Thursday, March 08, 2007

Geffen Is Right - Hillary Clinton Lies

UP FRONT News March 2, 2007
Published by Tom Weiss Editorial Advisor: Willard Whittingham
“The paper that can’t be bought and can’t be sold.” www.tomsupfrontnews.blogspot.com
DAVID GEFFEN IS RIGHT, HILLARY CLINTON LIES.
IT’S UP TO BARACK OBAMA AND JOHN EDWARDS
TO TELL THE TRUTH.
Hillary Clinton freaked out somewhat recently after Hollywood mogul David Geffen, a one-time Clinton supporter who is now backing Barack Obama, called her and her hus- band liars. The reason she became politically enraged and demanded a retraction via Mr. Obama is because Mr. Geffen’s characterization of the Clintons is 100% accurate.
I.F. Stone, the (at least to me) - legendary late free lance investigative reporter, voiced an axiom when he said, “Politicians lie.” Geffen took things a step further when he
commented, perhaps even in some lingering awe, that the Clintons lie with “such ease.” I agree. Mrs. Clinton, as is typical of people who do not tell the truth, finds it almost impossible to admit error. Hence, in her effort to seduce the anti-War left in the Demo-
cratic Party into believing that she is for peace, she (unlike for example John Edwards) refuses to admit that her vote to authorize military action against Iraq was wrong and blames George W. Bush for her vote. Totally hypocritically, Mrs. Clinton has blasted the Bush Administration for its response to the Katrina disaster. To me that is somewhat analogous to Francisco Franco calling Benito Mussolini as Fascist. True, but so what? The fact is that Bill Clinton, in refusing to provide the urgent needed federal dollars to buttress the vulnerable levees in New Orleans, is as responsible for the death and des-
truction there as is Bush. Hillary Clinton evokes for me a number of clichés including the ones about people in glass houses and pots calling kettles black.
Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric is laden with populist and human rights vocabulary. The fact is that Mrs. Clinton is totally beholden to the predator corporate lobby made up of such
institutions as real estate carnivore Donald Trump, the super conservative Corning Cor-
poration, (which has financially benefited from her ties to the Genocide practicing
government of Communist China, the main Genocide now into its second half century in Occupied Tibet), and media magnate Rupert Murdoch, who makes millions in the slave state known as China. Mrs. Clinton, many of whose luxury housing-obsessed developer pals are largely responsible for the affordable housing crisis and therefore for homeless-ness, has stood with the Bush Administration and the real estate industry in opposing the Bringing America Home Act, a major piece of affordable housing legislation languishing in the Congress.
And Hillary Clinton, who has known about me since her husband became president, has dealt with me by denying me constituent services when I was homeless, communicating a threat against me, and by sending a libelous letter about me to my brother. Newt Ging- rich, with whom I disagree about almost everything, recently said that the Clintons fight dirty. He, like David Geffen, is 100% correct.
For months, in apparent awe of the legendary Clinton cash machine and the slickness,
much of the media has suggested that the Democratic nomination was hers. Indeed, in her typically empress-impersonating manner, she came to the same conclusion. As far as I am concerned, Mrs. Clinton is a liar who is in fact a well-disguised member of the “right wing conspiracy” that she rails about when sucking up to liberals. While American voters have often let ourselves by sucked in by such people (Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton being among the most dishonest) I think Hillary Clinton is characterologically a loser, but a loser who could win.
And since the Republicans offer the corruption (Bernard Kerik)-tainted autocrat
Rudolph Guiliani, warkhawk John McCain, and the Utah/Massachusetts transplant Mitt Romney, all of whom represent corporate America over everything else, whether or not the corrupt Hillary Clinton is able to purchase the presidency may be up to Barack Obama and John Edwards.
While I was among the first to publicly urge John Edwards to run for president and
have been a long time participant in Mr. Edwards’ New York City meet-ups, I don’t know if Edwards has what it takes. Edwards is very eloquent on the issue of poverty and on the Iraq War, although he thinks a final American troop withdrawal should be com-pleted as far away as 18 months from now. He talks about Genocide, but only in Darfur. Mr. Edwards, with whom I’ve spoken directly briefly and with whose top level staff I have communicated in detail, is fully aware of the fact of Genocide in Tibet. And, while at his Martin Luther King Memorial event speech on January 14 at the Riverside Church in Manhattan he mentioned human rights concerns about China, he has remained silent about Tibet and about the rising opposition to the awarding of the 2008 Olympic Games to Beijing. Explicit assurances to me weeks ago from his One America Committee staffer Matthew Nelson that Mr. Edwards would issue a statement on the Genocide in Tibet and
and the China Olympics have proven to be empty. Mr. Edwards also seems to take the work of New York City volunteers for granted. Edwards recurrently comes to New York City to look for money and to meet with mainstream media. His most dedicated NYC workers find out about that in the Daily News. And, while I do not doubt the accuracy of Mr. Edwards’ references to the “two Americas”, I also recall a reference to Mr. Edwards
on the Tonight Show. Citing Mr. Edwards’ residence on a $6 million estate in North Carolina, Jay Leno asked if that is one of the “Americas” the candidate is talking about. Still, if it came to a choice between Clinton and Edwards, I’d vote for Edwards in the proverbial heartbeat.
Barack Obama, however, seems to me at this point to be a much bigger threat to Mrs. Clinton’s quest for imperial power. As the wife of the so-called “First Black President”, she has taken the African-American vote for granted. While I was running against her as a Democratic write-in candidate for the U.S. Senate, (visit
www.tomweissdemocratforussenate.blogspot.com) I did point out that this ultra-vicari-
carious Black militant lives in a lily-white community that, according to at least one
resident there has a local power structure that aims to keep Chappaqua that way. As far as I am concerned, Mrs. Clinton’s visits to black neighborhoods are the political equivalent of air raids which drop propaganda leaflets for on-ground populations.
I’ve only met Barack Obama once, very briefly when (as did Edwards) he came to NYC to campaign for Democratic mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer. We shook hands and he smiled knowingly when I mentioned the name of Rev. Timothy P. Mitchell, Pastor of the overwhelmingly African-American Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church in Flushing, Queens, of which I am a baptized member. There are few African-American political leaders who do not know Rev. Mitchell, a contemporary and long time friend and close associate of Martin Luther King.
As regards Hillary Clinton, if I were a Republican, I would hope that she becomes the Democratic nominee. As I’ve suggested I’ve talked with out-and-out leftists who would sooner vote for a conservative like John McCain who at least seems to say what he means, than for an opportunist like Hillary Clinton who cannot be believed on anything.
A Clinton/Giuliani race is suggestive of a morality contest between Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and would really create the concept of a “choice” between the equivalent of two evils.
I regard Mrs. Clinton as a profoundly narcissistic, dishonest, anti-poor, anti-peace
opportunist whose assumption to the presidency would bring about more crime, war and poverty. I hope she finishes no better than third in the primaries.
* * * * * * *

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home