I’m not sure how widespread this trend is, but my social network seems to contain fewer and fewer postings praising Obama. Not that there is any increase in Liberal’s criticisms of their hero (gods forbid!) but the most recent crimes by our President (air piracy, detaining a head of state, continued spying revelations about the Stasi NSA, force feeding of Guantanamo detainees, and the ever-continuing drone strikes) have caused Liberals to retreat into a cognitive dissonance induced silence. Over the years I have had the disturbing experience of attempting rational dialogue with Obama Liberals. As I said in a recent contretemps with a FB commentator.
“(Sir), you have finally exhausted my limited time and my nearly inexhaustible patience on this matter. I have had this same discussion with countless Obama Liberals and usually they just wordlessly withdraw after my assault of evidence of his high crimes and misdemeanors. I thought that, with you, I had finally found a live one—someone who seemed to be willing to conduct an evidence based argument without copping out when the facts got too hot for you to keep your infatuation with the integrity of our president.”
My Liberal Obama apologist withdrew without further comment. If you are a glutton for punishment, circular arguments and irrational beliefs you can follow the whole discussion here.
In 1966 I conducted an interview with comedian Mort Sahl. Those of you old enough to remember his standup routine will recall he based his highly improvised, satirical comedy on material he found in the day’s newspaper. The purpose of his interview and the preceding press conference was to announce the resumption of his career. It seems it stalled after Joseph Kennedy took personal offence at Sahl’s rather tame criticisms of Democrats in general and his son Jack in particular. Back in the day there was a Camelotian hysteria surrounding Jack and Jackie, not unlike the pixidust surrounding our present First Family. Mort (and I) was not at all impressed. He figured his role as a member of the Fifth Estate (political satiristas) was to mine the establishment movers and shakers for material (good and bad) and let the chips fall where they may. This was a time when Liberals were unanimously in lockstep behind their fair-haired boy. In that day, as in ours, there was a strong, irrational conservative backlash against a Democrat President. Kennedy was a Liberal, a Roman Catholic and later a (reluctant) supporter of “negroes.” Any criticism of Kennedy, no matter how tame or fact-based was regarded by Liberals as treason. They didn’t take kindly to Mort’s humor now that it had shifted from making fun of the Republican Eisenhower to Democrat Kennedy. Mort’s closest friends, Paul Newman, Anthony Franciosa and Sidney Poitier, as well as the rest of his Democrat fans and supporters wouldn’t even take his calls. “We don’t like what you are saying about our President!” Sound familiar? Friends and associates shunned him, club dates disappeared, and TV appearances were canceled.
“I can give you a number of examples of this ‘The Dean Martin Show’—Never. ‘The Hollywood Palace’—No. ‘The Jerry Lewis Show’—Fired, not told why. Nobody says anything. And the audiences are laughing. That’s just the point. The concept of conspiracy is not against me; it’s against the American people to keep then in abysmal ignorance. Now the people don’t have to support me. They just have to hear me—that’s what it’s all about. The whole function.” -Mort Sahl
The events of the sixties (Kennedy, Johnson & Humphrey) pretty much framed and set in stone my conviction that Liberals are the most dangerous, intolerant and irrational people you will find infesting the American political landscape. I am not discounting the Republicans and the Christian fundamentalists. It’s just that in the case of the rabid Right what you see is pretty much what you get. They have the courage of their convictions and are usually not afraid to stand foursquare behind them. Liberals on the other hand are largely hypocrites. They profess to tolerate diversity and healthy debate. But just let one of their own step a little out of the Party line and all hell breaks loose. I have crossed Liberals countless times in my adult life and found they never fight fair, they are incapable of objective introspection and delight in silencing those with whom they cannot prevail in a rational, evidence-based argument.
Most recently I fell afoul of Liberals in my own Unitarian Universalist Fellowship when I argued against nuclear power and the mindless habit of routinely calling our Iraq and Afghanistan troops “heroes.” Admittedly only a small number of our group took a loud vocal exception to my positions. That was OK with me. I can and did refute their concerns. What really stung was that the leadership censored me: Before posting my comments on the Unitarian Universalist listserv, I was forced to submit my comments to an official censor who was authorized by the Fellowship to delete any comments he disagreed with. Needless to say I boycotted and continue to boycott such undemocratic behavior. I am sure that most of the congregation agreed with me but were afraid of the dissenting faction. Only one member of the Fellowship came to my defense. One issue on which I do stand largely alone in my Fellowship is my refusal to support of Obama right or wrong.
I seem to recall back in the day, there was little legitimate criticism of Kennedy allowed. He was a megalomaniacal warmonger of the first water and at least once singlehandedly brought the world close to a nuclear Armageddon without so much as a peep of dissent from his Liberal supporters. Many praised him for not backing down. (I thanked the gods Khrushchev blinked.) The only criticism I ever heard of Kennedy came from the rabid Right and I think the only reason the MSM reported it was because it helped to solidify Kennedy’s Liberal and moderate base. Sound familiar? The only Obama criticism the MSM allows us any kind of exposure to is that of our own contemporary rabid Right. Again this is allowed to help shore up Obama’s Progressive, Liberal and mainstream support. How many times have you heard on the MSM (or even NPR) Noam Chomsky, Greg Palast, Jeremy Scahill, Sy Hersh, Tariq Ali or even Matt Taibbi? Obama loves the Tea Baggers and what they do for him in the same way George W. Bush must love the 9/11 Truthers. Both non-reality based dissenters help to greatly marginalize any real criticism of these two failed Presidents and their crimes.
It is hard to understand the Liberal’s dissing of Edward Snowden and Glen Greenwald. I guarantee that if these leaks of criminality occurred against any of the Bush Administration during their tenure, these same pundits would be calling for a Peace Prize for Snowden. Because these Liberals think Obama walks on water, they are incapable of believing he could do anything as illegal and immoral as torture, murder and the surveillance of all law-abiding citizens anywhere in the world.
Most of the criticism of Snowden and Greenwald from the MSM and the Obama Liberals is predictably off point and focused more on style and externals than substance. Almost nowhere is there outrage over the substance of the leaks. From Walter Pinkus of the New York Times to Kurt Eichenwald’s Whack job for Vanity Fair, the establishments Op-eds are springing to the defense of Obama.
The most beyond belief of all these attacks is the condemnation of Edward Snowden by the CBS News’ Bob Schieffer.
On Face the Nation he recently delivered an incongruous critique of Snowden’s flight from American justice by saying he should man up and be ready to face the consequences of his civil disobedience, like Rosa Parks. “I don’t remember Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King Jr. running off and hiding in China.” Of course anyone on the CBS research team could have pointed out to their on-camera idiot dozens of examples of likeminded real journalists and whistleblowers who suffered draconian persecutions and prosecutions, demotion, financial ruin, PTSD, imprisonment and even loss of life for their blowing the whistle on government and corporate fraud, crime, corruption and illegality. Bob Schieffer at least knows the story of the torture of Bradley Manning. That is all the evidence this poor suit-filler needs to refute the Obama talking points he so dutifully spouted. Does he think Snowden is stupid or masochistic enough to deliberately subject himself to this country’s idea of justice? Daniel Ellsberg said recently in his Washington Post Op-Ed. “The country I stayed in was a different America, a long time ago.”
Ellsberg under Republican tyrant Richard Nixon was free on bail and went about a relatively normal life granting interviews, attending anti-war rallies and continuing to speak out against the government’s lies, crimes and corruptions the Pentagon Papers revealed. Tim DeChristopher, Bradley Manning, Barrett Brown and others have been kept essentially incommunicado under “Liberal” Democrat, Barack Obama. “Journalist” Schieffer is not the only one to perpetuate the fraudulent contention that Snowden will have his rights protected if he comes home and surrenders. What is truly disgusting is that I have never heard this government’s talking point challenged on any MSM venue.
I have to hand it to Greenwald and the Guardian. They are handling the gradual leak revelations with an incredible media manipulation savvy. Rather than drop the whole bombshell all at once, they are meting out small toxic leaks, one per week or so. Each leak compounds Obama’s infamy as it reveals his offenses to a whole new demographic “target.” First it was the whole American public—all of us targeted in a massive Stasi-like metadata collection scheme. As soon as that revelation started to cool, Greenwald hit us with the astonishing revelation that British security forces repeatedly hacked into foreign diplomats' phones and emails when the U.K. hosted international conferences, even going so far as to set up a bugged Internet café in an effort to get an edge in high-stakes negotiations. Next came the revelation that nearly every citizen in South America was under NSA surveillance. That, along with Obama hijacking Bolivian President Evo Morales’ plane really made a volatile situation go incendiary. So far Obama has not explained the whys or wherefores of his violation of the national sovereignty of the South American states he has been spying on.
It almost seems that Obama, his Stasi henchmen, CIA operatives and their drone strikers are in cahoots with al Qaeda, the Taliban and countless indigenous revolutionary movements worldwide to place the US in the most vulnerable national security position possible. I doubt this is his plan. The answer lies in one of two other possibilities. Either he is dumber than I think he is or this all is all part of imperial machinations as devious as they are sinister. What I am proposing here is not some secret conspiracy theory like the 9/11 truthers or some wild tea-bagger concoction. To anyone with open eyes after 9/11 it should be obvious that the security and safety of the American people are the last things our government cares about.
On the contrary, the War on Terror announced by President George W. Bush is not, never was, and never will be about the safety of our citizens. It is about using secrecy, intimidation of the press, persecution of whistleblowers, restriction of our Constitutional rights, and a gargantuan expansion of the military, industrial complex to control the US population at home and achieve “full-spectrum dominance” over the rest of the world and its resources. Obama will not be caught using such obvious jingoistic phrases like “New American Century” and “full spectrum dominance.” Leave that language to the ham-handed Neocons. Obama is a softer sell. Be assured that this War on Terror and our strategies of imperial empire are resolutely bipartisan. Any political figure questioning American Empire will be swiftly dismissed from relevance and forced to stand behind Nom Chomsky at the back of the line.
Perhaps the only positive outcome of the Afghanistan/Iraq Wars was we took our eye off the ball in South America. When our gaze turned from south to east, critical countries began to democratize in ways that threatened to shred the Monroe Doctrine and send chills up the backs of the two or three diplomats who saw what was happening. Standing up to the Yankee Imperialists and their colonial, United Fruit mentality could now be done with impunity.
The latest revelations by Snowden/Greenburg that Uncle Sam is listening in on communications south of the border is certain to spark even more anti-American sentiments. I say good for them and it’s about time. I hope other nations of the world take the cue from nations like Ecuador, Bolivia and Cuba and stand up to our imperialism. I would rather they do it nonviolently but I’m afraid the only kind of language Bush, Obama and the Liberal hypocrites understand, appreciate or practice is the language of violence and terrorism.
I am against all forms of terrorism especially our own. I am also frankly amazed there are not more terrorism attacks within the US. It gives me no pleasure to say that we richly deserve them. As terrible as the Boston Marathon bombing was it was nothing compared to what goes on every week in Iraq. Do we declare moments of silence for killed Iraqis? Do we even publish their names? Are they any less important than the Boston victims? Every day and in every way Obama&Co are creating more and more righteously pissed off people at home and abroad. As Malcolm said of the Kennedy assassination: Chickens will come home to roost.
MWC News needs support to launch analysis videos on the news behind the news. Visit our indiegogo page for more information and the incentives for your support.
|< Prev||Next >|
Most Read News
- Earth Day - Be more environmentally friendly
- Taliban fighters attack Afghan army base, 'killing 140'
- North Korea: 'US has now gone seriously mad'
- Military court convicts Cameroon journalist Ahmed Abba
- Where do candidates stand on immigration, EU, religion?
- Afghanistan mourns after deadly Taliban attack on base
|Allen L. Jasson|
|William John Cox|