The Moral Mandate To Defeat Hillary

This past week a talk radio colleague created a stir when she asserted that those who were refusing to vote for Donald Trump on moral grounds were both misguided but also hypocritical.

She went so far as to describe those that did not choose to support the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton as in essence supporting the expansion of abortion.

Laura Ingraham was correct in her assertions.

Though I do not make any assumption of intent to do so, I very much agree that those who refuse to stop Hillary, are assisting her efforts. On the campaign trail this year she has pledged to quadruple the current tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood. We currently send more than one half billion tax dollars to the organization that kills 387,000 children per year (and increasingly in turn makes more money from the selling of their body parts.) Hillary has pledged to quadruple these efforts.

So if you’re comfortable with Hillary Clinton spending two billion of our tax dollars (money you work hard for to feed your kids with) to kill upwards of 1.2 million children, then do nothing.

But the moral mandate to oppose Clinton goes far beyond the killing of unborn children.

Her economic policies would continue the choking regulations on small businesses. Doing so means fewer jobs are created. Fewer people feeding their families. Fewer people doing good with their tithes and charitable giving. Fewer resources to ever help those who have fallen through the cracks. She has no plan to address the issues of the urban centers. She has not met and formulated action plans with community leaders in Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and DC. She has no plan to help end addiction, dependency, and entitlement drains. She is fine with allowing those who are suffering to continue to suffer, so long as they vote for her. This approach is morally wrong, not merely fiscally.

Her national security positions are impossible to trust. She openly flaunted national security concerns by installing and using a nearly completely unsecured server. Her shrug-of-the-shoulder approach to classified information being left vulnerable on her server stood in sharp contrast to nearly every military or intelligence official who has had their statuses revoked for much smaller infractions. Considering also that the FBI agents who worked the case investigating her unanimously felt she should never be given a security clearance again should be telling. Considering that the six DOJ attorneys who worked her case believed she should’ve been prosecuted should seal the deal as to whether the moral trust the nation will have to put in it’s top intelligence officer. Indifference to the law is as immoral as breaking it. Her willingness to ignore the plight of the boys in Benghazi, lie to their families faces and ask Congress “what difference it made” also speaks to her willful and immoral lack of care for those in her charge. She is morally compromised, and demonstrated it while serving in government.

Her approach to the rule of law speaks loudly to the lack of moral code she would continue to encourage at higher office. Everything from encouraging Black Lives Matter to go further in disturbing law and order in their protests, to making smarmy and arrogant jokes while wholesale denying things we later found out to be true speaks to her own willingness to skirt any law that is inconvenient for her. She is without equal in public brazenness and overly prideful in defying lawful orders, subpoenas, and court instruction. Not ironically those are usually issued because of an earlier refusal to comply with written laws.

Lastly and perhaps the most important reason that she must be opposed on moral grounds is very simple: we’re not merely electing one person to one position. The president will bring with them nearly 3000 bureaucrats. Which leads those not committed to stopping Hillary to answer some tough questions.

For instance, what’s the rigorous intellectual difference between what Laura Ingraham said and what conservatives have argued about democrats who claim to be pro-life but refuse to raise a finger to stop

Every argument made to vote for Bush in 2000 once Keyes and Bauer were out of the running was “he’s better than Gore… even if imperfect. Every argument made for McCain was that while he may have not been a perfect conservative we would get more from him than Obama. The same for Romney.

You fight the battle for purity in the primary, but you should fight for the survival of civilization in the general.

It’s not just Trump v Clinton. It’s Pence v. Kaine. It’s it’s Cristie vs. Lynch. It’s Ken Blackwell vs. Cheryl Mills. It’s a cabinet of competence vs a cabinet of corruption.

To continue to pretend that “doing nothing” is in some way being pro-life at this time is rigorously intellectually, and mathematically false.

It makes me uncomfortable to have to level such confrontation in writing. I have so many cherished friends who likely disagree with me here. But what I’ve said is true.

If you are not committed to stopping Hillary—especially on moral grounds—then you are helping her win.

And if good people choose to do nothing, then evil prospers.

Sir Edmund Burke would be the first to say so.

Why Hillary Will Kill Us All

This week two significant revelations took place that should permanently swing the election away from the nominee for the Democrats.

Both revelations demonstrated that Hillary Clinton is either the world’s biggest buffoon when handling national security, or she is the world’s most dishonest person living. America is beginning to see why it is so much the latter.

On Thursday of this week revelations came to the fore that the administration—specifically the Secretary of State’s office and the President—in the run up to the implementation of the Iran deal—specifically knew that Iran was not in compliance with the terms of the deal as announced. Regardless the administration gave permission for Iran to cheat on the terms, and pushed forward with the implementation. They did so while telling the American people that Iran had met all of the required conditions—knowing they had not.

The source of this revelation was not a conservative organization, a republican politician, or a hostile opponent to the administration. The source of these observations stem from actual negotiators from the Iran agreement and will be detailed in an upcoming report by a group that studies Science and Global Security.

It is also not just merely the fact that the administration allowed Iran to cheat, as they were assuring the American people that Iran wasn’t, that’s the issue. The substance of what they were cheating on is also pertinent.

According to the sources—those familiar with the terms—Iran was allowed to retain control of nearly fifty tons of partially enriched uranium. The administration got around it because it presented to the American people the idea that the material had been relocated to Oman, Jordan. In reality the material was transported under and remains in the grasp of Iranians who guard and watch it. Again we know this because of insiders to the deal. Additionally 19 separate nuclear enrichment facilities have been allowed to retain a much larger capacity for uranium enrichment than what the American people were told, and again Clinton, Obama, Kerry knowingly allowed the Iranians to do it.

In short the American people were told that Iran was giving up all of it’s weapons-grade uranium (or any that can be turned into it), and that they capacity of the enrichment sites were small. What the report will reveal with greater detail is that Iran has the uranium that can be weaponized, they have 50 tons of it minimum, and they have big fat enrichment sites ready to weaponize it.

The other significant revelation was the pervasive and persistent lack of knowledge that Hillary Clinton claimed in her interview with the FBI on things as simple as whether or not she ever signed non-disclosure agreements that govern her behavior as it relates to interactions with classified materials. We’ve seen that she ignored those agreements, but she told Brett Baier she didn’t remember signing them. She told the FBI she either didn’t sign them, didn’t know if she had signed them, or could not recall signing them.

On my show on Friday, my friend, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, Senior Fellow at American Values, called it the worst case of “playing the dumb blonde” card she has seen.

But being a dumb blonde to the American people should be of little consequence, what should matter tremendously is what this adds up to.

The past three nominees for President for the Democrat party more or less colluded to smash a deal through with Iran that the American people overwhelmingly did not like and do not trust. After it was implemented aspects of the deal continue to sour us on the reliability of it to achieve even it’s own ultra ambitious objectives, much less continue basic national security.

This deal had secret side deals to it that have allowed for Iran (the world’s biggest terror state) to:
1. Police itself and self inspect enrichment facilities.
2. Demand and receive ransom in the $400,000,000 range for American hostages.
3. Keep 50 tons of it’s enriched uranium.
4. Be allowed to operate uranium enrichment at a much larger capacity than what was known.
5. Keep all of this information secret from the American people.

And now the Democrat party asks Americans to put a woman in charge of not only this initiative (which bore her name in the early days of the process) but to give her complete say over the remainder of all international and national security matters—when she can not remember nor seem to know if she is allowed to put classified and top secret information on a personal server that is purposefully left unprotected.

My family, like many American families, has forward serving military—some of whom deal with vital national security matters. They don’t tell us what they are. They aren’t allowed and we don’t want them to. But they deserve better than a “dumb blonde” to serve under. They deserve someone, however imperfect in many ways—will absolutely never sell out—the American people, our military, our national security, and the safety of our children.

It is a foregone conclusion, at least in my thinking, that if Hillary Clinton conducts herself as President even half as recklessly as she has to date, she will get many Americans killed.

I am not willing to give her that chance.

Are you?

Are Refugees & Security Equal?

“Nobody who sets foot in America goes through more screening than refugees… And …Our humanitarian duty to help desperate refugees and our duty to our security — those duties go hand in hand.”

Tuesday from the White House the President utter those two little rhetorical gems.

They were buried of course in a much longer narrative of rhetoric that dealt with many bloviated expressions of feigned support for France, the war against the Islamic State, and of course, efforts to curb global warming.

Most of the media universe picked up on what a “powerful rebuke” it will be “to the terrorists” for he–President Obama–to attend a global warming summit next week.

Exactly why he thinks radical Islamists who would like to severe his head from his shoulders care one ounce about the issue of global warming–especially since we’ve been in a cooling cycle for 18 years–is a bit hard to explain.

But in the President’s world, leading can be done from behind, ending a war is the same as winning one, and containing ISIS means they’ve now grown to 20 additional countries as opposed to the two they started in.

But that “powerful rebuke” aside, it was my feeling that the two assertions above were actually far bigger problems for the American people.

Arguing that refugees are screened so closely that we wouldn’t be able to miss catching bad guys coming under a false cover of being a faux refugee or asylee is on its face laughable.

Maxim Lott exposes the underbelly of that assumption and points out the uncomfortable truth that the Kentucky IED, Boston bombing, and Fort Dix Six, and others have included refugees and asylees (who are here under the same conditions.)

That claim however is still to me the less worrisome of Mr. Obama’s assertions.

From the quote above it is clear that the President draws a moral equivalence between admitting, settling, and resourcing refugees in America and protecting the citizenry of America from terrorism.

He even asserts as much in the claim. While knowing that in not screening refugees as thoroughly as possible to properly vet before admission he runs the risk of violating national security directly.

From the text of the Constitution, to the halls of Congress, to the men and women in uniform, to the man and woman on Main Street — it is my belief that most would be shocked to learn that an American President could even think that admitting refugees (under any circumstances), in terms of priorities, could consider to even be close–much less be seen as EQUAL to–the sacred calling of protecting America from her enemies both foreign and domestic.

But then again this is the thinking of the guy who said this week the most powerful weapon that we can yield against the terrorists (wasn’t guns, missles, jets, or nukes) was to look them in the eye and tell them “we’re not afraid.”

Right before his State Department told Americans globally to be very, very afraid to travel (anywhere in the world) on the biggest travel week of the year.

Um… Okay, I guess?


UPDATE: We discussed it on-air…