Fareed Zakaria and Coded Anti-Populism


Zakaria Thinks Trump is a Chump

This is in response to Fareed Zakaria’s blog post entitled, “Fareed Zakaria on Donald Trump and Coded Racism” which appeared on his Global Public Square blog on April 22nd, 2011, where he ‘mans the helm’ at CNN on Sundays at 10am and 1pm eastern time.

Fareed seemed to be an otherwise thoughtful analyst of the geo-political scene when he waded into the mainstream media pool back in 2002, but this piece from his blog is just egregious and requires immediate attention from yours truly. Zakaria has outdone himself here, he uses the ‘trump card’ of racism to taint Donald Trump as a racist in a banal Straw Man analogy, which at least unfurls as an ‘informal fallacy.’

Nobody rooted for Mr Zakaria more than I when he showed up on our TV screens in the scary post-911 world. We were happy to see an Indian born practicing Muslim with a kind persona and classy presence disagree with the neo-conservatives while getting smiles from other liberals. It promised to be a kindler, gentler world where more international liberal and progressive voices were to be heard along staunch US conservative pundits and the usual Euro-centric Imperialist drivel.

This of course was not to be the case, instead of a more diverse perspective full of international voices, we have more colorful faces and accents, but the same narrow liberal/conservative ideologues logging in long hours on our TV screens. The new class of media pundits and commentators are a more diverse ‘rainbow of colors’, but their rainbow does not arch toward justice, as Martin Luther King envisioned our shared path to be, but  arches toward the status-quo, and the further eroding of our civil rights. ‘We the people’ need to bend the Rainbow of Truth in the direction of our shared  vision of equal rights and protection under the law, with due process afforded  all.

You will have proof here that Mr Zakaria is unabashedly steering the conversation away from real ‘Populism’ from his podium atop CNN. It is egregious to say the least, especially when you consider the baton was passed to him and others by the likes of Edward R Murrow, Walter Cronkite and to an extent the investigative reporting style of shows like “60 Minutes.”

With the new corporate media and figures like Zakaria, we do not get any real investigative style reporting, but ’60 minutes’ of crosstalk interlaced with Democrat or Republican talking points book-ended by portrayal of the ‘startled masses’ as ignorant sheep or raging lunatics.

This is the landscape that our pundits like to wallow in, but for what reason? Our sons and daughters desperate lives used are used as spectacle,  to uphold the firmament of the great lie of ‘Social Darwinism’, with the uber-beautiful and super-rich are coronated and celebrated as royalty on the stage of rising and falling American Idols.

I have spent enough time working in marketing and media to understand that most if not all of these ‘talking heads’ are just paid actors who clamor for the glamor of their positions. Zakaria and others want to be judges and juries on this distorted socio-political scene. Whether Fareed is unwittingly misinforming the public or not is relatively unimportant, for he has willingly chosen to align himself with his corporate masters whom he so gleefully shills for.

Zakaria, or ‘Z’ as I like to refer to him, is no ‘Zorro’, he does not ride around on horseback gallantly supporting his countrymen in their struggle against ‘El Patron’, but rides around in Limousines and Private Jets sharing cocktails with his intelligentsia friends. Z’s compadres in the ‘Media Elite’ are now concerned that their usual Right/Left game-plan is going to be flanked by a new Populist movement, with the real players being Ron Paul, Donald Trump, Jesse Ventura, and possibly Dennis Kucinich.

There is a mass mainstream media movement afoot that smears and belittles anyone that is not part of the Duo-Oligopoly:

* Oligarchy:

“a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution : the ruling oligarchy of military men around the president.
• a state governed by such a group : the English aristocratic oligarchy of the 19th century.
• government by such a group”

* Oligopoly:

“a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers.”

A duo-oligopoly refers to the Oligarchs who have monopolized the infrastructure of our Democratic Republic, and are now behind a false Democratic/Republican Party paradigm that the Establishment Media push on the confused public. Think of it as good cop/ bad cop, a la “Hill St Blues” or “Law and Order CSI.’

But this real life soap-opera narrative we could call “Wash DC Spin BS” is professional socio-political theater where the frustrated actors and maladjusted social predators run amok with our country moneys and laws, paying allegiance to their gods of greed and power. Without mercy or shame they raid and plunder our cherished institutions, like any purveyor of empire would do.

It is high theater in the hallowed halls of our hollow Republic and the emperor has no clothes, yet we do nothing as Shakespeare and Moliere roll in their graves

The ‘establishment media pundits’ have to pimp for their corporate masters. The corporatised media are afraid of real populist movements, that is why they constantly try and smear the Donald Trumps and Ron Pauls of the world. I kid you not, Ron Paul, the front runner in many polls, running neck and neck with Romney in most states, is not even mentioned alongside other Republican contenders in Zakaria’s article.

Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and others, are treated like lepers by MSNBC, CNN, FOX, while the talking heads just love to blabber ad nauseum about a Sarah Palin or a Michelle Bachman, both fringe candidates at this point. While Palin was McCain’s choice for VP, everybody knows that the intent was to lure Ron Paul supporters to the Republican ticket in 2008.

Although Fox promoted the new faces of “The Tea Party” movement on it’s programs in the post-inagaural ‘health care town hall debate’ media frenzy, the original ‘Tea Party’ began with Ron Paul during the 2008 election and was astro-turfed by corporate Republicans for their own benefit.

The astro-turfing of those original Tea Parties was lead by the Fox News/Republican cabal which orchestrated the ‘big show’, but the left-wing of the duo-oligopical media monster is there to flap the other side of the behemoth. MSNBC, CNN on the other side, rails against Fox News for creating and/or promoting the New Tea Party, while failing to allude to the original Tea Party movement which had Ron Paul as it’s ersatz leader.

They are yelling at each other like sibling rivals, when they could be talking about the real issues and moving the conversation forward. After all, we share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, yet Royal Republicans and Democrats cannot see eye to eye on just about anything. These people would rather have you believe that the Halls of Congress and Business are filled with well-meaning people who would do otherwise if it were not for the ‘absurdity of human behavior.’

The Elites Architects would have us believe that ‘The Masses’ are the main cause of our own demise. The ignorant, huddled masses who are misled by shiny baubles and promises of instant wealth and happiness. According to Zakaria’s philosophy, the people’s immature “fantasies” are at the heart of most of our socio-political problems. Z might even believe in this nonsense, these modern elite media pundits are not as well-rounded and thoughtful as they would have you believe.

Z and his cohorts are not grizzled veterans with years of investigative reporting and ‘on the ground’ experience, but chiseled professional Ivy Leageurs who are groomed for the corporate boardrooms and game-rooms that are the revolving door of the Oligopolistic House of Cards.

The sad truth is, they treat us like spoiled children who watch too much TV because they live in the center of that TV World they are trying to project onto us. This is mostly a case of their projection, which when projected from their projection screen TV’s, projects their shallow understanding of reality onto our realities.

All this nonsense of theirs would be quite suspicious if the Duo-Oligopolics were not already outed by most political analysts who are already onto the fake Dem\Rep paradigm which hides the big players behind the scenes. Z is not only on the front lines of the debate, manipulating and distorting public opinion through his CNN show and GPS Blog, but is also deeply ensconced in the behind the scenes machinations that masquerade as public policy.

Z  belongs to this new breed of International Globalists, many of which are now foreign born but are still mostly Ivy League educated, and usually from prominent families who are already aligned with either a conservative or liberal ideology. If they toe the line, they are then recruited by the Think Tanks and Media Outlets who then push their well-crafted and researched ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ viewpoints from the left or right side of the aisle into the public discourse.

The names and faces may change but this type of modern media paradigm has been prevalent since the 1990’s, when the FCC allowed the corporate takeover of our media, and prevails with the mass monopolizing and gentrification of most of our beloved mind and soul-scapes at this point.

Now to the original article in question with a bit of background on Mr Fareed Zakaria.

Fareed was born in Mumbai, India in 1964 to a politician father and a journalist mother. He earned a BA from Yale and a Phd in Political Science from Harvard then of course worked for the major media outfits such as Newsweek and now sits atop his perch at CNN, where has hosted Fareed Zakaria GPS since 2008.

See the original article here at his sites blog:


Z all too willingly jumps on the Donald Trump bashing bandwagon and exposes himself as either a naive scrutinizer of the American political scene, or a sinister neo-globalist who is obviously trying to muddy the waters of an otherwise serious debate with the politics of obfuscation.

Ever since ‘The Don’ ‘threw his hair into the ring’ and brought up the ‘birther issue’, he has been under constant attack by the left-wing of the duo-oligopoly and their spin machines, while being pseudo-supported by the right-wing. Set your wash cycle for whites, or color safe, and spin spin spin.

Although I have not been following Z or any other of the MSM players on the field as of late, I am even more disheartened than usual at this ‘hit piece’ he has tried to pass off on the mostly unsuspecting public. Perusing the 1000+ comments under his article remind me that I am not the only one who is on to him. If I were to write a disingenuous piece that would smear Trump, while reducing the importance of American Populist figures and movements, this would be it.

The article begins here, in italics, with my commentary embedded for those who dare venture into the murky depths of this nefariousness, masking as otherwise wisdom and good-sense.

ARTICLE BEGINS-Bold headlines are his.

“A number of you have been asking me on Facebook, Twitter and iReport what I think about Donald Trump, the ‘birther’ issue and the Republican presidential field. Here are my thoughts:

1. Donald Trump’s appeal is based on a fantasy

“Americans have always had an appetite for a populist, non-politician who promises to cut through the mess in Washington and provide simple, commonsense solutions to the problems ailing the United States.”

“The peculiar American twist is that the populists tend to be billionaires. People think the very rich are immune to the usual pressures in government.  In some cases this turns out to be true (Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a good example).”

“But, fundamentally, this is wishful thinking bordering on fantasy. The mess we’re in is not a product of a handful of idiotic politicians engaged in venal behavior. The problem is that Americans want low-taxes and lots of government services.”

Z reduces everyone’s realistic desires for politicians to represent the people’s interests. While American Populists of the past such as Huey Long, or more recently Ross Perot have captured the naive “fantasies” of a large swath of the public, most American Populists have not been billionaires or even millionaires as  Z asserts. Huey Long was certainly not a billionaire, Kucinich neither. Let’s refresh Z’s memory with some definitions.

The popular definition of a Populist:

“a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.
• a person who holds, or who is concerned with, the views of ordinary people.”

“a member of the Populist Party, a U.S. political party formed in 1891 that advocated the interests of labor and farmers, free coinage of silver, a graduated income tax, and government control of monopolies.”

Z seems to reduce the American Populist Movement to Donald Trump, Mayor Bloomberg and Ross Perot, while recent Populists such as Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, John Edwards, Ralph Nader, Jesse Ventura, Ron Paul are ignored in his analysis.

The founders of legendary Populist parties, such as Teddy Roosevelt leading the Progresive Party of 1912, and Huey Long with his Share the Wealth movement of 1933-35 are the beginning of the American Populist movements, but even Ronald Reagan could be accused of populist tendencies.

Z reduces the Populist movements to suit his and his benefactors needs, hoping that most people will not do the research or have the ability to deconstruct his methods. This is the updated elitist philosophy that says “people only read the headlines” or “reality is too complicated for the masses so we must direct them,” both of which are shallow points of view.

What’s egregious is that Z dares to accuse the American people of living in a “fantasy world” where Populist heroes like Donald Trump or Ross Perot are merely caricatures of their naive distorted dreams, and it is his duty to remind of our ignorance.

You have to be wealthy to run as a Populist now because it is hard to raise money outside the Dem/Rep Big Tent System, which excludes most independents from even debating the chosen few handpicked contestants. Somehow Z misses this angle which really weakens his argument.

While people like Trump are a new breed of politician who have celebrity status, he is not one of the elite cadre of institutional professional politicians, but is a NY boy made international star. Donald Trump is a danger to the establishment, he likes to speak his mind and is a savvy businessman who is unafraid of the media.

‘The Don’ graduated from Wharton Business School, but according to Z, he is not educated enough in the reality of international politics that only a Harvard Phd can provide. Although Z might be concerned that Trump has little geo-political experience, neither does Mitt Romney, whom Z feels is a “credible guy.’

Trump is not a credible guy  according to Z, but what credentials is Z using? Is it that Trump does not know how to play the inside Washington game that well, that his business and TV experience will not be enough to deal with the political finesse that our Insider Politicians are so adept at. So where has all this political finesse got us, not any closer to solving any of the important issues of the day but further and deeper into the muck of economic and socio-political turmoil, now on a grand scale and continuing to spiral out of control. Not to worry though, Obama is at he wheel and Romney might create an interesting conversation about nationalized health care, so Z will be happy with his “credible guy” pageant…hmmm…no comment.

Z also tries to come off as good fiscal conservative and neo-liberal realist but behind his wide-eyed zeal and assumed expertise lies an opportunist. Zakaria is a transnational globalist who is more than willing to use his skills to help the Duo-Oligopoly hide their schemes behind our tele-vision daydreams.

Mr Zakaria constantly scolds and admonishes the ‘American People’ for not working hard enough, or not being realistic enough in their endeavors. I am sure Mr Zakaria knows about ‘tightening his belt’ of course, his Ivy League credentials and telegenics  are all he needs to get our heads to nod at the scoldings.

Next he wags his finger at us about how unrealistic we are to demand that Medicare be left alone and that there is no broad middle class increase in taxation.

“If you look at the recent polls, most Americans think there should be no changes to Medicare and no broad increases in taxation. This is magical mathematics. There is no way to make the budget work without doing both of these things – or at least one of them.”

Of course, that the tax cuts to the rich were extended and the out of control Military/Industrial/Prison Complex is off the table, the only reasonable solution is to cut Medicare. I am sure Z was out there on the front lines of the media establishment in their assurances that the ‘public option’ was magical thinking as well when the people petitioned for it.

Forget about the Wall St bailouts and the Iraq war, that is the cold hard hand of reality taking care of those who determine these things, the people in their fantasies are naive about geo-politics and are fiscally irresponsible. And guys like Z will steer us to accept things for how they are, and then admonish us when we get too optimistic or fall prey to our tendency towards “magical thinking.”

“The reason people like Donald Trump have appeal is they seem to promise that through their superior business talent they will magically solve problems and save Americans from having to make hard choices. That’s a fantasy. It’s never going to happen.”

Wrong Z.

People like Donald Trump have appeal because he is not part of the professional political and media establishment like Fareed Zakaria and his friends are. These socio-political priests who look down on us now from 52 inch Plasma screens think they are going to get away with this nonsense.  The emperor still has no clothes, even in high-def. Sorry.

Fareed desperately wants to get through our heads that we are fantastical “magical thinkers” who need to grow up. This is a line that a tired conservative like George Will would take, it is pure nonsense. Like so many others in the establishment media, Mr Zakaria likes to portray Americans as fantasists, who live their lives through a TV fantasy world, but the absurd truth is, he is the one living in the fantasy world.

His is a fantasy world where someone who has no real world experience outside Ivy League academia and mainstream corporate owned media is the harbinger of reality. Zakaria and others feel they are entitled to talk down to us, and he hopes we are all impressed by his credentials and telegenic demeanor and do not see through this ‘mirage’ of wisdom.

When the ‘hall of mirrors’ come down, we are left with just another banal attempt at mis-informing and manipulating information for nefarious purposes.

Next ‘Z’ uses a new tactic from the Demo-crat playbook, “When an opponent questions Obama, or any other Demo-crat who is of color, using the ‘race card’ is recommended. It is referred to as a ‘Trump Card’, in essence, Trump’s reputation is destroyed by his namesakes overt meaning. As if Z could ever be so clever, and one should know, “no need to be clever when your hand is on the lever.”

Now that Z has scolded you for your magical thinking, he is ready to show you the reality of Trump’s racism, which is of course ‘coded’…oooohhhhh!

2. The ‘birther’ issue is coded racism

“Then there is the ‘birther’ issue.  I regard this as coded racism, frankly. I don’t think there’s any other word for it.”

There are plenty of other words for it Fareed. While there are plenty of racists in this country to go around, the elite medias love to exaggerate the race issue on both sides. Z and others on the professional left love to hurl insults at the people on the right, knowing full well that the views of the actual people are closer to the middle. Social issues such as abortion or religion are used to segregate the lower classes into more manageable divisions. It all seems so real now, the media has been creating this divide for decades…people are desperate and angry, and it shows.


“For goodness’ sake, George Stephanopoulos displayed Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth on network TV and this rumor still doesn’t die. Put it this way: If the President was a white man named John Smith with the other background issues being the same – foreign student father, mother in Hawaii, etc. – would there be any of these dark insinuations? Trump should be ashamed of himself. But then, I suppose, he wouldn’t be Donald Trump.”

“For goodness’ sake”….really Z? I think “aw shucks” would be the colloquialism to ingratiate yourself  us silly Americans.

According to Zakaria’s logic, Obama is a person of color…Donald Trump questions the legitimacy of his birth certificate…that proves he is a racist. Zakaria”s “John Smith” argument is a “straw man”argument if there ever was one.

There is conveniently no modern American President who had such an international upbringing, but that is of course besides the point. If Obama was white, nobody would care that his father was Russian, and he was born in Alaska and raised for years in Denmark? Really, nobody would raise an eyebrow?

Z assures us that these are “dark insinuations”, which sounds a bit racist to me, it sounds like coded racism actually.

“I don’t think that the ‘birther’ issue the real appeal of Trump, anyway. It has just helped Trump get free media and rise up in the polls. His real appeal is the fantasy that he can somehow get us out of the mess we’re in.”

So Donald is in desperate need of negative attention, which is what he is mostly getting from the press now that he is outed as a ‘birther?’ Trump is a savvy businessman, he is not going to grasp at straws.

Of course the birther issue is not the main issue anyway but just happens to be the one that Z can use keep the Trump campaign grounded should it gain too much steam. While they may want to attack him with everything should he get a ‘hair of steam’ going, they know that he is good ratings, which at the end of the day is what matters. They will of course play this ping-pong game with us till the cows come home, just as their masters sell arms to both sides of the war.

“The reality, however, is that only we can get us out of the mess we’re in.”

Who is “we” Fareed?

He wants US in on the decisions maybe…not the same US that you have been accusing of magical thinking and living in a fantasy land? Oh, I guess he means “WE” as in “WE the people shall foot the bill? While the same time allowing “we”-him and his friends, to tell us where to send the money.

3. The Republican presidential field is weak

“I think the most serious Republican candidate is Mitt Romney. He has run a big business. He was the governor of a big state. But he’s probably disqualified from the Republican nomination because his healthcare plan is too close to Obama’s.”

Of course Mitt Romney, never mind that he is a Mormon, no problem, he is the establishment candidate par excelllance. Ron Paul is of course crazy because he is not approved by Harvard/Yale establishment, or even the Republican establishment, even though he is from Texas.

Funny, Fareed is always saying how bad the Republicans are, but he must mean the stupid voters, he still likes the establishment candidate. You would think that Z would like someone who was outside the establishment. Ron Paul is an astute politician who is is very popular with independents, and he is also a practicing medical physician.

“I think this is unfortunate because he would spur a serious debate if he were the nominee. I don’t agree with everything he says. (He’s said some pretty nutty stuff about Islamic extremism and terrorism). But I do think he’s a credible guy who could plausibly be a good President.”

Fareed does not need to say why he is “credible guy” but he would know.

“Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels strike me as minor figures who are unlikely to have the kind of firepower that you would need to take on a sitting President.

“And Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are ideological statements that fire up the base but would be overwhelmingly rejected by the American people. If either of these two were nominated, it would say that the Republican Party was more interested in being true to its perceived causes than in actually winning elections.  This has not historically been true of the Republican Party, which has tended to be a more practical party.”

Of course Ron Paul is not even mentioned. How odd…or rather…how obvious.

4.  President Obama is in good shape
“The single most important factor determining a president’s reelection is the economy. And through a combination of good crisis management and luck, I think Obama will end up entering the 2012 campaign stretch with an American economy that’s improving, which is probably more important than everything else.”

Of course Z, Obama is your man, Wall St loves him. All the bankers and corporate CEO’s love the man, why not you?

“So those are my thoughts. I’d love for you to continue the conversation below, and to follow me on Facebook and Twitter. You can also send me video questions through iReport.”

Maybe I will send him a video question soon.



Hey Neurosky! I Do Mind!

From Neurosky website.

NeuroSky is the worldwide leader in bringing biosensor technology to the consumer mass market. Our well-known partners have utilized our technology to create some of the most exciting products of the year, including Mattel’s Mindflex and Uncle Milton’s Force Trainer.

Our Brain-Computer Interface technologies are available to developers and researchers across a range of different industries. Our advancements breathe new life into existing products and enable the birth of new innovations.

Since our inception, we have grown a steady stream of business clients, from Fortune 100’s to start-ups. In addition, we’ve partnered with some of the most prestigious academic institutions to develop the next wave of solutions.

While hopefully not enslaving us to robots in the process?

To me this video is just awful. Although it is a report from 2007, I don’t think it is that dated really. It shows everything that is wrong with the merging of science and media. To me recklessly merging neuroscience with children’s video games sounds like a science fiction nightmare.

Neurosky is a terrible name. Why not just Brain-Heaven? Too obvious?

Here is the CEO of Neurosky, Stanley Yang doing some feel good PR at 1:01:

“For industrial applications we have alot of inquiries about how to make construction workers safer..ugh..operating machines that are dangerous…if you lose your focus maybe you should stop the machine before it hurts you.”

First of all, this guy is the CEO? This is the BBC, and Neurosky  is one of the top companies right now going to market with a very high tech device. I mean Neurosky, who’s motto is “Do you mind”, is probably a front for a more nefarious organization, but the quote is delivered as if he just ate a two day old doughnut. His delivery is understandable when you consider that ‘this is for your own good’, or ‘this is to help people’ is just a marketing strategy used to ease your mind.

A good analogy might be pharmaceutical companies. Give them billions of dollars and what do you get? Sure, the guys in the lab coats come out and furrow their brow and show charts. There might even be applause, but what comes out on the market the next day? Not a breakthrough in any of the big killers, just a new viagra, a new drug to make you think you are happy… and a marketing campaign to sell it to you.

When are doctors going to stop bragging about curing polio?

Jonas Salk was against everything the pharma-corps stand for now. He refused to patent his vaccine and profit from it because he wanted to make sure as many people as possible were getting it. The pharmaceuticals do the opposite. They fight and fight for the right to party at our expense.

Second of all, if you think construction companies or any other company is going to invest in high tech equipment to keep their workers safer,  you are dead wrong. Many workers die on the job now because companies cut corners on safety as it is…”low tech” safety.

Miners and oil-riggers come to mind.

Third of all. His statement is terribly contradictory, to the point of oxymoronic absurdity.

“If you lose focus, maybe you should stop the machine before it hurts you”, he says.

So if you have the helmet on, and lose focus, you should focus harder with the helmet? Does he mean, if your leg falls asleep, you can tell the machine with your brain to move it? I know, maybe a buzzer will go off, when the ‘concentration meter’ is low? But a buzzer could be distracting, there are buzzers all over the machine. A warning light? Well, you have to watch what you are doing, sometimes looking in the opposite direction of the console.

Of course you could have some sort of vibration or slight shock to ‘alert’ you that your concentration is low. And that could be a good selling point too for the company. “It is mostly for safety but it will also increase efficiency.”

Of course, these statements from these companies are not meant to be taken seriously, but they are used to counter people’s criticism of the technology as in, “what, are you against helping the elderly and handicapped!?”

And who knows, these devices might actually make the work place more fun. This technology will make the water cooler chat even cooler.

“I think I set the record today for ‘zingers’!”, or whatever the slang will be for the electric shocks or jolts that will wake you out of your unfocused ways and back on the job.

“Sometimes I think I am addicted to ‘zaps’, I wonder if I stay up late just to get more the next day?”, says the poor strung out worker to his pal.

Now for some scary quotes by a British narrator. They always try and get a British guy to do it to make it seem less harmless. It even works on the British.

AT 1:21: “If you fancy your self as Darth Vader this helmet will read your brain waves. The meter measures concentration.”

And my favorite at 1:31:

“But scientists say there is still a long way to go before technology harnessing the power of thought becomes reliable enough for mind games and brain controlled devices to come into general use”

Darn! Now now now!

I think “mind games” and “brain controlled” devices need to be in everyone’s hands as soon as possible. I think children wearing brain-scanning helmets that read their devious little minds along with a viewable ‘concentration meter’ on the side is a good thing. Let’s try and see them squirm their way out of this one! Little bastards! We got em now!

Neurosky! To infinity and beyond!

Astroturfing Populist Anger-How and Why Republicans are Tea-bagging America.

John O’Hara appeared on the Daily Show April 20th, 2010 to promote his new book, “A New American Tea Party: The Counterrevolution Against Bailouts, Handouts, Reckless Spending and More Taxes”.

Things went pretty well for the 25 year old Vice President of External Relations at The Illinois Policy Institute. But never mind that mouth of marbles, John O’Hara will have you know that he is just a garsh darn man of the people.

Here is the link from Huffington Post, Utube video could not be found.


And O’Hara is the guy, along with Matt Kibbe of Freedomworks, who was one of the big promoters/speakers of the Washington Tea Party rally on April 15th, 2009, which is the big spring board from which The New Tea Party movement started. Of course at that time, there was much anger against the trillion dollar Bank Bailout and people were ‘up in arms’that the economy was in ruins because of something called ‘derivatives’.

Way back in the winter of 2009 Fox News was rallying their troops to combat the health care plan at those famous town hall meetings and negatively spinning anything that came out of the White House. ‘The Sly Fox’ was also going after ACORN in a big way, while trying to frame the financial crisis as a Fannie and Freddie ‘poor people are to blame’ narrative. This suits the suits, who get scared when the light is shone on them and their world. Think cockroach…but creepier.

And into the spotlight scurries John O’Hara, who has continued to be active in the media, mostly locally in Chicago but some national spots mostly on Fox. The 2010 rally in Washington was a bust, but many people turned out for vague anti-spending or anti-big-government rallies. It seems that the astro-turf that O’Hara and others have used to try and co-opt real people’s anger towards the government is not sticking so well. And it starts with the Santelli Rant.

That is why O’Hara’s ‘Daily Show’ interview is so important, in it you will see O’Hara distort the famous ‘Santelli Rant’ in order to develop a false back story for his subsequent promotion of the Tax Day 2009 Chicago Tea Party protests. The rant is distorted to frame Santelli’s anger as directed at the Banks and Wall Street when he was specifically and vehemently yelling about a bill that was designed to bail out homeowners who he accused of being irresponsible. Rick Santelli, CNBC Chicago Snake Oil Salesman.

Here is the famous’Santelli Rant’. Are he and his cohorts “a pretty good cross-section of America” as he puts it?

The quote that stands out here for me is, “Do we really want to subsidize the losers mortgages?”

That to me is the gist of it. In Santelli and CNBC’s world of stock brokers and cable news pundits who like to refer to themselves as “that good cross section of America”, well if you fall for their hype, and CNBC is the capitalist pusher of pushers…then you are on your own.

While I buy the nebulous theory of ‘personal responsibility’ for the most part, when you are talking about Main Street Banks pushing mortgages to people they knew would not be able to afford it, then you are talking about hiding the risk and dumping the damage on alot of decent hardworking people who aren’t aware that they are being set up to fail.

And that is just what Wall Street did. Big banks gladly got into the derivatives scheme and these portfolios were bet on to fail. That is what a derivative is, a banal attempt to cheat. The bank employee may not have been aware of what was happening, but the executives sure did. But according to Santelli we should, “reward people who would carry the water instead of drink the water.” You know, like those hardworking people who are busy moving money around on Wall Street and pumping up the volume on places like CNBC, they are carrying the water. The hardworking people who were sold mortgages they could not afford because of the Wall Street derivative scheme, they are just freeloaders to him.

Santelli emphatically talks about how dirty Washington is without a peep about all of the corporate and Wall Street money that is corrupting it. And the founding fathers that he mentions, Franklin and Jefferson were a very sophisticated lot who would easily have seen through this sideshow man.

But Santelli is the guy that O’Hara wants to point to as an American Hero, as some patriotic bellringer. And according to Santelli’s distorted view, Franklin et al, was just a capitalist who had little interest in the common good. Benjamin was all about manipulating the American people into making billions for corporations. Franklin wrote Poor Richard’s Almanac to manipulate the poor and working class, not to help them, in Santelli’s world. I think he is confusing history with gangsta rap, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby!”

Now if we compare the ‘Santelli Rant’ video with what Mr. O’Hara said about it on the Daily Show, there is a serious disconnect on Ohara’s part. Here is O’Hara spreading it thick to make sure the Astro-turf sticks. He is really good. Think Jimmy Stewart meets Karl Rove.

“I got involved in February of last year, after that ah..famous Santelli on air rant about you know he got up on the Chicago Board of Trade and started talking about the moral hazards of..of.a..bailing out irresponsible corporations. And..lot of folks, and he…he,called for a Tea Party, and alot of folks said hey why if we really get one of these together. And a couple of friends and I got on the phone and we were going to be in DC, and about a week later.”

O’Hara is implying that Santelli called for a ‘Tea Party’ in response to bailing out the banks, but in reality Santelli was ranting about the bailout of the irresponsible homeowners, not the banks. It was aligned to fan the Fannie and Freddie flames into a smoke storm so the corporate ninjas could disappear in the night. These people and organizations are playing a shell game with us, using the media which they partly control. And it does seem like a game to them, almost as if they are having fun. Damn those corporate ninjas!

Santelli talks about how corrupt Washington is without mentioning the lobbying efforts of Wall Street which led to the overturning of the 1933 Glass/Stegal Act, which led to banks getting involved in the derivatives market. It is complicated enough to confuse the average American, and the punditry are adept at manipulating the truth with a smile. They are paid very well. They need it for all their beauty treatments.

To corparatist, false libertarians like Santelli and O’Hara, using words or phrases that always seem to be slanted in corporate favor is a telling sign that they are professionals. For instance, Santelli used the word ‘Washington’ several times to describe the heart of the problem. Now, ‘Washington’ seems to me to be the perfect term to name the problem while taking the spotlight off of Wall Street. He never mentions Wall Street, or lobbying, but only ‘Washington’ is used, at least twice, as if Wall St didn’t own Washington, or at least greatly influence it. Gheitner, Paulson, Summers, these are all Wall Street guys who are in Washington to control it.

Using ‘Washington’ over and over conveniently hides the fact that Wall Street and corporate America are behind the corruption. Lobbyists outnumber congress 20-1, in Washington, but Santelli and O’Hara don’t like to talk about that too much. Yes, most people do know that ‘Washington’ is bought and sold by ‘Wall Street’, but the pundits strategy is to frame the debate in the right way, to help change the overall paradigm, slant it towards ‘corporatism’, where the only thing that matters is the bottom line.

These media massages push the argument towards the corporate agenda, while manipulating the public consciousness and debate to be more corporate friendly. For instance, the arguments for ‘individual responsibility’ are very persuasive, the concept is part of the socio/political landscape of American frontierism and heroism. ‘Patriotism’, ‘free markets’ and others are buzz words used to push the public to support things that they don’t really want. Think Iraq. Or Martha Stewart.

While there is of course much public anger at the government, the new Tea Party Movement which O’Hara is a big part of, is much more of a Republican right-wing sponsored and corporate funded front than a backwoods barbecue. They co-opted the anti-government anger and anti-Wall Street bailout backlash. But hopefully the backlash will backwash…are we tired of being Bushwacked and whitewashed.

They are hitching their corporate wagon to a populist star. While made to look like it is was about America and the “founding fathers”, it is more likely than not that the Santelli rant itself was a staged event. Probably part of a plan that was orchestrated by the Brunswick Group in tandem with Dick Armey’s ‘FreedomWorks’.

The term ‘Freedomworks’, gives you a clue to how they run their operation. Yes, ‘freedom works’, ‘freedom is good’, but also ‘freedom works’, as in to be free is to work. It is a double entendre which implies an American work ethic that the conservatives like to exploit over and over. It aligns with their so called values system. The more you work, the more freedoms you deserve.

Somehow the oligarchs found a way to convince the working people of America and much of the world, that wealth and beauty and fame are the end all be all to a healthy and vibrant society. The elites have used media and mis-education to promote their greedy and plastic model of living to a bewildered and befuddled populace. These modern day conservatives are adept at merging this with a fundamental view of Christianity where the Old Testament seems to usurp the New.

Jim Wilkinson and his Brunswick Group were the organization behind the selling of the Iraq War back in 2002. Things went so well of course that they were hired to work for Wall Street to do a make-over. Lipstick on a pig. Wall Street was concerned about it’s public image, “Damn that Gordon Gecko!”, and it needed to help stem the tide of public anger and alter public opinion in their favor. Wilkinson brushes the sand and egg off his face and keeps going.


Back to John O’Hara though. His folksy stammering thing really amused me. After all this kid is 25 years old. Did he learn this stuff on a farm in a small town? Did he feed chickens, or is he just chicken shit? As it turns out, he went to Chicago and London schools and seems to be connected to FreedomWorks. Mr. O’Hara has quite an impressive resume for such a young man. He has been making the TV pundit round for a year now, defending and rallying the ‘New Tea Party’ movement that he claims was inspired to begin when,

CNBC business reporter Rick Santelli ranted from the Chicago Stock Exchange floor about the Bank bailout and called for a “tea party” in Chicago.” Uh-huh. Why shouldn’t we believe this hung over frat boy?

And the rant happened around the same time that the Fannie and Freddie homeowner fiasco was all over the news, and the Main Stream Media talking points were revolving around ACORN and it’s evils. To Fox, bake sales are communist.

Santelli seems to be channeling this anger, but for O’Hara and his cohorts in the right-wing noise machine this is the best they could do. Mr. O’Hara is groomed to be the heir to the Carl Rove Machiavellian everyday man. Good for him.

I checked out his website, http://johnmohara.com/ , and he has a bunch of Fox appearances of course, but the Newsmax video has to be the best. It is pure chicanery, but I suppose everyone lies on his resume. And if I were a right wing think tank I would groom him to go on the Daily Show and say things like, “Social security is bankrupt. It is essentially a Ponzi scheme.” This guy is bank.

O’Hara started out making appearances on the local Chicago news scene as part of the conservative think tank, The Heartland Institute. His main objective seemed to be getting viewers to align against a union, or tax increases. He speaks against nothing that would upset the corporate status quo. He likes to frame his narrative to look as if he is pro-middle class, when they all seem to be corporate points of view.

As it turns out the Heartland Institute, which is a conservative think tank in Chicago was behind the April 15th, 2009 Tea Party in Chicago. The Tea Party in 2009 was a politically staged event originally intended to launch a Chicago big wig’s campaign for governor. It was in concert with launching Dan Proft’s gubernatorial bid, but the Young Republicans were having a Tea Party of their own on the same day, with a ship and tea and everything. In the end Proft did not speak, but it all went down as an orchestrated event that wanted to hide it’s Republican ties. O’Hara was a big part of it of course, and his ‘friend’ at another right-wing think tank as well.

After all we are in the post-post-modern age now. We have Colbert, who supposedly not only appeals to ‘jaded hipsters’ but to conservatives as well, who see his character not as a parody of a Bill O’Reilly blowhard, but as a conservative who is just having fun, who is just entertaining. Serious cognitive dissonance.

I think conservatives like that Colbert wins all the time. Even if he is talking crazy, he is louder and funnier than the guests and though it’s absurd, it is all about winning. And this is the right wing strategy, to use absurdity to it’s advantage because winning is everything. Non true-believers are not privy to the truth, the truth that comes when you conduct foreign policy according to Revelations and conduct your private life like a Jaycee on crack.

The internets has allowed people who care enough to do their own research and want to connect with others and get to the bare bones to choose sides. Like making a gumbo. It is harder to hide the truth now, and this is why things are getting more and more absurd.

Obama won because people wanted positivity instead of negativity. People choose common sense and pragmatism almost every time when confronted with harsh realities. Hyperbole though wins every time when it is left unchecked. It appeals to fear and our worst qualities related to patriotism and socio-biological tendencies. So, now that the fear-mongers, who happen to be exaggerated on the Republican side of the aisle, find that the only way to win is with ‘absurdity’, we are going to see more unreal news.

After all, the whole media paradigm is skewed. The right portray the media as ‘left-wing’ when it is clearly not. To the right, The New York Times is liberal, New York is liberal town. Rudy Guliani and Mayor Bloomberg are liberals. Obama is a leftist when he talks about healthcare even though 70% of the population want Universal Healthcare, so he is actually to the right of them.

But the media frames it as a spy vs. spy cartoon.

The media is set up like a court of law, but there is no real verdict. Both sides represent their own interests for the most part, not many real progressives are even allowed in the MSM. You are left with a demented political version of ‘good cop, bad cop’ and the Republicans are willing to play the bad cop, so they get the juicier and more villainous role. But both sides are culpable.

So, in the post-Orwellian, post-post-modern age of disinformation and truth for sale and the propaganda machine in full throttle and threatening to take over the people’s last real form of expression-the internets, we are left with the emptiness of pageantry, the hyperbole of false drama and the cover up and obfuscation of all that is sacred. It is happening all over in this increasingly chaotic world, and I guess we will all wait for 2012 to see what happens. It is barely two years away and will be taking over the zeitgeist of the American political landscape very soon. You thought Y2K was big? Religion, New Age, Political Theater of epic proportions will run amok if allowed.


Bill Maher Tea-bags the Tea-baggers.

Funny video of one of our best political satirists showing the hypocrisy of the Tea Party movement.

It does seem that the New Tea Party has strong right-wing corporate ties, which could be one of the reasons that teabaggers don’t protest Wall Street or even Republicans nearly as much as Democrats. If the teabaggers are going to mainly focus on Obama and his administration while pretty much ignoring the role and responsibility of the Bush/Cheney cabal and the Republicans presently in Congress, then they should not be surprised that their movement’s sincerity is being questioned.

Billy also scolds all of the American people for their denial of our bloated empire around the world. Mr Maher carries on the fine tradition of biting socio-political satire that Lenny Bruce and George Carlin did so well.

His HBO shows and specials will go down as some of the best political comedy of the modern age. One of the most dangerous men in America.

‘The Nation’s Chris Hayes Drops the ‘O’-bomb on Countdown

The ‘O’ bomb is OLIGARCHY.

If we are seeing a progressive journalist like Chris Hayes saying openly and almost whimsically that we have a totally corrupt, bought and sold government…an “oligarchy”, on prime time MSNBC, then isn’t the cat out of the bag?

What more has to happen for people to wake up and demand justice, or accountability or whatever buzz word you want to use for doing what’s right. And so much is on the line. There is serious death and dismemberment all over the world due to the collective unconsciousness of the American citizenry.

Any expert from the right or left who has an ounce of honesty will tell you that the government is bought and sold by the elites.

And if the entire government is bought and sold, as Tea-Partiers like to say, then why do they not display pictures of Republicans in effigy or as voodoo priests? There may be lots of genuine people in the Tea Party movement but they are being used and manipulated by corporate and quasi-republican party operatives. Dick Morris is an example of one of the buzzards, with my apologies to birds of prey.

Why does it take a progressive like Chris Hayes to state it? Will the threat of a right-wing popular revolt, a la the tea-partiers, bring progressives together? Or more likely, will progressives complain while the right organizes and grows and threatens to move the country even more to the right? We are on the doorsteps of fascism as it is, or rather fascism is on our doorsteps. My advice, don’t open the door.

Obama and MLK

by jasondylan

I was reading Medea Benjamin’s article entitled, “Between Despair and Hope:MLK, Obama and War” and it helped to illuminate for me the reasons why President Obama would want to distance himself from the words and legacy of Dr Martin Luther King. Medea is one of the co-founders of the anti-war group Code Pink, which you can tell is a great organization because they get really bad press. By ‘press’, I mean the mainstream media which includes shows like “Meet The Press”, which should go by it’s more appropriate chiasmatic name, “Press the Meat”. They churn out a high quality sausage that only the title character from GW’s favorite book, “My Pet Goat” could fully digest.

Medea is not very mainstream and therefore the mainstream “media” do not like her very much.  But Medea continues to mediate the mediocrity in the media with immediacy anyway.  If her organization Code Pink ever got a positive foot hold in the American psyche then the corporate state would be in trouble. Only in the US would an organization like Code Pink, which consists mainly of women who hold up banners and chant loudly for peace be totally ostracized by the media. It seems as if the large talking heads have but ostrich sized brains.

From Medea’s article it would seem that Obama does not want to be known as an heir to Martin Luther King’s legacy or vision. She compares Obama’s words to MLK’s regarding the subject of war and US foreign policy. You will see from his Nobel Prize acceptance speech on December 9th, 2009 that Obama himself is a strong critic of MLK’s views of non-violence.

“We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

From this statement you can see that Obama is somewhat of a pessimist when it comes to peace. The man of “Hope” now seems to be an apologist for war. “In our lifetimes” means that O does not believe that relative international peace is a realistic goal in the next 50 to 100 years. Why not? Now I understand his point, there are bad guys out there who will not respond to diplomacy but “necessary but morally justified” evokes Bush and Cheney’s rhetoric of morally justified and preemptive wars. This is a policy that creates scenarios in which Operation Iraqi Freedom is allowed to be implemented. Our emphasis on “moral justification” could be interpreted many ways, but with a strategic and aggressive foreign policy based on mainly economic concerns of the US government and it’s corporate allies, it will be interpreted broadly.

Obama’s pessimistic view seems to be saying one can’t be so naive to think that non-violent diplomacy would solve anything. He is saying this as if the US policy is to conduct actual diplomacy when we all know that the American Presidency has mostly been a bully pulpit for war. He is saying this as if the US policy is one of war as a last resort, instead of preemptive war against sovereign nations such as Iraq and a nebulously defined but aggressively sought war on terror.

This is also troubling because Obama admitted in his June 2009 speech from the Middle East last year that “mistakes were made” in relation to our foreign policy with Iran. He was speaking of course of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, the democratically elected leader of Iran who was overthrown in a US led coup back in 1953. “Mistake” dishonestly puts forth that coups d’etats are not an illustrious part of our past and present foreign policy. Of course Obama did apologize for it, which I am sure means alot to the Iranian people, who have now suffered under the Mullahs for 60 years. But of course Mossadeq was a leader that did not want to privatize his country and give it up to corporate control, so he was taken out.

These ‘mistakes’ have happened quite often, just ask Juan Baptiste Aristide of Haiti about it. The former Haitian Prime Minister is a political prisoner who is stranded in South Africa and unable to travel, due to an invalid passport. He was ousted in a US led coup d’etat twice in the last fifteen years. Aristide was a democratically elected leader who is popular with the Haitian people.  He would be a stabilizing force right now in Haiti but, he is not allowed to leave South Africa.

Obama spent most of his time defending the US position of of war and unilateralism during his Nobel Peace Prize speech but when he did mention Martin Luther King and his message of peace and non-violence, it was to spin into an idea of some far away ideal. Again with Medea’s quotes.

“Still, mindful that he was receiving a peace prize, Obama invoked King’s message of hope and love.

‘The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached-their fundamental faith in human progress-must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.’

Many wonder if Obama has lost his moral compass.”

Medea is right. According to Obama, Peace is some far off place that great men remind of us of from time to time, a cherished ideal. Peace is not for statesmen of his stature to consider seriously because “job one” for the president is to “protect the homeland”, as Bush would say, evoking fascist rhetoric. Even though the US foreign policy has been one of constant war and disruption all over the world, we are still to believe that Obama and the US is focused on some heavenly star  of peace? I guess he never heard the zen koan, “There is no way to Peace, Peace is the way.”

So Obama accepts the Nobel Peace Prize with all of it’s height and prestige but chooses to reiterate the Bush and Cheney view of foreign policy and war. The fact that the US is going to be policing the world with UN Peacekeeping Forces and US military personnel, and using the economic might of the corporate infrastructure laws to favor corporations and not people is an ok operation for the next 100 years.  He had a podium to preach for peace and instead he rationalized for war.

Why Obama would use that podium, a podium that Martin Luther King himself spoke at on December 10th, 1964 to basically belittle the notion of peace and the idea of non-violence as “non-practical” is beyond me. Why would Obama be using this rhetoric and distancing himself from MLK? Well if he is a corparatist, if he aligns himself with the corporate bottom line instead of with the will and values of the people, then MLK’s views would be perceived as not being in Obama’s or his benefactors interests, or even somewhat threatening.

There is good reason for Obama to reject MLK and his overall vision for America and the world if he is an elitist who is aligned with corporate interests. Martin Luther King started to use language that shined a harsh light on the systemic issues of poverty and violence and how it related to the US policy of never-ending war and aggression. And ending war and world wide police action might not be in US government and corporate interests. Again with Medea quotes:

“Martin Luther King, dealing with the military mindset of his time, called for a revolution of values. In his powerful April 4, 1967 speech outlining his opposition to the war in Vietnam, King put forward his vision:

‘A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: This way of settling differences is not just. This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.’

One wonders if his assassination a year later, to the day, was purposeful, but I suppose it is just a terrible coincidence.

Again from Medea:

”Obama would do well to examine the reasons that King turned his moral compass to opposing the Vietnam war, as the parallels with Afghanistan are striking: King saw President Johnson’s Poverty Program as a moment of real promise for the poor, both black and white.

‘Then came the build-up in Vietnam, and I watched the program broken as if it was some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube.’

Now you can definitely make an argument that Obama cannot align himself with such strong rhetoric, but how about this next paragraph from MLK.

I speak out against this war, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world. I speak out against this war because I am disappointed with America. And there can be no great disappointment where there is not great love.”

Could O have spoken of disappointment in America? Would it have jeopardized his standing in the world, as a leader and public figure? Could he have said that America let people down with the unpopular Iraq war? That he loved America so much that he wanted to steer it right again? I think the first Black POTUS riding on a wave of hope and good will could galvanize the entire world around a more peaceful and just foreign policy that adopted Diplomacy with a capital D. That did not look at war as ‘strategerie’, as his predecessor liked to call it, but strives more to be a beacon on a hill to other nations.

You will hear so much about the good Rev’s “I have a dream speech” but the MSMedia will not mention these other less famous, but not less important speeches. Much talk will be made around Obama and race, but I doubt that mention of MLK’s speeches against the military mindset and corporate greed that he so eloquently be made. We are not even allowed to discuss these things in the public arena. Obama cannot even touch upon these things for fear of upsetting Wall Street it seems. And I am not the only one disappointed in Obama. Most of the progressive black movement in this country is getting antsy as well. Tavis Smiley constantly expresses disappointment  in Obama’s unwillingness to talk race, to have as Tavis calls it, “teaching moments.”

I will finish up with someone who is not afraid of having teaching moments about race and who even wrote a whole book about it back in 1993. The author is Cornel West, the book is “Race Matters”, and the chapter is entitled “The Crisis of Black Leadership”. In it he accuses the black middle class of adopting capitalistic and even hedonistic tendencies:

“Well to do parents no longer sent their kids to Howard, Morehouse and Fisk to serve the race, but to Harvard, Yale and Princeton to get a high paying job.”

He goes on,“Without a vibrant tradition of resistance passed on to new generations, their can be no nurturing of a collective and critical consciousness, only professional conscientiousness survives. When no vital community to hold up precious ethical and religious ideals, there will be no coming to a moral commitment, only personal accomplishment is applauded. Without a credible sense of political struggle there can be no shouldering of a courageous engagement, only cautious adjustment is undertaken.”

Dr. West goes on to say, “The black dress suits with white shirts worn by Malcolm X and MLK  signified the seriousness of commitment to black freedom, where as today the expensive tailored suits of black politicians symbolize their personal success and individual achievement. Malcom and Martin called for the realization that black people are somebodies which America has to reckon with, whereas black politicians tend to call attention to their somebodiness owing to their making it in America.”

Then Cornel describes the Obama type of black leader in this way. “This type survives on sheer political savvy and thrives on personal diplomacy. This kind of candidate is the lesser of two evils in a political situation where the only other electorate choice is a conservative, usually white politician. Yet this type of leader tends to stem progressive development and silence the prophetic voices of the black community by casting the practical mainstream as the only game in town. “

Hope is a great thing, a needful thing. But when President Obama acts hopeless about the possibility of achievable peace in this century which has just begun, hope for all is dimmed. When President Obama, who rose to prominence on a such a big wave of hope and goodwill worldwide, uses the podium of his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to rationalize for more war and distance himself from Martin Luther King, a stunned and bewildered world glazes over with disbelief.

The Lies of Freeedomworks’ Matt Kibbe, and His Dick Armey

The big 9-12 Tea Party movement rolled into Washington D.C. on Saturday and many people came from all over the country. Just not as many people as Matt Kibbe wished or said were there.

As the C-Span Cameras rolled there was a long shot of Kibbe on the Washington Mall facing the large crowd and the Washington monument. As he stood in front of the Lincoln Memorial he loudly and emphatically told a bold face lie of epic proportions. He gleefully announced to the crowd that there were “1.5 million people at this rally, according to ABC.” There was never any such report.

Actually the truth is there were probably no more than 20-50,000 people there according to every report I have come across. Was this an accident? No. Matt Kibbe and his Freedomworks organization are the people behind the Town Hall protests. Freedomworks is the organizational tool used to implement the tactics of the right-wing. It is kind of a ‘shelter’ group to cover the racist and conservative Christian rhetoric and ideology of most of their constituents.

Dick Armey, the notorious Texas congressman who helped take down the Clintons and their health care plan is the key figure behind Freedomworks.  We know all too well the sad mug of Dick Armey, so Matt Kibbe is the New Dick here to destroy the New New Deal. They want nothing more than for Obama and Health Care Reform to fail. Framing this new Obama administration as “socialist” or “communist” through their mouth pieces in the halls of Congress and having Pox News repeat this drivel is not a problem for these guys.

You will find plenty of Americans who are ready, willing and able to take to the streets who seem to be angry at the Obama administration for communist or socialist tendencies. Although I do believe that many people have real grievances and concerns about their government, most of the people are there because they are “uncomfortable” with a black president.

It is a relief that it is only 30,000 instead of 1.5 million.

Previous Older Entries