Depending on which flavor of Kool-Aid you’ve been drinking, Hillary Clinton is either the greatest threat to Western Civilization ever spawned by Lucifer – or is Joan of Arc on a noble steed (meaning the DNC, of course), wielding a large sword and charging in to save us from the Prince of Darkness himself.

Clinton’s defects have distracted progressives from one unique aspect of this election – replacing up to four Supreme Court justices in the coming year. She has also become a distraction to mainstream Democrats who recently got a sobering look at how undemocratic their party is – and who until now hadn’t given much thought to how far off the rails their party has rolled.

There are at at least three Hillary Clintons. The first is the Lucrezia Borgia of the Far Right, the star of Dinesh D’Souza’s new attack movie, “Hillary’s America.” This first one is a caricature engineered by people who have been hammering away at the Clintons for thirty years. The second Hillary is a political opportunist with an uneven record on everything from crime to helping poor families, with a horrific record as Secretary of State. This second Hillary’s record must be seen for nothing more than it is – shameful and destructive. Finally, there is a third Hillary – another caricature, this time from the Democratic Party’s and Clinton’s own PR machine. This third Hillary’s story is a lot like Forrest Gump’s: the former Goldwater girl has been everywhere and seemingly at the forefront of every important battle for the downtrodden since the Civil Rights movement began.

When lefty Democrats and Progressives talk about the second Hillary, DNC party loyalists think they’re hearing Dinesh D’Souza’s voice and they trot out the third Hillary. No one can agree about what she is, much less the right and left halves of the Democratic Party.

But Clinton’s own record speaks most convincingly for itself. For forty years she has been (at best) an unreliable friend of working people, yet has always managed to cash a paycheck from Wal-Mart or Wall Street. Like Trump, many of her positions on issues as diverse as gay rights, civil liberties, unions, welfare, the environment and crime have been either inconsistent or just plain harmful.

Not so different from the Republicans, Clinton represents globalism, militarism, cronyism, the revolving door, and a twisted foreign policy much like Henry Kissinger’s. She is now supported by the very neocons who pushed us into the war in Iraq she voted for. She supports a cruel occupation in Israel, signed off on a coup in Honduras, worked to destabilize several Middle Eastern countries, has expressed hostility to whistleblowers and civil libertarians, and is a friend (and Clinton Foundation partner) of autocrats and dictators.

Clinton can only inflame, not fix, ISIS because she has only Cold War containment strategies up her sleeve. Because of her “responsiveness” to Israel, voters can expect her to dismantle most of the work John Kerry did in creating a nuclear agreement with Iran. Again, with her Cold War mentality, Clinton will continue to gratuitously antagonize Russia. Even though the U.S. is now the only superpower remaining, the expansion of NATO and Cold War rhetoric will ensure that defense and intelligence-based industries get their handouts as we move toward a trillion-dollar defense budget. And Clinton and Kaine both want to expand military spending. It’s hard to imagine the Republicans doing much worse.

Yet Clinton is only one manifestation of the corruption of the Democratic Party. There are lots more Hillaries where this one came from.

This week progressives got a peek into leaked emails of the DNC leadership that show how undemocratic the party really is. Last month we got a glimpse of the Democratic Party’s commitment to free speech as Andrew Cuomo beta tested an anti-BDS program for the party – actually, for Israel – one intended to shut down boycotts of the Israeli occupation of Palestinians. Those with political memory will recall that, as soon as he resigned from Obama’s administration and became Chicago’s Mayor, Rahm Emanuel came out of the Democratic closet as a union-buster. And then there is VP candidate Tim Kaine’s record. As recently as 2009 Kaine was funnelling money to anti-choice programs in Virgina. Kaine has supported fracking and the TPP, and is opposed to re-regulating Wall Street.

Mainstream Democrats assume that Capitalism is benign and that the rules are generally fair, that public support of entrepreneurship is reasonable, and that tax incentives for “job creators” is only fair as well. Mainstream democrats saw nothing wrong with NAFTA and see nothing wrong with the TPP. After all, we live in a global world; we can’t change things now. Can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Americans are blithe about the costs of change – even disruptive change. Yesterday’s toaster repairman will be tomorrow’s AI robot repairman or CNC programmer – well, that’s the idea, at least. Offshoring is just a temporary inconvenience because the nature of business requires flexibility to move where trained labor is. Surely you understand. Trade agreements have to take into consideration protections for global corporations and, sadly, we can’t – and won’t – share the details with you or even your congressman.

This is the type of arrogance and disregard for worker and consumer protections that concerns both progressives and Republicans this year. Concerns for greater national control of trade policy have been portrayed as nothing more than paleolithic protectionism and coarse nationalism by the DNC. Concern for greater national control of trade policy is conflated with simple xenophobia and hostility toward foreign workers. While there is certainly much truth to this latter accusation because the right-wing has seized on populist sentiment, these concerns are simply not being heard or taken seriously by Democrats. When Britain left the European Union it scarcely created a ripple or a second thought among Liberals. Despite all the lofty pep talks about turning coal miners into solar panel installers, not every former factory worker is going to make it as a CNC programmer or a web designer.

Republicans think that kicking out the Mexicans will magically free up the low rungs in the job market. Democrats think that globalization plus encouraging post high-school education will magically connect the unemployed with developing markets (even if they are 10,000 miles away). Both parties agree – setting national priorities, taking steps to incubate new technologies, strategically training workers for these new technologies – hah! That’s a step too far toward Big Government. Big business, on the other hand, will magically find a way to make it all work.

In some ways, though, the Republicans are a half-step ahead of mainstream Democrats on trade protections. Or perhaps it’s just that the Democratic leadership has become tone-deaf to real people when they have been talking to tech entrepreneurs at Davos for so long. For all their evasive promises at the convention, Clinton and Kaine will foist the TPP on the American public. And this represents a betrayal voters will remember.

Besides its economic betrayals, the Democratic Party has real blood on its hands. Two of the DNC’s featured convention speakers this week should be in prison cells in the Hague. Madeline Albright, who on Sixty Minutes dismissed the deaths of half a million Iraqi children denied life-saving medicine by sanctions designed to punish non-existent WMD’s, gave a sabre-rattling speech about “toughness” and Russian aggression. Leon Panetta, Obama’s former CIA director, was responsible for drone programs that killed hundreds of civilians in undeclared war.

One assumes that featured speakers reflect the soul of the party.

The soul of the DNC paved the way for the financial crisis of 2008 through de-regulation of the financial industry. They keep on deregulating this industry. The soul of this party was happy to go along with, and extend, neoconservative military adventures in the Middle East. The soul of this party implemented draconian crime bills that created our present-day incarceration nation. And, yes, many of these initiatives occurred during the administration of William Jefferson Clinton – but the party leadership still loves its power-couple and rewards their failures by trying to get them in the White House again.

The Democratic Party is a party of failed ideas – just like the Republicans. Both are slavish servants of corporations and the super-rich. Both are limited in the solutions they can offer to solve America’s problems. Both offer the same tired, failed prescriptions with minor tweaks every four years.

Whatever the Democratic Party may have been in the past is only a nostalgic – and a rose-tinted – memory of what might be. The DNC may have been pulled, kicking and screaming, into the Civil Rights movement, but it was also the party of Viet Nam, Nagasaki, and HIroshima. The DNC of today still belongs to the rich and continues to be hostile to progressives, at odds even with its own Progressive Caucus. It is a party that fails average Americans time and time again. By design.

This is a party full of Hillaries. When she eventually leaves the political stage there will be a hundred of her clones waiting in the wings.

This month’s political conventions took place in a nation badly deformed by both major political parties.

Inside Cleveland’s “Quicken Loans Arena” the GOP anointed its candidates, while in Philadelphia the DNC was hosted at the “Wells Fargo Center.” In both cases, heavily armed police and the Secret Service kept protesters at bay, safely behind protest-free security barriers. Undeclared war, drone attacks, and civilian casualties continued, and assassination lists were drawn up both Tuesdays, much like they were when Republicans were in power. Spying on Americans continued, as it had when Republicans were in charge. Whistleblowers who could no longer operate safely in the U.S. filed reports from Berlin, Rio, Moscow and elsewhere, while others sat in embassies and federal prison.

This bleak snapshot could have been taken in any year since 9/11, and the sitting president could be either Republican or Democrat. There really hasn’t been that much difference.

Inside the convention halls, old rich white people were once again the winning office-seekers. Bluster, lies, superPacs, and subterfuge got them both there. Both are divisive figures. Both paint each other as evil incarnate. Trump is Hitler, while Clinton is Lucrezia Borgia. The message at both conventions was the same: only one person can save us, and for the nation’s survival all of us must unite around our candidates, our savior. And if you refuse to get on board – well, you’re either for us, or a’gin us.

For Repubicans, this effectively meant: we’re all fundamentalists and racists now. For Democrats: we’re all militarists, regime-changers, and neoliberals. Delegates and speakers were booed if, like Ted Cruz, they told fellow party members to “vote your conscience.” At least one dissident at the DNCC had her delegate credentials revoked when she questioned the direction, the qualifications, and the integrity of the presumptive candidate.

At the Republican convention, the Evangelical right, xenophobes, and more opportunistic elements within the GOP all signed up to sing Trump’s praises. In Philadelphia neoconservatives like Robert Kagan said “I’m with her” and Democrats practiced the Zen of blocking from consciousness all the sins and omissions of past Democratic administrations. Few lessons were to be learned in the slick, revisionist narrative of the DNC.

Trump’s character witnesses included fellow billionaires, reality TV stars, most of his family, evangelicals, and party extremists like Scott Walker.

At the DNC, Madeline Albright, the former Secretary of State (under Bill Clinton) who thought killing half a million Iraqi children “was worth it” and who schooled Hillary in Cold War “containment” policy and “regime change,” spoke of Clinton’s “toughness” and the need to fight Russian and Iranian aggression. Cory Booker turned Maya Angelou’s anthem of survival and personal triumph into an ugly piece of American Exceptionalism.

For both parties, the date might as well have been the 1980s. Republicans seemed stuck in a Reagan time-warp, while the Democratic leadership wished again for those halycon days when the U.S. had just become the world’s only superpower and could throw its weight around without consequence. Nobody talked about Israel’s occupation or the Democratic Party’s new embrace of fighting BDS by suppressing free speech.

Whichever candidate takes the Capitol steps in January, it will be an old rich white person whose party is flogging endlessly recycled, failed policies. Progressives may be the only ones in the nation aware that the year is actually 2016 – and not two generations ago.

This week, Progressives are taking it on the chin from Democratic loyalists who use Hitler analogies, cite Martin Niemöller (“first they came for the…”), and paint a scene of Republican meteors wiping out the earth. One article in Quartz goes so far as to say that voting your conscience is immoral. While couched in the logic of utilitarianism and “consequences,” the “ethicists” quoted don’t seem aware of the actual historical consequences of voting for both major parties – little things like the War in Iraq or the War on Drugs. Or the Clinton-era crime bills that created an incarceration nation. Those were consequences of truly immoral voting.

But guess what, Democrats? I really don’t care who your Democratic Party ethicists recommend any more than I care who Republicans think Jesus would endorse. Your party has been complicit in destructive wars and creating domestic suffering for decades. Your ideas have failed us as badly as the Republicans’. Inside and out, both parties are bankrupt.

So whether it’s Trump Steaks or regime change, tinkering with crime bills or foisting the TPP on Americans – we’re just not buying what either party is selling.

The last twenty-four hours have convinced me that progressives are in an abusive relationship with the Democratic Party.

First were the emails released by Wikileaks revealing that the party actively conspired against Bernie Sanders. Then Clinton’s choice of running mate seemed designed to stick a finger in the eyes of progressives. Finally, preserving superdelegates seemed designed to flip the party leadership’s middle finger at 43% of the base who wanted not only a progressive platform but progressive reforms.

People, if you’re really honest with yourselves, you need to admit it – you’re in an abusive relationship.

All the warning signs are there. Complete control (at conventions and primaries). Betrayal (of progressive values). Breaking down self-esteem (by constantly telling you your ideas are naive and unviable). Jealousy (if you deviate from the leadership’s views). Threats (that you are reckless and irresponsible). Taking advantage of you financially. Expecting absolute and undeserved loyalty. Physical abuse (by preserving violent policing, militarism, and economic injustice). Promising you anything to keep you in the relationship. Warning you how defenseless you will be if you leave the party.

But fortunately there are healthy, positive steps you can take.

Maintain outside relationships – even though your party may try to make itself the center of your world. Talk to others. Seek “reality checks” from third parties to see if your party’s behavior is healthy. Identify a “safe place” you can go if your relationship with your party becomes dangerous. Develop a support system through community organizations and other political groups who champion real change. Stop blaming yourself for your party’s bad behavior – their values are not yours. Stop putting on a show for friends and family of happiness with your party.

Be honest with yourself. You’ve been unhappy a long, long time.

You don’t need to keep living this way. Pack your bags and leave – if need be in the middle of the night. Find a safe haven, a place where you are respected for yourself, for your values, a place where you will find like-minded people who will build up – not break down – your self-esteem. And more importantly, people who will work with you, not subvert your ideals.

Remember: understanding unhealthy dynamics and taking appropriate, positive steps is the key to real change.

To listen to the Republicans, Syrian hordes are knocking on the gates of Vienna like zombies in the trailer of World War Z, while Mexican rapists threaten pure white maidens in Everytown, USA. “Crooked Hillary” is their enabler.

To listen to Democrats, our greatest fear is the Republican Party. To be more precise, Trump is the greatest threat to Western Democracy since Hitler.

Just as Mexicans are a convenient distraction from the failures of Republican free-market fundamentalism and deregulation, Trump is a convenient distraction from Clinton’s neo-liberalism and militarism. If you’re a Progressive still in the Democratic party this week, you are nevertheless admonished not to break with the “lesser evil” candidate because of the dangers of electing Trump.

But those of us around in 1964 remember the last Democratic Nazi scare. His name was Barry Goldwater.

Lyndon Johnson ran a famous ad warning Americans of the militaristic recklessness of Goldwater. In the commercial a three year old girl counting daisies is consumed by a nuclear blast caused by, presumably, Barry Goldwater.

But it was Johnson, and not the “Nazi,” who sent almost 50,000 American servicemen to their deaths in Viet Nam, and it was Johnson who napalmed, carpet-bombed, and defoliated to death and disfigurement some one million Vietnamese.

Going further back in time, it was a Democrat who incinerated two Japanese cities with nuclear weapons, a Democrat who threw Japanese-Americans into concentration camps, and Democrats who have destroyed an additional two Middle Eastern nations since Republicans were voted out of office.

This is a party with a record as horrific as the Republicans.

So while Republicans this year are certainly frightening, Progressives just aren’t buying Democratic Party fear-mongering anymore.

They’ve just lied too many times.

Hillary Clinton’s selection of Tim Kaine has progressives and others wondering – why?

Why alienate the 43% of Democrats who wanted a more progressive Democratic Party by picking a running mate who is not only “boring” but a throwback to the centrism of her husband’s administration?

It’s quite a gamble, admittedly – choosing a running-mate she thinks may be palatable to Republicans. But Clinton may have doomed her party in November.

Tim Kaine has nothing to offer progressives, nor will his checkered past on the issues unify a fractured party. Long before Trump – and just like the Clintons – Kaine campaigned on a “get tough on crime” platform supporting mandatory minimum sentencing. Though he supports environmental protection, Kaine also supports nuclear power. He is a globalist, happy to remind everyone that his home state began as an experiment in global free trade.

Hello TPP.

In December 2011 Kaine supported bans on contraception, but scarcely two months later voted to increase access to contraception. Besides his unreliable support (or outright opposition of) abortion and contraception, in 2011 Kaine opposed gay adoption and has been less than a reliable ally of the LGBTQ community. But, again in 2012, he apparently underwent a conversion on the road to Damascus and began supporting gay rights.

Tim Kaine appears to be perfectly engineered as a running mate for Hillary Clinton. Like Clinton herself, Kaine’s inconsistencies and “evolution” on issues can be taken any way you like. Kaine is a Democratic party insider, has been William Jefferson Clinton-approved, and was also on Obama’s short list of running mates. He can be whatever you want him to be. He’s not quite a Bubba, but he is a proud (albeit transplanted) son of the Old Dominion. He’s not a progressive by a long shot, but he’s not Caligula either.

Or a Donald Trump.

Speaking of which. The spectre of a Trump presidency no doubt terrifies advocates of reproductive rights. This has led to some frantic back-pedaling on critiques of Kaine. Less than 24 hours after Hillary Clinton tapped him as her running mate, NARAL issued the following statement:

“While Senator Kaine has been open about his personal reservations about abortion, he’s maintained a 100% pro-choice voting record in the U.S. Senate. He voted against dangerous abortion bans, he has fought against efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, and he voted to strengthen clinic security by establishing a federal fund for it. In the wake of clinic closures around the country due to deceptive TRAP laws, Senator Kaine has co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill that gives federal assurances that women will be able to access their constitutional right to abortion care regardless of what zip code they live in.”

Back in 2009, however, NARAL had a much different view of Kaine:

“The leaders of NARAL Pro-Choice America and NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia expressed deep disappointment at Gov. Tim Kaine’s decision to sign into law a bill that funnels state money to anti-choice organizations, the so-called”crisis pregnancy centers. […] Kaine, who also serves as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has taken action that’s inconsistent with the strong pro-choice platform adopted by party leaders last August. This is the first piece of legislation involving a woman’s right to choose that Kaine considered since being elected chairman of the national party.”

To regard Tim Kaine’s sudden change of heart as an “evolution” is a charitable view. While Kaine benefits from the perception he is a principled man grappling with private moral views in the public sphere, Occam’s Razor may explain it better: he’s a politician.

Kaine supported keeping the Bush tax cuts in place except for the most egregious giveaways to the rich. He opposed additional taxes on millionaires and supported additional tax exemptions for property owners. He opposes regulation of the financial industry – thus dooming the DNC’s plank calling for re-regulation.

As governor of Virginia, Kaine supported “war on drugs” programs that harshly prosecute marijuana use as a “gateway drug.” Again, it is impossible to see how he will support the decriminalization plank in the DNC’s 2016 platform.

Kaine’s domestic prescriptions may be less destructive than the Republicans’ but, when it comes to foreign policy and militarism, Kaine can be expected to be an equal partner in crime with his running mate. He has opposed budget cuts to the military, fought base closings in his already heavily-militarized home state, and like other Blue Dog Democrats is focused on homeland security, bioterrorism, and counter-terrorism. In his response to “On the Issues” Kaine replied with a “Strongly Favors” to the question of expanding the military.

Just wait ’till you see the 2017 military budget.

The Democratic Party’s 2016 Platform is now available. Juxtaposed with recent RNC convention speeches, the 2016 election now appears to be quite the trip back in time.

Neither party has any fresh ideas.

While Trump’s closing speech at the Republican National Convention recalls Nixon’s “Law and Order” speech in 1968, the Democratic Party’s 2016 platform recycles 1980’s Clinton (I) neoliberalism and Henry Kissinger’s containment policy.

The Democratic Party’s domestic policies all sound cheery and benign – although I”m not sure I believe most of them. For instance, as a sop to the Sanders people, the platform calls for appointing financial regulators outside the industry. But this has never been Clinton’s practice. Similarly, the language on global trade agreements sounds great, but does anyone really expect the NAFTA power couple to follow through on any of it? DNC donors and policy makers are so firmly enmeshed in for-profit education that reform will never happen under Clinton. For all the lofty language about Native American sovereignty, we’ll see if her administration will turn a new leaf after 400 years. For all the verbiage about Puerto Rico, we’ll have to wait and see if Clinton’s financial industry friends will permit the colony to write off or restructure its debts. Similarly, we’ll have to wait to find out what Clinton means by”within reasonable limits” when pursuing immigration reform. And is Clinton going to go toe-to-toe with the healthcare industry on drug costs? Experience tells us otherwise.

Many won’t happen because of GOP obstructionism, while the rest will never happen because – at root – the Democratic Party leadership and its major donors don’t really believe in them.

Highlights of the domestic planks:

$15/hour federal minimum wage; protecting collective bargaining; ensuring equal pay for equal work; promoting affordable housing; expanding social security; protecting US Postal Service; investing in infrastructure; revitalizing manufacturing; promoting clean energy jobs; enlarging access to high-speed internet; supporting STEM education; protecting intellectual property and trade secrets; promoting small business; creating jobs for young people; reigning in Wall Street; updating Glass-Steagall; appointing regulators outside the financial industry’s revolving door; making super-rich pay their fair share of taxes; evaluating trade agreements (including TPP); reforming criminal justice system; training police in de-escalation; ending racial profiling; asking DOJ to investigate ALL questionable police shootings; rolling back “war on drugs; de-criminalizing marijuana; abolishing the death penalty; fixing the immigration system”within reasonable limits”; ending contracts with for-profit prisons; stopping racial and religious profiling; strengthening rights for LGBT and disabled; strengthening cities and rural areas; promoting arts and education; improving Tribal housing, education and sovereignty; recognizing the self-determination of Hawaiians and Puerto Ricans; protecting voting rights; restoring the Voters Rights Act; fixing Campaign Finance laws; appointing judges sympathetic to civil liberties; securing statehood for Washington DC; tackling climate change; supporting a clean energy economy; protecting the environment; promoting debt-free college education; cracking down on for-profit educational institutions; guaranteeing universal pre-school; securing universal health care by expanding Medicare; supporting community health centers; reducing prescription drug costs; investing in medical research; fighting drug abuse; supporting families with autism; securing reproductive rights; promoting public health; ending violence against women; preventing gun violence;

On the other hand, foreign policy is something that Clinton has a lot of experience with – unlike her opponent who seems to make things up as he goes along. Unfortunately, Clinton’s playbook comes in large part from war criminals like Henry Kissinger and former role model Madeline Albright (who as Secretary of State defended the deaths of half a million Iraqi children by US sanctions). For all her experience, the former Secretary of State has made hash of the Middle East.

Clinton is every bit the American Exceptionalist Trump claims to be and she promises to expand and project American military power. She finds nothing wrong with provoking Russia by pushing NATO right up to its borders. Putting boots on the ground doesn’t trouble her either. She embraces “regime change” like every good neocon (Honduras, Libya, Syria), and is not troubled by arming Iran’s Wahabbist enemies – even if they are the major supporters of global terror. Clinton supports AUMFs instead of Congressional declarations of war, and she’s a hardliner on cyber warfare. The list of foreign theaters she wants to become involved in is much more extensive than at any other time of history. Not only does she want to keep tinkering with the Middle East, but she’s pivoting to Asia and Africa as well. This is far more reckless than Donald Trump’s muscular pseduo-isolationism.

Here are the highlights of Clinton’s foreign policy planks, straight from the DNC Platform:

strengthening US global and military “leadership”; making the US military the “strongest in the world”; ending waste in the military budget; fixing problems in the Veterans Administration; supporting military families; ending the epidemic of rape in the military; beefing up intelligence efforts to defeat ISIS; spending more money on homeland security; updating the AUFM (authorization for use of military force) – instead of having Congress declare wars; promoting regime change in Syria; supporting “moderate” rebel forces in Syria; taking the lead in Afghanistan with NATO; promoting social programs in Afghanistan without demanding democracy; maintaining a US military presence in Afghanistan; reserving the use of military force against Iran; bolstering the [Wahabbi] militaries of Iran’s enemies; beefing up defenses in Japan and South Korea against North Korea; expanding NATO to counter “Russian aggression”; establishing “global norms” in cybersecurity through spy agencies; supporting non-proliferation treaties; “looking for ways” to help refugees; promoting global health; ending HIV and AIDS; ending child labor; ending trafficking of girls and women; promoting human rights; ending US use of torture; closing Guantanamo Bay; standing up to China; promoting a Two-State Solution; strengthening Europe as a bulwark against “Russian aggression”; beefing up NATO; promoting human rights in Cuba and Venezuela; becoming more involved in Africa;

If you were around for the 1964 Presidential election you probably remember Lyndon Johnson’s “Daisy” ad, warning voters of the dangers of voting for Barry Goldwater.

In the iconic attack ad a three year-old girl stands in a field counting daisy petals. “One, two, three, four, five, seven, six, six, eight, nine, nine…” Then, as the camera zooms in on her eye, the voice of a launch commander is heard completing a countdown: “Nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, zero.”

The screen lights up with an atomic blast.

At the commercial’s forty second mark we hear the voice of Lyndon Johnson: “These are the stakes. To make a world in which all of God’s children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die.”

But ads are one thing, reality another.

It was not Goldwater who sent tens of thousands of American servicemen to their deaths in Viet Nam. It was not Goldwater who bombed and napalmed hundreds of thousands of people half a world away – people who had never raised a fist against the United States.

All this carnage was the work of the Democratic Party’s “peace” candidate, Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The Lesser Evil.

Fast-forward fify years and the hysteria around Donald Trump is strangely similar.

Who knows what Trump would do if he were Commander-in-Chief?

No one really does know, but we’ve already seen Hillary Clinton’s handiwork throughout the Middle East as Secretary of State.

Let voters heed their own consciences and not be swayed by “Daisy” ads. If the values of third party candidates align better with your own, vote for them.