DNC RNC

Nancy Pelosi’s weird theatrics

Apart from her smiles during the somber occasion, this video highlights Nancy Pelosi using one pen per letter of her name. The theatrics. It is the sort of thing one might expect someone with dementia to do in a nursing home.

It turns out she intends to hand out the pens as a special gift to invited guests of the solemn ceremony. Who wouldn’t want one? Perhaps she could auction them off to fund the Democrats 2020 campaign?!

Note the hashtag affixed to the front of the table. She didn’t waste any opportunity to get social media attention. At the very least it was in tune with the rest of the low grade behaviours displayed during the impeachment hearings – from live-streaming a golf tournament, wearing a batgirl costume and having a Stanford law professor act like a petulant child.

God bless America.

Analysing 37 anti-Trump Psychiatrists for glaring bias

On July 7, 2019, a video did the rounds on social media referring to a book titled, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,which contained the updated findings of 37 psychiatrists and mental health experts, led by Dr Bandy X. Lu, a forensic psychiatrist from Yale School of Medicine.  It followed on from a previous work published in October 2017, where only 26 other psychiatrists had joined forces with Lu at the time. 

Social media lapped up Dr. Lu’s claim that she was the President of the World Mental Health Coalition (WMHC).  If one throws ‘world‘ in a title it sounds more impressive, doesn’t it? Although Americans often struggle with the word “world”. For decades Americans hosted a baseball event called the “World Series” where no other nations played.

Still, we felt compelled to check how gargantuan the WMHC is to properly measure its global status. For reference, the American Psychiatric Association has c. 38,000 members. We could be easily led to believe the WMHC had multiples of that. Sadly not. It has a total of 37. Yes, thirty-seven. Given the World Psychiatric Association represents 200,000 members worldwide, we can get a fair idea of how much ‘pull’ WMHC hasn’t.

Turns out WHMC is an “all-volunteer organization, and donations are used for direct educational activities, to strengthen the fabric of society as we better our collective mental health.” with the following donation manifesto:

“We:

1. provide consultation to government bodies upon request;
2. organize public forums for discussion and education; and
3. alert, protect, and educate the public when when we see signs of imminent or lasting danger within the body politic or in its leaders.” [although there is a typo they might wish to address which we have highlighted for them]

Perhaps the most telling part of the bias in the updated version can be found in the Amazon summary of the latest book,

The prestigious mental health experts who have contributed to the revised and updated version of ‘The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump’ argue that their moral and civic “duty to warn” supersedes professional neutrality.

You don’t say? If these psychiatrists ever testify in court (as they proudly claim they often do), any attorney defending the accused should just dredge out this summary to prove they aren’t impartial by their own admission.

Lu proved once again that Trump Derangement Syndrome lives and breathes within the walls of elite tertiary institutions of America, just like Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan who admitted she crossed the road to avoid walking in front of a Trump building during her impeachment testimony. This is the level of maturity one gets for a $70,000pa education.

The WMHC has no qualms publishing a question from a town hall which included an “…historic number of leading psychiatrists in our country felt the imperative to publish such a book because of their unprecedented fears about a President with such severe mental problems…”

Historic being 37…If 500 law professors can get their act together on co-signing a letter on articles of impeachment, surely the psychiatric community can achieve a higher watermark. May we suggest they take a leaf out of the 11,000 scientists who signed a letter on climate change which Mickey Mouse, Albus Dumbledore or Araminta Aardvark were among the co-signatories.

Back to the video. Lu’s opening statement was that Trump “failed every criterion for rational and reality-based decision-making capacity.”

Reading in a robotic style off an autocue, Dr. Lu said that Trump is unfit to be president based on the wealth of data gleaned from the 448-page Mueller Report (released to the public on April 18, 2019). So between April 18th to July 7th, the WMHC has absorbed all 448-pages with a thorough and impartial eye.

Forget that the Mueller said under oath that the report “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated” with Russia.

Dr Lu said, “first and foremost, we want to remove Mr Trump’s access to nuclear weapons and war-making powers…we could offer many more, but given the urgency, we decided to focus on the two most important.”

Since when did 37 psychologists become experts in foreign policy?  In more than 1,000 days in office, no country has come close to being nuked by Trump. Unlike his predecessor, foreign powers realise he is not messing about. Cross a red line and there are consequences. Period. Are psychiatrists confusing unorthodoxy with mental illness?

Did the WMHC predict that Iran would end its retaliation so soon? It is a bit silly to believe that they won’t continue the 4-decade proxy war.

However CNN (which is in thorough need of psychiatric assessment alongside WaPo. NYT and other mainstream media outlets) indulged us with, “Iran’s strikes seem intended to avoid US deaths. Here’s why that might be the case.” Wow. That is a pretty darned expensive way to fire shots across a bow. We guess once in possession of Obama’s gift of billions, Iranian generals can afford the luxury of expending multiple $100,000 missiles instead of $1,000 shells.

Maybe the WMHC can tell us why CNN believes those thoughtful leaders of the Iranian regime were compassionate enough to spare the lives of an enemy they swear death to. Who knew?

Lu makes the audacious claim that, “Our work is not about Mr Trump who may not be a danger as a private citizen, but about protecting society against the powers of the presidency in a person who has not demonstrated the ability to handle them.

If the work isn’t about Trump, why does the WMHC have a section that also targets this administration’s border protection policies? It released a statement on refugees which said the following,

We write as mental health professionals who are deeply concerned about the psychological harm our nation’s current immigration practices inflict on asylum seekers, immigrant communities, and our society…We are alarmed that recent changes in executive policy and personnel show increasing cruelty with intent to inflict as much pain as the law allows.”

It is a safe assumption to think that the WMHC members aren’t staunch Republicans. Never mind that Obama first introduced kids in cages separation laws at the border, something confessed by the mainstream media late last year. Who needs facts on the psychiatrist’s couch?

Presumably, the next iteration of the book will suggest that the 63m that voted for Trump are equally in need of having their voting rights repealed for their inability to handle their democratic rights.

Lu proudly states she has testified in court cases with respect to forensic psychiatry but in this case feels that interviewing the subject is not important. She read out from the screen,

As the evidence was overwhelming, and since outside perspectives are more important in a functional exam than a personal interview, we did not feel we needed one…the wealth and quality of the report’s content made this possible…in fact we had more and better data under sworn testimony than we have ever had in our usual practice.

Psychiatrists are banned by law from diagnosing patients without examining them although Lu thinks this step is unnecessary to make a determination that he is unfit. Hmmm.

Also, we are not interested in a diagnosis of the president because he is not our patient.

Lu said her group offered the president to undergo an examination if he believed himself fit. His office acknowledged receipt of the request. Like any sane human being, a polite “p*ss off” was the only appropriate reply to a bunch of sanctimonious intellectuals who think they know better than all of us.

Force in numbers (even as tiny as 37) signing consensus-based documents like this are the latest weapons used by liberals. Albert Einstein once said to a scientist who claimed he’d get 100 scientists to prove him wrong replied, “it only takes one!

Of course, we can already hear the defenders of the WMHC ring loud on the basis of their academic credentials.

However, we hold a different view. Just because one holds qualifications in a particular field from a reputable institution, doesn’t mean they don’t carry biases or conflicts of interest. Schools with brand names often escape rigorous scrutiny because they are so revered and citing them is seen as adding credibility to one’s own arguments.

In 2015 a claim was made against Harvard for not disclosing financial conflicts of interest. A press release entitled ‘Clean air and health benefits of clean power plan hinge on key policy decisions’ constituted a gushing praise of a commentary entitled ‘US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits’ by Charles T. Driscoll, Jonathan J. Buonocore, Jonathan I. Levy, Kathleen F. Lambert, Dallas Burtraw, Stephen B. Reid, Habibollah Fakhraei & Joel Schwartz, published on May 4, 2015, in Nature Climate Change.

The claim (a letter to the Dean) suggested that

“two of the co-authors of the commentary, Buonocore and Schwartz, are researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Your press release quotes Buonocore thus: “If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented.” Indeed, the commentary and the press release constitute little more than thinly-disguised partisan political advocacy for costly proposed EPA regulations supported by the “Democrat” administration but opposed by the Republicans. Harvard has apparently elected to adopt a narrowly partisan, anti-scientific stance…The commentary concludes with the words “Competing financial interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests”. Yet its co-authors have received these grants from the EPA: Driscoll $3,654,609; Levy $9,514,391; Burtraw $1,991,346; and Schwartz (Harvard) $31,176,575. The total is not far shy of $50 million…Would the School please explain why its press release described the commentary in Nature Climate Change by co-authors including these lavishly-funded four as “the first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind”? Would the School please explain why Mr Schwartz, a participant in projects grant-funded by the EPA in excess of $31 million, failed to disclose this material financial conflict of interest in the commentary? Would the School please explain the double standard by which Harvard institutions have joined a chorus of public condemnation of Dr Soon, a climate sceptic, for having failed to disclose a conflict of interest that he did not, in fact, possess, while not only indulging Mr Schwartz, a climate-extremist when he fails to declare a direct and substantial conflict of interest but also stating that the commentary he co-authored was “independent”?”

We don’t accuse the WMHC of committing crimes but we think this example shows that we shouldn’t blindly accept the findings from academics without heavier scrutiny.

Certainly, in the case of these 37 psychiatrists, even a deplorable uneducated Trump supporter can see through the heavy coats of bias and condescending rhetoric. The ultimate irony is these people have such confidence in their own intellectual superiority that they reckoned one would look under the hood.

Maybe when 200,000 global psychiatrists ascribe to the same view as WMHC, we may be inclined to lend more credibility to the suggestions of Trump being unfit for a role. At the moment the WMHC appears to be mentally unsuited to uphold the very high standards of the wonderful work done by the rest of the mental health community.

They needn’t worry. It is likely that more than 63 million Americans will make that determination in November 2020 on whether he is still fit to serve.

Michelle Obama wins Most Admired Woman award. Donald Trump Most Admired Man alongside her husband

How worthy can any poll honestly be to rank Hillary Clinton the “Most Admired Woman” 17 years in a row? Michelle Obama has now won the Gallup award back to back in 2019, although she slid from 15% to 10%. Lucky that Michelle and Barack Obama have moved into a $15m mansion by the shores of Martha’s Vineyard because they might need the extra space to store all of the trophies.

While it will no doubt appease the left to have her win, they may not be too pleased to discover that Donald Trump tied with Barack Obama for “most admired man.”

Ouch! How telling is that to have a poll like Gallup that can rank crooked Hillary for 17 years straight now award Trump equal first in a country which suffers from so much Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)? Even Melania Trump, the figure so many magazines refuse to put on their cover, took second place.

Maybe Americans love the current first couple more than the media makes out.

The Battle of Lilliput

Quite a good summary of the best moments for the Democratic debate last night done by conservative Ben Shapiro. FNF Media awaits howls from the leftists who will justify the complete garbage these politicians spewed.

Grab some popcorn. Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren gets completely poleaxed by Pete Buttigieg who attacked her hypocrisy over her criticism of him schmoozing with billionaires (from the 31st minute).

Joe Biden happily said “yes” to the losses of 100,000s of blue-collar jobs for climate change.

Andrew Yang lamented he was the only candidate of colour on the stage and that he wished that Cory Booker would be back to boost the ranks! Identity politics! Yawn.

Amy Klobuchar looked the best on the night as she clocked Buttigieg over his record in winning elections. Buttigieg won in South Bend, Indiana with a total of 8,000 votes which he championed as a success because he was a gay man in the evil Mike Pence’s home state. Klobuchar slapped him over the fact he lost the bid to be state treasurer in Indiana in 2010 by 25 points.

Alas, the winner of the debate, yet again, was Donald Trump.

Note since the impeachment announcement (which embarrassingly is not official according to Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, one of the Democrat’s star witnesses from the hearings), Trump has seen a surge in political donations. You can’t make this stuff up.

If you don’t have enough time to watch the full video above, spend 30 seconds watching Nancy Pelosi sound like a town drunk explaining her decision. It is an incoherent rabble.

Mom forced to chastise her unruly kids

Don’t make Mom mad! Nancy Pelosi’s actions spoke much louder than her words today.

The Democrats have made such a farce of the impeachment proceedings – from Schiff’s parody, Democrat representatives wearing Batgirl costumes and streaming the Presidents Cup golf or bringing forward law professors who cross the road when passing a Trump building as key witnesses – that the Speaker of the House thought,  at the very least, she must lift decorum to reflect the solemn nature of the outcome rather than allow spontaneous rapturous applause.

One can only wonder what would have happened if Nancy’s children were able to let loose. Probably would have ended up taking selfies of the occasion.

What do you know? That is just what they did, including Democrat Rep Rashida Tlaib, of “impeach the MotherF*cker” fame, who live-streamed her glee at what she was about to do. All class.

Sadly Trump Derangement Syndrome leads to a lack of self-awareness, much like the Washington Post team tweeting “Merry Impeachmas” on the news.

Trump Derangement Syndrome heads to the Senate

Above is a headline from the Washington Post. Only that it is dated 20 Jan 2017. Yes, that’s right. 2017. Yes, Democrats still can’t accept that Hillary lost and have had a sole purpose to impeach him on something…anything since he was inaugurated.

There are zero surprises that Trump would be impeached by the House. There will be fewer surprises that the Senate will exonerate him.

The Democrats still cling to this notion that voters shouldn’t be allowed to decide for themselves. Democracy is too dangerous in the wrong hands. We always said mud wrestling with Trump was a bad idea.

The GOP will return serve in the same manner in the Senate as was done to them in the House by the Democrats and we will hear the mainstream media indulge in more Trump Derangement Syndrome quoting Democrats screeching at how unfair it all is.

In the process, Trump gets more free 24/7 TV broadcasts while Mike Bloomberg has to battle for air on the campaign trail talking about mass shootings under Trump.

There will be a million comments out on the impeachment subject but all FNF Media can say is “never disturb an enemy when (s)he’s making a mistake.”

Trump 2020. The Democrats are really do suffer from a mental disorder. Looking forward to WaPo’s unbiased coverage and fact checking department which should unite with CNN to tell Americans that President Trump is an evil man.

This is getting too stupid now

Just when we thought Trump Derangement Syndrome had peaked, 750+ historians have signed a letter demanding the House impeach Trump.

Yet more liberal sanctimony trying to talk down to the minions that they know better. Further evidence as to why education should be free in America. It’s worth nothing. Voters can make their own determination and the polls suggest people don’t support impeachment. Ahh, but we are educated historians. Who are you to question our intelligence?!?

Who next? Parking Ticket Officers against Trump or Online Retailers for Impeachment? It is all too silly.

The historians’ letter is as follows:

We are American historians devoted to studying our nation’s past who have concluded that Donald J. Trump has violated his oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” His “attempts to subvert the Constitution,” as George Mason described impeachable offenses at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, urgently and justly require his impeachment.

President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president. Among those most hurtful to the Constitution have been his attempts to coerce the country of Ukraine, under attack from Russia, an adversary power to the United States, by withholding essential military assistance in exchange for the fabrication and legitimization of false information in order to advance his own re-election.

President Trump’s lawless obstruction of the House of Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for representative government. So have his attempts to justify that obstruction on the grounds that the executive enjoys absolute immunity, a fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated, would turn the president into an elected monarch above the law.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, impeachment was designed to deal with “the misconduct of public men” which involves “the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Collectively, the President’s offenses, including his dereliction in protecting the integrity of the 2020 election from Russian disinformation and renewed interference, arouse once again the Framers’ most profound fears that powerful members of government would become, in Hamilton’s words, “the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption.”

It is our considered judgment that if President Trump’s misconduct does not rise to the level of impeachment, then virtually nothing does.

Hamilton understood, as he wrote in 1792, that the republic remained vulnerable to the rise of an unscrupulous demagogue, “unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents…despotic in his ordinary demeanour.” That demagogue, Hamilton said, could easily enough manage “to mount the hobby horse of popularity — to join in the cry of danger to liberty — to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion — to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day.” Such a figure, Hamilton wrote, would “throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”

President Trump’s actions committed both before and during the House investigations fit Hamilton’s description and manifest utter and deliberate scorn for the rule of law and “repeated injuries” to constitutional democracy. That disregard continues and it constitutes a clear and present danger to the Constitution. We therefore strongly urge the House of Representatives to impeach the President.

Signed,*