Trump vs. Clinton: a Risk vs. a Disaster

Two weeks left to go in the election and the electorate feels like a battered NFL fan. The game gets increasingly old and tiring to watch, and playing it can inflict permanent brain damage.

Democrats can be counted upon to call the Republican opponent racist, whether the opponent is the priestly Mitt Romney or the Supreme Court justice who wrote the Dred Scott decision. Donald Trump, you see, is "racist" because, among other reasons, at a campaign stop he pointed to a black man and called him "my African-American." Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is not anti-Semitic, even though three witnesses, one of whom took and passed a polygraph, claim that she referred to her husband's former congressional campaign manager as a "f---ing Jew bastard."

With a Republican candidate, the media can be counted upon to seize upon any deficiencies -- big or small, real or imagined -- while giving the Democrat a pass. So Trump's "failure to ever apologize" outweighs an examination of Clinton's flat-out lie during the third debate when she insisted that the Supreme Court Heller case was about "toddlers," as opposed to the fundamental issue of whether the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.

In Heller, nowhere in the majority decision or in any of the dissenting decisions does the word "toddler" appear. Clinton, a year ago, flat-out said, "The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment." To normal people, this meant she opposed what the decision ruled on which, again, was whether we, as individuals, have a right to keep and bear arms.

Meanwhile, we learn more and more about what the media labels an "email scandal," when the accurate description is "national security scandal." The Espionage Act criminalizes gross negligence in the handling of important national security matters. The law does not require, as FBI Director James Comey falsely stated, an "intent." Nor is it relevant, as Clinton insists, whether or not her private server, the one she maintained in her basement, was "hacked."

Five people who worked with or for Clinton, including her chief of staff, all received immunity deals, something normally given to get someone to flip on a target. Some of the five were involved in deleting emails after the emails were subpoenaed. But the "target," that is to say Hillary Clinton, was deemed by Comey to have lacked sufficient criminal intent to be prosecuted. So why the immunity deals? Who knows -- and as far as most of the media are concerned, who cares?

Clinton insists that "President Obama doesn't get enough credit" for the swell job he did with economy. This would be the economy in which, for the first time in history, a president has presided over a recovery without a single year of at least 3 percent growth in gross domestic product. This would be the same economy with an alleged low unemployment number that Gallup CEO Jim Clifton calls "the big lie," given the large number of people who simply abandoned the job hunt or are under-employed.

Meanwhile, it's yet another day in which another woman who alleges she was kissed, groped, touched, or made fun of by Trump has appeared with her attorney, feminist Gloria Allred. Allred, a Clinton supporter, sees no contradiction between representing alleged victims of Trump's sexual misconduct and her support for Clinton, who is alleged to have hired private detectives and lawyers to dig up dirt on her husband's accusers. One such accuser, Juanita Broaddrick, claims not only that she was raped by Bill Clinton but also that two weeks after the alleged rape, Hillary Clinton verbally threatened her.

Hillary Clinton, mind you, has never been asked by anyone in the media about Broaddrick's allegation. Never. And only one national reporter, Sam Donaldson, has ever asked Bill Clinton about Juanita Broaddrick's allegation. Ever. Clinton's answer? He referred Donaldson to his lawyer, David Kendall. Donaldson quickly tried again, asking the then-President to "simply deny it." Same answer: "My attorney ... speaks for me." And that was that.

So Hillary Clinton is a candidate who wants to continue the same policy that's given us the worst recovery since 1949; who has clearly violated the Espionage Act and placed the nation's security at risk; who told the Benghazi victim's families that the death of four Americans was inspired by a video, while telling her daughter and foreign officials something entirely different; whose charitable foundation engaged in pay-to-play in Haiti, so that donors got contracts for disaster relief and non-donors went to the back of the line; who wants to gut the Second Amendment; who wants to continue the same foreign policies that that have encouraged aggressiveness on the part of ISIS, Russia and the Chinese; and whose media compadres, including scribes with The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNBC, have been outed by WikiLeaks as colluding with her campaign. And she is now odds-on favorite to become the next president of the United States.

Thank you for posting Elder's words.

"We, the People"--all the People--need a crash course in how to be equipped to distinguish between the principles that would keep America free and prosperous and the false premises that will enslave us. We must, as well, be able to articulate them.

Accommodating tyranny by failing to call it what it is is dangerous. We need a leader whose words are strong and courageous and based in the principles of our Declaration of Independence--even if he/she may have to call in scholars to clarify the message. In other words, we may have needed a Paul Revere, not a philosopher--who would listen?

American citizens need to wake up to the counterfeit ideas and false "hopes" offered by politicians who use "promises," just as the rest of us use "currency."

They buy votes with "promises" in order to gain power to themselves and their ilk. Then, when "hopes" are dashed, "the people" they have promised to help (the naive, the poor, the ignorant--even the "educated" who are ignorant of liberty vs. tyranny) find themselves enslaved, working for those who have purchased their power in the most despicable manner--by offering "hope and change." Thus it has ever been.

The people who founded America were not so "dumbed down." Hear two of them:

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle [usurpation of power] and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much . . . to forget it." - James Madison

" . . . nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the penshioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, lusury, foppery, selfishness, meanness and downright venality swallow up the whole society." - John Adams

Further, it was not just the founding leaders who were well-informed about their constitution and approaching threats to its protections.

By the Year 1830, when the French jurist Tocqueville traveled America, he wrote admiringly of the citizenry, observing that even the backwoodsman was far more well-read and informed than those in other parts of the world, and that they understood their Constitution, and had with them a Bible and a newspaper. Sadly, beginning in the mid-20th Century, our "government" schools removed the ideas of liberty from the nation's textbooks, largely under the guise of a counterfeit idea of "separation of church and state," and the citizenry is uninformed as to the difference between tyranny and liberty.

Today, with all modern means of communication, Americans possess little understanding of threats to their liberty and, thus, risk losing it to charlatans whose only goal is power and fleeting personal wealth--thinking nothing of posterity.

It’s rather amazing that the Espionage Act has no provision for considering intent, yet in Hillary’s case, the lack of intent exonerates her, according to Comey. Snowden on the other hand, can’t receive a fair trial in America, because a jury wouldn’t be allowed to consider his motives (his intent).

It’s actually breathtaking how hypocritical and inconsistent these criminals are. They literally make the rules up as they go along, and the well-connected will never face justice. Justice is for “little people”.

Btw, Napolitano is on fire today, check out his most recent column:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/10/andrew-p-napolitano/fbi-regimes-secret-police/

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.