Archive for president barack obama

Unreleased: Assassination and We Cheered

Posted in Musings, News Wire with tags , , , , , , , , , on October 21, 2011 by brucepoinsette

Author’s note: I originally wrote this following the killing of Osama bin Laden. Since, we’ve seen the assassinations of many others, including Anwar al-Awlaki, his 16 year old son and most recently Muammar Gaddafi. I find it interesting that so many in the US cheered on the images of Gaddafi’s bloody corpse not even a week after the dedication of a monument to Martin Luther King Jr., one of history’s greatest nonviolent advocates. However, judging by what I observed following the bin Laden killing, I can’t say any of this is a surprise.

                              Assassination and We Cheered

“USA is at it again, number one in the rankings of Killing Championships. Stealing the Gold in the Murder Olympics, and the crowd goes wild!”
-Chuck D via Twitter

The days following the killing of Osama bin Laden have been a microcosm of everything wrong with the US. President Obama announced US Special Forces assassinated bin Laden and people celebrated as if it was the Super Bowl. Anyone who dared ask questions was labeled a conspiracy nut while the corporate media fanned the flames of already tense relations between the US and Pakistan and asserted that torture deserved praise for the victory.

As I watched the celebrations I couldn’t help but notice something didn’t feel right.

My worries were confirmed by an Al Arabiya report, which said bin Laden’s daughter confirmed his death and said the SEALS captured him alive before shooting him in front of his family. Furthermore, according to the report, witnesses say no one in the house fired at the soldiers, challenging the US military’s account that there was a firefight.

This should set off a few red flags when we consider the “official” story delivered by the White House.

Obama said that following the killing, bin Laden was wrapped in a shroud, prayed over and thrown into the sea, in order to adhere to Muslim tradition. There’s one problem. This wasn’t exactly a Muslim tradition nor was it appropriate for bin Laden’s circumstances.

In fact, when do you remember the US treating the bodies of any combatants in the War on Terror with such respect?

On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced that bin Laden was unarmed but “resisted” when he was shot in the eye. The following day, Obama said he would not release photos of the body as to not inflame tensions.

As a black man, it’s hard for me not to be skeptical when I hear an unarmed man was shot for “resisting arrest” because police throughout the country shoot unarmed black men every week.

According to the White House, this was a “capture or kill” mission. Why Navy SEALS couldn’t capture a 53-year-old unarmed man with kidney problems certainly raises some concerns. Furthermore, the hastiness in which the soldiers disposed of the body and the lie told to justify it make you wonder what the administration is trying to hide.

The allegations that releasing a picture of the body would allow followers to build a shrine or would inflame tensions among militants are dubious to say the least. Shrines can be built regardless and a gruesome picture of bin Laden’s corpse can’t be any more offensive than the photographs of the Afghanistan “Kill Team” released in Rolling Stone earlier this year or the illegal detentions, torture, raids and bombings of innocent civilians in the US’s wars and proxy wars in Muslim countries.

Government sponsored assassinations are illegal according to international law and the body certainly would have provided some evidence to what happened in the compound. As of now, the US news is only voicing the side of the US and Pakistan, which has agreed to a deal allowing the US military free reign over the country while the government publicly denies any knowledge.

In addition to evidence from the assassination, the public’s acceptance and celebration has created a frightening precedent for the abuse of presidential power.

Obama has also ordered the assassination of other militant figures like US born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in the past.

If a president is allowed to order hits on civilians then it opens the door for the White House to target anyone who opposes its policies.

People, even those as despicable as Osama bin Laden, deserve a fair trial where they can be held accountable for their crimes in a court of law. The only testimony we have from bin Laden is a set of videos whose validity has been called into question. Many of these grainy videos have bin Laden curiously operating right handed even though he’s a documented left-hander. This may be enough to satisfy the court of public opinion but it’s far from enough to hold up in a court of law.

Besides adhering to international law, this would also yield much more valuable intelligence. Since we killed him we’ll never know what motives and leads bin Laden could have personally divulged.

Public approval of the assassination has meshed with a corporate media all too willing to squash dissent and intimidate citizens from asking questions. Everyone from the White House to the cable news networks to liberal icon John Stewart have demonized, dismissed and labeled anyone asking questions as a conspiracy theorist.

As a journalist, I’ve been taught to ask questions and seek evidence regardless of the source. Thus, asking legitimate questions as to why we can’t see the body or why the SEALS chose to kill and not capture bin Laden shouldn’t be controversial. The US government has not exactly established enough credibility to have its word taken at face value.

During a debate I had earlier this week, someone went as far as to tell me Obama wouldn’t get on TV at 10:30 at night and lie to us.

Part of me cringed thinking back to the press conference where George W. Bush announced Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Posing tough questions is not necessarily asserting that bin Laden has been dead for years, as speculated since before 9/11, or that he is still alive. It’s an effort to seek evidence from an illegal operation.

Since the body was thrown in the sea there is no evidence of how or if bin Laden “resisted” despite being unarmed. All we have is the account of the SEALS vs. the recollection of witnesses.

While the media has given little time to critical thought, it has chosen to embrace two potentially harmful narratives: the untrustworthy nature of Pakistan and the effectiveness of torture in getting the intelligence that led to the killing of bin Laden.

The US has been conducting drone strikes in Pakistan for years and a 2009 Brookings Institute study found that they kill nine civilians for every insurgent. This and the murder of two Pakistani intelligence agents by CIA operative Raymond Davis, has caused serious tension between the two governments.

Despite the tensions, the US recently gave Pakistan 85 “Raven” drones, according to an Al-Jazeera report.

Keeping in mind that bin Laden came on the scene when the Carter and Reagan administrations chose to arm and train him as well as the rest of the muhajideen to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan in the late 70s and early 80s, this decision to give weapons to a potential enemy sets the table for history to repeat itself. This is all while debates persist over whether to arm rebels in Libya, another group of people who could potentially hold anti-American sentiments.

Reports say that bin Laden’s compound was housed near the Pakistani military academy, which has created more animosity amongst media personalities towards Pakistan for denying any knowledge of bin Laden’s whereabouts.

According to a report in The Nation, Pakistani President “Musharraf’s comments are ironic given that he personally made a deal with Gen. McChrystal to allow US Special Ops Forces to cross into Pakistan from Afghanistan to target bin Laden or other al Qaeda leaders. The so-called ‘hot pursuit’ agreement was predicated on Pakistan’s ability to deny it had given the US forces permission to enter Pakistan.”

The notion that the countries have any irreconcilable hostilities is overblown considering their mutual agreement, which has allowed for numerous civilian deaths and billions of dollars of US aid. Nonetheless, sowing the seeds for more tension doesn’t help the prospects of changing history.

Another disturbing development following the assassination has been conservatives’ praise of torture. Claims that torture led to the tips on bin Laden’s compound are unfounded and in fact, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammad was reported to have only begun divulging information after the CIA decided to stop waterboarding him.

Torture in overseas prisons like Guantanamo Bay and Bagram gains mostly faulty intelligence because soldiers have imprisoned mostly innocent civilians, who will say anything when the pain gets to be too much.

For example, in Andy Worthington’s “The Guantanamo Files,” Muhmoud al-Muhajid, a Yemeni detainee says, “I never knew Osama bin Laden. When the interrogators kept bothering me with this question, I told them, ‘I saw him five times, three on al-Jazeera, and twice on Yemeni news.’ After this they kept after me really hard. I told them, ‘Ok, I know him, whatever you want. Just give me a break.’ ”

In addition to this, citizens were given incentive to falsely accuse others and sell them to Americans for the price of $5,000 to $10,000, according to Worthington.

To say that this system is efficient and is justified for whatever unfounded proof that it led to the killing of bin Laden is inherently irresponsible and cause for worry anywhere US soldiers are stationed. Such blatant war crimes are never justified and only cause more hostility among those oppressed by the powerful US military.

Amidst all these attempts to capitalize on the killing and the media’s persistence in shaping the narrative, we can’t overlook that the US continues its policy of murder with little discretion. Hundreds of thousands have died since the beginning of the War on Terror. It has bled over a trillion dollars from the US economy that will never go to schools or social services. Abroad, the war has created a system of secret prisons and a climate of fear and resistance. The rights of global citizens have been slowly eroded in the name of vengeance and there’s no end in sight.

Osama bin Laden’s death doesn’t mark the end of an era but the continuance of US blood lust. Our primal urge for revenge was on full display as few questioned the official story or the legality of the killing.

When Americans readily unify around murder one has to ask if we are any better than our supposed enemies. Have we really learned anything?

Advertisements

An Open Letter to B-Murder

Posted in Musings, News Wire with tags , , , , , , , , , on October 1, 2011 by brucepoinsette

Dear President Obama,

I am concerned that your disregard for civil liberties and due process is putting US citizens in danger.

Yesterday you finally succeeded in the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen. You authorized his assassination without charges or concrete evidence. Although al-Awlaki made incendiary Youtube videos and had contact with people who have carried out terrorist attacks or attempted to, you have yet to prove he had any operational role in those terrorist incidents.

It is my understanding that the First Amendment doesn’t permit speech that incites violence. In no way do I condone al-Awlaki’s messages but I also recognize that the Fifth Amendment says no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

Considering that al-Awlaki was a US citizen and had no proven operational role in Al-Qaeda, there is no reason he couldn’t have been charged and put on trial.

Your policy of killing him, or anyone else on the list, at first sight is troubling because it doesn’t give the alleged terrorists a chance to turn themselves in. Perhaps these people have valuable intelligence to share that might end this “war” (I use that term loosely). Maybe they have just been misunderstood. In al-Awlaki’s case, we’ll never know because you had him killed before we could get any semblance of the other side of the story.

Also, when you kill a person you just create more enemies amongst his friends and family. Someone will step into al-Awlaki’s alleged role in Al-Qaeda and the violence will continue (Was there any peace after we assassinated Osama bin Laden?) so what did you accomplish besides creating more enemies and justification for more war?

This is also troubling because it bears an eery resemblance to COINTELPRO, which combined a media smear campaign, illegal surveillance and assassination to target dissenting groups within the US such as the Black Panthers and the American Indian Movement.

Some infamous COINTELPRO incidents include the murder of Chicago Black Panther leader Fred Hampton in his sleep by police and the slaying of California Panthers “Bunchy” Carter and John Huggins by informants within the United Slaves organization.

Public approval played a major role in these killings because the media (with help from FBI informants in its ranks) portrayed the Panthers as terrorists.

I noticed you pulled a similar tactic with al-Awlaki. Last year CNN broadcast a special about him called “The New bin Laden”.  Although al-Awlaki’s biggest threat was his use of propaganda, the reports managed to scare the public into believing killing him on sight was a rational and legal response.

If you can get the public to cosign anything you do as long as you say, “terrorist,” then what is stopping you or future Presidents from assassinating anyone that publicly disagrees with your policies?

You’ve already normalized government assassination through the use of drones (There were more drone strikes in your first two years than Bush authorized in eight) as well as continued Bush’s policies of detention without due process and entrapment of US citizens.

What gives us the moral authority to invade other countries and displace their leaders for the same offenses you are authorizing against the global community and now, your own people?

Do you honestly believe these measures will end terrorism or decrease violence?

Perpetual violence is not moving this country forward. Nor is sewing the seeds of distrust amongst its citizens. Murder only begets more murder.

Mr. President, before you continue to ramp up your assassination program, I pray you consider what kind of precedent you’re setting for your predecessors as well as the American people.

Sincerely,

Bruce Poinsette

Obi Wan Obama You’re Not Our Only Hope

Posted in Musings with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 19, 2011 by brucepoinsette

I’ve had a number of elderly black people whom I have the utmost respect for ask me why I, or people like me, criticize Barack Obama. “This may be the only chance we get” or “Why don’t you support the guy you voted for?,” are common arguments I hear.

With all due respect to the ancestors and the elders, I have a hard time believing they fought so hard so we could be passive political participants. People like my cousin Septima Poinsette Clark dedicated their lives to securing voting rights for my people. Was the goal really to have a black President follow the script of white Presidents (puppets really, but I digress) before him while black people continue shutting up so we don’t get in trouble?

How can you tell young people voting is so important and then tell them they’re wrong when they try to hold the person they voted for accountable?

Everyone else is lobbying Obama. Why should black people be left out?

When it came to immigration reform and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the Latino and LGBT communities were out protesting and letting Obama know he wasn’t going to simply inherit their vote. The result was a change in immigration policy (Obama has been harsher than Bush) and a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. No one accused these communities of being Obama haters for fighting for their interests.

Conversely, I was forwarded an email not too long ago blaming Tavis Smiley and Cornel West for MSNBC pundit Mark Halperin calling Obama “kind of a dick” on TV. It said the two men set the tone for such behavior because of their vocal disagreement with the President’s policies, specifically him not fighting hard enough for poor and working class people.

Perhaps I missed this time where no one was saying ridiculous and disparaging things about the President until black people did it.

Difference of opinion is both natural and healthy. It helps ferret out bad ideas and strengthen good ones.

I’m very familiar with Willie Lynch and his divide and conquer strategies to condition slaves but disagreeing with Obama is not pitting us against each other. Just because the media plays up disagreements between Obama and black critics as the rebirth of the East Coast/West Coast hip-hop beef doesn’t mean we have to buy into it.

For example, I don’t agree with the war in Libya. I don’t support bombing civilians (How do you protect civilians by taking sides in a civil war?) for oil we’re securing for our allies (70 percent of the oil is going to Spain, Germany, France and Italy) as a favor for helping us in Iraq. Neither do I support staking out a strategic position in West Africa as a precursor to invading other countries for their resources.

Does that make me an Uncle Tom (Just one of the many terms used to slander Smiley and West)?

In fact, doesn’t putting one black man on a pedestal at the expense of everyone else and condemning all of his black critics sound like divide and conquer to you?

We are not a monolithic people. No race is. There’s a place in the discussion for everyone who is fighting for the betterment of the people. I may not agree with conservatives like Herman Cain or Allen West, but if they’re offering ideas in the name of black empowerment then they have every right to contribute to the discussion.

Obama may be facing more unnecessary heat than any other President from not-so-subtly racist pundits but that doesn’t mean we have to blindly follow him. What reasonable person really cares what Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh thinks?

We cripple our President when we don’t challenge him to make his policies better. Obama, just like any other leader, can’t do it alone.

Even if we unified and gave him the support to be the black crusader many of us wish he would be, chances are the powers that be would just kill him. Then we’d be running around like chickens with our heads cut off for the umpteenth time in history.

It’s never wrong to criticize as long as you keep your eyes on the prize.

Muting “The Man”

Posted in Musings with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 9, 2011 by brucepoinsette

Even though I often don’t agree with President Obama, there was something comforting about him delivering an uninterrupted speech as John Boenher could only look on, glowing and angry.

For a brief moment, the symbol of white (even though he looks more Oompa-Loompa orange) establishment interests was put on mute.

If only we could do that more often.

One of the most overlooked benefits of white privilege is that white establishment’s opinion is always counted, no matter the discussion. Other voices only get a say when it’s convenient, even though they make up the majority.

This results in narratives and solutions that serve the white establishment rather than under served and/or underprivileged.

Sometimes we could use a mute button to keep issues from being hijacked by elitist outsiders who have no concern for the welfare of communities they preside over.

For example, the Economist recently published an article called “Race and the riots: A reckoning”. The author asserted that blacks were very prevalent in the London riots (the vast majority of rioters were actually white) based on photos released on the Internet by the police. It also pointed to crime as a cultural problem in the black community based on stop and search data.

As a journalist I couldn’t imagine getting away with such fallacious claims. We’re taught to do our research and take bias into account, yet this author was able to claim blacks made up a large number of rioters based on photos taken by a historically biased police force, not statistics. Further, this author used stop and search statistics to say there is a cultural problem with blacks. A study of stop and frisk in New York showed that while blacks and Latinos are nine times as likely to be stopped, they are no more likely to be arrested than whites..

Unfortunately, the bar was at its lowest when British “expert” David Starkey claimed the white rioters had become “black”.

Would it hurt the discourse in any way to put these people on mute?

Instead, that treatment is reserved for people like acclaimed black writer Darcus Howe. When he tried to explain how youth resistance had been brewing, a BBC anchor cut him off and even dismissed him as a rioter.

The whole episode resulted in further alienation towards British blacks and the vast majority white rioters who now face imprisonment. Giving context to the situation never seemed to cross the media’s mind. They preferred a ready made, not-so-subtly racist narrative.

It’s no better in the US. We give more time to people like Donald Trump, so he can question Obama’s birth certificate, or Michelle Bachmann, so she can claim the Pigford Settlement, which paid black farmers who were denied land based on race, is unfair slavery reparations.

We don’t give this platform to the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Both men have been positive role models for their communities and black people across the nation but the media defines them by controversial soundbites. They don’t even get a chance to speak for themselves. Instead pundits spin the same tales of anti-Americanism to demonize the two.

Mitch McConnell is allowed to say making Obama a one term President is his main goal but that isn’t considered anti-American. When someone’s main purpose is to disrupt the success of our government, doesn’t he/she deserve the mute button?

Even the most obnoxious opponents of Obama might be able to accomplish more if they just shut up for a second. There are plenty of black people with legitimate criticisms of the President but we find ourselves defending him when people throw out ridiculous claims like “socialist” or “radical Muslim”.

There’s nothing productive about giving these people a loudspeaker while silencing others who could add substance to the conversation. After all, these debates are supposed to produce solutions for the betterment of the people.

Why then do the police and politicians get more media attention than residents of communities affected by gang violence? Why is Bill Clinton, who heads the Interim Haiti Recovery Committee, given more say on Haiti than the Haitians themselves?

Wealthy white paternalism is neither empowering nor in the best interests of the global community. Self determination will only come when people put themselves at the forefront of discussions involving their welfare.

We’ve heard the same tired rhetoric from the establishment for centuries. It’s about time we put tokenism on pause.

The Bailout or the Bullet

Posted in Musings with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 2, 2011 by brucepoinsette

I’ve figured out how black people can get some stimulus money. No red tape. No job training. Just pick up an AK-47, make a “Death to America” video and join your nearest international extremist organization.

Scoff all you want but our military has given $360 million to the Taliban.

That pales in comparison to the $550 million we spent on military operations (doesn’t include humanitarian aid and other logistics) in Libya as of July. Never mind that one of the rebel leaders was an associate of Osama bin Laden and spent six years in Guantanamo Bay.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has already said the cost of war in Libya will well exceed the predicted amount of $750 million. Consider that there were 35,000-40,000 volunteers, but only 1,000 trained men by March 23.

In comparison, Portland Public Schools, which serves 47,000 students, approved a budget of $681,185,950 for the coming school year.

The black unemployment rate is still almost 16 percent. It’s nearly 40 percent for young blacks. More and more black banks are going into the red for choosing not to push subprime loans on their people.

Meanwhile, an Obama insider maintains that criticism from black leaders is “bullshit”.

Maybe Obama is trying to tell us something? All signs are pointing to a war on black people, or at least the ones not on his payroll/voluntary gag order (What’s up Al Sharpton).

Obama’s buddies in the media, Tom Joyner and Steve Harvey, have spared no expense labeling black men with a platform who speak out “Uncle Toms”. Meanwhile Obama gives support and jobs to the people that screwed our communities the most during the financial crisis.

It only gets worse when we consider where we’re throwing our money overseas.

The Libyan rebels have been persecuting blacks and justifying it by calling them the newest codeword for nigger, “(Muammar) Gaddafi supporters”.  They’ve done their best to replicate the Sudan, all with the US media’s blessing.

Despite all of Gaddafi’s faults, and their are plenty of quite horrible ones, he has expressed black appreciation. Even this was dragged through the mud when the rebels allegedly stumbled upon a Condoleeza Rice photo album in his compound (Ever notice that whenever the CIA raids a house, whether it be Allende’s, Noriega’s, or bin Laden’s, they always seem to find drugs and porn? What are the chances that their anti-black interns would find a creepy photo album of Condi?).

A recent survey, reported in Slate, says black Muslims are more likely to be terrorists. Hasn’t the FBI done enough to recruit (entrap) blacks for terrorism already?

How many more not-so-subtle hints are we going to get that the US is trying to steer us away?

The hood robbers on Capitol Hill have taken money from schools and affordable jobs programs and spent it on invading Africa. We’re told to shut up and suffer every day on the news while our government gives more support to our enemies than the black people living within its borders.

It’s only fitting they would get a black President to break the news we’re being let go.

Like any firing, we’ve been given the option of a severance package. This one includes weapons training, ducking lessons and most importantly, a one way trip back to Africa or wherever we’d feel comfortable having our children bombed.

Flavor Flav for President

Posted in Musings with tags , , , , , , , , , on August 17, 2011 by brucepoinsette

During the 2008 presidential election, some black comics were saying, “It’s not like we’re voting for Flavor Flav.”

Maybe not, but remember, we had George W. Bush for eight years. At least Flav hasn’t had attempts on his life by a pretzel and a shoe.

Besides, Bush’s presidency was more about his cabinet anyway.

Chuck D, Public Enemy’s front man, would be perfect for Vice President. Dick Cheney was pretty much the President during the Bush years, although he would’ve been virtually unelectable. Instead of robbing Nigeria or shooting lawyers in the face, Chuck might send some people to regulate Arizona or stop illegal wiretapping.

Could you imagine the S1Ws in cabinet? If there was anyone who could take a stab at reversing all the damage done by Donald Rumsfeld and continued by Hillary Clinton, it would be Professor Griff.

What would the consequences of a Public Enemy administration be?

Having politicians that would actually fight for net neutrality isn’t exactly a doomsday scenario.

Hiring an administration with a sustainable international business model sounds like a reasonable idea considering our economic crisis.

Call me crazy but I don’t think Flav would’ve invaded Libya. Instead of “taking boots off the ground” by putting drones in the air, the PE administration would represent a real chance at ending over a trillion dollars of war.

Even though Obama is in office we still award contracts to Halliburton and Xe Services (formerly Blackwater). What’s the worst that would happen with Flav? Would we give contracts to Slam Jamz or pump money into public school music programs? At least that money wouldn’t end up in the hands of the Taliban.

Nonetheless, people would argue that Flav would be an embarrassment. It’s no secret that he doesn’t have the educational background of an Obama, but then again, Bush went to Yale.

Every Presidential candidate runs on image. What do we know about Flav? He does what he has to do to feed his family. Flav has overcame serious adversity. He doesn’t let vehement criticism stop him from doing his thing.

Not to mention, he would have the most entertaining, sometimes for the wrong reasons, presidential addresses ever.

Could you imagine the nicknames for world leaders? It’d be worth the price of admission to see Benjamin Netanyahu only addressed as “Ol’ Lying Bastard”.

If Flav were President I wouldn’t have to worry about Al Sharpton, the only black man with a prime time cable news show, refusing to criticize him. Tavis Smiley and Cornel West could hold him accountable without being labeled “Uncle Toms“.

With what some on the right have said about Obama, their ammo for Flav couldn’t be much worse.

Considering a Mitch McConnell or Michelle Bachmann’s not so subtle contempt for a black man of Obama’s stature, they might stop chanting “one-term president” with Flav in office.

People say we can’t criticize Obama because we might not get another shot with a black President. If that’s what it has come to then we have forgotten the point of having a black President in the first place.

At the end of the day, image is nothing. Give the President a cabinet willing to put their lives on the line to stop the powers that be and we just might find some real hope and change.

I’d vote for Flavor Flav and the PE administration any day.

There’s a Lot to Learn from Boehner

Posted in Musings with tags , , , , , , , , on August 1, 2011 by brucepoinsette

If I just immigrated to the US, didn’t speak English and turned on CNN I’d think John Boehner was the President. The man is unyielding no matter how ridiculous his positions are and beats you to death with the same few catch phrases in every speech. He’s Benjamin Netanyahu (Why don’t you click your “indefensible” borders three times and go back to Palestine?) if he were struck by lightning.

Barack Obama is our President but Boenher has literally deboed the bully pulpit. No matter how many times he repeats, “Job creators”, “We won’t raise taxes”, or my favorite, “The American people,” he doesn’t get more convincing.

Except to Obama apparently. Boehner has him leaning to the right like an old school Mike Tyson fight.

There’s something admirable about Boehner’s determination. How he can say, “The American people” want to give more money to “job creators” who are already sitting on $1.9 trillion with a straight face (Maybe it’s just fried up that way) is impressive.

To put it bluntly, the man has talent. It’s a talent for BSing but it’s a talent nonetheless.

Boehner is beating down the man that hypnotized a nation with “Yes We Can.” It takes huge balls (Probably a side effect from the grow lamp he must sleep under) to out BS the man that ordered the murder of Osama bin Laden, threw his body in the sea and said he wouldn’t release the evidence out of respect for terrorists.

You’d swear Boehner was taking notes from Big Tobacco the way he sticks to the script. Oh wait, they are his biggest campaign supporters.

Shoddy politics aside, Boehner is a great example of using all the tools at your disposal to your advantage. He’s relentless with his sound bites and knows that no matter what ideological slant a news station may appear to have, they’re all owned by wealthy people or as Boehner would call them, “job creators” (They sure make his easier). These stations will always be willing to give him air time to not so subtly jab you with the same tired catch phrases.

He’s the political equivalent of Taco Bell commercials at midnight, with even more filler.

The lesson for Obama, or any third party candidate (It’s about time we got out if two party conspiracy, I mean system) is that revolutionary techniques do work. If you can control the propaganda you can mobilize the people.

Obama won the presidency on a pseudo-populist platform and has since retreated to fight with Republicans on their terms. If you want to fight for the majority of Americans, the mass media is not your friend. You’ll find yourself isolated against an endless flow of conservative voices under the guise of “objectivity.”

Presumably, the debt ceiling debate has ended and the majority of American people are looking to take another L. Obama must bring a gang mentality to the bully pulpit and give these people more visibility.

Otherwise it’ll be more of the same from the orange enema of the state.