BERNIE SANDERS' INTEGRITY VS. HILLARY CLINTON'S DISHONESTY

-----Original Message----- From: Vahid Sendijarevic [mailto:vsendijarevic@troypolymers.com] Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 2:29 PM To: Bosanski_Kongres@nkrbih.com Subject: RE: BERNIE SANDERS' INTEGRITY VS. HILLARY CLINTON'S DISHONESTY; Br. 924 Ovo je odlicno. -----Original Message----- From: Bosanski Kongres [mailto:Bosanski_Kongres@nkrbih.com] Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 1:45 PM To: vsendijarevic@troypolymers.com Subject: BERNIE SANDERS' INTEGRITY VS. HILLARY CLINTON'S DISHONESTY; Br. 924 Please ignore the previous message from us with wrong subjec line. We appologize for the inconvenience. National Congress of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina (NCR B&H) ONLINE NEWSLETTER International, No. 924 February 23, 2016 CONTENT: 1. BERNIE SANDERS' INTEGRITY VS. HILLARY CLINTON'S DISHONESTY 1.1 USA AS CLINTONS' BANANA REPUBLIC 1.2 CLINTONS' SACRIFICE OF BOSNIA FOR PERSONAL AMBITION 1.3 BERNIE SANDERS AS THE ALTERNATIVE ──────────── This issue of the newsletter goes on 74,635 email addresses in Bosnia and abroad. "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line. ──────────── 1. BERNIE SANDERS' INTEGRITY VS. HILLARY CLINTON'S DISHONESTY By Tarik Borogovac, National Congress of The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, USA 1.1 USA AS CLINTONS' BANANA REPUBLIC In the 2016 election cycle, as in 2008, we keep hearing about Secretary Clinton getting very low marks in opinion polls on trustworthiness and honesty. The Democratic primary voters who put these qualities as being most important consistently favor Mrs. Clinton's opponents. This is not due to any unfair criticisms nor conspiracies placed by her opponents. In fact, neither President Obama, to whom she lost in 2008, nor Senator Sanders, who is opposing her now, ever brought up any of her multiple run-ins with truth and with rules. Mrs. Clinton's poor reputation with voters is her own doing, built up over many years and acts of poor ethics and criminality. There are two such issues in the news right now. One is the Clinton Foundation, which has enriched the Clintons by paying them huge salaries, and is financed by donors (buyers of influence), such as heads of major banks and despotic foreign governments. We googled it for you: http://freebeacon.com/blog/the-clinton-foundation-scandals-explained/. That is overshadowed by Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server to conduct business as Secretary of State. Same as President Nixon's Watergate scandal, Mrs. Clinton's email saga is providing a constant stream of damning revelations during the election year. The rundown: in violation of laws on handling secret information, the Freedom of Information Act, and the basic competence of her position as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton used her private email server to conduct official business. The server administrators had no government clearance even though the server held numerous emails with highly classified content sent by Mrs. Clinton and to her. The substandard security on the server would not effectively defend against even every-day internet attacks, let alone sophisticated attacks by foreign intelligence services and organized groups. If Edward Snowden ever sets foot in this country, he will be arrested and tried for treason for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional spying on our citizens, but it is Mrs. Clinton who has likely provided real, damaging, actionable intelligence to hostile foreign governments and organizations. The successive revelations have exposed Mrs. Clinton's earlier denials, and she has retreated to essentially admitting guilt but oddly using entitlement and incompetence as somehow mitigating factors. Basically she now says she did it but only for convenience, and she did not know all that information she emailed was classified. Except, it has been revealed that (1) Clinton instructed her staff to remove headers with classification markings, and (2) Clinton aides manually typed information from closed systems on high security internal networks not connected to the internet, into emails bound for her non-secure internet server, a two-step conscious process to defeat the most stringent measures put in place to protect US secrets. 1.2 CLINTONS' SACRIFICE OF BOSNIA FOR PERSONAL AMBITION As Bosnian Americans, we are very familiar with another Clinton's willingness to cross all moral bounds in the interest of winning elections. Our original homeland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, was sacrificed at the altar of President Bill Clinton's second term. Mr. Clinton fulfilled his promise of bringing peace to Bosnia -- by giving war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, and Ratko Mladic legalization of their project, an entity named The Republic of the Serbs on territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina that were ethnically cleansed through genocide. Twenty years later, Bosnia is an apartheid state, and the Republic of the Serbs still exists and is still ethnically "clean." It is easy to make peace by giving military dictators and war criminals what they want, but it is not a moral way to win elections. Some may say that those are Mr. Clinton's and not Mrs. Clinton's sins, but we recall that Mrs. Clinton has used her husband's experience with Bosnia to burnish her foreign policy credentials many times. One instance in the 2008 election is particularly memorable -- when she told the ridiculous story of the plane ride and trip into Tuzla (Bosnia) where she supposedly ducked sniper fire. Just as Brian Williams' helicopter ride offended the men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan by making light of their sacrifices, Mrs. Clinton's easily spoken lie deeply offends the memories of the countless Bosnian children, women and men who were cut down by Serbian sniper fire and shelling in Sarajevo and in all of Bosnia. Mrs. Clinton's history with poor judgment and unethical conduct is long, and each Democratic voter should see that it makes her a very risky candidate for the Democratic Party. She will turn away even a greater proportion of Independents than she has Democrats, her history will be exposed further in a general election when she faces a Republican candidate who is not likely to take it easy on Mrs. Clinton like Mr. Sanders. And Mrs. Clinton will either get indicted in the email investigation, or Mr. Obama will quash it -- which would be worse for her prospects and his legacy. But more than that, Mrs. Clinton is a terrible choice for president. Parents in this country teach kids about "Honest Abe" and the fable of Washington and the cherry tree: "I cannot tell a lie." They repeat Kennedy's call to "ask not" and put themselves in service to the country and the greater good, even before themselves. And we see that USA is strong because of generations of people who believe in those ideals and are willing to fight for them with conviction and confidence that they will win out. That is necessary for a self-sustaining democracy. American voters, see that Mrs. Clinton, like Bill Clinton, is a person who feels entitled to break any rule, and sacrifice any principle, to gain some petty personal advantage or convenience. When people of that sort are allowed to occupy the Presidency or other institutions such as the State Department they will put those institutions into the service of personal interests and ambitions, and that erodes the confidence of the people in the strength of principles, and brings the country closer to being just another fiefdom of some powerful family -- a Banana Republic. 1.3 BERNIE SANDERS AS THE ALTERNATIVE That brings us to Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist. We do not believe in socialism, having lived under it. But we do believe in democracy, and we also see that Mr. Sanders believes in it. Over the past 20 years, our democracy has been weakened, but Mr. Sanders has consistently defended it. He has had many opportunities to pander or join some team that would get him ahead. Yet he made correct and principled decisions, even when it was unpopular, such as opposing the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act, both of which Mrs. Clinton, as part of the ambitious non-principled crowd supported. Therefore, in the Clinton vs. Sanders struggle, we see Mrs. Clinton as being the anti-democratic force, and Mr. Sanders, the socialist, as the best hope for preserving our democracy.