Sunday, October 07, 2012

Obama vs. Romney

The Die is Cast
The vitriol, misrepresentation, and outright lies emanating from the Obama camp and liberal Super PACs surpasses anything I have previously witnessed
Erik Rush
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Whoever is victorious in the election for President of the United States today, some very pertinent facts have become clear, and many of these are positive in nature.
That said, personally I have found this election cycle to be the most disgusting I have even seen in America. The vitriol, misrepresentation, and outright lies emanating from the Obama camp and liberal Super PACs surpasses anything I have previously witnessed – and I’ve witnessed some questionable campaigns.
I grew up in the metropolitan New York area, wherein the prevailing political influences have been liberal for a long time. Obviously, general elections in New York have largely favored Democrat Presidents, Senators and Representatives for decades; when Republicans have been elected, these were essentially liberal Republicans who could never have gotten elected outside of major urban areas.
When I was a youth, local elections often included individuals we all knew were mobbed up, but that’s the way it worked, and there wasn’t much anyone could do about it. That influence definitely carried over to the statehouse, and only abated – to degree – when you got to the level of the Governor’s mansion, although some might argue otherwise these days. Growing up, one of my concerns was that some mobbed-up former governor from New York would wind up winning the presidency.
In retrospect, that might not have been so bad…
As we’ve closed in on the Presidential election, more and more observers, pundits, and prognosticators have begun to assert that the surprise will not be that Barack Obama is beaten, but how badly he winds up getting beaten.
But I did indeed digress. Referencing those things which may bring that defeat about, I believe that some issues which have gone unreported have not gone completely unnoticed by the American people. These are also telling insofar as they are indicators of public sentiment as regards President Obama. Most importantly, I believe that many Americans have come to the conclusion that this is a pivotal election, one that must re-affirm – as radio host Glenn Beck intones – who we are.
For example: The Republican base is motivated; the liberal base is not. GOP nominee Mitt Romney is turning out impassioned, large crowds, while Obama’s have become pitifully small compared to the norm – certainly compared to his showing in 2008. Romney has appeared sincere and cogent, while Obama has been passive-aggressive.
Most recently, the cover-up behind the inconsistency in the press reports and the administration’s accounts of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 has taken a toll on Obama’s support, despite the interference run by the press. Even the positive press the President received “looking presidential” in the wake of Hurricane Sandy is backfiring as the bureaucratic megalith in New York (a liberal-run bureaucratic megalith, by the way) proves abysmally ineffective in providing disaster relief for New Yorkers.
The wretched state in which America finds itself economically and in terms of foreign policy certainly will militate against Obama’s re-election effort. We also have those Americans who, thanks to the availability of information and such enlightening exposés as Dinesh D’Souza’s film, 2016: Obama’s America, have become aware of just how dangerous the man is (I am taking as given of course, the fact that the American press has devolved into nothing more than the propaganda arm for the global socialist movement in America).
Thus, more people than the average dedicated conservative or libertarian might be aware of have indeed learned of such things as Obama’s closeted communist sympathies, and that of his cabinet. They know about Benghazigate, and Fast and Furious. In fact, all but the most dedicated Obama supporters, the profoundly deluded, and the pitifully stupid have scratched the surface and witnessed the festering wound of corruption beneath. They have long since begun to enumerate the discrepancies between what Obama says and what he does, what he has said he’s done and what he has in fact done.
The public sentiment itself as regards President Obama has changed too. Even if the random voter has not come to the conclusion that Obama subscribes to an evil political doctrine, and may in fact still like him, practical considerations speak for themselves. They can see the suffering around them, if in fact they are not suffering themselves.
Lastly, despite the 2008 election having historical significance, the novelty has definitely worn off. While race was never an issue for most American voters, it is likely that millions of politically-aware Americans have determined to keep their thoughts to themselves due to the oversensitivity vis-à-vis race on the part of so many.
Having made said determination, they will nevertheless be voting against Obama, since he has proven that a black man can be just as duplicitous, deceitful, and inept as a white one.
Erik Rush is a New York-born columnist, author and speaker who writes sociopolitical commentary for numerous online and print publications. In February of 2007, Erik was the first to break the story of President (then Senator) Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a national level, which ignited a media firestorm that smolders to this day. His latest book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal ~ America’s Racial Obsession,” examines the racist policies by which the political left keeps black Americans in thralldom, white Americans guilt-ridden and yielding, and maintains the fallacy that America remains an institutionally racist nation. Links to his work are available at
Vote to Save the Nation!
A week without power in the Northeast such as I have experienced is a metaphor for what every American will experience if Obama is reelected
Alan Caruba
Monday, November 5, 2012
No previous election has ever held the fate of the nation in its hands since the reelection of Abraham Lincoln in the midst of the Civil War. If Obama is elected, he will continue his agenda to drive this nation to the point of financial collapse and leave behind millions of Americans without jobs or any hope for the future.
And that includes the liberal retards who will vote for him in an election that is, according to the pundits, too close to call. There is something terribly frightening to contemplate that half the voters will vote to continue his planned destruction and his potential for declaring himself President for Life. He is the classic tyrant.
Any voter who pulls the lever for any candidate who speaks of “climate change”, the replacement for the failed “global warming” hoax, should be soundly defeated. Whether they actually believe the Earth is in peril or whether they are just part of the Congressional candidates for the Senate and the House who spout the “party line”, these men and women must defeated before they inflict more damage on the economy.
The impact of Hurricane Sandy left millions in the Northeast without the most precious power we possess, electrical power. All life depends on it in our intricately technological society. Beyond that, it demonstrates the raw power of Nature. It demonstrates that it is not the Earth that needs to be saved, it is humanity.
Mitt Romney promises to repeal Obamacare and that is surely a priority. It seizes control of the best healthcare system in the world and it will doom senior citizens to death by denying them the care that a humane, caring society should never deny. To fund it, Obamacare has taken $716 billion from Medicare.
Mitt Romney promises to unleash the vast potential that our vast energy reserves, coal, natural gas, and oil, as well as nuclear power represent. Obama and his administration have sought to deny the billions these represent in wages and taxes.
You cannot “conserve” energy. You can either use it or not. When denied energy, a vast swath of the Northeast returned, literally, to the Dark Ages.
Mitt Romney and a Republican controlled Congress will rein in a totally rogue federal government agency, the Environmental Protection Agency. The power it possesses and intends to expand through unconstitutional and unscientific regulations has thwarted every kind of economic growth for decades, but that process accelerated under Obama and must be stopped. The powers of the EPA must be returned to the governance of the individual states.
The power and prestige of the United States has been deeply wounded during the past four years. Obama has bowed to foreign leaders, has supported despots of every description, and made it clear that he is no friend to Israel, a beckon of democracy and sanity in the Middle East. He would allow Iran to become a nuclear nation by default and that cannot be allowed.
Our military must be rebuilt. The U.S. guarantees the freedom of the world’s seas and oceans, but it lacks a navy large enough to ensure that in both the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean. Obama has allowed our air power to decline and he has shrunk our army and marine forces. He has presided over the reduction of our nuclear arms.
In the face of the greatest Islamic challenge to the West he has encouraged the “Arab Spring” with a show of weakness and his behavior with regard to the murder of our ambassador to Libya and three of his staff demonstrates his indifference to the lives of those charged with protecting U.S. interests. Worse yet, his lies about the attack in Benghazi, by itself, renders him unworthy of the office of Commander-in-Chief.
In Afghanistan, the lives of American soldiers have become nothing more than a cruel sacrifice in a nation riven with corruption, unworthy of support. There has never been democracy there or elsewhere in the Middle East.
The Middle East is an Islamic cesspool and should be allowed to wallow in its own inherent violence. If our oil reserves had been developed here, we would have no need to rely on imports and a President Romney will set that in motion.
It is a sad commentary on America that half of its citizens have been indoctrinated to accept the lies of Socialism, ceded its sovereignty to the United Nations, and has permitted the federal government to grow so large it represents a threat to our Constitutional freedoms and liberties.
It is a rebuke to America that voters elected a man who is not a “native born” citizen by virtue of having a Kenyan father. The Constitution is indisputable on this. He did not and does not have a legal right to hold the office of President.
It is a sad commentary that the voters in 2008 allowed a man with no paper trail to demonstrate his ability to perform the duties of the office of President. The soaring oratory, provided to him by the ever-present Tele-Prompters promised “hope and change”, but we have been left without hope of a better future and a change that has the look and feel of a totalitarian government.
If you want to know where America under Obama is heading, one need only look at California, a state so besotted by Progressive politics that it is on the verge of financial collapse after having driven out thousands of its citizens to other states and countless companies, large and small, that existed there. Those who remain are choking to death on taxes and insane environmental mandates. Its agricultural sector has been denied water to irrigate crops.
An administration that would deny the purchase of firearms to Americans as guaranteed by the Second Amendment has ironically become the reason more and more Americans have purchased them, fearing an oppressive government and even anarchy.
He is a Communist. Raised, nurtured, and mentored by Communists; a friend to Communists; an enemy of Capitalism
I could cite many other reasons to defeat Obama, but there are two that stand out from all the others. He is a Communist. Raised, nurtured, and mentored by Communists; a friend to Communists; an enemy of Capitalism.
He is a LIAR and a pathological narcissist, indifferent to the political process of negotiation and compromise; indifferent to the fate of millions of Americans from the very young to the very old.
He does not like America.
The fate of the nation lies in the hands of “independents” who are uncommitted to either political party. The Democratic Party has become the pawn of Socialists who would turn the nation into a Communist nanny state. The history of all such governments has been the death of millions in Russia, in China, and wherever else they have been voted into power or simply seized it.
The Republican Party seeks to conserve the fundamentals of what has made America a super power in every respect.
A week without power in the Northeast such as I have experienced is a metaphor for what every American will experience if Obama is reelected.
Alan can be reached at
America Won’t Exist With Four More Years of Obama - UN Rule Within Two Years
What has Obama done that has been GOOD for the United States in the four years he has been in office?
Jerry McConnell
Monday, November 5, 2012
A November 02, 2012, online article authored by Christian Whiton, was titled “Would an Obama second term save America’s struggling middle class?” This is almost equal to asking if Obama’s first term helped America’s middle class. No amount of terms of Obama in office would help America’s middle class.
The first consideration required to formulate an answer to those questions is to acknowledge Obama’s position in the world scene. He has proven that he is more attuned to Socialism - Communism as a result of his training and education during his school years and then subsequent involvement with mentors of the Socialist - Communist leaders in America.
Secondly, his affiliation and subservience to the Islamic religion, and the Muslims thereof, preclude any possibility that the Christian pretender Barack Obama can serve any loyalty to the American middle, upper or lower classes who are overwhelmingly non-Islamist in their primary theological beliefs. Obama bows only to the Islamic rulers of the non-free world; his obeisance to Christians and others of the free world is barren.
Over the past four years Obama has paid lip-service only, to America’s middle class. His prime attention has been concentrated on the upper levels of income earners and concocting efforts to make them pay even more than the inordinately high levels they already do pay in taxes.
When a very small percentage of those wage earners pay more taxes than more than fifty percent of the total tax burden, that is frankly MORE than their fair share. Yet Obama insists that they “pay their fair share”. In his flinty eyes, those wage earners paying ALL of the taxes, 100 percent, would still not be paying enough.
Now don’t for one milli-second think I am in that tax bracket and am pleading for myself; I am so far out of that range as to be as visible as a gnat’s eyebrow. But I think it is totally unfair to demand that the job producers of our society pay all of the burdens for all of the non-producers. And if Obama would stop trying to punish the job producers with higher and higher taxes the losses of jobs to the middle class might have a chance to rebound to pre-Obama levels.
To quote what Christian Whiton says in his article referenced above in, “Americans make less now than they did four years ago. Household income adjusted for inflation has dropped back to where it was in the mid-1990s. Middle class wealth has fallen a whopping 40% in the last decade.”
Whiton also correctly states that prices in the Obama era have gone up. A great thorn in the side of working Americans, which are those that are still fortunate to have jobs that Obama’s heavy-handed policies and wasteful federal spending habits haven’t deleted from our work force, is the whopping more than double price of gas that has ascended since Obama took office.
He, Obama, has an affinity with the Islamic oil producing countries mainly in the Middle East and has done everything possible to ascertain the United States remains committed to heavy dependence on those same countries to the detriment of our people here in America.
That could be reversed in a nano-second if Obama would stop placing restrictions and impediments on the oil producers here in this country. And in addition, the pipeline known as Keystone XL out of Canada which not only would supply MUCH cheaper fuel products but CREATE THOUSANDS OF JOBS for our unemployed workforce is sitting idle because Obama sees it as being contrary to Islamic countries’ domination of oil supplies to the U. S. That alone could be viewed as an impeachable offense against our traitorous president.
Christian Whiton also states, “While politicians and pundits who talk about health care focus on the uninsured, most of the middle class has insurance. But its price continues to rise faster than inflation, jumping 9% last year alone. Obamacare is already making this worse, and will soon make middle class healthcare even less personalized.” And the soaring prices of oil products “is also beginning to drive up family grocery bills.”
Families in the middle class, which so intrigues Obama, are seeing “millions of young Americans now start off with staggering debt and lousy job prospects—both results of federal overreach into every facet of the economy and American life. The birth rate has dropped in each of the past four years since the recession began as few Americans can afford families.”
So Obama’s secret, well, maybe not so secret anymore, plan to weaken and destroy the United States is progressing along nicely for he and his socialist - communist Islamic comrades who are preparing America for the United Nations One World’ers takeover which wiil be completed within the first two years of Obama’s second term if the majority of the American people are so uncaring enough to vote for that traitor to American people and ideals.
Think for a minute and then ask yourself, “what has Obama done that has been GOOD for the United States in the four years he has been in office?” and really consider the question. You’ll come up with a totally empty answer and in reality, a very NEGATIVE answer, for he has done NOTHING POSITIVE for the country, only for himself and his non-productive followers who vote often for him in return for all the favors and handouts he provides that we the taxpayers make possible for him.
He will abandon them just as quickly as he has abandoned you and I and our families, when the United Nations corrupt cabal of greedy world riches seekers bestow favors on him and his accomplices in high treason.
For God’s sake and for the sakes of all American citizens who believe in Him, DO NOT VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA ON NOVEMBER 06, 2012. Vote as if your life depended on it; and it does!
Jerry McConnell is a longtime resident of planet earth with one half century on the seacoast of NH. He is a community activist but promises not to run for President and he feeds ACORN’s to the squirrels. He can be emailed at with complaints or the editor at with favorables.
In Amerika there will never be a real debate
Paul Craig Roberts, Contributor
Activist Post
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
God help them if Obama and Romney ever had to participate in a real debate about a real issue at the Oxford Union. They would be massacred.
The “debates” revealed that not only the candidates but also the entire country is completely tuned out to every real problem and dangerous development. For example, you would never know that US citizens can now be imprisoned and executed without due process. All that is
required to terminate the liberty and life of an American citizen by his own government is an unaccountable decision somewhere in the executive branch.
No doubt that Americans, if they think of this at all, believe that it will only happen to terrorists who deserve it. But as no evidence or due process is required, how would we know that it only happens to terrorists? Can we really trust a government that has started wars in 7 countries on the basis of falsehoods? If the US government will lie about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in order to invade a country, why won’t it lie about who is a terrorist?
America needs a debate about how we can be made more safe by removing the Constitutional protection of due process. If the power of government is not limited by the Constitution, are we ruled by Caesar? The Founding Fathers did not think we could trust a Caesar with our safety. What has changed that we can now trust a Caesar?
If we are under such a terrorist threat that the Constitution has to be suspended or replaced by unaccountable executive action, how come all the alleged terrorist cases are sting operations organized by the FBI? In eleven years there has not been a single case in which the “terrorist” had the initiative!
In the eleven years since 9/11, acts of domestic terrorism have been minuscule if they even exist. What justifies the enormous and expensive Department of Homeland Security? Why does Homeland Security have military-equipped Special Response Teams with armored vehicles? Who are the targets of these militarized units? If eleven years of US government murder, maiming, and displacement of millions of Muslims hasn’t provoked massive acts of domestic terrorism, why is Homeland Security creating a domestic armed force of its own? Why are there no congressional hearings and no public discussion? How can a government whose budget is deep in the red afford a second military force with no defined and Constitutionally legal purpose?
What is Homeland Security’s motivation in creating a Homeland Youth? Is the new FEMA Corps a disguise for a more sinister purpose, a Hitler Youth as Internet sites suggest? Are the massive ammunition purchases by Homeland Security related to the raising of a nationwide corps of 18- to 24-year-olds? How can so much be going on in front of our eyes with no questions asked?
Why did not Romney ask Obama why he is working to overturn the federal court’s ruling that US citizens cannot be subject to indefinite detention in violation of the US Constitution? Is it because Romney and his neoconservative advisers agree with Obama and his advisers? If so, then why is one tyrant better than another?
Why has the US constructed a network of detainment camps, for which it is hiring “internment specialists”? (Source)
Why does the US Army now have a policy for “establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations”? (Source)
How did the presidential debates avoid the fact of Predator Drones flying over us here in the domestic United States of America? What is the purpose of this? Why are the smallest police forces in the most remote of locations being equipped with armored cars? I have seen them. In small lilly-white communities north of Atlanta, Georgia, communities of sub-million dollar MacMansions have militarized police with armored cars and automatic weapons. SWAT teams in full military gear are everywhere. What is it all about? These small semi-rural areas will never see a terrorist or experience a hostage situation. Yet, they are all armed to the teeth. They are so heavily armed that they could be sent into combat against the Third Reich or the Red Army.
Any such questions run afoul of the assumption of America’s moral perfection. No such debate will ever
happen. But if “it is the economy, stupid,” why is there no economic debate?
Last month the Federal Reserve announced QE3. If QE1 and QE2 did not work, why does anyone, including the Federal Reserve chairman, think that QE3 will work?
Yet, the utterly irrational financial markets, which haven’t a clue about anything, were overjoyed at QE3. This can only be because what rules the equity market is propaganda, spin, and disinformation, not facts. The vaunted stock market is incapable of making any correct decision. The decisions are made by the fools in the market operating on a short-run basis. The only safe path to take is to run with the lemmings. This strategy insures that a portfolio manager is always in the middle of his peers and, therefore, he doesn’t lose clients.
How wonderful it would have been for Obama and Romney to have confronted in a real debate how QE3, designed to help insolvent “banks too big to fail,” can help households operating, with two earners, on real incomes of 45 years ago, which is where the current real median household income stands.
How does saving a bank, designated as “too big to fail,” help the family whose jobs or main job has been exported to China or India in order to maximize corporate profits, executive performance bonuses and shareholders’ capital gains?
Obviously the working population of the US has been sacrificed to the profits of the mega-rich.
An appropriate debate question is: Why has the livelihood of working Americans been sacrificed to the profits of the mega-rich?
No such question will ever be asked in a “presidential debate.”
In the 21st century, US citizens became nonentities. They are brutalized by the police whose incomes their taxes pay. They, for protesting some injustice or for no cause at all, are beaten, arrested, tasered and even murdered.
The police, paid by the public, beat up paralyzed people in wheel chairs, frame those who call them for help against criminals, taser grandmothers and small children, and shoot down in cold blood unarmed citizens who have done nothing except lose control of themselves, either through alcohol, drugs, or rage.
Brainwashed Americans pay large taxes at every level of government for protection against gratuitous violence, but what their taxes support is gratuitous violence against themselves. Every American, except for the small number of mega-rich who control Washington, can be arrested and dispossessed, both liberty and property, on the basis of nothing but an allegation of a member of the executive branch who might want the accused’s wife, girlfriend, property, or to settle a score, or to exterminate a rival, or to score against a high school, college, or business rival.
In America today, law serves the powerful, not justice. In effect, there is no law, and there is no justice. Only unaccountable power.
What is the point of a vote when the outcome is the same? Both candidates represent the interests of Israel, not the interests of the US. Both candidates represent the interests of the military/security complex, agribusiness, the offshoring corporations, the suppression of unions and workers, the total demise of civil liberty and the US Constitution, which is in the way of unbridled executive power.
In the US today, the power of money rules. Nothing else is in the equation. Why vote to lend your support to the continuation of your own exploitation? Every time Americans vote it is a vote for their own obliteration.
This article first appeared at Paul Craig Roberts' new website Institute For Political Economy. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His Internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.
The Debate Finale: A Sorry Spectacle by Any Measure
by Beverly Eakman
October 26, 2012
Okay folks, this is a test—and no reading ahead. For those who read last week’s article on this site, “It’s About ‘Perception Management’, Stupid!”, and who also tuned into Monday night’s final presidential debate: Name an example of “perception management” that was woven into this last match between the two candidates. Hint: It is not among Barack Obama’s or Mitt Romney’s spoken arguments.
To refresh your memory about the tactics of PM: “[P]erception management combines truth projection, … cover and deception, and psychological operations.”
Still can’t find it?
Mitt Romney is 6’ 2” and almost 200 pounds. Barack Obama is 6’1” and between 170-180 pounds. When shown full-length—for example, shaking hands, side by side—Mr. Romney is clearly the larger man.
Now look at the debate close-ups of the two talking heads, while they were actually debating. Who appears larger? Which man filled up his half of the screen, and then some?
Answer: Barack Obama.
It’s a small thing. One could easily shrug it off. Or maybe just give the networks the benefit of the doubt in trying to select the most flattering close-up camera angle to accommodate the two-candidate debate format.
Yet, in an era of morphing technology that allows experts to take, say, Tom Cruise’s head and place it convincingly upon Leonardo DiCaprio’s body, the chances of this “perception” tactic being accidental are slim. Because larger bodies (not fat, of course) carry a psychological advantage for men (why do short actors wear shoe lifts, after all?), portraying Mr. Obama as roughly 20 percent larger than his challenger conveys a “perception” of strength and energy, thereby providing a small edge.
Perception management 101.
The same perception management practiced by front groups on a national scale is also the domain of candidates’ political managers, called “handlers.” Professional “handlers” figure the public is too stupid to recognize ambiguity, inconsistency, twisted facts, and poor analogies. They think the viewing audience will forget (or not bother to look up) what candidates actually say versus what TV pundits and analysts claim the candidate said immediately following the debate.
“Immediately” is the key word here. Whenever a pundit uses a phrase or comment that appears to closely resemble comments expressed by a candidate, the last thing listeners hear is what they generally believe.
As it turned out, Mr. Romney failed to even mention, much less challenge, several of President Obama’s foreign policy gaffes and exaggerations. Governor Romney could easily have sidestepped the small disadvantage imposed by any surreptitious camera shenanigans or the TV pundit’s after-commentary. He even had golden opportunities to establish some sort of “Romney Doctrine.” Yet, he did not.
In fact, some network commentators said that Gov. Romney had made a conscious decision ahead of time to avoid countering the President on most foreign policy issues and, rather, go with his strengths—which Mitt Romney supposed to be the economy and jobs. It sure looked that way. Gov. Romney made frequent returns to well-worn sound-bites about his five-point economic plan and unemployment statistics whenever he could fit them in. These were his “talking points,” not foreign policy. Consequently, Romney sounded scripted; his expression looked pained.
Even when he did manage to turn the subject toward jobs and global competitiveness, he gave Barack Obama a free pass on the education front. Why didn’t Mr. Romney handlers insist he bone up on the President’s poor track record? Programs like the Early Learning Challenge and his phony-baloney Common Core of Standards both are nothing more than renamed, failed programs—modeled on the Effective Schools Movement; Mastery Learning in the 1980s; America 2000 in 1992; Outcome-Based Education in 1993; Goals 2000; and the late Teddy Kennedy’s brainchild, adopted by George W. Bush, No Child Left Behind in 2002. The reasons for their collective failures can be boiled down to the fact that (a) early childhood programs are aimed at government-subsidized day care, and (b) so-called “standards” don’t focus on hard knowledge.
To his credit, Gov. Romney mentioned, in passing, the benefits of state, over federal, control of education. But he missed an opportunity to emphasize privatization and the phasing out of the monstrous Education Department, which has contributed to the decline of America’s intellectual, moral and ethical structure.
Even if Mr. Romney hadn’t the stomach to tackle the U.S. Department of Education, he could have seized upon a virtual laundry list of foreign policy blunders. The President left himself wide open on a number of issues; among them:
Mr. Obama’s repeated announcement of a withdrawal date from Afghanistan (2014). Gov. Romney had previously criticized this pull-out timeframe as allowing terror organizations—specifically Al Qaeda—to regroup and wait us out. But in Monday night debate, he let the comment slide, making it appear he had given up that line of reasoning.
The President’s support—including direct taxpayer-subsidized monetary backing—of the Muslim Brotherhood (and of Mohamed Morsi, specifically) in Egypt. Gov. Romney could have asked Mr. Obama if this was the President’s idea of “stability in the Middle East.”
The background on this was revealed in a shocking piece by Frank Gaffney in the Washington Times last summer: He wrote on June 25 that Barack Obama had “transferred $ 1.5 billion of our tax dollars in a lump-sum payment” to the Muslim Brotherhood. “For him to do so,” wrote Gaffney, “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had to waive congressionally imposed restrictions” because of “justified concerns about the nature and direction of the Shariah-adherent government [that] the Brotherhood is birthing in Egypt.”
As most people know, the Egyptians participated in their first free vote on May 24, 2012. Among the contenders was the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi. But there were also other, more popular candidates—or at least it seemed so at first. In an apparently sudden reversal on May 25, Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood was forging ahead, even though he was not particularly charismatic.
Could Mr. Obama’s shocking transfer of $1.5 billion, directly into the coffers of the Brotherhood, have helped bankroll Morsi’s win? If so, says Gaffney: “The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime mover behind [a] seditious campaign, which it calls ‘civilized jihad’.” This term equates to subversion, Soviet-style.
Mr. Obama’s laissez-faire attitude toward border security, and the “Fast and Furious” fiasco starring Attorney General Eric Holder. The administration’s ongoing refusal to fully cooperate in investigating the gun-running operation that helped arm Mexican drug cartels and killed border agents added to a policy-driven national security disgrace.
Mr. Obama’s continuing approach to the War on Terror cries out for new ideas. By now, it should be clear that today’s terrorist networks are not interested, necessarily, in “taking us over.” They want us dead. They don’t care about stealing our land. They want it wasted and ruined. They are unmoved by our sanctions, because they don’t need the support of their own people and don’t share our values. Those who do left long ago and sought asylum in the West, back in the 1970s.
As for Mr. Obama’s fantasy about guiding the Middle Eastern leaders gently toward democracy and securing rights for women in these regions is “not gonna happen.” Eleanor Clift and Gloria Steinem wouldn’t last 5 minutes over there—which is probably why they are keeping their mouth shut these days.
"Mr. Obama’s claim that he “ended the war in Iraq.” He did no such thing. What he did do was to take credit for a surge put in place by his nemesis, the George W. Bush Administration—the same “surge” opposed by himself, and then-Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.
• With all the recent hoopla surrounding the assassination of our ambassador in Libya, you would think that Mr. Romney would have contested Mr. Obama’s failure to station our military to guard the Libyan Embassy in Benghazi. The fiasco was explained in an article by Sen. Ran Paul (R-KY), who noted that, ironically, that the Obama administration spent some $1 million on electric cars and charging stations around the same time at our embassy in Vienna to emphasize his commitment to “green” initiatives.
Mr. Obama’s continuing trend toward pandering to the United Nations, at the expense of U.S. national sovereignty. There is an argument to be made that too many in the U.N. are left-leaning “one-worlders” who are forever trying to drag us into joint partnerships over one cause or another—making it increasingly difficult for the United State to extricate itself from U.N. resolutions, proclamations and declarations that are not in America’s interests.
For example, U.N. front groups, such as International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (or ICLEI), has infiltrated over 500 American cities, raking in federal and local tax dollars as it goes, to bring socialistic schemes to the American rank and file. Take, for example, the ICLEI-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Many Americans know about the panel, per se, and can even identify it as a U.N. agency, but they don’t necessarily “get” the ICLEI connection. But ICLEI represents what our Founders would call an “entangling alliance.” Through ICLEI, the Panel adds a third layer of bureaucracy that makes it more difficult for Americans to dis-engage from phony global-warming “science” and reject the ridiculous (and expensive) mandates it imposes through the U.N.
Clearly, Gov. Romney didn’t want to “go there.” Why?
The Obama Administration’s continuation of the harassment of good citizens in the name of global terrorism. Meanwhile, the U.S. is embarrassingly behind the curve on real high-tech threats to national and individual security. On Obama’s watch, government has had to hire its own hackers simply to comprehend new cyber-technologies like “fuzzing”; software flaws like “zero days”; and a new kind of computer-manipulation satirically labeled “social engineering.” Even the Washington Post provided readers with a major story June 3, 2012, by Robert O’Harrow, Jr., on the surreptitious control of computer systems, all but undetectable by the victim, called “pwns” (see the comprehensive article in The Washington Post, “Cyberspace The Fragile Frontier.”
Meanwhile, an out-of-control TSA continues under Mr. Obama to exert virtually no effect on terrorists attempting to enter our country.
Moreover, Gov. Romney wimped out on foreign policy. Since the letdown from Mr. Obama’s “hope-and-change,” Americans want a candidate who will offer bold departures from the status quo, appropriate to the today’s era. If his “perception managers” had had a brain in their head, they would have seen this as a time for Mr. Romney to be “his own man” and stop worrying that Mr. Obama might blame Republicans. He’s Mr. Obama has been there and done that, and the mantra has lost its shelf life. Gov. Romney had nothing to lose by “going bold” on foreign policy. Democrats haven’t covered themselves with glory.
Romney could even have spent the time hammering away on his excellent points about China being a currency manipulator—and mentioning, by the way, that China has vastly augmented its military capability, even while appearing to embrace “capitalism.”
Foreign policy was a key issue for Romney to win—more important than his five-point plan to economic recovery.
Why? Because just one dirty nuke, one chemical or bio-weapon let loose in an American city and THERE WON’T BE AN ECONOMY!
© 2012 Beverly Eakman - All Rights Reserved
Beverly K. Eakman began her career as a teacher in 1968. She left to become a scientific writer for a NASA contractor. She went on to serve as a former speechwriter for the Voice of America and for the late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger when he chaired the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. She was an editor and writer for the U.S. Dept. of Justice before retiring from federal government. Her first book in 1991 blew the whistle on misrepresented standardized testing of schoolchildren. She is now author of seven books covering education policy, mental-health fraud, data-trafficking, privacy and political strategy, with dozens of keynote speeches, feature articles and op-eds to her credit. Her most recent work is Agenda Games: How Today’s High-Stakes Political Combat Works (Midnight Whistler Publishers, 2012).
Mrs. Eakman can be reached through her website:
Romney by a landslide
A deeply troubled and deeply troubling administration that will do anything, no matter how cynical and venal, to protect its hold on power
Klaus Rohrich
Thursday, October 25, 2012
When it comes to predicting the outcome of presidential races most pundits refuse to go out on a limb in predicting probable outcomes. Let’s face it; it’s a risky business that could leave one’s face covered with egg. However, in the case of the current election I will happily stick my neck out and risk being seen as a blowhard who believes himself up to predicting the future.
In a word, I predict a Romney landslide and here’s why: despite the fact that the famous 47% who to whatever degree depend on the government for their daily bread is expected to look for more of the same, I believe that if this percentage could have their druthers, they’d opt for having a well-paying job that left them self-sufficient, rather than dependent on the government.
I think that at some level most people in America understand that socialization would result in an overall lower standard of living. I also believe that despite all the class envy and hatred that’s been ginned up against the 1% by this administration, there is a basic understanding that private business, not the government, creates wealth. In my experience, most Americans understand that socialism doesn’t so much “spread the wealth” as it imposes equal degrees of misery.
Obama has incurred close to $6 trillion in new debt through deficit spending, the majority of which has gone to “stimulate” the economy. Counting the massive $821 billion stimulus bill and several additional stimulus bills and three Quantitative Easing initiatives (that’s government speak for printing extra money), the net effect has been that the American economy remains in the doldrums with unemployment in real terms approaching 15%. But even that failure might be forgiven if Obama hadn’t taken his role as messiah so seriously and make grandiloquent promises that could never be kept. I recall writing in these pages on November 11, 2008:
“How can he deliver on his promise of “hope and change”, given the near insurmountable problems he has claimed he will solve. Think about it; he’s a politician with no experience in any of the areas with which he will be dealing, having spent less than two years in the US Senate, during which time his main occupation was running for the Presidency. So now that he’s achieved his goal, an admirable achievement, ... what are the chances that he will reduce the levels of the oceans and heal the world?”
The answer is the chances were somewhere between zero and non-existent. And that’s one of the many reasons why a one-term Barack Obama will follow Jimmy Carter into ignominious obscurity.
Another reason Obama will lose big is that his true self has been revealed through the campaign and as a consequence he has lost his “nice guy” image. The Presidential Debates were particularly revealing, as they showed Obama to be an arrogant and petulant pedant, who deigned to debate with a lesser being. The impression he gave during the first debate was particularly damning as it revealed an attitude that resented having to compete to keep the job of President of the United States.
The debates also showed him to be a consummate liar, capable of simultaneously embracing two diametrically opposed concepts as absolute truth in order to advance his fortunes. Clearly, he repeatedly lied about his own and Mitt Romney’s platform and continues to do so. The fact that he feels it necessary to lie so openly and glibly shows a candidate in panic mode as he feels the prize slip between his fingers.
Finally, the revelations about what really happened in Benghazi reveal a deeply troubled and deeply troubling administration that will do anything, no matter how cynical and venal, to protect its hold on power.
For these reasons November 6, 2012 will end with Mitt Romney as the new President of the United States.
Klaus Rohrich is senior columnist for Canada Free Press. Klaus also writes topical articles for numerous magazines. He has a regular column on and is currently working on his first book dealing with the toxicity of liberalism. His work has been featured on the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and Lucianne, among others. He lives and works in a small town outside of Toronto and is an avid student of history.
Klaus can be reached at
In the 12-day Countdown to Election Expect Anything
Don’t let any argument, any cooked up scandal, any shock along the way deter you
Judi McLeod
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Don’t look behind you. Tread the path resolutely to what you have to do. Don’t idly look out your windows, there isn’t time. Ignore completely predictions by talking heads, film stars and best selling authors who claim the Clintons are about to expose Obama.
There is no altruism to be found in the cut-throat politics of the lib-left progressives. They long ago doubled down together in the luxurious comfort of the same feather bed while the people who elected them to serve suffer it out in the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Recognize reality when you see it and never doubt what you saw with your own eyes. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton included a chuckle when she last spoke about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. Obama dropped his ‘likeable’ mask at the last presidential debate, showing the malevolent look he’s kept largely hidden during the last four years of Marxist misery of the masses.
In the 12-day countdown to Election 2012 expect anything.
In all of the white noise being hurled your way, it was former Democrat pollster Pat Caddell, who said “this bunch will do anything, to stay in power. Anything!”
Everything but the proverbial kitchen sink will be thrown at you over the next few days as the Big Lie lived by the Obama administration moves confidently and even arrogantly towards the four more years needed to complete the Fundamental Transformation of America.
Do not believe that Obama is on the ropes. It’s only wishful thinking.
If neck and neck polls are right, outnumber the cellphone-carrying, pizza-eating Obama forces at the voting booths.
There is only one way out of the dark that has descended over America. It is patriots turning out in record numbers to do what has to be done on November 6 by finally turning the tide.
Don’t let any argument, any cooked up scandal, any shock along the way deter you.
If you haven’t already voted, when daylight breaks the night on November 6, get out and exercise one of the few rights you have left: get down to the voting booth and vote out the worst administration in the history of your country.
It is not just the fruited plains but the rest of the world that depends on a working America.
The mainstream media is backing the lies of the Obama regime; some of the alternate media are tripping all over themselves in one upmanship.
Even people you trust in your email box are sending out false messages, claiming that there is no difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
One is midway through socializing the nation; the other wants to save the middle class and put America back to work.
Pray for the peace and prosperity that was America until the radicals took control on November 4, 2008.
The National Day of Prayer and Fasting, originated by Georgia businessman Bob Preyss begins on November 1 and runs through November 6.
The only position from which to right an upside down world, is from on your knees before the Almighty.
Pray as you never have before.
The future of your very children and grandchildren depend on it.
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh,, Drudge Report,, and Glenn Beck.
Judi can be emailed at:
New Threats to Riot if Obama Loses Election
Paul Joseph Watson
October 15, 2012
UPDATE: Obama Supporters Threaten To Kill Romney If He Wins Election [see below]
Despite the issue receiving national media attention, Obama supporters continue to threaten to riot if Mitt Romney wins the presidential election, raising the prospect of civil unrest if Obama fails to secure a second term.
The new threats continue to dominate Twitter and the vast majority make no reference to press coverage of the issue over the last week, illustrating the fact that they are a legitimate expression of how many Obama voters plan to respond if Romney comes out on top, and not merely a reaction to media hype.
An story written by Michael Snyder which was picked up by the Drudge Report over the weekend and has since gone viral documented how Twitter was flooded with messages from Obama supporters threatening to riot, a sign that “whichever side loses this election will accuse the other side of stealing the election.”
The story was subsequently picked up by innumerable media outlets. Highly respected economist and philosopherThomas Sowell also voiced his concerns that race riots could ensue if Obama is not re-elected.
Checking Twitter feeds this morning, we discovered that threats to riot on behalf of Obama supporters are still flooding in, with the users seemingly unaware of the fact that the media has now picked up on the buzz.
We checked the Twitter accounts and virtually all of them are owned by people who have made hundreds or thousands of previous tweets, proving they are genuine accounts and not fakes.
Examples of what people are saying include the following;
“If obama dont get re-elected & romney wins .. on life every white persons getting pistol whipped and im startin a riot.” (SOURCE)
“If Obama don’t win lets start a riot so Romney know what he’s getting himself into.” (SOURCE)
“You know you ain’t shit if you gotta “MAKE” Mafukas vote for ROMNEY ! …. Mannnn OBAMA better get back in office . Or BLACK FOLKS will riot.” (SOURCE)
“If Romney wins im goin on a rampage.” (SOURCE)
“If Mitt Romney wins the election I think its our duties as Black folks to riot and fuck shit up.” (SOURCE)
“If every action IS met with an equal and opposite reaction ..what should workers do to employers if Romney’s elected? #Riot in the streets!!” (SOURCE)
“If Romney becomes president let’s all start a riot.” (SOURCE)
“I Heard Mitt Romney , Tryna Take Away Food Stamps , If He Do .”IMA START A RIOT , IMA START A RIOT.” (SOURCE)
“If romney wins, imma start a mf’n riot! Rns.” (SOURCE)
Although most of the individuals posting the messages don’t even attempt to justify why they plan to riot, others have pointed to fears about a Romney administration withdrawing or limiting government handouts.
You can check out some of the screenshots from these Twitter users below. We didn’t even include all of the messages because there are simply too many to track.
Also See:
Obama Supporters Threaten To Kill Romney If He Wins Election
Violent remarks continue to permeate Twitter
Paul Joseph Watson
October 16, 2012
Having already threatened to riot if Obama is unsuccessful in securing a second term, Obama supporters are also flooding Twitter with threats to assassinate Mitt Romney if he wins the presidential election.
As we reported yesterday, innumerable Obama supporters spoke of their plans to provoke violence and mayhem if Obama lost, aggrieved at fears that Mitt Romney would take away government handouts.
However, it seems that threats to assassinate Romney are proving just as popular on the social network as threats to riot.
Twitchy first reported on the death threats on Sunday but a deluge of new ones have flooded in since, including the following;
“I swear if Mitt Romney becomes president, I’m gonna be the one to assassinate his ass!!!” (SOURCE)
“im telling you if romney gets elected somebody gon have to take a L and A. assassinate romney and ryan or B. obliterate the WH w/ them in it.” (SOURCE)
“If Romney becomes president , hella people gonna try to assassinate him.” (SOURCE)
“Soo Romney said black folks are free loaders n basically tryna get us back to slavery…..I will personally Assassinate dat mf.” (SOURCE)
“If Romney Get Elected Somebody Gotta Assassinate Him” Me Duh Nigha ??” (SOURCE)
“If Romney Get Elected Somebody Gotta Assassinate Him.” (SOURCE)
“Fuck Romney ima assassinate.” (SOURCE)
It is important again to stress that these are not newly created fake accounts, they are owned by people who have made thousands of previous tweets.
While some Twitter users later backed away from their threats, others seemed genuinely serious. View a selection of screenshots below.
Did Romney ‘Win’ the Debate?
By Robert Parry
Global Research, October 05, 2012
The instant analysis after the first presidential debate — even on liberal-leaning MSNBC — was that Mitt Romney was the decisive “winner.” But Romney not only ducked the specifics of his plans but looked sneaky and nervous in doing so, writes Robert Parry.
In the presidential debate that I watched on Wednesday night, Republican challenger Mitt Romney was shiftier than Dick Nixon in 1960 and less coherent than George W. Bush in 2000, but the TV pundits, including on MSNBC, overwhelmingly declared him the winner.
When I tried to follow Romney’s logic, I couldn’t. Somehow the federal government was supposed to rein in rising health care costs but his only idea for doing so was to let the free-market work when it is clear that – whatever the shortcomings of “Obamacare” – the old model of health insurance was broken.
Romney also claimed that his health-insurance plan would cover people with pre-existing conditions and do other positive things that are in the Affordable Care Act, but, as President Barack Obama noted, Romney hasn’t offered a serious explanation as to how that would happen.
Romney treated any reference to his 20 percent across-the-board tax cut costing $5 trillion over decade as a lie, likening the President to his “five boys … saying something that’s not always true but just keep on repeating it.” After all, Romney has declared that his plan would be revenue-neutral. But he continued his pattern of refusing to specify how he would make it so.
Left: Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. (Photo credit:
In the debate that I saw, Romney seemed to be on the defensive, in large part, due to the incoherence and incompleteness of his arguments. And that reflected itself in his body language. He shifted nervously, blinked rapidly and displayed a forced smile. It looked like he was about to tear up during his closing remarks.
I saw a man struggling at the end of his rope. By contrast, Obama looked, well, presidential. He was never flustered and mounted vigorous defenses of his policies, offering details about what he had done and what he would do. Yet, he didn’t sound overly defensive or whiny, a big risk in such a setting.
One could fault Obama for not being more aggressive with host Jim Lehrer, who curiously seemed determined to stop the President from exceeding his time limit while letting Romney ramble on. But that is more a criticism of Lehrer, who behaved like PBS types often do – they go weak in the knees when a Republican talks about slashing the subsidy for public broadcasting, as Romney pointedly did.
So, I came away from watching the 90-minute debate thinking that Romney had come as close to melting down in front of a huge national audience as anyone I have ever seen in my half century of watching presidential debates. Pundits often fall back on the cliché that “no one landed a knock-out punch,” but this was as close to having one candidate lying on the mat as I have ever seen, although it was mostly Romney doing the damage to himself.
Yet, immediately after the debate – even on liberal-leaning MSNBC – Republican commentators were given the floor and allowed to set the tone of the meeting. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow deferred to GOP campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, who gushed over Romney’s performance. The verdict was “Romney won.”
Everyone on the set except for Al Sharpton fell in line. Ed Schultz blasted Obama for not lashing out at Romney and especially for not blasting Romney’s portrayal of 47 percent of the U.S. population as irresponsible moochers.
For the past several days, pretty much every pundit I watched had predicted that the “the 47 percent” comment would be the centerpiece of the debate, but I never thought that was likely, having watched Lehrer handle other debates. He almost never goes for the “gotcha” question, favoring bland policy discussions.
Without Lehrer introducing the remark, it would have been difficult and clumsy for Obama to shoehorn the comment in. Frankly, it would have elicited groans from many Americans as an overreach. But the pundits had decided that it had to be at the heart of the debate, so they blamed the President when it wasn’t.
What was particularly startling about the MSNBC commentary was its lack of substance – except for Sharpton, who zeroed in on the discrepancies between Romney’s months of campaign statements as a “severely conservative” ex-governor of Massachusetts and his reinvention of himself as a caring fellow on Wednesday.
Yet, even on style, it was amazing to me that the pundits were favoring Romney, who looked more ill at ease than Nixon did in his infamous 1960 debate debacle with Kennedy and goofier than Bush in 2000, who was so unserious that he elicited a famous “sigh” from Al Gore. Romney wasn’t as much on the offensive all night as he was testy. He talked fast, lacked specifics and nagged Lehrer about getting more time.
If Romney were a car salesman, he would be the one urging me to overlook the car’s lousy mileage and poor repair record and begging me to buy his vehicle so he could meet his quota and not get in trouble with the boss. On Wednesday night, I was a bit worried that he would dissolve into tears during his closing remarks.
His shaky behavior and watery eyes brought to mind Ann Romney’s comment last Thursday that her “biggest concern” about her husband getting elected president “would just be for his mental well-being.” In a TV interview in Nevada, Romney’s wife pronounced him competent and qualified but worried about “the emotional part of it” for her husband.
More on Point
Some of the newspaper commentators more closely represented the debate that I watched. Alessandra Stanley of the New York Times noted that “Mr. Romney managed, despite a dry throat and some rapid blinking, to keep a choirboy smile pasted on his face while Mr. Obama spoke.
“Mr. Obama was quicker to drop his bonhomie and adopt the look of a long-suffering headmaster enduring the excuses of a bright student he is going to expel.”
The Times also did a solid job of assessing the claims and counter-claims from the two rivals. And the Times’ lead editorial took Romney to task for his mendacity and Obama to task for not holding the Republican accountable.
But how to explain the behavior of the TV commentators, especially those on MSNBC, whose instant “spin” on behalf of Romney surely influenced the opinions of millions of Americans in their own assessments of who won?
Though MSNBC has done a relatively good job of creating some balance in a cable TV environment that Fox News has tilted sharply to the right, its hosts are under corporate pressure to present themselves as neutral newscasters in situations like Wednesday’s debate. (Remember the trouble that Keith Olbermann encountered.)
So, aspiring careerists like Rachel Maddow can be expected to demur in a situation like Wednesday night. After all, for her there are grand career opportunities, like a regular gig on NBC’s “Meet the Press” or possibly even replacing David Gregory as the host, a big step indeed.
So she immediately turned to Steve Schmidt, who did what you would expect a Republican political operative to do in such a case. He spun the outcome for Romney and did so with such confidence that he seemed to influence the remarks of MSNBC show anchors, Chris Hayes and Chris Matthews, who promptly fell in line.
For his part, Ed Schultz sounded more like a disgruntled lefty who wanted Obama to be the perfect gladiator mercilessly chopping Romney to pieces and then asking the American TV audience, “are you not entertained?”
But that approach would have opened Obama to another line of attack, the angry black man, a balancing act that Obama instinctively senses but that white liberals don’t seem to get. The only MSNBC anchor cutting through the “Romney won” spin was Sharpton.
While it’s true that Obama could have been tougher in demanding more time from Lehrer and in going after his rival, the President did resist Lehrer’s curious eagerness to impose time limits on Obama but not Romney.
Obama also made the key point about how Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, keep evading specifics on their various plans. Indeed, that was my primary takeaway from the debate, that a shifty and shifting Romney won’t tell the American people what he actually intends to do.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’ are also available there.
Obama and the debate
By Patrick Martin
Global Research, October 05, 2012
World Socialist Web Site
In the 24 hours since Wednesday night’s debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney, the American media has been filled with commentary on the failure of Obama to conduct a serious defense of his record or mount an effective attack on his opponent.
The organs of the Republican right, like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, have hailed the debate as a vindication of the Romney candidacy, signaling his transformation from the hapless loser of the week before into a credible standard-bearer for their favored policies of shredding the social safety net to fund even greater tax cuts for the super-rich.
Such arguments explain nothing. Romney is still just as reactionary and his policies just as unpopular the day after the debate as they were the day before. Moreover, his performance Wednesday night, from his brazen lies about his plan to cut taxes for the wealthy to his incomprehensible reference to “trickle-down government,” was no more cogent or convincing than Obama’s.
Liberal pundits were up in arms, venting their disappointment at Obama’s lackluster performance. Their explanation for the debacle explained nothing either: Obama had made a poor tactical choice in deciding not to bring up his rival’s record as an asset stripper and corporate raider at Bain Capital or Romney’s disparaging comments before an audience of wealthy contributors about the “47 percent” of Americans who are supposedly “dependent on government” and “believe they are entitled” to healthcare, food and housing.
In part, the intensity of their disappointment with Obama’s capitulation reveals their own self-delusion. They seem to have believed their own hype that this right-wing bourgeois politician was the champion of “hope” and “change.”
Equally bankrupt were the incessant references in the pro-Obama media, like the New York Times, to the president’s “professorial” demeanor and approach. Obama was no less vapid and pedantic in 2008, when the corporate-controlled media hailed him, without the slightest justification, as a superb orator who was moving millions.
Among the most apoplectic responses came from MSNBC’s Chris Mathews, who exploded “Where was Obama tonight?” as if the man on the stage in Denver and the occupant of the White House were two different people.
In the debate, however, the real Obama was on display: a man with no significant political background or career, much less independent ideas. An individual who had passed through no real struggles before he was picked up and promoted as the symbol of “change,” while remaining a loyal servant of the state.
No doubt, for someone whose meteoric political rise has depended on rich patrons, being roundly attacked by someone from that social layer was disconcerting.
It is impossible, however, to explain the performance witnessed by 70 million Americans by focusing solely on the political tactics devised by Democratic Party spin doctors or the personality traits of the nonentity in the White House. Like any significant political event, the course of the US presidential election can be grasped only through an analysis of the social forces at work. Only by considering the essential class role of the Democratic Party can Obama’s failure to take the offensive against Romney be understood.
The Democratic Party, like the Republican, is a political instrument of the financial aristocracy that rules America. It has not the slightest independence from the capitalist ruling elite. That does not, however, make the two parties identical. They play distinct, albeit complementary, political roles.
The Republican Party asserts the barely disguised appetite of the ruling elite for the greatest possible accumulation of wealth in the shortest possible time. While claiming, as Romney did Wednesday night, that policies of cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy will “create jobs” and improve conditions of life for working people, this pretense has very little credibility with the American people. After all, the US is now in the fifth year of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, with Wall Street profits returning to record levels, but working class living standards thrown back a generation.
The Democratic Party poses as the advocate of ordinary working people, supposedly concerned with jobs, social programs and raising living standards, while occasionally criticizing the excesses of Wall Street. Its substantive policy differences with the Republicans in relation to working class interests, however, remain minimal, and it competes with them in currying favor with the bankers and billionaires.
In a period of ever more acute social tensions, such as today, the contradictions posed in this political division of labor can reach a paralyzing level. The Democratic Party seeks to play its role as social safety valve, as the Obama reelection campaign has done for several months, adopting a populist posture with denunciations of Romney as a vulture capitalist whose private equity firm, Bain Capital, raided companies and destroyed jobs.
But this populism is empty and cynical. The Obama administration remains the instrument of big business. It carried through the Wall Street bailout, begun under Bush, as well as the bailout of the auto companies, in the course of which the White House pushed through a 50 percent cut in wages for new hires, setting an example for the whole of corporate America to slash working class living standards using mass unemployment as a club.
If Obama were a genuine opponent of Wall Street privilege and criminality, having Mitt Romney as his challenger would be a godsend. As the longtime proprietor of a major private equity firm, Romney is the personification of the social layer that wrecked the US and world economy and plunged millions of workers into unemployment and destitution.
But Obama is a political servant of that same social layer. Face to face with Romney, he cannot indict him for the 2008 crash, because that would entail indicting the financial aristocracy itself, and making an appeal to social forces that all the bourgeois political establishment, Democrats and Republicans alike, regard with hostility and fear.
There are already signs, in the strikes in Chicago and Detroit against Democratic administrations, of a movement of the working class that will challenge the policies of both capitalist parties. In the 2012 election campaign, there is only one party that fights to develop this independent movement and give it a revolutionary anti-capitalist direction. That is the Socialist Equality Party, and our candidates for president and vice president, Jerry White and Phyllis Scherrer.
For the SEP, the capitulation of Obama and the Democrats to right-wing reaction is not a cause for consternation, but a predictable, even inevitable development. To defend jobs, living standards and social programs, and oppose imperialist war and attacks on democratic rights, the working class must mobilize its strength politically, challenging the monopoly of the capitalist two-party system and building an independent mass political movement fighting for a socialist program.
For more information on the SEP campaign, visit
Obama versus Romney: Bipartisan Consensus on Foreign Policy and Global Warfare
By Jack A. Smith
Global Research, October 05, 2012
Despite the sharp charges and counter-charges about foreign/military and national security policy there are no important differences on such matters between President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney. The back and forth between the candidates on international issues is largely about appearance not substance.
The Washington Post noted Sept. 26 that the two candidates “made clear this week that they share an overriding belief — American political and economic values should triumph in the world.” Add to that uplifting phrase the implicit words “by any means necessary,” and you have the essence of Washington’s international endeavors.
There are significant differences within the GOP’s right wing factions — from neoconservatives and ultra nationalists to libertarians and traditional foreign policy pragmatic realists — that make it extremely difficult for the Republicans to articulate a comprehensive foreign/military policy. This is why Romney confines himself to criticizing Obama’s international record without elaborating on his own perspective, except to imply he would do everything better than the incumbent.
Only nuances divide the two ruling parties on the principal strategic international objectives that determine the development of policy. Washington’s main goals include:
• Retaining worldwide “leadership,” a euphemism for geopolitical hegemony.
• Maintaining the unparalleled military power required to crush any other country, using all means from drones to nuclear weapons. This is made clear in the incumbent administration’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), and the January 2012 strategic defense guidance titled, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense.”
• Containing the rise of China’s power and influence, not only globally but within its own East Asian regional sphere of influence, where the U.S. still intends to reign supreme. Obama’s “pivot” to Asia is part of Washington’s encirclement of China militarily and politically through its alliances with key Asian-Pacific allies. In four years, according to the IMF, China’s economy will overtake that of the U.S. — and Washington intends to have its fleets, air bases, troops and treaties in place for the celebration.
• Exercising decisive authority over the entire resource-rich Middle East and adjacent North Africa. Only The Iranian and Syrian governments remain to be toppled. (Shia Iraq, too, if it gets too close to Iran.)
• Provoking regime change in Iran through crippling sanctions intended to wreck the country’s economy and, with Israel, threats of war. There is no proof Iran is constructing a nuclear weapon.
• Seeking regime change in Syria, Shia Iran’s (and Russia’s) principal Arab ally. Obama is giving political and material support to fractious rebel forces in the civil war who are also supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. The U.S. interest is in controlling the replacement regime.
• Weakening and isolating Russia as it develops closer economic and political ties to China, and particularly when it expresses opposition to certain of Washington’s less savory schemes, such as continuing to expand NATO, seeking to crush Iran and Syria, and erecting anti-missile systems in Europe. In 20 years, NATO has been extended from Europe to Central Asia, adjacent to China and former Soviet republics.
• Continuing the over 50-year Cold War economic embargo, sanctions and various acts of subversion against Cuba in hopes of destroying socialism in that Caribbean Island nation.
• Recovering at least enough hegemony throughout Latin America — nearly all of which the U.S. dominated until perhaps 15 years ago — to undermine or remove left wing governments in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador.
• Significantly increasing U.S. military engagement in Africa.
Both the right/far right Republican Party and the center right Democratic Party agree on these goals, although their language to describe them is always decorated with inspiring rhetoric about the triumph of American political and economic values; about spreading democracy and good feeling; about protecting the American people from terrorism and danger.
Today’s foreign/military policy goals are contemporary adaptations of a consistent, bipartisan international
perspective that began to take shape at the end of World War II in 1945. Since the implosion of the Soviet Union ended the 45-year Cold War two decades ago — leaving the U.S. and its imperialist ambitions as the single world superpower — Washington protects its role as “unipolar” hegemon like a hungry dog with a meaty bone.
The people of the United States have no influence over the fundamentals of Washington’s foreign/military objectives. Many Americans seem to have no idea about Washington’s actual goals. As far as a large number of voters are concerned the big foreign/military policy/national security issues in the election boil down to Iran’s dangerous nuclear weapon; the need to stand up for Israel; stopping China from “stealing” American jobs; and preventing a terrorist attack on America.
One reason is the ignorance of a large portion of voters about past and present history and foreign affairs. Another is that many people still entertain the deeply flawed myths about “American exceptionalism” and the “American Century.” Lastly, there’s round-the-clock government and mass media misinformation.
After decades of living within an aggressive superpower it is no oddity that even ostensibly informed delegates to the recent Republican and Democratic political conventions engaged in passionate mass chanting of the hyper-nationalist “USA!, USA!, USA!,” when they were whipped up by party leaders evoking the glories of killing Osama bin-Laden, patriotism, war and the superiority of our way of life.
Since Romney has no foreign policy record, and he’ll probably do everything Obama would do only worse (and he probably won’t even win the election) we will concentrate mainly on Obama’s foreign/military policy and the pivot to China.
One of President Obama’s most important military decisions this year was a new strategic guidance for the Pentagon published Jan. 5 in a 16-page document titled “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense.”
The new doctrine is the response by the White House and Congress to the stagnant economy and new military considerations. It reduces the number of military personnel and expects to lower Pentagon costs over 10 years by $487 billion, as called for by the Budget Control Act of 2011. This amounts to a cut of almost $50 billion a year in an overall annual Pentagon budget of about $700 billion, and most of the savings will be in getting rid of obsolete equipment and in payrolls. This may all be reversed by Congress.
Introducing “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership” to the media, Obama declared:
“As we look beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — and the end of long-term nation-building with large military footprints — we’ll be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces. We’ll continue to get rid of outdated Cold War-era systems so that we can invest in the capabilities that we need for the future, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, counterterrorism, countering weapons of mass destruction and the ability to operate in environments where adversaries try to deny us access. So, yes, our military will be leaner, but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats.”
Following the president, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta declared:
“As we shift the size and composition of our ground, air and naval forces, we must be capable of successfully confronting and defeating any aggressor and respond to the changing nature of warfare. Our strategy review concluded that the United States must have the capability to fight several conflicts at the same time. We are not confronting, obviously, the threats of the past; we are confronting the threats of the 21st century. And that demands greater flexibility to shift and deploy forces to be able to fight and defeat any enemy anywhere. How we defeat the enemy may very well vary across conflicts. But make no mistake, we will have the capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time.”
The Congressional Research Service summarized five key points from the defense guidance, which it said was “written as a blueprint for the joint force of 2020.” They are:
1. A shift in overall focus from winning today’s wars to preparing for future challenges.
2. A shift in geographical priorities toward the Asia and the Pacific region while retaining emphasis on the Middle East.
3. A shift in the balance of missions toward more emphasis on projecting power in areas in which U.S. access and freedom to operate are challenged by asymmetric means (“anti-access”) and less emphasis on stabilization operations, while retaining a full-spectrum force.
4. A corresponding shift in force structure, including reductions in Army and Marine Corps end strength, toward a smaller, more agile force including the ability to mobilize quickly. [The Army plans to cut about 50,000 from a force of 570,000. In 2001 there were 482,000.]
5. A corresponding shift toward advanced capabilities including Special Operations Forces, new technologies such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and unmanned systems, and cyberspace capabilities.
Here are the new military priorities, according to Obama’s war doctrine (notice the omission of counter-insurgency, a previous favorite):
• Engage in counter-terrorism and irregular warfare.
• Deter and defeat aggression.
• Project power despite anti-access/area denial challenges.
• Counter weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
• Operate effectively in cyberspace and space.
• Maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent.
• Defend the homeland and provide support to civil authorities.
• Provide a stabilizing presence.
• Conduct stability and counterinsurgency operations.
• Conduct humanitarian, disaster relief, and other operations.
In an article critical of the military and titled “A Leaner, More Efficient Empire,” progressive authors Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis wrote:
“In an age when U.S. power can be projected through private mercenary armies and unmanned Predator drones, the U.S. military need no longer rely on massive, conventional ground forces to pursue its imperial agenda, a fact President Barack Obama is now acknowledging. But make no mistake: while the tactics may be changing, the U.S. taxpayer — and poor foreigners abroad — will still be saddled with overblown military budgets and militaristic policies.
"‘Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow,’ the president told reporters, ‘but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow.’ In fact, he added with a touch of pride, it ‘will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration,’ totaling more than $700 billion a year and accounting for about half of the average American’s income tax. So much for the Pentagon’s budget being slashed.”
The Obama Administration’s so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific region, actually East and South Asia (including India) and the Indian Ocean area, was unveiled last fall — first in an article in Foreign Policy magazine by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton titled “America’s Pacific Century,” then with attendant fanfare by President Obama on his trip to Hawaii, Australia and Indonesia.
The “pivot” involves attempting to establish a U.S.-initiated free trade zone in the region, while also strengthening Washington’s ties with a number of existing allied countries, such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand and India, among others. A few of these allies have sharp disagreements with China about claims to small islands in the South China Sea, a major waterway for trade and commerce. The U.S., while saying it is neutral, is siding with its allies on this extremely sensitive issue.
Over the months it has become clear that the principal element of the “pivot” is military, and the allies are meant to give the U.S. support and backing for whatever transpires.
The U.S. for decades has encircled China with military might — spy planes and satellites, Navy warships cruising with thousands of personnel nearby and in the South China Sea, 40,000 U.S. troops in Japan, 28,000 in South Korea, 500 in the Philippines, many thousands in Afghanistan, plus a number of Pacific island airbases.
Now it turns out that the Navy is moving a majority of its cruisers, destroyers and aircraft carrier battle groups from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In addition old military bases in the region are being refurbished and new bases are under construction. Australia has granted Obama’s request to allow a Marine base to be established in Darwin to accommodate a force of 2,500 troops. Meanwhile Singapore has been prevailed upon to allow the berthing of four U.S. Navy ships at the entrance to the Malacca Straits, through which enter almost all sea traffic between the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, a key trade route.
An article in the Sept./Oct. 2012 Foreign Affairs by Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew Scobell, titled “The Sum of Beijing’s Fears,” paints a clear picture of American power on the coast of China:
“U.S. military forces are globally deployed and technologically advanced, with massive concentrations of firepower all around the Chinese rim. The U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) is the largest of the United States’ six regional combatant commands in terms of its geographic scope and non-wartime manpower. PACOM’s assets include about 325,000 military and civilian personnel, along with some 180 ships and 1,900 aircraft. To the west, PACOM gives way to the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which is responsible for an area stretching from Central Asia to Egypt. Before Sept. 11, 2001, CENTCOM had no forces stationed directly on China’s borders except for its training and supply missions in Pakistan. But with the beginning of the “war on terror,” CENTCOM placed tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan and gained extended access to an air base in Kyrgyzstan.
“The operational capabilities of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific are magnified by bilateral defense treaties with Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, and South Korea and cooperative arrangements with other partners. And to top it off, the United States possesses some 5,200 nuclear warheads deployed in an invulnerable sea, land, and air triad. Taken together, this U.S. defense posture creates what Qian Wenrong of the Xinhua News Agency’s Research Center for International Issue Studies has called a “strategic ring of encirclement.”
An article in Foreign Policy last January by Clyde Prestowitz asked: “Why is the ‘pivot’ a mistake? Because it presumes a threat where none exists but where the presumption could become a self-fulfilling prophecy and where others could deal with any threats should they arise in the future. Because it entails further expenditures far beyond what is necessary for effective defense of the United States and its interests. And because it reduces U.S. productive power, competitiveness, and long-term U.S. living standards by providing a kind of subsidy for the offshoring of U.S.-based production capacity.”
This development cannot be separated from the increasing economic growth and potential of China in relation to the obvious beginning of America’s decline. Washington may remain the world hegemon for a couple of more decades — and Beijing is not taking one step in that direction and may never do so. (Beijing seems to prefer a multipolar world leadership of several nations and regional blocs, as do a number of economically rising countries.)
“Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership,” as noted above, specified that the thrust of the Pentagon’s attention has now shifted to Asia. The most recent Quadrennial Defense Review already has informally identified China as a possible nation-state aggressor against which America must defend itself. The U.S. claims it is not attempting to contain China, but why the military buildup? It cannot be aimed at any other country in the region but China. Why also in his convention acceptance speech did Obama brag that “We’ve reasserted our power across the Pacific and stood up to China on behalf of our workers.”
The U.S. evidently is developing war games against China. On Aug. 2 John Glaser wrote in “The Pentagon is drawing up new plans to prepare for an air and sea war in Asia, presumably against China, in the Obama administration’s most belligerent manifestation yet of the so-called pivot to Asia-Pacific…. New war strategies called ‘Air-Sea Battle’ reveal Washington’s broader goals in the region,” including a possible war.”
The Aug. 1 Washington Post reported that in the games “Stealthy American bombers and submarines would knock out China’s long-range surveillance radar and precision missile systems located deep inside the country. The initial ‘blinding campaign’ would be followed by a larger air and naval assault.”
Both candidates have opportunistically interjected China-bashing into their campaigns, second only to Iran-bashing. Obama has several times told working class audiences that China is stealing their jobs. Romney fumes about China’s alleged currency “cheating.” Republican former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sharply criticized both candidates Oct. 3 for “appealing to American suspicions of China in their campaigns.”
Kissinger, whose recent book “On China” we recommend, also wrote a piece in the March-April Foreign Affairs titled “The Future of U.S.-Chinese Relations — Conflict Is a Choice, Not a Necessity” that injects an element of understanding into the matter.
“The American debate, on both sides of the political divide, often describes China as a ‘rising power’ that will need to ‘mature’ and learn how to exercise responsibility on the world stage. China, however, sees itself not as a rising power but as a returning one, predominant in its region for two millennia and temporarily displaced by colonial exploiters taking advantage of Chinese domestic strife and decay. It views the prospect of a strong China exercising influence in economic, cultural, political, and military affairs not as an unnatural challenge to world order but rather as a return to normality. Americans need not agree with every aspect of the Chinese analysis to understand that lecturing a country with a history of millennia about its need to ‘grow up’ and behave ‘responsibly’ can be needlessly grating.”
Clearly, the Obama Administration is opposed to modern China even becoming “predominant in its region” once again, much less in the world. At this stage Washington is predominant in East Asia, and between its military power and subordinate regional allies it is not prepared to move over even within China’s own sphere. No one can predict how this will play out in 20 or 30 years, of course.
Flim Flam Substitutes: The Obama-Romney Election Debate
By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, October 05, 2012
So-called presidential debates are well-rehearsed, prescripted theater. Theater of the absurd best describes them.
Even some mainstream media were underwhelmed. At least one was honest as far as his editors let him. London Guardian contributor Charles Ferguson headlined “America’s duopoly of money in politics and manipulation of public opinion,” saying: “Behind the divisiveness lies a deeper bipartisan consensus in which donors own democracy and there are no votes (for) reform.”
“Presidential campaigns aren’t where you look for honest, serious” policy discussions. Candidates prefer “slogans.” They steer clear of controversy.
“(S)ometimes, as with George W. Bush, we also get a moron.” This election is different. We’re “explicitly seeing the effects of America’s new political duopoly” up close and personal.
It’s not new. At most it’s repackaged to look that way, but not to observers who know how things in America work.
Obama and Romney “completely (avoided or remained) dishonest about (key) economic issues.” The bizarre was also evident. A Republican attacked a Democrat on unemployment. He, in turn, said give us more time. We’ll fix things.
Obama’s first term was spent wrecking them. Neither candidate plans undoing decades of damage.
Both know the score but won’t say so. They also claim they’ll “reform Washington.” Neither means it.
They avoided serious issues begging for discussion. They include “causes of the financial crisis; the lack of prosecution of banks and bankers; sharply rising inequality in educational opportunity, income and wealth (disparity)….the impact of industrialized food on” health and skyrocketing food and healthcare costs; budget deficits and national debt; disappearing jobs not being replaced, and war and peace.
How can what’s most important be omitted? How can either candidate claim he debated? Politics and honesty are mirror opposites. Both candidates ignore what most needs addressing.
Obama “can win because he’s somewhat less bad, somewhat less utterly bankrupt, than the other guy. Welcome to America’s new and improved two-party system.” It’s the same one, just more corrupt.
Salon editor at large Joan Walsh said Obama was “subdued, deferential, (and) over-prepared.” Romney shook his “(E)tch-a-Sketch and lied his way through the entire debate with no challenge from moderator Jim Lehrer” or Obama.
The New York Times headlined “An Unhelpful Debate,” saying:
Wednesday night “sunk into an unenlightening recitation of tired talking points and mendacity.” Voters perhaps walked away saying a pox on both candidates.
Romney avoiding discussing anti-populist policies he endorses. Obama failed to challenge the worst about him. He’s got plenty of his own crosses to bear.
Viewers weren’t helped by moderator Jim Lehrer’s pathetic performance. He never challenged either candidate on vital truths. Expect debates two and three to be painful repetitions of Wednesday night.
Why anyone bothers to watch shows the deplorable state of the US electorate. Most are uninformed, out of touch, and indifferent.
A Chicago Tribune editorial said Obama “skipped this debate. (He) slumped his shoulders, smiled mostly to himself, and for some reason kept staring mostly down.” Hope and change were gone. They never were there in the first place.
USA Today said both candidates “avoid(ed) reality in debate.” Key issues were unexamined.
The Washington Post said they “evaded the hard truths.” Canned talking points substituted. It didn’t surprise. It’s always that way.
Both candidates “studiously maintained the evasions and omissions at the heart of their policies. The debate was wonky (but not) honest.” Issues most important weren’t discussed.
Obama and Romney “were strikingly complicit in failing to confront the magnitude of the fiscal challenge the winner will face immediately. The overriding feature of the debate was a tacit conspiracy of avoidance.”
Russia Today (RT) called the evening “tepid.” Arguments and accusations heard before were repeated. Same old, same old doesn’t wash.
Domestic issues were stressed. Slogans and one-liners substituted for solutions. “(M)any Americans may well be confused as to what exactly the differences are between the two candidates.”
They’re in lockstep on issues mattering most. Overall, barely a dime’s worth of difference separates them. Duopoly power allows little wiggle room. What it says goes.
Alternative parties are excluded. RT quoted Ralph Nader telling Time magazine:
America’s “duopoly has every conceivable way to exclude and depress and harass a third party. Whether it’s ballot access. Whether it’s harassing petitioners on the street. Whether it’s excluding them from debates. Whether it’s not polling them.”
“And with a two-party, winner-take-all electoral system, it’s easy to enforce all those. Unlike multi-party Western countries where you have proportional representation, the voters (in America) know that if you get 10 per cent of the vote, you don’t get anything. Whereas in Germany, you get 10 per cent of the parliament.”
So voters say, ‘Let’s just vote for the least worst.” Half the electorate disses both sides and opts out.
Historian Gerald Horne told RT US voters lack alternatives. Party platforms and debates “exclude the critiques of the present dilemmas and problems that (American) people face, for example rising poverty, rising unemployment et cetera.”
Whether in office, campaigning or debating, rhetoric substitutes for commitment. The best from Obama was saying vote for me and I’ll try harder.
Press TV called his Wednesday night performance “weak.” Despite getting super-rich as a corporate predator, Romney ate his lunch. He dissed Obama’s economic policies.
They’re “not working. The proof of that is 23 million people out of work. The proof of that is 1 out of 6 people in poverty. (Wrong: one in two are or bordering on it according to Census data.) The proof of that is we’ve gone from 32 million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. The proof of that is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can’t find work.”
It’s hard arguing with truths. Too bad most others were excluded. Not a word on imperial lawlessness, permanent wars, $1.5 trillion spent annually on defense, everything related to it, homeland security, intelligence, and black budgets as far as the eye can see with estimates only on what’s in them.
What about banker bailouts, tens of billions in other corporate handouts, out-of-control corruption, a sham electoral process, and growing poverty at Great Depression levels!
What about past and planned domestic spending cuts when stimulus is urgently needed! What about tax cuts for corporations and rich elites when vital people needs go begging! What about bipartisan governance making America no fit place to live in and a threat to world peace!
What about holding politicians accountable when they lie and betray constituents that elected them! What about addressing issues mattering most and changing things! What about doing the right thing instead of same old, same old!
Priorities not discussed include ending imperial wars, downsizing America’s military, stimulating economic growth and creating jobs, holding criminal bankers and other corporate crooks accountable, addressing Depression level unemployment, homelessness, hunger, poverty, and overall human need no free society should tolerate.
What about fixing America’s broken infrastructure instead of waging wars and destroying it in one country after another! What about prioritizing populism instead of slash and burn budget cuts affecting ordinary people most!
What about giving government of, by, and for the people real meaning! What about doing what never was done before! What about making America beautiful instead of being hated for threatening humanity!
Don’t expect any of the above from Republicans and Democrats. Blackguards, scoundrels, scalawags, and menaces best describe them. Expect more of the same or worse post-election.
It doesn’t matter who wins. It’s the American way. It’s up to ordinary people to change things. They have to do it on their own. It won’t happen any other way.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”
Visit his blog site at and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.