National Media Must Diversify

I found this McCain video of how much the media is in the tank for Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfogMFL7UJo

and left this comment:

All kidding aside, the media needs to diversify itself. It may take years of hiring conservatives but it's important for the country and the world.

It's dangerous to have our national media so one sided.

For example, in 1994 a very charming Bill Clinton managed to convince the world that Hutus killing 50,000 Tutsis a week was not genocide and so he would not intervene.

Over 800,000 humans were butchered to death because the liberal media gave the liberal President a pass.

Diversify

It already got this response from 3swelldogs:

EXCELLENT point. we should have gone in there...and the shame of it was that it wouldn't have taken much at all to clear that up.

Hillary's lost her right to be heard.

7-24-08  UPDATE!

The website below, virginiadem.wordpress.com, actually allowed my comment to post, only to remove it later.  Everything I said, was factually true, which just goes to show you that the real fascism in America is on the left.  They love free speech as long as it's only and exactly what they want to hear.  Anything else and they will shut it down, erase it, deny it or otherwise mitigate it. 

Obama's speech today in Berlin reminded us of another fascist who gave speeches to hundreds of thousands in Berlin and his party made sure no criticism of him or his party was allowed in public.

Please let this web site know how you feel about websites that remove comments they don't agree with.  I completely understand removing spam or comments that are factually wrong or personally hurtful - mine were none of the above - they were just critical of the Clintons and the Democrats.

Shame on you Democrats!!!

*****************

I came across more Hillary words:

http://virginiadem.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/republicans-should-apologize-hillary-clinton-finds-her-voice-again-at-aft-convention/#comment-1204.

and I said this on 7-14-08:

More tired old words from the woman who, long ago, lost her right to be heard.

In 1994, 800,000 blacks were butchered to death during the Rwanda Genocide and Bill Clinton did nothing. He had a UN obligation to intervene and he just said no.

Tens of thousands of woman, young and old were raped and mutilated and Hillary Clinton said nothing.

Wouldn’t it have been great if she had found her voice for them? I wonder how many children she could have saved?

Shame on the Clintons and shame on the Democrats for looking the other way because one of their own was in charge!

At least this web-site allows my comments to be posted without "moderation".

I'm getting cynical.

Obama folk, rightly, won't pay for Hillary's hit-job

I came across this gem of a story that describes how Obama supporters are reluctant to give cash to retire Hillary's campaign's debt when a good chunk of it was run up attacking Obama after she had no chance of winning.  I remember Hillary running ads in Montana and saying to my wife how odd that she's spending money this late in the race.  Now she wants Obama folk to pay those bills?

Anyway, here's the link:

http://www.againsthillary.com/2008/07/09/bad-blood-obama-donors-arent-rushing-to-aid-clinton/#comment-8633

...and here's my comment that, as of 1:41pm 7-9-08, was awaiting moderation.  We'll see if it posts.

How strange that the winner of a contest, any contest, pays off the debts of the loser?

Hillary lost this race months ago. Obama had a big lead over McCain. Rather than put her party ahead of her personal ambitions, as Mitt Romney did, she selfishly continues campaigning, against overwhelming mathematical odds, running up debt, gathering up delegates, buying ads and spreading rumors - anything that might convince America Obama is unelectable - a Hillary-fulfilling prophecy.

Now, Obama’s been damaged badly by Hillary’s hammer and Hillary wants Obama’s supporters to pay for the hammer. If they had an ounce of integrity they would not ask for the cash. If they had an ounce of integrity, they would have quit the race and not stayed in to bloody up Obama. Unfortunately, the Clintons have no integrity.

How do I know?

In 1948, the US promised the world, “Never again!” after 6 million Jews were murdered during Holocaust. In 1994, Hutus killed 50,000 Tutsis a week during the Rwanda Genocide - an obvious genocide the US must respond to. But Clinton did not respond. They managed to convince the world it wasn’t really genocide until over 800,000 had been butchered to death.

If the Clinton’s had any integrity, they would have taken action to stop the killing of almost a million people. They didn’t, so they don’t.

 

 

Hillary owes more than you think

Hillary's campaign debt is rising and that's not all she owes. 

Today, I read in the BitsBlog that the June 22, 2008 -NY Post- is reporting that:

"New campaign-finance filings reveal Clinton has even more debt than previously reported, while Obama’s fund-raising has stalled.  

He pulled in $22 million in May - a sharp drop from the $30 million to $55 million he got in each of the prior three months.

And presumptive Republican nominee John McCain came up almost even with his Democratic rival, taking in $21 million last month.

The new reports show Clinton’s debt has risen to $22.5 million - $12 million of which is in personal loans she poured into her campaign - and she reported only $3 million in available cash. More debt is expected to be reported in the coming weeks.

...an Obama spokesman said there's no specific plan to rescue Clinton from her debt.  Discussions so far "have focused more on what these two can do to bring the party together and move it forward than it has on these logistical details," Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said last week. "

Of course, this story has some interesting political and ethical subplots.  Isn't it interesting that Obama's fundraising dropped off so sharply in May, almost in half, from the previous months, even though his race with Hillary was heating up. 

Interesting also that McCain almost matched him in May, largely as a result of fundraising done with Bush at Romney events in Salt Lake City and at Romney's vacation home in Park City, Utah - and no one is reporting that.  No one is talking about how much Romney raised for McCain.

Another interesting subplot in the NY Post story is the pleading by Clinton folk that Obama pay off her debt and the statement by an Obama spokesperson that they have no such intentions - good for them!

Anyway, as interesting as the political and ethical dilemmas, I was first struck by the moral one.  Whenever anyone talks about Hillary owing anything, I first think of what she and Bill owe that they can't pay back - the victims of the Rwanda Genocide their lives back.  I left this comment at the BitsBlog:

"Hillary owes more than $22 million dollars.

She and Bill owe Africa, and the nation of Rwanda, a lot more than that.

You see back in 1994, over 800,000 blacks were butchered to death during the Rwanda Genocide. Back in 1948, the US promised “Never again” would we allow an entire people to be targeted for extinction.

Yet Hutus killed 50,000 Tutsis each week and Bill did nothing. Tens of thousands of women, young and old, were raped and mutilated and Hillary said nothing.

Hillary owes a lot more than $22 million.

No amount of singing in black churches or donating to African charities will bring back 800,000 lives or make up for the injustice of doing nothing during Africa’s worst genocide ever.

n’est pas?"

 

 

I'd like to write a blog soon called "The Clintons are Morally Bankrupt" that logically puts together, side by side, the huge debt they owe for abandoning Rwanda next to all the things they've done that they think are making up for it and add all the things they possibly could do during the rest of their lives and it should become very clear - they're deep in debt, can never get out and should file for moral bankruptcy, very soon, immediately. 

Finally, Some Justice 4 Rwanda.

I subscribe to the HillaryClintondotcom on YouTube - just to keep an eye on things.  Well, I got this gem of a video yesterday, thanking me for...

I did not even finish the video (I never can stomach more than a minute or two of a Hillary video).  I just like to see if they finally let me leave comments.  You see, Hillary's campaign has a policy of not allowing comments she doesn't like to be posted on her YouTube videos.  I guess her staff reviews each one and posts it (or not) depending on if they like the content.  The net result is lots of glowing compliments of Hillary and nothing else.  It's a little like that movie the Stepford Wives or Pleasantville.  Ironic that hippie democrat types think conservatives are fascists who strictly regulate expression but the reverse is actually true.  Giuliani, Mitt, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee all had open comments on their YouTube videos during the GOP primary.  You know this because there was some nasty critical comments of each candidate mixed in with lots of "Go Ron Paul!" comments.  Not so for Hillary.  I don't know about Obama - I'll go check it out.

Anyway, I left the comment below to make the Hillary staffer reading it think a little bit about the person they're supporting.  Someday, I'd like to get the MSM to write about this but until then, your my biggest audience!

Here's my comment:

Finally.

Justice 4 Rwanda.

Over 14 years ago. the Clintons let 800,000 Africans die needlessly - butchered in the Rwanda Genocide after America had promised "Never Again".

Now, it is with sweet and just irony that an African-American has ended the White House dreams of the couple who did nothing about Africa's worst genocide ever.

How ironic Hillary "the feminist" never spoke out while tens of thousands of women, young and old, were raped and mutilated.

May God forgive her.

I submitted it and the response was, "Comment Pending Approval!"  just like that, with the exclamation mark - like I'm supposed to be excited it's pending approval instead of just being posted like 95% of all other YouTube comments.

I'll let you know if it gets approved.  Don't wait up too long :-)

UPDATE:  June 7, 2008

Nope - still no posting of my comment 24 hours later.  You can check yourself @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8-Bkbre_7A

Obama - Hillary Unfit For V.P.

Obama,

I'm afraid there's been a misunderstanding.

I'm not suggesting that the Clinton's cannot be forgiven for what they did.  Forgiveness is a very personal journey that has to do with one's faith, what kind of apology is given/expected and one's outlook on life.  Some of the survivors in Rwanda, perhaps President Kagame himself, certainly all of Hillary's supporters, may find it in their hearts to forgive the Clintons.  I do not.

I'm asking for a little justice for 800,000 victims of that horrific genocide.   I'm not asking that we charge the Clintons with crimes against humanity - although many do. 

At the very least, Hillary should not be rewarded with the honor of being Vice-President of the United States. 

It would be fantastic if someone asked the Clintons some tough questions about why Bill failed his UN obligation to stop the slaughter in Rwanda.

THE TUTSI WERE HUMAN BEINGS! 

If we don't care about 800,000 fellow humans dying needlessly - what do we care about?

I think we should expect our Presidents to help stop genocides, not ignore them until everyone's dead. 

(Please see UK Guardian: US Chose To Ignore Rwanda Genocide @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda and the PBS Series: The Triumph of Evil @ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/.)

I'm not trying to implode the Democratic Party - I'm trying to save it.  People are fed up with politics as usual and will vote that way in November.  Barack understands that politics as usual is giving a Democratic President a pass for helping in Kosovo (white Europeans) but abandoning Rwanda (black Africans) simply because he's a Democrat.

The new Barack-refreshing-Audacity-of-Hope-real-change-you-can-believe-in politics is looking out for the poor women and children of Rwanda even though they were not rich, not white, not oil-producing and not American.

Thanks...Matt

p.s.  It's not slander to say that "some guess that Hillary did not want a messy genocide intervention interfering with her health care reforms” - that's a true statement.  Christopher Hitchens and Sally Bedell Smith have suggested as much with Hitchens ending his piece with some good advice, "Let the memory of the truth, and the exposure of the lie, at least make us resolve that no Clinton ever sees the inside of the White House again"  Here, here!  Personally, I have no idea why Bill Clinton prevented UN action to save Rwanda but went around the UN to save Kosovo.  Ultimately - it doesn’t matter - it's inexcusable.

Rush - One Hour For Rwanda?

 

Recent question submitted to Rush Limbaugh @ ElRushbo@eibnet.com

 

Rush,

I understand you're a big fan of Jim Nance and his connection to great moments in sports history.  I get it. 

However, I wonder if you could also spend an hour of your show next week on the Rwanda Genocide. 

Here's why:

My sense is that we are experiencing the last days of Hillary '08.  Before she drops out for "party unity", Hillary should be forced out because the Clintons failed their UN obligation to intervene in Rwanda resulting in 800,000 blacks butchered to death and hundreds of thousands of women, young and old, raped and mutilated. 

No one has made this issue "go national" yet, not even African-Americans. 

YOU COULD!

Not only would it bring down Hillary's campaign but it would destroy Bill Clinton's legacy - weakening Democrats for years and moving this country permanently to the right.  Dems often point to the 90s as an example of how great things are when Democrats are in charge.  Clinton's presidency was a disaster in many respects but not to liberals. Forcing Hillary to resign because the Clintons abandoned Africa during it's worst genocide in history will force even liberals to be ashamed of the Clinton legacy.

Forcing Hillary from the race because of Rwanda would also mean a great deal to hundreds of millions of Africans, and those who care about human rights.  In 1994, Africans looked to the West for help and it never came.  Not only that, but all of the leaders who turned their backs on Africa were rewarded.  Kofi Annan & Madeleine Albright were promoted.  Bill Clinton was re-elected in 1996.  Hillary was elected to the Senate.  In 2008, the Clintons have the arrogance to run again. 

They don't deserve back in the White House - they made a foreign policy mistake that cost 800,000 people their lives.

Pease - do what you can to make this a "national issue" that will force her from the race, and Bill Clinton from favor.   

Thanks...Matt 

Defeat 4 Hillary = Justice 4 Rwanda

My Questions for Hillary

I recently watched a Major Garrett interview of Senator Clinton @

http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/14/hillary-clinton-its-not-over-till-its-over/#comment-2844

It was a rigorous discussion of inside-the-beltway issues like whether Michigan and Florida should be seated and isn't the recent tide of super delegates to come out for Obama a sign Obama's the presumptive nominee?  As interesting as those topics are for political junkies, like myself, I can't help but wonder why aren't more questions asked that would really help voters make up their minds?

For example:

1. To really reduce the price of gas for those WV nurses (who can't see certain patients because of gas prices), what about drilling in ANWR and off the coasts, with strict environment-protecting controls, and releasing some of the SPR until those new wells come online?  This would really lower the price of gas for average Americans, replace foreign oil sources with domestic and improve our trade deficit.  The Dems have really limited domestic drilling - which has kept domestic supply down.  If Democrats don't go along with it now, why shouldn't those nurses, and everyone else, blame the Democrats for high gas prices?
2. Isn't it true, Senator Clinton, that the booming 90s economy, you keep taking credit for, actually began in March, 1991 - a full 21 months before your husband took office?  Isn't it also true that the 1994 Republican's fiscal discipline and the Bush 41 recovery have more to do with the late 1990s surpluses than anything your husband did?  If so, why should Americans trust you with our economy?  In fact, given the Dem majorities, isn't it more likely a Hillary economy would be more like Carter's economy than the one your husband inherited?
3. Lastly, and far more important, are questions about Rwanda - most media has been afraid to ask the Clintons about Rwanda – until now.  After the Holocaust, we promised “never again” at the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.  In 1994, over 50,000 blacks per week were butchered to death during the Rwanda Genocide.  To avoid our UN obligation, President Clinton tried to convince the world it wasn’t technically “genocide”.   Incredibly, the world believed President Clinton and, for 14 long weeks, the slaughter continued until over 800,000 blacks died.  Senator Clinton - As someone who has fought for women and children for 35 years, why didn’t you speak out publicly against your husband when you saw the news footage of the Kagera River, red with the blood of victims and clogged with the bloated & hacked body parts of women and children?  You call yourself a feminist and yet you remained silent while hundreds of thousands of black women, young and old, were raped and mutilated.  Why did you remain silent?
4. Do you believe your husband’s apologies are enough given that over 800,000 blacks lost their lives on his watch?  Recent reports indicate your husband and V.P. Gore may have been aware as early as week three that a horrific genocide was happening, but did not acknowledge it publicly. 
5. By week three, the Hutus had slaughtered over 100,000 Tutsis.  When did you begin to think it was genocide?  If early on, why not speak out publicly to save lives?  If not until later, why should America trust you to be President if you failed to see such a significant human disaster was unfolding and that urgent action was needed? 

I know these questions are a little rough but the subject matter is rough.  I truly believe journalists have a solemn obligation to hold leaders accountable, even if questions are difficult.

Rush Asked on Clinton/Rwanda

On Friday, May 9, 2008, I finally got through to Rush as a caller on "Open Line Friday".  I've been trying to get through to Rush for many years.  Today, I wanted to ask him where is the outrage from black leaders about how the Clintons handled the Rwanda Genocide.  Below is a transcript, picture and background link copy and pasted off his web site at:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050908/content/01125115.guest.html

RUSH: Matt in Jericho, Vermont. We go back to the phones here.  You're next.  Welcome, sir.  Great to have you here.
CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  I'm a big fan.  Not of your singing, but the other stuff.
RUSH:  Yeah, well, you know, cut me some slack on that.  You know I'm deaf.
CALLER:  Okay.  I had a question a little off topic.  After the Holocaust, we said never again.  In 1994, over 800,000 blacks were butchered to death in the Rwanda genocide, and the Clintons did nothing.  Now the Clintons want back in the White House, and here's my question.  We saw the outrage (transcript error:  I actually said, "We were all outraged, ...) , but where is the outrage of African-American leaders like Obama, Sharpton, Clyburn, even Reverend Wright?  The Clintons did nothing about the worst genocide in African history, and not a peep out of all those sermons, nothing.  Why do you think that is?
RUSH:  This is an excellent question.
CALLER:  Thank you.
RUSH:  It is an excellent question.  In the first place you have to understand Clinton was busy at the time saving Haiti.  He sent Colin Powell down there and we got rid of Jean-Bertrand Aristide.  Here's the real answer to this, because I get questions about other such confusing incidents as well, and the answer is that liberals are liberals first, and they're whatever else they are second, be they Jewish, be they black, be they feminists, they're liberals first.  So what did we have in the circumstances with Rwanda?  We had Bill Clinton in the White House.  Who was Bill Clinton?  Toni Morrison called him the first black president.  She since, by the way, retracted that.  She's for Obama now.  She retracted it.  She said, (paraphrasing) "Nah-nah, I didn't mean he was black, just the way he was perceived guilty before any evidence was in, was the same thing that happens to my brothers in the soul community, and that's why he was the first black president, but he was never a black guy like Obama."  She's sort of taken it back, but back then he was the first black president.  And he surrounded himself with the Reverend Jackson and all these sort of people, but he was a liberal.
He was a Democrat president, and he was being besieged by Ken Starr, the sex fiend; being besieged by me, responsible for Oklahoma City, he said; besieged by a number of enemies, and the liberals circled the wagons around him.  Now, I'm not trying to be flippant with you, Matt.  This is how this works.  The black population in this country was outraged at Ronald Reagan over what was going on in South Africa with apartheid, but they're going to support a Democrat president, they're gonna circle the wagons, especially when he's under siege because of problems of his own making.  Clinton squared it all, when it was all over, and after the genocide, he bit the lower lip, and he apologized and he admitted that he coulda done more.  And they melted, their hearts melted.  At least Bill Clinton took responsibility.  He was a big man.  At least Bill Clinton admitted a mistake.  I'm not being flippant with this answer.  That is precisely how he was able to get away with it.  It's why today Obama doesn't bring it up.  It's why Sharpton, Jackson, don't bring it up.  Liberals are liberals first wherever you find them.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

• UK Guardian: US Chose to Ignore Rwandan Genocide.
Classified Papers Show Clinton was Aware of 'Final Solution' to Eliminate Tutsis - 03.31.04