Video

Toni Morrison's essay, "Clinton as the first black president," (New Yorker, October 1998) was her defense--some would say, 'her rationalization'--of clinton vs. his impeachment. Morrison's argument reduces to this: bill clinton, who is "blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime.--[a]fter all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness," is being lynched for not knowing his place. The irony, of course, is that this is precisely what the clintons are doing to Obama.... And they are doing it to amass more power, and to hell with their party and the country. All Americans of good will must reject these two dangerous self-serving miscreants, completely and absolutely. THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT? clinton legacy of lynching update by Mia T, 7.23.05 "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. ------- 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