Black criticism of President Barack Obama

[Felecia Klockow]

 

 

I have an innovative way to reflect on this issue concerning our President, Barack Obama, and those who would criticize him. Why are people of color, particularly black people, watching a highly skilled and intentional execution and lynching of our President and doing zilch about it other than adding to the cacophony of all the other on lookers who are not only wanting but waiting for him to fail? Are we so far detached from our own history that we are incapable of considering that there is something erroneous about the portrayal of our President as a buffoon. I dare we hold the same noose in pretense with our eyes and ears closed. I am livid but I am not angry at our President. President Obama has (conceded) rolled over quite a few times for the benefit of this country and all of its citizens and non citizens alike. I can only agree with that as stated. Yet that same man, in the near future, will be kicked again as he swims upstream in a churning flood and onslaught of disrespect and dismissal. His peers, who are doing everything they can to strip him of his rightful authority, have thus far barely avoided using the word boy. I dare we stand right there beside them with one eye open and the other closed and not first demand that he be treated like the President of the United States of America first and foremost. Demonstrate and confirm to me who you really are, show me evidence of the denigration you have carried that resulted in bringing our people, as we love to say, to the top of anything in this country or the continent we originate from for that matter. With certainty I can hear the ringing of an old parable my grandmother would use and one I am sure you are familiar with: They are saying black people are dim-witted. Black people are still crabs in a barrel ready to drag even the one who has risen to the top of the barrel down like a piece of manure. President Obama like the others before him who came to a position of authority and love in this country will succeed. Martin and Malcolm are the broad shoulders our President now stands upon. Will our President have to depart this world as they did to look back upon us still behaving as if we just got off the plantation while holding his head in his hands?  Is this what it was all for?  Is that what will give him a rightful name in history?

 

I say to the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, persist in doing the best you can because no President in recent history has had to deal with the state of affairs you find yourself under and you are doing an excellent job as far as I and many others are concerned. Martin and Malcolm faced the same indignities. No one before you redeemed black America with or without their support and maybe no one after you will redeem black America. Your effort will speak for itself, if not today, someday in the future you will have helped to mold on our behalf. It is my opinion that we, black Americans, need to review our recent history and ponder the fact that in spite of those who have died for us; too many of us remain left behind. When are we, the beneficiaries of such sacrifice, supposed to do something for ourselves?

[Marilyn The Dollmaker]

Amen~

[Felecia Klockow]

My name is Felecia and I really wanted to be sure that you received this message even if it is a duplicate.

It appears you are an intelligent man. Exactly what is it that you don't understand about the three divisions of government and foreign relations in a global economic society? Perhaps I am over estimating your knowledge of how this system has worked since a few of us got here uninvited and chained on a boat. In that you see President Obama as a magician; I wonder what it is you expect him to pull out of his hat that cannot be challenged or outright overlooked and declined by his republican peers. I realize we have a "what have you done for me lately" attitude but it appears to me that even his health care plan is set to be junked as soon as those who want the power- get the power back. Were we there for the president on that issue? No. In fact, can you remember a time we have been there with full pledged support to ensure the president's continued success. Most don't even vote. So that's how it goes. And you know how those who want the power back are going to get it back? By keeping eyes on the wrong prize and stealing the White house and whatever the heck else they want. Oh, and I am sorry. So, once we trash president Obama- who is it that you would recommend to me at this time that will do a better job. I would love to endorse who ever this genius is. No President in recent history has had to deal with this state of affairs. When the President leaving the white house, George Bush, publicly states that he is leaving a financial nightmare, a couple of wars and a recession; do you really expect the next guy to come in and just fix it in a couple of years. The black guy gets to be super president. Oh, I am sorry, race is not an issue. Please disregard any info that leads to that conclusion. When it comes to intellect I am never sure which X President we should compare President Obama to. As usual sitting on the side lines pretending to be playing the game is much easier than actually putting on the suit and getting into the game.

Byard Pidgeon said:

Felicia,

I agree with you that POTUS is not a buffoon. However, I would be much less disappointed and angry with him, if he actually were a buffoon.

He's not being forced to make the decisions he's making...decisions that, far too often and perhaps usually, are detrimental to most Americans and advantageous only to wealthy Americans, and he's not doing it because he's stupid.

He knows exactly what he's doing or not doing, and why...and that's why progressive people of all colors are so outraged.

[Saleem Shah]

 

The US Dictatorship and its White House Servant ‘President’

by Finian Cunningham

 

If there is one thing that the office of President Barack Obama demonstrates it is that democracy does not exist in the United States. This may seem a rather outlandish statement. For many people, the fact that the 44th president is the first black man to preside over the White House – with its American colonial-style architecture – is a tribute to the triumph of US democracy.

But many other more telling facts indicate that Obama is but a figurehead of an unelected government in the US. This unelected power of corporate elites – commercial, financial, military – governs with the same core policies regardless of who is sitting in the White House. Whether these policies are on social, economic or foreign matters, the elected president must obey the direction ordained by the unelected elite. That kind of untrammeled power structure conforms more closely in practice to dictatorship, not democracy.

As Michael Hudson and Ellen Brown reveal in their analyses of the US budget debacle, Obama is pathetically doing the bidding of Wall Street – much like an errand boy [1] [2].

Brown writes: “The debt crisis was created, not by a social safety net bought and paid for by the taxpayers, but by a banking system taken over by Wall Street gamblers. The gamblers lost their bets and were bailed out at the expense of the taxpayers; and if anyone should be held to account, it is these gamblers.

“The debt ceiling crisis is a manufactured one, engineered to extort concessions that will lock the middle class in debt peonage for decades to come. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to issue the money it needs to pay its debts.”

Obama’s servile toeing of Wall Street’s line is not the behavior of a free leader boldly defending the interests of the people and the greater good. Rather, his behaviour is that of one doing what he is told to do – and doing it with grateful deference.

In this way, of course, Obama is hardly different from his predecessors. But of difference is just how blatant the White House is now appearing to function as a mere tool of the rich and powerful elite.

The irony is that Obama’s election was presented as a potent symbol of American democracy; the truth is that the two-party system has become a threadbare cover for immense feebleness when it comes to serving the diktat of elite power as opposed to the good of the people. “The most powerful office in the world” would be more accurately referenced as “the most feeble purveyor of elite interests”.

Obama’s presence in the White House indulges a superficial moral/political correctness while the masters whip us all into austere servitude.

The US “war on terror” is another illustration of America’s dictatorship of the elite – and Obama’s pathetic servile role of carrying out the masters’ orders in defiance of the will of the people.

Recall that Obama’s bid for presidential election in 2008 was avowedly based on ending the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also denounced his incumbent rival George W Bush over the use of special powers that enabled such aberrations as the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp and a host of draconian home security policies infringing on civil rights.

Obama also signaled in his inaugural speech – reiterated again soon after in Cairo – that under his watch the US was resetting foreign policy – turning away from the militarist policies of Bush to a more enlightened approach for settling conflicts with the Muslim World and Iran in particular. “If they unclench their fist, we will extend our hand,” Obama declared with seemingly heartfelt eloquence.

But on every count, Obama has reneged on his supposed opposition to the US “war on terror”. Indeed, under his watch, the US has expanded its militarist foreign policy – which is apparently predicated on the belief that “western democracy is threatened by Islamic extremism”. Obama has done nothing to roll back draconian home security policies, indeed appears to have extended them. And he continues his predecessor’s deception of conflating Iran and its alleged nuclear ambitions as part of this phony “Islamic extremists” narrative.

To perform such a disgraceful U-turn on so many election promises, the presidency of Barack Obama is clear proof that the holder of office in the White House is not the one who is setting policy – rather, he is following policy that is set by unelected others.

When news broke about the massacre in Norway where more than 70 people were killed in a twin bomb and gun attack, Obama reacted like an automaton of the unelected power system, instead of like an independent, reasonable political leader. Even though it was clear within hours of the atrocity that the perpetrator was a blond-haired Norwegian with fascist and deeply Islamophobic views, nevertheless Obama reacted immediately to present it as an act of Islamic terrorism.

Speaking from the White House, Obama said: “It's a reminder that the entire international community has a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring, and that we have to work co-operatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks.”

The president may not have used the words “Islamic terrorism” but it is clear that he was invoking the massacre as part of the “war on terror” which is predicated on the notion of Islamic terrorism.

In this mindset, Obama was not alone. British Prime Minister David Cameron moved into action stations, saying that British intelligence would help their Norwegian counterparts to track down the culprits – again implying that the perpetrators were part of an international organization – which in war on terror code means an Islamic organization.

The US and British news media also jumped to the conclusion that the Norwegian attacks must have something to with Al Qaeda or some other “Jihadist” group.

That such a widespread and erroneous reflex response from Western political leaders and news media – the so-called free press – can be elicited so uncritically shows how trenchantly the war on terror and its Islamophobic mindset are embedded.

The consequences of this are deeply disturbing. For a start, such a mindset of the Western political and media establishment can only lead to further Islamophobia in these societies. There were reports of hate attacks against ordinary Muslims across Europe immediately after the Norway atrocity, no doubt caused by the malign and erroneous way that politicians and the media attributed the incident to Islamists.

Even more disturbing is that the war on terror mindset fomented by Western governments and media over the past 10 years has led to the creation of lunatic fascist psychopaths like Anders Behring Breivik who carried out the Norway mass murder. Breivik and others like him think that Europe and the US must be defended from some kind of Muslim threat. This kind of logic does not conjure from thin air. It is rather the logical conclusion of the war on terror mindset that Western governments and news media have pushed down the throats of their citizens for a decade.

The sad part is that the majority of Western citizens are not convinced by the phony crusading of their governments and media, nor of the alleged threat of Islamic extremists. Most people realize that whatever Islamic extremists operate, they are either a creation of Western intelligence or a backlash against Western imperialism. That is why Obama’s avowed election promises to end America’s criminal wars and reset foreign policy on a more reasonable, democratic footing got him elected.

The even sadder part is that as Obama’s ineffectual election shows, the US (and its Western lackeys) is being driven further and further into bankrupting, criminal wars of aggression that will cause more victims of violence and social mayhem at home and abroad. And it’s all because democracy in the US (and elsewhere in the West) is non-existent. The US is a dictatorship. And Mr Obama is too ineffectual (save for the masters) and irrelevant to be even loosely called its dictator

[Gregory A. Bronson]

I can't believe you posted some by Finian Cunningham. Seriously, you could have at least prefaced the comment. Do you agree with all his super left wing banter and ridiculous spewings? Wow Finian? You made your point.

[Byard Pidgeon]

Saleem...thanks for posting this. I have a few disagreements with some of it, but in the main I think the author is correct in his assessment of our political system and the "war on terror" mentality.

Let no one forget...prior to 9/11/01, the worst terrorist attack on USA soil was committed by white, christian, American citizens, as were almost all other terror incidents.

Saleem Shah said:

 

The US Dictatorship and its White House Servant ‘President’

by Finian Cunningham

 

If there is one thing that the office of President Barack Obama demonstrates it is that democracy does not exist in the United States. This may seem a rather outlandish statement. For many people, the fact that the 44th president is the first black man to preside over the White House – with its American colonial-style architecture – is a tribute to the triumph of US democracy.

But many other more telling facts indicate that Obama is but a figurehead of an unelected government in the US. This unelected power of corporate elites – commercial, financial, military – governs with the same core policies regardless of who is sitting in the White House. Whether these policies are on social, economic or foreign matters, the elected president must obey the direction ordained by the unelected elite. That kind of untrammeled power structure conforms more closely in practice to dictatorship, not democracy.

As Michael Hudson and Ellen Brown reveal in their analyses of the US budget debacle, Obama is pathetically doing the bidding of Wall Street – much like an errand boy [1] [2].

Brown writes: “The debt crisis was created, not by a social safety net bought and paid for by the taxpayers, but by a banking system taken over by Wall Street gamblers. The gamblers lost their bets and were bailed out at the expense of the taxpayers; and if anyone should be held to account, it is these gamblers.

“The debt ceiling crisis is a manufactured one, engineered to extort concessions that will lock the middle class in debt peonage for decades to come. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to issue the money it needs to pay its debts.”

Obama’s servile toeing of Wall Street’s line is not the behavior of a free leader boldly defending the interests of the people and the greater good. Rather, his behaviour is that of one doing what he is told to do – and doing it with grateful deference.

In this way, of course, Obama is hardly different from his predecessors. But of difference is just how blatant the White House is now appearing to function as a mere tool of the rich and powerful elite.

The irony is that Obama’s election was presented as a potent symbol of American democracy; the truth is that the two-party system has become a threadbare cover for immense feebleness when it comes to serving the diktat of elite power as opposed to the good of the people. “The most powerful office in the world” would be more accurately referenced as “the most feeble purveyor of elite interests”.

Obama’s presence in the White House indulges a superficial moral/political correctness while the masters whip us all into austere servitude.

The US “war on terror” is another illustration of America’s dictatorship of the elite – and Obama’s pathetic servile role of carrying out the masters’ orders in defiance of the will of the people.

Recall that Obama’s bid for presidential election in 2008 was avowedly based on ending the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also denounced his incumbent rival George W Bush over the use of special powers that enabled such aberrations as the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp and a host of draconian home security policies infringing on civil rights.

Obama also signaled in his inaugural speech – reiterated again soon after in Cairo – that under his watch the US was resetting foreign policy – turning away from the militarist policies of Bush to a more enlightened approach for settling conflicts with the Muslim World and Iran in particular. “If they unclench their fist, we will extend our hand,” Obama declared with seemingly heartfelt eloquence.

But on every count, Obama has reneged on his supposed opposition to the US “war on terror”. Indeed, under his watch, the US has expanded its militarist foreign policy – which is apparently predicated on the belief that “western democracy is threatened by Islamic extremism”. Obama has done nothing to roll back draconian home security policies, indeed appears to have extended them. And he continues his predecessor’s deception of conflating Iran and its alleged nuclear ambitions as part of this phony “Islamic extremists” narrative.

To perform such a disgraceful U-turn on so many election promises, the presidency of Barack Obama is clear proof that the holder of office in the White House is not the one who is setting policy – rather, he is following policy that is set by unelected others.

When news broke about the massacre in Norway where more than 70 people were killed in a twin bomb and gun attack, Obama reacted like an automaton of the unelected power system, instead of like an independent, reasonable political leader. Even though it was clear within hours of the atrocity that the perpetrator was a blond-haired Norwegian with fascist and deeply Islamophobic views, nevertheless Obama reacted immediately to present it as an act of Islamic terrorism.

Speaking from the White House, Obama said: “It's a reminder that the entire international community has a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring, and that we have to work co-operatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks.”

The president may not have used the words “Islamic terrorism” but it is clear that he was invoking the massacre as part of the “war on terror” which is predicated on the notion of Islamic terrorism.

In this mindset, Obama was not alone. British Prime Minister David Cameron moved into action stations, saying that British intelligence would help their Norwegian counterparts to track down the culprits – again implying that the perpetrators were part of an international organization – which in war on terror code means an Islamic organization.

The US and British news media also jumped to the conclusion that the Norwegian attacks must have something to with Al Qaeda or some other “Jihadist” group.

That such a widespread and erroneous reflex response from Western political leaders and news media – the so-called free press – can be elicited so uncritically shows how trenchantly the war on terror and its Islamophobic mindset are embedded.

The consequences of this are deeply disturbing. For a start, such a mindset of the Western political and media establishment can only lead to further Islamophobia in these societies. There were reports of hate attacks against ordinary Muslims across Europe immediately after the Norway atrocity, no doubt caused by the malign and erroneous way that politicians and the media attributed the incident to Islamists.

Even more disturbing is that the war on terror mindset fomented by Western governments and media over the past 10 years has led to the creation of lunatic fascist psychopaths like Anders Behring Breivik who carried out the Norway mass murder. Breivik and others like him think that Europe and the US must be defended from some kind of Muslim threat. This kind of logic does not conjure from thin air. It is rather the logical conclusion of the war on terror mindset that Western governments and news media have pushed down the throats of their citizens for a decade.

The sad part is that the majority of Western citizens are not convinced by the phony crusading of their governments and media, nor of the alleged threat of Islamic extremists. Most people realize that whatever Islamic extremists operate, they are either a creation of Western intelligence or a backlash against Western imperialism. That is why Obama’s avowed election promises to end America’s criminal wars and reset foreign policy on a more reasonable, democratic footing got him elected.

The even sadder part is that as Obama’s ineffectual election shows, the US (and its Western lackeys) is being driven further and further into bankrupting, criminal wars of aggression that will cause more victims of violence and social mayhem at home and abroad. And it’s all because democracy in the US (and elsewhere in the West) is non-existent. The US is a dictatorship. And Mr Obama is too ineffectual (save for the masters) and irrelevant to be even loosely called its dictator

[Saleem Shah]

Greetings:

I'm puzzled here. Why can't you believe I would post something by F. Cunningham? What am I - typecasted here or what? .....lol....Frankly, I don't even know who he is or anything about him, as you obviouisly do. I read what he wrote and feel it has much merit in weighing one's assessment of Mr. Obama. To me, it was the other side of the coin, so to speak. I know that there is a hidden ruling party who calls the shots. I found a lot of truth in what Mr. Cunningham presented. Lots of truths.

I am a searcher and a respecter of the Truth, regardless from whom or what the source. If my enemy speaks the Truth, I am dutybound as a civilized, cultured and refined man, to submit to the Truth. Maybe that is what the Scripture means, "....out of the mouths of babes...."

To answer your question, I don't know what his super left wing banter consists of, nor do know what you mean by the term "super left wing". Super is a relative term. What's considered super by you may be nothing to me. I post a lot of raw, direct, in-your-face posts that some people may and do take offense to.

From 1970 until 2000 I was an executive gold card carrying registered Republican. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.....lol.....today, I do not recognize any party. The whole system is corrupt, and is indeed controlled by an unseen negative powerful elite force. I call them the devil Illuminati among other names.

I absolutely believe that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is the absolute truth. I don't think anyone just made this up. Others vehemently disagree.

I cut my intellectual teeth during the 1960s on Ramparts, Vanguard and MAD magazines, which were considered way out left wing publications. What does one call Message to the Blackman, by Elijah Muhammad? Is that spewing super something? I don't know. I know it to be the Truth, others don't agree.

I am Red Cross Disaster Action Team, CERT and FEMA Disaster Preparedness & Emergency Management certified and active. I also believe the white man is the devil. But I wouldn't respond to a disaster and say or feel I don't want to give aid and assistance to someone just because they're white. To do or feel this way would be hypocritical if I say I stand on Truth. In this case, the Truth that all people are to be treated with fairness, regardless to race, religion, creed or class.

During the 2nd term campaign of George W. Bush, I read a book "Where The Right Went Wrong"
by Patrick Buchannan. I thought he was 90% right. And as you see I read this Finian person also. i thnk he said a lot of right also....Peace

 

Gregory A. Bronson said:

I can't believe you posted some by Finian Cunningham. Seriously, you could have at least prefaced the comment. Do you agree with all his super left wing banter and ridiculous spewings? Wow Finian? You made your point.

[Saleem Shah]

Greetings Byard:

You are most welcomed, sir.

Byard Pidgeon said:

Saleem...thanks for posting this. I have a few disagreements with some of it, but in the main I think the author is correct in his assessment of our political system and the "war on terror" mentality.

Let no one forget...prior to 9/11/01, the worst terrorist attack on USA soil was committed by white, christian, American citizens, as were almost all other terror incidents.

Saleem Shah said:

 

The US Dictatorship and its White House Servant ‘President’

by Finian Cunningham

 

If there is one thing that the office of President Barack Obama demonstrates it is that democracy does not exist in the United States. This may seem a rather outlandish statement. For many people, the fact that the 44th president is the first black man to preside over the White House – with its American colonial-style architecture – is a tribute to the triumph of US democracy.

But many other more telling facts indicate that Obama is but a figurehead of an unelected government in the US. This unelected power of corporate elites – commercial, financial, military – governs with the same core policies regardless of who is sitting in the White House. Whether these policies are on social, economic or foreign matters, the elected president must obey the direction ordained by the unelected elite. That kind of untrammeled power structure conforms more closely in practice to dictatorship, not democracy.

As Michael Hudson and Ellen Brown reveal in their analyses of the US budget debacle, Obama is pathetically doing the bidding of Wall Street – much like an errand boy [1] [2].

Brown writes: “The debt crisis was created, not by a social safety net bought and paid for by the taxpayers, but by a banking system taken over by Wall Street gamblers. The gamblers lost their bets and were bailed out at the expense of the taxpayers; and if anyone should be held to account, it is these gamblers.

“The debt ceiling crisis is a manufactured one, engineered to extort concessions that will lock the middle class in debt peonage for decades to come. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to issue the money it needs to pay its debts.”

Obama’s servile toeing of Wall Street’s line is not the behavior of a free leader boldly defending the interests of the people and the greater good. Rather, his behaviour is that of one doing what he is told to do – and doing it with grateful deference.

In this way, of course, Obama is hardly different from his predecessors. But of difference is just how blatant the White House is now appearing to function as a mere tool of the rich and powerful elite.

The irony is that Obama’s election was presented as a potent symbol of American democracy; the truth is that the two-party system has become a threadbare cover for immense feebleness when it comes to serving the diktat of elite power as opposed to the good of the people. “The most powerful office in the world” would be more accurately referenced as “the most feeble purveyor of elite interests”.

Obama’s presence in the White House indulges a superficial moral/political correctness while the masters whip us all into austere servitude.

The US “war on terror” is another illustration of America’s dictatorship of the elite – and Obama’s pathetic servile role of carrying out the masters’ orders in defiance of the will of the people.

Recall that Obama’s bid for presidential election in 2008 was avowedly based on ending the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also denounced his incumbent rival George W Bush over the use of special powers that enabled such aberrations as the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp and a host of draconian home security policies infringing on civil rights.

Obama also signaled in his inaugural speech – reiterated again soon after in Cairo – that under his watch the US was resetting foreign policy – turning away from the militarist policies of Bush to a more enlightened approach for settling conflicts with the Muslim World and Iran in particular. “If they unclench their fist, we will extend our hand,” Obama declared with seemingly heartfelt eloquence.

But on every count, Obama has reneged on his supposed opposition to the US “war on terror”. Indeed, under his watch, the US has expanded its militarist foreign policy – which is apparently predicated on the belief that “western democracy is threatened by Islamic extremism”. Obama has done nothing to roll back draconian home security policies, indeed appears to have extended them. And he continues his predecessor’s deception of conflating Iran and its alleged nuclear ambitions as part of this phony “Islamic extremists” narrative.

To perform such a disgraceful U-turn on so many election promises, the presidency of Barack Obama is clear proof that the holder of office in the White House is not the one who is setting policy – rather, he is following policy that is set by unelected others.

When news broke about the massacre in Norway where more than 70 people were killed in a twin bomb and gun attack, Obama reacted like an automaton of the unelected power system, instead of like an independent, reasonable political leader. Even though it was clear within hours of the atrocity that the perpetrator was a blond-haired Norwegian with fascist and deeply Islamophobic views, nevertheless Obama reacted immediately to present it as an act of Islamic terrorism.

Speaking from the White House, Obama said: “It's a reminder that the entire international community has a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring, and that we have to work co-operatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks.”

The president may not have used the words “Islamic terrorism” but it is clear that he was invoking the massacre as part of the “war on terror” which is predicated on the notion of Islamic terrorism.

In this mindset, Obama was not alone. British Prime Minister David Cameron moved into action stations, saying that British intelligence would help their Norwegian counterparts to track down the culprits – again implying that the perpetrators were part of an international organization – which in war on terror code means an Islamic organization.

The US and British news media also jumped to the conclusion that the Norwegian attacks must have something to with Al Qaeda or some other “Jihadist” group.

That such a widespread and erroneous reflex response from Western political leaders and news media – the so-called free press – can be elicited so uncritically shows how trenchantly the war on terror and its Islamophobic mindset are embedded.

The consequences of this are deeply disturbing. For a start, such a mindset of the Western political and media establishment can only lead to further Islamophobia in these societies. There were reports of hate attacks against ordinary Muslims across Europe immediately after the Norway atrocity, no doubt caused by the malign and erroneous way that politicians and the media attributed the incident to Islamists.

Even more disturbing is that the war on terror mindset fomented by Western governments and media over the past 10 years has led to the creation of lunatic fascist psychopaths like Anders Behring Breivik who carried out the Norway mass murder. Breivik and others like him think that Europe and the US must be defended from some kind of Muslim threat. This kind of logic does not conjure from thin air. It is rather the logical conclusion of the war on terror mindset that Western governments and news media have pushed down the throats of their citizens for a decade.

The sad part is that the majority of Western citizens are not convinced by the phony crusading of their governments and media, nor of the alleged threat of Islamic extremists. Most people realize that whatever Islamic extremists operate, they are either a creation of Western intelligence or a backlash against Western imperialism. That is why Obama’s avowed election promises to end America’s criminal wars and reset foreign policy on a more reasonable, democratic footing got him elected.

The even sadder part is that as Obama’s ineffectual election shows, the US (and its Western lackeys) is being driven further and further into bankrupting, criminal wars of aggression that will cause more victims of violence and social mayhem at home and abroad. And it’s all because democracy in the US (and elsewhere in the West) is non-existent. The US is a dictatorship. And Mr Obama is too ineffectual (save for the masters) and irrelevant to be even loosely called its dictator

[Saleem Shah]

Gregory A. Bronson said:

I can't believe you posted some by Finian Cunningham. Seriously, you could have at least prefaced the comment. Do you agree with all his super left wing banter and ridiculous spewings? Wow Finian? You made your point.

Speculators and Banksters Exposed: Mainstream Media Thrown into Tailspin
by grtv

Mainstream media is thrown into a tailspin after an independent trader tells the BBC how the world of big money and politics looks from the inside. Here's our report from Washington on why this was such an eye opener.

Are the banksters fueling a global market meltdown? Heads turned yesterday – when stock trader Alessio Rastani went on the BBC and predicted that the Eurozone is going to crash within the next twelve months – and that a lot of banksters will make a fortune off it. "This problem cannot be solved,” Rastani said. “I’m fairly confident that the Euro is going to crash, and it’s going to fall pretty hard.” Rastani then admitted that he – as well as traders in giant banks on Wall Street – have actually placed bets that global markets will crash, and are poised to make huge profits if their bets come in.

Rastani said, “The depression in the 30′s wasn’t just about a market crash. There were some people who were prepared to make money from that crash. I think anybody can do that. The governments don’t rule the world,” Rastani added, “Goldman Sachs rules the world. Goldman Sachs does not care about this rescue package.” From manipulating food prices that spark a hunger crisis around the world – to distorting oil prices that trigger recessions here in the United States – to bringing down an entire global economy – it’s all part of a day’s work for traders like Rastani and Goldman Sachs.

How much longer are we going to let speculators and banksters run the show – and screw us all over?

Watch Rastani's original interview here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC19fEqR5bA

[LibyaWest]

The right wing seems unable to realize that this unwhite POTUS has been implementing many of the policies they've wanted, and continuing those they've already put in place...Byard Pidgeon

 

The "right wing", maybe, but the puppeteers, not.  That's why when the polls indicate that any "generic" republican would beat obomber, the republican slate of candidates is peopled with extremists and crazies not likely to beat obomber.  obomber is the choice candidate for the new world order. He out cracks all of the crackers, past and present.

[Byard Pidgeon]

Yep...he was their choice in '08, too...said all the right things to sucker in progressives, wasn't threatening to the white middle (well, as non threatening as any dark skinned man could be), and raked in all that corporate cash, after saying he wouldn't.

Perhaps, just maybe, the majority of voters will finally realize that neither the Democrats nor the GOP will ever allow a primary candidate to become the chosen candidate unless the plutocrats agree.

LibyaWest said:

The right wing seems unable to realize that this unwhite POTUS has been implementing many of the policies they've wanted, and continuing those they've already put in place...Byard Pidgeon

 

The "right wing", maybe, but the puppeteers, not.  That's why when the polls indicate that any "generic" republican would beat obomber, the republican slate of candidates is peopled with extremists and crazies not likely to beat obomber.  obomber is the choice candidate for the new world order. He out cracks all of the crackers, past and present.

[Felecia Klockow]

  TO:Byard Pidgeon

Your polls are inconsistent and untrue,without calling you a lie of course, and your point of few is redundant and science fiction. New world order. Right. Glad you are evidently not a member,that would be bad.  My life experiences are obviously and fortunately different than yours. Name calling (obomber and crackers) is childish and I am using simple words for a reason. I apologize. I was under the impression you were replying with legitimate information. No longer interested. Thank you.

[LibyaWest]

Let me say this again...

 

The Black-faced cracker barrage insane obomber is a lying, thieving, baby-killing, mass-murdering, war-mongering, torture-loving, Africa-hating, African-hating, poor folks hating, jig dancing, ass-kissing and an all around slimy piece of s***! And I'm sure massa's favorite pet is delighted to announce his new campaign to exterminate all of the "Islamist" in Libya designed to "protect the civilians". 

 

 

Libya endgame carries new risks for NATO
By Justyna Pawlak | Reuters – 


BRUSSELS (Reuters) - NATO commanders face a tough balancing act during the bloody battle for Muammar Gaddafi's last strongholds, Sirte and Bani Walid.

NATO allies would like to let the National Transitional Council (NTC) claim victory in these battles and war for itself. That would enhance the council's legitimacy as the new ruler of Libya after Gaddafi's four decades in power, and bolster the chances of a stable democracy taking root in the country.

But the European governments that led NATO's air campaign in Libya also need to remain long enough and engaged enough to make sure the success so far is not diminished by a messy withdrawal. If NATO quietly stepped aside but fighting restarted, that would diminish Europe's standing in Libya and tarnish a campaign that has been seen as a success for Europeans.

To achieve this, experts say, NATO forces are keen to cut back the bombing campaign that was instrumental in giving the NTC a military edge. Instead, NATO will likely step up other operations such as surveillance and air support to eliminate any remaining weaponry that could threaten peaceful transition. NATO declines to comment on its immediate operations.

"As we approach the endgame, it is very clear NATO's role will become very much the eyes and ears of the NTC, rather than the hammer," said Tim Ripley, a London-based military expert at Jane's Defense Weekly.

"The next phase in Libya will amount to a more deliberate mopping up of the country as the NTC moves to establish their control and presence."

One problem is that Gaddafi's remaining loyalists are in Bani Walid and Sirte, which are densely populated. That makes it risky to try to bomb them because of the danger of civilian casualties.

NATO, argues Shashank Joshi, an analyst with the Royal United Services Institute in London, lacks sufficient intelligence to allow it to pinpoint targets in Sirte and Bani Walid without endangering civilians.

"We are in a fortress situation where the city is under siege. If you don't know that a particular building is being used as a school or a mosque, even the best intelligence won't give you the details," he said.

"In Tripoli, you had rebels, you had (Western) special forces, networks of resistance. We don't have that kind of information in Sirte or Bani Walid. So targeting is inherently difficult."

To a degree, battle conditions with Gaddafi's remaining loyalists necessitate a change of operational approach because of the limitations of NATO jets' firepower which is to dangerous to use, said Ripley of Jane's Defense Weekly.

"Gaddafi forces are no longer using tanks and artillery that were easier to hit and identify. The NTC is using infantry to drive Gaddafi's forces from building to building," Ripley said.

"Both sides are operating in such close proximity that differentiating between the sides is difficult. That makes it very difficult to use air-drop weapons (bombs)."

Experts say other constraints also complicate NATO's operations in Sirte and Bani Walid as its military commanders plan how to fulfill the alliance's United Nations mandate in Libya to protect civilians during the civil war. So far, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said, there are no confirmed cases of civilians being killed by NATO power, although alliance officials say some cannot be ruled out.

COMPLICATIONS AND TACTICAL SHIFTS

Human rights organizations have called on the alliance to lean on NTC fighters to do more to protect civilians as worries mount for people trapped in Sirte.

Desperation is growing in the besieged city as civilians try to flee the battle, both sides are accusing each other of endangering civilians, and aid agencies say a humanitarian disaster is looming because of shrinking supplies of water, electricity and food.

"NATO has significant influence over the actions of (NTC) forces," said Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch. "And needs to use it to ensure that the NTC meet their legal obligation under international law (to avoid civilian casualties)," he said.

Another challenge for NATO, Bouckaert added, was preventing NTC forces from taking action against civilians they suspect of siding with Gaddafi loyalists.

"It is essential that those civilian populations, even if they are pro-Gaddafi, do not suffer from vengeance," he said.

NATO officials acknowledge difficulties they are facing in Gaddafi's last strongholds but have given little indication of how much firepower the deposed leader has at his disposal, other than "small logistical and mobility capabilities."

"Their actions are limited to tactical initiatives in isolated pockets, representing a fraction of Libya's territory and population," said NATO spokesman Colonel Roland Lavoie. "They don't control many access routes within Libya. The mission is not yet over but the end is near,"

Focusing on Gaddafi loyalists' access routes to supplies or way out of their strongholds might be an important part of NATO tactics in the near future, military experts said.

"A very big role NATO can play is to dominate the terrain, the roads outside of town," said Ripley. "They can enforce the siege but they cannot finish off Gaddafi forces. They can prevent them from rebuilding, replenishing or escaping."

Already, NATO figures from recent days show the alliance's targeting has focused on storage and command facilities and less on tanks and artillery assets.

Outside of Sirte and Bani Walid, NATO forces will likely concentrate on hunting down any weaponry left behind by the Gaddafi regime, experts said.

"There is a lot of kit left in the country," said Douglas Barrie, a military aviation specialist at London's International Institute of Strategic Studies. "The bombing campaign didn't destroy all of the regime's military capacity by any stretch of imagination. We didn't have enough aircraft, we didn't have enough time.

"I suppose the (NATO) thinking is they don't want to leave any credible rump of military capabilities that could cause problems for the transitional council."

(Additional reporting by Johanna Somers; editing by Sebastian Moffett)