This is how you know Hillary’s brain damage is worse than we thought



If you had any doubts about the severity of Hillary Clinton’s brain damage, this should dispel them. A story this morning appeared in Politico:

Karl Rove: Hillary Clinton might have brain injury

Republican strategist Karl Rove suggested last week that Hillary Clinton suffers from brain damage, according to a new report.

The New York Post’s Page Six section reported Monday that Rove, appearing at a conference with former Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs and CBS correspondent Dan Raviv last Thursday, recently waded into the former secretary of state’s health issues. In 2012, Clinton — a top possible 2016 Democratic contender — suffered from a blood clot that temporarily prevented her from testifying about the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. According to the report, Rove said the Benghazi issue should continue to be pushed.

A Clinton spokesman had this to say:

“Karl Rove has deceived the country for years, but there are no words for this level of lying,” said Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill. As for her health, he said, “She is 100 percent. Period.”

So what did Rove lie about? Nothing. What did he get wrong?

The number of days Hillary spent in the hospital. What did he get right?

Everything else.

Rove never actually claimed Hillary has brain damage but she most certainly does. We visited this here at FA not long ago.

Yes, she does have brain damage. She suffered a concussion and consequent ongoing double vision.

The thick glasses Hillary Clinton has been wearing in public since returning from a concussion and blood clot last month are the result of lingering effects of her health problems, a Clinton aide confirms.

“She’ll be wearing these glasses instead of her contacts for a period of time because of lingering issues stemming from her concussion,” said spokesman Philippe Reines. “With them on she sees just fine.”

During more than five hours of testimony before Congress Clinton could be seen wearing glasses that appeared to have a thick left lens with lines across it.

Reines did not specify what type of lens the secretary was wearing, but medical experts say a fresnel prism is common in cases like these. Fresnel prisms usually come in the form of a piece of thin, transparent plastic that can be adhered to existing lenses. The special grooves in these prisms change the way light enters the eye, making them useful in treating double vision.

I am now convinced that it’s worse than even I believed. The left has convinced me of it with their irrational over-reactions. From today’s Politico again:

– Rangel calls for GOP psych testing
– Twitter diagnoses ‘Dr. Rove’ remarks
– John King: Rove remarks ‘reprehensible’
– Is Karl Rove the next Dick Morris?
– Graham: ‘No reason’ to worry about Clinton

Like it or not, a concussion is a brain injury. Double vision consequent to a head injury IS a sign of brain damage. And she did endure a blood clot on her brain.

But I agree with Ann Althouse. The reaction is hyperbolic. It’s absurd.

Remember when lefties were “vehemently” denying that Hillary was faking an injury to escape testifying about Benghazi? They wanted us to know just how serious her injury was. Now they want us not to believe it.

That convinces me there’s a lot more to this story than we’ve been told.

Pretty much like everything else about this wretched regime.

Linked by Doug Ross. Thanks!


The Obama administration told us that Hillary was all better in January 2013 but Bill tells us it took at least six months of rehab.

It is worse than they’re telling us.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


I get a kick every time Paul Muad’dib over here, or any drone for that matter, talks about other planets and fevered imaginations. I guess the spirits he’s directly communed with on the other side of those doors he’s been opening have finally completely taken over his perception of reality.

@Bill Burris, #20:

Obama’s weakness and mamby-pamby approach to foreign policy has put the entire world at risk, with bullies like Russia taking advantage of that weakness. War, eventually, somewhere, is now assured, thanks to liberals… again.

War, eventually, somewhere, is always assured, given the stupidity and aggressiveness of the human species. Smarter leaders can sometimes avoid it, however. Someone more foolish than Obama could have easily turned the Ukraine situation into a national disaster already. As it stands, the Russian economy has taken the worst hits as a result of Putin’s actions. He’s the one who has been doing the backpedaling.

@Greg: “They’ve certainly occurred on Planet FOX and in the right-wing’s fevered imagination. ” Actually, on the planet EARTH, Obamacare has failed to insure the millions of uninsured it promised, instead of lowering costs is increasing them and is taking a great big bite out of every aspect of the American economy already weakened by liberal meddling. It’s only on the Planet Deaf, Dumb and Willfully Ignorant where the Obamacare miracle has succeeded.

@Greg: One thing you seem to forget (ref: “willful ignorance”) is that Crimea is no longer a part of independent Ukraine. It is gone, gobbled up by an emboldened Putin and Russia. Had Obama not demonstrated such foreign policy stupidity by removing the ABM system in eastern Europe, ran away from his own ill-advised “red line” in Syria and evoked such childish weakness by getting one of his ambassadors killed then making up the most preposterous lie to try and cover it up and save his (worthless) political ass, perhaps Russia would never have ventured to take over Ukraine. Weakness invites aggression . Obama is the epitome of weakness. And stupidity.

focus instead on the very real problems besetting our veterans’ health care system.

What do you suppose Greg might think are the very real problems besetting our veterans’ health care systemare?

@Bill Burris, #54:

One thing you seem to forget (ref: “willful ignorance”) is that Crimea is no longer a part of independent Ukraine.

That’s entirely true. The revolutionary government of Ukraine stupidly screwed up when they passed a provocative law that ended the status of Russian as an official language in an autonomous republic where the majority of the population is Russian-speaking. They alienated that majority. They might as well have sent Russia a formal invitation to intercede and claim Crimea for its own. Russia had growing concerns about maintaining access to its only warm water port to begin with. In the long run, the region will probably be far more stable with Crimea as part of Russia. Consequently, I don’t much care that the change has occurred.

It’s fortunate that nuclear weapons were removed from Ukraine. The current Ukrainian government isn’t stable enough or responsible enough to be trusted with them. I also think ABMs in former Soviet states would only raise tensions and increase instability. The Neocon game plan has been to hem Russia in by turning as many former Soviet republics as possible into treaty nations militarily aligned with the West. This was a stupid approach. To Russia, it has every appearance of aggression. You can’t keep poking a bear with sharp sticks and expect nothing to happen.

A far better idea would have been to encourage former Soviet republics to become a buffer zone of independent nations freely dealing with both Russia and Western Europe. That would have been to everyone’s benefit. Unfortunately, that seems to be more than people fixated on Cold War Era strategy and policy can wrap their heads around.

@Kraken, #55:

Whatever they might be, I haven’t seen any related articles around here lately. I imagine people are trying to figure out how to somehow turn the entire issue into another politically useful anti-Obama scandal. This could be tricky. Do a Google search using the keywords Veterans Hospitals Bush administration if you need a quick refresher.

here we care , i don”t know about other but between our EXCELENT AUTHORS,
and a channel who care about this COUNTRY LIKE THE FOX
WE ARE PRIVILEDGE, to have the TRUTH without any lies, AND FIXES
and we react to it as a worthy news,
we are lucky to not need to evaluate the truth

@Greg: So, in the liberal mind, demoting a language is grounds for a full frontal military assault? That, Greg, is what is known in the foreign affairs business as “a pretense”. Russia has been fomenting the unrest to present some sort of excuse for invasion. Sort of like the radio station at Gleiwitz… a thinly veiled excuse to use military force.

Again, the door was open because, obviously to anyone that would observe, Obama would do nothing but wag a finger and talk. They made the moves because the US is weak now. Weak under a weak President.

@Greg: ” somehow turn the entire issue into another politically useful anti-Obama scandal” Well, Greg, do I have to remind you who it the current Commander in Chief? As Bush was held responsible for everything from Abu Graib, so is Obama responsible for all under his watch. You can’t have it both ways, Greg.


As your reactionary But-Bushing indicates, your information is about 6 years old.

@Bill Burris, #59:

Again, the door was open because, obviously to anyone that would observe, Obama would do nothing but wag a finger and talk.

Are you suggesting that one of the duties of an American president is to protect the territorial integrity of a foreign nation that has overthrown its own constitutional government by force, and has then hastily enacted a law that the population of a autonomous republic affiliated with it by a provision of that same constitution finds deeply offensive?

I reject the notion that any such obligation existed. I think Obama handled the situation pretty much as it should have been handled. There really was no other approach that would have clearly had a better outcome—only alternatives that would have been far riskier, both to the United States and Europe. Which of those did you have in mind?

@Kraken, #60:

Apparently, then, it must all be totally irrelevant. I keep forgetting that the consequences of all budget and policy decisions are invariably instantaneous.

Bill Burris
the thing about HILARY, could be that she was in no condition to even answer ,
made her unable to keep it in mind, that mean she forgot about it , 17 times,
which result in 4 deaths of AMERICANS, as the worst
thing of her life, to be judge unfit,
it show that she is unable to seek the presidency, even if she feel good and sharp now,
the scars in her brain are not going away, she would need periodic test,
AND DO NOT CARE FOR THE PEOPLE, remember that women they killed in her car with her son baby, because she came close to them, remember the glorious standing ovation to the killer polices,
THEY TRIED TO HAVE THAT PERVERT ELECTED BEFORE WHAT’S HIS NAME? THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THE CITIZENS WHO PAY THEIR EARNING, EITHER, now they have freed criminals and the people are in danger, check your children, there are rapist and killers in there,
next president will care for the people next time,

@Greg: What I suggest is that peace in the world is preferable to having petty dictators go about the business of taking over smaller, weaker countries. I further suggest that a strong, intimidating and threatening United States prevents this from happening in many cases. It is more than a mere suggestion that intimidating nations into peace is better than fighting wars to protect our vital interests… and we have interests througout the world.

You were no doubt ecstatic that Obama drew a red line to protect the Syrian rebels. However, as wrong as that notion was, he did terrible damage to American prestige and authority by turning tail and running from the stupid commitment he foolishly made. As a result, nations like Iran, North Korea and Russia see a fleeting opportunity to take advantage of a weak “leader” before a real leader takes over.

Obama has handled the situation as well as he could, with the hand he dealt himself. However, the point you insist on missing is that the entire crisis was unnecessary; it was a crisis of his own device. It was a crisis bred of weakness… HIS weakness.

And Hillary’s actions before the Benghazi disaster, her performance during the attack and her reactions afterwards proves she is no more capable to lead this nation and face such crises than he is.


@Bill Burris: All the actions/inactions you cite for obie – were all on purpose — he and his puppeteers have been succeeding beyond their wildest dreams!


What do you suppose Greg might think are the very real problems besetting our veterans’ health care system are?

I doubt very much that Greg is aware that there is such a thing as a veterans health care system.

I knew it wouldn’t take long for someone to “rise” to the occasion:

“The scandal at the Veteran’s Administration (VA) is growing every week. As each new VA hospital is revealed to have made sick veterans wait so long for care that many died while waiting, and then subsequently covered up the truth, we all must come to grips with the fact that this is Obamacare writ large.

“If you hadn’t been paying attention to how badly Obama’s government healthcare system is treating our elderly and sick veterans, you should. Because with Obamacare this sort of criminal behavior is coming to you and your sick relatives whether you served in the military or not.”

Even the plight of sick veterans forced to deal with the gross inadequacies of the VA health care system becomes a partisan opportunity, rather than an opportunity to make a constructive effort to improve something.


becomes a partisan opportunity,

with Dimocrats, everything is partisan.

@Bees#63 – Hi Bees…All very interesting what you said. It will be even more interesting how this all plays out down the road…

And yes, for some odd reason beyond my own comprehension the Liberals/Democrats/Progressives truly do believe that the U.S. Government is oh, so, ‘ benevolent’…everyone of them has been brainwashed into believing that hogwash…so sad.

I was thinking of ways to understand, why nothing has been done,
for them, i thought of that one,

@Greg: “Even the plight of sick veterans forced to deal with the gross inadequacies of the VA health care system becomes a partisan opportunity, rather than an opportunity to make a constructive effort to improve something. ”

It will be good to remember, Greg, come the next Republican administration, that criticism of any failing is to be considered racism or partisan. Responsibility or accountability no longer has a place in our government. The (extremely low) standard has now been set.

@Kraken: In all fairness, this was when her injury/illness/incapacity was being used as an excuse not to be available to inquiries about how she was so negligent and derelict to allow a consulate to be overrun (with prior warning and on the anniversary of the greatest terrorist victory of all time) and 4 Americans killed. That was NOT intended to be on record indicating any possible long-term damage that would interfere with political ambitions.

Come on, Kraken, play fair.

@Bill Burris:

Of course. What was I thinking?

The NYPost has this:

If Clinton suffered vision loss after her injury, could she have also suffered other disabilities — specifically in the areas of cognition or communication?

That’s what Rove is questioning. Not accusing, but wanting assurance that Clinton’s mental facilities are up to the job she’ll presumably be seeking come 2016.

Is it beyond the pale to question Clinton’s injury and long-term effects?

Well, countless media outlets had no problem questioning John McCain’s health and age when he was running for president. Or Bob Dole’s when he was running.

When you simply fall, there is a tendency to protect your head.
But Hillary ”fainted.”
Her fall was the type where ”the chips fall where they may,” as far as her head hitting hard is concerned.
She lost control.
She could NOT protect her head.
NFL players are being taken seriously regarding head trauma leading to brain damage.
They are young, wearing protective gear and in good shape, but still hurt.
Hillary is OLD and not in good shape (hence the tent tops she is wearing lately.
Why not question whether her brain damage is bad?
Obama wouldn’t let his hypothetical son play football.
Why let a person who got hurt worse play President?

Hillary Clinton should not be elected, because she would continue with Obama’s policies that made us loose our leading position in the World. We need leadership to regain everything that made the US a leader of the WOrld. Hopefully the GOP will have the right candidate to make us grow, to get employment to the levels we had, not by counting as emploid the millions that can only work part time or ar not counted as unemployed because they fell out of the statistics for having, frustrated looking for jobs. What asking lots of peoples what were her accomplishment except just talking, no one has an answer. Smart people don’t elect someone because is a woman or man. You elect some one of substance and the statue for this job.


Maury Ross
yes, absolutely
thank”s for comming and welcome