If you have to investigate Trump then you must investigate Hillary Clinton

If you investigate Trump over collusion with a foreign government you have to with Hillary Clinton

By Dark Politricks 
Secular Talk

This video is worth watching if you are still getting mad about #Russiagate, thinking Russia was hacking into machines and trying to fix the US election.

Don't worry it was a millionaire who owned a BOT farm, which placed adverts for cat lovers, black lives matter, anti-Trump and anti-Clinton adverts just to gain click-bait from them and therefore money. You can read more about that here.

Trump may have got information from the Russians but Clinton got her foreign information from Ukraine through a middle man - ex UK spy - who got it from ...... Russia.

So if there is going to be an investigation on Trump and Russia, then there should be one on Hillary and her own dossier, her failure to hand over private "hacked" servers to the FBI, and their excuse for losing to Trump on Russia and a push for WWIII .
,WWIII
This is all over a #NothingBurger and #RussiaGate, something even MSM news watchers are getting tired of.

I will let Kyle tell the story for you and watch the CNN host get stunned by calls from his viewers about his constant going on about Russia just so the Democrats don't have to analyse their last election and where they went wrong.

They went wrong by not including progressive ideas and just attacking Trump. The leaked DNC emails showed they were corrupt for giving Hilary front row, smearing Bernie, and keeping all the money for her to spend on the election.

How did that work without Bernies policies and more of free Medicare, free University, less war, more jobs and a crack down on Wall St. The party lost millions of supporters as well as politicians and it will be hard to get them back if all they talk about is Russia.

All this could have been paid for by the trillion dollars of debt that Trump has already added to the national debt with help from the Democrats when they all voted for him to have his $800 billion for the military and his "wall" with Mexico.

A few closures of foreign military bases as well which are well overdue such as in the UK, Germany and other spots not geo-politically placed to surround Russia or China.

Watch and learn.



So even CNN hosts are shocked when their callers ring in and complaining that they don't care about his spiel on #Russiagate. He does it just to keep his company owners and advertisers happy, and of course blame President Trump on Russia and being Putins puppet, NOT the fact that the Democrats put the most hated politician in the country up against him.

The Democrats need some real policies.

In fact the "dove" party is driving the country towards a war with Russia and all over stupid Russian Facebook adverts and a few meetings that were bugged illegally through FISA court warrants obtained by using leaked info to Yahoo to back them up.

All so the NSA could bug and listen to Trump and everyone 2 hops away from him, his family and friends and their family and friends. I wrote about this two hops NSA FISA scam the other day.

So it's a video worth watching seeing that the "left" (who are now right wing) are pushing for war, and calling for Trump to "defend the country". There were even people on Chis Hayes show who claimed it was just as bad as Pearl Harbour and 9.11, that is apart from no-one died and we got a numpty for President instead of a career politician who wants war with Russia.

Madness!

 
By Dark Politricks
 
© 2018 Dark Politricks

Why Their Is No Difference Between Democrats and Republicans

Why Their Is No Difference Between Democrats and Republicans

By Dark Politricks


There is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats

I know that Conservatives in the US call Obama a Marxist and the Democrats attack the GOP as money grabbers for the rich, but in reality there is very little difference between the GOP and the Democrats.

From my perspective across the pond I haven't seen the US change for the better since all my years of being interested in US politics. This includes both Republican and Democratic Presidencies as well as times where the President was of the same party that controlled both houses of Congress yet still didn't push through policies you would expect them to.

Both the GOP and Democratic parties are:

• Pro war, even if it means possible world war with Russia/China.
• Pro Israel and pro AIPAC / JDL plus anti Palestinian rights.
• Pro regime change (Iraq, Libya, Ukraine & Syria to name a few).
• Pro drone strikes even on US citizens without judicial review.
• Pro Bankster & Wall St and anti Working Class & main street.
• Pro Police arbitrary killings. It feels as if the streets of some US cities are full of uninformed paramilitary death squads at the moment.
• Pro NSA/FBI/CIA/Homeland security spying on you through your cars GPS, phones microphone/cameras, websites visited from your ISPs and server log files and even now through your TV!

If you have a new "Smart TV", have you actually read the privacy statement they make you sign in detail?

If not do so!

I read my new 4k TVs statement the other night and it mentioned built-in microphones and cameras installed into the TV to take photos of you for facial recognition and even to record your height, weight and vocal patterns.

Of course they claim that this is just to help deliver you tailored adverts and help with certain smart apps such as those that use voice commands or hand gestures but all this data goes off to a 3rd party company first to be analysed.

The legalese didn't mention who got access to this data or how long it was stored just that it could be used by the appropriate authorities and that non compliance was covered by New York Law.

Therefore if you break your new Smart TV's terms and conditions in any way you can have US policemen coming to arrest you wherever you are in the world. I have to wonder which 3 letter agencies get access to all this data, it really has become that Telescreen from George Orwell's 1984, if not I don't know how much closer they can become.

Just like phones which when switched off still have enough power to ping the phone masts and therefore record your whereabouts, I'd have a good bet that there is just enough power when your TV is in standby mode to record you through the microphone and camera.

Therefore don't rely on turning off your camera/microphone in the settings, if you are that paranoid go back to basics and cover them with masking tape. The simplest methods are best. However when even your TV is a sophisticated computer that can spy on you and record your actions and speech then we really have entered George Orwell's dystopian world.

Also people forget that our phones are those microchips everybody worried about having implanted in them to keep track of them by the Government in the 90s. It was the big thing, being chipped, a conspiracy theory that was just in the mind of tin foil hat wearing loons. However we happily take our phones with us everywhere we go. We constantly "Sign In", and "log where we are", "tag who we are with", and write down everything we are doing. Leaving a nice long trail of our life on the Internet to be remembered for decades to come.

To the youngsters of today there is no concept of privacy and they seem happy to give that away for the ability to communicate and therefore be logged and recorded.

With our mobile and household tracking devices we can now be located and spied on 24/7 and if you are a terrorist, domestic extremist, protester or even a citizen journalist (under new US combatant rules), you could find yourself being the target of something nasty flying through the air.

Microsoft, Facebook and Google constantly hand over all your private chat data, search requests, emails, and history of websites that we've visited to the authorities. Both if asked and sometimes just as standard due to their close relationships with the alphabet agencies of the US surveillance state. Google took seed money from the CIA and helped them design some of the NSA's searching algorithms for programs similar to those Snowden leaked such as PRISM and XKeyScore. Plus Microsoft was adding chips into their PC's from the 90's to help the NSA override any secure cryptography so that they could access your PC at will. Even the BBC reported on it in this 1999 article.

There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of national security which means knowing as much as possible about as many people as possible.

ISIS which is a creation of US/UK Middle Eastern foreign policy, just as al-Qaeda was a database of CIA cut out agents/Jihadists, used to destabilise countries as ex UK Foreign Minister, Robin Cook wrote about, are used to scare us into just handing over all our civil liberties that the terrorists supposedly hate us for having. The US were bombing ISIS for a year as their Caliphate grew in size. Therefore they were either very bad at their bombing campaign compared to the Russians or they were allowing them to survive. Using the existence of these terrorists as an excuse to cut our civil liberties is basically doing their job for them.

If they truly "hate us for our freedoms", as George W Bush famously said, we shouldn't hand all our freedoms away never for them to return with laws like the Patriot ACT and the NDAA and in the UK the multitude of anti-terrorism bills that have been passed.

So it's the same with all 3 states in the Axis of War, the UK, France and the USA who have all suspended certain rights and freedoms due to the "threat" of terrorism.

I'd really like to see both Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn be leaders of both the USA and UK at the same time JUST TO SEE if REAL CHANGE is even possible from the top down.

When Obama came into office on a wave of support due to his meaningless chant of "We Can Change", it seemed to me that the slogan was purely about the colour of the White House occupants. Therefore I don't even believe real change from the top is actually possible, never been tried, or just stopped by the main string pullers from behind the curtains.

Having two characters like Bernie and Corbyn in power would at least show us if it was still possible to change the world for the better whether you like their policies or not.
If both these men did have full control and held true to the principles they currently state then in power we should see:

• Less prison for drugs and minor offences.
• Less Banksters running a mock with our tax payers money and no "too big to fail or jail" companies allowed to bank roll terrorists and drug cartels (e.g HSBC).
• Less spending on the department of war and more on education, job creation, house building and investment in the people and country instead of wasting it on £800,000 missiles that are fired into rubble in pointless overseas wars.
• Less stupid overtures that suggest our leaders want to start a new cold (or even hot) war with Russia. They seem to forget Russia helped solve the Iran nuclear deal, remove chemical weapons from Syria and are basically crushing DAESH in Syria despite Turkey and Saudi Arabian support for the Jihadists.
• Less power to corporations who are NOT real people with feelings and emotions yet in the USA under law they are treated as such and so during elections pump millions into campaigns of people who will benefit them if they get into power.
• Better and cheaper health care free at the point of use in the US, and less middle management and PPI hospitals in the UK that are bankrupting us into the future.
• Free adult education and the ability to retrain and gain new skills throughout your life to keep you in a job. Having taxpaying workers is much better than people relying on state handouts.
• Oh and all the stolen civil liberties we have had removed from us due to the "War on Terror" returned in the hundreds.

The Two Faced Janus Coin of American Politics

Both Main Parties in the USA Serve The Same Interests

These are all good reasons why we need strong 3rd parties in the USA and UK.

Many Europeans don't even realise that 3rd parties exist in the USA. Parties such as the Greens, Libertarians, Justice Party and even (shock horror) socialists!

Major political reform is needed so that these parties get a fair shake of the whip during elections, can debate the other parties on the major networks, and get the air time they require to make a dent into the two-faced Janus coin called American Democratic elections.

Of course the reason they don't is that the debates are all staged collusion with the networks who are all filled with COINTELPRO government mouthpieces. They have no urge to see REAL change come to the USA and actually do something to shake up the status quo.

How many Americans know they are still living under "Emergency Laws" enacted after 9 11 giving the President ultimate power. When will this end?

How good would an alliance be between the UK and the USA that would get on with other nations better and stop real evil e.g Israeli illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and Chinese/Saudi treatment of their people instead of selling weapons and outsourcing all our jobs to them.

Money should not matter more than morals but to George Osborne, Obama and the US/UK arms companies who must carry on their trade it seemingly does.

Our allies are not dissimilar to our enemies e.g ISIS and Saudi Arabia, yet we allow the 7th century hypocritical scum that the Saudi's are to continue with own Janus act of both funding and fighting terrorism.

However will this ever happen or will the establishment prevent the elections of such men as Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn  due to the threat of real change?

The realistic outcome is that some idiot like Donald Trump or a warmonger like Hillary Clinton will get into power in the USA to reign alongside an equally right-wing Tory party in the UK and the Axis of War will roll on.....

One can only wish.....

Remember, as George Orwell famously said:

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

Oh, and you do have a real choice in your elections.

 
View the original article at the main site www.darkpolitricks.com.

By Dark Politricks
 
© 2015 Dark Politricks

Why the Grand Bargain will prove Obama isn't a liberal and it's business as usual in Washington

Why the Grand Bargain will prove Obama isn't a liberal and it's business as usual in Washington

By Dark Politricks

There has been a lot of talk lately about the "Grand Bargain" that is going to be made between Obama and the GOP to try and balance the books and prevent the government's having to deal with the "deficit cliff" that would massively reduce spending and raise taxes.

This is something Cenk Uygur talks about in this video. About how the real aim is to let the right of centre President Obama make a deal with the Republican party in the lame duck session so that business can continue as usual. The real aim being to once again lett the poor and the middle class suffer by giving away cuts to their services and benefits in exchange for tax cuts to the wealthy. Once again the poor get screwed so the rich can get richer.

This is something that Cenk's math's shows is totally unnecessary and can be avoided just by letting the George W Bush tax cuts expire by kicking the ball into the long grass and waiting for a Democratic controlled house.

Although Cenk is obviously a liberal he is someone who attacks both Obama for his non progressive views and his right of centre beliefs.

As I previously stated if Obama WAS a true liberal he would not be doing any of the following:

• Allowing the Federal government to go after State legal pot dispensaries for medicinal marijuana.
• Also threatening the new states Colorado and Washington who have recently legalised recreational marijuana with the DEA. Both wasting time, money and ignoring the wishes of the states population. See the Anti State Rights Pledge here.
• Continuing the war on terror in a more forcible way than his predecessor George W Bush. Including drone strikes that kill 49 civilians to every 1 terrorist.
• Letting soldiers based in America use Playstation controllers to kill people halfway across the world as if it was just another version of Call of Duty. Then already de-sensitised by not having these soldiers in the "kill zone", seeing the carnage they have wrought first hand, they use a double tap method to kill anyone else who comes to the aid of the victims whether they are women, children or other non combatants.
• Introducing blatantly anti-liberal laws such as the NDAA, continuing the State of Emergency enacted after 9.11 and letting the PATRIOT ACT continue on harassing and spying on citizens and journalists alike who are trying to bring some accountability to the government.
• Allowing his much "celebrated" health care act to become a piece of legislation that both liberals and conservatives hate in that it forces people to pay for a product they may or may not want or use. He modelled it on a Republicans health care plan (Mitt Rommey) and is basically forcing people to become customers of the health insurance companies. A true liberal would have gone for a public option or none at all not giving an already rich sector of business a market that is compelled to buy their product.

Also if Obama was NOT an establishment stooge he would surely be doing all of the following:

• Locking up the banksters that brought the USA and then the world to it's knees financially.
• Not allowing the FED to continue printing money and devaluing the dollar in a race to the bottom that is killing savers and de-meaning true capitalism.
• Not appointing neo-con and right wing ministers to head up agencies in Homeland Security, the DEA, the CIA and the Department of Defence.
• Cutting and not increasing the Department of Defences already bloated budget and using the money to fund projects that help middle class Americans NOT the military industrial complex.
• Reeling back the intrusive surveillance state that has seen a million Americans become holders of top secret intelligence clearance and introduced huge city sized databases such as the one being built under UTAH. All to hold all the information gained by spying on American and Europeans bank records, phone calls, text messages, CCTV footage (see TRAPWIRE) and Internet usage.
• Allowing big business and well funded lobbyists to dictate his policy instead of trying to take corporate money out of politics.
• Following the right wing pro-Israeli line that all American Presidents seem to take. Forgetting all their breaches of international law, illegal wars, assassinations in foreign lands, illegal settlement buildings and illegal blockades that Israel constantly inflict on Palestinians and their neighbours.

However Obama is not a true liberal.

He is a centre right politician who is both an establishment stooge and someone beholden to big business and the banksters who robbed the country.

He is also someone all too willing to compromise what little beliefs he has to get bi-paritsan support in Congress whether or not that means sacrificing whatever little principles he may or may not hold.

As Cenk says:

"First of all, let's establish that no one in Washington actually cares about balancing the budget. If they did, they would love this so-called Fiscal Cliff. It raises taxes and cuts spending, so it would massively reduce the deficit. Isn't that what all of Washington has been pretending to care about all of this time?

Second, understand that this so-called compromise they are talking about in order to avoid this supposed calamity is a trick. In fact, it'll be the greatest robbery in American history. Think about it -- they say they are worried about all those tax increases and spending cuts. But that's not true. The Grand Bargain would dramatically increase spending cuts, not alleviate them. So, in fact, the only thing they care about is paying less taxes, as always."

Watch Cenk explain his maths and the unfairness of the "Grand Bargain" below.




Watch uploaded videos from the The Young Turks here.

Follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/darkpolitricks

View the original article on www.darkpolitricks.com

How big must Bibi's cartoon bomb be before US/UK troops die in another Middle East war for Israel?

How big must Bibi's cartoon bomb be before US/UK troops die in another Middle East war for Israel?

By Dark Politricks

After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "performance" in the UN assembly the other day it is clear he is itching for a war with Iran.

Despite the facts of the matter e.g NO PROOF that Iran is building a bomb which comes from people such as top American and Israeli military and intelligence officials who have gone public to state that:

• Iran has not decided to build a nuclear bomb.
• Even if they did - they would be stupid to use it as America and Israel has thousands of nuclear bombs and they would be wiped out in seconds.
• Plus even American intelligence operatives such as Director of National Intelligence James Clapper,  General Ron Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff agree that Iran is a "rational" state actor who wouldn't suicidally kill their whole country for the sake of one (probably shot down) attempt at a nuclear strike on Israel.

If we want to see all of the following:

• The Middle East in more flames as Syria and Iran go down fighting, with proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas lobbing rockets into neighbouring countries, terrorists blowing themselves up on New York and London trains and more havoc than could be imagined at this point.
• More US embassies being overrun and more US ambassadors being killed.
• Yet more US and UK troops dying on foreign lands fighting wars for other countries.
• The price of your petrol rise to stupendously high levels (they are already crazy in the UK £1.4+ for a litre of unleaded).
• Another hypocritical breach of international law in which we let a member of the Nuclear non proliferation treaty (Iran) who has not been proved breaking it whilst a non signatory (Israel with their 200+ nukes) start another pre-emptive illegal war "just in case" they might have been right.
• Then a war in Iran is just want we need.

We seem to forget that Iran has one of the largest populations of Jews outside Israel in the Middle East and they are not living in ghettos, forced into concentration camps, being exterminated or any of the other deeds carried out by the Nazi's that led to Israels creation after World War 2.

In fact they live quite comfortably. Israel was a country created in the misguided belief that Palestine was a place with no inhabitants. Just sat there waiting for thousands of Jews, many with no links to the land whatsoever, to come and kill British soldiers by the hundreds through terrorist organisations like Irgun and Stern gang.

Then afterwards start a civil war - in which the seeds of a new "international law", created by the USA and the Nuremberg trials to punish the Germans for their crimes against the Jews, were totally ignored by the same people who first benefited from them.

Laws that have still not been fulfilled. Such as the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes. 

Plus laws that are still breached to this day; such as the attacking of whole civilian populations as Israel did in Operation Cast Lead, targeted assassinations and illegal blockades of whole territories such as Gaza.

In fact it is no wonder that Israel along with the USA finds itself in a nice group of countries who haven't signed up to the International Criminal Court alongside China, Iraq, Libya, Qatar, Yemen, India, Iran, Japan, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkey.

I suppose it's because they would find their soldiers and leaders in the dock so often that they might as well set-up a camp alongside it.

I doubt acts such as these would be welcomed by bosses of the US Army as they would find themselves consuming whole years worth of dockets at the International Criminal Court.

Crimes such as:

• Those carried out at Guantanamo bay.
• The torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib.
• The drone strikes that kill 50 civilians for every "terrorist" in Pakistan.
• The targeted assassinations of US civilians without judicial process.
• The false flag attacks.
• The piracy on the high seas such as the attack on the Mavi Marmara.
• The white phosphorus attack on UN compounds inside Gaza.
• The US soldiers who kill Afghans for fun such as the U.S. soldier who walked off his base and into a nearby village where he killed 16 civilians, nine of them children.
• Or the "Kill Squad" that killed for fun and collected their dead victims fingers as trophies.
• Or the US soldiers filming themselves pissing on dead Afghan bodies.

I suppose it makes you understand why Israel and America were so keen NOT to join the International Criminal Court, even though Bill Clinton signed up to it before George W Bush withdrew the signature in 2002.

Maybe we just have to wait for Romney to steal the election with the help of the Koch brothers before we get this disastrous war with Iran which will undoubtedly worsen our global recession.

Or maybe Obama is just putting it all off until after the election so that he can use AIPAC dollars for his re-election campaign and then he will surprise us all by doing what US Presidents's haven't done previously in their last term - act like an honest broker between Israel and Palestine.

If he really, really tries to sort out that problem, the one all US Presidents weakly attempt to in their second term, then the anti-Zionist rage (NOT anti-semitic) will hopefully subside.

Maybe even Iran won't consider the racist Israeli government a threat, which it is at the moment, with their hundreds of illegal nuclear weapons and their support for terrorist groups like the MEK who have just been removed from the US terrorist watchlist. 

A group who bombs, assassinates and terrorises Iranians all the time. But then they are "freedom  fighters" when they are fighting OUR enemies aren't they!

Maybe once President Obama doesn't have to think about another re-election then all that "change" he promised us he will actually try to deliver.

Maybe starting with actually letting Palestine become a real state in the eyes of the UN and remove the promise that the USA will always block votes aimed at curbing Israeli war crimes and breaches of international law in the UN Security Council. 

Maybe when their crimes are re-examined in an international court (not that they subscribe to the concept of International law) such as the illegal blockade of Gaza, the occupation of Palestinian territory and their ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem. He might actually grow a pair and try to prevent the submission and humiliation of the Palestinian people by the Zionist state.

Maybe if he doesn't have to worry about AIPAC spies and blackmail (and just the possibility of assassination) he will actually stand up to Israel's constant threats of external annihilation. A successful tactic they have used since their inception to excuse their wars and abuses and keep their population scared of all those "evil Muslims" that want to exterminate them.

Maybe he will even have enough of a pair to stand over Bibi and rip up his cartoon drawing of bomb telling him "no more".

Maybe one day even Jews and Non Jews can live in a secular Israel/Palestine together as equals.

We can only dream.

Whatever is happening another war in the Middle East is not what we need right now!

So how long do after this comical performance by Bibi at the UN do you expect to see US and UK troops fighting for Israel against Iran once Bibi's "red line" is crossed on his cartoon bomb?

 

The very undemocratic Democratic Convention

The very undemocratic Democratic Convention

By Dark Politricks

A lot of people including myself have for years compared the US political system as a single-headed coin with two faces.

This duopoly is designed to appeal to both sides of the culture war. However both main political parties when in power continue the same  policies. Policies that are acted out whoever is voted in as President of America.

Whether it is a Democrat or Republican sitting in the most important position of the land. The policies that actually matter continue unabated.

Policies such as

• Constant and ever expanding wars that only create enemies for future US generations of soldiers to fight.
• The huge and all invasive police state that is being enlarged at home from the PATRIOT Act to the NDAA. From TRAPWIRE to ECHELON. From CCTV to the Police  secretly downloading whole mobile phones for GPS positions, call data and text messages.
• The ever revolving door between Wall St and the Treasury that see's big banks able to actually get the law changed retrospectively once they are caught breaking it.
• The bailouts that use taxpayers money to pick winners and losers and allow the US government to pay back their biggest donors with handouts.
• The lobbying and high spending during elections that prevent the breakthrough of any other party or independent unless they are a multi millionaire like Ross Perot was. Unless you have a few hundred million dollars to waste on elections and rich friends with their Super PACS. The spending on Presidential elections will only increase and increase maintaining the duopoly that strangles the political process and prevents new parties and new ideas from gaining traction in the political sphere.
• The War on drugs that see a disproportionate amount of minorities locked up in prisons for long periods. The USA is supposed to be a country where the government stays of your back unless you're hurting someone. Yet dare smoke a spliff, even in a state that has legalised medical marijuana, and the Federal government still feel the need to treat you as criminal scum and lock you up.
• The power of the military industrial complex to keep on growing in size, eating up more and more of the total US GDP as Department of Defence/Attack money that is just to "important" to the country to cut. Whether it's a Democrat or Republican in office the hundreds of US military bases and billion dollar embassies dotted around the world will remain whilst the poor have to put up with cuts to Medicaid, Social Security and other "entitlements" they have paid for through their taxes throughout their lives.
• And something that will be discussed further along in the article is the decision to support Israel no matter how badly they act on the international stage. No matter how many targeted assassinations they do - something the US has now followed them with. No matter how many nukes they keep hidden and away from inspection whilst demanding Iran a member of the NPT put up with ever more inspections, special rules and threats of war if they decease from their perfectly legal activity. They also stay quiet as Israel kill American citizens whether caught on camera assassinating US citizens like Furkan Dogan and Rachel Corrie or covered up like the mass murder of US naval person-ell aboard the USS Liberty.

And they are just a few of the things that won't change if Mitt Romney the least favourite of all the Republican runners gets voted in as President later this year.

However proof that both the GOP and Democratic conventions is just pure theater rather than groups of like-minded people getting together and voting together to form policy. Or even to choose what should be in their public statements has now come out in two embarrassing video clips from both parties conventions.

The following video clip shows how despite the audience at both parties conferences voting "nay" (in the negative) at least as equally as loud as the "yeighs" (positive), if no louder, they were overruled by the all-pervasive teleprompter which takes no consideration of party members feelings as the outcome had already been decided and then scripted for the speaker.

The fact that the delegates didn't choose to go along with the pre-determined decision is a perfect sign of how little these mega parties really care about their members feelings.

For me the worst one of the two cases was the Democratic vote to restore a previous statement that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel - rather than under international law the supposed capital of both Israel and Palestine.

This came after FOX and other right-wing commentators made a fuss about the lack of mention of God in their speeches and how they had "removed" all mention of Israels divine right to claim Jerusalem, a piece of territory the Israeli's are in the process of ethnically cleansing (through forced home purchasing for Jews), as their rightful capital.

GOP officials argued that not taking a position on Jerusalem's status in the party platform showed the president was weak in his support of Israel. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said that by omitting God it:

"suggests a party that is increasingly out of touch with the mainstream of the American people." and that "I think this party is veering further and further away into an extreme wing that American's don't recognize"  - Not that God and Politics should be mixed in anyway in my own eyes.

Anyway it caused such a fuss that it was obviously decided by the powers that be, with undoubtably a bit of pressure from AIPAC behind the scenes, to re-add in these statements of support for Israel.

By doing so the Democrats made themselves look so controlling and fake they were indistinguishable from North Korea by the manner they chose to do it.

Instead of just adding the statement back in they wanted to provide the illusion that the decision was based on a majority of the Democratic delegates wanting to change it - which they obviously didn't (a good sign in itself).

The convention chairman Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called a vote of the delegates on the matter which stated that:

"Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."

The crowd re-acted by shouting in the negative.

The number of yes' were clearly outweighed by the shouts of no and the Mayor got so confused he attempted a re-vote in which exactly the same thing happened again.

Luckily a woman came up to him and helpfully told him to just ignore the actual feelings of the delegates and just carry on reading the ever knowing teleprompter.

However on this second vote in which large numbers of delegates shouted "NO" at the top of their lungs the mayor of Los Angeles ruled that the amendments had been approved by two-thirds majority even though it was blatantly obvious that it hadn't at all.

Why - well it was on the teleprompter of course and he was just following the pre-determined line that had obviously been decided much earlier by powers above him.

Why the charade of asking members to vote on matters that could go both ways when the outcome had already been pre-decided I don't know. However it was a small sign that the curtain hiding the Wizard of Oz was being peeled back to reveal an all-pervasive globalist and pro-Israeli agenda that will continue despite the wishes of Democratic members, delegates and most importantly voters.

In both cases (GOP and Democratic Party) If they had already decided on the outcome was what the point of asking the delegates to vote in the first place. Just to provide an unsuccessful illusion of democracy at a very undemocratic Democratic convention?

Both parties had this illusion of democracy destroyed and hopefully enough people saw these events to realise that whoever they vote for the next fours years have already been planned out - whoever takes the prize of POTUS.

For those people who have not witnessed these shameful events the following video should be mandatory watching.

If Obama is a bad President then how bad will Mitt Romney be?

If Obama is a bad President then how bad will Mitt Romney be?

By Dark Politricks

Last week was the GOP conference in which they inaugurated Mitt Romney as their choice for Republican presidential candidate. This was the man that during primaries no Republican commentator really wanted and in the end he was the least bad choice out of a very bad lot.

As soon as he was anointed though they all changed their tune pretty fast as all they care about is getting President Obama out of office and handing over the country to corporations and banksters.

Despite Ron Paul sticking it out to the end of the GOP debates he has been overlooked and out of the nominees he was the only one who offered some real choice for the public if nominated.

I'm not saying that I agree with everything Ron Paul stands for but personally I think America needs some form of "America United" ticket that would bring the massively obvious culture war to an end and hopefully restore civil liberties, end the wars, end the FED, end the unauthorised spying and now authorised detention without charge or even execution on Presidential demand.

A ticket of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would have brought Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Liberals and independents together to vote for a return to an America which wasn't constantly at war and didn't go around the world invading countries because it thought it was "exceptional".

Hopefully he will stand as an independent or if possible on the libertarian ticket although I think it's too late for that. Apart from that you have Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan on the Peace and Freedom Party ballot which won't be on enough ballot papers to even make a dent in the billions of dollars thrown behind Mitt Romney and his attempt to hand the USA over to the Corporations. It looks like the American public are going to get more of the same - just under a different name.

Therefore apart from little differences there is not much choice between Romney and Obama as both are globalists, beholden to the banksters, warmongers and debt drivers and voting Republican really won't make much difference to your life apart from if your poor as you will probably find yourself in a Middle Eastern desert somewhere fighting another war the country doesn't want or even need.

From the seemingly non-educated, racist, totally dumb and sometimes loony ideas or comments mentioned by some of the other delegates during the debates and interviews it was clear that Romney was going to be the least worst option from the selection of Republican nominees.

It is also clear to me as an atheist that American Christians will forgive even the most despicable actions as long as the person involved "repents" or pretends to. I know Christians are supposed to forgive so how about forgiving some of the thousands of locked up victims of the war on drugs and ending capital punishment? That would be true forgiveness.

Now I am no Obama fan, I was glad he was voted in purely for the fact that it showed that America could and would now vote for a black President but on the policy side of things I think he has let the country down badly by breaking all the promises he made on the campaign trail.

Some of these promises he could have just enacted when he had control of the Congress and Senate but he chose instead to form bi-partisan support and was rebuffed on many of them. Then after the landslide victory that saw his control of the house fall away to dimwits like Michele Bachmann and co he has had to fight twice as hard to get any policy through. Maybe that was the plan.

It was clear from day one that many Republicans didn't want to even give Obama a chance despite their passing over to him the worst economy since the great depression and a huge amount of debt as well as two wars, a rendition and torture program that has blackened the USA's name around the world and a massive TARP balout scheme that enraged many from Tea Partiers to Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Seemingly Clint Eastwood and many other Americans forget that it wasn't Obama but George Bush that started the longest war in America's history in Afghanistan, a war that is now plagued by constant attacks by Afghan troops on NATO soldiers.

They also seem to forget that it was George W Bush that turned Clinton's legacy into a huge mountain of debt due to his tax cuts to the rich, TARP and his war on terror. It's truly amazing that only 34% of Americans realise that it was Bush not Obama that passed TARP!



If you read up on the history of US national debt you will find that it is Republicans that usually ramp up the debt to fight wars.

World War II saw the US entering new debt territory never seen before starting at 4% of GDP in 1941 it increased to as much as 122% of GDP in 1946 at the end of the war. The next 35 years saw successive governments try to bring down the debt, but then came the Republican God President Reagan. He increased the federal debt by over 50%of GDP to win the Cold War - a money war of attrition the USSR just couldn't win.

President George W Bush was the next Republican to increase the debt to fight his war on terror, give tax cuts to the rich and bail out the banks.

President Obama was then handed a bad hand that no incumbent would chose to take on willingly and his increasing of the the debt has mainly to be fund economy revival plans after the crash of 2008 - plus the funding and expansion of Bush's wars.

Whilst it is true Obama has increased the debt ceiling to amounts not seen since the World War he was passed a huge burden from the previous administration and with low growth, a credit crunch and a stalled economy he attempted Keynesian economic policies of borrowing to grow GDP to get out of the hole he was in. Some say Keynes is wrong, others like Paul Krugman say that President Obama just didn't spend enough on the stimulus in the first place. Whatever the answer the debt mountain may have increased under him but it was definitely not created by Obama.

However President Obama has failed on a number of promises he gave when he was campaigning for his first election and the "change" we expected didn't turn out as we hoped it would.

He has failed to bring Wall St into line after they recked the economy and instead passed ineffective and bloated laws like the Dodd-Frank act. Many believe he should have re-enacted the Glass Steagall Act and split the banks back up into gambling banks and banks for us "little people" who want to save, borrow and be safe in the knowledge our money won't be gambled away by an automated front running high frequency trading bots using our money as bets on that biggest of gambling dens known as the US Stock Exchange.

He has failed to repeal the Emergency laws Americans are still living under since 9.11, dictatorial powers that allow him to assassinate Americans abroad without a trial and seemingly label protesters as terrorists just so they that cannot protest against him as we just saw with the arrest of James Tyson 0n his way to protest outside the Democratic National Convention.

Drones now fly the skies of America and the TRAPWIRE system has every American under surveillance at all times.

America is not the place it was before Obama OR George Bush took over the Presidency.

So I don't think Obama is a good President and I have wrote such in many articles including (but not limited to) who is worse Obama or Bush, The very non liberal Democratic party, Amerika a modern day East Germany, Does the American public want more of the same, or more of the same under a different name, and Is President Obama really a Communist or is he more of a dictator?

So please don't call me an Obama fan because I'm not!

However when it comes to a choice (a non choice really) between Obama and Mitt Romney you should ask yourself the following when casting your vote in the US Presidential Election 2012.

1. Who is more likely to get your country into a war with Iran in the next 4 years Obama or Romney? The British Royal family send their sons into war zones to fight, Prince Harry into Afghanistan and Prince Andrew in the Falklands. However I cannot seem to recall an active US President who  ever had their children in the military and active war zones during their Presidency. If you can think of one please let me know.

2. If the market was let free to run as it (and the Koch brothers) want it to, and a company like Bain capital came along to the place you worked and sacked you because they were going to offshore your job to India or China - who would you trust more to look after your jobs and keep them in America. Would you just put your hands in the air and go "well that's the free market for you" or would you protest the off-shoring of US jobs that Bain Capital has been so good at during the years and is still doing.

3. Are you worse or better off now than 4 years ago? Are you worse off or better off than you were before Ronald Reagen took office? Before he started his supply side economic experiment and his economic war of attrition with the USSR which saw the countries debt rise, the country turn from an exporting nation to an importer, a country in debt to China and now one mired in constant war.

4. What is more important? Letting already very rich people (billionaires and millionaires) have more money through tax cuts or asking them to pay a little more to help get the country out of the mess it is in. The tax rates during Republican Presidencies in the past were in the 70-90%. Why should they be so low now. Just look at the following graph to see how low the top rate of tax is compared to historical rates during both Republican and Democratic presidencies.


A history of the top rate of US income tax over the years.

5 Should the boss of a company be able to pay less tax than his secretary? Only the rich can afford fancy lawyers and accountants to ensure they can use offshore accounts and only pay capital gains tax instead of the normal rates of income tax everyone else has to pay.

6. If you were born a poor child to a single mother in a poor part of town with no money logic dictates that you wouldn't have the same life chances as a rich child born into privilege. Life just isn't fair as people say. The poorer child is more likely to end up in prison, die young from poor health, get a worse education and have less opportunity to meet the "right people" and succeed in life.

If you believe in a meritocracy where everyone has the same chance to succeed in life with hard work and a fair even playing field where law breakers (e.g banksters) go to jail and companies don't get the law retrospectively changed once it's been found out they have broken it then how does this happen without some kind of intervention by government. Do you think that the governments job is just to let these people live in squalor and probably commit crimes against you just to survive? Or should they try and even out the playing field a little and give everyone the opportunity to succeed in life whether they were born rich or poor?

7. If you think Obama has told lies - what about Romney. He basically invented Obamacare which his state is happily using but rails against it on a national platform. He has flip flopped on more issues than people can count. Could you trust a man,  a "multiple choice" President, who's answer on a question changes depending on the time of day, his age and the questioner?

8. Do you think a super rich business man who has paid hardly any tax to the country he hopes to run. A man who aims to be the front man for the Koch brothers and give even more money to the top 1% is a man who can be trusted to keep your job safe? Do you think you are more or less likely to have your job off-shored to China or India under Obama or an expert in off-shoring jobs - Romney?

9. Were you born into money or had to earn every penny you own? Have you ever had nothing, I mean zilch. Slept on park benches and friends floors because you had no-one to help you.

What if you lost your job, then your house and family due to your job being off-shored or your company going under. Who do you think is more likely to help you out a Democratic or Republican government. Or do you think the government should not give a flying fxxk about you and just leave you to rot away until you commit a crime that hurts another American citizen and puts you in prison at the expense of the tax paying population?

10. Do you really think life will change a lot if Romney is elected. What things will actually change in your day to day life. Do you trust him to keep any of the few promises he has made so far on policy such as abolishing Obamacare whilst keeping it in his own state?

Let me know the answers in the comment section to the question: If Obama is a bad President then how bad will Mitt Romney be?

How will voting for Mitt Romney help America?

If you hate Obama- I agree with you.

By Dark Politricks

He is a warmonger, a liar, a tool of the globalists and the banksters he continued to bailout after following in Bush's footsteps.

He has brought in laws that destroy Americans liberty like the NDAA, expanded the war on terror as well as numerous other things true Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals or just decent people with morals shouldn't be happy with.

However if you are a Republican voter, a GOP supporting Mitt Romney lover then I have to ask - what do you think is going to change if he gets elected?

Are jobs suddenly going to come rushing back to the US shores?

He worked for a company that spent it's time off-shoring American jobs to foreign countries so why would he change his spots now.

Are the wars going to stop in Afghanistan, Pakistan (a supposed ally), Yemen, Somalia and all the other places we probably don't even know about?

No of course not - the GOP are strong on defence and that means lots of money wasted firing million dollar missiles into mud huts and killing thousands of innocent civilians in the hope of getting one jihadist from a drone. All the while creating future enemies for the military industrial complex to continue sucking money out of US taxpayers pockets in years to come.

Are the banksters who ruined the economy under Bush and previous administrations going to be punished and end up in jail?

No of course not - they haven't done under Obama and Romney is probably more in the pocket of Wall St than his rival. I don't hold up hope of seeing the heads of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan in a court anytime soon.

Are the lost liberties destroyed under the PATRIOT ACT, the NDAA, the Executive Orders, the Signing Letters, the death squads and all the other laws rushed through after 9.11 and then carried on by Obama going to be repealed by Romney?

I don't think so.

If he was a true lover of the constitution he would rip up those laws, return the USA to a non emergency powers state and return habeas corpus.

He would close Gitmo and try any terrorists they currently have that actually have evidence pointing their way. He would stop targeted killings by drones and try and restore some moral standing in the world for the country that was once a beacon of liberty and freedom.

There is a reason everyone laughs when US UN officials accuse the Syrian government of targeted killings. None of this will happen under Romney in fact even more tax payers money will be wasted creating the terrorists of the future.

So the wars won't stop, liberty will continue to be destroyed getting the USA ready for it's next stage as a Chinese labour shop with no worker rights, health care and lengthy prison sentences on the say so of any official with a grudge against you.

So then I ask again what will change if Mitt Romney is actually elected?

Please tell me what you think in this quiz on Romney's chances of becoming President of America.

Would we have had the financial crisis if women ran banks?

By Dark Politricks

I have just watched last nights episode of Tom Hartmans "The Big Picture" on Russia Today (watch live online here)

Tom is obviously a Democrat and a liberal but in his last segment something he said I found quite interesting.

Basically the leading founding father Thomas Jefferson  knew the dangers of corporations and unlimited greed and said so in a great speech - abbreviated here:

"I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Thomas Jefferson obviously was aware of the dangers of unlimited corporation power, money and influence and it would be good if some of the Tea Party members who are so fond of the founding fathers actually read more of what they actually said about standing armies, corporations, a Federal bank and undue political influence by lobbyists.

Tom Hartman then followed that up with other Presidential quotes throughout the ages all of which said that there was little need for people to earn so much money that it coultn't be spent in their lifetime.

Not only does it prevent a true meritocracy from occurring - as huge amounts of wealth are passed down the family line like an aristocracy - the thing the founding fathers fought against in the American Revolution. But it leaves people with so much money that could be used for the good of the nation as a whole except many of these super rich people would rather pay no tax at all than do some good for their country. It also showed that high tax rates have no correspondence with job creation, productivity or industrial or technical innovation.

As you can see Tom's main point was that the top rate of tax has dropped from a whopping 94% in the mid 1940's, to 70% during the 1970's and then its current position of 35% and this has no correspondence with the high times of American society.

It does however correspond with huge wealth inequality between the rich and poor. With the richest few percent getting richer and the middle classes basically staying the same. Tickle down economics doesn't seem to work too well it seems.

During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90% and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

The 1950's were a golden time in American society where there were plenty of jobs, houses, affordable education and guess what - the richest few percent (those job creators) didn't up sticks and leave America to another country with lower tax rates. They stayed and paid their taxes.

He also talked about a study that showed that once a person is earning enough money to cover all their basic needs e.g housing, food, travel, clothing etc then earning more money does NOT make them happier.

This reminds me of learning about Maslows hierarchy of needs at college.

Once you have all your basics covered, maybe married or in a relationship and doing a job you like or maybe other activities that fulfill your life then your pyramid of needs are satisfied.

The question then becomes what happens to all those people who have so much money that there is nothing left on earth to do with it.

I am talking about people who earn billions of dollars, fly around in private jets, own multiple huge boats and have garages full of the latest Ferrari's and Porches.

They may play golf all day or do other hobbies but I reckon there is another need that is missing from the pyramid that only comes when all the others are fulfilled and the person has  enough money to achieve or attempt to achieve it plus a certain character trait that is the opposite of altruism - a hunger for power.

Some people are born alpha dogs, others aren't.

Some people in the old days where physical power was all that mattered would have been battered to the floor and trod over like a carpet (people like Bill Gates or the Koch Brothers for instance).

Today things are different and money (lots of it) equals power or the ability to achieve it through various means. This might mean running a huge global corporation or the attempted ownership of countries and even blocks of them (i.e. the EU).

This is what many people believe the Citizens United Ruling has allowed to occur with the super rich trying to "buy" the Presidency through their use of Super Pacs, and huge financial donations.

Whereas Obama is having to rely on lots of small donations and seems to have lost out on those big money givers he had last time around Mitt Romney only needs to attend a couple of functions with the Koch Brothers and he walks away with a few hundred million dollar bills in his pocket.

These ultra rich are not "wealth generators" or "altruistic job creators" for if they were they would say to themselves:

"Well I have more money than I can ever spend in my lifetime. Or leave to my children who will just end up spolit entitled brats who probably won't do a day's work in their lives. With all this money I will do something good for my country and leave a lasting legacy like the Victorian Philantrophists and I don't mind taking a hit on my immense fortune by opening factories and other businesses in the USA and pay the taxes and benefits that come with creating jobs in my country."

"Yes it might cost more than off-shoring all my labour and manufacturing to China or India but as I have more money than I could possibly spend it makes no difference to me if I have to pay slightly more in wages or health benefits if it means that it brings jobs back to desolate American towns like Detroit or New Orleans."

No instead of thinking like this they chose to play king maker and attempt to buy the Presidency with Super Pacs and huge donations to their desired candidate (or the one they are stuck with e.g Mitt Romney)

People with huge amounts of wealth could do immense amounts of good to the people of the earth and I am sure lots of them exist but when the ultimate pyramid slice at the top of Maslows Hierarchy becomes "ultimate power" you end up with Koch Brothers buying Presidencies, Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove and huge experimental projects that are doomed to failure like the Euro.

You also end up with Banksters who have so much money that the only joy they get out of life is making billion dollar gambles with pension funds on the stock market, derivative overloads and the fixing of Libor interest rates. All of which have unintended consequences that affect whole countries and even the world as we are currently experiencing.

You are either this kind of person or you may have an altruistic personality, probably non alpha males, who chose to spend their money on charitable organisations. Building schools and hospitals in under privileged areas and all the sort of things that leave a lasting legacy once they are gone from this earth apart from a mention in a Wikipedia article as one of the banksters who was complicit in the great financial meltdown of 2008.

This leads me to another interesting point in which an ex female banker appeared on the "This Week" programme last Thursday in which she said that due to the "alpha male" culture of bankers in the City of London there was more risk taking and therefore potential for disaster.

If women ran banks and trading floors she reckoned the financial crisis probably would never have happened in the first place.

An interesting thought...