A critique on Hillary Clinton. pt1

This year is shaping up to be the most exciting electoral cycle to date. For the Republicans Trump appears to be running away with it. Unless Cruz can pull off a come back in the coming weeks. As for the Democrat, which this article will focus on, it appears to be much closer. Hillary at this time is in the lead but there are a number of states coming up that suit Sanders, so the lead could be closing. In this piece I will provide just a few of the reasons to not support Hillary for the remaining Democratic Primaries. Unlike most of the media I will not simply use the issue over her emails, or the controversy over the Benghazi terror attack. Both of these allegations may have credibility but they have been focused on above more meaningful reasons as to why Hillary should be discredited.

 

1. Hillary voted in favour of the Iraq Invasion of 2003. The significance of this is that her counterpart Bernie Sanders voted against this conflict. Both candidates looked at the evidence for the war and only one of the candidates made the right decision. In fact the video below is from a Sanders speech to the Senate in 2002. Much of what was said in that speech ended up actually happening in the aftermath of the invasion. Hillary continues to claim that we should be looking to the future not the past, but voting records show that a candidate has the actions to fit their claims. Hillary’s willingness to support an unjust invasion of Iraq is a reason to fear her actions in Middle East today, where it is far more contentious than 2003. 
2. Hillary flip flopped on Gay Rights. Clinton stated in the following video that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. This speech was made in 2004, however her official position only changed as of 2013. Conveniently when the national polls began to swing in favour of Gay Marriage. You could argue whether she was always pro gay marriage or not. More importantly her lack of speaking for how she believes from day one, and maintaining that position is the sign of another typical politician. Another candidate that has shifted her position purely for political gain. But to be fair what if she has genuinely changed her position, it still took until 2013 to have this realisation. As for Bernie Sanders, he voted against the Defence of the Marriage act in 1996 under Bill Clinton’s Presidency. Which outlined Marriage as a bond between a Man and Woman. Sanders has never had a reason to doubt his commitment to protecting Gay Rights, unfortunately Hillary does.  
3. Hillary’s Campaign Finance. Perhaps the most significant, is Hillary’s positions on Campaign finance. Her inconsistencies on the subject are blatant to see. She received 250,000 dollars for a speech to Goldman Sachs. But claims this money has not impacted her policy positions. In the last reporting she has received a further 15 million dollars from her super PAC to campaign against Bernie Sanders. But again she claims that money is purely donations and she is not influenced by it. Sanders has continually asked, if this money doesn’t influence a political candidate, then why would corporations donate such large amounts. Why would a company give away huge amounts of finance if there was not a gain to be made. Furthermore Hillary’s inability to see this as an issue is confirmation that under her presidency, absolutely nothing will be done to combat campaign finance. There is also a call for her transcripts from that 250k speech to Goldman Sachs. Her defence for not releasing this script is peculiar. Hillary stated that she will release her speech when everyone else does.. Take that in, and think if that sounds like the words of someone who is completely innocent, and has nothing to hide. I sincerely doubt it. She claims she stuck it to Wall Street, she claims she told them they had done serious harm and had to change their ways. But still refuses to show us what was really said. If you aren’t swayed on that yet do not fear, Ted Cruz’s wife has a prominent position in Goldman Sachs. Do not be surprised when the general election arrives and those transcripts are ‘leaked’ for all to see. Only then we will be proved right or wrong, I think I know which is more likely. 

 

These are just a few of the areas I find fault with Hillary Clinton. In the upcoming posts I will shed light on more. The meaning behind these posts is that the American people have an opportunity to elect a Democratic Candidate that can represent and fight for them. My fear is that Hillary is not that candidate. Both her record and her words from the recent debates give credit to that claim.

 

Ben Jones

Rrenimi i themeleve te demokracise nga Qeveria e Kosoves

Seanca e Kuvendit te Kosoves me date 19 shkurt 2016 nuk shkoi mire, ashtu siq pritej. Nje gje e tille ishte paralajmeruar nga opozita, Levizja Vetevendosje, AAK dhe Nisma, si vazhdimesi e kundershtimit te fuqishem te tyre per dy marrevshjet, njera ne mes te qeverise se Kosoves me Serbine per themelimin e Asociacionit te Komunave Serbe ne Kosove, dhe tjetra me Malin e Zi per demarkacionin. Kjo sidomos pasi mbi 200,000 qytetar nenshkruan peticionin kunder marreveshjes per Asociacionin, e cila sipas Gjykates Kushtetuese te Republikes se Kosoves u gjet te jete ne kundershtim me Kushtetuten e vendit. Si rrjedhoje, opozita kerkon shkuarjen e vendit ne zgjedhje pasi qe sipas tyre nuk mund te qeverise me vendin nje qeveri qe eshte gejtur ne shkelje me Kushtetuten, qe injoron peticionin e mbi 200,000 qytetareve (dhe kerkesat nga dhjetera mijera protestues paqesor), qe shkel te drejtat e deputeteve dhe qytetareve permes veprimeve policore te motivuara politikisht, qe ndermerr arrestime e gjykime arbitrare, dhe se fundi qe del me deklarata fyese, percarese dhe nxitese ne paraqitje publike, medie dhe rrjete sociale. Nxjerrja me dhune e deputeteve te opozites nga forcat e sigurimit brenda salles se kuvendit te Kosoves ka ndodhur edhe me pare.  Veprime te tilla rrenojne themelet e demokracise ne Kosove. Prandaj keto veprime dhe nje qasje e tille nga qeveria duhet te jete shqetesim kryesor edhe per intelektualet, shoqerine civile dhe per prezencen diplomatike ne Kosove. Te mos harrojme qe secili deputet i opozites perfaqeson qytetaret e Kosoves. Prandaj menyra se si ata jane nxjerrur dhunshem nga seanca dhe arrestuar eshte edhe nje deshmi se qeveria e tanishme nuk e respekton popullin. Kerkesa per zgjedhje te reja demokratike nga opozita eshte shume e drejte per te parandaluar kete model qeverises anti-demokratik, policine dhe gjyqesine e ndikuar dhe kontrolluar nga politika, korrupsionin endemik, dhe demtimin e metutjeshem te shtetit.

Albana Istrefi

21.02.2016

 

 

 

Get used to the Migrant Crisis, it’s here to stay.

Spring is approaching and the EU must prepare for the next influx of migrants from the Middle East. The problem being, it simply isn’t ready. Finland has recently joined Sweden in the process of deporting thousands of failed Asylum seekers. Denmark have introduced a questionable new legislation made simply to deter any new migrants  from traveling there. And recently a poll of 40% in Germany has demanded Angela Merkel to resign for her immigration policy. Just last year Germany was championed for opening it’s borders, claiming ‘migrants are welcome.’ Now the system is buckling as a staggering 1 million migrants arrived to the country in 2015. Germany has now decided to place stricter rules on migrants arriving this year.

It is a fact that right wing politics is on the rise in Europe, which will only drive further anti migrant policies. Shouldn’t we be searching for another solution to this crisis? . Especially as it’s estimated the numbers may reach the millions this year. Should we perhaps look to the cause of this crisis? Shouldn’t we look towards the removal of Bashir Al Assad?

As the Graph shows, Assad is responsible for vastly more deaths to the Syrian population than ISIS. His attacks against rebel forces have had complete disregard for the civilian population left in the crossfire. We must start to prioritise not just the removal of ISIS but also the removal of Assad, if we wish to curb the arrival of more migrants. Russia must be challenged for their support of Assad, and the United Nations must take responsibility for the situation. Russia has been providing the most military assistance to Assad, and are solely responsible for him remaining in his position. The crisis will only continue, and the flow of migrant will grow further if this region remains a war zone. The media has enjoyed naming ‘economic migrants’, but the vast majority are those people entering Europe have lost their homes or even family members to a regime that has committed countless atrocities.

The EU is only speaking on dealing with the migrants as they come, a much more sensible approach would be targeting the issue at it’s core. End the war in Syria, bring Assad to justice and start a peaceful transition in Syria overseen by the UN. Until this is achieved, what else is there to expect than greater numbers of people fleeing to Europe.

Ben Jones, Albana Istrefi

Tunisia provides a sign of hope!

It’s the 5th anniversary of the Arab Spring which saw mass protests sweep across most Arab states. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria were among the most significant. All these countries find themselves in remarkably different positions five years on.

Syria, as most will know, is embroiled in a violent civil war, which has sent shock waves throughout Europe leading to the ‘Migrant Crisis’. The United Nations estimated just last year that 1 million Syrian children were now living outside their country. Assad with the military support of Russia and Iran has held out against all rebel attacks, and has recently bolstered his position even further. Whether he will be taken to task for the crimes he has committed against his own population is a debate for another day. He has tactically used the issue of extremists among the rebels to divert attention from the atrocities he has committed. There is little sign of Syria returning to stability any time soon.

Looking towards Egypt, the previous dictator Hosni Mubarak was overthrown successfully. However, the first wave of elections saw the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood. A worryingly conservative Islamic party, which was swiftly revolted against in a coup d’etat led by the military. The military has held on to it’s position ever since, and calls from numerous human rights organisations have protested that the military are also enforced mass censorship, military type trials, and various cases of torture. There are claims that protests and violence may return to Egypt in the coming months, as satisfaction for the military government is dwindling.

Perhaps Libya fared better? You may recall the NATO intervention against the dictator Gaddafi in 2011. Mostly British, American and French jets enforced a no fly zone, and later attacked key military positions to support the rebels. The NTC (National Transitional Council) was formed and it looked as if a democracy was springing into action. Sadly not.. Most of the Libyan parties were divided in their opinions for the future. The government quickly crumbled, and now Libya also finds itself in a brutal civil war. And a breading ground for extremists. Last year the Egyptian government even launched an air strike within Libyan territory to attack an ISIS position.

Not looking great is it? There was so much optimism in the air when the protests were taking place in 2011. But still 5 years on the people of Syria, Libya and even Yemen are still fighting it out. Protests are still taking place in Egypt, and there were recently more demonstrations in Morocco against newly introduced laws against protest rights.

Only one state looks as if it is in a position that could resemble a Democracy. Tunisia recently had a successful wave of elections, which were accepted internationally, to have been fair. The Arab Spring has been a disaster for many of the nations that find itself in conflict today. But Tunisia’s position can surely provide hope to those who still find themselves in a struggle against Autocracy.

Ben Jones

Shouldn’t Islam be treated the same as Christianity?

From the title i can feel the tensions rising already. But it’s a question I’ve had for a very long time. I’m gonna try to avoid controversy as much as possible, but when it comes to Islam I just may be attempting the impossible. Anyway, we’ll give it a go!

Just to give a little perspective, I am an Atheist or a Godless heathen, whichever you desire most. I look at all religion in the same light, so don’t rush straight to the old ‘Islamophobia’ buzzword just yet. I recognise the flaws in all religions people feel so empowered to believe. Christianity’s position of Gay Right and Abortion are just the start of it. Why was a Christian who attacked an Abortion clinic in the US not labelled a terrorist? I could go further with the Catholic priest controversy where countless child sex abuses were perpetrated. But still Christianity enjoy having 2.4 billion follows. Most of the historical claims made in the old testament have been disproved (if we go off credible scientific sources). But most importantly i’m free to make this assessment of Christianity, without any fear. Apart from the odd person lecturing me on how I need to find God.

On the other hand. Why, if I make similar points towards Islam would I have to spend an extra hour writing this, just to make sure I don’t come off as a ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’? Why, is there such a fear to propose any real critique on Islam? Is it because most of the mainstream critique is dominated by those who simply want the opposite extreme? Unlike most of the Islamic critique I don’t want the removal of Islam, people should be free to believe what they wish. The problem I have is silencing those who wish to speak out against it. Bringing out some of the passion I expressed especially after the Charlie Hebdo attack. People who weren’t even a part of Islam, did not practice Islam, but were killed in cold blood for criticising it. Even in University in the aftermath there was an alarming amount of, “well they shouldn’t have provoked them!” “What did they expect to happen.” Responses I would label as victim blaming. I simply want a discussion which could lead in a direction where Islam is given the same scrutiny that Christianity, and even Atheism receives.

Just as an endnote, I am not blind to the criticism religion is receiving from the extreme right wing within this country and around the globe. In a previous post I referred to how I disagree with Trumps proposal to ban Muslims from the United States. As well as the onslaught that Asylum seekers are receiving within my own country. I find it shameful. I personally view Islam in two separate entities, the People, and the scripture. There are factors within the scripture, and that of the extremists that practice it. This is where I find discomfort. Exactly the same for Christianity. If there are any other issues with the article please be sure to comment or message me. This isn’t intended to offend but simply to promote a discussion.

Ben Jones

 

 

The Danger of supporting Jeremy Corbyn

 

BRIGHTON, ENGLAND – SEPTEMBER 29: Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn delivers a speech during the third day of the Labour Party Autumn Conference on September 29, 2015 in Brighton, England. (Photo by Ben Pruchnie/Getty Images)

 

Jeremy Corbyn is the new leader of Britain’s second largest party, Labour. He has a number of controversial policies I would like to go through today. As a politics student who has a keen eye for International Affairs I view all these policies with pessimism. And they mostly circle around the issue of Britain’s Nuclear Defence system that is Trident.

Most people look at Nuclear Weapons for what they are. Tools for mass destruction, capable of killing millions of people at the press of a button. This is why Corbyn is Vice President of the Campaign of Nuclear Disarmament. But I urge caution to those of you who would agree with him. Personally I see Nuclear Weapons in that light as well, but there is far more to it. I would argue it was thanks to Nuclear Weapons we are not in a war with Russia today. The popular phrase of ‘mutually assured destruction’ is a reality of life in 2016. Many who support Corbyn have an image of a peaceful utopia with no weapons running around in fields full of flowers. My problem with this? well… reality. A bonus would be watching Corbyn as he struggles to pick between his anti nuclear fantasy and the thousands of jobs that would be lost with its removal.

Why we shouldn’t ban Trump from the UK.

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, United States, July 18, 2015. REUTERS/Jim Young – RTX1KTWT

I was among the first people to join the petition to ban Donald Trump from entering the United Kingdom, due to his policy to ban Muslims to enter the United States should he get elected this year. I’d like to start by saying I oppose the majority of what Mr Trump believes, and the passion at the time made me sign that particular petition. But over the course of the last few weeks I have learnt the mistake I made.

Trump may be racist, or  he may just be uneducated, to the reality of situation. But the prospect of silencing his voice and simply labelling him a racist goes against what I was trying to protect. Should we be creating a more accepting society by shutting out the voices of those on the margins? I would say this is not the solution. It’s becoming an increasingly more mainstream approach to anyone who holds a view different to your own. I personally believe the protection above all must be the freedom of speech. I would prefer the approach many PMs raised in the commons which would be inviting Trump and in fact trying to educate him on the matter instead of simply blocking him out.

My reason for holding this opinion is the slippery slope we would be creating. Silencing those who differ from our belief is not a value I want this country to follow, but I fear it’s a direction we are going towards. A direction I see in university each day. People so afraid of having an actual discussion on issues so they’d rather cut out any sort of variety at all.

I can understand where the fear comes from, those such as Trump have policies that could be detrimental to the United States and the world as a whole. They use freedom of speech as a tool to spread hatred. But the path we must chose wisely is how we deal with that threat. We need to give them no reason to have those beliefs, thus by banning him only fuels his agenda. Makes him look even more populist and even more of a threat. “If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all.” – Chomsky

Ben Jones

EU in turmoil

The EU has never faced such a massive internal crisis, pathetic racism, unprecedented disunity and general fatigue are among the key. Perhaps it is unrealistic and immature to expect the EU to respond to any external crisis when it has never been more in the brink of real disintegration. It can’t be more obvious seeing recent episodes of EU reinstating internal and external borders to prevent refuges – who have been escaping from terrible crimes and threat of extermination – ‘invade’ their countries. Instead of being terrified by the grave crimes and showing compassion towards those who are most in need, it continues blaming, humiliating and keeping them away of its back yard.

Candidate for the European Union?

The idea of Serbia joining the EU baffles me. A country that has committed genocide and has not yet given accountability for its barbaric war crimes, should not be allowed to join the union of democratic nations. Its genocide in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia in the 90’s (very recent), should be reminding the EU and the democratic world that Serbia should not be given the power to have a say in decisions that affect Europe and the world. It is appalling that a regime that has gravely violated human rights such as imprisoning people without a trial, killing civilians and committing massacres, is currently a candidate to become part of a fairly significant IR organisation.To this date, very few people have been punished for the brutal crimes that they’ve committed. In 1937, Vasa Cubrilovic’s ”The Expulsion of Albanians”, has been a blueprint for ethnic cleansing and a road-map that is still alive in contemporary Serbia. It also suppresses and threatens any journalists that dare to publish controversial articles (lack of freedom of speech), mistreats the LGBT community, and its Patriarch (the head of Serbia’s main orthodox church) says force should be used to not let Kosovo progress culturally. The idea of this state being in the EU is slightly dangerous, as I am sure any logical human being would agree. Serbia will continue to be a threat to the Balkans and the stability of Europe in general until it is evidenced that significant improvements have taken place before it is ready to join the EU. Furthermore, its mentality is stuck back in the 50’s. Time to move on pals!

Albana Istrefi