Why I Would Never Vote for Hillary

Donald Trump is on the Birther warpath against Ted Cruz on account of Cruz’ Canadian birth. I had told The Nephew that I thought it was Marco Rubio.  But, alas, it is Mr. Cruz.  We both agreed that a Canadian citizenship – or any foreign birth – would be problematic, especially if both parents were foreigners.  However, like Obama, Cruz’ mother was American.  His father eventually became a naturalized Canadian.


Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz, born December 22, 1970, was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  His father, also named Rafael, was born in Cuba, and his father was from the Canary Islands in Spain. Ted Cruz’s mother was born in Wilmington, Del., and is of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian ancestry.


His father left Cuba in 1957 to attend the University of Texas at Austin, obtained political asylum in the United States after his four-year student visa expired, and became a Canadian citizen during his eight-year stay in that country. He ultimately became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005.


If the father was a Canadian citizen when Cruz was born in 1970, then it would throw Cruz’ candidacy – and his supporters – into a quandary. Is he actually eligible to become President of the United States?  It’s the last question in the world I want to ask, because Cruz is my favorite in the election.  But his residency must be impeachable.  We insisted on it with Obama (some were never satisfied on that point, the “Birthers”, but I was).  Can we insist on less from a candidate whose birthright is indisputable?


Now I must reconsider the available candidates, none of whom particularly meets my definition of a “Conservative”, save for Huckabee.


One person, however, for whom I will never, ever vote is Hillary Rodham Clinton – liar, prevaricator, cackler, Progressive Socialist, Communist and candidate for President of the United States. The public, 51 percent of whom are women, are ignorant of her ideology, or at least its inevitable consequences, because the propagandist media is running her campaign and her Democrat rival, Bernie Sanders, is even redder than she is.


The Nephew has twice asked why I will not vote for Hillary.


In short, she’s a Communist in an orange pantsuit. Red and orange, for the color-blind, clash horridly.  The last time she was in the White House, the Millennials, including The Nephew, were riding their tricycles.  While they were watching Barney, the Purple Dinosaur, she was plotting the first, albeit unsuccessful, attack on our health care.  We were teaching them the alphabet when she became First Lady, or as she termed herself, the first Co-President.


We were the young ones then and knew her history all too well.


At the age of 13, she managed to conjure up alleged voter fraud against GOP Candidate Richard Nixon on the South Side of Chicago, while completely missing the vote-stealing of John F. Kennedy’s father, Joseph.


Allegedly a Conservative Republican (she said she was a mind Conservative but a heart Liberal and was actually president of the college’s Young Republican’s Club), Clinton volunteered for Barry Goldwater’s campaign in 1964, (probably as an operative), and was helpful in Nelson Rockefeller’s efforts to sabotage Goldwater’s run for the presidency. She organized a two-day strike at Wellesley College in 1968, after Martin Luther King’s assassination (whom she met in 1962).


As she went through college, her political views became more “moderate” – and more radicalized. She objected to Nixon’s characterization of liberal Republican Nelson Rockefeller in the 1968 election.  Meanwhile, she wrote her college thesis on the subject of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky, whose book, Rules for Radicals, was dedicated to Lucifer.


In the late spring of 1971, she began dating Bill Clinton, also a law student at Yale. That summer she interned at the Oakland, Calif., law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein. Two of the firm’s four partners were current or former Communist Party members.  She failed the Washington, D.C., bar exam, but passed the Arkansas bar.


Rodham began a year of postgraduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center. Her first scholarly article, “Children Under the Law,” was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973.   Discussing the new children’s rights movement, it stated that “child citizens” were “powerless individuals” and argued that children should not be considered equally incompetent from birth to attaining legal age, but that instead courts should presume competence except when there is evidence otherwise, on a case-by-case basis. The article became frequently cited in the field.


In 1974, Hillary was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.   Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment.  What the Wikipedia version of Hillary’s involvement in Watergate fails to mention is that Hillary was dismissed from the committee due to allegations of legal misconduct on her part.


Democrat Jerry Zeifman, a counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee who supervised Clinton during the Watergate investigation, fired her.


Zeifman contended that Rodham and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office to bolster the chances of Sen. Ted Kennedy or another Democrat being elected president. He said that in 1974 a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with “… her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel — as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon.”


Zeifman charges that Rodham regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, a violation of House rules. Hillary Rodham’s conduct, according to Zeifman, also was the result of not wanting Nixon to face an impeachment trial because Democrats worried that Nixon might bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy.


Zeifman — ironically, a consultant to a member of the Judiciary Committee that impeached President Bill Clinton — said Democrats feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand. Hunt, Zeifman said, might report on his knowledge of nefarious activities in the Kennedy administration “including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.”


Zeifman also asserts that Rodham joined Burke Marshall, Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair and Rodham’s former law professor; special counsel John Doar; and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House counsel) Bernard Nussbaum in trying to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon.


In order to pull this off, Zeifman said that Rodham wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents. After the Nixon impeachment investigation was finished, Zeifman fired Rodham and said he refused to give her a letter of recommendation.


Pro-Hillary writers claim that the allegations are false; however, it is a fact that she was fired from the committee.


The Clintons lost their late-1970s investment in the Whitewater Development Corporation. At the same time, their partners in that investment, Jim and Susan McDougal, operated Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan institution that retained the legal services of Rose Law Firm (by which Hillary was employed) and may have been improperly subsidizing Whitewater losses.


Madison Guaranty later failed, and Clinton’s work at Rose was scrutinized for a possible conflict of interest in representing the bank before state regulators that her husband had appointed.   She claimed she had done minimal work for the bank.  Independent counsels Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr subpoenaed Clinton’s legal billing records; she said she did not know where they were.  Sound familiar?


The records were found in the First Lady’s White House book room after a two-year search and delivered to investigators in early 1996. The delayed appearance of the records sparked intense interest and another investigation concerning how they surfaced and where they had been.


Clinton’s staff attributed the problem to continual changes in White House storage areas since the move from the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion. On Jan. 26, 1996, Clinton became the first First Lady to be subpoenaed to testify before a Federal grand jury.  After several Independent Counsels had investigated, a final report was issued in 2000 that stated there was insufficient evidence that either Clinton had engaged in criminal wrongdoing.


After the Clintons moved into the presidential mansion, the political scandals multiplied – from use of the IRS and FBI to target political opponents to stalking and harassing subjects of Bill Clinton’s sexual advances and even attempts to loot taxpayer-funded items from the White House. Americans also witnessed capers such as Travelgate, Chinagate, Filegate, and Pardongate.


And then there was the Vince Foster Scandal. Foster, a Deputy White House Counsel during the first few months of Clinton’s administration, was a partner at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark., and a colleague and friend of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  The official cause of his suicide in 1993 was his unhappiness with work in politics.  However, conspiracy theorists salivated over reports that the suicide weapon was found in the wrong hand, and other details that led the conspiracy trail straight back to Hillary.


Another detail that Wikipedia only relates to far down into the article, where they hope you won’t go, is that Foster failed to get several key Clinton administration appointments nominated and that he was deeply involved in the White House travel office controversy and he had handled the Clintons’ Madison Guaranty and Industrial Development Corporation (the White Water Scandal) paperwork, and several Whitewater –related tax returns as Deputy White House counsel.


What conspiracy theorists wanted to know – and naturally, would never, ever find out – was whether Foster fell on his sword – so to speak – or had to be helped along (directly or indirectly) by Hillary or one of her minions. The world will never know.  But it will always wonder.


All these things are what Hillary hopes will turn to dust under the carpet. She also the enjoys the benefit of legal terrorism.  A whole new generation of Millennials has never heard of any of this.  Needless to say, she hopes they never will, or that they will consider it “ancient history.”


I find the business about her original political leanings being distinctly Conservative very hard to believe. If I recall her memoirs and biographies correctly, she was a Liberal from the time she got into the car to head off towards college, that she was actually converted to Socialism, not Conservatism, by a high school teacher.


From digging up dirt on Richard Nixon in Chicago in 1960 to dismissing the Benghazi incident and crediting it to a nearly non-existent video, Hillary has proven to me time and again that she is decidedly unsuited to be President of the United States.


The Nephew naively thinks that her gender automatically qualifies her for my vote. Hillary is scarcely my role model for womanhood.  That honor belongs to my mother, and The Nephew’s paternal grandmother Grandma E. (who is approaching her 91st birthday at the end of this month, God willing, even if she is not).


Grandma E. graduated high school at the age of 16, two full years ahead of her class. She had to lie about her age in order to get her first job.  In 1941, she was hired by Dodge Reports, an architectural trade magazine with offices in Manhattan.  Eventually, against the magazine’s general policy, she was promoted to the job of outside reporter, an extremely unusual position for any woman, but particularly a 17 year-old (her actual age at that time).


At 20, she found herself reporting on buildings and roadwork in Westchester County in New York State. On a holiday across the Hudson River, in August of 1944, she found a road construction crew at work, paving Route 9A.  She took pictures and information.  The crew allowed her to drive both the paver and the steamroller, and she operated the plumb line, which gauges how deep the pavement is and guides the line for the line painters.


They also showed her how to pack dynamite.


That same year, she learned that a new, male reporter was hired on, making more money than she did, a now-experienced field reporter. She complained to her manager, who explained that the reason for the higher pay was that he was a man who would, in the future, marry and support a family.


My mother complained furiously about the inequality.


“My landlord doesn’t charge me less rent because I’m a woman!” she thundered at her supervisor. “The grocer doesn’t sell me a loaf of bread at half-price, and I’m not charged a half-fare on the train because I’m a woman!  Therefore, you have no right to pay me half the salary a man gets simply because I’m a woman!  If you don’t raise my salary to his – or higher, because I’ve been working longer – then I quit!”


And she stormed right out of the office. The supervisor called her to return the next day, with a substantial increase in her salary and incremental bonuses to make up for the arrears in past payments.


My mother, in 1944, was able to get her own raise in pay without resorting to lawsuits or complaints to the government. She certainly could have appealed to the government through backdoors and strong-armed Dodge Reports into a pay raise; her father’s first cousin was none other than Sen. Robert Wagner, chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.


However, she would never have dreamt of presuming upon the relation, even though the Senator was well-regarded within the family for his kindness and generosity. To my mother, such a request for help would have been dishonorable, embarrassing, and quite unnecessary.  She could negotiate it herself, thank you very much.  Just think about Grandma E., Nephew.  Would you imagine otherwise?  Could you see Grandma E. asking Hillary for help now?


That’s right; not likely.


To be fair, she began working at the very beginning of World War II. The Great Depression (during which she grew up) was over and there was now a labor shortage.  She could well afford to tell her employer, “Hike my wage or I’ll take a hike.”  Still, she knew how to stand up for herself.  She earned a man’s wages in a man’s field, sometimes while wearing spiked heels onto construction sites (“Well, I wanted the men to see my legs,” she said.).


Then, after your Dad, and Uncle A. and I were older, she took another man’s job, in the early Seventies, as a long-distance bus driver in order to bring more money into our household and also to give herself something to do besides watch the squirrels or listen to the neighborhood’s television set blaring out the latest soap opera (a type of entertainment she detested).


I’m not Grandma E., even though I’m her daughter. I’m a very different sort of person.  In fact, we’re exact opposites.  We also live in different times.  She began work in a booming economy that just kept on growing.  I began work in a booming economy (during the Reagan Era) that has gone south in the decade before my retirement.


Where Grandma E. demanded her employer raise her wages, I had to beg my supervisor not to. Our company was on the ropes and so was my job (Dodge Reports, by the way, is still in business, all these years later).  If my salary went any higher, I’d be out of a job.  And I was right.  I was making too much money then, and now I’m barely making any money at all.


Even so, I would not beg Hillary for a single penny. She is Big Government personified, promising to take care of women who should be, and are very capable of, taking care of themselves.  Any woman who has to beg the government to plead her case for a pay raise doesn’t deserve one.  If she can’t compete with a man, if she can’t do the same job as a man, or can’t make the case that she is doing the same job as a man, then she doesn’t deserve help.


Nephew, do I do the same job as your father? Did I get the same grades?  (The answer is, “No.”)  Did I study as hard, work as hard, save my money as hard, or invest it as well as he did?  No, no, no, and well, if I’d made the same salary I would have invested and done better than he did because I’m actually smarter than he is, but don’t tell him that).


Yet, I don’t begrudge him one penny because he was more successful than I have been. He’s welcome to every penny he’s earned and to spend or save it as he pleases.  He’s proud of his Cadillac and his big house (which I helped him build) and I’m glad for him.  That’s Capitalism.   That’s Freedom.


The fact is, I simply wasn’t as ambitious as he was.  I wasn’t anxious to labor in the business world, as it were.  That is, I had no ambition to climb the corporate ladder.  I didn’t want to be the president of a company, or an executive, or even a manager.  Those positions meant meetings (I’m too claustrophobic), budgets (actually I could have done that, now that I look back on it, although I didn’t have the training and now I lack the experience; I have some skinflint in me, though not as much as your father has), and supervising people (I’m too nervous and impatient).


I lacked the killer instinct for the business world, when you get right down to it. Lie?  Cheat?  Terminate people?  Backstab?  Lick boots on the way up and use them to kick people on the way down?   Even steal?  No wonder people need anxiety medications.  Or booze.


Still, there’s no rest for the wicked and we must all work. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.


However, no matter how hard (or tedious) the work, hostile the office environment, or grueling the hours, there’s nothing worse than being subservient to and dependent upon the government.  The Middle Class has never known such civil serfdom, exactly, save for Social Security and Medicare, during the 20th Century, although we’re beginning to get a taste of it now, and a very sour taste it is, in the 21st.


The Corporation may be the Communist world in miniature. You may have to check all your rights (especially freedom of speech) at the door.  You may have to go through security checks just to enter the building.  They can push your nose to the proverbial grindstone.  If you are promoted to management, you can say good-bye almost completely to your family life (as you know well enough).  The Corporation basically owns you and, thanks to modern technology, they own you 24/7.


Still, when you go home at night, your life, your thoughts, your beliefs, your hopes and dreams, your property are your own (or as much as they can be with 21st Century technology).  If you’re unhappy with your job or your boss, you can find another position.  If you’re really smart like, say, Donald Trump, you can invest your money and retire at 30, theoretically, at least.


That won’t happen in the Communist world. You may not realize it, but the Communists brooked no slackers.  If you didn’t work, you were thrown into prison.  They decided your “career” for you.


Communal living – sustainable development is its more politically correct-sounding off-spring – meant subservience to a party operative who ran the building. You got one small apartment that precluded a large family.  If the “landlord” had the least suspicion that you were harboring anti-communist, anti-party thoughts, or got wind of it from any neighbors, who could gain materially by betraying you, you would be arrested, along with your wife, and eventually shot.  Your children would be sent off to a labor camp.  The greatest enemy would, in fact, likely be your children, who would betray you to their teachers.


The Millennial Generation is woefully ignorant of the truth. They’ve been taught not to trust the horror stories of Communism during the 20th Century.  They cling to the adages that have been handed down through the generations by Communist operatives in the West:  that not every society is capable of freedom.  Excluding the Muslim society (which is quite true), excuse me?  What society would that be?  Do they mean the society of 18th and 19th Century slaves?  Do they mean to suggest that the slaves wouldn’t have been able to acclimate themselves to freedom?  Because that’s what the slave traders and the slave owners claimed.


The Chinese peasants, the Chinese Communists claim, would never have been able to become accustomed to freedom. Really?  Is that why the Communists destroyed centuries-old family records?  Or was it to destroy any notions of life other than the communal, anti-individual life; any atom of individual identity, property ownership, even in such a homogenous society as China?


Well, the Chinese certainly wanted to acclimate themselves to freedom. They believed the Communist lies that communism would free them from imperial serfdom.  Instead, freedom cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Chinese peasants (as well as Ukrainian farmers during the Stalin era).  Freedom is certainly life-threatening in Communist China.  A very unhealthy way of life, indeed.  Maybe that’s why my bobble-head collection is labeled:  “Made in China.”


We’ve become so accustomed to the notion that America is a land of freedom and liberty, that we haven’t noticed that is no longer that same land. The Millennials are the Boiled Frog Generation.  Freedom?  What’s that?  Isn’t freedom really the selfishness of individualism?  At least, that’s what the Young Trotskyites told you, and us:  that we’re all white, privileged, Western European descendants who are standing on the shoulders of the poor, polluting the Earth, oppressing the underprivileged (well, that’s they were called back in the day), discriminating against minorities (including women) and making the rich richer.


Those arguments are so old, they’ve practically grown whiskers. They’ve been sold to mindless, peer-approval-seeking adolescents suffering from arrested development by social agitators wishing only to overturn the current social order so they can create their own social order.  That order will be not be one jot different from the last one, except that the agitators will be the ones on top, giving the orders and oppressing other groups at will, and encouraging neighbors to betray one another.


Get with the program, or you’re out. You didn’t go out to California thinking this way.  Your Grandfather Frank, your father, Grandma E., and I all taught you better.  Yet you’ve thrown over all your teaching, probably without ever having read the books about these people and their revolutionary cause.


Nephew, I am certainly not going to vote for a woman who wants to come between me and my older brother, your father. If your Dad is more successful than I am, wealthier, better prepared for retirement, and gainfully employed, that’s just none of Hillary’s damned business.  Or the government’s. If anything, the government is more responsible for my plight than your father is.


When it comes to Big Brother, I prefer my big brother to the government Big Brother. I can tell my big brother to mind his own business.  If I were to tell our Big Brother government the same thing, I’d be thrown in jail.  I don’t believe in the War on Women.  We used to call it the Battle of the Sexes.  Your father and I certainly fought many of those battles as children and teenagers.


So did Grandma E. and Grandpa J. So what?  Grandma E. didn’t need the government to protect her from Grandpa J. and he was almost as tall as his son (Uncle A.).  He was a tall, strong, strapping man.  That didn’t stop Grandma E. from laying down the law – on their wedding night – what would happen to him if he laid so much as a finger on her.


My feminine health care is none of the government’s business, either, and I don’t need them to nursemaid me. Birth control is none of their business.  That’s between me and the male partner.  If neither of us can afford it, then we need to go our separate ways, not to a hotel, or Planned Parenthood.


And that’s why I won’t vote for Hillary.


That’s also why the presidential election in 2016 is critical, if we are not to be permanently subjected to a government of “social justice”. I actually wouldn’t mind if Hillary won if only because it would mean the permanent destruction of the corrupted Republican Party and the birth of a new, Conservative Party.


A vote for Hillary is a vote for histrionics, not justice.

Published in: on January 6, 2016 at 12:58 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://belleofliberty.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/why-i-would-never-vote-for-hillary/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: