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.
No comments:
Post a Comment