A Response to Dennis Prager’s National Review Article.

Let me begin by stating that I have immense respect for Mr. Prager and I am a regular subscriber to “Prager University.”

Mr. Prager has also been a strong advocate for Constitutional principles and freedom. I do understand his argument, which many conservatives are also currently using, that Hillary will be a train wreck for the country.

He feels, as do I, extreme nausea at the mere thought of voting for the corrupt and despicable Hillary Clinton or allowing her to take the White House in 2017. That being said, our intense dislike for Hillary should not in itself turn us to vote for the equally contemptible Donald Trump.

I do believe that Mr. Prager sees Trump as the better of the two horrendous options and lays out his case quite eloquently and passionately; all while maintain his dignity and showing great respect to those who disagree among whom many are his friends.

Mr. Prager lists nine reasons to vote for Trump over Hillary. I will respond to each below.

Ready? Let’s go..

  1. Preventing a left-wing Supreme Court.

There are few things more critical to us Constitutional conservatives than making sure we get an Originalist on the Supreme Court. In fact, that is why so many of us backed Senator Cruz, apart from his numerous conservative positions.

No true conservative had any doubt that Ted Cruz would pick a Constitutionalist for the Supreme Court or die trying. He was willing to use all of his political capital on making sure one or more got on to the Supreme Court.

Donald Trump is a different animal. He has been liberal his whole life and when he first announced his candidacy, Mr. Trump stated his sister would be a great pick for the Supreme Court. His sister is an extreme pro-choice federal judge. It is also important to note that no one knows how much political capital Mr. Trump is willing to use to get someone on that list confirmed.

Remember, when a president is elected, they get a finite amount of political capital (good will) as a result of being elected. It is a precious commodity in Washington and once depleted, it is never attained again. Obama used his to ram Obamacare down our throat and it still almost didn’t pass and he had a Democrat controlled House and Senate.

Mr. Prager’s argument requires us to adopt several premises.

First, that we maintain control of the House & Senate. Even if we do, the Senate is the one who confirms and we will likely not have enough of a majority to stop the Democrat’s from filibustering any nominee he proposes, unless it is one they like. Trump is a deal maker, he has said so himself. Wouldn’t it be easier to make a deal and propose a “centrist/moderate” the Democrat’s would vote for and retain most of his political capital for another issue such as trade?

Therein lies the problem with Trump. He flip-flops on everything and his current stance on issues cannot be believed. He is a richer, less-eloquent version of Obama.

Now, the opposite is also true. We know what kind of justices Hillary Clinton would probably nominate. It’s bad, it really is. However, the country hates her and her own party is not a fan either. It is far easier to see the country unite against Hillary than it is against Trump.

I’ll give Mr. Prager the benefit of the doubt here and state this argument narrowly leans to Trump’s favor.

2. Increase the defense budget.

Yes. This I do believe Trump would do, absent some major economic disaster.

This point I heartily give to Donald Trump.

3. Repeal, or at least modify Dodd-Frank.

The Dodd-Frank bill was passed in 2010 and signed into law by President Obama in an effort to supposedly curtail Wall-Street and the Big Banks due to the 2008 economic collapse.

Would Donald Trump repeal or modify Dodd-Frank? No one knows, not even Mr. Prager.

However, what we do know is that Donald Trump is at the very least a big-government progressive; not unlike George Bush, Hillary, or Obama. He may be slightly better or worse, but he is no conservative.

Using that as our litmus test, it is highly improbable that Trump would repeal Dodd-Frank. Why? He believes big government can be used for good depending on who is in power.

What about modification? It depends. If the economy collapses under his presidency, he may blame Wall-Street and the big banks and modify the Bill to have harsher regulations than the ones already being imposed. If the economy is stagnant or slightly improves, he may modify it for the better. The issue remains the same, a big-government progressive rarely shrinks government and repealing or modifying Dodd-Frank is reducing the size of government, albeit slightly.

This argument, in my opinion, weighs against Trump.

4. Preventing Washington, D.C., from becoming a state and giving Democrat’s another two senators.

I do not know if this could pass with Hillary Clinton in office, especially if we control the House and Senate.

Even if we do not control Congress, there is only a minuscule chance Washington, D.C. could become a state. I am not sure Hillary would want to use precious political capital for an issue most Americans care nothing about and would require her to use her slight “good will” for statehood, when she could advance any other number of liberal causes.

This argument, in my opinion, weighs heavily against Trump.

5. Repeal Obamacare.

On this I have to say Mr. Prager has absolutely no evidence to support this notion. Not one. In fact, I would argue the opposite is true. Trump has stated Obamacare is a “disaster,” but has inferred that it needs to be reformed. Even if he did replace it, he would likely replace it with something closer to a single-payer system.

How do we know? He has told us time and time again. Years ago he stated he liked single-payer healthcare. Most recently, he has stated that “everyone is going to be covered” and in that aspect he differed from most Republicans. When asked who was going to pay for it, he said, “the government,” meaning us.

The only reason why some conservatives are clinging to some semblance of hope that he will repeal and replace Obamacare is because he has stated during the debates that he wanted to create competition. Let us not forget, Obama said the same thing with Obamacare. Just because Trump uses certain buzzwords such as, “across state lines,” “competition,” and the “free-market” doesn’t mean he understands it or even believes it.

Again, go ahead and google President Obama’s explanation for Obamacare and he lays out similar phraseology, with the exception of state lines.

This argument, in my opinion, weighs heavily against Trump.

6. Curtail Illegal Immigration

Again, words and definitions matter. What does Mr. Prager mean by “curtailing” immigration? Does he mean building a wall, deporting 12 million people, or reducing the amount of H-1B visas? Maybe all three?

Before running for POTUS, Trump was deriding Mitt Romney for being too hard on illegal immigration. In fact, he met with so-called “dreamers” in Trump Tower to discuss immigration reform. Trump only found his staunch conviction against illegal immigration a little over a year ago, just before running for president. He has also floated the idea of “touch-back” amnesty, and has said that the wall is negotiable. To be fair, he has said everything is negotiable.

Mr. Trump has not stated whether he would reduce H-1B visas which is a cause of over 40% the illegal immigrants in this country. Consequently, Mr. Trump has been a proponent and user of H-1B visas in the past for his company.

Therefore, I have to conclude that there is no evidence he would curtail illegal immigration. Maybe he will, but his history has shown otherwise.

This argument, in my opinion, weighs heavily against Trump.

7. Reduce job-killing regulations on large and small businesses.

This is Donald Trump’s bread and butter. One would hope that because Mr. Trump owns a business, he would slash regulations that hurt business. That may well be the case, but Trump is also a crony-capitalist and regulations help big business avoid competition from the “little guys.”

That being said, he may reduce regulations for small and large businesses. He may also pass sweeping tax cuts for the nation as a whole which would create jobs. Again, he is a big-government progressive and they rarely cut anything. However, given the economic climate, he may surprise some of us.

This argument, in my opinion, leans slightly towards Trump.

8. Lower the corporate income tax and bring back hundreds of billions of offshore dollars to the United States.

This is a biggie. I loved Donald Trump’s tax plan when he released it earlier this year. Larry Kudlow, a respectable economist has praised it as well. Those of us that have studied economics understand the disaster such a high corporate tax rate wreaks on our economy.

No other industrialized nation has such a high corporate tax rate, which amounts to double taxation. The companies are taxed in the country they produce their goods, then are taxed at a 35% rate on top of what they already paid to bring the money back into the U.S. That is ridiculous.

It is difficult to ascertain whether we can believe Donald Trump’s tax plan since he has said everything, including his tax plan and the minimum wage is negotiable. However, giving him the benefit of the doubt, reducing the corporate tax rate would do wonders in helping the U.S. get out of stagnation.

This argument, in my opinion, leans heavily towards Trump.

9. Continue fracking, which the left opposes.

To be honest, I do not believe Trump is an environmentalist or subscribes to the extreme version of it. He may believe in man-made global warming (he is a lefty after all) or some combination of man and natural causes.

It is difficult to image Trump going after coal miners and fracking, though I suspect it is possible. Hillary would definitely seek to stop fracking, while Trump may just leave it alone.

We do not have enough information to go into deeper analysis.

This argument, in my opinion, leans slightly towards Trump.

Mr. Prager ends his article with this quote, “I just don’t understand how anyone who understands the threat the Left and the Democrats pose to America will refuse to vote for the only person who can stop them.”

Mr. Prager assumes that Mr. Trump is: a) Not part of the left; b) Not equal to the threat the left and democrat’s are to America; and c) Donald Trump can and will stop them.

Mr. Trump has been part of the left for 68 years. He has donated to the left and to their pet causes (Planned Parenthood, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Hillary, etc.) . Trump has never taken a small-government, freedom-loving approach to any policy.

Finally, why would Trump stop the left when he is a big government progressive? They all want the some thing, more power and crony capitalism.

All of the arguments listed by Mr. Prager, in my opinion, are not persuasive enough to even warrant giving Donald Trump a second glance. It is a vote cast by fear; not by logic, reason, or principle.

Just some food for thought, Mr. Prager. Continue the good fight.





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s