July 2024 has been a banner month for U.S. politics. The script writers have been busy, busy.
Here’s some of what we’ve been told:
- Trump was shot by a lone crackpot on account of sloppy security, yet he miraculously lived to tell the tale by way of his unbridled, bullet-deflecting bravado and intervention by God Almighty.
- Tired old Biden has selflessly decided to drop out of the Presidential race, and he has passed the Democratic Party torch over to Kamala Harris.
- Benchwarmer Harris has suddenly leapt up and enthusiastically declared, “Put me in coach, I’m ready to play!”
It may seem as though there’s a lot to unpack, that it’s impossible to see the forest for such audacious trees. But I’ll respectfully suggest that the overall story line is no more complex than a run-of-the-mill Netflix movie. And since we already know the outcome – Marxist-fueled societal and political chaos – it’s fairly easy to see why the above trees were planted.
Aside from keeping clear sight of the forest (the big picture), one way we all can stay grounded – as the next few months of Political Theater unfurl before us (much more to come, I’m sure) – is to take a look at the individual trees and have a healthy chuckle at them.
After all, they are not real trees with functioning roots and trunks and leaves and such. They are poorly-drawn cartoon trees. Stage props, if you will.
For example, let’s take a quick look at the Trump shooting (a cartoon tree, for sure) and ask some basic questions, just for shits and giggles.
The Bloody Ear
Trump’s bloody ear is perhaps the biggest giveaway that the whole “attempted assassination” thing was staged.
Trump spoke about his ear in his recent speech at the Republican National Convention on July 18. He said the following (see 5:50 – 8:30 in this video):
“There was blood pouring everywhere . . . and there’s an interesting statistic: the ears are the bloodiest part. If something happens with the ears, they bleed more than any other part of the body. For whatever reason. The doctors told me that. I said ‘Why is there so much blood?’ and he said ‘It’s the ears. They bleed more.’ So, we learned something.”
Anyone who has ever had his/her ear nicked by a hairdresser can attest that ear wounds do indeed bleed a lot. Head wounds are simply the worst when it comes to bleeding. That’s because the concentration of blood vessels is denser in the head area than in other parts of the body. And the ears, which serve as body temperature regulators among other things, are particularly loaded with blood vessels and capillaries. In addition, someone with Trump’s health profile is very likely on blood thinner medications (anticoagulants and/or antiplatelets) which typically amplify bleeding from even minor cuts.
However, the videos and images from the bogus shooting on July 13th show that Trump’s right ear somehow managed to bleed only a little – certainly, much less than might be expected. Blood from Trump’s “bullet wound” didn’t cover his lower ear, his white shirt collar or sleeve, or – perhaps most telling: there was no visible blood on Trump’s right hand, which he supposedly used to cup his bloody ear. See for yourself in this video that was posted on the day. Trump exposed his blood-free right palm to the camera twice, post-injury: Once at 0:39 in the cited video, just before he went down. And then again at 2:03 – 2:06, as he was being escorted off stage, just after his iconic fist pumping. Nary a drop.
So where is all this “blood pouring everywhere” that Trump is talking about?
If you are interested, you can watch a compelling video that addresses some of these oddities here.
Anyway . . . I think the big question about Trump’s ear is not related to the obvious stage blood effects in play – the “hows” of creating the fake wound. The big ear question for me is this:
After Trump went down and was surrounded by protectors, why wasn’t a compress applied to the wound? It seems to me like that would be a natural and necessary action. Was it because it was important for everyone to see the “wound?”
If the Shoe Fits . . .
When Trump first emerged from his crouched huddle, and before he was escorted off the stage, he clearly said “Let me get my shoes” and “Let me get my shoes on” a couple of times.
Shoes?!
Trump explained this to the New York Post on the day after the event, stating with a smile, “The agents hit me so hard that my shoes fell off, and my shoes are tight.”
Of course, it’s clear to see that Trump was not hit hard by the Secret Service agents. In fact, he had already lowered himself to the floor behind the podium by the time the agents surrounded him.
So, what gives?
In other words: Why would the stage production call for the removal of Trump’s shoes? And why was Trump unaware that this was going to happen? (I’m assuming that if Trump had known ahead of time that someone was going to pull his shoes off, he wouldn’t have been so vocal about getting them back on his feet.)
I have to admit: So far, this one has me a little stumped. I can only think of three reasons why Trump’s shoes would have been removed: (1) To prevent him from walking – as if one plan was to have him carried off the stage, (2) to retrieve something that was hidden in his shoes, or (3) to replace his shoes for some reason. But, I don’t see clearly how this fits the overall narrative.
So, please submit your ideas. I’d love to hear what you think about this shoe anomaly.
Collateral Damage
We’ve been told that Trump was not the only person injured. News reports are now aligned to say that “One spectator was killed and two were hurt in the shooting on July 13.” These innocent bystanders are reported to be the following:
- Corey Comperatore, a firefighter, age 50 – who was reportedly killed by a stray bullet while heroically shielding his family.
- David Dutch, a former Marine, age 57 – who was reportedly seriously injured from shots in the chest and liver.
- James Copenhaver, from Moon Township, Pennsylvania, age 74 – about whom we are told nothing more.
If these were indeed innocent people who were actually killed and injured during the event, it is terribly sad.
However, I do think it’s worth noting that the one person who was reportedly killed was a firefighter.
Hypothetical question: If you were writing a script for an event like this and the goal was to trigger an emotional, patriotic response from your audience, would there be any better choice for a collateral damage victim than a firefighter?
Please understand that I’m not saying that Mr. Comperatore wasn’t a real person who was killed on July 13. But if that’s the case, I can’t help but wonder if he was perhaps targeted by an actual sniper, someone other than Thomas Matthew Crooks.
There are other anomalies too. For example, a CNN reporter interviewed an eye witness immediately after the event who clearly described a woman being shot and wounded. Why was this mysterious woman subsequently dropped from the tidy list of three victims?
Thomas Matthew Crooks
Do I even need to go into this one?
Crooks was – of course! – a young, white guy with no friends and no clear motive. A “loner, who was frequently bullied and sometimes wore hunting outfits to school.” A guy who was “intelligent but a little weird.”
Sound at all familiar?
If it were me writing the script, I might have cast the shooter as a disgruntled lesbian. Wouldn’t that be a hoot? I mean, at least it would provide a motive. And it might be a refreshing break from the stereotypical assassin character type. Although, I guess the other writers would have shot my idea down, so to speak, since it’s probably bad form these days to have a lesbian play a villain. Or to have her wield an AR-15.
If it’s worth our time to ask any questions about Crooks as the named shooter, I guess we could ask these: If we assume that Crooks was a real person (maybe a stretch, I understand), how did he come to be the fall guy for this story? . . . and . . . Why does Crooks have next to no digital footprint? Meaning: Why are there no clear face photos, social media accounts, internet records, etc. for this guy?
The Audience
In the New York Post interview cited above, Trump praised the crowd at the campaign rally – which he estimated to be around 55,000 people – for remaining calm, stating, “A lot of places, especially soccer games, you hear a single shot, everybody runs. Here there were many shots and they stayed.”
In a recent speech in Milwaukie (see 24:00 – 24:10 in this video), Tucker Carlson attributed this to Trump’s personal bravery, which imbued the entire crowd with its own de facto bravery, eloquently (albeit connivingly) describing Trump’s confident, fist-in-the-air resilience as a strong, subconscious broadcast that announced to everyone in attendance that “Dad’s home. Everything is OK.”
Really, Tucker? (By the way: I think Tucker Carlson is switched on about a lot of things. But, man, oh man: what a whopper of a blind spot on this guy!)
Now, I don’t know about you – But if I heard gunshots at a public event, I would immediately and instinctively hit the deck. Personal bravery be damned. I would also run like hell as soon as I thought it was safe to do so.
Something just ain’t adding up.
I find it highly unlikely that the people in the crowd would behave as they did if audible shots were fired and the Secret Service was seen to be jumping into action.
So, exactly what did the crowd see and hear? (Assuming there was a crowd.)
And another thing: There have only been a scant few personal videos published in the weeks following the event. Everyone has iPhones these days. Everyone is filming everything, all the time. Lots of people are live-streaming as well. So, why haven’t we seen a deluge of attendee-gathered raw videos published in the wild?
Do we really imagine that the Secret Service might have seized and sequestered tens of thousands of phones and/or video devices? How long might such a confiscation operation have taken on the day? Does it correspond to the published timeline which shows a completely evacuated site, littered with debris, less than an hour after the supposed sniper attack?
Scapegoat: Secret Service
About a week ago, Secret Service Director, Kimberly Cheatle, tendered her resignation after being grilled in a bipartisan Congressional hearing. I guess she was instructed to take one for the team.
The current narrative – supported by both Democrats and Republicans – would have us believe that the esteemed Secret Service failed miserably in its charge to protect Trump. Some Democrats imagine the Secret Service incompetently dropped the ball. Some Republicans believe the Secret Service purposefully let things play out as they did on behalf of the Deep State.
Either way, the Secret Service is getting a pie in the face, and everyone else is getting some not-so-subtle encouragement to move on to Act 2, the Kamala Harris chapter.
I have mixed feelings about the Secret Service. On one hand, they are certainly no longer the elite squad that they were a few decades ago. Nowadays, any retail manager with a college degree can easily become an agent after a few weeks of protection training at the Secret Service Academy. On the other hand, even minimally-trained Secret Service agents are certainly smart enough to cover the basics of protection situations – which would include eliminating any obvious line-of-sight issues, such as the purported wide-open rooftop position exploited by Crooks.
Is it possible that all the attention being placed upon the Secret Service at the end of Act 1 is nothing more than a red herring, a way to keep us from asking any real questions – such as the questions above that probe the entire premise?
Phil’s Two Cents
Ah, that Trump photo.
That money shot that so perfectly captures what Tucker Carlson calls a “transformative moment.”
Geez. Could it be any more contrived?
I guess Trump himself said it best (from the New York Post article cited above), as if we need his help getting the intended message, loud and clear:
“A lot of people say it’s the most iconic photo they’ve ever seen. They’re right and I didn’t die. Usually you have to die to have an iconic picture.”
I’m just not buying it. I call bullshit.
And, so, here is my final question:
Whose hands are working the sock puppets of Political Theater, and why are they so determined to carry on and on with their shenanigans?
– “Phil”
Be First to Comment