Archive for the 'Politics' Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
24
Mar

The Fall of America? It’s all about the Debt…

By Cynapse 0 Comments
Categories: American Politics, Economics and Politics

Mark Steyn continues to be a fantastic inspiration for impromptu posts with his thoughts on the loss of liberty and the eventual decline of the American empire:

What happens when the policies that brought ruin to Detroit and sclerosis to California become the basis for the nation at large? Strictly on the numbers, the United States is in the express lane to Declinistan: unsustainable entitlements, the remorseless governmentalization of the economy and individual liberty, and a centralization of power that will cripple a nation of this size. Decline is the way to bet. But what will ensure it is if the American people accept decline as a price worth paying for European social democracy.
…
The United States now spends more on its military than the next 40 or so nations combined. Yet in two rinky-dink no-account semi-colonial policing campaigns, it doesn’t feel like that, does it? A lot of bucks, but not much of a bang. You can understand why the entire Left and an increasing chunk of the Right would rather vote for a quiet life. But that’s not an option. The first victims of American retreat will be the many corners of the world that have benefited from an unusually benign hegemon. But the consequences of retreat will come home, too. In a more dangerous world, American decline will be steeper, faster, and more devastating than Britain’s — and something far closer to Rome’s.

Steyn makes many good points but from an economic perspective America was slated for decline since the 1980’s when they essentially did a kamikaze strike on the USSR. Amid the celebration of Reagan’s low taxes, very few people paid attention to two critical problems -

  1. Spending was far outstripping revenues, despite the increased number of revenue sources and so-called trickle-down
  2. Alan Greenspan was rapidly devaluing American currency (i.e. lowering interest rates) to keep the value of the debt low and to stimulate economic growth

Ironically, currency devaluation -long hailed by capitalists as a way of stimulating expansion- amounts to a hidden taxation – on income AND pre-existing savings. Since the mid 1980’s it has made more sense for consumers to be in debt than have savings, as the value of those debts has decreased rapidly. George Bush I did nothing about this issue (ie fire Greenspan) and Bill Clinton benefited from circumstance when the dotcom boom led to a temporary American surplus.

U.S. Debt Trends

U.S. Debt Trends (source - Wikipedia)

In the meantime, Japan and China bought American debt (e.g Treasury Bills) at a cracking pace – a trend that accelerated when Bush II decided to invade Iraq and will accelerate even more now that Obama has found health-care for 300 million people instead of 50 million.  With China holding nearly $780 billion dollars of American debt, the United States has relegated itself to toothless observer in the largest economic/military growth spot in the world (East Asia). Not a good economic position given China is the major long-term rival and has shown little regard for playing by the rules of most industrial nations.

The final nail in the coffin will probably be when the military-industrial complex collapses and free market forces dictate that weapons are best bought from countries that can produce them for cheaper. Again this will be China, which has both the expertise and the cheap labour. The main reason we all aren’t speaking Arabic is because the Ottoman/Seljuk/etc paid little attention to weapon-making and ended up having to buy weapons from the same “barbarians” they sought to crush during their attempts to conquer Europe. An empire without the ability to produce its own war in-house is doomed to fall.

12
Jan

Affirmative action needed in Canada’s Parliament?

By EdWord 3 Comments
Categories: Canadian Politics and Media

According to a Globe and Mail editorial yesterday, affirmative action is needed to make the Canadian Parliament reflect “inclusivity and diversity.” Why? Because there are fewer women than men. See also Janet McFarlane’s column today: “Where are the female politicians?”

I can’t help wonder: Did it never occur to the Globe’s editorial board that perhaps the majority of women really don’t want to enter public life, that maybe men and women really are “different” in terms of life “choices?” And, isn’t that what feminism is supposed to be about? Choice!

As the National Post editorial says today, notions of affirmative action are far more undemocratic than prorogation:

“The Globe cares deeply about the state of Canada’s democracy. We know this because it recently ran a front-page editorial denouncing Stephen Harper for performing an ‘underhanded manoeuvre to avoid being accountable to Parliament.’ But when it comes to the MPs who actually populate that Parliament, Globe editorialists have no problem gerrymandering the place to suit their feminist veiwpoint. To hell with the people Canadian voters actually want to elect.”

Look, I consider myself a feminist in the sense that I believe both men and women should have equal opportunities and choices in life no matter what their gender, their sexual preference, their colour, race, religion or culture. But, at the end of the day, running for political office is a personal choice — a choice that is either accepted or rejected by the voters.

No appointments. No slam dunks. No gerrymandering. Being elected by the people should be the only type of affirmative action we need.

C/P at Jack’s Newswatch & Just Politics.

28
Dec

Dreaming of the Queen – Republic vs Commonwealth

By Emilia Liz 4 Comments
Categories: Canadian Politics and Politics

In the summer of 2010 Queen Elizabeth II is scheduled to come to Canada .  Her visit follows that earlier this year of her son Charles and his wife Camilla.  I suspect that the Queen’s visit will garner some coverage in the press but not much attention among the general public.  Unlike her glamorous late daughter-in-law Diana, Elizabeth II doesn’t pique the curiosity of the average person.  Canadians appear to like but not revere the Queen, as exemplified in the attitude of an old Portuguese doctor who in the Toronto weekly Voice wrote that he considered Elizabeth II a genuinely good person yet laughed at the fact she wore hats similar to those his grandmother used to wear.

Though most Canadians don’t seem to have anything particularly against the Queen as an individual, she has increasingly found herself at the centre of a controversy over the institution she represents: the British monarchy.  Some people believe Canada should throw off the final yoke of British colonialism, scrap the monarchy, and become a republic.  Others by contrast feel equally strongly that Canada should remain part of the British Commonwealth – so strongly that they have formed groups such as the Monarchist League of Canada to ensure our country remains under the royal wing.

I myself am fairly agnostic on the issue..  My sense is that if we embraced republicanism tomorrow, life wouldn’t change much, either for better or for worse, in this country.  However, while I’m hardly demanding that Canada go (small “r”) republican, nor would I necessarily fight to keep Queen Elizabeth on as our head of state if there were any serious movement to literally dethrone her.  So I’d like to present the “pro” and “con” arguments, with their relevant counterpoints, for making Canada a completely independent nation or not.

Pro-Republican Arguments

#1 It is wrong that a person holds the position of head of a state simply for having been born into a particular family

From a purely rationalistic standpoint, it does seem both absurd and unjust that due to an accident of birth an individual can have their image placed on a nation’s currency, their initial in court cases (the “R” in “R. v. [name of defendant]” stands for “Regina,” meaning “Queen” in Latin) and their photograph in government buildings.  This absurdity/injustice strikes us as even more untenable if we think that the royals are only human.   A reader of a Montreal-based Italian-language publication put it even more succinctly: the royals obviously have no morality (this was just after the Camillagate tapes and pictures of the Duchess of York topless at the side of a pool came out), so why should they be more exalted than any of us common mortals?

Counterargument: This argument would be more convincing if the royals had any real power.  But several generations now the British monarchs have been mere figureheads.  If the Queen decided she was a pro-lifer, for instance, she would essentially be forced to go about trying to ban abortion the same way the head of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children would: by first swaying the opinion of the general public and from there that of the elected officials.  So the ability of the Queen or whoever succeeds her to influence our everyday lives is fairly limited.

#2 The British monarchy has no place in a multicultural society like Canada today

This argument was made by the above-mentioned Portuguese doctor in Voice. While he personally likes the Queen, he claims that having a member of a British family as Canada ’s head of state makes no sense in a nation where the Governor-General is a Black woman of Haitian descent and where some of our most prominent citizens boast names like Medeiros, Silva, Patel and Suzuki. Canada is a different country from that forty years ago when the majority of Canadians still hailed from White Anglo-Saxon Protestant stock.  So it is time our form of government reflected that change.

Counterargument: Canada ’s demography has indeed changed in the past half-century.  However, other than the special case of Quebec Canada is basically an Anglo-Saxon country culturally speaking.  In the words of Lawrence E. Harrison in his book The Pan-American dream, “anglophone Canada is not really multicultural.  Its bedrock is the same Anglo-Protestant system of values and attitudes that is the cultural foundation of the United States , and it is to this system that successful immigrants to Canada … acculturate.”  This does not mean Canada should remain under the Queen –after all, the United States ditched the British monarchy over two centuries ago without losing its Anglo-Saxon character.  But becoming a republic would not automatically make non-WASPs feel any more at home here.
Continue reading ‘Dreaming of the Queen – Republic vs Commonwealth’

10
Dec

Should the West Ban the Minaret?

By Emilia Liz 7 Comments
Categories: Religion and World Politics

Some years ago I was driving around Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, with the editor of a magazine to which I sometimes contribute. On one block stood a Catholic church, a synagogue, and a mosque. My editor exclaimed that in his city, followers of the three great monotheistic religions were able to live in harmony with one another.

I understood his pride. Toronto boasts a similar religious diversity. A small Lutheran church I occasionally attend on College Street, for example, is in walking distance of a Buddhist temple, two synagogues (in Kensington Market, a traditional Jewish enclave) as well as several Christian churches of other denominations. Though Canada and Venezuela are for the most part at least nominally Christian nations, both have received immigrants from other religious traditions who have left their mark on their host societies. Thus a mosque like Toronto’s Masjid-El-Noor, complete with minaret (the tall slender tower attached to the mosque), does not look out-of-place in a major urban centre in a neo-Europe.

But perhaps not in Old Europe. At least that is what 57% OF Swiss citizens thought when in a referendum last month they voted in favour of a constitutional amendment that would ban the further construction of minarets in their country. The minaret, as mentioned above, is the tower attached to the mosque from which, in Islamic countries, the faithful are called to prayer.* Switzerland currently has four minarets. The amendment would not see them destroyed but would prohibit others to be built in future.

The amendment itself was spearheaded by the Swiss People’s Party, a right-wing group that made news a year ago by proposing that the families of immigrants who commit crimes be deported along with their offending member. The Party’s rationale for banning the minaret is that the structure symbolizes “political Islam and sharia law.” They emphasize the importance of guarding Switzerland against the alleged growing threat of Islamicization in Europe. In addition, they say, Muslims in the country would still be allowed to practise their religion and even to build new mosques (minus the minaret, of course).

The result of the referendum received widespread attention. On the one hand, it was praised by many conservatives, including several who openly stated “God bless the Swiss” (a somewhat ironic remark in that the Swiss aren’t especially religious). Some saw the decision as a kind of “tit for tat,” as the construction of churches is legally forbidden in a number of Islamic nations, such as Saudi Arabia. On the other side, the proposed ban was condemned as discriminatory and even racist. This criticism came not only from Muslims themselves but even from some Christian church leaders who viewed the ban as an infringement on religious freedom. Some Muslims furthermore pointed out what they believed was the injustice of the decision, noting that Serbian Orthodox churches and Sikh temples (called gurdwaras) are now being built on Swiss soil. Another frequent observation is that most of the Muslims in Switzerland do not hail from Islamic theocracies but from relatively secular places like Bosnia and thus hardly appear to be involved in any scheme to “Islamicize” their host country.

On a purely aesthetic level I can understand the ban. A minaret does seem somewhat incongruous in a landscape of chalets and church steeples. The Swiss may not be particularly observant judging by measures like church attendance, but they may hold a certain attachment to the religious traditions that form part of their history. And while neo-Europes like Canada and Venezuela have enjoyed their present-day Western culture for 500 years at most (the oldest Western city in the Americas, Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic, was founded in 1498), Switzerland’s roots go back centuries. So the Swiss may regard the minaret as a sort of intrusion on those traditions.

On the other hand, I can’t help seeing the Swiss People’s Party’s spectre of Islamicization as a cheap ploy for votes. The fact that most Muslims in Switzerland aren’t radicals and aren’t even native to countries where militant Islam holds sway confirms my feeling, as does the Party’s ad for the ban, a picture of missile-like minarets sprouting up from a Swiss flag fronted by a woman in a black veil Also, logically it strikes me a bit puzzling that if the Swiss People’s Party is so concerned about an Islamic takeover why don’t they ban mosques themselves, in which after all the dreaded Muslim teaching supposedly goes on, rather than just the minarets? I fail to understand what is so dangerous about the minaret per se.

Throughout this debate the issue of religious freedom frequently arises. It is true that Muslims will not be forbidden to practise their faith or even build new mosques. Yet the ban on the minaret, without any justification other than it supposedly represents Islamic power, does come across as arbitrary and authoritarian. Similarly, the argument that what Switzerland decided was right because Islamic nations do the same or worse isn’t very convincing. Call me ethnocentric, but I like to think that we in the West are above fighting intolerance with more intolerance. (It’s moreover doubtful whether the Muslims affected by the minaret ban are the same people who would proscribe the construction of Christian houses of worship in their own countries.) The West should in my view show a good example of religious tolerance to the rest of the world.

We should now address the question of Serbian Orthodox churches and Sikh temples being permitted on Swiss territory. To put it simply, these faiths don’t have the same implications in the West that Islam does. While there are few if any “native” Orthodox Christians in Switzerland, Eastern Orthodoxy is not much different from Catholicism or Protestantism (the main religions in Switzerland). More importantly, the Orthodox do not seem to harbour any particular animosity towards the West. Nor do most Sikhs. Despite its doctrinal distance from Christianity, Sikhism as a faith and Sikhs as individuals are not perceived as a threat to the West or Western culture. Islam, and by extension all Muslims, are. Undoubtedly the members of the Swiss People’s Party know this, hence their silence on gurdwaras and Orthodox churches.

I am sure that if a similar referendum had been held in Canada I would have voted to allow the minarets, even though I’m not Muslim myself and even though I’m uncomfortable with some of the ways Islam is practised today. I like to believe that if I lived in Switzerland I would do the same. But I’m not Swiss. I’m not part of a country with ingrained traditions going back at least a millennium, not mere generations.

However, in the end the Swiss are masters of their own nation, and I won’t challenge the decisions they make in democratically held referenda. The best way to reverse the results of this decision is by internal dialogue, not by rulings made from on high. Further discussions on the matter promise to be interesting.

* The “adhan,” or call to prayer, was not an issue here, as it was in Britain, given that in Switzerland the call only takes place within the confines of the mosque itself.

15
Aug

Is Disagreeing with ObamaCare Inherently Racist?

By Cynapse 3 Comments
Categories: American Politics, Politics and Short Shots

Lots of people disagree with Obama for lots of reasons.  His policies are very European in nature and to the left of most Americans, including within his own party.  Many of his supporters  last election hoped that he would set some of those views aside and govern from the center, and he has in some areas (war, terror).  However, this healthcare bill offended many both in its universal nature and in the way he tried to ram it through congress.

Disagreeing with universal health care or Obama’s shotgun approach to passing it isn’t racist.  Even wanting to preserve your tax dollars as a general principle isn’t racist.  The WAY you choose to protest could be, though.  The REASON you disagree with health care could also be racist.  I believe many of these charges would have still been levied if, say Hillary Clinton was president.  After all, who will disproportionately benefit from universal health care?  Poor Latinos and Blacks.  As soon as some people hear that, they can’t close their wallets fast enough, even if they were willing to shell out a billion a day to bomb poor Arabs and throw a ticker tape parade after every mission.

28
Jul

Identity theft in China? Xue Longlong’s story

By EdWord 2 Comments
Categories: World Politics

Bloggers — spread this story far and wide. It is about Xue Longlong of Xian in the People’s Republic of China and allegations that some local officials are stealing individual education files and selling them to those who did not get good grades.

For Mr. Xue, the implications are huge because without that file and proof of good grades and college graduation, Chinese citizens essentially cease to exist. In other words, when you steal the accumulated education file, you are stealing who they are and what they could become – the most extreme form of identity theft!

What a horrifying idea. He worked hard for years and does well, preparing for a hopeful future and in one corrupt moment, it is gone and he is doomed to a life of servitude. Which may explain why he is speaking out to the western media — because he has little to lose.

To a westerner, the audacity is enough to take our breath away. Read this New York Time article at Jack’s Newswatch.

As a Canadian citizen, I just cannot imagine how anyone could steal another person’s academic record and that person’s identity without it being obvious. Why, for example, can Mr. Xue not simply get a duplicate file or a transcript from the college where he graduated?

Moreover, if selling a personal file is corruption so is accepting one as valid. Surely there are photographs or home addresses or other personal identifying information. In other words, no excuses should be accepted by Chinese authorities when a local official says some files were inadvertently “lost.”

As the NYT article by Sharon LaFraniere states:

“[In China] the files are irreplaceable histories of achievement and failure, the starting point for potential employers, government officials and others judging an individual’s worth.”

“But two years ago, Mr. Xue’s file did vanish. So did the files of at least 10 others, all 2006 college graduates with exemplary records, all from poor families living near this gritty north-central town on the wide banks of the Yellow River.”

“With the Manila folders went their futures, they say.”

“Local officials said the files were lost when state workers moved them from the first to the second floor of a government building. But the graduates say they believe officials stole the files and sold them to underachievers seeking new identities and better job prospects — a claim bolstered by a string of similar cases across China.”

How can that happen?

If readers have an e-mail address to people within China, please send them the URL to both the NYT article and this post. We must get the word out! Here  also is contact information for the People’s Republic of China embassy in Ottawa.

Remember, in any communications to Chinese officials, be courteous and polite as that is a cultural expectation. Simply ask them to request that their central government get to the bottom of these allegations. Files were lost. That we can confirm. If the officials who lost them were promoted, something is not right.

Moreover, if the Chinese government simply discounts or blames the victims, – including Mr. Xue – that is not right either. No Chinese citizen will risk going to the western media unless there is truth to the allegations. And, the fact that he has spoken out, shows he is trying to expose this issue.

Let’s use the Internet to help.

C/P at Crux-of-the-Matter and Jack’s Newswatch.

08
Jun

Why Would this Fiscal Conservative Support Obama? Toxicity.

By Cynapse 5 Comments
Categories: American Politics and Politics

Note: While keeping this blog relatively politics-free over the past few months, I’ve been fervently defending Obama at Jack’s Newswatch against all manner of attacks (some particularly underhanded). One of my favorite counter-posters inquired why if I was an Obama-maniac do I appear to be falling back. Airing direct political views isn’t something I like to do too often but it’s worthy clearing the air in this instance. Below is a slight modification of my response:

Actually, I supported Clinton over Obama, stating that Obama would be a wonderful candidate … for 2012.

When McCain came up I supported McCain over Obama because Obama’s economic policies didn’t (and don’t) appeal to me. I am a fiscal conservative in the truest sense – money coming in should surpass money going out, no matter how “righteous” the spending. This applies to both government housing and Middle-Eastern war-mongering. Both Obama and Reagan were/are failures in this respect (a tax cut is simply another form of redistribution and is just as toxic when combined with skyrocketing spending).

However, when McCain introduced Sarah Palin and she brought along her gaggle of toxic rednecks, I turned the corner. So did many people to the right of me. We held our nose and hoped for the best for Obama.

So far it doesn’t look like he’s done anything that Bush hadn’t done or wasn’t en route to doing. No one’s mortgage has been paid off, Acorn has not been given any special mandate to help the poor, etc. That doesn’t bother me, but it should bother his heartfelt believers. I’ll continue to defend Obama against anything that looks like a Blog-lynching, just as blacks who did not believe in MLK’s conciliatory approach to civil rights nonetheless defended him against the KKK and similar groups. But that’s where my support ends. I’d honestly rather have a beer with Bush – he seems less pretentious and more likely to embrace Cynapse’s oddball humor. I didn’t care for “shrub” as a leader, mind you.

Still, to say Obama should fail is equivalent to saying America should fail. That’s pretty toxic talk, and people who campaign for Obama’s downfall even though record deficits hang in the balance are basically saying they’d rather have their nation fail financially than not have their pet projects funded (or worse yet, withhold funding from their neighbors just to “stay ahead”). That’s exceptionally selfish.

26
May

Movie Review – Manufacturing Dissent

By Cynapse 1 Comment
Categories: American Politics, Media, Movie Reviews, Politics and Reviews

Title: Manufacturing Dissent
Release: 2007
Genre: Documentary
Run Time: 97 Minutes
Publisher: Liberation Entertainment
Rating: 70%

Few filmmakers can claim to have a greater impact on American political culture than Michael Moore. His initial release, Roger & Me, revolutionized the modern documentary by casting the filmmaker as truth-seeking protagonist. Moore’s relentless pursuit of then GM CEO Roger Smith about his company’s decision to move manufacturing jobs to Mexico (and thus decimating the economy of Flint, Michigan) provided the perfect mix of comedy and social commentary. Moore’s quirky yet infectious approach would be further refined in several subsequent documentaries, including Bowling for Columbine and the anti-war Fahrenheit 9/11.

Michael Moore took his role as left-wing agitator to the extreme, creating a cottage industry for counter documentaries that question his political intentions, dishonest editing of footage and truthfulness of his factual claims. Most of these films, among them Fahrenhype 9/11, Celsius 41.11 and Michael Moore Hates America, are also American and decidedly right wing in nature. However one documentary stands alone in the group. It is Canadian both in origin and presentation, created by Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine (previously known for their work on Citizen Black). While not counter-partisan, their film raised as many or more disturbing questions about the intentions of Michael Moore as its more fervent brethren.

Filmmaker Michael Moore

Manufacturing Dissent is a Michael Moore style documentary, only casting Melnyk as the truth-seeking protagonist and Moore as the evasive object of interest. Along her ill-fated journey, Melnyk interviews a plethora of Moore’s current and former friends. Most are in the former category and portray Moore as an egomaniac not so concerned with finding justice for the little guy as he is with making money and a name for himself. The interviewees pull few punches in their assessment of the award-winning filmmaker:

  • A former writer for the publication Rock n Roll confidential alleges a young publisher Michael Moore used some articles for his own local paper without paying the proper royalties. Moore is also accused of not paying his staff
  • The infamous Mother Jones controversy is covered in moderate detail, with former employees of the magazine describing Moore as a tyrant who demoralized his employees and sanitized the image of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas – a revolutionary group often seen as too extreme even for the American anti-Reagan left.
  • Producers and others involved with Roger & Me allege timeline manipulations, staged events and most startlingly that Michael Moore actually received two interviews with Roger Smith (both ended up on the cutting room floor, so to boost the dramatic effect of GM’s depravity)
  • In stark contradiction to the anti-war sentiment contained the documentary Fahrenheit 911, Moore’s private foundation was discovered to have owned and sold stocks in defense contractors that profited from the Iraq invasion – most notably Honeywell and Halliburton (the latter being publicly associated with none other than George W. Bush’s VP, Dick Cheney)

The intended and well-demonstrated irony in Manufacturing Dissent is that Michael Moore reacts very badly when confronted with Michael Moore style gotcha journalism – much worse than, say, Roger Smith. The unintended irony of the film is that it can be discounted for the same reason as most of Moore’s documentaries. On several occasions, Melnyk swoops in on Moore during public appearances, demanding his undivided attention to tough questions even though other cameras are rolling, before getting silenced by Moore’s omnipresent security. Very seldom do targets put on the spot in this manner answer gracefully and thoughtfully, suggesting that the viewer is not getting both sides of the story.

Michael Moore probed for Roger & Me

More importantly, Melnyk misses the opportunity to explain in detail how Michael Moore actually manufactures dissent. For instance, it’s not enough to chase around the CEO of GM and indirectly present his supposed evasion as a reason to rebel against GM’s decision to move manufacturing jobs to Mexico – the economic incentives for moving jobs to Mexico (despite immediate relocation/retraining costs and reputation risk) must also be explored. What role did American unions and labour costs play? Is Mexico exploiting its own people to secure manufacturing jobs? Is GM merely a symptom of a much larger problem concerning US trade with third world countries? In terms of shaping opinion, it could be argued that ignoring the economic mechanics behind unpopular decisions like relocating GM jobs is just as critical as superimposing distraught civilians over clips of aloof political figures. Unfortunately, Manufacturing Dissent ignores these possibilities in favour of merely trying to make Moore sweat the same way he enjoys making other sweat.

Manufacturing Dissent is vindictive, somewhat disjointed and plays more like a lengthy episode of W5 than a documentary film. Conversely, it excels at probing the intentions of the man behind the Michael Moore myth without coming off as a right wing hit job, occupying that rare space in the documentary spectrum where politicized figures can be dissected without necessarily making a political statement. Given the cultural prominence of Moore’s films and the dogmatic zeal of his supporters, Manufacturing Dissent becomes nearly essential in understanding what drives this polarizing cultural icon.

17
Mar

Movie Review – The Obama Deception

By Cynapse 24 Comments
Categories: American Politics, Movie Reviews, Politics and Reviews

Title: The Obama Deception
Release: 2009
Genre: Documentary
Run Time: 112 Minutes
Publisher: Alex Jones Productions
Rating: 82%
URL: http://www.obamadeception.net/

The Obama Deception is the latest documentary film from talk-show host anti-Globalist activist Alex Jones. The film opens with dramatic election footage backed by excerpts from various Obama speeches but wastes no time tearing into Obama’s populist image with an opening monologue by rapper and activist KRS-One (aka Kris Parker) that compares the role of president to being shift manager at a Burger King. Parker ends his diatribe by observing that the angry customers (i.e. voters) can complain all day to the manager but never get to see the owners of the restaurant.

The Obama DeceptionParker’s analogy summarizes the film’s premise: Barack Obama, like all U.S. presidents since JFK, is little more than an attractive empty suit who was promoted by the political “elites” to quell public anger over the direction of the Bush administration. The president’s role is largely ceremonial to pacify the masses while the real power is held by international bankers and non-elected bodies like the Federal Reserve and the mysterious Bildeberg Group. These non-elected bodies aim to consolidate their world power by precipitating a crisis (e.g. the recent failure of the banking system tied to sub-prime mortgages) that will coax the people into submitting more of their civil liberties to centralized powers in exchange for (perceived) security.

Jones seeks to prove this thesis by demonstrating a long history of economic imperialism, the way unelected bodies have affected the policies of past U.S. presidents (the JFK conspiracy is discussed, as he was allegedly the last president who truly tried to change the system; his comeuppance is illustrated via the infamous Zapruder assassination film) and most importantly compare the one-time senator Obama’s platform to what has actually been done since he took the white house. Despite President Obama’s term being barely 3 months, Jones provides a rather impressive list of promises already broken by the 44th president of the United States:

  • Instead of repealing the patriot act as pledged, Barrack Obama voted to reinstate it
  • Obama watered down his original pledge to bring all troops home from Iraq in 6 months. Now a only portion of troops will allegedly be brought home in 23 months
  • While signing off the closing of Guantanamo bay, Obama’s mandate still allows for rendition; the administration threatened to cut intelligence ties to the United Kingdom over alleged evidence of American misdeeds
  • Despite being elected on a platform of neutralizing lobbyists, Obama’s cabinet contains some of the most powerful lobbyists in the country. Most notably, treasury secretary Timothy Geithner was a top lobbyist for Goldman Sachs – to date, the leading beneficiary of the so-called stimulus packages ($12.9 billion)

This documentary excels at providing externally verifiable facts and sometimes shocking footage. For instance, most people probably didn’t know that Barrack Obama -model liberal- has ties to staunch Republicans. The film reveals one of Obama’s early endorsers to be none other than Henry Kissinger – the former Secretary of State is shown in a CNBC clip declaring Obama to be the perfect candidate to set a new world order.

Seasoned skeptics will be relieved to hear that The Obama Deception provides a concise description of what they believe to be President Obama’s agenda for the coming years:

  1. Bringing the US financial system under the control of the Bank of the World
  2. Conscription for persons aged 18-24 into a domestic paramilitary force under direct command of the president
  3. Disarmament of Americans through stricter gun control
  4. Strong restrictions on free speech through promotion of the Fairness Doctrine and various hate speech laws
  5. Military control of African resources through Africom (to secure resources and push away China from the continent)
  6. Further integration with Mexico and Canada in preparation for the North American Union
  7. Federal control of family farms through animal ID legislation

The Obama Deception - Movie ReviewPerhaps most shockingly, the film alleges that Obama will in due time fall on his sword and take responsibility for the social upheaval resulting from this agenda. This virtual abdication will pave the way for the next Republican “saviour” who will court the American people as a renegade against socialism, all while perpetuating the agenda dictated by the “elites”.

It’s at this point that The Obama Deception starts to resemble the standard conspiracy theory flick, recently popularized by Zeitgeist and Loose Change (Jones was executive producer for the latter). This perception is only bolstered by the film-maker’s own footage of supported activists picketing and harassing cars entering various political functions they allege to be anti-democratic, playing cat and mouse with event security. The factual portions of the film are not immune to scrutiny either. The Obama Deception backs its core thesis by repeatedly sequencing verifiable information, somewhat alarming (if abbreviated) video clips that could be taken out of context and allusions to sinister activity that seem logical based on the presented information. It’s the classic Yes-Yes strategy of persuasion used by the aforementioned films – a technique that can reach the same level of deception Jones alleges of the president. Alex Jones is no stranger to controversy himself, having spearheaded a movement to rebuild the infamous Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas that was destroyed by the ATF during its pursuit of cult leader David Koresh. Jones has also produced several conspiratorial films such as Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement and 911: The Road to Tyranny (containing some of the more infamous 911 conspiracy theories). In fact, it could be said that The Obama Deception is merely clever marketing in that it attacks Obama in a seemingly partisan way to bait audiences into hearing Jones’ traditional messages regarding totalitarian world government.

Hence, the Obama Deception is not the smear job some political partisans may have hoped for; instead, it is a discomforting launch point for discussion about the impotence of American democracy. If viewers come away from this film with one question, it is hopefully be why such readily available facts and inconsistencies must be highlighted in fringe films and not the so-called free press (from the Huffington Post to FOX News) that shapes the vast majority of public opinion and has been supposedly liberated by the internet.

A large grain of salt is required, as always, but some of this information simply can’t be dismissed out of hand (plus, we skeptics were given a prediction score-card on which to grade the film). Watch and decide for yourself.



28
Feb

The Staniszewski Affair: The Freedom to Discriminate?

By Emilia Liz 0 Comments
Categories: Canadian Politics and Society

My hometown of Windsor , Ontario is not a particularly happening place. Overshadowed by the American metropolis of Detroit across the river, Windsor has little crime but not much excitement either. In the past few days, though, the city has found itself in a firestorm of controversy after a retired judge there by the name of Paul Staniszewski ordered that several scholarships he established at the University of Windsor and York University (his alma mater) not be given to Muslim students. This stipulation is, in his own words, a “tit for tat” for the beheading of a Polish engineer in Pakistan by the Taliban. Staniszewski’s statements have raised a wave of public commentary, with some supporting the judge, others condemning him, and still more expressing decidedly mixed feelings. The two universities themselves have refused to comply with his request, calling it discriminatory and even illegal.

The judge’s logic does seem somewhat warped. The average Muslim student on a Canadian college campus is probably far removed from the people who killed the engineer in Pakistan . A fair number of these students might actually be embarrassed by the Taliban’s actions. If I were a Muslim myself, I would almost certainly be offended by Staniszewski’s decision. By the same token, I would be upset if my daughter, as a Christian, were denied a bursary on account of people like Fred Phelps, the American Baptist minister who pickets funerals of gay men with signs reading “God Hate Fags.” (By the way, I find Phelps disgusting and harmful to the reputation of Christianity as a whole). One wonders who would qualify, or disqualify, as a Muslim in Staniszewski’s eyes. Could a student who was raised in the Islamic faith but later fell away from it or, better yet, embraced another religion – in particular Staniszewski’s religion, which I presume is Roman Catholicism – access his scholarships? Would a former Muslim who had since become an atheist or agnostic be required to openly denounce his or her faith of upbringing in order to apply for one or more of these bursaries?

The point has been made that many existing scholarships by their very nature discriminate against certain classes of individuals. For example, scholarships set up specifically for girls or Native Canadians automatically exclude male and/or Black/White/Asian students. On the other hand, there is the issue of motivation. Most people who earmark bursaries for female or Native students do so out of concern that women and Aboriginals are being short-changed by the Canadian educational system, not out of hostility to men or non-Natives. Judge Staniszewski’s acts appear to be spurred solely by anger towards Muslims. (It must be said that as a member of a profession that prides itself on its impartiality and rationalism, Staniszewski’s emotionalism does not strike me as especially judge-like.) It is the explicitness rather than implicitness of Staniszewski’s exclusion to which many, including the above-mentioned universities, object.

In the end, I would agree with a number of observers that Judge Staniszewski has the right to do what he wants with his own money, regardless of his reasoning. I would add that the universities also have every right not to go along with his request. At this point the best course of action would be for Staniszewski to withdraw his scholarships from the institutions in question and, if he wishes, set up a similar bursary on his own. While this solution might not make everybody happy, it would be the most effective way to preserve both Staniszewski’s individual freedom to act according to his own conscience and the universities’ obligation not to engage in discrimination against any particular category of students.

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Further Research

Twitter

Archives

Categories