Columnist.
President Obama, in Greece, said world leaders should learn from the U.S. presidential election and pay attention to the public's fears and frustration about the economy. Why? He never has.
I am uplifted by Tuesday's presidential election results because I believe we have a good chance to start turning things around in the country for the better, from economic issues to social issues and matters of national security and the rule of law. There is one subject, however, I feel compelled to address above many others today, as I see it raised by so many Democratic leaders and many liberals throughout the country — inclusiveness. In their postelection speeches, Hillary Clinton and President Obama both called for unity and inclusiveness. These are very nice-sounding words. But "inclusiveness," like so many other words of the left, is pregnant with implications and accusations. In reality, it has been not an appeal for unity, except in the most superficial sense, but a battle cry to liberals and an indictment of conservatives.
On the abortion issue alone, I believe that Christians should vote for Donald Trump as the only possible candidate to defeat the march of the death culture Hillary Clinton would lead if she were to be elected.
We keep reading that if Donald Trump's personal issues weren't sucking up all the media oxygen, his campaign might get more traction against Hillary Clinton from the WikiLeaks disclosures, but is that really true? Let's concede that the ongoing allegations against Trump are a distraction and damaging to his campaign. Those matters are being litigated, figuratively and literally, so it is hard to argue that news of these allegations is being suppressed.
I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist, but I don't know how reasonable people can fail to recognize the overt collusion of the Obama administration, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party and the liberal media to shield Hillary Clinton from accountability for her many misdeeds and abundant corruption. Perhaps I can be considered a bit of an alarmist, but if I am, so are millions of others when it comes to the dire state of this nation on a number of fronts. We have a staggering national debt, a dangerously declining military and a runaway regulatory state that is suppressing our liberties, insulating government from accountability and helping to smother economic growth.
Each passing day, this presidential election becomes more distasteful, but that doesn't relieve me of my duty to do what I believe is right. During the primaries, there were 17 GOP candidates, and I chose the one I believed would be the best for America. Now my realistic choices have been narrowed to two candidates — Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton — one of whom will be the next president. What does this mean for me? Well, some people on the right faced with this binary choice have concluded they can't in good conscience vote for Trump, no matter how bad Clinton is. Some acknowledge that Clinton is terrible but believe that Trump could do more damage to conservatism and thus the nation in the long run — even more than a Clinton presidency at this precarious moment in our nation's history.
Because of his stellar debate performance, some think Mike Pence was positioning himself for a presidential run in 2020. But if likability still matters, it's likelier that Tim Kaine was taking himself out of the 2020 running. From the very beginning, it was as though Kaine was auditioning for the role of a despicable shyster in some cheesy TV legal drama. And with her frequent interruptions of Pence at key moments, it's also as if debate moderator Elaine Quijano was trying to help him get the part. Kaine focused mainly on three things: smarmily interrupting and taunting Pence, mouthing tired Democratic talking points, and slamming Donald Trump. What is it with Democratic vice presidential candidates such as Kaine and Joe Biden that compels them to act like jerks in these debates?
I realize my biases probably keep me from assessing debates as objectively as some, but I still must dissent a bit from the conventional wisdom on Monday's Trump-Clinton contest. First, as anyone who has consistently read my column knows, I was an ardent supporter of Ted Cruz's and was often critical of Donald Trump, particularly about his debate performances. But Trump won the Republican nomination, and like many others, I have had to regroup and shift my allegiances. I am now going to vote for Trump — irrespective of my sincere criticisms of him during the primaries — without hesitation, mainly because of the horror I envision with a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Hillary Clinton is the worst kind of political animal, one who will exploit anything for political gain, distort facts and shift her positions at will for votes, significantly more than your garden-variety pandering politician. Remember when Clinton was for the Iraq War and then later savaged anyone who believed as she had as if they were reprobates? Remember when she opined that marriage is between a man and a woman? Remember her claim that she left the White House "not only dead broke but in debt"? Her pathetically laughable yarn that she came under sniper fire in Bosnia in the '90s? That all her grandparents were immigrants? That she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, who didn't gain fame for climbing Mount Everest until Clinton was 5 years old? That she applied for the Marines in 1975? Yeah, that's believable. LOL. Oh, and I promise I won't rehash her email and Benghazi lies here.
Many, including me, have lamented that political correctness, especially on university campuses, is undermining free speech. That's true, but I'm not sure that political correctness is the only culprit or that free speech is the only casualty. Most of us have heard about "white privilege," "trigger warnings," "microaggressions" and "safe spaces." Let me provide rough definitions from an online dictionary and other websites. I'm sure that I could be accused of a microaggression for failing to be more precise, but I'm trying.
Are you as sick as I am of seeing the tedious finger-pointing between never-Trumpers and certain Republicans who have decided — many reluctantly — to vote for Donald Trump? I assume that most people on both sides are in good faith and are doing what they believe is in the nation's best interests. I wish people would quit judging the others as immoral or sellouts. That's a bit presumptuous and self-congratulatory for my tastes. I doubt that many people outside the commentator universe are agonizing over the decision to the extent the "professionals" are. To most Republicans and conservatives, voting for Trump over Hillary Clinton is a no-brainer, even if they find Trump distasteful, unpredictable and significantly unreliable.
The stars are finally aligning for a significant shift toward Donald Trump in this presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton is rightfully under siege. The polls have already narrowed, and Trump hit home runs — at least triples — in Mexico City and Phoenix. Each day brings news of another real Clinton scandal — or more information on those already in progress — cumulatively cementing the public's perception that the Clintons are unrivaled among untrustworthy, bloodsucking politicians. On top of all the other Hillary Clinton email bombshells, we've learned that she continued to send classified information from her personal email account after leaving the State Department — just more evidence of her brazenness and her unmitigated arrogance.
Hold on; we may finally be getting some fireworks in this lackluster presidential campaign — as the Clinton Foundation scandal seems to be gathering steam. Could the Clintons finally have to face the music for their adult-lifetime of corruption? Is it possible that Hillary Clinton's lifelong scheme to be America's first female president could be derailed by this power couple's wanton venality? I've watched closely through the years the Clintons' uncanny agility at hurdling real scandals and coming out almost unscathed. Yes, Bill Clinton was impeached, but what a dud that turned out to be, with Clinton rising to the figure of beloved statesman among Democrats and his accusers being painted as petty partisans.
It's one thing for "Never Trump" Republicans to criticize Donald Trump, but Democrats, the liberal media and pedestal-perched professors who have enabled President Obama and now support Hillary Clinton have no standing to do so. President Obama set out to fundamentally transform America (read: systematically destroy America as founded). Measured in terms of accomplishing this goal, Obama has been one of the most successful presidents in history. Measured in terms of doing what is best for America, Obama undeniably ranks among the worst. Obama's progressive defenders whitewash his record, but it is objectively horrible — unless you either are in a fantasy world or truly consider America's comeuppance and its economic, military and cultural decline glorious developments.
When it comes to unity, the Democrats talk a good game — but in the end they promote disunity because their electability depends on dividing society into groups and inciting anger, resentment and distrust. I don't need to cite examples of Democrats' blaming Republicans for divisiveness and falsely extolling their own aspirations of unity. They are everywhere. It's what they do, from their talk of our "common humanity," to their glorification of all kinds of diversity, except diversity of thought, to their proclaimed monopoly on tolerance. It's ironic that Democrats get away with this lie. It is Republicans, or at least the conservatives among them, who preach that a rising tide lifts all boats — that economic growth across the board will help the most people.
The discerning have long recognized that the true enemies of free speech are certain leftist progressives who believe their ideas are so superior and their opponents so toxic that protection for the latter isn't warranted. The left is practiced at painting conservatives as oppressive and intolerant, but their behavior repeatedly undermines their claims and exposes *them* as the intolerant speech fascists and thought controllers.
"Clinton has her work cut out for her."
People often make fun of Bernie Sanders and his supporters, but with all this levity, we may be underestimating the seriousness of this political movement and what it signifies concerning our ongoing struggle for liberty. At first, no one took Sanders' candidacy seriously. After all, he's an unapologetic, card-carrying socialist who would have been laughed off the political stage just a few years ago. Despite his buffoonish demeanor and style, Sanders began picking up substantial support from the beginning. There is no question that Sanders' competitiveness in the primaries shows how unappealing Hillary Clinton is, even among many on the left, and it could be argued that Sanders wouldn't have fared so well against other viable Democratic candidates. I'm not so sure. Besides, are there other viable Democratic candidates? Where are they? Where were they?
Some Republicans are disillusioned with their party's nominee, but imagine how rank-and-file Democrats must feel. Their presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton, not only is exceedingly unappealing in her own right but also seeks to fulfill Barack Obama's third term and must defend — even champion — his disastrous record. Apart from Clinton's own baggage — her corruption, her empty record, her enabling of her husband's sexual exploits, her enormous unlikability — she has sidled up to Obama so much during his tenure that she is stuck with his record, whether she likes it or not.
I believe that Donald Trump was smart to pick Indiana Gov. Mike Pence to be his running mate. All things considered, it's an encouraging development, whether Trump picked him because he truly wanted him or he did so at the strong urging of his advisers. If he was Trump's first choice among finalists, it's encouraging because it shows he is comfortable with a traditional conservative who strongly self-identifies as and behaves like a devout Christian. It indicates he understands the value to the ticket in picking someone who seems to be the Antitrump in terms of personality and style — and to some extent on policy issues, as well.
