Just as with Australian elections, American elections are not as untainted as they should be with the latest bombshell being the suggestion that President Obama plans to pardon a president-elect Clinton from any Espionage Act offences. In recent years both countries have introduced and encouraged early voting. This is as unwise and as improper as having a jury vote before the trial is finished. The electorate should hear the campaign to the end and then vote. Given that the American Constitution provides that the election shall be held on the same day throughout the United States, early voting could well be unconstitutional, at least early voting without some reasonable excuse.
Those who favour early voting, particularly Democrats, are tellingly also strongly opposed to the production of some identification at the time of voting. The absence of identification obviously allows fraudulent voting to be more easily undertaken. It is reasonable to assume that early voting has been put in place for a similar end. In addition, both countries appear to have a significant number of voters on the rolls whose names should just not be there. Both have parties and politicians who are happy to leave the opportunity for fraud in place. The fact that this is ignored or downplayed by a mainstream media is in itself suspicious; the mainstream media in both countries usually has a very clear agenda as to which party should win and too often is prepared to present the news in a way favourable to that victory. The most startling example of that in Australia was in the 1999 referendum on whether Australia should become a politicians’ republic.
The Democrats are also accused by some conservative commentators of deliberately changing the make-up of the American electorate by bringing in large numbers of poorly educated Third World immigrants, even normalising illegal immigration and encouraging ”chain” and welfare immigration. The evidence indicates that such immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat. When the Labor Party threw open the borders in Australia to illegal immigration, I previously half- seriously asked whether we were so seeing the implementation of some policy of “boats for votes”.
Both principal candidates in the 2016 American election are alleged to have significant character deficiencies. Mr Trump has been accused of at least inappropriate behaviour with women and of questionable business practices. Mrs Clinton has at least been careless with State secrets and is alleged to have gained significant financial advantage from the exercise of public office. Even before the latest reopening of the investigation into her putting classified material onto a private server, she would have appeared to have committed an offence far greater than of General David Petraeus. For this crime he was put on two years’ probation and find a substantial $100,000.
However, the FBI Director earlier decided that Mrs Clinton had not demonstrated the requisite degree of intent and therefore he would not recommend the prosecution. After an obviously cursory examination of the new emails he has confirmed this. Most lawyers would have thought that this is clearly a question for a grand jury which absent a pardon will most likely be empanelled after the election. Apart from this serious matter, there was also the Benghazi scandal and the attempts to cover this up with a fabricated explanation. In addition there was the alleged misuse for personal advantage of the extraordinary generous funding Clinton Foundation, which particularly coincided with her term as Secretary of State. What is clear is that she and her husband have been come greatly enriched as result.
As to the general policies which Mrs Clinton will follow if she is elected, it can be expected that these will be similar left-wing and highly centralist policies similar to those of President Obama. On the other hand, although Donald Trump he was previously perceived to be a small ‘l’ liberal− mandatory for his then celebrity status −, he was never as far left as President Obama or Mrs Clinton. To conservative Americans in the Reagan tradition, his present enunciated policies will be seen as sound. They will no doubt be hoping that in office he will be able and willing to apply them.
Consequently, there are very significant policy differences between the two candidates. It is therefore hoped that American voters cast their decision on this basis rather than on attempts by the mainstream media to encourage voting based on anything so ephemeral as media scandal.
A glance at their policies demonstrates that, for example, that Mrs Clinton will nominate radical activists to the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Donald Trump has released a list of conservative jurists who, if appointed, can be expected to observe the letter of the Constitution. He promises to slash taxes, and bring home corporate funds, which have been taxed overseas, by promising that American tax on these funds will be reduced to 10 percent. Mrs Clinton has indicated that she would significantly increase taxation by $1.4 trillion.
Trump promises to reduce regulation significantly, as well as turn away illegal immigrants. This is a significant problem in the US, with approximately 400,000 crossing the Mexican border illegally in the last year. Trump promises secure borders and to do away with the sanctuary cities. Mrs Clinton will maintain the open borders, regularise illegal immigrants, and bring in more including those from the Near East.
Mrs Clinton will centralise education more in the hands of the Federal government with more control by Washington over the curriculum. She promises to maintain and improve Obamacare; Trump will repeal this. Mrs Clinton will maintain and support abortion, including late birth abortion; Trump is opposed. He promises to strengthen the military but to be more wary of foreign involvement. It is likely that Mrs Clinton will further rundown American defences and will offer little support to police forces which she will seek to place under federal authority. Mrs Clinton supports President Obama’s current policies in the Middle East, China, and the agreement with Iran to unfreeze sanctioned assets, and handover over a $1.7 billion ransom. Trump says that Mrs Clinton will vast support the obtaining of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles by the Teheran regime; he will move to reimpose sanctions. Trump strongly supports the right of Israel; it is likely and Mrs Clinton will follow President Obama in distancing the United States from support for Israel. Mrs Clinton will continue to recognise the Castro regime in Cuba; Trump will take a hard line with Cuba until concessions are given in relation to the victims of the communists.
Clearly, conservative and middle of the road Americans should vote for Donald Trump and left-wing radical Americans should vote for Mrs Clinton. Unfortunately too many people are likely to vote on the basis of the way in which the mainstream media has portrayed their personalities. Given that the mainstream media is well to the left, it is clear that in this respect Mrs Clinton will have an advantage. The polls however are said to be narrowing, although many people have already voted. Probably the only hope for Donald Trump is if people have been doing what the British did, and in the light of a massive media campaign to portray support for Trump as politically incorrect, they have been reluctant to tell pollsters of their true intentions.
Even before this, her criminal offence was far greater than of David Petraeus for which crime he received two years’ probation plus a fine of $100,000. Add to that the Benghazi lies and betrayal, and the misuse of the Clinton Foundation which has so enriched her and her husband. She, Obama and Soros are of the same type, and follow the same left wing Marxist policies tempered by great personal greed. She will probably be more disastrous even than Obama. Trump is not an attractive personality, was previously a small ‘l’ liberal but never as far left as Obama or Mrs Clinton. His enunciated policies are, however, sound and in the Western tradition.