Patrick Quinlan

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

 Hillary Clinton represents the worst, the vilest and the most inhumane sect of the political establishment in existence today. She purports to support small business and the middle class while supporting increases in regulation and taxation on both of these groups, allowing her corporate donors to increasingly corner what should be free markets. She has supported some of the most egregious violations of personal rights while Senator, such as limiting Second Amendment rights. She talks about money in politics — largely after Bernie Sanders created such a huge movement out of it — while simultaneously accepting donations from Wall Street and avoids criticizing Wall Street while delivering speeches to, ironically enough, Goldman Sachs. She has blasted Republican candidate Donald Trump for alleged actions and mistreatment of women on his part after she — according to numerous books and interviews from the 90s —  silenced or smeared victims of her husband’s predatory actions. For the future of Western civilization, peace in the Middle East and Russia and the freedom of everyday Americans, she must not be granted the White House.

 From purely a policy perspective, on subjects like the economy, gun control and immigration, Hillary is, bar none, the worst candidate. She favors higher taxes on the rich and middle class while claiming this is going to magically stimulate the economy, all while the economy itself teeters on the edge of a knife and the Federal Reserve (Fed) refuses to raise interest rates to signal that the recovery is over. Pursuing contractionary fiscal policy while the Fed pursues expansionary monetary policy is a recipe for economic disaster and yet there are those on the left who still cry, “tax the rich,” as if those funds weren’t planned for other useful economic projects. A statement as economically incoherent as, “Don’t let anybody tell you that … it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” should never be taken seriously in any real sense, and yet it is an idea that resonates strongly with much of Clinton’s base. Pair this with Clinton’s advocacy for a universal, government-run healthcare system
that she claims will have lower costs than a market-based
solution, and you begin to see why so many fear what hasn’t exactly been a substantive policy proposal on Clinton’s part with regards to the economy.

 Clinton has come out in support of “common sense gun safety laws,” but “common sense” often differs depending on who is speaking. For me, common sense would be states implementing “shall issue” stances — obtaining a license is guaranteed by the state if the individual meets a set of specific criteria — on the gun issue after seeing John Lott’s data on the subject, and relaxing restrictions on people without criminal records from obtaining firearms. According to Lott, it would be to end the war on drugs that imprisons so many people and gets them embroiled in a culture of criminality that begins with nonviolent drug charges and turns into long rap sheets of violent crimes. It would be to phase out welfare as the primary provider for individuals, a system that traps them in a cycle of poverty, this poverty leading to increased levels of crime, both violent and not. This, unfortunately, is not the position taken by the Clinton campaign, instead adopting more and more anti-gun rhetoric and advocating universal background checks — something that already exists, mind you — and supporting holding manufacturers of products accountable for what their customers do with weapons. If only she took the same position to those suppliers of weapons to radical Islamic jihadists in the Middle East before they defected to the Islamic State. Oh, that’s right, according to Wikileaks, she provided those weapons.

 Arguably worst of all, Clinton has come out in support of allowing in 65,000 refugees in her first year as president and likely more as her term carries on, this on the heels of her support for Obama’s executive action on immunity for illegal immigrants. According to a report from The Center for Immigration Studies on the cost of immigration, immigrant households, illegal or otherwise, receive an average of $5,692 in federal welfare benefits every year, more than the average American household, at $4,431. Fifty-one percent of immigrant households receive some form of welfare compared to just 30 percent of native households. Someone will find a way to call me a racist for pointing this out, but I don’t think it’s in the best interest of most Americans to have our resources stripped from us via taxation to pay for the subsistence of economic migrants via welfare and other social programs. With regards to Clinton’s refugee policy, new research from Daniel Milton, Megan Spencer and Michael Findley found that “refugee flows significantly increase the likelihood and counts of transnational terrorist attacks that occur in the host country, even when controlling for other variables.” Somehow, doubting the ability of federal background checks to phase out violent criminals from obtaining firearms is perfectly fine, but doubting the ability of the federal government to properly vet refugees — which numerous officials have already concluded an impossibility — and you’re just a xenophobic racist. Immigration, both historically and today, was a process of letting in the best of what other countries had to offer, not letting millions of unskilled people flood across unguarded borders and take our resources via social programs they shouldn’t have access to in the first place.

 This all isn’t even taking into account the long and detailed history of Clinton’s underhanded political dealings. Acorrding to the Wall Street Journal, the Clinton White House used the IRS to target conservative groups like The Heritage Foundation and the National Rifle Association via audits, while not a single liberal group was audited in the same time. In addition, they used silencing and intimidation of Juanita Broaddrick, the woman allegedly raped by Bill, and other women like Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones. Kathleen Willey, another Clinton victim, wrote “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton,” a book claiming that the Clintons used mob-style intimidation to keep her quiet, even breaking into her home to steal her memoirs of her interactions with then-President Bill Clinton. Willey says she met with him in the Oval Office to request a paid position. But instead of getting help, she says, she that was subjected to “nothing short of serious sexual harassment.” With similar accusations coming out against Donald Trump decades after they happened with evidence that is sketchy at best, and media jumping all over that to portray him as a misogynistic candidate who should never be in the White House, while simultaneously ignoring Bill Clinton’s horrific allegations and Hillary’s role in covering them up.

 Pair these atrocities with payment for appointments in the State Department via the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Cash scandal, donations from Middle Eastern countries which later received money and weapons from Hillary’s State Department and a whole host of other examples of underhandedness on the part of Hillary and the Clinton family, and  Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt candidate for the presidency we will likely ever see in our lifetimes.

 Do not spend your vote on a globalist warmonger whose treatment of women, by comparison, makes Trump’s alleged treatment look downright gentlemanly. Do not vote for a candidate who wants to increase your tax burden to spend on frivolities that will doom the economy. Do not vote for a candidate who will expand federal bureaucracy in ever more egregious ways and reward her friends and allies with positions therein. Do not vote for Hillary Clinton.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email