Monday, 5 November 2012

Obama vs Romney - Who will win ? US Elect 2012

Even in US presidential election, there are many fine lines need to be considered by voters. Your vote is your choice but at the end of the day it will reflect the type of government you will get. As you reap what you sow and those who live by the sword will die by the sword. All humans are dead except those who have knowledge; and all those who have knowledge are asleep, except those who do good deeds; and those who do good deeds are deceived, except those who are sincere; and those who are sincere are always in a state of worry. Nevertheless for the Americans they are very unfortunate because in their political system, it doesnt matter who wins the Presidential election this November because - 

There is absolutely no difference between Romney and Obama - the very same policy makers will be handing the same script to the "president" no matter who wins ".

In this we Malaysians should be happy at least in our upcoming election it makes a huge difference if we choose either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat because we have a seperate policy and law making system. The Cabinet ministers consist of different sets of people making decisions on our behalf and it is the basis of our administrative centre. The legislative Dewan Rakyat is another avenue in making laws and policies which will govern us all as rakyat. Then comes our judiciary. It does make huge difference who we put in the Cabinet or Dewan Rakyat. We dont have a perfect system but at least we are not in the same predicament as the Americans do.

People Against Opposition

Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack. 
An aphorism which puts the whole art of war in a nutshell.


Repost: 2012 US Elections: Obamney vs. Rombama

War, economic collapse, and personal devastation await Americans 
no matter who they vote for - and what we should do instead.

Tony Cartalucci
Land Destroyer
November 6, 2012

Editor's Note: There is absolutely no difference between Romney and Obama - as illustrated in detail below, the 
very same policy makers will be handing the same script to the "president" no matter who wins in November. 
Beware of the retrenched false left-right paradigm run in concert by convicted criminal George Soros and Neo-Con
 media projects like Glenn Beck and World Net Daily (WND). They are desperately trying to keep Americans
 interested, invested, and involved in this false paradigm so that we do not start getting involved in creating 

(Originally posted on August 25, 2012) -A vote for Obama will bring war with Syria, Iran, and eventually 
Russia and China. The economy will continue to suffer in order to bolster the interests of off-shore corporate
-financier interests, while  the collective prospects of Americans continue to whither and blow away. 
A vote for Romney, however, will also bring war with Syria, Iran, and eventually Russia and China.
 The economy will also continue to suffer in order to bolster the interests of off-shore corporate-financier
 interests, while the collective prospects of Americans continue to whither and blow away. Why?

Because the White House is but a public relations front for the corporate-financier interests of Wall Street 
and London. A change of residence at the White House is no different than say, British Petroleum replacing
 its spokesman to superficially placate public opinion when in reality the exact same board of directors,
 overall agenda, and objectives remain firmly in place. Public perception then is managed by, not the primary
 motivation of, corporate-financier interests.

It is the absolute folly to believe that multi-billion dollar corporate-financier interests would subject their 
collective fate to the whims of the ignorant, uninformed, and essentially powerless voting masses every 
four years. Instead, what plays out every four years is theater designed to give the general public the illusion
 that they have some means of addressing their grievances without actually ever changing the prevailing
 balance of power in any meaningful way.

The foreign policy of both Obama and Romney is written by the exact same corporate-financier funded think
-tanks that have written the script for America's destiny for the last several decades.

Bush = Obama = Romney

As was previously reported, while the corporate media focuses on non-issues, and political pundits accentuate
 petty political rivalries between the "left" and the "right," a look deeper into presidential cabinets and the 
authors of domestic and foreign policy reveals just how accurate the equation of "Bush = Obama = Romney" is.

Image: Professional spokesmen, representative not of the American people but 
of Fortune 500 multinational corporations and banks. Since the time of JP Morgan 
100 years ago, the corporate-financier elite saw themselves as being above 
government, and national sovereignty as merely a regulatory obstacle they could 
lobby, bribe, and manipulate out of existence. In the past 100 years, 
the monied elite have gone from manipulating the presidency to now reducing
 the office to a public relations functionary of their collective interests. 

George Bush's cabinet consisted of representatives from FedEx, Boeing,
the Councilon Foreign Relations, big-oil's Belfer Center at Harvard,
the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Circuit City,
Verizon, Cerberus Capital Management,Goldman Sachs, and the RAND
Corporation, among many others.

Image: The Henry Jackson Society is just one of many Neo-Conservative
 think-tanks, featuring many of the same people and of course, the same 
corporate sponsors. Each think tank puts on a different public face and 
focuses on different areas of specialty despite harboring
 the same "experts" and corporate sponsors. 

His foreign policy was overtly dictated by "Neo-Conservatives" including
Richard Perle,Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Paul Wolfowitz,
James Woolsey,Richard Armitage, Zalmay Khalilzad, Elliot Abrams, Frank Gaffney,
 Eliot Cohen, John Bolton,Robert Kagan, Francis Fukuyama, William Kristol,
and Max Boot - all of whom hold memberships within a myriad of Fortune 500-
funded think-tanks that to this day still directUS foreign policy - even under a
"liberal" president. These include the Brookings Institution, the International Crisis Group,
 the Foreign Policy Initiative, the Henry Jackson Society,the Council on Foreign Relations,
 and many more.

Image: A visual representation of some of the Brookings Institution's corporate sponsors. Brookings is by no means an exception, but rather represents the incestuous relationship between US foreign and domestic policy making and the Fortune 500 found in every major "think-tank." Elected US representatives charged with legislative duties, merely rubber stamp the papers and policies drawn up in these think-tanks.  
Obama's cabinet likewise features representatives from JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, the Council on Foreign Relations, Fortune 500 representatives Covington and Burling, Citi Group, Freedie Mac, and defense contractor Honeywell. Like Bush's cabinet, foreign policy is not penned by Obama sitting behind his desk in the Oval Office, but rather by the very same think-tanks that directed Bush's presidency including the Council on Foreign Relations, RAND Corporation, the Brookings Institution, the International Crisis Group, and the Chatham House. There are also a myriad of smaller groups consisting of many of the same members and corporate sponsors, but who specialize in certain areas of interest.

Image: Obama, not a Marxist. A visual representation of current US President Barack Obama's cabinet's corporate-financier ties past and present. As can be plainly seen, many of the same corporate-financier interests represented in Obama's administration were also represented in Bush's administration. 

And with Mitt Romney, "running for president" against Obama in 2012, we see already his foreign policy advisers, Michael Chertoff, Eliot Cohen, Paula Dobrainsky, Eric Edelman, and Robert Kagan, represent the exact same people and corporate-funded think-tanks devising strategy under both President Bush and President Obama.

While Presidents Bush and Obama attempted to portray the West's global military expansion as a series of spontaneous crises, in reality, since at least as early as 1991, the nations of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and many others that previously fell under the Soviet Union's sphere of influence, were slated either for political destabilization and overthrow, or overt military intervention. While the public was fed various narratives explaining why Bush conducted two wars within the greater global "War on Terror," and why Obama eagerly expanded these wars while starting new ones in Libya and now Syria, in reality we are seeing "continuity of agenda," dictated by corporate-financier elite, rubber stamped by our elected representatives, and peddled to us by our "leaders," who in reality are nothing more than spokesmen for the collective interests of the Fortune 500.

Image: The International Crisis Group's corporate sponsors reveal a pattern of mega-multinationals intertwined with not only creating and directing US, and even European foreign policy, but in carrying it out. ICG trustee Kofi Annan is in Syria now carrying out a ploy to buy time for NATO-backed terrorists so they can be rearmed, reorganized, and redeployed against the Syrian government for another Western-backed attempt at regime change - all done under the guise of promoting "peace." 

No matter who you vote for in 2012 - until we change the balance of power currently tipped in favor of the Fortune 500, fed daily by our money, time, energy, and attention, nothing will change but the rhetoric with which this singular agenda is sold to the public. Romney would continue exactly where Obama left off, just as Obama continued exactly where Bush left off. And even during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Bush Sr., it was the same agenda meted out by the same corporate-financier interests that have been driving American, and increasingly Western destiny, since US Marine General Smedley Butler wrote "War is a Racket" in 1935.

What Should We Do About It?

1. Boycott the Presidential Election: The first immediate course of action when faced with a fraudulent system is to entirely disassociate ourselves from it, lest we grant it unwarranted legitimacy. Boycotting the farcical US elections would not impede the corporate-financier "selection" process and the theatrical absurdity that accompanies it, but dismal voter turnout would highlight the illegitimacy of the system. This in many ways has already happened, with voter turnout in 2008 a mere 63%, meaning that only 32% of America's eligible voters actually voted for Obama, with even fewer voting for runner-up John McCain.

Ensuring that this mandate is even lower in 2012 - regardless of which PR man gets selected, and then highlighting the illegitimacy of both the elections and the system itself is the first step toward finding a tenable solution. People must divest from dead-ends. Presidential elections are just one such dead-end.

Focusing on local elections and governance first, not only emphasizes the primacy of local self-determination, but affords us a grassroots-up approach to transforming our communities, and collectively our nation back into something truly representative of the people. 

2. Boycott and Replace the Corporate Oligarchy: The corporate-financier interests that dominate Western civilization did not spring up overnight. It is through generations of patronage that we the people have granted these corporate-financier interests the unwarranted influence they now enjoy. And today, each day, we collectively turn in our paychecks to the global "company store," providing the summation of our toil as fuel for this oligarchy's perpetuation. 

By boycotting the goods, services, and institutions of this oligarchy, we steal the fire out from under the proverbial cauldron - the very source of the current paradigm's power. While it is impractical to commit overnight to a full-spectrum boycott, we can begin immediately by entirely boycotting corporations like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, Kraft, Unilever and others by simply supporting local businesses and our local farmers market. This "voting with one's wallet" is a form of democracy that unlike elections, will undoubtedly shift the balance of power toward a system more representative of the people's interests.

By creating self-reliant communities independent of the machinations of corporate-financier interests, we provide ourselves with the greatest form of insurance against instability and uncertainty - an insurance policy placed solely in our own hands.

3. Get Educated, Get Organized: Leveraging technology is a necessary step in eliminating dependency on other corporate-financier interests - such as big oil, big defense, big-agri, big-pharma, and the telecom monopolies. To leverage technology, people at a grassroots level must get organized, educate themselves, and collaborate to create local business models and solutions to systematically replace large multinational holdings.

A recent interview by geopolitical analyst Eric Draitser with Seth Rutledge, featured on Stop Imperialism, explored the possibilities of developing local broadband networks. Community spaces dedicated to technological education, collaboration, and resource pooling are also an emerging phenomenon. Called "maker spaces" or sometimes "hacker spaces," these grassroots initiatives serve as incubators for innovative, local small businesses.

Technology will eventually provide solutions to problems generally "solved" by government subsidies. Medicare, for instance, is a government subsidy to address the expenses and subsequent inaccessibility of medical care. Medical care, in turn, is expensive because the means to provide it are scarce. The supply of doctors, hospitals, treatments, biomedical technology, and many other aspects of modern health infrastructure are vastly outnumbered by demand. 

Until technology can better balance this equation, people must organize to either defend as temporary stopgap measures, national programs that provide care to those who can't afford it, or create local alternatives. To cut programs people depend on for the sake of saving an economy plundered by special interests, to specifically preserve these same special interests is unconscionable.

An organized political front that demands the preservation/reformation of these programs as well as investment in the development of permanent technological solutions, needs not pass the hat around to the working or even productive entrepreneurial classes of society, but rather level taxes on parasitic financial speculation and market manipulation - thus solving two problems in a single stroke. Geopolitical analyst and historian Dr. Webster Tarpley has already enumerated such an approach in his 5 point plan for international economic recovery (.pdf)by specifically calling for resistance to austerity and a 1% Wall Street tax.


Undoubtedly people realize something is wrong, and that something needs to be done. To ensure that the corporate-financier elite remain in perpetual power, a myriad of false solutions have been contrived or created out of co-opted movements, to indefinitely steer people away from influencing the current balance of power and achieving true self-determination.

By recognizing this and seizing the reins of our own destiny, we can and must change the current balance of power. In the process of doing so, we must recognize and resist attempts to derail and distract us by way of the incessant political minutia now on full display during the 2012 US Presidential Election. For every problem faced by society, there is a permanent, technological solution. For hunger there was agriculture, for lack of shelter, there was architecture, and no matter how daunting today's problems may seem, there lies similar solutions.

We must realize that by endeavoring to solve these problems, we jeopardize monopolies as insidious as they are monolithic, constructed to exploit such problems. If we fail to recognize and undermine these interests through pragmatic activism, we will be resigned to whatever fate these special interests determine for us, no matter how cleverly they sell us this fate as one of our own choosing.

No comments:

Post a Comment