Barack Obama is The Anti Christ!
by The Devil, you say!
I understand the nature of media and politics. It’s been some time since the media really cared about specific issues per se… partisan reporting has become the order of the era. It isn’t as if this is a new development; the Liberal media spent eight years ripping into George W. It wasn’t quite as noticeable, because- let’s be honest here…. the man was a buffoon. He seemingly provided a silly sound byte every two hours or so; he was the perfect target for criticism. The conservative media had their time to attack when Bill Clinton was utilizing White House resources (and fat chicks) in the oval office. Remember the Conservative talk shows screaming for Bill Clinton’s head on an impeachment tray?
So with all that said, I get it. It’s about ratings. But it’s also becoming dangerous, and forcing to the fore some of the cracks in the American political and cultural landscape. Does anyone remember 9-11 any more? Dammit, it wasn’t that long ago. No one cared on September 12th (including the media) who was from which side of the aisle. The gravity of what had happened… it brought us together as a nation in ways we hadn’t since we were fighting the Nazis.
A matter of weeks ago, a man opened fire on a Texas military base, killing and injuring a large number of American citizens, most of them military personnel. And while the media reported it, the coverage should go down as one of the worst tragedies in the history of journalism. It was literally a matter of hours before the incident itself became secondary in the media’s reporting and focus. It was, by the next day, completely politicized. The right couldn’t be bothered to know the individual victims, or anything about them. But they damn well knew that it was Barack Obama’s fault. Republican pundits and talk show hosts actually tried to turn this into a platform against the Health Care Reform bill!
And now they’re having at Barack Obama for his handling of the way he handled the bomber on the Detroit flight on Christmas. He has been lambasted for days for being detached, and for using four letter words like suspect, suspected, and accused. This defies logic. America is a country built on a series of principles; little insignificant concepts like ‘innocent until proven guilty’. I can only speak for myself, but I would prefer that my President be capable of handling a crisis, and that would mean the ability to be, well… detached. Bush went off half cocked after 9-11, and we see how well that went. We started invading random places. And by insisting that we adhere to the principles that make America what it is (or is supposed to be), It appears to me that he’s telling the world that they have no ability to change who we are.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Post Commentthestickman
On December 30, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Oh I was expecting an article on Michael Jackson, Superbowl or the Space Shuttle but you *so delivered* on the title!
Good job (and intriguing propositions made)
I don’t know if I subscribe to these beliefs but I have been casually following the ‘conspiracist’s opinion’ on the actual attack on WTC and esp. the weird things with Building #7, still, it is nearly unthinkable that we did this to ourselves. I am however, listening.
ceegirl
On December 30, 2009 at 2:48 pm
well said
keyboardologist
On December 30, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Very insightful, and very valid points. Another article headed for the H.C. list???? Some people would die without their CNN.
Karen Gross
On December 30, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Your title made me click here – I was expecting some rant about overzealous Christians.
I didn\’t regret my click. Partisan politics are a necessary evil in democratic nations. In Canada, where a prime minister can call an election any time, every member of parliament keeps a big handful of dirt at the ready at all times.
In my opinion an an outsider looking at the US through my TV screen, it seems to me that you have it backwards. You say that 9/11 drove a wedge to divide your people – I think that this event united you. As I recall, anyone who spoke out against Bush\’s decision to go to war (Johnny Dieppe ring a bell?) was blasted by the court of public opinion. Canada and France were blasted for not joining in when Bush went off half cocked into war. (Remember \”freedom fries?\”)
Then a few years went by, a few trillion dollars were spent, alot of Americans died, and your country resumed the internal bickering again.
Westbrook
On December 30, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I have always battered the liberal media in everything that I write when necessary. I agree that the dammed media will pave the way to our country’s fall if people do not wake up. The biggest problem is that so many people do not really keep informed about what’s going on in the world and our country. I would say that most liberal followers of Obama are blinded by his elegant speaking, youth and looks and will not question anything about him. And the few that do keep up with the news do not think objectively. I disagree with you on the WTC. That was an act of war on the U.S. and Bush, though many did not like his aggressiveness, sent a clear message to the world that we as a nation will not tolerate any attacks on us without repercussions
Mike Crowl
On December 30, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Much better article than your title indicated…I was also expecting some way-out rant, having heard so many similar ones about every new leader who turns up in the world. However, it’s a bit naughty to use such a provocative title and then mention it in the article itself….!
Inna Tysoe
On December 30, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Politics is often more about show business and, hence, point-scoring than anything else. Or at least that’s what we see on TV. Nonetheless, you do get people compromising as evidenced by the many, many bi-partisan bills.
But I doubt you’ll get that in the news. Because you’re right: we demand the gladiatorial stuff, not the sensible stuff.
Inna
fishfry aka Elizabeth Figueroa
On December 31, 2009 at 1:27 am
If the media would just shut up and get their noses out of where it does not belong, perhaps the world would be better.
Lisa Gayagay
On December 31, 2009 at 4:49 am
Nice post. keep writing.
princess serenity
On December 31, 2009 at 6:18 am
Nice title. Well people should really change. Instead of giving destructive criticism why not give a constructive one. You do not do something on your own why blame other people.
Tim P Stavert
On December 31, 2009 at 7:20 am
I can see where you are coming from, and naturally many resent politics and their leaders with whatever beliefs they have. However with these extremist like Al Qaeda appearing not having a clue what deplomacy is, by blowing innocent people up is an answer to gain recognition; we will never get anywhere as long as they carry on with these etrocities.
Tim
T.Rex McGoogle
On December 31, 2009 at 11:43 am
Congratulations. You are the best at knowing how to get money
from Triond’s treasury for your account. But please don’t use
our president as your whipping boy. I think the anti-christ would be
Osama–not Obama as you said.
Darla Cooke
On December 31, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Interesting article.
Janice Wright
On January 1, 2010 at 12:03 am
Stop assuming that everything Barack Obama does is right because he’s a liberal. Don’t assume that Rush Limbaugh is always wrong because he’s a conservative. A two party system is about compromise, and the notion that the right answer is normally found somewhere in the middle ground. A society that deals in absolutes is a society of fools. Is that what we want to be?
Ruby Hawk
On January 1, 2010 at 12:20 am
Hooray, It’s time someone shed a little light on all the hoopla that is taking place. Read the newspapers,news magazines and journals, And absolutely stop listening to Rush and CNN. they are all morons. Be thankful we don’t have another Bush and give Obama a chance.
P Smith
On January 1, 2010 at 1:34 am
You had a fairly good argument until you loused it up with this sentence in the last paragraph:
“A two party system is about compromise, and the notion that the right answer is normally found somewhere in the middle ground.”
Wrong. A two party “democracy” can only ever have majority governments. A majority-only system is almost as bad as a dictatorship; it’s worse, actually, because the puppet dictators change but those pulling the strings don’t.
The reason the US is so ****ed up politically is BECAUSE it is a two party “democracy”. All other stable and long-standing democracies in the world have at least three major political parties. When there are at least three parties, minority governments are common or even the norm.
Coalitions (which sounds like “listen”) have to work together to stay in power AND to accomplish something. If the larger party in a coalition isn’t doing what the smaller party(ies) wants, the smaller party withdraws support and the government falls. Germany’s current and past two governments have been two party coalitions, and Canada’s government HAS NO coalition. Canada’s Conservatives are a minority government with no partner – the opposition parties COULD vote together to throw them out, but the conservatives stay alive politically because they compromise and make laws that benefit all Canadians, not just some.
Lobbyists can only influence (read: bribe and pay off) a single party at a time, which is ineffective with coalition governments, as explained in the previous paragraph. Coalitions mean lobbyists are neutered and ineffective, and the voters have more sway because parties are forced to listen to their constituents instead of their paymasters.
Noticeably, the US is the only long-standing democracy which has lobbyists that can affect policy. Being a two-party state is the direct cause of that.
Kimberly Wilson
On January 2, 2010 at 6:53 pm
I agree with you.
T.Rex McGoogle
On January 2, 2010 at 9:58 pm
I totally agree with Karen Gross. And I think your comment about
about 9/11 was a twisted observation. And I think an outsider like
you who chooses to live here would have less criticism about the
country you preferred to live in more than your home country.
What on earth do you like about this country??
AndAnotherThing
On January 3, 2010 at 11:01 am
Your assessment of 9/11 is objective which, given the nature and coverage of the attack, is exceptionally difficult. As expected one commentator replied with: “That was an act of war on the U.S. and Bush, though many did not like his aggressiveness, sent a clear message to the world that we as a nation will not tolerate any attacks on us without repercussions”
Bush proved he was a bad as the attackers, did nothing to catch them (unless you count the slaughter of innocents in Iraq) and brought the world to its knees. A gifted President would have used 9/11 to isolate and ruin the extremist clique responsible. As it is Bush (helped by Blair) did exactly the opposite.
Michael Eboh
On January 5, 2010 at 3:41 am
Great insight here. I agree with what you have put.