Furthest Right

#HillaryHasAIDS: Why It Is Irrelevant What Her Malady Is


After months of media and Snopes telling us that Hillary Clinton’s health is not an issue and that we are all conspiracy theorists for even considering it, another set of videos emerge showing Clinton apparently unable to stand, then falling or passing out and then being dragged into her van by Secret Service workers, who then position themselves to hide the event from scrutiny.

Rumors and conjecture are flying about what illness Clinton has, but it may be time to dial that back. Remote diagnosis is difficult, and many things can produce these problems. For example, if she became dehydrated or exhausted, she might pass out in public. It happened to me when I was 18 in the pit of a Slayer show, and thanks to several metal fans and skinheads, I was dragged to safety probably looking about like Hillary did.

But, the bigger issue is this: Clinton looks elderly and has consistent health problems. If these are brought on by the stress of the campaign trail, how will she do as President? Even more, why is it so seemingly difficult to get straight answers from her campaign about what is going on?

At the end of the day, it does not matter what illness she has — Parkinson’s, AIDS, pneumonia — but that she is experiencing recurring health problems and there is some kind of mystery agreement between media and the candidate to keep this as hush-hush as possible. This calls into question her ability to serve, and the honesty of her campaign.

Some have posited that her health troubles are a bonus for the DNC because it allows them to have a figurehead candidate who can be managed from behind the scenes by whatever cabal of experts the team has assembled. If Huma Abedin, for example, sends every email that originates from Clinton, the source of any future emails can be hidden and will be executed as if it is a Presidential order.

This is a common tactic in organizations that wish to preserve deniability for the figurehead, and also to be able to act for that figurehead when he or she is indisposed. The Clinton email server debacle points to this type of arrangement: where email is insecure, and multiple people have access to the means of sending those emails as teh figurehead, that figurehead has plausible deniability in a court of law.

With the Clinton candidacy, the political elites of the Left may have decided that allowing any single person to have power is too dangerous for them. They want more power. In that light, a candidate who can only work a few hours a day may be ideal, because then a committee can make all the decisions and have the candidate sign off on them, or do it for her. As Breitbart reports:

Clinton herself said her head trauma caused her to limit her work as secretary of state to only “a few hours a day,” and to not recall briefings related to the secure handling of government records, FBI documents reveal.

Under these conditions, the candidate becomes an actress who announces what the committee wants, instead of a leader. This gives more power to the elites, and eliminates a potentially unreliable or unpredictable figurehead, as both Obama and Bush II were at times, even when they did so from the best of motives.

In the meantime, this throws a wrench in the campaign. After months of denial, the health problems surface, and whatever the cause, Clinton ends up looking like she cannot hold the office. This gives the DNC and its compliant Supreme Court a number of options, including delaying the election indefinitely as has happened in Austria:

A re-run of May’s vote was ordered after Mr Hofer’s far-right Freedom Party challenged the result.

…Mr Sobotka said on Friday that it was unlikely the problems could be resolved in time for the 2 October date, and said he would make a further announcement on Monday, fuelling speculation he will announce a postponement.

Die Presse cites government officials as saying a number of different dates, from November to January, are being considered.

This is a classic tactic for seizing power: announce that the system has broken, and in the interim, the existing party in power will continue to rule. That gives Democrats time to find another candidate, or to simply prolong their rule forever.

Clinton’s now-famous “alt right” speech provides the basis for doing so: if, as she says, the other party is a “hate group,” it may be interpreted — by the compliant Supreme Court — to be ineligible to rule on Civil Rights grounds. They may declare Donald Trump and his supporters to be Unconstitutional on this basis, claim an emergency, and grant powers to existing Leftist leaders as a means of avoiding this result.

As the intrigue piles up, with this election being crucial because the winning party will be able to change American demographics such to exclude a victory by the other party, it becomes more likely as November approaches that the Democrats will deploy some method of seizing control.

On the negative side, this means that America will be ruled by the same gang of criminals that brought us the near-dictatorial rule of Barack Obama, but on the plus side, this will signal the end of democracy as a viable system. Expect further skullduggery and manipulation as the election approaches.

Tags: , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn