The Obama Animal Farm
By Christian Hartsock
MSNBC's Chris Matthews once vented to Don Imus his cumulative frustration with presidents who own ranches, huffing: "I want a guy to run for President who doesn't have a f****** — I'm sorry, a ranch. Wouldn't that be good, Don, a guy who wasn't on the ranch during Katrina, he was on the street corner answering questions?" To which Imus replied, "Why are you swearing?"
To Matthews' credit, virtually every modern president has laid claim to a ranch – even including the current guy who was on the street corner begging for "change". There was the Reagan Ranch in Santa Barbara, Bush's Crawford Ranch in West Texas, and Barack Obama's relatively new, more sprawling cattle ranch – most commonly referred to as the "mainstream media."
One would think Matthews' irritations would have doubled rather than subsided – if only he weren't himself one of the ranch hands delivering the Kool-Aid-flavored milk to a mouth-watered public via the airwaves of the establishment news media. Moreover, Obama's ranch bears less resemblance to the aforementioned presidential ranches, and is more reminiscent of the Jonestown farm or the Spahn Movie Ranch.
In addition, the winged creatures of Obama's farm are mostly tropical – bearing stark resemblance to the exotic parrot what with their impulsive, redundant utterances of rhetorical talking points that are conveniently proportionate to the standard 3.5' x 11" bumper sticker format.
It doesn't matter that the recent incessant battle cries of the left the past few years (i.e. "Change", "Hope", "Progress," "Bush Lied, People Died!", "War for Oil," etc.) were groundless, meaningless axioms tossed like breadcrumbs to a swarming, starving, pigeon-like public – the fact that they were repeated ad nauseaum was enough to sustain merit. When it comes to liberal political rhetoric, repetition outrivals reality.
Contemporary liberals are not to be credited with the pioneering of this brilliant reductive propaganda tactic, but rather their ideological ancestors. Indeed, the Nazis were remarkably skillful in reinventing conventional wisdom to accommodate the national agenda; loudening and repeating the rhetorical drumbeat in fierce competition with the human cognitive receptivity span so as to leave zero leftover capacity therein for logical deductive evaluation.
Within eight years the liberal folk tales about how George W. Bush stole the 2000 election, used 9/11 as an excuse to hold the nation hostage and erect an imperialist, colonialist empire, et cetera, were so securely stapled in the common mind by the liberal noise machine that few had the energy to actually think for themselves. Hegemonic liberal mythology has frighteningly become to America what Scientology is to Hollywood: So pervasively practiced and casually embraced that its practitioners never seem to work up the incentive to register that they are worshiping an alien galactic ruler named Xenu.
Were it not for the science fiction fantasy that's been thrust upon us in the wake of Obama, George W. Bush would be written in history books as a hero who successfully spared his nation any sequels to 9/11, resurrected an image of national strength unseen since the Reagan years (systematically undone by Bill Clinton and usurped by an image of "paper tigers" – to quote Osama bin Laden's description of Americans in 1993), and liberated Iraq from a mass-murdering, terrorist-funding serial rapist with a perennial grudge against our nation. But this is only if liberals weren't the ones, well, writing the history books.
Indeed, it will be and has been the liberal revisionist machine that writes the history books, teaches the history classes, makes the "historical" movies and reports the news that any leader who candidly and unflinchingly recognizes the clear and present threats relevant to those given times are and were the black-hat-sporting cowboys on the dark horses of history.
Senator Joe McCarthy recognized the horrifically real Soviet spy infestation within the highest levels of American government and is now literally written in textbooks as a reckless drunk who ruined lives and destroyed reputations – despite the 1995 release of the Venona cables retroactively vindicating his heroic campaign against the infestation. As in McCarthy's day, using the term "communist," "socialist," or "Marxist" is pervasively ridiculed and dismissed as "extremist" and "antiquated" by the same people who casually employ terms like "racist," "theocrat," and "fascist" to describe Republicans.
When local WFTV Florida anchor Barbara West gave Joe Biden his first and only opportunity to explain to a perplexed public how Obama's Marxist-Socialist tax plan was not really a Marxist-Socialist tax plan (as opposed to posing questions like "How does it feel to know you are going to win this election?"), Biden laughed in her face for using the term "Marxist," indignantly stormed off the set and subsequently sent a snobbish, cowardly letter to WFTV relieving them of their precious privileges to be graced with the Obama/Biden ticket's presence. (WFTV should have responded by sending Biden a "Get Well Soon" card from Hallmark.)
While George W. Bush moved mountains to fulfill his 2000 campaign promises to "change the tone" in Washington amongst an obstinate liberal elite – liberals' approach to "changing the tone" in Washington is amplifying their noise volume and dismissively muffling any audible dissent as inconvenient obstacles to "hope."
But there is no hope for a nation that would be as fiendishly disrespectful to its leader for eight years during a time of war. There is no hope for a people that would so nakedly and vulnerably throw themselves at a political candidacy such as Obama's like an emotionally wounded, sexually frustrated harlot on the rebound spreading her knees for some seductive, womanizing prowler on a blind date.
If nothing else, the scathing and utterly reprehensible treatment of George W. Bush by the public can only be symptomatic of some deep-seated identity crisis that repairing ought to become our national focus. For eight years, the media obsessively scrutinized Bush's every move like a resentful spouse itching for an opportunity to catch their domestic partner putting the spatula in the wrong kitchen drawer as an excuse to instigate an all-night quarrel. This was the left's contribution to changing the tone in Washington.
The most pressing "change" we need is nation-wide group therapy, inasmuch as the said treatment of Bush is absolutely unacceptable and ought to be considered as such by any society priding itself on being "civilized" and careful of the image projected to the international community. But liberals' only solution is that of a misbehaving six-year-old whose alternative to cleaning the mess he's made in his bedroom is setting his parents' house on fire in the hopes that a cleaner bedroom will magically emerge from the consequent rubble.
To those who derisively snickered about Bush's 2000 campaign promise to "change the tone" in Washington and to be a "uniter – not a divider": I blame you. Bush's unappreciated across-the-aisle diplomacy the past eight years was met with zero cooperation on your part, but with a sinister urge to exploit his inalterable graciousness that became is ultimate weakness, so much so that by his second term he was literally issuing humiliating apologies to you people for "mistakes" such as hurting our terrorist enemies' feelings by saying "bring ‘em on." I blame you for tyrannically exploiting the kind, diplomatic nature of a strong, heroic leader by manipulatively coercing him into replacing his cowboy hat with a kitchen apron.
I blame the people who stubbornly refused to concede defeat in the 2000 election yet were jumping at the bit to concede defeat in Iraq within the first few weeks of the invasion; exhausting every resource available to undermine our troops' morale and our commander-in-chief's credibility during a time of war.
The mainstream media trumpeted cautionary reports on Saddam Hussein's developing WMD apparatus when Bill Clinton was sending cruise missiles through Baghdad (conveniently the same day Monica Lewinsky was up before the Grand Jury). Horror stories about Saddam's WMD stockpiles such as "Unearthing the Truth" (Newsweek, March 2, 1998), "Iraq Works Toward A-Bomb," (Washington Post, September 30, 1998) and "Showdown With Iraq," (CNN, Nov. 1997) pervaded livings rooms and newsstands throughout the 1990s. But the instant a Republican entered office insisting that he was "tired of swatting flies" and pressed for a competent response to Iraq, liberals decided that was a no-no, and would do whatever they could to upstage his efforts; innocently and cluelessly asking: "What WMDs?"
Any "divisiveness" suffered by this country was liberals' fault. Not Bush's. But now that the media have made up their minds as to the "disgraced" mark Bush will have left on American history for standing up for us and keeping us safe for seven years following 9/11, the rest of us are left to wonder where the Uniting Savior Obama will leave his mark – on our right hands or our foreheads?
Christian Hartsock, 22, is a political columnist, author, and filmmaker. A veteran of the Junior Statesmen of America, Christian has written for dozens of news and commentary outlets, engaged in public policy debates, given speeches, appeared on the radio, interviewed prominent political figures including Judge Roy Moore, was quoted in Hans Zeiger's book "Reagan's America," and is the author of the book "In the Name of ‘Progress': The Liberalization of Christianity". Born and raised in Oakland, California, Christian currently resides in Los Angeles where he works as a director, writer and producer on several film and television projects, including his most recent film, "Sycophant". You can e-mail him at Christian@DionysusProductions.net.