“Clinton to Paint Trump as a Risk to World Order.”
Thus did page one of Thursday’s New York Times tee up Hillary Clinton’s big San Diego speech on foreign policy.
Inside the Times, the headline was edited to underline the point:
“Clinton to Portray Trump as Risk to the World.”
The Times promoted the speech as “scorching,” a “sweeping and fearsome portrayal of Mr. Trump, one that the Clinton campaign will deliver like a drumbeat to voters in the coming months.”
What is happening here?
Shame is the hallmark of a lost civilization. Mislaid ethics is the cause of tolerating generational political corruption. The vast majority of docile bottom feeders live in apathetic denial. Their bewildered love for the congenital Clinton family crime syndicate is the sure sign that America has shed all decency and honorable values. Refusal to address the overwhelming evidence of habitual offenses against all reasonable standards of morality is proof that the mentally ill Clinton supporters have forfeited any claim of being taken serious.
Leave it up to God to judge Dubya’s soul, but for the rest of us mere mortals assessing his politics is not just sport, it is essential survival protection. The loony left is taking delight in his recent troubles. True to human nature, the rat pack has suspect motives, even when outrage is the fitting response. As usual, the bleeding heart utopians fail to understand the game that is playing itself out. Their idea of a villain is that bad old conservative President. Their kind of hero is that lip biting, “I feel your pain” philanderer. A womanizer is the next best thing to having a woman President. Well, here we go again! Wrong on all counts.
In the past weeks, Mr. Trump, you have had bit of tough luck. Some of the Republican establishment is warming to you, for example, and the Neocon/Israel First senators Lindsey Graham and Robert Corker have said you seem like a nice guy. On the positive side, though, you have pledged full protection of the indispensable 2nd Amendment and presented an excellent list of potential Supreme Court justices, men and women who would apply the Constitution as it was written, and would not legislate from the bench, invent endless numbers of new “rights”, facilitate the presidency’s steady growth toward being a tyrant’s post, or give legal preference to the every new crackpot minority that seems to cross the stage monthly.
The confusion that exists in today’s mercurial society is a direct result of not understanding the nature of individual human rights. All valid authority is based upon willing consent. The cornerstone of human being personhood is the inalienable right of self-defense. This indisputable principle is under attack on all fronts by the “Politically Correct” authoritarians who see the individual as an inconvenient impediment to their bizarre vision of a social order based upon compelled obedience to a global agenda of destructive myths and false promises of a utopian world.
The wackos that believe that Barack Hussein Obama is a political rock star are blind to reality. It would be one thing if eccentric characteristics shaped such opinions of social outcasts, but when entire segments of the MTV population speak in a PBS lisp, the liberal popular culture has drunk the kool aid. The zombie rage in flicks is no accident. Converting entire generations of lost souls into National Civilian Service Corps NSA informants is an effortless task, when government schooled illiterates adore Barry Soetoro. Turning a constitutional republic into a collectivist gulag is only possible, when the greater fool principle becomes the law of the land.
“Crooked Hillary” is not just a nickname; it is a way of life. For the latest generation of indoctrinated millennials, who were educated in the black hole of Clinton’s actual political conduct for decades, the notion of selling out real national security for funding her family slush fund may be hard to swallow. For hard core Clintonistas, the practice of trading favors for money is politics 101, taught in the book from “Chinagate”. Lest you forget, “the transfer of America’s most sensitive technology, including but not limited to nuclear missile and satellite technology, apparently in exchange for millions of dollars in contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election effort and the Democratic National Committee”, is a family tradition.
How did it ever come down to abandoning peace keeping and accepting law enforcement by any means? Even the New York Times expresses alarm in, When the Police Go Military.
“The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally bars the military from law enforcement activities within the United States. But today, some local and city police forces have rendered the law rather moot. They have tanks – yes, tanks, often from military surplus, for use in hostage situations or drug raids – not to mention the sort of equipment and training one would need to deter a Mumbai-style guerrilla assault.”
The book, American Amnesia by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson is a pathetic attempt to distort history to support a psychopathic adoration for the merits of massive government. The theme of the dissertation is the rejection of the Thomas Jefferson axiom, “The Government is best when it governs least.” For this duo of academic establishment apologists, the Twentieth century under Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a great success. Coming out of the Yale citadel and the bedlam known as Berkeley, these two mentally challenged government sycophants are a pristine example why engagement with such progressive professors is a journey into the warped minds of historic irrationality.
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only”, is just as true today about the true conservative movement as it was back in Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities, era.
A tolerant culture has long been acclaimed as a righteous society. While most social indoctrination is designed to foster this fanciful theme, few are willing to ask or examine if this is a desirable goal. A valid conclusion rests upon a correct definition of the nature of tolerance and how it applies to natural arrangements and relationships among different groups. Here are four options to consider:
1) the power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions
2) willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others
3) a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior
4) a permissible difference; allowing freedom to move within limits
Trump’s 27 April 2016 speech on foreign policy is not perfect; indeed, parts of it merit strong criticism. But Trump has now said to the American people what no one, save Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, has been willing to say since 1945. That is, the U.S. government exists for only two reasons: (a) to pursue and defend the republic’s genuine national security interests and to wage war only as a last resort, and then slay without mercy those who dared attack them, and (b) to protect and advance the well-being, jobs, liberties, unity, and prosperity of American citizens. In short, Trump seems to believe — as did the Founders — that if the U.S. national government does not make the furtherance of America’s interests its first and absolute priority, it has, to paraphrase Mr. Jefferson, no possible reason to exist, and its citizens, in turn, have every possible justification, and the unavoidable moral and legal responsibility to themselves and their posterity, to ruthlessly destroy it and replace it with one that can be relied on to always act only on their behalf and in their interests.