OKAY BLACK PEOPLE, LET'S ALL COME TOGETHER AND CUT OUR OWN THROATS - IT'S THE BLACK THING TO DO

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

OKAY BLACK PEOPLE,
LET'S REFUSE TO OPEN A HISTORY BOOK,

SPIT IN MARTIN LUTHER KING'S FACE,

AND ALL COME TOGETHER AND CUT OUR OWN THROATS.

IT'S THE BLACK THING TO DO - WE OWE IT TO OUR FORMER SLAVE MASTERS.
.

Brothers and sisters, let's get real for a moment here, because it's extremely important to our future. It's very likely that the next President of the United States is going to be determined by what the Black community does during the current primaries. But by the way things are currently playing out, it's beginning to look like the Black community is about to make the most tragic mistake in our entire history. While we've made mistakes before, this one could literally destroy our community, and our children's future.

.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS

THIS MAN, is an American hero.  For those of you who haven't taken the time to become familiar with him, his name is Bernie Sanders, and he's been fighting for the rights and dignity of Black people all of his life. He was engaged in the struggle for human dignity before many of you were born. In my recent article, Why Do I Support Bernie Sanders, I pointed out the following:
.
"Bernie Sanders first captured both my attention, and admiration, because he's a fighter, and his life is symbolic of the American struggle itself. Prior to the founding of this nation, America was a hopeless underdog, yet, it faced-down the mighty forces of England based on principle alone, and Bernie Sander’s entire life has been perfectly representative of that kind of courage. All of his life he’s been an underdog, yet he’s never given up on or wavered from the one solitary pursuit that has defined his existence - the fight for the freedom, justice, and equality that was guaranteed us all by the United States constitution. In spite of the fact that he’s been shunned, dismissed, and laughed at as being impractical and living with his head in the clouds, he’s managed to maintain the courage, dignity, and fortitude to face-down the mighty in the name of justice.

.

BERNIE SANDERS FIGHTING LIKE A MAD MAN

FOR BLACK PEOPLE IN 1963

"In the past Bernie’s been content to fight this battle alone, but now, for the first time in his life, and from seemingly out of nowhere, he’s gained a tsunami of grassroots support from an America that's aching for a change, yearning for justice, and feeling a fierce affinity for this little guy who refused to give up. That’s why Bernie supporters are so passionate, because we all want to feel like there’s a little bit of Bernie in us as well, and that we too have the courage and tenacity to stand firm in the face of impossible odds. So to us, this is much more than just a political campaign; we’re Bernie’s cavalry, and this is a crusade, for good over evil."

.
On the other hand, in 1964 Hillary Clinton was working for Barry Goldwater who pledged to abolish the Civil Rights Act if elected. And in college she not only joined, but became the PRESIDENT, of The Young Republicans.
.

Bill Called Trump Just Weeks Before Trump Entered

The Race and told Trump, he “was striking a chord with

frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.”

Thereafter, she married the man who later created the prison industrial complex, and was DIRECTLY responsible for the mass incarceration of Black people. And if that wasn’t enough, the prison industrial complex became one of Hillary’s biggest contributors. And how’s this for gall?  Now that the Clintons are trying to get BACK into the White House, Bill went before the NAACP and tried to apologize for creating the prison industrial complex in the first place.
.
But wait, there’s more. When Hillary was running against Barack Obama in 2008, while trying to get Ted Kennedy's support for Hillary, Bill told Kennedy,  “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.”  Those are not the words of a man who has any respect, or regard, for Black people; those are the words of a Dixiecrat - a White Southern politician behind closed doors, and that's exactly what Bill is. 
.

BILL CLINTON ENJOYING A CASUAL GAME OF GOLF

WITH DONALD TRUMP

And then finally, in addition to all that, and much more, there's strong evidence that Hillary Clinton tried to ‘dog-whistle’ the assassination of Barack Obama when she began losing to him in 2008. That should be the main topic of discussion during this primary, but it was such an horrific and unconscionable act that people don't even want to try to wrap their heads around it. But view the link and video below and then ask yourself what you think.
.
DID HILLARY CLINTON TRY TO 'DOG-WHISTLE' BARACK OBAMA'S ASSASSINATION?

.
SO TELL ME - WHY ARE SO MANY BLACK PEOPLE SUPPORTING SUCH A WOMAN!!!?

.

.

Eric L. Wattree
http://wattree.blogspot.com/
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
.
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

DID HILLARY CLINTON TRY TO 'DOG-WHISTLE' BARACK OBAMA'S ASSASSINATION?

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

DID HILLARY CLINTON TRY TO 'DOG-WHISTLE' BARACK OBAMA'S ASSASSINATION?

.

POLITISPEAK FOR 

YOU'RE STILL A BARRY GOLDWATER REPUBLICAN,

RIGHT DOWN TO THE REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS - 

AND WHAT'S A "NEW DEMOCRAT?"

Once Hillary Clinton became desperate over her all but certain loss to Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries, she began to continually allude to the assassination of Robert Kennedy during the 1968 primary. She kept repeating that "Calling all wingnuts!" 'dog whistle' as justification for why she didn't simply get out of the race.
.
But the mere mention of this episode seem to drive Clinton supporters up the wall. They say it’s "water under the bridge," and others try to make light of it as though I’m some sort of crazy conspiracy theorist - "Was Hillary also responsible for the sinking of the Lusitania, and by the way, where's her birth certificate?" But the fact is, this issue is not funny, and it can't just be fluffed off as water under the bridge. It should be seriously examined, because it strongly suggests that there's a very dark sociopath lurking beneath Hillary’s public facade.
.
What made Hillary's remarks seem much more malevolent than a simple gaffe was, as pointed out in a Keith Olbermann commentary below, someone had obviously told her that her mention of the word "assassination" was inappropriate, since Sen. Obama had been receiving death threats every since the day he threw his hat in the ring to run for president, so Hillary stopped using the word - temporarily. But as her situation became more dire and it was all but certain that she was going to lose to Sen. Obama, she began using the word "assassination" again.
.
And later, on May 11th 2008, 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 how much farther did they have to go, say, "Calling all wingnuts! If somebody - ANYBODY - doesn't hurry up and kill this guy America could end up with a Black man for president!!!?"
.
So why did President Obama make Hillary his Secretary of State? That’s very simple. Obama had the good sense to understand that he needed to heal the rift within the Democratic Party so he threw her a bone. But while Bill was pushing for Hillary to be made Vice President, Obama had much better sense than to place her one heartbeat away from the presidency, because there’s one thing Barack has never been accused of, and that’s being a fool.
.
But this episode clearly shows that Hillary Clinton would do ANYTHING, no matter how horribly unconscionable, to appease her own ambition, and that's not a good thing in any leader. It also shows that while Hillary saw fit to change her party to accommodate her ambition, she’s more than managed to maintain her Republican instincts - she has absolutely no hesitation to play dirty politics, and she also lacks a sense of limits. Those are distinctly Republican traits. 
.
Hillary is quoted as saying, "I’ve gone from Barry Goldwater Republican to a new Democrat, but I think my underlying values has remained pretty constant; individual responsibility and community. I don’t see those as being mutually inconsistent."
.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HILLARY CLINTON IS -

PART OF THE PROBLEM

That sounds innocuous enough - who can be against personal responsibility and community? But it’s actually politispeak, a coded message to her corporate supporters that says, "the people are on their own." Those exact words - "individual responsibility and community" - are a major part of the Republican mantra; they could have come from the mouth of Paul Ryan. It's a coded slander of Black people (like "welfare queen"), and it implies that anyone who expects government assistance - like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits or extended unemployment insurance - lacks personal responsibility. But what about corporate responsibility? "About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006" - and one of Hillary's staunchest corporate supporters, Walmart, is one of the biggest corporate "welfare queens" in the country.
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/
.
So as is clearly demonstrated in this very article, one should listen to Hillary Clinton very carefully, because she's always been big on subliminal messaging, and she’s extremely condescending toward the average American. She thinks we’re dumb, and unfortunately, many of us are. Why didn’t Hillary simply say, I’ve gone from Barry Goldwater Republican to a Democrat? Instead she said a "NEW Democrat." It’s quite simple - because in the code of politispeak they have two very different meanings. So what does Hillary mean by a "new Democrat?" I took the time to look it up for its exact meaning:
.

According to Wikipedia, "New Democrats, also called Centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats, Moderate Democrats, or Neoliberal Democrats, is an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election . . . The New Democrat Coalition is a Congressional Member Organization within the United States Congress made up of Democrats who support an agenda that the organization describes as moderate and pro-growth."
.
So it's Hillary's intent to come over from the Republican Party and redefine what it means to be a Democrat. She wants to push the party to the right so it will be more accommodating to the corporate agenda (or 1%ers), which also means, less accommodating to the people. Isn't that already the problem? Most liberals prefer the old Democrats, like Ted Kennedy and, yes, Bernie Sanders, who fight for the people. So liberal Democrats need to send a clear and unequivocal message by using the primaries to get rid of these so-called "New Democrats," because all they are, are just like Hillary - Corpora-Crats feigning to be Democrats in Democratic districts.
.

The fact is, both Bill, and Hillary, are Republicans in drag - and they always have been. While they talk and act liberal, whenever they walk away, they always tend to leave Republican policies behind, like NAFTA, that laid the foundation to outsource American jobs. They also managed to cut the throats of many poor Black, and White, welfare recipients and unskilled workers while in office.
.
"Clinton has been heavily criticized for overseeing the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which made it more affordable for manufacturing companies to outsource jobs to foreign countries and then import their product back to the United States. This policy caused a significant decrease in the amount of unskilled jobs in the United States." But When Clinton  signed NAFT into law (with a Republican majority), he said, "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement).  Nevertheless, we see how it turned out.
.
So the fact is, Hillary, just like Bill, cannot be trusted. At the very least, she’s a fiscal conservative, and the only thing that she truly cares about is her own unquenchable ambition. Her every action is staged to manipulate "the little people," and if you pay close attention, you'll notice that even when she laughs it sounds forced and disingenuous.
.
Consider this. At seventeen years old she was working for the Barry Goldwater campaign, who pledged that if elected he would abolish the Civil Rights Act. Then in college she was not just a member of the "Young Republicans," she was their PRESIDENT!
.

Hillary supporters claim that’s all irrelevant. They claim that she was only a child at the time. But when carefully considered, that makes it even more relevant. A teenager generally merely "leans" toward a particular political philosophy, but not Hillary. Hillary was so dedicated to the conservative Republican philosophy that she actually got involved in Barry Goldwater’s campaign before she was even old enough to vote, and then later in college - while most left-leaning students were demonstrating against the Vietnam war, and protesting for Civil and women’s rights - she was the president of the "Young Republicans." That not only showed a deep commitment, but a deep dedication to conservatism.
.
Her supporters also try to fluff that off by saying, "Well, people change." While that may be true, people rarely change a commitment that is as deeply ingrained in them as the commitment that Hillary demonstrated toward Republicanism. One’s politics is much like one's religion - most people carry their predisposition to the grave, and there are many indications that Hillary is also doing just that, like joining forces with the neocons in her support for the invasion of Iraq, and her appeal to the "hard-working White people" during her 2008 campaign against Obama, and her cozy relationship with the corporate 1%ers. In addition, during her 2008 campaign against Obama, while trying to get Ted Kennedy’s support, it was reported by the New Yorker that Bill Clinton said to Kennedy regarding Barack Obama, "A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags." True progressives don’t talk like that. He was sounding just like a White Southern politician behind closed doors - which is exactly what he was, and is - dark glasses and saxophone notwithstanding.  They don't call him "Slick Willie" for nothing.
.

Another indication of Hillary’s conservative predisposition could be observed in her behavior during her first high-profile position on the Board of Directors of Walmart. While she was in that position Walmart was undercutting labor unions, paying their workers slave-like wages, and discriminating against women by paying them less than they paid men for doing the same job, and Hillary didn’t say a word. The reason for that was simple - it wasn’t convenient for her to speak out at the time. Speaking out on behalf of women and the working class wouldn’t do anything to promote her ambition. It was a zero sum gain, and Hillary is not motivated by conviction; she's motivated by self-interest. But all of a sudden - now that she needs the votes of the working class - she’s trying to portray herself as a gladiator for the people, but that’ll only last until she gets into office. Then it’ll be business as usual - paying back political favors (like the $25,000 campaign donation that she received from Walmart), and building up future credits with other corporate elites for her next campaign.
.

A NO-LOSE ELECTION FOR CORPORATE ELITES
.
BILL 'SLICK WILLIE' CLINTON CALLS TRUMP

"A new Washington Post report reveals that Bill Clinton and Donald Trump had a private phone call weeks before Trump got in the presidential race, in which the former president reportedly “encouraged” Trump’s political efforts.
.
"Yes, this new report today from Robert Costa and Anne Gearan has people close to Trump and Clinton confirming they spoke some time in May.
.
"There was apparently no talk specifically of 2016, but the former president reportedly “encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party.” And while Clinton never explicitly encouraged The Donald to run against his wife, he also said Trump “was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.” http://www.mediaite.com/online/bill-clinton-and-trump-had-private-phone-call-weeks-before-trumps-2016-announcement/

.

So has Hillary Clinton really changed since her younger days of Republican activism? I don’t think so. I think that as an ambitious young woman of the sixties she saw what direction the wind was blowing. Thereafter, she made the cynical decision to switch parties in order to accommodate her ambition - Period.

.

.

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.

Sphere: Related Content

The Massachusetts Disaster

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

The Massachusetts Disaster

I find myself quoting my own material quite a bit here lately, not because I'm trying to prove myself a prophet or some sort of self-proclaimed intellectual giant, but just to prove that if one looks at what's actually happening in America instead of simply what one wants to see, or what is politically comfortable, the facts are clear - America is waste deep in a class war, and the poor and middle class are losing badly.

The reason that we're losing so badly is that the corporate interests in this country are keeping us distracted by deluding us into thinking we're still fighting the last war - race.  But the fact is, corporations don't give a damn about race. As I've mentioned before, in this new economy of the new world order, where corporate competitors all over the world have people working for pennies a day, corporations can't afford the luxury of being concerned about race. All they care about is making money - and that means doing whatever they have to do to degrade the living standards of an expensive U.S. middle class.

So the fact is, if you're White, poor, and uneducated (and with the rapid rise in the cost of education, that'll soon include most of you), you're considered latter-day "coons." And if we don't all wake up soon, The Aryan Brotherhood, Black Nationalists, and Mexican Mafia are going to be FORCED to come together, because we'll all be picking grapes in the very same field - at least those who aren't fortunate enough to get the better-paying, underpaid jobs, as cannon fodder for the military.

That brings us to this latest race for the late Ted Kennedy's seat in the senate. Even after all of the pain, mayhem, and corruption that the Republican Party has brought upon the American people over the past decade, Massachusetts, one of the most Democratic states in the union, has handed the seat of the Democratic Lion of the Senate over to a Republican, Scott Brown. Then, if that's not bad enough, since it has a direct impact on healthcare reform (Sen. Kennedy's lifelong passion),  they've slapped the memory of Ted Kennedy directly in the face in the process.

The results of that election was not only horrific, but an absolute disgrace. But at the same time, it serves perfectly to demonstrate the perfection of the corporate strategy of disinformation, the electronic programming of our minds, and the undermining of the American educational system. But if liberals and progressives would stop trying to rationalize this election away and recognize it for what it is, it could serve as a blessing in disguise.

The Democrats can spin the Massachusetts loss any way they like - they can attribute it to local politics, a bad campaign, or a bad candidate. But the bottom line is, the Democrats lost the Massachusetts election because they failed to turn out their base, and the reason for that is, they haven't given the Democratic base any reason to turn out.

Liberals have to realize that they can't simply sit around waiting for a political Messiah - WE are the Messiah. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out, "God helps those who help themselves (No, it's not in the Bible)."  Yet, instead of remaining focused on the issues, many on the left are arguing over whether or not criticizing President Obama for failing to address a given issue might be serving to help the Republicans.  Those who make that argument seem to forget that the president works for us, not the reverse, and if he wants to serve himself well, and get from point A to point B,  he'd better jump onboard OUR train, since the only transportation he has is what we give him.

It's the people's job to remain focused on the issues that we want addressed. That's the way it works. American politics is designed to allow the people to promote the policies that they desire. We then tell the politicians what WE want. The politician then goes on to promote his career by effectively establishing and/or addressing those policies to OUR satisfaction.  When the people fail to ensure that concept is firmly established, you get a Joe Lieberman.

Sure, we want our favorite politicians to remain viable, but that's up to them, based on how well they addresses our issues.  Thus, they exist for us, not the reverse.  After all, what good does any politician do us if he or she is ignoring our agenda. The Republicans understand that. That's why they have control over their representatives - no Liebercrats over there. But the Democrats still seem to be having a problem with this concept, and that's why they're losing their base.

So while I greatly admire Obama, and I'm very proud to have him as our president, I never allow myself to forget that he is also an employee - and neither should any other Democrat. When America voted him into office, we voted for CHANGE; a new direction. And considering what we had previously, by definition, that meant, a progressive agenda that entailed a strict adherence to the rule of law and equal justice for all.

But the fact is - even though Obama may have saved the world from another Great Depression, which I'm sure all sane people appreciate immensely - change is not what I see. When President Obama announced that he wanted to "look forward instead of backward" with regard to addressing the issue of the hundreds of thousands of people killed and maimed by the Bush Administration and our corporatocracy, that didn't indicate change. That shouted, "business as usual!" - and that concerns me greatly.

That was a defining moment in his presidency. It was a point where he may not have lost, but greatly alienated, a huge segment of his base - and I'm convinced that it contributed greatly to the Democratic base failing to turn out in the Massachusetts election. They've lost their hope for change, and along with that, that enthusiasm that brought tears to the eyes of people all over the world during his inauguration.

While the economy and healthcare reform are very important issues in the immediate political environment, those issues will be dealt with in due course. But the rule of law, and the concept that NO ONE in America is above the law, goes directly to the heart of what this country represents.  That concept determines what kind of nation America is going to be - FOREVER.  And history will reflect it, literally, as the 3 a.m. call of Obama's presidency.

And the irony is, they always seem to let these criminals off the hook "for the good of the country." If Nixon had gone to jail for Watergate, Reagan never would have committed treason by selling arms to the enemy during Iran/contra, or flooding our inner cities with drugs (which the nation is still suffering the effects of today) in order to circumvent congress' Boland amendment. And if Reagan had been jailed for those offenses, Bush never would have lied to the American people to drag us into the lawless invasion of Iraq - which ultimately led to the death and maiming of thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

And notice how each circumvention of the law has become progressively worse, and the resulting mayhem has become progressively more egregious. In the case of the Bush administration, we've gotten to the point of blatant war crimes, concentration camps, torture, a Big Brother-type spying network on Americans, a total disregard for American troops, and a direct assault on the United States Constitution. Yet, President Obama says he wants to look forward and not back?

Mr. President, I like you a lot, but even a caveman would have to question your judgment on this issue. You're a Constitutional lawyer, and surely not crazy. If we allow Bush and Cheney to get away with these horrific assaults on the American rule of law, what will the next group of scoundrels do to us? What do they have to do to us before we get the point? The Supreme Court has just outlawed democracy, and the corporations have already established a private army in Blackwater/Xe - we could literally end up having warlords in this country!

So today we suspend the rule of law to absolve Bush-Cheney, then to prosecute terrorists, then Muslims, then Black Muslims, then Black people, and then finally, poor people in general who fail to follow the "party line."

When you assured us of "change" during your campaign this was THE major issues that brought you so much enthusiastic support. But now, considering your position on this matter, many of those very same supporters are wondering what could you possibly be thinking to make you cave-in on such an important issue as war crimes.

I don't know what you're hearing from your "experts" in Washington, but I'm virtually certain that if you'd been aggressively addressing the rule of law against war crimes instead of letting Cheney thumb his nose at you on Fox News every other week, we would have elected another Democratic senator from the state of Massachusetts.

And who knows, perhaps with the application of justice and accountability, you might have even made us a little safer. Perhaps, one or two potential terrorists might have thought, "Maybe the Americans aren't 'The Great Satans' we thought they were."


Eric L. Wattree

wattree.blogspot.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.

Sphere: Related Content