Archive for the ‘Politicians & Their Ilk’ Category

MANGLING MASCULINITY

Monday, October 10th, 2016

“Beauty is only skin-deep, but ugliness goes all the way to the bone.” -Proverb

Radical Maternalist n.: An individual, not necessarily a woman, whose ideology combines radical feminism with normal maternalism.

Radical Maternalism is an abomination. It perverts healthy, normal maternalism with a radical ideology at odds with biology. Radical Maternalists would have us accept their angry, misguided ideology over documented Biological Science.

Facts
Let’s face some basic facts:

1) Beauty signifies genetic health. Accordingly, both sexes prize beauty.

2) Heterosexual mating is necessary for propagation of a species.

3) Humans are the most hyper-sexual animals on Earth.

4) Human males are more sexually aggressive than human females as a function of anatomy and physiology.

5) Human females are the only mammals with breasts not just teats — breasts that serve to attract males. Is it not the controlling factor in women undergoing expensive, cosmetic surgeries to augment their breasts?

6) Human females are the only animals with menses not oestrous, thereby, remaining sexually receptive throughout the year not just “in season”.

7) Human females are the only mammals sexually receptive while pregnant even though incapable of conceiving additional offspring via additional copulations.

Discussion
The manufactured uproar and feigned horror occasioned by the recent release of surreptitiously and probably illegally-made recordings of Donald Trump’s private conversation with another man more than a decade ago is but another example of blatant hypocrisy by cowardly politicians and the salacious Media in a long list of such examples. The Radical maternalists’ claimed upset notwithstanding, Mr. Trump’s admittedly lewd and lascivious remarks reflect the manner in which normal males often speak among themselves. So what?

Women not only know that fact to be the truth but manipulate it to their advantage. Why else wear skirts with hemlines only slightly below their genitalia (Mrs. Clinton understandably excepted.) and necklines only slightly above their nipples?

The craven homage paid by most male politicians to the vicious Radical Maternalists in response to Mr. Trump’s exhibiting normal, male, verbal behavior — the same behavior exhibited by most of these obsequious, unctuous fops — should be sufficient to sicken any voter with the intelligence and political awareness above an imbecile’s. These feckless, hypocritical sycophants and their ilk have been selling out this nation for decades.

Meanwhile, the truth about the Clintons’ own sexual behaviors and the infamous lies derived therefrom indicts this pair of evildoers beyond anything that can be said against Mr. Trump’s verbal behavior. Which of the two, major candidates is unfit even to run, let alone be elected — “Crooked Hillary” or “The Donald”? The answer can be found in the nicknames themselves.

“Every nation has the government for which it is fit.” -Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821)

Any normal, self-respecting American male who falls for the affectations of both Democratic and Republican politicians, none of whom cares one whit about anything but being elected or reëlected, deserves that which he gets — economic, political, and sociological castration. Is it any wonder why these United States of America have become a nation in decline — a nation on fire? To answer that question, one need only glance at the current political campaigns and the aforementioned castration of the American male inherent therein.

Sexual warfare? Yes, it exists. No, it is not the “War On Women” invidiously fabricated by the Democrats but an actual “War Against Men” declared by Radical Maternalists and supported by most politicians of both major political parties.

In this war, is it not time for American men proudly and righteously to defend their manhood? Is it not time for American women proudly and righteously to stand by their men — those who have a man, that is? Be advised, doing so is vital for the defense of traditional, American ideals and values; the Constitution; and the nation itself.

“I the Lord search the heart,
I try the reins,
Even to give every man according to his ways,
According to the fruit of his doings.” -Jeremiah 17:10

Behavior has its consequences. Judge it thereby.

See “True Grit”.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

PARKINSON’S, MRS. CLINTON?

Monday, September 26th, 2016

Note (03OCT2016): A new rumor suggests that Mrs. Clinton’s signs of neurological disorder might be a consequence of her being afflicted with pseudobulbar palsy not Parkinson’s Disease. Whereas the motoric signs of that disorder themselves are alarming, the associated, emotional disturbance is even more so. Given the actual, demonstrated signs of some, underlying, neurological pathology, that a substantial portion of the electorate would consider conferring upon this woman the presidency is a sad testimonial to the status of this nation in decline — this nation on fire. Then again, consider the alternatives.

Note (27SEP2016): In the nationally-televised, so-called debate last evening, Mrs. Clinton definitely held her own and even bettered a defensive, disjointed Mr. Trump. Regarding Parkinson’s Disease (PD), she showed no definitive signs although she did display a couple of episodes of momentary “blocking” — certainly, nothing definitive.

Does her performance mean that she does not have PD? No.

 

Rumors circulate claiming that Hillary Clinton is suffering from Parkinson’s Disease (PD). Even the slightest question in that regard should disqualify her from seeking the presidency.

PD is a chronic, debilitating, ultimately fatal disease of the brain that depletes the basal ganglia of a vital neurochemical, dopamine. Its signs and symptoms can be more — much more — than muscular rigidity, tremor at rest, and postural instability; awful as they themselves are. They also include severe depression and outright psychosis.

The etiology appears to be the switching to “ON” later in life of a genetic mechanism. Causal mechanism underlying the switching? Unknown.

There is no cure for PD. Treatments all are symptomatic, but none change the ultimate outcome or increase life-span. Prognosis is grim.

Tonight, Mrs. Clinton engages in a nationally televised debate. How will her health, such as it is, affect her performance. We know that she is taking medications. How will they affect her performance?

Whatever the case, would you want such a person in sole command of your next flight on an airliner? No? In that case, would you want such a person, as President, in the midst of a bout of severe depression with delusions, having her tremulous finger on the nuclear button?

In order to dismiss such medical rumors, Mrs. Clinton immediately should submit to neurological evaluation by an independent panel of neurologists with results made public. Will she? Not likely.

Forget not, Science tells us, “Behavior has its consequences.”

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

ONE MAN’S BET

Monday, September 19th, 2016

“Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” -Galatians VI:7

“Sick again is she, Doc?”

“Apparently.”

“Pneumonia?”

“That’s what I read.”

“Viral?”

“Who knows? That’s what they claimed. Yet, her physician prescribed antibiotics.”

“I thought antibiotics aren’t helpful against viral pneumonia . . . only bacterial, true?”

“True! Actually, for the patient suffering from viral pneumonia there are no benefits only risks. Antibiotics are indicated when a secondary, bacterial infection occurs on top of the viral.”

“Did she have a secondary bacterial infection?”

“Who knows? If she did, one wonders if there is some, underlying pathology. After all, she’s had a chronic cough. Say, remember that bet I made with John several months ago?”

“Yeah, at the cigar salon.”

“What did I bet?”

“That Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be the Democratic candidate for President on November 8th.”

“Remember my thesis?”

“That she made a deal with Obama not to prosecute her for her deceitful lying and death-dealing sedition . . . among other things . . . in exchange for dropping out of the presidential race before the election but after the primaries ended in August.”

“What do you think of that thesis?”

“Possible but unlikely.”

“Why unlikely?”

“I dunno. Just seems farfetched. I can’t see that avaricious, self-centered bih . . . uh, witch . . . giving up for any reason her chance to reign from the White House.”

“Still, you admit that which I say is possible?”

“I guess so.”

“Only guess? Perhaps, then, you’d like to bet against me.”

Silence.

“I asked whether, like John, you’d like to bet against me?”

“Um . . . we’ll see what happens.”

“So we shall. So we shall.”

Discussion

Possible political intrigue notwithstanding, medically the question is if Hillary Clinton is fit to function as President of these United States of America? Let’s look at some established facts.

1) FACT: In recent years, she has suffered recurrent bouts of syncope (i.e., “fainting spells”). Why? Who knows? That which we do know is recurrent bouts of syncope, especially among the elderly — she is elderly — are alarming, raising the following question: Is there existent some underlying, ominous pathology (e.g., cardiac arrythmias or mini-strokes).

2) FACT: Currently, she is taking anti-coagulant medication to prevent blood-clots. Why? She suffers from deep vein thromboses (“DVT” — blood-clots) in her legs. DVT is a serious condition that can lead to sudden death from a clot shooting from the leg to the lung, a phenomenon known as pulmonary embolism.

3) FACT: Recently during a televised debate, Hillary exhibited masked facies (i.e., persistently flat, fixed, facial expression) and abnormally slowed speech, appearing to be drugged. Given her medical condition, these signs could reflect the medications that she is taking both acutely and chronically — or possibly something else. Who knows?

4) FACT: Her political handlers and she continually have lied, both by commission and omission, about her medical status. Healthy people rarely lie about their health unless they intentionally are malingering to achieve some ill-gotten gain such as undeserved payments for feigned disabilities. Why would her handlers and she lie unless they are hiding something unfavorable?

Will Hillary Clinton be on the ballot in November? Who knows?

Should she be on the ballot? From the medical perspective alone? No!

Behavior has its consequences. Since the ascension of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to that which, over the decades, has become the imperial, presidential throne, the consequences of the policies and programs of most sitting-presidents have been disastrous — economically, militarily, politically, and sociologically. Excepting the respite granted to us Americans unintentionally by Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo in the form of prosperity post-World War Two, this nation has been on a progressively downward slide since President Calvin Coolidge left office in 1929.

How much longer can this nation now on fire, figuratively and literally, absorb the punishment? A healthy Hillary Clinton would be sufficiently damaging. An unhealthy one, mentally and physically? When you vote this November, ideology notwithstanding, remember that it’s the consequences of your vote that will determine the quality of life for all of us and those who follow us. In the war between ideology and reality, ultimately reality always wins.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

MR. GAFFE

Monday, August 15th, 2016

Note (22AUG2016): Did Mr. Trump read this posting last week? His change in rhetoric certainly reflects that which is written therein. Meanwhile “Crooked Hillary”, as he calls her, released another 15,000, problematic e-mails that she had hidden from authorities. Yet, with every announcement of her deceit, her status in the polls reportedly rises. If valid, what does this trend say about this nation on fire?

Is Donald Trump stupid? No.

Is he ignorant? No.

Is he incompetent? No.

Is he particularly corrupt? There is insufficient evidence that he is and, compared to the crooked Clintons, no.

Is he particularly dishonest? There is insufficient evidence that he is and, compared to the lying Clintons, no.

“An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.” -Simon Cameron (1799 – 1889)

Is he inexperienced in politics? No. Mr. Trump has plenty of experience buying favors from corrupt, dishonest politicians.

Ah, but is he inexperienced in his primary area of interest at the moment — politicking? Yes.

Mr. Trump never has held elected office; then again, four, previous presidents hadn’t either. He never has campaigned for political office. In politicking, Mr. Trump is a naíve neophyte; hence, he makes gaffes that even a first-term, municipal councilman wouldn’t make.

Yes, he frequently speaks his mind too freely. Yes, he easily and quickly falls into traps laid by his political opponents. Yes, not having scripted his lines, he sometimes contradicts himself even within the same speech.

So? That which his critics consider liabilities, others might consider assets. Why?

Those seeming liabilities reflect the man himself, such as the following:
1) He isn’t a member of the ruling, political, Democratic/Republican establishment dedicated to its own welfare at the expense of the rest of us, the American people.
2) He isn’t a polished, professional politician who holds the electorate to which he panders publicly in contempt privately.

From all appearances, Mr. Trump’s behavioral style is that of a narcissist who craves attention and adulation and is overly sensitive to unfavorable criticism and resistant to constructive criticism. As such, he became a successful showman with a successful, televised series. As such, during the political primaries he garnered billions of dollars of free publicity via statements considered by many to be outrageous even though often truthful.

Unfortunately for “The Donald”, his previous strategy has been failing him of late in the campaign for the presidency itself. The failing suggests that he needs to change his behavior to become not “more presidential” but more circumspect. “Presidential”? Think Barack Hussein Obama II and George W. Bush. Are those “presidential” types that which this nation on fire needs?

The change required actually would be small for most people but, perhaps, not for Mr. Trump. Given the apparent magnitude of his narcissism, he might be incapable of making it. If so, the consequences of his behavioral deficit likely will be inescapable. After all, behavior — including behavioral deficits — has its consequences. B = f(x) under c.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.