Wednesday, 28 January 2009

Obama: A**hole of the Month - Flynt

The media had anointed the Democrat as the future figurehead of the Progressive movement. However, Obama gets our A**hole of the Month award because he is actually one of Bush’s most-prized pet Republicrats.

There are many who think this charismatic black man speaks the truth. They think he cares about the plight of the working class. In truth, whenever the co-opted Obama has an opportunity to make a real difference, he marches in stride with the Bush regime.

Obama has repeatedly waffled on the Iraq war. He refuses to denounce torture policies. Obama voted against the Coburn Amendment, which would have provided funds for rebuilding in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He supports a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran. He does not support universal healthcare.

Although recognizing that Bush has broken U.S. law, the “Progressive” politician refused to cosponsor a resolution by Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) to censure the President. Obama even voted to confirm right-wing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Now he is campaigning for Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut (Bush’s closest Democratic ally).

Like the scumbag Lieberman, Obama is working hard, albeit quietly, to block the Progressive movement. If you haven’t guessed yet, Obama is a conservative wearing a liberal’s suit. On top of it all, this wolf in sheep’s clothing is a liar and a fraud—a political abomination conning America.

Speaking at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Obama brought forth a claim he would later use repeatedly to drum up public support. “My father… grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack.” In fact, Obama’s sob story about being the son of a goat-herder is complete bullsh**. In his 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama writes that his grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was a prominent and wealthy farmer who emigrated from Kenya.
http://www.larryflynt.com/mycms/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=21&cntnt01returnid=15

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, January 28th, 2009.]

2 comments:

steven andresen said...

I think we need to have a more nuanced understanding of Obama.

Nader suggested something I've also thought. Obama can be thought of as a house slave.

I think the analogy suggests just what Obama's limitations are as a politician. He is bound to the plantation masters...bound to them as a slave. His job as the house slave is to supervise for the masters the field slaves, which is our role.

Obama was elected by us because he seemed best able to get the field slaves new shoes, some patching for the roofs of our shacks, and maybe some beans at dinner every once in awhile.

Unfortunately, Obama does not intend to overthrow the plantation system. He's not going to raise his hands against the masters. He does not have an abolitionist bone in his body.

This is the reason that the masters like Obama. They think he won't turn on them.

So, when Flynt tells us people have thought Obama cares about the workers, and also that he "marches in stride with the Bush regime," there is really no contradiction in Obama's position.

House slaves can care about the field slaves and work for the masters at the same time.

Flynt seems to be saying that the people have been under some delusion. Flynt wants everyone to know that Obama is working for the masters.

Nader and others have made this claim before, and from my understanding, surely the masters understand what Obama is. What does Flynt then think he is doing?

Yes, OK, Obama is doing what the masters want him to do. And so, the field hands are working harder so that the masters can put an army of them in the field. There's really no great improvements in their lives yet.

Is Flynt saying anything about how the field slaves are supposed to challenge the masters?

I thought the impoverishment of the plantation might have been because these particular field slaves have been too uppity. The masters have been working the slaves in other plantations so that their profits are not dependent on what happens in this particular location. So, the masters then can shut the work down and, like they have done in plantations around the world, make the people scream.

Mr. Flynt does not point out that just because Obama was elected with the thought that he'd try to get this plantation to be more productive, so that the field slaves could be given the materials of a better life, there is at the same time a good question whether the masters are going to do much to help him out.

Flynt spends his time here complaining about what Obama is or hasn't been doing. Is this so that we should understand what Obama can do to get us even better materials? Maybe Flynt thinks he can wangle a better deal from the masters?

Or, does Flynt have some master plan about how to overthrow the masters in this plantation? He's a John Brown type. Let's follow him to Harper's Ferry?

Or does Flynt have some plan about the plantation system itself? Does he see himself at the head of an abolitionist movement, or part of one?

Again, I think we have come back to our discussion of strategy. Isn't Obama, even with all his faults, so far carrying out your strategy of working within the system?

That is, Obama just is the person who doesn't challenge the power game, the mafia principle, or the the system of worldwide plantations, but works within the system to expose miscreants and to work as best as can be done for the interests of us field slaves?

So, my thought, if all that is true, you should be encouraging Obama, not tearing him down. The strategy would suggest that you point him to those places where even the masters would agree that the laws were broken and the plantations are made non-productive.

SpookyPunkos said...

I think you need to think about the assumptions you are making and how far you take your analogies:

1. "Obama was elected by us because he seemed best able to get the field slaves new shoes, some patching for the roofs of our shacks, and maybe some beans at dinner every once in awhile."

Do you suppose we all think of ourselves as house slaves ?

I believe the population was looking, as Flynt believes, for a progressive. They were ultimately hoodwinked, which is not surprising to the more knowledgeable among us. However, you must remember that many do not know and would be unhappy with window dressing type improvements.

To my mind, there is nothing wrong with Flynt pointing out matters here that deal with the honesty and character of the "Commander in Chief". Why not challenge the house slave who is leading us all on our merry way ? We are still slaves, and until the House Slave/ Congress takes over and puts the people and Constitution first, (with added transparency and accountability) then we should not rest.

2. "So, when Flynt tells us people have thought Obama cares about the workers, and also that he "marches in stride with the Bush regime," there is really no contradiction in Obama's position."

There is no contradiction when one when has a FULL UNDERSTANDING of the situation BUT there is if you followed Obama's implicit promises of change.

It appears you have drawn up an analogy in which all of the players are aware of their roles when they are not. The unknowing "mob" are hoping for a lot and they are going to be short changed- which is Flynt's message.

So why not hold Obama personally accountable for his implied position, or should we just accept that all politicians can say or do anything they like ?

3. "House slaves can care about the field slaves and work for the masters at the same time.

Flynt seems to be saying that the people have been under some delusion. Flynt wants everyone to know that Obama is working for the masters.

Nader and others have made this claim before, and from my understanding, surely the masters understand what Obama is. What does Flynt then think he is doing?"

Here you are implying, which is better understood in your following paragraphs, that Flynt should go easy on Obama because he is simply a house slave and not the real target, that Obama is the guy to "wrangle a better deal", that we should all understand/sympathise with this fact.

I don't think this is really a valid criticism. The fact that he is "just following orders" and that Obama might be trying to make things a bit better on the plantation is no excuse to cover for his duplicity.

In reference to an overall strategy, I believe that 911 is the catalyst for going after the "plantation masters". If they wanna try to shut down the plantation then the fight will be on in earnest. They've already been too arrogant and the information is getting out about what's going on. After all youseem to have some idea.

The fact is that many people still have trouble seeing how far down the rabbit hole goes. Many know there are problems, but lack the knowledge and education to see clearly or have an idea about what to do. 911 is the ticket in the broader battle to get to the public. We can fight minor skermishes along the road, especially when these fights can help the people. There's no good reason to back off on exposing Obama's bluff.

Flynt just wants an honest and responsible government/president that will change the system for the better (although perhaps not revolutionise it). He'll give no quarter when he sees deceptive actions afoot. His aim, like mine, would probably be similar- to have the US Constitution more rigidly followed.

5. "Again, I think we have come back to our discussion of strategy. Isn't Obama, even with all his faults, so far carrying out your strategy of working within the system?"

[No Steven he is not really making a substantive change ! You know this !]

"That is, Obama just is the person who doesn't challenge the power game, the mafia principle, or the the system of worldwide plantations, but works within the system to expose miscreants and to work as best as can be done for the interests of us field slaves?"

These comments make me think you have not understood anything I have explained to you or that you're deriding my project or both.

You are saying that I don't want to change the mafia system ? I have explained the idea to you already. You obviously can't see how using elements of the system- LAW- will help to change it. You think it's all part and parcel of the mafia landscape and nothng will ultimately change.

Yes, we can fight within the sytem to get some improvements (criticisms of Obama), but for an overall change, which we have discussed before, we'll be using the evidence provided by the 911 attacks being an inside job as the lever. You have to use something to get the ball rolling, and the effects, I am sure, will be far reaching.

In the meantime, we will try to "point" Obama in the right direction as much as possible, but never with a mind to excusing any of his questionable actions, and not to forget an overall strategy.

Flynt's narrow focus piece here was quite appropriate.