15 Reasons Why I Am #NeverHillary

Never Hillary

The following are some of the reasons that I would never vote for Hillary Clinton for President of the United States (in no particular order).

She supports raising taxes on the wealthy.

She supports amnesty for all illegal aliens.

Condones the breaking of federal law in her support for illegal aliens.

Supports extending Obamacare to illegal aliens.

She wants to build on the Obamacare fiasco.

She supports abortion.

Hillary supports paid family leave which raises taxes to pay for employees extended time off.

She wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $12.00 per hour and supports communities raising it higher than that. This is something that should be left to market forces and not imposed on businesses since it has the effect of creating layoffs for thousands of people and making products more expensive.

She supports the climate change hoax and taxing oil companies to pay for green energy schemes.

She supports increased gun control. 

Hillary supports free college, which is financially unrealistic and ruinous in a country with debts and deficits like the U.S. In my opinion, college should not be free but something that has value to the student, something that needs to be worked for and cherished. Look at the free public education system and how that has failed. Do we want college to go that way too?

Hillary Clinton kept a computer server on her own property which received and sent classified e-mails and which put United States classified information at risk. This server was very likely hacked. General David Petreus was convicted for a much weaker offense. Her aides deleted 32,000 emails from the server dated during the same time period, that she regarded as personal and private before turning over the server to the government. This alone is obstruction of justice.

Hillary participated in a lie/cover-up of the Benghazi terror attack which killed four Americans including an ambassador who repeatedly asked for her help. She knew it was a terror attack (it was on the anniversary of 9/11) but lied and said to the American people that it was retaliation for a You-Tube video. As Secretary of State there was at least incompetence involved and perhaps malfeasance. 

Clinton pursued a disastrous strategy to topple Kaddafi in Libya by supporting rebels with weapons and American and NATO military power which has destabilized the country and the region. Statements like the following alone should disqualify her:

"We are currently doing everything we can to bomb, strafe and use missiles to carry the rebels into power in Libya. We want them to win. We just don’t know who they are.” Hillary Rodham Clinton

She voted for a military solution to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and later changed her mind.


And for those of you saying that they will vote for her because she is a woman and that we are ready for a woman for president, please remember that qualifications and integrity are what should suit a person for president, not the gender of the candidate. Besides, we have had other women run for higher office who had more integrity than Mrs. Clinton (Michelle Bachmann, Carly Fiorina, even Sarah Palin).

2016: Obama's America - Movie Review

Produced by Gerald Molen, written and starring Dinesh D'Souza.

2016: Obama's America is a well-made documentary exploring Obama's history, and which asks the following question "Who were Barack Obama's forefathers?" This is a question that was not answered to any degree before Barack Obama's election in 2008 (though there were those who tried to sound the call). Voters were so eager for "hope and change" and so eager to elect the first nonwhite president that they didn't look at or care about his radical background - a background steeped in Marxist, socialist, anticolonial, anticapitalist, anti-Israel, and anti-America ideologies. Some pundits say that the background and history of the candidate (or president) shouldn't be delved into like this. That it's unpatriotic. What?? A person's past and his background are predictors of his future actions. Not always of course, but more often than not for sure.

The early moments of 2016: Obama's America tell Dinesh D'souza's history, which he points out is very similar to Barack Obama's history. They are born the same year, they graduated college the same year, they both went to an Ivy League college, they both were married the same year, and they both grew up in impoverished third-world countries where anticolonialism is prevalent.

2016 then takes the viewer to Africa, the home of Obama's father, his forefathers, and much of his family. Here we learn story of Obama's visit to Kenya after the death of his father and we meet at least one of his relatives. D'Souza spoke to Obama's half brother George Obama, who wrote a book in 2010 despite having only finished the 7th grade. D'Souza asks George Obama if he thinks his brother Barack should help him in some way. George suggests pridefully that he is a grown man and can help himself. Incidentally, the two met in a park, so obviously George did not want to have his home on film, which Dinesh suggests is very small. My question is, the president's brother wrote a book and he still lives in a hut?

Indonesia was also visited by D'Souza and the film crew. Barack Obama (Barry Soetoro at the time) spent a portion of his childhood growing up there, going to a Muslim school as an Indonesian citizen, and according to the president's book, eating dog. Hawaii was also a backdrop for some of the film.

2016 uncovers, as much as any documentary can with this secretive person, the president's background and shows who his father and mother were, shows who his mentors and teachers were, and shows the company Barack Obama kept himself immersed in, all of which reveal that he is no garden-variety Democrat or liberal but rather that he has an extremely left-of-center philosophy founded upon anticolonialism, and anticapitalism.

The film points out that everything that President Obama is doing is purposeful and are not just bumbling attempts at doing what is right for the country. His spending and increases in debt are meant to weaken America's position in the world, the economic stimulus was meant to hobble the economy, and his giveaways to other countries are meant to spread the U.S. wealth.

The film also asks and attempts to answer another question, "If Obama wins a second term, where will we be in 2016?" According to the film and the experts that D'Souza speaks to, America will be further down the road to socialism, it will be further diminished as a world power, even to the point where it will be vulnerable and unable to deter wars anywhere in the world. The wealth of individual citizens will continue to decrease as well as the country's wealth on the whole.

David M. Walker, who served as United States Comptroller General, had some sobering things to say about the debt and deficit suggesting that we are fast heading down the road of Greece and Spain. When the debt is the same as the yearly GDP (Gross Domestic Product) or near it, I'd say he is right. (On a side note, I hope Mitt Romney appoints David Walker treasury secretary when he is elected.)

If you want to know more about Barack Obama, you will learn a lot about him from this documentary, much of which in fact is based upon Barack Obama's two autobiographies. D'Souza starts with facts he learns in those to build a foundation of knowledge about someone that he suggests is one of the most unknown people ever elected to the office of president.

2016: Obama's America is expanding its reach in theaters. Check for a theater near you.

D'Souza's book, Obama's America is an even more detailed look at the same subject matter and you can get it here: Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream

The Things Autocratic Capitalistic Countries Are Doing Right That the United States Is Not

I understand the thinking of President Obama and the others on the political left. I understand the logic behind the Buffett Tax. It is playground bullying times a trillion. If Timmy Turner has more marbles than the other kids on the playground and a bully takes Timmy’s extra marbles to make it fairer to everyone else, that’s the Buffett tax. That’s the death tax and the millionaire tax.

The Buffett rule, or tax, is the Obama administration’s latest nomenclature for the millionaire tax, and is named after Warren Buffett, a wealthy billionaire who is in arrears with the IRS over unpaid taxes, but who thinks people like him should pay more taxes to the U.S. treasury. Makes sense, right? The Obama administration apparently thinks that if a tax is named after a rich man, (thereby giving it the Millionaire Seal of Approval) that Americans will hop on board and agree to increasing the tax burden on all those shiftless wealthy people.

The problem with millionaire taxes (and higher taxes in general) is that they may bring in a little more revenue in the short run, but at the expense of money that would have stayed in the economy generating economic growth and job creation.

Why are citizens who make more money and who already pay more taxes than I do responsible for paying a larger share of their income to support the government? They are not.

It is class envy. It is class warfare. It is playground redistribution. It is neo-Marxism.

I paid roughly $10,000 in taxes to the federal government last year. My neighbor, Bob, made a million dollars last year and paid the federal government roughly $200,000. Twenty times what I paid. Who on Earth can say that my neighbor isn’t paying his fair share? He paid what 20 people making my salary pay in income tax! Good for him!

But that’s not good enough for Progressives, and liberal Democrats like Barack Obama. You see, they want Bob to pay $396,000 on his million dollar earnings. Thirty-nine times what I am paying! Because Bob is successful, they want him to pay what 39 average tax payers pay in taxes. And, they want to take away as many deductions from him as they can so that he has a harder time lowering his tax burden than I do.

I think Bob is paying his fair share. He is paying MORE than his fair share. He is an “engine” in the economy of the community. What would be truly fair, in the spirit of American fairness, would be a flat tax, or a Fair tax that would involve everyone paying SOMETHING to the U.S. treasury, including the 47% of Americans who now pay nothing in federal income tax. Russia has a 13% flat tax that everyone pays and that has been very successful…. Russia!

No one person should have to pay a higher percentage of his or her income than another person to the federal government. Check it: In the small island nation of Singapore, everyone is capped at $2500 of their income, no matter how high their income is. And this is an autocratic government. (However, the country does have many other taxes that the U.S. does not.)

It is fundamentally unfair in a nation that is supposed to be fair, and provide a level playing field to expect Bob to pay a higher percentage of his income to the federal government than I do. That is not fair, it is punishment for being successful. The progressive income tax (where one person pays 0%, another person pays 25% and another pays 39% of their incomes) is government theft from people who have been successful, or lucky in their lives.

Why take away the incentive for Bob to spend his extra dollars on boosting the U.S. economy by buying expensive products and services, which provide jobs, or hiring extra employees for his business?

President Obama, if you want to spur consumer spending, excite the economy, and jump start job growth, you need to cut federal spending. You also need to cut the corporate income tax (which at 40% is among the highest in the world -- even the communist-capitalist-dictatorship Red China has a lower corporate income tax). You also need to make permanent the Bush tax rates, and level the tax burden playing field so that everyone has “skin in the game.”

Perhaps Congress should pass a special tax on all people who think they and others aren’t being taxed enough. I think a 90 percent rate would be fair.

America IS less free today than it was yesterday.

On March 22, 2010, Americans have less freedom than they did when this country was formed 234 years ago. Less freedom than even the day before. Some people relish this. Read the following Merriam-Webster.com definition of state socialism: an economic system with limited socialist characteristics that is effected by gradual state action and typically includes public ownership of major industries and remedial measures to benefit the working class

What could describe where this country is going better than that?

Government now controls and/or owns many banks and lending institutions, including all student loans. It controls automobile manufacturers, and the insurance giant AIG. And now it controls healthcare for the young, old, and everyone in between. Unfortunately it is renewing its grasp on education, from K through University as well.

While Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are socialist programs that are relied upon widely, the mother of all government giveaway programs has just been passed by the rogue U.S. Congress.

Now, thanks to 219 liberal Democrats, you can add to the liabilities of the Federal Government (the taxpayers are responsible for the liabilities of the federal government) another huge government program that is bound to go insolvent as all the other government programs are doing. We just cannot afford to give away our treasure time and time again for the shortsighted largesse of crooked politicians. What's next? A place to stay, that ought to be an unalienable right too.

This is another liability, another government program and one that the Federal government has no right to mandate and no constitutional authority to implement. But to give itself power to implement this healthcare reform, Congress intertwined enforcement of it with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). That is a policing authority that already does have control over the citizens, and which amplifies the control and reach that the healthcare law can have over everyone.

Health insurance is not an unalienable right as Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats are suggesting. Forcing your neighbors to care for you is not an unalienable duty and is not what America is or has ever been about.

One can only hope that the lawsuits which are lining up against Obamacare will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where the bill will be held as unconstitutional.

I would like to thank the Republicans in the House of Representatives (and the 34 Democrats) who put up a valiant fight against this anti-American bill. You will be remembered in November at the voting booth. Thanks also to the Tea Party movement for their tireless fight against big spending, and big government.

The fight continues.

Letter to my Senator re: Health Care Deform

Dear Senator Frank Lautenberg,

As I am sure you understand, you represent the citizens of New Jersey, not Republican or Democrat issues. And there is a great deal of opposition to this "government option" for health care that is being pushed in the House, Senate, and by the President. You have seen the reports of everyday people showing up at townhall meetings to express their feelings regarding this latest government expansion. It is widely disliked.

With these things in mind, I ask you to vote against wholesale change of the health care system in this country. The government doesn't need to get its hands into more of the citizen's business. The government doesn't need to get bigger, it needs to get smaller. This scale of change is not necessary, and during a recession is most definitely the wrong time to undertake it.

The best quality health care system in the world, one which people in other countries come to when theirs fails them, will be ruined by taking this step. Other steps and other ways can be taken to fix the things that do ail the U.S. health care system.

The funding of health care (insurance and medical costs) needs targeted change, change to the ease with which lawsuits may be brought against doctors and hospitals, and limits to rewards. TORT reform. And hospitals need help to recover the crippling costs they bear by uninsured people and illegal aliens who do not pay their bills. The federal mandate that hospitals help everyone needs to be dropped or funded. But that's not the same as a government health care option.

We don't need another entitlement program which will raise the deficit, raise the debt, and increase the monies that the government needs to collect from the citizens. Not to mention the fact that the government isn't doing so well with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Amtrak, the Post Office, the Veterans hospitals, and many other large beauracracies.

Adding health care to the U.S. government's responsibilities is also unconstitutional. It is not the purview of the Federal government to administer health care, nor is it the government's business to force people to buy health insurance, debit their bank accounts to pay for it, force citizens into a government plan when insignificant changes are made to their private insurance, decide or be involved in end of life care, etc.

There are other roads to reform which are not so drastic, some of which have been put forward in the house and senate. I am all for working on fixing the things that don't work, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here, and that's exactly what is going on.

And by all means, please read the bill before you vote on it. Crib notes by definition leave things un-noted.

All the best to you,
Brian M. Holmes

Truth, Liberty, and Health Care Deform

The following post was sent to flag@whitehouse.gov, which is an e-mail address that is collecting information from "whistleblowers" about the opposing viewpoints in the Health Care Deform debate. This sounds like a tactic from behind the Iron Curtain. The article discussing this sham is on the White House web page.


Brown$hirt$,

Truth is what is being spoken person to person (and under the surface and above surface and at the coffee pot and water cooler and in the car repair waiting room) about this Health Care Deform. What are you going to do about truth? Squash it? Call it shrill and loud?

I think the spending this Health Care Deform represents is irresponsible when this country is in near bankruptcy and saddled with huge deficits.

Not to mention that federal government healthcare is unconstitutional, takes away more of our freedom, and imposes more governmental control on the citizens of the United States.

Society is not here to make choices for me, healthcare or otherwise. But more and more, this society wants to make all my choices for me.

How about fixing Medicare? How about fixing Social Security? How about fixing the economy? How about ending illegal immigration instead of offering them healthcare?

Stop wasting my and my neighbor’s money.

And stop throwing away our money on car rebates too, increasing the Obama bloated deficit even more.

Brian Holmes