What Lupe Fiasco Really Thinks About President Obama

Ever since Lupe Fiasco made the statement that “the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America,” he has taken some heat from not only his fellow entertainers, but from both liberals and conservatives in the political arena.

Even Fox News talk show host Bill O’Reilly called him a “pinhead” in regards to his viewpoint on the President and government because he felt as though Lupe Fiasco wasn’t willing to come on his show to defend his remarks.

Media mogul Russell Simmons decided to use Global Grind as a platform to create a dialogue with Lupe, allowing him to explain the statement and expand on his thoughts. Lupe explained why he believes America is based on hypocrisy and further compares Osama Bin Laden’s role as a mastermind of terrorist acts as that of our President who pushes aggression and sends our soldiers to war to kill innocent people. Read his thoughts below (*it’s a little long but he made very interesting points):

Lupe: America was based on a hypocrisy and what we had done is basically an extension of that hypocrisy. My issue and what I try and do is expose that hypocrisy but expand the conversation to make it honest. To make the conversation honest so it speaks to everyone so people become educated to those things. So for me it boils down to everything that America does. It’s foreign policy is very hypocritical, it’s very backwards. We don’t count the other bodies, for us the war is one-way. And they’re not even wars of attrition, not even honest wars. They’re not wars that were like wars that were fought 200 years ago or wars that were fought a hundred years ago. These are wars that are based on business. These are wars that are based on “let’s build these drones and we gotta try this technology but we need to make sure it works so we need to at least kill X amount of people so we can prove the value of this particular project that we spent 40 billion dollars on,” so to speak. And you multiply times how many things are going through the Pentagon military industrial complex.
So when I make the statement about Obama being a terrorist it was funny because somebody had did it … on one of the blogs or one of the news pieces or one of the internet sites that actually ran with the story or re-put it out, one of the people in the commentary related the whole situation to Osama bin Laden right? And Osama bin Laden was the unquestioned head of Al Qaeda, he was the mastermind, he was a financier, he was a politician, he orchestrated things for al-Qaeda and what have you, but Osama bin Laden wasn’t a suicide bomber. He wasn’t a soldier. If he was a suicide bomber he would be dead, because his first mission there would be no more Osama bin Laden. Other than the time that he spent in Afghanistan, as far as we know he was never the one running in to the supermarkets shooting people, he was never the one running into the mosque shooting people, he was never one at the roadside setting up IEDs, he didn’t fly the planes into the buildings or anything like that. He was the mastermind, the financier and what have you. And some instances the way al-Qaeda is set up there’s certain things that Osama bin Laden probably didn’t even know about that was occurring all throughout the Middle East, all throughout North Africa and in the U.S. as well. So he’s a terrorist even though he never really did a terrorist act.
So they related it to Obama and they said well Obama is kinda in the same light. Every President before him and every President that comes after him that still pushes aggression first. Whereas Obama never killed anybody. Him himself. He doesn’t know how to fly a stealth fighter. He never piloted a drone from a hundred miles away and dropped a bomb on a wedding or a birthday party. But at the same time too he should receive the same amount of credit for those actions of the people that are under him and the organizations that he heads. He should receive the same credit and the same title that Osama bin Laden gets. What’s the difference between somebody walking a bomb in strapped to their chest into a wedding full of innocent people or a bomb coming from a stealth fighter two miles up and coming into the roof into a wedding full of innocent people? What’s the difference? At the end of the day you’re killing innocent people. So for me it’s — and that’s from somebody else that was from somebody spectating and commentating on the situation. So as long as they can inspire things like that then I feel that it’s a just and a real honest and critical conversation that we’re having right now. It’s inspiring this type of thought, for people to start thinking critically about what’s going on. I can sit out and fully — ya’ know if it was in a political context and we sat down and had the real political discourse and I went and quoted all of the books I read and documentaries I’ve seen and the knowledge and the numbers and the statistics that I have — I can explain why, what, when and where to a tee. But in the state that we live in and the way the media’s run and the way the internet works I’m at the mercy of the soundbite and I’m at the mercy of the attention span of 140 characters on Twitter and things of that nature. I think there’s a certain level of hypocrisy that this country was founded on and I’m just kinda trying to find out the effects of it now. If that makes any sense?