Photo by FLICKR
Beverly Hills High School

Unfit to be our president: Hillary Clinton

Throughout her campaign for the presidency, Hillary Rodham Clinton has ridiculed her Republican opponent Donald Trump for his crass remarks on minorities. In both the public and private eye, however, Clinton has made remarks, similar to those of Trump’s, regarding Bernie Sanders’ supporters during the Democratic primary.

In a leaked speech given to Goldman Sachs, Clinton was caught saying that Sanders’ supporters are a “bucket of losers.” Had Trump referred to any of his opponents’ supporters in the same way there would be a media outrage. As both the Los Angeles Times and New York Times have formally endorsed the Clinton campaign, it raises serious concerns about the ability of those papers to objectively cover each candidate, especially as neither publication ran a single story online about the incident.

More recently in her campaign, Clinton publicly stated that “you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”

Her words aside, let’s now look at her actions.

As secretary of state, Clinton’s “extremely careless” handling of her private email server, to quote FBI Director James Comey, “placed our nation’s top national security secrets at risk.” In an era where nearly no online server is safe, it is imperative that our secretary of state take the right precautions when handling classified information. If Clinton acted in an extremely careless manner as secretary of state, then who knows what she will do as president of the United States.

On the topic of foreign contributions, while Clinton was secretary of state, the amount of contributions from foreign governments doubled, according to the Wall Street Journal.

In another report by the International Business Times, “Clinton’s state department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments donated to the Clinton foundation.” Although Clinton was no longer on the Board of Directors of the Clinton Foundation as she was secretary of state, there remains a clear correlation between the contributions and actions.

Clinton has especially been criticized for her close-knit relationship with Saudi Arabia. The kingdom had donated somewhere between $10-25 million to the foundation in 2008, the same year Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state.

And just three years later, Clinton oversaw a $29-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, a nation which, according to U.N. Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer, “has beheaded more people this year [2015] than ISIS.”

In a leaked email between Clinton and her advisor Cheryl Mills, Clinton expressed that she holds Saudi Arabia to a different standard on humans rights.

Clinton famously said in 1995 that “women’s rights are human rights,” and 20 years later she oversaw an arms deal with a country that forbids women from leaving the house alone.

Clinton’s double standard regarding human rights is despicable and she needs to be held accountable.

As secretary of state it is highly likely that Clinton treated different nations more favorably if they donated to her foundation. Could it be a coincidence? Yes. But with numerous investigations pointing toward there being a direct correlation between Clinton’s actions and contributions to the Clinton foundation, it is unlikely that Clinton would have acted the same way if these countries had not donated.

As Trump continues to ridicule and mock nearly every person who opposes him, one must stop and think before voting this November about whether Hillary Clinton places our nation’s interests or her own interests first.