It kinda Makes You wanna go, Hmmmmm

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE It kinda Makes You wanna go, Hmmmmm President George W. Bush's former press secretary, Scott McClellan has shocked both the Bush administration and the world by revealing in his new book, "What Happened", that the Bush administration has been manipulating the American people, and the invasion of Iraq was based on a farce. Oh, really? Well, what else is new? On September 15, 2002–six months and four days prior to the Iraqi invasion--I published an article entitled "Would Bush's Saber Rattle as Loudly Against China?", in the Portland Independent Media Center http://Portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/09/21292.shtml –no one else would publish it at the time–that said the following: WOULD BUSH'S SABER RATTLE AS LOUDLY AGAINST CHINA Now that we've reached the anniversary of 9-11, I am consumed by one thought--in light of what I've seen over the past year I find myself much more afraid of Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft than I am the al-Qaeda While I understand that terrorists strike without warning to destroy life and property to promote their own agenda, it has become increasingly clear that Bush and his cohorts threaten to be even more destructive by attacking life, liberty, and the very foundation of this nation in the promotion of theirs. Over the past year these conservative war mongers have been playing the American people like a fiddle. Now they want to sacrifice American lives for nothing more than their own political advantage. Just ask yourself, what does Sadam Hussain have to do with 9-11? Absolutely nothing. Evidence of that can be found in the fact that if Sadam had been involved in 9-11 the administration would have gone after him initially. So why is it suddenly so imperative that we invade Iraq now? I'll tell you why. Since Bush was unable to produce the head of Osama Bin Laden, he now needs another villain to take Bin Laden's place in order to keep his numbers up in the polls-- and if that means having to sacrifice a few American lives and ignite even more terrorist activity on American soil in the process, so be it. It is a well known political fact that the American people tend to rally around the president when the country's at war. That's why the Bush Administration fell all over themselves after 9-11 to declare "a war against terrorism." And the American people reacted just as planed-Bush's numbers immediately went up in the polls. But now with the mystery surrounding the fate of Osama Bin Laden, the administration has found itself without a war to sustain those numbers, so now they have to create one. While I'm not prepared to say that the Bush Administration allowed 9-11 to take place, it is clear that the timing of the 9-11 tragedy was without a doubt the best thing that could ever happened to Bush's presidency. Bush was a lame duck the minute he was sworn in. It seems that as soon as Bush entered The Oval Office the stock market began to falter and the economy started to weaken. And whenever he spoke, the next day's news was not so much what he said, but whether or not he got through the speech without falling on his face. In addition, his big tax cut that was touted as the key to boosting the economy turned out to be a bust, and he was so inept in dealing with congress that a Republican senator changed parties costing Bush control of the senate. As a result, when 9-11 took place, it was embraced by conservatives more like it was a football rally than the sober occasion that it was--thus, all the flag waving, ceremonies, and strutting about. But where was all that bluster prior to 9-11? ABC News reported on May 16th of this year that the Bush Administration acknowledged that U.S. Intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before 9-11 that Osama Bin Laden's terrorists might try to hijack a plane. It was also reported that Bush privately alerted transportation officials and security agencies, but other than that, simply sat on the information. The administration claims that the information they received was non-specific, but one would think that even if they couldn't determine exactly when and where the attack was going to take place, at the very least they could have warned the American people. If they had, maybe some of the people who died would have chosen not to fly-or possibly, chosen to leave their children behind. But no, this president who now claims to be so concerned with protecting our welfare that he feels compelled to launch an unprovoked attack against Iraq, was at that time more interested in the impact that warning us would have on the airline industry. What the American people needs to understand is that the power elite in this country doesn't view the United States in the same way as its citizens. They see the United States as a huge corporation, with its various industries as its subsidiaries. They see American citizens, particularly the lower and middle class, as simply pawns to be cajoled and manipulated in whatever way is necessary to meet the goals of the corporation. Therefore, they didn't view the tragedy of 9-11 in the same patriotic way as the average American citizen. After the initial shock, they saw 9-11 in terms of dollars and cents. Ultimately, it was viewed as an assault on their corporate superstructure. Later they recognized that the incident could be used as a distraction for the American people, and still later, an opportunity to move on Middle Eastern oil interests. So let there be no doubt, all of the flag waving, ceremonies, and patriotic speeches have nothing to do with 9-11; they are designed to whip the American people into such a frenzy that they're blinded to Bush's actual agenda. And that agenda includes the following: 1. Committing America (and American lives) to a war in order to get himself re-elected. 2. Taking control of Iraqi oil fields to benefit his friends in big business. 3. Keeping the American voter distracted from considering the ramifications of the recent corporate scandals. 4. Keeping the American people from recognizing how inept he is as president. The rest of the world sees Bush's agenda for what it is, and the American people would too if they'd stop waving their flags long enough to consider the flag's true meaning. The American flag represents freedom and justice, not trying to dictate who should lead other countries. It represents the open debate of issues, not intolerance to any and everyone who disagrees with your point of view. It represents the guarantee of personal freedom, not the suspension of the Bill of Rights. If the American people would just stop to consider these facts, it would become clear that even while Bush and his conservative cohorts are frantically waving our flag, they are simultaneously waging war against the very values that the flag and this great country represent. These issues can, and will, be debated ad nauseam, but the American people need only ask themselves two questions to put all of the administration's nonsense into perspective. First, would the administration be so anxious to go to war if we were talking about China as opposed to Iraq? And secondly, do we think that invading Iraq will make us more, or less safe from terrorist attacks? If we answer those questions honestly, it becomes clear that the administration is being disingenuous at best. So what I'd like to know is this--if a shade tree "journalist" sitting up in his den in the heart of a Los Angeles ghetto could see what was going on, why couldn't the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, CNN and all of the networks, Harvard, Yale, and the various and sundry Ph.D.s from the other great institutions of learning, the nation's think tanks, all of the nation's political scientists, the United States Congress and Hillary Clinton couldn't figure it out? It kinda makes you wanna go, hmmmmmmm. Eric L. Wattree Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the entire world, as interpreted by Dr. Boyce Watkins, and some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World www.yourblackworld.com/. It's our piece of the net.

IS HILLARY ENGAGED IN SUBLIMINAL MESSAGING?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

IS HILLARY ENGAGED IN SUBLIMINAL MESSAGING?
.

*

Beneath the spin has never been more meaningful than it has become during this political season, because it’s beginning to look like Hillary Clinton has taken it’s meaning to a new and very insidious level. After her comment regarding Robert Kennedy’s assassination, I began to consider all the “gaffes” that both she and Bill have been involved in during this campaign, and I’ve found strong evidence that points to the possibility that Hillary has been engaged in the practice of subliminal messaging throughout this campaign. If this is indeed the case, it makes her latest misstatement much more serious than many of us would like to believe.

Subliminal messaging involves sending messages to the subconscious mind that are not picked up on a conscious level. This technique is often used in advertising–sometimes overtly, but at other times very covertly. An example of the overt use of subliminal messaging in advertising is to have a beautiful woman caressing a new car that’s being advertised for sale. Having the woman there caressing the car sends a subliminal message to the subconscious of perspective male buyers that if they buy this car, it will draw beautiful women to them. Another example of overt subliminal advertising is in the use of Michael Jordan to advertise tennis shoes. It sends the message that if you buy these tennis shoes, it will help you to play basketball like Michael Jordan. Neither is necessarily true, but the beauty of subliminal messaging is since the message goes directly to the subconscious, it circumvents the scrutiny of logical thought.

That’s what makes the use of covert subliminal messaging so ominous. I remember studying one case in college involving a group of moviegoers who were subjected to the technique. In that case, while the group was watching a movie, one frame of a juicy and delicious-looking, cheese burger was spliced into the reel. the moviegoers never even noticed it on a conscious level, but the subconscious doesn’t miss a thing. Later, when they became hungry “out of the blue” and flocked to the concession stand, they never realized that they’d been manipulated.

This technique can also be applied in a political context. But instead of one frame in a reel during a movie, it becomes one word in a sentence, a paragraph, or even an entire speech. I suspect very seriously that this technique was being employed when Bill Clinton mentioned “Jesse Jackson” while discussing an Obama win in the South Carolina primary. By doing so, it was Bill’s intent to implant a subliminal message in the mind of the voter associating all of Jesse Jackson’s baggage, or perceived baggage, on the back of Barack Obama. The beauty of such a strategy is that it doesn’t matter what the context, as long as the statement is graphic, and mentioned while discussing Obama, it serves to implant itself in the mind of the voter.

Another example of subliminal messaging at work was in Bill’s post-Iowa remark that, “This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” He said that during a time when the Clintons thought that they still had a chance of getting the black vote, so by implanting “fairy tale” in the mind of black voters, it sent the message that they were wasting their vote, because Obama’s candidacy was a fantasy.

Hillary’s comment regarding John McCain having more experience than Obama is another example of this type of manipulation at work. Hillary said, “He’s [McCain] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

In this case, Hillary was trying to implant two messages. First, by saying, “He’s never been president, but . . .” She was attempting to implant the subliminal message that she had been president. Then, by aligning McCain and herself on the one hand, and Obama on the other, and saying Obama only had a speech, she was contrasting the white experience with the presidency, against that of a black man--and then dismissing Obama by saying all he could bring to the table was a speech.

That was the primary reason that no one could figure out why Hillary had aligned herself with the Republican candidate–it had to do with race, clear and simple. Notice her phrasing–McCain “will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience.” She emphasized, and then re-emphasized the word “lifetime”. So she wasn’t talking about governmental experience, or even legislative experience–she was talking about white experience. So the message she was actually trying to implant was, What experience could a black man possibly have that would prepare him to be president?

Then on May 8th she went there again when she said, “Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." The reason she stuttered after the first comma was because on her first attempt, she forgot to implant the word “white.” The message? Vote white.

In addition, the implication of her remarks left the message that white people are the only one’s who work hard. So the subliminal message is, if many black people are poor, yet, don’t work hard to remedy that condition, what does that say about them–and through extension, what does it say about Obama?

Now we come to her latest “gaffe” about the assassination of Robert Kennedy. She claims that her words are being taken out of context, but she could have made the very same point by using other examples. In fact, that would have been the prudent and compassionate thing to do considering Sen. Ted Kennedy’s condition, and what the Kennedy family was already going through. But for some reason, Hillary deemed it absolutely necessary to implant the word “assassination.”

And this was clearly not an issue that hadn’t been considered within the Clinton camp. On May 11th while appearing on Meet The Press, Hillary’s campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, made the same kind of statement to Tim Russert. He said that in order for Hillary to win the nomination "something big" would have to happen. Then Russett asked, "An act of God, or something catastrophic?", and he said, "Yes, something big would have to happen–absolutely."

So let there be no doubt about it, the Clintons know exactly what they’re saying--and it behooves us to listen very carefully to every word. Because these two are desperate, and they want to get back into the White House bad–real bad.
.

Eric L. Wattree 

wattree.blogspot.com

Ewattree@Gmail.com

.

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

.

Hillary Supporter Pooh-Poohs the Mention of RFK’s Assassination

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Hillary Supporter Pooh-Poohs the Mention of RFK's Assassination While DNC Continues to Slumber In his Huffington Post article, "Clinton and RFK Deserve Better", my good friend, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Pooh-poohs Hillary Clinton's mention of Robert Kennedy's assassination in the context of this election, and all the while the DNC slumbers. What is he suggesting , that she's sleep deprived again? I think that's getting kinda old, and I also think that it's way past time for the DNC to come out of hibernation. On May 11th while appearing on Meet The Press Hillary's campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, made the same kind of statement to Tim Russert. He said that in order for Hillary to win the nomination "something big" would have to happen. Then Russett asked, "An act of God, or something catastrophic?", and he said, "Yes, something big would have to happen–absolutely." Hillary's behavior has betrayed her to be nothing less than America's version of a Third World demagogue–a woman who is so desperate and hungry for power that the thought of seeing it slip through her fingers has caused her to slip into her own private realm of reality. Personally, I'm seriously concerned that she might have left the ranch and gone camping on us. So at this point it behooves us to take her every utterance dead seriously. Yet, nervous over the growing fracture in the Democratic Party, the DNC is vigorously reminding Democratic voters of the importance of backing the Democratic nominee in order to win the November election. The problem with their position, however, is the DNC is placing all of the responsibility for Democratic success on the voters, while skirting its own responsibility to act in an appropriate and decisive manner. They don't seem to recognize that party loyalty goes both ways. In light of what the nation has gone through in the past seven years, political parties can no longer expect the voters to just fall in and march in lockstep to the party line. That's what's gotten us to where we are today–involved in a senseless war, without jobs, losing our homes, and with the very pillars of our society under attack. The Democratic Party is sure to argue that it is for precisely these reasons that we must stick together, however. But that is only true if you're prepared to accept the proposition that everything that's gone wrong in the past seven years is solely the fault of the Republicans, and that is clearly not the case. While it is true that our current condition is primarily due to Republican greed, shortsightedness, an ineptitude, it is also true that we find ourselves in this condition as a result of the total impotence of the Democratic Party. Democratic politicians have been absolutely gutless for the past seven years. Instead of fighting for the soul of this nation and the ideals they profess to believe in, Democrats have been basing their actions on the direction of the wind; and instead of standing up for what was in the best interest of the nation, they were cowering in the basement on Capitol Hill, desperately trying to protect their own political careers. But now that the Republican Party has all but self-destructed, the Democrats have chosen this moment to come strutting out to tell us all they want to do to protect our interest. Where were they before the Republican Party all but dropped dead of gluttony? If the Republican Party is indeed in the throes of death, it's only resulting from Democrats allowing them to gorge themselves to death. And even now, the Democrats don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to two egomaniacal Republicrats, as the wreak havoc within the Democrats' own ranks. The DNC should have told Hillary Clinton initially that changing the rules regarding Florida and Michigan in the middle of the game purely for her accommodation was out of the question. They should have been unequivocally emphatic that the decision was made in the beginning of the primaries, and everyone agreed, including Hillary, that the delegates from those states would not be counted due their violation of DNC rules. Case closed. Had the DNC been immediately decisive when the Clintons initially sent up their trial balloon, they would have recognized that they were stepping over the line of fairness. But when the DNC was indecisive, and showed a sign of weakness in carrying out its responsibility, the Clintons smelled blood, and now their trial balloon has become a demand. So catering to the Clintons and dragging its feet in this matter is only going to complicate things further. The Clintons have no intentions of allowing the Democratic Party to remain unified. Before the Clintons decided upon their course of action, they not only took into account the affect it would have on Obama supporters, but also how it would affect all fair minded voters across this land. They then decided upon a gamble. They knew that due to Obama's popularity, Hillary would never become president unless he was brought down. So they decided they were going to do whatever they had to do to tear Sen. Obama down, then even if Hillary didn't get the nomination this year, Obama would still be so damaged that he would lose the election, in which case, she would run in 20012. They've already accepted the fact that their course of action would deeply divide the party, but, ironically, they're depending on Sen. Obama's good character to help rally support for Hillary if, and when, she's allowed to run. They're also gambling that Democrats are so desperate to get the Republicans out of office, that they'd hold their nose and vote for Hillary in spite of her behavior when the time comes. They realized it's a big gamble, but they calculated that a slim chance was better than no chance at all. Of course, there are those who will say that not even the Clintons could be that Machiavellian in their calculations, but look at the facts–this is a woman who agreed not to count the votes of Michigan and Florida, then even while ahead, managed to leave her name on the ballad in Michigan as an insurance policy. And we mustn't forget that one of Hillary's earliest influences was radical organizer Saul Alinsky. In fact, she did her colleges thesis on him–a document that the Clintons have managed to be kept securely under lock and key at Wellesley College. But now, Hillary's current tactics are right out of Alinsky's 1971 book, "Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals." Among Alinsky's rules is to always "personalize " the issue. He taught that "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have." He also says that "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." That rule comes to mind in Hillary's declaration that "all Obama has is a speech." Another one of Alinsky's rules is, "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Thus, Hillary's threat to divide the party. Alinsky goes on to advise that you "Maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition", and "push a negative hard and deep." And finally he instructs that you "pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it"–thus, Hillary's comment, "Hard working, White voters." Hillary has held to Alinsky so snugly that it's almost as if he's her campaign manager, post mortem. But I think even Alinsky would frown upon this campaign. So the DNC might as well make its stand now–and the earlier the better. Because there is nothing they can do to head off a crisis within the party short of handing the nomination to Hillary. It is part of Hillary's game plan to polarize the party, because she knew from the very beginning that if all else failed, her end game would involve a scorched Earth, and a Hail Mary. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com   Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the entire world, as interpreted by Dr. Boyce Watkins, and some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World  www.yourblackworld.com/.  It's our piece of the net.

HILLARY, WHAT’S THE POINT?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE HILLARY, WHAT'S THE POINT? After Tuesday's primary results I had hoped that I had written the name Hillary Clinton for the last time during this election. But in spite of the fact that there is virtually no legitimate path for her to gain the nomination, she simply refuses to see the writing on the wall. Thus, she appealed to the superdelegates on Wednesday for yet more time to defy the will of the electorate. It has been reported that Hillary's campaign is running badly in the red, so she's invested an additional 6 million dollars of her own money into her effort for the nomination, bringing her personal loan to the campaign to 11 million dollars. That has led to speculation that she is trying to hold out to strike a deal with Obama to both get reimbursement for her personal loan to the campaign, and also have Obama pay off her remaining debt in return for leaving the race. There is also speculation that she's trying to position herself for a spot on the Obama ticket as vice president. Many pundits suggest that Obama should accept either, or both deals with Hillary if they are indeed on the table. Their reasoning hinges on what they deem to be two very important considerations. First, having Hillary out of the race will clear the way for Obama to focus on John McCain, who has had a free ride thus far in the campaign. And secondly, pundits point to the result of several recent polls. Exit polls in Indiana indicate that half of Hillary Clinton supporters said they would not vote for Barack Obama if Hillary is forced out of the race. In addition, 70 percent of voters over 65 years of age voted for Hillary Clinton over Obama. It has been suggested, therefore, that an Obama/Clinton ticket in the general election would help Obama shore-up the demographic weaknesses in his campaign. But Obama supporters are not happy with either prospect, and his Black supporters are particularly unhappy with the suggestion of a possible deal. Obama's Black supporters point out that the Clinton campaign has repeatedly played the race card throughout the primaries, so why should their hard-earned political donations to Obama be used towards satisfying the very debt that Hillary incurred through the propagation of racial slander? They're also unhappy over the prospect of having someone on the ticket who is capable of such slander. In addition, many indicate that Hillary's irrational behavior in pursuit of the presidency causes them great concern over Barack Obama being the "one breath" between Hillary and the White House. The divisiveness of Hillary's campaign leaves Obama's White supporters also less than enthusiastic about using their political donations to satisfy her debt. They also point to the political baggage that Hillary would bring to the Democratic ticket. According to many Obama supporters, Hillary has not only forged a reputation for being disingenuous and lacking all credibility, but by recently joining McCain in calling for a "gas tax holiday", she's also defined herself as out of touch, and a pandering elitist. They feel, therefore, that having her on the ticket would undermine Obama's strongest argument against the Republicans–that they are out of touch, and pandering elitists. Then there's the issue of NAFTA and the hemorrhaging of American jobs out of the country. Obama supporters indicate that Republicans can make a strong argument that the current lack of jobs in the country is a direct result of NAFTA, an agreement that Bill Clinton signed into being and Hillary supported. They also point to the fact that even while Hillary was trying to distance herself from NAFTA during the primaries, Mark Penn, her top campaign adviser, was employed as a lobbyist for the Columbian government to create another free trade agreement just like it, or worse, which would take away even more American jobs. Republicans can also point out, as was pointed out in the Huffington Post, that in June 2005, Bill Clinton "was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America." The article went on to say that "The group's chief operating officer, Andres Franco, said in an interview that the group supports the congressional ratification of the free trade agreement and that, when Clinton was on his speaking tour, he expressed similar opinions." Republicans can also point to the matter of Hillary being ordered to testify in Los Angeles Superior Court in an FEC fraud case brought by California millionaire, Peter Paul. On April 25th Judge Munoz ruled that Hillary wouldn't have to testify until after the November election, but in making the highly unusual ruling, Judge Munoz remarked to David Kendall, Hillary's defense attorney, "Say hello to my friend, Bill." It doesn't matter whether the Clintons are actually guilty of any wrong doing or not--the circumstances surrounding the case, along with their lack of credibility, and the judges remarks gives the impression of both wrong doing and cronyism, a situation the Republicans will ride for all it's worth. But the bottom line is, most Obama supporters are former supporters of the Clintons, who at this point want nothing to do with either Bill or Hillary. Now that they see the Clinton propensity for lying, manipulation, and deceit to get what they want, these former supporters feel used. Their fondest wish, therefore, is that they could take back the loyalty and support that they vested in the Clintons in the past, but since that's not possible, they'll settle for just not having to feel like fools. But these former Clinton supporters are not just angry and disappointed, their anger is coached in the pain of watching the Clintons' single-minded lust for power cause a once highly respected couple to completely self-destruct. It feels like a personal failure. So even though it is now clear that they were wrong about the Clintons, sometimes it's more comforting to embrace a lie, than to have to face an ugly truth–an ugly truth that has forced them to watch what was thought to be a shining legacy, go down in flames. So at this point, what Obama supporters want more than anything else from the Clintons, is for them to simply, go away. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com     Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the entire world, as interpreted by Dr. Boyce Watkins, and some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World  www.yourblackworld.com/.  It's our piece of the net.

CLINTON CREDIBILITY: A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE CLINTON CREDIBILITY: A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS Why are Democrats tolerating Hillary Clinton's selfish juggernaut to destroy the Democratic Party? They're sitting around allowing their nomination process to be corrupted, then asking, "Why can't Obama close the deal?" Open your eyes, Democrats! The man is fighting Hillary, Bill, the entire Republican Party, plus Rush Limbaugh and the entire FOX news staff. No wonder Democrats can't win an election. The Republicans must be falling down backwards laughing at their stupidity. Isn't there anyone left with enough common sense to see that their acting as accessories to Hillary's collusion with the Republican Party to sabotage the November election? Even the corporate media couldn't avoid reporting the unprecedented numbers of Republicans that crossed over to vote democratic in the Pennsylvania primary. ABC news quoted Bill Meck, a Republican voter for 41 years, as saying, he crossed over to vote Democratic because, "I wanted to be a part of the choice." That's Republican shorthand for I wanted to choose the Democratic nominee. ABC news went on to report that "many new registrants spoke openly about changing their party affiliation to give McCain "a better shot in November." The report indicates that in Pennsylvania's Perry and Northumberland counties –"historically conservative, having voted for Bush in 2004 in wide margins"–officials said that many voters said they were crossing over to help the Republican Party. The report indicated that crossover voting was "proportionally large" this year, and "the pattern echoes the Republican crossovers in the run-up to the Texas and Ohio primaries." Thus, they are effectively invalidating the results of the remaining primaries. The Republicans are openly manipulating the Democratic Party's selection process. And Hillary Clinton not only realizes that, but is just as openly colluding with the Republicans to blackmail the Democratic Party. She's forcing the Democrats to either dance to her music, or face the prospect of a fractured party and a possible defeat in the November. Hillary's using the clout that's being gleefully provided to her by her Republican comrades as leverage in an attempt to completely overrule the Democratic National Committee, and the agreement that all Democratic candidates signed--including herself-- not to count the votes from Florida and Michigan for violating the Democratic Party's rules. But now using those very results, of the Florida and Michigan primaries, to claim that she's ahead in the popular vote–and that's in spite of the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. From Hillary's point of view, her collusion with the Republican Party is a win, win situation--it keeps her campaign viable in the primaries, and as she sees it, gives her two shots at becoming president. It gives her the time to damage Obama as much as possible. As a result, she concludes, she will render Obama so damaged that even if she doesn't get the nomination this year, Obama will lose in November, and she'll still be young enough to run again in 20012. The Republicans benefit from this arrangement because they desperately want to run against Hillary. They know that she's severely damaged goods. Sen. Obama is so clean that the Republicans know that the only way they can go after him is by trying to smear anyone that he's ever said good morning to. But they can easily show that Hillary has a propensity for lying, and thus, cannot be trusted. If Hillary became the nominee, the Republicans can show that she flat-out lied about the Bosnian incident, and then once she was caught in the lie, she told another lie about why she lied. In addition, even while she was telling middle-class workers whose jobs had been outsourced that she was against NAFTA, it was revealed that she not only supported NAFTA, but even as she was speaking, both her top campaign advisor, Mark Penn, and her husband, Bill, were being paid by the Colombian government to lobby for yet another such agreement on it's behalf. Then, after claiming to fire Mrk Penn, she simply took his name off the door. An further, they can show that Hillary's unethical conduct goes all the way back to the very beginning of her career. Jerry Zeifman, who employed Hillary while he was chief counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, indicated that he fired Hillary and refused to give her a letter of recommendation due to unethical behavior when she lied in a legal brief for the committee, and thereafter, attempted to cover it up by removing documents from the public domain. And now we find that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz has required Hillary Clinton to testify in a 1.2 million FEC civil fraud case brought against the Clintons by California Millionaire, Peter Paul. Judge Munoz ruled, however, that Hillary wouldn't have to testify until after the November election. In making the highly unusual ruling, Judge Munoz remarked to David Kendall, Hillary's defense attorney, Say hello to my friend, Bill. Yet, in light of all of this baggage, Hillary has gone before the American people, the Democratic Party, and the superdelegates and said, "I'm most electable." It has become abundantly clear that this lady doesn't even have a passing acquaintance with credibility, and it is past time for the superdelegates to bring this madness to an end. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the entire world, as interpreted by Dr. Boyce Watkins, and some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World www.yourblackworld.com/. It's our piece of the net.

JESUS WAS A LIBERAL

BENEATH THE SPIN ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. JESUS WAS A LIBERAL Well, November must be near, because the Republicans are already jumping into their swift boats. They desperately want to run against Hillary, but they've obviously determined that the Democratic nominee is going to be Obama, since they've already trotted out their designated lackey in the person of Kenneth Blackwell in the New York Sun. In his article, Beyond Obama's Beauty, Blackwell says, "We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender", then he immediately begins to attack Obama, the only Black candidate in the race. He then goes on to suggest that Sen. Obama may be the anti-Christ. It never ceases to amaze me how Democrats can allow conservative Republicans—a group whose only reason for being is to undermine the poor—to co-opt the love of God as a political issue. I once read a bumper sticker that said, "The Christian Right is neither Christian, nor Right." I remember thinking at the time, what a profoundly concise statement of fact--Shakespeare couldn't have said it any better. It's unbelievable what these thugs have done--they not only stole Christmas, they stole the Messiah himself. So instead of caving in to the conservative theft of Christianity, every Democrat in America should drive the truth about these demagogues home every time they opened their mouths to address the Christian community. They should use every opportunity to educate the people to the facts, and the fact is, Jesus Christ was a liberal--and according to his teachings, to be anything else, is less than Christian. Ok, I know--that sounds like a ridiculously partisan statement, and admittedly, I'm far from a Biblical scholar. In fact, I'm not even truly what most people would call a Christian--that is, unless they examined my heart. But I can read, and all the supernatural stuff notwithstanding, I am a great admirer of Jesus as a progressive, a teacher, and philosopher. So I stand by my position--Jesus Christ was a liberal, and I challenge any Biblical scholar in the world to prove me wrong. Let's take a look at the facts. The American Heritage Dictionary defines liberal as follows: Lib-ER-al adj. Abbr. Lib. 1. A. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. B. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. The only thing missing from that definition is a picture of Jesus Christ himself. Jesus was broad minded, free of bigotry, and tolerant of the ideas of others. He was also good-natured, and like any true liberal, he had compassion for the poor and an eye towards reforming the status quo. On the other hand, the Christian Right tends to base their theology on the condemnation of those with whom they disagree. Where Jesus' position was what can we do to make this a better world, the conservative position is what can we do to destroy those who refuse to love our world or leave it; and where Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", Pat Robertson says, pass me a rock. Jesus was focused on feeding the hungry and heeling the sick, where Bush, on the other hand, vetoed child healthcare in one breath, while demanding $192 billion for his war machine in the next. Christians? I don't think so. True Christians recognize that Jesus is interested in how we treat our fellow man. He could care less about whether we put "In God We Trust" on our money, or whether or not we put a nativity scene on the town square. That has nothing to do with Christianity. God doesn't need commercials--that's more about hypocrites trying to fool God, and man, into believing that they're Christians. But while they may fool man, they can't fool God, because he knows them by their deeds, or lack thereof. True Christians recognize that. They also recognize that the issue of prayer in school is also a non-issue--an issue promoted by chauvinistic personalities trying to force their will down the throats of others. After all, how can you prevent a person from praying in school? In addition, any thinking Christian knows that while they may not agree with same-sex unions, it is God, not they, who will judge whether or not gays have the right to love. True Christians recognize that all of these issues are designed to promote anger, dissension, and division, the very antithesis of Jesus' message to "Love thy neighbor." The people who promote these sort of issues are mean-spirited personalities who have become expert at hiding their bigoted proclivities within the Christian community. They pretend to be Christians so they can hide their prejudice, and penchant for demonizing others within a protective cocoon of spirituality. Claiming to be Christians allow them to say, "Oh, it's not me who hates Blacks, liberals, gays, Democrats, and everybody from Hollywood, Berkeley, and San Francisco, it's God. I can't help it if God hates everybody who don't look and think like I do." These kind of people have absolutely saturated the Christian community-- that's why the very same part of the country we refer to as the Bible Belt, just happens to also be the most racist, narrow-minded, and under-educated area in the entire United States. These are the people who refer to those who want to think for themselves as secular elitist--and if there's any doubt about my contention, just ask yourself, how was it at all possible for Christianity and rabid racism to exist in the very same environment. Then ask yourself, what group is most supportive of the murder and mayhem currently taking place in Iraq, and whether or not you think Jesus would join them in their frenzy. Thus, the Democrats should point out to the Christian community at every opportunity that there are demons among them. And liberals shouldn't be at all shy about pointing out that while the Christian Right are thumping their Bibles, they're simultaneously preaching and promoting policies that would be repulsive to Jesus Christ. Liberals also shouldn't be shy about pointing out any scandal that show these people for what they are, because the Christian community needs to recognize that these demons among them are undermining their mission, and everything that Jesus Christ stood for. They're giving all Christians a bad name. Many who might otherwise come to church are embarrassed to be seen in the company of these demagogues. In preparing this article it became immediately clear why conservatives are less than supportive of funding public education. Just a cursory glance through the Bible by any educated person--at least, any educated person who hasn't been brainwashed into to believing that he'll go to hell for thinking--will show that the Bible has but one theme, a theme that it repeats over and over again. The Ten Commandments says just about everything the Bible has to say—try to live a loving and honorable life. The demagogues take its many verses, however, and twist them out of context to make them say whatever they want them to say. But for anyone who wants the definitive word on how to be embraced by God, simply turn to Matthew 25:34--it lays it all out, plain and simple: "Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me." They then asked Jesus, When did we do all of that for you? And he replied, when you did it for the least of my brothers, you did it for me. Then he turned to the conservatives at his left hand and said: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not." The conservatives then asked, When did we refuse to feed, clothe, or visit you in the pen? He then pointed to the people on his right and said, when you failed to help the least of these, you failed to help me. Now the righteous will go into life eternal, and you will go into everlasting punishment. So I guess that just about says it all, Brother Bush. You may have been able to live in comfort after vetoing child healthcare within the shadow of Christmas, but let's see if you can boil in comfort, in the pits of Hell. Eric L. Wattree ewattree.blogspot.com   Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the entire world, as interpreted by Dr. Boyce Watkins, and some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World  www.yourblackworld.com/.  It's our piece of the net.