Conundrum

It is a conundrum!

For the first time I see a possibility of not voting in a presidential election.  This is based on an assumption that Trump and Clinton will be the candidates.  A sad proposition leaving me wondering how many others out there feel the same.

For a bit I was firmly committed to voting against Clinton, but correctly placed criticism of Trump under the “lessor of two evils” construct left me revisiting the commitment.  As much as I strongly believe Clinton is wholly unsuited for and absolutely unworthy of the office and should be voted against accordingly, it is sadly beginning to look like Trump will be the GOP standard bearer.  If this indeed happens, to vote against Clinton one would have to vote for Trump.  I have concluded the unshakable strength of my convictions about Clinton does not outweigh my profound disgust with Trump.  

For a period of time I honestly believed the GOP would/will find a way to deny him the candidacy, so the issue of voting for him wouldn’t materialize.  I would then be able to vote against Clinton with a clear conscience, noting however that neither Rubio nor Cruz light my fire.  In the back of my mind I was secretly hoping the GOP would draft someone like Paul Ryan as its candidate.  Such thoughts reflect a futile mental exercise of grasping at straws in a windstorm.

So here I sit, having reached the very uncomfortable realization that I may not cast a vote in the presidential election.  And that realization is amazingly unsettling.

Strangely, perhaps, I support Sanders’ attempt to win the Dem nomination, in part to deny Clinton the nomination.   To that end, I was thoroughly impressed by Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) as she explained why she resigned from the DNC and announced her support for the "Bern.”  A Sanders – Gabbard ticket would be formidable.  

Maybe, just maybe, either legal problems or a major health issue (not hoping for such, but she doesn’t look well to me) will derail Clinton’s pursuit of the nomination.  With the DNC totally invested in her, those would likely be the only possible happenings that could take Clinton out of the race.  (Speaking of the DNC, its super delegate structure takes the votes right out of the hands of individuals.)  Back to Sanders…he is principled and genuine.  But the Clinton – DNC cabal will block his candidacy. And Obama will not permit the legal issues to interfere with Clinton’s coronation.  (I agree that he won’t pardon her, but he can certainly ensure she isn’t indicted.)

So where is all this headed?  If fellow conservatives agree with my conclusion and do not vote, Clinton will most likely be the next president, a dark day for our country.  Even darker would be an unlikely Trump victory.

In the windstorm of straws to be grasped, Sanders & Gabbard vs. Ryan & Haley would be the better presidential race for the country.  There are many, many issues for the voters to consider and that warrant a presidential election to give guidance for the nation.  These two tickets would provide that opportunity.  

A footnote of sorts.  The GOP campaign is totally disgusting.  Leaves a conservative ashamed of the label.

Conclusion: if it indeed comes down to Trump vs. Clinton, I won't vote for the first and can't vote for the other.

Smiles and miles on the Harley

Too much time worrying about the election and those seeking office.  Time to return to those activities that produce smiles.

In addition to time with my wife, family, and friends, it is time to mount up and put some miles on the bike.

I'd go riding with my wife, but she has tennis.

I'd go riding with friends, but they are on their way to Texas for the birthday celebration for one of their grand daughters.

So I'll clean up, gas up, and mount up on my current ride.  Then hit the road solo.

For some miles and smiles, here in sunny southern California, all will be right. All will make sense.  And all will be patriotic.  

Sun, road, miles, and smiles on a Harley.

Marines embody honor and integrity

These Marines embody honor and integrity.

The video at the following link speaks to their mission.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yit37jz1l4&feature=youtu.be

Semper Fidelis

Clinton says she has never lied

Is she kidding?

Here is an exchange between Ms. Clinton and Scott Pelley.  

PELLEY: You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?

CLINTON: I have always tried to.

PELLEY: Some people are going to call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself "always tried to." 

Jimmy Carter said, "I will never lie to you."

CLINTON: You're asking me to say, "have I ever?" I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever will. I am going to do the best I can to level with the American people.

Focus on parts of the second response (emphasis added).  "I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever have." 

Is she kidding?  

Given her history of proven lies, not the least of which being "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia, there are two crucial interpretations for her answer.  First, she lied once more in responding to Pelley.  Second and potentially more troubling, that she actually believes she has never lied.  

If the first interpretation is accurate, her dishonesty renders her unqualified for office.

If the second interpretation is accurate, her pathology renders her unqualified for office.

In either case, Ms. Clinton once more displays judgment (and possibly a pathology) that make it impossible for her to be president.

I wonder if the main stream media will give this the coverage it so richly deserves?

Lessor of two evils

Speaking with a highly respected, informed, and very intelligent voter younger than I, a telling question was tabled.  "In the worst case of the election coming down to Trump or Clinton, who is the lesser of two evils?"  Implying, for whom would I vote?

Damn.  Could American politics really sink to the point that these two will represent the choices for our nation?

Does abject disgust with Trump's insulting arrogance, flippant attitude, and lack of specific policies overcome total abhorrence of Clinton's dishonest arrogance, untrustworthiness, and amorality?  Does Clinton's undistinguished time in the senate and as secretary of state tilt the scales over Trump's questionable time in the business world?  Is Trump's unethical use of laws such as imminent domain worse that Clinton's illegal use of a private email server that placed national secrets at risk?  How do Clinton's dubious and devious dealings connected with the Clinton Foundation compare to Trump's similar dealings as a businessman?  Do Trump's campaign statements on social issues overcome Clinton's record on them?  Does the nation want an individual worth billions accumulated questionably over an individual worth hundreds of millions accumulated questionably?

Such comparisons and contrasts can be listed ad nauseam.  One area, however, of greater importance was noted.

Who has by examples of character and temperament shown the qualifications necessary in the commander-in-chief?  The aforementioned voter raised this specter in the context of who would be most likely to enter the nation into (another) unnecessary war?  

The immediate and obvious answer is that neither are suited for the all important role of president as commander-in-chief.  Acknowledging this point nevertheless leads to the dilemma.  

If Clinton and Trump are the two choices, who is the lessor of two evils?

Would it come down to voting against one, rather than voting for the other?  Would it come down to a single issue, national security and the actions as commander-in-chief?

It will be no surprise to readers of this blog that I could never vote for Clinton.  But could I vote for Trump?

   

Obama's Action Speaks Louder than Words

It is rare that a sitting justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America dies.  There are only nine justices serving on the court at any one time, so the rarity of a funeral is further increased. 

Why, then, did POTUS not attend the funeral for Justice Scalia?

Obama speaks often about crossing the divide between the liberal and conservative points of view.  He speaks often about working together.  He speaks often about what he believes "all Americans" hold near and dear.  

In fact, he speaks often about a lot of matters.  But actions speak louder than words.

On Saturday 20 February 2016, Obama's action spoke clearly and loudly.  By his absence, Obama displayed arrogance.  He acted contemptuously towards a member of the court who did not yield to his liberal views.  

That the President of the United States failed to attend the funeral for a sitting member of the Supreme Court is shameful and disgraceful.  Differing views aside, it was the President's duty to attend.

His action will long be remembered and is indelibly marked upon his legacy. 

It is a matter of judgment

Judgment is critical, particularly in our elected officials.  That is why Ms. Clinton is wholly unqualified for the presidency.

It was her judgment to:

• vilify the women who spoke out about the misdeeds of her husband.
• claim she negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia.
• say Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. 
• say she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. 
• accept enormous speaking fees from large banks and business, then dismiss the amount as "that's what they offered." 
• deliberately establish a private, nonsecure server for all of her official State Department electronic communications.
• publicly state there was no classified material on her personal server. 
• put national security at risk.
• tell the nation the Benghazi attack was due to an obscure video, while telling her daughter it was due to a terrorist attack. 
• remain in a marriage with a serial philanderer, while claiming to be an advocate for women's rights.
• claim her family and character problems are due to a "vast right wing conspiracy." 
• state, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" about the deaths of four Americans during a congressional hearing. 
• support Anthony Weiner.
• claim to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary. 
• (reportedly) destroy over 30,000 emails processed on the same computer server as her official communications. 
• state to be "dead broke."
• claim to be just like average folks.
• state she was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• bark like a dog at a campaign event.
• remove government property from the White House.
• accept and forward as valued information emails from Sidney Blumenthal.
• fail to accept responsibility for her errors and actions.

And the list could be expanded, perhaps exponentially.  

The point to be made is, regardless of political views, regardless of age, regardless of gender, Ms. Clinton continuously exhibits unsatisfactory judgment.  This is a serious character flaw that can not be ignored when considering worthiness for the highest elected  office in the land.

Objectively, one can only conclude her repeated unsatisfactory judgment renders her unqualified for office.  

Liberal/progressive profound hypocrisy on voter identification

What hypocrites!  The liberals, progressives, or whatever label they prefer, do not recognize their own hypocrisy.  Take just one topic for example: mandatory voter identification, defined as a government issued photo identification card.  Democrats vociferously object to such laws.  

Ms. Clinton calls laws requiring voter identification "a blast from the Jim Crow past" and her campaign issued the following, "Voting rights are an illusion if the state requires people to have voter IDs and then makes it much harder for people to get them. This misguided law could disenfranchise over a quarter of a million voters in Alabama and result in suppressing the voices of African American and Latino voters..."

Yet twelve states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Vermont and Washington) issue driver's licenses, the most commonly used version of photo identification, to illegal immigrants. Don't see any red states in that group.

As shown in the following from the San Diego Union-Tribune, the numbers are staggering for California in 2015, the first year the state issued licenses to illegal immigrants.

Let the numbers sink in for a minute.  New licenses increased by 55% over the previous year and a full 43% of the new licenses were to illegal immigrants.  

The hypocrisy of the left is profoundly apparent.  If one of the most liberal/progressive bluest states in the union can issue driver licenses to illegal immigrants to satisfy liberal/progressive objectives, then the matter of requiring government issued photo identification for voting had been rendered a moot issue.

But of course, the Democrats can not see their own highly visible hypocrisy.

Double egad!

Perusing the news on-line this morning, I was struck by one graphic in the Washington Post.  Described as being from entrance polls conducted in Iowa at Democrat Party caucuses, two data points comparing Clinton and Sanders stuck out.  On "honest and trustworthy," Clinton was rated at 10% and Sanders at 83%.  On "can win in November," Clinton was rated at 77% and Sanders at 17%.

Egad!

Can the state of our national politics have sunk to such a dismal level that voters in the Democrat Party Iowa caucuses (1) vote for an individual that only 10% of them judge to be honest and trustworthy, and (2) believe an individual they judge to be dishonest and untrustworthy can be elected president? 

Double egad!

Mattering not that the vote difference between Clinton and Sanders is, at this writing, razor thin (it was reported that several contests were settled by a coin toss), it is stupefying to read that voters in the Democrat Party in one state judge a candidate they overwhelmingly find to be dishonest and untrustworthy capable of winning the general election for president.

It is really very, very sad.