A recent guest column in this paper declared the writer’s support for Hillary Clinton because she “will work on issues,” because she was “praised by her colleagues in the Senate,” because she “has the temperament and the experience to be President,” because “she loves this country,” and because she “has made this grueling slog on behalf of every woman who has ever been knocked back, belittled, talked over, passed over, and paid less than a man.”
The column also opines the numerous charges against Hillary have been disproven over the years. That is not true — government officials have just decided she’s too “protected” to prosecute successfully. FBI Director Comey said it differently, but that was his message.
Hillary Clinton has never taken any action that’s not calculated to advance her own career, and this self-promotion often came at the expense of the “little people” who stood in her way. Looking at the list of women who have claimed sexual abuse by Bill Clinton (a longer list than the guest columnist admits to) and who have been trashed by Ms. Clinton gives an idea of just how destructive the candidate’s past has been. Watching her address minority audiences further defines just how cynical she is, with no good idea of how to improve their situation.
In fact, that’s the best reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton: her campaign promises to be a continuation of Barack Obama’s past eight years. It’s easy to defend Obama: he looks good, speaks well, and has avoided personal scandal while in office. But in foreign affairs, in racial harmony, and in economic progress, his term has been an unmitigated disaster. Hillary Clinton promises a continuation of this — or worse, an increase.
The first point of her campaign is, “Launch our country’s boldest investments in infrastructure since the construction of our interstate highway system in the 1950s.” That is nothing more than a repeat of Obama’s failed stimulus package, where $800 billion ended up being misspent, diverted to cronies, and frequently siphoned into Democrat campaign funds. Even Obama admitted the projects were not shovel-ready, and this is the slowest economic recovery ever.
Hillary Clinton wants to repeat his policies, claiming tax increases will fund increased government spending. President Obama’s party was in the majority in Congress his first two years, and even he couldn’t get a tax increase. How does Ms. Clinton propose to do what he couldn’t? And why will it be more effective, at half the price, than Mr. Obama’s stimulus?
Another point of her campaign promises to make America “the clean energy superpower of the world.” Remember Solyndra? More than half a billion dollars went to that advanced-technology solar energy factory with two results: it made a huge political donation to the Obama administration, and then declared bankruptcy. It’s not alone. Ms. Clinton’s list of promises is recycled Obamanomics, and it didn’t work previously. Some 94 million people are out of the work force and the national debt is double what was in place when Obama came into office. Minority unemployment is particularly high.
Her “make it in America” manufacturing plan has a $10 billion price tag, most of which would not go to American workers. Why vote for the same policies? Because she’s a woman? Because she skated on classified email charges (not a “mistake”) or on Whitewater? So she can solidify more-expensive Obamacare, with the majority of state exchanges opting out?
Fred LaSor lives in the Carson Valley and will NOT be voting for Hillary.
