Part One: I Will Not Vote For Hillary Clinton in 2016. Here’s Why.

As you can see, I have not written on this blog since 2014, and that’s because I’ve been totally politically disenfranchised throughout Barack Obama’s two terms. Simply put, Obama was the ultimate establishment politician. As a candidate on the hunt, he was an eloquent speaker espousing populist and progressive positions on everything from the “rule of law” to reigning in Wall Street. As president, he was anything but progressive. I never wanted to vote for him a second time. I had it firmly in my head that I was going to switch to the Green Party and cast my vote for Jill Stein. When I said this on Facebook, I was roundly attacked by everyone for throwing the election into the hands of the GOP. I capitulated and reluctantly voted for Obama a second time. I’ve regretted it ever since, and I absolutely will not fall in line behind the Democrats this time around. My resolve is that much more strong in 2016.

In 2015, I finally did abandon the Democratic party and registered as a Green. I did this at the age of 61. Up until that time, I had always been a Democrat, and my parents were both Democrats all their lives. I was all set to vote for Jill Stein again when Bernie Sanders, a man who I have admired and followed for a number of years, announced that he would run. I was aware that he said he would run if the Democrats did not run a progressive. Hillary Clinton became the choice of the party,  and Hillary Clinton is not a progressive by any stretch of the imagination. I am not going to go into a long explanation about the difference between a “progressive” and a “liberal.” What I am going to do is add a link here to an article by David Sirota that does a great job of explaining the difference. I have to tell you that calling Hillary Clinton a “liberal” is even a stretch…a huge stretch.

Now, I do understand that it is going to take years for a legitimate third party to take hold. I truly do. That is why I crossed back to vote for Bernie Sanders, but I did not come back as a Democrat, nor will I ever return to the Democratic Party. I came back as an Independent. My logic was that we could do something right now to buy time. Perhaps there was a chance with the right candidate (forget the party) — someone whom I consider the last true public servant and not a career climber aiming for the presidency — to stabilize this sinking nation. That is the only reason I came back to the dark side. I did not come back to rally behind the anointed Democratic choice in the event that Bernie Sanders lost.

Here are the reasons why I’m #BernieOrBust

Hillary Clinton is taking money from Wall Street, the banks,  and the billionaires to get elected. Now, I don’t know about you, but I hear Democratic politicians complaining day in and day out about the evils of the Citizens United decision. In fact, I have signed no less than twenty petitions from various Democratic lawmakers to add a Constitutional amendment to nullify that decision. I have no idea where they go after I’ve signed them. I never see anything happening, but I can tell you that it does not stop the Democrats from taking money from the very entities that caused the financial meltdown and ruined so many peoples’ lives. Hillary Clinton is a prime example. Now, my Democratic supporters who follow me on Facebook use the excuse that her billionaires are progressives. Please. Don’t make me laugh. So, what am I supposed to believe? That Democratic billionaires don’t have interests they want taken care of? Give me a break. Big money has to be driven out of the election process, regardless of what side of the aisle it is coming from. The problem I have with staunch Democrats is that they think everything is okay as long as it’s done by the Democratic party.

Clinton wants us to believe that she won’t be influenced by this money. That simply             isn’t the way it works. There are always strings attached. Nobody is giving Hillary                 Clinton money out of the kindness of their hearts, particularly since it is not tax                     deductible. They are buying access and favors. Clinton disingenuously used Barack Obama to justify her taking money from these very entities. She said Obama took more money than anybody when he was running, but that he still passed laws reigning in Wall Street. Nothing could be further from the truth. Have you seen one Wall Street executive or banker prosecuted as he promised? No. You haven’t. And as for Wall Street and bank practices? They are continuing like they always have. In fact, we are heading for another financial disaster because nothing has changed.

Hillary Clinton will not bring back Glass-Steagall, and she doesn’t rule out a Wall Street candidate as Treasury Secretary. I have news for you all: This is because she has taken so much money from the entities that destroyed our economy back in 2008. This is the payback, people. If you want to know how this worked out, take a look at Timothy Geithner, who Obama chose to run the Treasury. He is the man who worked in Bill Clinton’s administration to deregulate the banks and Wall Street…which led up to the 2008 meltdown. The work continues to turn.

Hillary Clinton refuses to release the transcripts of her Goldman-Sachs speeches. I could have rolled this into the above section, but I believe this is a whole different ball of garbage. Now, according to Clinton, she won’t release them until the GOP releases theirs. Let’s be clear here. She is not yet running against the GOP. This request came up in the context of the primary run. Bernie Sanders has released all of his information. Not only did he release the transcripts of his speeches, but proof that he donated all of the money (somewhere around a whopping $1,900 dollars) to charity. None of his speeches were to Wall Street, by the way.

You know, none of the Republicans in the Clown Car have made speeches to Wall Street in the recent past. So, we know those won’t be forthcoming. Clinton is hoping that this will just go away, and it might because the LAMESTREAM media is all corporate-owned and will not pursue this. However, one would think she’d just put this to bed if the speeches were harmless and simply release the transcripts. Clinton’s tacit refusal to do this only increases the suspicion that these are not innocent little speeches about being a woman in a man’s political world. In fact, one attendee at the speeches refutes Clinton’s assertion.

For the record, Clinton made $3.15 million alone in 2013 from speeches to Goldman-Sachs, UBS, Morgan Stanley, and Deutsche Bank. Those kinds of fees do not come without some kind of ties. It just doesn’t work that way. It is high time the Clinton apologists wake up. When asked why she took so much in speaking fees ($675K) from Goldman-Sachs, she said that is what they are offered. However, evidence suggests that is what Clinton’s asking fee is.

Again, this is one of my problems with Hillary Clinton. Why lie about the fee if it’s so innocent? And why not release the transcripts if they’re not a big deal? The transcript issue came up during her primary run. It has nothing to do with the Republicans. She isn’t there yet and, with any luck, she won’t make it there. Sanders released all of his information. Clinton needs to do the same.

Hillary Clinton is a hawk. Period. She voted for the Iraq war, taking at face value the lie that George W. Bush told about Iraq being involved in 9-11 and having WMDs. Recently, she first said her vote was a mistake. Then she outright lied after saying it was a mistake by saying she thought she was voting for increased inspections. Now, how does a sitting Senator support a war, but then become confused and say she thought she was supporting increased inspections? At the very least, that would show incompetence. We all know that isn’t what happened. Like so many other situations Clinton has been caught in, she lies and she’s not very good at it because she has told so many different stories. Her excuses for Iraq are pitiful. As Secretary of State, her actions prove that she has little grasp of what diplomacy is all about.

Clinton is an interventionist who has no problem with invading sovereign states and overthrowing governments. We’ve seen the disaster that occurred when the Bush administration overthrew Saddam Hussein. He did not participate in 9-11, he did not have WMDs or biological weapons, and al Qaeda was not in Iraq…until we opened the borders and let them in. Clinton, as Secretary of State, continued these idiotic wars. First, Clinton convinced the Obama administration to invade Libya and overthrew Muammar Gaddafi, who ruled from 1969-2011. For all intents and purposes, this was a disastrous move that has resulted in a failed state, resulting in the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi; with Gaddafi’s huge cache of weapons showing up in the hands of terrorists in Gaza, Syria, Mali and Nigeria; and the deaths of migrants trying to flee the area. While the initial reason for the invasion was supposedly concern about genocide, the investigation of Clinton’s infamous private server might have revealed the real reason for the invasion of Libya.

In spite of this colossal failure, we are now moving in the same direction with respect to Syria. However she tries to spin it, the Syrian war is less about overthrowing Assad than it is a proxy war about Iran. In 2012, Clinton obstructed a cease fire brokered by Koffi Annan. Her role in Syria was to prolong the war. Christopher Stevens, Clinton’s diplomatic Ambassador, was killed running a CIA operation to ship Libyan weapons to Syria. Clinton took a very direct role in that effort.

Largely because of Clinton’s interventionist approach to foreign policy, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard–once a rising star in the Democratic party–recently walked away from her position as Vice Chair of the DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders. Gabbard has also served two tours of duty in Iraq and fully understands the effects of such wars on her military brothers and sisters as well as innocent victims caught in the fray.

Not enough for the 99%. Hillary Clinton isn’t a champion for the 99% in any sense of the word. She doesn’t support a $15.00/hour minimum wage, only $12.00. Early on in the campaign Hillary’s supporters were calling out Bernie Sanders for only paying his interns $12.00 an hour. This is a laugh. Yes, Sanders is paying his interns $12.00 an hour, but he is paying his campaign workers $15.00 an hour. He is the only candidate paying his campaign workers anything. This disingenuous attack is a laugh. The Clinton camp ought not to go there and, since she is paying her workers jack squat, she might want to tell her Facebook supporters to shut their collective word holes.

Clinton does not support single-payer, sending her attack dog husband and her dimwitted daughter out to attack Sanders on this issue. First, they made the claim that Sanders wanted to dismantle Medicare. Then, they said his numbers didn’t add up. This has been roundly debunked a number of times, most recently by Robert Reich. The fact is that Hillary Clinton, again, has taken millions of dollars from those she calls her “enemies,” and that includes the health care industry and big pharma. She doesn’t want to bite the hand that feeds her. In fact, as with Wall Street, there’s always a favor to pay back. Instead, Clinton prefers and expansion of Obamacare, which is actually not health care reform because he chose to drop the public option as soon as he took office. It should be noted that we are the only industrialized nation that does not offer universal health care.

Hillary Clinton is does not support free public college or university education, continuing the trend of college graduates carrying crippling debt after graduation. Contrary to Clinton’s accusations about the Sanders plan, he has outlined a very comprehensive approach to the issue of college education. It’s funny how we, as a nation, cannot afford this but we can afford money-sucking wars in the Middle East and $7 trillion dollar bank bailouts, essentially a reward for bad behavior. Again, more and more nations are understanding the importance of an educated population and are offering free college tuition.

Part Two will appear on the blog tomorrow.

Categories: 2016, Elections, Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

4 replies

  1. Well said, my friend. Thank you for writing this.

  2. Exactly! The only difference in my story is that I did not vote in 2012…for the first time since I became old enough to vote and I am 56 (will be 57 in April) years old. It was a difficult decision as I have always believed in voting. But, like you, I saw that Obama had not lived up to his promises. And, I totally understand why you went ahead and voted for him again. I almost did, too for the very same reasons. Oh, I had wanted to like him because he speaks so eloquently and I do love eloquence and intelligence. If only he would use his powers for good.

  3. And, for the record, I have been following Bernie for several years and was delighted to see him enter the race. He brought me back to the polls and I will never vote for Hillary for all the reasons you listed. Stand firm.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: