Parkinson Disease Test 1 of 4: 28 September 2016


, , , , ,

Parkinson Disease Blood Labs

Test 1 of 4: 28 September 2016


  • TSH c reflex T4
  • B12/Folate
  • Vitamin D 25-OH


  • Serum Ceruloplasmin
  • Copper (Serum)


  • Iron, TIBC, Ferritin



At first, Parkinson Disease can make people:

  • Shake (tremors)
  • Move slowly
  • Become stiff or rigid
  • Lose their balance or have a hard time walking

Later, Parkinson Disease can also make some people:

  • Lose the ability to think clearly
  • At times, lose touch with reality or see things that aren’t there (hallucinations)
  • Feel depressed, anxious, or less interested in everyday life


above photo from internet

End Of Summer: a poem


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The hummingbirds have left for the season,

A small footnote to the end of summer.

One chapter ends and another will begin, too soon.


The bigger creatures still fight at the feeders,

Treasuring their sugared water—

Juncos and woodpeckers, and a bandit raccoon.


Nature is always the first to sense change.

With nature, it’s wise to remain friends,

For this writer’s mind too easily now forgets.


Autumn is upon me, but it lurks ominously this time.

I now can feel the darkened air of October and November.

If I could have lingered in the sun—but, away with regrets!


It’s good to move forward and put to rest the past.

It’s good to smile and find better thermal underwear.

It’s good to examine one’s conscience and therapy to write.


Capturing this moment, at least, passes the time.

Better yet, it exercises these shaky hands.

Mostly, as summer turns to fall, I won’t abandon the fight.


poem by S.A. Bort:  15 September 2016

photo by S.A. Bort:  14 September 2016

Hope Beckons: a poem


, , , , ,

Parkinson’s disease.
No graceful path till life does cease.

Shake, rattle and roll.
No party dance till midnight bells toll.

Still, there may be hope for the cure
As exponential, pharmaceutical advances lure.

There may be time—hours, minutes, seconds!
In this universe of faith, hope beckons.


poem by S.A. Bort: 14 September 2016

photo by S.A. Bort: 26 September 2016

Allan Lichtman of American University abhors Trump yet predicts Trump victory


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Fix

Trump is headed for a win, says professor who has predicted 30 years of presidential outcomes correctly

September 23 at 8:00 AM

Who will win the 2016 presidential election? This professor has predicted correctly for 32 years

Allan Lichtman, a distinguished professor of history at American University, created his “13 Keys to the White House” more than 30 years ago—and he’s ready to predict who will win in 2016. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

[For video, see:

Nobody knows for certain who will win on Nov. 8 — but one man is pretty sure: Professor Allan Lichtman, who has correctly predicted every presidential election since 1984.

When we sat down in May, he explained how he comes to a decision. Lichtman’s prediction isn’t based on horse-race polls, shifting demographics or his own political opinions. Rather, he uses a system of true/false statements he calls the “Keys to the White House” to determine his predicted winner.

And this year, he says, Donald Trump is the favorite to win.

The keys, which are explained in depth in Lichtman’s book “Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016” are:

  1. Party Mandate:  After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
  2. Contest:  There is no serious contest for the incumbent party   nomination.
  3. Incumbency:  The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
  4. Third party:  There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
  5. Short-term economy:  The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
  6. Long-term economy:  Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
  7. Policy change:  The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
  8. Social unrest:  There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
  9. Scandal:  The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
  10. Foreign/military failure:  The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
  11. Foreign/military success:  The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
  12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
  13. Challenger charisma:  The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Lichtman, a distinguished professor of history at American University, sat down with The Fix this week to reveal who he thinks will win in November and why 2016 was the most difficult election to predict yet.  Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

THE FIX:  Can you tell me about the keys, and how you use them to evaluate the election from the point where — I assume it’s very murky a year or two out, and they start to crystallize over the course of the election.

LICHTMAN:  “The Keys to the White House” is a historically based prediction system.  I derived the system by looking at every American presidential election from 1860 to 1980, and have since used the system to correctly predict the outcomes of all eight American presidential elections from 1984 to 2012.

The keys are 13 true/false questions, where an answer of “true” always favors the reelection of the party holding the White House, in this case the Democrats.  And the keys are phrased to reflect the basic theory that elections are primarily judgments on the performance of the party holding the White House.  And if six or more of the 13 keys are false — that is, they go against the party in power — they lose.  If fewer than six are false, the party in power gets four more years.

So people who hear just the surface-level argument there might say, well, President Obama has a 58 percent approval rating, doesn’t that mean the Democrats are a shoo-in?  Why is that wrong?

It absolutely does not mean the Democrats are a shoo-in.  First of all, one of my keys is whether or not the sitting president is running for reelection, and right away, they are down that key.  Another one of my keys is whether or not the candidate of the White House party is, like Obama was in 2008, charismatic.  Hillary Clinton doesn’t fit the bill.

The keys have nothing to do with presidential approval polls or horse-race polls, with one exception, and that is to assess the possibility of a significant third-party campaign.

What about Donald Trump on the other side?  He’s not affiliated with the sitting party, but has his campaign been an enigma in terms of your ability to assess this election?

Donald Trump has made this the most difficult election to assess since 1984.  We have never before seen a candidate like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump may well break patterns of history that have held since 1860.

We’ve never before seen a candidate who’s spent his life enriching himself at the expense of others.  He’s the first candidate in our history to be a serial fabricator, making up things as he goes along.  Even when he tells the truth, such as, “Barack Obama really was born in the U.S.,” he adds two lines, that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement, and that he finished it, even though when Barack Obama put out his birth certificate, he didn’t believe it.  We’ve never had a candidate before who not just once, but twice in a thinly disguised way, has incited violence against an opponent.  We’ve never had a candidate before who’s invited a hostile foreign power to meddle in American elections.  We’ve never had a candidate before who’s threatened to start a war by blowing ships out of the water in the Persian Gulf if they come too close to us.  We’ve never had a candidate before who has embraced as a role model a murderous, hostile foreign dictator.  Given all of these exceptions that Donald Trump represents, he may well shatter patterns of history that have held for more than 150 years, lose this election even if the historical circumstances favor it.

We’re a little bit less than seven weeks out from the election today.  Who do you predict will win in November?

Based on the 13 keys, it would predict a Donald Trump victory.  Remember, six keys and you’re out, and right now the Democrats are out — for sure — five keys.

Key 1 is the party mandate — how well they did in the midterms.  They got crushed.

Key number 3 is, the sitting president is not running.

Key number 7, no major policy change in Obama’s second term like the Affordable Care Act.

Key number 11, no major smashing foreign policy success.

And Key number 12, Hillary Clinton is not a Franklin Roosevelt.

One more key and the Democrats are down, and we have the Gary Johnson Key.  One of my keys would be that the party in power gets a “false” if a third-party candidate is anticipated to get 5 percent of the vote or more.  In his highest polling, Gary Johnson is at about 12 to 14 percent.  My rule is that you cut it in half.  That would mean that he gets six to seven, and that would be the sixth and final key against the Democrats.

So very, very narrowly, the keys point to a Trump victory.  But I would say, more to the point, they point to a generic Republican victory, because I believe that given the unprecedented nature of the Trump candidacy and Trump himself, he could defy all odds and lose even though the verdict of history is in his favor.  So this would also suggest, you know, the possibility this election could go either way.  Nobody should be complacent, no matter who you’re for, you gotta get out and vote.

Do you think the fact that Trump is not a traditional Republican — certainly not an establishment Republican, from a rhetorical or policy perspective — contributes to that uncertainty over where he fits in with the standard methodology for evaluating the Keys?

I think the fact that he’s a bit of a maverick, and nobody knows where he stands on policy, because he’s constantly shifting.  I defy anyone to say what his immigration policy is, what his policy is on banning Muslims, or whoever, from entering the United States, that’s certainly a factor.  But it’s more his history in Trump University, the Trump Institute, his bankruptcies, the charitable foundation, of enriching himself at the expense of others, and all of the lies and dangerous things he’s said in this campaign, that could make him a precedent-shattering candidate.

It’s interesting, I don’t use the polls, as I’ve just explained, but the polls have very recently tightened.  Clinton is less ahead than she was before, but it’s not because Trump is rising, it’s because Clinton is falling.  He’s still around 39 percent in the polls.  You can’t win if you can’t crack 40 percent.

As people realize the choice is not Gary Johnson, the only choice is between Trump and Clinton, those Gary Johnson supporters may move away from Johnson and toward Clinton, particularly those millennials.  And, you know, I’ve seen this movie before.  My first vote was in 1968, when I was the equivalent of a millennial, and lots of my friends, very liberal, wouldn’t vote for Hubert Humphrey because he was part of the Democratic establishment, and guess what?  They elected Richard Nixon.

And, of course, as I have said for over 30 years, predictions are not endorsements.  My prediction is based off a scientific system.  It does not necessarily represent, in any way, shape or form, an Allan Lichtman or American University endorsement of any candidate.  And of course, as a successful forecaster, I’ve predicted in almost equal measure both Republican and Democratic victories.


A gringo like me

when is a party not a party?

I recently bought a DVD box set with twenty spaghetti westerns (thirty-two hours worth), dating from 1963 to 1978.  The DVD was released through Mill Creek Entertainment.  It cost less than ten dollars, not even a fistful.  A couple nights ago, I watched the first one:  “Gunfight At Red Sands” (1964).

The movie itself was forgettable, but its theme song made me rub my scruffy chin.  The tune, sung by Dicky Jones, is called “A Gringo Like Me.”  It’s chorus line offered a twisted kind of logic, just twisted enough to make sense to me:  “There’s just one kind of man that you can trust / that’s a dead man / or a gringo like me.”  You can listen to it here:  [ ].

What made me stop and think was the word gringo.  I’m a wordsmith kind of a guy, and I can’t help but wonder…

View original post 1,063 more words

Growing concerns for Hillary’s questionable health


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Physician:  Mainstream Media ‘Strangely Silent’ About Hillary Clinton’s Health

The executive director of a physicians’ organization questions how the mainstream media can ignore signs of what could be a traumatic brain injury in the Democrat nominee for president.

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, observes that “strangely silent is the mainstream media about the fitness” for presidential office of Hillary Clinton.  At AAPS’ website, Orient summarizes the concerns about Clinton’s health that she says are growing:

There’s the photograph of Secretary Clinton’s difficulty walking up some steps.  Now inability to climb stairs does not necessarily disqualify a person for public office.  However, neither she nor people with her apparently anticipated a problem.  The people helping her seem to be preventing a fall.  Did she simply trip?  Or was it a seizure or a stroke?

Videos widely circulated on the internet are, if authentic, very concerning.  One shows prolonged, inappropriate laughter; another, strange head movements.  In a third, she appeared momentarily dazed and confused, and lost her train of thought. Reportedly, she has a volcanic temper.  (This is probably not new.)

A man who stays close to her, who is reportedly not a Secret Service officer, was photographed carrying something in his hand that purportedly might have been an autoinjector of Valium.

While we don’t have Mrs. Clinton’s medical records, it is widely stated that she experienced a fall that caused a concussion.  Since then, she is sometimes seen wearing eyeglasses with prisms, as are used to correct double vision.

Orient explains that serious concussions can often cause traumatic brain injury that is not always detected on standard medical tests such as a CT or MRI.

“Many of our veterans who experienced blast injury from improvised explosive devices suffer from it,” she continues, adding:

These are some symptoms:  difficulty thinking, attention deficits, confusion, memory problems, frustration, mood swings, emotional outbursts, agitation, headaches, difficulties with balance and coordination, and seizures.  Many veterans with such an injury cannot hold a job or interact normally with their families.

“Obviously, it would be very dangerous for a person subject to symptoms like this to be dealing with foreign leaders or making critical decisions,” she states.  “The President of the United States may have to make world-changing decisions on a moment’s notice.  For example, should we launch nuclear-armed missiles?  And if the Commander in Chief is confused, who will make the call?”

In November of last year, watchdog organization Judicial Watch reported its review of pages of email from Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin, in which Abedin advised a State Department staffer that it was “very important” to review phone calls with Clinton because she was “often confused.”

Abedin had emailed Monica Hanley, a State Department Clinton aide and companion, from her address to alert Hanley about the need to review phone calls with the then-Secretary of State.

According to the report, on January 26, 2013, Abedin had the following email exchange with Hanley:

  • Abedin:  Have you been going over her calls with her?  So she knows singh is at 8?  [India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]
  • Hanley:  She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call.  Will go over with her
  • Abedin:  Very imp to do that.  She’s often confused.

Breitbart News asked Orient if the Judicial Watch report of Abedin’s emails is consistent with the signs she notes in her article.

“It is,” she responds, adding:

There are some very concerning things on Twitter #hillaryhealth.  For example, that she naps at 5 p.m. and can’t be aroused, or that her Mini-Mental State exam – which you use to screen patients who might have an organic brain syndrome – has deteriorated since 2013.

“Scurrilous lies?  Or sign that somebody unknown is acting for her?  Could she pass a random drug screen that might be required of a crane operator?” Orient asks.

Orient then poses what is perhaps the most obvious question of all.

“Is it conceivable that Hillary supporters would really be voting for Huma Abedin, Clinton’s top aide, or for the First First Husband President, Bill Clinton?” she asks.  “The American people are entitled to know the objective medical facts about Secretary Clinton.”

“Clinton Cash” graphic novel flying from Amazon


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘Clinton Cash: A Graphic Novel’ Sells Out in a Single Day; #5 on Amazon Bestsellers List

The graphic novel inspired by the New York Times bestselling investigative blockbuster Clinton Cash has entered a second printing just 24 hours after its official launch and now stands at #5 on the Amazon bestsellers list.

Clinton Cash author and Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer told Fox & Friends that the graphic novel conveys the fact-based reporting in his book “in a way that makes it accessible to people who don’t have time to sit down and read a serious nonfiction book.”

Like the New York Times bestselling book and documentary film it’s based on, Clinton Cash: A Graphic Noveladapted by Chuck Dixon and Brett R. Smith, follows the shady connections and dealings between the Clinton Foundation donors, paid speeches given by Bill Clinton, and actions approved by the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

“I think millennials love this sort of approach because it’s humorous. They put in humor. It’s a lot of great visual images,” Schweizer said of the book.

“Stunningly illustrated, hilariously retold, and inspired by the blockbuster book that reshaped the contours of the presidential election, Clinton Cash: A Graphic Novel brings to life Hillary and Bill’s brazen plot to fleece the planet for maximum profit,” publisher Regency said in a release.

Clinton Cash: A Graphic Novel is available online for purchase in hardcover and as an e-book.

An unabashedly unpolitically correct Clint Eastwood


, , , , , , , , ,

[I’ve edited three explicit words in this article–SAB]

Clint Eastwood:  Donald Trump Challenging ‘Kiss-Ass Generation’


Actor-director Clint Eastwood believes that Donald Trump is benefiting from a trend in American culture by saying what he believes, despite criticism from all sides.

“He’s onto something, because secretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up,” Clint Eastwood said in an interview with Esquire.  “That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now.  We’re really in a p**sy generation.  Everybody’s walking on eggshells.”

Eastwood specifically cited Trump’s comments criticizing a judge who was born to Mexican parents, but indicated he was tired of the media fueled controversy

Video:  Donald Trump Fires Back at George Clooney Over “Never Be President” Comment

“He’s said a lot of dumb things.  So have all of them.  Both sides,” he said “But everybody —the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist,’ and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it.  Just f***ng get over it.  It’s a sad time in history.”

Eastwood said that he hadn’t spoken to Trump about an endorsement, and hadn’t endorsed anyone for president.  He clarified that he didn’t agree with everything that Trump said, but indicated that it was refreshing to see an unfiltered politician.

“He’s just saying what’s on his mind and sometimes it’s not so good,” he said.  “And sometimes it’s … I mean, I can understand where he’s coming from, but I don’t always agree with it.”

But given the choice between Trump or Clinton, Eastwood suggested that he would probably vote for Trump because Clinton represented more of what Obama did to the country.

“I’d have to go for Trump … you know, ’cause she’s declared that she’s gonna follow in Obama’s footsteps,” he said, calling Clinton “a tough voice to listen to for four years.”

Eastwood criticized political figures who were using their position to make money, citing “too much funny business on both sides of the aisle.”

“She’s made a lot of dough out of being a politician,” he said, referring to Clinton.

Overall, however, Eastwood seemed dissatisfied with both Trump and Clinton.

“Everybody is boring everybody.  It’s boring to listen to all this s**t.  It’s boring to listen to these candidates,” he said.

He added that an ideal candidate should more understanding instead of trying to insult his way to victory.

“[G]et in there and get it done,” he advised, citing his father.  “Kick ass and take names.”

Kemal, Erdogan, Gulen and the Clintons


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fetullah Gulen. AFP Photo/Selahattin Sevi

Fethullah Gulen. AFP Photo/Selahattin Sevi

This is a Facebook exchange between my nephew and I from July 31  – Aug 1, 2016:  –SAB


Me:  “I thought Erdogan [,Tayip] was the bad guy.  He’s an Islamist fighting against secularism.  I had heard of Gulen [,Fethullah] , but didn’t know anything about him.  I suspected that he wanted to overthrow Islamism in Turkey.  I’m confused.”



NephewIs taxpayer money from his schools being funneled into Hillary’s campaign though?  I’ve read that from at least 3 articles, at least one says it’s quoting court documents.

Me: [After viewing the above video]  The secularists in Turkey, what are left of them, follow Kemal [Mustafa Kemal Ataturk] who was also a secularist back in the early 20th century.  Erdogan and Gulen are pro-jihadist, Islamic fundamentalists who both seek the return of shariah law and the Caliphate.  They had a recent power split.  Erdogan wants to be, essentially, the “Sultan of the Caliphate,” a return to the Ottoman Empire, before Kemal had secularized it.  Gulen wants to run, essentially, the same Islamic State from his billions-dollars compound in the Poconos of Pennsylvania through the educational programs he has set up throughout many U.S. states, using taxpayer dollars. 

Erdogan wants Gulen extradited to Turkey where he can imprison him, thus consolidating his sole power.  The FBI has investigated Gulen, and is continuing to investigate him, but cannot pin him down for breaking any laws.  The U.S., therefore, has no basis to extradite him.

The above Washington Times article is unabashedly pro-Erdogan and anti-Gulen. The large rally in Germany shows just how far-reaching is Erdogan’s influence in Europe, however Gulen has graduates of his schools placed throughout Turkey in business, legislative, police and judicial positions, too many for Erdogan to eliminate. 

One thing for sure, the Kemal movement is dead, and Erdogan and Gulen are no friends to NATO.  The migration of ISIS jihadists from Syria to Turkey to Europe will continue.  As far as Hillary’s Clinton Foundation connection to Gulen, I still know nothing about that.



MeA complex and murky character, indeed!