Are you happy about President Obama getting a second term?

Are you happy about President Obama getting a second term?

By Dark Politricks

Now President Obama has been re-elected as President of the USA does the thought fill you with joy or dread or is it more a case of choosing the least bad option of a bad bunch.

It seems that the 3rd party candidates from the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Justice and Constitution Party hardly made a dent in the political system that seems to be sewn up tightly by the duopoly of Democrats and Republicans who control the Presidential process.

If you voted for President Obama do you honestly believe he will finish off, or even start, the "Hope and Change" that he promised the first time round. Or will he just continue business as usual.

Allowing the banksters of Wall St to continue to steal money from the tax payers, devaluing any savings people may have by continuing to have incredibly low interest rates and allowing any reforms of Wall St such as the Dodd-Frank act to be watered down by the powerful lobbyists. People who seem to be able to control the levers of power to their advantage whoever sits behind the oval desk.

Will he continue building the high tech police surveillance state in which more than a million people have top secret clearance and the war on terror is expanding constantly filling the military industrial complexes pockets with more cash with every civil right crushing, constitution ignoring act he signs into power.

Acts such as the PATRIOT ACT and the NDAA that give him dictatorial powers to kill and indefinitely detain US citizens or start wars without having to pay attention to congress as he did in Libya.

Will he continue to back Jihadists and al-Qaeda linked rebels fighting in Syria as he did in Libya all because the enemy of his enemy is his friend or will he actually grow a pair of balls and decide that morals and ethics are something that America should be an example to the rest of the world who used to believe America was the "good guy".

Will he continue to back Israel as they break international law, execute on tape American citizens, and subjugate the Palestinian people by blocking any bill in the UN with a veto and then attack countries such as Russia and China who do the same when they try to prevent another NATO war in Syria.

Will he even dare to cut the bloated and gigantic Defence budget that is bigger than most of the other countries in the world put together.

A budget that means huge military bases and missile shields that are more of a political statement than any proper aim to defend the US public and only again serve to fill the military industrial complexes coffers.

Just imagine all the things that could be bought with that money - you could even pay for a proper health care system instead of creating a mandatory purchase from insurance companies - a system hated by liberals and conservatives alike.

Does anyone think Obama is a true liberal or as many Republican message boards and blogs like to call him a Marxist or Communist - people who have never obviously read a dictionary. Or is he just a slightly less right wing version of the Republicans. 

Both are big government parties, the only thing that differs is how much they move the line and what the big government spends the money on.

Whoever won the election we can be sure that the continuation of the Amerika we have all grown to fear will continue and systems like the TSA's porno scanners and TRAPWIRE that monitor US civilians wherever they go will continue to feed into the rising police state system that seems to be expanding forever.

A true liberal would be curtailing these excesses not expanding them.

Let me know what you feel about the result of the election with this poll below and leave your comments in the comment section if possible.

View the original article at www.darkpolitricks.com.

The US Presidential Vote - Do you have another choice?

The US Presidential Vote - Do you have another choice?

By Dark Politricks

Before you go off to vote for Obama or Mitt Romney, both of which I think are poor choices and will do nothing good for America or the world if they win the election, you should have a look at the last third party Presidential debate between Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein from the Green Party. 

But they are from the far right and far left respectively you might say to yourself, what's the point? Well if they are from the extremes of politics then extremism from both sides seem to agree on a lot of points that seem pretty sensible to me.

Points the main two contenders Obama and Romney have not spoken about at all.

Points such as:

• Stopping the wars abroad and ending the militarisation of the police at home.
• Repealing the PATRIOT ACT, the NDAA, TRAPWIRE, the warrantless wiretapping, scrapping the TSA porno scanners and stopping the rise towards Amerika the police state that everyone can see approaching.
• Closing the hundreds of military bases around the globe and stopping the endless war on a tactic that can never be won i.e. the war on terror.
• Stopping another pointless war that will never be won i.e. the war on drugs. Imagine how much tax revenue would be created to fill your empty coffers by not wasting police time, building endless prisons and taxing a safer, cleaner version of the drugs people are always going to use and have done since the beginning of time?
• Using those billions of dollars that you would save by doing this to do something much more productive whether it be fixing the massive deficit and cutting national debt or giving everyone free health care and a chance to get themselves back on their feet after the bankster take over of 2008.
• Stopping the crushing corporate control of the banksters, ending the FED and putting the people that ruined the worlds economy in jail and not in charge of the country.
• Preventing wars and promoting democracy by being an example to the world as your country used to be. Instead of forcing democracy down other countries throats with drone attacks, torture and endless imprisonment that only serves to create a new generation of enemies for Americans sons and daughters to fight in the future.

If these all seem like extremist views to you then go ahead make your choice between the lesser of two evils at the ballot box today.

However in a few years time when your country is at war in Iran and extending the deficit to pay for it. Or cutting your local fire and police stations, closing schools and libraries all to pay for tax cuts to the top 1%. The same people who helped destroy your economy and have been the only segment of society to actually prosper since 2008, then you have no-one else to blame but your broken political system.

A political system that makes it so hard for third party candidates to get a national platform they have to rely on foreign TV stations and alternative websites to bring you their debates and hear people answer the questions that really matter in the age of surveillance and never ending wars.

It is a political system that makes it necessary for you to have to bend over to lobbyists and corporate interests to fund the millions of dollars required to run for President.

The money required to pay for adverts and robot calls has to come from somewhere and they just don't have the funds at the moment. Plus you can forget about getting a chance to debate the main two parties on a level footing as that little dance is all tied up in a neat little bow between both camps.

Ron Paul did a good job staying in the GOP race long enough to bring some of the libertarian ideas to the forefront of people's minds but once Mitt Romney had been selected it was game over. It was left to the victors of the Citizens United decision to bombard your country with lies and mis-truths in their hope to get you to vote for more of the same politics that America has had for the last twenty years whether it be Democrat or Republican in control.

It doesn't matter whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama is elected as you know that nothing of real substance will change.

Democrats are voting in a defensive move in the knowledge that Obama is not the President who they had hoped would bring the change they had voted for 4 years ago. In fact he carried on and extended some of the worst Bush era policies. Policies that make the Democratic party a very illiberal "left-wing" party.

A left wing party that's idea of free health care was a sop to insurance companies that forces and fines people for not buying a product that wouldn't meet the standards of nearly every other western nation that provides health care free at the point of use to their citizens. They are also a party that thinks assassinating US citizens without trial is a wise and liberal thing to do.

A real left wing party would not be building up a police state around you brick by brick with an all invasive system like TRAPWIRE to track your every move. However they are voting for Obama only because they fear Romney would make things worse not better.

Republicans are voting in the misguided belief that Obama is some kind of Communist Muslim and that only a businessman who has put companies through bankruptcy whilst still making money for himself, and knows what it's like to offshore US jobs to China is required to get American growing again.

I just hope they don't feel disappointed if he is elected and a couple years down the road they are embroiled in another Middle Eastern war, with the police state still growing around them and any kind of a social safety net that they may need to rely on in the future has gone so that Romney's backers can get their tax cuts.

It is a difficult choice when your only options are between two people who are so similar and it's difficult to tell which one is worse.

However at the very least you need to know that there are other candidates out there wanting your vote. You should also want to know what they want to offer you before you put your mark next to Obama or Romney, whoever you think is the lesser of the evils.

Watch the last third party Presidential Candidate debate below.

(can't see the video? view it on Youtube here.)

View the original article on www.darkpolitricks.com.

Who should become the next most powerful man in the world?

Who should become President of the United States?

By Dark Politricks

This is a follow on from my seemingly popular article called "does anyone really thinks that voting for Mitt Romney will bring real change to the USA.

As I state quite clearly at the beginning of that article, if you dislike or even hate the current US President, Barack Obama, then I agree with your sentiment.

However is hating someone and their policies enough of a good reason to vote in someone who is potentially worse for your economy, liberty, safety and ultimately your country?

Is voting for Mitt Romney, actually voting for the lesser of two evils and if it is then is voting for any kind of evil morally acceptable?

As a Brit I often get asked to "stay out" of "our" American politics. Or to keep my nose out of American Presidential elections.

However it is pretty clear, at least to me over my adult life, that the US President is not only the leader of the USA but the figurehead of the most powerful super power in the world whose decisions and actions effect the lives of people all across the globe.

Whether the leader of the USA should have this much power over the rest of us is a very pertinent question yet one that is hardly, if ever, mentioned in the US mainstream media let alone the US Presidential debates.

However it is a question that the rest of the world knows the importance of, and people all the way from Pakistan to Australia, China to Germany and Brazil to the UK realise that whoever sits in that chair behind the oval desk can have a dramatic effect over the lives of people across the globes life.

For example if you live in Pakistan the leader of the USA could decide whether your family members are counted as "collateral damage" in a drone strike.

If you are Japanese it's whether a US Army soldier will rape your daughter and get away with it due to the "special contract" America makes any country hosting their soldiers and bases sign.

If your Australian it's whether or new US Navy base will be created to help ring fence China and bring your country into any future war with the next emerging super power.

If your Russian it's whether or not your country is gong to be designated as the top enemy of the USA as Romney stated and whether or not you will be ring fenced in by new NATO members and a missile "defense" system that could be used to attack your nation.

For us Brits it's down to the level of humiliation we will have to suffer by watching our politicians make sickeningly arse licking speeches to your congress as Gordon Brown and Tony Blair recently did.

It is also how far up your arse we will hang as a nation and how many of our young soldiers will die fighting the next war we feel duty bound to join you in.

If it's China it's the level of hostility you can expect to face from the next President. Will they see you as a nation that is propping up your failing economy by constantly buying your worthless Treasury bonds or will you be labelled a currency manipulator and then watch as the fading US star tries to fight it's way out of decline by picking a fight with you over Taiwan or Japan.

If it's Iran it's whether or not you are going to be attacked within 6 months or a year. Whether diplomacy will be given any form of a chance or whether the next President will bend straight over to the next Israeli PM and go to war for that country yet again in the Middle East.

Sending US troops to die in foreign lands to fight in deserts that they have no right being in, for a war that is both hypocritical and pointless on many grounds.

You see we non Americans DO have a voice and DO have thoughts about the way the most powerful country in the world should behave in the next 4 years.

Should it follow the neo-con policy of never-ending war, torture, and going it alone against world opinion. Or will they retreat back inside their own borders, become isolationist and chose to sort out their own economy and decimation of their civil rights before deciding to spread "human rights" and "democracy" across the world again.

Policies that many of us see as hypocritical due to their own behaviour and breeches of Human Rights that have become so famous aka Gitmo, Abu Ghrai, Dick Cheney's personal assassination squad and now Obama's king like behaviour to chose who lives and dies whether they are American or not.

Unlike the "I agree with Mitt, I agree with the President" farce of the last Presidential debate which was supposedly about foreign policy there are in fact third party candidates from parties such as the Libertarian Party or the Green Party who DO debate such questions that we mere foreigners ask. Questions such as:

• Should America be the worlds policeman? Especially during a time of "austerity" in which the US economy is running purely on money conjured out of thin air.
• Should this sham of a financial system in which the FED and the Treasury allow banksters like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan to take advantage of to make themselves rich even exist at all?
• Why do Americans feel the need to dance to Israel's tune and start and then fight wars that are not in the USA's best interest?
• Why is the American political system so corrupt that the Supreme Court can give corporations all the same rights as people apart from the right to be imprisoned or executed for their high crimes and treason.
• Is it fair that overseas countries and corporations can now pump obscene amounts of money into the Presidential election through Super PAC's and the aforementioned Citizens United decision and affect the outcome of an election to their benefit. All whilst home grown political parties such as the Greens or the Libertarians get hard;y any air time to make their point on mainstream media and are excluded from the televised Presidential debates which are designed to keep the two headed snake duopoly of a corrupt and owned political system in it's current broken and corrupt form.

Israel obviously knows the importance of being able to control or "lobby" the US President to get what they want and now with Citizens United China, Iran, Mexico and Russia can as well.

The only problem is that it doesn't really matter who they dump tons of money behind as the same old neo-con, pro-war, pro-Israel. amti-Muslim, anti-civil liberty policies will continue unabated whichever of the two parties leaders get voted in.

Both President Obama and Mitt Romney support:

1. Wars of aggression.
2. Bypassing Congress and the War Act to carry out wars that seemingly help their enemies gain control of important regions of the world i.e Libya and Syria.
3. Their support of rebel armies fighting existing regimes that the USA dislikes such as Syria, which maybe authoritarian in nature but are not full of al-Qaeda members and fundamentalist Jihadists who commit massacres en masse, film them and then upload them to YouTube.
4. Supporting drone strikes that kill 50 civilians, women and children for every "Terrorist" killed.
5. Both support the curbing of civil liberties at home, the NDAA, the PATRIOT ACT and other authoritarian pieces of legislation that have curtailed American citizens liberties at home.
6. Both candidates claim to support the constitution whilst doing everything they can to bypass it - for the good of the American citizen of course.
7. Both are big government in their own way.
8. Both are just figureheads for their real puppet masters and bend over to powerful lobbyists.
9. Both are pro-Israel and seemingly allow that country to literally get away with murder - including the murder of American citizens like Furkan Dogan.
10. And the list goes on as my article shows > "Does anyone really thinks that voting for Mitt Romney will bring real change to the USA?

Whilst the USA population is probably blissfully unaware of the other candidates in the race we in the alternative media have been pushing for an expansion of the closed debate the current two possible POTUS's are having.

Another third party candidate debate between the Green Parties Jill Stein and Libertarian parties Gary Johnson is happening this week. Make sure to watch it if you can.

This is the first debate between all four third party presidential candidates, Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Virgil Goode and Gary Johnson here.



Please take your time and let me know who you plan to vote for in the election or if you live outside America who you think should become President.

The Rumble 2012 - Bullshit mountain versus The Daily Show

The Rumble 2012 - Bullshit mountain versus The Daily Show

By Dark Politricks

This video may be a bit poor quality but it is the full debate between Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart held recently at the weekend.

I have to say it was a much more interesting and entertaining debate than the one between Mitt Romney and President Obama the other night which everyone agreed Romney won easily hands down.

The debate was titled "The Rumble 2012" as the Daily Show's Jon Stewart faced off Fox News host Bill O'Reilly in a debate at the Lisner Auditorium on the campus of George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Debating political issues that the real Presidential contenders should have been were two celebrities from opposing ends of the political spectrum. Bill O'Reilly the Fox News, Right Wing, Romney supporter and Jon Stewart the liberal comedian and Obama supporter.

Unlike the Presidential debate the recent video of Romney declaring 47% of Americans as "slackers" and "dependent on the government" was debated almost immediately and I have no idea why it wasn't in the main Presidential debate.

Jon Stewart called Fox News and Bill O'Reilly members of "Bull shit mountain" who believed Obama was a Muslim Kenyan Marxist. He defended government spending on social programs including female sexual health care which "Bull shit mountain" has been attacking whilst defending giving out Viagra for men and supporting tax cuts for the rich.

Why the Presidential debate was such a one sided hit for Romney with Obama looking like he had just been told before he went on stage he would be assassinated if he even tried to argue his way to a second term I have no idea.

However this was a much more entertaining and enlightening debate for anyone wanting to know the issues at hand in the 2012 US Presidential election.

As the full video keeps getting taken down from YouTube for copyright infrigments here is the YoungTurks view on it.

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...