I received a private message on Facebook the other day from someone on my Friends list. It was a heartfelt but somewhat curt communication claiming that this individual was severing all ties with me because of my support for Donald Trump as the presidential nominee for the Republican Party. I replied, stating that I was not a Trump supporter, after which this person apologized for the previous message.
I didn’t bother to ask how they had come to the conclusion that I was a Trump supporter, because although it was somewhat puzzling, I really didn’t have the mental bandwidth at the time to unravel what was likely to be this person’s painfully convoluted logic.
Like some other pundits (such as Rush Limbaugh and David Horowitz), I find it somewhat more than puzzling that some conservatives oppose Trump so vehemently that they claim that they won’t vote for him if he is the GOP nominee on the basis that he is not a “real conservative.” Others claimed that they wouldn’t vote for Texas Sen. [score]Ted Cruz[/score] were he the nominee because he is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Trending: Art of the Meal
Both factions are correct in that Trump is not a real conservative as most understand conservatives, and Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen. However, neither of these facts are sufficient to risk the nightmarish spectre of either of the likely Democrat nominees attaining the presidency. Overwhelming numbers of Republicans, Independents, and even Democrats have flocked to Trump because while he may be an unknown quantity, so to speak, any establishment candidate will ensure our being collectively buggered once again. Insomuch as neither Party will allow clarification of Natural Born Citizen status at present, standing on that principle with regard to Cruz, though he is out of the race, would be dangerous folly.
[score]Bernie Sanders[/score] is very obviously a communist; he toned that down to “socialist” when he decided to seek the Democratic nomination. In any case, being a socialist or communist renders him wholly unfit to hold any public office in this nation. Granted that there are Democrats who are just as bad as he is ideologically-speaking; they’re just not as forthright about their political alignment as Sanders has been. While he may or may not be as personally evil as Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, we can rest assured that his policies, like Obama’s, would provide another quantum leap into the morass of statist economic and societal debasement.
As regards Hillary Clinton: Apart from her increasing resemblance to a criminally insane, meth-addicted Muppet with each passing week, there are her crimes to consider. Now, she hasn’t been indicted for any of them, and probably never will be, but to anyone with functioning grey matter, that is obviously a case of the powerful individual skating simply because they’re powerful.
Are there prosecutable offenses that might be revealed on Ms. Clinton’s illegal email server? Almost certainly; perhaps even capital offenses. The point is that there is ample evidence of her having committed high crimes and misdemeanors in her selling of influence through her foundation, as well as in her capacity as Secretary of State. If one peruses an account of Ms. Clinton’s exploits, the instances of her avoiding even the mention of criminality simply because she’s powerful are practically legion.
Then, there are the crimes we know she committed, but are uncertain as to the extent of the criminality involved. There are Shia Muslim, Yazidi, and Christian women and children serving as sex slaves in Syria, Iraq, and parts of Africa to individuals who should be eradicated to the last man, and whose ascent to power was directly facilitated by the actions of Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama.
Then, there’s Benghazi. Did the Clinton State Department and the White House deprive those Americans stationed at the compound of the swift military intervention they would have likely provided an equal number of tourists in such a circumstance on Sept. 11, 2012 out of incompetence or stupidity (criminal negligence), or was this done intentionally out of political expedience (second degree murder)?
Finally, the ready if feeble damage control that was employed (the “anti-Muslim” YouTube video and Sunday news show compendium of lies) and knowledge of Benghazi being used by the Obama administration as an illicit weapons traffic hub at that time begs the question of whether the entire attack might have been planned and executed by the State Department and the White House in order to obliterate the evidence (conspiracy to commit murder).
Unlikely? Consider this: In 2014, I personally spoke with a journalist from the region who confirmed via first hand evidence that some of the attackers of the Benghazi compound claimed to have been dispatched there by none other than the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi, then-President of Egypt and decades-long friends of Bill and Hillary Clinton. As we already know, the Morsi regime would never have come to power without direct aid from the White House.
Thus, Hillary Clinton is a person who deserves to be standing before an international war crimes tribunal as certainly as any Nazi war criminal or Serbian warlord in the Balkans during her husband’s administration did – not someone who should ought to be in the running to hold the highest office in the land.
If one frames America’s present circumstances using the same criteria for which this nation’s founders justified going to war against the British Crown, then few among our elected officials at the federal level, officials of present and past administrations, and even some higher-level state officials (past and present) would escape hanging under our current laws (which mean precious little right now, since these are being administered by some of those very people).
This is the gravity of our situation. Pundits have referenced aspects of this election cycle as a “political insurgency” for very good reasons. Socialism is the enemy, and votes – not rhetoric or ideology – remain our most effective weapons.
At least at present…