WHY AM I OBSESSED WITH THE CLINTONS - BECAUSE THEY'RE THE WALKING EMBODIMENT OF HOW THE ARROGANCE AND GREED OF THE 1%ERS IS DESTROYING AMERICA
BILL CLINTON CASUALLY COMMITTING A BLATANT
ACT OF ELECTION FRAUD, AND THUMBING HIS NOSE
AT THE VERY LAWS THAT MLK DIED FOR.
Those who assume they’re above the law also think they’re above the people, and that’s clearly the case with the Clintons. The Clintons are not being picked on as some people claim; they’re simply repeatedly circumventing the law with impunity. Just because a criminal gets away with his or her crime doesn’t mean they’re not criminals. A criminal is one who commits crimes, even if they haven’t been convicted.
.
There's ample evidence of the Clinton's gross disrespect for this nation's laws, and thus, the people of this country. Their Blatant flaunting of the of the Voting Rights Act in Massachusetts and in other parts of this country are a case in point, and the many allegations of election fraud (with lawsuits pending) also highlights their flagrant disregard for this nation's laws. Their attitude seems to be that laws are for the "little people." Bill Clinton's pardons while in office also clearly demonstrates the double standard that they adhere to with respect to the law. So as I've said many times before, contrary to the belief of many people, I'm not against the Clintons because I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter; I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter because I'm so passionately against the Clintons.
Marc Rich - A fugitive who had fled the U.S. during his prosecution, was residing in Switzerland. Rich owed $48 million in taxes and was charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, was pardoned of tax evasion. He was required to pay a $1 million fine and waive any use of the pardon as a defense against any future civil charges that were filed against him in the same case. Critics complained that Denise Eisenberg Rich, his former wife, had made substantial donations to both the Clinton library and to Mrs. Clinton's senate campaign. According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels (640,000 m3) of oil.[23] Longtime Clinton supporters and Democratic leaders such as former President Jimmy Carter, James Carville and Terry McAuliffe, were all critical of the Clinton pardon.
. Susan McDougal - Who had already completed her sentence, was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal. McDougal had served the maximum possible 18 months, including eight in solitary confinement, on contempt charges for refusing to testify about Clinton's role.
. Mel Reynolds - A Democratic Congressman from Illinois, was convicted of bank fraud, 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography. His sentence was commuted on the bank fraud charge and he was allowed to serve the final months under the auspices of a halfway house. Reynolds had served his entire sentence on child sex abuse charges before the commutation of the later convictions. Jimmy Carter said the pardons were "disgraceful."
. Harvey Weinig - a former Manhattan lawyer who was sentenced in 1996 to 11 years in prison for facilitating an extortion-kidnapping scheme and helping launder at least $19 million for the Cali cocaine cartel.
. Roger Clinton - The president's half-brother, was pardoned for drug charges after having served the entire sentence more than a decade earlier.
.
In March 2000, Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of the carnival company United Shows International, for charges of bank fraud from a 1982 conviction. Although the couple had already been released from prison, the prior conviction prevented them from doing business in certain American states. First LadyHillary Clinton's youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was an acquaintance of the Gregorys, and had lobbied Clinton on their behalf.[14] In October 2006, the group Judicial Watch filed a request with the U.S. Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had received $107,000 from the Gregorys for the pardons in the form of loans that were never repaid, as part of a quid pro quo scheme.
.
Again, President Jimmy Carter said the pardons were "disgraceful."
* HILLARY CLINTON'S SPECIAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW
With respect to Hillary’s mishandling of national security documents, Wikipedia points out that “Gross negligence is legally culpable [indictable] carelessness that shows a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, and likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm. The difference between "negligence" and "gross negligence" may be subjective since it is a matter of degree . . . Under common law, criminal negligence is defined as a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care. This is a higher standard than ordinary negligence under tort law.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_negligence
.
Now, let's take a look at this "reasonable standard of care." If you or I worked for the State Department and put classified information on our private computer at home, we would not only lose our security clearance (which would rule out becoming president), but we would also go to prison. So what they've taken great pains to carefully avoid getting into is WHY Hillary Clinton went to the trouble, and great expense, of hiring a personal IT expert to build a private server, and then put him on salary to maintain it, instead of simply using the secured State Department computer that she was provided and was mandated for her use. So what the Republican congress is going to ask - and in the middle of the general election - is why did her IT expert, Bryan Pagliano, find it necessary to take the 5th amendment over 125 times in a 2 hour deposition? What was he worrying about incriminating himself of? And if they provide him with immunity, he's going to have to answer that question - or go to jail like Susan McDougal did while trying to protect the Clintons in the Whitewater scandal.
.
And then there's whether or not Hillary Clinton engaged in obstruction of justice. Hillary testified before congress that she turned over all of her work-related emails. The FBI says that she didn't, and there's no way of knowing how much of her other "work-related" email was deleted. Out of 62,320 emails she only turned over 30,490. She deleted 31,830. How do we know what was on those emails that she deleted? We don't. If it were you are I and they asked us to turn over our emails and we only gave less than half, we would be charged with obstruction of justice. If she wanted to keep her private email private, she should have used her private computer for her private communications, and the State Department computer for work-related email. But since she didn't see fit to do that, when they asked for her email, she was required to give them ALL of it - in fact, they would have just shown up at our house and confiscated the computer, and server. That was the purpose of her maintaining a private server in the first place, so she could reveal only what she wanted to reveal, and that was a clear obstruction of justice right there.
.
So what we’re looking at in the Clinton case is not only a double standard, but a gross violation of the Constitutional prescription of “Equal Protection,” or as the Supreme Court has interpreted it, “Equal Justice Under The Law” - and that’s EXACTLY what the people of this country are fighting so passionately to bring to an end, the double standard in the administration of justice - one standard for the oligarchs and their surrogates, and another for the average American. And what are the chances that a president who has repeatedly benefited from this double standard would bring it to an end? - virtually nil, because the system works to their advantage.
.
The very system that is protecting Hillary Clinton from prosecution has disseminated down to the average street cop, who is the surrogate of the system. It’s allowing the rogues among them to shoot our children down in the street with either complete impunity, or a slap on the wrist. It’s this very same system and philosophy - that there are those who are above the law, and those who just don’t count - that makes Black lives not matter. So America needs to wake up - and especially Black people - because when a child is lying in street gasping for his last breath after his body has been riddled with bullets from the gun of some racist cop with a sense of entitlement, it’s too late to start shaking our fists then. NOW is the time to address this issue, instead of trying to protect the massas’ privilege - “Missy, I don’t know what’s wrong wit dem blind and ungrateful coons. Dey tryin’ to keep us out the White House. I don’t know why dey don’t see how good you been to us! But I sho do.” Well, let me tell you why.
I’ve had Black people tell me that I seem to be obsessed with Hillary Clinton. You’re damn right I’m obsessed. David Duke and the Klan hasn’t done a fraction of the harm to the Black community as Bill and Hillary Clinton, and now, to see uninformed Black people - including the Congressional Black Caucus - rally around Hillary Clinton is a disgusting thing to watch, and I’m not even a militant Black man. I can only imagine how the truly militant among us are looking at the current level of Black stupidity. It’s like we’re back in the 19th Century. I was under the mistaken impression that we were moving forward, but this Clinton episode has convinced me that we haven’t learned a damn thing - it was Black people who put Hillary over the top!!! So it’s no wonder why Black people are simply dismissed in this country. If we don’t have sense enough to protect our own interest, why should anyone else even bother to try?
.
Once Bill and Hillary Clinton decided they wanted to get back into the White House, Bill went, hat-in-hand, to apologized to the NAACP for his draconian crime bill - a bill that he conceded put far too many Black people in prison for far too long. But what he failed to concede was that he paid the states EXTRA to give these prisoners longer sentences. He also failed to point out that those who were being imprisoned were victims of HIS crime of colluding with Ronald Reagan to flood the Black community with crack cocaine in order to fund Reagan’s illegal war in Nicaragua after congress defunded it with the Boland Amendment. And finally, he failed to point out that the very same prison industrial complex that he created when he became president to incarcerate the victims of HIS crime was one of Hillary’s biggest political contributors - at least, until she decided to run for office. And think about this - he did this AFTER Black people sold blood to get him elected. Black people lovingly referred to him as “Our first Black president.” Oh, Really!!!?
.
So Black people need to wake up, and begin make being knowledgeable and informed the new definition of what it means to be cool, because just being cool don’t seem to be gettin’ us over. And another thing - we need to stop rolling over and purring to have our tummies scratched by White folks. That too, is a disgusting thing to watch.
.
.
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.
There are many in the mainstream media who don’t take writers and journalists outside the mainstream, and corporately controlled, media seriously. In fact, they consider us presumptuous to even have the audacity to offer a considered opinion. A few years back, Chris Matthews made the remark on his show, Hardball, that "I don't consider them [progressive bloggers] Democrats. I consider them Netroots. And if I see they vote in every election, or most elections, then I'll be worried. But I'm not sure they're regular, grown-up Democrats. I think a lot of these people are troublemakers who love to sit in the back seat and complain. They're not interested in governing this country. They never ran for office, they're not interested in working for someone in public office. They get their giggles out of sitting in the back seat and bitching."
.
In response, Markos Moulitsas, founder and spiritual leader of the very popular website, Daily Kos, set that loudmouth gasbag straight, very effectively, and in no uncertain terms. He pointed out the following:
.
"In 2003, when Bush landed his plane in the aircraft carrier, and spoke in front of the banner that said, 'Mission Accomplished,' Chris Matthews had an entire show based on that event, and he said everybody knows that we won the war, except a few critics. Well, I was one of those few critics. People like me in the Netroots were some of those critics. And it turns out that we were right and the Beltway conventional wisdom was wrong. And once again, we're in a situation where people like Chris Matthews don't learn from these mistakes. They're trapped in this bubble and they think that they know better."
.
And he handled Tom Tancredo several weeks earlier with the very same finesse. He literally ran Tancredo off the Ed Show, and again, without busting so much as a sweat bubble. The reason he doesn't have to raise his voice, is because he's confronting Washington hypocrisy with facts and courage - something that the mainstream media seems to have lost. The mainstream media has degenerated into cheerleaders with an unspoken agreement not to step outside the approved parameters of the status quo. Then Moulitsas is that guy who shows up at the dinner party with a crude but unyielding truth: "No, that's not a bad egg - somebody farted." That's who bloggers are, and that's exactly what America needs.
.
When I started writing over two decades ago, a serious journalist could pick and choose what publications he or she wanted to contribute to, but many of those resources have dried up as the corporate media has consumed and sucked all of the air out of the free press in order to dumb down America and propagate their conservative, self-serving, and narrow point of view. That’s why you’ll find some of the oldest and most prestigious publications in America begging for donations over the internet just to stay afloat.
.
So serious, objective, and conscientious bloggers represent the new face of the American press. We’re what mainstream reporters and columnists USED to be - remember those old-school reporters of the 30's and 40's in the rumpled suits, a crumpled hat, and a pencil behind their ear? Those are who serious bloggers are today. Those bigshots who sit on plush sets in flawlessly tailored suits, and who never ask the hard questions or follow up, they're not journalists, they're corporate hacks.
.
So we’ve got to learn to listen to one another, do our own research for the facts, and most important of all, learn to think for ourselves. We've got to redefine journalism in this country. So seek out those bloggers that you find to be trustworthy and credible, and then support their blogs. That way, YOU choose who you want to place your trust in, not some executive directed by Wall Street.
.
If we fail to do those things we’re lost, because there’s a new paradigm at work in this country today that many of us haven’t caught on to yet. We’re used to a situation where it’s Blacks against Whites, Jews against Gentiles, gays against straights, and so on. But in today’s world there’s only two factions, at least to the ruling class - the 1%ers against the working class. And as I write this, only five (5) corporations control 90% of all of the information that we consume, so we’re being drenched in corporate propaganda. They’re telling us what is acceptable, what’s not acceptable, who to like, and who not to like - and they have absolutely no compunction against sending your children off to die in order to fatten their bank accounts. They’ve already done it in Iraq. So we should keep these facts in mind - especially Black people when they sit their children in front of the sillyvision to be mesmerized. The mass media is teaching Black children that it is their role in life to be criminals, drug addicts, and at the very bottom of society.
WOULD BUSH'S SABER RATTLE AS LOUDLY AGAINST CHINA?
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 (no one else would publish it at the time) that said the following:
.
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 Saddam Hussain have to do with 9-11? Absolutely nothing. Evidence of that can be found in the fact that if Saddam 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, he 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 reelected.
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 represents.
.
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.
***
Could Obama Fall Victim to a Change We Can't Believe in?
At this point Obama's presidency could go either way - he can either become one of the greatest presidents this country has ever known, or go down as an exciting experiment that went bad. It's all up to how he handles the expectations of Independents.
The biggest problem that Obama currently faces is becoming a victim of his own effectiveness. During the campaign he raised the nation's expectation so high that just being a good president won't do. He promised a change that we can believe in, which led many of us to believe that he intended to trash the way business is done in Washington, but that promise seems to be totally inconsistent with what seems to be his irrepressible desire to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the very Republican leaders from which we wanted a change.
This has fueled the growing suspicion by many that both parties are beholding to the same cabal of power, and only feign having differing philosophies toward governance. That suspicion lies very close to the surface for many Independents - after all, that's why they're Independents in the first place.
And President Obama hasn't helped himself in that regard. For a man who is ordinarily so politically astute, even before he became president he did a curious flip-flop on the FISA issue. According to Greenchange.org,on October 24, 2007, Bill Burton of the Obama campaign indicated, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But by June 20, 2008, Obama issued a statement reversing his position, indicating that our national security needs were more important than his objections.
That deeply disappointed many Independents, since a citizen's right to sue a telecommunications company for invading his or her privacy in violation of the law has nothing to do with national security. Those are the very constitutional rights that we're trying to keep secure. But while many Independents have kept that in mind, at least Obama had the integrity to take that stand prior to our making the decision on whether or not to vote for him.
But then once he was elected President, Obama made another curious statement with regard to the criminal activities and alleged war crimes committed by the Bush administration. In spite of the fact that there are strong allegations and prima facie evidence of torture, and some of the most unconscionable violations of the Geneva Convention since the Nuremberg trials, President Obama stated that he wanted to move the nation forward, and not look back.
Many Independents have two problems with that. First of all, President Obama seems much too willing to move forward with regard to the fat cats, while lower-ranking personnel are rotting in prison. That's in direct conflict with the American ideal of equal justice under the law. And secondly, since most of these atrocities were committed against the citizens of other nations, it is the height of arrogance for us to be "the deciders" of whether or not those responsible should be held accountable. That also runs contrary to American ideals, and the concept of "a shining city on the hill."
And now we're talking about sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. The question is, why? The nation has yet to be provided with a reasonable explanation of why we should be meddling, once again, in another country's internal affairs. One would think we would have learned something about the futility of that by now. It's a recipe for disaster.
There's only two legitimate reasons to have our troops in that part of the world. The first is obvious - to make damn sure the nuclear missiles in Pakistan don't fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. The second reason is to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. So why can't we simply pull out of Afghanistan and deploy enough troops in Pakistan to protect the missiles, then let the CIA and law enforcement deal with Osama? That way we save both treasure and lives, and we're not creating more enemies for the United States by killing innocent people.
But many Independents suspect that there's another agenda afoot. Actually, Cheney's giving it away. Independents recognize that Dick Cheney has absolutely no integrity, so when he gets passionate over an issue we know to follow either the money or power. Thus, many Independents suspect that what's actually behind Cheney's insistence that we go recklessly rushing into Afghanistan has much more to do with Halliburton's bottom line than it does America's best interest. And while Obama has shown himself to be an excellent president in many ways, his one shortcoming - and a shortcoming that may very well bring him down in the end - is his tendency to try to appease the stupidity and greed of the GOP.
The President needs to recognize that there is nothing he can do that's going to make him acceptable to the GOP - that is, unless he agrees to appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. By now it should be clear that even while he's asleep, the GOP is trying to hatch plans to destroy him. So by spending more time thinking about them than he is his base, he's playing right into their hands.
I mentioned power as one of the reasons that Cheney's trying to rush the president into Afghanistan. I wonder if the president has considered the fact that Cheney just might be trying to get him to make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan that the Bush Administration made in Iraq in order to take the Iraq issue off the table for the 2012 election? If during the 2012 campaign America is bogged down in Afghanistan with the useless death of thousands of U.S. troops, all of a sudden, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP won't look all that bad. The president should think about that possibility, since the machinations of Dick Cheney makes Machiavelli look like a trainee.
On the other hand, if the president would have the CIA go after Osama Bin Laden (through the use of intelligence, instead of blindly shooting at rocks), then pull out of Afghanistan, and make an agreement with the government of Pakistan to help them protect their nuclear arsenal, he'll be looking pretty good in 2012, and he won't have the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops to have to justify.
And he'd look even better if he allowed Attorney General Holder to do his job with respect to the Bush administration's war crimes. First, he'd firm up his base by restoring their confidence that he stands for the rule of law, and he would also allay the fear that he might be a puppet, controlled by some powerful cabal.
Another upside to that is that once Holder begins his investigation into the Bush administration, there's absolutely no doubt that he's going to find criminality, cronyism, and corruption seeping so deep within the GOP that Republicans will be so busy snitching on one another, and covering their own asses, that they won't have the time to plot against either him, or the American people.
Now, THAT, would be a change that we could believe in.
. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney squandered over $3 trillion of taxpayer funds "chasing" Osama Bin Laden. President Obama brought him down with 2 helicopters and 2 detachments of Navy Seals. If Bush had done that he'd be on Mt. Rushmore today, but the mainstream media all but ignored what Obama had accomplished. .
***
An Open Response to Halliburton's Demand That I make A retraction
Ms. Gabriel,
I’m writing in response to your June 23rd request for an immediate correction to a statement made regarding the Halliburton Corp. in my June 20th article, Healthcare: Why Can't We Get the Congressional Option? Your communication reads as follows:
FOR YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
The article, “Healthcare: Why Can't We Get the Congressional Option?” posted Saturday, June 20, on The Wattree Chronicle contains information about Halliburton that is completely misleading and incorrect.
Halliburton is not a military contractor. Halliburton is one of the world’s largest providers of products and services to the energy industry, and serves the upstream oil and gas industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir – from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and optimizing production through the life of the field.
You will note that all of the government services and engineering and construction businesses have been and remain with KBR. To confirm, KBR and Halliburton are completely separate and independent of each other. Halliburton separated KBR from the company in April 2007 (http://www.halliburton.com/public/news/pubsdata/press_release/2007/corpnws_040507a.html.
We respectfully request you make this correction immediately.
Kind regards,
Diana Gabriel
Senior Manager, Public Relations
Halliburton diana.gabriel@halliburton.com Office: 713.759.2608
Cell: [Redacted]
Fax: [Redacted]
While I am always careful to obtain multiple sources for any assertions that I make in my articles, nevertheless, I went back to objectively revisit the facts just in case it was necessary to accommodate your request. Halliburton is only mentioned one time in the entire article, and the paragraph reads as follows:
“And there's a very logical reason for that. Business, by it's very nature, is designed to generate profit, not to provide services - there was ample evidence of that during the Bush administration. Prior to the military turning over many of its support services to Halliburton, for example, we never heard about our troops being given contaminated water or being electrocuted in the shower. The reason for that is our military's top priority was maintaining the troops, while Halliburton's top priority is maximizing its profits. The very same dynamic is at work when it comes to insuring our citizens - and the politicians know it, but they don't care, because again, for them, it's about me first, and only then, the public good. I mean, am I the only one sick of these people dictating what is on and off the table? I don't think so.”
Try as I might, Ms. Gabriel, I can’t find anything inaccurate about that statement. While you pointed out that “Halliburton separated KBR from the company in April 2007," testimony before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee indicates that KBR was providing our military with substandard services long before then - and then, being rewarded for it.
On May 20, 2009 Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, opened the hearings on “Rewarding Failure: Contractor Bonuses for Faulty Work in Iraq,” with the following statement, which reads in part:
“Today’s hearing is a result of this Committee’s continuing investigation into the deaths of over a dozen U.S. soldiers by electrocution in Iraq. That investigation has led us to internal Pentagon documents showing that in 2007 and 2008, contractor KBR received bonuses of $83.4 million for work that, according to the Pentagon’s own investigation, led to the electrocution
deaths of U.S. troops.”
That doesn’t mean that the work was performed in 2007 and 2008 - that’s when they received the bonuses.
The committee’s third witness was Mr. Charles Smith. Mr Smith was the former Chief of HQ, Army Field Support Command, Field Support Contracting Division. According to Sen. Dorgan’s opening statement, “In that capacity, he [Mr. Smith] managed the massive LOGCAP contract that the Pentagon awarded to KBR, until he was forced out of his job in 2004 when he refused to approve paying KBR more than $1billion in questionable charges." He went on to say, "I should note that Mr. Smith was removed from his job despite the fact that in November 2004 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld awarded him the Department of Defense’s Medal for Distinguished Civilian Service.”
Mr. Smith’s testimony includes the following:
“In August 2004, the Army’s approach to KBR underwent a complete change. The goal of award fee boards became one of making KBR financially sound, even if it was not performing in accordance with the contract. This was consistent with actions to rescind the 15% withhold definitize contract cost estimates well above the DCAA recommended amounts, and remove me from my position. The Army’s stated reason is that it was afraid KBR would cease performance or allow their subcontractors to cease performance. I did not think this was a credible threat, as KBR would have lost its military business entirely by this action. I do not believe the Army has
stated the real reason for its change in approach to KBR.”
So frankly, Ms. Gabriel, I don’t see where I was inaccurate at all. In fact, Halliburton’s position seems to be completely analogous to a man who gets his hand shot off while committing a robbery, then pleads not guilty on the grounds that he’s no longer associated with the hand that held the gun.
Thus, with all due respect, I think I’ll let the article stand as is. I don’t see where it is the least bit misleading. In fact, upon review, I don’t think I went far enough - but I fully intend to remedy that situation in the very near future.
ADDENDUM
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 in these instances, why couldn't the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, CNN and all of the other media networks; why couldn't Harvard, Yale, and all of the various and sundry Ph.D.s from America's great institutions of learning; and why couldn't the nation's so called "think tanks," all of the nation's political scientists, and the United States Congress figure it out?
. The answer is, they had, but they simply turned their backs and allowed young patriotic Americans to march off to their deaths, because that was more profitable. The most irrefutable evidence of that? None of their children died.
.
Now, the Mainstream Media - and the New Democratic Party, of all things - is doing the EXACT same thing to this nation, and on behalf of the EXACT same people (the 1%ers) by turning their backs once again on the law, democracy, and common sense:
.
The Clintons acted with great enthusiasm when it came to the mass incarceration of Black people, but what about when they break the law? Massachusetts law is clear and unequivocal:
. "Within 150 feet of a polling place…no person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election. No campaign material intended to influence the vote of a voter in the ongoing election, including campaign literature, buttons, signs, and ballot stickers, may be posted, exhibited, circulated, or distributed in the polling place, in the building where it is located, on the building walls, on the premises where the building stands, or within 150 feet of an entrance door to the building. ( 950 CMR 53.03(18); 54.04.22),)" .
But in spite of that law - THE PEOPLE'S LAW - Bill Clinton feels so entitled and thinks the people are so stupid, that we can't recognize that he constitutes a walking 'Bill'-board for Hillary Clinton. He also retards the vote by creating a distraction, his presidential entourage prevents people from getting into the polls, and it extends the time that voters have to wait in line - time that many voters don't have. Didn't Bill Clinton know this,? If he didn't, he has very poor judgment, If he did, what was his motive? He wasn't voting, so why did he have to enter the polling site in the first place? The answer is clear - to cheat, to circumvent the law, and to do whatever he had to do to get what he wanted. Haven't we had enough to these dishonest slicksters in office? Aren't these exactly the kind of people we're trying to get OUT of office? Can you even imagine Barack Obama doing something like that? Could you imagine Bernie Sanders doing something like that? Absolutely not! And that's exactly why this nation can't be trusted in the hands of people like the Clintons. They lack character, they feel entitled, and they think that their interests - and the interests of their rich Wall St. cronies - should be given priority over the interest of the average American.
.
The DailyKos reported, ". . . the most serious charge leveled at Clinton’s March 1st Super-Tuesday antics is that he was blocking poor people from voting, in one of Massachusetts most distressed communities, where the median family income is $49,000, [which is] $110,000 less than the Massachusetts town where presidential candidate Hillary Clinton went to college, Wellesley. Although electioneering within a polling place is a misdemeanor, interfering with voting rights is a state and federal civil rights violation and felony."
.
.
Americans are currently living under the illusion of democracy. In a REAL democracy, Bill and Hillary wouldn't be celebrating a victory in the primaries, and in a REAL democracy, the people wouldn't be cheering them on and the Mainstream Media would be as silent as a church mouse. In a REAL democracy both Bill, and Hillary, would be out on bail and facing felony charges. So at the rate we're sliding downhill, this nation - at least as we've known it - can't possibly last. .
God help us.
ATTENTION ALL BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS - IT’S TIME TO FORM A
P (PEOPLE’S) PARTY
.
Bernie's options haven’t completely run out quite yet. The fact is, Hillary Clinton could possibly be indicted for mismanaging her email count as Secretary of State, and/or information alleged to have been obtained from the Guccifer 2.0 hacking, and right in the middle of the election. That could give Donald Trump the election, and the presidency. That should put something on the minds of all responsible Democrats at the convention. But even if Hillary does get the nomination, it's important to vote Democratic, otherwise you're throwing away your vote, and that would constitute a vote for Trump. That's how we got George W. Bush.
.
After Ralph Nader was rejected for the 2000 presidential nomination by the Democratic voters, instead of acknowledging his rejection and falling into line to help defeat the Republicans, Nader went into a petulant snit and ran as a third party candidate. It was clear that he purposely ran as a third party candidate with the mean-spirited intent of sabotaging the Democratic effort, because third parties never win; the only purpose that third parties ever serve is to help elect the people that you like least, because they divide the vote of like-minded people.
.
Cornel West joined Nader in this foolish, or treacherous - we’ll let you make the determination - campaign, and as a result, George W. Bush won the election over Al Gore by winning Florida by a mere 537 votes. The Nader/West coalition peeled off 97,488 votes from Gore in Florida alone. So when I say that Cornel West is more than a little responsible for George W. Bush becoming President of the United States, and thus, your current economic condition, don’t take my word for it – you do the math.
.
We should never be so foolish as to let something like that happen again - and especially in this case, because Trump is nothing short of Hitler in a wig, so the stakes are much too high. Thus, we should never allow ourselves to become so disgusted with the Bogeyman (or in this case, the Bogeywoman) that we leave the backdoor open for the Devil. What we should do instead is to solidify both our alliance, and commitment, to reforming this “New Democratic” Party, because as all true progressives know, these so-called “New Democrats” are nothing more, nor less, than old Republicans, or “Republicrats,” so we’re allowing our party to be stolen from right under our noses. Wikipedia defines “New Democrats” as follows:
.
“New Democrats, also called Centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats or Moderate 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.” Or, in other words, this centrist and corporate accommodationist faction within the Democratic Party emerged with the emergence of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and there’s a good reason for that.
.
While Hillary Clinton supporters, and Hillary herself, readily acknowledges that she was raised and began her political career as a staunch conservative - in fact, so much so that her first excursion into politics was as a 17 year-old volunteer for Barry Goldwater, a Republican politician who pledged that if elected he would abolish the Civil Rights Act; and then in college Hillary was not just a member of the “Young Republicans,” she was the President of the organization. Yet her supporters say, “Oh, it’s silly to even bring that ancient history up. She was young then, and people change.” Yes, some people do change, but MOST people don’t. Political beliefs are much like a person’s religion, and most people take their beliefs in both areas with them to the grave - and especially someone who demonstrated the commitment and zeal that Hillary demonstrated to an ideology at such an early age.
.
If Barry Goldwater had won the 1964 election, Hillary Clinton would be a Republican today, but after his devastating defeat, Hillary saw which way the wind was blowing, and being the ambitious, calculating, and cynical person she was - and still tends to be today - she simply spun on a dime. And her decision didn’t have anything to do with an epiphany, or a change in either political or moral “convictions,” it was simply a cynical decision designed to promote her own interests - and then she met the perfect accomplice, Bill Clinton, a Southern Dixiecrat who had come to the exact same decision.
.
So, how do I know these things? No, I can’t read either of their minds, but you can watch what people do to determine their thinking, and that’s exactly what I’ve done with both of these individuals. The key to understanding the motives of politicians (and people in general), is to ignore what they say, and watch what they do, as I will clearly demonstrate below. And based on what Bill and Hillary Clinton, and their "New Democratic" establishment have done, it is clearly past time for all TRUE progressivesto come together and let these Republicrats know in no uncertain terms that we're not going to sit back and allow them to push this nation, or the Democratic Party, any further to the right. Let's not be suckers. Look at how far the working class has slid downhill since the last Clinton administration - and Bill is responsible for it. He laid the foundation for George W. Bush.
.
So We've got to let the Clintons and their cronies know that the masquerade is over, and if they don't start to come around to our way of thinking, we're going to take a page from the T Party playbook and start getting rid of all of them - and there's no better time to send that message than in the upcoming Democratic Convention. We'll call ourselves the P(People's) Party.
.
Hillary supporters always speak of her "vast experience," but I intend to clearly demonstrate below that they're basing their assessment on political folklore rather than careful research. The public record will clearly show that EVERYTHING Hillary Clinton has EVER been intimately involved in has been scandal ridden and a complete disaster.
.
So there are only three kinds of people who could possibly support this corrupt, incompetent, and "congenital liar" (NYTimes) - self-serving establishment types, those who vote blindly on name recognition alone, and those who vote their genitals over their intellect - and all three of those types of people are helping to bring down and corrupt what was formerly one of the world's greatest parties.
.
THE FULL STORY OF BILL 'SLICK WILLIE' CLINTON AND THE PIMPING OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
.
.
After eight years of being both denigrated and drugged with crack cocaine during the Reagan administration, and another four years of being completely ignored by George Bush, Sr., the Black community was ripe for the plucking. We were like abused and neglected children, and master pimp, Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton, was right there like a predatory hustler prowling for innocent runaways in a Greyhound bus station - and like most pimps, he had a flawless plan.
.
Being one of the first of a new generation of White Southern politicians who understood Black people, he simply swaggered onto the Arsenio Hall Show in dark glasses and a saxophone and played with the band. His plan worked brilliantly, because it accomplished two things - first, by going on a Black television show looking like a musician and playing a few discordant notes with the band, it made him look "cool," which to many Black people means, Black; secondly, it played on the hunger of Black people to be acknowledged after being completely ignored for twelve years. So from that moment on Clinton was adopted by many in the Black community as "Our first Black President" and earned their everlasting love, admiration, and gratitude - and that's in spite of the fact that he hasn't done a thing for Black people since.
.
In fact, the Clintons have done more to Black people than for them. Under the guise of a "New Democrat," Bill has done more to tear apart and destroy Black families than any Republican president since before the Great Depression - along with the enthusiastic support of his wife, Hillary. Black people had their guard up against Republicans, but Bill and Hillary Clinton caught us unaware and flatfooted. While some might challenge the statement that Clinton has done more harm to Black people than any Republican president by citing Ronald Reagan's flooding the Black community with crack cocaine to support his illegal war in Nicaragua, there's solid evidence that indicates that as Governor of Arkansas Clinton was even involved in that.
. "A number of allegations have been written about and several local, state, and federal investigations have taken place related to the alleged use of the Mena, [Arkansas]Intermountain Municipal Airport as a CIA drop point in large scale cocaine trafficking beginning in the early 1980s.[14] The topic has received some press coverage that has included allegations of awareness, participation and/or cover-up involvement of figures such as former president Bill Clinton." .
So, first, there's strong evidence that suggests that Bill was involved in a conspiracy to flood the Black community with crack cocaine. Then he signs the most Draconian crime bill in the history of the United States and creates a private prison system that makes a fortune off the mass incarceration of Black people (and that actually pays states to hold prisoners for longer periods of time) for using the very same drug that Bill himself was allegedly involved in putting in the community in the first place. In addition, his wife, Hillary, has politically benefitted from the cash donations of that very same private prison system.
.
Yet, in spite of that - and several other assaults on the Black community - there are many Black people who continue to have a blind and tenacious loyalty to the Clinton brand that's just as pronounced and unfathomable as the loyalty of a hoe to an abusive pimp. Once the Clintons decided they wanted to get back into the White House, Bill simply went to the NAACP and said he was sorry for his role in the massive incarceration of Black people. Thereafter, the Congressional Black Caucus came running to Bill and Hillary's side like Pavlov's dog after hearing the dinner bell. It's, literally, unbelievable.
.
In addition, the photo below shows Bill Clinton clearly, arrogantly, and blatantly, violating the Voting Rights Act and illegally electioneering at a polling place in Massachusetts with complete impunity. With the severe price that Black people have paid for fair elections and the right to vote, Black people all over this country should be up-in-arms, yet, Hillary Clinton is depending on the Black vote to help her gain the Democratic nomination in the current primaries. There's currently a petition out with well over 100,000 signatures to investigate the Clintons' interference with voters' rights in Massachusetts, and Arizona as well, but where is the public outrage!!!? Where are Black people? Where is the Department of Justice, and where in hell is the Democratic National Committee!!!?
.
The entire nation should be raising holy hell over Bill and Hillary Clinton’s blatant violation and disrespect of the voting Rights Act. It was not only an unconscionable act of arrogance, but it was also a direct slap in the face to all those who died to get that law enacted - Martin Luther King cartwheels in his grave. Thus, both Bill and Hillary should be prosecuted to the very limits of the law, and Hillary should not be allowed to benefit from such tactics. She should be forced to forfeit all of the delegates that she won employing such underhanded devices.
.
The Clintons’ action in this matter is proof positive that they are not just dishonorable, but they will do anything to be elected. It also clearly demonstrates that they have absolutely no respect for Democratic traditions. They’re trying to turn the Democratic Party into Republican lite. That’s been their agenda for their entire career, and they’ve come very close to achieving that goal. They walk like liberals, they talk like liberals, but they always seem to leave conservative policies behind. Yet Black people are voting for Hillary in droves, even though they can't name ONE thing that the Clintons have ever done for them, other than spend more money on prisons than on public housing in the Black community - and please take the time to research that fact; it's a part of the public record.
.
They acted with great enthusiasm when it came to the mass incarceration of Black people, but what about when they break the law? Massachusetts law is clear and unequivocal:
. "Within 150 feet of a polling place…no person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election. No campaign material intended to influence the vote of a voter in the ongoing election, including campaign literature, buttons, signs, and ballot stickers, may be posted, exhibited, circulated, or distributed in the polling place, in the building where it is located, on the building walls, on the premises where the building stands, or within 150 feet of an entrance door to the building. ( 950 CMR 53.03(18); 54.04.22),)" .
But in spite of that law - THE PEOPLE'S LAW - Bill Clinton feels so entitled and thinks the people are so stupid, that we can't recognize that he constitutes a walking 'Bill'-board for Hillary Clinton. He also retards the vote by creating a distraction, his presidential entourage prevents people from getting into the polls, and it extends the time that voters have to wait in line - time that many voters don't have. Didn't Bill Clinton know this,? If he didn't, he has very poor judgment, If he did, what was his motive? He wasn't voting, so why did he have to enter the polling site in the first place? The answer is clear - to cheat, to circumvent the law, and to do whatever he had to do to get what he wanted. Haven't we had enough to these dishonest slicksters in office? Aren't these exactly the kind of people we're trying to get OUT of office? Can you even imagine Barack Obama doing something like that? Could you imagine Bernie Sanders doing something like that? Absolutely not! And that's exactly why this nation can't be trusted in the hands of people like the Clintons. They lack character, they feel entitled, and they think that their interests - and the interests of their rich Wall St. cronies - should be given priority over the interest of the average American.
.
The DailyKos reported, ". . . the most serious charge leveled at Clinton’s March 1st Super-Tuesday antics is that he was blocking poor people from voting, in one of Massachusetts most distressed communities, where the median family income is $49,000, [which is] $110,000 less than the Massachusetts town where presidential candidate Hillary Clinton went to college, Wellesley. Although electioneering within a polling place is a misdemeanor, interfering with voting rights is a state and federal civil rights violation and felony."
.
.
So, again, both Bill, and Hillary, should be prosecuted for conspiracy to violate the Voting Rights Act, and Hillary should be forced to forfeit all delegates that she received from that state - or ANY other state - where they’ve violated the law. We’ve had enough of Hillary and ‘Slick Willie’s’ corruption and sense of entitlement, and we've had enough of the Democratic Party turning a blind eye to it. The arrogant behavior of these two individuals, and the Democratic National Committee's corrupt and crony-like response to it is not what the Democratic Party is about. The Democratic Party has fought over the years to promote the interest of equality, not the special interest of so-called "big-shots," and obviously, that's exactly what Bill and Hillary Clinton think they are. Their underhanded methods have the funk of the Republican Party all over them, and they have no place among Democrats. But there's a reason the Clintons are so Republican-like - Because that's what they are, Republicans in drag, who are trying to move the Democratic Party to the right. They don't even call themselves Democrats; they call themselves "New Democrats."
. “New Democrats, also called Centrist Democrats,Clinton Democrats or Moderate 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” - or with the arrival of Bill and Hillary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats.
.
These are the people that most liberals are trying to get rid of, and they are exactly why the working class has fallen so far behind. These New Democrats are just as corrupt and crony-like as Republicans - in fact, they should be called Semicrats, or better yet, Republicrats.
.
But, no, legitimate Democrats should not leave the party; that'll just divide the vote of like-minded people. A better strategy would be to take a page from the Tea Party and get rid of all of the self-serving and corrupt people within the party who are not responsive to the people's point of view - and that’s including many of the Congressional Black Cronies who recently endorsed Hillary Clinton in spite of all of the suffering and damage the Clintons have done to the Black community. It's past time for a good housecleaning, because many of these people have obviously been in office so long they’ve forgotten what being a true Democrat is all about - they’ve become Republicrats, or Semicrats. We don’t need Republicrats fighting for corporate growth. Thanks to Bill and Hillary Clinton corporations are already rich enough. We need dedicated people in office who are going to fight for the people, not corporations.
.
When Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law he told America that the expanded markets that it would provide would create millions of jobs for the American people; but instead, it created millions of opportunities for his billionaire cronies to take $18 an hour jobs away from Americans and send them out of the country to be performed for 68 cents an hour.
.
And while Hillary Clinton is now trying to portray herself as a gladiator for the people, that has not been her history. Think about it. All Bill and Hillary have is name recognition. Go back into your data banks and come up with ONE thing that either Bill, or Hillary, has ever done for the average American. Again, they walk like liberals, talk like liberals, but they always manage to leave conservative policies behind.
.
ProgressivePress.net reported, "During six years (1986 -1992) as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against the labor unions seeking to represent store workers." And the New Times reported that, "Mrs. Clinton’s six-year tenure as a director of Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest company, remains a little known chapter in her closely scrutinized career. And it is little known for a reason. Mrs. Clinton rarely, if ever, discusses it, leaving her board membership out of her speeches and off her campaign Web site." .
The New York Times went on to say, "Mrs. Clinton largely sat on the sidelines when it came to Wal-Mart and unions, board members said. Since its founding in 1962, Wal-Mart has fought unionization efforts at its stores and warehouses, employing hard-nosed tactics — like allegedly firing union supporters and spying on employees — that have become the subject of legal complaints against the company. A special team at Wal-Mart handled those activities, but Mr. Walton was vocal in his opposition to unions. Indeed, he appointed the lawyer who oversaw the company’s union monitoring, Mr. Tate, to the board, where he served with Mrs. Clinton. During their meetings and private conversations, Mrs. Clinton never voiced objections to Wal-Mart’s stance on unions, said Mr. Tate and John A. Cooper, another board member. 'She was not an outspoken person on labor, because I think she was smart enough to know that if she favored labor, she was the only one,' Mr. Tate said. 'It would only lessen her own position on the board if she took that position..” .
Thus, when dealing with either Bill, or Hillary Clinton, dog whistling is a concept that the voting public would do well to become very familiar with, because it's the most formidable weapon in the Clinton political arsenal, and they both use it prolifically - they have to in order to play both ends against the middle. It allows them to say one thing to us, while sending an altogether different message to their corporate cronies at one and the same time.
.
It has been reported that the Clinton's net worth is well over $100 million. They control the $2 billion Clinton Foundation, so they're comfortably entrenched in the very corporate culture that has the American people virtually enslaved. Even their daughter, Chelsea, is married to Marc Mezvinsky, an American investment banker, co-founder of hedge fund Eaglevale Partners, and was formerly an investment banker at Goldman Sachs. So the Clintons and Wall Street are, literally, in-laws. . Chelsea Clinton's new $10 million pad is NewYork's longest apartment - stretching an entire block from 26th Street to 27th Street off Madison Avenue - and this is while you're suffering to make ends meet.
.
But now, Bill and Hillary have stepped over the line by blatantly flaunting the law, and with respect to the Voting Rights Act, a law that many Black people have died for. So if Liberals are going to reclaim their party, now's the time - we've got photographs, video evidence, and numerous witnesses of both the Clintons arrogantly flaunting the law. we've got to make both Bill, Hillary, and the DNC establishment answer for that - and we shouldn't let up until we get action. If we don't, the Clintons are going to continue on their mission of redefining what it means to be a liberal - Rockefeller Republicrats - and worse in Hillary's case.
.
As a mere child, Hillary Clinton was a staunch Republican. She was so dedicated to the Republican cause that at 17 years old she went to work for Barry Goldwater, who pledged that if elected he would repeal Civil Rights Act. Then in college, she not only joined the "Young Republicans," but became their president. You don't outgrow that kind of dedication to a cause. While many of Hillary's supporters insists that some people change, Hillary's record doesn't suggest that she's one of those people. Instead, it suggests that after Goldwater's brutal defeat, as an ambitious young lady of the sixties she saw which way the wind was blowing, and it wasn't blowing toward the GOP., but her conservative inclinations haven't changed a bit.
.
While Margret Sanger's character has absolutely no bearing on either a woman's right to choose, are the Planned Parenthood organization, her name is often being bandied about for political reasons. Conservatives are trying to use her name to smear the concept of a woman's right to choose due to the fact that Sanger was a well known proponent of negative eugenics (the termination of people deemed "unfit" to enhance humanity) and also since she helped to found Planned Parenthood.
.
I'm in full concurrence with a woman's right to choose. I believe a woman should have full control over whether or not she should give birth to another human being. After all, if men had to bear children we'd have an "ABORTION LINE" at Wal-Mart, and we all know it. So the abortion issue is clearly a sexist ploy to control women, and it's also designed to divide the electorate. Nevertheless, considering the Clinton administration's history with respect to racial issues in the past, I find Hillary's full-throated and enthusiastic embrace of Margaret Sanger's "vision" quite troubling. Actually, as a working class Black man, I find most things about the Clintons troubling.
.
THE CLINTON URBAN HOUSING PROGRAM: "HEY, WHY NOT JUST BUILD PRISONS INSTEAD?"
"The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R. 3355, Pub.L. 103–322 is an Act of Congress dealing with crime and law enforcement; it became law in 1994. It is the largest crime bill in the history of the United States and consisted of 356 pages that provided for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons and $6.1 billion in funding for prevention programs, which were designed with significant input from experienced police officers . . . .
"One of the more controversial provisions of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act overturned a section of the Higher Education Act of 1965 permitting prison inmates to receive a Pell Grant for higher education while they were incarcerated. The amendment is as follows:
“
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 401(b)(8) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
(8) No basic grant shall be awarded under this subpart to any individual who is incarcerated in any Federal or State penal institution.'.[4]
”
"The VCCLEA effectively eliminated the ability of lower-income prison inmates to receive college educations during their term of imprisonment, thus ensuring the education level of most inmates remains unimproved over the period of their incarceration."
BLACK PEOPLE, WE ARE RENOWN FOR CUTTING OUR OWN THROATS BY FAILING TO EDUCATE OURSELVES, AND VOTING ON INSTINCT AND NAME RECOGNITION ALONE RATHER THAN KNOWLEDGE. WE DID THAT WITH THE CLINTONS ONCE BEFORE, AND WE PAID FOR IT SEVERELY. LET'S NOT MAKE THAT SAME MISTAKE AGAIN, BECAUSE WE MAY NOT GET ANOTHER CHANCE. THE DEMOGRAPHICS ARE TURNING AGAINST THE 1 %ERS IN A DRASTIC WAY, SO IF THEY GAIN CONTROL OVER GOVERNMENT AGAIN, THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO GIVE IT BACK. SO WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE.
.
. HILLARY CLINTON LYING FOR 13 MINUTES STRAIGHT
.
. HOW FAR WILL THEY GO TO GAIN AND MAINTAIN POWER?
.
'DOG-WHISTLING' THE ASSASSINATION OF BARACK OBAMA
.
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.
.
In the interest of the people's right to know, I readily admit I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter. But I didn't intend this piece to be a commercial for Bernie Sanders. It is my intent to make it a commercial for common sense and reality. And in my opinion - after following and doing extensive research on these two throughout their entire careers - if Black people, or the working class in general, are foolish enough to vote for the Clintons - and let there be no doubt about it, you'll be voting for both of them, because they're partners in crime - you'll be placing more confidence in these two conservative White folks than you are documented history, common sense, and your lying eyes. And if we do that, regardless to whatever dire consequences that Black people and the working class suffer as a result, we'll be getting exactly what we deserve.
.
Strive To Become Your Own Hero... Then Let No One Remove Your Cape.
BIO
Eric L. Wattree is a writer, poet, and musician, born in Los Angeles. He’s been a columnist for The Los Angeles Sentinel, Black Star News, The Atlanta Post, and is a member of the Sigma Delta Chi Society of Professional Journalists (http://www.spj.org/). He’s also the author of "A Message From the Hood."
Some of the greatest minds I’ve ever known held court while sitting on empty milk crates in the parking lots of ghetto liquor stores, while some of the weakest minds I’ve ever known roamed the halls of academia in pursuit of credentials over knowledge.
Am I a hater, you ask? You're damn right I'm a hater. I hate injustice. I hate hypocrisy. I also hate demagoguery, apathy, and the stupidity that allows it to exist. Hater? Absolutely. I'm a big time hater. I hate what I see happening to this country, and I hate watching the development of a culture that embraces ignorance with a stupid sense of pride. So yes, I am indeed a hater, but not only that - I'm a hater with a very low threshold for bullshit, so step off.
Posts
