A friend told me something very significant: This election is not between leftist and conservative or Democrat and Republican. It is, instead, an election pitting the globalists against the populists (or patriots, if you prefer).

On the one hand, the Hillary hand, you have people:

• who don’t care that jobs are being lost in America, as long as jobs are being gained in India;
• who don’t care that illegal aliens are pouring into America because the globalists think borders are irrelevant;
• who are comfortable with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the First World because they think American corporations (aka, employers) shouldn’t have an unfair advantage against other worldwide corporations, including those propped up by socialist governments;
• who think the Constitution is burdensome and antiquated;
• who believe that government is the answer, no matter the question;
• who judge people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character;
• who refuse to defend America against unnamed terrorists because it’s morally wrong for America to act in her own defense without UN pre-approval, and who therefore accept endless low-level terrorism;
• who think that the biggest threat facing the world is climate change, never mind that the bulk of the apocalyptic climate change predictions have been proven wrong; and
• who generally think Americans are rubes, Europeans are the gold standard, third world nations must be kept helpless, and Muslims are victims of unemployment (which makes it kind of ironic that these same people are so comfortable with keeping Americans unemployed).

On the other hand, the Trump hand, you have people who, while not lacking in compassion when they see Third World struggles abroad, think that, in airplane parlance, you must first secure your own oxygen mask before taking care of those less able than you. These are people

• who insist that America, as a sovereign nation, can secure its borders so that Americans are safe from predators, terrorists, resource hogs, and unfair job competition;
• who make sure that American employers, large and small, are competitive so that American workers can have jobs — at which time we teach those skills to other nations that need to help their economies grow;
• who name America’s enemies so that we can fight them (something that is a truly internationalist approach because, in this existential war, America’s enemies are the enemies of freedom, security, and decency in every corner of the world);
• who refuse to see America become subordinate to the UN;
• who judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin;
• who are certain that the American Constitution is the gold standard for governance because it elevates individual liberty over government control, an ideology that, until attacked from the Left, created the most free, most wealthy, most powerful, most generous nation in the history of the world (and I mean generous in terms of money given and in terms of blood spilled to help those less fortunate around the world);
• who have noticed that the climate change predictions that the Left has seized upon to force redistribution of wealth both inside and outside of America fail to pass minimal tests for scientific relevance and trustworthiness; and
• who know that, overall, the American people are damn fine people who have an inalienable right to a government that supports their liberty, rather than one that subordinates them to the career politicians’ endless dreams of perpetual power.

Although the bulk of globalists are Democrats, there is another significant constituent group in this globalist party:  Traditional GOP power players. They too believe in open borders, the UN, high taxes, European virtue, anthropogenic climate change, and the fact that it’s better to let Americans die in endless low-level terrorism than to mention the phrase “Islamic terrorism.” They are aligned with the Democrats, although simply less strident. James Taranto long ago classified them as people who share Democrat values, but just want to try to keep America’s books better balanced. They are, in other words, cheap Lefties. Their antipathy to Trump comes about not only because they really do dislike his personality and politics, but because they are desperate for approval from the globalist media and the globalist D.C. establishment.

We’ve seen this dynamic play out before, and I’m not just talking about Brexit, which saw a majority of Britains rise up against globalism and in favor of patriotism. I’m talking about the 1980 election between Carter and Reagan.

Back in 1980, Carter was the candidate wedded to a globalist detente (and yes, it was an idea that a Republican dreamed up), one that believed that winning existential wars was for fools. Instead, detente said that if Washington just held to an exquisite balance between the major powers, whether in building up weapons systems, fighting proxy wars, fighting propaganda wars, or fighting trade wars, Americans could get on with their lives — perpetually insecure but still going through the motions of being a free, safe nation. All of this, of course, required high taxes to pay for the big government necessary to keep this exquisite detente balance.

And then Reagan messed the whole delicate balance up when he came along with an explosive new idea:  Detente is for sissies. America has won two world wars before and she can win a third, the Cold War, by being herself:  big, bold, and free. The starting point is to name enemies (“Evil empire”), lower taxes so that government doesn’t sit on money that can unchain the American economy, and believe in America, Americans, and the American Constitution. Reagan’s presidency was imperfect, but it was also an era of spectacular economic growth at home and it sounded the death knell abroad for the evil that was the Soviet Union.

Those of us around in 1980 vividly remember the media attack on Reagan. The funniest one, in retrospect, was the charge that Reagan was “just an actor” — this from the same political party that can’t get enough of actors spouting their political opinions about candidates, national security, climate change, etc. We were warned about other things, though:  that he was crazy, unstable, stupid, untried, a loose cannon, just a talking head, a decadent man who had divorced his first wife, etc.

Reading that list, does any of it sound familiar to you? We live in a sleazier, bigger, bolder, more degraded internet age, and Trump is a less polished man than Reagan so the attack is more savage and biased, but it’s still the same old, same old.

Reagan also caused a schism in the Republican party, not as severe as the one now, but still pretty darn good. Because he was a populist, he lost the elite Republicans but gained those Democrats who didn’t think Carter’s internationalist policies and lack of faith in America served them well economically or kept them safe.

Today’s example of the globalists’ frenzied fear that their hegemony is nearing its end comes from Foreign Policy magazine which, like The Atlantic, decided to abandon its pretense of neutrality and endorse Hillary.  I’ll get to the laughable endorsement in a minute but, first, let’s talk about Foreign Policy itself.

Doesn’t that name — Foreign Policy — sound magisterial? With that name, Foreign Policy must be a scholarly publication with weight and heft, staffed by people with significant working experience (perhaps for the State Department or CIA) around the world.

Well, not so much.  For starters, it’s owned by the Washington Post — Jeff Bezo’s WaPo, a publication that hews further Left than ever before in its Left-leaning history. That already gives you an idea about its political orientation.

There’s also (for me at least) the little problem of FP‘s entirely predictable anti-Israel stance. It seems as if every writer, Jewish or not, was incubated in the anti-Israel animus of J Street.

In 2011, the magazine looked at Israel, a thriving country by any metric, with individual liberty, a strong defense, and incredible economic growth, and labeled it a failed state.  JoshuaPundit made mincemeat of the facts underlying the claim and highlighted the antisemitic animus that was driving FP‘s approach to Israel:

So how did the brainiacs at Foreign Policy justify this? How did presumed foreign policy expert Elizabeth Dickenson square this circle?

Simple. They titled the entry ‘Israel/West Bank’ and cited some figures from a biased EU-funded British study about how ‘tens of thousands of Palestinian families risk being forced to leave their homes as a result of Israeli policies’ and that half the children ‘suffered from water-borne diarrhea’, linked to an article from that equally unbiased source, al-Jazeera!

Just one problem. Aside from the fact that the figures are obviously cooked, the study and the article both focus on a part of Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank) known as Area C. This is the part of Judea and Samaria where the major Jewish communities are, and is fully under Israeli administration. And guess what? Only an estimated 4% of the ‘Palestinian’ population of Judea and Samaria lives there…if that much. So there aren’t ‘ten of thousands of Palestinian families’ facing eviction and the ‘water-borne diarrhea’ figures of children are so small as to be negligible…unless of course, you have an agenda.

Foreign Policy is a particularly fact challenged source, especially when it comes to the Middle East and it’s home to Israel bashers like Stephen Walt, co-author of the scurrilous ‘The Israel Lobby’. They have a perfect right to publish whatever horse manure they choose, but I have a problem with them issuing this kind of propaganda and calling it ‘journalism’. At this point, the Israel Derangement Syndrome is so pronounced among ‘journalists’ like Dickenson that they can’t even be bothered to make up lies that are remotely credible. And they ought to be ashamed of that.

Two years later, FP, faced with the growing Obama debacle in Syria, was doing its best to cover up the Syrian sex jihad (until it could be covered-up no more):

In an article titled “Are Young Women Really Racing to Syria’s Front Lines to Wage Sex Jihad” (originally published under the cutesier title “Sorry, the Tunisian Sex Jihad is a Fraud”), one David Kenner writes:

It’s the story that launched 1,000 headlines. And it’s not hard to see why: Tunisian Interior Minister Lotfi Ben Jeddou announced last week that Tunisian women were traveling to Syria to wage “sex jihad,” where they were having sex with “20, 30, [or] 100″³ militants, before returning pregnant to Tunisia.

There’s only one problem: There’s no evidence it’s true. The Tunisian Interior Ministry has so far failed to provide any further information on the phenomenon, and human rights activists and journalists have been unable to find any Tunisian woman who went to Syria for this purpose.

Let’s consider the evidence surrounding the sex jihad for a moment: For approximately one year, a wide variety of Arabic and other foreign media, news channels, newspapers, and websites—both for and against the war in Syria—have been reporting on the sex jihad; I have personally watched several video interviews of many different men and women, of various nationalities, talking about their experiences with the sex jihad; Tunisia’s former Mufti created controversy by condemning it; and now a governmental official, the Tunisian Interior Minister, is formally on record mentioning it.

If you check out the people behind FP, you see that the routine ignorance, hostility to America’s friends, and support for civilization’s enemies makes sense. FP’s CEO is David Rothkopf. He does have an impressive resume, including time spent working for — wait for it — the Clinton Administration, which he joined in 1993 as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Policy and Development. Moreover, as a Democrat, he twice voted for Obama. When Rothkopf writes articles, as he does often, they’re for the WaPo, New York Times, CNN, etc. So let’s just say that the man at the top of FP is not neutral. He has tight ties to the Clinton administration, the Democrat party, and the elite world of D.C. politics and the Ivy League.

David Rothkopf thinks it’s fine that Hillary violated national security laws. Indeed, he thinks it’s the work of a fascist government to prosecute those who violated those laws — provided those people are Hillary Clinton:

Trump: I will seek to jail my opponent. Welcome to a place we have never been America. Russia has been there. Not us.

— David Rothkopf (@djrothkopf) October 10, 2016

But it’s okay that Rothkopf wants a double standard when it comes to Hillary’s felonious conduct because he thinks she’s fabulous. Really:

Truth is better than rhetoric: HRC is a great candidate on the merits, US is better off & safer than it ever has been, future looks good.

— David Rothkopf (@djrothkopf) October 10, 2016

One contrarian view: I’m more enthusiastic about HRC as a candidate than any in my lifetime. On merits. On her narrative. For this moment.

— David Rothkopf (@djrothkopf) October 10, 2016

Ben Pauker is the executive editor. On his Twitter page, he proudly re-tweeted this cartoon:

Sign it, my fellow Ken Bone Zoners.https://t.co/GJ11okseM4 pic.twitter.com/jlEDWp8Yee

— Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) October 10, 2016

And of course, as a good Leftist, Pauker is unable to distinguish between Muslim terrorists and ordinary Muslims — a distinction Trump made and his supporters understand:

“Islamophobia is a shame,” says Donald Trump, a xenophobic bigot who has vilified Muslims. THIS is shameful.

— Benjamin Pauker (@benpauker) October 10, 2016

If you go through the rest of the members of the editorial board, you’ll find the same: Long-time Democrats who support everything from high corporate taxes to the anti-white, anti-law-and-order animus of Black Lives Matter to climate change, etc. They are on board with the whole Leftist, globalist shtick.

Donald Trump, like Ronald Reagan before him, is the first person to truly threaten to blow-up this nice little elite, globalist party. The globalists, from Republicans such as Rience Priebus and Paul Ryan all the way down to media figures such as David Rothkopf, are terrified. In the past, both the Republican and Democrat establishments were comfortably assured that the candidate, whether Democrat or Republican, was one of them. The Dems wanted the Dem to win, but it was okay if the occasional Republican did. The GOP wanted the Republican to win but, as the GOP’s support for Hillary shows, they could live with a “one of us” Democrat. Now, though, both Dems and the GOP see in Trump an enemy so alien (because of his support for America and Americans) that they will do and say anything to save Hillary’s candidacy.

That’s how you end up with risible endorsements such as FP’s latest effort. After the obligatory paragraphs about their history of neutral purity and their current “obligation” to the world, the editors get down to brass (or, really, fake brass) tacks: Donald Trump scares us and Hillary Clinton is like us, so you better vote for her. I’m not kidding. The best that the editors can say about Hillary is that she’s a woman.  It’s worth deconstructing the editorial in detail to understand what a joke it is.

The litany of reasons Trump poses such a threat is so long that it is, in fact, shocking that he is a major party’s candidate for the presidency. The recent furor over his vile behavior with women illustrates the extraordinary nature of his unsuitability, as does his repudiation by so many members of his own party — who have so many reasons to reflexively support their nominee.

No, it was Bill Clinton who engaged in vile behavior with women, everything from rape, to sexual assault, to workplace sexual harassment with an employee, to slandering and maligning the women when they complained, a tactic in which Hillary “all women must be  heard” enthusiastically participated.  What Trump, a boaster, did was boast. We actually have no idea what his behavior was, but we do know that, except for a criminally-inclined Miss Universe who violated the weight clause in her contract, no women have stepped forward to complain.

Beyond this, however, in the areas in which we at FP specialize, he has repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance of the most basic facts of international affairs, let alone the nuances so crucial to the responsibilities of diplomacy inherent in the U.S. president’s daily responsibilities. Trump has not only promoted the leadership of a tyrant and menace like Vladimir Putin, but he has welcomed Russian meddling in the current U.S. election.

Untrue. Trump has praised Putin as a powerful leader — which Putin is given that he danced rings around Secretary of State Hillary. Thanks to Hillary’s policies, Putin has moved into Ukraine permanently, and become the major player, along with Iran, in the Middle East. What Trump has said is that (a) he’ll do a better job of handling Putin and (b) he’ll protect America’s interests in dealing with Putin. Trump supporters understand that his statements about Putin were meant to show that Hillary got played. Moreover, Trump did not welcome Russian meddling. What he said was that the Russians probably know what Hillary’s deleted emails are because they hacked them when they were sitting on that illegal, unprotected server. Given that, because Hillary made sure Americans could never see them, it would be nice if the Russians did. It was a good campaign joke that worked for those who actually pay attention to facts.

He has alternatively forgiven then defended Russia’s invasion of Crimea and employed advisors with close ties to the Russian president and his cronies.

See above. Also see the fact that Hillary has closer and deeper ties to the Russians than anything Trump has.

Trump has spoken so cavalierly about the use of nuclear weapons, including a repeated willingness to use them against terrorists, that it has become clear he understands little if anything about America’s nuclear policies — not to mention the moral, legal, and human consequences of such actions.

A lie. If you actually read FP’s own link (which the FP staff clearly didn’t), you see that Trump denied that slanderous statement that he was pushing to use nuclear weapons. Trump, like any sentient human being, recognizes that they’re existentially dangerous, as is Iran’s nuclear proliferation. Trump also recognizes that, in a last-ditch, existential fight . . . well, that’s where nuclear weapons come into play. Our enemies have them (e.g., North Korea, Pakistan, and almost certainly Iran). They are a deterrent against those enemies. Trump’s real point is that, with a strong traditional military, you don’t need to go to extremes.

He has embraced the use of torture and the violation of international law against it. He has suggested he would ignore America’s treaty obligations and would only conditionally support allies in need. He has repeatedly insulted Mexico and proposed policies that would inflame and damage one of America’s most vital trading relationships with that country.

Many Americans believe the line of analysis that says waterboarding — which is routinely used on America’s own troops to train them for scary situations and which whacked-out Lefties during the Bush era also routinely used on themselves for street theater — is an appropriate use of power when terrorists are on the verge of unleashing Armageddon on the United States. 

Trump has also said that our treaties with NATO are not Biblical covenants that require America to abide by them when fellow NATO members don’t. They are contracts and, if the NATO members violate their obligations, it’s time for America to decide whether it’s in her best interest to walk away from hers.

Please keep in mind regarding this that the much-vaunted European socialized “cradle to grave” care that Lefties adore was paid for by American taxpayers. We paid Europe’s defense costs; they got free socialized medicine. During the Cold War, that worked for America. Maybe it doesn’t or shouldn’t anymore, especially since Europe does not seem to be on our side in the war against the Islamists’ efforts to establish a worldwide caliphate.

And the bit about Mexico is, of course, one of the big lies in this campaign. Donald Trump said that Mexico is hanging on to those of its citizens who behave admirably and using America as a dumping ground for its criminals. I’ve been saying this for years, as well as saying that Mexico’s open border policy (its northern border is open for people to leave Mexico for America, while its southern border is sealed tight) is horrible for the Mexican people, because the American dollars that flow in fund its corrupt, dysfunctional government.

Trump has played into the hands of terrorists with his fearmongering, with his sweeping and unwarranted vilification of Muslims, and by sensationalizing the threat they pose. He has promised to take punitive actions against America’s Pacific trading partners that would be devastating to the world economy and in violation of our legal obligations. He has dismissed the science of climate change and denied its looming and dangerous reality. He has promoted a delusional and narcissistic view of the world, one in which he seems to feel that the power of his personality in negotiations could redirect the course of other nations, remake or supplant treaties, and contain those tyrants he does not actually embrace.

Trump said that, until America has figured out how to vet Islamic refugees, it’s a smart idea to put a hold on the refugees. He’s right too. Indeed, so right that Jimmy Carter did precisely that when it came to Iranian immigrants in 1979. Sauce for the Democrat goose is never sauce for the Republican gander.

As for sensationalizing the threat they pose, Americans watching the slow, steady, incremental increase in “lone wolf” Muslim attacks at home (e.g., Florida, California, and Wisconsin) and the escalation of those same “lone wolf” attacks abroad (e.g., Paris, Cannes, and Switzerland) value the fact that Trump acknowledges the problem, rather than pretending it doesn’t exist. On this subject, keep in mind that FP pretended that there was no “sex jihad” problem in Syria.  FP is not precisely honest in reporting about Islam. 

The “science of climate change”? That’s a laugh. Science means that scientific predictions come true, that numbers don’t need to be doctored, and that researchers and the media don’t have to lie about the facts. Americans are not dumb. They’ve figured out that the whole climate change theory fails every scientific metric. (This post, by Wolf Howling, is one of the best I’ve seen summarizing the giant fraud. And of course, there’s always Watt’s Up With That, which deals in real science, not fearmongering.)

Funnily enough, the power of personality in negotiations matters. Anyone who has lived in the real world knows that some people can make a deal and some can’t. As Trump repeatedly points out, thirty years of globalist governance hasn’t worked out so well for America. The deals our government has made stink.

He has repeatedly denigrated the U.S. military — its leadership, service members, veterans, and the families who stand behind them. He has also derided the intelligence community. Many of the most prominent Republican national security and foreign-policy specialists have repudiated him publicly. Indeed, he is not simply seen as a dangerous candidate by members of the Democratic Party, but virtually no single credible GOP foreign-policy advisor has joined his team. This is because Trump either undercuts or has placed himself in opposition to the best foreign-policy traditions of the Republican Party and to the standards and ideals of every GOP administration in modern history.

I strongly support the American military. I’ve also been watching, completely aghast, as Obama has defined the American military’s two prime missions: fighting climate change and supporting the LGBTQI spectrum. Those in the Pentagon who want to keep their jobs have played along. Maybe they shouldn’t have. Maybe if they hadn’t, Trump would have more respect for those generals.

Sometimes the war the generals have to fight isn’t on the battlefield, it’s in D.C.  Too many generals, just like too many FBI agents, have valued their middle class standing and obligations (mortgages, tuition, etc.) to speak out about the fundamental corruption destroying the military mission.

Yes, Trump has said stupid things, such as attacking McCain over his imprisonment. In a long and undistinguished squishy GOP career, the one thing that stands out about McCain is the courage he showed during his internment. That was a stupid attack on Trump’s part but it doesn’t disqualify him from being president. After all, it’s not as if he called half of America “deplorable.”

The media took Trump’s PTSD remark out of context (duh). It was inelegantly phrased, but those listening to him in context knew perfectly well what he meant, and he was not being derogatory.

Regarding those foreign policy experts — just remember:  the battle isn’t between Leftist and conservative or Democrat and Republican. It’s between globalists and patriots. The globalists are seeing the end of their reign and they’re alternatively running scared and getting aggressive.

There are other reasons to oppose Trump. He has repeatedly demonstrated a complete disregard for America’s most important values, from tolerance to respect for the rule of law.

Oh. My. God! That is rich. They mention the rule of law after Hillary got a pass for gross and intentional violations of America’s national security laws? After documents revealed that she was using the State Department in a pay-for-play scheme to enrich herself and her family? After it’s proven definitively that she ordered the erasure of electronic communications that were the subject of a Congressional subpoena? They really went to respect for the rule of law? It’s things like this that make you realize that these people have no values whatsoever. They’re cornered rats, fighting for their lives.

He has treated the press with derision, demeaning individual reporters, and his campaign has employed exclusionary policies that targeted specific news organizations, suggesting a complete disregard for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

How many times do we need to say that Trump did not demean an individual reporter? That’s another media lie that helps explain why he rightfully treats the press with derision. Americans can see the press gang up on Trump at debates, lie about him, lie about Hillary, and do just about anything else they can to use their vast power to destroy a candidate who threatens their globalist positions. It is the collective media that is abusing the First Amendment because it utterly refuses to be a government watchdog and instead is a Democrat party lacky, finding its inspiration in Pravda. The really sad thing is that while Russian journalists wrote that way because they had to, members of the American media write this way because they want to.

He has shown such a complete disregard for the truth that he has arguably done more than any other single individual to seek to usher in a new and unwelcome post-fact era in America’s political debate. That is not just odious but if it becomes more accepted could compromise and undercut governance in the United States for generations to come. His proposed policies on immigration and for dealing with Muslims in America show scorn for the Fourth Amendment. Based on a lifetime of statements and actions, Donald Trump has revealed himself to be a racist and, again and again, a misogynist. Throughout this election he has cynically embraced the support of white supremacists and anti-Semites.

Again, it’s risible to see FP attack Trump on honesty when its throwing its weight behind Hillary Clinton, a woman whom the vast majority of Americans have recognized is a compulsive liar. Donald is a puffer:  he exaggerates, saying “thousands” when it’s probably “hundreds.” Hillary is a liar — lying about cattle futures, lying about Whitewater, lying about Travelgate, lying about Bill’s sexual shenanigans, lying about Sir Edmund Hillary, lying about trying to join the Marines, lying about being under sniper fire, lying about her emails, lying about destroying her emails, lying about Colin Powell regarding their conversations about emails.

Hillary is the living embodiment of Mary McCarthy’s take on Lillian Hellman: “I once said in an interview that every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.'” Likewise, she is the living embodiment of the old joke: You know how you can tell when a politician is lying? Her lips are moving.

Trump’s proposal to put into place a way to separate terrorist Muslim immigrants from non-terrorist immigrants is entirely constitutional. Nobody has the right to enter this country. And indeed, the president’s sworn obligation under the Constitution is to defend the citizens of this country against enemies both foreign and domestic.

Trump is neither a racist nor a misogynist. He is, instead, someone whose every word a completely corrupt media has twisted and lied about. And in that vein, he has not cynically embraced the support of white supremacists and anti-Semites. Hillary, however, has enthusiastically embraced the support of black supremacists, who hate whites and Jews, as well as the American Muslim population, the majority of which makes no secrecy of its antisemitism.

Just consider (a) Trump’s orthodox Jewish daughter and son-in-law and (b) his strong support for Israel, as opposed to (a) Hillary’s strong support for Max and Sidney Blumenthal and Huma Abedin, all of whom dislike Israel and (b) her repeatedly hostile acts toward Israel. I know which is the anti-Semite in this campaign and it’s not Trump.

He would therefore put at risk our way of life, our freedoms, and our alliances. His reckless behavior has already undermined America’s standing internationally. His proposed embrace of some bad actors and his provocations toward others, his dangerous views on the use of weapons of mass destruction, his failure to understand how the global economy works, his lack of appreciation for the importance of alliances, and his temperamental defects all suggest that were he to claim the Oval Office, he would be a destabilizing force that would undercut American leadership instantly and for generations to come. His spotty track record as a businessman compounds these flaws further still.

That’s all blah-blah. 

Indeed, we are not the first to say it, but Trump is the worst major-party candidate this republic has ever produced.

This is true only if you do not believe that America should be a strong, independent nation powered by patriotism and dedicated to the proposition that all men  and women are created equal, and that the government needs to stop Balkanizing America, and using its money and power to play various constituent groups off against each other.

Fortunately, not only is Trump opposed by a worthy candidate, but his opponent is, on foreign-policy and national security issues — all of the areas we cover here at FP — one of the best qualified candidates this country has produced since World War II. As first lady, New York senator, and secretary of state, Hillary Clinton regularly distinguished herself by her intelligence, dogged work ethic, ability to work across the political aisle, and leadership on difficult issues. She has devoted her entire life to public service and has been a powerful and effective advocate for women, children, and those in need at home and abroad. Whether you agree with all the policy stances of her campaign or not, impartial eyes will conclude that her proposals on climate change, combating terrorism, and human rights are thoughtful and comprehensive — and ultimately worthy of consideration.

Oh, puh-leeze! I laughed so hard when I read this that I almost choked. What does FP say are Hillary’s accomplishments: She’s smart, dogged, can work with Republicans (who are also globalists), and *giggle, cough* has some undefined leadership skills. Oh, and yes, she’s always worked for government, mouthing platitudes about women and children. She wants to channel more taxpayer money to climate change even as the science consistently refutes the theory, refuses to talk about Islamic terrorism (and wants to disarm Americans in the face of it), and her idea of human rights is to call half the American population “deplorable.”  Oh, God!  If it weren’t such a dangerous joke, that paragraph would be one of the funniest I’ve ever read.

As you think of those “*ahem* “qualifications,” please think of this too: Libya; Syria; ISIS; al Shabaab; a nuclear, hegemonic Iran; the failed Russian reset; the dud that was HillaryCare; the more dangerous dud that was the Arab Spring under her and Obama’s aegis; and every lie and act of misconduct in which she’s engaged during her almost 40 years in the eye of American politics. 

Hillary Clinton is a quality candidate who is unquestionably well-prepared to lead this country. What is more, we do not think it is a small thing that by her election she will be righting a deep wrong that has compromised U.S. democracy since its inception: the exclusion of women from its highest offices. Were she to be elected as this country’s first woman president, not only would it be historic and send an important signal about both inclusiveness and Americans’ commitment to electing candidates who have distinguished themselves on their merits, but she would enter office having already put down one great threat to the United States of America — the grotesque and deeply disturbing prospect of a Donald Trump presidency.

And there, of course, is Hillary’s main qualification: The vagina. She can’t bear to hear Trump refer to vaginas, but it’s the first item on her political resume. 

Remember:  This election is a hinge-point election. After it happens, it’s not business as usual.

If Hillary wins, we go down the path Obama started, one that sees borders erased, the Supreme Court entirely populated by people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who does not support the American Constitution), the Second Amendment eviscerated, religious freedom subordinated entirely to sexual identity politics, the unstoppable rise of radical Islam, the destruction of the middle class through increased government control and higher taxes, socialized medicine, and America’s subordination to the UN and the tinpot tyrants who hold sway there.

If Donald wins, we return to a more 20th century America, one with stable borders, a Supreme Court that has at least some justices who believe in the Constitution, a strong Second Amendment, religious freedom, a strong defense against radical Islam, lower taxes on businesses and the middle class, market-driven medicine, and a sovereign government that is not letting the UN determine its laws and policy at home and abroad.

No matter your distaste for Donald, the vulgarian, please remember that he is a patriot and that the utterly corrupt, incompetent Hillary is a globalist whose ultimate goal is to have America turn into its own little Eurabia.