The citizens of America, who boast of the most college-educated graduates, are approaching their nation’s November 2016 election.
A majority of these citizens have twice elected the anti-American Muslim Barack Obama. So they should have few qualms voting for Obama’s ideological successor, Hillary Clinton.
Meanwhile, the media have reported the discovery of thousands of Clinton emails above the number she said she handed over to the FBI. Hence one has to wonder about reliability or trustworthiness of Obama’s Secretary of State.
Perhaps this former First Lady, and now fairly sick woman, was confused about how to assess and handle classified documents. Alternatively, perhaps she suffers from compulsive or pathological mendacity, and is deserving of sympathy.
In any event, one may wonder about the huge number of emails processed by the insecure and unauthorized email server located in her bathroom. Perhaps that was a fitting place for classified documents concerning American relations with foreign powers, especially despotic Islamic regimes with which Mrs. Clinton has enjoyed a cozy relationship.
…and lack of judgment all around
Such non-judgment relationships typify America’s most highly educated executive department, the Department of State. Its diplomatic corps boasts of Harvard and Yale graduates. Their professors probably imbued them with the doctrine of conflict resolution. This sophisticated doctrine ignores the commonplace distinction between just and unjust regimes. It does so ostensibly to promote peace among nations. But it ignores their conflicting ideological convictions and their bellicose conduct over the course of history.
This liberal attitude is well ingrained in American higher education. The American academy regards despotic Islamic regimes with moral indifference, to facilitate negotiations and economic relations.
Mrs. Clinton, a Yale alumna, displays this morally neutral attitude. Western law schools whether in New Haven or Boston, London or Paris, foster this attitude. She seems to have engaged in serial mendacity. Her testimony before Congressman Trey Gowdy of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform suggests this. Such conduct is not philosophically inconsistent with the moral relativism implicit in the doctrine of “legal realism,” which deals with human beings as they behave in real life, and not as they would behave as per the ideals of some moralist.
In any event, the academic doctrine of legal realism is well established in law schools. Indeed, it has profoundly influenced the thinking of U.S. Supreme Court Justices, as witness their sanctifying the practice of same sex marriage, a practice that harks back to the pagans of antiquity.
In fact, same-sex marriage, which Barack Obama has endorsed, is a moral issue over which Mrs. Clinton has equivocated during her campaign for the Presidency.
Like Obama and his two Supreme Court appointees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Mrs. Clinton has the taint of moral pluralism. This characteristic of liberal democracies conduces to intellectual inconsistency, which readily leads to disingenuousness or mendacity.
That this democratic tendency or malady has not been excoriated by the academic profession even in Israel, a nation victimized by the mendacity inherent in Islamic culture and known as “taqiyya,” bodes ill for any serious writer. Indeed, given the influence of the moral relativism permeating the atmosphere of this democratic era, a serious author will sometimes wonder whether it’s worth expressing his thoughts in articles addressed to the general public rather than to a few uncorrupted colleagues and acquaintances. But what has all this to do with America’s 2016 presidential election?
An election, a choice
Donald Trump may not be the fondest hope of America. Nevertheless, that this enormously productive capitalist attributes his success to the American heritage, whereas Hillary Clinton’s beliefs represent the negation of this heritage, makes one wonder about higher education in America, whose polls indicate that Mrs. Clinton will be the next occupant of the White House.
Such an eventuality would prove that the democratic principle of one adult/one vote is fundamentally irrational, and that it can only be applied to a nation whose people have not been stupefied by higher education, the education that twice resulted in the election of Barack Obama! ☼
- Christianity Today
- Constitution 101
- Creation Corner
- Entertainment Today
- First Amendment
- Foundation of our Nation
- Guest Columns
- Human Interest
- Ignite the Pulpit
- Let's Talk
- Money matters
- Racial Issues
- Tea Party
- Trump elevator pitch
- World news
Accountability10 hours ago
Project Veritas says FBI deemed outlet part of the media, despite arguing that what they do is not journalism
World news12 hours ago
Scott Morrison concedes defeat to Labor Party in Australian election
Accountability10 hours ago
JPMorgan predicts $6 gasoline by the end of summer
News11 hours ago
Trump is reportedly telling his aides his record on abortion could hurt his 2024 chances
News11 hours ago
Report: Rudy Giuliani met with Jan. 6 committee for over 9 hours
Accountability13 hours ago
WHO Chief says COVID-19 pandemic is ‘most certainly not over’
Accountability14 hours ago
Sussmann told CIA similar ‘client lie’ in 2017, Durham says
Accountability12 hours ago
President Biden: United States is exploring monkeypox vaccines, says ‘everybody should be concerned’