fan of a socialists of any stripe, including LaRouch or Bernie Sanders who preaches everything free for all while ignoring the principle of TANSTAAFL.
How do you know what inspired some alleged killer of alleged "neoliberals of the Tony Blair stripe" (which is pretty danged liberal)? In fact the Australian Labor Party when I lived there 1970-74 were out and out communists, and it astonished me how much they sounded like the American government then and a lot more so now.

I take it from your preference for the pejorative form of debate that you consider the right to keep and bear arms of no value in the modern Progressive Utopia. Tell me, Mr. Piled-Higher-and-Deeper, what you think of the value of personal liberty under the Rule of Law, and to what lengths would you go to defend it? Or would you defend it?

When my really bad GERD was making me a coughaholic, I also got sick with every cold/flu bug that came around. (Maybe the raw larynx was an easy incubator? IANAMD.) So, keeping the schedule a POTUS candidate keeps, I could have fainted m'self when those less-than-pneumonia things hit, and not only didn't I have Parkinsons, but I was probably in better cardio-vascular shape than HRC, 'cause I was still playing hoops twice a week at the time...

When my really bad GERD was making me a coughaholic,...

Et tu? My GERD is so bad, if I cough forcefully five times or so, up comes my last meal.
My wife's GERD isn't quite that way though, she's known to spit up at night, covering her face with residue, which then tries to digest her skin.

That's on her to-address list, first we're addressing things that could either kill or paralyze us, then we'll address things that would kill us earlier, long term.

Yep, sadmar, there are things that cause of to cough. I have allergies to certain annoying trees in the spring (alder trees deserve to be burned!!) and in the fall from certain grasses/ragweed ( worse I share that allergy with a ca,t who wakes us up by sneezing and then expects cuddles when he is covered in snot!).

Oh, the whinging of the guy in Arizona reminds me I need to write my dad a snail mail. Trust me, they are very similar in nature. Thanks Fox News.

Lucaks isn’t ‘Frankfurt School’ (though reading Adorno, or worse Habermas, can be painful enough). Pretty much everyone disses Lucaks for either being too cozy with Stalinism, or being too ‘vulgar’, or just for his writing style. But his essay on ‘Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat” contains some original and thought-provoking stuff I’ll call ‘essential’ to any informed discussion in social and cultural theory. (The rest, honestly, I haven’t bothered.)

Theory of theNovel was okay, even though I averaged about 10 pages per minute. His writing style generally makes me want to throw books at the wall, though.

I'm pretty sure I've read the essay you mentioned in a theory class that took place, what, four or five years ago now? (Time flied when you're... having fun.) I'd have to go through my notes (which are in a friend's basement in Ann Arbor) to say much about it at this point, though.

In spite of your smarmy pejorative “McCarthy oath”, a nation that cannot control its borders or what non-citizens are allowed to remain is not a sovereign nation.

Oath of denying Communist Party affiliation seems a clunky one, so I used the 'McCarthy oath' as a short-hand to point out when that oath was used, and why. But I can use the longer title if you prefer it. It was not meant to be pejorative, even if I personally feel that the “McCarthy era” was a relative low point is US history.

Do you believe Supreme court was in error when they ruled Levering act unconstitutional?

And a refusal to swear or affirm an oath of submission to U.S. (and the appropriate State) law is certainly grounds to eject the alien with prejudice against re-entry. And it is not the only grounds; addiction to drugs, a history of alcoholism, an inability to show a marketable self-supporting skill, etc., are also reasons to refuse entry to an alien or to deport one already here.

So you wouldn't kick out US-born Communists, at least. What about those immigrants who have earned their green card? Or have been naturalized?

The oath required of JustaTech and his co-workers is not an oath of fealty to the U.S. but is recognition of the fact that the Communist Party is inimical to our interests, just as is ISIS, and, strictly speaking, Islam. If an individual belongs to an organization of any kind promulgating a belief in the murder or enslavement of non-believers, then that individual by the strict application of law should not be allowed to be here.

When people stop obeying the law voluntarily, liberty goes out the window and that hurts everyone.

Liberty also goes out the window when people start infringing on or dictating others' personal beliefs.

because we do not need government permission to exercise a right the peaceful exercise of which infringes on no one else’s right

I'd wager that the vast, vaaast, vaaaaaaast majority of Communists of all varieties, just like vast majority of Muslims of all denominations, do not promulgate "a belief in the murder or enslavement of non-believers". And what's more, wouldn't your ”If an individual belongs to an organization of any kind promulgating a belief in the murder or enslavement of non-believers, then that individual by the strict application of law should not be allowed to be here” also ban any anti-abortion organization(some of who have killed those with opposing views), or every white-power group for example? There are two to three times more Klan members still than there are card-carrying Communists in the US.

Now, the fact that thousands of Muslims have been allowed to remain here is a testament to the fact that we are very reasonable when it comes to that strict application of the law as long as they are taking no overt or covert actions to execute those beliefs. But we do have the sovereign authority to kick their asses all the way back to whatever sandpit they immigrated from if it suits us.

Or just that most people recognise majority of Muslims aren't terrorists and refrain from assigning guilt by association.

I'm also not denying the sovereign authority to kick foreign individuals out, but I'm just asking how you settle that with your belief that we do not need government permission to exercise a right the peaceful exercise of which infringes on no one else’s right?

We're not talking about illegal aliens. At least I'm not.

Talk to you tomorrow; it's two hours past my bedtime. I haven't read your whole message, but what I have quickly scanned looked like a good discussion. Looking forward to it.

Preface #1: No, I'm not that idiot doctor with the same name in Indianapolis who just got arrested for the felony of inseminating women at a fertility clinic. I'm not a doctor and I've never been in Indianapolis.

Preface #2: Highly recommend the movie "Sully." Excellent! REALLY excellent! (But then, as an aviation aficionado, I have a bias.)

Okay, back to our muttons:

Re: 'McCarthy Oath' explanation: Fair enough.
Re: Your personal feeling that McCarthy was a low point in history. You were programmed by the liberal press to feel that way. It was just so terrible to mistreat all those people who were just trying to make a living by creating entertainment with a very strong bias to help us all understand that living under the hammer and sickle was an absolute utopia on Earth while people living under it were murdered for speaking out, were prohibited from attending church, who could not travel beyond a very short radius from their home without Party permission, who could not travel to a major city without a Party-acceptable reason, who could not eat in a decent restaurant without being a Kommissar or someone who could benefit a Kommissar -- etc., etc. ad nauseum. Strongly recommend you examine Ayn Rand's testimony before McCarthy's HUAC before you feel his efforts were a "low point in history." (see www.frdmftr.net/rand) People have a right to believe in communism if they want to, but they have no right to scam people into supporting excruciating tyranny and they have no right to legislate it into existence here.

Re do I think the Supreme Court was in error in ruling the Levering Act unconstitutional? As it pertains to an educational institution receiving federal taxpayer funds, no. (Though I believe the educational institution should be required to provide equal time for alternative views.) To the extent it pertains to a private employer, or to a government contractor engaged in work related to military or national security issues, yes.

Re those immigrants who have earned their green card or have been naturalized: Both are contingent upon at least a requirement, if not an oath or affirmation, to lawful conduct. If they are so required (and they are) then an oath to that effect should not be a problem for them.

Re "Liberty also goes out the window when people start infringing on or dictating others' personal beliefs." Requiring people to be willing to obey the law and not advocate lawlessness, and not use their presence here to conduct espionage or incite violence does not infringe upon their personal beliefs. If it does, they shouldn't be here. If not a citizen they should be deported; if a citizen, they should be prosecuted and be allowed to justify their actions, if able, by showing how their actions were necessary to stop or prevent government lawlessness.

Note: Thomas Jefferson is attributed with the observation that "America is the one place where sedition can never be a crime." That is a high sounding ideal, but it was uttered in a time of unity of belief in everything our nation was founded to preserve and protect. Today we are only just coming to the awareness that the biggest threat to liberty are those who don't believe in it using it to destroy it.

So we have two choices: We can crack down on liberty abused by those who don't believe in it, or we can support their liberty to destroy liberty and hope that we can kill enough of them when they take over that we can regain our nation of liberty. Which would you prefer?

Re your wager that the (emphasized) VAST majority of Communists of all varieties and ditto Muslims do not promulgate a belief in the murder or enslavement of non-believers." Don't put money on it because you will lose your wager. The vast majority of all Communists of all varieties most certainly do want to enslave everyone, and they will admit it, but they don't call it "enslavement": They call it "taxing the rich to support the poor." They call it "making the rich pay their fair share," and in the process making it impossible for the rich to pay a decent wage to their employees, to expand their businesses, to hire more employees, and generally benefit the economy.\

Similarly, it has already been proven by survey that the great majority of Muslims, while not actively yelling "Allahu Akbar!" and murdering people, nevertheless would like to see Sharia Law instituted in their communities in the United States. And Sharia Law does require the murder or enslavement of infidels, and women who do not obey the men that own them, and children who do not obey the men who fathered them, and most especially the murder of any person or faction or population that opposes Sharia Law. And Islam does not consider it evil; rather, Islam consider it to be bringing (their victims) to the grace of Allah. They actually believe, and the Qu'ran teaches, that doing all the above is doing the victims a favor.

Re your next paragraph about my thesis banning anti-abortion organizations (some who have killed) or every white-power group: I think you should re-calculate those numbers: The number of abortion murders for the convenience of the mothers far outstrips the number of adam henries who have murdered abortion providers. I am very definitely "pro-choice;" I believe every woman (and every man) has the perfect right to CHOOSE whether to get her pregnant or not. No man or woman has the "right" to murder an unknown child, though I agree there are circumstances in which it tragically must be done. OTOH, I oppose a flat prohibition on abortion under the law because I DON'T want to see a resurgence of basement butchers maiming women for a fast buck, because men being men and women being women, pregnancies will happen. And I am not opposed to recreational sex, but dammit, be careful! And don't use abortion as a method of birth control!

Re your suggestion that my thesis would ban "white power" groups. If they advocate murder and/or tyranny and oppression (whether unofficially or officially) over other factions they should be banned, and ditto for black power groups or any other power groups. (Though I am highly skeptical of your claim their are more KKK members than card-carrying communists.)

You have to realize something, Gaist: Black Lives Matter is being supported by the Communist Party and by the likes of George Soros because it disrupts the peaceful exercise of the Rule of Law. It invites police over-reaction and brutality, and that benefits those who want to destroy America because then they can say "see what a fascist tyranny we have here?" If you want to visit an organization that teaches demonstrators how to force the cops to over-react, look up "The Ruckus Society." They're on the web.

Re "Or just that most people recognize majority of Muslims aren't terrorists and refrain from assigning guilt by association." When the majority of Muslims who aren't terrorists start demonstrating in the streets opposing Islamic terrorism and actively opposing IMAMs who call for murder and mayhem in the name of jihad, I will give some credence to that theory. (I've seen a few former Muslims individually opposing it in public, one representative of a group of Muslims [or former Muslims] opposing one time on TV, and I've seen one street demonstration by Muslims in solidarity with the victims of one instance of Islamic terrorism [Orlando], and all that's a good start, but it ain't much. The problem is, they come here -- they are INVITED here in violation of law by that First Enemy Agent infesting our White House -- and they have no intention of assimilating and becoming 'Americans,' any more than the swarms of Muslims invading Europe have any intention of becoming Europeans. They intend to invade us, outbreed us two or three to one, and when they have a majority they institute Sharia Law -- and if we think there is nothing we can do about it, we are toast. Until people recognize the absolute fact that the United States Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land and it is virtually the Sword of Damocles against that crap, we are done.

Have I covered everything?

Do a Google search on “Cultural Marxism.” You will learn a great deal.

In your opinion, what, if any, did this guy get wrong?

QUOTE: Definition of Cultural Marxism:

Cultural Marxism: An offshoot of Marxism that gave birth to political correctness, multiculturalism and "anti-racism." Unlike traditional Marxism that focuses on economics, Cultural Marxism focuses on culture and maintains that all human behavior is a result of culture (not heredity / race) and thus malleable. Cultural Marxists absurdly deny the biological reality of gender and race and argue that gender and race are “social constructs”. Nonetheless, Cultural Marxists support the race-based identity politics of non-whites. Cultural Marxists typically support race-based affirmative action, the proposition state (as opposed to a nation rooted in common ancestry), elevating non-Western religions above Western religions, speech codes and censorship, multiculturalism, diversity training, anti-Western education curricula, maladaptive sexual norms and anti-male feminism, the dispossession of white people, and mass Third World immigration into Western countries. Cultural Marxists have promoted idea that white people, instead of birthing white babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children. Samuel P. Huntington maintained that Cultural Marxism is an anti-white ideology. Critics of Cultural Marxism have maintained that Cultural Marxists intend to commit genocide against white people through mass non-white immigration, assimilation, transracial adoption and miscegenation.

gaist @ #73

You may well find that focusing on internal consistency is just another tool of the Cultural Marxists.

/sarcasm off/

But you are more likely to find that internal consistency is the tool of Cultural Marxists only as long as it suits their agenda. The fundament rule of the Marxist agenda is "Truth" is defined as that which advances the agenda. All else is irrelevant and mere nitpicking.

"After just this one ill-timed health scare, and in the course of just a few hours, Clinton's campaign reinforced concerns about her honesty and accountability. The timing also happened to play into a Trump campaign line of attack about her stamina and overall health.

Just last week, when asked about her health, Clinton declared, "I'm not concerned about the conspiracy theories."

But when events and actions reinforce those same storylines, it's time to be concerned. Those theories will harden and go mainstream, until or unless the campaign addresses them not with accusations and partial accounts but with solid information."

This is from an analysis on abcnews.com, not a hysterical source like NinnytownNews.

Over at AoA, Stagmom has brilliantly observed (ahem) that if Clinton has pneumonia, it means either failure of the 23-valent vaccine or that "she's as anti-vaxxer as the rest of us!"

They really seem to be running short of material. Even Danchi/elnura opines that it's creepy to be gloating about someone's being ill.

My website says, clearly, “DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer (though I have played one in court against a U.S. Department of (in)Justice attorney and won).

District, case number, and caption?

The case was in 1998 in Phoenix and I no long have the number. It was an adversary case in Bankruptcy Court against the Internal Revenue Service and the California Franchise Tax Board (which was a side issue). In 1984 the IRS confiscated a $146,000 of my money in the hands of my fiduciary agent for no reason other than the fact that I belonged to an educational organization teaching the facts about the Illegal Revenue Service, which the District Court in Colorado had already ruled was a protected First Amendment activity. A year later the admittedly communist AIC of the Sacramento office of the IRS took offense at two letters to the editor of the Sacramento Bee I had written, one objecting to the lionizing of a Communist agent by the name of Angela Davis, and the other pointing out why communists want to impose strict gun control on the people in response to another article by an admitted communist. So he looked me up on their database in violation of their own operation manual and assessed me one hundred percent taxes on the money the IRS had already illegally confiscated, and threatened me with a SWAT team on my doorstep in seven days if I did not pay up or make arrangements to pay within seven days. I bailed out to Arizona and sent the S.O.B. my new address (maildrop) in Phoenix and for the next several years played cat and mouse with their SWAT teams and the US Postal Inspector who was illegally confiscating my mail because I refused to give my physical street address. Finally I filed a complaint with the FBI for mail theft and a week later the USPS started delivering my mail again (to the maildrop). Eventually my daughter was ready for college and when you don't have any money set aside (because the enemy would confiscate it) I had to fill out very VERY intrusive financial disclosures so she could get a Pell Grant, etc., and the IRS pounced, claiming I now owed them a third of a million dollars in penalties and interest. So I filed bankruptcy and filed charges against the IRS and CAFTB in adversary proceedings and eventually the DOJ attorney (who had won his previous 12 cases against tax protesters) called me and offered to capitulate and drop the enforced collection proceedings and leave me alone from then on if I would drop my case against them. So I didn't get my money back (because they have a ruling that you have to file for wrongful confiscation within nine months, while they can put a lien on you for ten years and then renew it for another ten) but I took great pleasure in hearing the bankruptcy judge ream the DOJ attorney a new one for trying to prosecute me for what the IRS did to me. They haven't bothered me since.
The law is not too hard to follow if you and read and understand plain English and no how to do legal research.

@ Orac:

Right they LOVE conspiracy theories ( which reflects certain um... aspects of their mental functioning upon which I shan't expand)

AND they all make loads of money so a tax cut would be extra nice as well.
Trump wants to cut out inheritance tax which would benefit his progeny IMMENSELY ( or should I say *hugely*?)

It would benefit us ALL immensely. Income tax is illegal; the 16th amendment was never ratified: Too many States rewrote it and "ratified" something that wasn't proposed. Kentucky even shows on their legislative record they voted it down and then listed it as "carried." Article I Section 9 Clause 4 specifically prohibits any "Capitation" or other "direct Tax." Further, if it had been ratified, the articles about it at the time calling for ratification, asserted it would never apply to the people; that it was intended exclusively to tax corporations on the profit they derived from the employment of labor. And in fact no individual was taxed under the 16th Amendment for 25 years, and then it was only government officers enjoying the privilege of government immunity for the torts they committed against the people. Need I suggest never acting in favor of a measure based on government promises?

re pneumonia, bronchitis etc.

When I was a young grad student I got horrendously ill with bronchitis on New Year's Eve. Codeine made me worse. I'm sure I appeared a lot worse than the 60+ Ms Clinton did .

Then at 40, I contracted a respiratory illness in winter ( not dx'd as either pneumonia or bronchitis) that led to extreme weakness and weight loss despite taking loads of antibiotics, cough medicine and having had a shot of a steroid.
It took me weeks.
But hey, I'm still here.

@ JP:

I'm not sure whether the woo dailies would be good or bad for your mental health. Most of their material makes me laugh.
One never know, do one?

At any rate, JP...
I was thinking about how you could observe alt media w/o risk to your aforementioned mh but after scanning a few front pages I ascertain
IT"S TOO RISKY!!!!!11
I suggest that you make use of Orac ( and company) as a superb filtration system- all of the woo without the emotionally destabilising factor.

e.g. today I noticed that amongst leads, both Adams and Null perseverated and prevaricated upon HRC's health. Mikey talks about the 'walking dead' ( and it's not a television show altho' Franchi , late of RT is involved)

re pneumonia, bronchitis etc.

When I was a young grad student I got horrendously ill with bronchitis on New Year’s Eve. Codeine made me worse. I’m sure I appeared a lot worse than the 60+ Ms Clinton did .

Late in my undergraduate life (or thereabouts), a dear friend not only got mauled by a motorboat while swimming but also was diagnosed with pneumonia, leading Friend to use a beer can for sputum collection.

I imagine that it's obvious where this is going. Yes, the cans got mixed up. No, it was just a texture issue rather than an infectious one.

Narad, in my case , no motor boats were involveD. THANKFULLY
But I did nearly faint a few times and later, had to race to the ladies room in a posh( ish) Chinese restaurant because of nausea etc.

In spite of your smarmy pejorative “McCarthy oath”, a nation that cannot control its borders or what non-citizens are allowed to remain is not a sovereign nation.

Heh. Perhaps the real world does not, and never has – aside from islands and part of the GDR – given a shіt, Princess.

Yes, the cans got mixed up.

My friend Derek used to have regular punk shows at his house, and people would bring cases of PBR or Oly or whatever.

The next day we could usually be found on the back porch smoking cigarettes, and, being 19 and invincible, I would drink the half-empty beers that people had left behind. Gross, but whatever.

But once I grabbed one, took a drink, found it to be the texture of a SCOBI, and just about retched.

"Oh, yeah, I was going to say something to you." It had been there for who knows how long, apparently.

This stopped the habit.

So you're argument against Noel's admitted speculation is that since you can dismiss each individual point as insufficient by itself, all of his points together must also be insufficient. Which makes your argument weaker than his, and you just one more of the many thousands of people who feel they must constantly make excuses for Clinton.

Benedict, zero plus zero plus zero plus zero plus zero still equals zero.

All of which adds up to ZeroBama.

Heh. Perhaps the real world does not, and never has – aside from islands and part of the GDR – given a shіt, Princess.

C'mon, Narad -- it's very important to Kim Jong-un, as well.

@84 and 87
This might be a somewhat fake tale, I was told of it in a surfer bar, on the east coast of Japan after a collaboration party (ie. The meeting is over, no more 8am meetings ... lets get properly smashed).

One of the students on the experiment I work on is from the Isle of Man. He mentioned (at the above mentioned bar) that in the past during the TT there was a tradition of tipping all the dregs from beer cups into a a single vat or bucket misc. objects such as cigarette butts included. This was then sold at a rather low price point, chiefly to a certain sort of lad who might appreciate the cost savings, enjoys a good dare, or just does not care.
Heath and safety apparently have put the kibosh to this.

the far far more telling issue that you can clearly see in that video around the time the metal is dropped is Mrs. Clinton’s right foot. It was clearly being dragged along the street with the anterior portion down on the concrete. I am certain this is how the shoe came off. The comportment of this foot could only mean one thing – her brain or her spinal cord was offline – if ever so fleeting – during that moment. Her right foot was acutely flaccid. There are but a few things that can cause this type of issue: ...

...The most likely diagnosis – in my mind – an acute cardiac arrhythmia – either ventricular tachycardia – or more likely atrial fibrillation with a rapid ventricular response. A FIB with RVR is very very commonly associated with people feeling flushed or overheated ...

This is EXACTLY how people will react if they have an implantable defibrillator and it fires.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/how-sick-is-hillary/

Cia Parker has now upped (downed?) the ante: Instead of diazepam, the mystery aide carries adrenaline. Oh, and Obama has lung cancer.

Still, AoA beats D. Cline.

Are you the same Narad that posts at AoA?

My website says, clearly, “DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer (though I have played one in court against a U.S. Department of (in)Justice attorney and won).

District, case number, and caption?

The case was in 1998 in Phoenix and I no long have the number. It was an adversary case in Bankruptcy Court against the Internal Revenue Service and the California Franchise Tax Board (which was a side issue).

I still have a first-class American Airlines menu from 2004. One might imagine that a body would save the records from such litigation. Anyway, I'm just trying to save myself the chore of convincing somebody to open a PACER account, as I've already used up my free access for this calendar quarter.

So I filed bankruptcy

You can't discharge federal tax debts in bankruptcy.

and filed charges against the IRS and CAFTB in adversary proceedings

Why were you suing the California Franchise Tax Board in Arizona, again?

and eventually the DOJ attorney (who had won his previous 12 cases against tax protesters) called me and offered to capitulate and drop the enforced collection proceedings and leave me alone from then on if I would drop my case against them.

Yup. It is indeed unfortunate that you've forgotten the case numbers. And, y'know, their names.

The law is not too hard to follow if you and read and understand plain English and no how to do legal research.

I think we're done here.

"I still have a first-class American Airlines menu from 2004. One might imagine that a body would save the records from such litigation." Some people are packrats. (Like me, I guess. I probably still have the records in storage, but I'm not going to dig them out for you.

"You can’t discharge federal tax debts in bankruptcy." Yes, you can, but all returns must be filed for at least two years before the bankruptcy, and even without that the penalties and interest are discharged in bankruptcy, which was the result of my case. In accordance with the adam henries agreement, the enforced collection on the remainder of the false and fraudulent assessment was waived.

"Why were you suing the California Franchise Tax Board in Arizona, again?" Because the CAFTB had no records of any tax liability on me, and yet had claimed taxes owing based upon IRS records, which is illegal -- States are required to assess their own taxes ... unless some pet judge rules they can do whatever they want, which is the case in Arizona.

"Yup. It is indeed unfortunate that you’ve forgotten the case numbers. And, y’know, their names." Not unfortunate at all; the information is not necessary to keep and I have no obligation to dig it out for you. FWIW, the Democrat-appointed adam henry defending the IRS in my case was one Mr. Charles Duffy, Esq.

"I think we’re done here." Yeah, you are.

Narad: "I think we’re done here."

The only proper response to Mr. Cline should be:

You're off key. Don't give up your day job.

Narad: “I think we’re done here.”

The only proper response to Mr. Cline should be

TINW, the foregoing plural pronoun notwithstanding.

"TINW"

Definition required (I personally hate abbreviations used without definitions, but that is because I worked where PSD had three different different definitions... two for my discipline and another for the finance dept). I believe Mr. Cline is only one deluded entity, and he should be ignored.

He is an entity that can be defined as a "sovereign citizen", a plague that has infested this country and several other countries where they are known as "freeman of the land." Much like the Idiots who Occupied an Oregon wildlife sanctuary, who go to trial tomorrow, BUT put in an emergency motion to dismiss Mr. Ammon Bundy because he kind of now owns the Malheur Wildlife Refuge because of "reasons":
https://www.scribd.com/document/323789256/Mumford-Emergency-Motion

Yeah, in my opinion these sovereign citizen dudes like Cline, the Bundy family and their friends are just common thieves. They just want to reap the benefits of living in the USA but don't want to bother with the responsibilities of actually paying for it through taxes, etc. Much like the anti-vax folks who leech off of their community's herd immunity.

You guys are so ignorant of history it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. While I will agree that a few yahoos are painting the label with a tar brush these days because they are unwilling to be subject to the Rule of Law, the fact is for the first one hundred years or so of our nation the term "sovereign citizen" was a common and prideful appellation. It celebrated the fact that for the first time in history, a nation did not treat its citizens as "subjects," but recognized their sovereignty over themselves and all of their personal domain, depriving government from control, oversight, or influence over their personal affairs. We need to restore the rogue occupation government we now endure to its proper Constitutional status.

“TINW”

Definition required

"There is no 'we'."

I personally am on the brink of killfilling Cline because his latest salvo suggests that he is, in psychiatric terms, actually nuts, but that's different from insisting upon "troll" as a universal slogan-order-balm.

Making medical diagnoses from afar, are we (TINW)? :)

OTOH, you might consider suspending your carefully instructed disbelief and do a little honest research. Or you might live in a communist country for about four years, as I did, so when you come back you are motivated to find out why our country is so much like that country when our country is supposed to be different. (And, btw, IS different, enormously different, if its government can be made to obey the law that created it.)

Um, I have a slightly different read in Cline because he is some 80+ year old living in Arizona who probably has Fox News on every waking moment just like my dad who is a few years older and physically not that far away.

It is not "actually nuts" but more age related dementia. Though, unlike my dad, Mr. Cline has embraced teh internets to make sure everyone gets to read his positions of whatever idiocy he has adopted. My father has at least stayed away from such silliness, and only decides to report the same exact stories over and over and over again to my siblings and me.

You see, while I see the similarities between Mr. Cline and my father (whose snail mail must be addressed to LtC (ret) XXX !) is that I remember a time a while ago when my father was lucid and taught me that even though a river created an imaginary border between people... they were not that all different.

It is because of my dad I got to spend a good third of my youth outside of the USA, and experience life under real dictatorships and where bodyguards were necessary (we had one for a while... crossing a busy street is much easier when you are escorted by a nineteen year old kid with an automatic weapon wearing a uniform!... my dad asked the kid to not do that since it attracted too much attention).

"universal slogan-order-balm"

Seriously? What in hades does that mean?

The fact that Cline insists on blogging in the comment section here makes him a troll. He actually writes long comments thinking we would take him seriously, even though it is legally nonsensical. You should have killfiled him ages ago.

Nope, not eighty years old yet; six years short as of next month and in robust mental and physical health according to my last physical.

You know, I don't know your dad, but it sounds like he has made good use of his years and has learned something of value he is trying to pass on to you, and you are pissing it away. Instead of making jokes about him you ought to investigate the reality of what he is telling you.

Thanks for reminding me, I just registered a PACER account. However, I won't be able to really use it until at least tomorrow though.

@Secret Cisco:

For the love of G-d, please also use the RECAP browser plugin (although it's been failing for me lately).

Myself: " whatever idiocy"

Oh, my word... if an elderly conservative person decides to donate to some cause, their vulnerability is sold multiple times. Mailing lists of folks like my dad are apparently gold mines.

There are organizations that claim to be supporting Oliver North, Sheriff Arpaio and other right wing conservative organizations that for a few bucks will send you newsletters. But the real money is your name and address, which they sell to other places like Julian Whitaker who will send you a newsletter telling you that everyone will become autistic before girls will (I am not joking, I found the actual paper newsletter with this idiotic graph in my dad's house!).

This selling of mailing lists is explained in David Neiwert's book And Hell Followed With Her: Crossing the Dark Side of the American Border.

The question is how many newsletters does Mr. Cline pay for? And how many does he sell?

Heh, tell me about it!
I track one general paranoid conspiracy theory site and one firearms related blog (also becoming known for spreading conspiracy theories, which are oddly synchronized with various similar blogs and an ammunition marketing group that's been trying to spur panic buys of ammunition). Just to keep tabs on teh craftiness of teh crazy (read, the Great American Con Jobs).
As a result, quarterly, I get sudden, unsolicited offers on that mail account for all manner of related blogs, sales pages, opinion pieces and spittle ridden e-mails that are "warning us" about things that never come to pass. Mostly, about things I *really* need to get for free, just pay shipping that's higher than buying the damned thing on Amazon.
On a lark, I tried one, as it was a utility tool and it'd be handy in the trunk of the car. I used a prepaid debit card, which was good, as somehow, they autoenrolled me to purchase other junk automatically.
I kept their junk, they didn't get paid, we called it even.

Still, it's amazing how many disparate groups, who claim to not like each other, manage to synchronize their efforts so precisely and near verbatim.
It makes me wonder if there's a Conspiracy Theory Con-man convention each year.

Are you surprised that you cannot believe anything your read on the Internet? That's the result of being taught to believe everything you see on the Communist News Network and disbelieve everything you see on Fox News, regardless of the veracity or lack thereof of either one.
Just keep on drinking the Kool-Aid, Wrzd1, don't check on anything, don't confirm anything, don't do any research on your own, and you can be comfortable believing the communist crap du jour -- until it kills you and everything you hold dear.

"The question is how many newsletters does Mr. Cline pay for? And how many does he sell?"

None, and none.

because his latest salvo suggests that he is, in psychiatric terms, actually nuts,

Or just making sh!t up.

Another "diagnosis" from afar. If that is what you think, prove it. Go do the research, the actual State legislative records, etc., not what some totalitarian apparatchik wants to sell you, and prove what I say is false. I'm waiting.

“What you saw was not even remotely close to pneumonia,” Eric said firmly, citing his own experience at dealing with upper-respiratory infections. “That was an immediate event that caused, obviously, a complete, almost like paralysis of her lower extremities...

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/09/12/doctors-weigh-in-on-hillarys-…

"Squeeze my fingers" is a neurological test.

https://twitter.com/smellyfed/status/775030514482810881/photo/1

That's Dr. Lisa Bardack in the photo.

Gilbert, you really need to have a doctor look at that tremor in your hands.

you really need to have a doctor look at that tremor in your hands.

Why? I already know that hydroxyzine and benztropine calms them.

I thought Gilbert would realize that diagnosing someone from a distance was absurd with my statement. I really should stop overestimating people's intelligence.

Oh, and Gilbert, remember to tell all your friends to get out and vote on November 9!

https://matrixbob.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/weekend-at-hillarys-22222…

https://matrixbob.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/weekend-at-hillarys.jpg?w…

Are you surprised that you cannot believe anything your read on the Internet? That’s the result of being taught to believe everything you see on the Communist News Network and disbelieve everything you see on Fox News, regardless of the veracity or lack thereof of either one.

It's the hypocrisy that offends me.

I posted a link to a story that quoted Trump as saying that anybody with a faulty memory was unqualified to be president (which isn't in my copy of the Constitution), and then went on to quote Trump who in sworn testimony stated multiple times that he couldn't remember people and events related to Trump University.

Cline rejected the story, because it was published in the Washington Post.

When I ask why, he said that, while he could verify Trumps quote, he couldn't verify the excreted portion of the transcript, even though the Post provided a link to the entire transcript.

So, pink boy, next time you want to accuse someone of rejecting a story just based on the source, look in the mirror.

Just keep on drinking the Kool-Aid, Danny-boy, don’t check on anything, don’t confirm anything, don’t do any research on your own, and you can be comfortable believing the tea-bagger crap du jour — until it kills you and everything you hold dear.

the fact is for the first one hundred years or so of our nation the term “sovereign citizen” was a common and prideful appellation

Uh-huh.

I'm not sure what the red and green colors mean since there seems to be no explanation key, but I've read several books published in the 1800's and early 1900's in which the phrase was used in a manner to suggest it was in common usage -- particularly when government tried to stick its now into someone's private business. But you are welcome to believe Google if you wish.

Gilbert, here's a link for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bufTna0WArc

Making medical diagnoses from afar, are we (TINW) [sic] ?

At least that's on-topic, as opposed to your own deranged performance.

You still don't understand that the issues remain in spite of your insults, do you? That's okay, others can sort the wheat from the chaff of insults.

So Donald Cline is younger than my mother, and thankfully, my mom (and dad, who's well over 80) are voting for Hillary because they both think Trump is a walking disaster. But then, my parents don't watch Faux News OR CNN...they both read the daily paper (just like Don recommends - reading!).

And since Donny boy is getting really boring with his name calling, I'm putting him in purdah until he can say something intelligent, rather than just calling everyone Commies. I thought that went out with the 80's.

That's what people do. Your folks think Trump is a walking disaster and I KNOW Hillary is a walking ... er ... stumbling disaster. I will vote for Trump in full awareness of the fact we have been manipulated into voting for the lesser of all evils for the last six election cycle, Trump is a typically bombastic loudmouthed New Yorker, but -- contrary to the far left media -- has a record of treating his employees decently without regard to gender, race, or disabilities, and has helped a lot of people who were in dire straits and some who weren't just because they were Good Samaritans. Hillary, on the other hand, is a narcissistic vicious little hippie bitch with delusions of grandeur, has promised to deprive the people of their primary rights the first day in office, and did her university thesis paper on Marxist Saul Alinsky, concluding that Alinsky wasn't vicious enough in his plans to destroy America. I'm no rabid supporter of Trump, but at least he has a couple of things to recommend him. She has none, and thousands of things she should rot in prison for. But we will vote and I, at least, will remember what FDR said: "Nothing every happens in politics that isn't planned. If it happens, you can bet it was planned."

Allow me to update the Ngrams with more 'appellations'.

Not particularly interested. I don't trust Google any more than I trust any other Hillary supporter.

Wow you were totally wrong about this one! Might want to print a retraction story.

“Squeeze my fingers” is a neurological test.

They did that after I broke my arm. I am fairly certain they were not testing for Parkinson's.

Joseph Smith: "Wow you were totally wrong about this one!"

How? Explain in detail and provide links to support those details.

I am fairly certain they were not testing for Parkinson’s

It is still a common neurolgical test -- the 'nurse' is also pointing as if to say "look to the right". TIA/Stroke???

Taking her pulse or just holding hands?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3786445/Is-Hillary-Clinton-s-un…

(ok, it is the Daily Fail but they have an intriguing compilation of photos in this case)

After watching the video, all that I can say is, someone really should tell Hillary that it's a lousy idea to lock one's knees.

Saw many a junior enlisted soldier do that very thing, then when moving their knees after, down like a ton of bricks they went.

I see a neurologist every year for a seizure disorder and have mentioned that my father and grandfather both had Parkinson's. But he keeps assuring me that I do not. There have been no specific tests that I know of, just the usual visible observation.

Hey Don, That thing I said about the "oath"? It was a JOKE. It was a joke at the time, about pointless government over reach, and it was a joke here about people who haven't noticed the past 30 years and are still scared of Soviets under the bed.

You're a misogynistic creep with a piss poor understanding of American history living in a time warp, and if you accept social security or Medicare you're a hypocrite too.

Perhaps your problem is you are joking around instead of being serious about serious issues. I don't pay a lot of attention to who is saying what, but I will point out that Narad said "I’ll join you in ignoring any mention of it being a joke about the oath. These are serious issues nobody should be allowed to jest about." and I agree.

Either "misogynist" doesn't mean what you think it means or you aren't taking to who you think you are talking to, because I have never said anything that could possibly be taken as a hatred of women or girls. I love 'em and I respect them and I treat them right.

What you take as a piss poor understanding of history is from the perspective of one who has been brainwashed by the piss poor American public education system. I had the advantage of spending four years in Australia and discovered that what I had been taught was a bunch of propaganda crap. So I started studying the real history to find out why, and I did. You might consider doing the same before you fall into the trap they are laying for you.

I will be happy as a clam to reject both Social Security and Medicare if the bastards will refund the money they robbed from me under color of law and allow me to exercise my right to make my own decisions about how to invest it. Until they do, I want my money back, every damned penny of it plus interest. When you find out who scammed the country into the Ponzi scheme called Social Security, you will also find out the number they issued you is also known as a "Nazi-style Government-issued serial number." One day they are likely, unless they are stopped, to tattoo that number on your forehead, your forearm, the web between your thumb and index finger, or on an RFID microchip under your skin. Then you can visit a Veterinarian to find out who you belong to.

To starve the troll, or to make fois gros? Questions, questions.... This is a good one, though:

You have to realize something, Gaist:

Portentous.

Black Lives Matter is being supported by the Communist Party and by the likes of George Soros because it disrupts the peaceful exercise of the Rule of Law.

Thank goodness it has nothing whatsoever to do with people commonly being faced with the opposite under color of law. The only fault here is the failure to actually use the phrase "uppity nіggers."

It invites police over-reaction and brutality

The Agents of the Rule of Law are unable to tame their reactions and tendency toward brutality? I mean, how does this work in detail? Is Bastiat's "Law" an inhuman force, like the Holy Ghost?

and that benefits those who want to destroy America because then they can say “see what a fascist tyranny we have here?”

Yah. And "the Communist Party" gets what out of this, exactly? There is some chance that being an unhinged tax protester in Arizona may have left you just a bit out of touch with urban blacks, johnnycakes.

I'd like to come up with an estimate of the ratio of the number of black Witnesses who I run into during my travels about the city to the number of black Communists, but there's no denominator to be had.

Allow me to reiterate this point.*

* I think I've credited properly at some point, but it's from an interview in Lew Yablonsky's book The Hippie Trip. (It's dry, but essential, reading for anyone interested in that history, IMO.)

Considering the fact that the slave traders were mostly black and the early slave owners in the United States were black, and that blacks were not the only slaves, AND, police have shot more white than they have blacks in spite of the fact the highest crime rates are in black communities; AND blacks kill each other off at a far higher rate than whites, AND whenever a black is shot in the course of committing a crime the black community goes ballistic and screams about police brutality, but whenever a white is shot in the course of committing a crime you never see the white community (or the black community) going ballistic over it because he was a criminal and the shooting was in self-defense, and considering the fact that the family members of blacks shot in the commission of crime wail and moan and ask questions like "how else was he supposed to get any money for school clothes?" it appears obvious that your understanding of the issue about which you bloviate is serious deficient. And for your information, two items: One: My partner when I was a private investigator in San Francisco was black and we saved each other's ass several times in some pretty nasty ghettoes, and Two: I would vote for Alan King or Allen West in a New York Second for President, and they are both blacker than ZEROBama by half, so don't start with me on this racist crap.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to who is saying what, but I will point out that Narad said “I’ll join you in ignoring any mention of it being a joke about the oath.

Why, no, I didn't. Are you too fυcking dense to understand how blockquotes work, or something?

And why are you so fucking bloody-minded you can't carry on a debate without vicious insults?

Don, of course you're a misogynist; you stated perviously that you believe that "women have the right to choose to get pregnant", which is a hateful statement that denies rape. Therefore you are a misogynist.

I can't wait until we have a woman president and your head explodes.

The context in which I said that was not discussing rape and asserting that women have the right to choose not to get pregnant is a recognition of their rights the rapist violates, not an indication of misogyny. You have a bloody-minded way of reading in your own biases, JustaTech. I most assuredly recognize and support every right a woman has (or men, too; male rape does occur) against rape and I rail angrily against assholes who want women to be defenseless against rape. Buy a gun, dammit, and learn how to use it safely and legally and carry it. Because your rapist will, whether the law allows it or not. Self-defense is not a crime and any jurisdiction that says it is is a tyranny in violation of human rights.

Hillary, on the other hand, is a narcissistic vicious little hippie bitch

P.S. I'm here to elevate the level of discussion.

When it comes to that subject, it is not possible. All you can do is paint yourself with her villainy.

Wait, so is Australia the "Communist" country Donny claims to have spent four years in?

"Wait, so is Australia the “Communist” country Donny claims to have spent four years in?"

Yep. It was then; the Labor Government was in power and they proudly said so every time anyone advocated the Law of Supply and Demand, or advocated free-market capitalism. They had egg-marketing boards and dairy marketing boards and beef marketing boards and vegetable marketing boards and the producers of these products were all subsidized by government so every entrepreneur with money saved up from work-related injuries would open a farm to produce until they had a glut and the boards would raise the prices until people couldn't afford to buy the product and the boards would issue press releases threatening to dump the excess in the landfill if people didn't start buying it, and people would respond they should reduce the price and the boards would temporarily reduce the price for one week and the results would "prove" the law of supply and demand doesn't work because they didn't see one more unit of the product during that week BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DELIVER ANY MORE. And now you know why the Aussies refused to pass any government initiative in spite of a A$10 fine for refusing to vote -- they'd scribble all over the ballot, voting for no one, and call it the "donkey vote."

I understand they have become less communistic under a later prime minister who manages to get a law through parliament making labor union membership optional. Union membership dropped from about 56% in the Trades to 23%, and union members stopped kicking people off the sidewalk who refused to get out of their way.

And there are more incredible (to naïve Americans) stories I could relate revealing the total idiocy of the far-left political viewpoint.

JP: Good catch! I don't think Don has ever been to a Communist country, or a former Communist country, or met a Communist or someone who grew up in a Communist country.

I'm starting to feel like all his ideas about "communists" are from Red Dawn and the John Birch Society, and maybe Dr Strangelove.

I've got plenty of friends and coworkers who grew up in Communist countries and here's a news flash: they're people, first and foremost, not automatons or monsters.

I wonder what color the sky is in Don's world?

Oh. I forgot. You've been raise to believe a communist country is just like us, unaware that they are not just like us; we have illegally become "just like them" so you can't see any difference. You also believe socialism is really not communism, because you are unaware that socialism is nothing but communism with the gun pointed at your forehead hidden instead of being obvious. It is still used occasionally, however, to keep the victims in line, but it is kept quiet when possible. It is still robbing producer Peter to support layabouts and guvmint official Paul (which is a repetition).

When you find out who scammed the country into the Ponzi scheme called Social Security, you will also find out the number they issued you is also known as a “Nazi-style Government-issued serial number.”

I regret that I'm unable to figure out what the quotation marks are here for; this appears to be novel, if wholly incompetent, coinage. I suppose it does open up some sort of branding* market, though. Could you elaborate on the different styles (and issuers) of serial numbers? Y'know "Greek-style" yogurt, etc.

TIA.

* Wait for it.

You lack of ... accurate ... political education is showing. So you tell me: What's the difference between the serial numbers Hitler and his vicious goons tattooed on the foreheads, forearms, or hands of Jews and other scapegoats and the U.S. government-issued Social Security serial numbers issued to U.S. citizens with the caveat, written in bold letters across the card, "NOT TO BE USED FOR IDENTIFICATION," which is, as all expected, no longer there?

And I forgot to ask you, "just what the hell do you think those "biometric ID cards" are for, that subversive adam henry Sensenbrenner introduced into law and is now being rammed down our throats whether we want them or not? How long before the sheeple are so used to them that they will be compressed into a machine-reader chip you can wear under your skin and just wave your arm at a card reader when you want to buy something ... or when you want to leave your neighborhood, or access your workplace, or buy groceries, or collect your children from school, or cross a State line, etc., etc.

^ Damn blockquote fail.

Wait, so is Australia the “Communist” country Donny claims to have spent four years in?

Did I forget to ask whether he is now, or ever has been, a "student" of "Zenith Applied Philosophy"?

No, and it's just another cult trying to escape reality by drinking someone else's Kool-Aid.

JustaTech: "I’ve got plenty of friends and coworkers who grew up in Communist countries and here’s a news flash: they’re people, first and foremost, not automatons or monsters."

Yes! There seem to be plenty here (the "European Grocery Store" on Aurora in north Seattle is difficult to shop at since I can't read the labels' Cyrillic alphabet). One of of my favorite memoirs I read a while back was about living in Czechoslovakia, with some very humorous ways of dealing with the "secret police": Twelve Little Cakes (the Seattle Public Library still has it on their shelves).

I have a feeling that Donny, like my dad, does not understand the difference between national economic structures and type of government (democratic republic, constitutional monarchy or plain ol' dictatorship, the latter kind of being employed in Venezuela). Oh, another rather humorous historical look at Russia, with the author commenting how the Czarist policies were reflected in the 20th/21st centuries is Glorious Misadventures.

Obviously neither book would be on Donny's radar.

And to the extent that neither illuminate the American (U.S.) descent into tyranny by a rogue occupation government, neither is instructive as to the here and now. Question: Why don't you read what American authors and philosophers have had to say about the American experiment in liberty? People like Ben Franklin, John Paine, James Madison, John Jay, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson. Documents like the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States? We were and remain today the only nation in the history of the planet to be founded on principles of private individual liberty instead of the arbitrary whims of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords, entrepreneurship instead of conquest, etc. Maybe you should give them a try, and then figure out how and why we have devolved into a rogue occupation government without a shred of lawful authority throwing its weight around all over the world.

Uh-huh.

I’m not sure what the red and green colors mean since there seems to be no explanation key

*blink*

but I’ve read several books published in the 1800’s and early 1900’s in which the phrase was used in a manner to suggest it was in common usage — particularly when government tried to stick its now into someone’s private business.

Like which? How common? (Remember, prideful, too.) Filed away with your ground-breaking court case? Memory troubles? C'mon, you've got the limelight that you so crave.

Including but not limited to biographies of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, several Hemingways, Bat Masterson, Doc Holliday, Wyatt Earp, "A Caveat Against Injustice" by Roger Sherman, the only man to have signed all four of the documents that formed our nation and who designed our monetary system of intrinsic value (robbed from us by charlatans in public office who preferred the embezzlement system proposed by John Maynard Keynes, who was a British Lord, btw, and a proponent of recovering the British colonies) and more. I'm not certain each or really any of these books contain the phrase "sovereign citizen," but I have read enough to know it was in common usage whenever discussing the struggles of the common man against overweening government.

Chris: Oh, there are Eastern European grocery stores up there? Sweet! I've been looking for some very specific kinds of rye (getting in touch with my Scandinavian heritage) and that would be a much better place to look than Whole Paycheck.
Thanks!

(I keep meaning to read "Mastering the Art of Soviet Cooking", which is a food-based memoir about growing up in the USSR.)

My, my. What a big bag the 'nurse' has. The outline of the rectangular shape in that big bag kinda looks a bit like a defibrillator.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/09/13/16/384CDD9800000578-3786445-i…

Yeah, my wife has a bag very similar to it. She carries her art supplies in it and one cinder block.
OK, not really true for the cinder block, it only feels like it.

For someone with a screwed up spine, she sure has one heavy bag to hand off to me to carry for her!

Excuse me, I've got a fly stuck in my tail...

Too big. Speaking of ... unrestrained speculation ...

Donny: you said : Trump is a typically bombastic loudmouthed New Yorker, but — contrary to the far left media — has a record of treating his employees decently without regard to gender, race, or disabilities, and has helped a lot of people who were in dire straits and some who weren’t just because they were Good Samaritans.

Are we talking about the same Trump who has over 400 lawsuits against him because he doesn't pay his subcontractors? Who talks about women like they are either brainless or whores, and deserve to be sexually harassed because "they can just find another job"? Who thinks vaccines cause autism and makes fun of disabled people? THAT guy?

If that's what you think if respect and taking care of people, I don't want to see how you think people should be abused.

Yeah, we're talking about the same guy, but we aren't talking about the same source of information about him. You need to stop listening to the hippie twerp and start reading the stuff the mainstream media won't print because it blows their propaganda out of the water.

Are we talking about the same Trump who has over 400 lawsuits against him because he doesn’t pay his subcontractors?

He transcended being raised among bombastic loudmouthed New Yorkers "Kazars."

Pardon me while I whistle the theme to The Newlywed Game.

Thanks for the link; everyone should read that post.

Watch that foot again with it enscribed for easier vewing pleasure --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfAPqvk80_c

^ Foie gras, that is.

The autism "Holocaust"? Why antivaccine advocates are not autism advocates

oracknows — Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:00:04 +0000

The autism "Holocaust"? Why antivaccine advocates are not autism advocates

A typical response to a charge of being antivaccine coming from someone whose rhetoric is definitely antivaccine is to clutch her pearls mightily and retort, "I'm not 'anti-vaccine.' I'm pro-vaccine safety." Similarly, a common retort of antivaccinationists who believe that vaccines cause autism, particularly those who believe that vaccines caused their children's autism, is to declare themselves "autism advocates." Indeed, the bloggers at one of the most wretched hives of scum and antivaccine quackery on the whole Internet, Age of Autism, routinely declare themselves an autism advocacy organization. They're not anti-vaccine. Oh, no. How dare you call them that? Unfortunately, not infrequently they manage to pull off the act well enough to be taken seriously by government agencies as actual autism advocates.

These two claims of antivaccine groups (that they're not antivaccine but that they are pro-vaccine safety and autism advocates) are easily falsified. Indeed, I've documented numerous examples over the years that antivaccinationists who claim the mantle of vaccine safety are, in fact, doing nothing of the sort, but what about the second claim, that they are advocates for autistic children? This claim, too, is belied by their words and behavior. In particular, I've pointed out over the years penchant such people have for comparing the "autism epidemic" (which was always there but disguised under different diagnoses) to a "Holocaust," making vaccine manufacturers the Nazis because their products are blamed for causing this "Holocaust." It's an analogy that I've pointed out more times than I can remember over the years, one used by no less majors figure in the antivaccine movement than Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Dr. Bob Sears.

All of which serves as background for a particularly illuminating post by Dan Olmsted (although it illuminates in a manner not intended by its author), entitled, Is Autism a Holocaust? Riffing on a book with a typical antivaccine title, The Autistic Holocaust: The Reason Our Children Keep Getting Sick by Jon Mica. This led Olmsted to wonder "whether calling autism a holocaust, capital H or lower h, in a book title or anywhere else, is simply out of bounds." Personally, from my perspective, if you ask that question in a manner in which the answer could go either way, yes or no, you are almsot certainly an antivaccine loon. Certainly Dan Olmsted is that. So are the people he posed this question to, Bob Krakow, Lou Conte and John Gilmore. They all more or less agreed that it's probably not ever appropriate to call the "autism epidemic" a holocaust (either big-H or little-h), but the reasons they give for their answers are pure antivaccine pseudoscience.

Let's start out with Bob Krakow, a lawyer known for representing parents who believe that vaccines caused their child's autism. He doesn't think that the comparison is "not appropriate and does not serve the interests of our children." Obviously. But then get a load of his reasons:

Naming what has happened to our children a ”Holocaust" calls for a comparison that diminishes what happened to the children, but distorts the sense of what has happened. It is a facile comparison and unhelpful. What happened to our kids is something new, devastating and horrible. The response to the devastation - in many levels - warrants extreme moral outrage. But there is no Fuhrer orchestrating a systematic exercise of killing against one or more groups based on ethnicity or belief. In fact, what is happening here today is more insidious and less obviously evil, so it is more challenging to identify and counter. “Autism” - a word I equate to a slave name because it is, in a sense, a medical euphemism, which means little and signifies ignorance about cause -- is also not a good word for what afflicts our children.

Choice of language is important. Using the word “Holocaust” is use of a word that is a sort of blunt linguistic instrument that fails to describe what has happened. It will also offend certain groups and elicit resistance to our narratives - although that is not my primary concern. We have to use our own language, new language, not use comparisons that are inapt.

So, in other words, Krakow objects to the use of the word "Holocaust" to describe autism but has no problem comparing autistic children to slaves, referring to the word "autism" as a "slave name." I'd agree with Krakow that the use of language is important. Indeed, it's very important. Building on that assertion, I'd point out that Krakow's choice of the term "slave name" reveals far more about his views and language strategy than perhaps he might want to reveal. He's also demonstrating a whole lot of racial insensitivity; one wonders what African-Americans think of his use of the term "slave name," given the history of slavery in this country. I can't help but wonder whether Krakow is Jewish (he is listed in two Jewish business directories, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is Jewish). If Krakow is Jewish, then it's hard for me not to see his objection to the appropriation of the word "Holocaust" to describe autism coupled with his concurrent use of the word "slave name" to describe autism as nothing more than a Jew being upset at someone misappropriating his people's history while hypocritically being more than willing to misappropriate African American history to serve his rhetorical purpose.

Besides, elsewhere, it's clear that Krakow's quibble is only a matter of degree:

Those of us who are vaccine safety advocates should learn to stop leading with our chin so that we do not provide our adversaries with easy opportunities to focus on side issues. Mass injury to children by vaccines is not the" holocaust" and it is not "genocide"; it is its own modern form of atrocity that requires and merits its own language.

In other words, he doesn't like the term "Holocaust" applied to autism and vaccines not because it is a bad analogy (although it is beyond breathtakingly bad) but rather because he thinks that it's a bad strategic move for his side.

Similarly John Gilmore objects to the use of the word "Holocaust" only because it has associations with the Nazis that are "too powerful," but then he can't resist undermining his response by pointing out that among the first victims of the Nazis were the developmentally disabled. To this observation Conte couldn't resist adding the history of eugenics, because, you know, vaccination is just like eugenics.

Lou Conte prefers a different term than "Holocaust":

Which is why I refer to what we're experiencing as being "The Great Poisoning."

It's not just a poisoning of our children but a poisoning of our morals, of our public institutions and sense of what people should do for each other.

Let's be clear here. This isn't about disease prevention or public health any more.

It's about corporate profit and if you can get the government to mandate the use of drugs, billions can be made. NY just mandated the meningitis vaccine on a population where meningitis hasn't happened in 5 years. NY did this because it could, because they were paid to do it and because they didn't even care enough to question it.

Hundreds of young people will be injured by a drug they don't need - many seriously. They will be poisoned so that pharma can make a few billion more.

I commend Conte on his restraint in not bringing up Bayer, which was a division of I.G. Farben spun off from the company when it was broken up after the war. (I. G. Farben made the Zyklon B used to kill Jews in the gas chambers.) Yes, that's sarcasm, in case that's not obvious enough and in case someone tries to quote mine me.

Of course, the comments, as is so often the case, show the depths of craziness in the antivaccine movement. Conte, Gilmore, and Krakow might not think that referring to autism as a holocaust is a good idea, but AoA denizens disagree. Here are a few examples:

no-vac:

Holocaust is very appropriate word for massive maiming and extermination of already 2 generations of American children for profits of pharmaceutical mafias. We can' use euphemisms anymore for description of this genocide.

Linda1:

"I don’t think the word Holocaust is too extreme. But perhaps some might want it spelled with a small h.. / “holocaust.”"

?

How about all caps - HOLOCAUST. Is mass poisoning and murder since WWII less important? Less noteworthy? Less horrific? Are we anesthetized?

Shannon Epstein:

Sorry, but it is a holocaust. It just is.

Danchi:

If people don't like the word Holocaust, how about:

Federal and State sanctioned Genocide.

Holocaust or Genocide-either one works for me but actually neither one is strong enough to characterize what has become the destruction of several generations of people not only in the US but around the world.

Dawn Loughborough:

These are atrocities against children. This is a holocaust happening now and it has to be stopped.

Cia Parker:

I think the word Holocaust is appropriate. Our children have been flung onto the altar and burnt there to sate the thirst for corporate profits. Burned on the altar of Mammon. All of the imagery evoked is moving at the deepest levels of our soul. The perversion of the worship of God to that of the scientist and doctor in the white coat claiming to have taken the place of God in the religion of Science, while behind the scenes it is the power and money-obsessed plutocrats who are throwing children into the flames, while proclaiming that they are really saving lives, don't look behind the curtain. Imagery of millions of Jews being rounded up and led to the slaughter, most of them submissively and uncomprehendingly. Both of these image pictures are accurate. They are obscene, but again, that is exactly how to describe what is happening. It is obscene.

So, whenever you see antivaccinationists try to co-opt the language of advocacy for autistic children and of drug and vaccine safety, remember this. There is a large contingent of antivaccine activists who truly and honestly believe that describing the results of the vaccine program, the most prominent of which to them is an "autism epidemic," are quite properly described as a holocaust and that comparing these results to the actual Jewish Holocaust is not beyond the pale. And if autism and vaccines are the equivalent of a big-H or little-h holocaust, what, then, does that make pharmaceutical companies and pro-science advocates like us? Nazis.

That's all you need to know about what many antivaccinationists think about autism and why their donning the mantle of "vaccine safety" and "autism advocacy" is a sham.

oracknows Thu, 11/12/2015 - 03:00

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

autism

complementary and alternative medicine

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Robert J. Krakow

vaccine

complementary and alternative medicine

They all more or less agreed that it’s probably not ever appropriate to call the “autism epidemic” a holocaust (either big-H or little-h), but the reasons they give for their answers are pure antivaccine pseudoscience.

So these three have the minimal amount of self-awareness to be wary of invoking Godwin's Law, but little or nothing beyond that. That puts them above the quoted AoA commenters, who have no issue with committing argumentum ad Hitleram.

Naming what has happened to our children a ”Holocaust” calls for a comparison that diminishes what happened to the children, but distorts the sense of what has happened.

Orac, I think you might've missed a bit here. Krakow doesn't like "Holocaust" because, apparently, autism is worse than the mass murder of millions of people. From how I'm reading it (and some of the comments you quote), calling autism a holocaust, to these people, is like calling an amputation a scratch.

If the Nazi's holocaust had been the kind of 'holocaust' that antivaxers freak out about today, then Hitler would have been remembered as a great man who helped to end preventable diseases.

Repeat after me,
IMPROVING PUBLIC HEALTH IS NOT a F***ING HOLOCAUST!

At Pomona College, the Pomona Student Union is hosting a discussion called "Beyond Vaccine Wars: A Look at the Politics and Legislation of Vaccination" this coming Monday (11/16) night. (https://www.facebook.com/events/159477557739827/).

Somehow they feel that Bob Sears and Jennifer Margulis are appropriate for 2 of the 4 members of this discussion panel convened "for a discussion on vaccination policy, looking at the intersection of public health, individual choice, and the role of our government."

Here's to hoping the students/faculty of Pomona realize the true nature of these two anti-vaccinationists, though I suspect not, as these two AVers are are billed as:

1. Jennifer Margulis, PhD: Former Senior Fellow at the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism; featured in PBS Frontline’s “The Vaccine War;” author of “Your Baby, Your Way: Taking Charge of Your Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Parenting Decisions for a Happy, Healthier Family”

2. Dr. Bob Sears, MD: Orange County pediatrician; Founder of the non-profit Immunity Education Group

There's so much more that could (and should) have been said about both, such as Margulis saying on screen for PBS's front line that "As a parent, I would rather see my child get a natural illness and contract that the way that illnesses have been contracted for at least 200,000 years that homo sapiens have been around. I’m not afraid of my children getting chicken pox. There are reasons that children get sick. Getting sick is not a bad thing." Or Sears with his offensive and insane Holocaust comparisons as well as how Sears has been called directly causative (by Dr. David Núñez, Family Health Medical Director for the Orange County Health Care Agency) for the decreased vaccination rates in Orange County that have fueled two pertussis and two measles outbreaks there. But nope, he's just a pediatrician and harmless founder of a non-profit to "educate" us on "Immunity".

I sure hope these college students don't think Sears represents pediatricians when it comes to vaccination. But then again, since the AAP has refused to expel or even criticize Sears and the California Medical Board has not disciplined Sears, thost students might well think this is how pediatrician all over the US think and practice.

Not only is vaccination a HOLOCAUST, but at the same time it's APARTHEID (separating out the children of vaccine refusers to private/religious schools and home schooling).

To paraphrase a certain Palestinian leader, where is the De Klerk of the pro-vaxers?*

*we already know Orac is their Goebbels.**
**just kidding, fer chrissake.

As Kim notes ( AoA: " Georgia Mom....")-
"Welcome to the tribe of the dead".

Similarly, a commenter on Dan's Holocaust article speaks of-
" massive maiming and extermination".

Some anti-vaxxers remark elsewhere that vaccines/ the government/ doctors "destroyed" or "stole" their child. After vaccines, the child was "gone".

Which is odd because the child is right there NEXT to them- living, breathing, feeling, thinking, eating, playing, learning.

This has always bothered me: what does it mean to conceive of a person as being "dead" ?
The dead feel nothing, see nothing, know nothing and have no future; nothing can be done to change their state.

I recall a play ( I forget which) where a father says angrily to his son:
" You're dead to me" thereby dismissing him- curtailing their relationship and any responsibility he has as a parent.

Recently, Kim ( again) described her daughters' conditions as being a form of Alzheimers-
thinking of the usual course/s of this illness leads me to worry about these young women.

What's truly 'dead' ( and should be) is the parent's idealised notion of a what a child is supposed to be:
perfect, brilliant, something about which one can brag, an avenue for the parent's thwarted dreams, something to credit oneself for creating or forming both physically and intellectually.

We've discussed the mixed messages anti-vax women transmit about feminism and women's roles :
I wonder if this over-focusing and fetishisation of children's future successes and their "braggability" quotient is an indicator of their own problems with identity.

As if this isn't bad enough:
I've recently watched videos at TMR's new "television" work.
Ten channels, endless recitative. raising money for woo.

“Autism” – a word I equate to a slave name because it is, in a sense, a medical euphemism, which means little and signifies ignorance about cause — is also not a good word for what afflicts our children.

^^I think this is the tell that reveals the underlying motive for the exercise.***

They want to go in a Thompson/Nation-of-Islam direction.

And the H-word (and/or the h-word) is problematic in that regard.

Quoth Louis Farrakhan:

German Jews financed Hitler right here in America...International bankers financed Hitler and poor Jews died while big Jews were at the root of what you call the Holocaust...Little Jews died while big Jews made money. Little Jews [were] being turned into soap while big Jews washed themselves with it. Jews [were] playing violin, Jews [were] playing music, while other Jews [were] marching into the gas chambers....

And quoth Khalid Abdul Mohammed:

You see, everybody always talk about Hitler exterminating 6 million Jews...but don't nobody ever asked what did they do to Hitler? What did they do to them folks? They went in there, in Germany, the way they do everywhere they go, and they supplanted, they usurped, they turned around, and a German, in his own country, would almost have to go to a Jew to get money. They had undermined the very fabric of the society.

Both quotes are from Wiki.

Current leadership does not publicly advance such views, afaik. But the '90s were not that long ago. So at the very least, they're still held by many, presumably.

They also think Jews were responsible for slavery.

But at least they don't think that while abortion is slavery, and Obamacare is slavery, slavery itself is entrepreneurial risk-taking and capital investment, like Ben Carson.

***Although, just btw, slave names were not euphemisms that meant little and signified ignorance about cause. They were names and they signified ownership.

One particular bright red holocaust meme has had a little resurgence on twitter the last week or so. The one quoting Kennedy saying autistic children wake after a fever and their "brain has gone".

I challenged a few people circulating it to explain why they thought it was appropriate to describe autistic people as brainless and dead.

Response from several of them was that wasn't what he meant, I should play fair, and then I got blocked.

Well, wtf does it mean then?

Shorter version of #7: They're trying to re-brand for the NOI, which means "slavery model" not "Holocaust model," but the parents don't go for it, because white people don't perceive slavery as harmful to them. In a vague, unconsidered way, it confirms their sense of natural-born superiority, if anything.

@ VaccineTruthUK:

Right.
I notice that TMR Network's video ( the 3 minute one) says that kids with ASDs have
" the nervous systems of Alzheimer's patients, ( the psychological profile)** of war veterans and the immune system of cancer patients" but the "souls of angels".

Dementia like AD is progressive deterioration that results in death. ASD is quite another thing.

** my synonym -I don' want to watch it again.

Why are so many fanatics also so remarkably stupid?

@ palindrom:

Oh, please, please don't make me answer that one.

@Denice --

Those are interesting similes.

I hypothesize that what they're really saying is that they see themselves as brave and saintly yet super-sensitive warriors who have been tragically afflicted by something irreversible that's both identity-destroying and life-destroying.

That something being: Having a child with autism, figuratively represented as Alzheimer's/cancer.

As Orac so very rightly says, they are not autism advocates.

@Palindrom

I think it's a "why do birds sing so gay?" type of a thing.

@palindrom: It's worse than ordinary stupidity. Some people can't help being stupid. These people are stupid by choice.

@ ann:

They're seeing these kids as LESS than what they are.
Incapable of learning, having no future, a lost cause.

My guess is that the mother- warrior role seems to mix traditional roles ( mother) with more aggressive, traditionally masculine expressions; others at AoA ( Heckenlively) choose super heroes.
Both seem childish as they are under-articulated and barely tried out in real life. Also displaying black-and-white, good vs evil stereotypical thinking reminiscent of children's stories.

Also displaying black-and-white, good vs evil stereotypical thinking reminiscent of children’s stories.

Totally. Or religious ones. But that's almost all moral literature, in one way or another.

Narrative is great for some things, but thought isn't one of them.

I would describe adult thought about personal characteristics as being more subtle- blending " good" and "bad" qualities and viewing much of how people ( self and OTHERS) behave as being driven by situational constraints, not entirely due to personality.

Notice also that saintliness and devilry are exaggerations and un-blended portraits of realistic human characterisations. There's research about this in development of. Social Cognition.

More modern literature and more adult-like literary conceptions of others mix good and evil, providing reasons why people behave as they do- part of executive functioning to predict others realistically. Thus, the anti-hero of popular lit etc.

IMHO, ann is close to the mark on Krakow, but missing some of the subtlety. The "slave name" is 'autism', not Holocaust. The reference to naming does not technically compare ASD folks to slaves. My guess is that the choice of this oblique invocation of slavery is not so much that the anti-vax 'movement' is going full-on in a NOI direction, but a move to make the NOI feel welcome under the anti-vax tent. That is, they want the NOI to go in THEIR direction. It's telling that the analogy is only half-apt. From Krakow's POV, 'autism' IS like a slave name, in that it's imposed on a group of 'subjugated' people by the dominant society. However, the inverse of a "slave name" is what the subjugated choose to call themselves (e.g. Leroi Jones changing his name to Amiri Baraka). And what ASD folks choose to call themselves rejects any implication that they have been "maimed", "destroyed" or are "gone", no better than the walking dead. So, for Krakow, the subjugated are not the kids, but THE PARENTS, for it is their choice to reject the label of 'autism' for 'vaccine atrocity' or whatever.

What's telling to me in Denice's #6 is that having a child be "something about which one can brag" should NOT depend on the kid being "perfect, brilliant ...an avenue for the parent’s thwarted dreams". At least for the kids I've met with moderate to 'high-functioning' ASD, they've had plenty of good human qualities am open-minded and sympathetic parent could brag on...

Narrative is great for some things, but thought isn’t one of them.

I couldn't disagree more. Narrative is the primary tool our species uses for thinking (and as I've noted here before, there's at least some research that supports this, and none AFAIK that refutes it). Like any tool, there are good and bad ways to use it. Warrior and superhero stories are harmful not because they're stories, or even because they're moral tales, but because the morals they deliver are BS.

I think that these parents are being today's typical helicopter parents, wanting to "expose" their children to anything and everything so that they can brag about how wonderful and involved little Johnny or Debbie is, as well as socialize with the other helicopters during the events. But lo and behold, my perfect child isn't perfect, isn't what I bargained for and it must be someone's fault and I can't do/be what I planned and wanted so the child is "dead" and "brainless" as far as I am concerned. It's all about me, the parent and what I want/need/expect. I feel sorry for those kids, as children on the spectrum can advance and learn and do so much if their parents devote themselves to working with them instead of working against vaccination.

Fanatics are not 'stupid'. They are typically 'smart' people in some context, who say and do stupid things in another. I do not believe they choose to 'be stupid'. Rather IMHO they suffer from some sort of dysfunction (we've often invoked something like NPD here) that short-circuits their cognitive functions on certain terrain...

" “Autism” – a word I equate to a slave name because it is, in a sense, a medical euphemism, which means little and signifies ignorance about cause — is also not a good word for what afflicts our children"

Aside from the fact that Krakow is merely substituting one inappropriate and histrionic analogy for another (inappropriate not just in the sense that it's offensive, but also at the more basic level that the comparison makes no sense, since slave-names had nothing to do with euphemism), is he seriously objecting to the fact that doctors give diseases names? Does he think every reference to a specific disease should be a full description of the disease, like those stereotypical "Indian" names, like "heap-big-contagious-disease-that-causes-fever-and-rash" instead of "measles?"

Any one else get the feeling that what he's basically saying is that he thinks autism should be called something like "screaming-head-banging-eating-your-own-poop-disease," or perhaps "vaccine-induced-loss-of-soul?"

Dr. Bob is prob one of the worst antivax autism 'experts.' In his autism book, among other crazy recommendations, he says that...

"I do believe that chelation is appropriate in the follow situations - any child with moderate to severe autism born in 2001 or earlier (who therefore received a lot of mercury from vaccines) who hasn't shown much benefit from biomedical treatments could try aggressive IV chelation with an experienced physician."

@ 23 Sarah A

That's exactly what he's saying. The Big Pharma overlords are oppressing them and damaging their children and "autism" or "ASD" is the name they've used to keep us in control. They didn't choose that name, it's Big Pharma calling it a disorder, when in fact, it's Vaccine Injury.

sadmar @#22: In other words, smart in one field doesn't mean smart in every field. See also Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" or any of Orac's posts on the subject.

@Chan Kobun,
Also explains Ben Carson to a great extent.

Thanks Orac, I was hoping you would pick this one up.

I have to agree with Todd W.@2 though:

Orac, I think you might’ve missed a bit here. Krakow doesn’t like “Holocaust” because, apparently, autism is worse than the mass murder of millions of people.

Actually, for this reason I think this might be the most offensive Holocaust comparison post I've ever seen from thr antivaxers.

(note: all emphasis below are mine)

Naming what has happened to our children a ”Holocaust" calls for a comparison that diminishes what happened to the children [...]

I can't even. I feel like I must be missing something because there's no way this means what I think it does.

In fact, what is happening here today is more insidious and less obviously evil, so it is more challenging to identify and counter.

This belies very poor historical knowledge.

I think we might be dealing with something potentially worse than National Socialism [...]

Sigh...

"Autism” – a word I equate to a slave name
"Dropping one's slave name" was more of a 70s / 80s post-Roots thing, wasn't it? People deciding to reject the European-style names that been assigned to their ancestors by those ancestors' owners, and adopting new names that they hoped were more in keeping with those ancestors' pre-enslavement origins? (as Sadmar notes @19).

Krakow has no idea of the origins of the issues he's appropriating, but he won't let that stop him from trivialising them.

@capnkrunch

Exactly. That kind of rhetoric, possibly more than anything else, shows that they are not, in any way, autism advocates. They do more to hurt efforts to support autistics than, well, pretty much anyone else. They stigmatize autism to such a degree that parents who fall into their clutches lose hope and do things like murder their own children. We saw it when Alex Spourdalakis was murdered by his mother. We see it in the recent murder of Dustin Hicks by his mother.

Possibly one 'reason' ( if I may use that term for unreasonability) they like the word 'holocaust' is because they believe that autism ( like oppression and death in the actual Holocaust) is 'caused' (if I may use that term) by the mechanisations of an illicit government.

So N-zis killed as the US/ UK/ others destroy children.

Government aligned with industry = fascism as I hear over and over.

Dr. Bob is prob one of the worst antivax autism ‘experts.’ In his autism book, among other crazy recommendations, he says that…

“I do believe that chelation is appropriate in the follow situations – any child with moderate to severe autism born in 2001 or earlier (who therefore received a lot of mercury from vaccines) who hasn’t shown much benefit from biomedical treatments could try aggressive IV chelation with an experienced physician.”

I get the distinct impression that Bob Sears will write whatever it is he thinks the parents who frequent his practice want to read. So at a time when chelation therapy was fashionable in the autism recovery world, Bob Sears put it in his book.

It is all about the kaching for Bob.

@ Chris #32: Sears has shown, over and over, that he will whore his name out to whatever fills his purse and/or gets him adoration. Those traits make for an irresponsible physician.

I will keep trying to point out that autism is the result of brain damage by myriad many different causes. Way stations in the brainstem auditory pathway have higher blood flow than any other area of the brain. Evidence of damage by asphyxia at birth and heavy metals has been in the medical literature for decades. Quibbling over particular causes leads nowhere.

Chris @4: Damnit Pomona, did you have to pick them?
I wish I had more connections to the current students at Harvey Mudd (super nerd school just up the hill from Pomona) to suggest that the Mudders head on down to this meeting and take them apart.

Aside from being scientists, there are a *lot* of Mudders who are on the spectrum and would not take kindly to being told that they are "braindead".

@sadmar, #20 --

Abstract thinking is also a thing. So is analytic thinking. So is critical thinking. So is rumination. So is contemplation. So are a number of other modes of cognition and intellection that are non-narrative.

I mean, obviously, as Joan Didion so very rightly said, "We tell ourselves stories in order to live." Narrative thinking also has some heuristic value. It's good for planning and goal-setting, too. And etc. It has its uses.

But in the main, I stand by what I said. On its own, it's very limited.

Warrior and superhero stories are harmful not because they’re stories, or even because they’re moral tales, but because the morals they deliver are BS.

I disagree with that in every particular, and also as a whole. Or almost every particular.

Warrior and superhero stories are not categorically harmful.

They're also not categorically moral stories, but when they are, the morals they deliver are not necessarily BS. And even when they are, they're still not categorically harmful.

I'm not sure it would really be accurate to say that they're harmful at all, in the sense that warriors do not go to war simply as a result of exposure to warrior stories and do go to war without having had any.

By and large, imagination and imaginary acts are not, in and of themselves, harmful, imo. They can be influential. But in what way is determined by the recipient of the message, and not by the message itself.

Both warrior and superhero stories are, however, stories. I agree with you there.

I love the picture at the top of this post. This is why Israel presents the annual Adolf Hitler Award for Public Health Service.

Blame it on all the vaccines I've had over the years, as evident in my World Health Organization International Certificate of Vaccination booklet, but my brain keeps registering holocause instead of holocaust.

IMHO, ann is close to the mark on Krakow, but missing some of the subtlety. The “slave name” is ‘autism’, not Holocaust.

That seems to me to be not so much subtle as it is a blatant misreading of the text, the point of which is that autism is akin to a slave name, not to the Holocaust, and not that the slave name is not Holocaust but autism.

It goes into much more detail wrt to the Holocaust than it does the slave-name simile. But the reason he's doing that is essentially to appeal to his audience's sense of persecution by arguing that their situation is actually something worse than the Holocaust.

And while he doesn't actually say "slavery inflicted a more serious injury than the Holocaust, and was therefore worse" that's obviously the trial balloon he's trying covertly to float.

...

Such comparisons are otiose, but if, for some reason, the two absolutely had to be compared, I'd say that was a true statement. So at least it has that going for it.

The reference to naming does not technically compare ASD folks to slaves.

The people to whom a slave name is given are slaves. Therefore, the people to whom an autism diagnosis is given, are also slaves. Technically.

My guess is that the choice of this oblique invocation of slavery is not so much that the anti-vax ‘movement’ is going full-on in a NOI direction, but a move to make the NOI feel welcome under the anti-vax tent. That is, they want the NOI to go in THEIR direction.

Yeah. I guess I thought it was self-evident that by "going in a Thompson/NOI" direction, I meant "rhetorically, for the purposes of appealing to the NOI and (by extension) African-Americans generally."

Particularly since that's exactly what my second post/shorter version said I meant.

It’s telling that the analogy is only half-apt. From Krakow’s POV, ‘autism’ IS like a slave name, in that it’s imposed on a group of ‘subjugated’ people by the dominant society. However, the inverse of a “slave name” is what the subjugated choose to call themselves (e.g. Leroi Jones changing his name to Amiri Baraka). And what ASD folks choose to call themselves rejects any implication that they have been “maimed”, “destroyed” or are “gone”, no better than the walking dead. So, for Krakow, the subjugated are not the kids, but THE PARENTS, for it is their choice to reject the label of ‘autism’ for ‘vaccine atrocity’ or whatever.

It goes without saying that the rhetorical figure is intended to resonate with parents, because that's to whom it's addressed.

But since we're talking about parents who think of autism as their cross to bear and their children as personal accessories that aren't the ones they ordered from the catalog at all, which they therefore resent getting stuck with:

It doesn't particularly matter to whom it's applied. The parents are fully pre-aware that all of it is always entirely about them. They don't need to have that hammered home.

And it's not half-apt. It's wholly inapt, because the parents don't think of themselves as subjugated, let alone enslaved. They think of themselves as people who are being discriminated against and persecuted by an amoral, self-seeking institutional power that controls everything and everybody except for those -- who like themselves -- refuse to be subjugated by it.

From a by-stander's perspective, it's actually all too apt wrt the children, since their parents think of them as wholly owned subsidiaries of themselves, not as independent, full-personhood-having beings..

But from the parent's POV, as applied to their children, it's again wholly inapt. Their children are an injury and an insult, as they see it. And to white people, that's just not rhetorically congruent with slaves/enslavement/slavery/slave names.

What makes it a tell is actually that it's such an inapt analogy that he has to explain it in terms that don't apply to slave names or anything else about slavery -- ie, a euphemism that means little and signifies ignorance about cause.

“Dropping one’s slave name” was more of a 70s / 80s post-Roots thing, wasn’t it?

Something something Malcolm X something.

@Narad --

Or -- as sadmar notes -- Amiri Baraka.

Also, note to sadmar:

I apologize for the hostile response.

But you'd have gained in courtesy and lost nothing but the implication that by graciously condescending to improve on someone else's insight you were doing it more of a favor than it really deserved if you'd said something a little more like "My reading was broadly similar to ann's, but I have a slightly different take" and a lot less like "IMHO, ann is close to the mark on Krakow, but missing some of the subtlety."

Comparisons are sometimes otiose-minus.

Something something Malcolm X something.

I think the hip-hop pseudonym tradition is also a modern-day, if you will, version of it: see this still very apropos song by Ice Cube.*

*"And the pigs wouldn't believe that my slave name was Jackson."

Every so often the plant taxonomists re-classify New Zealand orchids, and all the species names change. The Frau Doktorin has tried to convince me that the species have simply abandoned their slave names, but I am NOT FOOLED.

"He doesn’t think that the comparison is “not appropriate and does not serve the interests of our children.”"

Did you mean to include that "doesn't" there?

@Eileen Simon
You sound way more sure of the causes for autism than published research would support. "In literature for decades" sounds a little fishy. You also argue against causes as a valid topic. This blog only refutes the unfounded causes touted elsewhere.

@Todd W / capnkrunch

They stigmatize autism to such a degree that parents who fall into their clutches lose hope and do things like murder their own children.

I already put this link once to a rant over at This week in tomorrow, but I feel it's a message worth repeating. It was putting into words something I was tangentially aware of.
In short, the author agree with you wholeheartedly:

Every time you use the specter of autism as a scare tactic to frighten the world into following you off of Darwin’s cliff, you make life harder for people with autism.

Dangerous Bacon @5
To paraphrase a certain Palestinian leader, where is the De Klerk of the pro-vaxers?

Dr. Richard Pan perhaps?

Denice Walter @ 6 &10,Ann @ 13
You clearly have not lived with a more severe form of autism,or had a family member with a more severe form of autism.I can tell you from personal experience,autism can share many of the same symptoms as Alzheimers or dementia.As someone who has been able to reverse low functioning autism.as an adult,from treatable metabolic causes,I am kind of unique.I have been there.Maybe somebody ought to listen to me sometime.

There is a growing body of research that shows the same areas of the brain are involved in both Alzheimer's and dementia and in some forms of autism.

As for Kim Stagliano,and her daughters,there is clearly something genetic going on here.I would love to see someone offer to give all three of her daughters a whole exome sequence.I had one recently,and I found out that I do not have genetic mitochondrial disease as we thought,but a unique form of a very rare disease of chromosome 11.In an ideal world,I would like to see every child or adult with more severe or more medically complex autism have a whole exome sequencing done.We would no doubt find all kinds of new mutations,deletions,and duplications that would be of much value to science.The people who did mine will either do it free or at very low cost to low cost to low income families.

And yes I know if many of these kids and young adults these parents claim were "vaccine damaged" were found to have rare and unique genetic disorders,the basic doctrines of the antivaccine religion/cult would crumble to bits.That's sort of the idea,and why this will never happen.

@Roger Kulp

And yes I know if many of these kids and young adults these parents claim were “vaccine damaged” were found to have rare and unique genetic disorders,the basic doctrines of the antivaccine religion/cult would crumble to bits.That’s sort of the idea,and why this will never happen.

You underestimate the anti-vaccine ability of twisting anything to blame vaccines. They would argue that the vaccines caused the mutation, either when the child was immunized, or because the parent was immunized, or the grandparent.

Courtesy of an AoA commenter, this is amusing. Somebody get Jake on the blower.

@Roger Kulp#47 --

I wasn't commenting on the accuracy or applicability of the description at a literal level, one way or the other.

But I take you at your word. .

Narad's link goes to a push-poll:

1. I Request That The House Oversight Committee Subpoena All of the Authors of the MMR-Atlanta Paper to Discuss Under Oath the CDC Whistleblower Allegations of Changing the Protocol and Failing to Disclose Statistically Significant Finding that African American Boys Who Received the MMR Vaccine Before 36 Months were at Increased Risk of Developing Autism.

Yes. This needs to happen as soon as possible.

No. I do not believe this warrants a Congressional hearing.

Maybe. I do not know enough about the issue.

Thank you for participating in this brief survey. Beth Clay is conducting this survey in order to confirm whether or not there is a strong public desire for the US Congress, in particular the House Oversight Committee, Chairman Jason Chaffetz to subpoena all five authors (Dr. Frank DeStefano, Dr. TK Bhasin, Dr. William Thompson, Dr. Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, and Dr. Colleen Boyle) of the 2004 paper, (Pediatrics. 2004 Feb;113(2):259-66. Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta. DeStefano F1, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Boyle C.) to respond under oath regarding the allegations of scientific misconduct, cover up, malicious and callous disregard to public health if the allegations are true regarding the decade in which no alteration of timing of the MMR in African American boys was implemented.

Please address any questions to info@bethclay.com with 'survey' in the subject line. Your contact information will remain private. I need to gather basic contact information to confirm the validity of the response as well as to be able to show to legislators the geographic distribution of responses. I will email notice of publication of survey findings. Survey Results will be posted at http://www.bethclay.com

Transparency Disclosure: I previously led the House Oversight Committee investigation looking at autism increased incidence with then Chairman Dan Burton. I have previously consulted with organizations involved with autism and vaccine injury. At this time, I have no financial ties to any organization involved in these issues.

Then it asks for name, email address, and zip code. You know how I answered....

To all anti vaccination activists, so I'm basically part of the Nazis to you, the Zycon B to your children, the gas chamber, the medical experimentation, so I as an autistic child am a mini Hitler to you, well newsflash, I'm not, I am a jew in America who is interested in politics and has empathy, does that sound like a nazi to you, does that sound like a member of the Hitler Youth to you, well it may to you, but not to me. This isn't even the worst of it, the worst of this is that you're mocking the true victims of the Holocaust, and the survivors as well. I met survivors of the Holocaust, are you saying that their suffering is the same or NOT AS BAD as your "suffering." You're wrong, they suffered, and you're not suffering at all, especially compared to them. You suck!
Sincerely
Robyn Neibauer

IIRC, the Nazis themselves were not in consensus about vaccines . There was the pragmatic lobby, centred on the Wehrmacht, who argued for sticking with the Weimar policies of compulsory vaccination (because epidemics and unhealthy troops were not an affordable luxury)... and the ideological wing, led by Julius Streicher, who believed that communicable diseases posed no threat to healthy Aryans living in harmony with nature, and that vaccinations were a Jewish conspiracy to weaken the Aryan germ-plasm. Sounds familiar?

The guys at the top papered over the differences and appeased the Natural Immunity crowd with promises of a compromise, a Germanic Integrated Medicine. Anyway, until the advent of SaneVax and VacTruth and AoA u.s.w., the most vile, virulent anti-vax propaganda came to us from mid-30s Naziism.

Sometimes I suspect that these Holocaust appropriators do not quite realise the nature of their intellectual ancestors.

Liz: Methinks it may tend to validate an invalid exercise to vote in Ms Clay's poll. She's not carrying out the exercise for any neutral purpose.

@Brian Deer: but it's so much FUN to let Ms Clay know that not all of us a wackaloony antivaxxers. :) I voted, too.

@ Roger Kulp:

Sorry that I couldn't be more prompt in responding**

but I did study these areas ( neurophysiology, development, aging, cognitive) and continue to read about them : I think that we shouldn't be comparing autistics to people with AD - they're not the same conditions- it's not useful.
Of course, if we so choose, we can say that many illnesses or conditions resemble AD- complications of diabetes, stroke, CVD- but they have different causes, courses, treatments and prognoses.

Alzheimer's is a progressive disease of aging where physical barriers - plaques- impedes neurological processes resulting in a loss of functioning.. ASDs are indeed a spectrum but not a progressively debilitating illness. People on the spectrum can be intellectually disabled or not. The courseS of development are different not non-existent - you yourself are an example. There are no grand turnarounds in AD.

I would guess that KS is using this as a way to garner sympathy for herself and possibly, write her daughters off.
Perhaps she doesn't want to say "intellectually disabled" so she goes with AD-. Still, different conditions. And she wants to shrug off any genetic component. It's the vaccines- even fr the youngest who is un-vaccinated ( therefore Kim's vaccines)

If you'll notice, she supports a trade union for workers for the institutionalised ( advert at AOA- it's called VOR- I imagine Liz can tell you more about this). She makes much of her daughters' disabilities and has landed book deals because of that issue. Right, tell us again about their problems with hygiene.

Calling ASDs 'Alzheimer's' paints a rather bleak picture- deterioration until death. You should know that that is not the kindest nor the most accurate prediction.

I think that Kim is busy re-inventing herself as a martial artist and instructor for children ( see her twitter) - other people's children - since her advocacy position isn't working out that well.

I could say more but won't. I don't want to be perceived as being mean.

** as I am recovering from one of my 20 hour whirlwind tours involving 3 hour train trips, Baroque art, diverse hominid skulls and fine Japanese cuisine..

Denice,I never said they were the same.I did say that to the untrained eye,disorders that cause autism can have the same type of overall appearance as Alzheimer's or dementia.This especially true of metabolic or autoimmune disorders that can manifest as autism.These conditions are usually familal and inherited.Unlike Alzheimer's or dementia,these diseases can be treated,and the symptoms reversed.The problem is,there are too many parents,like Ms.Stagliano,that are too brainwashed by antivaccinationism to investigate the causes of their children's diseases any further.

Oh,that 1 in 45 estimate comes entirely from the way parents filled out a survey.This is probably the best,and most simplified,explanation I have seen of how the CDC determines the incidence of autism.If this is how the CDC has been doing things all along,the whole way they have been counting autism,and other intellectual and developmental disabilities has been flawed and half-a**ed from the start,in my opinion.

The correct Nazi analogy would be one of eugenics - parents don't want to believe they could sire any child with a defect hence their child was born "healthy but got damaged by mainstream medicine." To believe their children were somehow "stolen" is clear they are in the Middle Ages where an autistic child was thought to be a changeling.

Gil
As mother to autistic sons I think you are right ' the correct Nazi analogy would be one of eugenics'. My boys were not quite what I was expecting. None of them have additional severe learning disability but being a parent to 3 children on the autsim spectrum has it challenges. It also has its joys. Sure there are aspects of life that will always be more difficult for them but mostly that is because they are expected to be like everyone else.
Considering autistic people to be 'dead', 'lost' and somehow diseased or damaged is sickening but that is what these people are saying about children who are very like mine once were. Yet they won't hear the voice of adults with autism who say look we are not a tragedy we are people, we have the right to be different and to be accepted as we are not as copies of who you are or who you want us to be.

According to the logic of the anti vax brigade it would be better to risk my children dying from a preventable infectious disease than for them to be as they are - intelligent, talented, honourable, young men any mother could be proud of.

Arghhh! Just seen the flyer for Autism One 2016 conference. They have eugenics on the agenda!!

I'm waiting for Netanyahu to let the other cat out of the bag --that a Palestinian cause autism.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/10/21/netanyahu-…

@ comments #10, 13 and 16, sadly, what these parents are, are selfish and delusional and not at all autism advocates.

They truly, at the core, are disappointed in what they have created. Their children did not turn out to be what they wanted, and so their parenting expectations, and probably life expectations, for themselves (not their children) have been demolished. Their disappointment (be it in the child or themselves) is so deep that they cannot fathom that the most "natural" thing about autism is it's existence--that the autistic child is as they were biologically intended to be--and so these parents and "advocates" MUST, in a effort to appease their personal feelings find a reason and a cause that is not within themselves.

What autism advocacy should look like is proactive education (for parents and children) and programs to succeed and be accepted in society as "normal," functioning people. what autism advocacy IS NOT, is proclaiming these children to be lost causes or dead.

Quoth antivaccinationist Hilary Butler: Non-vaccinators are the "new Jews"

oracknows — Fri, 24 May 2013 01:48:17 +0000

Quoth antivaccinationist Hilary Butler: Non-vaccinators are the "new Jews"

I've never been able to figure it out. Antivaccine zealots seem to have an intense love of Nazi analogies and comparing those supporting science-based medicine to Nazis. While from a strictly nasty point of view, I can sort of understand the utility of such analogies to demonize one's opponents. After all, to political extremists of nearly all stripes (excluding actual real neo-Nazis, of course) Adolf Hitler is the gift that keeps on giving. Antiwar activists liked to try to tar George W. Bush with the Hitler appellation, and, now that Barack Obama is in power, right wing Tea Party types have an even greater tendency to try to paint (or to slime) Obama with the very same brush. So, from that perspective, I get it. Hitler and the Nazis are an excellent all-purpose tool to demonize your opponents. Just compare them to Hitler! It's easy! It's also incredibly stupid in most cases. If you don't believe me, just check out the last couple of times that I've seen antivaccinationists comparing their opponents to the Nazis or likening vaccine programs to the Holocaust.

Yes, those two examples were really dumb, but I think I just found something even dumber. It's an article by Hilary Butler. (You remember Hilary Butler, don't you? She has a proclivity for vile analogies.) This time around, Ms. Butler pulls out all the stops, asking Are non vaccinators the "new Jews"? Before we get to the "substance" of her article (such as it is), I'll take ignorant historical analogies for $1,000, Alex:

Most adults tread very lightly when criticising the medical profession, particularly when willing parents put their children forward to be used as instruments of the next emotional blackmail campaign. What these same adults don't realise, is that once the clampers are screwed down, and their right to also say "no" has gone, then they too will be lined up, and jabbed without being able to say "no" for themselves either.
And when a person is too scared to say "no", to anything, then choice, ... and informed consent has disappeared. And if people stand around and do nothing about it, then they will join Germany in the Hall of Historical Shame. For that reason, this letter has been sent to Fairfax Media.

Ms. Butler, of course, is just warming up. What's gotten her Hitler thing on are two articles published by the Sydney Morning Herald. The interesting thing about the articles (to me, at least) is that one of the two (an editorial entitled Immunisation levels a cause for concern - and timely debate) is actually more deferential to the "freedom" of parents not to vaccinate than much of what I can imagine being published in the U.S. In Australia, it informs us, unvaccinated children are not banned from schools except during outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, which means that, unlike the US, there appears to be no school vaccine mandate. What got Ms. Butler all worked up is the effort on the part of the NSW Labor opposition to introduce a bill to "allow childcare centres and kindergartens the option of banning unvaccinated children." In the U.S., such a bill would be completely uncontroversial. In fact, nearly all U.S. states not only allow daycare centers to ban unvaccinated children but many require it. For instance, the state of Michigan requires the following vaccines: DTaP, hepatitis B, Hib, MMR, PCV, and varicella. It does, however, allow philosophical and religious exemptions. So the hilarious thing is that NSW appears to be proposing to do something that is very reasonable and very defensible. It's only a change from what is done now, which appears to be less restrictive than my country.

Of course, what Ms. Butler objects to is that the articles are sympathetic to minimizing argues that the measure doesn't go far enough because it only provides the option of banning unvaccinated children, pointing out, again quite sensibly, that because daycare centers depend on fees there is a financial incentive not to refuse non-vaccinating parents. To Ms. Butler, this is the equivalent of...well, I'll let her tell you. I'll start with her attack on the second article (Vaccine fears could lead to 'epidemic') because it's the one that brings out the most hyperbole-filled analogies and provokes Ms. Butler to let her Hitler flag fly high:

Your second article is tantamount to fear mongering worthy of the Gestapo. If you had talked to the STATISTICIANS in Australia’s Ministry of Health, you would know that vaccination rates in Australia in 2010 which were published in March 2013, were the highest they have ever been at 92.3% though I find it highly ironic that while 99% of Australian children are on the national immunisation register, your experts are THREE YEARS BEHIND in the compilation and publication of their data, so I would challenge the figure of 92%. The real rate could well be 94 – 95%.

I do so love me some all caps. It's a sign of only the finest crankery. It's also a misunderstanding of what was actually said. The article actually does mention that immunization rates are 92%. That's irrelevant to the point of the article, which is that, while overall vaccination rates are high, there are areas with very low uptake. For instance, it's pointed out that some areas of New South Wales have "lower vaccination rates that Rwanda." The point, of course, is that such pockets of low vaccine uptake are ripe for outbreaks because herd immunity is degraded. but, hey, what's a little fact or two between antivaccine cranks, particularly when they can really get the Hitler juices flowing:

There is a cynical hypocrisy surrounding the medical professions' silence regarding your published inaccuracies on the Australian vaccination rates. Perhaps you need to consider that, like the Germans before the second world war, Fairfax media COULD BE being used by the medical profession, to mindlessly yell "Heil Hitler" - as in the media campaign orchestrated by Dr Michael Wooldridge in 1997.

The first article, as I pointed out, was actually highly deferential in tone to parental rights but ultimately concluded that the proposal to allow childcare centers and kindergartens to ban unvaccinated children didn't go far enough. In fact, Ms. Butler goes beyond just attacking the Herald, generalizing government statements supporting measures to increase vaccine uptake and expressing alarm at low vaccine uptake and likening them to...well, I have to let Ms. Butler tell it again. I just can't capture the combination of spittle-flecked ranting and argumentum ad Nazium with a description:

Are you innocently painting non-vaccinating parents the "new Jews" as a result of the medical profession's complicit silence?

And:

Will the next edict from the medical profession be that you publish a demand, whereby parents must sew a yellow star onto unvaccinated children, as well? You remember where the yellow star led, don't you? Isn't it interesting that the current mob attack on the unvaccinated is very like the sentiment which lead to the anti-Jew pogroms? It's ironic that "history" runs the risk of repeating itself....

Yes, in Ms. Butler's fevered imagination, the Australian health authorities are Nazis who just can't wait to force unvaccinated children to wear the yellow star that Hitler forced Jews to wear. Of course, Ms. Butler knows as well as the editors to whom she writes and anyone who reads her letter know what ultimately happened to the Jews in Hitler's Germany. The yellow star was a step along the way from marginalization to separation from society to elimination in the Holocaust. It was a direct step on the road to the death camps and gas chambers. Does Ms. Butler really think that the Australian government is planning on sending unvaccinated children to the gas chambers and then to the ovens, the way that Hitler sent the Jews to death camps? Probably not. Playing the Hitler card is just a suitably shocking tactic to use to demonize the government health authorities who want to increase vaccination rates in areas where they are low.

If we're going to play the Nazi card, though, it's highly tempting of me to do so with the "autism biomed" movement. After all, what were the Nazis known for besides the Holocaust? Horrific unethical human experimentation (including with children), for one thing. Who in the autism biomed movement is known for unethical human experimentation with children? Why Mark and David Geier, two former "icons" of the autism biomed movement who've fallen on tough times. They first came to my attention several years ago for their rather "original" idea that chemical castration with Lupron would be a good treatment for autism, to help chelation therapy work better. They're also known for running unethical clinical trials approved and overseen by an IRB stacked with their cronies. Indeed, the entire autism biomed movement is little more than unethical experimentation on children using quackery.

See how easy it is to play the Hitler card? I can do it too if I want to. Of course, I only did it this time to make a point, not because I really believe it (unlike, apparently Ms. Butler). I'm also in a benevolent mood because I'm very happy to have learned that Mark Geier has lost his medical license in the last state in which he had one, Hawaii. That's right. He's now lost his medical license in all 12 states in which he had a license. Not that that has stopped the quackfest known as Autism One from featuring Mark and David Geier as speakers this Saturday, with a talk that looks like a barely warmed over rehash of their same ol' same ol'. I wonder if they'll mention Dr. Geier's most recent loss of medical license. Now he and Andy Wakefield have something to talk about. In fact, Mark Geier has gone Andy Wakefield 11 better in that he's had 12 medical licenses stripped away, and Wakefield's only been struck off once.

In the end, it never ceases to amaze me how little self-awareness antivaccine cranks like Ms. Butler are. It's easy to shout "Nazi!" at your enemies. It's hard, apparently, to see that it's pure nonsens to do so. Still, Ms. Butler has a lot in common with our homegrown antivaccinationists. She'd be right at home at Autism One.

oracknows Thu, 05/23/2013 - 21:48

Tags

Anti-Semitism

Antivaccine nonsense

autism

complementary and alternative medicine

complementary and alternative medicine

medicine

Hitler doesn't like the iPad

oracknows — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:00:00 +0000

Hitler doesn't like the iPad

You knew it was coming. You knew from many previous incidents that it was inevitable:

Who knew Hitler was such a Mac geek?

Personally, although I think the iPad looks like a really cool device, I'm really not sure where it would fit into my life. I already have an iPhone, which I love, and I already have a MacBook Pro, which I also love. Given that, I just don't see the need for the iPad, at least not for me. However, I also know that I'm not the sort of person for whom the iPad was designed.

oracknows Thu, 01/28/2010 - 09:00

Tags

computers

Entertainment/culture

We have the iPad, the iPhone, the iPod, the iMac...when's the generalization of these, the iRobot coming out?

You and Hitler aren't the only ones not thrilled with the iPad. Here is an opinion that shares that sentiment. And $500.00+? puh. leeeze.

@Dianne #1, isn't the company that makes roombas called iRobot? If so, then Apple trying to use that name would likely be facing a trademark lawsuit.

Yeah I'm very meh about the iPad. I was hoping it was going to be a good tool out in the field for my photography biz, but I'm not as excited now.

I have an iPhone and I don't need a bigger iPhone. I was hoping for a little more flexibility in the software to not only rely on "apps", but we'll see how the developers do.

The only thing that really popped into my mind when I saw the pictures of the iPad was use for medical records. Rather than carrying around a folder with bunches of papers in it, it could be used to bring up the patient's medical file. Of course, there are privacy and HIPAA compliance issues involved with that.

For personal use, though...meh.

haha @ bloons. people looking at me at work now.

Actually, I don't even know what bloons is.

Its just some flash game. You're a monkey shooting darts at baloons. The part that made me laugh was that whatever Hitler actually said there, it sounded similar to "bloons".

totally agree, what a cool device that I have absolutely no use for. If I can think of a way to change that I will... but right now it's not looking good for the the wandering cog as far as a purchase. unless they port the xcode IDE to the iPad... then I could actually work on the thing ;)

The one BIG complaint I've heard is that it doesn't have a camera -- specifically, a front-facing camera. This has been a huuuuge complaint from my hearing-impaired friends.

In terms of usefulness, I was wondering if something like this or a kindle could be useful in the lab for keeping protocols handy. Right now I have a mixture of 1) a highly unorganized 3 ring binder 2) a drawer in my bench with random product inserts 3) a 400 year old computer running the nanodrop which I use to look up protocols because options 1 and 2 suck.

From some people's reactions it seems that they are not aware of the fact that this is not the first tablet thingy to hit the market:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_PC#Popular_models

"Who knew Hitler was such a Mac geek?"

Nah. Adolph is just being pissy. Several years ago the
United Nations decreed an annual international observance of Holocaust Remembrance Day on Jan. 27. The day was selected because the Red Army liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau on Jan. 27, 1945.

Ever since then, Hitler's ghost gets the red a$$ this time of year.

The quick response is: "Hey, you lost; you're dead; get over it."

The Linux kernel has a module that does not allow Hitler to use it.

Unlike Da Furher... I like the iPad.

I think it will be a good fit for me for several uses...
at home.. I can peek at a website referenced on TV, or read e-Book, or check email without having to go down to the computer desk in the den... and if it really runs the iPhone apps, I get a bigger screen for added utility of things I already bought!? As it matures and more features are added (iPAD2.0) it will likely be even.... cooler! They probably will add a camera... not for taking pics so much as webcam conferencing?

I also thought it would be TERRIFIC as wireless networked EMR tool for electronic office charting... small enough to take room to room, designed to work in wifi/bluetooth. HIPPA (someone mentioned) is issue no matter what form of records are kept paper or EMR.. but I have heard some good arguments for going MAC... less viral and security issues for your network, so perhaps MAC EMR would be MORE secure?

I want one. Cheaper than buying a Mac Laptop to use around the house.. bigger than iPhone (and likely cheaper than the first iPhone I had as well!!!).

12: the thing is, this isn't an evolution of the Tablet PC as much as it's an evolution of the current generation of mobile media devices like the Nook, Kindle, Archos or HP media centers. It's designed to be a swiss-army media device, not a portable computer.

Which is frankly why I'm not interested. My iPhone is good enough to replace all my portable gadgets, and 80% of my laptop's necessary features. The 20% I'm missing are Pro-quality graphics apps that I need for work, and pressure-sensitive pen support.

@bluemaxx - the only reason macs don't get viruses is because PCs are far more prolific. As soon as everyone is on a mac - you will get viruses galore because they are very easy to hack into. Takes about 30 minutes. Safari is a joke compared to firefox & IE.

Not a fan of the concept. It's like an overpriced iPhone (which is already overpriced as it is) that can't fit in your pocket and can't make phone calls. It doesn't even have a USB port. What were they thinking?!

Or it could also be compared to a Netbook, but with extremely limiting software (only 1 app can run at a time and you're locked into Apple's service unless you jailbreak it), slower processor, a TINY hard drive (the smallest Netbook has a 160 GB hard drive), and no keyboard (instead you get to look like a moron while stare at the keyboard as you attempt to type something).

It could be compared to an eReader as well. But an eReader is less expensive, and designed exclusively for reading books/magazines/etc. None are color as far as I know, but they use something called eInk that's easy on the eyes (making it more like reading a real book). And with the iPad, you have to pay $30 a month for Internet service if you want to download books. eReaders are free and only the books cost money.

I'm sure some of these problems will be addressed in the future, but right now it's a terrible buy. That said, the Mac fans will buy anything Apple puts out. (They're generally not very good skeptics, which is why they'll pay double for hardware that looks pretty) It'll still sell well.

Keynote and VGA output are appealing for presentations. I'd like to see an object-oriented drawing package, though. Bring back MacDraw!

The video gives the impression that it is locked into AT&T, but Apple specifically said that it is unlocked, so any carrier should be able to offer a competing package.

I sold some Apple stock in the run up to the announcement, expecting that a lot of people would feel let down, but I actually think the iPod will be a success, although not so much of a runaway as the iPhone or iPod. I'll probably end up buying the stock back at a lower price.

I think that they actually managed to find a sweet spot between media players and book readers. Ten hours is enough for me to use it to read books (assuming that claim actually holds up in practice). Putting it in the iPod/Phone line rather than the Mac line makes a lot of sense. OS X is not natively designed for touch input, and would always seem awkward. By releasing Works, Apple shows that it is powerful enough for productivity applications, and as on the original Mac, they establish a paradigm for how users will interact with applications. Developers will be obliged to rethink their applications for touch input, and I think that Apple is right that the usefulness of touch rises with the screen area. Having an additional market for apps will further incentivize developers to develop for the iPad/Phone/Pod Touch.

Apple seems to have intentionally not provided for a mouse, which is smart, since it prevents developers from simply porting over their mouse-driven computer applications. Nevertheless, I doubt if many people are going to want to use it at length propped in the keyboard dock up as demonstrated in the presentation, for the same reason that touch-screen computers have failed--nobody wants to hold their arm up in the air for more than a few minutes. To use it with a stand, it needs a pointing device, and it shouldn't be a mouse. Perhaps Apple will make a bluetooth pad. Or maybe they'll release an app to let the iPhone/Touch double as an iPad touchpad.

The iPad's interesting, but where does it fit in?

It's too big to just be casually carried; I assume students could hold it like any other folder or such, but since it's not a full PC, it won't run most of the apps they'd need for school. Since they can do basically everything this does in an iPod or iPhone that fits in the pocket, this is also somewhat superfluous.

It might compete with the ebook readers, but the main point of those is that they're electronic paper; this is still a screen, which most people won't read on. Also, requiring all the content to go through iTunes is going to limit what it can show.

It's not competing with tablets, because most people want a full PC in their tablet. Most tablet users who actually *use* the tablet functionality also like the stylus, which this doesn't really work with.

It doesn't have much industrial use, because it can't run the software. Maybe if someone hacked it to a linux kernel, but I doubt Apple would support that openly.

It's too expensive to be just a sometimes-used toy.

It's like the iPad's trying to be "jack of all trades, master of none" at the moment. I suspect they'll do something fancy for the second-gen version that may help it get a direction, but for the moment, I can't see most non-mac-addicts buying one. Maybe I'm wrong.

The iPad's interesting, but where does it fit in?

I've been mulling it over at dinner, and I _think_ the answer is that Apple's attempting to redefine the ultra-portable computer as being a universal multifunction "gadgets" rather than a trimmed-down desktop.

On the plus side, they have a mature and popular interface for a keyboard-less device, and a fair bit of existing developer support. On the downside, it lacks the portability (and some features) of the iPod Touch, and the desktop compatibility of the netbooks and TabletPCs.

If they're right, then a fair number of netbook users may defect to the iPad, as being more convenient and easier to use for daily web browsing, video watching, and book reading done around the house. If they're wrong, this is going to wind up as another Newton.

ORAC !

Great blog. Anyway, what about med students and docs running around with epocrates , citrix, and the new telemetry apps for iphone? Wouldn't the ipad make easier reading?

If they're right, then a fair number of netbook users may defect to the iPad, as being more convenient and easier to use for daily web browsing, video watching, and book reading done around the house

I was excited about the (max)iPad, until it came out. Doesn't support multitasking (so only one app at a time) nor does it support flash. Granted flash is the devil of the internet, but if you aren't going to support the current standard for interactive web content and videos, then the device is almost useless. Other things that I think they dropped the ball on - no camera, they should have punched in a front facing camera for video chat. The device is capable of decoding HD video with it's new A4 processor, but Apple decided not to put an HDMI port on it. What a waste. They've also screwed up the e-reading, from Adobe systems themselves (who are a bit upset with apples lack of support for adobe)

Unlike many other ebook readers using the ePub file format, consumers will not be able to access ePub content with Apple's DRM technology on devices made by other manufacturers

The way I see it, if this thing was released in 2005, it would have been revolutionary. It's 2010 and it's not up to par with current technology. I am a bit disappointed, to say the least. (Not that I'd trade in my netbook with Linux for this, even that somewhat flash support.

Yes, it does look like just an oversized iPod Touch.

It costs $200 to go up from the 16GB version to the 64GB version and another $130 to get the 3G data support that AT&T likes to brag about when that finally comes out, so the "full" version will cost something like $830!!!!

And, it won't multitask !?!?

So much for those AT&T commercials.

At least you can get a bluetooth mouse (I have one for my HP computer), but who knows when the driver software will get written?

Another little crosscheck showed a real laptop with a 2Ghz Intel Core 2 duo processor, 4GB of RAM, 320 GB of hard disk, a bluray drive and a 17.1" display for $900.

I'd definitely spend the extra $70.

Overall, it just looks too bulky to just stick in a pocket and carry around and too underpowered to be useful as a "real" computer.

But, maybe the iPhone apps market has gotten the software production pipeline primed and some really good apps will show up soon to make it a useful product.

The lack of flash support for the Iphone/Ipod touch is bad enough. What is this thing supposed to *be*?

I mean, I already have a netbook running Eeebuntu, which can do anything other than run Itunes. Why, exactly, would I buy another walled garden apple device that needed to be synced regularly?

I totally would have bought a $500 stand-alone Mac tablet pc. Oh well.

I imagine that the iPhone/iPad/Touch line will eventually support multitasking, since it will be necessary to remain competitive, and there is no technical reason why it could not be done on existing hardware. Apple's main concern is likely to keep the system from being bogged down by lots of background processes, and perhaps also to enhance security. The Droid, in contrast, permits some multitasking, but only a limited number of applications. I could see Apple taking a similar, but I expect it will be more controlled--perhaps a special, more rigorous, certification process of apps that want to enable background processing.

In any case, I'd have been astonished if Apple had chosen to roll out multitasking at this point. It makes more sense to introduce it as part of a system update for the entire line at a later date. It would be nuts to introduce a major new system feature simultaneously with the iPad, especially one that is not essential for the major uses of the iPad and that has so much potential for performance and security problems. As it is, the iPad will release with a mature OS that has already been through multiple revision cycles, with only minor adaptations, so it should be solid. This is critical for a product like this--any problems at all are going to be widely reported in the media, and a rash of crashes or performance problems could create a stink that the iPad would never recover from.

Obviously Der Fuhrer doesn't want one, so it must be good.

Since Fujitsu already has an "ipad" out there for commercial inventory use, there's some flap over trademark infringement.

Let's call it what it is - the presbyopiaPod.

fusilier
James 2:24

I think that the "no multitasking" is a ploy to make PC users seem stupid like their "no right clicking" ploy. A lot of people still think Macs do not have right click functions so they look like asses when they bring that up in debates. So five years down the road, we'll all be saying the iPad/iPhone can't multitask when they actually have been able to for two whole months!

So they call it the (Max)iPad rather than the iSlate or iTablet. Remember the Wii and all the verbal shrapnel it took when it launched. This unfriendly onslaught of uncontrollable giggles will pass.

Apple is famous for making you appreciative of them by adding things later that really should have been there from the start. It's a good bet that additional "features" will be "updated." Prices may come down within a few months, as with the iPhone. It's probably a better plan to skip the first iteration of new hardware until all of the bugs & problems have been worked out, so use this rationale to restrain your techno-lust. Good luck on that.

Hitler offered quite a few helpful points about his venomous distaste for the device, but Mac OS X isn't written "OSX" any more than Windows 7 is written Windows7. Don't get me going on how people mistakingly hyper-capitalize Mac.

The Droid, in contrast, permits some multitasking, but only a limited number of applications

I've got 6 apps open on my Droid right now:
1. Pandora streaming over 3G
2. Facebook
3. Newsrob RSS client
4. SportsTap
5. Google Maps
6. Browser

I think that the "no multitasking" is a ploy to make PC users seem stupid like their "no right clicking" ploy

HAHAHAHAHAAAAA, oh man I love the fanboi attitude. A Ploy? Really? I was excited about this thing until I heard no multitasking. As mentioned above, I can multi task on an android phone that has less horsepower. That means, I can, ya know, listen to Pandora while looking at Google maps. You can argue that apps could be accessed through ha website, but then you are relying on the browser (an plugins [remember no flash]).

I've never ever heard anyone say that a mac can't right click either, or more accurately, control click.

@jj

"A Ploy? Really? I was excited about this thing until I heard no multitasking."

I'm really not a fanboy. I was joking. Obviously it's not a ploy. I think that Apple just tends to be very behind on many things. For example, why do none of their mobile phones, MP3 player, etc, have a slot for a flashcard? (I know the answer to this, they're greedy bastards that want more money) And why do they not have multitasking? (I know this answer, they want you to have to buy more than one iPhone/iPad)

@Cris - Sorry, my bad :). The inability to understand sarcasm online...

@trrll, the iPad uses SIM chips so it's only compatible with the AT&T & T-Mobile networks in the US, as far as I know. Verizon and Sprint are CDMA networks so you can't access them with an iPad or an iPhone.

See, I am a total fangirl for Apple but I'm really disappointed by the Ipad. Instead of being a revolutionary device it basically seems to be the love-child of an Iphone and a kindle and I already have both.

I don't see it replacing my kindle anytime soon for reading novels because the battery life is nowhere near as good, and I like the epaper/ink thing that the kindle has. It makes it very easy to read. I will say though, if Apple managed to get a huge amount of text books available for the Ipad, I could see myself caving. I'd rather drag the tablet around than a bunch of heavy books. But I really wish there was a stylus for it. It would make note taking more easy for me.

I'm also curious about whether or not the tablet will be jailbreakable. You could fix the issue of multitasking pretty easily with jailbroken software.

Personally, the tablet that I'm holding out hopes for is the microsoft Courier. That thing looks hot, but to the best of my knowledge there haven't been any official announcements about it, so who knows what the finished product will be like, if there even is one.

You could fix the issue of multitasking pretty easily with jailbroken software.

Quote possibly. One issue is that the CPU on this thing is brand new (apple has decided to jump back into the chip market) so no one really knows waht to expect. Also, the device is unlocked, unlike a iPhone.

@Fin# 34. It wont work on t-mobile3g (but will on EDGE):

Doesn't Support T-Mobile 3G
Sure, it's "unlocked." But it won't work on T-Mobile, and it uses microSIMs that literally no one else uses.

http://gizmodo.com/5458382/8-things-that-suck-about-the-ipad
http://gizmodo.com/5458423/unlocked-or-not-your-ipad-wont-be-able-to-us…

That clip never gets old.

You'd think I'd be over Unhinged Hitler commenting on the latest online meme . . . but I swear they just keep getting better. Unhinged iPad Hitler is der finest yet. As for the iPad, I love me some Apple, but, meh.

They should have called it iKindle.

Michelle, #35 Did you know that there is a free Kindle download app for iPhone? Makes a great little reading device and you only have to take your phone with you.

I can't see any reason to get this thing and I'm a huge Mac fan. It seems to be an oversized Kindle. It's smaller than my laptop, but it looks like something you could drop very easily and how in the heck are you supposed to protect the screen?

I think it has potential for students if they can download textbooks at a savings, which would lighten the backpack load and save a lot of trees. For me, it would just be another thing to drag around.

Do you really have to sync it? I didn't see that in the video or read it anywhere in the critiques. That would be nuts because I often don't remember to sync my phone and run out of podcasts on sleepless nights--another chore I do not need.

@39 I do and I have the app on my phone but it doesn't really replace the kindle all that well for me. The IPhone screen is too small and, like the IPad, it's got issues with the battery life and not having the epaper/eink ( whatever it's called) screen.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore my phone but I think the kindle is much better as an ereader. Though I do prefer the IPhone kindle app for cookbooks. I like the color screen for pictures of food.

Liz said: The only reason macs don't get viruses is because PCs are far more prolific. As soon as everyone is on a mac - you will get viruses galore because they are very easy to hack into. Takes about 30 minutes. Safari is a joke compared to firefox & IE.

Right, because there are WAY more critical exploits for Apache than IIS web services? No offense, but this is pure nonsense. I'd also recommend you read up on what UNIX is and how it compares to what Windows sits on. Not to mention that the very reason the latter is so prolific is that its creators constantly rush flawed product to mass release, quality be damned, and they have since their inception.

As for Macs being "very easy to hack into" within "30 minutes", I'll call you out on your obvious reference to a disingenuous 2006 "hack" that was anything but. It was an offset calcuation fix in the virtual table kernel pool. In other words, the "winner" didn't get anywhere near actual root/admin access. The host even set up open SSH access for the attackers to feast on, so the competition was a hoax from the start. An out-of-the-box Mac has yet to see a confirmed hack. A Mac with extra security trimmings, forget about it.

Anyway, do you realize how many Macs are out there in 2010? If OSX users are just rich idiots with insecure boxes, where are the horror stories? Where are the hacks? Give me just a single incidence where someone's machine was compromised. Macs are no longer fringe PCs, so your reasoning is ridiculous.

Stability is built into the Mac approach. While OSX may well get more vulnerable as its user base increases, it is ignorant to suggest it will ever be anywhere near as corrupt as Windows. You're comparing a streamlined hardware & software team to a company that craps out 100 releases of its OS to tens of thousands of different hardware combos. Think it over.

As for your silly jab at Safari, since we're on a science blog, I would ask for some evidence for that claim as well. Safari, unlike Firefox, is one of the only browsers capable of fully passing ACID3. It is also faster and more stable than Firefox. Chrome was impressed with Webkit enough to borrow it from Safari. (Tell Google that Safari is a "joke".) Complaints about Safari are almost invariably related to Adobe's Flash plug-in neglect or some other contextual crap related to non-compliant code by IE developers.

Anyone who holds the laughable IE up to ANY of the aforementioned browsers is either an idiot or is being paid by Microsoft.

/rant

I've said this about the iPad in a few other places, but it bears repeating: I'm not entirely sure Apple knows what it has here.

The first point, the part I know they know about, is that the biggest audience for the iPad + iWork package will be people who do a lot of work on long plane flights. Ten hours of battery life is longer than even some netbooks, and the iPad is, as best as I can tell, the modern incarnation of the old RadioShack TRS-80 Model 100. It'll be a huge seller to that crowd, since you can add a full-size Bluetooth keyboard where a netbook keyboard is somewhat cramped.

The other point is something I find extremely bothersome -- the iPad is a wet dream for certain types of hobby and thin-client projects, including jukeboxes, gaming tables, hospital data pads, robotics, and lots of other things that no one has really thought about yet, and the fact that Apple is likely to lock it into the iTunes architecture means very little of that will actually happen, at least with Apple's blessing. No matter how good the iPad hardware turns out to be, Apple will absolutely lose the markets that can actually use a cheap touchscreen computer for something other than a netbook/ebook reader/general satellite gadget.

I may want one. Jailbreaking will have to ensue first though.

I am disappointed. The iPad was highly anticipated by my husband (who loved his iTouch so much he used it even in the bath, hence its early demise) - I would rather wait for a few improvements before buying this.

The first generation will be a neat toy, especially for my 3 year old - but it just doesn't have enough features for me. I do think I will use it a lot for web browsing though.

FYI we are NOT a Mac family - the only Apple devices we have owned were the iTouch and AirPort Express.

Kel:

The iPad was highly anticipated by my husband (who loved his iTouch so much he used it even in the bath, hence its early demise) - I would rather wait for a few improvements before buying this.

Oh, so I am not the only person who want to have a water proof reader! I do have a radio that is supposed to work underwater, but it is pretty iffy (especially since the pool is in a concrete building and the signal gets lost).

I would love to sit in the shallow end of the pool on a hot day and read (well, I can, but it is usually a paperback I bought for fifty cents at a book sale).

Chris - he used ziploc snack bags and would soak in the tub for hours with the iTouch - until the fateful day the bag wasn't sealed.

I made him promise never to take electronics into the bathroom again unless they were actually rated waterproof and still under warranty.

A camera would be nice too, I'm really surprised it doesn't have one.

Water proof cameras do exist. Now all we need now are waterproof readers and mp3 players. I just modified my mp3 cover to protect it from rain and dirt. It had a "convenient" opening for the USB cord, except that dirt could get in. So I took some light vinyl and covered it up. Works much better when I am gardening and walking in the rain (which I get to do often in winter).

Get a tablet - they're cheaper and can run more than 1 function at a time. Aside from my PC bias, the iPad (worst name ever)is a 2 pound glorified iPhone that can't take pictures. It's another expensive turd from Macintosh.
@bluemaxx - the only reason macs don't get viruses is because PCs are far more prolific. As soon as everyone is on a mac - you will get viruses galore because they are very easy to hack into. Takes about 30 minutes. Safari is a joke compared to firefox & IE.
thank blogs yesilcam

In case you wondered whether David Irving is a Hitler admirer...

oracknows — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:40:29 +0000

In case you wondered whether David Irving is a Hitler admirer...

David Irving has made a career out of being a Holocaust denier and then protesting when someone calls him a Holocaust denier. As you may recall, he even sued Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt for correctly referring to him as a Holocaust denier in one of her books.

Let's take a look at what's on his website today. If you go to Irving's main website and click on today's newsletter, this is what you will see as a flash screen before the website goes to the newsletter:

That's right! It's a big fat, sloppy 120th birthday kiss to Adolf Hitler, straight from David "I'm not a Holocaust denier" Irving! What was that again about not being an unabashed Hitler admirer?

It's not even good history. Thanks to Hitler and his invasion of the USSR, the "Bolsheviks" ended up having the opportunity to rule Eastern Europe for over 50 years. If anything, after enslaving most of Europe himself for nearly six years, Hitler opened the door for the enslavement of Eastern Europe for nearly three generations. Not only that, but he did this after having started a war that resulted in the utter destruction of his nation's cities and much of Europe as well, a war whose wounds that have not yet entirely healed. In the process, Hitler took genocide to the most organized, industrialized level the world had ever seen, a brutal, bureaucratic killing process that, fortunately, the world has not seen since.

That is Hitler's legacy, and it's why I have a Nazi-related holiday that I much prefer celebrating over Hitler's birthday. And it's only ten days away!

oracknows Mon, 04/20/2009 - 06:40

Tags

Oh god...

His website is blocked by my hospital as "hate site"

That's because it is a hate site. This is one time when your hospital's blocking software got it right.

Oddly enough, my hospital's computer system (not the university's, thankfully) blocks Steve Novella's NeuroLogica Blog.

First time I ever heard about a "foul conspiracy" against King Edward. I wonder how that worked.

Gee, you'd figure if Hitler saved Europe from Bolshevism, one would figure it wouldn't have ruled half of Europe for fifty years. Without Monsieur Hitler, the Russians (and for that matter, the Americans) might not worked so hard to have had nuclear weapons, the weapon that enabled the Soviets to control the part of Europe they did control for so long. Oh, and the little moustache also helped to implement the destruction of much of the culture and science of Central Europe, and the migration of what wasn't killed to the US.

If that's his idea of "saving" Europe from Bolshevism, then he either needs to get out of the sun or he's using a version of the English language with which most English speakers are not familiar.

You know, if you look at the TBer post and then this, you might wonder if the "Hitler/Obama" sign was insult or admiration, or if it's only admiration in his weekly meetings, or only when it's a white guy who's being compared to Hitler.

I guess this post was instantly Godwinned. Oh well.

Hitler's regime lasted (quite a bit) more than 6 years! Otherwise: great info which I need to pass to others for archiving for future potential debates.

I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure that stuff about the King of England is a conspiracy theory that was old about, oh, 70 years ago...

I thought you were going to celebrate the birthday of the Volkswagen beetle or something.

Other than Irving himself, who doesn't think he's a holocaust denialist? What a sad pathetic man.

Neuroskeptic, I'm not sure what you mean, but I think there's historical documentation of the Duke of Windsor's admiration of Hitler. An fairly authoritative biography is here:

Ziegler, Philip (1991). King Edward VIII: The official biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0-394-57730-2.

The British government installed him as the governor of the Bahamas to get him out of Britain during the war. Even when in the Bahamas he made more than a few anti-Semitic comments, including one where he blamed a protest over wages on "draft-dodging Jews." I'm not going to read Irving's rantings, so if he's making some other comment, such as Edward VIII was forced to abdicate because he was a secret Nazi, that probably didn't make to a level of a real conspiracy theory except in Irving's tiny little brain.

Only Irving can make Jenny McCarthy appear positively intelligent.

Well, I guess we're supposed to think Hitler saved WESTERN Europe from the communists; obviously we're not supposed to care about all those Slavic EASTERN Europeans, and East Germany was just the price of freedom for the rest of Western Europe.

I thought the United States saved Western Europe from the Nazis, and then held the Soviets at bay until they ran out of money first.

Of course this praise of Hitler would take the bite out of my "Hitler built the Autobahn, but that doesn't mean he was a good leader for Germany" quip I use when people claim that my old CIO (whose literal and figurative crimes I cannot go into on the open internet) at least "got things done".

I don't have DSM IV sitting in front of me, but Hitler was a sociopath. And as such, anything that might have been positive was just to further his sociopathic goals.

And Karl, your CIO was an idiot. Unless, of course, if "got things done" meant the murder of six million Jews. Then he was a racist.

Interesting in that tomorrow, April 21st is listed as Holecaust Rememberance day. Sorry if this has already been stated.

Nope! Not at all a Hitler admirer. No way, no how. By the way, did you know that Hitler was dreeeeeeamy?

By the way, any reviews or thoughts about the film, "The boy in the Striped Pajamas"?

I was really not up to watch another holecaust film, however I found the perspective on family life amoung the German officers family to be interesting.

Michael: I was referring to Irving's comment about a "foul conspiracy" which deposed the King. I know he was a bit of a Nazi-phile...

Interesting as well that the History channel had been running "Hitlers Family" a few weeks ago.

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&showId=173410

Takes the term dysfunctional to a level only possible when your brother, half brother, nephew is a dictator with powers that have absolutely no limits.

When Adolf has to put the brakes on half sister Angela's quest for power; she loved the home (generational family home) of the family down the way from the Bergof retreat so much that when they would not sell it, she had them thrown out (with her personally overseeing the eviction) and sent to the camps.

Not only that, but he did this after having started a war that resulted in the utter destruction of his nation's cities and much of Europe as well, a war whose wounds that have not yet entirely healed.

I don't think that Hitler gets all the credit for that. Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill's war policies had a hand in the destruction of Europe. Of course, none of them would likely have started WWII, but they didn't exactly go into it with the maximal humanitarian outcome as their primary goal.

That having been said, all I can say about Irving is EWWWW!

I thought that the deaths of millions of Jews, and other not-exactly-poster-children for the NAZI party were considered to be just collateral damage for getting the trains to run on time. Not that the trains were punctual, but it is all in the sales pitch - and in the repetition of the sales pitch.

How can you put a price on the satisfaction of an unreasonable belief that the trains are running on time? More priceless than Mastercard. Undeniably. Of course there is the nagging problem of delaying a train due to the need to capture one of these undesirables on a train, but it would be foolish to blame that delay on the NAZIs. This only makes the need for the genocide much more clear.

I wonder how many millions of people Mr. Irving would have to kill to get people to believe that his rantings are coherent? I suppose that is the wrong question. Wrong in terms of scale. It should be how many billions of people Mr. Irving would have to kill to get people to believe that his rantings are coherent? About 7, I suppose.

We can also thank the Nazi party for begetting the Ba'athist party in Syria and Iraq. The blood-letting of that philosophy never ends.

Happy 4:20!

Well at least this give Pat Buchannan an excuse to party.

@ Clay: Huh?

also on his front page

"# Still living in the past: Denying the deniers: Jew Telegraph Agency's Q & A session with US scholar Deborah Lipstadt | A rogue writer defaces Lipstadt's website "

Also let's not forget, Hitler agreed with Stalin to partion Poland at the beginning, when Germany was allied (with fingers crossed behind the back) with USSR. He let Stalin take a lot of Eastern Europe.

Not to take away from Hitler's attrocities, but we mustn't forget that Stalin likely killed far more people. However, he still has people protecting his legacy, so many tend to overlook his butchery.

Not to take away from Hitler's attrocities, but we mustn't forget that Stalin likely killed far more people. However, he still has people protecting his legacy, so many tend to overlook his butchery.

To those not involved (and many of them born after it happened), killing millions of people through starvation via agricultural policy has a lot less emotional impact than killing millions of people in gas chambers.

Schwartz,
While I agree we must not forget that, I do tire of it coming up so often. I do not see any reason it has to be mentioned in this case. Orac is probably quite well aware of Stalin, and I see no evidence anyone was playing Stalin's attrocities down.

However, he still has people protecting his legacy, so many tend to overlook his butchery.

Does he? I've heard of plenty of Holocaust denialists, but I've never met a Russian famine denialist.

He does realize that Hitler and Stalin were allies a first, doesn't he? No 'saving Europe' from Stalin involved.

Logic, not his strong point.

RebeccaF said:

Logic, not his strong point.

Right along with history, humanity or, well anything really.

As a Brit may I take this opportunity to offer my most profound apologies on behalf of my country for producing this odious little toad and request a loan of Orac's Dr Doom mask for the duration?

Bear in mind, Hitler was very popular before the war. Many world rulers thought highly of him. Sometimes a monster is not obvious at first glance, but is more subtle.

We had the tempest in the teacup around here a few years back when a public figure said he admired Hitler and the way he mobilized Germany and the economy. He made it very clear he despised what Hitler did with that power, but still many people got very upset with him for saying something they viewed as "constructive" about Hitler.

A made for tv movie on Hitler came out 3? years ago. The lead actor, who played Hitler, said they wanted to make a movie that reflected Hitler as a person and not as a monster stereotype. Then a paragraph later he says a special interest group asked them not to show Hitler patting a dog on the head because it portrayed him in a sympathetic light, and they happily took out those kind of scenes. So much for the noble sentiments about portraying Hitler as a real person.

Hitler was a politician. Of course he patted dogs on the head and kissed babies. Portraying Hitler as an obvious monster in films who doesn't pat dogs on heads or kiss babies and who doesn't laugh and joke with his friends, gives us the false impression Hitler's monsterism was obvious but everyone just sat around and let him come into power.

As wackyvorlon points out Hitler was very popular and some monsters are very subtle. Furthermore, it sets us up to think we can recognize the new monsters because tv shows us history's monsters are one-dimensional raving lunatics. And by looking at the stereotype monsters we will miss the subtle monsters with their likable human qualities. The really scary monsters are the ones who look and act just like us.

Maybe in a 100 years we might be able to portray Hitler in a realistic light without people taking offense. Till then, the wounds run deep and rational thought grinds to a halt.

@Der Bruno Stroszek: I have met a Russian famine denialist, and a genocide denialist. He goes by the name of Russian bear over on the chessninja message boards. He's bright, articulate, and can dismantle false arguments beautifully (and he's not a bad chessplayer either), but on this topic he's a real crackpot and is unable to back up any of his assertions even when pressed.

Daniel,

I'm not sure what the point of your rant is, but Irving's statements go far beyond "portraying Hitler" as a human and show that he clearly admires him and thinks that he saved Europe from Bolshevism (which Hitler most definitely did not).

As for my feelings on the matter, I suggest you read the link I ended my post with. In particular, read the last three or four paragraphs:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/04/april_30_in_commemoration_of_…

I've never met a Russian famine denialist

They didn't like the tea-cakes. They had plenty of tea-cakes. They just wouldn't eat them. It's impossible to make some people happy!

I've always been vaguely curious about what motivates David Irving, beyond pleasure in disagreeing with the majority. This explains a lot.

Mathew Cline,

"To those not involved (and many of them born after it happened), killing millions of people through starvation via agricultural policy has a lot less emotional impact than killing millions of people in gas chambers."

You should buff up on your history then. The millions he killed (est 4-10m) did not include the famine deaths. If you add those, the number gets higher by a few million.

Mr. Prosser,
Perhaps I'm overreacting -- because my (now dead) family suffered immensely under Stalin (and Hitler as well) and there have been no loud calls for war crimes tribunals -- but the following line from the post seems to minimize any other brutal murderer, yet Stalin systematically killed millions and was doing so long after Hitler's death.

"...bureaucratic killing process that, fortunately, the world has not seen since."

Schwartz wrote: "Not to take away from Hitler's attrocities, but we mustn't forget that Stalin likely killed far more people"

I suspect it's because Stalin was more about equal-opportunity atrocities.

It's all a question of length of reign, Hitler had 12 years (of which only the last 4 were really devoted to mass murder), Stalin had 25 or so. Pol Pot had 4 (all batshit crazy), Mao had more than 30. If you spread out your atrocities and manage to NOT be violently overthrown, you can get away with a lot more.
I also never got the distinction why bureaucratized murder is any worse than wholesale slaughter, looking at Rwanda for example. Genocide is genocide, there's no second degree version because you used a mob with machetes instead of machine guns.

It is gratifying to see that Irving cuts such a sad and desperate figure these days. While we are feeling a bit of satisfaction at his exposure for the liar, anti-Semite and Hitler-admirer that he is, we should once again acknowledge Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books for being prepared to stand up and be counted in 2000, putting their time, reputation and money on the line to see Irving in court. And we shouldn't forget the historian Richard J Evans either, who spent months demolishing Irving's bogus "scholarship". The contrast between genuine eminent scholar (Evans) and mendacious propagandist (Irving) was made very clear.

The Duke of Windsor's flirtation with Hitler and the Nazis is well-documented historically. Whether it stemmed from virulent anti-semitism is less clear, and probably unlikely.

Although the pre-war British upper class was historically not fond of Jewish people (or of anyone much apart from themselves), there are many other reasons why the Duke and his wife were courted by Hitler, and were happy to be so, once Edward had been eased out of the British monarchy. Not least was that Hitler treated them with the pomp and majesty that they felt they had been unjustly deprived of. And as someone already mentioned, in the early 30s (Edward abdicated at the end of 1936) many in Europe were happy to view Hitler as a "strong anti-Bolshevik nationalist leader", and just shrug off the anti-semitism as "Hitler pandering to the mob to keep the proletariat on-side". Indeed, it was because the German ruling political class saw Hitler this way that they allowed him to take power in the first place. But Edward's removal from the British throne had nothing to do with his perceived political views, beyond the fact that he was unable to see that as a constitutional monarch it was not in his "brief" to try to interfere personally in the process of parliamentary democratic government.

Finally, as to Hitler and Stalin, they both stand as abominations and sociopathic mass murderers. What is served by trying to decide who was worse? The phrase which springs to mind for both, and their deeds, is Santayana's one about:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

Orac,

I got the impression that Daniel J. Andrews was not defending Hitler at all. I think he was trying to point out that Hitler was not viewed as a monster by many at the time.

If we want to avoid having similar leaders in the future, we need to realize that the one dimensional monster is not how they will be perceived, as they rise to power. They will be seen as human, with perhaps unfortunate attitudes toward some groups. This will be rationalized away as collateral damage, or whatever the acceptable Orwellism of the time happens to be.

If remembrance is about not letting this happen again, recognition of the potential monsters is a part of that. This will not be an easy part for many.

This was something that led Stanley Milgram to wonder what it takes to participate in atrocities. His experiments did not show dramatic differences between Germans and other nationalities. His work showed how we are easily influenced by authority. Perhaps we need to look more closely at why people will harm others just on the word of an authority figure.

Tangentally related, if there's someone to thank for saving Europe from Bolshevism, it would be the Polish in the Russo-Polish, or Polish-Soviet, War of 1919-1920. If you believe the Polish version, that is, which claims that the Polish alliance with Ukrainian nationalists and subsequent invasion of the Ukraine were attempts to forestall Soviet plans to invade Poland on its way to invading Germany and establishing a Soviet system in that country. The other version is that it was a pure land grab by the Poles. In any case, the Poles won the last great horse cavalry battle in history, the Battle of Komarow, defeating the hitherto undefeated Red cavalry. And whatever the justification was for the Poles starting the war in the first place, it would have been quite bad for Germany had the Soviets destroyed the Polish Army and been able to use Poland as a base.

This article - as most do on Irving - starts out badly and then deteriorates quickly. He sued because the Lip et al were conspiring to stop the publication of his books. He couldn't care less if you called him a denier, as long as he got the opportunity to publish.

I am sick and tired of hearing the Jewish version of the so called Holocaust. The real Holocaust was Dresden and various other German cities that were fire bombed killing thousands of innocent people. Let's not forget Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. The Jews and Jewish sympathisers don't allow any of those innocents to make any money on their tragedy. Only the Jews are allowed to profit from the so-called "accepted" Holocaust. Wake up gentiles! The Jews are robbing us blind and destroying our country just as they did in Germany which allowed Hitler to come to power.

To steve gray, on behalf of the human race:

Go stuff yourself you nauseating bigot.

Hey, it worked for Hitler

oracknows — Tue, 16 May 2006 06:01:43 +0000

Hey, it worked for Hitler

NOTE (7/27/2016): People have been telling me, based on this post written over ten years ago, how Donald Trump sounds just like Vox Day. It's true. He does. It's also true that the thought of exporting 11-12 million people in 4-8 years is just as ridiculous now as it was ten years ago. I weep that so many in the Republican Party not only take this nonsense seriously but voted for Donald Trump based on a promise very much like what Vox Day described, so many that Donald Trump is now the Republican Party nominee for President. So I added this note. I also note that some of the links are dead and I haven't had a chance to update them. In the meantime, the Almighty Wayback Machine at Archive.org is you friend.

Immigration has been on a lot of people's minds lately, particularly with our President's speech tonight in which he proposed sending thousands of National Guard troops to the border to reinforce the Border Patrol. Indeed, the subject of immigration all too often brings out the looniness in the right, and this time was no exception.

Enter Vox Day, our "favorite" Libertarian Christian commentator at WorldNet Daily, who never fails to disappoint with sheer unbridled wingnuttery. This time around, forwarded to me by a fellow member of The Holocaust History Project, comes this little gem from Vox:

Dear Jorge plans to address the nation tonight, a speech wherein he will almost surely attempt to deceive citizens into believing that he does not wish the mass migration from Mexico to continue unabated. He will likely offer some negligible resources for law enforcement and border security - resources which will never materialize - in return for an amnesty program that will grant American citizenship to the Mexican nationals who have helped lower America's wage rates by 16 percent over the last 32 years.

And he will be lying, again, just as he lied when he said: "Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic - it's just not going to work."

Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society.

Ooh boy. I was momentarily tempted to sic the Hitler Zombie on Vox again, but decided against it simply because he wasn't using bad Hitler or Holocaust analyses to smear a political opponent, which is usually the best indication of a Hitler Zombie attack. In fact, he seemed to be iimplicitly comparing the anti-immigration movement to the Nazis, thus shooting himself in the foot. (Of course, much of what Vox writes does make me suspect that something has been munching on his cerebrum, whether it be the Hitler Zombie or something else. In any case, I didn't have time to write a post that would truly do justice to the Undead Führer, who, sadly, still awaits the appearance of a suitable incident to make his debut on ScienceBlogs.) Believe it or not, Bush was not "lying" this time around. He was actually demonstrating a rare (for him) bit of insight when he asserted that the mass deportation of 12 million illegal immigrants is unrealistic. But let's accept for the moment Vox's explanation that he wasn't advocating another Holocaust (that's not what makes his analogy so bad, anyway):

For the Nth time, I could not care less what illiterates and cretins such as the sort popping up today think about me or anything else. I suspect WND is similarly indifferent. The idea that anyone should apologize for the mere mention of the Holocaust is absurd. I mean, even those Jews who were previously so quick to get their panties in a bunch over my postulating that perhaps medieval anti-semitism was not merely the result of chance took no umbrage over today's column, presumably because they are capable of reading at a functional level.

The point is simple. President Bush states that something is not possible. There is a very well-known historical example which proves otherwise. Whether one is sexually stimulated by that historical example or enjoys moral preening by condemning it more often and more loudly than his neighbor, it does not change the fact that Dear Jorge is completely wrong.

No, I don't take umbrage over your "mention of the Holocaust," Vox. I take umbrage at the astounding lack of historical insight your analogy demonstrates. First off, let's look at this assertion by Vox again:

If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society.

Point one: The vast majority of the Jews that the Nazis "rid themselves of" were not German and did not live in Germany. Rather, they were residents of territories conquered during the war in the East, particularly Poland and the Soviet Union. Indeed, there were nowhere near six million Jews in Germany. There were slightly over 500,000 in Germany at the time Hitler took power in 1933. Most of them were indeed well-integrated into German society, but they made up only 0.75% of the population (not the 4% of the U.S. population that the figure of 12 million illegal immigrants, if accurate, represents). Vox also does not appear to know that 80% of these German Jews held German citizenship, and the vast majority of those who did not were in the country legally, the latter group being mostly made up of Polish Jews who had been born in Germany and thus were permanent residents. Vox is comparing apples to oranges. (So what else is new?)

You'd think a Mensa member like Vox could at least get the above basic historical facts right. You'd be wrong. Heck, these facts are easily available from many sources on the Internet. Vox wouldn't even have to crack a history book to find them. Vox is clearly mixing up the mass killings in the East with the deportation and murder of the considerably smaller number of Jews in Germany itself.

Point two: Vox seems not to realize that getting rid of all these Jews caused many difficulties, even for a totalitarian regime. It took far longer than four years for Germany to "rid itself" of its Jews. In Germany proper, during the six and a half years from his assumption of power to the invasion of Poland, Hitler ratcheted up the pressure and discrimination, with laws that stripped German Jews of the right to hold civil service jobs to the Nuremberg Laws, which deprived Jews of full German citizenship and outlawed intermarriage between Jews and non-Jewish Germans. Over that time, because of the steadily worsening conditions, approximately 300,000 Jews emigrated to other countries to escape. Beginning in 1941, German Jews were systematically "relocated" to the East, as described here:

Systematic deportations of Jews from Germany began in late September 1941, even before the extermination camps were established in occupied Poland. Between October and December 1941, nearly 50,000 Jews were deported from Germany, mostly to ghettos in Lodz, Warsaw, Minsk, Kovno, and Riga. German Jews sent to Lodz and Warsaw were later deported along with Polish Jews to the extermination camps at Chelmno and Treblinka, and Auschwitz.

Some Jews deported from the German Reich (including Jews from Austria and the annexed Czech lands of Bohemia and Moravia) to ghettos in the Baltic states and Belorussia were shot shortly after arrival, by Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units). Jews surviving the initial slaughter were enclosed in special "German sections" of eastern ghettos, where they were segregated from local Jews. Such sections were established, for example, in Riga and Minsk. Most of the Jews from Germany were killed during the destruction of these ghettos. In 1942 and 1943, the majority of Jews remaining in Germany were deported directly to the extermination camps, mainly Auschwitz-Birkenau.

So, if Vox wants to be accurate, he would have to acknowledge that it took Germany over 10 years to "rid itself" of less than 500,000 Jews, approximately 40% of whom ended up being murdered in the process (in actuality over 90% of the Jews who didn't get while the getting was good were murdered). Even with Hitler's "best" efforts, several thousand Jews remained in Germany at the end of World War II. Indeed, Victor Klemperer, whose famous diary I Will Bear Witness, was one of them. He even survived the bombing of Dresden. Most of those that survived were, like Klemperer, usually Jews by racial definition, who were protected by non-Jewish spouses, although a few managed to stay in hiding. The vast majority of the 6 million to which Vox referred were residents of conquered nations under military occupation.

Point three: Besides apparently not knowing that German Jews made up a relatively small proportion of the Jews "gotten rid of" by the Germans, Vox seems intentionally to neglect to mention how the Germans "rid themselves" of 6 million Jews in less than four years. it was mainly by murder, either through intentional overwork and starvation, shooting, hanging, or gas chambers. It began in conquered Poland in late 1939, when the Germans started rounding up Jews and restricting them to ghettos, where they lived in appalling conditions, looting their property and murdering many. Disease and starvation ran rampant, and eventually the Germans decided to "liquidate" the ghettos in 1943. Meanwhile, after the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, Einsatzgruppen mobile killing units roamed the countryside, rounding up and shooting Jews and perceived political enemies by the thousands, adding approximately 1 million to the death toll of the Holocaust. In 1942, the killing accelerated, with the construction of dedicated death camps and concentration camps that also had a components that served as death camps. Eventually, the Germans turned their attention to rounding up the Jews in the rest of Europe, including Italy, France, Hungary, Denmark, and other nations, and sending them to the East for extermination.

That's how Germany "rid itself" of six million Jews--by systematic deportation to places where they murdered the Jews expelled from their homes. Funny how Vox didn't see fit even to mention in passing the part about murder. (He also neglected to mention that an addition 5 million or so non-Jews also were killed by the Nazis.)

I suppose on a strictly hypothetical basis, it is possible to round up 12 million illegal immigrants and deport them in a few years, but the example that Vox chose undermines his argument to the point of irrelevancy. The Nazis weren't concerned with due process or civil rights. We are. In the beginning, they didn't care how many Jews died as they were deported, and at the end they were intentionally killing them when they arrived at their destination. The vast majority of Jews deported and murdered were the subjects of conquered nations under military rule, and those who weren't were subjects of a totalitarian dictatorship whose citizenship and civil rights had been intentionally stripped away by Hitler. I doubt that even the most dedicated enemy of the Bush administration seriously believes that the U.S. could descend into such depths of barbarism in a mere few years, barring an almost unthinkable catastrophe.

Point four: One has to wonder why Vox chose that particular example. In the comments some defended Vox (and Vox defends himself) by stating that he was only arguing that it can be done. OK, it can be done. So freakin' what? Leaving aside the murders committed by the Nazis, though, let's look at what it took them to achieve the feat of evicting millions of what they considered their racial enemies from their homes in the conquered territories of the Reich. It took a ruthless military occupation by millions of troops, a dictator holding a racialist ideology that viewed Jews as the implacable enemy of the German people, was dedicated to "cutting out the cancer," and who happened to have the absolute control over his military forces necessary to carry out such a program--even at the expense of diverting desperately needed troops and rail transport away from the fighting and to the task of extermination as the Germans were being beaten back by the Red Army.

Presumably, if there were a historical example of a mass deportation or involuntary relocation of several million people accomplished in a few years that didn't involve at the minimum brutality, bloodshed, and wholesale trampling of the most basic of human rights, I'm guessing that Vox would have used it instead. He couldn't--or wouldn't. By his choice of examples, though, by the implied threat behind his example, Vox joins so many others on the far right in using eliminationist rhetoric, this time with a "nudge, nudge, wink wink." After all, Vox was only arguing that it's "possible" to deport 12 million in eight years. The implication behind his example, however, is that it's also "possible" to emulate the Nazis further and build a machinery of death waiting at the end of the deportations.

In reality, though, as PZ notes, being the good "Christian Libertarian" that he is who doesn't want to see the unbridled state power that the mass deportation of 12 million illegal immigrants would require, Vox seems to have some bizarre fantasy idea that, if we just change the laws to strip illegals of their rights and impose immediate deportation upon discovery and put in place the apparatus to start the mass deportations, magically many would flee, and private citizens like the Minutemen would take care of the rest:

A fence is not necessary, for there are other means of efficiently resolving the problem without resorting to such an obviously dangerous measure. Instant deportation policies, employer fines and bounty programs combined with the denial of all social services to non-citizens would suffice to settle the matter without the need to imprison the American citizenry. As the Minutemen have proven, again, unleashing the power of motivated private citizens is far more efficient than relying on government bureaucrats.

Of course, Vox also neglects to mention that stirring up private citizens to act against the group a government wants to deport is also a page out of the Nazi playbook. To continue on Vox's apparent desire to show that Nazi methods to deal with the immigration problem are "possible," remember the Nuremberg Laws or Kristallnacht?

We all know how all that turned out, don't we?

At least I do. I'm not so sure about Vox. There is, of course, the possibility that he's just intentionally picking the most inflammatory example he can just to stir people up, bad historical analogy or not, in which case his choice of historical analogies says a lot about him. However, what scares me is the possibility that maybe Vox does know how that all turned out, and that's the idea.

ADDENDUM: Even Captain Ed is getting on Vox's case over this:

Vox likes to take controversial positions, but this is just reprehensible. The Germans "rid" themselves of six million Jews by annihilating them through industrialized mass murder. In fact, a great many of them weren't German at all and never spoke German or were assimilated into German society. A great deal of them were Poles, Russians, French, and so on, an inconvenient fact that renders his point moot. And how exactly did the Germans accomplish this feat that Vox finds so exemplary? They transformed Europe into a racist police state from the Pyrenees to the Caucasus.

One also can't help but notice that in 2016 Donald Trump is sounding just like Vox Day.

oracknows Tue, 05/16/2006 - 02:01

Tags

History

Holocaust

Politics

Skepticism/Critical Thinking