Lupe Calls Obama a Terrorist

Before fully divulging myself in the topic, let me provide some disclosure. I've been a fan of Lupe Fiasco's work dating back to his mixtape days before he released his debut album, "Food and Liquor." He has earned a cult following by artfully manipulating the English language in a way that is aesthetically pleasing and intellectually engaging while communicating pertinent and relatable themes. In other words, I'm a biased fanboy who proudly stood in the front row at one of his concerts rapping all the words to his songs right back at him.

As a Muslim-American poet and a wordsmith, his lyrical midi-clorians are off the scale, and while he's driven towards good, his Machiavellian means may be considered sithly. Concerned less about logistics and political goals and leaning more towards lighting an inspirational fire deep in the hearts of his audience to push them towards personal enlightenment, Lu is a staunch advocate for peace and social engagement. Yet despite his potential power, he encourages self-actualization and avoids explicitly exerting control over his followers.




While in the past he has been much more subtle with his political overtones, Lu elects to go on the record with his single "Words I Never Said." Fed up with the status quo and determined to empower the voices of the silenced, the lyrics combine with stunning visuals in the music video to proclaim an anti-establishment, pro-peace position. Alluding to brainwashing by the popular media, a power-structure that intentionally stifles upward mobility, the American tendency to medicate the symptoms and not the problem, and the use of fear as a means of control, Lupe accurately diagnosis many of the issues that plague our world; he's lost hope in traditional means of change, and sees an uprising from the people as the only way to overcome the systemic corruption. While an underground rebellion against Big Brother may be a great narrative, something tells me that change in America will not follow the Egyptian model. Ultimately, Lupe delivers a call to arms without a clear strategy, objective, or even enemy, which ironically sounds a lot like American Imperialism and the wars he's protesting.

This rebel-with-a-cause-but-no-substantial-cure may indicate that Lu believes that a grassroots solution originating from the ground is the only viable alternative. Thus, his role is that of a motivator, an instigator, and a beacon to rally around. During his appearance on the Colbert Report, he emphasized holding authority accountable and engaging in active analysis of politicians even if you support them. This is an issue that many progressives have been struggling over: is it ok to criticize a Democratic President in hopes of pulling him further to the left, or will the lack of solidarity within the party create a dangerous political fallout that could jeopardizes Barack's re-election?

As a fellow black man from Chicago, the conventional wisdom says that Lupe should be a strong advocate for Obama, and that's partially true. Lu supports campaign-Obama who promised both progressive change and government transparency to allow for active criticism by watchdogs who keep the government honest. However, on the issue of utmost concern to Lupe Fiasco, Obama has failed to bring peace to the Middle East and has continued many of the Bush policies by extending the Patriot Act, failing to close Guantanamo, and keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence, it is no surprise that a peaceful Muslim who constantly denounces violence and the actions by radicals acting in the name of Islam would speak out against the absence of foreign policy changes for the region.

"In my fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America. For me, I’m trying to fight the terrorism that’s actually causing the other forms of terrorism. The root cause of the terrorism is the stuff that you as a government allow to happen and the foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists."

Is Obama the cause of Terrorism? No, but is he the change he promised to be during his '08 campaign? No. He's a constitutional law professor playin' politics by the books and appeasing a multitude of players. Pragmatists rarely lead revolutions, especially not during their first term.

Is Barack patiently piecing together policies for incremental change because he believes that any radical plans would fracture the stability of the nation and create a backlash that would allow Republicans the political power to repeal his legislation? Is he setting the stage for his re-election? Is he doing what's best for the nation, or his family? We've all speculated, and we all have our own theories, but at a time when the political headlines read like the tabloid coverage of Jersey Shore, Lupe reminds us about the costs of war and where our priorities should be.

While I don't believe calling Obama a terrorist is productive or even a true statement, maybe the source will cause some to take a moment and truly consider some of foreign policy choices. If the same statement came from Limbaugh, the left would right it off as racist, or if it came from Karl Rove, liberals would call it political gamesmanship. However, Lupe, an activist whose words have a profound influence of the youth, is an insider's insider and his own power shouldn't be taken for granted, especially since the youth gave Barack his Presidency in 2008.

I support accountability and critical engagement through reasonable means, but it's hard to tell whether he's pulling a Colbert and playing a extreme character or being sincere. He may feel that the only way to captivate and engage this A.D.D. generation is through Orwellian imagery which feels more like Science Fiction than political activism. This might be a ploy to create a symbol and a movement that the youth can believe in and call their own, or it may just be the views of an artist proudly expressing his 1st amendment rights. Either way, while its engaging for some, others will view calling President Obama a terrorist as a repulsive abuse of rhetoric to garner additional media attention.

Just like Obama's intentions, all we can do at this time is speculate and ask questions, but at the very least, we're engaged and building the critical-thinking skills needed to navigate this elusive domain.

Even if I don't agree with everything he stands for, it doesn't mean we can't celebrate our shared interests and discuss our differences. Challenging the conventional wisdom is how we rise above. Let me close with something that speaks for itself: Lupe's Lasers Manifesto.

TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN & CHILD,

WE WANT AN END TO THE GLAMORIZATION OF NEGATIVITY IN THE MEDIA
WE WANT AN END TO STATUS SYMBOLS DICTATING OUR WORTH AS INDIVIDUALS
WE WANT A MEANINGFUL AND UNIVERSAL EDUCATION SYSTEM
WE WANT SUBSTANCE IN THE PLACE OF POPULARITY
WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE WHO WE ARE TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE CROWD
WE WANT THE INVISIBLE WALLS THAT SEPARATE BY WEALTH, RACE & CLASS TO BE TORN DOWN
WE WANT TO THINK OUR OWN THOUGHTS| WE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT
WE WANT CLARITY & TRUTH FROM OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS OR THEY SHOULD MOVE ASIDE
WE WANT LOVE NOT LIES| WE WANT AN END TO ALL WARS FOREIGN & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
WE WANT AN END TO THE PROCESSED CULTURE OF EXPLOITATION, OVER-CONSUMPTION & WASTE
WE WANT KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING & PEACE
WE WILL NOT LOSE BECAUSE WE ARE NOT LOSERS, WE ARE LASERS!
LASERS ARE THE OPPOSITE OF LOSERS
LASERS ARE SHINING BEAMS OF LIGHT THAT BURN THROUGH THE DARKNESS OF IGNORANCE
LASERS SHED LIGHT ON INJUSTICE AND INEQUALITY
LOSERS STAND BY AND LET THINGS HAPPEN
LASERS ACT AND SHAPE THEIR OWN DESTINIES
LASERS FIND MEANING AND DIRECTION IN THE MYSTERIES ALL AROUND THEM
LASERS STAND FOR LOVE AND COMPASSION
LASERS STAND FOR PEACE
LASERS STAND FOR PROGRESSION
LASERS ARE REVOLUTIONARY
LASERS ARE THE FUTURE

Love Always Shines Everytime Remember 2 Smile - LF


"It's so loud inside my head with words that I should have said. As I drown in my regrets, I can't take back the words I never said."

Special Comment: O’Really Mr. Olbermann? It’s Nothing But the Dog in You

For years, Comedy Central's entertainers have fed the college-age demographic their news in the form of The Daily Show and more recently The Colbert Report. These shows have always been intended to make light of the world’s heaviest burdens and provide political commentary through the lens of satire and comedy. While neither of these shows ever claimed to be news programs, a recent Internet poll for Time showed that not Katie Couric, not Charlie Gibson, not Brian Williams, but The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart was the nation’s most trusted name in news . While I’m not stating that this poll has any statistic validity or is representative of the nation’s opinion whatsoever, it’s a sad statement about the level of trust between the public and the media. For a show that makes more poop jokes than Comedy Central’s other most popular program, South Park, to be considered the most trusted name in news, it points out the failures of news reporters to build a rapport with the people.

The twenty-four hour cable news networks have taken notes on Comedy Central’s success, and have attempted to emulate the formula of entertainment news. In order to do this, networks through their journalistic integrity out the door by injecting an unhealthy dose of subjectivity and bias into their presentation of the news. Although it is understood that a certain degree of bias inevitably exist, this radical disregard for objectivity is thrown out the window in favor of opinionated talking heads who supply a great deal of entertainment yet very little investigative journalism.

Some argue that this sort of subjectivity in the media is actually beneficial and follows our judicial system of adversarial legalism, where attorneys on both sides prepare and present their respective cases to the best of their ability, regardless of their own personal opinion. They throw their own beliefs out the window because they are motivated to win their case for the money. This also ignores one of the biggest problems revolving adversarial legalism: the results are heavily influenced based on the resources available to the respective sides. Finally, this assumes that most Americans get their news from multiple sources that offer unique, opposing perspectives on issues, which is simply rarely the case in reality. Most Americans have their favorite, usually like-minded medium to connect them with the news and do not take the time to explore different sources either because they do not care or have no time. And for those American who do, I applaud you in hopes that you are doing so in order to come to your own partisan-free opinion, and not solely so you can better know your enemy. At this time, I will refrain from further ranting on blind partisanship and its effects since it’s a song sung so much that the choirs getting tired of it. While there’s a time and a place for it, this dying dog has been kicked enough for one day.

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on dogs, and maybe cats, and possibly the abuse of comas, grandiose verbatim, and multiple camera angles all in an attempt to stroke one’s own ego. Yes, indeed, Mr. Olbermann, sir, this comment, my comment, is undoubtedly aimed and directed at your humiliating fall from grace into the very darkest and most dismal depths which you yourself, sir, usually damn all disagreeing contemporaries to. You are walking on hollow ground previously traversed by the likes of Jim Cramer, Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and FRIENDS, and you are dangerously close to aiding and abetting these tyrants of terror in the murder of journalism, the murder of America, and worse, the murder of modern democracy. The plague that has become 24 hour American Journalism will spread faster and more rapidly than Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, and is far, far more deadly and despicable. You have stooped, good sir, to a level of fear mongering through the pompous and bombastic verbal vomit that you spew out on Americans. While some may be impressed with your uncanny ability to abuse a thesaurus, I must ask if this is your attempt to appease academic intellectuals, inspire awe in Americans in order to coax them into following your own political agenda, or are you committing indecent exposure by masturbating in front of millions of Americans every night in an attempt to pleasure your already emphatically over-inflated ego? It is with great sorrow that I have to report that we have all been fooled, and that the year is not 2010, but indeed 1984.

Sigh… Ok, I can’t handle this anymore. Even while simply typing, I lack the natural improvisational abilities of greats like Stephen Colbert and Sacha Baron Cohen to stay in character. My abilities might be comparable to that of Ben Affleck, and while I cannot consider myself an aficionado on his career, one of his greatest moments may have come from his Saturday Night Live parody of MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Please indulge yourselves by taking a few moments and enjoying this classic comedic commentary.



After Pearl Harbor, I never thought that the words Ben Affleck and masterful could be used in the same sentence, but it’s an apt description of his critique of Olbermann. The work speaks for itself by addressing many of the aforementioned problems. What really irks me about Keith is that he does so much right, but his delivery and presentation tend to be so radical that it ruins any of his credibility. Everything becomes a slippery slope for Mr. Olbermann that he takes to illogical extremes. For example, the potential ramifications of the recent Supreme Court case personally involving campaign financing scared me, but Olbermann compared the decision to the same Dred Scott case that sparked the Civil War. His scathing analysis of the decision perpetuates the growing distrust of government, and is entirely fatalistic without a presentation of the potential resolutions to his fears.

Keith claims he is simply fulfilling his role as a government watchdog for the sake of educating Americans on the affairs of their government and the world, a noble and necessary function of a journalist. But Mr. Olbermann needs to focus more on enlightening individuals with the information to make their own educated decisions instead of simply indoctrinating the public with his own philosophies and beliefs. Even though Keith clearly feels he is the preeminent human being whose intellect vastly exceeds his fellow citizens, that does not mean we are not worthy to critically think for ourselves and become engage in the political arena. Yes, the Right does have its attack dogs, but you don’t engage Goliath in hand to hand combat, regardless of how strong you are. It’s not only reckless but childish, and Olbermann should know better.

Whether he is a watch dog, or indeed the Left's attack dog, Olbermann has been acting too much like a dog. Please save your reputation by leaving your bias and your ego at the door, sir, and please engage us in meaningful discussions that is respectfully representative of the multiplicity of views of our UNITED States of America, and stop fueling the partisanship fire your preach against every night from on top of your soap box.