Each of the prime candidates in the U.S. presidential race is accusing the other of not being qualified to serve as president.
Tossing around completely unsupported accusations is one of the easiest (and least impressive) campaign tactics imaginable.
It is difficult to know for certain whether or not Donald Trump is qualified to become a president because he has never actually held elected office. The only way to know for sure is to see how he performs once elected.
Hillary Clinton cannot provide any clear and concrete evidence proving her contention that he is categorically unqualified. All she can do is accuse him of making some "uncalculated" remarks during the election season.
Mr. Trump’s suggestion, for example, that we should ban Muslims from entering the U.S. until “we know what is going on in the Muslim world” was heavily criticized by his opponents.
Others, however, clearly understood his statement in context, like President el-Sisi — who leads one of the major Muslim countries (Egypt) and is advocating Islamic Reform.
In fact, el-Sisi (who is a devout Muslim) praised Donald Trump on CNN. When asked about Trump he responded that Trump “no doubt would make a strong leader”.
In other words, Hillary can criticize Trump’s words, but cannot criticize his “failure” as a public servant because he has no record of bad behavior as a public servant.
He’s never pretended to be one.
Trump, by contrast, can point to a great deal of clear evidence that Hillary is quite literally “not qualified to be U.S. president.” Her record of unqualified failure and abuse of the public trust as secretary of state during the Obama administration from 2009 to 2013 is, unlike many of her official government emails, a matter of public record.
Such failures include:
1) Failure to handle the so called “Arab Spring” properly, a failure which has led to the spread of radical Islamism, and has negatively impacted world security in an unprecedented manner.
2) “Gross negligence” in handling classified government information — as FBI Director James Comey so delicately described it.
3) Official endorsement (hopefully out of ignorance rather than malice) of a discriminatory dress code that promotes the concept of slavery by wearing the Islamic hijab. According to mainstream Islamic jurisprudence and interpretations the hijab is a dress code that aims at distinguishing “free women” from “slave women.” Secretary Clinton’s donning of the hijab was seen in the Muslim world as support for this discriminatory principle. If it was ignorance and she was in fact unaware of the theology of hijab, then she needs to confess her failure as secretary of state to understand the customs of our allies, and she needs to apologize publicly for having misrepresented American ideals.
She should have known better.
4) Failure to effectively wield the vast power, influence, and resources of the U.S. Department of State to weaken radical ideologies and stem the tide of radical ideas in Muslim countries. For example, just a small portion of the billions of foreign aid dollars that have been (ineffectively) spent to promote ‘ballot’ democracy in the Mideast could have, if used correctly, significantly weakened the growing ideology of radicalism in those societies.
In short, Hillary Clinton’s public record of failure on several major issues while an extremely senior U.S. government official — as shown above — is concrete evidence (not just an opinion) that creates some doubt as to whether she is qualified for the highest government office in the United States.
Dr. Tawfik Hamid is the author of "Inside Jihad: How Radical Islam Works, Why It Should Terrify Us, How to Defeat It." Read more reports from Tawfik Hamid - Click Here Now.
© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.