First Principles ... or Why I Cannot Support Barack Obama

Let us begin with the fact that George Bush and Dick Cheney were never legitimately elected to the Oval Office: not in 2000, and not in 2004.

In the American system, the authority of our government is based on the consent of the governed. This consent was not earned in either "election".

Therefore, the Bush-Cheney administrations of 2001-2009 were illegitimate, and the policies implemented by these illegitimate administrations are themselves illegitimate. Period.

If somebody steals your credit card and you report the theft, you are not responsible for purchases made on that card after it was stolen. We reported the theft in 2000; we screamed about the theft in 2004; but it did us no good at all.

You may read the rest here and/or comment below.


First principles, indeed.

Bravo, Winter. Your clear annunciation of our situation is like the "clarion bell". It awakes us and we realise how much we have fallen under a spell arguing about the rights and wrongs of certain events or programs (programmes!) when the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel is bullshit or bogus, as you so rightly say.
Thinking again about Pakistan the other day, I realised there was something seriously wrong with this picture. Then I remembered your words about Musharraf being a bogus ally in a bogus war against a bogus terror. The whole performance is bogus
There is no democracy or representation. There is no hope of justice from these psychopaths. It's all theatre to keep us in play. Therefore they must need to keep us in play. Time to stop playing.
Bravo, again, Winter. Keep banging this drum, man.

Bob in Prague's picture

Vintage WP

Pure, vintage WP! Great work, Winter, distilling it down and presenting it all so clearly. I couldn't agree with you more, and, by the by, I'm really glad not to live in that country or contribute to it in any way. I can't believe I was naive enough to allow myself to hope...

McJ's picture

Pak nukes

"Even George Bush and Dick Cheney never managed to blackmail the Pakistani army into attacking its own people. And the Obama misery is just beginning."

And now we see this fear mongering, offered with no proof, that Pakistan is building up it's nuclear arsenal.

Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says
The Ledger May 18, 2009

"WASHINGTON — Members of Congress have been told in confidential briefings that Pakistan is rapidly adding to its nuclear arsenal even while racked by insurgency, raising questions on Capitol Hill about whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed the assessment of the expanded arsenal in a one-word answer to a question on Thursday in the midst of lengthy Senate testimony. Sitting beside Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, he was asked whether he had seen evidence of an increase in the size of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal."

“Yes,” he said quickly, adding nothing, clearly cognizant of Pakistan’s sensitivity to any discussion about the country’s nuclear strategy or security."

And for good measure the article throws in this 'statistic'.

"...Bruce Riedel, the Brookings Institution scholar who served as the co-author of Mr. Obama’s review of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, reflected the administration’s concern in a recent interview, saying that Pakistan “has more terrorists per square mile than anyplace else on earth, and it has a nuclear weapons program that is growing faster than anyplace else on earth.”

Pakistan denies these reports but then who are you going to listen when the US experts are on the case?

"Pakistan denies nuclear expansion
BBC News, Islamabad 19 May 2009

"Pakistan has denied that it is expanding its nuclear arsenal after the US said that it has unearthed new evidence that it has done so.

The denial was issued by Pakistan's information minister a week after US Adm Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made the disclosure."

"...Pakistan's nuclear assets are well-guarded and beyond the reach of the militants.

In a recent statement, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani also tried to scotch these fears.

"I want to tell the world in categorical terms that, with the blessing of God, Pakistan's nuclear assets are safe and will remain safe.

"No one, no matter how powerful and influential, [who is] eyeing our national assets will succeed."

In Dec '08 Al Jazeera aired a fairly decent documentary on Pakistan's so called "war on terror". It is called "Pakistan's War: The Battle Within". You can watch it at the links below.

Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson



You have my support to not support criminals

9/11 is always the key element.

More First Principles

I have just stumbled across this excellent and pertinent article by Marlena called "Liberation Theology and the Prosperity Gospel".

In it she quotes Ron Jacobs in a Counterpunch article as saying,
"On a basic political level, this phenomenon is the belief that, for some reason (America’s system of democracy, or maybe its economic superiority), the United States system is not subject to the same contradictions and influences as those of the rest of the world. This belief in American superiority finds its foundation in some of our culture’s basic religious and cultural constructs. It’s there in the first settlers’ belief that they were conducting a special errand into the wilderness to construct a city on a hill in the name of their heavenly father and every single president and wannabe always implores this same heavenly father to “bless America” at the end of every one of his speeches.

America is not a better country than any other. Its citizens and residents are as venal and as great as any others in any other part of the world. The only thing that sets us apart is our wealth. The only reason we have that wealth is because we stole it. God didn’t give it to us, nor did any greater American intelligence or know-how. Robbery is what our foreign policy is based on, just like our racial policies. It’s not the policies that need to change, but the foundation upon which those policies flourish. Until US activists accept this and give up their conscious and unconscious acceptance of the myth of American exceptionalism, any movement against war, racism, and other ills of our world is bound to fail. Not because it doesn’t have the right motivation, but because it doesn’t have a radical enough conception of itself and the world it exists in. "

Further on, Marlena says this, "Today our culture paradoxically revolves around God and money. The Bible says: pick one". Actually, as she points out in the article, Jesus in the New Testament says pick one but the Old Testament says you can have them both.

Well worth a read.

SMDQR's picture


If there is one thing I agree with those bastards on the right is that America is under a state of emergency. But not the state of emergency they envision. By not highlighting the unequivocal truth about 9/11 each and every day then this country is lost. Thank you for continually ringing the liberty bells, apparently people have not caught onto the fact that Amerika is ran by criminals and lunatics.

First principles

and DICK Cheney's BIG speech battle with Obamarama...

...IS there a bigger asshole in the universe? And could we be led astray any better than with this bullshit?

How absurd.


is the word.

Love the stolen credit card analogy, but have one small concern

I loved the point about the stolen credit card. It would be applicable to many other countries including my own, Australia.

I intend to quote this a lot from now on.

However, I have one minor concern.

I can't bring myself to condemn Obama unreservedly for maintaining the US's military support for Israel.

Obviously the establishment of Israel was an injustice committed against local Arabs and should have been prevented at the outset and its attack upon Gaza last year was an inexcusable crime.

However, I can easily envision the whole situation being reversed and Israel itself becoming merely a larger version of the Gaza enclave should US military aid be withheld.

If we agree that the only way to rectify the injustices of 1948, 1967 and since, is to drive Israel back into the sea, then that's fine, but I don't think I agree.

If, instead, we are to strive for some kind of middle path two state solution, then Israel will still, in the interim at least, need armed forces that are capable of defending itself from all its potential enemies, which would entail some considerable amount of military aid from countries like the US.

Home page

McJ's picture

Driving them into the sea


First of all, welcome to the Winter Patriot Community! Glad to have you join us here. I meant to post this earlier but time just got away on me. smiling

"I can't bring myself to condemn Obama unreservedly for maintaining the US's military support for Israel."
However, I can easily envision the whole situation being reversed and Israel itself becoming merely a larger version of the Gaza enclave should US military aid be withheld."

Israel has spent the last 60+ years ethnically cleansing the indigenous population (Palestinians), attacking neighbouring Arab states and stealing their land and resources. As of this writing they continue to do so, unabated. See here and here. Why must the US or any other country support that policy, financially or militarily? I agree with Winter's sentiment below that Israel continues their outrageous and atrocious behavior because they are assured no one will stop them. If the US Government were to withdraw their military and financial support, Israel would be forced to take the actions necessary to promote peace with their neighbours. This would mean a just solution for the Palestinians including the right of return. I used to believe that the two state solution was the answer however I think the time when that may have worked has long since past. At any rate, the Israelis, as evidenced by their actions, have no intentions of implementing two states, on the contrary they continue to steal more and more of the Palestinian land and resources. You can see a map of Palestinian land loss from 1946 to 2000 here. In addition, in 2005 UNCTAD reported that with the "continued construction by Israel of the Separation Barrier... and the confiscation and leveling of Palestinian lands" the agricultural sector was substantially undermined. "By mid-2004, total agricultural land loss in the West Bank and Gaza was around 260 sq. km., representing 15% of Palestine´s cultivated area in 2003." I think one state where Palestinians have the same rights as Israeli citizens to democratically elect their government would be the only just solution at this point. Not much chance that is going to happen!!

"If we agree that the only way to rectify the injustices of 1948, 1967 and since, is to drive Israel back into the sea, then that's fine, but I don't think I agree."

I don't think any one on this forum would agree that would an appropriate action and I'm glad to hear you don't agree with it. smiling

This idea of "driving Israel back into the sea" is a classic example of Israel accusing the Palestinians of wanting to do to them (the Isaelis) what they have done to the Palestinians.
Ben Gurion declared in 1961, in the Israeli Knesset that:
"'The Arabs' exit from Palestine...began immediately after the UN resolution, from the areas earmarked for the Jewish state. And we have explicit documents testifying that they left Palestine following instructions by the Arab leaders, with the Mufti at their head, under the assumption that the invasion of the Arab armies at the expiration of the Mandate will destroy the Jewish state and push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive'.
The truth is that by May 15 1948 when the first of the Arab armies entered Palestine, the actions of the Haganah (IDF), the Irgun and the Stern Gang had already caused hundreds of thousands to flee their homes. The Deir Yassin massacre (April 1948) in particular caused panic amongst the Palestinians and in late April and early May 1948 there were mass expulsion of Arabs from the cities of Jaffe, Haifa, Tiberias, and Safid. By the end of 1948 hundreds of Palestinian villages had been destroyed and although it may not be entirely accurate to say the Israelis drove the Palestinians into the sea many of them did flee the fighting by way of the sea.

Enlarge Picture
Jaffa, Palestine: Palestinians driven into the sea at Jaffa Harbor, late April 1948. With the land routes cut off by the Haganah, tens of thousands of the citizens of Jaffa and neighboring villages fled by boat: south to Gaza and Egypt, and north to Lebanon. (via Walid Khalidi, Before Their Diaspora)

Enlarge Picture
Jaffa Harbor, Palestine: Palestinian refugees flee Jaffa by boat for Gaza, Apr-May 1948. By the time Jaffa finally fell on 13 May 1948, fewer than 4,000 of its 70,000 residents remained.

The pictures are from an an excellent pictorial essay by Lawrence of Cyberia which you can find in the forum here.

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

thanks for this, McJ

Historical accuracy is one of the things that's usually missing from discussions of the Israel/Palestine question. So it's good to have more light and less heat on that front.

I hope it has proven enlightening to our new friend, whose previous comment really didn't make any sense, except from a propaganda standpoint. But then there's so much propaganda around, it's easy to see how it gets repeated.

McJ's picture

History helps

It really is unbelievable the degree of distortion there is about Israel/Palestine history and so frustrating that the only way we have any chance of discovering the truth is to undertake the process of (re)educating ourselves. For that, you need to be motivated, persistent and have some help along the way to navigate through all the spin. The average person is just not going to do that. When I explain some of what I have learned to friends and family their interest wanes quite quickly so I try to plant a few seeds here and there smiling.

My husband is a strictly mainstream news guy smiling and it has taken me years of 'convincing' for him to begin to accept that Palestinians are the victims here. There is just so much propaganda that Israel is under some kind of dire threat of attack by the Arabs that it's almost impossible to cut through it. Being armed with some historical facts really helps.

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

hypothetically speaking ...

Let's suppose, just hypothetically and for the sake of discussion, that Israel was

-- interested in living in peace with the rest of the world,
-- not the only nuclear-armed power in its region, and
-- actually under threat from military forces as powerful as (or more powerful than) its own.

None of these hypotheticals is true, or even close, but let's just pretend for a moment that they were. Even if all they were all true, it would still be extremely inappropriate, in my view, for any American politician, let alone the president, to rank the defense of Israel as more important than the defense of the United States.

And by "extremely inappropriate" I mean it is an obvious act of treason.

I'm not saying this just because it's Israel we're talking about. I would say the same if we were talking about a country that had never attacked any of our ships, had never been caught spying against us, and had nothing at all to do with the attacks of 9/11.

If Barack Obama said his first priority was the defense of Bolivia, or Botswana, or Belgium, I would say the same thing: Why not the USA? Why can't we have a president whose first priority is the defense of our own country? Isn't that what his job description calls for?

It may seem to you that it's reasonable for Obama (or any other president) to make the defense of Israel his top priority, even though it would be inappropriate for him to do the same for any other country, because (for one reason or another, or for many of them) Israel is a special case. I would argue just the opposite.

There will never be peace in the Middle East as long as the USA commits itself to Israel above all else. Instead we will get more of the same sorts of things that we've been seeing lately -- more "inexcusable crimes", if you will.

Au contraire, mon ami: if you want to see a two-state solution and lasting peace in the Middle East then you should be hoping for a president whose first priority is the defense of otherwise defenseless civilians who are currently threatened by Israel: in Gaza, the West Bank, Iran, and elsewhere.

If the Israelis thought that bombing Gaza, for example, would incur the wrath of the world's only superpower, they might think twice about doing it. But instead they know they can commit outrageous atrocities and nobody will raise a hand against them.

When they can fly one of the world's most sophisticated air forces against defenseless civilians, enrage the whole world and still get billions of dollars every year from Uncle Sam, along with a "confirmation" that "Israel has the right to defend itself", what is their incentive to negotiate?

Deep thought

How is it that only certain peoples get to harbor nuclear weapons, aka WMD?

Who decides? What's up with that?

Yes, rhetorical.

Hi Winter, Brilliant

Hi Winter,

Brilliant article. Factual and articulate. I write from New Zealand where things aren't that different; our system is well and truly broken also, with no shortage of collusion and corruption (though as far as I know, no false flag terrorism or clandestine empire building). I write not only to commend you on your article but to bring to your attention a clear solution to pretty much all present day problems. An ambitious undertaking; nevertheless one that has been particularly well constructed and upon in-depth study appears to be, in my humble opinion, very solid. I wish to recommend to you and your readers The Zeitgeist Movement, to be found at It is not a political movement, and does not recognize nations, governments, races, religions, creeds or class. This movement is about awareness. For my mind, it is a true unflickering flame lighting the way through what is, to the observant eye, a dark period. Thank you again for your brilliant work.

The Zeitgeist Movement

Hi Mike, reading about the Venus Project made me quite nostalgic for the seventies smiling
From the FAQ page at the website,- "Deviant and socially offensive behaviours are by products of deprivation or the fear of it."

Deprivation and fear are factors that are present SOME of the time. There are many other drives, chief amongst them is the drive for power over others and the central planning that is required and advocated by the Venus Project would be irresistible to these deviates (assuming they are not in front of the cart already!).

If you research "antisocial personality disorder" you may develop an aversion, like me, to centralised planning and large powerful organisations of any sort. Scarcity is not the problem. It is the shitheads who create the scarcity that are the problem and you can't just wish them away. You need to take away their weapons; large power structures; the very structures that the Venus Project is proposing.

Let's start with

boundaries, borders and maps.

I hate political maps with the lines and the borders and the black lines. One good thing that has come out of the 'space programs' is the understanding that there are no lines in nature.

Only humans conjure up such things.

On the other hand, if only the indians of america had had an immigration policy and the weaponry to back it up...

Oh well. Maybe one day...

Great stuff here, keep up the

Great stuff here, keep up the good work!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.