Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts

Saturday, 22 September 2012

Just a few of the many things we have done wrong in the last ten years


Just a few of the many things we have done wrong in the last ten years

By Dark Politicks

A very short list from a possibly very very long one, but one I thought was important.

As I am from the UK I am going to criss cross between both countries as ours basically has it's head halfway up the USA's arse anyway.



3. Let both Presidents bankrupt the country through tax cuts for the rich, never ending wars, bailouts to the banks instead of prison sentences. Imagine all the money you would save by not having hundreds of military bases all around the world, the largest defence budget in history (one that has tripled in recent years), thousands of nuclear missiles that will probably never be used when a few would be enough for deterrent purposes (if you believe in that) and a massive army, navy and air force.

4. Letting billionaires con you into thinking that they have "your best interests at heart" by giving them MORE tax cuts and bailouts and giving you less working rights including less pay and more working hours, worse living conditions, worse health and safety, less benefits, more pollution and so on etc.

5. Letting the same people trick you into believing you are standing up to government by funding astro turf groups to promote Ayn Rand ideas - as Paul Ryan admitted at the GOP conference. Ideas that many economists say are linked to a laissez faire capitalism that has been blameed for derivatives, credit default swaps, banks lending too much and the global financial collapse of 2008 and the lack of punishment afterwards. Also Ideas that many say go against Christian beliefs. Are you really a Christian or do you just like those "I love Jesus" bumper stickers.

6. Letting the powers that be divide and conquer you through their own groups and infiltration of real grass root movements like the original Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. If you could only see that many of the same ideas cross over between the protest groups and start electing intelligent people to congress instead of dumbo's like Michele Bachmann. People who will actually stick up for your constituency rather than do the usual walk through the steps of Congress for the first time and become a Lobbyist target, donation collecting, champagne drinking, party goer who follows their colour of the political line and not champions of the consciences of the people who elected them.

7. Going to war with Iraq. What a pointless waste of time, life and money. It was a distraction from Afghanistan, led to Abu Ghraib and tortureWikiLeaks releasing massacres caught on tape, Blackwater/Xe killing people in public streets, daily car bombs, religious infighting and the breakup of a government structure just to rebuild it from scratch BADLY. George Bush said before becoming President he would go to war with Iraq to get enough political capital to introduce all the reforms he wanted, cuts to social security, tax cuts etc - instead he ended his Presidency with a bankrupt country on the edge of financial meltdown - not something an incomer like Obama would have wanted to come into power with.

8. Labour turning the UK into the most surveilled nation in the world and destroying civil liberties, removing the right of silence without prejudice, trying to introduce national ID cards, curtailing the rights of protesters, allowing 30+ agencies and councils to enter a person home through the RIPA act and introducing the most unfair and unbalanced UK/US extradition treaty - one which we are still fighting to repeal for people like Gary McKinnon.

9. Believing both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats who said they would repeal all these disgraceful acts, especially the Liberal Democrats with their "Freedom Bill" which I supported them in the recent election for but once they brought it to parliament as the Protection of Freedoms Bill it was watered down so much it was mostly irrelevant and pointless.

10. Labour leaving the new government with so much debt and such a big deficit the coalition had to introduce plans that many Tories probably secretly wished to have a chance to do for many years such as roll back public services, destroy our social safety net, try to privatise the NHS, and again give tax cuts to the rich. All in the failed idea that trickle down economics works rather than give money directly to consumers who would spend it and let it trickle up for once! Plus they could blame it on the Lib Dems! In fact they left us in such a mess the outgoing treasury minister Liam Byrne left a message on his successors desk saying "Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left"

11. Gordon Brown selling off 12.7 million ounces of gold at rock bottom prices and at the worst time possible. Guido Fawkes has worked out that this would have made 63.5 million gold medals for the recent London Olympics. At least we clawed a few ounces back with #TeamGB doing so well.

12. Labour introducing the Private Finance Initiatives scheme which meant private companies entered into contracts with the government over long time periods and built much needed schools and hospitals but then charged the government masses of money over time. We got our spanking new buildings quickly but pay through our noses for long periods of time in return. Maybe some of Gordon's gold could have helped pay for these.

13. Governments across the globe thinking that huge computer systems are the solution to every problem. From the NSA's TRAPWIRE that will track everyone everywhere to the massive waste of money that was Labour's massive waste of money and quickly scraped £12 billion pound failure in the NHS that would have paid for 60,000 nurses for a decade.

14. Not punishing the people who got us into the financial mess of 2008. A recent report showed banks all across the world who received bail outs from their respective governments have continued to make more riskier loans when compared to those that were not bailed out. Is this because they expect (or know) that the government will step in again if they get into another mess, which many economists are expecting to happen soon? As Max Keiser often says we should have put the people who broke the law, then lobbied the government to have laws changed retrospectively or pay measly fines as recompense in jail as a lesson to others that our economic system is not a bookies shop.

15. Expecting that we can parachute democracy into the Middle East and not learning from history. History shows us that no-one from Alexander the Great to the British Empire and the USSR has ever won a war in Afghanistan. What makes the USA think they are any different. The Afghan army and police are full of Taliban infiltrators waiting for their chance to come out and cause havoc. We have basically been training them in our tactics for years and this year has seen the highest number of "Green on Blue deaths" so far at 51, it will only continue to rise.

16. Not being an honest broker in the Middle East. Especially Israel and supporting what seems like a blatantly apartheid nation with their US veto that allows it to get away with piracy on the high seas, assassinations of US citizens, illegal embargoes and the breaking of international law whenever they feel like it. This includes the building of illegal settlements on on Palestinian land, targeted assassinations or the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem through forced purchases of Arab houses.

17. Arming, funding and supporting ex-terrorists such as LIFG rebels in Libyathe Free Syrian Army who are filled with al-Qaeda terrorists and the Kosovan Liberation Army in Serbia who also had al-Qaeda links. Either we are trying to de-stabilise the region for a geo-political reason such as to cause an Islamic in-fight between the Shi'ites and the Sunnis so that we can take advantage or we are really really stupid.

18. Not holding a full and proper criminal inquiry into the events of 9.11 which included proper subpoena powers, independent witnesses statements that were not removed from the final report, allowing the White House to block it all the way and then using it to build a case for war in Iraq.
Always remember a third tower WTC-7 fell that day that wasn't hit by any plane and had all the signs of a controlled demolition including:
  • No plane hitting it.
  • Small fires that had been almost extinguished by the time it fell in the afternoon.
  • Witnesses who heard bombs go off in the building, and admitted walking over dead bodies before the building was hit by falling debris who died before the NIST report was released.
  • Flash cutters seen by witnesses.
  • The owner of the building "admitting" it was pulled - a "misspoken" sentence that really meant "pulling out the fire-fighters" as Larry Silverstien later claimed.
  • A ten second countdown heard by people.
  • Sounds of explosives heard by people and taped.
  • All the signs of a controlled demolition, e.g free-fall for 2.4 seconds, a dip in the centre column before collapse, a symmetrical collapse meaning all corners of the building must have weakened at the same time.
  • A number of experts in demolition all publicly saying that it looked like one.
  • Pre-knowledge - later denied and covered up as an accident by the BBC.
  • A flawed NIST report that differed from it's intermediary report by having missing building parts and relying on a computer model with loaded parameters such as only heating certain parts of the building to make it collapse. Anyone can make anything happen with a computer model if they set the parameters correctly and play with them until they get the desired result.


This list will be continued.....

Thursday, 6 September 2012

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!

Public US Debt over the years

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 BushThe very non liberal Democratic partyAmerika 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.

The top bracket of income tax (35%) sits is very low compared to historical rates
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?


Thursday, 12 July 2012

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.

Historical US Tax Rates


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.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs
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...

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Where is the real choice when it comes to the US Election?

There are no good choices at the US Ballot Box

By Dark Politricks

It makes me laugh when I go onto US websites that are either left leaning like the Daily Kos or right leaning like any FOX News linked message-board or Christian website and I see the types of comments each side throw at each other.

The Democrats are called Communists and socialists and Barack Obama is called anything from a Muslim who wants to destroy America and hand it over on a plate to Iran so they can destroy Israel to a secret communist who's great grandfather probably was a co-writer of the Protocols of Zion.

Then the Right wing are called everything from idiots to zombies and people who don't believe in anything apart from God, Banning Gay's and Gun's.

What makes me laugh is that from this side of the Atlantic there is not much difference between your two parties at all. As it is often said the Democratic Party is the second most Conservative party in the Western world, it's a shame more American's can't see that.

Both parties are pro war, pro bailouts, pro Wall St versus Main St, anti liberty, anti Internet freedom, pro-Israel, pro-police state and both have contributed massively to the huge amount of debt the USA is now in.

Whether it was spent on tax cuts, trillion dollar wars or huge bailouts to potential future employees at the Treasury from Wall St the only thing keeping the US afloat is their ability to print money and it's use as the reserve currency of the world. Wars have been fought to keep it that way.

That is not to say my country is any better either. All three main parties fight for scraps over the centre ground and whilst all 3 parties, Labour, Tory and Lib Dem have MP's that speak their mind and are to the left or right of their party the machine as a whole follows the path left by the previous government. Albeit with minor changes to tax rates, benefit cuts and how much they "speak out" against the EU and the failed Euro project.

Obviously behind the scenes all 3 are now the same faces of a triple sided coin much to the dismay of people who voted Lib Dem at the last election hoping for a restoration of the crush on civil liberties only to be met with a watered down Freedom Bill missing many of the original components that people voted for.
No matter whether Tory or Labour are in power one thing is for sure and that's our governments slavish devotion to US foreign policy objectives which also include pro Israeli, pro war anti Russian and Iranian sentiment and actions.

What is shameful is that the majority of people in this country don't like our brown nosing of American politicians and there was nothing in my life as cringe worthy as watching Gordon Brown's speech to Congress where he was licking arse so much he was almost touching Tony Blairs feet.

The term special relationship on it's own is enough to make most Brits throw up in their mouths and the disconnect between politicians, and what they promise and then what they do once in power is as much as it is on this side of the Atlantic as it is on the USA's.

So many people now realise that nothing changes with a vote for a major party but there is a lack of choice at the ballot box when it comes to alternatives.

As I said to someone the other day on Twitter the choice is either between standing yourself and getting nowhere in an electoral world of lobbyists, million dollar campaigns and expensive advertising or going for the least worst option and getting something out of it even if the candidate isn't your ideal fit.

That might be a vote for Ron Paul hoping he really would stick to his word by ending the US policy of indefinite war and detention, ending the FED and restoring some lost liberties without dismantling everything that people without a dime to their name rely on in these increasing hard times.

Or it might be a vote for Obama hoping that freed from worrying about a 2nd election he would really deliver all that hope and change he never really believed in during the first election. So far all he has done is further Bush's war of terror, crushed more liberties than most other Presidents put together and signed more cheques than can be cashed until eternity.

Having to dance for your dinner is probably a big distraction for any first term President and like most of recent times it is only within their second term that they start worrying about their "legacy". Freed from the shackles of having to find future bucks for favours they can attempt to deliver at least some of what they promised the electorate rather than their paymasters.

However Obama's track record leaves little to be desired and if he couldn't get any of his "hope and change" passed in a Democratic House and Senate then it was down to a lack of will not votes. He is unlikely to change in my opinion.

So what can be done when there is no-one to vote for who can be believed in?

I don't know how the electoral system works in the US but here in the UK we only get to vote for our local MP whilst our glorious (cough) Queen reigns over us forever as the untouchable Crown that is limited by no law at all.

I suspect there must be a lack of millionaire good guys in the USA otherwise at least a few would throw their hat in the ring and spend some of their money on an election or two?

It cannot only be total doofuses like Donald Trump who have the dollars to waste on expensive elections and I cannot believe that there isn't a few billionaires over the seas who don't like the state the USA is in at the moment.

Maybe it is just pie in the sky dreaming to expect that people with more money than they can spend want to take it all to the grave with them and don't already belong to "the club" that gets invited to Davos, Bilderberg and all the other meetings of high fliers each year.

So if no good guys with full pockets have the balls or morals to stand for President then it only leaves a good citizen with some savvy marketing skills and some online clout or a leader from an existing protest group like the original Tea Party (not the GOP flavour) or Occupy Wall St to stand up and be counted.

Whether any of them will or not I have no idea but unless an independent is available to say no no no to more war, more debt, more bailout and more police brutality then the only other course of action is a general public willing to make their protest felt at the ballot box by spoiling their paper in some fashion.
Some possibilities would include:
  • Writing "None of the above" - and list the reasons why.
  • A write in for someone not even standing but with enough spoiled ballots would be mentioned in the electoral count.
  • Just a big cross over the whole ballot slip.
I don't know what the answer is but I do know that a vote for the incumbent or for Romney or Gingrich will mean a change for the worse, a probable war with Iran and huge cuts to your public services like we are currently experiencing in the UK.

Let me know who you would vote for if you could have anyone you wanted - use the comment section.


By Dark Politricks

©2012 Dark Politricks








Saturday, 7 January 2012

Who should become the next President of the World?

By Dark Politricks

The race is on for the next President of the United States of America. Even though I am not from the USA I feel that due to the power wielded by the dictator like powers that your leader has every person in the world has a stake in this important matter as it could effect us all.

Vote in someone in bed with AIPAC and the Israeli Lobby and get prepared for World War III, rocketing oil prices, huge queues at the petrol pump and a possible nuclear conflict if their desire for a war with Iran is followed through by sanctions and probable conflict in the straits of Hormuz.

Want to vote in someone who actually believes in freedom, liberty and the right to live your life in peace without threat from your own government? Well you have little chance if either the incumbent is re-elected or another globalist, pro big business, Wall St paid for, pro-Israeli, pro-war Republican is elected.

So who should be elected as President to the most powerful country in the world for the next few years at least?

The next presidential term could see the rise of China as well as other BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and if the POTUS is another stooge as we have seen so far they will just be taking orders from above and play out the face of the power to the people.

Have you ever noticed that the Presidents of the most powerful country when compared to leaders of other nations all seem to have such more severe histories of past misdemeanors in their shady pasts than the others?

No-one is "allowed to become President" of the most powerful country.

They are selected and chosen for their pliability and probable chance of changing any and all electioneering chants of "hope and change" to "more of the same please".

Just look at Obama and how the masses were fooled by his speeches and promises of change even as all the #altnews sites were declaring him an establishment stooge. What has happened - more war, less liberty, more debt, less freedom, more Wall St money and less jobs. Nothing has changed under Obama.

The last 3 Presidents have all had blatant drug, sex and other issues that could easily allow them to be blackmailed into towing the line and it doesn't stop their.

Gay sex, crack and weed smoking, girlfriend dope dealing, sex with interns and sexual harassment charges, extra-marital sex, gay rentboys in the White house, and so so many "suicides" to account for where the victim decided to kill himself by shooting himself twice in the head - just to "confuse" the coroner I expect.

Even one of the last "good" Presidents who wanted to stop Israel's nuclear ambitions and abolish the FED and the CIA, John Kennedy, had enough personal shenanigans going on in his personal life to allow for blackmail. Maybe he actually was prepared to defy the blackmailers and that was his downfall.

No-one since has been prepared to stand up for what's right and good and if anyone thinks the big business, flip flopping, liberal conservative, Mitt Romney is going to change anything they are surely mistaken. The reason the power brokers want him elected is that he won't change much from the current agenda, just as Obama furthered the earlier Bush agenda.

If he loses then fine Barack goes on for another 4 years destroying more liberties, implementing more Stasi like policies such as the NDAA and preparing the US for their last stand against the rising Red Dragon.

No change will occur until the two faces of the same coin are dismantled and a proper democratic system is created in the USA.
"The choice between Democrats and Republicans has become one between Pepsi and Coca Cola. They both taste sweet at first but they are both full of shit and in the end both will rot your teeth." - Dark Politricks
So who should be elected as President of the most powerful nation in the world?

Another establishment stooge prepared to carry on dismantling the American state and turning it into Amerika, the new East Germany or someone totally new who won't sucumb to the pressures from lobbyists and other paymasters.

Someone prepared to do what's right for the country without worrying about paying back the people who paid for their mulit million dollar electioneering.

Let me know in this poll and please leave a comment if you choose other in the comment section.

Wednesday, 21 December 2011

Why can't we in the west see through the charade of democracy in front of us?

By Dark Politricks

It has been almost a year since the people of Egypt started their revolution. And their inspirational stance at Tahrir Square has spawned similar protests all around the world including the Occupy movement which has camps in countries from the USA to UK and beyond.

However even though the Egyptians managed to rid themselves of their leader, a western backed dictator Hosni Mubarak. They are now finding out that the army they lauded months ago, for standing between them and the security forces and the thugs Mubarak had freed from jail, is proving a lot harder to remove from power.

Whatever form of democracy the Egyptians want, whether it includes Islamic parties that are hostile to Western foreign policy. Or types of parties that have never been see before, it is clear that the Egyptians are willing to fight and if necessary die for this belief in freedom and self determination.

The military thought they could fob the people off with phony elections that have been greeted by Western media as signs of success when in reality they are nothing more than a sham.

"What is the point in voting for people who have no power?" say those Egyptians who are still trying to Occupy Tahrir Square and remove the military that have taken power of the country.

Correct.

What is the point in voting for people who cannot chose their own Prime Minister and create laws beneficial for the people as a whole and not just the elite of the country.

Whatever these people want, they are clear on one thing. They know what they don't want. They don't want a false charade of democracy that keeps the status-quo, shuffles the pack of political player cards and declares itself representative when it is nothing of the sort.

Across the border in Libya the same thing is happening. After ridding themselves with NATO's help of one dictator they are now faced with another wolf in sheep's clothing.

Protests have been going on for weeks against the National Transitional Council as many people can see through the charade and can see their true colours. Most of the NTC are ex-Gaddafi regime members who had been involved with the worst Gaddafi era atrocities albeit with a new brand name.

Once again, people who were all too complicit in the old regimes crimes and who are now in power pretending everything is going to be hunky dorey. Too slow to enact real change cry the people.

They want to taste real power for themselves and that means doing what's right for their fellow countrymen rather than everything that's beneficial for big western businesses, oil companies and other meddlers trying to ensure a good outcome for the West and Israel.

All of this makes me wonder.

If the Egyptians and Libyans can see through the charade of fake democracy being dangled as a prize in front of them whilst the same power brokers play a big game of musical chairs. Swapping one set of worn out politicians with another from the same mould, then why can't we in the west?

In America we have two almost identical parties who rotate power every few years between them. They shout and argue in front of the camera whilst play best friends off it.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties are:
  • pro war
  • pro Israel and anti Palestine
  • pro Wall Street
  • anti liberty and civil rights
  • against international law
  • against the constitution
  • anti free speech
  • against Internet freedom
  • pro FED
  • pro big business, especially those that fund their campaigns
  • anti-reform
  • willing to use tax payers money to pay for bail outs for their friends on Wall St
and the list could go on and on.

So if the two only parties capable of actually gaining power are so similar, and things that really matter like whether or not your freedoms are going to disappear or your taxes rise to pay for bail outs don't.

Whilst in Egypt it is clear the people to care about the actions of Israel in the USA it seem's far too few even notice that the wars they are drawn into are on behalf of an ungrateful ally that continuously spies on you and sells your secrets and technology to your enemies.

You could say that the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street groups are a sign that people are finally starting to awake but it is clear that the Tea Party once in power has forgotten it's constitutionalist roots and has just become a more right wing version of the GOP. The Democrats are busy trying to co-opt the Occupy movement in the same way. Some people are not standing for it.

So our protests against the illusion of democracy seem nothing more than fodder for the news channels and they are all owned by the same big businesses that control our politicians anyway. So we cannot, and should not expect any fair and balanced reporting from any programme that ever comes out that big box at the end of your room.

For many people in the Middle East they are experiencing freedom for the first time and it seems they are not going to settle for some fake illusion that we in the west have become so used to over the years. Signing a cross next to a name that means virtually nothing is just not going to cut it anymore and in this age of modern technology it shouldn't have to. Why let spivs and liars decide our lives when modern technology could easily let well informed citizens vote on important matters at the click of a button.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out as the West's fingerprints are all over the uprisings in the Middle East.

If the people of these countries are able to see through our actions and create a new form of really representative democracy it will be an inspiration for us all to follow.

However by going on historical events it will also be a miracle. At this time of year I can only hope that miracles do come true.