I write this hoping Americans will consider carefully who will want them to vote for which 2016 presidential candidate, and why.

The people backing up Hillary Clinton are not ordinary Americans, and the people trying to portray her in a positive light are not grassroots activists. She is backed up by the money of large corporations and the journalists who portray her in a positive light (and deny facts in the process) usually are the same people funding her campaign and “predicting” repeatedly that she is going to be President.

It is also worth noting how the things that excite media commentators about Hillary Clinton are things that scare most Americans, yet delight oligarchs. Her belief that her work as Secretary of State in US policy towards Libya in 2011 was a success, despite the fact she pushed a stable regime into an intractable and destructive civil war and even caused the deaths of Americans, should scare any American. Yet this is what makes media tycoons and commentary elites love Clinton. They love her steadfast commitment to war, destruction and famine as tools of US policy around the world.

Her willingness to support deadly blockades and sanctions against populations who disagree with the US regime’s ideology and her willingness to resort to dropping bombs on cities as a way to persuade them to a more pro-American viewpoint makes her a “strong” candidate to be President, but a little too strong. Her insistence that a “no-fly zone” against Russian warplanes is necessary to end the Syrian Civil War on American terms is not only dumb and unrealistic, but a threat to everyone’s survival. She is the kind of person who will never accept the US’s power decline in world affairs, and will rather prefer to start new wars and send American soldiers to their deaths eagerly to prop up this collapsing empire of violence and chaos than allow Russia or China to fill even the smallest gaps that have appeared.

If the US cannot tolerate Russia using its own military forces around the world but insists on its own right to do so, it is going to cause a nuclear war. Trying to be “strong” against nuclear missiles and modern warplanes and promising to defeat them all with America’s brilliant technology is not the sign of a leader who is “experienced” or knowledgeable. It is the sign of an idiot with a god complex.

If the best success of Clinton’s political career is helping to cause the death of Gaddafi (and a bunch of US diplomats) and escalate a destructive civil war that will kill millions of people, she needs to be locked away rather than be given the most dangerous and powerful job in the world. While Bernie Sanders is not a perfect candidate, he is better in almost every respect than Hillary Clinton, and is unquestionably the anti-war candidate. Sanders might ultimately prove no better than Barack Obama in that regard, but he would be preferable to a lunatic whose only promise is to start new wars to support the other wars.

More from Beliefnet and our partners
Close Ad