Richard Nixon had a list of "enemies." Barack Obama has a list of people he's going to kill.

Certain things were revealed to the American public in the aftermath of the Watergate affair. Among these was COINTELPRO. COINTELPRO was an FBI program that infiltrated activist groups, with the intent of destroying them. The FBI framed, blackmailed, and assassinated activist leaders. Senator Walter Mondale made these comments as he opened the hearings into the COINTELPRO revelations:

Yesterday, this committee heard some of the most disturbing testimony that can be imagined in a free society. We heard evidence that for decades the institutions designed to enforce the laws and Constitution of our country have been engaging in conduct that violates the law and the Constitution. We heard that the FBI, which is part of the Department of Justice, took justice into its own hands by seeking to punish those with unpopular ideas. We learned that the chief law enforcement agency in the federal Government decided that it did not need laws to investigate and suppress the peaceful and constitutional activities of those whom it disapproved.

Mondale added on the floor of the Senate:

We heard testimony that the FBI, to protect the country against those it believed had totalitarian political views, employed the tactics of totalitarian societies against American citizens. We heard that the FBI attempted to destroy one of our greatest leaders in the field of civil rights [referring to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.], and then replace him with someone of the FBI's choosing.

On April 23, 1976, the U.S. Congress released its final select committee report on these activities:

We have seen segments of our Government adopt tactics unworthy of a democracy and occasionally reminiscent of the tactics of totalitarian regimes. ... [T]he chief investigative branch of the federal government [FBI], which was charged by law with investigating crimes and preventing criminal conduct, itself engaged in lawless tactics and responded to deep-seated social problems by fomenting violence and unrest.

Fascism is nothing new to the United States. It's always been especially potent to the white population here (with a history of indigenous genocide and institutionalized slavery, how could it not be?). But right now, the creeping danger of fascism feels especially real. In the COINTELPRO era, the FBI had to cover up their political assassinations because they were nothing more than murders. They were illegal. Now? Now the president orders political assassinations himself, and openly praises them as patriotic. Thanks to the bipartisan efforts of the Bush and Obama administrations, everything that was illegal in the COINTELPRO era is legal now.

The New York Times just revealed that Barack Obama has been keeping a secret 'kill list.' This is not a situation that is out of his control. The CIA is not a rogue agency doing as they please without the president's knowledge. Barack Obama personally decides who is and who is not worthy of being put on this list. He decides when it's feasible to murder them. If their families are with them, or if there are civilians present, "the president has reserved himself to make the final moral calculation." And as the case of Anwar al-Awlaki shows, being an American citizen does not exempt you from being put on this list. Obama told colleagues that the decision to assassinate someone protected by the Constitution was "an easy one." You got that? You have no right to a trial. If the government thinks you're a "terrorist" (whatever the hell that phrase is going to mean in a few years) they are going to come and murder you.

It was revealed that the Obama administration -- not the Bush administration -- has redefined what a "combatant" is in order to manipulate civilian death statistics. A "combatant" is any male of military age within the vicinity of an American strike. Let me reiterate this. If the United States decides to drop a bomb on you, then you are a terrorist. Abdul Rahman al Awlaki was a 16-year-old kid from Denver. There was this thing called the "Magna Carta," which is the basis for all anglo-American law, written about 800 years ago, that declared that no one shall be subjected to a violation of rights without due process of law. Abdul was supposed to have those rights. As an American citizen, he was supposed to have the rights guaranteed to him by the U.S. constitution. And as a child he wasn't supposed to be murdered as he sat down to his dinner. One of Obama's predator drones blew him apart. He was a "terrorist."

This is unprecedented. No one is safe. This is the most terrifying power-grab in the history of the United States. The Constitution no longer applies to American citizens. We do not have rights. It's important that the American people start grasping this.

But they won't. The American people are going to continue their ignorant complacency as the blade is eased in. Obama-supporting Democrats, who so bravely boasted of their love of freedom and justice during the Bush years, have revealed themselves for what they truly are -- utterly disgraceful hypocrites, lacking any sense of moral integrity. Not only do they not care that Barack Obama is worse than George W. Bush, but simply acknowledging the fact that these things are occurring will cause them to shut down entirely. Rocky Anderson's Justice Party posted this story on facebook. This was the first comment:

At this point, editorials like this are making the job for Mitt Romney much easier. I am a true progressive and while Obama is not the best, he's the best on the ballot that is offered. If I continue to see crap like this posted, I am just led to believe the Justice Party is becoming a vehicle for Mitt Romney, someone I DO NOT and progressives DO NOT want to see elected!

Unfortunately for him, facts do not cease being facts when you choose to ignore them. He's isn't outraged that Barack Obama is a child-murdering war criminal. He's outraged that someone had the gall to post about it on facebook, so that others might become aware.

The White Rose was a resistance movement in Germany during the Nazi regime. They were a group of intellectuals, mostly students, who wrote and distributed pamphlets. The six most prominent members were eventually arrested by the Gestapo and beheaded. Today in Germany, they are hailed as national heroes. These are the closing words of the fourth pamphlet they distributed: "We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will not leave you in peace."

Let's get one thing clear: our soldiers are not fighting for freedom

Saying soldiers are fighting for our "freedom" is one of the cleverest propaganda techniques imperialists have so far come up with. When you say soldiers are fighting for meaningless phrases that no one could possibly oppose, then the people will be less likely to oppose your imperialist wars. If you oppose meaningless wars, you must also oppose "freedom."

This view is simplistic and intellectually insulting. It gives us permission to overlook or ignore the real reasons we go to war. It makes us look on at the deaths of our soldiers not with the horror that it deserves, but with pride. It allows war to continue unopposed.

Terrorists did not attack us because they hate our "freedom." They attacked us because we had bases in Saudi Arabia and Muslim holy lands. They attacked us because we've spend decades bombing the fuck out of them. They wouldn't have any reason to attack us if we would just get the fuck out. American military bases on foreign soil are putting you and me in danger. Saddam Hussein, who was placed into power by the United States, was never a threat to our freedom. Whatever weapons of mass destruction he may have once had were given to him by the United States to balance out the power game with Iran (which may have been why the Bush administration was so confident he had them). He was ousted because he stopped playing ball with us, as is the fate of all U.S.-backed dictators who do the same. We supported Hosni Mubarak to the bitter end because he was always a loyal ally of the United States. Richard Nixon once called Spanish dictator Francisco Franco (literally a fascist, left behind from the World War II era) a "loyal friend and ally of the United States." He put people in concentration camps. We backed the 1967-1974 military junta of Greece, which had thousands of people tortured and killed. We armed and supplied those who were committing genocide in East Timor. We overthrew the democratic government of Haiti in 2004, and threw in our support for the coup that overthrew the Maldives' president a few months back, only a single day after it happened. There's obviously an inconsistency here. How can America fight for "freedom," when we go around the world destroying freedom?

The biggest threat to our freedom is not overseas. It's right here at home in the halls of Congress, in the White House, inside the Supreme Court. The biggest threats to our freedom are those in Wall Street, who bribe our politicians and manipulate the country's news so that only their agendas are spread. The Patriot Act has obliterated the fourth amendment, it's completely gone. The fifth was on life support with NDAA, but thankfully, a recent court case just had a rare outcome (that of actually upholding the law) by striking it down. The first amendment is slowly being chipped away at, with the FBI consistently strongarming Google, Facebook, Twitter, and actual libraries for information on people they don't like. It's legal for the president and the CIA to murder American citizens on American soil with no trial. The entirety of the FBI's "counterterrorism" program is manufacturing its own terror plots, and entrapping dumbshit kids to carry them out, so they can arrest them and say they're stopping "terrorists." JUST IN THE NICK OF TIME! LIKE 24!

So for this memorial day, do not have pride in our soldiers' deaths. Look on their deaths in horror and disgust. Get fucking angry that it happened at all, for sole purpose of making the elite richer. They were manipulated into their graves. They were manipulated just like police, just like prison guards, or any other American in uniform in a position of authority. The great Howard Zinn wrote:

“In a highly developed society, the Establishment cannot survive without the obedience and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going: the soldiers and police, teachers and ministers, administrators and social workers, technicians and production workers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, transport and communications workers, garbagemen and firemen. These people—the employed, the somewhat privileged—are drawn into alliance with the elite. They become the guards of the system, buffers between the upper and lower classes. If they stop obeying, the system fails. That will happen, I think, only when all of us who are slightly privileged and slightly uneasy begin to see that we are like the guards in the prison uprising at Attica—expendable; that the Establishment, whatever rewards it gives us, will also, if necessary to maintain its control, kill us.”

Sunday Youtube Post

The Egyptian revolution has been highjacked

Back when Hosni Mubarak was in power, he would always try to play himself off as the brave secularist standing in the way of the Islamic radicals who may or may not have been trying to nudge their way into power and shit on everything. That's how he scared the people into submission, that's why they couldn't have democracy. So the two main political forces in Egypt for the last few decades has been Mubarak the secularist dictator, and right wing Islamists (whose parties were banned by the state). Egyptians are voting today. And it doesn't look like this political makeup has changed at all. That's very unfortunate, because that means it's lose-lose.

Out of the 13 candidates on the ballot, there are five major ones who come out on top. Two of them are former Mubarak Ministers. Two more are rival Islamists. There's only one secular leftist, and he probably doesn't have much of a chance. The leftists -- the heroes and martyrs who got the revolution rolling, whose actions are why this election is happening at all -- have been shunted. Last fall, the Islamist parties altogether took about 70% of Parliament, and with the help of the military junta completely shut the leftists out. Mohamed ElBaradei, considered a hero to the revolutionaries, stepped down from his position and vowed not to run for president because he didn't feel the revolution had been won. There's actually a huge split among Egyptian leftists on whether they should boycott this election.

But good news! It doesn't matter who "wins" at all! Nobody knows what powers the president is actually going to have, as nobody bothered to write up a constitution! So it's almost certain that whoever wins is going to be taking orders from the military junta. ElBaradei was right. The revolution was never concluded. There are too many Mubarak men still in power. And going to the realm of speculation, I'd bet a good deal of money that the United States has a large hand in this. Mubarak was our ally, we're not just going to let Egypt go to decide its own fate. American fascists were screaming their heads off all those months ago about Obama "losing Egypt," as if it was ever "our" country in the first place. Joe Biden said: "Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with – with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator." Cool! I like how absolutely none of those things excludes him from being a dictator.

Mubarak and the Egyptian military have always been exceptionally close to the U.S. The Obama administration gave $1.5 billion in aid to the Egyptian military junta, bypassing congressional requirements for democracy. The west is doing everything its power to retain as much of the Mubarak regime as is possible, and it's working. Thanks entirely to intervention from the major powers, it looks like Tunisia is going to be the only country in the Arab Spring to win something close to freedom.

Here's a great interview on Democracy Now from this morning breaking down the election.

Investigative journalist Greg Palast reveals massive coverup over BP oil spill, followed by coordinated media censorship

I've read a book by this guy, he's pretty much entirely blacklisted by American media. He can be a little sensationalist, but this is still very good.

Sunday Youtube Post

It was Malcolm X's birthday yesterday.

Federal judge strikes down indefinite detention provisions in NDAA

Christ, this feels good. I mean yeah, an amendment to the constitution may have just been restored, I'm gonna get to that, but I really want to circlejerk and rub this in first. For months, Obama-can-do-no-wrong neoliberals have been telling leftists and civil libertarians that there was nothing wrong with the NDAA. Obama signing some half-assed "trust me!" statement made everything all good. And soon after that, when he signed a "veto" which wasn't really a veto, but what really just amounted to another meaningless statement, progressives latched onto that as well, and proceeded to tell the rest of us to shut up and "come home again."

This is very, very, very big news.

Yet Naomi Wolf published in the U.K. Guardian on the eve of the decision as if Obama had not issed the waiver rules - as if indefinite military detentions of U.S. citizens was about to become mandatory, thanks to Obama.

[...]

Has Naomi Wolf published any retraction? This is big news. No.

[...]

Considering that Obama's signing of NDAA led to a hysterical exodus of low-info Democratic and Independent support that probably measurably lowered his approval ratings, and could threaten his re-election - for not somehow magically line-item vetoing the Cheney-esque provision in the annual military funding bill - it is very disturbing that the media has played down what amounts to a very clever legal “3,450-word line-item veto” that he has achieved.

Obama made good on a promise he made in November when he threatened to veto...

Well guess what, asshole? If there was nothing shady left in the NDAA, then a federal judge wouldn't have just fucking struck it down as unconstitutional. You were wrong. I just needed to say that before I got started.

Okay so a few months back, journalist Chris Hedges decided to sue the Obama administration over the NDAA. This is that case. And he actually won. This case brought together an epic supergroup of all my favorite intellectuals/activists to testify as plaintiffs. In addition to the involvement of Hedges, there was also Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf, Cornel West, and pentagon papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who all testified.

It's not over yet. The Obama administration has 60 days to appeal, which will probably happen. But at this moment, those fascist provisions cannot be enforced. We still have to wait and see what's going to happen though. I'm a little hopeful though, which is weird, because I haven't felt that in a while.

Amy Goodman interviewed Hedges on Democracy Now this morning. Here's that video. Plus, I pulled some of the most worrying quotes out of the interview from the transcript, in case you don't have time to watch right now. Emphasis mine.

BRUCE AFRAN: Well, it’s quite incredible, in a sense, because it’s rare that statutes are struck down completely. Judge Forrest struck down the entire provision of the NDAA governing indefinite detention of civilians and U.S. citizens. She said this provision is overbroad. She said it clearly embraces speech, even if it doesn’t intend to. And she criticized the government severely, because it refused to acknowledge in court that First Amendment activities would not bring someone into a state of indefinite detention. And five times, Judge Forrest asked the U.S. attorney, "Will you agree that First Amendment activities will not bring someone under the scope of this law?" And the government five times said, "We can’t answer that question."

--------

CHRIS HEDGES: And, you know, what’s interesting is, when you look at the polls, there’s almost no support for this piece of legislation at all. I think it’s about 70 percent oppose it. And yet, of course, once again, it passes with bipartisan support. The bill was sponsored by Carl Levin, a Democrat, and John McCain, a Republican. When Dianne Feinstein tried to insert language into the bill that would have exempted U.S. citizens from this process, it was rejected by both the Democratic Party and the Obama White House. And so, I think this is another window into not only the sort of steady assault against civil liberties, whether that’s the use of the Espionage Act, the FISA Amendment Act, the Authorization to Use Military Force Act itself, the PATRIOT Act. And what makes what happened yesterday so monumental is that, finally, we have a federal judge who stands up for the rule of law.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, President Obama signed it, but he was opposed by key members of his administration—for example, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta—

CHRIS HEDGES: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: —FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

CHRIS HEDGES: That’s what’s so interesting. None of the Pentagon, the FBI, as you—Mueller and everyone else, as you pointed out—none of them supported the bill, even to the extent where Mueller and others were testifying before Congress that it would make their work more difficult. And yet it passes anyway. And it is a kind of—I think it’s a kind of mystery to the rest of us as to what are the forces that—when you have the security establishment publicly opposing it, what are the forces that are putting it in place? And I can only suppose that what they’re doing is setting up a kind of legal mechanism to criminalize any kind of dissent. And Bruce can speak to this a little more. But in the course of the trial, with Alexa O’Brien, US Day of Rage, that WikiLeaks dump of five million emails of the public security firm Stratfor, we saw in those email correspondence an attempt to link US Day of Rage with al-Qaeda. Once they link you with a terrorist group, then these draconian forms of control can be used against legitimate forms of protest, and particularly the Occupy movement.

Sunday Youtube Post

Sometimes when I'm feeling disenfranchised I like watching propaganda.

Obama disingenuously supports same sex marriages, fauxgressive websites declare world peace

Okay so I know the formula for this blog has basically become "Obama should be a better president and this is why I hate everything raaaarrgghh" but I've got a real gripe over this okay. Obama kinda sorta backed same sex marriage today.

Top comment on reddit right now:

Obama stepped out and supported gay marriage. Now we have to step out and support him. For every independent and conservative vote he just lost, we need to make up for it with an independent or progressive vote.
I am fucking serious as fuck right now. Please don't think this was easy for him. You're going to have to get out there and vote in November, or this doesn't mean shit.

This wasn't easy for him? Really? Look at you, look at how many upvotes you're getting. The entire liberal base is rallied now. All the bigots who are upset by this were never going to vote for him anyway. What few right wing responses there have been so far have all been laughingstocks. The latest polls now show that half the country supports same sex marriage. This was a brilliant political move, and Obama knew exactly what he was doing. He chose to drop this one day after Amendment 1 passed in North Carolina (which banned same sex marriages in the state constitution). When progressives were crushed and defeated, he jumped at the opportunity and rode the momentum. So it's really not much different from the DADT repeal. He rode the momentum that was building and took some of the credit, but it's not like he ever fought terribly hard for it. And this isn't even a new tactic, the history of the civil rights movement is filled with examples of shithead politicians abusing this slow and sorry process.

This is a huge thing, but it shouldn't be. There is no logical reason why anyone could oppose same sex marriage. One just doesn't exist, all the "arguments" against it have been dismantled time and time again, and the debate is over. If you are a Democrat, I expect you to support it. Obama has been in office for nearly three and a half years, and it took him this long. He could've done it during the seemingly neverending string of suicides by gay teens in the media, to maybe give bullied kids a little support. He could've done it when the "It gets better" campaign first kicked off. He could've done it during the DADT repeal. No. We had to wait for his views on gay marriage to "evolve." That was his word. He was "evolving." So basically, "put your freedom on hold until I decide it's politically expedient to get my shit together." Meanwhile, war criminal Dick Cheney came out in support of same sex marriage years ago, as well as the entire democratic base well before him.

This was political. Whenever I, or any other responses I've been reading, point this out to people on the internet, it's like they just shut down and get personally offended. It all mostly boils down to, "Why can't you be happy? Stop thinking about so many things and stuff just be happy." Alright, cool. If you can accept the fact that Barack Obama has been lying about his real views for years, that he has waiting until the right opportunity to present them so he could score easy political points -- and you are totally okay with that -- then cool. Just don't pretend to be shocked or angry when some people go and point out that this is nothing more than politics, okay? Just because we're criticizing doesn't mean we don't think this is awesome. This is a huge step. But it's not enough. He could've done so much more. This battle hasn't even started, so stop treating this like we won a marathon. We need to keep kicking him. Obama affirmed that he still thinks this is a states' rights issue. So it's not like he's actually going to do anything. All 44 states that don't allow marriage equality are perfectly within their rights to practice discrimination, and this is just fine with Barack Obama.

I'm reminded of a relevant line of lyrics from The Coup, from their song "Underdogs" -- "They'd tear this motherfucker up if they really loved you." By "They," Boots is referring to people who give support in the form of empty words. And it's true. Those people would tear shit up if they actually gave a damn about the oppressed. By going halfway, Obama chose to enshrine yet another human rights issue into the horrifying history of "states rights." Abortion bans. Interracial marriage. Segregation. Human slavery. If the Democratic party ever wants to regain any shred of decency, it needs to start standing up for things it claims to believe in, at the risk of losing elections. There's a sleeping leftist movement in America with no one to have faith in. This president could've been a leader. He chose to play politics like all the rest.

To close, I'm going to leave you with this inspiring video filled with people who have actually have the balls to fight for human rights. And also, the final line of "Underdogs" -- "I'll tear this motherfucker up since I really love you."

Sunday Youtube Post

In a symbolic "fuck you" to workers everywhere, President Obama declares May 1st -- May Day -- "Loyalty Day"

Barack Obama issued a proclamation yesterday declaring a day of worldwide protests to be "Loyalty Day." Read the full proclamation here.

Look Barry, you're the president. I get it. You'd like your citizens to be loyal to the country you lead, because it makes your job a lot easier. I haven't read your biography, so I don't know if you've ever been exposed to any political ideas outside the two-party system. If you haven't, that's okay, that's a rarity in the United States. Not your fault. But you're not a dumb guy. I know you're very well read, because I remember seeing photos of you during the 2008 campaign carrying around Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" and Zakaria's "Post-American World." Those are fantastic books. However, I'd hate to sound like one of those Tea Party fucktards, but I really think you should go back a little further and read a little about the American revolution. Now don't read David Barton, he's the "historian" the Tea Party really likes. He makes shit up. Thanks to propagandists like him, Americans think the revolution was tame, civil struggle led by FOUNDING FATHERS (tm) who won by standing in a circle holding hands. Judging by this proclamation you just issued, I'm going to take a guess and assume you think that way too.

This period was the golden age of radicalism in America. Obama's proclamation begins: "More than two centuries ago, our Founders laid out a charter that assured the rule of law and the rights of man." Yeah? Well what about everything that happened before the Constitution was written? It didn't just appear out of thin air. Do you think the patriots who destroyed all those boxes of tea -- property they did not own -- were good, law-abiding, "loyal" citizens? They tarred and feathered tax collectors, and tore down homes of governors brick-by-brick, years before the war even began. It was ugly, it was gruesome, and it was terrible, but all of it needed to happen. America was founded on radicalism and dissent.

I mean, really. I don't think you understand this whole "freedom" concept. My computer's dictionary defines freedom as "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." I don't appreciate you telling me who I should declare my allegiance to. Here's a quote from Roderick T. Long.

“The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by the nationalist socialist Francis Bellamy. The term ‘allegiance’ refers to the duty of obedience and subordination that medieval serfs owed to their feudal lord – their ‘liege.’ The American founders, by contrast, waged and won a revolution against the Old World idea that we owe allegiance to our governments; the United States was founded on the opposite principle, that our governments owe allegiance to us. The founders would have been horrified to learn that two centuries after the American Revolution, schoolchildren would be forced to recite loyalty oaths to the government. The Pledge of Allegiance is one of the most blatantly un-American documents ever written.”

And as of May 1, 2012, President Obama's Loyalty Day Proclamation joins those top un-American documents. Just say it out loud. "Loyalty Day." It's fucking Orwellian.

The proclamation ends: "NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2012, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands."

No. Paine said "The world is my country" and I'm not pledging allegiance to any fucking government. Governments are necessary evils at best. They are nothing more than artificial entities, and people always hold the right to abolish them whenever they become destructive. This is straight out of the Declaration of Independence, and it's probably going to get me put on a list. I keep saying that America was founded on "radicalism." But the idea that all human beings should be free shouldn't be considered "radical" at all. What's truly radical and dangerous is the leaders of a corporatist government telling me that I'm loyal to them without bothering to ask me for my consent. What's radical is those leaders perpetuating lies to invade countries and massacre countless thousands in the name profit and global influence, and then say they're doing it to make people "free."

I'm pissed off. This shouldn't be such a big deal, but I'm fucking pissed. As always, Mumia expresses my anger better than anything.

Democracy Now May Day Special

May Day is a global holiday to celebrate left-wing and labor movements. It takes place on May 1st, the anniversary of the Haymarket riot in 1886 in Chicago. A bomb was thrown by an unknown person, which killed a police officer. Seven anarchists were rounded up, framed, and executed, and their sacrifices became a rallying cry. May 1st has been an international leftist holiday ever since. Workers are encouraged every year on this day to strike work, school, and any other obligations they may have towards the state/system/man/whatever.

I went into work today because, you know, gotta get paid. And it's not like I do much anyway, it's an internship. My boss, however, "worked from home" today because of "family issues." She's also fairly young, and cool as shit. So who knows what her real reasons were, right? Right?

Anyway, today's Democracy Now was dedicated to May Day. Amy Goodman may report the news professionally in an unbiased manner, but she's actually a very adamant leftist in her personal opinions, and always covers stories that leftists care about. Occupy Wall Street used today to kick off their movement again after the winter lull, and Goodman had a great panel on to discuss it, which included Chris Hedges. They mainly talked about where the movement was going, and on what strategies should actually be used. Hedges reiterated his disgust for the black bloc (Which he writes about here. The article sparked a huge rift in OWS, which, as Amin Husain says here, "almost derailed us." I wrote my opinion about it here, and I'm not sure if I agree with all of what I said anymore. This was a big thing.) This is an extremely interesting discussion, and you should watch it. Happy May Day.

Obama goes full Republican

If Republicans had one surefire strategy for the last decade, it was abusing the painful memories of 9/11 for political gain. Here's an example. This was played at the RNC in 2008. Olbermann reaction at 2:50.



Fucking repulsive.

This makes every Republican effort for attacking Obama's new ad a laughingstock. They have no right to do it. Here's Obama's new ad, where he brags about killing Osama bin Laden.



I don't even think it was his capitalizing on bin Laden's death that pisses me off the most. Because Republicans sure as hell aren't giving him any credit for it, and heck, maybe he deserves it a little. What pissed me off was a few other things. First, Clinton says:

"Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn't been bin Laden. Suppose they'd been captured or killed. The downside would've been horrible for him [Obama]. But he reasons, 'I cannot in good conscience do nothing.' He took the harder, and the more honorable path."

Cue photo of shadowy Obama staring out of a window in careful thought. If there was any doubt Obama was making this about himself, Clinton obliterates it. "Suppose they'd been captured or killed. The downside would've been horrible for him." For him? What about the SEALs who would've been capture or killed? They would've died. That might've been a pretty horrible downside too.

But this absolutely blows my mind.

FUCKING GOOD. Just like Joe Biden, or Obama's Secretary of Defense, who were both against going into Pakistan to get bin Laden. Right? You gonna make an ad attacking them now? What the hell am I even reading? Republicans are the anti-war guys, suddenly? And Democrats think that's bad? Am I in fucking bizarro world? Doesn't anyone fucking notice this?

Look I don't know if the bin Laden hit was the right call or not, but there were legitimate reasons not to do this. If you don't think there were any consequences to this, then you're just ignorant to what's been going on. For one thing, Pakistan is supposed to be our ally. We invaded and launched a military attack on their territory. Yeah they were sheltering bin Laden and they're fucking shitheads, but they're also a foreign government, and if you do things without taking into account what their reaction would be, then you're fucking stupid. There were serious whispers of a military coup afterwards. They cut off ground supplies for NATO troops into Afghanistnan. This was our only land-route into the country. It's honestly a miracle things turned out so well in the end. I'm certainly not complaining about the fucker being fish food, heck go back and read my post about it, I was goddamn ecstatic. But it was still pretty damn reckless, and it demolished U.S.-Pakistani relations. It's hard to even call ourselves "allies" anymore, if that title was ever legitimate in the first place. Our entire foreign policy with them consists of "yeah we're doing this and you can't do anything about it." We just stepped up drone attacks in their country again a couple weeks after they demanded they be stopped. They're saying this violates their sovereignty, which is 100% correct. Small wonder their military is so sympathetic to people who are willing fight invaders who blow up Pakistani homes and families.

Republican Senator Ryan Zinke (who was a SEAL himself) said, "The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable." And he's right. I'm agreeing with a Republican. What I don't understand is why Republicans suddenly hate "war presidents," and why democrats suddenly love them. What the fuck is even happening. Mitt Romney isn't going to let his street cred take this hit though, saying yesterday that "even Jimmy Carter" would've ordered bin Laden's death. YEAH BIG WHOOP, OBAMA. HEY GUYS, REMEMBER HOW JIMMY CARTER IS A FUCKTARD? JIMMY CARTER. If this election is just going to be a dick-waving contest to see who's most enthusiastic about killing people, then it only makes me more glad I'm voting third party. Let's start talking about restoring our civil liberties now that bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is in shambles, guys. Guys?