“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

Friday, November 04, 2016

Clinton and Pedesta Have Known Since 2014 that Saudi Government Money has Gone to Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton and ISIS

Assange: Clinton & ISIS funded by same money, Trump won’t be allowed to win (JOHN PILGER EXCLUSIVE)

In the second excerpt from the John Pilger Special, to be exclusively broadcast by RT on Saturday, courtesy of Dartmouth Films, Julian Assange accuses Hillary Clinton of misleading Americans about the true scope of Islamic State’s support from Washington’s Middle East allies.

In a 2014 email made public by Assange’s WikiLeaks last month, Hillary Clinton, who had served as secretary of state until the year before, urges John Pedestal, then an advisor to Barack Obama, to “bring pressure” on Qatar and Saudi Arabia, “which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL [Islamic State, IS, ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups.”


“I think this is the most significant email in the whole collection,” Assange, whose whistleblowing site released three tranches of Clinton-related emails over the past year, told Pilger in an exclusive interview, courtesy of Dartmouth Films.

“All serious analysts know, and even the US government has agreed, that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIS and funding ISIS, but the dodge has always been that it is some “rogue” princes using their oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves. But that email says that it is the government of Saudi Arabia, and the government of Qatar that have been funding ISIS.”

Assange and Pilger, who sat down for their 25-minute interview at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the whistleblower has been a refugee since 2012, then talk about the conflict of interest between Clinton’s official post, which held throughout Obama’s first term, her husband’s nonprofit, and the Middle East officials, whose stated desire to fight terrorism may not have been sincere.

John Pilger: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the first two, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton is secretary of state, and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly Saudi Arabia.

Julian Assange: Under Hillary Clinton – and the Clinton emails reveal a significant discussion of it – the biggest-ever arms deal in the world was made with Saudi Arabia: more than $80 billion. During her tenure, the total arms exports from the US doubled in dollar value.

JP: Of course, the consequence of that is that this notorious jihadist group, called ISIL or ISIS, is created largely with money from people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation?
JA: Yes.


Pilger also questioned Assange over increasingly frequent accusations from the Clinton camp, and Western media, that WikiLeaks is looking to swing next week’s US presidential election in favor of Donald Trump – perhaps at Russia’s behest.
But Assange dismissed the prospect of Trump, who is behind in the polls, winning as unlikely – and not necessarily due to his standing with the electorate.

“My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment,” said Assange. “Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”

READ MORE: ‘Slaughter Donald for Putin bromance’: #Podesta15 emails reveal ISIS strategy diversion for Clinton

74 comments:

  1. IBD/TIPP: Trump up 20 points among … Catholics?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/03/ibdtipp-trump-20-points-among-catholics/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Questions the day:

    Are College Educated White American Women Patriotic or was that educated out of them?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Replies
    1. All they do is whine.

      Quirk was first to point this out here.

      They click their fingers when trying to make some meaningless statement, and don't let anyone else get a word in edgewise.

      Bunch of silly shits for the most part.

      Ash as female.....

      Delete
  4. Trump's got to get Florida.

    He can win without Pennsylvania.

    He needs New Hampshire and one from Maine 2 to get to 270.

    He doesn't need Colorado. He needs Nevada and Arizona....

    He needs North Carolina.

    He is going to get Ohio.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yet anther reason to vote for Trump -

    Stephanopoulos' wife: If Trump wins we are moving to Australia....DRUDGE

    ReplyDelete
  6. Drudge now has this RT story on top.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Explain to me how Russia, exposing a fraud and a deception, is “meddling” in US election affairs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      For those who dislike Trump and need an excuse to vote for Hillary it supports their confirmation bias.

      What amazes me is the extend that the Obama administration is willing to go to support a Hillary win. They are bringing our the total weight of the US government (except for the FBI) to push her candidacy.

      I don't think I've seen it to this extend before.

      .

      Delete
    2. The Clintons have something on Obama. Why did he ever select her for SOS? cut bono?

      Did you see him or hear him the last coulee of days?

      Obama is in full shuck and jive, hooting and hollering, down home, in the hood, super fly, triple full boogaloo for Hillary.

      Remarkable.

      Delete
    3. Still trying to come up with the answer to the SOS question.

      Heard part of that speech you couldn't listen to.

      My reaction would put me in prison if I acted on it.

      Delete
  8. .

    The Libs have a full court press going into the weekend.

    WaPo is stressing the questionable report that the 'Russians are coming'. Now, since no one has been able to deny any of the e-mails being printed, they are suggesting that they are just trying to lull us into a sense of security (?) so that they can slip in a really big lie close to the election when there is no time to fight it.

    The NYT is stressing the 'Healthy Job Growth' in the latest numbers. they fail to mention that the 161,000 was less than predicted especially going into the Holiday season. They talk of the drop in unemployment but fail to mention the decreasing participation rate. The brag than wage growth at 2.8 percent is the largest since 2008. They ignore 2008 was 8 years ago and in the middle of the great recession, or that it is only a one quarter number and can't be viewed as a trend. They fail to mention that productivity year over year is pretty much flat. They mention the rise in GDP to 2.8 but again address the trend for the last 8 years in which GDP averaged below 2 percent.

    However, count on the bullshit and bubblegum continuing trough Tuesday.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bullshit and Bubblegum -

    SARANDON: 'DNC completely corrupt'....DRUDGE

    Susie has switched over to the environmentalist what's her name, this year, the one that's got 2%.

    When she left the DNC in her rear view mirror and drove over the cliff is anyone's guess.

    She's nuts, and hasn't made a decent movie in decades.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What in hell is Hillary doing in the pic on Drudge ?

    ReplyDelete
  11. do you think Trump would staff his Cabinet as he HANDPICKED staff for Trump University?

    "Mississauga couple who lectured for Trump University fined for fraud
    Alexander Panetta and Michael Biesecker
    WASHINGTON — The Canadian Press
    Published Friday, Nov. 04, 2016 8:41AM EDT

    Canadian courses for Trump University were taught by a couple who used aliases, declared multiple bankruptcies, lost a real-estate licence and were sanctioned by securities regulators over a multimillion-dollar swindle, according to documents reviewed through a joint investigation by The Canadian Press and The Associated Press.

    An Ontario husband-and-wife team identifying themselves as Dave Ravindra and Rita Bahadur taught Trump courses in Canadian cities in 2010, before Trump’s namesake real-estate seminars folded amid mounting inquiries from U.S. regulators and complaints from former students.

    Trump assured customers registering for his program that he had personally hand-picked only the best people to teach courses that would share lessons for attaining financial success.



    Yet examples abound of teachers with spotty credentials — in the U.S., and now in Canada.

    The AP has already reported that Trump University staff and speakers included at least four convicted felons, including a Florida cocaine-trafficker and a former army sergeant court-martialled for sexually assaulting a fellow soldier’s eight-year-old daughter. Half the 68 former staffers whose backgrounds the AP reviewed had personal bankruptcies, home foreclosures, credit card defaults, tax liens or other indicators of significant money troubles.

    The news agency also has records showing Canadian courses taught by people with aliases for Ravindra Dave, 59, and Chandramattie Dave, 55, of Mississauga, Ont. — spouses who came to Canada from Guyana decades ago and whose various names appear in federal bankruptcy and provincial securities records.

    The spouses have filed for personal bankruptcy at least four times since 2001 — twice by him, and twice by her, according to Industry Canada records. Public documents list at least nine different names for the couple, mainly combinations mixing the order of their first, middle and last names.

    Ontario’s stock-market regulator concluded last year that they defrauded numerous Canadian investors between 2009 and 2012. Records also show a ”Dave Ravindra” with the same home address was stripped of his real-estate licence in Ontario, two years before he lectured for Trump University.

    ..."

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mississauga-couple-that-lectured-for-trump-university-fined-for-fraud/article32673906/



    And you guys would actually vote for the guy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Also, Trump (or his people) will be in court on November 28 for fraud charges over Trump University.

      .

      Delete

  12. Three members of US military killed in Jordan army base shooting

    Jordanian army says car failed to stop at gate of airbase in al-Jafr, leading to exchange of fire

    Three US service members have been killed outside a military base in southern Jordan, in an exchange of gunfire with Jordanian military guards.

    The deaths of the men – all military trainers working for the US government – was confirmed by Pentagon officials although details remain unclear.

    A US official in Washington said one service member died at the scene while two, who were critically wounded, died at the King Hussein hospital in Amman, the Jordanian capital, where they were taken after the incident.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/04/two-americans-killed-at-jordanian-airbase

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://static.infowars.com/politicalsidebarimage/huma-hill.jpg

      Delete
  13. .

    While I was at the gym they had FOX news on the TV. I didn't have my ears on so I didn't hear what was said. Just read what was on the screen but it looked like they had new Wikileaks released showing more coordination in handling the dumps.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  14. Will the Democrat attacks on the FBI redound negatively for them at the ballot box?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The bit about Uber at the beginning of the article is interesting as well if one should care to read the whole thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amazing, it disappeared again. Quirk, I think something is up with google and deleting stuffed pulled from elsewhere or something.

      Delete
    2. It didn't delete my quote from the globe above on Trump but I've got one on Facebook and poof, it's gone after 30 seconds or so.

      Delete
    3. Wow, weird. Deuce, I've posted it 3 times and boom it's gone after 30 seconds. I'll try reposting the one from above and see if it gets tossed.

      Delete
    4. "Mississauga couple who lectured for Trump University fined for fraud
      Alexander Panetta and Michael Biesecker
      WASHINGTON — The Canadian Press
      Published Friday, Nov. 04, 2016 8:41AM EDT

      Canadian courses for Trump University were taught by a couple who used aliases, declared multiple bankruptcies, lost a real-estate licence and were sanctioned by securities regulators over a multimillion-dollar swindle, according to documents reviewed through a joint investigation by The Canadian Press and The Associated Press.

      An Ontario husband-and-wife team identifying themselves as Dave Ravindra and Rita Bahadur taught Trump courses in Canadian cities in 2010, before Trump’s namesake real-estate seminars folded amid mounting inquiries from U.S. regulators and complaints from former students.

      Trump assured customers registering for his program that he had personally hand-picked only the best people to teach courses that would share lessons for attaining financial success.



      Yet examples abound of teachers with spotty credentials — in the U.S., and now in Canada.

      The AP has already reported that Trump University staff and speakers included at least four convicted felons, including a Florida cocaine-trafficker and a former army sergeant court-martialled for sexually assaulting a fellow soldier’s eight-year-old daughter. Half the 68 former staffers whose backgrounds the AP reviewed had personal bankruptcies, home foreclosures, credit card defaults, tax liens or other indicators of significant money troubles.

      The news agency also has records showing Canadian courses taught by people with aliases for Ravindra Dave, 59, and Chandramattie Dave, 55, of Mississauga, Ont. — spouses who came to Canada from Guyana decades ago and whose various names appear in federal bankruptcy and provincial securities records.

      The spouses have filed for personal bankruptcy at least four times since 2001 — twice by him, and twice by her, according to Industry Canada records. Public documents list at least nine different names for the couple, mainly combinations mixing the order of their first, middle and last names.

      Ontario’s stock-market regulator concluded last year that they defrauded numerous Canadian investors between 2009 and 2012. Records also show a ”Dave Ravindra” with the same home address was stripped of his real-estate licence in Ontario, two years before he lectured for Trump University.

      ..."

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mississauga-couple-that-lectured-for-trump-university-fined-for-fraud/article32673906/

      Delete
    5. I'll reply to my own post

      Delete
    6. Well that is just messed up. The copy and past on Trump U stays. I paste my Facebook article under it and the "I'll reply to my own post: was tagged after the Facebook post and boom, after 30 seconds it's gone.

      I'll try the link only next.

      Delete
    7. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/executive-insight/the-true-nature-of-the-internets-puppet-economy-is-being-exposed/article32670394/

      Delete
    8. I can post the link but not a snippet of the article. I wonder if blogspot doesn't like the word "facebook" or "Zuckerberg"

      Delete
    9. Uber is not the only platform business that pretends to be something it isn’t while denying its real nature. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, was caught at an event in Rome over the summer, masquerading as the boss of a technology company. In response to a straight question from his audience about the role of Facebook as “an editor in the media,” Mr Zuckerberg was at pains to insist that Facebook was not a media company, that Facebook did not produce content, but merely “exists to give you the tools to curate and have the experience to connect with the people and businesses and the world that you want.”

      Delete
    10. What Mr. Zuckerberg says is untrue. Facebook is editing and making content. Facebook is paying millions of dollars to celebrities and other media organizations to make videos for Facebook Live.

      Delete
    11. More important, the social media company is constantly editing its website, banning, deleting and restricting content that falls foul of its rules, sometimes with ludicrous results. In September, Facebook provoked a storm of protest when its editors deleted content showing the famous Vietnam War photograph of the naked girl fleeing an American napalm attack.

      Delete
    12. It’s easy to see why Mr. Zuckerberg is anxious to suppress the notion floated by the young skeptic in Rome. It’s partly about hubris: If Facebook were to become a media company, its stock would lose the prized “technology” rating and be relegated to the more prosaic valuations accorded to mere media conglomerates. But there is a more profound reason the “media” and “editor” tags cause him to wince.

      Delete
    13. If Facebook were to admit that its activities fell into the category of editing, it would soon find itself labelled a publisher. Instead of washing its hands of the material that appears in postings by Facebook users, it could find itself liable for material that might range from the mildly offensive to the defamatory or even potentially criminal.

      Delete
    14. Facebook is not a technology company. Facebook runs an electronic platform that manages, packages, monitors and controls writing and images posted by contributors. Facebook makes money by selling space to advertisers. Most people would call that publishing, a labour-intensive business with an elevated cost structure that Mr Zuckerberg would prefer to avoid.

      Delete
    15. You have heard about the gig economy, but I would call this the puppet economy. It’s masquerade. It’s a performance where you don’t see the real people – the operators, the directors who hire the performers and control the marionettes by pulling strings from behind a curtain.

      Delete
    16. Slowly but surely, the curtain is being opened and the masks are being removed. It will not be a pretty spectacle

      Delete
  16. Google is playing games. They actively work to depress some stories and posts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somethings up. I'm posting it paragraph by paragraph to see if I can see what is being caught and zapped. Sorry for cluttering up your blog.

      Delete
    2. I'm guessing it is more likely a bug than active censoring as I can post the link on it's own and each of the constituent paragraphs on their own but as soon as I copy and past the whole thing it disappears. Weird.

      Delete
    3. It's not like a person was sitting there doing the delete it's the 'google' and algorithm. It's consistent, timing and all, on this particular post.

      Delete
    4. .

      What I had to do was post it. Make a copy of it before it disappeared. Post that to word. And then post that copy from word to get it to stick.

      I don't know if it needed to go to word but it worked.

      However, you really have to judge whether the article is worth your time.

      :o)

      .

      .

      Delete
    5. I tried you process and it won't stick. I tried a few other variants (washing it through Notepad, removing the "... but it just won't stick.



      just another mystery the world offers in need of a solution...

      Delete
    6. Ash's bullshit isn't worthy of anyone's time.

      Allegations are easy.

      For instance, I can allege Ash is the dumbest cheat in North American and do you know what it would cost him to effectively deny it ?

      More than he's got.

      There are just as many that swear by Trump U as those that attack it.

      I think the University of Idaho is most shit but there's no money is saying so.

      There days it's commonly acknowledged by the common man that "Q U" sets the standards for educational excellence in USA. "Q U" advertises 'we beat Uganda on some test scores' and they did, too.

      Top that.

      Delete
    7. What really shines through about Trump is that he sells wine, and he doesn't drink.

      Delete
    8. Hillary on the other hand is a notorious drunk, but doesn't far as I know sell wine.

      Quirk, an honest man, does both.

      Delete
    9. Ash smokes doobies, which is why he sounds so stupid all the time.

      They don't call it 'dope' for nothin'.

      Delete
  17. OHH-ooooo

    MICHIGAN: TIED
    TRUMP LEADS NEW HAMPSHIRE....DRUDGE HEADLINE



    U of Idaho still has a wonderful engineering school, a decent law school, and a first rate foot ball team.

    Don't take the liberal arts crap.

    It will just mess up your mind.

    Ag Depart is OK too.

    Used to have a world class College of Mines but not enough business finally so they had to close up shop.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Assange: ‘Trump will not be allowed to win’ - 11/4/16
    Assange offers several predictions and analyses, most quite revealing. More


    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/assange_trump_will_not_be_allowed_to_win.html

    Trump will win out this way.

    Time for secession anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Quirk has always claimed he has an on line degree from some fly by night Advertising School on the Net.

    Did well too. Paid the required $199.99 and got the 'Advanced Master's Degree'.

    He didn't have the $999.99 for the Ph.D at the time, and still doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You mean those Mickey Mouse ears, or just that he only listens when he wants to ?

    I think it's time for The Buddha's Fire Sermon myself.

    Things are getting too emotional.

    Which doesn't conduce to Liberation.

    Desires, lusts, grievances, politics, lying, greed, the will to power, hatred, revenge.....these things, O Nobly Born, do not conduce to Liberation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mean tweets, the dirty finger, nasty comments, descriptions unbecoming, swearing, cursing, drinking, smoking pot, cheating, put downs, these things do not conduce to Liberation, you criminal Clinton loving shit heads.

      Delete
    2. For some reason, he leaves his ears off when he goes to the gym.

      Delete
    3. He doesn't want to get his ears boxed, and he's too dumb to wear ear protection.

      So he cuts his ears off when he goes to the gym.

      Lucky he's got that reptilian ability to grow stuff back.

      Delete
    4. I thought they clicked on and off.

      Delete
  21. Trump Live In Hershey, Pennsylvania -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpl_D637fgA

    Crowd arriving....

    ReplyDelete
  22. QUIRK DEEP IN DEBATE AT HYDE PARK, LONDON

    Your task, should you accept the challenge, is:

    1) Identify Quirk

    2) Critique the meaning of the debate

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ooops...

      Debate here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvqblZz17ug

      Delete
    2. (I've been to Hyde Park....waste of precious time.....any ale house is better)

      Delete
  23. Hillary is really losing it.

    She often doesn't know where she is, or to whom she is speaking.

    And, when the meds wear off, she gets angry and irrational.

    It is not a pretty sight.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/hillary_starting_to_lose_it_on_the_campaign_trail.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. FOR QUIRK

    Voting Third-Party Is Not Morally Superior. It’s Just Escapism

    The president-elect will soon be either Hillary Clinton or Donald J. Trump. It is time for Americans to accept this and deliberate on how they will fulfill their political duty.
    Juan Davalos By Juan Davalos
    NOVEMBER 4, 2016

    In just a few days the American people will go to the polls and cast their votes to elect the 45th president of this United States. Despite our apprehensions or hopes for other options, there are only two viable candidates. The president-elect come November 8, or soon thereafter, will be either Hillary Clinton or Donald J. Trump. That is the hard, cold reality. It is time for Americans to face the facts, accept this, and deliberate on how they will fulfill their political duty.

    When considering our options, we need to realize that we are not only electing two different individuals to lead the country, but an entire branch of government. The president doesn’t execute the laws of the land single-handedly. He appoints a plethora of cabinet members and department directors that do the day-to-day governing of a third of the government, the most powerful branch.


    He or she will nominate secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veteran Affairs, Homeland Security, the attorney general, etc. When we elect a president, we need to think of all these departments and how their work, and the regulations they pass, affects the area of the country they administer.

    Both candidates will bring incredibly different people to head those departments and do the job of governing the nation. The outcomes of those choices will have radically different outcomes in the next four or eight years. We are not only choosing an individual but a team of people that share a particular ideology: conservative or liberal.

    Voting Is a Pragmatic Decision

    Further, since there are only two viable options, our choice ought to be between those two. One must discern the pros and cons of the platform each individual endorses: what is he or she proposing to do, and how it will affect the day-to-day lives of average citizens? Most importantly, how will that affect the day-to-day life of you, your family, and your community? How will education policy affect it, health policy, foreign policy, energy policy, tax policy, environmental policy, financial policy, and yes, also, one must consider what impact that person’s character will have on the people of the nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once you do the job of deliberating on those pros and cons, you will find one is preferable over the other, even if only slightly. Considering their radically different positions, claiming that both are equally bad or equally good is not a reasonable position to take. It is one’s duty as a citizen, and one’s moral responsibility, to vote for the one that will be the better of the two options, all things considered, for the common good of all citizens.

      If in your deliberation you come to believe Hillary is the better choice, then you are morally obligated to vote for her, as bad as she may be, and as much as you may dislike her. If you believe Trump and his team will be better, then you are morally obligated to vote for him. Either way, one’s vote is not an endorsement of the corruption or misbehavior of either. It is a prudential choice between two unavoidable and unfortunate alternatives.


      Considering this, voting for a third option is not a morally preferable choice but one that escapes the difficulty of the decision. In essence, voting for a third option is tantamount to saying that the decision between the two is so difficult that we must escape it altogether because we don’t want to even give the impression that we agree with either of them.

      Making Hard Decisions Is What People of Character Do
      I understand that hesitancy. It is hard to have people think that we somehow endorse a person speaking disrespectfully about women, or that we endorse someone with no moral scruples. But if the intention of our decision to support either candidate is with the best interest of the common good in mind, then we need not shy away from what others may think. The common good is more important than our image. The good of the nation is more important than our feelings towards a particular person.

      Sometimes forces bigger than us come into conflict. Such forces can overwhelm us, and our actions may seem insignificant in light of such great evil. Combating those forces will require a certain fierceness from us. It will require facing decisions that we would rather not face—ugly decisions that will test the content of our character and the principles for which we stand.

      A soldier going into battle cannot choose not to fight. Choosing to escape the fight is not only dishonorable, but it serves no purpose in battle, nor in defending the lives of those he loves. No soldier wants to go out and kill as many people as he possibly can, and no soldier should want to. But the soldier must make that decision. He must reach down into that savage instinct to protect what is his own and overcome the enemy for the purpose of the common good, for the purpose of protecting the rights, liberties, and lives of those he loves.

      Delete
    2. The task of the citizen is harder than that of the soldier in one sense. That of the citizen requires more deliberation about what the common good is and how to achieve it. But once that is determined, then fight they must. Not for themselves, not for their image, but for their posterity.

      The Third-Party Candidates Have Not Been Vetted

      If you are still not convinced that voting for a third-party candidate is a morally inferior option, I would like you to deliberate on one question, and a thought experiment. Considering that our two viable candidates offer significantly different policy proposals, it seems reasonable to suppose that the opposition to either has to do with their character and not their policies. How can you determine that the character of a third option is better than either of the two?


      I understand that it is hard to see how it could not be, but can you say with any degree of certainty that your candidate’s character has been properly vetted in the way that the long process of campaigning vets a candidate so that your support for him is grounded in fact and not perception?

      The history of presidential elections has demonstrated that a candidate’s character is not properly vetted, regardless of how many previous public offices they have held, until they are at the final stages of a presidential campaign. Unfortunately, the skeletons in the closet are brought out when a candidate is a threat and when it hurts most. This would put the supporter of a third-party candidate in the uncomfortable position of arguing that ignorance of someone’s moral character is better than the knowledge of another’s, as bad as it may be.

      Finally, let me share a thought experiment a friend was kind enough to provide. Suppose you have two individuals standing in front of you over two trap doors. Both of those individuals want to do you harm. After careful investigation, you find that the person over the first trap door is going to punch you and the person over the second is going to shoot you.

      You have the power to choose what trap door is opened. If you choose the door under the first individual, that person will fall through the door, and you will get shot by the second. If the second door is opened, that person will fall through the trap door, so that you will be punched by the one remaining. If you decide not to choose either of the doors, one will open at random so that you will either be punched or shot.


      Notice that out of the three options, the morally superior choice is the second door, because it mitigates the harm done to you. You will make sure that you get punched and not shot, increasing your chances of survival. Given that one of the two individuals will in fact harm you, allowing the decision to be made at random or by someone else is not a morally superior choice.

      Like every thought experiment, this one has its limitations. However, its main purpose is to show that given two unavoidable outcomes one has the moral duty to choose the one that will do the most good, or the least amount of harm. Given the unavoidable fact that either of the two nominees will be president, one has the moral duty to choose the one that will do the most good, or the least amount of harm.

      In my own deliberation, I have come to conclude that despite his misbehavior Trump and his team will be better for the common good than Hillary and her team. However, I have written what I have above being careful not to push in any particular direction because I think this to be the deliberative process every citizen should go through regardless of whom he or she chooses in the end.

      Juan E. Dávalos is a Ph.D. student at the Van Andel School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College where he served as a Winston S. Churchill fellow. He holds an M.A. in philosophy of religion and ethics from Biola University. Born and raised in Ecuador, Juan became a U.S. citizen in 2011.

      http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/04/voting-third-party-not-morally-superior-just-escapism/

      Delete
    3. .

      Nonsense.

      Like every thought experiment, this one has its limitations. However, its main purpose is to show that given two unavoidable outcomes one has the moral duty to choose the one that will do the most good, or the least amount of harm.

      Having Trump beat Clinton would be cathartic but the effect would be temporary and I would soon be faced with a Trump presidency.

      But moral duty? Are you kidding? If you deboned both of these candidates, you wouldn't be able to find a moral bone in the pile.

      Juan E. Dávalos is a Ph.D. student at the Van Andel School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College where he served as a Winston S. Churchill fellow. He holds an M.A. in philosophy of religion and ethics from Biola University. Born and raised in Ecuador, Juan became a U.S. citizen in 2011.

      So this would make Juan...what...twenty-two? Undergrad in philosophy and religion from an evangelical Christian college now studying politics. I assume Biola is where this pompous little prick got his moralistic condescension. Let me know when young Juan gets his head out of his ass and grows up. The paper is a piece of juvenile tripe posing as big-boy thinking. If I were grading his little term paper, it would be marked up in red with so many corrections and comments he wouldn't be able to read it when he got it back.

      Juan probably should have sprinkled in a few more courses in logic and critical thinking in among those on metaphysics. Since he is now in Hillsdale, I would hope that he will soon be challenged and learn.

      .




      Delete
    4. .

      I couldn't help commenting on this since it is so currently topical.

      A soldier going into battle cannot choose not to fight. Choosing to escape the fight is not only dishonorable, but it serves no purpose in battle, nor in defending the lives of those he loves. No soldier wants to go out and kill as many people as he possibly can, and no soldier should want to. But the soldier must make that decision. He must reach down into that savage instinct to protect what is his own and overcome the enemy for the purpose of the common good, for the purpose of protecting the rights, liberties, and lives of those he loves.

      :o)

      Ol Juan needs to get out more. Then, perhaps, he would of heard about Mel Gibson's new movie Hacksaw Ridge. It's about Desmond Doss, a Seventh Day Adventist who joined the army in WWII and refused to carry a weapon. After much abuse he became a medic. He received the Medal of Honor, 2 Bronze Stars, and 3 Purple Hearts.

      This is why he got the Medal of Honor...

      The President of the United States of America, in the name of Congress, takes pleasure in presenting the Medal of Honor to Private First Class Desmond Thomas Doss, United States Army, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action above and beyond the call of duty from April 29 – 21 May 1945, while serving with the Medical Detachment, 307th Infantry Regiment, 77th Infantry Division, in action at Urasoe Mura, Okinawa, Ryukyu Islands. Private First Class Doss was a company aid man when the 1st Battalion assaulted a jagged escarpment 400 feet high. As our troops gained the summit, a heavy concentration of artillery, mortar and machine gun fire crashed into them, inflicting approximately 75 casualties and driving the others back. Pfc. Doss refused to seek cover and remained in the fire-swept area with the many stricken, carrying all 75 casualties one-by-one to the edge of the escarpment and there lowering them on a rope-supported litter down the face of a cliff to friendly hands.

      {...}

      Delete

    5. {...}

      On May 2, he exposed himself to heavy rifle and mortar fire in rescuing a wounded man 200 yards forward of the lines on the same escarpment; and 2 days later he treated 4 men who had been cut down while assaulting a strongly defended cave, advancing through a shower of grenades to within eight yards of enemy forces in a cave's mouth, where he dressed his comrades' wounds before making 4 separate trips under fire to evacuate them to safety. On May 5, he unhesitatingly braved enemy shelling and small arms fire to assist an artillery officer. He applied bandages, moved his patient to a spot that offered protection from small arms fire and, while artillery and mortar shells fell close by, painstakingly administered plasma. Later that day, when an American was severely wounded by fire from a cave, Pfc. Doss crawled to him where he had fallen 25 feet from the enemy position, rendered aid, and carried him 100 yards to safety while continually exposed to enemy fire. On May 21, in a night attack on high ground near Shuri, he remained in exposed territory while the rest of his company took cover, fearlessly risking the chance that he would be mistaken for an infiltrating Japanese and giving aid to the injured until he was himself seriously wounded in the legs by the explosion of a grenade. Rather than call another aid man from cover, he cared for his own injuries and waited 5 hours before litter bearers reached him and started carrying him to cover. The trio was caught in an enemy tank attack and Pfc. Doss, seeing a more critically wounded man nearby, crawled off the litter; and directed the bearers to give their first attention to the other man. Awaiting the litter bearers' return, he was again struck, by a sniper bullet while being carried off the field by a comrade, this time suffering a compound fracture of one arm. With magnificent fortitude he bound a rifle stock to his shattered arm as a splint and then crawled 300 yards over rough terrain to the aid station. Through his outstanding bravery and unflinching determination in the face of desperately dangerous conditions Pfc. Doss saved the lives of many soldiers. His name became a symbol throughout the 77th Infantry Division for outstanding gallantry far above and beyond the call of duty.

      Other honors and recognition...


      Juan Davalos, a callow youth can be excused for also being a pontificating prig, but Desmond Doss puts to a lie everything Jaun said above. There is room for an alternate course for those who choose it.

      .

      Delete
  25. Hillary's stroke was likely caused by her Deep Brain Stimulator.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac8_q7-6Bvo

    ReplyDelete