A Question For Hillary Supporters

I really have to question the intellectual integrity, and integrity in general, of Hillary supporters because I look at what they say they believe and look at the actual deeds of the candidate they support. I cannot reconcile the two.

Progressives/Liberals say they believe in honesty, transparent government, caring for the average working class American, rule of law, free exchange of ideas, and protection of civil liberties. They say they are for competency in policy development and implementation. These stated values do not line up with a Hillary Clinton presidency or her actions in the past. I will give examples.

One area in I have always taken for granted when it comes to progressives/liberals was their belief in fair and open elections. Well, from the data dump of emails among Democrat Party insiders, Ms. Clinton and the then leaders of the Democrat Party conspired to rig the primary for Ms. Clinton and against her opponents, which should really anger Bernie Sanders supporters. It also gives credence to Mr. Trump's unwillingness to trust the election results we might see from the upcoming presidential election. You might not like how the emails were made public, what has not been in dispute is their accuracy.

Let's now turn to her time as Secretary of State. Her first act was to have this hug reset button made, travel to Russia, and she and her Russian counterpart hit the button to reset US/Russian relations. Well, can anyone say she has improved US/Russian relations. Look at the situation in Syria, or the Ukraine, or the closer ties of China and Russia, or the Russian buildup along borders with the nations of Eastern Europe, or the stationing of nuclear missiles along their border with Eastern Europe. Those relations are worse than during the Cold War.

Another view I had of the Democrat Party is they were not in the pocket of big business or the super rich; but, that all changed with the information contained in the emails and the book Clinton Cash. As stated earlier, the data in the emails and in Clinton Cash accuracy is not in question; rather, the documentation proves a "play for pay" scheme which allowed those large corporations and super rich individuals to make a contribution to the Clinton Foundation and receive access to Ms. Clinton when she was Secretary of State. In essence, she sold her office. If she would do this as Secretary of State, it would be wise to think she just might do it as President.

Now let's turn to the release of classified information, which is almost as egregious to me as leaving those 4 men to die in Benghazi (we will get to Benghazi in a bit). At first she denied everything, then we find out she pulled a Richard Nixon and tried to delete everything to cover up the fact that she shouldn't have been using the server in the first place, that there was highly classified information (and lots of it) contained on this unclassified server, and that it was open to the whole world because of the lax security of the server. Then we find out the administration colluded with her to try to cover it all up and to bribe the FBI not to recommend charges.

I bet General Petraeus would have loved that kind of assistance over his disclosure of information to an individual who was an Army Reserve officer with a Top Secret clearance, it is just the Army Reserve officer didn't have the need to know the information he disclosed to her as she was also his mistress at the time.

Or the Marine intelligence officer in Afghanistan who found out a local police chief was in the pocket of the Taliban and warned non-cleared Marines of this threat to their safety (the only people said officer told). The Marine intelligence officer is now up on charges. Go figure.

Now to Benghazi, which for me is the only thing I personally need to research to understand I could never vote for this woman. For over a year money had been approved by Congress to be spent on the security upgrades for which Ambassador Stephens had been asking; Ms. Clinton never released those funds for use. When the attack started, help was requested, none was forthcoming save for those brave individuals working at the CIA annex elsewhere in Benghazi. When other assistance was ready to go, they were told to stand down by the National Command Authority of which Ms. Clinton is a part. As a Marine we leave no one behind; we left those men behind. Men who were there serving their country in harm's way.

As Secretary of State she created the atmosphere which led to the development of ISIL/ISIS/Daesh (whatever you want to call it) in Syria and Iraq, which led to the growth of the various Al Qaeda groups in Africa and Asia, and has made the world a more dangerous place than when she assumed the post of Secretary of State.

She is also for turning a blind eye to the flouting of immigration law. I am for legal immigration, it is how the vast majority of us got to be here; someone in our family immigrated from somewhere else. Me, I am an American mut in that I have various ethnic groups running through my family tree and I am proud of all of them. The fact is current immigration law was passed to be enforced on those who employ illegal immigrants and those who illegally immigrate; no part of that law has ever been fully enforced as it has impinged on constituencies of both major political parties. Before we pass a new law, let's fully enforce the current one, see if it works, and if it needs changing operate from a position of knowledge to correct those issues. We first need to see if it works.

I also believed the Democrat Party stood for the rule of law as that is what is the foundation of preserving the equality of all Americans before the bar of justice, but as the above demonstrates, that just isn't the case when it comes to Ms. Clinton. Heck, they nominate her as their choice for President (who is the chief law enforcement office of our country).

These are just some of the things I question the Democrat Party about in their choice of Ms. Clinton as their standard bearer. I am not saying the choice of the other party is great; but, there aren't nearly the issues with him as they are with the current Democrat Party candidate. She is incompetent and corrupt at the very least and that makes the Democrat Party incompetent and corrupt also because they will all fall in line with her if they are also elected. Democrats made it impossible for me to vote for their candidates. Impossible.

Political Parties

I have decided I cannot be a member of either the Democrat or Republican party, neither truly fights for the ethics and values embodied in the Constitution of the United States. Both major parties are more interested in maintaining power than uniting under the shared vision laid out for us in the Constitution.
The Democrats want to take my economic freedom by forcing me to pay for other people's existence and forcing me to buy goods and services I neither want or need. They believe they know better than I how I should think and live my life. This is in direct contradiction to the vision our founder's shared when this country was founded and our constitution enacted. They wish to curtail free speech through the enacting of speech codes and prosecuting individuals (including clergy) for preaching their faith when it conflicts with ideas which Democrats and their constituent special interests hold true. They wish to force individuals to perform services which contradict their faith or face civil penalties (including their loss of a private business) or criminal prosecution. Yet they do not seem to uphold the rule of law which is so necessary to ensuring everyone is equal before the bar of justice. In my mind, the rule of law is the most precious and necessary principle embodied in our Constitution. They expanded the expansion of the use of Executive Orders by trying to legislate without going through Congress as the Constitution demands; this is something dictators or communists do, not constitutional republics.
The Republicans seem to believe we have no responsibility to our fellow man and business should determine national political and economic policy. They are also willing to compromise the Constitution when it suits their needs. Though closest of the two (2) major parties to my own personal ideology, they will sacrifice their own ethics and betray those which put them into office, to maintain their own agenda and power. They compromised our civil liberties with the National Security Agency and other national intelligence assets to monitor all communications in the United States in what I continue to believe is a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. 
Under President George W. Bush they expanded the use of Executive Orders to get around having to take things before Congress and have thorny issues debated in front of the American people. Their leadership is more afraid of the opposite party instead of their constituents as evidenced by their passing legislation which is at odds with the policies they were elected to put into place. They have no issue or ethical principle which they will not compromise.
Both parties believe in globalism and the United States being the world's policeman, enforcing its will on the rest of the world. This is something which has led to nothing but loss of jobs at home, the auto and steel industry being but two (2) examples; you could through in the textile industry and you see the loss of American jobs in each of these industries with no new jobs in other industries to ensure our citizens have lucrative replacement employment.
The first priority for all our elected and unelected leadership should be the protection of American citizens; not multinational conglomerates, rather ordinary citizens. The American citizen needs government to ensure an environment where they have the ability and equal opportunity (which doesn't mean equal results) to achieve their goals and dreams. Neither party does this anymore; if they ever did.
We have no right to force our will on other countries of the world. We should have allies and partners but never compromise our sovereignty or ethics. We have done all of this by cozying up to countries which restricted freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion. Both major political parties no longer fight for the constitution of the United States, as they are required when they take their oath of office, they are about accumulating power and wealth for themselves instead of protecting the interests of those they are elected to represent.