Monday, February 8, 2016

A Traditional Catholic View of the Presidential Candidates: Part II Hillary Clinton

Anything but honorable.


The Democratic Party of today is nothing like the Democratic Party before the great depression, that is the era before the New Deal and FDR. The Democratic Party has gradually drifted further and further towards liberal progressivism since that time, to what we see now under the Clinton/Obama regimes.  Looking at this from an American political vantage point in relation to my Catholic faith, there is little in common with the ideology of the modern Democratic Party and that of my Catholic political and moral positions. That being said, what is now considered to be a conservative Republican today is far from the conservative positions of a Barry Goldwater or even a Ronald Reagan for that matter. I will address American conservatism in my upcoming posts, which focus on the Republican candidates.

Before examining Hillary Clinton’s qualifications for president, I want to make clear that the very positions of the modern Democratic platform are contrary to everything I believe to be advantageous to the common good of society. I cannot support this view from either a Catholic position or even from a traditional American conservative position. In the conservative American political context this means that a larger, controlling, socialistic government is in opposition to the common good of society. It also means that there are certain moral principles, which are derived from the natural law, which government cannot transcend. The progressive mindset is the opposite. Their ideology for example, promotes the murder of innocent human life in the womb, and the false notion of social justice such as the promotion of the redefinition of marriage. These are examples of strains of an immoral disease that need to be treated before they infect the whole body, which is coming quickly. This can only be done by a political entity that is willing to treat the noxious disease of a tyrannical government hellbent on promoting moral corruption. Is there a party that will fight the political entity which seeks to enshrine by law, moral decay? Or are the two parties now heading in the same direction? That question will not be answered in this post. What I will say is that the Democratic Party has now essentially progressed into a pseudo-socialist party. This is readily seen by the trial balloon sent up under the personality of Bernie Sanders, which just 15 years ago would have been blown out of the sky by the American public. Today that is not the case. I personally oppose any notion of liberalism or socialism as being an authentic engine that should fuel the American political establishment. A country run under the ideology of American liberalism is doomed to fail. This immediately puts me at odds with any of the DNC candidates, including Hillary Clinton. Be that as it may, I want to assess Hillary Clinton individually as I have done thus far with Donald Trump. 

Assessment of Hillary Clinton

I will be bold enough to say that there is no one more corrupt in the American political system that I know of than Hillary Clinton. Virtue is no friend to this conniving, huckster of a woman. The list of scandals tied to her and her husband is legion. Hillary and Bill’s name and legacy have been associated with scandal ever since their political birth in Arkansas. Here is a small list of some of them. It would take a book to cover them all in any detail.

1993- Travelgate: The Clintons take presidential office and fire everyone in the travel office and replace them with their buddies and then lie about why they fired them. It was proven that Hillary lied about it and the Clintons were investigated. They were found to have fired the employees for good no reason and had to reinstate them. Why did they do this? There were millions of dollars to be had from putting their buddies in control of it.

1994- Whitewater: The Clintons and their real-estate ventures were investigated for fraud. The Whitewater venture was co-owned by friends of the Clintons, the McDougals. Hillary as First lady was subpoenaed for it. Amazingly the documents, which were subpoenaed, were lost or stolen. What is more coincidental is that the man who supposedly had the documents, Vince Foster turned up dead during the investigation. Eventually Susan McDougal took the fall for Hillary, but was conveniently pardoned by Hillary’s crooked partner in crime, her husband Bill. The investigation lasted nearly four years and cost us taxpayers nearly 150 million dollars.

Filegate: The Clintons illegally requested FBI background reports on nearly 1000 Republican officials. Hillary was investigated in 1996 for this but was able to escape by having their security director take the fall for it. He was forced to resign.

Chinagate: The Clintons in exchange for political favors lined their pockets with campaign donations from their China connections. The DOJ investigated and stated that people within the Whitehouse knew about it. They dodged this one as well.

The Clinton Pardon Party: Before leaving office Bill Clinton pardoned 450 criminals many of them serving time for drug trafficking, terrorism, kidnaping and other horrible crimes. Hillary’s was involved with some of her friends receiving pardon favors. One for example who had been charged for tax evasion was pardoned and coincidentally Hillary received money from the person who was pardoned. Hillary received over $500,000 from one drug trafficker who was later pardoned by Bill. The Clinton pardon party was so despised that even the former Democratic president Jimmy Carter called the pardons disgraceful.

Senategate: Hillary in her NY senate race was fined $50,000 for under reporting campaign donations.

2012 Benghazi: Hillary covers up the investigation on the attack. Then testified that she had submitted all the documents that she had for the investigation. Almost two years later another 40 documents had been uncovered and we still do not know if we have them all.

The Clinton Foundation: A “foundation” totally corrupt with so many conflicts of interest we can't count them all. Money is mysteriously being funneled to her campaign pot through “donations” to the foundation. It is illegal to take large amounts of money from individuals for a campaign, but not so through a “Foundation.” Very convenient. In Haiti the Clinton were ripping the poor impoverished people, "Haitian activists protested outside of the Clinton Foundation in New York over the loss of “billions of dollars” that was meant to help rebuild after the devastating 2010 earthquake." Just remember, she is for the poor right?

Current- Emailgate: Hillary is found to have had classified information stored on her home email server which is clearly forbidden under federal law. So far she has also managed to dodge this one as well. I have to wonder who is covering for this woman.

I could go and on with one Hillary scandal after another. Her political career is littered with them. Honesty is not in her vocabulary. She has taken Saul Alinski’s advice to heart, and as long as the end she desires is achieved, the means are of no consequence to her. Saul Alinsky once wrote, “To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles.” I believe Hillary has taken on the very essence of this quote. In case you do not know, she wrote her senior thesis in 1962 on Alinski and she was sympathetic to the character of this immoral monster.


Where does Hillary stand on moral issues such as abortion? In 2009 she won the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood. That should give you an idea as to how pro-abortion she is. Margaret Sanger is another one of Hillary’s heroes. It is not surprising to find that she admired so many deplorable, 10th rate characters over the course of her life. As far as abortion goes she has stated, “I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman’s right to chose, and [we] must remain vigilant.” I find it alarming that one who supports the efforts of “social justice” and “human rights” finds it deplorable that anyone would seek to defend the life of an innocent child, who has every much as right to life as the mother does. Hillary also defends partial birth abortion if it means saving the life of the mother. Yet as we know, mothers who love their children would at any time sacrifice their own lives for the life of their beloved children. Not according to Clinton, who selfishly says of partial birth abortion, “Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake…” This mentality is insulting to all of the heroic mothers who gave their lives in childbirth so their precious children could live, even if it was without them. Finally on her website she has as reason #13 of why she should be elected in bold type, it says “Hillary will defend Planned Parenthood and women’s health care from Republican attacks.” Hillary is a pro-abortion as they come.

Before I move on, I want to address the error that the liberals are perpetuating concerning “women’s health.” For one, health is strictly defined as restoring a proper working order to the human body. Therefore any procedure, treatment or “medication” that would stop or impede the body from functioning properly cannot be classified as healthcare, period. Therefore, contraception, which objectively stops a women’s body from working properly according to the natural order cannot be considered healthcare. Nor can the killing of a baby in mother’s womb be classified as healthcare. These acts simply do not meet the definition of healthcare. They are instruments of deformation and thus they cannot be funded under any healthcare program. I will not get into distinctions in this post concerning ectopic pregnancies, double effect, etc. The point here is that the majority of abortions and contraceptive acts are being done in effort to deform or stop a women’s body from operating according to its natural end. Therefore Hillary’s statement here rings hollow to any right thinking person not swept away in the fantastical liberal chicanery, which attempts to call night day, and day the night. Indeed the emperor does not have new clothes. Lets stop pretending he does.

I still remember this cover from when I was a kid.
Her View of Government

As all liberals, Hillary holds to the fantasy of government being the solution to all of society’s problems. This is one of the egregious errors of the crippled liberal mind today. The liberal’s ego is so blinded by pride that they think their government programs can build a utopia. There is nothing more dangerous than an ideology, which seeks to create a government designed to control and dictate to its people on a grand scale in order to implement policies, which are designed to create the “perfect” society. This eventually results in unjust attacks on a person's liberty, such as the ones we see by liberals today. We are seeing an increase of an attack on free speech in many liberal countries for example. If one speaks negatively about the vice of homosexuality in certain places you can be prosecuted. Wherever liberal policies are put in place injustice and loss of liberty will follow in its wake. Hillary and Obama for example, do not want the private sector to be involved in healthcare. Instead they want their government to control and run it. In order to do this however, they must calculate a way to take your hard earned money to pay for it. What is worse, if you decide you do not want their healthcare, they make it illegal for you not to have it. Once they have done taken away all of your options they have you cornered under governmental control.

This type of action is a clear usurpation of the US Constitution, but this has not stopped the liberal juggernaut. This leads up to my next point, which is the very likely possibility of this demented lady appointing more asinine liberty bashers to the US Supreme Court. This cements in place another seat of power they can use to pass laws so they can "legally" steal more of your money and force you to buy more government services you don’t want. And they will implement it under the façade of just taxation. The liberals can’t count the ways to spend your hard earned money. Clinton says on her website that community college should be tuition free for everyone. Guess what? You are going to pay for it. There is no question about it, Hillary stands for big government, big taxation, less personal freedom and ultimately social disorder. Watch out as the vultures will eventually come home to nest in the stench-ridden vomit that spews into the streets of American towns and cities across this country that flow forth from the bowels of American liberalism. The face of this American liberalism is Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party. 

For the Working Class?

The next myth I want to address is the myth that the Democrats are for the working class people. How many times have we heard Obama and Hillary talk about the middle class being taxed too much? Guess what? Under Obama the middle class taxes have gone up, not down. For example, the “affordable” healthcare act contains 20 different tax increases on the middle class. You just have not seen them yet! The tax credits the middle class once had were taken away under the Obama presidency, we have seen that. For example a person making $50000.00 a year saw $1000.00 of his disposable income be snatched up by the greedy talons of Obama’s despotic regime in 2013. Hillary has praised Obama and the programs he has implemented over his 8-year reign and she says she will continue on in his footsteps. We keep hearing the myth that the Democrats are for the working class, yet their actions tell us a different story. The only reason a Democrat will help a poor person is to buy a vote. They steal from the working class and enslave them with their own money! Not only is the working class individual paying more taxes, so are small business owners. The fact is, their big government ideology ensures that the middle class will never having a chance of keeping more of their hard earned money. This is just another example of the Janus faced character of Hillary’s political party and the liberal ideology that fuels it. 

The Verdict

Could I as a practicing Catholic ever vote for a Hillary Clinton? I think you can deduce that the answer is a resounding hell no. For that matter no American who believes in anything the founding fathers set up for our country would ever support such chicanery. Our country simply cannot afford another presidential term under Democratic Party rule. There is not much left standing after 8 years under the Obama regime. The vultures are circling overhead waiting for the complete demolition of the American way of life so they can feed on our dead carcasses, and Hillary is just the person to give them a perfect feeding ground. 

Saturday, February 6, 2016

A Traditional Catholic View of the Presidential Candidates: Part I Donald Trump-Updated 9-30-16


After watching coverage of the presidential debates, the general media coverage of the candidates, and after reading news stories covering the various candidates, I have come to a sad conclusion. The conclusion is that America little to offer in the quality of political candidates running for president. We have turned into a vice ridden country which tolerates moral degeneration and as a result we tolerate vice ridden political representatives. Since a large portion of America tolerates vice as a norm of human behavior we should not be surprised that we produce no good fruit on the political vine. I believe that this toleration of vice goes even further to a celebration of vice. "Vice is the new virtue" should be the slogan of the vast majority of the candidates and many of their supporters. There is no whisper of virtue among the lips of a Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump. Although varying in degrees of immorality, I believe neither are fit to serve the American people as models of virtue, intellectual prowess or pillars of wisdom, and thus do not objectively qualify as presidential material. These two candidates appear to be at this point in time, the two most popular among their parties. A shame indeed. 

In this series of posts I will examine each of the major candidates running for president. I will attempt to judge them all by the same criteria. I have no allegiance to any party or ideology. These blog posts may upset some readers, for that I apologize in advance. But, I think that much needs to be said in light of the upcoming election cycle concerning faithful Catholics. First I will state that these are my opinions based on my personal observations and nothing more. I do not intend to tell anyone who to vote for. I am giving you my opinion on the viability of these candidates based on a specific criteria, and damn the torpedoes. I am unapologetic in being a faithful Catholic first, and a proud American second. In other words, God comes before any political or nationalistic leanings. I also do not view the American political system as the pinnacle of all political systems. I do however have to operate within these imperfect confines due to my place in time and history. 

I want first and foremost to examine these candidates in light of their propensity to virtue or lack of it as they demonstrate on a day to day basis. I will judge the consistency of their stances on what I consider as a faithful Catholic to be critical moral issues. As they say, one cannot have politics without morality. These issues include but are not limited to abortion, "gay marriage", euthanasia, just war, etc. I personally find these issues to be of critical importance in determining a viable candidate. For example, one who cannot defend the innocent life of a baby in the womb is not going to lose a nights sleep over any of the other vices that pass for virtue today. Stealing, lying, cheating, slandering, are all just tools of the trade for an immoral sub-defective politician. At the end of each post I will give my thoughts on whether I would vote for the candidate in the primary and in the presidential election, and under what circumstances I would do so.

Assessment of Donald Trump

On this first post I want to look at one of the most surprising and interesting candidates running. He is the master of reality TV, the golden haired billionaire, also know as the 'Trumpster' it is none other than the amorphous, raucous candidate from New York, 'The Donald' Trump. While I can appreciate his sarcastic and amusing non-politically correct wise cracks, I cannot stand behind someone who has no real convictions other than a popularized slogan of "making America great again." What does that even mean? Does it mean building a wall across the Mexican border? Does it mean stopping abortion on demand? Does it mean putting freedom back in the hands of the average American? Who truly knows? His positions on these have changed over the course of his career. I am not saying that people cannot change their positions over the course of their lives. What I can examine is how a person has demonstrated throughout his or her life, virtue. I think that one can talk a good game, but when it comes to leading people, a demonstration of the virtuous life must precede one's words. In Aristotle's terms, a good lyre plays the right notes at the right rhythm, and is known to be a good lyre player because he demonstrates it by his actions, not just because he says he is a good lyre player.

In my opinion, Donald Trump has demonstrated over his life up to this presidential race a great lack of virtue. For one, he has been "married" three times. He has children from all three of them. The man is arrogant, shows no sign of humility and I guess it is easy for him to mistake himself for King Solomon. Why not add in a few concubines while he is at it to top it all off? A man of great character indeed! A man who cannot keep a commitment to his wife should now be trusted with a country of millions? I won't stop there. What does Trump really believe? How many times can a man contradict himself on public television? Only the master of contradiction himself, Obama can relate to such Janus faced shenanigans. Do we really want another president who cannot remember, nor cares what he said from one day to the next? I want to bring up a list of moral questions for which Trump has given definitive answers on, such as the atrocity of abortion on demand.

For one, he has been strongly pro-choice his entire life. This is well documented. Just before running on the Republican ticket he declared that he was a newly converted pro-lifer. Convenient indeed. I personally do not buy it. There are far too many strong statements made by him in the past such as saying that he would not ban partial birth abortion, that give me pause not to trust him in any matters of grave moral importance. Even after answering the question whether or not he was pro-life, he qualified his yes by stating, "with caveats, life of the mother, incest, and rape.” For the sake of argument, even if I were to give him the benefit of the doubt on this matter, what are we to think about his views on God? Trump after being asked recently if he asks God for forgiveness for anything wrong he has done emphatically stated, "I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don't think so," ... "I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't." This is unfortunately a typical anti-intellectual response from Trump, which I detest. I just can't take the guy seriously most of the time.

This is his view of God? How can one who says they believe in God, and who claims to be a Christian, (Presbyterian) make such an absurd statement? One must ask what Trump really believes, because someone who claims to love the Bible and who claims to be a Christian is mocking our Lord Jesus Christ by saying that he keeps God out of the picture when it comes to forgiveness. With this mentality it is not hard to understand why arrogance secretes from the very pores of his body such as when he said, "When someone crosses you, my advice is ‘Get Even!’ That is not typical advice, but it is real life advice. If you do not get even, you are just a schmuck! When people wrong you, go after those people because it is a good feeling and because other people will see you doing it. I love getting even." Again, this mentality is far from a virtuous disposition. As far as I am concerned, rather than running for president, Trump needs to figure out what he really believes concerning God because he does not demonstrate that he really believes in anyone other than himself.

I want to now take a look at his aggrandizement of material wealth. It is easy for Americans to get caught up in this mentality, since many of us aspire to attain more wealth ourselves. Trump is supposedly worth 4 billion dollars. He loves to talk about how much money he has made and how rich he is, as if this was the zenith of all virtue. “The beauty of me is that I’m very rich” Trump once stated.  The trouble is that the aggrandizement of wealth is not one of the virtues. Who knows of the vice-ridden deals he had to make with the mob to get his business bargains done, his towers built, etc. Who built skyscrapers in New York and New Jersey without dealing with the mob? Those who know the business well say no one has, particularly in the era when he struck his deals. This experience may help him in the sleazy environment of American politics, but is that what we as Americans are aiming for in realm of virtue among our political establishment? Let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with being successful or even having wealth in and of itself, but Trump's campaign is clearly run on this mentality that material wealth is king, and that he is the master of it.

Will Trump despite his colossal bank account still be able to be bought by special interests? This may indeed separate him from the other candidates and make him more insulated from lobbyists. I think this is a good thing, and I will not deny that this is a positive attribute concerning the specific issue of the special interest lobby influence on Trump. The trouble is, this in and of itself does not guarantee that Trump would make any better political decisions than anyone else who was being influenced by the lobby. I can substantiate this position because as I have stated above, he lacks virtue. He does not possess the needed attributes like humility, prudence, knowledge or the wisdom required to hold such a high office, and make prudent decisions. I have heard Catholics say that because he is a successful billionaire that this somehow qualifies him to be president. Just because you can build a business does not automatically qualify you to lead others from a high position of political office. If the aggrandizement of wealth at any expense is now considered to be a Catholic virtue then I guess you have an argument for Trump regarding his financial position. 

The Verdict

Republican Primary:  Trump is not on the top of my list for the Republican nomination for presidential candidate. I put him towards the bottom. He would not be my nominee at the voting box in the Republican primaries. I do not think he is very smart, and I do not think he has any true moral convictions for which he would stake his life or career on. He does not come across to me as an authentic man of integrity. I do not view him as a particular well spoken individual. He is certainly not an intellectual. I would favor Rand Paul for example, over Trump in the primary. Unfortunately Rand now appears to be out of the race so that will narrow my options. I will have to pick from one of the others.

Presidential Election: Lets me close this post by posing the question we all have to answer. Would I vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the presidential race? Grudgingly, reluctantly, I would pull the lever for him with head in hand, making a face palm, over a Hillary Clinton or a Bernie Sanders. What makes him a better choice than either of these two? I have a strong distaste for those who openly support a socialistic ideology and the monumental immorality that emanates from supporting such an ideology. Not to give away my forthcoming posts, but this disqualifies the two Democratic candidates. I will examine both of them closer in my upcoming articles.

What about voting for Trump? After all, I just got through telling you about how bad I think he is. So let me explain the casting of my reluctant, face palm vote for him over the Democrats. Despite Trump's inconsistency and lack of clarity on moral issues such as abortion, and his lack of demonstration for virtue, I do not think he would further many of the socialist causes that are being shoved down our throats by the Democrats. I do not think he would show further support for groups such as Planned Parenthood for example, and it is even possible that he may try to cut them from the government subsidy. Even if he is inconsistent with his stand on abortion, I do not think he would be hellbent on passing further legislation to increase abortion funding. I do not think he would further the "gay" agenda, or take any keen interest in taking away more freedom from the American people. 

I also think he would be more likely to appoint better Supreme Court justices than either of the two Democrats. It is at least better odds at the craps table in regard to the upcoming Supreme appointments. We know where a Hillary or Bernie stands on that. The last thing America needs is for the Supreme Court to be stacked with more liberal appointees. The question of Trump's foreign policy is one that is not very clear to me, and to be honest, this is one of the unknowns that bothers me. Trump comes off to me as kind of a loose canon and I wonder how he would fare in dealing with the many challenges of world affairs. How would he be any different than Clinton or Sanders in this respect? I am honestly not too sure, but I would again roll the dice. Knowing what I know about the corruption of a Clinton or the madness of a Sanders, I do not think he would pose any more danger to our country. 

This closes my first post in this series, giving you some of my brief thoughts on the viability of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate. I would sum up my thoughts on voting for Trump in the presidential election with a quotation from St. Thomas More, "What you cannot turn to good, you must at least make as little bad as you can." I would love to hear your thoughts.

Update: 2-8-16
As I have said in this post, you just can't tell where Trump really stands on anything. In a recent interview he was asked, “When President Trump is in office can we look for more forward motion on equality for gays and lesbians?” His answer? “Well, you can,” Trump answered. ” And look, again, we’re going to bring people together, and thats your thing and other people have their thing. We have to bring all people together and if we don’t we’re not going to have a country anymore.”

So I stand corrected in my statement above where I said I did not think he would advance the homosexual agenda. This makes it even harder to vote for him over the Democrats since this makes his stance on critical moral issues closer to theirs. This makes the odds of rolling the dice on him much less favorable. As more cracks begin to appear in his moral judgments, the likelihood of him getting a vote from me becomes slimmer. If he is just saying this to get votes, then this again proves the immense lack of virtue in his character. I think this guy is now the worst candidate on the Republican ticket by far. He is no conservative even by American political standards to be sure. Lets be sure he does not get the nomination. As I learn more I will continue to update this post. So check back often.

Update: 7-22-16
So, the Donald has become the Republican candidate. It has been over 5 months since my last update, and many things have once again changed. Am I overly excited that Trump is the nominee? No. Has his demeanor changed throughout the race? Not much. He is still as bombastic as ever, and his position continues to change on issues day by day. That being said, is he a better candidate than Hillary? I reluctantly have to answer in the affirmative. If Hillary gets in office we know what we are going to get, more of the same. She will nominate liberal supreme court justices, and the right to bear arms is the next target, among other things. Simply put, Hitlery Rotten Clinton is the probably the most evil person to ever run for president.

Will Trump nominate good supreme court justices? Its hard to say, but in this case, the devil you don't know is a better gamble than the devil you do know. The left wing radicalism that is entrenched in the White House has got to go out with this election. Unfortunately the only way that is going to happen is to vote for Trump. So at this point in time, I am back leaning in that direction. My disgust for Hitlery is the driving force for a vote for Trump, not my enthusiasm for Trump. What a sad day it is that this is the best America has to offer for candidates. 

Update: 9-30-16
This is my latest update in the election season. Although Trump has been far from being my favorite "conservative" candidate, it seems that if we are to avoid a Clinton disaster, Trump must be my choice in the election. There is simply too much evil that will be done under a Clinton presidency that would most likely not be implemented under a Trump presidency. After much deliberation I am going to vote for Trump.