• Home page of novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • About author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Books by novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Reviews of the writing of author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Blog of author William (Bill) S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Contact author William S. Frankl, M.D.
Title: Blog by Novelist William S. Frankl, MD

Archive for August, 2016

The Clinton Mafia

Monday, August 29th, 2016

The Clinton Mafia by Charles Krauthammer
August 28, 2016

The Clinton Foundation is “organized crime” at its finest.
Here is a good, concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax free international money laundering scheme. It may eventually prove to be the largest political criminal enterprise in U.S. History.
This is a textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and repackage it to be used for your own purposes. All tax free.
Here’s how it works:

1. You create a separate foreign “charity.” In this case, the Clintons set it up in Canada.
2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did – contributing mega millions. I’m sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin’s buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).
3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.
4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.
5. The Clinton Foundation then “spends” some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clintons, pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.
6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world’s best accountants, somehow fails to report this on their tax filings. They discover these “clerical errors” and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.
7. Net result – foreign money goes into the Clinton’s pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering. Oh, by the way, the Canadian “charity” includes as a principal one Frank Giustra – Google him. He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive U.S. Uranium interests and then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia. This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the approval was granted.

As an aside, imagine how former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell feels. That poor schlep is in jail because he and his wife took $165,000 in gifts and loans for doing minor favors for a guy promoting a vitamin company. Not legal but not exactly putting U.S. Security at risk.
Sarcasm aside, if you’re still not persuaded this was a cleverly structured way to get unidentified foreign money to the Clintons, ask yourself this: Why did these foreign interests funnel money through a Canadian charity? Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation? Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations and countries in need?
This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling. Now you know why Hillary’s destruction of 30,000 e-mails was a risk she was willing to take. Bill and Hillary are devious, unprincipled, dishonest and criminal and they are Slick!

Warning: They could be back in the White House in January 2017. Don’t let it happen.
Remember, most people are not well informed. We must inform and educate them.

Colin Kaepernick And Our National Anthem

Monday, August 29th, 2016

Unfortunately, the nasty, racially tinged, political atmosphere has decended on the 2016 professonal football season. Wealthy African-Americans in all professions, including football, should extend a helping hand to their people, but what he has done, and he is protected by the First Amendment to say whatever he wishes, is clearly counter productive.

CONSTITUTION
GodfatherPolitics.com
August 29, 2016
“49ers QB COLIN Kaepernick Learning Fans Don’t Appreciate His Hate For His Country.”
Late last week San Francisco 49ers player Colin Kaepernick decided that he could no longer stand up at attention when “The Star Spangled Banner” was played at games. This is because, he said, the U.S. is evil and filled with racists. Only hours passed before millions of fans let Kaepernick and the 49ers know just what they thought of his anti-American statement.

The player’s recalcitrance was at first ignored by both the national media as well as the national sports media. As Breitbart News reported, immediately after the game no one in the sports media asked Kaepernick nor coach Chip Kelly why the player was not standing during the playing of the anthem.

But not long after the post game media was over, fans showed they noticed what he did as the game began and tongues on social media users began to wag. The pressure mounted quickly and likely expecting to be congratulated for his “bravery,” Kaepernick soon explained why he did what he did.

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color,” Kaepernick explained to NFL.com. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

What ever Kaepernick thought the reaction should be to his actions, it seems the management of the 49ers understood a public relations mess was brewing. Immediately after the game the team quickly issued a public statement about the incident.

“The national anthem is and always will be a special part of the pre-game ceremony. It is an opportunity to honor our country and reflect on the great liberties we are afforded as its citizens. In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose to participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem.”

With this the team tried to have it both ways. By defending the anthem and celebrating its patriotism yet fully supporting Kaepernick’s right to be hateful of it, the team thought it had covered all the bases.

Of course, 49ers management is certainly right. The Constitution itself maintains that each of us have a right to our opinion and all of use are guaranteed our freedom of speech. But few Americans question that right. And, in fact, every Kaepernick detractor has the exact same right to criticize him for attacking the National Anthem and to decide they don’t want to patronize the San Francisco 49ers because of it.

The fact is, those who despise what Kaepernick did also have the right to burn his jersey, apparently, and a trend quickly began on social media showing disgruntled fans doing just that.

One enraged fan who seems to have started the jersey burning trend was Louisiana resident Shane White who posted a video to his Facebook page slamming the player and then burning his jersey to the tune of “The Star Spangled Banner.”

White wasn’t alone. Other fans joined him showing their anger by burning Kapernick jerseys.

Jersey-burning fans weren’t the only ones showing their anti-Kaepernick sentiment. Other upset fans took to their social media to make suggestions about what the player could do with himself.

The The Daily Mail, for instance, noted that one fan advised the player to move to Canada while others were more colorful with their suggestions.

One of the best retorts to Kapernick’s anti-American sentiment was posted to Twitter by Nick Short who added a photo of Marine Sgt. Zachary Stinson of Pennsylvania. Along with the image, Short added a caption reading, “Kaepernick refusing to stand for natl anthem is his right. Here’s a Marine, who can’t stand, because he defended it.” The photo shows Sgt. Stinson lifting himself out of his wheel chair as the National Anthem plays. You see, as it happens Stinson lost both of his legs above the knee in an IED attack in Afghanistan in 2010 and he is no longer able to stand for the anthem.

This is all rather interesting for the fact that Colin Kaepernick, born of mixed race parents who abandoned him, was adopted by a white family and given all the advantages a child could be given. Even as he claims that America is so racist that minorities can’t get ahead, he nevertheless seems to have done quite well for himself.

His quixotic behavior is writ large across his own Twitter feed. Despite his privileged upbringing, if one looks at Kaepernick’s Twitter account one is confronted with post after anti-American post filled with race-baiting and support for Black Lives Matter. Further, looking at his social media photos with the way he dresses it seems he is a young man who fancies himself a gang banger of sorts.

Whatever demons are driving him, Kaepernick’s fans are not pleased, to say the least, but the national sports media apparently don’t take their marching orders from the fans. The sports press did belatedly begin to cover Kaepernick’s anti-American sentiment after the firestorm had ratcheted into high speed. But almost to a man the opinionists of the sports press showered Kaepernick with high praise, agreed with him that the U.S. is racist, and patted him on the back for his “bravery.”

One imagines none of them asked Sgt. Stinson about what real bravery is all about.

Sadly, this isn’t the first time recently that a bi-racial entertainer went to extremes seemingly because he is guilty over his privileged lifestyle.

In yet another case, bi-racial actor Jesse Williams uncorked a rant to end all rants on Black Entertainment Television in June. Instead of delivering an acceptance speech for the award he was given that night, Williams jumped into a controversial harangue in which he characterized this country as unalterably unfair to blacks and insisted all white people as permanently racist — including, presumably, his own, white mother.

Can Trump Stay On Message?

Sunday, August 14th, 2016

This is an important article. There is so much “garbage” heaping up in the Hillary campaign, if Trump stays on offense and on message without what looks to be self inflicted wounds, he might just win and prove that I am not a “Cassandra.” However , I will be extremely surprised if he wins. I still believe he is a Trojan Horse, placed in the Republican Party to split it wide open and allow Clinton to win despite all her negatives. We shall see..

CONSTITUTION

Trump Will Be President If He Stays On Offense in the Next 90 Days

William Stauff
August, 14, 2016

Trump needs to put his boot on Hillary’s neck and not let up. Trump will be president if he’s relentless.

If he does the following things I mention in this article Trump will be president. There really is gold mine with what is going on with Hillary. The Wikileaks scandal has the capability of completely undoing Hillary’s campaign but it won’t happen on its own. It’s up to Trump to continue to expose what actually is happening. This whole episode right now about Trump’s second amendment comments has put him on defense. Trump really doesn’t need to be on defense regarding his second amendment comments. Even Never Trump conservatives have recognized that the media is desperately trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and a feeble attempt to connect dots that are not even there. What we are seeing from Hillary’s trail of bodies is out in the open for all to see. It’s being reported far and wide by reputable sources of people close to her campaign getting murdered.

Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange has been dropping bombshell after bombshell after bombshell regarding Democrat Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton. His latest is that Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who was in charge of voter expansion who was found murdered in July, was a Wikileaks informant.

In an interview on Dutch television. Assange believes, as I do, that Rich was not robbed, but was rather murdered and the murder made to look like a robbery.

We know that the Kahn family are Clinton plants and Hillary is hiding behind them and using them as shields to go after Trump and using their dead son. The problem is, it’s a losing battle to go up against Gold Star Families who had a son who lost his life for his country. If Trump can get past these media landmines and distractions he can put all his focus on Hillary Clinton and go after her with a vengeance on what the WikiLeaks investigations have already revealed.
Trump will be president if he goes on offense by spending real money against Hillary Clinton.

Many political experts are besides themselves that Trump is not spending real money to combat Hillary’s war chest. Hillary has spent close to 50 million dollars in television ads against Trump in all the states that are going to win the election. Throughout the campaign you see some weeks where Trump is either close or gaining. There’s a slew of new recent polls that show an uptick for Trump.

Rasmussen (Clinton +3) and Reuters (Clinton +6) continue to view this as a relatively tight race, which is better than the double-digit race that some other pollsters are seeing.

The state polling was likewise pretty good for Trump yesterday, with a Fox 13/Opinion Savvy poll showing him only trailing in Florida by one point, a Suffolk poll showing him with a 1 point lead in Iowa, and a Gravis poll showing him with a 4 point lead in Georgia.

It’s during this time Trump can grab the bull by the horns and really start moving those numbers in his direction by spending some serious money. He has the money and he has the capability to raise more if he needs to. Get his message out quickly and make a big dent and stay on message and hit Hillary hard. Trump will be president if he does all these things.

Trump Can Win

Sunday, August 14th, 2016

So, despite the “No Trumpers,” This well crafted article suggests that Trump Can Win

Ten Reasons Why Trump Could Win
Victor Davis Hanson – July 19, 2016

With four more months until Election Day, be prepared for chills and spills.

Hillary Clinton has outspent Donald Trump in unprecedented fashion. Her endorsements bury Trump’s. The Obama administration is doing its best to restore her viability. The media are outdoing their 2008 liberal prejudices. And yet in John Connally delegate fashion, Clinton’s vast expenditures of $100 million plus have so far earned her only a tiny, if any, lead in most recent polls. If each point of approval is calibrated by dollars spent, Trump’s fly-by-night campaign is ahead.

Nor has Trump matched Clinton’s organization or voter-registration efforts. He certainly has blown off gifts from a number of Clinton gaffes and misfortunes, usually by gratuitously riffing on off-topic irrelevancies, from the Trump University lawsuit to the genocidal Saddam Hussein’s supposedly redeeming anti-terrorist qualities. Pollsters, gamers, insiders — everyone, really — have written his political epitaph for over a year. Rarely have conservative voices at mainstream-media outlets vowed not to support the Republican nominee. And yet the longer he stays viable, the more likely it is that Trump has a real chance at winning the presidency, which may already be a veritable 50/50 proposition. So why is the supposedly impossible at least now imaginable?

1. Not a Typical Populist

When critics are not slurring Trump as Hitler or Mussolini, they write him off, in sloppy fashion, as a dangerous populist — at worst an hysterical, demagogic Huey Long, at best a quirky Ross Perot: in other words, a flash in the pan who capitalizes on occasional but brief surges of Neanderthal isolationism, protectionism, nativism, xenophobia, and collective insecurity among the lower middle classes.

That diagnosis is rehashed groupthink. By any definition, Trump is not a classical populist. His traction derives from opposing unchecked and cynical illegal immigration, not diverse and measured legal immigration. And he is rebelling not so much against a flabby, sclerotic status quo as against a radical, even revolutionary regime of elites who are now well beyond accustomed norms. It is hardly radical to oppose the Confederate doctrine of legal nullification in more than 300 sanctuary cities, or a de facto open border with Mexico, or doubling the national debt in eight years, or ruining the nation’s health-care system with the most radical reconstruction in the history of American health-care policy, or systematically running huge trade deficits with an autocratic China that does not adhere to international norms of free trade and predicates expanding political and military power in the South China Sea on its commercial mercantilism. Trump seemed incendiary in the primaries, but as he is juxtaposed to the official Clinton extremist agenda, he will likely be reinterpreted increasingly as more mainstream — a probability enhanced by his selection of Mike Pence as his running-mate.

2. Obama Nihilism

Do not underestimate the volatility of Barack Obama’s popularity. As long as Obama keeps silent and out of the limelight, he nears 50 percent in approval ratings. The moment he returns to the fray (and he always does, as a June bug to a patio light), he instinctively reverts to his natural divisive and polarizing self, as evidenced in his disastrous reactions to the Dallas police shootings, and his politically suicidal post-Dallas courting of Al Sharpton (who used to call on supporters to “off” police) and of the architects of Black Lives Matter. It is likely that Obama, to cement a hard progressive legacy in the next four months, will only double down on his gratuitous pandering, and therefore will see his poll numbers return to the low or mid-40s. That may help Trump seem an antidote rather than an obsequious continuance.

3. Two Sorts of Elitists

Both Trump and Clinton are elitists in an anti-elitist year. But elitism is not all the same. The popular furor is not directed at the rich per se, but rather at the perception of cultural snobbishness and hypocrisy among those who romanticize the always-distant poor, as they favor the always-proximate rich, and caricature the despised middle class that lacks the taste of the latter and the appeal of the former. Trump’s in-your-face tastes and brashness are vulgar in the pure Roman sense, and his accent and demeanor are not those of the cultural elite, or even of the dignified Mitt Romney–type moneyed bluestockings. In contrast, Hillary, like Obama, talks down to Americans on how they ought to think, speak, and act. Trump seems to like them just as they are. In turn, middle-class hatred of the elite is not aimed at Trump’s garish marble floors or the narcissistic oversized gold letters plastered over the entrances to his buildings, but rather at the rarified self-righteous. Like it or not, Trump can square the ridiculous circle of a raucous billionaire as man of the people far better than Hillary can handle the contradictions of a Wall Street–created crony multimillionaire pandering to the Sanders socialists.

4. Election Formulas

It is not assured that Clinton can replicate Obama’s formula of record-high minority-voter turnout and bloc voting. More importantly, in a few key states Trump may win 25 to 28 percent of the Latino vote and perhaps 10 percent of the black vote, while Clinton might not capture even 35 percent of the so-called white vote. A surprisingly high minority of blacks and Hispanics do not feel Trump is a nativist or xenophobe, given that illegal immigration is often perceived as putting a strain on scarce social services, imperiling already poor schools, and driving down both wages and the availability of entry-level jobs. Trump’s El Jefeism plays well when juxtaposed to Clinton’s suburban namby-pamby falsity or her unhinged demonization of coal miners and gun owners. The numbers of minority voters in key states who quietly vote Trump need not be great, but rather only must top by 2 or 3 percentage points the disastrous McCain and Romney levels of 2008 and 2012, given the likely historic percentage of white voters that Trump may win. Media elites are in denial over this possibility. Racial hyphenation and bloc voting, along with prophecies of continual white irrelevance, should by their reckoning have long ago doomed Trump in the general election.

5. Crimes and Misdemeanors

Trump struggles with embarrassing misdemeanors, Clinton with high crimes. She may be delighted at not having been indicted, but FBI Director Comey confirmed to the nation that she was an inveterate liar, paranoid, conspiratorial, and incompetent. That she was not charged only made the FBI seem absurd: offering a damning hooved, horned, pitchforked, and forked-tailed portrait of someone mysteriously not a denizen of Hell. Add in the Clinton Foundation syndicate and the fact that lies are lies and often do not fade so easily, and Hillary in the next 15 weeks may average one “liar” and “crooked” disclosure each week — at a rate that even the Trump tax returns and Trump University cannot keep up with.

6. Four Months until the Election

The tumultuous news cycle — Dallas, Paris, Turkey, Baton Rouge — creates anxieties and a general sense that the nation and indeed the world are in chaos — and without any guidance from the White House. Such a vague foreboding that something has to give to avert catastrophe may favor Trump abroad and at home — especially if he can muzzle himself in times of enormous gift-giving from the Clinton campaign. Obama is a lame-duck president who is perceived as weak, vacillating, and ambiguous about his own country’s role in the world — a world that includes Russia, ISIS, China, North Korea, and Iran. The odds are even that at least one of the above in the next few months will feel that it has a rare opportunity to readjust the regional status quo, or at least will have a psychological impetus to try something stupid to humiliate Obama and the U.S. as payback for seven years of his empty sanctimoniousness. Either way, Trump could benefit, given that Hillary is a perceived tool of Obama’s therapeutic foreign policy. Tragically, at home, in the next few months ISIS may re-emerge, and racial relations are not likely to ameliorate, as Hillary straddles a politically correct tiger that she can neither dismount nor safely ride. Self-described leftists are cannibals who always end up devouring their own, given the never-enough trajectory of their equality-of-result creed.

7. Extremism

Trump seems extremist in speech, but as the campaign wears on, Hillary may confirm that she is more extremist in fact. It may well be that voters would prefer a brash-talking pragmatist to sober and judicious ideologues. Sloppy talk about temporarily limiting immigration from the Middle East is not so injurious as contrived efforts never to utter the phrase “radical Islam.” Clinton, Obama, and Sanders have moved the Democratic party radically to the left; Trump in some areas has pushed the Republican party to the center. The voter terrified of ISIS, record debt, the spiraling cost of his health care, perceived U.S. decline, and the seemingly violent racial Balkanization of the country — but not terrified of gay marriage or tough trade talks with China — may find Clinton, not Trump, the true radical.

8. Polls

If the polls are off a bit in this warped election year, they are more likely to err on Hillary’s side. Republicans who will vote for Hillary or no one rather than Trump will do so in part out of perceived moral principles, and thus they will not be so shy in showcasing their not-in-my-name ethos. But those who see themselves more as pragmatists, who will eventually hold their nose and vote for the embarrassing Trump, are more likely, in Brexit style, to keep quiet about it and stay under the polling radar. I think that to be truly ahead on Election Day Hillary will have to top Trump by 1 or 2 points in the polls — even with traditional Democratic massaging of voter rolls.

9. Converts and Apostates

The relative closeness of polling in key swing states already suggests that the Reagan Democrats and other Trump converts may either be more numerous than the Never Trump establishment or at least more numerous outside of coastal, and electorally irrelevant, blue states like California and New York — and thus more significant as swing-state adjudicators. In addition, traditional media, in which Never Trump views are most frequently aired, are themselves growing ossified and do not reach voters to the same degree as outlets like the Drudge Report, Breitbart News, and talk radio. In my rural California community, when I meet pro-Trump welders, farmers, and tractor drivers of all races and backgrounds, I try to ask them just one question: Did you vote for Romney? So far 0 percent of that cohort of probably over 100 Central Valley residents said they had turned out for Romney in 2012. Again, the new Trump voters may not be numerous nationwide, but they may be able to swing one or two purple states. Also, it may be more likely that a Never Trumper will weaken and quietly vote Trump in November as he grows aghast at the weekly Clinton circus. The Trump buffooneries may well be more than matched by Clinton’s ideological insanities.

10. The Screech-Owl Factor

For all his lack of discipline, the media-seasoned Trump is still the better and more robust campaigner. His liabilities — bouts of outer-space incoherence, unfamiliarity with basic issues, sloppiness in diction, a personal cruel streak — are balanced by a TV host’s sense of audience, timing, and cadence.
Hillary is the far more disciplined politico, but she is not so much uncharismatic as downright off-putting. Even on those rare occasions when she listens to her new voice-coach handlers and speaks quietly and deliberately, she still comes off not as reassuring, much less engaging, but rather as artificially trying her best not to revert to her natural screech-owl elocution. Heartfelt recklessness can sometimes wear better than packaged sobriety.
* * *
Finally, it is suicidal to descend into the muck to battle Trump. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz all tried and failed, despite the fact that they had every moral justification in hitting back in like kind. Elizabeth Warren is trying to be an anti-Trump street-fighter; but her incoherent venom suggests that Harvard Law professors should stick to academic jousting in the faculty lounge.

Brawlers know the rules of the street far better than establishmentarians. The Senate is not The Apprentice, and politics is not New York real estate. Ask the trash-talking Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg if she came out on top in dueling with Trump — or whether she virtually destroyed a quarter-century’s reputation in minutes and ended up no better than an elderly version of Rosie O’Donnell in a Supreme Court Justice costume. Hillary is stepping up her crude attacks on Trump. But as in the past, such hits are more likely to make the Trump mode suddenly seem normal, and to make Trump a target of those who claim they are more sober and judicious but in extremis prove no more measured than Trump himself.

We have a long way to go till November 8, and the odds are still with Hillary’s establishment money, influence, power, and media. There will be dozens of Trump meltdowns and gaffes to come and always more slams at “crooked” Hillary. And never count out what narcissists like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — or Vladimir Putin — might do, or Obama’s Chicago-like warping of the electoral process. Nonetheless, for a variety of reasons, an unlikely Donald Trump has become a liberal’s worst nightmare, not so much for what he says or represents, but because he still could win — and win in a way, along with the Congress and the prospect of a new Supreme Court, that we have not witnessed in 80 years.

Republicans Fleeing Trump

Sunday, August 14th, 2016

The Republican Party is in the process of eviscerating itself thanks to Donald J. Trump.Whether there are tens of thousands of Republicans who loathe Trump, leaving the party is a bad move, especially as regards the “down party” candidates. Losing the House and the Senate gives Clinton a huge opportunity to dismantle the Country and the party. This piece is critical of the fleeing Republicans, but is a good up-to-date picture about what these ‘loathers” are and what they are doing.

Freedom Outpost
Suzanne Hamner
August 9, 2016

At the first Republican candidate debate, the moderators asked the candidates if they would support whoever received the nomination and not engage in a third party bid for the office of president. Donald J. Trump was the only candidate to claim that he would consider continuing his campaign on a third party platform. Now that Trump has secured the Republican Party nomination, Republicans are coming out of the wood work to say they will not vote for Donald Trump.

Monday evening, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) declared in a Washington Post editorial she will not vote for her party’s nominee, Donald Trump. On the same day, fifty of the republic’s Republican national security officials signed a letter, published in The New York Times, declared they do not support Donald Trump. Among the signers are “former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden and former Homeland Security Secretaries Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge.”

The letter begins:

The undersigned individuals have all served in senior national security and/or foreign policy positions in Republican Administrations, from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. We have worked directly on national security issues with these Republican Presidents and/or their principal advisers during wartime and other periods of crisis, through successes and failures. We know the personal qualities required of a President of the United States.

None of us will vote for Donald Trump.

From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.

It would be nice to ask these individuals what the “personal qualities” a president is “required” to possess are. Nowhere in the Constitution is the “personal qualities” of a president listed that are “required” of the individual seeking the office. And, there is some question about plenty of presidents past and their “personal qualities,” including Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.

The most audacious statement made by these 50 top security Republicans is the claim Trump “is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief,” from a foreign policy perspective, because he would be “dangerous” and place our republic’s well-being and national security at risk. Where have these 50 been the last eight years? The most dangerous president from a foreign policy perspective that has weakened our national security and placed this republic’s well-being at risk currently occupies the Oval Office. Yet, these individuals refuse to vote for Trump, who would be a far sight better than what lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue now.

According to the letter, “Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U. S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.”

Seriously? These men and women just described the current occupier of the Oval Office – Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah. And, believe it or not, they just described the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton. They have been drinking the “fool-aid” way to long.

Continuing on, the group details exactly what is meant in these broad statements.

In addition, Mr. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding of America’s vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances, and the democratic values on which U. S. foreign policy must be based. At the same time, he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and friends. Unlike previous Presidents who had limited experience in foreign affairs, Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself. He continues to display an alarming ignorance of basic facts of contemporary international politics. Despite his lack of knowledge, Mr. Trump claims that he understands foreign affairs, and “knows more about ISIS than the generals do.”

Exactly how much understanding did Hussein Soetoro possess of any of these “concerns” the group is now voicing about Donald Trump? Soetoro became notorious for his “American Apology Tour” taken shortly after entering office. In addition to complimenting America’s adversaries, Soetoro provides our republic’s enemies with arms and training while working to ensure Iran has nuclear capability. In constitutional terms, this defines treason. And, the current foreign policy of this nation revolves around the “others first, America last” mantra. If this is “contemporary international politics,” this republic could stand a little “America first” thinking. Unless these people live with Trump, they have no idea if he is or isn’t educating himself on foreign affairs. Could Trump know more about ISIS than current generals in the armed forces? Who knows, but, at least Trump recognizes who the enemy is and is willing to call it by name.

Since the Constitution established our system of government as a republic, our foreign policy should reflect the very nature of our founding, not democratic values or governance by mob rule.

Mr. Trump lacks the temperament to be President. In our experience, a President must be willing to listen to his advisers and department heads; must encourage consideration of conflicting views; and must acknowledge errors and learn from them. A President must be disciplined, control emotions, and act only after reflection and careful deliberation. A President must maintain cordial relationships with leaders of countries of different backgrounds and must have their respect and trust.

And, is the public to believe Hussein Soetoro possesses the temperament to be president? He has placed “yes men” in department head and secretarial positions in order to rule by decree; never considers a conflicting view from his own or encourages dissenting views; and never acknowledges his mistakes or errors, much less learns from them. Hussein Soetoro’s acts of passive aggression certainly alludes to his “lack of temperament” to be President. Again, this could be the exact description of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

There have been reports that Hussein Soetoro has had “outbursts” signaling an inability to control his emotions. Moreover, he has a “leap before you look” philosophy, ignoring any consequences that could occur from his actions. In fact, the only “reflection and careful deliberation” on the part of Hussein Soetoro probably only occurs in the White House “throne” room. As it stands right now, Hussein Soetoro lacks the respect and trust of all other world leaders, thereby maligning the united States’ standing in the world. Wasn’t it Hussein Soetoro, along with his accomplice Hillary Rodham Clinton, that engaged in ousting legitimate foreign governments to put in place one of their choosing, initiated military action in Libya to oust Ghaddafi leaving a governmental void resulting in the advancement of Muslim terrorist groups, and allowed four Americans to be killed at Benghazi while running armaments to ISIS? After all of this, Hussein Soetoro wanted to “stage a coup” against Syrian president Bashar al-Asaad, thereby poking the Russian bear, Putin.

Believe it or not, one can maintain a cordial relationship with other nations’ leaders, earn their respect and trust, and place America’s interests first without causing “a temporal vortex that will swallow the world whole and everyone in it.”

In our judgment, Mr. Trump has none of these critical qualities. He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood. He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Hillary Clinton certainly does not have any of these “critical qualities” and neither does Hussein Soetoro. In fact, Clinton and Soetoro both are mythomaniacs. Neither would know the truth if it jumped up and bit either one. Hussein Soetoro has sewn division across all demographics and socio-economic lines by weaving lies as truth. In fact, where Hussein Soetoro is concerned, the truth is an inconvenience that needs “reworking” into something more palatable. It’s the same with Hillary Clinton, but worse in that she blatantly denies truth with lies, trying to turn lies into truth and truth into lies. With these two, it’s their way or the highway. When it comes to tolerating personal criticism, Hussein Soetoro maligns those who criticize him while Hillary disposes of her critics. If erratic behavior is a disqualifying character, Hillary should have been encouraged to step aside some time ago. And, for Pete’s sake, who exactly are “our closest allies?” Does anyone in government actually know who our allies are? If appearances were to be the judge of who are “our closest allies,” it would be those who hate us the most and call for our deaths.

We understand that many Americans are profoundly frustrated with the federal government and its inability to solve pressing domestic and international problems. We also know that many have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us. But Donald Trump is not the answer to America’s daunting challenges and to this crucial election. We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.

re not these individuals declaring they will not vote for Trump part of the federal government at one time or another and engaged in contributing to the “profound frustration” many Americans have with government’s inability to address domestic and international problems? Unfortunately, these individuals have blinders on if they cannot see the most reckless President in US history is in office right now. These individuals should have more than doubts about Hillary Clinton. They should be totally opposed to her based on her platform of destroying the God-given rights of every citizen of this republic, turning this nation into a banana republic, and on her criminal activity throughout the years going all the way back to Arkansas moving forward to Benghazi, with the most recent being “emailgate.” This latest, following her responsibility for the murder of four Americans at Benghazi, demonstrated her inability to protect national security and promote the republic’s well-being.

The “Fool-aid Fifty” remained silent throughout the lawless Hussein Soetoro administration, meaning these “fool-aids” consented to the action of the administration. Yet, they leave the punch bowl to come outside to declare their lack of support for Donald Trump, projecting the exact actions and philosophy of Hussein Soetoro, as well as Hillary Clinton, onto Trump. While many citizens have their doubts about Donald Trump, citizens are assured of a continuation of the status quo should the Republican establishment have succeeded in placing their choice candidate as the nominee. Likewise, citizens can expect more policies similar to the Hussein Soetoro administration should Hillary Clinton succeed in winning the election. In fact, it will be worse. For where Hussein Soetoro failed, Clinton may just succeed given the propensity for individuals associated with the Clintons having a high incident of “accidents.”

One thing is certain. This is probably the most crucial election in American history. The literal survival of the republic hangs in the balance. With the Republican Party tearing itself apart, the election of the president hinging on the Electoral College, and the rejection of Trump by numerous Republicans, citizens could see another Gore/Bush scenario, meaning Hillary would win should Trump take the popular vote. While Donald Trump may not be the answer, Hillary would most definitely be reminiscent of “Gozar, the Destructor” or “Viggo, the Scourge of Carpathia.” And, let’s not forget, the Democratic Party is knowingly supporting a criminal and traitor for the office of the president. Maybe the “Fool-aid Fifty” can tell America why the Republican Party and themselves favored the status quo and did not put forth a candidate that would be the answer to the challenges facing America.

300 Share Tweet Pin

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Next post Olympic Shooter Kim


William S. Frankl, All Rights Reserved
Design by Yikes!