Another Reason to Vote “NO”

This week’s political news opens with the New York Post and the Daily Mail digging into Human Abedin’s (Hillary Clinton’s aide) personal history, including her connection to the radical Islamic publication Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs. Lee Stranahan has a good summary posted over at Breitbart.

21 thoughts on “Another Reason to Vote “NO”


    • I find it bizarre that any reader of Hogewash, The Thinking Man’s Zombie The Other McCain, Allergic to Bull and the rest could possibly object to reading an article by Lee Stranahan. In case anyone has forgotten, Lee was one of the first to take a stand against Brett Kimberlin, and, as a result, has been forced to endure systematic harassment of his himself and his family. Lee Stanahan organized the Every Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day, for which we all should be grateful.


  1. This a reason to vote “No!” to Hillary Clinton, which is a vote for Donald Trump. To do otherwise is a vote for “Meh!”


      • You realize that Beelzebub is a creation of Dark Age Christianity that posited the decline of the secular world they were experiencing was paralleled by a similar decline in Hell as Beelzebub usurped power over the underworld? In short, Christianity does have a preference for Satan over Beelzebub.

        What point were you trying to make?


        • You should realize that Beelzebub and Satan are one and the same. You should also realize that Trump is as pathological a liar as fellow Democrats Clinton, Clinton, and Obama.


          • No, they are not. You aren’t familiar with Dark Age Demonology.


      • Both are unsuitable candidates. Any American worthy of the name should be telling posters they’re voting for a third party candidate. Sadly part of the wider problem is the undermining of the Electoral College system so the best hope now is for a quick indictment once in office.


  2. The Clinton campaign has made an official response that is to claim that while Huma Abedin’s name was listed on the mask head, she had no role at the journal whatsoever. That is a bald-faced lie. The Clintons are people of the lie. They lie habitually, shamelessly and brazenly. Those that are passively allowing Hillary Clinton to come to power are functionally enablers to pathological lying.

    It has to be remembered that in passively allowing Hillary Clinton to come to power one is passively allowing lying to be legitimate tactic in American political discourse. Either honesty in politicians matters, or it doesn’t. And, it isn’t just the next Democratic nominee who will lie. It is the entire media complex on the Left that will repeat, reinforce, amplify and even shamelessly “fact check” those lies. The media will even formulate and promulgate their own lies. In allowing the deck to be stacked this election, one is allowing the deck to be stacked in every election.


        • Extraordinary claims require an extraordinary level of proof. Claiming Donald Trump is a “pathological liar” is quite the extraordinary claim. Claiming that it is such an obvious assertion that to deny it is to “believ[e] [that] the [e]arth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese” is an even more extraordinary claim.

          Words have meaning. The words pathological liar have meaning. Hillary Clinton’s defenses of her husband’s fidelity, and her account of being shot at while disembarking a plane in Bosnia, are two clear examples of Hillary Clinton lying pathologically.

          I am not aware of single instance were Donald Trump appeared to have told a pathological lie. I find the notion that he is a “pathological liar” an absurd claim. Donald Trump is a businessman who has entered into deals with a sundry of partners over the decades. From the accounts I have read, or seen, when Donald Trump shakes your hand, he will honor the deal. That is a reputation a pathological liar simply could never achieve. Pathological liars’ inability to see reality as it is, as opposed to how they wish it would be, would preclude them from being objective enough to even know what they just agreed to do.

          I recall anti-Trump forces long ago deciding not to take on Donald Trump on the merits of building a Southern wall, rethinking managed [“free”] trade agreements, appreciating the Yuan etc. Instead, they decided on the tactic of claiming that he doesn’t really mean any of it. Part and parcel of that project was to spread the notion that Donald Trump was not an honest man. Slowly this caricature of Donald Trump has spread from the pages of the National Review, and, elsewhere onto the blogosphere. Now, I simply don’t know whether you are part of this project, or you have simply drunk the kool-aide, but, I do know that would you are saying isn’t a rational position.

          I do not think Donald Trump is a “pathological liar.” I do not believe that the earth is flat, nor the moon made of green cheese, your assertion notwithstanding. Claiming that either you believe that Donald Trump is a pathological liar, or else you believe that the earth is flat and the moon made of green cheese is merely a restatement of the weavers’ claim that either you see the royal fabric the King is wearing, or, you are a benighted ignorant rube. The reality is the Emperor had no clothes, and, you have yet to state a case as to why anyone should believe that Donald Trump is a pathological liar.


          • As scrubone so quickly and easily pointed out, there is ample proof all over the internet, even on YouTube using Trump himself to discredit Trump (all you have to do to discredit Trump is to play a Trump video). All you have to do is to have eyes that stop refusing to see and ears that stop refusing to hear.


          • “I recall anti-Trump forces long ago deciding not to take on Donald Trump on the merits of building a Southern wall, rethinking managed [“free”] trade agreements, appreciating the Yuan etc. Instead, they decided on the tactic of claiming that he doesn’t really mean any of it.”

            No one “decided on the tatic”. We just observed Trump. He’s very predictable.

            For example, early in the campaign he was nice to everyone who was not a threat, but piled the nasty on the top candidate. Earlier it was Carson, then it was Cruz and Rubio. Legal Insurrection pointed this out and predicted (quite accurately) that Trump would be soon attacking Cruz, before he ever did.

            It’s the same with Trump’s policy positions. He promotes a position and then changes it as soon as it gets bad feedback or thinks it won’t win him any more votes. This isn’t something people have “decided on”, it’s something people have observed and predicted. As soon as he though he had the nomination, he very quickly backtracked on several policies including his tax proposals. I understand he’s currently backtracking on illegal immigration though I haven’t read much on that myself.


          • All that is necessary to discredit Donald Trump is to quote Donald Trump.

            As for Hillary, unless you’ve been in a coma for 30 years…


          • scrubone,

            After reading your alleged evidence that Donald Trump is a “pathological liar” I have a few comments. The first is that articles are authored by people who appear to have become a bit deranged. For instance, either Donald Trump is currently being audited, or he is not. Last year, either he was audited, or he was not. The year before that either he was audited, or he was not, etc. All the evidence presented was that Donald Trump noted that he has been audited for twelve years. The author did not provide a scintilla of evidence that Donald Trump is not currently being audited, that Donald Trump was not audited last year, or that Donald Trump was not audited two years ago, etc. Instead, he engaged in a giant piece of circular reasoning in which he claims that Donald Trump must be lying precisely because he is a liar. Extraordinary claims require an extraordinary level of proof. Additionally, he seems to accusing Donald Trump of lying based solely on an unstated premise. Namely, he acts as if Donald Trump has some obligation to release his tax returns dating back at least a dozen years. Donald Trump is perfectly entitled to say five years is enough, and, then note that those years are under audit [as are the seven years prior.] The alleged catching of a lie is purely in the author’s imagination.

            Second, you don’t seem to understand that the burden of proof for claiming that Donald Trump is a pathological liar is to show that he is a pathological liar. Raising questions as to whether, or not, Donald Trump is an ethical business [attacks on Trump University, VA fundraising], or a flip-flopper, a man with a faulty memory, or both [Japan], are separate questions. Hillary Clinton is not an ethical business woman, witness the large-scale pay-to-play. Hillary Clinton is quite the flip-flopper, who has repeatedly shown rather convenient memory lapses. But, I haven’t claimed that she is a pathological liar because of these transgressions. I called her a pathological liar because her claims that Bill Clinton was chaste, and, that she was shot at while disembarking a plane in Bosnia [I think it was] are examples of pathological lying [as opposed to simply lying, which anyone can presume from the fact that she is a politician.]

            Third, I’m not going to read uninformed speculation as to what Donald Trump’s “real” motivation was to skip the Fox debate. Concerning debates, Donald Trump was a beckon of light to the GOP. Instead of passively accepting the terms and conditions of a mainstream media that is out to destroy the GOP [Fox merely being out to destroy Donald Trump,] Donald Trump realized that the hosting of debates was a for-profit enterprise, and that those providing that profitable content therefore had leverage to demand things like debates that informed GOP voters as to which GOP candidate they should prefer. When Megan Kelly showed bias against him, he stated his unwillingness to help Fox profit from trying to destroy him. Ayn Rand would call that withdrawing the sanction of the victim. Donald Trump’s stated motive was completely consistent with all his prior actions.


          • John Hitchcock,

            I have to note that you are trying to shift the goalposts. The claim I disputed is that 1) Donald Trump and is a pathological liar; and 2) that fact is a evident as the roundness of the earth. You can talk all you want about how Donald Trump has been “discredited” and it neither adds nor subtracts anything from the conversation. One possibility is that Donald Trump has been discredited precisely because he is a pathological liar. Another possibility is that he has been discredited, and shown to be a pathological liar independantly. Another possibility is that he been discredited, but, is not a pathological liar. Another possibility is that not been discredited, but, he is a pathological liar. Another possibility is that is neither discredited, nor a pathological liar. I have yet to read any account of Trumps issuing a pathological lie. That is in sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton claiming she was shot at while disembarking from a plane.

            Nor, will I let pass the notion that anyone, anywhere has been “discredited” without noting how subjective such analysis is. Could you care to elaborate exactly what is the distinction that makes a difference between the statements “Donald Trump has been discredited all over the internet,” and, “People who agree with me about Donald Trump have said things about Donald Trump with which I agree?”

Leave a Reply