let's not beat about the bush here...despite dreaming away four fluffy years in the complacent clouds of ideologically-insulated democratic fairyland, obama does not automatically deserve a second term in
sleeping beauty's castle (bavaria, colorado), because, save for
his innovation in using civilizing cruise-missiles to radically redesign the humble family abodes of brown folks across afghanistan,
his vision in demolishing illiberal libya (together with the lives of a few tens of thousand black and arab africans) in order to make way for the extremist gangland-patchwork of a
cia-inspired weaponry-wonderland,
his dedication to the task of brutally eradicating a government with an un-american sounding name in somalia,
his subversive approval for the toppling of an unaesthetically left-handed chocolate baron in the ivory coast,
his bold promotion of black majority rule within the united states prison-system,
his commitment to positive discrimination for african-americans wasting-away their lives on the waiting-list for a lethal-injection, and save for
his abolition of due respect for archaic bureaucratic civil-rights legislation originally envisaged to prevent the hunting down and slaying of unarmed black youths, the first african-american president hasn't changed a darned-devil-detail of a thing for his fellow humankind, especially those in the poorer divisions. do i hear you cry "racist"? yes? well, err...not really, no i'm not...since i don't in fact believe that
any american president has earned a second-helping, and, if the truth be told,
none of these war-greedy dictators has
ever earned the power which is laid-on with that particular presidency, at all...(except for poor old ronnie reagan, in his younger days a sincere intelligent man with immense political integrity, who obviously could not be held responsible for the war-crimes perpetrated by his subordinate gangsters on account of his grey marble being irretrievably diminished by old age.)
...and now, perversely, fully sated after four years of uninterrupted bloodlust, the vampires in the white house are making righteous overtures of peace toward the middle-east - however, reading such regular rounds of romney-bashing in publications such as the daily telegraph makes one peruse the possibility that president obama has long since secured the tel aviv contract on iran...there again, he might let the israelis go ahead and bust into tehran, but then inexplicably fail to back them up...
...okay, of course...in theory, i'd love the
challenger,
mister unmittigated, to be given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to show how his free-market policies could ultimately shake-out the country's encrusted economic cobwebs, thus allowing
his private corporate cowboys (instead of
obama's public ones) to rob the electorate down to its very last dime...but alas, it must also be recognized that this single-minded single-celled ship's captain is in reality a crafty covert crypto-communist who desires nothing more than to skip the inauguration ball, jump straight into
air-force one, and commence playing with his little red button. indeed, mr romney lives in the insidious hope of provoking a pre-emptive israeli attack on iran and subsequently precipitating a worldwide conflict which would see a half-hearted battle-weary north america and a less-than-half-hearted europe valiantly take on a hopping-mad heavily-armed russia, china, middle-east, south america and most of darkest disenchanted disenfranchized africa - with the final result most probably panning out accordingly: after a 20-year-long war, costing billions of lives, the united states would eventually be occupied by the victorious allied defenders of global-freedom and divided into four controlling sectors (the russian sector, the chinese sector, the iranian sector, and the zimbabwean sector) and the capital, washington dc itself, would be divided-up in similar fashion...great britain would suffer a nuclear attack before being surrendered unconditionally by her majesty the queen, although it would later be established that the decisive annihilation of london was actually a case of american friendly-fire...israel would get themselves mugged by their neighbours and demand rehousing from the chinese, to whom they had secretly switched sides before the war (which, you will remember, the israelis had initiated by attacking iran and triggering-off the whole shabang), the united nations would grant israel a charter to take up accommodation on the islands currently known as japan, the japanese would be removed to south korea, south korea would get taiwan, taiwan would...oh shit, i think you get the drift.
by-the-way, what's the betting on the american people voting for a suicide-dingbat who will merrily take most of them with him to republican hell? quite high, i'd imagine...?
...blast it, yeah...basically romney's a wrong-un, a complete nonny no-no - so i suppose we'll just have to return to offering mr obama constructive advice and making helpful yet sensitive criticisms...
to summarize his short but rank reign, the first african-american president has failed to close down guantanamo bay detention centre, but otherwise done sweet fanny adams and even
she's getting brassed-off with the lack of material change - once you've seen the contents of one grey suit you've seen them all, apparently. obama claims that muslim people have suffered intolerably at the hands of terrorists, yet conveniently omits to mention that the overwhelming majority of attacks have been clumsily orchestrated by the united states army; obama claims that he stands for freedom of speech, yet, for example, has done nothing, here in britain, to quell the suppressive tactics employed by his henchmen and supporters against those who wish to question his distressingly scarred record on human rights; persistent drone flights over afghanistan and pakistan and their accompanying lightening-strike assassinations are inducing deep psychoses amongst local inhabitants on the ground; obama's presidency has given rise to rebellion and riot throughout the middle east, north africa and even here in little old england - his leadership seems to instigate, not the peaceful civil-rights 'please-be-nice-and-change-your-oppressive-racist-establishment-from-the-inside' kinda protest of the 1960s (from which grew the ideologically futile beanstalk that he himself climbed to grab his meaningless political loot), and not the practical-yet-ethical self-defence type of stand against aggressive authority (as famously proposed by hard-sane independent men of the street, such as mr malcolm x), but rather the violent hate-fuelled revolt of extremists infiltrated then fired-up by agents of the cia and led by the power-gluttonous wannabe-bourgeois government-bitches (and here i use the word 'bitch' in its non-sexist sense), who, frustrated and angry with 9-to-5 career-chosen-cocksucking at the feet of their class-confining-overlords, leave over-remunerated work at weekends to mouth-off in a vicious repartie of reprisal reflected from the mirror of their own immoral folly, inciting the impressionable road-ragged grudge of youth to leap over the revolutionary barricade of bad-emotion and chuck their un-lived lives at the mercy of the unmerciful line-up of state mercenaries (clocked-in colleagues of those same senior pseudo-sunday-agitators, who, afraid of losing the slutty-slot in the system where they prattle and pose, slip-quietly-into-reverse in search of some mythical lost wallet, packed with hard hypocrisy); the epitomy of this syndrome: obama the rebel with a remote...
...and what has his highness to say about the assault on humanity in haiti, and the deliberate deluge which cruelly drowned a coastline of communities in japan? pre-informed rumours circulated halfway 'round the globe in awful anticipation of these cynical crimes - so why the officially sanctioned silence and the mass-media cover-up of a massively misunderstood murder? was there a soupçon of
cia involvement, perhaps? or has the president been kept in the dark? and then we must examine the curiously ambushed ambassador in libya, cited as 'a friend of the arabs' - it's inconceivable that the
cia did not know their own hoodlums were staging a slickly organized slap-in-the-face-of-america, designed to damage the obama administration. who stood to gain from this act of terror? mr romney? or would hitman clinton maybe consider herself a stiletto shoe-in if the united states were subjected to a short sharp spell of romney ruin...? the main question is: if not the president, who is running the
cia? mitt romney? mrs clinton? a foreign nation? no-one?
if mr obama is being undermined by a clandestine inner circle for which he does not have the racial or family 'status' to attain membership, surely he must speak out? if he is being compelled, through malevolent threats, to slaughter the sons and daughters of mother earth and to rape africa and asia of their integral geological riches, surely he should resign and leave office in order to confront his extortionists? if none of the above apply, he must be man enough to carry the can; isn't it strange that there were no accusations of electoral racism when obama was voted into the white house, yet now there is a real chance that he could be voted out, the accusations of racism are flying every-which-way?
as a final gesture of goodwill, we here at
spark up! editorial high-command would like to offer president obama a piece of sincere and heartfelt free-advice - namely, that in the event of him being fortunate enough to fluke another four years in office, he should please try to avoid playing the
rôle of hillary clintwick's magic broomstick...
...and if he is not duly fated to be re-elected, we can cheerfully console him with the fact that a vacancy could soon arise for the position of coach at
norwich city football club.
