Obama Derangement Syndrome

We note with some interest that the tag "Obama Derangement Syndrome" is now appended to several recent posts over at LGF.

Why this tag only appeared recently, rather than -- oh, let's say, about eighteen months ago -- is still unknown.

The Second Coming

Exactly what I've been waiting for. Charles posted the opening stanza of the W.B. Yeats classic poem The Second Coming for an overnight thread and the results were predictably frightening:

47 spidly 11/07/08 11:28:44 pm reply quote 0

re: #9 Killgore Trout

The Second Coming
2nd verse.....


on that topic
my wife watched the messiah's acceptance speech and the crowd frightened her. They put visions of the "left behind" series in her head.
Yeah, I don't know why she read the books but then I haven't so,

102 wordwarp 11/07/08 11:50:46 pm reply quote 0

Charles -

I've been reading this site daily since probably 12/01 -- and this is the first time you've unleashed the Yeats.

Do you really think it's going to be that bad?

Does having Rahmbo in the White House make it any less likely that the center will not hold?

433 notutopia 11/08/08 3:13:36 am reply quote 0

W.B.Yeats...
We will NOT be the falcons prey! Because WE did not unleash Obama.
He is still tethered by his arrogance and fear of public opinion.
Lo, it would not be in his BEST interest to eat the hand that feeds him!
The Prey will become those that disallow the consideration of dissent.
Never, Never, Never, give in or give up!

Oh boy, I've been waiting for the dispensationalist take on this election to show up somewhere in Wingnuttia.

LGF: Forget about McCain

His lizard minions may still believe that McCain will win this election, but Charles Johnson knows better. So instead of offering a fair discussion of the two candidates' positions that shows why McCain would make a better president, CJ spends all his time frantically digging up obscure links to left-wing radicals in the hope of discrediting Obama because it's about the only thing that could lose him the election.

Not a peep about McCain's policies, and certainly no discussion of Obama's! It's all about who met whom at a dinner party in 1981. Just why the American people should care about what Obama did 30 years ago(and more to the point, why they should trust a proven liar like Charles Johnson to deliver an accurate version of history) is slightly baffling, but CJ is probably deluded enough to believe he's doing a public service. What's so striking though is that he constantly shows himself up as a hypocrite: the press isn't doing it's job on Obama, says Charles, but what about it's failure to call Bush out on Iraq? Obama should be judged by what he did in his 20s, says Charles, but of course George W.'s youthful indiscretions were never an issue, were they?

It's the double standards on Charles Johnson's blog that mark him out as an untrustworthy, partisan chronicler of this election.

It's tempting to lean back and gloat as he spins ever faster in a last, wild attempt to throw as much dirt at Obama as possible before Tuesday, even though the election is probably a done deal. That word "probably" is the problem. LGF & Co are quite capable of whipping up enough of a bigot storm to turn the vote around yet, getting McCain & Palin into the White House and thereby shooting themselves and America in the foot more than they could ever know.

Hypocrite alert!

Another stroll at the little green loony bin yielded the following findings about the insincere nature of the old lizard monarch

Link: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31481_Associated_Press-_A_Full_Court_Press_Against_Sarah_Palin

They’re relentless.

Uhhh, yeah.. Said the guy who just can't get enough of barking up the proverbial Obama tree.

The latest Associated Press masterpiece of journalistic malpractice: a headline that goes right to the edge of saying Sarah Palin called Barack Obama a terrorist (which she did not): Palin defends terrorist comment against Obama.

Quite the strawman, no? There's nothing in that title to suggest that Palin called Obama a terrorist. After all, she did make a comment about terrorists, directed it against Obama and now she's defending it. Rather accurate if you ask me.

They’re parroting Obama campaign propaganda, word for word, ..

(We advise our readers at this point to check out the previous LGF Watch entry)

.. and doing everything they can to minimize William Ayers’ terrorist acts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7653486.stm

Speaking about minimizing, has everyone ever seen a post on LGF about Troopergate?

Then he goes on to quote the article in question:

"But while Ayers and Obama are acquainted, the charge that they “pal around” is a stretch of any reading of the public record. And it’s simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts. Obama was 8 years old at the time the Weather Underground claimed credit for numerous bombings and was blamed for a pipe bomb that killed a San Francisco policeman."

Can you spot the world’s biggest straw man in that highlighted sentence?

And now he's going on about strawmen. Wow.. Just, wow..

Obama smear-o-matic

Is there anything Charles Johnson will not do in order to smear Obama in any friggin way possible? Apparently not, even if it means reverting to a blatant logical fallacy.

(http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30079)

Obama: Bush is Responsible for Chavez (Bzzt! Wrong!)

On Friday Barack Obama spelled out his Latin America policy (it’s just like his Middle East policy—talk to everybody), and inadvertently supplied another example of his stunning ignorance of history and naive foreign policy ideas. The speech is transcribed at the official Obama campaign web site: Renewing U.S. Leadership in the Americas.

"Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples’ lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum."

This is pathetic. Hugo Chavez came to power during the Clinton Administration, and was first elected President of Venezuela in 1998, two years before the Bush Administration took office.

I don't exactly follow.. Obama never said anything about Bush being responsible for Chavez' election, but rather that Bush's policies have exacerbated the situation between the US and the Venezuelan Leader, as written in the trascript (which you might as well read in its entirety):

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua. And Chavez and his allies are not the only ones filling the vacuum. While the United States fails to address the changing realities in the Americas, others from Europe and Asia – notably China – have stepped up their own engagement. Iran has drawn closer to Venezuela, and just the other day Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits.

(...)

And we know that freedom across our hemisphere must go beyond elections. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected leader. But we also know that he does not govern democratically. He talks of the people, but his actions just serve his own power. Yet the Bush Administration's blustery condemnations and clumsy attempts to undermine Chavez have only strengthened his hand.

Sounds a lot different than saying: "Bush came into power, and BAM, the Venezuelans elected Chavez because of that". Who does he think he's fooling?

But that wasn't all from the lizard king..

UPDATE at 5/25/08 9:15:04 am:

This is far from the first time Barack Obama has been wrong about a simple historical fact.

I’d like to hear him answer some simple questions about world history, to see exactly how much he really does know. No blow-dried media talking head will ever do this, of course, but I suspect people would be in for a real shock if they knew the depths of his historical ignorance.

Examples, Charlie? One would be nice, and would show you actually give a rat's arse about factual accuracy of your statements..

Charles Johnson's child abuse

According to Charles Johnson, if your father was a Muslim then you're born a Muslim.

According to Charles Johnson, if you're born a Muslim then you're always a Muslim.

According to Charles Johnson, if you're a Muslim then you're an ally of Osama bin Laden.

No kidding. CJ doesn't even try to hide what he thinks in this one.

Nice to see the plump defender of the West dispense with reason and Enlightenment values and choose instead a line of thinking that would make the looniest mufti proud.

Wishful thinking backfires?

CJ asks: "Blue Collar Voters Bailing on Obama in IN and NC?"

Woops. Obama won NC and lost IN by a massive 2 points. Though you wouldn't know it from LGF cos Charles didn't think it worth updating his readers on the final results.

Stepping on flags

Charles Johnson is breathlessly reporting on former underground terrorist Bill Ayers desecrating an American flag by "proudly stepping" on in, smearing Barack Obama in the process, because.. You know..

"Ayers was tapped by Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley to shape that city's now nationally-renowned school reform program.[12] Since 1999 he has served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty, philanthropic foundation established in 1941. This became controversial in the 2008 United States presidential election as Barack Obama had served on the board until 2002, with overlapping times of service with Ayers.[13] (Wikipedia)

z0mG, Ayers is des3cr4ting t3h flAg f00, DON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!11!1onefour!

( Link: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29845_Obamas_Employer_Desecrated_Flag )

Well, talking about proudly stepping on flags, we could also go on with a game of "smearing by association" that we however will not play at this point..

How to get banned on LGF: episode #74756

A reader writers...

In today's LGF thread about the Obama video on last night's Fox news, I corrected Charles that one's tilting of the head is standard body language for listening intently. Charles seems to think otherwise. I made the mistake of calling him "Chuck" and my account was promptly blocked. [...] Chuck complains about HuffPo disabling comments, but can't stomach being called "Chuck". Hilarious....

As the same reader notes, it's fascinating how the lizard mind homes in on what it wants to see, to the exclusion of anything else however pertinent. From the same thread, an example of an avid Johnson pupil showing his master how well he's learned that little trick:

#59

jcm 3/15/08 9:15:05 am

Body Language Dictionary.
Head tilt: The head tilt is a come hither glance in the animal kingdom. From across the room, receiving the head tilt mean "Come closer to me"; if you're standing nearby already, the head tilt means "Come even closer."

He's client #7!

You can see where the wingnuts are heading with their Obama mania!

Another question from Chuckles

Charles asks the following question in the headline to one of his open threads.

Should America Have a President Who Associates with America-Haters?

I don't know Charles, what do you think?

....raises questions about U.S. policy, which has consistently supported the Saudi oil monarchy in spite of its refusal to cooperate with the United States in investigations of terrorist attacks against Americans.

Charles Johnson's Obama Derangement Syndrome

Charles is really worried about Obama. Hillary, he can handle. There's plenty of ammo on Hillary: years of wingnut talkshow memes to be recycled endlessly over the next year, should she get the Democratic nomination. The Republicans stand a strong chance of winning against Hillary.

But Obama scares Charles. He scares Charles so much that Charles has to resort to desparate tactics to smear Obama every which way. It would be laughable, if it didn't indicate the level to which the wingnuts will stoop should Obama be nominated.

You see, CJ is remarkably bad at discussing real politics. Charles is a product of the soundbite age, when you snatch up one sentence - or one word - and hold it up as evidence of some horrible thought-crime. That's why Charles likes quoting people out of context, and it's also why he has taken to sniping at everybody around Obama (his wife, his foreign policy advisor, his grandma for chrissakes!) yet rarely directs his vitriol at Obama himself. Because Obama just isn't very good at producing those quotable quotes that wingnuts so love to tear to shreds.

And when it does look like there might be an opening to take a quick potshot at Obama, Charles Johnson can only do so by telling half the story. In effect, Charles lies to his readers about Obama.

Take the Farrakhan 'endorsement'. Charles made a big thing out of the fact that Obama didn't denounce Farrakhan, after the latter said he would support the senator's campaign.

Later, Charles grudgingly updated his post to note that Obama renounced Farrakhan "in a closed meeting with Jewish community leaders in Cleveland".

What Charles didn't tell his minions is what they could have seen and heard for themselves if they'd bothered to watch the televised Democratic debate in Cleveland. During the debate, Obama was repeatedly pressed on Farrakhan.

Obama's response was that he would "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's views and endorsement. How much more public and explicit can you get? Yet Charles doesn't report it. That's because Charles is in the business of lying to his readers, just as wingnuts are in the business of lying to the American people, to achieve his ends. Expect plenty more falsehoods from LGF in the months to come.

LGF: America is mean. NOT!

Sometimes we get comments from our readers that are worth posting verbatim. Here's one from VN:

Michelle Obama is quoted calling America "downright mean". Do the indignant lizards respond with polite criticism? A rational discussion of her statement? Of course not. In a confusing attempt to refute her statement, they respond with hateful venom and insults.

#9 maddog: Don't like it? GTFO.

#12 antishock8: Keep that fat mouth yappin', Michelle.

#19 nyc redneck: think abt. that hateful angry witch as first lady. not a pretty picture.

#36 oingo boingo: Michele Obama is just downright moronic. MO, if you ain't like'n it here, then get the hell out. I'm sure that scuzbag running Venezuela can find something for you to do.

#52 rawmuse; Hey, Michelle, you can always move to Kenya. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

#61 blue eyed music lover: America is so mean that it lets people into Princeton University and Harvard Law School who aren't qualified, just because of the color of their skin.

#72 totally beserk: What an ignorant slut. Don't like America? Nobody's making you stay. She'll make a great First Lady...

#133 korla pundit: She can't be our First Lady, but she can be our First Tramp.

#146 bar: So the democratic choices are 1. Bitchy first lady 2. Bitchy president Its nice to know the democrats are so diverse.

#179 the shadow do: Anyone here have any doubts about who wears the pants at the Obama manse?

#189 russkillitlover: Speak for yourself, Beotch! You seem so disgusted with everything American. You really want to lead from a position of hate?

#209 Mandy Manners: Whiney-ass bitch.

#228 6pat6: Jeez, and this bitch wants to be the First Lady? ... Hey, Michelle...fuck off! How's THAT for "mean", hmmmm?

#236 Mandy Manners: Does that whiney-ass bitch still wear Maria Pinto?

#241 ergo sum: Yeah but Obamarosa gets to play the race card to excuse her contempable behavior and we have to bend over and take it. She sucks!

#250 Mandy Manners: I normally don't toss around the word "bitch" when refering to women but, I've decided to make an exception. Michelle Obama is a whiney-ass bitch. I might shorten it to "WAB."

#269 red satellite: I wonder how long the liberal-elite over at the NYT, WaPo...will put up with slang, ebonics, and colloquial diarrhea....

#274 6pat6: Michelle "I hate you white folk" Obama. Heard that one yesterday. Seems to fit her, IMO.

#373 Maximu§: Michelle, if you don't like America.....feel free to leave anytime.

#738 Joan Not of Arc: Wow, she's quite the philosopher. I'm sure Obama wishes he had a mute button for her mouth. I know I do.

#739 DockScience: I'd sure hate being a mirror at her house!

#741Wookieelips: Well, I think she's a downright grouchy, negative bitch.

#742 DanTheAmericanMan: If you are the woman who has captured the heart of Barack Hussein Obama, then God help us if he ever gets beyond that damn Senate seat he avoids using.

#759 SissyBlue: Ewwwwww, what a b*tch!

#767 rorschatch: I'd rather have Bill Clinton as a first lady than this bee-yotch.

See? Point proven! America is not mean.

CJ: No racism here, move along now

Charles Johnson is a great example of the power of belief. Whatever the eyes see, whatever the ears hears, Charles Johnson is still capable of twisting things to suit his agenda.

So when a TV crew goes out to see what Americans do when they witness discriminiation, Charles Johnson turns the episode into a 'CAIR controls the media' fable. It's a lesson in delusion.

First off, he says that "ABC News does their best to set up the 'dumb American bigots' at a roadside Texas bakery". Not so. ABC set out to see how Americans react to bigotry. And, if CJ had bothered to watch the clip, he would have seen that many of the customers react the right way: they are angry at the bigot and tell him so. Thumbs up to America, thumbs down to Charles Johnson.

Next CJ states that the scenario _ a classic 'hidden camera' situation _ has "one actor wearing misogynistic radical Muslim garb and provoking the yokels as another actor pretends to be a Muslim-hater". It's difficult to know where to start with this, because naturally any form of Islamic dress is provocating to CJ (aka the ueber-yokel). If you watch the clip though, she's not actually shown talking to anyone but the sales clerk. So arguing with a sales clerk while wearing some cloth over your head is considered objectively provocative? Give us a break. It's not like she's wearing a burqa with 'Convert to Islam or I'll eat your babies' on it.

Finally, Charles say that its "all designed and staged to show how 'Islamophobic' Americans." No it's not, you chump. It's designed to show how different people react to bigotry. And your reaction, Charles, says it all.

UPDATE: Several readers have written to us to say that there are two further - more sinister - issues to this story. The first is CJ's claim that the hijab is a symbol of *radical* Islam. The implication being that if you cover your head with a cloth, you're in favor of all kinds of *radical* Islamic ideas. By this logic most people in the Islamic world are *radical*. The second, unspoken but increasingly obvious, issue Charles is trying to allude to is the Obama photo. Remember the one showing him wearing a turban of sorts on a visit to Kenya. Although CJ hasn't come out and said it, there are plenty of people in his little lizardsphere who have been spewing nonsense about Obama being a crypto-Muslim. Why, with the picture and CJ's 101 of Islam, we know he's a *radical* crypto-Muslim. Nice work, Karl.

Going with the flow

Somehow, it seems that the echo chamber behaviour isn't limited to the army of sheep lizards, but is sometimes seen in the herder of the bunch himself.
There's no other explanation for this strange post where Chuckles posts about a picture from the Associated Press (The blasted MSM..) that shows Barack Obama in (gasp!) Muslim clothes, with the ominous question: "Another Photo Of Obama In Muslim Garb? Looks like it."

This however doesn't really appeal to the fanbase, who'd rather hate the guy for his policy than whatever he happens to wear. (See the first few comments. Flying lizard moment?)

Charles then hastily agrees, as seen in #48:

I agree, by the way, the discussion about Obama's clothes is stupid. All politicians do this kind of stuff, including George and Laura Bush.

But there it is -- in this silly election, it's news.

I'm much more worried about Obama's ideas. Or lack thereof.

Well, that didn't seem to be your tone in the original post. Sounded a lot like:
"Hey guys, look! Obama in Muslim clothes!"
"Meh, stupid.."
"Uhh, yeah.. Yeah, stupid.. Really stupid.."

If the discussion about Obama's clothes is dumb and unproductive, why mention it? Come on Charles, if your fanbase wouldn't have said that and had instead started fantasizing about the "Crypto-Muslim" taking over America and bringing about its downfall, you'd have mumbled something about the strangeness of him wearing typical Muslim clothes, and mention nothing about the stupidity of the discussion. (After all, he has a faithful army of worshipers he has to keep satisfied, right?)

And if this topic about clothes is worthy of a mention even though it's stupid, then the condemnation of terrorism by influential Muslim scholars must be really, _really_ stupid for you not to mention it at all.

Che Derangement Syndrome

Wow. Obama has often been accused by his opponents of have no message, but Charles Johnson's latest attack on him doesn't exactly demonstrate a high level of sophistication either when it comes to addressing "The Issues".

What CJ's post boils down to is: "Someone in one of Obama's campaign offices has a corny 'Che' flag on the wall. Eeeek! Commie!"

Foreign Politician Tries To Influence U.S. Election

Remember, back in October 2004, when The Guardian urged its readers to contact voters living in Clark County, Ohio and ask them to vote for Kerry?

The reaction among the right-wing élite was was swift and unanimous: Foreigners, don't meddle in U.S. politics! "Guardian Tries To Influence U.S. Election," blared Charles' headline. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13128). Said one commenter,

I find the very thought that outside forces would have a hand in the US elections...disgusting.

What right do they have? Do they live here? Why dont they just influence their own foreign policy?

Does democracy not work in their sections of the planet?

Fast-forward 28 months... and now Charles is cheering a foreign politician who is meddling in U.S. politics. But because this foreign politician chose to repeat one of Charles' favorite slanders -- that the Democratic party is secretly in cahoots with Osama bin-Laden -- why, that's just fair dinkum, mate! (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24392)

And the lizards, needless to say, are all but unanimous in their praise for outside force John Howard, who despite not living in the U.S., seems to think he has a right to have a hand in U.S. politics.

Does democracy not work in his section of the planet?

LGF closet racism watch

Barak Obama announced his intention to run for the presidency in 2008. How do the lizards react?

#2 freakagriep 2/10/2007 04:05PM PST

He'll won't be the first black dude to get his butt beat!

and

#12 mama winger 2/10/2007 04:10PM PST

Barak Obama is the Anti-Christ.

You heard it here first.

and

#47 mac 2/10/2007 04:22PM PST

obama,...sounds like osama

and

#124 Dayenu 2/10/2007 04:47PM PST

Wait a sec...

Is or was Barack a Muslim?

Just what we need. A Muslim president. Then we're all dead, dead, dead.

Expect lots more of this over the next 18 months...

Racial Obsession?

It takes a very special kind of weasel to twist and turn a story so much that it ends up sending the exact opposite message of what any normal person would take it to mean.

Thankfully, Charles 'Poop-Scoop' Johnson is a master of the Goebbelian arts, pulling off with aplomb the astonishing conceit of portraying the first serious black contender for US President as racist.

Bravo, Charles, bravo. What next? Hilary Clinton hates women? Give it a shot. We can't wait.