Analyze The Endorser

[Flanders]

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/military-poll.jpg?w=640

The pie charts indicate that Donald Trump has a big advantage over Hillary Clinton. Endorsements from high ranking officers requires a bit more analysis than I heard over the years. Trump touches on it:

​

Commander-in-Chief Forum: Secretary Clinton -vs- Donald Trump (Video)…
Posted on September 7, 2016 by sundance

Commander-in-Chief Forum: Secretary Clinton -vs- Donald Trump (Video)…​

One previously untouchable topic crept into the Commander-in-Chief Forum:

White House rivals Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are bringing out the brass, in hopes some military polish will burnish their own national security credentials.

Clinton today released a list of 95 retired generals and admirals who have endorsed her presidential bid. Trump released a similar list on Tuesday, featuring 88 retired officers.​

Clinton And Trump In Arms Race Over Military Endorsements
September 7, 201611:56 AM ET
SCOTT HORSLEY

Clinton And Trump In Arms Race Over Military Endorsements​

I can say things Donald Trump cannot say. So let me start with a word about the late Senator Joseph McCarthy (1908 - 1957):

McCarthy went after Communists infiltrating government bureaucracies including the US Army. Senator McCarthy’s only mistake was not understanding the difference between hardcore Communists and “Americans” betraying their country for global government administered by the United Nations. The tragedy is that both end in the same place.​

Janet Napolitano’s Rap Sheet

Since the end of WWII the upper echelon of every armed service has been infiltrated by officers whose first loyalty is to the United Nations rather than loyalty to their country. Their loyalty to the New World Order is no less treason than is betraying the country to an enemy in a war. The hard truth is that none of them can be hanged for their political beliefs. Private citizens are free to practice their political beliefs, but that does not apply to military personnel in uniform or federal bureaucrats.

Retired military officers are free to express their views. That is fair. More than fair when expressing their views provide an insight into what they were while in uniform. Unfortunately, freedom of speech does not tell you if retired officers with combat experience were fighting for the country, or fighting for a piece of the United Nations global agenda. Example: Those officers and enlisted men who fought in Vietnam were clearly fighting for their country because the United Nations did not sanction that war.

You decide if my answer is wrong:

Question: Which side of the fence does a general or an admiral come down on? My answer: Generals and admirals endorsing Hillary Clinton are loyal to the United Nations first. Generals and admirals endorsing Donald Trump are loyal to the country first.

NOTE: Obama purged loyal officers out of high-ranking positions in the military and replaced them with officers loyal to the United Nations and loyalty to him. I can only pray that President Trump purges the entire United Nations crowd.

I will close with a video I posted many times. Listen to now-retired General Martin Dempsey and Panetta then tell me why they had so much trouble tap dancing around the United Nations:

​

 

[candycorn]

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3007589/Nationalsecurityletter.pdf

"
STATEMENT BY FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS

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.

Most fundamentally, 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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.


It’s good that the troops are interested in the election. Its better that their commanders…know better.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Less than 1 of 2 (for Trump) and 1 of 4 (for Clinton) find them trustworthy of the office.

 

[midcan5]

LOL I still remember talking to my Southern fellow soldiers about a variety of issues and thinking wtf. Race was a big item and let's face it folks racism is still rampant in American thinking. I have no idea how you cure that? Given the democrats have lost the white vote since civil rights, and given that the largest segment of Trump supporters is uneducated white men, why does this surprise anyone? Is there help, sure, that democratic accomplishment the GI Bill helped many of us get that education we didn't have when we served as our class didn't do that. It still surprises me that a draft dodger who pays no taxes, is a business failure as AC demonstrates, is anti union, would get any person's vote, veteran or civilian.

"What you believe is what you see is what you know is what you do is what you are." Stanley Fish / Milton

 

[Flanders]

My answer: Generals and admirals endorsing Hillary Clinton are loyal to the United Nations first. Generals and admirals endorsing Donald Trump are loyal to the country first.

To candycorn: My answer applies to them, too:

STATEMENT BY FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS

And while I am at it let me remind you that the intelligence community is an integral component of national security:

Back at the height of the Cold War long, years before personal computers were invented, I knew one thing above everything else: Never let Democrats come anywhere near an intelligence agency. Today, Democrats control the entire intelligence community through the Director of National Intelligence. God only knows what Democrats are doing to the country in the Department of Homeland Security.​

DHS Treason Exposed​

Incidentally, let me point out that Democrats piss & moan about that one percent of wealthy private sector Americans who supposedly control the country’s wealth and power, yet they never mention that the people whose loyalty to the United Nations amounts to less than one percent of the adult population.

The first loyalty of a small number of “Americans” in key positions goes to the United Nations. They control enormous tax dollar wealth while they exercise tremendous political power in media, in entertainment, in education, in banking, in the courts, and at the top of federal bureaucracies that far exceeds the wealth and influence loyal Americans have at their disposal. High-ranking military officers adds hundreds —— not thousands —— to the others.

My point: It does not take millions of Quislings. A few thousand in key positions can finish the job of handing this country to the United Nations.

Finally, allow me to digress with a reference to the movers and shakers in a highly subsidized entertainment industry who made Seven Days In May more than 50 years ago —— presumably with tax dollars.

The general in the movie was portrayed as the traitor because he put his country first. The president was portrayed as a loyal American defending the Constitution against a dastardly plot to overthrow the government. Take note that you will never see a movie where a president like Bill Clinton, or Obama, betray the country not to mention betray their oath to protect and defend the Constitution —— the very things they are most proud of.

​

 

[candycorn]

oh brother

 

[Flanders]

Listen closely and you will hear General Flynn confirm everything I said in the OP:

Gen. Flynn: Severe disconnect between WH and military

General Flynn is a lot smarter than me, but he cannot bring himself to say why this country cannot beat ISIS after 5 years of fighting them, and after spending 6 trillion dollars in the past 15 years fighting Islam. Flynn’s aversion is twofold:

1. With the exception of WWII ——PEACE WITHOUT VICTORY —— has been the foundation for America’s foreign policy for almost a century. Peace Without Victory has become so entrenched in State Department thinking they consider total victory a defeat.

2. The State Department will agree to anything that prevents Muslim countries from walking out of the United Nations. Iran knows it.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz090716dAPR20160908014513.jpg

Russia knows it. China knows it. Every country in world with their hand out know it.

The American people are like the wife who is the last one to find out that her husband is sleeping around.

 

[namvet]

what's with the ear peace?? someone talking or coaxing ??

 

[Flanders]

what's with the ear peace??

To namvet: Good question. Maybe it is not a hearing aid at all. Perhaps it is like a tiny heart defibrillator giving her brain a little shock whenever she is about to shutdown. Suddenly bobbing her head could be a warning sign that her brain is fibrillating.

 

[namvet]

what's with the ear peace??

To namvet: Good question. Maybe it is not a hearing aid at all. Perhaps it is like a tiny heart defibrillator giving her brain a little shock whenever she is about to shutdown. Suddenly bobbing her head could be a warning sign that her brain is fibrillating.

or maybe someone is talking, telling her what to say??

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Where are the retired senior enlisted endorsements. As some one who worked for a living while I was in I would be more inclined to listen to a CSM than I would some 4 Star who played politics for
most of their career.

This compulsion by both candidates to get approval from the old brass tells me they don't understand the rank and file troops.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Trump earns endorsement of 88 retired generals, admirals

It's good that the troops are interested in the election. It's also good that the commanders are listening to the troops.

 

[Flanders]

Last night the Trump campaign released a statement to the effect that “Mr. Trump believes that President Obama was born in the United States.”

XXXXX​

Reporters assumed the statement would be about Obama’s birthplace, and, sensing an opportunity to halt Hilary’s decline in the polls, hurried to the Trump International en masse, with camera crews in tow. The cable news networks cleared time to broadcast the anticipated Trump humiliation live.

Instead, they were treated to 20 minutes of military figures endorsing Trump. Live, on CNN and MSNBC!​

Posted on September 16, 2016 by John Hinderaker in 2016 Presidential Election, Media Bias
Trump Outsmarts the Press

Trump Outsmarts the Press​

Now if only The Donald would set the record straight:

Generals and admirals endorsing Hillary Clinton are loyal to the United Nations first. Generals and admirals endorsing Donald Trump are loyal to the country first.

 

[Flanders]

“The military parade for Donald Trump has come early,” the AP says in its lead paragraph. “Two months before Inauguration Day festivities, an extraordinary number of recently retired generals, including some who clashed with President Barack Obama’s administration, are marching to the president-elect’s doorstep for job interviews.”​

AP Disturbed by ‘Parade of Retired Generals’ Seeking Jobs in Trump Admin
by Warner Todd Huston
24 Nov 2016

AP Disturbed by 'Parade of Retired Generals' Seeking Jobs in Trump Admin - Breitbart​

I doubt if the AP would be disturbed by Hillary Clinton's generals and admirals?

Generals and admirals endorsing Hillary Clinton are loyal to the United Nations first. Generals and admirals endorsing Donald Trump are loyal to the country first.

 

[whitehall]

Democrats are well aware of the voting statistics relating to the Military. I recall accounts of Al Gore's little army of lawyers throwing out bags of unopened ballots from ships and Military bases for trivial technical reasons that the Military had no control over and "high fiving" each other during the legendary Florida recount. Gore's whores knew the averages and if they could deny the representation of the Military in the election the results would tend to favor the democrat party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Link the actual empirical evidence for your assertion, whitehall, or acknowledge you are a liar. Either or.