He-Man Hillary Haters Club

The New York Times editorial board consists of 19 journalists, all of which contribute a variety of expertise. Their educations range from Harvard College to NYU Law School and have quite a substantial amount of journalistic experiences between them. Collectively, their articles not only serve as a voice for the board, but the editor and publisher as well.

They published an article last week that speaks of one of the many scandals of Hillary Clinton, titled Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts. They elaborate on an ongoing issue over Hillary’s transcripts of paid private speeches being available to the public. How does a candidate, who claims once elected she will be the voice of the average struggling American and hold big banks and Wall Street accountable, receive payment from big banks for her “private speeches”? We aren’t talking about a few thousand dollars here. She’s received millions collectively, and she feels she’s being treated unjustly, claiming “Why is there one standard for me and not anybody else?”

They go onto say she claims she will release the transcripts of these private bank and industry speeches if everybody else releases theirs, including the republicans. The republican party has never been shy to say they support big banks and tax breaks for the wealthiest of our Americans. No one speculates about their candidate’s private speeches, because we already know what they are promising them. However, when you have a potential democratic nominee who makes statements about wanting to better regulate big banks and weaken tax breaks for the wealthy, one doesn’t expect said candidate to appear at a private and paid speech to said banks.

The New York Times believe the people deserve to know where she truly stands. Those transcripts could be the proof that democratic party members and voters need to make a wise and educated decision on who they choose to nominate to run on election day. She seems to believe that she has already won her party’s nomination and fails to realize that at this time the republican party is not her running mate, Bernie is. Until she releases the transcripts of these paid speeches, no one will truly know her intentions as president.

I agree with the editorial board when they state “Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public – not the candidate – who decides how much disclosure is enough.” Her “stonewalling” and rebuttals are something most would expect from a teenager, not a potential democratic nominee or future president.

The point of this article, in my opinion, is to help further inform the public of Hillary’s intentions. It’s obvious the editorial board of the New York Times are not her biggest fans. They have further provided proof of her misdoings and have raised questions about her character. Their opinions on her reactions to the release of these transcripts are justified. They believe she has an obligation to the public that wants to support her.

A Light at the End of the Ferguson Tunnel

Top of Form

     Ferguson. It’s a name we all have come to know too well. The shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown was a turning point in the way our nation viewed the relationship between police and minorities.  Police corruption and brutality is an everyday occurrence in this St. Louis suburb. The predominately black community has suffered a tremendous amount from the people who have sworn to protect them. Now, I’m not saying every cop in Ferguson is crooked, but it seems to me that this particular orchard has a few too many bad apples. The cities officers had a history of abusing and wrongfully enforcing power long before Brown’s death.

     After the Grand Jury chose not to criminally charge Officer Wilson in the death of Brown, the residence of the city felt there was no hope to end the ongoing wrong doings Ferguson law enforcement continued to bring upon its citizens. However, after a thorough, 18-month long investigation into the practices of the Ferguson Police Department and municipal courts, the Justice Department has chosen to take action and sue the City of Ferguson for multiple violations of Civil Rights. The investigation was opened shortly after the shooting of Brown and is an effort to "force police reform."
      An article from The Washington Post says the DOJ found that the Ferguson Police Department and courts continuously “engage in unconstitutional patterns and practices of using force without legal justification and engaging in racially discriminatory law enforcement conduct.”
     This article is definitely worth the read. Racial inequality and discrimination has become a huge topic of late. There is a terrible rift that has developed in our society. I feel that this law suit from the DOJ is a huge win for equality. It shows that our government isn’t choosing to sit idly by and watch the country divide itself and allow our constitutional rights to be trampled on. For once, we can view an example of the government having our backs. They’re setting a precedence that needs to be set; law enforcement and city officials are suppose to protect us, not harm us. We forget that there are systems and people in place to defend us from wrong doers who try to deny us of our civil rights. We just have to remember that they sometimes work at a snail’s pace.