Each of the linked articles in this post has something interesting to say about the upcoming election. If you’re interested in what’s going on, you could do worse than spending some time reading them or just glancing through them.
My take: At worst, Trump is not a very nice person — and that opinion depends to whom you speak.
On the other hand, Hillary, at best, is an unpleasant person and a deeply corrupt politician — and you’re not dependent on different people’s opinions for that. The objective facts speak for themselves. That Hillary is not already in prison doesn’t mean she’s innocent of the things the facts prove; it just means that she is the prime beneficiary of a corrupt system that has abandoned the rule of law, which is reason enough to keep her out of the White House.
As the stench from Hillary grows, #NeverTrumpers stand down. Even before the FBI’s announcement radically changed the game, Derek Hunter had already concluded that Hillary must go, not just because of her issues, but because her election further empowers a media that’s run amok:
Bias has always been a factor in journalism. It’s nearly impossible to remove. Humans have their thoughts, and keeping them out of your work is difficult. But 2016 saw the remaining veneer of credibility, thin as it was, stripped away and set on fire.
More than anything, I can’t sit idly by and allow these perpetrators of fraud to celebrate and leak tears of joy like they did when they helped elect Barack Obama in 2008. I have to know I weighed in not only in writing but in the voting booth.
The media needs to be destroyed. And although voting for Trump won’t do it, it’s something. Essentially, I am voting for Trump because of the people who don’t want me to, and I believe I must register my disgust with Hillary Clinton.
It’s not just the media or the Supreme Court that follow Hillary into office. Deroy Murdock reminds us that, from the top down, Hillary will take the agencies that Obama has already turned into partisan monsters, and reinforce their worst, most crooked, most bullying instincts:
A President Hillary Clinton would nominate hundreds of people to top positions that require Senate approval. She would hire hundreds of thousands of others and unleash them to perpetrate Hillaryism — a toxic blend of lies, elitist nannyism, secretive paranoia, and snarling contempt for the law. These people would enjoy police powers, fat salaries, mouth-watering benefits, and bullet-proof job security — at taxpayer expense.
Is Comey a good guy or a bad guy? Was he a bad guy in July but he’s a good guy now? Or is it the other way around? Scott Adams suggests that Comey is a good guy:
My movie says Comey had good evidence against Clinton during the initial investigation but made a judgement call to leave the decision to the American public. For reasons of conscience, and acting as a patriot, Comey explained in clear language to the public exactly what evidence the FBI found against Clinton. The evidence looked damning because it was. Under this interpretation, Comey took a bullet to his reputation for the sake of the Republic. He didn’t want the FBI to steal this important decision away from the people, but at the same time he couldn’t let the people decide blind. So he divulged the evidence and stepped away, like the action hero who doesn’t look back at the explosion.
In the second act of this movie, Comey learns that the Weiner laptop had emails that were so damning it would be a crime against the public to allow them to vote without first seeing a big red flag. And a flag was the best he could do because it was too early in the investigation to leak out bits and pieces of the evidence. That would violate Clinton’s rights.
But Comey couldn’t easily raise a red flag to warn the public because it was against FBI policy to announce a criminal investigation about a candidate so close to election day. So Comey had a choice of either taking another bullet for the Republic or screwing the very country that he has spent his career protecting.
A lot of people suggest that Comey isn’t a good guy, but had no options this time around with rebellion brewing in FBI ranks. I don’t know that we’ll ever know Comey’s actual thinking, but I do enjoy reading different theories.
John Dean is delusional, but other writers set the record straight. A Hillary supporter proudly posted on his Facebook page an opinion piece that John Dean (of Watergate fame) wrote for the New York Times arguing that Hillary did nothing wrong compared to Richard Nixon. Now, I think one could argue that, on the facts, Hillary is as bad as Nixon or that Hillary is worse than Nixon, but I don’t see how you can argue that Hillary isn’t even in Nixon’s league. But Dean does, because Hillary just “made a mistake”:
Only someone who knows nothing about the law, and the darkest moment of our recent political history, would see a parallel between Nixon’s crimes and Mrs. Clinton’s mistakes.
Taken together, these investigations revealed astounding abuses of presidential power by Nixon, which included other illegal break-ins and burglaries; illegal electronic surveillance; misuses of agencies of government like the I.R.S., C.I.A. and F.B.I.; the practice of making political opponents into enemies and using the instruments of government to attack them; and then employing perjury and obstruction of justice to cover it all up.
Contrast that with Mrs. Clinton, whose “scandal” is the result of her desire — like that of many, including President Obama — not to give up her Blackberry email account when she entered the executive branch. Only slowly did she come to appreciate the security risk of not using the antiquated State Department system.
She was unaware that a few classified items — some of which were classified after the fact — were in her private email system. Unlike Nixon, she has apologized. The F.B.I. record also shows that — again, unlike Nixon — she had no criminal intent in any of her actions.
Wow! Only someone who is determined to ignore facts and live in a fantasy could come up with Dean’s take on things, with poor innocent little Hillary doing nothing to merit the uproar she started.
There are two posts I suggest you read to help you understand why Dean is so very deluded and why Hillary is, in fact, so very bad. The first is from Mark Steyn (of course) who, with his usual elan, nicely sums up Hillary’s crimes (in a post delightfully delighted “Occam’s Weiner”):
The FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation – because it’s a criminal enterprise: if you give a million bucks to the Clintons’ charity, sixty grand goes to charity and the remaining 940,000 goes to fund the lifestyles of Bill, Hillary, Chelsea and their various malodorous associates – Sid Blumenthal, Terry McAuliffe, etc.
For four years, however, those donations also bought you access to the US Secretary of State. That’s why Mrs Clinton and her coterie – Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and the other supposed “government employees” – determined to use a private server. Because the pay-for-play was so unsubtle you couldn’t have it sitting on State Department emails destined for the National Archives.
Charles S. Faddis, a retired CIA officer, explains that, entirely separate from the “pay for play” scheme Hillary was running out of the State Department, she violated national security a thousand times over, and over, and over — and, which Hillary’s supporters ignore, these national security rules matter because individual lives are at stake and — duh! — our national security is at stake too:
Classified and unclassified information do not mix. They don’t travel in the same streams through the same pipes. They move in clearly well defined channels so that never the twain shall meet. Mixing them together is unheard of and a major criminal offense.
If you end up with classified information in an unclassified channel, you have done something very wrong and very serious.
Accidentally removing a single classified message from controlled spaces, without any evidence of intent or exposure to hostile forces, can get you fired and cost you your clearance. Repeated instances will land you in prison.
Every hostile intelligence agency on the planet targets senior American officials for collection. The Secretary of State tops the list. Almost anything the Secretary of State had to say about her official duties, her schedule, her mood, her plans for the weekend, would be prized information to adversaries.
Hillary says she did not use the account to transmit classified information. This has been proven false. The FBI found over 100 messages that contained information that was classified when sent, including numerous email chains at the level of Top Secret/Special Access Programs. They don’t get any more highly classified, it’s the virtual summit of Mt. Everest. One theme pertained to the movement of North Korean nuclear assets obtained via satellite imagery. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out this is extremely sensitive information.
The FBI found another 2,000 messages containing information that should have been classified at the time it was sent. How much more classified information may have been in the tens of thousands of emails, which Clinton’s lawyers erased, is completely unknown.
Hillary Clinton supporters like to ask rhetorically, “Well, what about Colin Powell?” Nice try, but using your own private email address which received 2 emails determined to be classified later, is nothing like deliberately operating a home brewed server, and then see it handle thousands of classified e-mails.
It’s like asking, “what about the guy who received a stolen apple?” while equating his actions to those of bank robbers who stole $10 million.
There’s more. You should read it all.
Not only is Hillary bad, the email scandal shows she surrounds herself by morons. The only thing that Hillary and her compadres seem to be good at is avoiding blame and indictment. Otherwise, as The Binge Thinker notes, they’re pretty useless (and, of course, corrupt):
As rumor swirls as to what the evidence may actually prove, armchair analysts have been proffering their thoughts throughout the weekend.
Mine are as follows:
1. Hillary’s people are some of the least intelligent when it comes to using technology.
2. Such recklessness has not only opened up threats against our nation but now her very campaign.
3. With the knowledge that the device is retrieved from the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner home, and that it is likely that both used said device for extended periods of time, it is likely that direct evidence that contradicts previous testimony has been discovered.
4. As Ms. Abedin was Hillary’s closest and personal confidant, it is entirely possible that tens of thousands if not all thirty thousand email that the campaign attempted to bleach from the original servers had a second “carbon copy” home that most forgot about.
5. Given that in the leaked emails from John Podesta alone there appears to be systematic attempt to commit felonies such as suppression of evidence, destruction of evidence, collusion, and corruption, one can only guess at the gold mine of criminality tens of thousands previously undiscovered but believe to be destroyed emails might contain.
Camille Paglia loathes Hillary and the modern (i.e., neo-Victorian) feminism she represents. Camille Paglia said two important things in this interview, one about Hillary and one about the malign state of feminism today, which disempowers women. (These are the same feminists who claim Hillary shouldn’t have to be subject to Trump’s interruptions or stance, even while contending that she can take on Putin.)
Hillary hasn’t suffered — Paglia continues — because she is a woman. She has shamelessly exploited the fact: ‘It’s an outrage how she’s played the gender card. She is a woman without accomplishment. “I sponsored or co-sponsored 400 bills.” Oh really? These were bills to rename bridges and so forth. And the things she has accomplished have been like the destabilisation of North Africa, causing refugees to flood into Italy… The woman is a disaster!’
‘My philosophy of feminism,’ the New York-born 69-year-old explains, ‘I call street-smart Amazon feminism. I’m from an immigrant family. The way I was brought up was: the world is a dangerous place; you must learn to defend yourself. You can’t be a fool. You have to stay alert.’ Today, she suggests, middle-class girls are being reared in a precisely contrary fashion: cosseted, indulged and protected from every evil, they become helpless victims when confronted by adversity. ‘We are rocketing backwards here to the Victorian period with this belief that women are not capable of making decisions on their own. This is not feminism — which is to achieve independent thought and action. There will never be equality of the sexes if we think that women are so handicapped they can’t look after themselves.’
Working under Hillary is a bad job. There are people who work for Hillary, meaning that her goals are their goals, and they see her as the vessel by which they will achieve their goals. There are also people who work under Hillary, by which I mean people whose jobs require them to be around her, such as secret service agents or military people. The former will keep their opinions about Hillary to themselves, because they feel the ends justify the means. The latter, however, aren’t shy about making it clear that Hillary is an awful, a truly awful person:
Devout Catholics really cannot support Hillary. Last week, I put up a video of a wonderful sermon by a Catholic priest explaining to parishioners in Phoenix, Arizona, why people who respect the sanctity of life — especially completely innocent life — cannot support Hillary Clinton. He named names. My friend Patrick O’Hannigan points out that, even when the priests don’t name names, people whose Catholicism is an identity, rather than a belief, still manage to get incoherent with rage when priests dare to say that lives are at stake in this election:
Mr. Thomas Farragher of the Boston Globe recently coughed up a hairball that explains why “ministers of hospitality” at my Catholic parish make sure the rest of us cannot find church bulletins before Mass on Sundays. Farragher admitted to his habit of picking up the weekly bulletin on the way into rather than out of Mass, and then wrung his hands over what he found there during what mighthave been a boring sermon.
The bulletin that shocked Farragher while his priest was trying to shed light on connections between Holy Scripture and daily life had a thinly-veiled endorsement for Donald J. Trump. That such a thing found publication in Massachusetts might have been surprise enough. In writing afterward about this violation of his safe space, Mr. Farragher professed himself frustrated by the rationale for the endorsement, which he says depended exclusively on what Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have said about abortion.
A dangerous dipsomaniac in the White House. Donald Trump is a teetotaler (something I appreciate, because I am too). There’s quite good evidence that Hillary has a drinking problem (including recent Podesta emails talking about the need to sober her up). Scott Adams suggests that, if you want someone stable in the White House, don’t go for the heavy drinker. His risk assessment says that, straight down the line, Trump is the lower risk candidate (with his risk scale running from 0 to 10):
1. No political experience in office (4)
2. Might say something insulting to another leader (3)
3. Might go nuts for the first time in his 70-year life. (2)
4. Aggressive negotiating stance might cause trouble (5)
5. Might institute some racist/sexist/homophobic policies (0)
6. Doesn’t do his homework on the issues (3)
7. Health problems (5)
8. Budget deficit expands to deadly proportions (6)
9. Might cause a race war (3)
1. Perpetual scandals and investigations. (5)
2. Health problems for Hillary Clinton (7)
3. Health problems for Bill Clinton that become distractions. (7)
4. Scandals for Bill that distract (8)
5. Big donors to Clinton Foundation rely on wars to make money (9)
6. Clintons are relatively easy to blackmail. (8)
7. Budget deficit expands to deadly proportions (8)
8. Immigration policies are more likely to allow in terrorists (9)
9. Drinks alcohol (10)
Imagine a federal government that is a repeat of teachers’ unions. I grew up in the household of a teacher forced to pay into a union in resented because the only thing it ever gave him was good dental care, all the while turn California from the best to one of the worst states in the union for education. I therefore have always disliked teacher’s unions. For all the talk, they are not about the students’ well-being (something separate from the many teachers who are in those unions and who do care about the children).
And if you want just one more piece of evidence about just how malevolent teachers are, there’s a story out of Marin County about two teachers who want to start a charter school that does “why” teaching (that is, showing students why things matter) rather than “how” teaching (that is, telling students how to do a multitude of (to the students) meaningless tasks. The teachers’ union is up in arms:
“It (Ipso) would siphon off students and resources,” said Chris Simenstad, president of the San Rafael Federation of Teachers, Local 1077 and an English teacher at San Rafael High School.
“We need to be sure that creating an alternative educational experience does not come at the expense of other students,” said Marin County Supervisor Damon Connolly, who spoke against the petition.
That’s framed as “we’re looking out for the children who can’t go to that nice new school,” when the unions should be saying, “Great. You do that, and we’ll be so good that, in a free market, you won’t be able to keep students because they’ll want to stay in public schools.” But that, of course, is not how unions work.
(As with all these posts and articles to which I’ve linked, it’s worth your while to them in their entirety to understand the facts and appreciate the conclusions. Also, for more insight into your election choices, be sure to check out WOW! Magazine, the collaborative magazine from Watcher’s Council members and their friends.)