Replies

after 8 years of the Kenyan, the Brits are worried about Trump and Cruz.

With all the trouble we face from ill-educated nominal Americans - say nothing of outright scofflaw invaders - what we see in Britain may be worse. Here this writer wrings his hands about whether offense might be taken by Mexican who he admits do not like us - but there is no possibility of his taking offense when an American politician dismisses Churchill, patronizes the head of the British state, and “leads from behind” when actual international leadership is needed if he is not outright sabotaging American international prestige.
It is too much, apparently, to expect The Economist to comprehend that feckless “leadership” has delegitimated the “establishment” of what has traditionally been the more stabilizing party here. While the incumbent POTUS behaves more like “Nixon” than Richard Nixon himself actually in fact did.
The Economist betrays an utter lack of understanding of what was until recently the American constitutional system. There are things which black letter constitutional law says must not be tolerated - and the Democrat party (and its tens of millions of loyal voters!) simply blows them off. Calling them - with the full backing of so-called “objective” journalism - “political” charges. The disgrace of all is that they do so while overloading the sense with their venal behavior, making the body politic susceptible to the belief - the big lie - that where there is that much smoke, there cannot possibly be fire.
“Surely,” The Economist will reply, “you exaggerate greatly.” Ah, if only. The Democrat establishment is firmly behind a person who:

boasted that she was co-president during the period 1993-2001. The letter of the Constitution does not prevent her from being selected president on account of the 22nd Amendment - but the spirit of that amendment certainly would be evaded were she to be elected. A Brit who is dedicated to an unwritten constitution should certainly understand why that would arouse a certain sensitivity. But it is known that literally hundreds and hundreds of counts of a felony - illegally accessing sensitive private information without legitimate cause - were perpetrated in the basement of the White House itself. On Mr. - and Mrs. - Clinton’s watch. No one was held to account criminally for that production-line abuse of Americans’s rights. It is no stretch at all to assume the worst of anyone in the White House while that was being done. Least of all Mrs. Clinton, who fairly oozes scandal from her Arkansas days right up to the very present.

Speaking of misuse of information which is legally required to be closely guarded, Mrs. Clinton has, by all reports, utterly disregarded all safeguards on vulnerable transmission of highly sensitive information via her - or is it actually her husbands’s - personal server. At a minimum, she used this insecure system to evade other legal transparency requirements. It seems certain that - very much like the “FBI Filegate” case I alluded to above, only worse if possible - highly sensitive information was made available to eyes to whom, legally, it was on no account to be exposed. By law, this disqualifies Mrs. Clinton from being hired for any U.S. government position. Let alone the office which she now seeks. And in her book, Hard Choices, Mrs. Clinton is at pains to make clear that when it comes to security measures, she is no babe in the woods - no sir, not her!!

The Constitution prohibits U.S. government employees from accepting payments or gifts of any sort; foreign dignitaries who give the US president gifts must understand that he (as has to date always been the case) accepts them on behalf of the US government and must buy them from that government if he wishes to keep them. But Secretary of State Clinton is far too important to be limited in that way; foreign government money has been laundered into her control by fabulous honoraria for speeches paid to her husband, and via donations to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Note, in the latter case, that it does not matter whether the Foundation actually (contrary to all cynical expectation) spent all its money in legitimately charitable, disinterested ways. Even if that were so, Mrs. Clinton would gain from the constructive results, thanks to the largess of foreign governments. Sheer effrontery.

As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton went home - abandoned the helm - at a time when she did not know how many people under her authority had died, or would die that night. Four, including a US ambassador, in fact died - but it could have been much worse, for all she did to succor them. But even that does not plumb the depths of the depravity involved in the incident, in that incident; Mrs. Clinton conspired with Mr. Obama to lie the the public, blaming an internet video which was utterly unrelated, and leading to the president damning the US Constitution with faint praise in a speech before the United Nations. BTW, as regards the incumbent president’s deference to a particular religion in preference to all others, by executive decree the NASA agency was tasked to flatter muslims. Which, put baldly, is a direct violation of any conception of government religious neutrality stipulated in the Constitution. Its “virtue” being that it disadvantages the religions traditionally respected in the country.
This post is already overlong, and it is yet very far from exhausting its subject.