Posts Tagged ‘social justice’

I have not voted for one of the major two party candidates for President since ’92. Back then it was Bill Clinton (D), who got my vote. For many reasons I chose to not make what I considered a mistake a second time. From 1992 till now I have not voted for either of the two Party’s candidates for the Big Chair.

This year’s election cycle is much different from most, this year’s candidates are very, very different from most, and the things the next President will be responsible for handling are of such consequence that I will be making the hard choice. I must ignore my reservations about Hillary Clinton AND my absolute, fundamental disagreements with her social ideas, her economic policies and, indeed her ‘approach’ – mostly via her surrogates in the Liberal Water Carrier media – for presenting the case against her opponent, one Donald J. Trump.

country-893231_960_720

 

Yes, Hillary Clinton IS a liar, perhaps a compulsive one. Yes, Hillary Clinton’s email/server fiasco WAS and IS criminal. Yes, Hillary Clinton’s record as Secretary Of State was abysmal. Yes, Hillary Clinton’s likely appointees to the Supreme Court fill me with trepidation and dread. Finally, yes, Hillary Clinton’s fundamental hypocrisy vis her economics (Goldman Sachs speeches, anyone?) and her clear dis-ingenuousness over  her alleged support for the Middle Class, the poor, and ‘Social Justice’ makes my skin crawl.

This and yet…we have one Donald J. Trump.

There is no contest, not when the primary job of the President is to serve as Commander-In-Chief of our military, to enter the US into Treaties, and to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.

There is no contest.  I will ignore my disagreements with her on policy, my fear of her likely SCOTUS appointments, and my reservations about her character, BECAUSE we have one Donald J. Trump.

Before I give my reasons for voting FOR Hillary Clinton, I shall make my case for why I am NOT voting for Donald Trump. I will deal with all the main arguments made in support of him by way of a series of questions his supporters SHOULD grapple with.

On the issue of the Supreme Court: Trump has explicitly stated his support & admiration for judges who are, objectively, Liberal. What evidence exists that he will NOT nominate a Liberal – or several?  On this, it is a wash, as Mrs. Clinton will all but certainly nominate only liberals.

On the issue of immigration and on refugees: Trump has ‘modified’ (and then had to ‘clarify’ those ‘modifications’) his positions on refugees AND on immigration policies, often within a matter of days between changes. At times even within the same speech. What evidence exists to indicate he will support policy that is positive vis national security & economy and what evidence exists that one can make use of to know which of the many versions he has proposed that he will eventually support? On this, it is a wash. His policies MAY be different than hers,  though we have no idea what they are today and no way of knowing what they will be tomorrow, but the ones he HAS come out for thus far are nearly universally panned by experts on National Security and covert intelligence as being counter productive to our overall interests vis Radical Islam. The have been panned also by pro free market economic experts as counter productive to our interests vis jobs and growth.

Trump has been all over the board vis tax policy. What evidence exists that one can make use of to know what policy he will eventually support? Trump has showed a penchant and admiration for Big Government authority and a contempt for free market capitalism (via his own crony capitalism) his entire career. What evidence exists by which one can know that he will do ANYTHING positive in relation to the private sector to boost employment, help employers raise wages or to deal with our broken Tax Code? Why would he? He has benefited from said brokenness  and from the crony capitalism it creates his entire career.

The primary arguments folks make for Trump, his ‘expertise’ on economics and his “strength” in dealing with our adversaries, are smoke and mirrors. The man is not only no ‘expert’, the things he supports – on the days when he does – will have the opposite of the stated intended effect. He knows it, too.

He cannot be as ‘smart’ as he himself alleges if he does not know it. I believe he knows, and I believe that he does not care.

But I do not vote AGAINST a candidate, I vote FOR one. I shall be voting for Hillary Clinton. Let me tell you why.

Radical Islam.

As I previously stated, the primary job of the President is to serve as the Commander-In-Chief. Unlike in 1992, when I voted for Mrs. Clinton’s husband, or in 1996, when I chose to NOT vote for him (I believe I chose wisely), and unlike from 1996 till now when I have voted for NO major party candidate, today we have the specter of an organized, fully all-in,  worldwide and murderous Radical Islam.

Mrs. Clinton, if need be, will do what Trump will not and she is guaranteed to NOT do things he certainly will, namely to ostracize more non violent Muslims whom we need if we ever intend to actually fight Radical Islam. And now that Radical Islam is everywhere, including here in the Homeland, fight it we must.

Tackling the ideology of Radical Islam and completely destroying its practitioners IS the number one job our nation faces today. All other issues are irrelevant if there is no tomorrow. There will be no tomorrow if there is no US to guarantee that it will come – that is what we do – and there will be no US if Radical Islam succeeds. Despite claims otherwise, they are indeed winning today.

War against Radical Islam. The choice of who will lead the fight is between Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump. I’d normally vote libertarian for most offices, but today that is no option. On the whole the Libertarian Party refuses to recognize the reality of the threat, so the choice is clear.

Consider this: On the issue of Radical Islam and its most successful incarnation – ISIS – Donald Trump claims he “knows more about ISIS than the {US} Generals”. I submit that this arrogant, absurd and dismissive statement alone disqualifies Donald Trump to ever give a single order from the Big Chair.

Consider this also: Though her former boss, President Barack Obama, clearly has little stomach for this fight, Mrs. Clinton has shown herself to be fairly hawkish by comparison, much to the chagrin of her supporters on the extreme Left.

Finally, there is the issue that rises above all others in relation to what we may eventually have to decide:

IF it becomes necessary to take the fight all the way with the ultimate ‘fist as argument’ approach…when and/or IF it becomes clear that no amount of reasoning and no amount of counter propaganda will prevent ever more young Muslims from being radicalized…IF it is clear that the march of Radical Islam cannot be stopped by all other tools at our disposal…..IF we must decide whether to Go Nagasaki on Riyadh, on Raqqa, or on any space where Radical Islam’s Caliphate finally settles, who is the person we want as Commander-In-Chief?

Donald J. Trump has shown a demonstrable lack of courage (indeed, a lack of basic knowledge) on the President’s number one hard choice. We may well end up needing a Harry Truman in the Oval Office. With his vacillation and his two steps on the issue of Nuclear First Strike, we have instead a Herbert Hoover.

The choice is clear: Hillary Clinton, an unknown quantity vis hard choices, or Donald Trump, a man incapable of simply stating he will make the hard choice if need be. The Donald is attempting to hold opposing positions simultaneously in his mind. His conflicting premises on this – the most important of all issues facing any President – is,  I submit, irrationality unworthy of a Commander-In-Chief and deadly in its consequence.

Risk vs. Reward.

The choice is clear.

On Tuesday, November 8th I will be pulling the lever for a Democrat (and for one of the two major parties) for the first time in nearly a quarter century.

I will do so with a clear conscience.

Choose wisely, folks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pink triangle worn by gay prisoner of Nazis during WWII - Image courtesy of Padraig Rooney ( http://padraigrooney.com/blog/ )

Pink triangle worn by gay prisoner of Nazis during WWII – Image courtesy of Padraig Rooney ( http://padraigrooney.com/blog/ )

As I write this ten days have passed since the Supreme Court of the United States granted to same-sex couples throughout the Republic the same legal benefits and responsibilities of civil marriage available to straight couples. I have written previously  of why I will not wave the rainbow flag and my views on marriage, and about the attitude and actions of many gay people chasing down alleged ‘rights’.

I’d like to speak now of why I think many gay people, rather than feel grateful that the culture at large has become supportive of us, instead feel compelled to force those few folks who do not support gay marriage or gay relationships to either change their minds or pay in dollars, ostracism and loss of basic liberties. (more…)

image

While I’m no fan of President Obama, and while I think his actions have at times pressed (and occasionally surpassed) the boundaries of his Constitutional authority – not to mention those of common sense and good governance – I’m not one to let dangerous, deceitful, and downright ludicrous allegations about this or any President go unchallenged.

It’s well past time that those of us with a non Liberal perspective stand up to say “enough” to conspiracy theorists and fear mongering when it comes to Obama. If folks present facts and a cogent argument against a President’s policies or his actions, I’m all there to hear them.

When accusations, smears and/or paranoia driven speculation are substituted for reason and a cogent argument, however, I want none of it.

(more…)

image

The Grand Jury decision to not indict in the Ferguson, Missouri case has sparked outrage in Ferguson. It has created ripple effects across the country. Despite the fact that the evidence and testimony heard by the Grand Jury is now freely available, and despite the fact that objective analysis of the facts must lead rational observers to the same conclusion as that of the St. Louis County Grand Jury, folks remain angry, frustrated and doubtful.

Much of the objection to the decision of the Grand Jury boils down to three interrelated arguments: the officer should not have used deadly force because Michael Brown was unarmed, complaints about the number of shots fired, and woven throughout is disbelief that Michael Brown would have or did attack Officer Wilson. This denial that Brown was the aggressor is the crux of his family’s anger at Officer Wilson and is the underlying premise held by Vox founder Ezra Klein.

Throughout his public life Vox.com founder Ezra Klein has said and done some less than well thought out things (Hunter shan’t repeat President Obama’s error and say Klein acted ‘stupidly’). From Klein’s ethically troubling JournoList to his bizarre notion that a sitting Senator, out of spite, would let folks die as political payback – the blogger cum wannabe journalist isn’t exactly a Mensa brain trust or moral leader. However, in his recent article expressing doubt in the testimony of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, Klein moves himself outside the realm of credibility.

Klein’s doubt of Officer Wilson’s testimony and the decision of the Grand Jury approaches a lunatic quality previously seen only in the likes of UFO abductees and 9/11 Truthers.

(more…)