Hillary Clinton “hillary clinton: LYNCHIN'”

AAPP: Look Out Hillary, you and your husbands words and your actions are coming at you. Don't think you can take the black vote, by talking black and saying nothing. Black folks may say they are voting for you, but when they get in the voting both, something just might tell them to vote 'Black" and give a Brotha a chance.

Check out the Video (Click on picture above) Hat Tip to Mia T!

hillary clinton: LYNCHIN'

by Mia T, 10.19.07

"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." (Martin Luther King)

Ironically, the logic of this pronouncement by Martin Luther King would, in short order, be refuted by the reality of his own lynching. King's hope was misplaced and his reasoning was circular. The resultant rule of law relied on by King presumed an adherence to the rule of law in the first instance.

Adherence to the rule of law is not something normally associated with the clintons. Moreover, racial and ethnic disrespect, intimidation, exploitation and hate have always been a fundamental clinton tactic and the reflexive use the "N"-word and other racial and ethnic slurs, an essential element in the clinton lexicon. When the "first black president" and his wife ran Arkansas, the NAACP sued them for intimidating black voters at the polls.

Conversely, the clintons' refinement of the DNC drag and drop is, arguably, one of the more insidious and repugnant applications of their special brand of race-hate politics.

Calculating a black man's worth to be 5/3 of a vote is no less racist, and arguably more so, than calculating his worth to be 3/5 of a white man; the latter is demeaning, but the former is dehumanizing.

But it is even worse.

Listen to Randall Robinson in this video, read below about Rwanda.

Only one conclusion is possible: A clinton legacy of lynching.


"This month marks 10 years since the advent of the Rwandan genocide, a cruel, violent and well-organized rampage that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children and the total disruption of Rwandan society. Over the past decade, scholars and advocates have rightly reflected on the reasons that the international community and nations in Africa must share the responsibility for this tragedy. As I said during my trip to Rwanda in 1998, "We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become safe haven for the killers. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide."
bill clinton
LearnFrom Rwanda
The Washington Post
Tuesday, April 6, 2004; Page A21

Note: clinton's use of "we" is consistent with his "buck stops there/everywhere but not here" policy.


"Bill Clinton felt their pain. Retrospectively. In 1998, on his Grand Apology Tour of Africa, a whirlwind tour of whirlwind apologies for slavery, the Cold War, you name it, he touched down in Kigali and apologized for the Rwandan genocide. "When you look at those children who greeted us," he said, biting his lip, as is his wont, "how could anyone say they did not want those children to have a chance to have their own children?"

Alas, the President had precisely identified the problem. In April 1994, when the Hutu genocidaires looked at the children who greeted them in the Tutsi villages, that's exactly what they thought: they didn't want those Tutsi children to have a chance to have their own children. So the question is: when a bunch of killers refuse to subscribe to multiculti mumbo-jumbo, what do you do?

'All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices,' continued Bill in his apology aria, 'who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror.'

Au contraire, he appreciated it all too fully. That's why, during the bloodbath, Clinton Administration officials were specifically instructed not to use the word "genocide" lest it provoke public pressure to do something. Documents made public last week confirm that US officials knew within the first few days that a 'final solution' to eliminate all Tutsis was underway."
SteynOnAmerica
CLINTON, CLARKE AND RWANDA: TEN YEARS ON



"In the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country's Tutsi minority. Using firearms, machetes, and a variety of garden implements, Hutu militiamen, soldiers, and ordinary citizens murdered some 800,000 Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu. It was the fastest, most efficient killing spree of the twentieth century.

A few years later, in a series in The New Yorker, Philip Gourevitch recounted in horrific detail the story of the genocide and the world's failure to stop it. President Bill Clinton, a famously avid reader, expressed shock. He sent copies of Gourevitch's articles to his second-term national-security adviser, Sandy Berger. The articles bore confused, angry, searching queries in the margins. 'Is what he's saying true?' Clinton wrote with a thick black felt-tip pen beside heavily underlined paragraphs. 'How did this happen?' he asked, adding, 'I want to get to the bottom of this.' The President's urgency and outrage were oddly timed. As the terror in Rwanda had unfolded, Clinton had shown virtually no interest in stopping the genocide, and his Administration had stood by as the death toll rose into the hundreds of thousands.....

In March of 1998, on a visit to Rwanda, President Clinton issued what would later be known as the 'Clinton apology,' which was actually a carefully hedged acknowledgment. He spoke to the crowd assembled on the tarmac at Kigali Airport: 'We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred' in Rwanda.

This implied that the United States had done a good deal but not quite enough. In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective.

With the grace of one grown practiced at public remorse, the President gripped the lectern with both hands and looked across the dais at the Rwandan officials and survivors who surrounded him. Making eye contact and shaking his head, he explained, 'It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate [pause] the depth [pause] and the speed [pause] with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror.'

Clinton chose his words with characteristic care. It was true that although top U.S. officials could not help knowing the basic facts--thousands of Rwandans were dying every day--that were being reported in the morning papers, many did not 'fully appreciate' the meaning. In the first three weeks of the genocide the most influential American policymakers portrayed (and, they insist, perceived) the deaths not as atrocities or the components and symptoms of genocide but as wartime 'casualties'--the deaths of combatants or those caught between them in a civil war.

Yet this formulation avoids the critical issue of whether Clinton and his close advisers might reasonably have been expected to 'fully appreciate' the true dimensions and nature of the massacres. During the first three days of the killings U.S. diplomats in Rwanda reported back to Washington that well-armed extremists were intent on eliminating the Tutsi. And the American press spoke of the door-to-door hunting of unarmed civilians. By the end of the second week informed nongovernmental groups had already begun to call on the Administration to use the term 'genocide,' causing diplomats and lawyers at the State Department to begin debating the word's applicability soon thereafter. In order not to appreciate that genocide or something close to it was under way, U.S. officials had to ignore public reports and internal intelligence and debate.

...[W]hatever their convictions about 'never again,' many of them did sit around, and they most certainly did allow genocide to happen. In examining how and why the United States failed Rwanda, we see that without strong leadership the system will incline toward risk-averse policy choices."
Samantha Power
Bystanders to Genocide
Why the United States Let the Rwandan Tragedy Happen
The author's exclusive interviews with scores of the participants in the decision-making, together with her analysis of newly declassified documents, yield a chilling narrative of self-serving caution and flaccid will and countless missed opportunities to mitigate a colossal crime
The Atlantic Online



ADDENDUM

"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talkin' about. (hillary clinton)

Miss hillary's 'plantation' metaphor, ostensibly about the Rs, is really about Katrina and New Orleans and the Ds.

Like the parting of the Red Sea, Katrina let an enslaved people go. Katrina opened the eyes of the poor--mostly black--underclass, the Left's absolutely essential--and until now, captive--constituency.

The clintons and the Left are terrified that these poor people will finally see what has been before them for 60 years: Not only a failed idea, but a party whose power depends on perpetuating that failure.

The clintons and the Left are terrified that these people will finally see the modern Democratic party for what it is: a bunch of bitter, moribund, power-hungry elistists whose very existence depends keeping them dirt poor, disinformed and dependent....

This, in contrast to the Republican party whose power depends on their education, success and self-sufficiency.

Indeed, the people are seeing.

Why do you suppose the clintons and Landrieu-through Mayor ('chocolate New Orleans') Nagin--tried to get their voters back, post haste (no trouble bussing 'em straightaway and en masse when it's to the polls)--to a still toxic morgue with no potable water, no emergency support and with renewed risk of deluge?

Why do you suppose the diaspora looks to be permanent? Pre-Katrina New Orleans was 67 percent black. Post-Katrina is only 46.

Indeed, the people are seeing.

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007