The March of Obama’s Dark Cynicism

Obama spent several minutes this afternoon droning on and stuttering about the economy, injecting words like “folks” and “busted” into his typically boring speech as recommended by his handlers to get the plebes to relate more to His Harvardness. Among the many things he mentioned as a solution to the United States’ unprecedentedly massive deficit and debt are raising taxes on corporate jet owners, oil companies, other rich boogeymen, and salami-slicing entitlements, and more. Otherwise, he said, we won’t be able to subsidize the waste of young life that is grades 13-17, aka “college”; we won’t have medical research despite the fact that, well, we will; and gasp! a possible threat somehow to the efficacy of food inspection — you don’t want to die of e. coli do you? DO YOU?

But you know what jet owners he didn’t mention? Boeing and other military contractors. And rightly so — why bring attention to the biggest crony capitalists on the face of the earth, those who are most responsible for our deficits and destroyed economy. Those to whom we are forced to donate trillions of dollars and from whom we get NOTHING of use. That would just make Americans pay more attention to the real damage to our economy and liberties done by his glorious little “humanitarian” bombing projects across the earth.

Later, Obama repeated the Benghazi Myth of Libya intervention, as usual.

“This operation is limited in time and scope,” something he said in the beginning — “days, not weeks” — but since then we have no update on the exact “limit.” More rhetoric included Gadhafi’s alleged sponsoring of terror against the United States — 25 years ago, way before we had reengaged with his regime. This is all yawn-inducing stuff, rehashed from other cynical speeches, typical of the tortured justifications of the Bush and Obama administrations.

The president then said something so breathtaking on the question of the War Powers Act that I had to rewind to make sure I heard him right:

“I don’t even have to get to the constitutional question.”

The President of the United States, a so-called Constitutional scholar, and whose job it is to uphold the Constitution, thinks there are times, let alone of WAR, when he can take action without even thinking about the document that is the framework of the very entity that he himself heads?

Okay. Does anyone see this getting better?

20 thoughts on “The March of Obama’s Dark Cynicism”

  1. Obama "don't (doesn't?) even have to get to the constitutional question…"
    Ummm, impeachment? Ewww, ewww, ewww, Professor? Pick me pick me…
    My question is –
    Might the US Constitution hold any relevance for our modern times? Does our Commander-In-Cheese merely pay lip service to that constitutional oath OR does the C-I-C ignore that Constitution and/or Oath when politically expedient?
    Mr. Professor, follow up question –
    Does the President conscientiously lie his ass off OR, is the President really as stupid as he sounds?

    1. Ask Harry Truman the same question regarding Korea.
      Ask LBJ the same question regarding Vietnam.
      Ask Ronald Reagan the same question regarding Grenada.
      Ask Bill Clinton the same question regarding Kosovo or Bosnia.
      Ask George Bush the same question regarding Iraq.

      See a pattern yet?

      1. A.G., how are you?I agree completely. Seems the grand old US of A is locked in one vicious feedback loop of horrific proportion. Endless war and then some war and then some doofus “police action” and then and then… criminy, the banality is brutally murderous.

  3. “I don’t even have to get to the constitutional question.”

    And neither did Charlie McCarthy ever have to "get to" any serious answers to deep philosophical questions while sitting on Edgar Bergen's lap.

    1. Absolutely correct. Let us bypass Charlie and focus on Edgar. Ignore the face on the big screen. It's an empty suit. May well be CGI or something. What's that thing the (so-called) "truthers" are on about? Hollowgrams? He's a hollowgram. Fugettuhbowdidit. It's the man (men) behind the curtain we want to study upon.

      1. I recommend that Jeremy re-title this article "The Reigning Establishment's Dark Cynicism, as Filtered Through the Current Marionette-in-Chief." A bit lengthy, yes, but much more accurate and descriptive.

      2. Sorry Wootie, but you are being diverted by butterflies flapping their wings on the adjoining green (Cuthbert, n'est pas?)__Never mind: the Obomber-in-Chief is way over par on his round of being the sock-puppet.

        Anyway we both like Wodehouse, so wdf.

  4. Hope and Change…..

    Yes, I HOPE we get smart and exCHANGE our President for someone who is a little better at being President.

    If we re-elect President Palpatine again we deserve everything that we get.

    1. We DID re-elect President Palpatine twice already. The first time, he had the same Texas drawl and pallid skin when we first elected him. The second time, he dropped the Texas drawl and got a suntan. Maybe what we really need is to campaign for President Palpatine, under that very name. The two faces of the Dual Party's candidates can be seen on either side of the campaign placards, depending on whether one is looking at them as a Democroach or as a Republiscum. And even if we elect Ron Paul (fat chance!), we may well end up with Palpatine as Congressional and/or Supreme Court majority. After all, the Constitution is designed to institutionalize those structures that will violate it's own rules. Voting, by itself, accomplishes little.

      DON'T JUST VOTE — DO SOMETHING!

      1. "We" didn't elect President Palpatine (in ANY of his incarnations), nor have "we" ever elected any of his predecessors. That decision is made by the Puppetmasters long before the figurehead is ever even nominated by his "party."

        Incidentally, "Palpatine" is an improper reference here. Unlike the empty suits warming the Oval Office chair inside the Imperial Palace in Rome-on-the-Potomac, Chancellor-cum-Emperor Palpatine wielded actual power as head of the Galactic Empire.

        1. You're both right and wrong here. Sure, elections are a heavily rigged and manipulated game. But if the public wasn't comprised of complete rubes, the people behind the scenes would have to resort to a lot more open cheating to get their stooges in office.

Comments are closed.

viewpoint highlights
breaking news
© 2024 Antiwar.com. All rights reserved.
Antiwar.com Blog Stock Photos provided by our partner Depositphotos