jump to navigation

Hilary Clinton Campaign, Some Observations November 1, 2016

Posted by Daniel Downs in news.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

By Daniel Downs (2008)

A careful examination of Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign reveals she learned her game plan from husband Bill. With the a few million dollars and a media advertising experts, Bill convinced enough Americans he was a real conservative liberal. He was not really more successful than the liberal conservative Richard Nixon. The only difference was Clinton did not resign,but then Hilary is not Bill.

Hilary is marketing herself as a centrist. Like her husband Bill, Hilary’s centrist strategy seeks to win votes from the 70% to 80% of Americans who tend to be centrists at heart. Remembering Bill Clinton actual political record, it should be obvious to Americans with a long-term memory that many politicians seeking to win an election will say almost any thing in order to achieve the goal. When it comes to die-hard liberals like Hilary, it should be equally apparent that the centrist strategy is meant to deceive most Americans. The trick is to convince as many Americans into believing that Hilary is mostly conservative on key issues.

Her air of confidence, congeniality, and superiority doesn’t hurt either.

Millions of campaign dollars made it possible for the media present false advertisement about Bill Clinton’s past. Being marketed as a ‘once upon a time’ pot smoker, the media made it appear that he was just like millions Americans who tried some marijuana. Documentary evidence shows he and his cronies were actually cocaine inhalers. They were a bunch of real high-class partiers.

In case you are wondering what’s the big deal let me remind you that buying and taking pot or cocaine is against the law. Because it was presented as a thing of past, which most people believed, it was not a big deal. Nonetheless, Americans bought the false advertising of Bill Clinton. Is Hilary’s campaign going to be any less false?

Hilary’s centrist strategy seeks to convince Americans that she is a conservative as she is liberal. If we look at the issues, it will become apparent that Hilary’s conservative rhetoric is more hype than substance. Consider the issue of partial birth abortion. Most conservatives are opposed to partial birth abortion, but, just like Bill, Hilary is a zealous defender of killing babies already out of the womb.

Hilary is also pro-gay rights. Although many conservatives believe gay rights is somehow constitutional, it is not. Gays rights are illegal because gay rights give special rights to a group whose unnatural behavior is being made equal to inherent human traits like race and gender. That is not to say the sex drive is unnatural; rather, it is their expressed behavior of it. The issue is making behavior equal to those inherent human traits mentioned in the 14th, 15th, or 19th amendments. People of different races and genders are included in “all men and women are created equal” whose rights are guaranteed under the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, the previously mentioned amendments, and Civil Rights Act do not mention anything about behaviors being equal or protected against discrimination by law. As human beings, gays already have the same rights as all others. Giving special rights to gays is destroy equal rights. Making criticism of gay behavior a hate crime ends Free Speech rights. Making business owners unable choose whether to hire or fire gays is to end all First Amendment and property rights. That is the plan of gays and liberals and Hilary Clinton.

Hilary and Bill are also dedicated globalists. Bill should have been impeached on the grounds of attempting to make our nation subject to United Nations Criminal Court jurisdiction without Senate approval. Also by executive order, he attempted eliminate state rights under the 10th Amendment. He never rescinded that order, which still exists for Hilary to utilize or any politician with the dream of being America’s dictator. How different would Hilary be if President? If her performance in White House with Bill is considered, her pre-investigation knowledge and documentary cover up of Foster’s death and litigation against her for campaign finance fraud casts a large shadow of doubt. It is likely Hilary would continue to drive to make America one nation of federal big government of socialism without state rights.

Unlike liberal Hilary, conservatives tend to resist big government globalism and stick to limited government and state rights. They attempt to adhere to the original intent expressed in the ratifying conventions of the Constitution. Conservatives defend free market capitalism while Hilary tends to uphold the socialist economics the regulatory welfare state.

Here is a major clue to understanding how liberal centrist and non-centrist get away with breaking the law. They believe their own lies in the process of deceiving the public. The key is belief. They have convinced many Americans that abortion, gay rights, welfare, federal involvement in education, separation of church and state is all right, legal, and constitutional. They claim many of the statements in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights are so vague, subjective, and archaic that it is difficult to know what the early Americans actually intended. The moral of the story is do not believe liberal politicians, lawyers, or judges who say what the framers meant cannot be known with certainty. The reason historical records of the making and ratifying debates exist is so that we can know what they intended.

Another issue by which to evaluate the reality of Hilary’s centrist conservativism is church-state separation. Real conservatives are not strict separationists for good reasons. One is they do not believe the liberal concoction about the wall. The only reason any one ever knew about Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist was because it was in Jefferson’s files. Historians show the Danbury Baptist Association disregarded that letter. Its use by the Supreme Court was a farce because Jefferson’s view also contradicted the majority of Americans and those in Congress. Congress rejected the idea of separation during the Constitutional convention. A second reason already mentioned is the historical and legal record prove it is another lie enabling liberals to violate the actual meaning of the First Amendment–otherwise known as breaking the law or violating constitutional rights. A third reason is that conservatives are not good secularists. They are not die-hard secularist because secularists are socialists, Marxists, humanists, evolutionists who reject the importance of religion, morality, and God to society. At best secularist or modern liberals at best give religion and morality mere lip service.

If you listened to Hilary’s responses to questions on religion and faith, she does really say much, which reminds me of John Kerry. She is the exact opposite of John Edwards on religion.

Hilary also is a proponent of illegal immigrant legislation. One of the important issues of recent immigration legislation is the blatant disregard of current law. Instead of creating effective means of enforcing law prohibiting and prosecuting illegal immigrant, liberals seek to legalize the illegal. Liberals claim it would be too costly to actually enforce the law. In a previous article, my research shows it already has and will cost America much more by not removing illegal aliens from our nation. To the many legal immigrants, liberal laws are a blatant travesty of injustice. I have written on this issue in greater depth. Here, it must be observed that liberals like Hilary seem to have little regard for law, which I know is an ironic statement seeing they create laws.

Then there is the issue of HillaryCare. According to the editor of the Opinion Journal, “most of the national press corps has already assumed “universal” coverage will both carry Hillary Clinton to the White House and march easily into law.” The problem is most do not like the expensive price tag proposed by the sin tax on low-income smokers. Many people are actually intelligent enough to see the paternal plan of Hillary is not so benign. Supposing many low income people quit smoking because of the prohibitive price of tobacco products, the $35 plus billion would have to be raised by some other tax measure. Unless Hilary and Company learns how to grow money without raising taxes.

]It is true liberal lawmakers like Hilary have the right to levy taxes. The question is do they have the levy taxes for the the good of the poor and not for all Americans. No such right is enumerated in the Constitution. The power to levy taxes on the poor to pay for health benefits of the richer is not either, but then neither is universal health care. In fact, the economic rights presumed by liberal welfare state are not found in the Constitution. Those issues were intentional left to the states under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Hilary Clinton’s campaign rides on the waves centrist rhetoric and a shredded Constitution, but then so do most Democrats. Maybe that is the reason so many Americans find politics so distasteful. Resisting the tides of lawless disregard for the Supreme law of the land is not exactly gourmet.

Has her campaign changed since 2008?


On Trump’s Love of Nuclear War October 31, 2016

Posted by Daniel Downs in news.
add a comment

I came across an article by FactCheck.org that reveals the disinformation about Donald Trump’s supposed irrational love of war and enthusiasm for nuclear war. Here is a link:   www.factcheck.org/2016/06/ad-suggests-trump-loves-nuclear-war


A Father’s View of Trump October 31, 2016

Posted by Daniel Downs in news.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

I came across a very interesting blog post by a father who focuses on explaining why he supports Donald Trump for President. Here is a link.

Trump’s Sleaze Clubs October 30, 2016

Posted by Daniel Downs in news.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

By Daniel Downs

On the internet, in advertisements, and during campaign debates, there is much hype about Trump building and owning a bunch of strip clubs. However, Trump does not own any strip clubs, but he used to own a number of hotels one of which that housed a strip club.

According to Wikipedia, Trump purchased Hilton Inn’s Casino Hotel in Atlantic New Jersey and renamed Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in 1984. A year later, he bought a nearly-completed Atlantic City hotel and casino property at the Atlantic marina from Hilton Hotels, which was later renamed Trump Marina. In 1988, he bought out Mervin Griffin’s shares in the uncompleted Taj Mahal. Trump completed the project in 1990. In the meantime Trump opened a casino in Gary Indiana. In 1996, he opened Trump’s World Fair that was annexed to the Trump Plaza. His publicly traded hotel and casino corporation took over management of Coachella California’s Spot Light 29 casino. After this, Trump’s hotel and casino business began to decline.

How many of these hotels and casino housed strip clubs? I found only one permitting a strip club was the Taj Mahal, which apparently leased space to Scores. And, for perspective, Taj Mahal also leased space to restaurants Dynasty, Il Mulino New York, Moon at Dynasty, Robert’s Steakhouse, and Hard Rock Cafe.

That hardly makes Trump a sleazy merchant or a corrupt real estate mogul.

Why the Supreme Court Ruled in Favor of Gay Marriage June 29, 2015

Posted by Daniel Downs in news.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

By Daniel Downs

By now, everyone has heard about the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in favor of gay marriage. That is supposed to mean every state must permit marriage of gays.

Why did the Supreme Court decide in favor of gay marriage? It’s true the judges who voted for it are proponents of the liberal left agendas. Their reasoning is in lockstep with progressive views and interpretations of law. But, the real justification for deciding in favor of gay marriage was state courts bans of state constitutional law on marriage. Until 2014, gay marriage proponents didn’t have a majority of states. Gay marriage was legal in only 17 states. In 2014, twenty state and federal courts ruled against state constitutional law that prohibited gay marriage is one way or another. This was the part of the Supreme Court’s political strategy. Once the Supreme Court gave its tactic approval of same-sex marriage by rejecting five state appeals regarding federal and state court decisions, the onslaught of cases resulting in overturning voter approved constitutional law on marriage.

The Supreme Court has presented the challenge to the people of all states to rise up and defy their national dictate by convincing their state and Congressional representatives to enact constitutional on marriage. In other words, gays and the Supreme Court are telling the American people to make nature’s law of one male and one female sex-partner in marriage, procreation and family the law of the land.

For more information, read the following reports:
Supreme Court rules gay couples nationwide have right to marriage, Washington Post, June 26, 2015.
How 2014 was the beginning of the end for the gay marriage fight, National Journal, December 17, 2014.
Same-Sex Marriage in the United States, Wikipedia.
Same-Sex Marriage, State by State, Pew Forum, June 26, 2015.

South Carolina Shooting in Global Perspective June 28, 2015

Posted by Daniel Downs in news.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

by Daniel Downs

Why did the young man who gunned down nine black Christians at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina? According to a recent Fox News report, he believes blacks are taking over the world. Having acculturated himself in neo-Nazism, Ku Klux Klan history, and other radical viewpoints, he may have seen the success of various successful black people in entertainment, music, business and politics including Pres. Obama as the decline of white race. However, Black people enjoying success should be applauded not seen as threat. The potential demise of the white race is a demographic issue. The western white reproductive rate has been below the sustainability threshold for many years.

On a larger scale, Muslim accusation of a Jewish conspiracy to take-over the world continues to inspire anti-Semitism around the world. Before the revolutions in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia’s state news paper was publishing the same accusations.

The fear of world domination by white people originated with Western elites and has in many ways succeeded. An article in the Salon points to evidence rooted in post-World War II the development of Nato, European Union, World Bank, United Nation, and similar international institutions. There influence and control has made success possible.

Whether today’s jihadists (ISIS) are reacting to a perceived threat of world domination of the Jews or the obvious success of Western control or both, they are showing how Islam may take-over the world to achieve the goal of converting all infidel people in all nations, establishing the Caliphate, and ushering in the end-time Imam/Messiah. (See interview of ISIS fighter in Rudaw and ISIS’s 5-Year Plan for world domination in the Daily Mail.)

What all of the above have in common is the fear of a world dictator whether black, White, Jew or Muslim. If one were to dig deeper, the respective group’s Messiah always turns out to be a global dictator. The only difference among religious and secular versions (Alexander the Great, Stalin, Lennin, Mao, Hitler, etc.) is whether a Messiah is to come or the Messiah has arrived.

In whatever way globalism and related movements produce a world dictator (anti-Christ), Christians believe the Jewish Messiah, Jesus, will return and through him God will establish His reign on earth. A type of societal reboot to a truly just and free society once again based on redemptive justice and divine rule, something human beings continue to prove they are incapable of accomplishing. In the meantime, Christianity seeks to accomplish its commissioned goals of making all people disciples of their Lord and Messiah and assisting all nations become conforming members of God’s kingdom now. This they do not by violence or political control (although Christianity attempted it during the Middle Ages) but by acts of kindness, missions of mercy, works of justice, godly counsel, testimony and evidence of divine power, and education in the ways and moral laws of Christ and God.

UN Officials Wrong. No Right to Abortion. New Expert Document Issued at United Nations October 5, 2011

Posted by Daniel Downs in abortion, health care, human rights, news, politics, right to life, United Nations.

News Flash!!!

Tomorrow morning at the UN press briefing room, internationally recognized scholar Professor Robert George of Princeton and former US Ambassador Grover Joseph Rees will challenge claims made by UN personnel and others that there exists an international right to abortion in international law.

As recently as a few weeks ago the UN Special Rapporteur on Health, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Secretary General have all said such a right exists. And, according to Human Rights Watch the CEDAW Committee has directed 93 countries to change their laws on abortion.

Professor George, Ambassador Rees and 30 other international experts are releasing the San Jose Articles to refute these claims and to assert the rights of the unborn child in international law.

Other signatories to the Articles include Professor John Finnis of Oxford, Professor John Haldane of the University of St. Andrews, Francisco Tatad, the former majority leader of the Philippine Senate, Javier Borrego, former Judge of the European Court of Human Rights, and Professor Carter Snead of UNESCO’s international committee on bioethics.

“The San Jose Articles were drafted by a large group of experts in law, medicine, and public policy. The Articles will support and assist those around the world who are coming under pressure from UN personnel and others who say falsely that governments are required by international law to repeal domestic laws protecting human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages of development against the violence of abortion” said Professor George.

Ambassador Grover Joseph Rees, former US Ambassador to East Timor, said, “When I was in Timor I witnessed first-hand a sustained effort by some international civil servants and representatives of foreign NGOs to bully a small developing country into repealing its pro-life laws. The problem is that people on the ground, even government officials, have little with which to refute the extravagant claim that abortion is an internationally recognized human right. The San Jose Articles are intended to help them fight back.”