Roots of Breakdance (Run DMC - It's Like That)

The Soviet Union with their Russians were already getting it on with the moves! This should have been some real propaganda during the Cold War!

Hollywood History

I just finished watching The Hunting Party. What a disappointment! Reminded me of Behind Enemy Lines. Same old propaganda. The US and Western Europe have written this story of modern history in a typical, nice and tidy 'good' versus 'evil' manner with almost total disregard for reality. I would hate to be a Serb in America, since, you know, Serbs are such evil-doers; those ethnic cleansers. What most people aren't generally aware of is the manipulation and exploitation of 'narrative' that has taken place in the history of the Balkan war. Yes, Serbs committed war crimes. But to present the war only in that light is a half-truth. Having heard from Canadian and American service-men on the ground at the time of the war, I think Hollywood's characterization is not only misleading, it's insulting to the victims on all sides. The truth is more important than political agendas. While it is tragic that Serbian war criminals are not brought to justice, it's equally tragic that war criminals on the other side of this conflict became the political leaders after the war. In my assessment, that is more injust than merely getting away with it scott free. But don't expect any movies about that anytime soon. We have ourselves a nice and tidy 'good guys' and 'bad guys' narrative that makes us the hero. We're always the hero, aren't we? Narrative is a powerful tool of nationalism, isn't it.

Young Hillary Clinton

A few giggles from this one.

No graceful bow-out for Clinton

Silly as it may seem, I think many thought she would just call it a good match and move in line to support the party over her own ambitions. Not when one believes in the divine right of kings (or in this case, queen) She would sooner see the "democratic baby" sort of speak, cut in half than give up her divine goal of ruling. I found this interesting commentary on CNN:

By Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor

Remember all those wrestling "death matches," during which they talked about guys tearing their opponents' heads off in the ring? We all knew wrestling is fake, but the promotion was awesome, because it always sucked us in.

Lest anyone think the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination is going to end peacefully in June, forget about it.

Sen. Hillary Clinton will do anything and everything to win, and the idea that Sen. Barack Obama should give in to her demands to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates is ludicrous. When you're ahead, you don't concede any ground. If the roles were reversed, she would do the same.

This race, regardless of what anyone says, is still airtight. Obama has the lead among superdelegates and has garnered a majority of pledged delegates, but they always can change their allegiance, per Democratic Party rules, and don't think for a second that the Clinton camp doesn't understand that.

Her comments to The Associated Press that she may take this to the convention in August shouldn't be dismissed. I don't think Clinton cares about the party. Last week, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux said a Clinton source told her that their focus is Clinton first and the party second.

The only way Obama can truly focus on the next step is if he does everything to get to 2,026 delegates. If he gets there first, he wins. But Clinton will go to the mat to prevent that from happening.

Everyone talks about her running in 2012 if Obama wins the Democratic nomination but loses the general election, or 2016 if he wins two terms. But nothing is guaranteed. She's 60 years old. This is her best shot at winning, and she'll leave it all on the table to try to get the nomination.

In the past few days, her surrogates, and even Clinton herself, have ramped up the talk about sexism. There is little doubt that she is trying to stir the ire of her female base and push them to demand that she either be the nominee or be given the vice president slot. But it's really about the former rather than the latter.

In Florida on Wednesday, she invoked slavery and the epic civil rights battle against Jim Crow in her quest to count the vote in Florida as-is.

Forget the fact that she once said the states wouldn't matter because they broke the rules.

Forget the fact that many of her supporters on the Democratic National Committee's rules committee supported the stripping of delegates in Michigan and Florida.

And forget the fact that her chief supporter in Michigan, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, signed the bill into law that allowed the state to move up its primary.

Clinton and her supporters now discount all of that and act as if they were always champions of the "disenfranchised" voters in Florida and Michigan. But they weren't. And the record is clear. Only when it became apparent that she needed the states' delegates to close the gap with Obama did she change her tune. She said one thing in Iowa and New Hampshire and now is saying something else.

The Clintonites don't want any compromises in Michigan and Florida. They want the results to stay the same, even though Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and all candidates signed an agreement not to campaign in those two states.

But The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets say the Clinton camp doesn't care. Her biggest backer, former President Clinton, is telling her to stay in it until the end, hoping to persuade superdelegates to switch and give her the nomination.

The DNC rules committee will meet May 31. Expect a bloodbath. Trust me; there will be nothing nice about that meeting.

The Obama camp better not let its guard down. The Clinton camp is gearing up for a protracted battle. Folks, this is for all the marbles, and feelings -- and party -- be damned.

Only one thing is certain: If this battle goes to Denver, the Democrats might as well dump those inauguration tickets on eBay, because supporters of Sen. John McCain will need them.

Roland S. Martin is a nationally award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. Martin is studying to receive his master's degree in Christian communications at Louisiana Baptist University. You can read more of his columns at http://www.rolandsmartin.com/.

My Appologies to Hillary

As embarrassing as it is, I must retract my last post. Here is the newly discovered video showing that Hillary was telling the truth. Enjoy...

Hillary When Will You Learn?

It is amazing to me that Hillary's advisors don't mention to her that we live in a technological age. One where if something is in picture, writing, or on video it will be brought up when you make claims, especially exaggerated ones... or straight out lies. In her most recent lie, Democratic hopeful Hillary has been challenged over claims that she came under sniper fire during a trip she made to Bosnia in the 1990s. Video shown on US TV network CBS shows the then First Lady walking calmly from her plane. At a recent campaign event, she described having landed under fire. Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said Mrs Clinton "misspoke" on one occasion about the incident. Yet... In her book, she described how the airstrip greeting had been cut short because of sniper fire on a nearby hillside - and that was the account she had given many times.

I was going to post more examples of Hillary's lies here in this post, but the list would be a little long. If you are bored and need a laugh, google Hillary's lies. I got 1.8 million hits. There are some funny ones there.

Supporting the Iranian people

I was asked a very simple but insightful question: "What do you mean by saying that the West should support the Iranian people?"

Well, there are many forms of support any freedom-loving nation could lend to another nation which is enchained by tyrants: It could supply them with guns, it could give them money, it could destroy their enemies, etc.

I don't agree with any of these.

I think if a freedom-loving nation was to ever lend support to an oppressed one, it should first and foremost recognize and publicly acknowledge the situation. Why are the European states, for example, refraining from separating the population of Iran, the oppressed, from the regime of Iran, the oppressors? Why do they insist on embracing and having a dialogue with those who violate the Iranian people's basic rights? We have to draw the line somewhere, don't we?

So, by "support," I mean moral support. The West should acknowledge that the Iranian people are enslaved by a bunch of unelected tyrants, and it should isolate those tyrants, instead of doing political and economic business with them. Even now, after 3 UNSC sanctions against Iran, some companies in Germany and Italy are still selling components to Iran that could be used for an atomic bomb or long-range missiles. Well, that just makes a mockery of the UNSC sanctions.

We should make any dialogue with the Iranian regime dependent on the improvement of human rights in Iran. We should not even offer to talk with the Iranian mullahs unless there are tangible improvements in human rights. We should remember that women get stoned to death in Iran.

We should also impose stricter sanctions on the Iranian regime including an oil embargo. Sure, that hurts business, but think about the long-term effects of not doing this.

It's most interesting that when there are the most miniscule election worries in Russia, for example, or other countries, all the news media harp on it to no end. But, when Iran conducts sham and bogus elections, no one in the West considers it apt to condemn the unfree and unfair "elections." So-called analysts are still saying Ahmadinejad is an elected president. Instead of these ludicrous remarks, we can call for a UN-sponsored elections in Iran, instead of legitimizing the fake and bogus elections run by the mullahs. What are the mullahs so afraid of? We all know the answer.

Finally, by lending support to the Iranian people, I mean recognizing their right to oppose a brutal tyranny. Right now, the largest opposition movement is on the terrorist list in the EU and the U.S. Why? Because whenever the mullahs sit at the negotiating table, the first thing that they request from their interlocutors to pressure their most effective and largest enemy, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran.

I've talked about this organization before, and I've said that as an Iranian, I believe they are the most realistic hope for a free Iran. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been on the terror list. They would have occupied seats at the Iranian parliament and became buddies with Ahmadinejad.

We should remove the PMOI from the terror lists. This is what 35 British MPs from both houses asked for last year. They took their case against the British Government to court and a UK court called the decision to designate the PMOI as terrorists, "flawed" and "perverse." Why is the British Government still insisting on keeping the PMOI on the lsit? Is the appeasement of the mullahs so important that would make our leaders trample upon our own laws and courts?

The terror designation against Iran's main opposition movement is now illegal and must be removed immediately. That is what I mean by supporting the Iranian people in their endeavor towards a free Iran. It means we should not place barriers on their path. The Iranian people don't want money, guns, or jets. It is their responsibility to free themselves. We should morally support them in that endeavor and politically and economically isolate the Iranian mullahs.