A Shift in Reality

So good to have the election over with, but didn't it seem as though a switch had been flipped somewhere on the following day? Just prior to election day, every one's assumption seemed that Romney was gaining ground and Obama was on the ropes. Republican campaign propaganda appeared to be defining the debate on major issues.

Starting on the day after, it was like any moron could have seen that Romney didn't stand a chance. Republican pundits expiated over the their party's strategic blunders. The numbers of white males and Christian fundamentalists were now seen as shrinking in favor of Hispanics and other progressive people of color, so Republicans began to openly suggest that the party needs to reinvent itself.

Rather than continuing the assault on common sense, right-wing pundits suddenly began sounding reasonable for a change! William Kristol weighed in on the "fiscal cliff" by stating that "it would be foolish for Republicans to fall on their swords" by opposing tax increases for the ultra-rich. Grover Norquist has suddenly become a non-person! And then even the likes of mega-bitch Ann Coulter chided Republicans for their misogynist blunders regarding rape. It was like Alice in Wonderland, with everything turned around!

But back to reality: the nation is deeply divided, the fiscal cliff must be resolved, and warmongering is ramping up in Israel.

The situation in the Mideast is particularly worrisome. As usual, the Zionist-controlled media is portraying Hamas as a terrorist organization, hell bent on destroying Israel. Hamas launched rockets on Tel Aviv in a brazen provocation, we are told. Coverage focuses on the 3 Israeli civilians killed and 60 wounded, while the losses inflicted by Israel in Gaza are many times greater.

The corporate media does not ask the obvious question of why Hamas would make the suicidal mistake of provoking an attack. There was evidence of Israeli agents launching rockets from Hamas in the past, so I certainly would suspect it again. An expanded war would seem to fit into Israel's agenda at the moment.

Fighting rages in Syria, and the destabilized situation must present a tempting opportunity for Israel. Provoke a few rocket exchanges with Egypt, trade fire with Syrian tanks at Golan, and perhaps a major conflagration could be kindled. This could provide perfect context for the long-awaited attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

This warmongering is flirting with disaster, but few voices are heard in opposition. Corporate media can't even report events accurately, and little spotlight is shone on the carnage suffered by Palestinians. Hopefully we can avoid nuclear exchanges and WW III, or at least reschedule Armageddon for a later date.

Lynn

Obama's Golden Opportunity

The Tea Party madness has left the Republican party gasping for air, and right-wing pundits are wailing and gnashing their teeth. No time for Democrats to bask in the victory; the fiscal cliff looms ominously ahead, while Republican congressional leaders appear to be digging into no-compromise mode on taxes.

This moment of peril could also be a time of historic opportunity. President Obama could capitalize on his new-found momentum by unveiling a daring new approach for resolving the budgetary woes.

What if...Rather than continuing the old polemic as before, Obama carved a new path on higher ground? Republicans are angry and hurting, and pushing them deeper into their defensive stand on taxes only plays to their strengths.

Obama could redefine the debate by delivering this televised speech:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm taking this opportunity to speak to you about a serious issue facing this country: The so-called Fiscal Cliff. This situation came about because Congress elected to put off difficult budgetary decisions until after the election. If we fail to act decisively, large cuts in important programs will take place automatically, and taxes will rise for everyone effective January 1st.

The budgetary gridlock we are in represents failure by both parties. Democrats and Republicans share in the blame. We have lacked the discipline to manage our budget responsibly, and have come to rely on borrowing as a too-easy fix.

The burgeoning debt is a legitimate issue that causes understandable angst among our citizens. Republicans have responded by taking a hard line on only one side of the equation: tax revenue. Unfortunately, this is like attempting to kill a virus by starving the patient. They decry our debt, but remain willing to borrow as an alternative to taxation, particularly when their pet projects are on the block.

We all agree on the need to restrain spending, but senators and congressmen on both sides of the aisle have their respective favorite projects and programs. We can and will continue to debate how to best spend the taxpayer's dollars, but what is needed now is a new-found common resolve to stop feeding the debt monster.

We are a great nation and we can do this. We have the resources. All we are lacking is the resolve.

Republicans have made the argument that the size of government is relentlessly growing, and feel that increased revenue only fosters more growth in government. On this, I am ready to concede that they have a valid point. The size of government cannot be allowed to grow uncontrollably.

Government spends money on many essential programs, and our constitution laid it upon the congress to decide how much to appropriate and how much to raise in revenue. This is now our challenge: To balance taxing and spending in a responsible manner that does not rely on borrowing as an acceptable means of filling the gap.

To this end, we need a mixture of spending cuts and increased revenue. Republican leaders may tell you that increasing any tax is wrong; I'm telling you that borrowing is not better than taxation. I call upon Republicans to change your pledge to "no new borrowing".

I'm calling upon Congress to address the "fiscal cliff" crisis with a balanced mix of spending restraint and increased revenue. I'm not willing to allow austerity to fall disproportionately upon those of limited means, and the wealthy certainly can pay their fair share.

I am asking for all members of Congress and the American people to support my budgetary proposal. In return for your support, I am proposing a constitutional amendment that limits the total amount of government spending to a fixed percentage of the gross national product except in times of national emergency.

Under these proposals, we will stabilize the federal budget in a equitable manner and set the foundation for future economic growth. A small amount of sacrifice now will pay dividends later. I ask that we put aside our partisan differences and move forward together as a nation. Thank you and good night."

-Lynn

Republican Meltdown

This is really phenomenal. This goes beyond anything I would have expected. I'm not surprised that Obama was reelected, but the Republican whining and blame game reveals much about what their party now stands for.

Karl Rove complains that Obama "suppressed the Romney vote" by painting him as "a rich guy who only cares about himself". Wowzers! And didn't Romney help that along just a bit with his occasional candid comments and background as a vulture capitalist? Was Romney's character really that hard to judge without help from Democratic campaign ads?

Maybe what this really tells us is that voters aren't as stupid as Rove had assumed. Perhaps blatant lying with implausible whoppers didn't pay off after all. Rove seems to think that it should have. Shame on us for not falling for the lies! This attitude is an insult to all voters.

It's clear to see what has motivated the GOP push for voter suppression measures, ostensibly known as "Voter ID". They fear that they cannot win if too many of Romney's 47% show up to vote. This apparently accounts for the gross miscalculation made by Rove, Dick Morris, George F. Will and others.

Republicans accuse Obama of engaging in class warfare for attempting to limit tax breaks for the wealthy, but now we see true class warfare clearly demonstrated in their campaign strategy. Unfortunately for them, it's harder than expected to piece together a winning coalition of banksters, angry, white male voters and religious fundamentalists. This has left the nation divided and cynical, but hopefully still intact.

It will be interesting to watch how the Republican party evolves from here. The lunatic fringe Tea Party takeover is complete, and related or not, the fact remains that not one Republican of significant stature bothered to compete for the presidential nomination. It's been suggested that Jeb Bush sat this one out to allow the madness to work its course and then be in line to save the party in 2016. That would require new leadership and some serious changes in four years. One thing for certain, Rove and El Rushbo won't be leading the charge.

Lynn

So What Now?

This is like dodging a bullet; it's good to escape, but it's no fun being shot at.

It's a relief that Romney was turned back. That sums up my reaction.

My conservative friends can take comfort from the fact that Romney was the "designated loser" in a race that was remarkable in that not a single Republican of stature competed for the nomination. Romney could have damaged the Republican brand and dragged the party down prior to the next election in 2016. It's widely suspected that Jeb Bush has been quietly waiting in the weeds for that date to arrive. If Obama doesn't make the most of his second chance, it will be bad news for Democrats next time around.

As an intuitive, I am most concerned with the broad trends and forces shaping current events. As stated before, we are perilously close to the edge of a cliff, and not just the "fiscal cliff" that must be dealt with by year's end.

Immediate problems on the horizon include:

• Massive debt bubble about to burst
• Public unrest at the Bankster cartel for siphoning wealth from the economy
• Earth changes (including abrupt climate change) - this could soon be headline news
• Warmongers threatening to launch a conflagration in the middle east
• Individual liberties threatened by the police state that began under Bush
• Deep divisions tearing at the nation as Uranus-Pluto square up

The candidates failed to address these issues during the campaign, and there is no reason to think that either one had any better shot at them. Romney used deception to raise false hopes that he had solutions in general, but now that's in the rear-view mirror.

My opinion is that coming events will render the government relatively irrelevant. The brighter future that many intuitives foresee will begin in small pockets under local initiative. Prior to this there may be heavy seas and turbulence.

So now the task is to figure it all out...

If Romney Wins...

 

 

Sometime in the next day or so, we should know the identity of the next president. That is, if we're fortunate. If not, the recounts and disputed totals could go on for a long time.

 

Well, I for one am not holding my breath. As made clear on the pages of this blog, I consider the political system to be rigged and fraudulent. There is not nearly enough difference to be made between electing this Dickhead over that one to account for the tremendous, passionate animosity being slung around by both sides. Romney seems to me to be more despicable and disgusting than the incumbent, so I will vote accordingly.

 

If Romney wins, it could be an unfortunate moment for this country, but not for the reasons one might expect. The downside I would expect would be vastly increased levels of cynicism at some point, given the salesmanship he has exhibited on behalf of his campaign promises. Here is a number of points to consider:

 

1. Jobs - Obama has been hammered by a relentless tirade of criticism regarding the economy. Unemployment is too high, hasn't dropped as fast as Obama promised, etc. Now it's perfectly reasonable to attack the opponent's record, as the challenger needs to make the case for a change. However, he needs to have a realistic and plausible alternative proposal on the table. On this issue, Romney clearly has not. Cutting taxes is the centerpiece of his agenda. He promises to create 12 million "good paying" jobs. Good luck with that. Most economists expect the recovery to continue if nothing else is done. Whichever dickhead gets elected, it looks like things will slog on as before.

 

Bottom line: If people are dissatisfied now, they will continue to be regardless of who wins. However, expectations for Romney will be much higher, so he has much farther to fall.

 

2. Budget - As has been documented ad nauseum, Romney's math is complete nonsense. His promises to cut taxes likely will be derailed rather quickly, as frenzied budget negotiations ramp up. A huge factor is the immediate need to cut the deficit by January 1, or else the draconian sequestration measures kick in. There will likely be a lame-duck session of Congress during December that will make huge tax and spending decisions before the next presidential term even begins. If this is not done properly, the economy could stall and dip into another recession. Romneys' goose might get cooked by events before he gets sworn in over the Book of Mormon.

 

Bottom line: Romney will be in for a rough ride if he remains serious about his promises for a tax cut, extra trillions for defense, and a balanced budget. If he reneges his hollow promises will be exposed for the empty deception that they are. At some point the real math will catch up.

 

3. Foreign policy - There is a tremendous disconnect between what a president says and the policies that are actually carried out. As demonstrated in the final debate, there is little that the two parties actually disagree on. Romney exposed himself as sounding more reckless about throwing American power around, but that's just campaign noise. It appears that the PTB plan to ignite more wars in the near future, regardless of who the president is.

 

Bottom line: No difference under Romney, except people might be more prone to associate deceptive warmongering with Bush, so Romney would inspire more protest and opposition than Obama.

 

4. Religion - Romney's involvement in the Mormon church has been downplayed as a private matter of personal faith, but there are secretive, mystical aspects that are reason for concern. As pointed out in a Huffington Post blog, Romney holds the title of Bishop. Considering the racist elements within Mormon teaching, and the eclectic prophecies of end-time events, Romney's interaction with the church bears close watching.

 

Bottom line: Christian conservatives appear to support Romney in large numbers, largely because he is white and supposedly pro-life. While he surely won't be changing his skin color (he probably would if he could along with everything else that he has changed), if he reverts to moderate form on abortion, there will be tremendous anger and frustration among the Christian faithful. At that point, lingering suspicion about Romney's Mormonism will probably flare.

 

The silver lining for Democrats is that the Republican party brand will likely suffer severe damage under a Romney presidency. Given the surreal nature of the campaign, Romney's vacuous campaign rhetoric, and the likelihood of major events really hitting the fan during the next 4 years, this might not be the best time for a Democrat to occupy the white house.

 

There might be some wry satisfaction to be gleaned for progressives in watching right-wing talking heads turn against one of their own, once Romney either a) fails or b) succeeds by reverting to sensible, moderate positions.

 

Final Note: The Prophecy Wonk John Hogue is still sticking to his prediction that Obama will complete a second term. He has not erred in calling presidential elections since Nixon won in 1968. Others are claiming that Nostradamus predicted that the 2012 election will be deadlocked, and Obama will exercise martial law to remain in power while Romney attempts to rally support among the military. That sounds rather far-fetched for this blogger; Something is undoubtedly being lost in translation of the archaic French.

 

Whatever happens will soon be history.

 

Lynn

 

The Mystery of Benghazi

When Willard Romney began hammering Obama over alleged confusion regarding the Benghazi attacks,  I thought this was just another campaign tactic. If the State Department had miscalculated the danger or neglected the security of a consulate in a dangerous part of the world, then of course Obama should eventually fess up and admit that mistakes were made. Meanwhile, Obama seemed correct in vowing to investigate and pushing back on Romney for distorting the tragic event for political gain.

Recently, more information has surfaced regarding the attack, in the form of bits and pieces of unsubstantiated reports and rumors. Nevertheless, bits and pieces of rumors is often all we have to work with if we don't trust corporate news media to do an accurate and thorough job of investigating. And of course, it's a given that the government would be holding back on the full truth, and various agencies within the government may not even be on the same page. Thinking people simply have to work hard connecting the dots and piecing the true picture together.

Two conflicting stories have surfaced regarding the Benghazi attack: One alleges that Obama had been planning an "October surprise" by allowing an abduction of Ambassador Christopher Stevens to be staged, followed by a "miraculous" rescue by Navy Seals. 

The other story sounds a bit more plausible, wherein Stevens was in Benghazi to direct the flow of arms to Al Qaeda fighters operating in Syria. The attack was allegedly by Iranian special forces commandos. Iran would have sufficient motive given that economic sanctions are a virtual act of war against them, and the US intervention in Syria is widely seen as a step along the path leading to all-out attack on Iran.

There are several reasons to expect that details of the attack would be shrouded in murky haze; For one, the US does not openly admit to the training and hiring of Al Qaeda terrorists, despite heavy reliance on them for toppling Gaddafi, and now employing them as a proxy army in Syria. We are still operating under the official fiction that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that sponsored the 9/11 attacks in the US, and that they are an enemy that justifies the costly "war on terror".

It's also clear that the US would not want a spotlight directed on the intervention in Syria; the official line is that "freedom fighters" rose up spontaneously against the Assad regime, while the reality is that the bloody mess is largely due to foreign instigation. Syria is that last major ally remaining for Iran, and is probably the primary reason that Iran has not yet been attacked by the US or Israel. Given the incessant beating of war drums against Iran, the geopolitical reasons for US intervention in Syria are clearly discernible.

Another tidbit that seems to come from multiple sources suggests that a faction of the CIA has gone rogue and is operating at odds with administration policy. One extreme version suggests that Romney's people have links with the rogue CIA faction, and that the CIA may have played a role in setting up the ambassador's murder to embarrass Obama.

I'm skeptical of the more extreme rumors, but unfortunately there are powerful forces behind concealing the truth. Recent history in Libya should also be kept in mind: The US and NATO employed Al Qaeda mercenaries to attack Libya and remove a relatively progressive and stable regime. Libya has been pushed back to the 12th century dark ages, thanks to our tax dollars at work. The nation has been split into two power centers with much instability. It's fair to ask questions about just what Ambassador Steven's assignment was in Benghazi. Word has it that he worked for the CIA for many years as specialist on Iran.

Also, it's customary for embassies to rely on the host country for security. Marines are stationed for symbolic reasons, but no one expects them to defend against a determined assault. On this point, Romney sounds particularly silly for suggesting that Obama should have rushed in reinforcements.

I seriously doubt that Romney knows anything of the dark intrigue in Benghazi, and Obama may not be so much in the loop either. For them, Benghazi was just a flash point in a nasty election campaign. The American people have good reason to ask more questions, particularly as this ties in to the prospect for expanded war in the Middle East.

Lynn

The Designated Loser...Revisited

A few weeks ago, Romney's campaign seemed to be spiraling hopelessly downward. Then came The Debate in which Obama was caught napping. Seemed as if another switch was thrown somewhere, and Romney came surging back. Despite stronger performances by Biden and Obama in subsequent debates, the race remains quite close.

Since much of what we take for reality is projected and controlled by others, it's difficult to get a grip on what's really going on. This much seems clear: the two-party partisan battle is but a ruse. If Romney wins, nothing much will change, just as very little changed from Bush to Obama. The designated loser is really the voting citizen, who is in delusion that voting actually makes a difference.

I suspect that many voters are planning to vote against either Romney or Obama rather than vote for their preferred choice. Such is the nasty scenario that the PTB have shoved in our faces - vote for Dickhead #1 or #2. Sure, we can vote for the perceived lesser evil, but it's still voting for evil. I'm tempted to vote for a minor party such as Green, as this is the only way to register a "none of the above" selection.

My concern is that the partisan ruse fuels cynicism. If Romney convinces enough voters that he has answers to the intractable problems that face the nation, this sets the table for a huge disappointment. Likewise, Obama voters are already disappointed in wake of the last election, but fear Romney will take us down a much worse path. In truth, as I said, little will change either way.

The PTB have created the problems of massive debt and imploding economy. Of course Romney's proposals are laughable, but in reality, what can be done? Debt of this magnitude can only be dealt with through massive inflation or complete collapse of the system. Either way, it will eventually become clear that massive wealth has been removed from the working class. This has been nothing short of a huge shake-down; the pump-'n'-dump tactics like the housing bubble have been used by somebody to redistribute an enormous amount of wealth. According to such luminaries as Catherine Austin Fitts, the wealth was moved offshore, into the hands of corporate barons and globalist banksters. They never plan to return it and invest in the economy, so any politician that talks about a "plan for recovery" is either lying or completely out of touch with reality.

So what will people do if they one day wake up and discover that they have been robbed? I shudder to think of the possibilities. The cynicism and divisions are already there. I do predict that at that point, tax cuts for the rich will no longer be a popular notion. Indeed, the day is approaching when it may be unsafe to be identified as part of the wealthy 1% class.

Of more immediate concern should be warmongering in Iran and Syria. It appears that the PTB are determined to attack Iran, and this could quickly spiral out of control with nuclear exchanges. Also, rumor has it that a lame-duck session of congress will pass budgetary measures that have already been secretly agreed to. The PTB fix will be in place regardless of who gets elected in November. Look for sneaky attempts to attach unrelated bills to the legislation - could be in for a nasty time!