Friday, August 5, 2016

"A Big Got Damned Difference"

"A Big Got Damned Difference"
by Eric Peters

"A reader– a Libertarian friend– chastises me for supporting Trump over Hillary; for supporting any candidate who isn’t a principled Libertarian. I thought some of you might be interested in a principled Libertarian’s thoughts on this business:

Dear X –

Here’s a stark difference to consider: Hillary is a murderer. A mass murderer. By proxy, yes– but a murderer, nonetheless. Eager to have people killed. Arguably, more guilty of murder than Julius Streicher– who was hanged for merely inciting murderous hatred. Hillary has ordered people killed. Has literally reveled in the murder-by-sodomy of Quaddafi, which she helped to orchestrate. Things even Obama hasn’t dared, Hillary will do– lustily. If you can’t see it in her eyes, then listen to her words. Obama, somewhat to his credit, does not appear to be enthusiastic about killing people. Watch this video of Hillary:

Trump’s narcissism is a pop rock compared with the sing-song psychopathy revealed here. She is an obvious psychopath. Worse than The Chimp, even. And The Chimp was pretty got-damned awful.

Trump is arrogant, a blowhard. He may be a dick. But he hasn’t killed anyone that I am aware of, either himself or by proxy. He doesn’t seem eager to get the US involved in more wars. Hillary does. If she is elected, more people will die– a certainty. With Trump, they may not.

That’s a big got-damned difference, in my book.

Here’s another: If elected, Hillary will, for a certainty, pick at least two and probably three Supreme Court justices who share her Mao/Stalin/Hitler-esque views on the right of other-than-government-workers to possess firearms. You and I and other not-government-workers who currently possess firearms will almost certainly be declared criminals by judicial (or executive) fatwa if that woman is elected. She will do everything within her power– which will be effectively limitless – to disarm us and criminalize us if we object. Roll these names over in your head: Justice Feinstein… Justice Schumer… Justice Obama.

Trump seems disinclined to disarm us. He has consistently defended our right to possess firearms. It is probable he would select justices who share his views. He almost certainly would not appoint someone like Feinstein, Schumer or Obama to the Supreme Court.

That’s a big got-damned difference, in my book.

I do not think Trump would attempt to forcibly “diversify” every county, town and neighborhood in the country– by forcibly importing the Section 8 divisions of the Free Sh*t Army. Or by importing “refugees” into every nook and cranny of America. Trump appears to believe in free association. We know for a fact that Hillary does not believe in free association.

That, too, is a big got-damned difference in my book.

Which of the two do you suppose is more likely to defend and expand Obamacare? There is a decent chance that Trump would at least attempt to dismantle it. Do you think there is any chance Hillary will attempt to dismantle Obamacare? Keep in mind that Obamacare provides the necessary pretext for the government-insurance mafia combine to control and micromanage every aspect of our lives. It is the end of whatever privacy/autonomy as individuals we still retain. Some of you may recall that when Hillary was first lady and pushing the precursor to Obamacare, she proposed making it a criminal offense to seek (or provide) medical treatment outside the government “plan.”  With Hillary, Obamacare is forever. And will become much worse. With Trump, maybe not.

That is a big got-damned difference.

Yes, I understand that Trump is not a Libertarian; I agree that he has authoritarian tendencies of his own. But– for the first time in my lifetime– there appears to be a meaningful choice between these two candidates. It is not a question of slightly less or slightly more government– the usual “dime’s worth” of difference between a Republican and a Democrat candidate for the presidency. In which case it has always (my view) been the right thing to either opt out and give sanction to neither or (better) “throw away” one’s vote on a principled candidate such as Harry Browne or Ron Paul. Because in those cases, it has not been a case of life or death. Literally. And, figuratively.

If Hillary is elected, it will mean the end of whatever remained of America as it was formerly constituted. Our vassalage will be complete. There will be nothing left to us except to do as we are told.

I understand wanting to support a principled Libertarian. Even better, not having to support anyone for Dear Leader as Libertarians aren’t interested in Dear Leaders of any species, whether “conservative” or “liberal.” But lives are literally at stake here. Possibly, millions of them. Not just the murdered in Hillary’s certain wars but our lives, too.  Disarmed, criminalized, controlled and micromanaged without limit.

That’s the choice bearing down on us. I think Libertarians have an obligation to do whatever they can to avoid the fulfillment of everything Hillary stands for– even if it means holding our noses and voting for Trump. Because if we don’t, Hillary will win. In which case we lose. Perhaps, forever."

"Former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne, author of the new book Crisis of Character, which examines Hillary Clinton's conduct under his watch, appeared on Monday's broadcast of FOX News Channel's Hannity. Byrne talked Hillary Clinton's temperament, her "terrified staff," Bill Clinton carrying on affairs, drug use in the White House and more with host Sean Hannity.

Byrne said Clinton was feared by her staff and was notorious for her yelling. Byrne told Hannity that she has "blown up" at him and other Secret Service agents. "She gets angry at things that are policy issues that, you know, take time to fix, and she's got this attitude where she wants things fixed right now, immediately. She screams and yells at people," Byrne said."
“In 2012, Hillary Clinton was admitted to the hospital for a blood clot. This health scare was related to a concussion that she had experienced earlier. At the time, it was one of many physical struggles that Clinton experienced, raising questions about her ability to be president of the United States. According to the Wall Street Journal: "On Dec. 15, the State Department said she had suffered a concussion after fainting due to dehydration associated with her stomach virus."

Now, in July 2016, here is footage of Hillary Clinton supposedly having a "seizure" on camera. She was ushered out by her security. Interestingly enough, I have not seen or read or heard about any of this from the national media or press... (Of course not - CP)

Potentially because it is "bad humor" on her part, and not an actual scare. If she was just trying to joke around, why aren't liberals and SJWs and the media criticizing her the same way the criticized Trump for joking about a seizure? Also, I do not believe that this was a brain freeze, as she did not drink it until after the fidgeting around.”
"Hillary Clinton is proving without a shadow of a doubt that she is completely and utterly out of her mind. According to New York Post “Bill Clinton and Hillary’s campaign team are concerned that her anger may surface at the wrong time,” the Post reported. “They are concerned that she could have a serious meltdown in front of TV cameras, which would make her look so out of control that voters would decide she doesn’t have the temperament to be commander in chief.”

Last fall, when her poll numbers were slipping in the race against Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders, the New York Post reported: “Hillary is furious — and while Clinton advisers think that may save her, it’s making the lives of those who work for her hell.” “Hillary’s been having screaming, childlike tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work,” a campaign aide told the Post. “She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she’s become shrill and, at times, even violent.”

Forget the sheer and absolute idiocy of voting for Clinton simply because she's a woman, ok? If you truly are that stupid and closed-minded then it's pointless offering objective, factual evidence as to her character- including honesty, which demonstrably does not exist in any way, shape or form with her; history- how many scandals do you need?; or health, which is clearly an issue. You'll simply tune it out. 

The real question remains, however: Do you consider this person "fit" to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the military? I, for one, do not, and cannot, based on all the evidence I've seen, which you'd be well advised to consider for yourself.

All things considered, given the only two realistically viable choices, I must very reluctantly concur with Eric Peters above: "That’s the choice bearing down on us. I think Libertarians have an obligation to do whatever they can to avoid the fulfillment of everything Hillary stands for– even if it means holding our noses and voting for Trump. Because if we don’t, Hillary will win. In which case we lose. Perhaps, forever."
- CP

No comments:

Post a Comment