Statement on the Presidential Election from a Suspected "Deplorable"
If you don’t know what a suspected deplorable is, read on. It appears I might be one.
Sometimes I wish I hadn’t said anything about the candidates for president. Now I have friends posting on my site for both major candidates and a whole slew of minor candidates. Plus I have several people who want to know who Bruce Dale “endorses”. Answer coming shortly.
Well, you asked. I do find one candidate better, a lot better, than the other. Sometimes I wish I hadn’t raised the subject, but I did, so I am not going to wimp out now and hide my thoughts.
Maybe a little background before I start. Politically, I am an independent, neither Republican nor Democrat. I support the Constitution, with an emphasis on the Bill of Rights. I support all of the Bill of Rights; even the parts that the so-called progressives and the so-called conservatives don’t like.
You might want to refresh your memory on those fundamental rights.
https://nccs.net/…/amend…/the-bill-of-rights-amendments-1-10
Here is another list of the Bill of Rights—just to drive this stuff home. Please read them quickly before proceeding with this post and see how far we as a country have strayed from these principles (and have been straying for many, many years.)
https://www.aclu.org/united-states-bill-rights-first-10-ame…
The tenth amendment is particularly relevant here….it limits the power of the Federal government. The trend during my entire adult life has been that there are no limits on the power of the federal government.
Regarding the first amendment and free speech, many so-called progressives, particularly ones on university campuses, don’t care much for free speech right now. I see a lot of these young people. They are the creatures of “identity politics”—where the group you belong to means everything and what you actually are or do or think doesn’t mean much at all. They are apparently consumed with “political correctness”, but not so much with trying to find out the truth and actually being correct, especially about others.
These “identity politics” folks stand Martin Luther King’s statement on its head.
http://www.brainyquote.com/q…/quotes/m/martinluth297516.html
Many of these “unprogressives” aren’t really interested in having a discussion with you. They are not interested in the “content of your character”, or what’s in your head. If you disagree with them, or even if they think you disagree with them, they will simply call you a bigot, racist, any kind of phobe you can imagine and either walk away or try to shut you down without discussion.
This kind of thing is happening on campuses all across the country and in a lot of the media. One of the two candidates for President recently painted a lot of our fellow citizens with the "phobe" brush. More about that below.
The distant (one or two generations removed) left-wing ancestors of today’s identity-driven political groups were devoted to free speech. Now some of them are appalled, as I am, by the current oppression of free speech by the left. It is the political left, not the right, that is the current enemy of free speech in this country.
http://www.nytimes.com/…/will-the-left-survive-the-millenni…
OK, so much for that part of the First Amendment. Now, on to the Tenth Amendment.
I believe in strictly limited government, limited to doing just a few things but doing them well. I believe the Federal government exists primarily to protect us from our enemies, both foreign and domestic, to maintain our borders and to ensure the rule of law—to ensure that all are treated equally before the law and that no one is above the law. That’s why Lady Justice wears a blindfold.
For decades, our Federal government has tried to do more and more and is doing it less and less well—both Republicans and Democrats have been trying to increase the reach and scope and cost of the Federal government. The Republicans have been expanding the Federal government more slowly and in different areas, and the Democrats are trying to expand it more rapidly, in other areas.
The recent controversy about bathroom access for LBGTQ is a case in point. For the Federal government to get involved in that issue is silly and a distraction from our real national problems. A Federal government that has been unwilling or unable to control who enters and leaves our country wants to control who can enter and leave our bathrooms? Good grief.
So who is the better candidate of the two viable candidates for President? Easy, that would be Trump. Here are my three (or four) basic reasons.
First, I don’t trust Hillary’s character.
Second, I don’t think she is competent.
Third, I think Trump has better positions on key issues and is much more competent than Hillary.
If you disagree with me, then please take the time to actually read and think about the evidence I am going to offer in support of my opinions. I have spent over a month, off and on, writing this dang thing and I hope you will take at least a few minutes to read it and check out the links before blasting back at me.
Whenever possible I am going to use Hillary’s own words or those of “progressive” (i.e., Democrat-leaning) media sources like the New York Times or the Washington Post to support my arguments.
I am trying really hard to be fair to her, but also honest.
So please don’t just blast back at me about how horrible Trump is without considering the evidence. Tell me why I am mistaken about Hillary. Tell me why she is qualified to be President. Tell me why she should be trusted and rewarded with the greatest trust our country can bestow on an individual.
Trump grates on me in a lot of ways. His personality seems to be about 180 degrees opposite from mine. I wish he had less swagger. I really wish he were a lot more careful and restrained in how he speaks.
But we are not voting for someone we want to hang out with. We are voting for the President. And one of these two people, Trump or Clinton, is going to be our next President. We have to accept that reality and deal with it.
So, while some of the things Trump has said might offend me, the things Hillary has actually done offend me much, much more. Because of what she has actually done, Hillary Clinton is not fit in any way to be President.
Here is why.
While she was Secretary of State, Clinton sent and received over 100 emails with classified information on her personal server, which was not secure. She said no classified information was sent. It was sent. She said her server was secure. It was not. See what the Washington Post (a “progressive” paper and no friend of Donald Trump) said about Hillary in a summary chart.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/why-the-fbi-report-on-her…/
Here is what the FBI Director William Comey actually said in his statement about the Clinton emails. He said she committed very serious violations of established security practices. These violations are, in fact, felonies.
But he recommended that she not be indicted. He recommended that she not be held accountable before the law for these actions while she was Secretary of State.
https://www.fbi.gov/…/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-com…
So, if you and I don’t hold Hillary accountable at the polls, no one in authority appears to be ready to do it. That is one very strong reason why we need to vote for Trump, to hold Hillary those who nominated her accountable so that it won’t happen again.
A really damning part of Director Comey’s statement about Hillary is that she and those who worked for her were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
I just do not want an “extremely careless” President. Period. Full stop. How about you? If not, vote Trump. Anything else does not repudiate Hillary Clinton.
FactCheck.org is a non-partisan, highly-regarded organization that works very hard to uncover and publicize the facts. Here is what they had to say about the Clinton emails.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/
Read it for yourself. Hillary lied, not once, but multiple times about her “extremely careless” handling of classified information. When the people at the top of national security are careless, the rest of us can get badly hurt, particularly our military folks and intelligence staff.
Here is her latest attempt to explain that she was not really lying about the emails. No, not at all. Instead, she had a “short circuit”. Yup. Here it is.
http://www.cnn.com/…/hillary-clinton-attacks-donald-trump-…/
I am not sure which worries me more, that Clinton lied, or that she “short-circuited”. The President needs to have a functioning brain, not one that is liable to short circuits.
By the way, in case you had any lingering doubts, the mainstream media is fully in the pocket of the Democrat party leadership. If Trump had said that his brain had “short-circuited’, he would be hounded incessantly by the press about that remark.
Have you heard anyone in the mainstream media ask Hillary if she has frequent “short circuits? I think that is a perfectly reasonable and fair question given what Hillary said about her "short circuit". No, you haven’t heard anyone ask that question from the mainstream media, and you won't.
Instead, we get mostly silence from the mainstream media on that and many other critical, relevant issues regarding Hillary, only a few of which I raise here.
No wonder most Americans don’t trust the mainstream media.
http://www.gallup.com/…/americans-trust-media-remains-histo…
CNN is probably the worst of the mainstream media. For example, they deliberately lied about Trump using the word “racial” in his recent comments about profiling.
http://ijr.com/…/697365-cnn-gets-busted-for-making-trump-…/…
Fortunately, we have alternative media now. Stay tune for more email dumps from WikiLeaks and others as we move toward the election.
Hillary’s lying about her State Department emails is not a one-time event. These editorials are from the Washington Post and the Boston Herald, no friends of the Donald.
http://ijr.com/…/662702-hillary-lied-about-her-emails-on-…/…
http://www.bostonherald.com/…/editorial_hillary_clinton_s_e…
Bill and Hillary Clinton both automatically deny, evade, lie, obfuscate and cover up when anything negative about them surfaces. It has been their pattern for decades.
A case in point is Hillary’s “medical issue” during the recent 9/11 memorial celebration. Her doctor says she was suffering from bacterial pneumonia…but no one knew about the pneumonia until she literally collapsed in public and was forced to give an explanation. Previous to her collapse she said she was suffering from “seasonal allergies”.
Watch these videos taken by private citizens (our new alternative media- God bless ‘em) as Hillary was being taken away from the 9/11 memorial.
https://twitter.com/zgazda66/status/774993814025011200
The health of a presidential candidate is very much our business. Why weren’t we told about her pneumonia days ago? Bacterial pneumonia is communicable. She could be infecting the rest of us. If she has pneumonia, at least she should wear a mask in public to avoid infecting others.
Silly me. Forget it…that would look bad on TV. Instead, Team Hillary just covers up and lies or misleads when they feel they need to.
Trump has a boatload of faults and I am sure he has lied before and will again, but he isn’t a serial liar like Hillary. In fact, Trump can’t even manage to be politically correct.
And he kept faith with his voters by recently rejecting amnesty for those who are in this country illegally. Many expected him to reverse himself on the immigration issue…but he didn’t. He didn't lie about that key issue.
Here is what Trump had to say about immigration, illegal and legal, just a month ago. This is what he plans to do as President. Before you assume what the media has said about Trump’s immigration plan is accurate, please give the man a chance to tell you straight what he is thinking and planning now.
For example, there will not be mass deportations of those who are here illegally but are otherwise not criminals.
But there will be no amnesty.
http://dailycaller.com/…/text-donald-trumps-speech-in-phoe…/
Trump kept that important promise regarding “no amnesty” to his supporters, and I think he will be honest with us as a President. We really could use some honesty. We have a boatload of problems to face as a country, and we aren’t going to solve them by more lies.
Trump’s position is that immigration ought to benefit America and should protect the security of our citizens first. He also thinks that we should not reward people who are here illegally, in defiance of our laws, by giving them citizenship by amnesty.
In the early 1980s we did provide amnesty to those who came here illegally. And as a reward for that generosity, we got another flood of illegal immigrants. If we grant amnesty again to those who came here illegally then we will get even more people coming here without obeying our immigration laws.
They will know that law-breaking works. All you have to do is come here and wait…you will be given amnesty and a path to full and equal citizenship. “A pathway to full and equal citizenship” means amnesty—it means coming here illegally has no consequences.
I am not willing to grant amnesty again. I think our laws should be obeyed, or changed by Congress, who we elect to make laws, not over-ridden by Presidential decree.
In contrast, here is Hillary Clinton’s position on immigration.
“Hillary will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship within her first 100 days in office. It will treat every person with dignity, fix the family visa backlog, uphold the rule of law, protect our borders and national security, and bring millions of hardworking people into the formal economy.”
Sorry, Hillary, but you can’t have it both ways. You cannot uphold the rule of law, and simultaneously grant a path to full and equal citizenship for those who are here illegally. When you do that, you reward the breaking of our laws.
Even worse, Hillary says that if Congress will not act on immigration reform, then she will simply go around Congress and use executive orders to subvert our immigration laws.
Mrs. Clinton, I have some news for you, our Presidents are supposed to uphold the law, not make the law. Separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches is another constitutional principle that must be upheld, not gotten around by executive orders.
The other current issue about immigration is how to deal with people who may be here legally, but who wish us harm, such as the recent knife attack in Minnesota, the recent bombs in New Jersey and New York, the 50 people killed in a gay bar in Orlando, the 14 people killed in San Bernardino, the bombing of the Boston Marathon and on and on…all by radical Islamists.
Hillary doesn’t have any plan to deal with the issue of attacks by radical Islamists here in the U.S. She can’t even talk about it. She appears to be paralyzed by political correctness.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/PIERS-MORGAN-doesn-t-matter-na…
Now, let’s talk about how Hillary became a multimillionaire while she was either a “public servant” (Senator or Secretary of State) or running for President.
When the Clintons left the White House in 2001, Hillary had just been elected Senator from New York. And, according to Hillary, they were broke, in fact, they were deeply in debt. Watch this short clip to hear it from her own mouth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0owSPWLe9lc
By 2004, just four years later, Hillary was worth a bit under $32 million. Not bad for four years work. I have worked my rear end off for 40 years plus to be worth a small fraction of that amount. How about you?
Hillary was Senator until she was named Secretary of State for President Obama in 2009. She served as Secretary of State until 2013 when she resigned to start her run for the Presidency. In 2012 her net worth was about $15.3 million (remember… the stock market collapsed in 2008).
https://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/summary.php…
OpenSecrets is a project of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks the influence of money in politics. They are strictly fact-based.
Hillary has quoted OpenSecrets as a reliable source of information.
http://www.opensecrets.org/…/actually-hillary-clintons-wal…/
So….between 2001 and 2012 Hillary went from broke (her words) to being worth at least $15 million.
Bill Clinton is worth about $80 million…all of it “earned” after he left the White House.
http://moneynation.com/hillary-clinton-net-worth/
But this post is about Hillary. Back to her.
How did she get that much money—about 100 times the net worth of the median American family? Not on a Senator’s salary ($176,000 per year) or on the Secretary of State’s salary ($186,000 per year).
She got a lot of it from speaking fees.
For example, she “earned” $675,000 for a series of three speeches in 2013 given to Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street investment firm that had to be bailed out with billions in taxpayer money in the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Hillary was running for President at the time she gave these speeches to Goldman Sachs.
I think it is simply wrong for a person running for President to be earning millions of dollars in speaking fees from the very organizations and companies who will seek to influence legislation and regulations from which they might benefit. This practice leads to corruption and to the perception, at the very least, that the President can be bought.
So Hillary was paid a little bit of those billions of taxpayer dollars—and Goldman Sachs got lots of face time, time to influence a leading presidential candidate—perhaps the next President.
Great investment for Goldman-Sachs; I am pretty sure it is not great for the rest of us.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/the-new-york-times-just-p…/
Goldman Sachs wasn’t the only one who bought face time with Hillary.
http://money.cnn.com/…/econo…/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/
The New York Post was kind enough to provide us with the names of the places that paid Hillary to speak to them. Here is that article.
http://nypost.com/…/how-corporate-america-bought-hillary-c…/
Note the heavy presence of investment banks, financial houses and pharmaceutical companies on this list of Hillary’s speeches. These are just the same folks who benefited by the bank bailout of 2008 and by Obamacare. They are protecting their investment in these policies—makes sense for them, but, not so much for us.
Would you spend that much money on someone without expecting something in return? Of course not.
A related case in point is summarized perfectly in two front page stories in the USA Today (September 2-5 issue).
In the first story, Noel Hartman, 64, of Humboldt, Arizona says (about Hillary): “The one word that really stands out is “above the law”. I mean, anything that she ever did has never been accounted for, and she gets by with just laughing it off.”
(Bruce’s note: it is true that Hillary often laughs when asked hard questions. Check it out.)
So Mr. Hartman supports Trump. “I know he doesn’t say stuff right, but I’m so tired of being lied to.”
The second story headline on the front page is: “Health costs hammer states: Many insurance rates could surpass those prior to Obamacare”. People who have to buy their own insurance are getting hammered with rate increases.
Remember how we were promised that Obamacare would take care of the uninsured while the rest of us would be able to keep our previous insurance programs without increasing rates?
This was an obvious lie to anyone who would take a moment to think. How can you provide coverage for millions of new people who cannot currently afford insurance without increasing the insurance rates, by a lot, on the people who currently do have insurance? It is not mathematically possible.
Hillary was right out in front promoting Obamacare. Instead of helping the average American, one really big effect of Obamacare has been to enrich the pharmaceutical companies. They were the ones who wrote much of the Obamacare legislation—hence their heavy investment in candidate Hillary Clinton.
Obamacare is just one more corrupt racket aided and abetted by a Federal government that has grown far too large. The more you concentrate power in a few people, the easier it is to buy influence with those people—that is racketeering.
And that, my friends, is what has happened with Hillary Clinton. She participates in the rackets.
And that, my friends, is why I am for strictly limited government. See that Tenth Amendment again.
Author James Howard Kunstler (definitely not a Republican) has some really insightful things to say about racketeering in our country. You should read what he says about rackets.
http://www.peakprosperity.com/…/james-howard-kunstler-racke…
An emerging racketeering story now is how Hillary provided access to herself as Secretary of State in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary has refused to do anything about her involvement with the Clinton Foundation until after the election.
If Hillary wants to inspire us to trust her, she should end that involvement with the Foundation now and publicly ask Bill to shut it down. But she won’t.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/…/hillary-clinton-presidential-ca…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/now-hillary-has-a-big-cli…/
In my opinion, an absolutely crucial issue in this election is whether or not Americans are willing to accept the kind of in-your-face corruption that Hillary Clinton represents…and do nothing about it.
So I think it is an irresponsible action in this particular election to vote for anyone but Trump, especially in a swing state like Michigan that may determine the outcome of the Electoral College. I really think that. I really think it is irresponsible.
(See, I didn't call anyone "irresponsible", but I said I thought the action was irresponsible. :))
Sorry if you disagree (not really! :)), but we have not any Presidential candidate in my lifetime who has used her power and influence to make herself rich like Hillary Clinton (and Bill). Her actions have been those of a corrupt person.
That is why Hillary and the corruption she represents must be rejected decisively by us, the voters. If we do not reject corruption, we can only expect more of the same. Hillary will not be rejected by voting for a third party candidate.
Finally, Hillary has tried to paint Trump as a warmonger and unqualified by temperament to be President.
I think it is Hillary who is the demonstrated warmonger and unqualified by temperament and capability to be President.
As Secretary of State, she strongly advocated the bombing of Syria, Lebanon and also Libya. The bombing of Libya has literally destroyed that country and has plunged them from a high standard of living (based on oil revenues) to one of the lowest in the world. The bombing did not succeed in bringing democracy to Libya, instead it brought total societal disintegration and wide-spread death.
http://www.democracynow.org/…/the_libya_gamble_inside_hilla…
Thousands of Libyans (and others) are dying as they try to flee to Europe across the Mediterranean Sea to escape the hell-hole that Hillary Clinton helped create.
http://www.dw.com/…/migrant-death-toll-in-medite…/a-19296719
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34082304
When Hillary was informed that the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddhafi, who had been overthrown by American bombing, had been cruelly put to death here is how she responded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miUjN4S9BjI
What kind of human being laughs at the death of another human being, particularly when she has been instrumental in causing the death of that other human being? Not the kind of human being I want for President.
Then there is the “basket of deplorables” statement that you have been waiting for.
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/774598164485591040…
It is really, really wrong for someone who aspires to lead all Americans to put a big chunk of the electorate, her fellow citizens, in a basket and call them “deplorables”.
Saying stuff like that does not encourage honest political discussion between people with different points of view. It is one result of the PC culture that infests our campuses and our country. It divides our country even further. It stops discussion and demonizes those with whom you disagree by calling them names.
Once again, if Trump had made that statement about half of Hillary’s supporters, how do you think the mainstream media would have responded? Remember what they did to Mitt Romney for his “47% of the people” comment (made in private) in the last election?
No, the mainstream media are not remotely fair or evenhanded. And they are not likely to be fair with Trump in the debates either.
No problem, the Donald is not going to feel any obligation to play by their rules. Should be very interesting. I suspect he is going to speak directly to the American people, and generally ignore the moderators—as he should. These debates belong to us—not to the moderators.
(Since I am backing Trump, I guess I am automatically under suspicion as a possible “deplorable”. Don’t worry, I am not losing any sleep on that one. :))
Finally, a few comments about Trump’s competence and character to lead. This was actually my biggest concern about him.
Silly me, I had listened to statements about Trump, not statements made by Trump. As a result, I thought he was largely a buffoon—even if he did manage somehow to get really rich.
I don’t think so any more. I have listened to him a lot and read a lot of his policies. I encourage you to do the same. Listen to him, read about his policies and plans.
After doing my homework, I think Trump will do just fine as President.
And so do a bunch of generals.
http://www.nytimes.com/…/donald-trump-earns-backing-of-near…
And so do the cops through their union.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/fraternal-order-of-police…/
And so does Jack Welch, one of the most accomplished businessmen of our era.
http://www.politico.com/…/…/jack-welch-supports-trump-228400
And finally, and most important to me personally, so does Jim Woolsey.
Woolsey is a registered Democrat, and was head of the CIA for two years during Bill Clinton’s first administration.
It turns out that I happen to know Jim Woolsey quite well and have met with him several times as a result of his strong support for biofuels.
Woolsey is one very smart, very tough, very honest, and very capable guy. He has been around the federal government for a long time. He knows Hillary Clinton well.
http://www.politico.com/…/james-woolsey-advising-trump-2280…
If Jim Woolsey is endorsing Trump over Hillary, you can take that to the bank. Trump will do just fine as President. After Monday night’s debate (September 26), I think many more Americans will come to my conclusion and will reject Hillary, along with her lies and corruption and incompetence.
The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 - 10) - National Center for Constitutional Studies
This 52-page pocket sized booklet contains the United States Constitution (including The Bill of Rights and Amendments 11-27) and The Declaration of Independence.…