2012 Elections: Obamney vs Robama


November is just around the corner, and as many millions of Americans will be going up to the voting booth to choose between their favorite corporate banker puppets, many wonder what our future may hold for this country as well as the world. Many millions of people unemployed, layed off and struggling to stay afloat in this economic depression we are in.

Many wonder who will fix the problems for them? Will it be Obama? or Mitt Romney? or would it be some of the other candidates running for office, like Gary Johnson/Ron Paul? Only time will tell, but every 2 to 4 years we continue to elect these scumbags into office with false promises and false hopes, yet there are so many people who feel hopefull with Obama, or Romney.
They are far from the Truth, if we havn't learned our lesson from the last election, then nothing will change. From all the things Obama has done to the American people, raising the Debt ceiling, destroying the value of our currency, bailing out the banks, signing the NDAA into law, Expanding the TSA powers, Extending the Patriot Act, starting wars in Lybia, Syria and continuing the wars in IRAQ and Afghanistan, and a huge large list of other things he's already done to take people's rights and freedoms away. Does this man deserve another term? Does this man even deserve to be in that position of power?
What about Mitt Romney? Only you the conscious voter can decide, do we keep relying on trusting in these Presidential Candidates to solve our problems for us? Only you can answer those questions. The Truth and hard facts can make things right, and as long as these politicians continue to be secretive and stealthy, lying every chance they get, then we will see many more problems down the road, and the world will be a much worse place to live.
Only through honesty, love, care, principle and respect will we see any positive changes within our lives and communities.


Romney and Obama may have more in common than one might think

Hatred is too strong a word for the growing dislike of President Obama harbored by many liberals and civil libertarians, but their dislike is sharply edged by deep disappointment, a sense of betrayal, and furious frustration over his tendency to capitulate even when he has a winning hand. If reports of his deal with John Boehner are accurate, a deal that caves in to right wing demands for significant spending cuts and no guaranteed revenue increases, then Obama will look less like the allegedly amiable and flexibly ideological Ronald Reagan (whose image he's sought to appropriate) than the shape shifting Mitt Romney.

Yes, Romney sorely lacks the art of appearing sincere, which Obama practically perfected; he lacks the president's rhetorical skills. But putting aside personality, presentation, and political posturing (notably on the auto bailout) their policy differences on the economy and the war on terror, drugs, and civil liberty seem relatively insignificant. Romney, like Obama, would continue the Bush/Cheney anti-terror regime, expanding executive power and the national security state; unlike Obama he would not begin a debate about the deficit by demanding tax increases, but the end result would not differ, if Obama ends up where Romney would begin.

Of course, differences between them persist. Romney seems sincere in his relative hostility toward gay rights, as Obama seems sincere in his support for them. But the battle for gay rights is on its way to being won; even a conservative Republican president would probably delay but not derail it. Romney would be much less supportive, in general, of a civil rights agenda involving regulation of workplaces and schools aimed at ending discrimination, broadly defined. But while liberals would despair, civil libertarians would welcome any increased respect for rights of speech and due process being violated by the Obama administration's thoughtless campaigns against bullying and harassment. (If the administration has rejected the best of the liberal tradition - -- strong support for civil liberty and a social safety net -- it has adopted the worst of contemporary progressivism -- repressive political correctness in the name of federally conceived social equality.)

Romney and Obama differ as well on reproductive choice, although these differences seem more politically expedient than real. Anti-abortion conservatives are right to mistrust Romney's "pro-life" conversion. As Massachusetts voters may recall, he was avowedly pro-choice in his unsuccessful effort to unseat Ted Kennedy in 1994 and his successful gubernatorial campaign against state treasurer Shannon O'Brien in 2002. Romney seems likely to remain opposed to abortion rights, in the interests of expediency, and however insincere, his anti-abortion policies (executive orders and judicial appointments) would be highly consequential for women. Obama has disappointed strong advocates for choice; he has "presided over the greatest erosion to women's reproductive health and rights in the past 30 years," Jodi Jacobsen recently lamented in the Catholic pro-choice journal, Conscience. But abortion rights advocates will and should support a muted pro-choice president over an insincere pro-lifer.

In the end, perhaps, what would most distinguish an Obama and Romney presidency would be their judicial appointments (which will help determine the future of abortion rights when overly restrictive state laws are challenged in the federal courts.) Liberals have been, once again, frustrated and disappointed by Obama's slow and timid approach to judicial nominations, but Romney (and any other Republican) could be quick and aggressive in filling the excessive number of federal court vacancies with conservative Republicans (especially if backed by a Republican Senate and relatively non-combative Democrats.) In the end, perhaps, "it's the court's stupid," but in an economic crisis, that's a whimper, not a rallying cry.



Posted by Tony Cartalucci
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 Council on 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 direct US 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.


Mitt Romney Exposed full playlist

Barrack Obama Exposed full playlist

Impeach Obama 2012

Views: 62


You need to be a member of A New World Society to add comments!

Join A New World Society

© 2016   Created by Aaron.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service