*edit, January 28, 2017 – I left out a small piece of the quote I used, from Stephanie’s article, and have now added that in. In my original version of this post, I only mentioned Stephanie’s reference to the Kremlin below my quote from her article.
An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Stephanie Maclellan follows:
How, the critics argued, could Obama expect people to take WikiLeaks’ meddling seriously as a security threat to America at the same time as he released its most famous source?
There are several answers to that question.
The first is that the WikiLeaks that released Manning’s documents in 2010 is not the same WikiLeaks that rose to new infamy in 2016. The former worked with reputable journalistic outlets such as The New York Times and The Guardian to bring to light Manning’s revelations about civilian deaths and detainee abuses during the Iraq war.
The latter has largely shunned Western media in favour of Kremlin mouthpieces such as RT and the occasional interview with sycophants such as Sean Hannity.
There’s so much wrong with Stephanie’s foul article, I hardly know where to start. I will not sweat over this clearly evil bit of reportage. For one thing, Just thinking about the number of ways this report is twisted exhausts me and I’m already tired. Let me just note that a lot of the commenters, perhaps most of them, see this article as being the garbage it is and say so. My online response to it, which may or may not survive scrutiny by whoever is tasked with that, follows:
“How, the critics argued, could Obama expect people to take WikiLeaks’ meddling seriously as a security threat to America at the same time as he released its most famous source?” Having fun Stephanie?
If one pays attention, it eventually becomes clear that much of what major and establishment (like The Hill) media cranks out is in accordance with a doctrinal system that is meant to protect the 1% by helping the people to better swallow propaganda.
Obama knows, as does all of his class (Democrats, Republicans, ruling classes everywhere) that the real purveyors of fake news are spokespersons attached to the White House, Pentagon, CIA and all of the think tanks and assorted institutions of the US government. He knows who he serves and it’s not the people, unless you’re talking about the people who comprise the 1%. And he knows that finger wagging at him by the Right outside of the Democratic Party (which is standard and not genuine) is meant for the people, not him personally. The people are the enemy and Obama has demonstrated that he’s loyal to his class by attacking the people. He has warred against purveyors of real news, jailing whistleblowers and attacking journalism itself, so that the rise of real news with the rise of the internet can be contained and rolled back. The problem isn’t with ‘socialist’ Obama, but rather with anyone who gets an idea that maybe socialism – as in socialism for ‘all’, rather than the 1% and its tools – is a good idea can shut up, keep it down and go back to working, consuming and nodding with approval at the continuing exploitation and oppression, and regime changing, that can be easily traced back to the needs and wants of the 1% and its tools. Taking that kind of caustic criticism from rightwingers (who don’t self-identify as Democratic Party members/supporters) comes with the job, which Obama knows. Like other ‘leaders’, Obama simply calculates that it’s a good career move, coming with fame and fortune, to sell his soul this way. What a great example he sets for his kids eh?
Why do godless, evil people use language like ‘redemption’? (And why do Leftists do ridiculous contortions in trying to avoid the word ‘evil’? Could it be because they don’t want the oppressed, exploited people to turn to God, instead of those on the Left, for relief from the rightwing loons who own and run the world? Maybe those ones should just concentrate on making the world, while it exists in it’s present configuration, as good a place as they can.) It’s pathology, or illness. My belief is that some of those who have rejected God and sought to replace him think that they would like to know that he’s actually not there. For one thing, If he’s actually there and here’s a bunch of clowns acting like they’re God, it can’t be something that would please the real God. I believe that those who have ventured down the path of darkness, otherwise known as the road to destruction (Matthew chapter 7, verses 13 & 14 of the Christian Bible), who also see themselves as God, acquire a ‘need’ to prove to themselves that there is no God. (Generally, Those who make choices that they have an inkling of an idea are wrong but have no intention of changing their minds about, which the lacking of humility would make easier, will rationalize and self-justify their actions and overall course.)
With some – My guess would be that this is something more or less specific to powerful exploiters – that (failure to resist darkness) leads to a situation where the exploiter (manipulator, liar, killer) wants to test God, to call him out, as it were. For if he is tested, which you do by completely disregarding his (well known) standards, and he doesn’t respond, then surely he isn’t really there. Except that, when God doesn’t show – because he has his own timetable that no one, evil or good, is going to change – this makes the tester only ‘temporarily’ satisfied. He will eventually need another fix. There’s still a fairly efficient human brain at work here and so the tester has the idea, perhaps not very front of mind but still there, that just because God didn’t show when he (or…) wanted him to, that’s not proof that he’s not there. And so the sick tester takes it further by improving the test. How? By being more evil, in a (useful) word. I think much of the world’s chaos and destruction can be traced to that pathology. And I think that that is why one angel who spoke with the apostle John, long ago, told him “Let the one who is unrighteous continue in unrighteousness.” That passage can be found in the last chapter of the last Bible book of the Christian Bible.
It’s a free universe. But there are laws and consequences. Do not fail to grasp that. People can and must, sooner or later, make a decision in regard to the Issue of universal sovereignty. That is how it is. If people want to reject Jehovah’s Sovereignty, they must be allowed to. When people, including powerful people, reject God and his standards, then God (not us) will respond to the requester’s decision to exit life. For now, folks, Keep your heads low, stay clean and stay safe. Be wise.
I’m not familiar with The Hill, but it’s one in a stable of stellar, pro establishment media outlets. The resource-rich Right (including the fake Left) has many of these sorts of fake news outlets (as well as the old, established behemoths like The New York Times and The Washington Post) that it’s politicians have the power to stamp ‘approved’. The people are going to have to get it together a lot more than they have (which is almost zilch) in order to have a chance at resisting it’s influence. But the people, victims of abusive Benefactors in power or not, have proven to be not up to the challenge. And then there’s those who claim to be fighting the power of the 1% and it’s tools on behalf of the people. Any reader of this blog is beginning to see that there’s problems on that front.