Trump Wrong on Torture

As anyone who has read my blog for any length of time should be aware, I did not support either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton during the campaign and I did not vote for either candidate. I've stated on several occasions, that choosing between Clinton or Trump is like choosing either mayo or mustard on your shit sandwich.

That said, I decided, after Trump was elected, that I would give him the benefit of the doubt and support him as POTUS up and until he proposed something which I believe goes beyond the pale, morally speaking.

With this article on Trump's support of torture, it appears that time has arrived. As a Catholic, I cannot support the use of torture under any circumstances. Trump believes torture "works". There may be disagreement on the effectiveness of torture, but that is beside the point. The Church has made it perfectly clear that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object" and like homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide, mutilation, physical and mental torture is included among those intrinsically evil acts.

Trump recently took the appropriate step of reinstating the Mexico City Policy which stops U.S. taxpayer funding of the abortion industry overseas. While he deserves praise for that particular Executive Memorandum, his views on torture are unacceptable.

The Recount

Regarding the Green Party plans to pursue recounts in a number of States, Jill Stein Tweeted -

"I will do a recount in any state where the deadline has not passed. Help my staff find state deadlines".

Hillary Clinton's campaign counsel, Marc Elias said the campaign's own investigation has not uncovered any evidence of hacking of voting systems. Elias also said,
"Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides.".

So, as far as Democrats and Green Party members are concerned, it doesn't matter that there is no evidence to justify a recount, they'll waste time and money pursuing a recount simply because they can.

Before the election, it was Donald Trump who was criticized for his possible unwillingness to accept the results. Now, that's all forgotten by the Left.

I Was Wrong About Trump

I admit it; I was wrong about Donald Trump - or should I say President-elect Donald Trump?

Anyone who knows me personally, or has read my blog knows that I did not vote for Trump. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton either. I decided to abstain from voting this time around.

My lack of support from Trump had little to do with his policies. I don't believe that he is a racists or Islamophobe or any of the otherphobes the Democrats accused him of being. I believe his plans regarding immigration to the U.S. are based on a need for tighter border security and a job protection for American citizens, not because of a hatred for Hispanics or Muslims.

No, my main objection to Trump as a candidate was my fear that he could not defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election. I was mistaken. I honestly thought that Trump would push Clinton into the White House. I absolutely did not want Clinton elected and I was convinced that Trump would bring that about.

I was wrong.

I am so relieved that Hillary Clinton will never become POTUS, that I am more than willing now to give a President Trump the benefit of the doubt.

Congratulations, Mr. Trump.

No, Ms Parker. We Won't be Fine.

As usual, Kathleen Parker gets it wrong. In her recent column,[Calm down. We'll be fine no matter who wins,] Parker maintains that the idea that the U.S. has never been as divided as it is today is an exaggeration. "In other words," she writes, "our politics have always been thus, though with one significant difference." She goes on to put the blame, more or less, on the fact that "we never stop receiving news of everything, everywhere in real time". In other words, the Internet and 24/7 cable T.V. news.

Ms Parker believes everything will settle down after the election because whichever candidate wins, he or she will be held back by the Senate and Congress, and after all is said and done, neither candidate is as bad as all that.

We'll see.

My view is that the country is divided, and both Clinton and Trump are extremely unpopular, and this divide guarantees wide spread demonstrations and riots against the ultimate victor.

Parker is more optimistic than I am regarding the post election state of the nation. I believed she's naive. We'll soon see which of us is correct.

Political Spam

The closer it gets to election day in the U.S., the more spam emails I receive. Fortunately, almost every one is sent directly to spam and I don't have to deal with them. Still, haven't the pols gotten the message? I will not be voting in the upcoming election.

I dislike Trump and I dislike Clinton. I won't be voting for "the lesser of two evils" because I honestly don't believe either fit into that category.

In addition to the spam emails asking me to support the presidential candidates, I'm getting hit up by an assortment of Congressional, Senatorial and Gubernatorial candidates asking for money. Needles to say, they won't be getting my support either.

I'm be so happy to see this election cycle end.

Mark Shea, Dim Bulb

As my readers are reader is well aware, I've been banned (more than once) from commenting on Mark Shea's blog and because of that banishment, I no longer link to his blog. I've given up, for the most part, reading what he writes - if I can't leave a comment, why bother?

Now, thanks to the blog, Abbey Roads, I've become aware of a particularly outlandish post by Mr Shea.

After months of lecturing his readers that Trump must be defeated - and if that means voting for Hillary Clinton so be it - Shea writes,

  "Now that it is becoming obvious Hillary will win, it is time to turn our thoughts toward opposing the still very serious danger she poses".

In arguing that Clinton must be opposed, Shea links to Huffington Post article which points out that Clinton is not only "the candidate of Wall Street", she is "the candidate of the military-industrial complex".

From the article comes this: "Perhaps more than any other person, Hillary can lay claim to having stoked the violence that stretches from West Africa to Central Asia and that threatens US security".

Did it take an article written in Huffington Post to turn on the (dim) bulb in Shea's head? He didn't realize how truly dangerous Hillary Clinton is until now?

Everyone familiar with me know that I can't support either Trump or Clinton. The idea that one is less dangerous than the other is stupidity. Shea has been encouraging people in swing states to vote for Clinton. I hope he's happy with the results.

NC Republican Headquarters Firebombed.....Blame Trump?

This weekend, a North Carolina Republican headquarters was firebombed and a swastika was spray painted onto an adjacent building. One of my first thoughts was that no sane person would try to connect the bombers with Hillary Clinton. Of course, Trump has already attempted just that. In a Tweet, he blamed "Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina" for the bombing.

The keyword here is sane. I stand by my earlier comment.

Where would the blame be placed had this been a Democrat location? I think we can safely say that Trump would have been blamed because of his "heated rhetoric". How do I know this? Kathleen Parker is already blaming Trump for post election riots which haven't even happened yet  and CNN's Brian Stelter is blaming Trump for the bombing of his own party's headquarters.

Wake me when this @#$!^ election is over.

After Hillary Wins the Election.........

It's less than four weeks away from the 2016 election for POTUS, and like so many others, I will be happy to see November 9th, 2016 arrive.

I know I won't be happy with the final results of the election. That's an easy prediction because I can't bear to see either Clinton or Trump elected. Every minute of every day day, I'm bombarded with cries that I must vote for Clinton because Trump is even worse, as well as shouts that Hillary is an even greater evil than Donald. In trying to express how I hate the fact that one of these two douche bags will be elected President, words fail me.

As I look at the situation today, I believe Hillary will win the election. I don't say that because I want her to win....the U.S. will be up shit creek whichever one wins. Hillary will win because she is the 2nd most disliked Presidential candidate in American history running against the number 1 most disliked Presidential candidate in American history.

As much as I dislike President Obama, I can say that when he was elected in 2008, he was greatly loved by many, many people. Hillary will enter office as the most hated POTUS elected. She will be more unpopular on day one than Richard Nixon the day he resigned. She will be unable to unite the country.......unless, of course you consider how the country will be united in their dislike for her.

I don't believe she'll finish a first term; I believe she'll be impeached or forced to resign. Perhaps this is only wishful thinking, can Kaine be any worse?

Foreigners Prefer Clinton Over Trump for POTUS

As I've observed before, one need only look at an individual's photo accompanying a news story pertaining to that person to find out if the story will be positive or negative. In the photo used in this UPI story, the stock photo of Hillary Clinton attempts to put her in a favorable light, while the stock photo of Trump is blurry and unflattering. It's the way of "journalism" today.

In the story, it's reported that, according to a recent poll, foreigners would overwhelmingly prefer Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump if they were able to vote for POTUS. The UPI story is quick to point out that the lone exception is Russia, which prefers Trump to Clinton.

Lets look back, however to 2008 when the world adored Barack Obama. He was the favorite of foreigners everywhere. We see how well that worked out.

A Few Thoughts on the Anti-Catholic Bigotry in American Politics

It what was clearly a display of anti-Catholic bigotry, the lede posted on Drudge Report claimed that Pope Francis "mocks America 2016". The lede went on to say that America, "Does not have much political culture"

Even without reading the article linked to, the idea that America "Does not have much political culture" hardly seems to be mockery. Upon reading the actual story, we find that Pope Francis "advised U.S. Catholics who feel they are torn between two imperfect candidates for president to study and pray before they vote and to make sure to follow their conscience".

The article quotes the pope as saying, "You have asked me a question that describes a difficult choice because, according to you, there are difficulties with one and difficulties with the other." That's certainly true, and I'm sure every thoughtful, non biased American would agree.

Drudge is probably upset that Pope Francis did not openly slam Hillary and endorse Trump.

Unfortunately, the Right in the U.S. is overtly anti-Catholic. Of course, the American Left is equally bigoted toward the Catholic Church, although the reasons for their bigotry is different. The United States was founded on Protestantism; the Liberal, political side is heavily influenced by Anglicanism while the more Conservative pols have an Evangelical fringe element.

Faithful Catholics have little opportunity in American politics. If a Catholic wants to succeed in politics, he or she must abandon the Church. Sadly, there's plenty of those types of Catholics in the Democrat Party, as Hillary's vice-presidential pick demonstrates.

First Debate Did Nothing to Change My Mind.

Like 100 million other folks, I suffered through the first debate in the Clinton/Trump Slugfest, and as I expected, both sides are claiming its candidate the winner. The Clinton News Network (aka CNN) has "fact checked" many of Trump's statements during the debate and , naturally found those particular statements untrue. Of course, that is CNN after all, and you wouldn't expect otherwise.

I also expected, before the debate, that my dislike for both these douchebags would remain the same no matter what happened. That expectation was realized. All through out this election, I've maintained that choosing between Trump and Clinton is like choosing between mustard or mayo on your shit sandwich. I have not wavered in this assessment.

One expectation not met was my believe that Clinton might very well have a medical episode during the 90 minute debate. That medical episode didn't happen, of course, but we still have two more to go.

What we saw in Trump was a true non-politician - an unpolished, off the cuff speaker. In Clinton we saw a politician who came with her list of practiced talking points who, for the most part, followed the script written for her. With Trump, we saw the real Donald Trump. We saw the real Hillary as well - a programed robot who doesn't understand spontaneity, except for perhaps programed spontaneity.

Tomorrow's Debate.

As I write this post, it is just after 7:00 PM - Monday the 26th - here in Philippines. In 14 hours I'll watch the Clinton/ Trump debate live on television. It'll be 9:00 AM Tuesday here; I'll pour a cup of coffee and enjoy the circus.

I won't bother to predict who'll win the debate on points; both sides will claim victory no matter what the results.

Mostly, I'll be watching in the event that Mrs.Clinton will have one of her coughing fits or perhaps a minor fainting spell. Should either of those happen during the debate, Mrs. Clinton can kiss the White House goodbye. I can't think of any one single thing that could happen concerning Trump which would have the same disastrous affect, and for better or worse, Clinton has to face the same challenge in all three of the POTUS debates.

I don't believe the odds are in Clinton's favor. It will be much easier for Trump to waltz through the debates without a major screw up; it's less likely that Clinton will escape unscathed.

Will the U.S. Expat Vote Go to Clinton?

According to Breitbart.com, there will be a "Soros-Linked 'October Surprise That Will End Trump'". The article goes on to explain that a registered U.S. charity linked to George Soros - Avaaz -, is hoping the 8 million American expats living abroad will register to vote and vote overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton.

If Avaaz manages to get its wish, it will indeed be an October surprise. The Breitbart article points out that 88% of Americans living abroad did not register to vote in the last U.S. Presidential election. Getting these disaffected Americans to buck the trend would be quite an achievement.

Avaaz believes that a majority of these expats are progressives and maintains that these overseas voters could decide the election for POTUS.

I believe Avaaz may not get the results they're looking for. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that millions of Americans living abroad decide to register and vote in this election, and let's assume that the majority of these voters do vote for Clinton, there is no reason to believe that their votes will have any effect on the outcome. There is, after all, a little thing called the Electoral College and the overseas vote will be thrown into that mix.

If the election were decided by popular vote, 8 million voters (which Avaaz likens to the 13th largest State) would be a formidable number. But when these voters are shoved into the Electoral College mess, their vote won't be as awe inspiring as Avaaz imagines it will be. It all breaks down into which particular State the individual voter is registered in. Five million expat voters registered in a Blue State like California or Washington or Illinois will be wasting their time voting, if Clinton is their candidate. Hillary will most assuredly win those States, and adding an additional four, five, or six million Clinton voters won't mean diddly squat.

Will Trump Surprise Us All?

I've been predicting since it became obvious that Clinton and Trump would be the nomineesfor the two major parties, that the race would come down to which of these despicable candidates is more hated by the American voters, and that Clinton would win because she is hated slightly less than Donald Trump.

In an recent opinion piece, Monica Crowley has a different spin on the election. Crowley lists both candidates' views on the current state of the U.S. and maintains that, while polls show Clinton in the lead, the American people actually support Trump's view on the current condition of the country.

My track record for predicting the results of previous elections for POTUS hasn't been stellar. I'm more often wrong than I am right. Crowley's column leads me to think that my current prediction of a Clinton win might be wrong and Trump may surprise everyone. We'll just have to wait and see.

Republicans Help Elect First Female POTUS

The latest Fox News "2016 Scorecard", released on August 09, has the Electoral College battleground map, which shows the race for POTUS leaning in Clinton's favor. To become POTUS, Trump must win all the solid GOP states, the lean GOP states, all the toss-up states and at least one lean Dem states; an impossible feat.

Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. Hillary Clinton has to be the most flawed and least popular candidate ever nominated by the Democrats, and the Republicans nominate the only candidate that cannot wipe the floor with her.

Donald Trump may well indeed have some dyed in the wool, true blue followers, but the majority of the support going to either candidate is actually a vote against the other. As much as Hillary Clinton is despised through out the US, the Republicans pick a candidate who is hated even more than Hillary.

The Trumpettes claim to be for "anyone but Hillary". Why couldn't these never Hillary folks gone for someone more favorable to the American public?

Had the Republicans followed my advice and gone with a Rubio/Fiorina (or vice versa) the Republicans would be currently pulverizing the Clinton campaign.

This will go down as the election where the Republicans put Hillary Clinton in the White House.

Trump Wants Ban on Legal Immigration from Philippines

When I first came upon a story, linked to on Facebook, that Donald Trump had listed immigrants from Philippines as coming from one of a number of "terrorist nations that shouldn't be allowed because you can't vet them", I was a bit skeptical.

After all, we're talking about, 1) the Internet, 2) Facebook and 3) Donald Trump. I assumed that the story was just another Trumpian Internet rumor - something less than true, used to stir up anger against the Donald.

It appears that I was mistaken.

At a rally in Portland, Maine, Trump provided a lengthy explanation of why he thinks the United States needs to be skeptical of immigrants from many countries, even if they follow the legal process. Trump did indeed reference Philippines as one of these "terrorist nations".

Needless to say, Filipinos are not happy with Trump. In an opinion piece, one Philippine newspaper called Trump everything but a white man. In addition to calling Donald a jingoist, a fear monger and reckless, in a separate editorial, the paper said Trump had "orange skin and [the] ridiculous hair".

In a bill filed in the Philippine House of Representatives, one lawmaker is seeking to permanently ban Trump from entering the country.

In some ways, it's understandable that some might link Philippines with terrorism; Recently, the terror group Abu Sayyaf beheaded 2 Canadian nationals and have kidnapped several more foreigners. It's difficult, however, to stand behind Trump on this when one knows countless Filipinos who are most definitely not terrorists.

There's little to worry about in regards to Trump. I've said, on more than one occasion, that Clinton will most likely defeat Trump in the election for POTUS. I don't say this because I prefer one candidate over the other - I dislike them both - but I believe the 2016 election will come down to which one is hated less. In this case, I believe slightly fewer Americans despise Hillary than Trump. I know, having to choose between those two is like trying to decide if you'd prefer mustard or mayo on your fecal sandwich. These two are the candidates the American voters have chosen, and they're stuck with them.

Hillary Supporter Gives Good Reason to Vote Trump.

First, a disclaimer.

I've found that with nearly every Internet discussion of the 2016 POTUS election, I must immediately let it be known that I do not support either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton for the office. I will not, under any circumstances, cast a vote for Clinton or Trump.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I can get on with the subject of this post. More and more, I'm finding Liberal, Progressive or otherwise Left-leaning Christians telling me that, in spite of the fact that Hillary Clinton is not their first choice for POTUS - some even positively dislike her - they prefer her over Trump because a vote for Trump will end life as we know it on this planet and they will do anything to stop this devil incarnate.

One such Progressive Christian is Benjamin L. Corey who posted on his "Official blog of Benjamin L. Corey" a piece, entitled No, A Hillary Presidency Won’t Be The End of America. I'm not sure why Mr.Corey feels the need for an "official" blog. Are there a slew of "unofficial" Benjamin L. Corey blogs taking over the Internet?

I digress.

In the above linked to post, Mr. Corey argues that one reason to support Hillary is her unrelentingly ambition, which will further her drive for accomplishment and rare place in American history. Actually, that doesn't do it for me. As someone who disagrees with many of Clinton's policies, the last thing I want to see is her unrelentingly ambition to further her agenda.

Mr. Corey goes on to say that "Trump himself has no desire to govern, and that his VP would be the most powerful VP in all of history". As one who finds Trump otherwise repulsive, the idea that he may sit back and let a Vice President Mike Pence run the show, while he preens, is an attractive thought.

Mr. Corey might have hit on the only reason any thinking person could cast a vote for the Donald.

After Trump Loses the Election........

This election year has been so disappointing for me. We all knew Hillary Clinton would the Democrat nomination. There was no up and coming whippersnapper to snatch it from her the way Obama did 2008. It's been sad watching the Republicans nominate the only Republican who could not beat Clinton this November.

Rather than pick a young candidate with a positive message - like Marco Rubio - the Republicans picked  P.T. Barnum, and as much as Hillary Clinton is hated and despised in the U.S., Trump is probably hated more. How much more? Enough, I suspect to put Hillary and Bill back in the White House.

Four years from now, when looking for a candidate for 2020, Trump's name will be linked with McCain and Romney as less than stellar Republican presidential candidates. They'll all say, "We don't want another loser like those last three. Who wanted Trump, anyway?"

Not a few Republicans are upset with Ted Cruz today for his not endorsing Trump at the convention. Four years from now, all will be forgotten and all will be forgiven. Cruz will be able to cast himself as the only true blue Conservative who refused to sell out to Trump and the Establishment Republicans.

It's actually a pretty good move on Cruz' part.

Election Predictions Redux

It's only July and already I see My 2016 Election Predictions unraveling.

In that post from April, I made a number of predictions concerning the November POTUS election. One being, Hillary Clinton would be elected POTUS due to the fact that she is hated slightly less than Donald Trump. I still believe that prediction will hold, but it is the companion prediction which looks as if it won't come true.

At the time of that post, I believed that not only will Hillary become the first female POTUS, but she will be the first POTUS to have matching impeachments with her former POTUS husband. I was certain that because Hillary would be elected on an anti-Trump referendum, there would be little sympathy for her when she finally faces an indictment and impeachment.

After reading that FBI Director James Comey would not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton over her use of private email servers while secretary of state, I realized that she is unlikely to be impeached if elected.

Be that as it may, I still maintain that choosing between Trump and Clinton is like choosing between mustard or mayo on your shit sandwich. Take your pick.

Mark Shea Punts the Ball

In a recent post - Banned and Enjoying It - I noted that Mark Shea would never vote for Donald Trump, and I assumed that, because of his having made it clear that he will not vote for a candidate who asks him to support grave and intrinsic evil, he could never vote for Hillary Clinton either. I was wrong in my assumption.

Shea will not be voting for Clinton because, in his words, "I will not, myself, be voting for her since I don’t live in a swing state. But I have no problem at all defending somebody who lives in a swing state who does vote for her and would, in fact, urge people to do so (bearing in mind that some cannot, in conscience, do so)".

Shea lives in the state of Washington, which hasn't given it's Electoral College votes for a Republican since the days of Ronald Reagan. Living in a "non-swing state", Shea knows his individual vote will have no affect on the outcome of the election. He can vote "third party" all he wants, and his vote will be pretty much meaningless. He can play the "I didn't vote for Hillary" game all he wants and bask in the glow of his superiority.

I find it troubling that he would consider voting for Clinton if he lived in a swing state, like Ohio or Florida, and that he actually urges voters there to vote for her. He goes on, "The only thing I would argue is that support for Trump simply cannot be squared with the Catholic faith".

Obviously, Clinton's views can't be squared with the Catholic faith either, but Shea maintains that because Pope Benedict XVI says it is morally permissible to vote to lessen evil, a Catholic can vote for Hillary Clinton because her evil is less than Trump's evil.

I'm not quite so sure that either one is less evil than the other. I could never vote for either candidate. Choosing between Trump or Clinton is like choosing whether you prefer mustard or mayo on your fecal sandwich.

Shea says to abstain from voting is the final act of nihilist irresponsibility. Well, if that's true, what do you call voting for a third party candidate who has absolutely zero chance of being elected?