by Daryl D. Tan
For the past year, my Facebook profile has been inundated with posts decrying Hillary Rodham Clinton and referring to her as the personification of corruption. I have been unrelenting in my assault on her campaign. For someone who claims that Trump lacks the temperament to have access to Nuclear weapons, I can easily say the same thing about Clinton herself, who has demonstrated such gross incompetence that she didn't know the 'C' which marked her classified emails stood for.. well.. classified.
This is also someone who has obstructed justice by deleting thousands of emails while investigations were ongoing. This is someone who deliberately lied to the American public that the Benghazi affair in which Ambassador Stevens was killed was merely a reaction to the Anti-Islam video 'The Innocence of Muslims' to hide any negligence and incompetence on her part. This proved to be untrue, and the whole saga also exposed her as someone who was willing to let political expediency get in the way of protecting American lives (which she was sworn to protect as U.S. Secretary of State). What really happened was that Ambassador Stevens had repeatedly requested for more security to be assigned to him but Clinton either deliberately ignored his pleas or was so grossly incompetent in her capacity as Secretary of State that she did not care to read the cables sent to her.
Clinton is also a devout warhawk; she voted for the Iraq war in 2003, and furthermore - the war in Libya was her doing which left a vacuum of instability and led to ISIS/ISIL's rise in the region. And hold on, Clinton isn't done yet. She wants to continue arming Rebels in Syria - most of whom are Islamic Fundamentalists. She wants to impose a no-fly zone in Syria which would undoubtedly draw the United States into conflict with Russia, and she wants to oust Assad the same way she ousted Gaddafi. This would make the Middle East even more unstable than it already is.
The Clinton Foundation is also an incredibly corrupt entity parading as a charitable organisation. It has, in fact, taken money and donations from dubious billionaires in India in return for Clinton turning a blind eye to the Indian government's exploits in the nuclear industry, worked with Nazarbayev's regime in Kazakhstan (Nazarbayev has an appalling Human Rights record) to grant uranium-mining rights to Frank Giustra’s company, Ur-Asia Energy in return for Giustra donating millions to the Clinton Foundation, and more importantly soliciting donations from the oppressive regime of Saudi Arabia - a regime that executes individuals for being atheists and/or homosexuals. Furthermore, in his LAST DAY in office as president, Bill Clinton used his presidential prerogative powers to pardon Marc Rich, a demonstrably corrupt billionaire, for Tax evasion, all because Marc Rich's wife donated to the Clinton Foundation. Yes, this is the very same Foundation that Hillary Clinton is so proud of for having founded.
I could go on forever, but my point has been made. Based on whatever I have stated above, I conclude that Hillary Clinton is the worst possible choice for president in the United States of America - a nation that has a immense impact on the rest of the world in every possible way. As reflected above, Hillary has proven herself to be corrupt and incompetent, but more alarmingly - she is hell bent on a wide scale confrontation with Putin that might possibly lead to WWIII. The last thing we want is the United States in a war.
Because of the number of posts I have shared on Facebook denouncing Clinton, I have been asked many times whether I'm a Trump supporter as I rarely share posts critical of Trump (the reason why I don't is because the Mainstream Media is doing this on a daily basis). I will answer this query now.
Strictly speaking - not really. There are many positions adopted by Trump that I am vehemently opposed to (such as Eminent Domain, plus I don't share Trump's great love for the Police Force). I was a Rand Paul supporter when he was still running, and I leaned a little towards Ted Cruz after Paul dropped out very reluctantly - if only because of his views on the Constitution. Afterwards, I supported Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. However, Johnson repeatedly let me down. I really tried to like him, but when his running mate, Bill Weld, regards Hilary Clinton as an "excellent public servant" (his own words) and calls Merrick Garland a suitable replacement for the late great Justice Scalia, and when Johnson himself refuses to berate Clinton openly, plus the fact that he is for coercing a privately run & owned bakery into baking a cake for someone for reasons that would violate the First Amendment, and the mere fact that he supports the abomination that is the TPP is enough reason for me to realize he isn't the right guy either.
I am thus left with two choices - Clinton and Trump. Between them - I'd take Trump over Clinton in a heartbeat.
Why?
Apart from all the reasons I've already listed above as to why Clinton would be the worst possible candidate, let's touch on some of the finer points of Trump's policy plans. Trump has stated that he is for a Gold-backed currency or at least a currency that is backed with actual value. He's also the only presidential candidate in recent years (besides Ron and Rand Paul) to demonstrate hostility towards the Federal Reserve. Heck, he seems to be the only one talking about it in 2016 with the exception of Rand. Trump wants to renegotiate America's national debt (which essentially means defaulting, which is a good thing - rather than racking up the numbers). He understands the TPP for what it is and knows it's a huge globalist scam that would import American Intellectual Property Laws to the rest of the world. Yes, he has protectionist tendencies, but he isn't entirely against Free Trade. He just wants to negotiate individual Free Trade deals with each individual country, rather than be caught up in a complex administrative web of Treaties that contain a number of suspect provisions that one would be bound by. Trump also wants to cut taxes, which would be GREAT for the economy. Also, he believes strongly in the federalist concept of states' rights - the political powers reserved for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. This is evident in some of his policy positions. For instance, according to Al Jazeera, Trump supports legal access to marijuana with decisions made at the state level, and he also believes that same-sex marriage laws should be left to the states to decide.
More importantly, Trump's foreign policy is very appealing. He's largely a non-interventionist, reminiscent of the emissaries of the Old Right like Robert A. Taft. He has also repeatedly called out the Iraq War for what it was - a mistake. He doesn't want to involve the USA in any large scale wars. This is evident in his statement that the USA should not always honour its NATO obligations. Trump also wants to scale down conflict with Putin and create a more amicable relationship with Russia (which would largely diminish the potential for a WWIII)
And the most important reason of all for me. 4 words: SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NOMINATION
Trump would replace the late great Justice Antonin Scalia with a like-minded Justice who shares the same judicial philosophy as Scalia (Originalism) and who will follow the strict letter of the Constitution and protect the 2nd Amendment at all costs. Trump understands that he isn't well versed in legal matters, and he has stated that he will consult the Federalist Society on who would be a suitable candidate to replace Scalia. (This deference to experts on certain issues also highlights Trump's epistemic humility)
Now, let us for the sake of argument, touch on some of Trump's shortcomings as pointed out by the mainstream media and address each of them in kind.
Trump is Racist
How so? Where's the proof of this? This one has been bandied about time and time again, but there has been absolutely nothing to date that conclusively affirms that Trump is racist. What about his comments that Mexicans are rapists? Well, simply put - his comments were taken out of context, as is what the mainstream media does all the time and rather proficiently I might add. Among immigrants in the States, rapists and murderers are mostly Mexican. How is this racist? Trump isn't saying ALL Mexicans are rapists and murderers, as was interpreted by the mainstream media. Rather, what he meant was that MOST immigrants that are rapists and murderers happen to be Mexicans. Trump isn't a polished snake-like politician trained in Doublespeak the way Clinton is. He shoots from the hip, but that's why I like him all the more. What about the fact that he wants to deport Muslims? Once again another fallacy - once again one of the many lies thrown about on Social Media to undermine his campaign. Trump proposes TEMPORARILY banning immigrants FROM certain unstable countries (such as Yemen) while trying to figure what the heck is going in the Middle East. It was not meant to be a blanket ban, and there sure as hell isn't any talk about DEPORTATION of MUSLIMS, yet I vividly recall a video on either Huffington Post or Buzzfeed of a young Muslim girl having night terrors that she was going to be evicted from her home. What a dishonest way to invoke sentiments to prejudice a presidential candidate.
Trump is Anti-Immigration
Trump isn't anti-immigration. Trump is anti-illegal immigration, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's simply against the LAW for immigrants to illegally come into the USA. A president is dutifully bound to obey and uphold the laws of the country and indeed, the President of the United States must be seen as an adherent to the Rule of Law. That was exactly what the United States of America was founded upon - The Rule of Law, not the Rule of Man, or Men for that matter. By granting amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants, this would be contravening immigration law and would entail a blatant usurpation of power by the executive branch of the government. The only way amnesty can be made legal is if Congress passes a law to do so.
Trump wants to build a wall which is a dumb idea
The common criticism of this is that Trump will be unable to make Mexico pay for the wall. Let's delve into this a little.
How is Trump going to make Mexico pay for it? Long story short, the U.S. Government is and has been contributing foreign aid to Mexico annually. www.usaid.gov has highlighted that "in 2012 and 2013, the amount of U.S. foreign aid received provided to Mexico was $214 million and $419 million respectively." What can be done here is to redirect money from foreign aid to Mexico to pay for the wall if the Mexican government does not wish to comply with Trump's proposal for them to voluntarily do so. Another way Trump can make Mexico pay for the wall is through increasing fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico.
Trump has avoided paying taxes
Firstly and most importantly, Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance must be distinguished. The former is a crime, the latter is not. Trump was running a business in which he had to consider the interests of his stakeholders (comprising shareholders and employees) above all else. The fact that he was able to avoid paying extra and unnecessary taxes quite frankly demonstrates how seriously he takes his fiduciary duty to his company. Secondly, yes, Trump exploited legal loopholes to avoid paying more in taxes. Is this unethical? Let's look at what legal precedent has to say about this. In the case of Gregory v. Helvering, Judge Learned Hand stated that "anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." There you go.
Trump isn't presidential
This is perhaps the most common reason people give as to why Trump is unfit or unqualified to be president. Trump is boorish, rude, offensive. Trump calls women fat (*cough* Rosie O' Donnell). I don't deny these points, but what the hell does it mean to be "presidential" anyway? Does one have to exude gracefulness to be "presidential"? Obama was (and I use "was" because he will be gone soon anyway) sure as hell "presidential", but his legacy will be perpetually tarnished by his signing of the NDAA (which authorized indefinite detention without trial), extrajudicial drone strikes in Yemen - one of which killed an American citizen by the name of Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, among many other unconstitutional actions undertaken by his administration (the list goes on). Presidential? Sure. A president can be hip and listen to the same music that millenials listen to. Sure, a president can be presidential by appearing on popular talk shows with popular celebrities, but if that is all it simply means to be "presidential", then that's a pretty damned weak argument.
Furthermore, the United States of America was founded upon rebellion - to be specific, rebellion against the Monarchy. The USA isn't a Monarchy, and it shouldn't behave like one. Its leaders and representatives do not need to exhibit a certain kind of decorum the same way a King or Queen or Prince or Princess does. A president simply needs to take into account his nation's best interests. Heck, Andrew Jackson wasn't even "presidential" either - he killed another man in a duel to settle an issue they both had with each other. Neither was Lyndon B. Johnson who was known to have repeatedly exposed his "Johnson" to his staff and cabinet members. Obama was "presidential", but he murdered innocent people. So, the idea that a president needs to be "presidential", whatever the heck that is supposed to mean anyway, is ludicrous.
Note that I'm not saying Trump isn't flawed and that I wholeheartedly endorse him. He's simply and clearly the lesser of two evils as we have explored above. Trump is boorish and offensive, perhaps so, but Clinton is actually dangerous.
To conclude, Trump is no libertarian, but many libertarians (such as Justin Raimondo and Walter Block) recognize his anti-establishment appeal and how a Trump presidency can be a force for good in a republic that has been crippled with pervasive cultural liberalism, jingoistic imperialist tendencies and political correctness. Trump is essentially a walking "F___ you" to the fourth arm of the State - the Mainstream Media, along with the Big Banks, the Big Corporations that are in bed with the Government, and most of all - the Warmongering Neoconservatives.
In short, I'd take an orange-faced cheeto as President over a murderous and corrupt sociopath.
