Saturday, August 25, 2012

2012 US Elections -- Obamney vs. Rombama: What Should We Do About It?

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

freakingnews.com
Tony Cartalucci, Contributor
Activist Post

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, WalMart 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 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, and 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.

Conclusion

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 minutiae 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.

You can support this information by voting on Reddit HERE

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.   Read other contributed articles by Tony Cartalucci here.


Offgrid Outpost Presents Legacy Premium Emergency Food Storage

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

13 comments:

Sherri Bilodeau said...

The American citizens should not allow the elections to happen without a viable candidate. The heads of each state need to collectively stop everything on an agreed upon date in late September and call special elections to cease the 2012 Presidential vote. The citizens should just stop the election process. Completely.

Anonymous said...

Until the ballot has a box labeled "none of the above" to check off, you will participate in the macabre charade known as "democracy".
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Anonymous said...

If Dr. Paul is not on the ballot I will never vote again. And don't come with "what about Gary Johnson?" He is as much for war as Obama witch is only a little less than Romney, but they are all for war in one way or another. Ron Paul was our last chance and we blew it! Welcome to the United States of Israel, supported by big business, Wall Street, and the corrupt media. Even a blind person can see how rigged this sh!t is this election. There is proof of electronic vote flipping in 42 states proven by MIT professors and computer experts and not 1 judge will touch it. That just shows you how far this corruption is. Like the article says we either boycott the election or leave the country. I prefer the boycott.

Anonymous said...

Agreed. If you vote in any election you agreeing to recognize the winner as legitimate. Don't buy the BS that you don't have a right to complain if you don't vote, the opposite is true. The whole purpose of a vote is to get people to agree beforehand that they will recognize the winner as legitimate and abide by the election outcome.

If you are on a desert island with a group of people and two madmen nominate themselves as candidates to be the leaders, your only sensible choice is to refuse to vote at all and make clear that you will not recognize either candidate as having authority. If you are so afraid of one madman that you vote for the other, thinking the one you vote for might be tolerable, and then the one you did not vote for wins, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN!

You cannot vote and then claim you don't recognize the outcome simply because you did not vote for the outcome.

Anonymous said...

Anony @ 1:23, write in Ron Paul. The advantage to a protest vote over a non-vote is visibility. If you don't vote they say it's apathy. A big vote percentage for somebody other than D and R makes it clear that the election is illegitimate.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKsaZLtFtQw

Anonymous said...

In a terse four words, the SupremeCourt on Monday issued an order upholding prohibitions against foreigners making contributionstoinfluence American elections.

The decision clamped shut an openingthat some thought the court had created two years ago in its Citizens United decision,when itrelaxedcampaign-finance limits on corporations and labor unions.On Monday the Supreme Court,upholding a lower court’s decision in Bluman, et al., v. Federal Election Commission, refusedto extend its reasoningin Citizens United to cover foreigners living temporarily here.

Foreign nationals, otherthan lawfulpermanent residents, are completely banned from donating to candidates or parties, or making independent expenditures in federal, state or local elections.

Mitt Romney's advisers (the same3 one who thought it was safe for him to make jokes about the birth certificate) may have assumed that the Citizens United decision granting First Amendment rights to corporations meant all corporations could donate to Romney, including corporations in Israel. But we all know what 'assume' means. This article confirms that the United States Supreme Court has already ruled that Citizen's United does NOT extend to foreign corporations. So Romney has committed multiple felony violations of US campaign finance laws. FELONY! Men who commit felonies are not allowed by US law to be the President!

Anonymous said...

Folks, look at these web sites and see for yourself that Satan runs this world through his Jesuits, their pope and all their banker lackeys. www.vaticanassassins.org www.chick.com, Lucifer runs Kolvenback who runs Adolphus, who runs Benedict, who runs Egan who runs Bidens, who runs Obama, or will run Ryan who will run Romney. All the high, mid, and low level people and us masses are but pawns and cannon fodder. Prove it wrong. Our only hope is for a mass spiritual awakening at all levels for the unsaved and a mass revival for those who "claim" to be Christians. Apart from that, read Revelations and see that Jesus Christ has already got the situation well in hand. Best be sure you are repentant and saved.

Anonymous said...

What should "we" do about it? Simple: everybody vote Republican. Y'all saw what Bush did to the country in 8 years. Well, Romney will finish it off in 6 months. At that point, those who care will be able to pick up the pieces and start from scratch. Giddy up! When you can't beat them, join them.

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone vote in a corrupt, rigged "election"? Your vote won't do anything no matter who you "vote" for. It won't be counted correctly.

Adolf W. Obama said...

Another option: Vote for any 3rd party.

If only 3 people were to vote, the corrupted media would simply declare the candidate who got 2 votes the winner with a 66.6% majority (what a great result!) without reporting on the number of voters.

On the other hand, voting for a 3rd party (regardless of which party) gives them numbers they have a hard time to hide. If they report Obama got 40% of the vote and Romney got 38%, people will wonder what happened to the remaining 22%.

While this, in itself, isn't good enough, it may help get people out of "a vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote" mode, and help make a 3rd party a real option for the next election.

Anonymous said...

We don't have a two party system. The same goes for the "third" party. It's one big happy family so the finger pointing at one party or the other is a fallacy. The same goes for pointing out the felonious behavior of one candidate without mentioning the felonious behavior of the other. Both candidates are ineligible to hold the highest office in this country, but who really cares about The Constitutional requirements anyway? It's been blatantly ignored in the past so keep moving folks, there's nothing new to see here.

My protest vote will be to write in Ron Paul. The election has already been decided so it really doesn't matter which bubble we fill in or what name we write down. The only other viable option, mentioned in an earlier post, is to stop the election at the state level. What will matter, when all is said & done, is our ability to stick together, see through the lies & to stop allowing them to divide us on every issue under the sun. We must be fearless in standing as one. If they can divide us, they will conquer all of us. A very old but very true cliche. That part is totally up to us.



Anonymous said...

I can't believe this only has 14 shares on FB. Come on people do your part to help educate the sleeping masses.

Post a Comment