Hillary's Medical Problems

photo credit: tvbio.net

Over at PJ Media a few weeks ago, Tyler O’Neil compiled a list of Hillary’s medical issues over the past 18 years. The report includes photos, timeline and text on medications and public episodes, and videos (including her collapse at the 9/11 memorial event in New York).

Here are his bullet points:

1. A "potentially fatal" blood clot in 1998.

2. February 1, 2005: Clinton faints during campaign speech.

3. June 17, 2009: A massive elbow fracture.

4. 2009: A second blood clot, "deep vein thrombosis."

5. January 12, 2011: Clinton stumbles boarding plane.

6. December 15, 2012: The concussion.

7. December 31, 2012: The third blood clot.

8. January 24, 2013: Fresnel lenses to prevent "seeing double."

9. May 14, 2014: Bill says the recovery took six months.

10. July 31, 2015: Bardack's letter and statement.

11. October 22, 2015: A coughing fit at the Benghazi hearing.

12. February 16, 2016: Coughing fit in New York.

13. July 21, 2016: A seizure on camera?!

14. September 5, 2016: Another coughing fit on stage.

15. September 9, 2016: Diagnosed with pneumonia.

16. September 11, 2016: The fainting and final release of information.

The full report is here. As O’Neil wrote, “Ultimately, the voters must decide whether or not these threaten her suitability for the presidency.”

# # #

Trump's taxes

From a website on the US tax code:

The tax code is so long and complicated because it includes every tax law designed to promote a specific cause or benefit a certain constituency. Sometimes Congress uses the tax code to promote social welfare, such as a tax break for low-income housing construction. Congress also alters the tax code to stimulate economic growth, perhaps by making it easier to take business deductions. Other changes to the tax code are strictly political rewards for special interest groups that support congressmen during their election campaigns

Some of my liberal friends take a dim view of Donald Trump because he avoided paying his taxes. Shame on him. The easy answer is that Trump never “avoided” paying federal income tax. In 1995, he didn’t OWE any income tax, so he didn’t pay any. That’s not tax avoidance. It’s compliance with complicated tax laws. If Trump had failed to comply with tax law, that failure would show up on an IRS audit and he’d have paid yuuuge penalties or worse. Remember Leona Helmsley? She went to prison for tax evasion.

In our household, we don’t want to pay one penny more in taxes than we have to, and Trump’s tax team surely has the same goal – just with, er, much bigger numbers.

Ryan Ellis has a more detailed look at the Trump Tax Tempest-in-a-Teapot. From the Forbes website:

Trump Tax Return Story Exposes Policy Ignorance Of Political Reporters

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that they had obtained a copy of Donald Trump’s 1995 New York state tax return (whoever sent it committed a felony). It showed that he claimed a net operating loss (NOL) of about $900 million that year.

What followed was a collective explosion of talking heads over the weekend, with the theatrics inversely proportional to the pundit’s knowledge of tax policy.

To state the obvious, political reporters don’t know a damned thing about taxes. I know this–believe me (to channel my inner Donald). Part of what I do for a living is prepare people’s taxes in the Washington, DC area. As an Enrolled Agent, I run into all sorts of clients. The most political (that is, horse race/hot take) clients compete with performing artists for the least amount of knowledge when it comes to taxes. I’ve even had some of them forget to bring their W-2s to a tax session.

That ignorance was on display in vivid colors over the weekend. We were told that this tricky NOL was some sort of “loophole” that only super-rich bad guys like Donald Trump got to use. We were told that this relieved him of having to pay taxes for 18 years, a laughably arbitrary, made up number that is the tautological output of simple arithmetic and wild assumptions.

. . .

It’s not difficult to see how political reporters got played like a fiddle here. Most of them have never actually run a business, much less learned about the tax rules surrounding them. Most went from college to a series of simple, W-2 jobs (with the occasional freelance gig) in traditional media organs. . . .

Read the rest here.

And why aren’t inquiring media minds investigating donors to the Clinton Foundation?

# # #

Famous actors know best about climate, the election

Thanks, famous actors (via Sundance)

From Newsbusters:

“The scientific consensus is in and the argument is now over, if you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts or in science or empirical truths and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office,” [famous actor Leonardo] DiCaprio stated at the livestreamed White House South By South Lawn (SXSL) event.

Last August, DeCaprio had scheduled a fancy fund-raiser for Hillary until he decided to back out “under shady circumstances” – apparently concerning “his eponymous foundation [that] could be linked to a scandal involving a Malaysian sovereign wealth fund, at the same time Hillary and Bill Clinton’s own charitable fund is under scrutiny.” Hmmm.

Oh, these wonderful famous actors who know more than all of us lowly not-famous non-actors. The science is settled. Famous actors tell us to vote for Hillary in November. Enjoy this short and very funny video showing deplorable voters responding to all those Hollywood types (h/t Sundance):

On Hillary's qualifications

Another FB image making the rounds:

# # #

Legislation Without Representation (at the Treehouse)

art credit: britannica.com

Many people I know think everything in America today is just hunky-dory; they just shake their heads if I bring up any of the critical issues involved in this election (see e.g., The Flight 93 Election blog here). Many people I know who plan to vote for Hillary don’t see anything wrong with anything she does, even when her actions clearly violate the law. Hard to know where to go sometimes. 

It’s especially discouraging to have to try to counter the corrupt mainstream media narratives, day in day out, especially on television. Media bias, media malpractice, propaganda – whatever you call it, the corrupt media is carrying water for the corrupt political class. 

Sundance/Conservative Treehouse is one of my daily stops online. His essay today on “Legislation Without Representation” is a sobering sanity check. Here’s a short extract:

There are many who use a frame of reference about ‘saving a constitutional republic‘; while I do not mean to be dismissive of this benevolent sensibility — in case you have not been paying attention, we’ve long since passed the threshold of that possibility.

The architecture of our own U.S. government is now operating independent of the electorate (Obamacare, Omnibus, etc.).  Congress is consistently passing legislation without appropriate representation (PR [Puerto Rico] Bailout, Omnibus, Corker/Cardin [link added] amendment, Fast-Track Trade Authorization, etc.), and the various operational constructs, divisions, and agencies within the DC UniParty are now fully weaponized against us (IRS targeting, FBI Comey/email non-finding, etc.).

Whether we like to admit it or not, just like the futuristic Skynet, our government has become self-aware, risk adverse and is intent on sustaining its UniParty agenda against any threat, risk or voice that might rise in opposition.

Read the whole thing here. It's not as pessimistic as you might think.

# # #

The Great Internet Giveaway

image credit: salon.com

Internet management EXPIRED

Bad news. I might have thought it would be a banner headline, but if you scrolled down, Drudge linked to this Yahoo.com report:

The US government on Saturday ended its formal oversight role over the internet, handing over management of the online address system to a global non-profit entity.

The US Commerce Department announced that its contract had expired with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which manages the internet's so-called "root zone."

That leaves ICANN as a self-regulating organization that will be operated by the internet's "stakeholders" -- engineers, academics, businesses, non-government and government groups.

The move is part of a decades-old plan by the US to "privatize" the internet, and backers have said it would help maintain its integrity around the world.

US and ICANN officials have said the contract had given Washington a symbolic role as overseer or the internet's "root zone" where new online domains and addresses are created.

But critics, including some US lawmakers, argued that this was a "giveaway" by Washington that could allow authoritarian regimes to seize control.

A last-ditch effort by critics to block the plan -- a lawsuit filed by four US states -- failed when a Texas federal judge refused to issue an injunction to stop the transition.

Read the rest here. No good can come of this.

# # #

Obama's illegal Internet giveaway

photo credit: wnd.com

State AGs sue to stop Obama's internet transition

  

Politico’s Tony Romm reports:

Four Republican state Attorneys General [Mike DeWine is not one of them] are suing to stop the Obama administration from transferring oversight of the internet to an international body, arguing the transition would violate the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit — filed Wednesday in a Texas federal court — threatens to throw up a new roadblock to one of the White House’s top tech priorities, just days before the scheduled Oct. 1 transfer of the internet’s address system is set to take place.

In their lawsuit, the attorneys general for Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas contend that the transition, lacking congressional approval, amounts to an illegal giveaway of U.S. government property. They also express fear that the proposed new steward of the system, a nonprofit known as ICANN, would be so unchecked that it could “effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.”

The four states further contend that ICANN could revoke the U.S. government’s exclusive use of .gov and .mil, the domains used by states, federal agencies and the U.S. military for their websites. And the four attorneys general argue that ICANN’s “current practices often foster a lack of transparency that, in turn, allows illegal activity to occur.”

“Trusting authoritarian regimes to ensure the continued freedom of the internet is lunacy,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a statement. “The president does not have the authority to simply give away America’s pioneering role in ensuring that the internet remains a place where free expression can flourish.”

Read the rest here. Ohio AG Mike DeWine’s website is here. 

# # #