Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:39:19 PM PDT

Many Dems are too caught up in the heat of the moment to appreciate how destructive Hillary Clinton’s presidential run has been, and so it’s instructive to use a hypothetical to help define the issue. What would have happened if Bess Truman had decided to run for president eight years after her husband, Harry Truman, left office?

We all know what really happened in 1960; John F. Kennedy, the nation’s most beloved president, squeaked out a victory over the forces of evil and went on to capture the hearts of a country desperate for a new direction. His aspirational message and captivating speeches inspired an entire generation, and he remains the standard bearer for the Democratic Party. Imagine if Bess Truman had positioned herself as the alternative to JFK and had used Harry Truman’s political machine to push her message and push Kennedy off his.

Harry Truman knew how the game was played and had plenty of allies in the media. He could have easily lined-up Democratic leaders across the country who owed their positions and livelihoods to him. Even Democrats completely opposed to the idea of Bess’ candidacy would have been reluctant to speak their minds for fear of offending the titular head of the party. You can imagine the pressure they would have been under if the Trumans were as vindicative as the Clintons.

Bess would have claimed that she was the one with the experience. She’d invoke the memories of “Give ‘em Hell Harry” and all his successes and claim them for her own. She’d ask, “Weren’t they pretty good times?” and play on the nostalgic links to the past. Unlike the inexperienced young senator from Massachusetts, the Trumans were ready on day one to lead the country.

Imagine Harry Truman roaming through small town America denigrating the elitist Kennedy. He would have drawn huge crowds to hear his plain speak addresses to the common man. It’s doubtful that Harry would have brought Kennedy’s religious background to the political trail, but if he did, it would have been a potent cocktail in the Appalachian states.

The Trumans would have been able to use the chits they’d accumulated over the years. Their old handlers and pols would have been reinvigorated to fight the good fight one last time. Pity the fool that stood in their way.

And Guess what? JFK was not a perfect candidate, there is no such thing. If Bess Truman had HRC’s operation research team, she might have used it to tear down the young prince. It would have been unthinkable of course, but if Bess had no character, she could have justified it by claiming that if she didn’t do it, the Republicans would.

Bess Truman would have been showered with attention by the media, annoited the odds on favorite by the pundits, consolidated a base with sympathetic women and older voters, and thrown the Democratic Party into chaos. JFK’s magic would have been swallowed up by her ego.

Worst of all, Bess Truman would have lost. Even though the Democrats were desperate for victory after eight years of Republican rule, the country had moved on. Bess Truman would have just tarnished her husband’s legacy, crippled the heir apparent, and thrown the election to Richard Nixon. Bess Truman would never have done such a thing.

Hillary Clinton’s selfish ambition has shown how easy it is for a president’s spouse to make a run for the highest office in the land. With $100 million paydays for the families of former presidents and a media that can’t get enough celebrity and gossip, it will be increasingly easy to recycle the same old political families over and over again.

Democrats eager to see HRC return to the White House should keep this in mind; what’s to stop Laura Bush from doing the same thing? If the current First Lady wants to be the next senator from Texas, do you really think George Bush would have trouble making that happen? In eight years, Laura Bush could claim to have all the experience, and with the Bush machinery behind her, who would deny her the Republican nomination? Do you really want Laura Bush back in the White House? It’s a ridiculous thought, it would be a disaster on so many levels, but how is Hillary’s campaign any different?

It’s comfortable to resist change and hold on to the past, but those who do, risk more than they can know. The world is a better place because John F. Kennedy was allowed to rise and bloom without the interference of old political hacks who don’t know when to step aside.

Like Kennedy, Barack Obama will be able to open up a world of possibilities for America that Hillary Clinton cannot even imagine. With her selfish campaign of destruction, Hillary Clinton has done a disservice to us all. She should immediately apologize to all Democrats, remove herself from the race, and throw her support behind Barack Obama. It is Obama who holds the key to the future.

Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:42:28 PM PDT

Politico reports that, “in Pennsylvania and Ohio, Clinton won a stunning seven in ten white voters age 60 and older.” The reason for this is obvious once you know where to look. Hillary Clinton is pursuing the same strategies as the segregationist George Wallace did in order to convince older white Democrats to vote for her.

Those of Barack Obama’s generation or younger have few memories of George Wallace and have trouble relating to his racist message. Older voters, however, are well aware of Wallace’s impact and many were sympathetic at the time to his message. Hillary Clinton is craftily playing off this hidden communication and bond.

The Sixties are ancient history to most of the readers of this blog, but they are alive and well in the Clinton campaign. In 1968 Hillary Clinton was 21 years old and openly working for the Republican Party. She had a good view of George Wallace’s racially motivated run for the presidency. She learned from Wallace how to demagogue race while appearing to be the white knight coming to the rescue.

Like Wallace, HRC vigorously denies any racist intent, while slyly exploiting the politics of racial division. We all know how her surrogates have tried to make Obama unelectable; Penn tried to paint Obama as a cocaine dealer, Clinton claimed the race card, Carville “branded” Richardson, Rendell claimed Pennsylvanians were a bunch of racists who’ll never vote for a black man.

But HRC has done herself no honors either; she refuses to acknowledge that Obama is capable of being president, she’s resorted to invoking Farrakahn and Wright at every opportunity, and she leaves the door open on whether he’s a Christian or not. That’s the short list.

Dan T. Carter in his biography of George Wallace, “The Politics of Rage,” writes how Wallace was able to cloak his racist message in a language that ordinary people could get behind;  

In speech after speech Wallace knit together the strands of racism with those of a deeply rooted moral xenophobic “plain folk” cultural outlook which equated social change with moral corruption. The creators of public policy– the elite– were out of touch with hardworking taxpayers who footed the bill for their visionary social engineering at home and weak-minded defense of American interests. page 345

It’s almost like you’re reading HRC’s playbook, isn’t it? Carter describes Wallace’s verbal attacks that drew such large crowds and were so effective at the time;

“…his snarling attacks against hippies, civil rights “agitators”, welfare recipients, atheists, beatniks, anti-war protesters, Communists, street toughs…” exhilirated his audience. page 346

Substitute the Weather Underground, Reverend Wright, Moveon.org, Louis Farrakhan, and Judas in place of George Wallace’s epithets and its easy to see the Clinton strategy.

Carter reveals a little known fact about George Wallace. He knew he wasn’t going to win. He was only running because he was, “damn sure going to try to keep (Hubert) Humphrey from being elected.” page 358

One last quote that I found interesting;

The American “sickness” had been localized in the person of George Wallace, the “ablest demagogue of our time, with a bugle voice of venom and a gut knowledge of the prejudices of the low-income class. page 367

Since HRC is running on her husband’s legacy and he’s helping her shovel the manure, I couldn’t help but notice that this description fits Bill to a tee.

It’s hard to ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton is employing the most racist tactics employed by anyone in the modern Democratic Party. If Obama is going to defeat these despicable political acts, he is going to have to understand George Wallace.

Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:53:46 PM PDT

Charlie: (Addressing Barack) Talkin’ at some closed-door fundraiser in San Francisco 10 days ago, ya got ta talkin’ in California ’bout small-town Pennsylvanians. Ya say dey bitta, ‘n dey don’t particularly like people who ain’t like who dey is. Ya sed ya mispoke, ya sed ya mangled what ya sed, d’ya undastand tha’ some people in dis here state find that patronizin’ ‘n think tha’ ya sed wha’ ya meant? How’s ya’ gonna splain that to ‘em?

Barack: The point I was making was that when people feel like Washington’s not listening to them, when they’re promised year after year, decade after decade, that their economic situation is going to change, and it doesn’t, then politically they end up focusing on those things that are constant, like religion.They end up feeling “This is a place where I can find some refugee. This is something that I can count on.” They end up being much more concerned about votes around things like guns, where traditions have been passed on from generation to generation. And those are incredibly important to them.

Hillary: (An angelic looking Clinton, her blond locks and blue contacts making her look especially pure and chaste, answers looking heavenward, like a stoic Lilian Gish) Well, I am the granddaughter of a factory worker from Scranton who went to work in the Scranton lace mills when he was 11 years old, worked his entire life there, mostly six-day weeks.  I can see why people would be taken aback and offended by the remarks.

Charlie: We’s gonna have otha’ questions on da same theme, so ya be able t’ get back dat.

George: Le’ me pick up on dis. It gonna be a killer issue in November. Senator Clinton, ya told Bill Richardson dat Senator Obama can’t win. I ain’t gonna ask you ’bout tha’ reconversation. I know ya dunna wanna talk ’bout it. Da question is, d’ya think the boy kin do dat? Kin he win?

Hillary: Yes. Yes. Yes.

Charlie: Ya made a significant speech in dis buildin’ on da subject of race and your former pastor, da Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Ya sed subsequent t’ givin’ dat speech dat ya never heard ‘em say from da pulpit da kinda things dat so has offended peoples. And if ya knew he got rough in sermons, why d’it take ya more d’en a year to publicly disassociate yourselves from his remarks?

Barack: These comments were objectionable; they’re not comments that I believe in. And I disassociated myself with them. What I also said was, the church and the body of Reverend Wright’s work, over the course of 30 years, were not represented in those snippets that were shown on television, and that the church has done outstanding work in ministries on HIV/AIDS, prison ministries, providing people with the kind of comfort that we expect in our churches.

Hillary: (The camera pans the dimly lit crowd, zeroing in on the innocent-looking Chelsea Clinton. she alone is bathed in light, her blond hair softly illuminated by skylights from above) For Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack, which happened in my city of New York, would have been intolerable for me.  I would not have stayed in the church.

George: (Addressing Barack) D’ya think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do or don’t? And if youse git da nomination, what will ya do when we play dose sermons on da television ag’in and ag’in and ag’in?

Barack: You know, George, look, if it’s not this, then it would be something else. I have confidence in the American people that when you talk to the American people honestly and directly about what I believe in, what my plans are on health care, on energy, when they see my track record of the work that I’ve done on behalf of people who really need help, I have absolute confidence that they can rally behind my campaign. And, you know, the notion that somehow that the American people are going to be distracted once again by comments not made by me but by somebody who is associated with me, that I have disowned, I think doesn’t give the American people enough credit.

George: Ya’ disowned him?  (A very strange choice of words, don’t you agree?)

Barack: The comments, comments that I’ve disowned. Then that is not something that I think –

George: But d’ya believe he’s as patriotic as youse is or ain’t?

Barack: This is somebody who’s a former Marine.

Hillary: (Once again speaking to the clouds, eyes turned to an invisible listener above) It is something that I think deserves further exploration.  It wasn’t only the specific remarks, but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas to put a message in. You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people’s minds.

Charlie: (Addressing Barack) I has a question that’s all over da internets. I wanna knows if youse believe in da American flag. I am not questionin’ your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear da flag. I wanna know why you don’t.

Barack: I have never said that I don’t wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins. This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us from what should be my job when I’m commander in chief, which is going to be figuring out how we get our troops out of Iraq and how we actually make our economy better for the American people.

George: (Addressing Barack) Senator, if ya git da nomination, ya gonna have to — (applause) — (inaudible). I wanna give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on dis issue, da general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of da Weather Underground in da 1970s. Dey bombed da Pentagon, da Capitol ‘n other buildings. He don’t never apologize for dat. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in Da New York Times saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.” An early organizin’ meetin’ for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has sed you is friendly. Kin you splain dat relationship for da voters, ‘n ’splain to Democrats why it ain’t gonna be a problem?

Barack: George, but this is an example of what I’m talking about. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.

Hillary: (Undaunted by assaults and threats, she stands proud and defiant) I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about.

Barack: by Senator Clinton’s own vetting standards, I don’t think she would make it, since President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground, which I think is a slightly more significant act than me –

Audience: (Applauds.)

Charlie: Please.

Barack: — than me serving on a board with somebody for actions that he did 40 years ago.

Charlie: And Senator Clinton, Dis is gettin’ out of balance in terms of da time.

Hillary: I’ve noticed. (Laughs.)

Charlie: And youse is gettin’ shortchanged here. And so if you wanna reply here, fine. If ya wanna wait, we’ll do it in da next half hour.

Hillary: We can wait.

Charlie: All right.

George: Senator Obama, last May we done talked ’bout ‘firmative action, ‘n ya sed at da time dat ‘fluent African Americans like your daughters should probably be treated as pretty advantaged when dey apply to da college, and dat poor white children — kids — should git special consideration, ‘firmative action. So, as president, how specifically would ya recommend changin’ ‘firmative action policies so that ‘fluent African Americans ain’t given advantages, and poor, less ‘fluent whites are?

Barack: I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can’t be a quota system and it can’t be something that is simply applied without looking at the whole person, whether that person is black or white or Hispanic, male or female.

Charlie: We’s runnin’ short on da time. Le’ me just give some quick questions here, and let me give you a minute each to answer. What’s ya gonna do about gas prices? T’is gettin’ to $4 a gallon. Dis is killing truckers.

George: We’s runnin’ outta time for dis segment. Very quickly, for each of youse, 30 seconds. Senator Clinton, ya done said that ya b’lieve in usin’ former presidents. How would ya’ use George W. Bush if youse was president?

Hillary: I’m sure that there will be opportunities to ask all the former presidents to work on behalf of our nation.

Charlie: I think we done and finished up wit’ what I think was a fascinatin’ ‘bate, and I ‘ppreciate both of youse bein’ here.

I hope you enjoyed my version of the Charlie and George Show. A full version of the debate can be found at the New York Times; Transcript Democratic Debate in Philadelphia

Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:49:25 PM PDT

A while ago, I discovered that the University of Southern California has incorporated swastikas into their campus design. Subsequently, I wrote a story called, Why Does USC Have Swastikas on Their Campus? I thought this would cause a big stir, but not a lot has come of it, so far. Apparently, swastikas have become an accepted part of the USC culture.

Yesterday, I took note of the $6 Billion bail-out for homebuilders. Needless to say, I was very suprised to see that the Senate passed this colossal blunder of a bill in the guise of helping out homeowners. Having lived in Southern California for the past 30 years, the heart of the real estate bubble, I am well aware of the disasterous polices homebuilders have pursued which helped create the fiasco currently unfolding.

Why are these billionaire homebuilders getting rewarded? It’s a disturbing story and Jeff Birnbaum does a great job in describing why the Senate caved to the powerful homebuilder lobby. It made my blood boil to read how corrupt the politicians in Washington really are.

Then late last night, I came across this article, D.C. halts air traffic for old fashioned fly-by: O.C.’s William Lyon takes his B-17 bomber for a spin above the Pentagon.  Apparently, George W. Bush was at Andrews Air Force Base yesterday, personally clearing the runway and clearing the skies over the Pentagon for an old friend;

First he waited for President Bush aboard Air Force One to clear the runway. Then the 85-year-old pilot throttled forward for a ride few will ever take. In a plane few will ever pilot. For the next 10 minutes, “The General” owned the airspace over Washington, D.C. At 1:15 p.m., he dropped his vintage B-17 bomber from 1,000 feet to 400 feet, barely skimming the city’s famed cherry blossoms.

I would venture to guess that most of you have no idea why this story is significant. I’d suggest you hold onto your socks. The Washington Post reported;

For 10 minutes yesterday afternoon, that day seemed not so far in the past as the airspace between Andrews Air Force Base and the Pentagon was closed to allow a vintage B-17 Flying Fortress, a P-40 Kittyhawk and a P-51 Mustang to soar overhead. The flyover was to honor the 30,000 American airmen who gave their lives flying from British bases during World War II.

Harmless enough, what could be the big deal about honoring past military heroes? In order to understand the significance of the story, you’ll need to know who the man is flying the B-17. William Lyon is one of the richest and most powerful men in real estate, owning huge stakes in the bubble areas of South Florida, Phoenix, and Southern California  http://www.lyonhomes.com/… He is one of the prime beneficiaries of the homebuider bail-out.

Lyon is an ultra-conservative right winger and a member of the notorious Orange County Lincoln Club that helped get Richard Nixon elected in 1968. He was head of the Air Force reserve under Gerald Ford, a big backer of Ronald Reagan, and an intimate of the Bush family.

He is also one of USC’s biggest backers. His donations over the years have helped build the campus and the USC gymnasium is named in his honor. Because he has a penchant for collecting controversial items, like Adolph Hitler’s staff car, it is a serious matter to see swastikas adorning the lampposts surrounding his building at USC.

Lyon has his hand in a number of ventures including the diploma mill industry. Diploma mills are basically businesses that award college diplomas to people who are willing to pay for them. The majority of them are centered in Lyon’s backyard of San Diego. It’s difficult to determine how many diploma mills Lyon ran as they go in and out of business and are constantly changing names, but one of them was called the American Commonwealth University. This is the place where the man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers told the FBI he worked.

The man who, according to the 9/11 Report, was “the FBI’s best chance to uncover September 11th before it happened,” Abdussattar Shaikh, claims he worked as Vice President for International Projects at Lyon’s American Commonwealth University. Shaikh helped two of the hijackers of American Airline’s Flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar.

Combined with Lyon’s USC swastikas and the homebuilder bail-out, you can understand why I was taken aback when I saw that the skies were cleared for William Lyon to buzz the Pentagon yesterday.

CNN is going to re-air its special on the Martin Luther King assassination tonight and tomorrow. Yesterday, I wrote a diary documenting how CNN mischaracterized James Earl Ray and focused on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Because I admire Martin and Coretta Scott King so much, I feel compelled to do a follow-up while the interest in King’s life and death is so high. So today I would like to explore William Pepper, the man who has wormed his way into King’s legacy and seems intent on doing irreparable harm to it.

For anyone who’s taken an interest in the King assassination, they’ve no doubt come across one of Pepper’s two books on the subject. There are few books as crazy as these. Pepper dredges up every conspiracy theory ever imagined in his attempt to clear his client, James Earl Ray. Pepper’s list of those involved in King’s assassionation include the FBI, the CIA, the Mephis PD, Army Intelligence, Special Forces, the government’s Special Operations Group, Office of Security, its Domestic Operations Division, the Mafia and organized crime, the Secret Service, DEA, and big oil.

Now I understand that many in the African-American community have been duped by this man, members of the King family themselves, but I must object to giving this man a stage, the way CNN does in their special. In my opinion, William Pepper is an opportunist who seems intent on dividing the African-American community.

In 1988 Pepper became James Earl Ray’s lawyer. He then proceeded to pursue “all possible avenues through the courts to obtain justice and free James”. In the process he paints Ray a victim and claims, “The assassination of Martin Luther King and its coverup extends far and wide into all levels of government and public service (page xxvi). He then proceeds to rip apart everyone associated with the King family and the Civil Rights movement, along with every possible level of government. Sound familiar? It should. It’s basically the 1960’s platform of the John Birch Society.  

Here’s some evidence of Pepper’s real intent from his book “Orders to Kill”;

In August there were an additional thirty-three riots which occurred in thirty-two cities in twenty-two states. Dr. King was at the center of it all. The leader most respected by those violent teenagers was not Stokely Carmichael nor H. Rap Brown but Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (page xxiv)

After taking credit for moving Dr. King to his postion on Vietnam by an article he wrote for Ramparts Magazine Pepper tries to tear down all of King’s allies;

Old friends (such as Phil Randolph and Bayard Rustin) either refused to comment publicly or disassociated themselves from King’s position. I noted Dr. King’s increasing pessimism that resulted from continued sniping from civil rights leaders like Roy Wilkins of the NAACP and Whitney Young of the National Urban League. (We didn’t know at the time that Wilkins was meeting and working with the FBI’s assistant director, Cartha DeLoach throughout the period.) Even some of King’s closest longstanding personal advisors were opposed to the speech. Five days before the demonstration, the NAACP board of directors passed a resolution attacking King’s effort to link the peace and civil rights movements. Martin said to me in a moment of frustration, “They’re all going to turn against me now, but still we must press on. You and the others must not only be steadfast, but constantly so” (pages 6-7).

Please reread Pepper’s words carefully. Within the first ten pages he has attacked just about everybody of importance in the Civil Rights movement. The Oxford lawyer has painted himself as King’s true friend and confidant and claims that the King family should be suspect of everyone else around them.

In Pepper’s own words there are groups involved in “the collection of information on private citizens and groups through the interception and reading of mail, and the placement of informants and covert operators in dissenting organiziations” (page 9). It is logical then that we should also question Pepper’s real intent. Let’s continue;

The combination of opposition to the war and a call for redistribution of the nation’s wealth served to increase King’s unpopularity with the government. It also antagonized segments of the black and white middle class as well as the black church. No doubt it confirmed the belief held by certain public and private forces that King was a serious threat to the very public order and system of the U.S. government (page 10).

Did he really just attack the black church? Does the image of a Trojan Horse come to mind?

Pepper has carefully intertwined himself into King’s family affairs so it’s instructive to learn what he thinks of another great family that has been systematically attacked;

That evening, Robert Kennedy invited a number of us to a gathering in his hotel suite. I did not go– I regarded the senator’s politically motivated actions as distasteful. I had long ago come to expect that from the Kennedy’s… (page 36)

Wow, the King’s can’t trust anybody, can they? Except for Pepper, that is. Would you pass up an opportunity to have a private meeting with Robert Kennedy in 1968? Very strange indeed.

Throughout the book, Pepper implicates many people, except James Earl Ray, of course. Strangely, there’s a theme here too;

She described the man (the assassin) as black (page 94). It was a nigger (page 95). It was a nigger who did it. “Yeah, it was a nigger” (page 96) Many of the black people who had been in the grill at the time of the shooting had never been identified (page 100). Coy saw that the man (running away) was black (page 253). I was aware of a witness who saw a black man in the room James had rented (page 322).

Eventually Pepper was pinned down and had to choose who exactly did do the shooting. Suddenly, all the flak about J. Edgar Hoover, Carlos Marcello, Raoul, and all the rest was irrevelent. Pepper claims that Lloyd Jowers did it. Yes, it’s as pathetic as that. I’m not going to get into the ridiculous arguments that Pepper makes to convict an old man who happened to be in the area at the time while absolving a man who had bought the gun found at the scene, who stayed in the room which everyone pointed to as where the gunshots came from, who was caught escaping the country at an airport with a loaded weapon and who freely confessed his guilt in open court, but you’re free to follow Pepper down his rabbit hole if you so choose.

Here’s the way Pepper depicts some of King’s other associates;

Her attention was in particular drawn to Jesse Jackson whom she said had one foot on the first step of the stairway looking up to the balcony while bent over “…putting something into a suit bag” (page 246).

The FBI’s paid informant on the SCLC’s executive staff was its comptroller, James Harrison, who had joined the organization in Octobeer 1964, working directly under Ralph Abernathy’s supervision (page 158).

Why had (Reverend Billy) Kyles lied? Was he simply trying to boost his stock as a civil rights leader by establishing himself as important enough to have been close to King just before his death? (I) found it curious that though he lived locally, Kyles had taken room 312 on April 3 and 4 (page 160).

Bet you didn’t know that Ralph Abernathy and Jesse Jackson were in on the assassination, did you? It gets worse;

Davis maintained that in early 1968 he became aware of a plot to kill Dr. King which involved a local Birmingham doctor/gunrunner named Gus Prosch, a Mafia-connected man named Frank Liberto from Memphis and also, incredibly, King’s close friend Ralph Abernathy and Birmingham SCLC leader Fred Shuttlesworth. Davis said he observed Abernathy and Shuttlesworth meeting with Prosch and Liberto on two occassions in the parking lot of the Gulas Lounge in Birmingham, and that late on the afternoon of April 3 Prosch actually showed him the gun that he said was to be used in the killing (page 134).

If Pepper was willing to print these allegations against Abernathy, a pastor and one of King’s closest friends, what boundaries does the man have? What could be Pepper’s possible motives? And if he’s willing to write such garbage, what is he willing to say off the record? Is it any wonder that the King family has withdrawn and look skeptically at everyone around them? Yet, they still trust Pepper. Very strange indeed.

As you watch CNN’s special, ask yourself why they misrepresent and sugarcoat James Earl Ray’s racist and neo-nazi background. While you’re watching, check out The Atlantic article that details Ray’s fascination with David Duke and which describes Jerry Ray’s racist past. Jerry Ray plays a prominent part on CNN’s broadcast. Ask yourself why CNN chose an avowed racist, like Jerry Ray, to tell the story of what it means to be Black in America? While you’re at it, ask yourself why CNN allows someone like William Pepper to spread wild conspiracy theories across America and the world.

I am saddened to have watched the King family’s reputation be discredited by their involvement with William Pepper. They have trusted a man not be trusted and have become a laughing stock with their embrace of his conspiracy theories. I hope that they will soon come to their senses and realize the wrong turn they took. Martin Luther King is an American hero and deserves better.

Last night I watched CNN’s two hour special on the Martin Luther King assassination and I was astonished to see CNN lying about who James Earl Ray was. In their attempt to paint Ray as a common thug and a habitual criminal, they painted a false portrait by leaving out key information; CNN’s lies were lies of omission. For whatever reason, they neglected to tell you the full story of the man who killed Martin Luther King.

In a two hour celebration of the man who killed America’s greatest Civil Right’s leader, CNN failed to mention that James Earl Ray had joined the Army, a small detail that would have defined Ray’s character just a bit. In the book, “The Making of an Assassin: The Life of James Earl Ray,” George McMillan details Ray’s background;

He came to love German politics. He carried a picture of Hitler, his idol. He would show it to people (page 100). Jimmy talked ‘Hitler politics’ (page 101). Jimmy had become an impassioned proponent of the Nazi philosophy. His pledge to Nazism was itself peculiarly satisfying (page 103).

According to McMillan, James Earl Ray was determined to go to Germany and give up his U.S. Citizenship, and he signed up to join the Army at age 17.

By then he was giving the Heil Hitler salute in public, did it when he visited home (page 104). His first army assignment was at Nuremberg, where he served as a jeep driver in an MP unit (page 106). As MP he would beat up black GI’s who flirted with Germans (page 110). What appealled to Jimmy in the first place about Hitler was that he would make the U.S. an all-white country, no Jews or Negroes (page 106). Jimmy had really believed he could be in on reviving the Nazi Party page (112).

James Earl Ray came back to Amercia with a WW2 Victory Medal and an Army of Occupation Medal. I’m not sure why CNN left this information out. It seems quite pertinent in defining the assassin’s character. Lies of ommission are sometimes the worst kind.

CNN tried to make Ray into a half-wit career criminal, but those who knew him thought differently. “Hell, he learns fast! He’s awful intelligent,” said a childhood friend (page 71). Another item CNN neglected to mention was Ray’s deep political involvement;

Jimmy was about the only Republican in Ewing. He was very strong for Wilkie, but mostly he was against Roosevelt. He kept saying all that stuff Roosevelt was saying about Hitler wasn’t true at all (pages 83-84). After watching the McCarthy hearings, he became a passionate supporter of McCarthy (page 142). Ray got angry that Kennedy was killed before he could do it (page 208).

Ray read a lot and was especially interested in Barry Goldwarter and Ayn Rand (page 205). McMillian makes the claim that Ray used the alias Galt because Galt was the hero in Rand’s book “Atlas Shrugged”.

Another conspicuous omission by the CNN news team, was Ray’s deep entrenchment in Southern California politics;

He was preoccupied, if not obsessed with the presidential candidacy of George Wallace. By December 15, 1967, Ray was well known at Wallace headquarters in North Hollywood (page 278).

It should be remembered that Wallace’s running mate was Newport Beach resident and right wing Air Force General, Curtis LeMay. LeMay was also a member of the notorious Orange County Lincoln Club which played a critical role in getting Nixon elected that year.

It was during his time in Southern California that Ray started planning his trip to white-run Rhodesia where he wanted to emigrate and join a mercenary army (page 283). According to Gerald Posner in his book, “Killing the Dream”, Ray made a number of contacts with a group in Orange County, CA called the California Chapter of the Friends of Rhodesia (page 210). He was put in touch with this group by the Los Angeles area John Birch Society which also helped Ray in obtaining information on how to get to Rhodesia where he could work with Ian Smith who “was doing a good job” (page 207).

Ray spent the six months before King’s assassination in Southern California and his movements there have yet to be fully vetted. It is interesting to note that Martin Luther King gave a speech at the Disneyland Hotel in Orange County two weeks before his assassination.

CNN seemed so intent on stirring up conspiracy theories that they failed to develop Ray’s racist background;

By the time he got out of the army, Jimmy was a deeply confirmed bigot; his anger and frustrations were turned on black people (page 112 McMillan). Jimmy was a little outraged about Negroes. He didn’t care for them at all. He said once they ought to be put out of the country. Once he said, “Well, we ought to kill them, kill them all.” He was unreasonable in his hatred for niggers. He hated to see them breathe. If you pressed it, he’d get violent in a conversation about it. He hated them! (page 147 McMillan)

This information would certainly not have taken up much time and I’m surprised CNN chose not to include it in their special. Instead, they decided to air controversial conspiracy theories that claim that James Earl Ray may not have even carried out the assassination- this despite Ray’s confession to the murder! CNN decided to re-air Ray’s fabrications about an alleged accomplice name Raoul which has been completely debunked by most reputable journalists. They decided to let Ray and his racist brother help write a fictional history without challenge. The CNN special seemed intent on confusing the American public more than anything else.

I don’t know why CNN left out critical information about James Earl Ray, but it does not reflect well upon them. They need to immediately update their special and stop spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Few realize that we’ve had a Yale man in the White House for 27 years straight. It started when George H. W. Bush entered the executive branch as Ronald Reagan’s vice-president in 1981 and ushered in an era of Yale dominace over the oval office that continues to this day. The elder Bush, a Yale man through and through, graduated into the presidency and was soon replaced by the Yale lawyer Bill Clinton for two terms. Clinton was followed by Yale’s pride and joy, George W. Bush, for a period yet to be determined. There is only one candidate who can continue the tradition, Hillary Rodham Clinton. As the Yale trained lawyer desperately tries to continue New Haven’s stranglehold on the most important job in the world, I think it’s time we examine the history of white supremacism at Yale.

Few are aware that Yale is the birthplace of the same quasi-religion shared by white supremacist groups. It was in the late 1700’s when Ezra Stiles, Yale’s president at the time, a religious scholar and theologian who made Hebrew a mandatory class for Yale graduates, gave life to the view that blacks are subhuman, Jews are the offspring of Satan, and that Northern Europeans, specifically Celts and Germans, are the real Israelites. That’s right, Christian Identity started at Yale.

I doubt few students at the prestigious Ivy League university are aware that they are being educated in what was once the womb of America’s white supremacy movement. Stiles was looking for a way to justify America’s independence and its new ruling class. He found it in the Declaration of Arbroath, Scotland’s call for independence in 1320. This document traces the Scottish bloodline back to biblical times and claims that the Scots are God’s true chosen people. The declaration promotes the idea that Celtic people are descendants of the Ten Tribes of Israel. This idea is also known as British Israelism. It is not surprising that believers in this idea, like the Aryan Nations, are just as fanatical about tartans, bagpipes and Scottish culture as they are about swastikas and Nazi regalia.

Although located in the Northeast, Yale was a favorite school for wealthy Southern plantation owners to send their boys. It gained the reputation as being the College of the South and graduated some of the worst racists in American history. The big ongoing controversy at Yale is that so many of its schools are named after slave traders, slave owners, and white supremacists in general. There’s the Ezra Stiles College, of course, while the Samuel Morse College is right next door. Most know Morse as the inventor of the telegraph, few know that he fought for the institution of slavery with every ounce of his being. It is hard to describe how insanely racist Morse was, which is why it is equally hard to understand why Yale honored him with a building in 1962 at the height of the Civil Rights struggle. Another building honors John C. Calhoun, one of the most powerful defenders of slavery leading up to the Civil War and an virulent racist. Calhoun was a senator from South Carolina and two-time U.S. vice-president who went on to commit treason against the government he once led.

At the turn of the century, Yale led the way in the field of eugenics, the racist pseudo-science that paved the way for Adoph Hitler’s campaign against the Jews. Yale’s Madison Grant wrote “The Passing of the Great Race” in 1916. This book claimed that “inferior races” were growing far faster than the better breed, the Nordic people. Grant’s prescription was quite disturbing; he advocated compulsory sterilization and euthanasia, and called for the elimination of undesirables and the extermination of worthless races. Unbelievably, this was an opinion widely held by some of the top intellectuals in America at the turn of the century. Like global warming is today, everyone talked about it, from Andrew Carnegie to the railroad baron, E.H. Harriman, and Grant became known around the world. Adolph Hitler wrote to Grant saying, “The book is my Bible.”

The tradition of eugenics was carried into the future by Harriman’s wife Mary, the mother of Averell and E. Roland Harriman. The Brother’s Harriman were loyal Yale alumni and played a huge part in promoting the secret Skull and Bones fraternity. They came into contact with the Bush dynasty in 1920 when George Herbert Walker teamed up with Averell Harriman to obtain the Hamburg-Amerika shipping line in 1920. The Harriman’s business involvements with the Nazi regime is well documented as is their involvement with population control.

Yale became the seat of power for those opposed to fighting Adolph Hiter. America First was formed at Yale and became the vehicle opposing FDR’s attempts at stopping fascism. It’s leadership would grow to include white supremacists like Herbert Hoover and Charles Lindgergh who’s anti-semitic statements revealed the group’s true intent.

One of the reasons Hillary Clinton chose Yale Law was her admiration of William F. Buckley. Buckley, the leader of the modern conservative movement was a proud Yalie. He became famous for his book, “God and Man at Yale,” and was no doubt intimately familiar with Stiles and British Israelism. Buckley was partly responsible for the rise of America’s neo-Nazi movement as he had hired Lincoln Rockwell and Revilo P. Oliver to work for him at the National Review. Buckley would go on to help form the John Birch Society, a group that fought against Civil Rights claiming it was a communist plot. Buckley would distance himself from the group when its extremist views became public.

It is easy to mock anyone who brings up Yale’s Skull and Bones, but since America has been led for 11 of the last 2o years by members of this group, I would be doing a disservice to the reader if I ignored it. However, I will address it on another day as it is much too controversial to be discussed here. Suffice it to say, it is the pride and joy of the Harriman and Bush dynasties.

It was at Yale that Hillary met Bill, both in the middle of dramatic life defining moments. Hillary, born and bred to be a hard right, conservative Republican was trying out her new skin as a liberal activist. Bill was fresh from a stint at Oxford where he sat out the Vietnam War having received a Rhodes Scholarship. This particular scholarship was from the endowment of one of the greatest white supremcists of them all, Cecil Rhodes, a fact not be lost on Bill Clinton and which must have conflicted him deeply.

The Clinton’s have played a big part in continuing the Harriman tradition. Pamela Harriman, Averill’s last wife and heir, was one of Bill’s biggest financial backers. She was adament in making sure that the Democratic Party reflected her values of population control and abortion and remained very close to the Clinton’s until her death in 1997. Bill Clinton honored her with a state funeral, which is a rare thing indeed for a political donor.

Yale’s history of white supremacism is disturbing to say the least. If it is to continue, it will be because Hillary Clinton’s racially charged campaign was successful.

During the Civil Rights era churches were burned and firebombed in order to intimidate African-Americans. Everyone remembers the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing when, in 1963, four black girls were killed when their Mississippi church was bombed by the Ku Klux Klan. In 1996 there was an epidemic of attacks on black churches with over 30 burned to the ground. We are witnessing a more subtle attack on the black church today, but its intent is just as serious and racially motivated.

The black church has always been a powerful entity. It’s been a forum for giving voice to the dispossessed and leading the fight against racial discrimination and injustice. Without the black church, the Civil Rights struggle may never have achieved its goals. There is a reason there is such mania by racists to attack this symbol of black freedom and equality.

The Reverend Wright controversy gives cover to all those who want to destroy the black church. His remarks are replayed endlessly to discredit African-Americans and the church that gives them a voice. While hiding behind patriotic robes and carrying the cross of indignant outrage, the people tearing down Wright might just as well be setting fire to the pews themselves.

It is to be expected that Fox News would like to see this story stay lit, but they are not the only ones holding the matches. This morning I went to bed watching Joe Scarborough throw assorted cocktails at Obama and Wright only to wake up and see Andrea Mitchell stoking the furnace. Last night Bill Press made me sick with his comments and he couldn’t agree more with the man sitting beside him, the race-baiting Pat Buchanan. I then turned on CNN to see Mark Halperin of Time Magazine turn up the heat. There is a constant, unrelently attack on the black church by the media. It is disgusting, racist and unforgivable.

Last week, Barack Obama gave one of the great speeches in American history about race and the problems that we face. Like Lincoln, he tried to bridge the divide and heal the wounds of racism in this country. Unfortunately, his opponent, Hillary Clinton, would rather play the role of Stephen A. Douglas and divide the country by the color of its skin.

On Monday, she met with ultra-conservative, right-wing reactionary, Richard Melon Scaife. For those who don’t know the man whom Hillary decided to court, Scaife has given over three-quarters of a  billion dollars to right wing publications, think tanks, legal teams, and other groups to fight what he views to be the forces of evil. To give you an idea of what Scaife views as evil, he is against affirmative action, opposes immigration, and is against welfare and Civil Rights legislation. Scaife was one of Richard Nixon’s biggest backers and has basically controlled the conservative agenda for the last thirty years. If you wonder why Ed Rendell thinks his state is as racist as it is, you can thank men like Scaife who spread the word. He is the owner of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper.

Hillary could have opened up the dialogue. As a Christian she could have come to Wright’s defense. As a leader she could have reached out her hand and tried to join the disparate factions. Instead, she brought a gallon of gasoline to the party.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president should stand as a warning to anyone who wonders how she would run the country.

Will  she mishandle the government budget as she has mishandled her campaign budget? With one of the largest war chests ever raised, close to $100 million before the first vote was cast, she was flat broke after the February 5th Super Tuesday primaries. She actually had to loan her own campaign $5 million to pay the bills.

Despite practically the entire country united against Republican rule, the Hillary Clinton campaign has managed to divide the Democratic Party and reunite the Republicans.  Her “kitchen sink” strategy has mounted a continuous attack on the brightest star of the party and her surrogates have attacked other Democrats as Judas, all the while she stayed busy cozying up to John McCain.

Starting with Bill Clinton’s racial remarks in South Carolina to her own attacks on the black church, the Clinton campaign has sought to divide the country by race. Hillary is so intent on winning that she is willing to polarize the country with hate and demogaugery. Is this how she wants the country to be?

As Bill Richardson can attest, the Clinton machine is based on favors and bullying. Over the years they have accumulated chits and now they are coming due. Forget whether she would be the best candidate, you owe us, seems to be their attitude. Loyalty above all else. What a shame.

Then there are the lies. The Clinton campaign was always about exaggerating her foreign policy experience. They certainly didn’t want to run on NAFTA, welfare reform, Rwanda, dynastic privilege, Monica Lewinsky, impeachment, health care accomplishments, bank deregulation, the secrecy provisions, or the NASDAQ bubble.  But now it seems, Hillary Clinton has turned to straight out lying. Her latest lies about dodging sniper fire are indicative of her future lies if she ever becomes president.

Her famous 3 AM phone call has shown she sees scaring the American public is a good political move. Haven’t we had enough of that?

If a Hillary Clinton presidency looks anything like the Hillary Clinton campaign for president, we’re all in big trouble. She has shown a remarkable ability to make people angry, divide people, and attack her opposition; is that who we want in charge? I don’t think so.

One of Hillary Clinton’s biggest backers, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, has already gotten himself into trouble by his earlier racially charged statements. In February he claimed that Pennsylvanian voters were no better than backwood racists in Alabama when he said, “You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.”

But Ed Rendell brings more baggage than that to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Ed Rendell, a man elected to represent the interests of all the citizens of Pennsylvania, with no regard to race, religion or sex, is part of a group that openly discriminates against women.

It is indeed ironic that the man leading Hillary Clinton’s campaign in Pennsylvania will not allow her to be part of his most prized association, the Scottish Rite. Hillary Clinton is barred from membership in this powerful and influential group strictly because she is a woman.

How can Ed Rendell justify this? And how can Hillary Clinton act like she’s capable of running the country when she accepts, by virtue of the fact that she has chosen Rendell as her spokesman, that she’s not even qualified to be a member of his private club?

Another Hillary Clinton booster, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, practices the same discriminatory policies. Both Nutter and Rendell are part of organizations that barr women from membership. Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of herself for tolerating public figures such as these, who openly advocate discriminating against people based strictly on their gender, as part of her campaign.

Rendell’s problems go even deeper than Nutter’s, however. Rendell’s membership in the Scottish Rite is radically different than simply being part of the Freemasons, as Nutter is. Most of us know about the Scottish Rite because of Seinfeld’s Michael Richards’ racist rant.  Unlike the Freemasons, the Scottish Rite has banned African-Americans from membership throughout most of its history. Even today, African-Americans are banned from membership in at least 10 states, including AL, GA, FL, LA, MS, TN, AR, TX, NC, and SC.

It should be troubling that Ed Rendell is part of a group that has such a disturbing racial history, but his part in supporting discrimination based on gender should not be dismissed. Ed Rendel would deny Hillary Clinton the right to be president of his own private club. Who in their right mind would choose him to lead a campaign for the first woman to be President of the United States?

Hillary Clinton needs to distance herself from Ed Rendell, and he needs to renounce his belief that women are not fit to be members of his inner circle.