Privacy, Freedom of Speech and the US Presidential Candidates

Unless you’ve been asleep or comatose for a year, you will know that the US is embroiled in a very contentious race for the White House. If we just want to focus on the issue of privacy and freedom of speech, to the exclusion of other issues, and you are an advocate of personal liberties, who would better serve you in the Oval Office- Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? If the issue of privacy is important to you and might be the deciding factor in who you vote for, maybe you’ll find the following interesting and instructive.

Many see a Hillary Clinton presidency as an extension of Obama’s tenure. This is not good news for civil libertarians, because there has been regression of freedom under the Obama White House. Moreover, there have been more prosecutions of journalists and their sources than under all previous presidents combined.  Hillary Clinton has been clinging closely to Obama’s coattails in running her campaign. While some may think this a calculated ploy, it certainly plays well with black voters who were a major reason for Obama’s being elected twice. And it is a constituency heavily courted by Hillary Clinton now.

Some might argue that Clinton’s embrace of Obama, regardless of a lackluster economy for eight years (for the first time, economic growth in the US never topped 3% in any year), the above referenced odious record on privacy issues, and his many feckless foreign policy missteps, might make her decision to cling to him a perilous one. But all you have to do is look at Obama’s comments in the spring, downplaying her email controversy, while there was an active, ongoing investigation by the FBI to know that the fix was afoot.

A compliant Clinton could help burnish his legacy. It is unconscionable for a president to try to influence a probe in this manner, but many feel that the verdict on Clinton was rendered from the White House -predetermined- as a quid pro quo for her approval of his presidency (BTW, in which she played a major role – for better or for worse).

Making matters worse is that is something pointed out in a USAToday opinion piece by Glenn Reynolds,  a University of Tennesee law professor and USAToday contributor. According to him, the supposedly impartial press has bent over backwards to support Clinton and denigrate Donald Trump, and in the process throwing out the window even the appearance of neutrality and candor.

Reynolds, no lover of Trump, opines that he, given the incestuous ties of the civil service (read: FBI) and how they rolled over and covered for her to toe the party-line in the Clinton debacle, would not be beholding to the establishment/democratic civil-service and liberal-leaning mainstream media.

Both institutions, Reynolds believes, have gone into the tank for Hillary and Obama throughout his presidency and alludes to government employees as a ’’Democratic Party monoculture”. Obama apparently also set the IRS after the opposition Republicans in a move reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s infamous enemies list. Do we want more of the same?

Both institutions, Reynolds believes, have gone into the tank for Hillary and Obama throughout his presidency and he alludes to government employees as a ’’Democratic Party monoculture”. Obama apparently also set the IRS after opposition Republicans in a move reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s infamous enemies list. Do we want more of the same?

Reynolds maintains that a Clinton presidency would merely embolden a fawning, myopic press, thus endorsing their biases and  continue their total disregard of the shabby, untoward treatment their journalist colleagues  endured and continue to endure. True, Trump is an unknown and, goodness knows, he has his own baggage and shortcomings.

But the way the establishment has alternately isolated, debased and ignored him raises the hope that, maybe – just maybe, if he is elected a Trump administration won’t  conduct business as usual in Washington. This is also why establishment Republicans are indifferent about Trump’s chances. If he wins, they might not be able to dip their beaks in the public trough so easily or frequently.

I think we know what we’ll get with a Clinton in the Oval Office and, given the last eight years of massive government surveillance and journalistic witch hunts, it isn’t very appealing. The future direction of privacy and civil liberties hang in the balance.

Editors comment: Stan’s views are his own, and should not be regarded as representing the views held by other BestVPN staff members.

Stan Ward Stan Ward has enjoyed writing for 50 years. Writing has been a comfortable companion to a successful business and teaching career for him. Find him on Google+.

Related Coverage


3 responses to “Privacy, Freedom of Speech and the US Presidential Candidates

  1. Yes, Trump is THE BEST! He acts like a person with immense consideration for everyone.
    Well, except people who oppose him, Mexicans, Mothers, Veterans, and possibly Aliens.
    However, he sure is a great supporter for the Russian Idea. Calling an obvious entirely corrupt leader of an entirely corrupt government a GREAT leader and pal. Who doesn’t want to vote for Trump? Maybe together with Russia, the U.S. can finally go against the Chinese, who own the world’s economy at present. Hillary might be just the lesser evil.
    And isn’t it what we vote for today? The lesser of the worse?! Are there any honest and driven politicians who stand a chance? How’s about they would wear a t-shirt with all their sponsors. Maybe it is time to vote for the GREEN PARTY.

  2. i prefer support someone who is in the reality , far of jail (and what ‘s about hilary ? ) , in the right way, walking on the right side , has yet proved his qualities and his efforts in different struggles & difficult challenges , who has not afraid of the people and its judgement , someone who are looking in a new future for a great and strong country.
    The president does not decide (about privacy:security) but he could pardon to snowden and others patriots : they act with their conscience as american & citizen of the world following the way of the truth … a human being cannot do more … voting trump , i let a chance for the next generation ; with hilary , you will have a down and weak usa for prisoners and refugies and criminals …

  3. Clinton has made it clear she would prosecute Snowden and that she supports encryption backdoors. For the privacy aware, she would be more of the same as Obama — and we know that’s not good.

    Trump would support the same assaults on privacy, but unlike Clinton he would misuse the hacked information to the extreme to go after his enemies (Democrats, protestors, journalists, undocumented immigrants, human rights workers, lawyers, musicians, artists, actors, activists, organizers, etc., etc. etc.) as a Nixon 2.0. Unlike Nixon, however, Trump would have at his disposal the combined frightening powers of the current mass surveillance candystores known as the contemporary NSA, FBI, CIA, and local police. This would be exponentially worse than what Clinton would do with the information. The response from the citizenry would be anarchy and mass riots, which would be met with brutality by armed pro-Trump militias and the police. In just four short months, we could see the nation explode in protest on the streets.

    I will hold my nose and vote for Clinton.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *