What if Trump loses ?

The election news is starting to suggest to me that Trump may well lose the election to Hillary. What would that mean?

Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person to get this close to the presidency since Aaron Burr.

he blamed Hamilton for besmirching him as a candidate, and, eager to defend his honor, challenged Hamilton to a duel. Hamilton accepted, and the face-off took place on the morning of July 11, 1804; it ended when Burr shot Hamilton to death. Though the public cried murder, Burr was let off, and after laying low for a while, he was able to complete his vice-presidential term.

What then?

In 1807, Burr was brought to trial on charges of conspiracy and high misdemeanor, for leading a military charge against Spanish territory and for trying to separate territories from the United States. Chief Justice John Marshall acquitted Burr on the treason charge and eventually revoked his misdemeanor indictment, but the conspiracy scandal left Burr’s political career in ruins.

Final Years

Burr spent the four years following his trial traveling throughout Europe, attempting unsuccessfully to garner support for revolutionizing Mexico and freeing the Spanish colonies.

Burr was a traitor after having his ambitions thwarted.

We all know Hillary’s story. She was a student radical at Wellesley and her senior thesis was on Saul Alinsky.

The thesis was sympathetic to Alinsky’s critiques of government antipoverty programs, but criticized Alinsky’s methods as largely ineffective, all the while describing Alinsky’s personality as appealing.[4] The thesis sought to fit Alinsky into a line of American social activists, including Eugene V. Debs, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Walt Whitman. Written in formal academic language, the thesis concluded that “[Alinsky’s] power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts” and that Alinsky’s model had not expanded nationally due to “the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict.”

Her sympathies are clear. What will she be like as president if she wins?

We know she is dishonest by most definitions of the term.

She evaded the law on security when she accepted the position of Secretary of State. Her security detail at State, rebelled at her ignoring security rules, and her personal abusive style. The latter was well known from her time in the White House as First Lady.

During her interview, the agent said Clinton treated agents rudely and with contempt, and was so unpleasant that senior agents typically avoided being on her security detail.

“[Redacted] explained that CLINTON’s treatment of DS agents on her protective detail was so contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere,” the interview summary says. “Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find senior agents willing to work for her.”

The same attitude was described in FBI agent Gary Aldrich’s book “Unlimited Access.” From one Amazon review:

As one of two FBI agents permanently assigned to the White House, one of his responsibilities was to do the background checks on White House staff and advisors. At almost every turn, he was stonewalled and not allowed to do even perfunctory checks of Clinton’s friends and associates… Though it is supposed to be complete within 90 days of the new President assuming office, many people never did get properly “vetted”.

The White House Travel Office was a bipartisan fixture in the White House until Hillary fired the employees and installed her cousin and cronys.

Soon after her husband became president in 1993, first lady Hillary Clinton allegedly engineered the firing of seven employees of the White House travel office and the hiring of a firm with ties to the Clintons to replace them. Multiple investigations absolved the president of involvement but Hillary Clinton was found to have made false statements to investigators.

The dismissed head of the office refused to accept the smears she alleged and went to trial. He was acquitted.

Billy R. Dale, a White House official fired for allegedly mismanaging staff and press travel arrangements, was acquitted Thursday by a federal court jury of charges that he embezzled $68,000.

Culminating a 13-day trial, jurors decided in less than two hours that federal prosecutors had failed to prove charges that Dale stole funds paid to his office by reporters and photographers who traveled with the President.

A White House employee for more than 30 years, Dale broke into tears as the verdict was announced.

Dale, 58, was at the center of a Clinton Administration travel office fiasco two years ago that resulted in seven employees being fired, and later in reprimands for those responsible for the dismissals.

The 1993 dismissals were inspired by complaints of mismanagement from Catherine Cornelius, a distant cousin of the President, and Hollywood producer Harry Thomason, a close friend of Clinton’s.

Cornelius wanted a more powerful job in the travel office, and Thomason was seeking a federal aviation contract.

A pattern was established for Hillary Clinton. It continued during her term as Secretary of State.

In 2005, Bill Clinton and Frank Giustra visited Kazakhstan. Giustra is a massive donor to the Clinton Foundation.

Giustra’s goal was to buy uranium mines in Kazakhstan. To this end, he and Bill Clinton met with leaders of the Kazakhstan government.

As a result of the visit, Giustra got major mining concessions, which were approved by the Kazakhstan government. Kazakhstan got Bill Clinton publicly to praise its alleged progress in democracy and human rights. The Clintons received a $31 million donation to their Foundation from Giustra, along with a pledge to donate $100 million more.

The deal with Kazakhstan made Giustra’s company, Uranium One, a major player. It proceeded to buy large amounts of holdings in the United States, and became an attractive target for Russia. A Russian company made a hugely attractive offer to purchase the company. Uranium One agreed to the purchase. The Russians bought 20% of US Uranium deposits.

The deal required approval by the U.S. government, including by the Secretary of State — Hillary Clinton. During the period when the deal with Russia was under consideration, the Clinton Foundation reportedly $2.6 million from Uranium One. Its contributions were not disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Hillary had reached with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.

There are so many examples of collusion between the “Clinton Foundation” and donors seeking influence that there is not room for all of them.

What about Policy Matters ? One is gun control and the Second Amendment.

She has made different statements to different audiences.

Unknowingly caught on tape, Clinton supporter and former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold said “there might be executive orders” if a President Hillary Clinton cannot get gun control measures through bipartisan opposition in Congress.

Conservative commentator David Webb told Tucker Carlson, Abby Huntsman and Clayton Morris on Fox & Friends that the revelation “just goes to show the way [Clinton Democrats] approach things” like gun control.

What will she do about terrorism ? She says the usual thing.

We have to defeat ISIS on the battlefield by:

1. Intensifying the coalition air campaign against ISIS fighters, leaders, and infrastructure;
2. Stepping up support for local Arab and Kurdish forces on the ground and coalition efforts to protect civilians; and
3. Pursuing a diplomatic strategy aimed at resolving Syria’s civil war and Iraq’s sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias—both of which have contributed to the rise of ISIS.

This seems unrealistic. The Russians have just about secured Assad in place. In return they have acquired ports on the Mediterranean Sea, an old Russian aim. Russia has wanted that Mediterranean port for over a century. For a while, Russian success was in doubt.

The memo filed to the State Department’s “dissent channel” seems to have assumed that Russia would basically remain passive if the United States intervened further in Syria. In a leaked draft of the cable, its signatories caveated their advocacy for military action by saying, “We are not advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia.” They acknowledged “the risk of further deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations” and the possibility of “a number of second-order effects” from military intervention.

I don’t think that is going to happen. Obama’s fecklessness has convinced the Russians we will do nothing. That is dangerous, especially if a President Clinton thinks she can move them out. That ship sailed years ago.

What about the Saudis ? They have donated millions to the Clinton Foundation, the usual conduit for bribes. What were they buying ?

an Associated Press investigation revealing that while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state, more than half of the private citizens she met with during the reporting period had donated to the Clinton Foundation. The AP investigation comes after a three-year battle to gain access to State Department calendars. The analysis shows that at least 85 of 154 people Hillary Clinton had scheduled phone or in-person meetings with were foundation donors. We speak to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept. His most recent piece is headlined “Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?”

The Saudis were essential allies after Iran fell in 1979. That is undoubtedly the reason we have tolerated their funding of Wahhabi Muslim agitation and terrorism. Now, the fracking revolution, opposed by the Democrats and the Saudis who want to prevent energy independence by the West.

New shale oil discoveries “are threats to any oil-producing country in the world,” said Prince Alwaleed in an interview with The Globe and Mail. “It is a pivot moment for any oil-producing country that has not diversified. Ninety-two percent of Saudi Arabia’s annual budget comes from oil. Definitely it is a worry and a concern.”

Those who oppose fracking, seeking to stop it on the unproven assertion that it pollutes ground water or causes need to take a deep breath here. Saudi Arabia has been funding the poison of Wahhabi Islam’s spread throughout the world, building mosques, providing textbooks, and paying for imams to both gain converts and convert existing Muslims to the fundamentalist doctrines of the desert extremists: extreme subjugation of women, deep hatred of Jews, and jihad, peaceful when effective and violent whenever it appears advantageous.

Thanks to the miracle of fracking, we have in prospect the breaking of the Muslim world’s stranglehold on the world economy, making it possible for Western democracies to grow a spine and stand up to the oil-powered theocrats who want to extinguish other religions and impose their seventh century way of life on the globe.

I agree. So what will Hillary do ? Mother Jones says she is against it.

She’s against it “when any locality or any state is against it,” “when the release of methane or contamination of water is present,” and “unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.”

Until those conditions are met, “we’ve got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking.”

“By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place,” she added.

I think the NeverTrump Hillary voters think she is lying and that is a fair assumption since she lies about almost everything.

What about “Gender Issues?” NPR thinks it is enough to have a vagina.

“I identify with her immensely; you know, she’s a woman; I’m a woman,” said Chantel Moses, an entrepreneur in New York. “There’s a lot of tasks that’s associated with being a woman — multi-tasking, making sure that you’re not only able to have a career, but also to provide for your family.”

Moses wants a woman lead the country, but she also wants to ensure a “competent” woman is in charge, she explained.

I could go through a long list of issues but these seem to be the primary ones. Personally, I think her election would be a disaster but we have to be realistic. Trump has brought out large crowds but so did Romney the last few weeks in 2012.

On immigration, we have her assurance that opposition to unlimited immigration is “unAmerican.” That is probably the most stark contrast with Trump.

On healthcare, Hillary’s big issue in the 1990s and the one that cost Bill the Congress in 1994, Phil Gramm has the best prediction, I think.

The Achilles’ heel of ObamaCare today is the same weakness that felled HillaryCare—the coercion required to force millions of young, healthy people into the exchanges where they can be exploited. Why the Republican majority in Congress has never forced a vote on health-care freedom, giving families the right—promised by President Obama and his Democratic allies—to choose not to participate in ObamaCare and to buy the health care of their choice independent of the exchanges, remains the greatest mystery of the 114th Congress.

Obama evaded the issue of freedom in 2009 by lying to the American people. “If you like your healthcare….”

For the ObamaCare of today to be transformed into the HillaryCare of 1993 and finally into a nationalized health-care system, a president is needed who has the willpower to impose the coercive details, nail down hard deadlines and unleash agencies to tighten controls and squeeze the life out of private insurers. In 1993 Hillary Clinton unapologetically proposed to do just that. If she is elected president she will have the unilateral power under ObamaCare to do it. The loss of what remains of Americans’ health-care freedom is an election away.

I agree.

Comments are closed.