Obama administration applying Soviet style tactics to silence the press

American politics has entered a truly surreal phase. For once, liberals and conservatives are united in their anger over the DOJ’s surveillance of the Associated Press and investigation of FOX News reporter James Rosen, and rightly so. In addition, as Glenn Greenwald points out in his latest New York Times editorial, “The administration of Barack Obama has prosecuted more accused leakers under "espionage" statutes than all prior administrations combined -- in fact, double the number of all prior such prosecutions.”

The same Obama who talked about greater transparency in government during his first campaign for President is now employing Soviet style suppression tactics to make sure the only news that’s reported is government approved. This goes way beyond fighting terrorism. It is a blatant program to intimidate critics and punish those reporters who dare challenge the administration’s policies.

To reiterate a point I’ve made before, it was the post 9/11 Bush administration that opened the Pandora’s Box of executive prerogative in the name of fighting terrorism that has led to the abuses we are seeing today in Washington. Instead of repudiating and rescinding Bush’s blatant overreach of Presidential power, Obama has embraced it, expanded on it and taken it to new levels of secrecy and persecution.

We can’t call ourselves a democracy under these circumstances. If we don’t allow our press to speak truth to power, we are no better than any other totalitarian regime.

Unless Obama makes some drastic changes to the laws governing the surveillance and treatment of reporters and whistleblowers, we will continue slipping into a very dark and surreal episode in American history where the truth is the enemy and freedom a distant memory. 

For Republicans, destroying Obama trumps everything

Republicans have spent almost a year now trying to turn the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi into Obama’s Waterloo. We now know that the supposedly incendiary emails relating to the event were doctored by Republicans in an attempt to embarrass the President. In the end, the only entity left embarrassed was ABC News, the one mainstream organization to eagerly represent the tainted emails as fact.

Although the administration is mired in an authentic scandal at the IRS, Benghazi is only the latest in a long line of mudslinging by Republicans in congress and the conservative media to try and destroy Barack Obama. The hatred of Obama on the right has reached a pathological stage. Facts don’t matter. Reality doesn’t matter. The prime directive is to bring the uppity negro to his knees at all costs.

The never-ending attacks on Obama are not really about the man himself. They are about what he represents. The election of Barack Obama marks the beginning of the end for the elite white patriarchy in America, and the remaining members of that small but powerful club are not going to go quietly into that good night.

Even though Obama’s policies and proposals are for the most part remarkably moderate, he stands for everything the elite worldwide fear; people of color rising to positions of power, the poor having a say in government, hope for the oppressed, accountability for the one percent. Obama is the vanguard of the future, and he is despised for that. Benghazi is a blatant and failed example of the unfettered hostility among the puppeteers to the emerging new world, but you can be sure there will be more attempts to bring the President down.

What’s most frightening is that the Right’s hatred of Obama is stronger than their love of this country. Real solutions to real problems are not on the agenda of Boehner and the Tea Party radicals in congress. Their true allegiance is to their corporate masters and the one-percenters; the people who bought them their seats in congress.

As Benghazi reveals, the Republicans and America’s elites are becoming more and more desperate to destroy Obama and all that he represents, and there’s nothing more dangerous then a wounded animal in the last throes of life.

Can Obama go from bullied to Bulworth?

So four years and five months into his presidency, Obama is reported to have told aides he’s tempted to “Go Bulworth,” an allusion to a 1998 Warren Beatty movie about a politician who decides to stop playing political games and be brutally honest. Whether this will actually happen seems unlikely, but the sentiment reflects the President’s frustration with a recalcitrant Congress.

The question that I have is what the hell took so long for Obama's pot to boil? Obama is not a dumb man, and yet it seems to have taken the Prez nearly five years to figure out that Republicans do not care about what’s good for America, but are only concerned with symbolically lynching the black man in the Oval Office.

I still don’t understand why Obama has chosen to take the path he has so far. Why has he been willing to give up so much to a band of yahoos in Congress who made it crystal clear years ago they were not going to support anything he proposed. Was it stubbornness? Lack of backbone? Bad advice from his cabinet members? It’s a mystery to me and many others.

If he really does have the courage to “Go Bulworth,” I will be the first to congratulate him on finally waking up and seeing the light. If he continues down the road he has been on for the past four years, he will end up having little to show for having spent two terms in the White House.

Minnesota's Moment

I’m very proud to live in Minnesota right now. Governor Dayton deserves praise for standing behind the marriage equality effort and signing it into law. Ours is an interesting state politically. At one point, we sent one of America’s most progressive senators to Washington, Paul Wellstone, and then turned around and elected one of the most conservative representatives in Michele Bachmann. Our politics, like our weather, is defined by extremes.

John Lennon was human. Imagine that.

Something called Listverse posted an article yesterday by Edward Benjamin titled, Top Ten Unpleasant Facts About John Lennon.

The list of John’s sins is dark, and includes, “wife beater,” “pathological liar,” “hypocrite” and other equally nasty attributes. Benjamin’s disdain for the late Beatle drips out of his prose like acid from a wounded Alien.

This type of article, the “So-and-so-was-not-the-great-person-you-think-he-was,” is truly the product of an unpleasant, unfulfilled writer. Whether the author is trashing Gandhi or Elvis or Martin Luther King, it’s a petty and childish form of gotcha that says much more about the author than the person about whom he is writing.

After all the categorizing and contempt, this hit piece boils down to the simplest of points: John Lennon was a flawed human being. Okay. Is it time for cocktails yet? The startling revelation that Lennon had many faults — was in fact like every other human being on our planet — is not news, and no one should get paid money to make such a mundane and pointless announcement.

Benjamin offers numerous examples of Lennon’s bad behavior throughout his life, and I don’t doubt that many of them are true. However, let’s take a moment to think about what your life would be like if you were instantaneously thrust into the public eye and regarded with almost god-like reverence by millions of people around the world. Everywhere you turn there are drugs to be had, beautiful women to sleep with, and sycophants granting your every wish. If you are honest, you know that your personal and private flaws would be magnified a million times and you might not look like the stellar individual you wish to think of yourself as in the eyes of your inevitable critics. And who would Benjamin put on the list of “healthy, well-adjusted superstars?” Michael Jackson? Elvis? Whitney Houston? Judy Garland? Kurt Cobain? Lennon is only one among many for whom stardom was a curse rather than a blessing.

I don’t even know to what audience Benjamin’s piece is directed. Lennon was a “Rock Star,” a phrase synonymous with drugs, sex and generally bad behavior. As far as I remember, Lennon never ran for Pope. Is there some subset of Lennon fans out there who think he was a flawless deity sent from Mt. Olympus? His fans don’t care that he used drugs or lied about his past. They care about the legacy of his music.

Then there is number five on Benjamin’s list: Talentless. “He wrote a handful of inspired songs,” the author concedes, but basically he was a hack as a musician. Average guitar player, poor lyricist, and in another section, Benjamin excoriates Lennon for being influenced by other musicians like Bob Dylan and Roy Orbison. Can you imagine that?

The absurdity of this assertion is mindboggling and I’m not even a huge Lennon fan. The man’s cannon of work speaks for itself. He was among the most influential musician/songwriters of the past 50 years, and to dispute that is to take a flat-earth position about modern music. Again, I would like a list of R&R stars past and present who were not influenced by others. I have no idea who would be on that list.

So to sum up, John Lennon was a flawed individual whose music was only sometimes brilliant. Careful Benjamin, with insights like that you could someday hit the big time, win a Pulitzer, and then, after you’re dead, some hack will write about what a horrible human being you were.

Today’s best news headline

Traveler from Saudi Arabia Arrested at Detroit Metro with Pressure Cooker

So here we have either the world’s stupidest terrorist or the world's most clueless international traveler.

If you are a terrorist, why would you bring a pressure cooker into a country where you can easily buy one, especially if you’re traveling from the Mideast going to the United States? 

“And why are you bringing a pressure cooker from Saudi Arabia?”

“Uh, I really, really like steamed vegetables. No? American pressure cookers are so cheap and badly made. Everyone knows this…. I’m going to start a falafel stand.”

“Come with me, Sir.”

"Oh, sure, and now I suppose you're going grill me about the sticks of dynamite strapped to my vest. It's because I'm Saudi Arabian, right?"

Donald Trump seeks crowdsource funding for biopic of his life

New York City — Billionaire entrepreneur, presidential candidate and TV personality Donald Trump is asking for the public’s help in financing a biographical film about himself. He is seeking $20 million in crowdsourced funds for a film that is tentatively titled, “The Donald.”

            Trump was  asked why a man as wealthy as he is would need to solicit money for a movie project.

            “I don’t actually need the money, but I wanted to give the public a chance to be a part of this monumental event. You see, the film isn’t just about me, although most of it is, but it’s also about America and the opportunities this great country provides for success. This is a theme that I think millions of citizens believe in and would want to be a part of. Plus, I want Scorsese to direct it and he don’t come cheap.”

            There has been a backlash from many independent filmmakers and others who think Trump is simply trying to get a film made on the cheap. George Bishop, president of the Independent Filmmakers of America said, “It’s absolutely the ultimate in narcissism for Trump to believe that average Americans are so in love with him that they would help pay to have a movie about him made. The guy is unbelievable.”

            Trump shrugged off the criticism. “No matter what you do in life, there are going to be whiners and complainers. This is going to be a film of historical importance and every donors name will be run in the credits. I don’t know why anyone would not want to be a part of this.”

            While a spokesperson for Trump declined to say how much money had been raised so far, a person close to the project said that after four days, they had taken in $27.00.