Editor's note: The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and/or the personalities quoted. As a non-partisan public charity, LifeSite does not endorse these statements and takes no position on political candidates.
November 2, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The rumors and suggestions of frequent, vulgar, raging tantrums against staff and others by Hillary Clinton over many past years have recently been publicly confirmed by some with first-hand experiences of them, as well as in Wikileaks releases. That has been happening because of alarm that this “psychotic” character might actually become president of the United States.
This article has no intention to be any kind of endorsement of Donald Trump. Instead, it is about observations and attempting to relate my puzzlement that many political and social conservatives are making a huge case about the deplorable character of Trump, while not balancing that intense dislike by also noting the dangerously unbalanced and at least as vulgar character of Hillary Clinton and her sexual predator husband Bill who would accompany her into the oval office.
“Character” is everything when it comes to voting, the Trump antagonistic ‘conservatives' constantly emphasize. Yet, for whatever reason, the character of Hillary Clinton is much less of an issue for them. I can't comprehend this, given the evidence that we now have about Clinton’s massively negative character.
Linda Tripp is the latest person recalling the malevolent character and actions of Clinton. This logically coincides with Clinton's pro-abortion, pro-gay extremism, disdain for real Christians and the way she has diabolically laughed or joked (or was not joking) about killing certain people, such as Julian Assange, or those who were killed as a result of government actions under her and Obama’s watch. “What difference does it make at this point” she insensitively shouted at an enquiry about the four Americans who died in Benghazi due to Hillary’s refusal to to allow any military aid to be dispatched to save the Americans under assault by Islamist terrorists.
I shudder to think how a President Hillary Clinton, with all the US military and security agencies at her disposal, would use such great power against anyone whom she believes to be in her way.
In her November 2 Breitbart column, Linda Tripp, former Pentagon employee and Special Assistant to the Counsel to the President for Bill Clinton, recounts many damning incidents that revealed Clinton’s true character. That private character is very far from the controlled debater and rally speaker we have been seeing on television.
Tripp finds the “none so blind as those who will not see” syndrome of establishment and intellectual conservatives, the media and others impossible to comprehend, given all that they should now know about this clearly amoral presidential candidate.
Here are just a few excerpts from Linda Tripp: The Colossal Clinton Con, although I strongly recommend reading the entire article:
“I am struck by the “none so blind as those who will not see” syndrome. The Clintons live and breathe and count on those who choose to ignore that which they already know to be true. It has worked for over thirty years and it is working now. She is under federal investigation and blames the investigators.”
“Behind closed doors, it was not just the constant vulgarity, the obscenities, or the alarming denigration of vast groups of their own supporters.”
“Equally egregious was her vocal disdain for vast groups of people of faith and her utter contempt for the members of all the armed services. There were too many examples to cite, but my introduction to Hillary occurred in the Oval Office corridor as she headed back upstairs to her own West Wing office. An army officer dressed in Class A uniform had made the mistake of being seen in her presence. Her loud, “Get these f–king uniforms the f–k out of my sight!” floored just about everyone.”
“Over time the staggering profanity coming from both Bill and Hillary became expected. As the wife of an army officer for twenty years with a career at the Department of Defense spanning that long, this particular outburst offended me the most. The language coming from a First Lady was deplorable enough, but it was the harsh sentiment that was stunning.”
“She and her closest aides share a contempt for most of the electorate. This has been true since I knew them in the first Clinton administration.”
“I could only shake my head as I recalled her graphic objection to protocol concerning official gifts from around the world. In her uniquely expletive-deleted way, the First Lady made her position known to anyone within shouting distance. What she ultimately did with, as she said in my presense, “our f–king sh-t not the f–king country’s f–king sh-t,” is beyond me.”
By the way, here is another article on Hillary and Bill that should also leave any objective reader thoroughly nauseated. See The Clintons — At the End of All Things in National Review.
So, is “character” truly important in all cases – or just regarding some people? And is one “character” credibly far worse than another, based on substantiated evidence?
Or is it responsible to just go by intense personal dislikes and preferences in making decisions about character during an election as incredibly important to the United States and the world as this one?
