Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Friday, March 21, 2008

Obama's Closeness to Rev.Wright Still A Problem


Even after Barak Obama delivered his race speech, A More Perfect Union most of us remain unconvinced of any widening gap that exists between him and his controversial Pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Despite his overused "words of unity" between whites and blacks Obama still oversteps the main point about his pastor. Rev. Wright does not want unity with white people. Obama and his pastor stand worlds apart on this issue. Barak Obama will not recognize that his pastor does not bring a positive influence on the black community nor the overall community of American people.

My question is, "How can Obama speak of racial unity out of one side of his mouth and then closely embrace a spiritual mentor who delivers now widely publicized sermons contrary to any kind of racial unity?" Rev. Wright has been called a racist and a man who sweats anger towards whites. And this is Obama's spiritual mentor? As long as Barak keeps reaffirming the relationship he has with his former pastor, doubts will be raised as to what truly floats around in the mind of Barak Obama?

Listen to Obama's words about racism in America as depicted in his recent speech:

I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes . . . This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people.


Rev. Wright does not have a faith in the "decency of the American people." He said in one of his sermons that America is the "U.S. of KKK." This "man of God" does not want to end racism but to keep it going because it serves his purpose of keep the black community in a place of a perceived victimization to the "rich while man" as epitomized in the pastor's disparaging remarks about the well-to-do Hillary Clinton. The last time I listened to a democrat praise the Clinton's, Hillary's husband was tagged as America's "first black president."

Obama also remarked that the decency of America (which includes white people) made it possible for him to have his own" American story." Pastor Wright does not believe that! Rev. Wright preaches the gospel of black anger towards the white man.

But Rev. Wright led Obama to Christ, according to the Senator, and because of that Barak cannot disown him. He's like family. However, Wright is family by choice not by blood, so Obama has the ability to place a huge chasm between himself and his pastor.

I won't argue that God used Jeremiah Wright to guide Barak to Jesus, but that was twenty years ago. Since then Rev. Wright has gotten off track. Where is Jesus in his message now? Could he lead Obama to Jesus today or steer him to more anger and hostility towards white people and the U.S.

As long as Rev. Wright preaches this message of animosity towards white people, Republicans, the U.S. government and any black man or woman who is not a liberal democrat (Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice), how can Obama not take a giant step away from his former pastor? How can he not disavow a man who once preached a message that honored Christ but has taken a detour of extreme black nationalistic theology and has found no Christian compunction to refuse to honor the Minister Louis Farrakhan?

We all know by now that Rev. Wright gave Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award back in December 2007. Every year the Trumpeter Newsmagazine, the literary arm of Rev. Wright's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, offers awards to different individuals in various categories.

In a letter from the magazine's publisher, Jeri. L. Wright, the pastor's daughter, she writes, "The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan is the recipient of this year's Lifetime Achievement "Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpeter Award."

Barak Obama attends a church, whose magazine gave a lifetime achievement award to a man who is a serious anti-Semite. Louis Farrakhan is not some pesky little gnat that goes away after a few swats. Louis Farrakhan is a respected leader in the black community as we witnessed in his involvement with the Million Man March.

In the November-December 2007 Trumpeter magazine an article "An Empowerment Interview," gives the reasons why the award was given to Minister Farrakhan.

The article specifically records the view of Jeremiah Wright on Louis Farrakhan. In the piece Jeremiah Wright applaudes the Nation of Islam leader and remarks on his significant impact, "When Minister Farrakahn speaks, Black America listens."

Wright compares Farrakhan to the E.F. Hutton commericals. So when Farrakhan speaks of Judaism as a "gutter religion," the black community takes him seriously?

In Richard Cohen's Washington Post article he remarks, "Over the years, he [Farrakhan] has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler -- 'They helped him get the Third Reich on the road.'"

Louis Farrakhan is a man stricken, as Cohen rightly says, with "botulism of the mind." How can a Christian leader offer him a lifetime achievement award? How can Barak Obama embrace a Pastor who sees greatness in Louis Farrakahn and continue to attend a church that had no problems with a pastor who delivers hateful speeches about a country Obama would like to lead? It's mind-boggling that the impact of this paradoxical scenario has not hit the hearts and minds of Obama supporters a lot deeper.

How in the world did the congregants of the Trinity United Church of Christ listen to the anti-American, angry rantings of Pastor Wright for so many years and not make a moral and spiritual issue of it? I wonder if there's much difference between Pastor Wright's thinking and that of his congregation . . . a church Obama still attends.

Rev. Wright says of Farrakhan and his anti-Jewish conspiratorial thinking, "Everybody may not agree with him [Farrakhan, but they listen . . . His depth of analysis where it comes to the racial ills of this nations is astounding and eye opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest." Rev. Wright, does that include his denigration of the Holocaust?

Barak Obama needs to connect the dots between his pastor and Louis Farrakhan. He can't just say to Hillary Clinton in a recent debate that he denounces the endorsement of Farrakhan if it "makes her comfortable."
Is he personally comfortable with Farrakhan's endorsement or did he simple tell the "rich white woman" what she wanted to hear ?

In no way do I think Obama shares the views of Farrakhan. But his pastor may! This is a pastor who prayed with the young senator just before his Illinois announcement that he'll run for the presidency. Cohen asks, "Will he pray for him before his inaugural?" I ask, "Will he pray at the inaugural?"

I will not take away from any good performed by Farrakhan in the black community. I had one Chicago resident tell me that where Farrakhan's followers live, there is no crime. In fact, I endorse his message of black self-reliance and his impact on the lives of young black men. But his achievements do not earn him the right for decent Americans to turn a deaf ear to his racist, anti-Semtic ravings! As I would critiicize any white man who espouses racism, I cannot turn away from the slippery forked tongue of Farrakhan when he speaks of white people as "blue eyed devils."

In the article in the Trumpeter Magazine, Wright continues to pile on the praise of Farrakhan, "His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation's most powrfull critics.. . a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and purpose."

It's very clear where Rev. Wright stands . . . Louis Farrakhan is not a problem to him. Will Obama lose his Jewish support over this? Will it affect his perspective on Israel if he WINS the presidency and has to deal with Israel's leaders among whom are Holocaust survivors? Obama cannot flirt with Rev. Wright because the pastor lies in the same bed with Louis Farrakhan.

When I was a kid growing up in Newark, N.J., the neighborhood kids would choose up sides in order to play a game of street stickball. We would use any method available-"rock, paper, scissors" or "odds or evens." You had to wind up on one team or else you sat on the curb and watched.

Yes, Obama's speech was moving, but he still has not chosen sides on the Rev. Wright issue. He is attempting to play for his own team, the team of the American public and Rev. Jeremiah Wright's team all at the same time.

Knowing that Wright has honored Minister Louis Farrakhan as one of his all-star players, Obama has no choice but to choose to leave Wright's team and play for the other side-the side of justice, truth and integrity.

Has Obama got what it takes to make that choice or will he sit on the curb from 2008-2012?
Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Clearing Up the Mystery of Barak Obama's Support of Israel

Why is Barak Obama's stance on the Middle East such a mystery? From the BarakObama campaign website, it appears Mr. Obama will support a strong U.S.-Israel partnership:
Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel . . . Obama supports this closeness, stating that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.


Concerning Israel's right to defend itself against enemy attack, the policy making Obama headquarters states:

During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.


From Barak's website, his commitment to Israel as primary ally of the U.S. is a done deal. However, on Sunday (February 24, 2008), Ralph Nadar made several remarks on "Meet the Press" that brings Obama's stand on Israel into question.

According to the Republican Jewish Coalition website, Nader remarked that Sen. Obama had reversed his positions on Israel. Nader said Sen. Obama's "better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself" and that Sen. Obama was "pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate" and "during the state Senate."

In March 2007 Obama told voters in Iowa, that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." From The Nation we learn Obama has spoken highly of the Palestinian people and the calamities they have faced. Obviously, these statements made back in March 2007 have not endeared Obama to the Jewish pro-Israel bloc.

Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks warns that "people should be very skeptical of Barack Obama's shaky Middle East policies. When a long-time political activist like Ralph Nader, with a well-documented, anti-Israel bias, claims that Senator Obama shares this anti-Israel bias, that is alarming."

However,with all due respect to Barak Obama, if he has truly reversed his position on Israel out of sincere convictions, I applaude his change of heart. Perhaps in preparing for his presidential run, he looked further into the issues of the Middle East and made a genuine change of policy. Perhaps he was more anti-Israel in the past. The words that come out of his mouth on his website today and in other situations sound as though he has come to a new understanding on Israel's tough situation.

If Barak Obama has altered his position on Israel only to garner Jewish votes, shame on him.

If he becomes president, and is forced to deal with the Middle East conflict, will he stand by Israel and condemn Palestinian terrorist aggression? That is a gamble Obama supporters will have to take, especially his Jewish advocates. The question we must ask is whether he truly understands the complexities of the Middle East dilemma and will he stand by Israel to protect and secure America's longtime democratic ally?

Tonight on the presidential debate Mr. Obama was asked about the fact earlier this week Nation of Islam minister Louis Farrakhan threw in his support of Barak for president. Minister Farrakhan called the democratic presidential candidate, the "hope of the entire world." When asked about Farrakhan, Obama described in no uncertain terms that he views the Minister's comments as antisemitic-repugnant and reprehensible. Yet when pressed whether he rejects the support of Farrakhan, Obama faltered a bit and said he had no control over who supports him. In the debate format Mrs. Clinton pressed further, and Obama conceded that he rejects the support of Louis Farrakhan. It's too bad and also alarming that Obama had to falter at all in rejecting Farrakhan's support.

No person-white or black-claiming to want the Jewish vote can do so without disavowing any connection with the racism of Louis Farrakhan.

Regarding Obama's position on Israel, in June 2007 he was asked by Jim Wallis' Sojourners where he stands on Israel. The question posed by Wallis gave every opportunity to Obama to clarify where he stands: "Do you think the Palestinians and the occupied territories are being treated morally, and fairly, and justly by the Israelis?"

Obama replied:
"I believe that the Israelis want peace, and they want security. And oftentimes, in the midst of achieving security, there have been times when there's no doubt that Palestinians have been placed in situations that we wouldn't want our own families to be placed in. Israelis have been killed. They've got bombs flying into their territories right now. And we would expect them to act appropriately in defending themselves. . . Is there a way for us to reconcile the claims of both sides of the conflict in a way that leads to resolution and a better life for all people? And that, I think, is something that can be achieved, but it's going to require some soul-searching on the Palestinian side. They have to recognize Israel's right to exist; they have to renounce violence and terrorism as a tool to achieve their political ends; they have to abide by agreements. In that context, I think the Israelis will gladly say, 'Let's move forward negotiations that would allow them to live side by side with the Palestinians in peace and security.'


While I have yet to see Obama's position on whether he believes in a one state or two state solution to the Middle East conflict, I am squeamish to admit he seems committed to the security of Israel and is willing to challenge Palestinian terrorism as a counterfeit and fruitless means of achieving "peace in the Middle East."


If Obama's support of Israel is simply the necessary rhetoric of a man who needs to say what's expedient for the moment to grab the Jewish vote, then the U.S., the Israelis and the Jewish community have been duped by a man who would prove himself to be no better than Louis Farrakhan. I say that with deep grief in my heart hoping that Barak Obama is a man of integrity and a man of his word.
Share/Bookmark

Thursday, February 14, 2008

More Politics of Illegal Immigration

With McCain as the Republican presidential frontrunner, the issue of illegal immigration is even more important. Voters need to know their stuff. We must be on top of the issues regarding the blight of illegal immigration and why it is such a serious matter.

Let’s talk about a myth that has affected the thinking of people regarding illegals. Heather McDonald brought this to my attention and I have consulted her articles to write this blog.

Once again, Heather Mac Donald is a John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor to City Journal. She also is a recipient of 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement. Her credentials are quite impressive and can be checked out at the Manhattan Institute's webpage. She is also a prolific writer of books and articles on the issue of illegal immigration.

The myth is stated as follows: Hispanics will save the American family from the rising tide of illegitimacy and disintegration.


The idea is that illegal Hispanics are good for this country since they possess wonderful family values that the rest of us do not possess. The family values that the rest of us Americans have lost would be restored through the presence of illegals in our society. Is this true or does it just make a good argument lacking serious substantiation.

When we speak to people living in Southern California or other areas of heavily populated Hispanics, we are given a different story. My son attends a Southern California suburban school. I have occasion to speak to the assistant principal and he has repeated often that it's mostly the Hispanic kids who are the ones getting into fights, bringing drugs into the school and giving reason for the police to be called to the school premises. In my neighborhood, Hispanic youths are not having a positive influence on the surrounding white community.

Another issue, according to Heather McDonald is teen single parenthood. She says, “among Hispanic teens the stigma of teen single parenthood has vanished. Social workers in Southern California are in despair over the epidemic of single parenting. To cope with it, Hispanic teens are looking to welfare and social services.”

The problem is compounded by the fact Hispanic teens are looking to their mothers and grandmothers who are having or have had babies outside of marriage. The practice is becoming quite normal.

Here are the alarming statistics from a Heather McDonald article in HumanEvents:

Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birthrate in the country -- over three times that of whites and Asians, and nearly one and a half times that of black women, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women bore 92 children in 2003 (the latest year for which data exist), compared with 28 children for every 1,000 unmarried white women, 22 for every 1,000 unmarried Asian women, and 66 for every 1,000 unmarried black women. Forty-eight percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage, compared with 24 percent of white births and 15 percent of Asian births. Only the percentage of black out-of-wedlock births -- 68% -- exceeds the Hispanic rate.


Put this together. With increasing illegitimacy rate for Hispanics with their overall high fertility rate, where is this myth of family values? What's it based on?

Let me repeat this: The Mexican teen birthrate is 93 births per every 1000 girls, compared with 27 births for every 1000 white girls. Now line up the costs connected with illegitimacy, i.e. . . . kids raised in single-parent homes: higher risk of school failure, emotional problems, teen pregnancy and poverty. There’s little contribution to family values at all at this rate of high Hispanic teen pregnancy.

Here’s more information that breaks up this myth:

Hispanics have the highest school dropout rate in the country. This is a recipe for economic decline. In the LA Unified School District, which is 73% Hispanic, just 40% of Hispanic students graduate. It is well known that those who are supportive of illegal immigrants are opposed to the long deferred California high school exit exam, which would require students to answer just 50% of questions testing eighth grade level math and ninth-grade level English. If such an exam becomes a requirement, Hispanic graduation rates would become even lower . . . drop below 30%.

We can only imagine the money being spent from taxpayers’ money to try to keep these young Hispanics in school. I wonder if their illegal non-tax paying parents are financially contributing? I sure hope so.

The argument that the presence of illegals Hispanics in the U.S. is justified due to their family values is fallacious. It is not a pretty picture but we must stand before this mural of illegal immigration and see it for what it is. Let’s stop fooling ourselves thinking this problem will go away or will be solved on its own.


Our welfare system is in danger of collapsing (which might not be such a bad idea), our social security system is in jeopardy and our healthcare system is in shambles. Why? Because 11-12 million people in this country are taking cash out of these beneficial systems without putting anything back in. It's only a matter of time before it all collapses. So when the Democratic candidates appear to extend an open hand to illegals, you and I need to look deeper at the long term repercussions of such an unwise (but popular among Hispanic voters) stance.

I have more to say. Just one more thing, I promise. The issue of illegals and crime.
Share/Bookmark

Friday, February 1, 2008

A Presidential Tragedy: Hillary The Movie

I wasn't particularly excited about seeing Hillary the Movie, A Citizens United Productions Film. Regardless, I showed up at the Harmony Gold Screening Room in Los Angeles for the screening. Actually, Mrs. Clinton was appearing in a debate with Barak Obama at the Kodak Theatre a few miles down the road. I bet the film I saw was more interesting than the debate between the two Democratic presidential candidates.

Why wasn't I enthused about seeing Hillary the Movie? Well, I suffered enough through the Clinton Chronicles as well as the months of hearing about Hillary's Travelgate debacle, Whitewater, Ron Brown, and Vince Foster. I watched almost religiously the impeachment trials of William Jefferson Clinton. I grew weary witnessing the legal skills of Kenneth Starr trying to pin the president to the mat on his improprieties and lies.

So here we are . . . a country poised on the precipice of electing the 44th President of the United States. Only now I prognosticate when I say I see before us more of the same . . . much more.  Only this time it's the Hillary Chronicles or Hillarygate.  I'm growing weary of watching Hillary stand before the firing squad of her detractors and wincing as Hillary, with her face blown off, her legs and arms shot to pieces and her heart riddled with bullets, keeps giving these sharpshooters another target to aim at. How can they miss?  

Don't get me wrong; she's an easy target. A very easy target . . . an immobile target with bulls eyes affixed to every aspect of her political career and personal character (what's left of it).

Rather than go through the whole Hillarygate once again, I'd rather get on to the substance of the presidential debates. . . the issues: illegal immigration, the environment, the war on terrorism, health care, Iraq and the economy. To think of watching another two hours of the Clinton flaws didn't exactly yank my crank.

The film . . . according to the hillarythemovie website, includes an endless cast of political celebrities: Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Gerth, Buzz Patterson, Michael Barone, Billy Dale, Cyrus Nowrasteh, Tony Blankley, Dick Armey, Bay Buchanan, Joe Connor, Mark Levin, Frank Gaffney, Peter Paul, Gary Aldrich, Dan Burton, John Mica, Michael Medved, Kathleen Willey, Kate O’Beirne, Larry Kudlow and more!

Believe me, they all had stories about Mrs. Clinton and her devious ways, especially her calculated use of tax audits to bring down anyone who might expose her dirty deeds. 

Wait . . hold it. I hear a knock on the door. An IRS agent? What?

That's Hillary. This is a film that claims it is "the first and last word in what the Clintons want America to forget!" Anyone who plans to vote-Republican or Democrat or Independent-should see this film.

From a review by Aryeh Spero on humanevents.com, we read the essence of Hillary The Movie:
The film revisits most of the egregious episodes of the Clinton presidency and the strategic role Mrs. Clinton played in punishing those who stood in the way of granting Bill a free pass. Bill Clinton recently accused Barack Obama of doing “a hit job" on him when, in truth, for years Hillary did "hit jobs" on those she considered political obstacles -- be it the women with which her husband had his way or even upright family men as Billy Dale of the White House travel office.

Her antics were enough to send me out of the screening room trying to get some fresh air as I choked on the possibility that such a person could become our next president.

Without going into the pros and cons of  the factual aspects of  such Clinton fiascos such as Hillary's botched health care program, Bill's fumble of an opportunity to take out Osama Bin Laden,  and the President's horrendous presidential pardons of a gang of Puerto Rican terrorists, here's my gut reaction to this finely done film . . . directed by Alan Peterson and produced by David N. Bossie and Peterson.

Hillary Clinton is not a nice human being. She's not an emotionally healthy person. She has some serious character flaws that carries the potential to get this country in a lot of trouble with Mrs. Clinton on the throne.

To put you at ease I did read her book Living History. I don't despise her. I don't boo when she appears on the screen like some of the other theatergoers did. I think eight years of listening to Bush Bashing should make us the more wiser to not stoop to the likes of Whoopie Goldberg and her ilk.

The film kicked off featuring Hillary's early political career which was entangled in her husband's. Hillary stood by Bill's slimy side for the Arkansas governorship and the presidential run. When Bill was victorious Hillary smiled and beamed. A gleam of satisfaction and perhaps love came from her eyes. Her beauty shone forth in these moments.

Face it, Hillary is an attractive woman. There were moments in the film where some still photos exhibited Hillary as a very attractive woman. In contrast, there's no need for Republicans and other Conservatives to make fun of her figure or any other part of her body nor for anyone to display unflattering photos of Hillary as a way of humilating her. That's so sophomoric and unbecoming.

Then came the change . . . Hillary's face transformed into a saddened, sullen look. Her embittered emotions, like an eruption of adolescent acne, started to show on her countenance. Her demeanor grew angry, resentful and laden with pain.

Can you blame Hillary? She's got quite a lot on her own plate with Whitewater and the other Hillary messes. Don't forget . . .Bill has dumped a lot of what was on his plate right into his wife's lap . . .Monica Lewinsky, Jennifer Flowers, Katherine Wiley, Paul Jones and others. That's enough to bring that sabertoothed stare on Hillary's face. Her husband humiliated her in full view of the world. Give the woman a break!

You can say what you want about backroom deals between Hillary and Bill to save their marriage once the Lewinsky affair was revealed . . . perhaps she promised to stay betrothed to Bill if he supported her bid for the presidency. We'll never know. But this I do know.

Bill and Hillary Clinton . . . the two of them . . . make one heck of a dysfunctional family. I can almost see the marital embroidered towels hanging side-by-side in their bathroom: Her power. His lies.

The ongoing question plagues everyone who comes into contact with her, "Who is this woman?" Her deception and cover-ups. Her refusal to stop at nothing to save her butt. She's ruthless, cunning and . . not a nice person. Too bad. I've always tried to respect her for her intelligence. Now that I see what she's done with her acumen, I no longer respect her.

Hillary Clinton has no business in the White House or the Oval Office or anywhere near the District of Columbia. She and her husband will bring nothing but more of their family dysfunction into our nation's capital. Mrs. Clinton needs help but I am not sure if anyone is qualified to plummet through her deceptive nature to locate the real Hillary.

Hillary the Movie? See it if you can find it. Buy it on the HillarytheMovie.com website. Show it to your Democratic friends. Watch Hillary's face and demeanor slowly sag deeper and deeper. You'll be glad you did. The Clinton family needs to be put out to pasture . . perhaps in Barbara Streisand's backyard. After all, any political figure that has the full backing of the leftist decadent wing of Hollywood like Hillary does, that should be enough to grab up our skirts or pantlegs and take off running.

Share/Bookmark