Why does it disturb me that some in the black community somehow believe that it shares some type of special kinship with former President Bill Clinton? The notion that Clinton was the first black President was spawned almost immediately after he was elected in 1992. However, it was not until the fall of 1998 after Nobel Laureate, Toni Morrison, launched a vigorous defense of then President Clinton in the New Yorker Magazine as he was coming under attack for his sexually depraved behavior in the Oval Office, that this idea began its public ascent into the lexicon of the black community. Clinton himself has gained a lot of mileage out of this idea, occasionally laying claim to the title as the first black President while in the presence of blacks.
I’ve often wondered if Clinton himself deserves the credit for churning this ridiculous perception that he was the first black President. Politicians are not above deigning themselves on the campaign trail for a vote, and to consider that he may be the maestro behind this necessary illusion, disturbs me even more. I say this about Bill Clinton especially, because he practically had the black vote locked up during his runs at the White House under the false impression that he felt black people’s pain.
Morrison bolstered the perception of this bond between Clinton and the black community in her New Yorker article by laying out a list of black stereotypes that were also related to him: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving and so forth. And then to leave the White House and secure office space in Harlem was a stroke of genius to mask the fact that he did more to erode the gains of the Civil Rights Movement during his eight years as President than the combined 12 years of Ronald Reagan and Bush 41.
I don’t mean to be an apologist for the gay community, but he also betrayed their trust, and he simply threw the labor movement under the bus.
Clinton campaigned on the promise that he would bring full civil rights to all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation. However, after one losing battle in his attempt to root out bias in the military against homosexuals, the best he could offer them was, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Now I’m not suggesting that I endorsed his campaign pledge to the gay community, because I didn’t; however, I’m simply demonstrating that Clinton backpedaled from a campaign promise to one of his largest constituents. What he did to the gay community was a reflection of his lack of integrity, but what he did to the AFL-CIO, the largest Democratic supporter, seems to reflect a more hideous side of the man.
By signing onto the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), he endorsed open borders that would help accelerated our move towards a global government. This was done at the expense of people on the factory floor, along with their 401(k)s. Although Bill Clinton cannot make a decision for a corporation to close a factory, he can facilitate it and make it attractive by removing free-trade barriers that complicate the import-export process, which is exactly what he did during his time in office. In fact, his domestic and foreign policies encouraged corporate zeal to outsource many functions; a practice that continues to occur at a furious pace. You ever call your local bank branch and reach a call center in India? Well, thank Clinton for that.
Clinton was trained in global government as a student at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and as a Rhodes Scholar. He says something very curious during his Acceptance Speech to the Democratic National Convention in 1992: Towards the end of the speech, he invokes the name of Professor Carroll Quigley, whom he considered as one of his most influential professors at Georgetown University:
“As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at Georgetown, I head that call clarified by a professor name Carol Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest Nation in history because our people had always believed in two things- that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal moral responsibility to make it so.”
To invoke Quigley’s name was extremely significant, because Clinton campaigned on the theme of change, but for the powerfully, wealthy men in the Western World who were intimately aware of Quigley and what he stood for, that line was a refreshing acknowledgment that there would be no change. Quigley is the author of a classic study on the powers that control the destiny of civilization – Tragedy and Hope. This book exposes to the public, perhaps for the first time, that there is a furtive movement in the United States and Europe that is aiming for global government (http://www.seanet.com/~barkonwd/quigley.htm). He doesn’t expose the book in hopes that the cabal behind the trek to world government will run and hide. He actually states that it is a good thing and he only wishes that they would be more forthright about what they are doing. What makes the book so significant is that the cabal actually invited him in to see the plan for global government.
So we can see that Clinton was not the portrayal of progressive politics that he made many believe. He was a pawn that furthered the agenda of the men that Quigley spoke of. Time is the judge of all things, and history will not only buttress my suspicion of him, but it will articulate how he was able to betray his constituencies and still maintain their support. Now that is a masterpiece of politics! While volumes will be written on the 8 years of Bill Clinton, I can summarize his cloak and dagger waltz that he did with the black community, but I must do it in Part II of this post.
...to be continued
No comments:
Post a Comment