{Hey
Boys and Girls, don't get left out! Join the fun crowd and get
email alerts of new posts! Stop wasting time checking 49 times a day*
to see if there's something new!
Just go to the
upper right side of this webpage, and add your email to the list of
astute, savvy readers who know how to make life easier for
themselves. What could be better? (Well, we could pay you to
do it, that would be better for you,
I suppose. You'd like that, wouldn't you? But we're not going to pay
you, so it looks like you're stuck with second best, Free. Oh,
stop complaining. It could be worse. You could be paying us.)
So get hip and
sign up today at Follow By Email! That's Follow By Email, today!
*49 times a day;
average number of times readers of Taboo Truths by Jason Zenith
check site daily as measured by Shady Analytics, Inc.}
We now return to
Obama: Cynicism Squared.
Just as it has been revealed that the
Obama regime secretly obtained the phone records- for both the
business and personal phones- of one hundred Associated Press reporters and editors for a two month period last year, allegedly as
part of a “leak investigation,” Obama is making a show of
introducing a reporter's shield law in Congress, which he knows damn
well will be dead on arrival.
Think that's cynical? Wait, there's more!
Obama's bill contains a "national security" exception! So it wouldn't even make the slightest difference in cases like the AP one!
How's that for cynicism!
But Obama wants to con us into thinking he's a First Amendment protector with his "shield law" stunt. (I'd like to see Congress actually pass it, just to see if Obama would veto his own law. Don't laugh, it's possible he would. Remember his backflip on the law to immunize the telecoms for helping the NSA illegally spy on us?)
If Obama is so concerned that the media be free of government interference (and persecution, for that matter), he'd do better to practice what he chooses to preach only at convenient moments. Like his Democratic predecessor Clinton, he's an slippery con man adept at deceptive feints and verbal tap-dancing. Much more dangerous than a tongue-tied simpleton like Bush II, because more complex and better at fooling people. [1]
Think that's cynical? Wait, there's more!
Obama's bill contains a "national security" exception! So it wouldn't even make the slightest difference in cases like the AP one!
How's that for cynicism!
But Obama wants to con us into thinking he's a First Amendment protector with his "shield law" stunt. (I'd like to see Congress actually pass it, just to see if Obama would veto his own law. Don't laugh, it's possible he would. Remember his backflip on the law to immunize the telecoms for helping the NSA illegally spy on us?)
If Obama is so concerned that the media be free of government interference (and persecution, for that matter), he'd do better to practice what he chooses to preach only at convenient moments. Like his Democratic predecessor Clinton, he's an slippery con man adept at deceptive feints and verbal tap-dancing. Much more dangerous than a tongue-tied simpleton like Bush II, because more complex and better at fooling people. [1]
One of the most
important deleterious effects of this type of repressive activity is
that it intimidates whistle-blowers from going to the media with
information. That is probably the main intent here. This strategy
works in tandem with the Obama regime practice of criminally
persecuting whistle-blowers like Thomas Drake, William Binney, John
Kiriakou, and others. (Complete with FBI terror raids on their homes.
Hyperbole, you say? Imagine being at home with your wife and children
when a dozen or more men in flak vests carrying automatic assault
rifles kick in your door and swarm into your home, screaming commands
at you and your family. Bet your wife and kids would be terrified, if
not you too, tough guy. The terror may not always be achieved, but it
is certainly intended.) [Go to democracynow.org and youtube.com to learn
more about these and other cases.]
Obama's Attorney General, the
professional oppressor Eric Holder, claims that he had nothing to do
with the spying, because he recused himself from the “case,”
oddly. Therefore he played dumb when asked by Congress why his
minions issued a secret subpoena, which prevented the AP from knowing
what was happening and thus being able to challenge the search. [“Due
process” Obama-regime style.] He played dumb on lots of things
during his Congressional appearance, in fact. [2]
Holder is defending this outrageous
spying by saying that in all his years as a lawyer, this is one of
the worst leaks he's ever seen. Naturally, he claimed
that American lives were put at risk by the “leak.” (They always
say that.) He refused to be specific. However...
NPR's secret police tool, Dena
Temple-Raston, yesterday dutifully passed along the story the Obama
regime wanted passed along. (Anonymously- hey a “leak!” Actually
an authorized plant. So presumably they won't be secretly
seizing her phone records. But that's ok, the NSA has the
actual calls, just in case.) [Temple-Raston's current official title
at NPR is “Counterterrorism Correspondent.” That highly
ideological designation tells you quite a lot right there. She's part
of what NPR calls its “national security team.” She- and NPR- are
completely in bed with the secret police and military in their “war
on terror.”]
Supposedly this terrible terrible
leak that endangered all our lives concerned stopping Al-Qaeda from
using- a nuclear weapon! A dirty bomb! A sarin gas plot! Uh, no,
actually it was nothing like that. It was the story about the guy the
CIA (and MI6 and the Saudis, but Temple-Raston didn't mention them)
infiltrated into Al-Qaeda in Yemen, and got ahold of one of their
suicide bombs by posing as a willing suicide dupe. After duly
delivering the bomb to his actual masters, the secret police
apparently couldn't help boasting about their great coup to their
media stooges- or so it seemed to me at the time. If we believe
Holder (and there's no reason on earth to take anything
that man says on his word alone) it wasn't that at all, but some
nefarious leak that was not authorized. (Or maybe both; you see the
two explanations are not mutually exclusive. Some secret policemen
might have decided to boast, and another level or rival organization
might have been miffed by this.) MI6 was reportedly (at the time)
bent out of shape over the Americans squandering the “asset” (the
infiltrator) in order to score PR points with the U.S. public
(anonymously of course) by boasting of their exploit. Just as “drug
war” “warriors” like to parade the grass and drugs they seize
in front of the media in order to keep the “war” going, U.S.
“terror” warriors need to make it look like they're “winning”
their war too.
I suspect the “leak
investigation” was undertaken at least in part to mollify the
British.
The part of Holder's bleating that is
clearly false is the “American lives were endangered” part. All
that happened was that their mole became useless and had to be
relocated with his family with new identities, and with a fat payoff
of course. If anything, you can say that the “leak” protected
lives, namely the life of the infiltrator, and possibly his family
and friends, because they were going to put him back inside
Al-Qaeda after he'd pretended to be a willing suicide bomber
and stole one of their bombs. No doubt Al-Qaeda would have gotten
suspicious of the guy.
Holder is the same guy who says that
his boss, Obama, can secretly order executions because due
process does not mean judicial process, an utterly absurd,
Alice In Wonderland type statement. The very concept of due process
is that an accused is notified of charges or allegations and has the
chance to contest them before penalties are imposed. The accused can
also contest the punishment. Due process evolved in opposition to the
arbitrary and capricious whims of Kings who could do whatever they
wanted without challenge and without having to justify their actions.
The point of due process is to restrict the power of the state (those
in power) to punish people, even kill them, without having to prove
just cause. Secretly ordering someone's execution is the diametrical
opposite of due process.
Just as John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and
Jay Bybee, among others, wrote legal opinions for their master, Bush
II, as if they could make law themselves, so Eric Holder has
arrogated to himself the power to make his own binding Constitutional
interpretations. (“The Constitution guarantees due process, not
judicial process,” he said in his infamous speech declaring that a
secret kill list constitutes due process for those condemned to
death.)
When the public rumblings of unease
over this self-authorized murder program reached a certain noise
level, Obama and Holder caused to be planted all kinds of stories in
the media about how carefully the faceless Imperialist apparatchiks
who add names to the death list do the vetting. [And eventually
Holder gave his chilling speech in March 2012, at a law school. More
and more, U.S. law is coming to resemble the law of the Third Reich.
I pity the fools who voted for Obama thinking he'd reverse that trend
which began under Bush II.] We're told that King Obama personally
approves or disapproves of each one he secretly sentences to death.
Well that's awfully reassuring!
Of course, no one can challenge the
alleged “intelligence information” that is the basis for the King
ordering death sentences. The whole point of courts is to allow the
accused to defend themselves.
Say that, and they pull another bit of
flimflam. This is war, they say. So why the prattle about
“what we do in secret is due process,” and “we're very careful
about who we kill”? (And what about the hundreds of civilians
killed in Pakistan and Yemen, for example? And why did you blow the
16 year old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and his friends into pieces sitting
in a restaurant? Never mind, I guess the answer is “classified,”
i.e. a secret.)
They disingenuously skip back and forth
between a “legal” paradigm and a “war” paradigm, depending on
what sophistry works best for them politically at a given moment. The
Bush regime did the same.
Obama frequently pulls cynical stunts
like the one he's pulling now with his “media shield” law. He
also has a habit of totally mendacious public rhetoric, as in his
blather about “transparency.” He runs a hyper-secretive regime,
worse than the Bushes, Reagan, even Nixon. Under Obama, the number of
documents classified yearly has skyrocketed. In his first year in office (2009), Obama doubled the number of classifications, to almost 55 million. Bush in his last year classified over 23 million. And Bush was no slouch himself. As you can see from this chart, the number has been rising inexorably, from under 6 million in 1996. So under Obama there's been about a nine fold increase since then. Incredible. At the same time, the number declassified- what they'll allow us to see, if we can find them, in the National Archives, has been shriveling over time. [See CHARTS here.]
Another example of how what Obama tells us
“marks,” as con men call their victims, the opposite of what he
does: He breaks new records every year for deporting people,
while posing as a friend of immigrants.
It would fill a book to list all the
particulars of his two-faced deceits. Just compare his mendacious
campaign promises, especially in2008, with his actions as President.
One classic example bears repeating,
since the corporate media has thrown it down the memory hole.
Back in 2008, when he was first running
for President, Obama promised to filibuster a bill pending in
Congress to grant immunity from private lawsuits for the telecom
companies that cooperated with an illegal NSA eavesdropping program
that collected all the phone calls, emails, faxes, and texts that
passed through the telecoms networks. [3]
Well,
he didn't filibuster it. In fact, he didn't even vote against
it. He hurried back from the campaign trail to vote for
it. Who could vote for a sleazy con man like that, a totally
untrustworthy liar who is hostile to human rights? They wouldn't even
let people sue
the phone companies at the victims' own expense. (The Federal courts
had already declared that the NSA had sovereign immunity to do
whatever it wants with complete impunity, so the government
couldn't be sued.)
So no
one should be surprised by Obama's further depredations on human
rights and civil liberties as President. Except maybe by his personal
assassination program. Probably no one guessed he'd go that
far- the guy who promised to close Guantanamo Bay- and within a year!
(Oops!)
There
is much more to say about the assault on the AP, in context of
attacks on the media (including actual military attacks, as the
bombings of Aljazeera) and the American establishment media's
complacency and assumption of privilege for
itself. I will take all that up in further essays.
1] The AP is more important
than most people realize. A so-called “news service,” it
provides news stories to other media organizations that subscribe to
its services. (Originally the stories were delivered by telegraph,
for speed, hence the term “wire service.”) Probably all the major
U.S. news organizations use its stories, as do some news companies in
other countries. Its subscribers aren't obligated to use its stories,
they can pick and choose which ones to run, which they do.
In recent years the AP has covered a
number of revealing stories that don't reflect well on the U.S.
Government. These stories would otherwise have not become known.
There is good reason to suspect this motivated the Obama regime to
surreptitiously attack AP.
2] For those unfamiliar with
the structure of the U.S. Government, especially my readers outside
the U.S., the Attorney General is head of the Department of
“Justice.” “Justice” enforces- selectively and sometimes
quite arbitrarily- Federal criminal and civil laws. It also carries
out persecutions of political targets, using various laws as weapons
against its victims. The Obama regime has been zealous in criminally
persecuting whistle-blowers and alleged leakers, for example. The FBI
(Federal Bureau of Investigation), the major Federal secret police
agency that has a domestic purview, although it does and has
long operated overseas also, is part of “Justice.” However in
practice it operates as an independent fiefdom most of the time. (An
Agency is an organizational unit that is part of a Department)
Heads of Departments are dubbed Cabinet
Secretaries. The Cabinet is the level of authority in the Federal
Government below the President and Vice President. Another example of
a Department is the Department of “Defense” (which was more
honestly named the Department of War prior to 1949, when in a Cold
War propaganda move it was renamed).
However, authority and power
aren't necessarily the same
thing in the U.S. Government. In recent decades, real power has been
increasingly concentrated in the White House (the President's
official headquarters), whose staff frequently gives orders to the
Cabinet Secretaries in the name of the President. This has given rise
to the phrase “Imperial Presidency,” among people who find this
concentration of power ominous. (“Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely,”-Lord Acton's famous aphorism,
not an original idea with him, but well put.)
Another
example: sometimes the President's so-called “national security
adviser,” controls foreign policy, not the Secretary of State
(“Foreign Minister” in most countries), as happened during the
Nixon regime, when Henry Kissinger, a notorious serial mass murderer,
was the “adviser” (chief henchman of foreign crimes) before he
officially took over
the State Department as Secretary of State.
3]
NSA: National Security
Agency, a Pentagon agency that is a gigantic global spying agency
that collects all the electronic, radio, and other communications it
can in the entire world. It even tapped an undersea military
communications cable of the Soviet Union- a Navy submarine placed a
special device on the cable.
No comments:
Post a Comment