Throughout the Wuhan virus crisis, President Trump has been under relentless political attack by the Democrats and their legacy media allies. They began by accusing the President of “racism” and “xenophobia” when he implemented the China travel ban in January, and then expanded the travel ban to Iran, Italy and now Europe. Then there are the continuing accusations of “chaos and no plan” in the early days of the administration’s response to the virus while at the same time ignoring that the President had established the Coronavirus Task Force in January right in the middle of the Democrats’ farcical impeachment! Then there was the latest false accusation that the National Security Council staff downsizing got rid of the entire global health team,” as has been endlessly repeated in the Democrat-media echo chamber in recent days despite being debunked as described here. The legacy media have even been propagating the ChiCom Party line that is aimed at deflecting criticism and responsibility for the pandemic away from China and toward the US and President Trump in particular, as noted three days ago in The Washington Examiner.

Despite Democrat-media claims to the contrary, there are several items that have been clarified in the context of the Wuhan virus crisis:

1. Trump was right to implement the China travel ban in January and then later expand it to other countries. That early action bought US researchers and public health organizations weeks to prepare and ultimately saved American lives.

2. Trump was right about weaning America off China-oriented “free trade.” How do those global supply chains look today when China controls the production of 90% of the precursors for the pharmaceutical companies? In their response to the pandemic, China is acting consistent with other Communist authoritarian regimes in failing to take responsibility, denying access to important scientific data needed to combat the virus, suppressing dissent, and engaging in a worldwide propaganda campaign to shift the blame and responsibility away from China.

3. Trump was right to focus on border control and rooting out illegal alien criminals, with a side benefit to stopping the spread of infectious diseases. Cutting down on the flow of illegals across the border has undoubtedly slowed the spread of the virus and saved lives.

4. Trump was right about public-private partnerships in responding to the virus, as those actions are leading to unprecedentedly early testing of vaccines and drug treatments, with the free market unchained to do what it does best – produce solutions and fix problems. He understands how to effectively delegate authority, too.

5. Trump has been right to focus on regulatory cuts during his presidency, as well as on private-sector healthcare solutions in lieu of Obamacare whose regulations led to fewer doctors and the closing of regional hospitals across the country – just when we need them most in this crisis! That inherent tendency to deregulate and work with the private sector is paying big dividends during this crisis as FDA regulations have been slashed to accelerate the development of drug treatments and clinical trials for the virus, to allow physicians to operate across state lines, to allow states to bypass federal regulations governing acquisition of sensitive medical equipment like respirators, and to implement a “compassionate use” policy for chloroquine and other drugs:

Even a few leftwing media personalities and a couple of governors taken notice of the many actions initiated and have praised the President’s leadership in this crisis in recent weeks, including Joe Scarborough, Dana Bash, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY). Most Americans – less elected Democrats – are coming together during this crisis and responding to the leadership of the President and his team. I predict that those numbers will steadily increase in the days ahead as positive results are achieved in combatting the virus and treating the infected.

Now let us imagine that we are in an alternative universe in which Hillary Clinton won the election in 2016 and is the occupant of the Oval Office who is attempting to deal with the Wuhan virus crisis. What would we have seen unfold with her at the helm?

The Build-up. To start with, her fiscal and economic policies (higher taxes, increased regulations, green economy subsidies, etc.) would have depressed the American economy. There would have been no expanded growth that could cushion the economic impact of the virus.

China. There would have been zero push-back on China – no re-negotiated trade deals and an avoidance of any confrontations with the ChiCom government. The Clintons have been on the Chinese dole since Chinagate in 1996, and the ChiComs would have leverage over her whenever they chose to use it. To think that she would confront the Chinese on “coming clean” with all of their virus-related clinical testing and research information is absurd.

Travel Bans. As an open borders advocate, she would have never instituted a China travel ban until it was too late and the virus had been widely spread throughout the country. And the southern border would have been left wide open, exacerbating the spread of the virus, especially in the southern tier of states.

Obamacare-Plus. She would have expanded Obamacare to the point of accelerating the decrease in doctors, medical practitioners, and hospitals across the country. The medical device industry would have been severely taxed, and major shortages of medical devices would have been felt by the time the virus reached the US (three years into her presidency). That expansion would have included providing free healthcare to illegal aliens, putting a terrible strain on the US healthcare system at precisely the point at which all of our medical capacity would be needed to handle people infected with the Wuhan virus.

Iran. She would have enhanced relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, including dropping of all US sanctions, which would have enabled many infected Iranians to travel to and from the US and pass the disease to Americans.

Grifting. Always the grifter, the Clinton Global Initiative would have become the main conduit for orchestrating the US response to the virus overseas, earning CGI president Chelsea Clinton and Clinton cronies a tidy sum at the expense of US taxpayers. The Clintons always tax any money that passes through the CGI, whether freely given as “donations” or provided by governments for specific purposes (in this case, global relief in the wake of the virus).

Crisis Response Leadership. Having previously demonstrated incompetence during the Benghazi crisis and her penchant for considering personal political impact above all else, she would have been more concerned about political appearances and avoiding responsibility as opposed to taking strong and decisive action to combat the virus. Listening to her daily screeching on actions in process would be like fingernails on a blackboard.

Draconian Actions. With the spread of the virus out of control – toward which all of the above-actions would inevitably lead – she would implement drastic authoritarian measures to attempt to control the spread of the virus and deal with its severe impact on the economy. As an authoritarian to her very core, her actions taken would be permanent, resulting in a massive transfer of authority and responsibility from states and individuals to the federal government. Rationing of medical services and triaging infected people according to “politically-correct” and “non-politically-correct” groups would be inevitable.

Authoritarianism. She and her ilk would use the crisis to get rid of her political enemies while destroying free enterprise and suspending the Constitution as a matter of course. Using the DoJ and FBI to spy on an opposition political campaign would pale in comparison to that for which she would use the federal government during the virus crisis. The Fifth-Amendment right to due process and the Sixth-Amendment guarantee of a speedy trial would be permanently suspended.

Socialism Achieved. Forget public-private partnerships and free market solutions to minimize the economic impact of the virus and to stabilize the economy. Her economic solution would be to implement a “universal basic income” for all Americans, nationalize all industries deemed critical, and pick winners and losers among politically-favored businesses and enterprises. Hello, socialism, corporate capitalism on steroids, and true banana republic status for the US.

Zero Dissent. She would brook no criticism from any direction during the crisis, counting on the fealty of the legacy media to propagate her policies and cover up her failures at every turn. The First Amendment freedoms of expression and the press would be permanently suspended to ensure that fealty, too.

The above are just a few of the horrors that we would have seen unfold in that alternative universe in which Hillary Clinton was US president. Her actions would be those of a natural-born authoritarian and socialist who believes in big-government solutions and total control by a ruling elite. And the constitutional Republic, with individual freedoms and economic liberties protected by the US Constitution, as created by the Founders, would disappear forever.

November 8, 2016 was Divine intervention. Is it coincidental that we have a China skeptic and germophobe in the Oval Office at this particular moment in American history? I don’t think so.

The end.

Stu Cvrk
Stu Cvrk served 30 years in the US Navy in a variety of active and reserve capacities, with considerable operational experience in the Middle East and the Western Pacific. An oceanographer and systems analyst through education and experience, Stu is a graduate of the US Naval Academy where he received a classical liberal education which serves as the key foundation for his political commentary. He threads daily on Twitter on a wide range of political, military, foreign policy, government, economics, and world affairs topics.
Read more by Stu Cvrk