It is getting harder and harder for the "Disciples of Barry" to defend their Messiah.Their songs of adoration and worship are increasingly falling on deaf ears. Not that many of us paid any attention to their hosannas in the first place. Many of us knew what we were witnessing was a bamboozle of epic proportions.
We here in Chicago knew the story being told about Moses...er ahh..Obama, was a tale to rival those of "Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, Mithra Tammuz, Osiris, Horus and of course.......The Jesus.
Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention knew Obama for what he was...A double speaking, political panderer who would do anything and say anything to get what he wanted and once he had wrung what he wanted out of his Kool-Aid addled, ill informed, star struck supporters, he would walk away from them.
He quickly forgot about them.
He Ignored their pleas for him to hold to what he promised.He would laugh at them, ridicule them, ignore them as he disregarded the constituents he once pandered to on Chicago's south side.
Once he got what he wanted from them, he proceeded to ignore them.
He would refuse to take their calls.
he would seem amused at their at their misery as he sat with his bog money backers and drank of the good life.
It was once reported in the Chicago SunTimes that he ignored his constituents and their attempts to seek help as they FROZE to death in those "Rat infested shit holes" his friend and financial sugar daddy, Rezco, ran on the South Side of Chicago. He has, to this day, never fully explained why he never sought to hold his "Bro" legally responsible for the suffering of the people he was chosen to represent!
By the way...good luck trying to find that story in either Chicago paper today. it seems as it has been "Scrubbed" from the net and all attempts to locate it have met with a brick wall. Unless someone has a copy cached somewhere, it's as if it never happened!
He tossed them aside like a used, dirty rag and left them to wonder where the love had gone.
It's just that it's too much fun rubbing the O'Bot's nose in shit of their own making. But, I doubt anything we say can help these poor fools kick that habit that has them slaves and Junkies to "Teh Precious!"Fuckers remind me of poor Gollum ...."My Precioussssssssssss"
Anyway, as I was saying, while Obama was busy dodging his constituents (Just as many of us are dodging the bill collectors hounding us,) His wife Michelle was busy "Patient dumping ( It seems the original story written by The Chicago SunTimes has been scrubbed. Go figure! ) her poor "Neighbors," and the very constituents Barry pandered to, access to health care at the Hospital she worked for. It was her job to insure that the poor were turned away and dumped on an overburdened Cook County Hospital.
So it's no small wonder why Obama sold out to the Health Insurance industry.
None of this is new. It was all "Public record" back in the day although you wouldn't have know it since the entertainment industry formally known as the "News media" never once mentioned it!
I started this post writing that it is becoming ever so difficult for the Cult of Obama to attempt to defend this fake ass Democratic wannabe Reagan loving Blue Dog. Hell, I would even go so far as to say it is becoming something more akin to bad 70's B movie or one of those shitty ass comedies on the WB network....but the pain is real folks. The spying is real and the prosecutions, detentions and murders of American citizens are all too freaking real!Wake the fuck up.... !!
Are the Storm troopers loose in our society. Ha! If you have to ask that than you truly have your head either too far up your ass or you've just another insane zombie fuck Republican clinging to your idea that somehow this country is an exception to the rule and our leaders would "NEVER" attempt to circumvent the rule of law.
Yeah...keep telling yourself that Sparky!
Is Obama the first President/politician/Whore to have reneged on his campaign promises?
Hell no! He is far from it but unlike others that came before him, millions BELIEVED in him. BELIEVED in his promises, BELIEVED he would change the world. They BELIEVED because he was a "Man of color" that he could or would identify with them. They placed all their hopes and dreams on ONE man although a simple Internet check would have given them all they needed to know about the man. By the way, if you bother to try to find anything negative written about Obama by the Chicago SunTimes and Chicago Tribune prior to 2008....Good luck! Much has been scrubbed from the nets and that which hasn't is behind a firewall and locked up tighter than the Catholic Church's purse strings!
Anyway....sorry for my digression........
Throughout my wanders on the nets, I read how I am supposed to swallow the bile and support Obama because "Willard" is something we can NEVER allow to attain office. Just read some of the "Spooge blogs" ( Ha...You know the ones..Daily Kooks, T-oilet P-aper M-emos, are but two ) and read for yourselves.
I get it. Really i do. I realize that "Whaffling Willard the pandering politician" is as bad as Diaper rash but Obama is no better. Anyone trying to defend the man's record is in serious need of a lobotomy!
Which brings me to this piece i read yesterday on Cannonfire:
The hypocritical Democrat: That, of course, would be Barack Obama. He has come out against foreign governments like Syria and Iran for...
...you know, this crap is so effing hypocritical I'm literally shaking with rage as I write...
...for using high technology to quell the rights of citizens.
But authoritarian governments, particularly in Syria and Iran, have shown that their security services can also harness technology to help crack down on dissent — by conducting surveillance, blocking access to the Internet or tracking the movements of opposition figures.Surveillance? Tracking opponents? That's Obama's whole act.
Say what?
The man ( Obama ) had the STONES to actually criticize another country for their...get ready....he it goes...."for using high technology to quell the rights of citizens!!!!!!!!!!"
Are you F*&$ing kidding me? He has the audacity to talk shit about another country doing exactly what his administration is doing and has RAMPED up since he took office!!!!!
Glen Greenwald of Salon:
35 years ago, a leading liberal Senator issued a grave warning about allowing the NSA to spy domestically
“Th[e National Security Agency's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. [If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A.] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.“
And why is this Important?That dramatic warning comes not from an individual who is typically held up as a symbol of anti-government paranoia. Rather, it was issued by one of the most admired and influential politicians among American liberals in the last several decades: Frank Church of Idaho, the 4-term U.S. Senator who served from 1957 to 1981. He was, among other things, one of the Senate’s earliest opponents of the Vietnam War, a former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the Chairman of the Committee (bearing his name) that in the mid-1970s investigated the widespread surveillance abuses committed under every President since FDR (that was the investigation that led to the enactment of FISA, the criminal law prohibiting the Executive Branch from intercepting the communications of American citizens without first obtaining a warrant from a court: the law which the Bush administration got caught violating and which, in response, was gutted by the Democratic-led Congress in 2008, with the support of then-Senator Obama; the abuses uncovered by the Church Committee also led to the enactment of further criminal prohibitions on the cooperation by America’s telecoms in any such illegal government spying, prohibitions that were waived away when the same 2008 Congress retroactively immunized America’s telecom giants from having done so).
At the time of the Church Committee, it was the FBI that conducted most domestic surveillance. Since its inception, the NSA was strictly barred from spying on American citizens or on American soil. That prohibition was centrally ingrained in the mindset of the agency. Church issued that above-quoted warning out of fear that, one day, the NSA’s massive, unparalleled surveillance capabilities would be directed inward, at the American people. Until the Church Committee’s investigation, most Americans, including its highest elected officials, knew almost nothing about the NSA (it was referred to as No Such Agency by its employees). As James Bamford wrote about Church’s reaction to his own findings about the NSA’s capabilities, “he came away stunned.” At the time, Church also said: “I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”And what does this have to do with Obama you ask?
Of course, that bridge has long ago been crossed, without even much discussion, let alone controversy. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, George Bush ordered the NSA to spy on the communications of Americans on American soil, and they’ve been doing it ever since, with increasing aggression and fewer and fewer constraints. That development is but one arm in the creation of an American Surveillance State that is, literally, ubiquitous — one that makes it close to impossible for American citizens to communicate or act without detection from the U.S. Government — a state of affairs Americans have long been taught since childhood is a hallmark of tyranny. Such are the times — in both America generally and the Democratic Party in particular — that those who now echo the warnings issued 35 years ago by Sen. Church (when surveillance was much more restrained, legally and technologically) are scorned by all Serious People as radical hysterics.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And the differences in the [Bush and Obama] administrations?
WILLIAM BINNEY: Actually, I think the surveillance has increased. In fact, I would suggest that they’ve assembled on the order of 20 trillion transactions about U.S. citizens with other U.S. citizens.
AMY GOODMAN: How many?
WILLIAM BINNEY: Twenty trillion.
AMY GOODMAN: And you’re saying that this surveillance has increased? Not only the—
WILLIAM BINNEY: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: —targeting of whistleblowers, like your colleagues, like people like Tom Drake, who are actually indicted under the Obama administration—
WILLIAM BINNEY: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: —more times—the number of people who have been indicted are more than all presidents combined in the past.
WILLIAM BINNEY: Right. And I think it’s to silence what’s going on. But the point is, the data that’s being assembled is about everybody. And from that data, then they can target anyone they want . . . That, by the way, estimate only was involving phone calls and emails. It didn’t involve any queries on the net or any assembles—other—any financial transactions or credit card stuff, if they’re assembling that. I do not know that, OK.
That sounds like a number so large as to be fantastical, but it’s entirely consistent with what The Washington Post, in its 2010 “Top Secret America” series, reported: “Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications.” Read that sentence again and I defy anyone to deny that the U.S. has become the type of full-fledged, limitless Surveillance State about which Sen. Church warned.
Note, too, how this weapon has been not just maintained, but — as Binney said — aggressively expanded under President Obama. Obama’s unprecedented war on whistleblowing has been, in large part, designed to shield from the American public any knowledge of just how invasive this Surveillance State has become. Two Obama-loyal Democratic Senators — Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado — have spent two full years warning that the Obama administration is “interpreting” its spying powers under the Patriot Act in ways so “twisted” and broad that it would shock the American public if it learned of what was being done, and have even been accusing the DOJ and Attorney General Holder of actively misleading the public in material ways about its spying powers (unlike brave whistleblowers who have risked their own interests to bring corruption and illegality to the public’s attention — Binney, Drake, Bradley Manning, etc — Wyden and Udall have failed to tell the public about this illegal spying (even though they could do so on the Senate floor and be immune from prosecution) because they apparently fear losing their precious seat on the Intelligence Committee, but what’s the point of having a seat on the Intelligence Committee if you render yourself completely impotent even when you learn of systematic surveillance lawbreaking?).
None of this should be surprising: Obama — in direct violation of his primary campaign pledge — infamously voted for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that not only immunized lawbreaking telecoms, but also legalized much of the NSA domestic spying program Bush had ordered in the aftermath of 9/11. At the time, he and his acolytes insisted that Obama was doing so only so that he could win the election and then use his power to fix these spying abuses, yet another Obama-glorifying claim that has turned out to be laughable in its unreliability. The Obama administration also advocated for full-scale renewal of the Patriot Act last year, and it was Harry Reid who attacked Rand Paul for urging reforms to that law by accusing him of helping the Terrorists with his interference.
But whereas massive Surveillance State abuses were once a feigned concern of progressives, they now no longer are. Just last week, The New York Times began an editorial about the proposed massive expansion of Internet spying powers in Britain with this sentence: “The George W. Bush team must be consumed with envy” — because, of course, Barack Obama has no interest in such things.
How do you like this "Hope and Change now Suckers!"
Thanks once again to Joseph Cannon for the heads up.
