Saturday, March 08, 2008


UP FRONT News March 6, 2008
Published by Tom Weiss
Editorial Advisor: Willard Whittingham
"The paper that can't be bought and can't be sold."

Hillary Clinton's so-called comeback in the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas is a testament to the political shortsightedness of going easy on a Machiavellian politician who will do just about anything scraping the bottom of the barrel-wise in her pursuit of power and wealth.

Very much like for example Republican Dick Cheney and the fascist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Mrs. Clinton is an example of the wages of sin as described in the Bible in Timothy I, chapter 6 verse 10, perhaps the most misquoted of Jesus' teachings. It is not the money that is the "root" of evil, it is the "love of money." Indeed, in some translations, the same ref- erence appears in Hebrews chapter 13, verse 5.

Anyone who reads UP FRONT News is aware that Hillary Clinton's claims of being a pro- gressive human rights advocate are, like so much else that comes out of her mouth, bla- tant lies. Anyone willling to take oodles of cash via for example the right wing neo-con media predator Rupert Murdoch loses all credibility as a progressive. Considered in that light it is not at all surprising that Mrs. Clinton, like her recurrently wandering husband, is up to her eyeballs in the media and politician coverup of the Chinese Communist genocide in Tibet, a matter that has been censored out of Murdoch's New York Post and Fox News for decades.

Indeed some months ago there was a rather solid front page story in The New York Times describing Murdoch's collaboration with the Communist Chinese regime in news suppression on matters such as the ghoulish atrocities perpetrated against the Falun Gong.

Mrs. Clinton shares her ample political bed with an array of corporate imperialists in the real estate, pharmaceutical and other lobbies. And while consistently doing the bidding of the robber barons, she continues to hoodwink millions by presenting herself as a pioneering feminist. In fact, Mrs. Clinton represents what is becoming a public relations nightmare for the women's movement. And, while I am a supporter of gay rights, as far as I am concerned Mrs. Clinton's pal, the real estate developer-friendly and civil liberties-hostile mayoral wanna-be New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn represents an increasingly visible problem public relations-wise for the gay activist community.

Mrs. Clinton also represents hypocricy to me with respect to her civil rights personas, public and private. It is pretty much an axiom that, when Martin Luther King anniversaries roll around, Mrs. Clinton will travel from her reportedly (I spoke to a well-heeled resident of Chappaqua) lily-white-by-design community to Harlem and other locations, essentially parachuting into a bunch of black churches, and suggest for example that the Republican Party is a "plantation." She is of course in many ways correct. So what? She lives on one. Mrs. Clinton is a classic case of a glass house resident hurling boulders Indeed, Fransciso Franco would have been correct if he has accused Benito Mussolini of being a fascist.
True, but so what?

And speaking of racism, the still somewhat Teflon-coated Hillary Clinton was never able to explain away what was described in the media (New York Post, New York Times, etc.) during her 2000 carpetbagging run for the U.S. Senate in New York as something of a Mel Gibson-style episode years earlier with respect to Jewish people. As I recall the stories, Mrs. Clinton, holding her husband's Jewish campaign manager responsible for an early Bill Clinton electoral defeat in Arkansas, unleashed an anti-Semitic tirade against the man, a fellow who apparently nursed his understandable grudge for many years before going public. As I recall Mrs. Clinton's response to media questions was her standard retort whenever she gets caught at something unsavory. It's the "right wing conspiracy."

From my perspective, given her recurrently Cheneyesquely militaristic views and her loyal-ties to the worst of he corporate predators, Mrs. Clinton IS a right wing conspiracy.

As I have personally experienced, Hillary Clinton is something of a Dick Cheney-style para- noid, inasmuch as, in retaliation for my exposing her and her husband's direct involvement in the coverup of the Genocide in Tibet, she put me under surveillance and in fact has generated explicit threats against me both by telephone (some years ago via her investigator "Mr. Zimmerman" and via a threatening and defamatory e-mail about me on September 5, 2003 at 4:14 PM to my brother Jim in upstate New York, a schoolteacher who sometimes talks tough politically but is more easily cowed than I am.

I have the very mixed blessing of living in Staten Island, home to what is clearly the most politically political establishment-obsequeous daily newspaper in New York. The Staten Island Advance's political editor is a dour chap named Tom Wrobeski, who for months willfully suppressed the news of my Democratic write-in candidacy for the U.S. Senate against the Republicrat Clinton for months, thereby allowing his newspaper, increasingly widely known as The Staten Island Retreat, to get scooped by NYC Newsday. At the Advance, political coverage is also suppressed and censored by a less than honest editor named Marjorie Hack, one of many at that paper who think that by not responding to my e-mails I and UP FRONT News will go away. The Advance is one of the main reasons why, despite some really wonderful things about this very interesting island, it is essentially ruled as an entrenched duopoly involving some really corrupt Democrats on the North Shore like the very negligent State Assemblyman Matthew Titone and some rather reactionary Republicans such as Cheney pal U.S. Congressman Vito Fossella, another recurrently populism-spouting politician who consistently places his private interests before the public good and who still believes that Bush and Cheney have been telling us the the truth about Iraq.

From the Advance Staten Islanders are as likely to get the truth about for example Hillary Clinton, Christine Quinn, Michael Bloomberg and Matthew Titone as Soviet citizens could get from Pravda and/or Izvestia 1951 about Joseph Stalin.

If Barack Obama, whose wife has met me and received UP FRONT News, which is also known to some of his top campaign people, checks out my newspaper, he will know that Hillary Clinton is totally corrupt and that it is quite easy to demonstrate that she is ethically unqualified to be president. She is a human rights disaster and deserves to be fully ex-posed. John Edwards had his chance and, because of some rather wimpy "liberals" of the Howard Dean persuasion in his campaign, treated Mrs. Clinton with kid gloves, even to the point where he said that she has been a good Senator. How would he know, living in an es-tate in North Carolina and never having been one of her ripped off constituents?

Staten Island Advance columnist Carmac Gordon - not at all surprisingly, since that paper often serves as essentially as a house organ for Michael Bloomberg - has suggested that should Barack Obama become the Democatic presidential nominee, he pick the mayor as his running mate. I would imagine that the generally Republican-leaning editorial clique at the Advance understands that such a choice would lead to a massive defection of progres- sives away from the Democatic ticket (some even scraping the bottom of the barrel by voting for the Lyndon LaRouche/Lenora Fulani-linked Ralph Nader), thereby significantly enhancing John McCain's prospects. Michael Bloomberg, another politician with Teflon qualities, with his pro-developer policies, has served as a political engine for gentrification and has thereby significantly worsened the affordable housing crisis. Michael Bloomberg, his philanthropic behaviors notwithstanding, is one of the causes of homelessness. Also, keeping in mind how, during the 2004 Republican National Convention, he converted some of the Hudson River piers into a mini-Guantanamo for detaining anti-RNC protesters, Bloomberg is a more suitable running mate for Hillary Clinton (if, should she hijack the nomination, she does not succeed in convincing perhaps Roger Clemens to consider the vice-presidency).

And as far as the notion of a "who's on top?" ticket of Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama
is concerned, that would be a case of political schizophrenia that only Ralph Nader could benefit from as John mcCain would wind up in the White House. A house divided cannot win.

The multimillionaire populist John Edwards, advised by political hacks such as Peter Hatch, hatched defeat for himself by treating the Republicrat Hillary Clinton with kid gloves.
I hope that Barack Obama does not make the same mistake.
* * * * * * *

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home