Sunday, July 30, 2017

WHY THE REPUBLICANS ARE PURPOSELY FUMBLING HEALTHCARE

Read these Highlights from today's "Washington Post" article (Jul 30, 2017) "In GOP’s repeal failure, Democrats find a potential game plan" by David Weigel
"Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a freshman who favors universal Medicare coverage, said that Republicans have rewritten the playbook. “When we do have a Democratic president, and when we do have a Democratic majority, I’d support getting this through with 51 votes in the Senate,” said Khanna of a universal coverage, single-payer plan.“"
"On Thursday, as the repeal effort headed for the cliff, Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) needled Democratic senators — 10 of whom face reelection next year in states Trump won — by introducing the text of a single-payer bill sponsored by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.). For the first time, most House Democrats have co-sponsored Conyers’s bill; 43 members of the Senate minority, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), voted “present,” while five voted “no” on the Daines amendment. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) did so (voted “no” on the Daines amendment) because he intends — barring yet another jolt of life in the repeal campaign — to release a “Medicare for All” bill before the Senate’s August recess. The bill will be designed to reframe single-payer, which enjoys tentative support in public polls, as cost-effective and sensible. If Sanders’s bill gets a favorable CBO score, it would become a starting point for Democrats in future health-care debates."
"Conyers, meanwhile, was trying to make universal health insurance the party’s default position. On Friday, as most House members left town for their recess, Conyers joined Khanna at an event to launch a pledge for 2018 Democrats. Raising his right hand, the Capitol peering over his shoulder, Conyers said he would “stand up for ‘Medicare for All.’”"
"Medicare for All" is the Democrat's secret code for Single-Payer Health Insurance, just like the "Federal Reserve" was their secret code for Central Banking when the Democrats passed it in 1913. You're going to start seeing the term a lot as the Democrats, along with the RINO Republicans, have successfully sandbagged the legislative procedures intended to repeal the Affordable Care Act or ACA (Obamacare) and replace it with something better. Unfortunately, for the Republicans, in the years since its implementation, when they promised to do something about it, they were NOT working on a better plan, and upon Trump's victory, proved themselves to be unfit to hold office because they promised something they didn't really didn't want to deliver. Their failure to do something now, almost guarantees that a new plan would not be in place in time for January 2019.
This is how it was supposed to go.
Barack Obama was selected to be the one to lie (his now infamous lie of the year in 2013 that “if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.”) to the American people and sell them the ACA. They couldn't trust Hillary to do it because she dropped the ball in trying to get universal healthcare implemented during Bill Clinton's first term in office. There are Democratic officials on record as saying this was the first step toward socialized medicine in this country. In a "Forbes" (Aug 10, 2013) article by Avik Roy, he quotes then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) when asked whether his goal was to move Obamacare to a single-payer system, as saying: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”
Then there is the "Washington Post" OpEd piece (Nov 17, 2014) by Marc Thiessen outlining the revelations made by Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber:
"Gruber explains that the Obama administration passed the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-value employer health plans “by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people, when we know it’s a tax on people who hold these insurance plans.” Americans would not support a tax on individuals, so “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on the higher prices . . . it ends up being the same thing.” The ruse, Gruber says, was “a very clever . . . basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
"Gruber boasts about how the Obama administration fooled Americans into paying to cover the uninsured by using sleight of hand, focusing on their concern over rising health costs. “Barack Obama’s not a stupid man, okay? He knew when he was running for president that quite frankly the American public doesn’t actually care that much about the uninsured. . . . What the American public cares about is costs. And that’s why even though the bill that they made is 90 percent health insurance coverage and 10 percent about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control.”
"Gruber says the Obama administration knew the individual mandate was a tax, but that if Americans knew the truth “the bill dies.” So the bill “was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes.” He adds that “the lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” and that “the stupidity of the American voter . . . was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
The ACA was not built to last. Although the Department of Health and Human Services said the ACA website cost $834 million (though Bloomberg said $2 billion and Trump said $5 billion), there were initial problems with it, and on the campaign trail, Donald Trump insisted it still didn't work. If this is true, it certainly is an indication there was a reason why it wasn't fixed.
When Hillary unveiled her plan in 1993, the Left was against it because they wanted Single-Payer even back then, and although, during her Primary campaign against Sanders she said it would "never, ever happen," in an article by Stephanie Condon on the CBS News (Jan 29, 2016) website she wrote: "In 1994, when advocating for comprehensive health care reform as first lady, Clinton told reporters that if Congress didn't pass a reform bill that year, the nation would eventually embrace a single-payer plan. "If, for whatever reason, the Congress doesn't pass health care reform, I believe, and I may be to totally off base on this, but I believe that by the year 2000 we will have a single payer system," she said. " I don't even think it's a close call politically. I think the momentum for a single payer system will sweep the country... It will be such a huge popular issue... that even if it's not successful the first time, it will eventually be."
So, the gameplan was the expectancy of a Hillary victory in the 2016 election. The time between her ascension to the presidency and the implosion of the ACA would have been spent in an indoctrination through the media for Single-Payer Healthcare being the answer to the inadequacies of the ACA, which could have actually been fixed, and saved. But they don't want to fix it. They want Single-Payer. They want more government control. They want a Socialist-structured program.
This is why the Republicans will not get their act together. The Republicans were handed an unprecedented opportunity with a Republican-controlled House and Senate, and the presidency; and they have failed miserably on their promises and the mandate that Trump brought with him. The politicians you keep re-electing don't care about what the people of this country want. They have their own agenda. That is now abundantly clear. There is increasingly more rhetoric in regard to Single-Payer Healthcare coming from the Democrats and appearing in the Main Stream Media. The strategy of the Democrats is to tie up the Republican's hands long enough that they can get through the Mid-term elections. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 33 of the 100 seats in the Senate will be up for grabs and they think that their constant bombardment against the President will be enough for voter discontentment against Trump to translate into enough Democratic victories to regain control of Congress. Once this is done, and with the absence of a Healthcare plan in place, they will be positioned to be able to begin the debate and dialogue for Single-Payer Healthcare in this country.
When this happens, you can look back and thank John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska; three of the more liberal Republicans in the Senate, who voted "No" on the latest vote to Repeal and Replace.
We already know that the Democrats are still reeling from Trump's election; but so are the Republicans, and petty politics have come into play as he attempts to "drain the swamp." He has been thwarted left and right, and there has been constant turmoil in his Administration with continual leaks of information and problems with loyalty. I know that it has been the most contentious presidency that I've every seen. The Republican's 1994 Contract with America was certainly more successful and unified in their legislative endeavors, even with a Democratic president.
In February 2016, NPR reported: "Turned off by the partisan wars in Washington, 39 percent of voters now identify themselves as independent rather than affiliated with one of the two major political parties, according to a 2014 analysis by the Pew Research Center. Self-identified Democrats accounted for 32 percent of the electorate, Republicans 23 percent." No doubt the incredibly inept handling of the mantle of responsibility given to the Republicans will cause more Party loyalists to become Independent voters in order to coerce candidates into keeping the campaign promises that they make.
Term limits are being suggested to break the political stronghold held by many long-serving politicians in Congress, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) has gone as far as calling for the repeal of the 17th Amendment (1913) to again allow senators to be selected by their state legislatures, instead of being elected by popular vote. The privileged members of Congress certainly didn't get the memo that the people of this country want change. That is why they elected an inexperienced outsider to be their president. However, while they continue to stonewall change, these same politicians, and the elite that own them, are quickly moving to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

HOW THE LIBERAL AGENDA IS CHANGING


I saw the above post on a 'friend's' Facebook page. Instinctively, I found it to be wrong on many different levels.

But first, let me provide some context to my assertions.

In my first Presidential election (1976), I voted for Jimmy Carter. This election was the last 'big' campaign. The man even had a campaign song ("Why Not the Best"). I later found out why such a massive media campaign had to be waged. I had registered as a Democrat, and became politically active, becoming a Committeeman, then District Leader. I joined the Young Democrats, became the Secretary of the county organization, and later President; and was the Corresponding Secretary for the Young Democrats of Pennsylvania. In my zeal, I did a lot of research on the history and platform of the Democratic Party and even printed a booklet which I distributed to many people. At that time I felt that the Democrats better addressed solutions for the people of this country.

After I got married (1985), then bought my house (1990), and had the real world slap me in the face, in the research I was doing for my book, I began to see a liberal agenda that was being played out on the national stage. I began to see how the social programs and legislative actions long advocated by the Democrats were hurting this country and preventing growth. So I changed my Party and became a Republican.

I wasn't a zealous Republican, and never became as active with them, because I also realized that they were not perfect, and that most politicians in either Party did not effectively represent the people that elected them. For example, I remember once when I heard a politician say that although a majority of people in his district felt one way about a particular Bill, he was voting the opposite way, because he felt it was for the best. In my book, that is taxation without representation.

So, my views had become quite conservative, because I had grave concerns about the economy, and I believed the Republicans were more interested in restoring prosperity to this nation. However, this year, with the political fracas revolving around a group of Republicans trying to wrest the nomination from Trump at the Republican National Convention, I decided to change my Party, because I didn't want to be part of any Party that would try to take away my vote.

I am now an Independent, but I am still a Conservative.

The graphic above is part and parcel with the post-election protests, riots, vote recounts, and Electoral College intimidation. I have never seen such political vitriol directed towards a Presidential candidate. It even surpassed the ire directed against Barry Goldwater in 1964. The Democrats are unwilling to accept the fact that they nominated the wrong candidate, who under-performed, and underestimated her opponent. In addition, they also failed to see that America wanted an outsider who they saw as someone who could reverse the direction this country has been going in.

This graphic demonstrates what they feel their new agenda should be. It's not enough that the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are seen as Liberal organizations, but public education in general has always been perceived as pursuing leftist policies. But now, the election of Donald J. Trump has left them in literal shock. But, in reality, that's not the problem. The problem is if a President Trump can do what he says he can do. If he can, that sets up a certain reelection. That doesn't bode well for Democratic coffers.

It now seems the Liberal agenda is calling for a renewed effort to indoctrinate children in our schools. Last year, in a letter distributed by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party that was written by a teacher in Philadelphia, he called for the same thing. Another Facebook post called for Liberal teachers to move into the Red States that made it possible for Trump to win the Electoral College vote so they can be instrumental in influencing and molding young minds.

I have a problem with this.

Even as a Conservative, I would not want any teacher imprinting their Conservative mindset onto a child. I don't know, why can't teachers just teach without taking advantage of their position by imposing their own political views. Why can't they just educate with a multi-dimensional approach so that children can be fully informed to be able to make their own decisions. During the 2008 Presidential election campaign, Republican candidate Ron Paul talked about how we needed to get rid of the Federal Reserve to solve our economic problems. People said he was crazy for wanting to get rid of part of the Federal government. The thing is, the Federal Reserve is not part of our government, it is private banking institution that has uses the principles of central banking to enslave many countries of the world. But they don't teach that in school. I had to learn it from my own research.

It is true that our public educational system has been dumbing down our children so they will accept that our government has their best interest at heart. That the increasingly socialistic bent of governmental policy is the best thing for this country. The intent is to create citizens who will not question authority. Perfect little robots. Sheep. Sheep being led to the slaughter. But now, Liberals have hit a bump in the road. There's a glitch in the Matrix. Their solution is a long-term project to rally the troops and exert even more influence to brainwash kids with a rotting philosophy to poison their minds to the truth.

More than any other time in history, Liberals have engaged in a campaign of hate that's never been seen before. Not only against Trump, but against the people that supported and voted for Trump. They have embarked on a vicious media campaign to vilify the Conservatives in this country that voted to bring change and want fiscal responsibility. This will become readily apparent during the Inauguration ceremony on January 20th when thousands of people will descend upon Washington DC to voice their opposition against the movement that swept Trump into office. It remains to be seen whether their frustration will boil over to the point of violence. But what I do know, the next 4 years will be filled with constant criticism and a campaign to undermine Trump's strategy to reestablish America's greatness.

Monday, November 14, 2016

GIVE TRUMP A CHANCE

Remember during the last Presidential debate, when Donald Trump was asked, if he lost, would he accept the outcome of the election? He said he would have to look at it at the time. The leftist Mainstream Media lost it, and was livid at his comment- that he presumably wouldn't accept the will of the people. Now, after the stunning victory of Trump, protesters have taken to the street in an attempt to use intimidation, disruption and violence to convince, someone, anyone, to change the outcome. One protester said that Hillary Clinton should sue Trump to keep him from taking office. This goes to show that these agitators, primarily college students, do not understand how our political system works.

Anti-Trump protesters fill the streets
The point of contention, is that Hillary won the popular vote, which means, according to these protesters, she should be President. However, our Republic is guided by our Constitution, and according to that document, our President is elected through the Electoral College process.

The Founding Fathers were apprehensive about establishing a direct vote to elect a President, because they were worried that the more populous States would skew the results, and wanted the smaller States to have some relevance. They did not trust the population to make that decision, fearing that a tyrant would be able to manipulate public opinion and gain power. And indeed, today, the most popular State, California, is so liberal, that Trump never even had a General Election strategy there. That's why we were given the Electoral College.

It seems that our colleges and universities are inciting these events by not teaching this process, therefore we have thousands of protesters in large cities all over the country trying to use coercion to force change. This is a Constitutional impossibility. Unless...the Electors of the Electoral College change their vote, which two have said they are going to do, and are in the process of trying to get others to do the same. If you remember, Cruz supporters at the Republican National Convention tried to do the same thing. Why do people think so little of the will of the people by trying to circumvent things to suit their own bias?

The purpose of protest is to exercise your freedom of speech to express your opinion as to why something should be changed. Look at past demonstrations for Civil Rights, and against the Vietnam War. These were things that could be changed. You can't overturn a free and fair  election. Now there seems to be an escalation, in that huge riots are being planned for Inauguration Day, and it seems to be an opposition to democracy itself.

Back in 2008, you didn't see Republicans going out and pillaging in response to the election of Barack Obama. Republicans accepted that it was a change election, and a backlash against 8 years of George Bush. But the new breed of liberals are different. If they disagree with the opinion of someone, though it is truth, they label it as hate speech; which has caused the rise of political correctness and a mechanism to limit free speech. It's okay for them, but not anyone else. They have instituted mob rule and an environment of fear.

These demonstrations can be laid at the doorstep of the liberal Mainstream Media. Ever since Donald Trump announced his candidacy, the Media has lied, twisted, and have taken out of context nearly everything that Trump has said. They are responsible for creating an atmosphere of fear for the Trump presidency. And why did they do that? To help Hillary Clinton. CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, while talking to co-anchor Brooke Baldwin, said: "We couldn't help her (Hillary Clinton) anymore than we have. You know what I mean. She's got just a free ride so far from the Media. We're the biggest ones promoting her campaign."

CNNs Brooke Baldwin and Chris Cuomo
Academy Award-winning Director Michael Moore, a big Hollywood liberal, in a CNN interview with Don Lemon, said that a majority of Americans are liberals and progressives who want things like equal pay for women, action to stop Climate change, are against the death penalty, and are pro-choice. He believes that the Congress, and now the new President, are not representative of the American people. However, Congress is elected through a direct vote, and Americans have voted for a Republican majority. So, how does that happen if liberals and progressives are the majority?

Michael Moore
Moore gave Lemon a list of 5 things ("Michael Moore's Morning After To-Do List") that need to be done by liberal activists:

1) "Stop saying you're 'shocked.'"
Donald Trump was elected because the Democrats who came out in huge numbers for Obama in 2008 and 2012, did not come out for Hillary Clinton. In 2008, nearly 70 million voted for Obama, and in 2012 about 66 million. In 2016, a little over 60 million voted for Hillary. She did not excite the Democratic base like Sen. Bernie Sanders did. She had high unfavorables, was not drawing large crowds and was dogged until the end by her Email scandal. In short, she under-performed. That's why she lost.

2) "Fire the pundits and pollsters."
Hillary held sway over the Democratic National Committee (DNC) because of being the wife of a popular 2-term president, a Senator, and Secretary of State; and in fact, as shown in the Wikileaks Email hacks, had so much influence, that she was able to lessen the impact of Bernie Sander's candidacy. The Mainstream Media heavily favored Hillary, and did not report on the negative things that impacted her campaign. The polls were skewed toward Democrats and women, which artificially showed her with high polling numbers.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) came close to taking out Hillary
3) "Repeat: 'Clinton won the popular vote.'"
So, because Hillary won the popular vote, we're supposed to suspend the Constitution to allow her to become president. If you break down the results, the slight lead in the popular vote is a misleading indicator of her popularity. Trump won 30 states, to Clinton's 21. More shocking is the county map which shows the country awash in a sea of red and illustrates the wide support coming from rural America. Hillary's support came from the huge metropolitan areas and the liberal New England States. This is why the Electoral College is a more accurate reflection of the will of the people.

Trump overwhelmingly won more counties than Clinton
4) "Take over the Democratic Party."
As previously mentioned, the success of Hillary's nomination came because she was able to control the DNC. Revelations of this forced the resignation of Party head, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and criticism of her replacement Donna Brazile, who CNN cut ties with after it was revealed the she gave the Clinton campaign copies of the debate questions prior to the CNN-sponsored event. Because of the influence Hillary had, Sanders never really had a chance. However, because of the huge crowds drawn to his campaign rallies, he was able to put his socialist agenda out there, part of which involved free healthcare and free college education. His message resonated with college students and others frustrated with the state of the country, despite the fact that taxes would have to be increased dramatically to pay for all the free things that were part of his vision. Moore believes that the progressives have to take over the Democratic Party to insure their platform is advanced.

5) "Obstruct Republicans in Congress."
This is Moore's call-to-arms to disrupt the democratic process as much as possible. The last time a Republican President had a Republican-controlled Congress was during the George W. Bush administration (2003-2007); before that, some of Eisenhower's administration (1953-55), and before that, part of Hoover's (1929-31). Donald Trump has pledged to build a wall on the Southern border, repeal and replace Obamacare, and rollback numerous Executive Orders that Obama signed to bypass Congress. Obama campaigned for Hillary in an effort to protect his legacy, and doesn't want what he's done to be erased and to stop the progress that has been made. Yet, it seems, with the election of Donald Trump, America wants to reverse the direction that Hope and Change have taken us. It could be argued, that because Trump overcame tremendous obstacles to become President, that he has a mandate to pursue his legislative agenda. With this perception, and a Republican-controlled Congress, he should have little opposition. This is what Moore said needs to be targeted. The right way to do this, is to change the balance of power, by Democrats beating Republicans on Election Day. Yet, Moore seems to be hinting at something a little more immediate.

The current wave of organized demonstrations, bordering on riots, seem to be the beginning of this battle, which will further the ideological division in this country, as a socialist agenda is being pushed. One protester acknowledged there will be blood, because it sometimes takes the death of someone to have their goals furthered. If these actions escalate and become more violent, some have suggested that martial law could be declared and Trump's inauguration delayed. However, it would take something on the level of a civil war for something like this to happen, and I'd like to think that this is something that Americans would not want to see in their streets.

The election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States is the biggest political upset in American history. Although the candidacy of Ronald Reagan, a former movie actor, garnered similar reactions, he had previously been a 2-term governor of California. Trump has never held political office. His campaign style rewrote the political playbook. In January, 2004 on the night of his Iowa primary loss, Democratic candidate, an overzealous Vermont governor Howard Dean was trying to fire up his supporters, finishing off with a rousing scream. Some say that ended his chances of winning. In the 2012 presidential campaign, 2-term governor Rick Perry was riding the top of the Republican polls until a debate in November when he couldn't remember the 3rd of 3 government agencies he said he would eliminate as president. That seemed to end his presidential hopes as his popularity began to slide. With the verbal gaffes that Trump has committed, Dean's and Perry's seem to be relatively minor, yet Trump's campaign was not adversely affected. And while he stood on his business acumen, the pundits criticized his actual business success rate.

The Howard Dean scream
Looking at old interviews, you can see that for a very long time, he's not agreed with what politicians have done with this country. His entire career in building a world-wide business brand, being a best-selling author, and the host of a hit television show, have given him a platform and name recognition. From the beginning, he's always identified with the working man. When Mitt Romney ran for President in 2012, he was labeled as being rich and out-of-touch with the working class. Yet, Trump, a billionaire, was supported by the working class and those who didn't have a college education. How can that be? It happened, because a year before he announced, he made it a point to find out what the issues were that Americans were concerned with. He realized that these issues ran parallel to his nationalistic views, which gave birth to his America First campaign pledge. The other thing, at a Donald Trump rally, he didn't just give a speech, he talked to his supporters in a conversational manner, like he was sitting with them in their living room. That endeared him to them, because he came across as a candidate that heard what they had to say, and agreed with them, and wanted to do something about it.

President-elect Donald J. Trump
Towards the end of the campaign, Trump told the crowds at his rallies, "What have you got to lose?" in voting for him. He maintained that voting for Hillary was like a 3rd term of Obama, and it would cause the country to continue going in a direction that would destroy the economy of this country. And that's the mindset we need to have. Obama was a community organizer who only ran for Senate to use it as a platform to run for President. What experience did he have? Yet, America gave him a chance, and he was ultimately re-elected. Ronald Reagan, the former actor, rates very high on many lists as one of our most beloved Presidents. Why should Trump be treated any different? He should be given the same chance to acclimate himself to the office. Because he's not a politician, there is no measure to compare what he's capable of doing other than to consider the company he has built, the brand he has made, and his many accomplishments.

America has chosen this man because they believe he represents the best chance of returning this country to a firm economical footing. He's been given a big job to do, and we owe him and his administration our support. His success, is our success.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

HILLARY's HEALTH WEIGHING HEAVY ON THE MIND'S OF VOTERS

In 2008, the Country saw a Hillary Clinton carry out a very strong campaign against Barack Obama, who had become a rising star within the Democratic Party. In 2016, many people in the Democratic Party felt that she was owed the nomination (and the DNC blatantly supported her), because of her role as First Lady (she dropped the ball in leading the fight to get a Healthcare initiative passed), Senator (she introduced and got passed no meaningful legislation), and Secretary of State (she was responsible for the deaths in Benghazi, and a contributing factor in our muddled policy in the Middle East). With the eMail scandal stemming from receiving government eMails on a private server (then lying, saying that none were Confidential, when evidence has been released there were) and revelations in regard to the unethical operation of the Clinton Foundation, now it has come to the forefront that Hillary's health is in question. The liberal media denies it, but it is becoming an undeniable fact.

Hillary has needed help walking up steps

In January 2011 Hillary stumbled getting on a plane, 
and has fallen on steps a number of times

Hillary has had numerous coughing attacks since 
October 2015 and then many times is unable to talk

At a recent campaign appearance in Ohio, she had
a coughing fit, then spit 2 large gelatinous balls
into a glass

It appears she had a huge lesion on her tongue

What people have labeled as seizure-like behavior
seems to be some sort of physical tic

In a campaign appearance, she became visibly disoriented

In another campaign appearance, she froze-up and a 
handler had to come up and talk her through it

During the 9/11 Observance she passed out (supposedly
due to pneumonia) and had to be dragged into a waiting van

And now, in a recent appearance to the media she
looked haggard, tired and frail

So you see, it's not just one thing. It's many things. It seems clear that she is hiding something. She has come off of an extended period of not having any press conferences for over 9 months. She has not had a full campaign schedule, leading to the conclusion that she has to rest frequently.

There are rumors in the media that she is in the early stages of Parkinson's Disease, which her campaign denies. They put forward the argument that she has 'slowed' down because of her age (68 years old), yet her opponent, Donald Trump, at 70 years old, has shown extraordinary stamina having rallies all over the country nearly everyday, as well as having press conferences, and doing radio and television interviews.

So, let's take a quick look at what we do know about Hillary's health, or at least what we've been told. During a February 2005 campaign speech, she fainted, and later was diagnosed as having an acute gastrointestinal illness. In October, 2007, while campaigning for Chuck Schumer in New York, her right foot swelled, and doctors found a large blood clot behind her right knee. In 2015, Hillary's doctor revealed that she had another major blood clot in 2009. On December 15, 2012 Hillary fainted (due to a stomach flu) and fell, sustaining a concussion, and was subsequently hospitalized 2 weeks later when a blood clot was discovered in her right transverse venous sinus. On January 24, 2013 the State Department confirmed that Clinton was wearing special glasses with Fresnel lenses to prevent seeing double as a result of her concussion. In May 2014, Bill Clinton revealed that her recovery from the concussion actually took 6 months. On January 31, 2015, in response to queries in regard to Hillary's ability to serve as President, Clinton's doctor revealed that Hillary suffers from Hypothyroidism, having an under-active thyroid gland which results in the lack of important hormones; and also takes Coumadin, a blood thinner, to prevent new clots from forming.

In her most recent appearance, some pundits felt she looked very weak, and have questioned whether she would have the stamina to perform the duties of a President and be able to deal with a crisis. Many news outlets have questioned medical professionals in regard to her health 'events' and many feel that they could be the repercussions of her concussion, or possibly a bad heart. Many have called for her complete medical records to be released. Americans want to know whether she is fit to serve. It's even been rumored that the DNC is putting together a contingency plan in case that Hillary has to drop out of the race because of her health, though, they add, that would be unlikely.

In the past 2 weeks, her lead over Trump has dwindled, and the spread in battleground swing states have tightened up. Critics have accused her of wanting to be President at any cost- even her health. The Hillary the Country is seeing, is not the Hillary they remember, though die hard supporters would vote for her even if she was in a coma. If her trend of inactivity continues, if there are further health issues, and if her performance at the upcoming debate raises more questions, you have to wonder whether the leaders of the Democratic Party might try to convince her to bow out in order to try and salvage the election.

If that would be the case, would they try to postpone the election, thus allowing Obama to remain in office? And if she was replaced on the ballot, who would it be? Many feel that her VP choice, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, could not win. By virtue of his Primary campaign and the votes he received, protocol seems to dictate that the mantle would have fall to Bernie Sanders, but there are some who feel he has moved on and has no interest in the office any longer. My money would be on Joe Biden being tapped to be the standard bearer for the Party. His name recognition, his experience in the Senate and as Vice President, in a career free of scandal, would make him a formidable opponent for Trump.

It was predicted that the Hillary that started the campaign was going to win in a landslide. With less than 50 days left in the campaign, she could still eke this thing out. She seems to still have the Electoral College edge, though even that has begun to shift. And if she wins, you have to wonder if she would even be able to complete her term. But that thought opens up a whole new can of worms. I believe that people still have that picture in their mind of a vibrant and exciting Hillary Clinton campaigning in 2008. A Hillary Clinton free of the Email scandal, of Benghazi, and of the excesses of the Clinton Foundation. She was a former First Lady who overcame the embarrassment of her husband's sex scandal by becoming an unremarkable Senator of New York, just as Obama had been an unremarkable Senator in Illinois.  I believe, that Hillary Clinton, would have easily defeated Donald Trump. As this campaign winds down, that image of Hillary is going to slowly succumb to the ravages of doubt and fear.