It's time for Bernie!

It’s Time

“It’s time for a female president in America,” a friend adamantly stated. I agree, and I would love to see Sen. Elizabeth Warren win the White House. Unfortunately, Sen. Warren will not run in the 2016 campaign, so one who wishes to see a female president in 2016 have but two options: Carly Fiorina and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Fiorina’s disastrous tenure at Hewlett-Packard as their first female C.E.O. makes her an unlikely choice; thus, Clinton becomes the flavor of the month, but is Clinton a viable choice? It depends on whom you ask. However, as a Black, female, Navy veteran I cannot in clear conscience vote for Clinton. Her position on various issues tend to change directions like leaves on a tree moved by hurricane winds. For instance, in 1994, Clinton was a staunch supporter of her husband’s “tough on crime” policies; today, she speaks out against such policies. Consequently, the damage has been done, so to speak out against her husband’s policies now is the equivalent of locking the barn door after the horses have escaped. In addition, according to Jesse Ferguson’s—Deputy National Press Sec and Sr. Spokesperson for Hillary Clinton—Tweet: @HillaryClinton

Therefore, Clinton’s shift in position is the result of changing times, not because such policies were wrong, so it’s apparent that she still believes that such policies are needed. In conjunction, Clinton’s position on military spending is much cause for concern, for we can pretend that she’s seen the light in regards crime reform, but we cannot pretend that Clinton is against sending our children to war.

Follow the money

On May 26, 2015, journalists David Sirota and Andrew Perez, in their article Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department wrote, “Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation.” This comes as no surprise since Kelly Vlahos, columnist for The American Conservative had warned us in her November 2014 article that The military-industrial candidate: Hillary Clinton prepares to launch the most formidable hawkish presidential campaign in a generation. Nothing confirms this more than the actions of Clinton while serving as Sec. of State and contributions made to the Clinton Foundation by the military-industrial complex during her tenure. It’s these deals that have the Clinton’s facing racketeering charges under RICO: “Judge Donald Middlebrooks of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida scheduled a January 20th, 2016 trial date for the RICO lawsuit against Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation (RICO stands for racketeering, influenced and corrupt organizations and was originally created to enable the Justice Department to convict organized crime figures).” Clinton’s association with the prison and military-industrial complexes should leave a bad taste in the mouths of Americans; it seems that her plan is to use Americans as cannon fodder for either the private prison or military complexes. Who profits?

A President for humanity 

Marianne Schnall, columnist for TIME, asks, What will it take to make a woman president? One suggestion, “Don’t present it as a ‘women’s issue’ — it’s a human issue.” There is nothing human or humane about the prison or military-industrial complexes. There is nothing to suggest that members of these institutions support candidates who do not share their “vision.” That would not make sense under any business paradigm. The options offered by Clinton makes one feel trapped between two walls that close in to squash Americans: “Between a rock and a hard place.” Let’s face it, Clinton has already said we would attack Iran if she is elected. This is not the future I envision for myself, my children, my grandchildren…America. Therefore, although it may be time for a female president, it’s never time for one willing to send our country into war, especially since tax payers are still paying for wars fought during George W. Bush’s tenure. 

Fortunately, there is one candidate in the 2016 Presidential race who has been against war since the Vietnam Conflict. That candidate is Sen. Bernie Sanders. As veterans, we can rest assure that no other lives will be lost fighting in the interests of Corporate America; maybe then, we can begin putting monies toward repairing the lives of our existing veterans and the Veteran’s Administration, for it is sad that 307,000 veterans lost their lives awaiting eligibility for medical treatment. 

As a mother and grandmother, I cannot envision sending my children, grandchildren, or yours to fight in a war that only serves to line the pockets of those tied to the military-industrial complex, especially given the treatment current veterans receive when returning home from war. 

Sen. Sanders voted against the war in Iraq, which Clinton voted for as Senator of New York. She has since said that her vote was a mistake, but make no mistake, she is for attacking Iraq's neighbor: Iran. Sen. Sanders is against attacking Iran. Sanders recently slammed his "Republican friends" who "seem to be itching for that war." The same is true of Clinton; the deals made while serving as Sec. of State bear witness to her intentions. The question is are "We the People" itching for war with Iran? If not, join the revolution that is taking the nation by storm. #FeeltheBern! 

12 Steps Forward

Sanders has an Agenda for America that builds a better America for all Americans. It's going to take 12 steps forward to return us to the America we all know and love. Best of all, Sanders wants to put an end to war. Don't you? It's time for Bernie.