Why (as a matter of conscience) I wouldn’t vote for Clinton, Cruz, or Trump



11 RAJAB 1437 AH
(April 18, 2016)

Why (as a matter of conscience)
I wouldn’t vote for Clinton, Cruz, or Trump

From the Desk of
El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
Assalaam Alaikaum: American “founding father,” Thomas Jefferson reportedly said:

“We have the greatest opportunity the world has ever seen, as long as we remain honest–which will be as long as we can keep the attention of our people alive. If they once become inattentive to public affairs, you and I, and congress and assemblies, judges and governors would all become wolves.”
Whenever I reflect upon this quote, I think of self-serving politicians like Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. (And for the record, while the shameful antics of Mr. Trump have received much global attention, I consider his republican nemesis, Senator Cruz, far more dangerous to the health and welfare of this nation called America!)
It stands to reason that a negligible percentage of African Americans or Muslims will be voting for Cruz or Trump; and thus, this is intended to be a wake-up call regarding the other candidate of poor choice – Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Early today I sent out this release to our email network; it included eye-opening analytical commentaries (by three serious writers) on the Clinton political legacy:
1. “Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote,” by Michelle Alexander
2. “Nothing About the 1994 Crime Bill Was Unintentional,” by Bruce Shapiro
3. “Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?” by Robert Parry”

*The release also contained some revealing video footage (and a transcript) from a “Democracy Now!” segment on Madam Clinton from her Secretary of State days. What this segment reveals about her actions at the time of the military coup in Honduras should give every clear thinking and self-respecting Muslim in post 9/11 America pause. (I follow this up with a little perspective of my own.)

In Michelle Alexander’s article (“Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote”), she correctly noted the following:

“Some might argue that it’s unfair to judge Hillary Clinton for the policies her husband championed years ago. But Hillary wasn’t picking out china while she was first lady. She bravely broke the mold and redefined that job in ways no woman ever had before. She not only campaigned for Bill; she also wielded power and significant influence once he was elected, lobbying for legislation and other measures. That record, and her statements from that era, should be scrutinized. In her support for the 1994 crime bill, for example, she used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. “They are not just gangs of kids anymore,” she said. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

Bruce Shapiro argues (“Nothing About the 1994 Crime Bill Was Unintentional”), “In the ’90s, Bill Clinton exploited fears about crime in the same way that Donald Trump uses immigration today. The outcome, he argues, was predictable.
“Here’s the reality: In the late 1980s and early ’90s, the thriving crack market, combined with massive unregulated gun trafficking, drove a catastrophic spike in the murder rate in many inner cities. But except for a handful of provisions—assault-weapons regulation, grants for community policing and hiring cops—most of the 1994 crime bill had nothing to do with that problem. To read the bill’s full text today feels like stumbling upon a prophecy calling out everything that has since gone wrong with the criminal-justice system.”
On the foreign policy front, Robert Parry noted the following:

“So, Clinton’s election could mean that some of the most dangerous people in American foreign policy would be whispering their schemes for war and more war directly into her ear – and her record shows that she is very susceptible to such guidance. At every turn, as a U.S. senator and as Secretary of State, Clinton has opted for “regime change” solutions – from the Iraq invasion in 2003 to the Honduras coup in 2009 to the Libyan air war in 2011 to the Syria civil war since 2011 – or she has advocated for the escalation of conflicts, such as in Afghanistan and with Iran, rather than engaging in reasonable give-and-take negotiations.
“Though her backers tout her experience as Secretary of State, the reality was that she repeatedly disdained genuine diplomacy and was constantly hectoring President Obama into adopting the most violent and confrontational options.”

On A Final Note:

Like many around the world, I was deeply aggrieved by the murder of Honduran activist Berta Caceres. I have no doubt that her death was a political execution! (Surely ALLAH knows best.) Given the FACT that she was a strong critic of the US blessed military-led coup that removed a democratically elected president from power in Honduras, Berta’s assassination constitutes a crime against humanity that the Obama administration (through Clinton) shares responsibility for.

Clinton’s response to the Honduras related question posed by veteran journalist Juan Gonzalez, followed by Amy Goodman’s interview with Professor Dana Frank (an expert on Honduras), in which she responded to the issues raised by Clinton’s response, is very instructive indeed.

For over three decades now there has been bi-partisan push back (within the US political establishment) against left-leaning democratically-elected governments in Central and South America. As was the case during the height of the “Cold War,” the social and political instability resulting from these internal and external manipulations has rendered many of these societies dangerously unlivable. The so-called “illegal immigrant” (more accurately labeled refugee) crisis emanating from south of the border was, and is, Made In The USA!

When former republican Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – a war criminal with an enormous amount of blood on his hands – effusively praised Hillary Clinton not long ago (with the former democratic Secretary of State basking in the praise) it came as no surprise to many of us, because there is little difference between the two in terms of how they think and operate.

Clinton did not have as many years at the helm of the State Department as her republican counterpart, and as a result, was not involved in as many deadly misadventures as Kissinger. However, gender and party affiliation aside, I believe the record will show former secretaries of state Clinton and Kissinger are birds of a feather. To put it another way, as the late Alabama Governor George Wallace was known to say, “There’s not a dimes bit of difference between a democrat and a republican!”

While some African Americans and Muslims may still decide to ignore the dictates of conscience, and so doing, proceed into the voting booth and vote for Clinton [Cruz, or Trump], a note of caution is in order. After reflecting upon these available truths, one cannot feign ignorance of the candidate’s record, nor the potential consequences of that stubbornly cast vote!

In the struggle for peace thru justice,

El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan

As Hillary Clinton seeks to defend her role in the 2009 Honduras coup, we speak with Dana Frank, an expert on human rights and U.S. policy in Honduras. “This…
Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.