2016 Simplified: You’re Either For The Rule Of Law, Or For Hillary Clinton
The 2016 Presidential election is leaving tens of millions of American voters nationwide appalled at their choices.
Republican candidate Donald Trump has been painted as a misogynist xenophobe and corrupt businessman who is reckless and unfocused, and possibly suffering from megalomania. Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton has been tied to racist statements, has obvious distaste for both law enforcement and the military, has been tied to “pay for play” corruption scandals still under investigation by four separate FBI field offices, and clearly violated national security and obstructed investigations into that security breach, even though an apparent conspiracy between the Justice Department and the head of the FBI suggests she will avoid felony charges.
Sadly, it is all but certain than one of these two deeply flawed candidates will be declared the next President of the United States within the next 48 hours.
Frankly, it depends on what you what the nation to look like in the years ahead for your children and grandchildren.
If you’re one of tens of millions of female gun owners—one of the fastest growing demographics of gun owners in the United States—you need to understand that Mrs. Clinton is in favor of banning the standard magazines for many of the most popular firearms chosen by women, such as the 15-round magazine of the Glock 19, or the standard 30-round magazines of the AR-15, one of the most popular rifles chosen by women for its light weight, low recoil, and easy adaptability to different body types.
If you are a fan of AR-15s in any caliber, or common rifles such as the Ruger Mini-14 or Ruger 10/22, then you need to know that Mrs. Clinton is still railing for an “assault weapon” ban that would render these firearms illegal, and that she likes the idea of an “Australian-style” mandatory buy-back scheme that would turn you into a criminal if you refused to turn over these commonly-owned rifles to the government.
Are you one of the 14+ million Americans who open carry or concealed carry outside the home? Mrs. Clinton has argued that the landmark 2008 Heller case was decided wrongly, and that you should not be able to carry a firearm outside the home to protect yourself, your spouse, or your children.
But what about those of you who don’t own common semi-automatic rifles, or who don’t plan to carry firearms for self-defense? What about those of the 120+ million American gun owners who only own revolvers, or bolt-action rifles, or pump shotguns?
She’s gone on the record loudly and often proclaiming her support for destroying the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Mrs. Clinton claims that it provides gun and ammunition manufacturers “immunity” from lawsuits, which is a bold and direct lie that even her allies in the mainstream media have debunked her. In reality, PLCAA was created in direct response by attempts by gun control groups and anti-gun politicians to file a wave of frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt gun companies under a mountain of legal fees.
All PLCAA does is stop these frivolous lawsuits.
It has no other purpose.
Mrs. Clinton wants PLCAA destroyed for one reason, and one reason only: so that gun and ammunition manufacturers can be sued out of existence. Your bolt-action .22 rifle handed down to you from your father, or the shotgun you use to shoot skeet are at risk this election, because while Mrs. Clinton won’t call for these guns to be confiscated (yet), her goal is to bankrupt the ammunition companies that supply you. Want to pay $2 a .22 LR bullet if you can find them at all? Vote for Hillary Clinton.
The next President—which will be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump—will also appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice, and as many as four. The next President will appoint a replacement for Antonin Scalia, and there has been some terrifying speculation on who that nominee may be if Clinton is elected.
In addition to Scalia’s replacement, there are three elderly members of the Supreme Court who may either retire, or expire in the next four years. Progressive Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83. Moderate Anthony Kennedy is 80. Liberal-moderate Stephen Breyer is 78.
Who do you want nominating their replacements?
Do you want the most radically anti-gun President in American political history (Hillary Clinton) making the nominations of progressive justices that view the Constitution as a “living document” that can be changed on a whim? Or would you prefer Donald Trump, making those nominations as a known concealed carrier who has two sons that are passionate gun owners and shooters, who has espoused a very strong pro-Second Amendment platform, and who has promised to nominate a textualist in the mold of Scalia to ensure that the constitutionality of laws are determined by what the Constitution says?
I recognize the fact that many voters find both candidates to be appalling choices. You didn’t want the self-evidently corrupt criminal Hillary Clinton, and you’re convinced that Trump is also horrific. You’re likely trying to decide between the “lesser of two evils,” or a third party protest vote, or rejecting all the options on the table, and are thinking about not voting at all.
I understand your anguish.
The fact remains that either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. The fact remains that both the House of Representatives and the Senate could potentially flip from Republican to Democrat control tomorrow, depending on how you vote, or if you decide not to vote.
So please vote.
If we have any luck at all tomorrow, enough Americans concerned about the direction of this country will turn out in large numbers and end the career of a corrupt and unaccountable politician that has fed off the American people like a leech for decades, and who had gotten Americans killed by her feckless and irresponsible actions. They’ll also help Republicans keep control of the House and Senate, so that we can blunt attempts by radical Democrats to further infringe upon your core human and constitutional rights.
You shouldn’t either, regardless of your political views. Reviled by Washington insiders in both parties, he will accomplish very little as President. He’s also clearly opposed by the mainstream media, and is unlikely to be able to get away with anything, large or small, without the media roasting him at every turn. His will be a placeholder Presidency, and a warning that we need to vet candidates in both parties much more closely leading up to the 2020 primaries.
I can tolerate a blowhard in office for four years since he’s certain to be opposed the entire time by both parties and the media, and will not be allowed to hurt the Constitution. At this late stage, with all other practical options exhausted, Donald Trump is the least worst option.
Hillary Clinton, however, is the most radical candidate ever selected by a major party. She has her hooks deeply embedded in Washington, DC, and if she is elected, she will be above the law, untouchable, and uncontested by a mainstream media that has clearly given up any attempt at checking her power.
The nation can survive a weak executive who lacks influence with or loyalty from either party, and who is hated by a media looking to topple him if he steps out of line. It may not survive a career criminal supported by the establishment and her lapdogs in the media, and who will not be held accountable for any high crimes of misdemeanors past, present, or future.
Nations fall when citizens can no longer trust their government.
We simply cannot afford a second Clinton Presidency.