Without MLK, with Clinton, 800,000 blacks died.

"Until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream" - MLK Jr.

MLK fought injustice against blacks. Unfortunately, he was not alive to stop the injustice against blacks during the 1994 Rwanda Genocide where 56,000 died each week at a murder rate 5 times the Holocaust.

In week one, MLK would have called Clinton and demanded action.  In week two, he would have led a protest shaming Clinton into taking action.

Instead, without MLK, with Clinton, over 800,000 blacks were butchered needlessly.

No protests.  No justice.  No righteousness like a mighty stream..

Not only have there been no protests, but many black leaders support Clinton's return to the White House.

Where is the anger?  Why don't we see thousands of young people protesting each Clinton event?  Why aren't the Clintons asked about why Bill turned his back on the blacks in Rwanda but helped the whites in Kosovo?

As Marvin Gaye would sing, "What's Going On?"

 

Media - Don't Ignore Rwanda Genocide Again.

Recently, Hillary Clinton tried to pop Obama's popularity balloon by saying, "it wasn’t the hope that King inspired that made the difference but President Lyndon Johnson’s decision to fight for and sign the Civil Rights Act into law."  So Hillary thinks MLK didn't make a difference?

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. inspired America back in the 1960s and ever since.  He's a hero to my wife and I and our two teenagers.  It is disappointing, but should not be surprising, that Hillary recently diminished Martin Luther King’s role in history for political gain. 

However, that transgression pales in comparison to what the Clintons did to the victims of the Rwanda Genocide in 1994.  You may recall the over 800,000 blacks were butchered in 100 days.  The US, led by Bill Clinton, were obligated to intervene under a 1948 UN Genocide Convention.

 

            

What was the Clinton response to this madness? 

They voted to withdraw UN troops and, mindful of their UN obligation, claimed there were “acts of genocide” in Rwanda but it was not genocide, technically.  If ever there was a time for Hillary to her feminist hat on and disagree with Bill publicly – it would be to stop a genocide that was killing 56,000 blacks each week she waited.

Ironically, Bill, the nation’s "first black President" sidestepped the UN to stop the ethnic cleansing of whites in Kosovo but did nothing to stop the ethnic cleansing of blacks in Rwanda. 

Please don’t ignore my comments because you think I’m one of thousands of "anti-Clinton freaks” complaining about the Clintons again.  Denying genocide is a serious issue and should be addressed in this campaign and in our country. 

Both the Clintons, other 1994 world leaders and the 1994 U.S. media are to blame for abandoning Rwanda.  Will the 2008 media make the same mistake?  Perhaps the reason it doesn't get much media attention today is that many senior members of the media today did nothing in 1994, feel bad about it and do not want to start pointing fingers lest one get pointed back at them.

However, the only way to heal our national wounds over this issue is to take off the dirty bandage we put over it, thereby exposing the ugliness of the leaders who did nothing, wash the wound by holding those leaders accountable and put a new Band-Aid on by making sure we intervene in African genocides, including Darfur, even if the UN does nothing.  It is the only way for our wounds and our soul to heal. 

The media has a choice - help America remember the Rwanda Genocide or, help America forget the Rwanda Genocide?

Remember Rwanda by holding the Clintons accountable.  

 

Why didn't Hillary cry about 800,000 dead blacks?

Hillary cried recently, in public, on the day before the NH primary  - where polls indicated she was going to lose big time.  Why?  She says it’s because she was afraid, “we would fall backward”.  Hillary thinks Obama would let us fall backward?  Like most Americans, I was inspired by Obama’s speech – not driven to tears.  Matt Lauer pondered whether she was crying because a dream she’s had for 30 years, to become the first woman President, was slipping away.

Rush recently reported that Jesse Jackson's son wondered why Hillary didn't cry during Katrina.  Interesting point - why hasn’t she cried during other sad events?  For me, Katrina is a poor example.  Katrina affected households with 9 million people and yet only 1,836 died.  If the U.S. Coast Guard hadn't rescued 30,000 from New Orleans' roof tops, Katrina's death toll could have been a lot worse.

For the victims of the 1994 Rwanda Genocide, our government's response could not have been worse.  Bill failed his UN obligation to intervene and stop the murder of 56,000 blacks per week - a murder rate 5 times the Holocaust.

For 100 days, Hillary was silent while hundreds of thousands of women were raped & 800,000 blacks were butchered to death.

 

If ever there was an occasion to cry for others, it was after watching the bloated, hacked body parts of innocent women and children clog up the narrow parts of the Kagera River.  I remember crying and I have rarely cried.  I'm a big guy and father of two and I remember walking down the street, in 1994, and I saw the news footage on a TV in a store front and I cried.  Strangers were watching me cry on the street.

We never saw Hillary cry, publicly, about Rwanda.  I believe she cared about the victims of one of mankind's worst genocides but she hid those tears because Bill was leader of the free world and had turned his back on Rwanda.  She says now that she did encourage Bill to intervene in Rwanda - so she knew what was happening there - but we never saw her put her feminist hat on and disagree with her husband publicly.  If she had spoke out, hundreds of thousands may have been saved.

So, now that you have some background, I have some questions:

Why didn't she speak out?

Why did the U.S. media believe the Clintons for 100 days that 56,000 murdered Tutsis a week is not genocide?

Why is the outrage among our black leaders?

Remember Rwanda - Defeat Clinton

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. - Sir Winston Churchill.

My daughter recently asked her MMU high school history teacher why no one talked about the 1994 Rwanda Genocide during the 2008 Presidential campaign.  “It's a private matter", he said.   My daughter and I thought that the Rwanda Genocide should be remembered for the same reasons as the Holocaust. For those who forgot a tragedy many would like to forget, let's recap.

On April 6, 1994, a plane carrying the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi was shot down and government-backed Hutu extremists began a planned slaughter of Rwanda's Tutsi population. Most of the killing was done by roving bands of thugs who would surround Tutsis and hack them to death.

Over 800,000 blacks were butchered at a murder rate 5 times the Holocaust.

The Hutus killed so many that narrow parts of Kagera River clogged with bloated hacked body parts. Romeo Dallaire, commander of UN Rwanda, described how one Hutu thug threw a Tutsi baby down a well. When the Hutu heard the baby crying, he threw rocks down the well until the crying stopped. Churches were found with piles of corpses 6 ft high inside. Another report said a Hutu mayor gathered 45,000 Tutsis at a college for "shelter" only to slaughter them all within four days.

Try to imagine, if you can, 45,000 people killed in four days.

What was Clinton's response to this madness? Use those famous political skills to rally support among the American people? Nope – the Clintons thought if they didn't call it genocide, the US might avoid its UN obligation to intervene under the 1948 Genocide Convention. They admitted “acts of genocide” have occurred, but insisted it was not technically genocide. Incredibly, they succeeded.

In 1999, a UN report said “A force numbering 2,500 should have been able to stop…” the killing. The US has a proud tradition of using its super power to step in. We’ve stopped aggression by Hitler, Japan, Soviet Union, Saddam, etc… However, the US, led by Bill Clinton, failed in Rwanda.

My daughter and I would like to see a woman president – but not Hillary. There must be accountability and justice for the murdered victims of Rwanda. Madeline Albright was promoted to Secretary of State, Kofi Annan was promoted to U.N. Secretary-General, Bill was re-elected in 1996 and now Hillary wants to be President – even though they let hundreds of thousands die to protect their careers.

This is not justice - it is the opposite of justice.

Ironically, Bill was later crowned "nation's first black President" and honored by the Congressional Black Caucus. Recently, over 60 black Baptist ministers announced their support for Hillary and civil rights leader Andrew Young said Bill was "blacker than Obama because Bill's been with more black women".

How can a civil-rights leader overlook Clinton’s failure to stop the slaughter of 800,000 blacks but pay attention to the race of who sleeps with the former President?

Hillary often says her First Lady experience sets her apart. She’s right, if Barack was married to the leader of the free world, and that leader did not intervene to stop genocide in Rwanda (black Africans) but did stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo (white Europeans) Barack would have spoke up – big time.

The Clintons failed their UN obligation to stop one of mankind’s worst genocides.  No amount of African charity work or Iowa newspaper endorsements can make up for that. 

Now that you know the truth, will you “hurry off as if nothing ever happened?”

Ask Senator Clinton about Rwanda at the ABC/facebook debates in NH on Jan 5th!

I'm thrilled to see the candidates will debate again.  I only hope the moderator will do a little better job allowing the candidates more time to answer questions but interrupt them when they say something not factual.

The one question I'd like ABC to ask Senator Clinton is this:

"Senator Clinton, you say your First Lady experience sets you apart.  However, for 100 days in 1994, you were silent as 800,000 blacks were butchered to death in the Rwanda Genocide.  Do you agree that your husband had a UN obligation to intervene and if so, why didn't you speak out during the genocide?"

Mrs. Clinton will dance around this one, but Charlie Gibson should pin her down - it's the right thing for our conscience as a nation and for the victims of Rwanda.

Hillary declined to comment on Rwanda

Wow!  Patrick Healy of the New York Times wrote an article about Hillary's First Lady Foreign Policy experience.   Read full article @

The Résumé Factor: Those 8 Years as First Lady - New York Times

The article confirms what we've suspected about Hillary and Rwanda:

"..She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda"

Deep in the article Mr. Healy talks about why the Clinton Administration ignored ethnic cleansing in Rwanda - they were focused on ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.  The Clinton's priorities were clear - save the white Europeans, ignore the black Africans.

"... Former White House officials say that no one — not the national security team, not the president, not the first lady — was seriously pushing for American military intervention to stop or slow the unfolding genocide there(in Rwanda); the administration’s focus was on confronting the ethnic bloodshed in the Balkans. Mrs. Clinton declined to comment on Rwanda."

Hillary declined to comment - what a surprise!  However, Mr. Healy did ask her about it and her refusal to comment probably raised some red flags at the Times and at Clinton campaign HQ.   Her campaign, feeling good they had avoided the question this deep in the campaign, now has to regroup and come up with an answer about Rwanda that voters will swallow - even if they choke on it, as long as they choke on it after the election's over.

Why would Hillary, who often says her First Lady experience sets her apart from other candidates, decline to comment about one of mankind's worst genocides that happened on her husband's watch?  Probably for the same reason that, according to the article, "Documents about her work remain classified at the National Archives."  

The reason - Hillary doesn't reveal anything unflattering if she, or her lawyers, can help it.  Her campaign staff even reviews comments on her campaign videos at YouTube and screens out negative comments, like a few from yours truly.

Success!  This is the first crack in the dam preventing Justice 4 Rwanda.  Although Hillary declined comment, the fact that she was asked tells me that the Rwanda Genocide, and the Clinton's failure to intervene, is now being discussed with NY-DC-Media folk and that is a step forward.

Why aren't black leaders angry at the Clintons?

In 1994, during the Rwanda Genocide, hundreds of thousands over 800,000 blacks were butchered to death, mostly with machetes - an unthinkable way to die. Hundreds of thousands of black women and children were raped and murdered.

What was the Clinton response to this suffering by blacks on a scale not seen since the slave trade? They voted to withdraw U.N. peacekeepers and parse the word genocide. They could not admit it was genocide or they would be obligated under the 1948 UN Genocide Convention to intervene - "Never again!", the U.S. and it's allies promised.

When ethnic cleansing of blacks began in Rwanda, the Clintons took action to airlift (mostly white) U.S. citizens out of harm's way, then voted to withdraw U.N. peace keepers from Rwanda and deny genocide was taking place. Years later, during the ethnic cleansing of whites in Kosovo, the Clintons were quick to assist the Europeans intervene with U.S. troops and stop the genocide.

So, let's recap:

When white Europeans were threatened with ethnic cleansing - the Clintons took quick action to stop it.

When black Africans were threatened with ethnic cleansing - the Clintons took quick action to make it worse and deny genocide was happening.

Yet support among blacks and their leaders has remained very strong. Ironically, Bill Clinton came to be known as the "nation's first black President" and was later honored by the Congressional Black Caucus. Most recently, Andrew Young, Carter's U.N. Ambassador, said Clinton was "blacker than Obama because Bill's been with more black women". It's hard to imagine that a civil rights leader has forgotten that Clinton did nothing about the only African genocide of the 20th century.

On December 15, 1999, a report on the UN's response to the genocide concluded that “the UN and its member states could have stepped in and stopped the killing, but failed to do so” and that, “A force numbering 2,500 should have been able to stop or at least limit massacres of the kind which began in Rwanda”. Clinton himself admitted in 2003 that had in sent in "10-15,000 troops he might have saved about half.

So, Clinton made a mistake in judgement that, by his own admission, could have prevented the slaughter of 400,000 blacks.

What was Hillary's role? She often says her experience as First Lady sets her apart from Obama and Edwards. She's right - does anyone doubt that Barack and his wife would have done something about an African genocide? Hillary says she has a long history of fighting for women and children - so, why was she silent for over 100 days while hundreds of thousands of black women and children were raped and butchered?

Wake up America! George Bush was 3 or 4 days late getting to New Orleans after Katrina and Kanye West says, "Bush doesn't care about black people". Imus uses the term, "nappy-headed whores" and he's widely critized as a racist and fired. Halle Barry says Holloywood is racist because they overlook her and other black actors for important roles. L.A. cops are acquitted of beating Rodney King and riots erupt.

Imagine what would happen if a white couple in power intervened to stop a genocide of white Europeans but denied a genocide of black Africans was happening at all and, as a result, 800,000 blacks lost their lives at a murder rate five times the Holocaust?

Would you denounce this couple? Call them racists? Organize protests wherever they spoke? Have them fired? Have them prosecuted for crimes against humanity in what might be called the "Black Holocaust"?

Hard to say, but one things for sure - you would not elect one of them U.S. President.