Scott Brown: Clinton presidency unacceptable

I know from personal experience that politics is a blood sport. This is especially true during primary season. Campaigns fall short, egos get bruised, and feelings get hurt.

However, now that most of the votes have been cast and a presumed nominee has emerged, the Republican Party faces a very clear choice: put aside any bad blood and unite for the greater good, or put another Clinton in the White House.

After all, general elections aren’t referendums on two individual candidates in a vacuum — they are a choice between two people being evaluated side-by-side. The contrasts between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton couldn’t be clearer.

Consider Clinton’s resume and the type of president she would be:

On Clinton’s watch at the State Department, the world quite literally burst into flames. Her failure to increase security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, led to the death of four brave Americans — including Ambassador Chris Stevens, at the hands of Islamic extremists. Her callousness led to their families suffering through unimaginable lies.

From the bungled Russian reset, to the rise of ISIS in Syria, to the missed warning signs on Boko Haram in
Africa — there is literally no corner of this globe that’s better off because of Clinton.

She has used her political influence to boost her financial portfolio. Millions of dollars were funneled through her family’s “foundation” as a slush fund for her to lavishly travel around the world in private jets. Foreign governments wrote checks to the Clinton Foundation for millions of dollars while she was secretary of state, in clear and blatant attempts to trade money for influence.




Read More…