Monday, December 31, 2007


Just Google...'Clinton Body Count'....then....'Ron Brown's Death'. Also, always keep in mind....the Neo-Cons literally wrote out the plan to invade Iraq, Iran and Syria back in 1992.(Google:PNAC.....Then watch a few of the videos). Each participant signed the plan....and coincidentally ended up on the Bush Administration. Like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Card, and many others. HILLARY IS PART OF THE PLAN.....which is why she is receiving more campaign contributions from defense contractors (bomb, guns, tank manufacturers, etc.) than any other candidate....even republicans....(remember Hillary was the director of her colleges Republican Chapter) which is why she voted to invade Iraq.....then voted to invade Iran. BUSH WANTS BILLARY TO WIN SO SHE WILL CARRY OUT THE PLAN. She is the worse choice for America !!!!.....and Edwards is a rich slick (pays $400 per haircut) trying to act like he caters to the poor....but has NEVER done ANYTHING for the poor. Barack Obama is the answer.....for the RE-BIRTH OF AMERICA !!!!

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Are Black Civil Rights Leaders
Who Support Hillary SELL-OUTS ?
By Greg Jones
As a fifty year old black man from Cleveland, Ohio I'm at the age where my mind is full of memories. I remember how, as a child, we were all so proud as black people to be able to watch Julia on TV, the first TV series starring a black woman.
I would watch 'I Spy' co-starring Bill Cosby with excitement and a sense of connection. I remember the pride we all felt when Carl B. Stokes won as mayor here in Cleveland, becoming the first black mayor of any major city. I remember the shock of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's death and the riots that resulted in many buildings being burned down in our neighborhood.
I remember the National Guard riding up and down my street making us stop playing football forcing us to go in the house. I remember going to church each night where it seemed liked hundreds of blacks all came together, while we kids were in another area of the church in what was called 'Freedom School'. I remember listening to the preacher who preached the message....and I first learned the song....'We Shall OverCome'.
I remember looking up at the preacher, who was our leader at that time, in total belief. All throughout my growing years I have held steadfast to the vision that we shall overcome. But now, in 2007, I listen to our modern day civil rights leaders and find myself in absolute dismay. The very leaders who, since the civil rights movement of the 60's, had invigorated, motivated and preached the message that we shall overcome through being a united people working together toward empowerment, have unbelievably chosen to support Hillary Clinton instead of a highly qualified, capable, intelligent man who is an extremely credible candidate for President of the United States and is black.
My heart just drops every time I hear an Andrew Young, Al Sharpton, Calvin Butts or Jesse jackson making statements that question whether we should support Barack Obama, and instead, being supportive of Hillary Clinton. It makes no sense at all. How can these 'leaders' claim to have devoted their lives to black empowerment, while simultaneously doing all they can to block our progress as a people? It is the most hypocritical thing I have ever witnessed and I find it to not only be very sad but also destructive to the cause. I ask myself, how could this be? Why would our civil rights leaders be anti a black man who is truly credible, choosing rather to support a white woman instead? So, I just wonder.
I wonder if they are truly sincere about their desire to see us as blacks overcome, or are they just in the civil rights business to make a living? I wonder if the Hillary camp has promised these 'leaders' certain benefits if they 'deliver' the black vote? If that is the case it would mean that personal gain is more important to them than actual achievement and empowerment for us as a people. So I watch as we cry out....we march....we boycott.....then our 'leaders' turn their backs on our very own. To me, that is the epitamy of a SELL-OUT ! I just hope that the average black man and woman will see through the tactics of our so called leaders, and will rally together, as we should, striving together so that one day.....We Shall Truly OverCome !

Clinton Insiders Fear Secret Service

Records Could Damage Campaign
By: Robert Parry

Even as Hillary Clinton's operatives were dropping hints that Republicans would exploit Barack Obama's youthful drug use, some Clinton insiders privately worried about her own vulnerability because the Bush administration possesses detailed knowledge of her movements - and her husband's - over the past seven years.
Because of Sen. Clinton's unique status as the first former First Lady to run for President - and because her husband was succeeded by a Republican - she is the first candidate to have both her and her spouse be subject to regular, long-term surveillance by an Executive Branch agency controlled by the opposing political party.
Since they left the White House in 2001, Bill and Hillary Clinton have been under the protection of the Secret Service, formerly a branch of the Treasury Department and now part of the Homeland Security Department. Records are maintained showing where they go and whom they meet.
Homeland Security is under the control of Michael Chertoff, a longtime Clinton nemesis dating back to his work as a Republican lawyer on the Senate's Whitewater investigation in the 1990s. In 2003, Sen. Clinton cast the sole dissenting vote against Chertoff's nomination as a federal judge in protest against his abrasive conduct during the Whitewater inquiry.
Though Secret Service records are supposed to be closely held secrets, a source close to the Clintons told me that it is believed that senior Republicans have received regular briefings about movements of the Clintons that might prove embarrassing if released during the general election campaign.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

From: DailyKos
Hillary: The Wrong Choice on National Security
by The Bagof Health and Politics
Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 05:39:14 PM PST

Voters think that Hillary Clinton is the best choice on National Security Issues. They are Wrong. Here's why.

Benazir Bhutto, the leader of the Pakistani opposition, was assassinated at a rally today. Bhutto was no saint, but ended up being a martyr for her cause. Bhutto’s assassination leaves a power vacuum in Pakistani politics, and destabilizes the nuclear-armed nation. The aftermath of Bhutto’s death will be seen over the next few weeks. It has far reaching implications; implications that could influence the primary elections here in the United States.

Here in the US, a poll was released today. It validated emerging trends: that Barack Obama is trending upwards, and was on a path towards victory; and that Hillary Clinton is trending downwards and was on a path towards defeat. Politics—especially presidential politics—is about timing. Bhutto’s assassination raises the salience of national security issues in the week leading up to the first votes of the 2008 Presidential cycle.
Buried within the poll is an interesting item. According to the LA Times, "The poll shows that Democrats consider Clinton far-better equipped than her rivals to safeguard national security." Conventional wisdom on this is, as usual, wrong.

Hillary Clinton is saying that she will, in essence, follow her husband’s foreign policy. If Hillary wants to claim credit for the successes of Kosovo, then she should also share in the blame for the disasters of Clinton the First’s administration. Clinton the First faced a foreign policy challenge in his first months in office; after a single incident where 18 soldiers were killed, Clinton the First pulled US troops out of Somalia. That action sent a message to the vile element abroad: terrorism works.
Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings occurred in 1998, just as Clinton was getting impeached by the US House for lying about an extramarital affair. A movie was out at the time. It was called Wag the Dog. Its central premise was that a President started a war to distract people from corruption at home. Clinton the First was worried about appearances. There was actionable intelligence on the location of Osama bin Laden—he was in the Sudan at the time. Clinton waited for hours before deciding to launch a missile strike. By the time the missiles were launched, bin Laden was elsewhere, and the missiles just hit innocent villagers.

Then there was the USS Cole bombing, which occurred late in Clinton the First’s term. The US Presidential election was approaching. Clinton took no action other than to impose sanctions. Meanwhile, the September 11th plot was in its nascent stages, terrorists were going on "dry runs," and nothing was being done.
The national security record of Clinton the First’s term is poor at best. There were some successes—peace in the Balkans, although whether that is lasting peace remains to be seen. But there were many failures too--failures that had disastrous consequences and led to the situation that we have today.

Even if you accept the premise that Hillary shouldn’t be held responsible for any actions in her husbands term (which is going against her message, which says she should get credit for everything that happened in the 1990s), there are still problems with Hillary’s record on national security issues. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War; she says she decided to vote for the war after being counseled by Condi Rice, currently Bush’s Secretary of State. Hillary took Rice at her word; she didn’t bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate, and therefore voted to send this nation to war on incomplete information.

Hillary voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which would’ve led to a war with Iran if it weren’t for a few brave intelligence professionals that forced the administration to declassify the NIE, which showed this was the same old story (no nukes). The United States military is stressed to its capacity as it is; adding more troops and another occupation of Iran would only diminish our nation’s ability to respond to instability elsewhere in the nation. For instance, if Hillary Clinton’s vote had been followed to its logical conclusion, the United States would have no capacity to respond to instability in other nations, like Pakistan.
The issue of Pakistan itself brings up another area where Hillary Clinton has proven to have poor judgment. Earlier this year, Senator Barack Obama said that military action against Al Qaeda, which currently occupies a mountainous portion of Pakistan, within Pakistani borders should be an option for any US President. Clinton herself attacked Obama, and said it showed that he was "naïve" about foreign policy. Yet as instability rules the Pakistani landscape, The prospect of chaos and of nuclear weapons being within the grasp of Al Qaeda is now very real. Senator Obama surely isn’t naïve for saying that military action should always remain an option in this situation; in fact, it looks like he was pretty wise to say that.

It’s clear from her record of mistakes and her husband’s record of failures that Hillary Clinton is the wrong choice for those that care about national security. The right choice is clearly Bill Richardson, who served as this nation’s Ambassador to the United Nations, has engaged in negotiations with dozens of foreign leaders, and has a solid understanding of national security issues.

If it isn’t Richardson, then Obama—who opposed the war in Iraq from the start and didn’t vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Iran War Amendment—is the better choice.
The same old leadership leads to the same old problem—a world in chaos and instability throughout the globe. It’s time for a new approach. It’s time for somebody not named Bush or Clinton to be in the Oval Office.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Obama Was Right....Hillary Wrong Re: PAKISTAN
By: Greg 'Peace Song' Jones

With the terrible announcement of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan, one can't help but be reminded of a recent Democratic debate in which Hillary Clinton literally laughed at Barack Obama's statement that the United States should concentrate on the unrest in Pakistan even if it meant sending U.S. troops to the Afghan/Pakistan border where the Taliban, Al-queda and other terrorists are camped. Hillary did her pompous, smirky laugh stating that Obama wants to 'talk to our enemies (Iran) and attack our allies' (Pakistan border). But as events unfold in the region we are learning more and more of just how disasterously wrong she and our foreign policy have been. We are supporting a crazy dictator (Musharaf) who we have given millions of dollars to....who has point blank told us that he will not go to the Pakistan border to address the true terrorists because they 'made a deal'. It doesn't matter that crazy Mu has weapons of mass destruction and is probably hiding Bin Laden in the border region. And to Hillary.....this is all just fine. Is this the great 'experience' that she boasts having ? Now, as we watch the turmoil increase in the Pakistan region Hillary will surely state that we need her 'experience' to handle the situation when in fact, it is this very mindset or experience that is leading America and the entire world toward catastrophe. Face it Hillary.....You are wrong...Obama was right. Oh.....and need I mention that the recent findings show that our 'enemy' hasn't had a weapons program for years ? But Hillary voted to basically crush Iran........wrong again Hill. And to top things'll probably stay supportive of Crazy Mu along with the other Bushites and regime controlled media 'experts' ! With 'experience' like yours.....who needs enemies ?
NOTE: CNN's Wolf Blitzer just released an email to be read in the event of Bhutto's death. She names Musharraf as responsible. ANYONE (politicians, media, etc.) who is still supportive of Musharraf is dangerous for America and should be investigated. Also, be prepared for the standard 'fear' tactics to kick-in.
Greg 'Peace Song' Jones

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Do we REALLY know the Clintons ?

also: Google......Ron Brown Death

Friday, December 21, 2007

Obama Tells Bush


Says Build First

Washingon, D.C., Dec. 18, 2007 - U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., today sent the following letter to President Bush, calling on him to abandon his administration's intentions to demolish federally-assisted housing in New Orleans.
Dear Mr. President:
I urge you to abandon all plans to demolish federally-assisted housing in New Orleans, Louisiana, until there is a comprehensive plan to meet the region's extensive affordable housing needs.
Two years ago, when you appeared in Jackson Square, you spoke of America's "duty to confront this poverty with bold action." You explained: "Americans want the Gulf Coast not just to survive, but to thrive; not just to cope, but to overcome. We want evacuees to come home, for the best of reasons -- because they have a real chance at a better life in a place they love."
Unfortunately, there are an estimated 12,000 people already homeless in New Orleans, and thousands more are struggling with costly and slow rebuilding efforts and private rents that have risen 45 percent since the storm. More than two thirds of the housing stock was destroyed by the hurricane, and much of it has not yet been rebuilt. Thousands of residents are still living in trailers with dangerous levels of formaldehyde even though more than 800 days have passed since Hurricane Katrina made landfall.
Despite this harsh reality, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is now planning to reduce the limited supply of affordable housing even further by demolishing 4,500 units of public housing. Notwithstanding your wish for evacuees to come home to "thrive" and "overcome," New Orleans does not have adequate affordable housing options even for the people who are already there.
It is critical for policy makers to answer the following questions before any demolition takes place:
• Is demolition, which was originally planned and approved before hurricane Katrina, still a sensible strategy in light of the region's housing crisis?• How many new units of public housing will be built or acquired to replace the 4,500 scheduled for demolition? If less than 4,500, what is the plan to close the gap to get back at least to pre-Katrina levels? If more than 4,500, what plans are in place to ensure adequate income diversity and economic integration? • What plans are in place to meet the low-income housing needs during the period between demolition and the availability of new housing? • What supports are in place to assist residents during any housing transition?
Almost a year ago, I visited New Orleans and posed similar questions to HUD. I have yet to receive an adequate response to that inquiry.
There is no question that most displaced residents want to come back to their homes and apartments, but that is hardly possible if they return to a city with fewer affordable housing options available than it had before. I support the conversion to mixed income neighborhoods and greater economic integration, but such redevelopment plans must not be at the expense of adequate and improved housing options for the poor. No public housing should be demolished until HUD can point to an equivalent number of replacement units in the near vicinity.
Over the past two years, the federal government has failed the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. But there is still an opportunity to demonstrate that they are not forgotten. I urge you to reconsider the demolition of these housing units until there is a comprehensive plan to meet the region's extensive affordable housing needs. Thank you.
Barack Obama, United States Senator

Op-Ed On Giving Ex-Offenders
A Second Chance

Yesterday, Barack Obama published the following op-ed in the Chicago Defender and the Austin Daily News:

In America, nearly a third of African-American men will enter state or federal prison during their lives. Too many will be lost in the criminal justice system and end up in prison, poverty, and unemployment. And in some cases, the lack of job training and support programs means that those who are released could fail to become fully rehabilitated, and may go on to commit more crimes.

There is no question that breaking the law should have consequences, and we have to do more as parents to teach our children that violence is always wrong. But justice must be fair, and punishment must fit the crime. Yet, we still have a system that locks away too many young, first-time, non-violent offenders for the better part of their lives. It’s a system where certain sentences are based less on the kind of crime you commit than on what you look like and where you come from.

In Illinois alone, more than 40,000 people are released from prisons each year with most of them returning to the Chicago community. Almost half of those released from prison lack a high school diploma or GED. Only one-third of inmates receive vocational training or work experience designed to improve their ability to obtain employment once released. Even fewer receive counseling and placement services after their release. Within three years, statistics indicate that more than half will be back in custody.
In today’s economy, without a high school diploma, supporting a family is almost impossible. And with a criminal record instead of an education, the prospects for success are next to none. This has to stop.

The costs of crimes are high. But failing to break this cycle costs us even more.
That’s why I am fighting to pass the Second Chance Act, which would support faith- and community-based organizations working with state and local authorities to give former prisoners a second chance at a meaningful life. The Second Chance Act makes funding available for transitional jobs programs and housing, supportive health services, and educational needs. Organizations such as the Safer Foundation and Heartland Alliance have demonstrated success giving formerly incarcerated people in Illinois an opportunity for a second chance. And the Second Chance Act would ensure that the federal government does its part by supporting reentry programs like these that help make our communities safer.
We must create a pathway for people coming out of jail to get the jobs, skills, and education they need to leave the life of crime. That means supporting effective training and mentoring programs to help people transition into jobs. That means reevaluating the laws against hiring people with a criminal record so that we don’t foreclose effective ways to bring people out of poverty and deter them from committing new crimes. That also means giving former prisoners parenting skills so they can give their children the sense of hope and opportunity that so many of them were denied.

Thurgood Marshall said: “None of us got where we are solely by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. We got here because somebody - a parent, a teacher, an Ivy League crony or a few nuns - bent down and helped us pick up our boots.”
As we fulfill Marshall’s legacy, let’s bend down and help every kid pick up his or her boots for a second chance.


Saturday, December 15, 2007

Hillary Losing Bill's Support In Iowa !
Bill Clinton:
It Would Be 'a Miracle If Hillary Wins in Iowa'
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Fox News

Bill Clinton said it would be a "miracle" if Sen. Hillary Clinton wins in Iowa, even as he brushed off his wife's top rival, Sen. Barack Obama, as a candidate too green to run for president.
The former president, who has been campaigning tirelessly for the Democratic frontrunner as slipping polls and a series of gaffes have threatened her campaign, made the comments in an interview with host Charlie Rose on PBS Friday, where he also said voters would be taking a "risk" if they elected Obama, according to an article in Editor & Publisher.

As Hillary Clinton prepares for a five-day, 99-county Iowa tour with her campaign beginning Sunday, her poll numbers are running low in the final stretch before the Jan. 3 caucuses.
A Newsweek poll of 395 likely voters taken from Dec. 5 to Dec. 6 showed Obama with 35 percent, Clinton with 29 percent and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards with 18 percent in Iowa.
In the interview, Bill Clinton said Edwards might even win, which he said would be preferable.

"It would be a miracle if Hillary wins in Iowa, and I'm not just low-balling you," Clinton said, according to the Editor & Publisher article.


Blacks View Latest Hillary Attack

on Obama as RACIST !
By GREG JONES, Blacks 4 Barack writer (Dec. 15)

In what many consider to be a sign of desperation due to the increase of Obama support in the polls, Hillary Clinton's campaign struck with a new smear tactic recently which some blacks consider to be racist. Many are stating that her underlying tone and tactic reflect her subliminal opinion that all black men are drug dealers....even Barack Obama ! After her co-campaign chairman Bill Sheehan 'resigned' for making the drug dealer comment, Clinton's strategist, AKA her Karl Rove, continued to make drug dealer accusations during a cable news appearance while he was supposedly apologizing for the comments, but was quickly exposed for his tactic by John Edwards strategist Joe Trippi..

National talk-radio shows began raising the issue of Hillary's racist remark on Friday. It also raised the question that if Bill Clinton was so 'pro-black', why as President was he responsible for setting the federal crack cocaine penalties to be 8 times harsher than powder cocaine users, knowing that crack cocaine was more of a black used drug as compared to powder cocaine which is more used by whites. A person convicted of possession of 5 grams of crack could be sentenced to up to 8 years in prison while in order for a person to be sentenced to 8 years with powder they would have to have 500 grams. The imbalance of this Clinton law was reviewed recently by the U.S. Courts and is being overturned.

"I'm just not sure about these Clinton's anymore", states Linda Jackson, a black professional and former Hillary supporter. "