At the first Republican candidate debate, the moderators asked the candidates if they would support whoever received the nomination and not engage in a third party bid for the office of president. Donald J. Trump was the only candidate to claim that he would consider continuing his campaign on a third party platform. Now that Trump has secured the Republican Party nomination, Republicans are coming out of the wood work to say they will not vote for Donald Trump.
Monday evening, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) declared in a Washington Post editorial she will not vote for her party’s nominee, Donald Trump. On the same day, fifty of the republic’s Republican national security officials signed a letter, published in The New York Times, declared they do not support Donald Trump. Among the signers are “former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden and former Homeland Security Secretaries Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge.”
The letter begins:
The undersigned individuals have all served in senior national security and/or foreign policy positions in Republican Administrations, from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. We have worked directly on national security issues with these Republican Presidents and/or their principal advisers during wartime and other periods of crisis, through successes and failures. We know the personal qualities required of a President of the United States.
None of us will vote for Donald Trump.
From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.
It would be nice to ask these individuals what the “personal qualities” a president is “required” to possess are. Nowhere in the Constitution is the “personal qualities” of a president listed that are “required” of the individual seeking the office. And, there is some question about plenty of presidents past and their “personal qualities,” including Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.
The most audacious statement made by these 50 top security Republicans is the claim Trump “is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief,” from a foreign policy perspective, because he would be “dangerous” and place our republic’s well-being and national security at risk. Where have these 50 been the last eight years? The most dangerous president from a foreign policy perspective that has weakened our national security and placed this republic’s well-being at risk currently occupies the Oval Office. Yet, these individuals refuse to vote for Trump, who would be a far sight better than what lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue now.
According to the letter, “Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U. S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.”
Seriously? These men and women just described the current occupier of the Oval Office – Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah. And, believe it or not, they just described the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton. They have been drinking the “fool-aid” way to long.
Continuing on, the group details exactly what is meant in these broad statements.
In addition, Mr. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding of America’s vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances, and the democratic values on which U. S. foreign policy must be based. At the same time, he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and friends. Unlike previous Presidents who had limited experience in foreign affairs, Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself. He continues to display an alarming ignorance of basic facts of contemporary international politics. Despite his lack of knowledge, Mr. Trump claims that he understands foreign affairs, and “knows more about ISIS than the generals do.”
Exactly how much understanding did Hussein Soetoro possess of any of these “concerns” the group is now voicing about Donald Trump? Soetoro became notorious for his “American Apology Tour” taken shortly after entering office. In addition to complimenting America’s adversaries, Soetoro provides our republic’s enemies with arms and training while working to ensure Iran has nuclear capability. In constitutional terms, this defines treason. And, the current foreign policy of this nation revolves around the “others first, America last” mantra. If this is “contemporary international politics,” this republic could stand a little “America first” thinking. Unless these people live with Trump, they have no idea if he is or isn’t educating himself on foreign affairs. Could Trump know more about ISIS than current generals in the armed forces? Who knows, but, at least Trump recognizes who the enemy is and is willing to call it by name.
Since the Constitution established our system of government as a republic, our foreign policy should reflect the very nature of our founding, not democratic values or governance by mob rule.
Mr. Trump lacks the temperament to be President. In our experience, a President must be willing to listen to his advisers and department heads; must encourage consideration of conflicting views; and must acknowledge errors and learn from them. A President must be disciplined, control emotions, and act only after reflection and careful deliberation. A President must maintain cordial relationships with leaders of countries of different backgrounds and must have their respect and trust.
And, is the public to believe Hussein Soetoro possesses the temperament to be president? He has placed “yes men” in department head and secretarial positions in order to rule by decree; never considers a conflicting view from his own or encourages dissenting views; and never acknowledges his mistakes or errors, much less learns from them. Hussein Soetoro’s acts of passive aggression certainly alludes to his “lack of temperament” to be President. Again, this could be the exact description of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
There have been reports that Hussein Soetoro has had “outbursts” signaling an inability to control his emotions. Moreover, he has a “leap before you look” philosophy, ignoring any consequences that could occur from his actions. In fact, the only “reflection and careful deliberation” on the part of Hussein Soetoro probably only occurs in the White House “throne” room. As it stands right now, Hussein Soetoro lacks the respect and trust of all other world leaders, thereby maligning the united States’ standing in the world. Wasn’t it Hussein Soetoro, along with his accomplice Hillary Rodham Clinton, that engaged in ousting legitimate foreign governments to put in place one of their choosing, initiated military action in Libya to oust Ghaddafi leaving a governmental void resulting in the advancement of Muslim terrorist groups, and allowed four Americans to be killed at Benghazi while running armaments to ISIS? After all of this, Hussein Soetoro wanted to “stage a coup” against Syrian president Bashar al-Asaad, thereby poking the Russian bear, Putin.
Believe it or not, one can maintain a cordial relationship with other nations’ leaders, earn their respect and trust, and place America’s interests first without causing “a temporal vortex that will swallow the world whole and everyone in it.”
In our judgment, Mr. Trump has none of these critical qualities. He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood. He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Hillary Clinton certainly does not have any of these “critical qualities” and neither does Hussein Soetoro. In fact, Clinton and Soetoro both are mythomaniacs. Neither would know the truth if it jumped up and bit either one. Hussein Soetoro has sewn division across all demographics and socio-economic lines by weaving lies as truth. In fact, where Hussein Soetoro is concerned, the truth is an inconvenience that needs “reworking” into something more palatable. It’s the same with Hillary Clinton, but worse in that she blatantly denies truth with lies, trying to turn lies into truth and truth into lies. With these two, it’s their way or the highway. When it comes to tolerating personal criticism, Hussein Soetoro maligns those who criticize him while Hillary disposes of her critics. If erratic behavior is a disqualifying character, Hillary should have been encouraged to step aside some time ago. And, for Pete’s sake, who exactly are “our closest allies?” Does anyone in government actually know who our allies are? If appearances were to be the judge of who are “our closest allies,” it would be those who hate us the most and call for our deaths.
We understand that many Americans are profoundly frustrated with the federal government and its inability to solve pressing domestic and international problems. We also know that many have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us. But Donald Trump is not the answer to America’s daunting challenges and to this crucial election. We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.
re not these individuals declaring they will not vote for Trump part of the federal government at one time or another and engaged in contributing to the “profound frustration” many Americans have with government’s inability to address domestic and international problems? Unfortunately, these individuals have blinders on if they cannot see the most reckless President in US history is in office right now. These individuals should have more than doubts about Hillary Clinton. They should be totally opposed to her based on her platform of destroying the God-given rights of every citizen of this republic, turning this nation into a banana republic, and on her criminal activity throughout the years going all the way back to Arkansas moving forward to Benghazi, with the most recent being “emailgate.” This latest, following her responsibility for the murder of four Americans at Benghazi, demonstrated her inability to protect national security and promote the republic’s well-being.
The “Fool-aid Fifty” remained silent throughout the lawless Hussein Soetoro administration, meaning these “fool-aids” consented to the action of the administration. Yet, they leave the punch bowl to come outside to declare their lack of support for Donald Trump, projecting the exact actions and philosophy of Hussein Soetoro, as well as Hillary Clinton, onto Trump. While many citizens have their doubts about Donald Trump, citizens are assured of a continuation of the status quo should the Republican establishment have succeeded in placing their choice candidate as the nominee. Likewise, citizens can expect more policies similar to the Hussein Soetoro administration should Hillary Clinton succeed in winning the election. In fact, it will be worse. For where Hussein Soetoro failed, Clinton may just succeed given the propensity for individuals associated with the Clintons having a high incident of “accidents.”
One thing is certain. This is probably the most crucial election in American history. The literal survival of the republic hangs in the balance. With the Republican Party tearing itself apart, the election of the president hinging on the Electoral College, and the rejection of Trump by numerous Republicans, citizens could see another Gore/Bush scenario, meaning Hillary would win should Trump take the popular vote. While Donald Trump may not be the answer, Hillary would most definitely be reminiscent of “Gozar, the Destructor” or “Viggo, the Scourge of Carpathia.” And, let’s not forget, the Democratic Party is knowingly supporting a criminal and traitor for the office of the president. Maybe the “Fool-aid Fifty” can tell America why the Republican Party and themselves favored the status quo and did not put forth a candidate that would be the answer to the challenges facing America.