Obama Is Dedicated To Terrorism, Says Noam Chomsky


Earlier in the week, friend of President Barack Obama and former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers criticized the President for his foreign-policy initiatives, which Ayers deemed to be terroristic. It’s one thing when a left-wing activist with ties to terror in his own background criticizes Obama; but for anyone who was hesitant to agree with Ayers because of his sordid past, celebrated left-leaning polemicist Noam Chomsky has your back.

In a thorough interview with GRITtv host Laura Flanders, the MIT professor and prolific author said that Obama has not just earned the title of “terrorist” — the President has proven time and again that it is “dedicated to increasing terrorism.”

“The Obama Administration is dedicated to increasing terrorism,” he went on. “In fact, it’s doing it all over the world. Obama, first of all, is running the biggest terrorist operation that exists, maybe in history. The drone assassination campaigns, which are just part of it… All of these operations, they are terror operations.”

Chomsky explained that the Administration’s drone policy is strikingly evident as a multiplier of violent extremism.

“People have a reaction, they don’t say, ‘Fine, I don’t care if my cousin was murdered.’ And they become what we call terrorists,” he said. “This is completely understood from the highest level, that as you carry out these operations you’re generating terrorism.”

Later, echoing a belief that anyone familiar with the foreign policy positions of former Representative Ron Paul has heard before, Chomsky surmised: “People hate the country that’s just terrorizing them, that’s not a surprise. Just consider the way we react to acts of terror. That’s the way other people react to acts of terror.”



If the Federal officials in the United States are dedicated to promoting terrorism in other parts of the world to maintain a military presence, Chomsky forces Americans to wonder: Is there great reason to question what actions the government may take in order to continue to justify its secret surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people throughout the world?

The author — who has penned several works and lectured relentlessly about the evils of top-down media propaganda throughout his career, including his famous Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media — decried the Federal government’s spying on its citizens and people of other countries in a separate interview with The Guardian.

Of the recently exposed National Security Agency data-collection efforts, Chomsky said he wasn’t surprised; but he applauded The Guardian and whistle-blower Edward Snowden for bringing the surveillance to the peak of public awareness.

“Governments should not have this capacity. But governments will use whatever technology is available to them to combat their primary enemy — which is their own population,” he told The Guardian.

“… But it is a little difficult to be too surprised by it,” he said.

What is a big shock to Chomsky, however, is how comfortable he feels younger populations are with the government’s all-seeing surveillance state.

“Polls in the U.S. indicate there is generational issue here that someone ought to look into — my impression is that younger people are less offended by this than the older generation. It may have to do with the exhibitionist character of the internet culture, with Facebook and so on,” he said. “On the internet, you think everything is going to be public.”

The only way to reverse course, according to Chomsky, is for more government whistle-blowers and more serious journalists to blow the cover of dangerous government policies and stir up public debate, regardless of whether Federal officials fulfill promises of transparency.

Unfortunately, suspected terrorists and uncooperative heads of state in the Mideast are not the only people subject to the President’s wrath; and whistle-blowers, especially, have not been treated kindly in Obama’s America.

It’s starting to become clear, even mainstream, as people like Chomsky continue to become increasingly vocal in resentment of the current White House’s actions: The true perpetrators of some of the vilest acts carried out in recent years aren’t all hiding in caves in the Third World.

Most of them are roaming Washington’s marbled halls.

Personal Liberty

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Vigilant

    Noam Chomsky is “mainstream?” You’ve got to be kidding.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      If O ran again for president if he was allowed, would Chomsky vote for him again? I am suspicious of all these “rats” who are pretending to desert the sinking ship O.

      • Vigilant

        Chomsky said in 2008, “I voted green. If I had been in a swing state – this [Massachusetts] is a fixed state – if I had been in a swing state I probably would have held my nose and voted for Obama. Just to keep out the alternative, which is worse. I had no expectations about him and I’m not in the least disillusioned. In fact I wrote about him before the primaries. I thought he was awful.”

        He probably still thinks Obama is the least of numerous evils. “[Chomsky] has described himself as a “fellow traveller” to the anarchist tradition, and refers to himself as a libertarian socialist,” (Wikipedia)

        He never voted for the Libertarian candidate, however. “Noam Chomsky has described libertarianism, as it is understood in the United states, as, “extreme advocation of total tyranny” and “the extreme opposite of what’s been called libertarian in every other part of the world since the Enlightenment.” (Ibid.)

        • lhathorn1

          Libertarianism and socialism are mutually exclusive. There is no way to reconcile the two. Socialists want to increase govt interference, coercion, aggression, regulations, etc , while libertarians want the opposite. People who claim to be what Chomsky claims are deluded, misinformed, stupid maybe.

          • Vigilant


    • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Vigilant,

      You write: “Noam Chomsky is ‘mainstream?'” I believe you missed the comma.

      Best wishes,

      • Vigilant

        Mr. Rolley wrote, “It’s starting to become clear, even mainstream, as people like Chomsky continue to become increasingly vocal in resentment of the current White House’s actions:”

        The implication was clear to me and the average reader. What have I missed?

  • fancycake

    unfortunately he is right about how ignorant and self-absorbed our young people are and that is because they have been cultivated to accept this type of surveillance from birth. That cultivation has been subtle, but constant. Ergo, our young see nothing wrong with it . Even people like Chomsky can get it right once in a while.

    • jim b

      The governments 12 year sentence corrupts our children, and has already corrupted several generations prior. We are at the midway point of the socialist evolution, of a government out of control.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Young people still have time on their side to wake up, it is the oldsters which have remained ignorant from youth we should worry about because they will cling to O the hardest.

  • FreedomFighter

    the MIT professor and prolific author said that Obama has not just earned the title of “terrorist” — the President has proven time and again that it is “dedicated to increasing terrorism.”
    The man has a penchant for the obvious, then again over half of America seems to be oblivious to the obvious
    Laus DeoSemper FI

    • jim b

      Yes FF. Here are some words from Ben Franklin:
      A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.

  • jim b

    Lost his preacher, lost his best friend(s), soon to lose the Presidency, and soon to lose his undocumented citizenship. This is getting fun’r by the day! Just wait until Hillary’s book comes out ‘What I did for this A-hole’. In the next 3 years she is going to have to put a lot, and I mean a lot of distance between herself and the Obizmo if she is ever going to jump start here PoliTic career again.
    I wonder how much Ayers knows about Obizmo’s true nationality?

    • me

      The hell of it is there isn’t much difference between the two. when bill was president she tried to push Hillarycare thru. I’d almost bet there wasn’t too much difference between the owebunhole care and Hillarycare. Who knows , since she was in his cabinent she probly put in ideas. Both of them were followers of the neo marxist Saul Alinsky. Imagine the damage with owebunhole with Hillary following up. this country don’t need it. we need change like McCains wacko birds. They seem to be constitutionalists and back the people a lot. right now Owebunhole is putting his agenda in high gear. With all the scandals coming up, why isn’t anything being done. Too bad there cant be recall elections with better choice of candidate being taken with the opposition. Romney aand McCain were both examples of bad choice.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Ayers probably knows all of O’s history but this distancing could be fake or Ayers may actually be afraid for his life with having this knowledge. Ayers usefulness as an useful idiot may be over.

    • rocketride

      I certainly hope you’re right, but I ain’t considering my poultry census definitive until all the eggshells are broken.

  • satelliter

    This article nails the truth of the matter. I grew up in the 50’s and I can say we never knew or heard anything about muslims until we started bombing them and killing their citizens. Now we all want to call them terrorists, which they are, but mostly BECAUSE we attacked their homeland and murdered their citizens. Their attacks on Americans are simply reactions and responses to our invasion of their countries. I have a feeling that if we would just go away and leave them alone ( and buy their oil) they would go back to fighting among themselves and not bother with us.

    • Vigilant

      You must have had a childhood deprived of any knowledge of current events. Israel was attacked almost immediately after its birth by the nations surrounding her. It happened several times before you ever heard of us “bombing them and killing their citizens.”

      • Wiley2

        You’ve made Satelliter’s point when you consider the fact that Israel was created by displacing or relegating to second class status the people already living there. Whether or not you believe in Israel’s right to exist, it’s perfectly understandable and predictable that those who suffered as a result of Israel’s creation, and neighbors who sympathized with the displaced, would fight back.

        • Vigilant

          Reading comprehension problems? I addressed no such thing as the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the action/reaction after the formation of Israel. I simply said “You must have had a childhood deprived of any knowledge of current events.”

          If Satelliter never heard anything about Muslim attacks upon Israel in the 1950s, then indeed he/she led a life blissfully ignorant of happenings in the Middle East.

          Changing the subject adds nothing to the thread.

          • Wiley2

            As I read it, Satelliter’s central point is that attacks by Muslims are usually in response to provocation. Israel’s early experience is an example of just such a situation, so my comment was on point and not a change of subject.

            Whether Satelliter was aware of events in Israel when he was growing up doesn’t invalidate his main point, and your focusing on that irrelevancy suggests that either you have the “reading comprehension problems” or are simply more interested in personal attacks and put-downs than in a substantive discussion.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Such Bull.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Nadzieja Batki,

            To what “Bull” are you referring?

            Best wishes,

          • Vigilant

            “…so my comment was on point and not a change of subject.”

            May have been on Satelliter’s subject, it wasn’t on mine.

          • WTS/JAY

            Wiley2: As I read it, Satelliter’s central point is that attacks by Muslims are usually in response to provocation.

            You would think. Unfortunately, that was never the case with the “Muslim-menace”!

            The biggest Holocaust in world history…

  • hungry4food

    Even these Extremists who put Obama in Office are becoming Scared of this man and his Administration now !!!!!!!!

    • vicki

      Slow learners

      • rocketride

        You pretty much have to be at least a bit dim to be a communist. If they’re not organically stupid (i.e., having a hardware problem like brain-damage, retardation, etc.), then at least they’re well-trained to have certain cognitive blind spots. Call it a sort of brain malware– and the vast collection of reds, pinkos, fellow travelers as a sort of organic spambot. This last is plainly evident in how perfectly verbatim the White House’s talking points get repeated.

        • vicki

          You know that people who believe in communism have a cognitive blind spot. Eve when the communist pushers/leaders tell them to their face what the plan is the “useful idiots” get right out there and support communism.

          The statement the pushers use?

          “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

          Simple direct honest statement of the Elites plan.

          Slaves don’t need iphones and fancy houses, food, etc.

          • rocketride

            Not to mention the pains that the media-ocrities go to to avoid pointing out the dodginess (or outright lack) of leftist politicians’ logic.


    There is a video of Barry and it confirms he is a darling of the communst party in the US, it is undeniable and needs to be put on the internet to keep this fact in mind.
    The Faker in the WH is doing what all communist do, destroying any and all opposition no matter the source and consolidate all power, monies and control under their regime…now if that doesn’t make you enemies what will it take?
    Were I his commie buddies, it behooves them to remember, all despots and tyrants will eventually show themselves to be paranoid and unstable and fear any and all relations and intentions…they could wind up figuratively and literally “under a bus” ……

  • rocketride

    So, now it looks like the burning love the left has had with Obama and his Chicago MAFIA may be transforming into the burning and itching kind.

  • Michael Shreve

    Here’s news. EVERY TYRANT is a terrorist. Who knew. If every tyrant is a terrorist and Obama is a HUGE advocate of terrorist tactics then Obama is, by definition, a terrorist.

  • Dennis Patrick

    Some profound words from Professor Chomsky:

    “The electoral system has been almost totally shredded. For a long time, it has been pretty much run by private concentrated spending but now it is kind of like over the top. The Republican Party has for some years pretty much abandoned any pretense of being a traditional political party. It’s kind of lock-step obedience to very rich, super rich corporate sector. They can’t get votes that way so they’ve had to mobilize a different constituency which has always been there through American history but never, rarely, was mobilized politically. They call it the religious right but basically the religious, the extreme religious population. It is off the spectrum in religious commitment and anti-abortion, opposed to women’s rights. So they had to appeal to that and to the nativist population: the people who are frightened, very frightened. And it’s increasing now. The recognition that the white population is going to be a minority soon, so “they’ve taken our country from us.” That’s the Republicans.”

    • Vigilant

      “It’s kind of lock-step obedience to very rich, super rich corporate sector.”
      You need updated talking points.

      If you truly believe the Dems don’t depend on that very same sector, you should seek medical help.

  • Dennis Patrick

    More good comments from Professor Chomsky – thanks for posting, Sam Rolley!!

    Q: So sounds like you’d support the Cleveland model where the ownership of the company is actually held by an NGO (non-Government organization) representing the community as well as workers.

    A: That’s a step forward. But also has to go beyond that to dismantle the system of production for profit rather than production for use. And that means dismantling at least large parts of market systems…. If you are in a system where you must make profit in order to survive, you’re compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others…. The market systems also have very bad psychological effect. They drive people to conception of themselves and society in which you are only after your own good, not others. And that’s extremely harmful.

    • Blank Reg

      And who decides what to produce in what quantity for whose use? Free market competition and price systems are far better and more efficient than any hierarchical statist system run by know-it-all intellectual elitists who’ve never produced anything themselves. That worked out REAL well in the USSR.

      Oh, and BTW, everyone looks out for his/her self interest all the time. Even communists. Just human nature. Right down to the DNA.

      • Vigilant

        Every progressive, socialist and communist believes the same thing: that those bankrupt statist economic systems never worked in history because they weren’t done right. They all think “we can do it right.” They are all delusional.

    • Vigilant

      Communist claptrap. Capitalism has raised more boats and fostered the greatest good for the greatest number than any other economic system in history.

      Go back to your cave, troglodyte, and choke on Karl Marx and Howard Zinn.

  • sancheleezy

    Even though the men Ayers and Chomsky are considered “leftists”, and believe in government programs enabling people, they are still right on this issue. Our present policy of the last 5 administrations (whether Republican and Democrat) are promoting hatred abroad against us, through their promotion of covert undercover operations of the CIA/Pentagon/Defense Dept. We need to bring our troops home out of harms way and work with other nations to take care of their own defense needs and trade with them openly. Hopefully we eventually will come together as a nation to our senses with more peaceable means of dealing with others, but maintain the the strongest military in order to protect us against any actual enemies that attack us.

    • Vigilant

      Even broken watches are right twice a day.

  • Alan

    Most of this bastards terrorism is being perpertrated on us, and at our expence.