B’Man’s Hypocrite Watch: Keith Olbermann

B’Man: OK, I ragged the man already, but saw this posted the other day at The Smirking Chimp by Michael Kwiatkowski and thought, “What better way than to add this as an exclamation mark to my presentation.” Keith either needs to back off his indefensible bullshit, apologize or prepare for a loss of dedicated viewers.

Olbermann has sold out.

I just got done reading Keith Olbermann’s tortured excuse for not calling out Barack Obama on his FISA cave, and frankly, it’s as lame as it can get. Sorry, Keith, but you’ve sold out to the far right without even realizing it. Here’s why.

Throughout this campaign, you’ve been doing little or nothing but bash Hillary Clinton for all the wrong reasons. While the senator supposedly representing New York has undoubtedly made plenty of verbal gaffes and has a poor record of defending the Constitution against the shrub and his gargoyle, you focused your rage exclusively upon her, and for all the wrong things. One example is her suggestion that the bigot bloc might not vote for Obama, which is true: no matter how much he panders to the far right, no matter how often he bashes blacks to their faces, the bigots in this country simply are not going to vote for a black man for president; they’d sooner cast their ballots for a white woman. You, however, joined in with those who relentlessly attacked her for pointing out this fundamental truth.

The selling your soul to the Obama fan club isn’t apparent only in your relentless attacks on Clinton; you’ve failed time and again to jump on your candidate of choice for things you would never have let others get away with. In a piece by Counterpunch’s Gregory Kafoury, the writer reminds us that the senator supposedly representing Illinois has committed a slew of misdeeds on the campaign trail that include:

- Obama announced a new financial team of supply-side economists led by Jason Furman, famous for declaring that it would be “damaging to working people” if Wal-Mart were to raise its wages and benefits. Obama had recently criticized Clinton for serving on the Wal-Mart board, declaring, “I won’t shop there.” In the Audacity of Hope, he sympathized with “Wal-Mart associates who hold their breath every single month in the hope they’ll have enough money to support their children.”

-When questioned in a Fortune interview about his promise to renegotiate NAFTA to protect workers and the environment, Obama replied, “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.”

- In a close congressional primary race in Georgia, Obama endorsed a troglodyte incumbent – a “Bush enabler” – over an exemplary progressive insurgent.

- In a speech to the Israeli lobby, he moved to the right of Israel’s government by ruling out negotiations with Hamas. A day earlier, Obama had told Cuban exile groups that he would only sit down with Raul Castro if the exiles had a seat at the table, a precondition that Cuba will never agree to.

- Obama refused to criticize recent Israeli war maneuvers and accompanying threats to launch massive air attacks on Iran. He failed to even urge restraint.

- Just as a move was growing in the Senate to strip the House-passed Telecom bill of its immunity provisions, Obama declared his support for the House version. Obama’s opposition to immunity had been our best hope to learn whose phones and emails had been wiretapped by the Bush administration, and to punish those Telecom companies that assisted this massive criminal enterprise.

This last is especially relevant, because while you dismiss Glenn Greenwald’s critique of you, the fact remains that you would have ripped into any other prominent politician for caving in to the shrub on FISA and telecomm immunity. That it happens to be Obama selling out to the far right in exchange for power changes nothing; it’s still a craven capitulation to the shrub, no matter how one tries to spin it.

You’ve lost your impartiality, Keith, and for that you must apologize. Not only that, you must recognize that it is more important to tell the Truth than to get another corporate-conservative Democrat elected to office. You’re an intelligent man, Keith. You know as well as anyone else that if Obama will not stand up and defend the Constitution and the rule of law as a senator running for president, he certainly won’t do it as president. I expect to see you on the air from now on, ripping into Obama with all the passion and fury you reserved for the shrub and Hillary Clinton. The enemy is not confined to the ranks of the Republican Party: it is the entirety of the power structure, and this includes Obama.

You owe it to us, your viewers, to return to the standard you helped set by going after all the powerful, not just those you dislike.

Taking On The White Establishment: Delusional?

One reason I like Ralph Nader so much is that he holds back no punches on the issues (Manila Ryce at The Largest Minority called him the “Termi-Nader” and made the pic to the right). Nader goes straight to the heart of the issue, where the others will avoid those true issues with all their ability. No matter whether or not Ralph stands a chance in winning, his being on the ballot will insure that America hears the heart of the issue and we won’t allow the Big Two to hide those things MOST important.

In the meantime, if America would awake from its hopelie-induced slumber, maybe they will see that the issues Ralph supports are the best for each and every American (except the richest who have been stealing us blind all along: the White Establishment.)

So, when Nader told Obama that he needs to “take on the white establishment”, do you know what he means? Is Nader “delusional” as Obama claimed or is Obama “illusional” as Nader claimed?

If you are a black person, do you feel like Nader meant that Obama should take on the white people in some retributive way? If you are white, do you feel like Nader is asking for an assault against whites by blacks?

Do you (virtually anyone who reads this blog) think that YOU are a part of the white establishment? Unless there are people reading this piss ant blog that I am unaware of (who knows which government agency reads here) you ain’t a part of it. I guarantee it. Being white don’t buy you shit with Big Money, but the truth is that most Big Money is white. There are, of course, the Arab exceptions (and they are barely allowed to play in Big Money’s back yard) and a few others dispersed throughout the world, but by and large, it is white people (how many blacks have been in Skull and Bones?).

I’m obviously white and I hold no illusions to my standing in The White Establishment. They don’t give a damn about me.

But back to Obama. Could Nader be right about this? That Obama needs to challenge the establishment instead of give in? Instead of becoming THEM? Looking at his recent flip-flops on key issues… seeing that he supports enlarging the military, instead of taking on the Military Industrial Complex… seeing him capitualte on any number of issues shows me that 1) either he is changing before our eyes… or 2) he has been lying all along.

That is the “illusion”. Obama has been an illusion all along and has fooled many Americans into thinking he was different. he’s not. Never has been, but milked the suckers for all they are worth.

Take ON the White Establishment? Shit. Don’t make me laugh.

He is their puppet.

B’Man’s Sabbath Watch: Suing Exorcists

B’Man: I have been a witness to these sorts of things. The people never called it an exorcism, but it was essentially casting out demons “in Jesus Name”. I watched a insane preacher (Danny Lovelace, who I actually like, but I know he is “out there”) ride on the back of a woman in church, like he was riding a bronco. Swear to God.

But he was saying something about snakes and serpents, but literally had his legs around the woman while she was on the ground on all fours.

I have seen people be “prayed for” who would thrash and roll on the floor like crazy people, then get up like nothing happened. In many cases, every week, the same people would thrash and roll and run around the pews (like everyweek they needed another exorcism from their previous week’s demon-possession). Its like it only takes in church while others are watching the spectacle.

But now, one better be careful because the courts won’t protect you if these maniacs cause you harm. From McClatchy:

Texas Supreme Court rules church can’t be sued in exorcism

By Max B. Baker | Fort Worth Star-Telegram

A divided Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former Colleyville church Friday, saying church members who were involved in a traumatic exorcism that ultimately injured a young woman are protected by the First Amendment.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God staff’s efforts to cast out demons from Laura Schubert presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in church doctrine.

Schubert described a wild night in 1996 that involved casting out demons from the church and two attempts to exorcise demons from her. The incident left Schubert physically bruised and so emotionally scarred she later tried to commit suicide. She was 17 at the time.

Read the complete story at star-telegram.com

B’Man: Jonathon Turley also addresses this subject here.

Porn On The Fourth of July

“I can make a perfume outa that…”

A hilarious movie trailer parody about a porn star who suffers a terrible injury and trains to make a comeback with the help of Larry Flynt. It’s just like the Tom Cruise movie Born on the 4th of July, only a lot sexier.

What Is Your Idea Of Bipartisanship?

B’Man: Apparently many of the Bushie Demublicans feel like this idea constitutes reTHUGlicans voting 100% lockstep and the Bushie Dems “reaching across the aisle” in “bipartisan” fashion, so that the THUGS always win. I’m so happy that you guys are so “fair”. Glenn Greenwald points out specific cases and lays out the vote for you to judge for yourself:

Many people, especially partisans, always believe that their own side is compromising too much and that the other side is always winning, so it’s best to consult objective facts in order to know how “bipartisanship” works. Here are the vote breakdowns by party over the last couple years on the most significant and contentious pieces of legislation, particularly (though not only) in the area of national security.

In almost every case, the proposals that are enacted are ones favored by the White House and supported by all GOP lawmakers, and then Democrats split and enough of them join with Republicans to ensure that the GOP gets what it wants. That’s “bipartisanhip” in Washington:

To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:

GOP – 48-0

Dems – 12-36

To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:

GOP – 0-49

Dems – 24-21

To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:

GOP – 46-0

Dems – 7-40

To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:

GOP – 49-0

Dems – 8-38

Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:

GOP – 46-2

Dems – 30-20

To condemn MoveOn.org:

GOP – 49-0

Dems – 23-25

The Protect America Act:

GOP – 44-0

Dems – 20-28

Declaring English to be the Government’s official language:

GOP – 48-1

Dems – 16-33

The Military Commissions Act:

GOP – 53-0

Dems – 12-34

To renew the Patriot Act:

GOP – 54-0

Dems – 34-10

Cloture Vote on Sam Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court:

GOP – 54-0

Dems – 18-25

Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:

GOP – 48-1

Dems – 29-22

On virtually every major controversial issue — particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism — the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to “bipartisan” support. That’s what “bipartisanship” in Washington means.

B’Man: They are playing us, people. Always just enough to claim a fight, but losing nonetheless. And the money continues to flow… and you get poorer and sicker and lose your rights.

h/t Digby at Hullabaloo