That’s all very well and good, but one wonders: Don’t we all have what is essentially an “inner bracket” which delineates our personal hierarchy of priorities, beliefs, behaviors and traits? If there was a bracket which revealed the inner workings of Obama’s mind, what would it look like? And what trait would emerge dominant?
Behold: [click on image to view it in high resolution]
On Saturday, March 19 anti-war protests were held in major cities around the country to mark the eighth anniversary of the Iraq invasion. This has become an annual ritual, the Saturday closest to March 19 having by now evolved into a leftist holiday, the anti-July 4.
The San Francisco version of the rally was mostly rained out — only a handful of people braved a downpour to protest in the streets. So I have no report of my own. But fortunately Los Angeles had better weather, and fellow citizen journalist Ringo the Gringo was on hand to document the festivities. Several aspects of the full report just posted on his site “Ringo’s Pictures” reveal the malevolence and dementia at the core of the anti-war left.
Ready? We’re going to Hollywood!
• They’re not anti-war: they’re just on the other side •
Hopefully by now most Americans have come to realize that the term “anti-war movement” is an intentional misnomer; but the point needs to be driven home repeatedly. The standard narrative pushed by the media and academia is that left-wingers are peaceniks who oppose war and violence on principle; whereas right-wingers are inherently pro-war because they’re either sadistic or stupid or both. But any visit to an “anti-war” rally will reveal that it’s not war the far-left opposes, but rather any action that promotes America’s interests. Since American strikes are usually against leaders or nations who oppose the United States, leftists can usually disguise their support for our enemies as merely opposition to military force in general. Yet at these sparsely attended post-Bush anti-war rallies, only the hardcore activists show up, so it’s much easier to see their true agenda once you look for yourself without the media’s obfuscatory filter.
Let’s examine a few examples.
• Pro-Gaddafi Native Americans •
The rally kicked off with an official opening ceremony from a Native American group. And they made it very clear: They support whomever America attacks:
A Native American woman then got the crowd going with a “Down with USA! Down with USA!” chant. Ringo captured the rest of their presentation (transcription below):
Native American Woman: They killed black people here, brown people here, and they still have us in concentration camps. So tell me about your Obama, your United States government. We are coming here with prayer, and everybody comes.
In ’86, they bombed Libya. In ’86, they tried to relocate 18,000 Diné Navajo people in Arizona. And you tell me to go fight a war somewhere else, when the war is here?
They don’t feed our people. They don’t give us an education. War and poverty. But if I go on, I’ll be pissed off, so I want to go back into prayer. [Native American prayer.] All my relations. This is Chief Longwalker, from the Oyate Dakota [Metawakatuyon] nation.
Native American Man: It’s hard for me to talk to you in the enemy’s language. But that’s the only one you seem to understand. ‘Cause each and every one of you who are the true illegal aliens and wetbacks are people crossing the imaginary border, are our people. Those that come across the ocean are the people that are causing all the problems. You are those descendants. It’s up to you in my country — this is mine, I am the landlord, you have yet to pay me my rent — I’m asking you as my guest to take care of Obama, Bush, take care of the Capitol in Washington, DC. Do it here!
Don’t worry about other countries. This country’s got such a stinkin’ filthy backyard that we can’t clean it up; that’s why we’re going all over the world trying to destroy theirs. I’m asking you, as an indigenous person, if you will do it I will lead you. I will lead you. [Native American prayer.]
Are you taking notes?
English is “the enemy’s language.”
Americans are “the true illegal aliens and wetbacks.”
This is his land and we have yet to pay him rent.
We don’t give enough free food and schools to Native Americans.
Reservations are concentration camps.
And the crowd of course ate it up. Nothing excites an anti-war crowd like telling them how they evil they are for simply being Americans. This leads me to a new axiom:
Masochism, when expressed sexually, is called a “fetish”; but when expressed politically it is called “liberalism.”
You know — the day after Thursday, but the one before Saturday?
The Internet has been abuzz this week over a new music video by a heretofore unknown 13-year-old girl named Rebecca Black; her out-of-nowhere hit “Friday” has already racked up 16 million views on YouTube as of this writing, and seems to be garnering another million every couple of hours.
Not because the song is good, but rather because it’s so bad. Or rather, “bad.” No, that’s not right either. The song is “”"”bad”"”".
One needs at least four levels of ironic quotation marks to get to the bottom of the “Friday” phenomenon. Plenty of things in modern culture are simply bad and don’t get any attention. Even things that are “so-bad-they’re-funny” might draw the attention of a few sarcastic hipsters but remain relatively obscure. But “Friday” has a fan base that dwarfs even those of most serious mainstream top-40 artists.
The cognoscenti will tell you that the listeners are only appreciating “Friday” through an ironic lens: We watch it only in order to mock it. And perhaps the cognoscenti do — but they only account for a few million of “Friday’s” views (oops — almost up to 17 million already). The other 15+ millions viewers I posit are other tweeners who appreciate “Friday” at face value — it’s catchy, upbeat and fun.
And what’s wrong with that? I give “Friday’s” popularity my wholehearted stamp of approval:
I think “Friday” is popular with the 10-to-14-year-old crowd specifically because its lyrics are completely innocent and unsophisticated. Kids are sick of being barraged with sexuality and violence and cynicism. At last, for the first time in a long time, a pop song for kids is not about humping or angst. Kids just want to be kids! And Rebecca Black is their new guide.
The story is told of a young chemist who, one evening, accidentally ingested a droplet of an unknown fluid from one of his test tubes, the leftovers of a past experiment.
Within minutes his mind went reeling and he was subjected to not only the wildest hallucinations, but also what he felt were world-altering insights into the nature of the universe.
The next day, after the drug had worn off, he tried to describe his experience to his colleagues and friends, but could not find the words to do it justice. Everyone he spoke to shrugged it off as a particularly vivid dream and went about their daily chores.
Frustrated, the next evening he placed a larger drop on his tongue, intentionally this time, and entered into a mental state beyond his imagining; he seemed to grasp, with no effort on his part, the very nature of existence. He not only saw God, he realized that he was and always had been part of God. He understood holistically and simultaneously every scientific axiom and principle — including ones that had not yet been discovered — as all being aspects of a single unified theorem of the cosmos, a theorem which he could inspect at his leisure, as if he were holding it in his hand.
But the next morning, once again, he could not remember the specifics of his insights, and his attempts to recount his breakthrough fell on deaf ears; his fellow scientists could not make heads nor tails of what he was saying, and his friends remained unmoved at his futile ramblings about God and the universe.
The young chemist was convinced down to the deepest recesses of his soul that he was perceiving a new level of reality, and vowed to record his new awareness and bring it to the world, thereby ushering in a glorious new age for humanity. So on the third night he locked himself in his lab with a large notebook and his favorite pen, and pledged to write down all his insights as they occurred.
He took another drop. His mind expanded. And he started writing.
It was glorious! His visions and realizations were even deeper than those of the previous night, but this time around he was able to describe it all in real time as it was happening. His pen flew across the page, words tumbling from him like a waterfall, delineating in lush detail everything he saw and grasped. He laughed in ecstasy with each new brilliancy, and sobbed in gratitude that he was able to preserve it forever and thereby change mankind for the better.
When he woke up the following morning, he once again had forgotten the details of his experience, but this time it would not be lost. He leapt up and found his notebook on his desk. Heart pounding, so excited that he was short of breath, he opened the cover and began to read.
But the first page was blank.
As was the second.
Frantically, he began flipping through the pages: they were all blank, until he got to the very last page. There, in his own distinctive handwriting, but so small and cramped that he could barely read it, was the only sentence he had written all night:
British fashion designer John Galliano allegedly grabbed a respected art historian’s hair and called her an ‘ugly, disgusting whore’ with a ‘dirty Jew face’ and no dress sense during an unprovoked attack in a Paris cafe.
It has been claimed Mr Galliano, 50, grabbed Ms Bloch, who is head of exhibitions at Paris’s Institute of the Arab World, by her hair and shouted: ‘Dirty Jew face, you should be dead,’ adding ‘shut your mouth, dirty bitch, I can’t stand your dirty whore voice.’
According to police documents, he then turned his anger on Mr Virgitti, and screamed: ‘******* Asian bastard, I’ll kill you!’
She has claimed Galliano concluded his tirade with: ‘I am the designer John Galliano!’ while striking the trademark ‘rock star’ pose with which he often ends his couture shows.
Brooke Mueller claims Charlie Sheen recently sent her a scathing, anti-Semitic text about his manager, saying
“I must execute mark b [Mark Burg] like the stoopid jew pig that he is.”
Sources say Charlie sent the text last week, after firing Mark … but before rehiring him.
The text was quoted in Brooke’s declaration in support of her request for a restraining order.
Charlie tells TMZ he did not send the text, saying, “I busted Brooke a year ago sending text messages from my phone to family members to cause discord. Both Natalie and Rachel (aka, the goddesses) will testify they observed Brooke with my phone on that day.” Charlie adds, “I have to believe the text about Mark Burg is a repeat performance.”
Mark Burg tells TMZ, “Charlie Sheen’s ex-publicist, Stan Rosenfield, is Jewish. Charlie Sheen’s entertainment attorney, Jake Bloom, is Jewish. Charlie Sheen’s litigation attorney, Marty Singer, is Jewish. Charlie Sheen’s divorce attorney, Mark Gross, is Jewish. I’ve known him for 13 years. I don’t believe that he actually sent that text.”
A report published by a British magazine on Tuesday said the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, suggested that British journalists, including the editor of The Guardian, were engaged in a Jewish-led conspiracy to smear his organization.
The Private Eye article quoted Mr. Assange as saying the conspiracy was led by The Guardian and included the newspaper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, and investigations editor, David Leigh, as well as John Kampfner, a prominent London journalist who recently reviewed two books about WikiLeaks for The Sunday Times of London.
When Mr. Hislop pointed out that Mr. Rusbridger was not Jewish, Mr. Assange countered that The Guardian’s editor was “sort of Jewish” because he and Mr. Leigh, who is Jewish, were brothers-in-law. Later, the article recounted, Mr. Assange asked Mr. Hislop to “forget the Jewish thing,” but he continued to insist there was a conspiracy against WikiLeaks….
Louis Farrakhan: Jews and Zionists are “trying to push the US into war” and are a cover for Satan
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said Jews and Zionists are “trying to push the US into war” and are a cover for Satan, at the group’s annual meeting near Chicago on Tuesday.
“President Obama,” Farrakhan said, “if you allow the Zionists to push you, to mount a military offensive against Gaddafi and you go in and kill him and his sons as you did with Saddam Hussein and his sons, I’m warning you this is a Libyan problem, let the Libyans solve their problem among themselves.” Farrakhan called Muammar Gaddafi “my brother” and “my friend.”
He also accused American Zionists of attempting to push Israel into war with Iran, adding that “Zionists dominate the government of the United States of America and her banking system.”
One panel at the conference, titled “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews,” claimed that Jews were disproportionately involved in the slave trade and accused them of controlling the media.
“Some of you think that I’m just somebody who’s got something out for the Jewish people,” Farrakhan said. “You’re stupid. Do you think I would waste my time if I did not think it was important for you to know Satan? My job is to pull the cover off of Satan so that he will never deceive you and the people of the world again.”
Whenever I visit Berkeley — in particular certain upscale areas populated by academics and wealthy intellectuals — practically everyone I see has this creepy look on his or her face. It’s hard to describe, but once you’ve seen it enough times it’s unmistakable: a special kind of conspiratorial smugness, a faint “knowing smile” coupled with a glance that conveys a sense of not just personal superiority, but of mutual superiority. In an instant, the Berkeley expression communicates to everyone in the vicinity, “Isn’t it great that you and I and all of us here are morally superior to the rest of the world?”
Once you leave the city limits, you rarely encounter the Berkeley expression anywhere else. Which is why I was momentarily startled when I watching the Academy Awards at a friend’s house and the Berkeley expression unexpectedly flashed across the screen. It was radiating from the face of someone named Charles Ferguson, who had just won the Oscar for Best Documentary. Because my friends are all liberals (at best — some are far to the left of “liberal”), I kept my mouth shut as usual, but I thought to myself, “Wow! That guy, wherever he’s from, has really mastered the Berkeley-style smugness.” And then he gave his now-famous acceptance speech, which began with the sentence, “I must start by pointing out that three years after a horrific financial crisis caused by fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail — and that’s wrong.”
His winning documentary was called Inside Job, which traces the history of the financial meltdown of 2008, and places the blame entirely on greedy Wall Street insiders who scammed the world out of trillions of dollars. Every year, the Academy voters feel compelled to make some kind of political statement with an Oscar, and this year they chose Inside Job as their statement. Predictable.
At first I simply found it amusing that one can pinpoint someone’s hometown simply by their smug expression — just as Sherlock Holmes could identify the village you came from by the color of the mud splatters on your trouser cuffs — but as I continued to read the article, my mood took a decidedly political turn when I encountered this passage:
Robert Gnaizda, former president of Berkeley’s Greenlining Institute, says some of the responsibility lies with the current White House.
“There’s an unwillingness by the Obama administration to effectively criticize ‘too big to fail’ institutions,” said Gnaizda, who is featured in the documentary vainly warning successive Federal Reserve Board chairmen about the kind of doomed-to-fail loans Countrywide Financial and others were making.
Whoa whoa whoa — stop right there. Am I reading this correctly? The head of the Greenlining Institute is in the film warning against subprime loans???
My head starting spinning. And frankly, it’s still spinning. Because way back at the beginning of the financial meltdown, in September of 2008, I wrote a blog post with the following title:
This short post not only posits the exact opposite theory than does Inside Job, but it actually points the finger of blame at Robert Gnaizda’s Greenlining Institute as the ultimate cause of the problem, rather than as the heroes who tried to prevent the crisis.
I know I’m tilting at windmills here: the budget of my original post was exactly $0, and I’m up against an Academy-Award-winning film with a production budget of $2 million and which took over two years to complete. Furthermore, the narrative pushed by the film is the narrative favored and relentlessly affirmed by almost the entire media and all of academia, and it is therefore the narrative that the general public has come to accept.
But upon re-reading my own post (which even I had half-forgotten about), I was amazed at how still current it remains, and how the points I made two and half years ago seem to have had been written to specifically rebut the thesis of Inside Job, a film which hadn’t even been made yet.