You are here
Home > Posts tagged "US elections"

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushes for Mitt Romney in US elections

There is nothing more outrageous than when a foreign leader of a small nation tries to interfere in the political process of another, far more populous country. Yet, that is precisely what Israel's government leader, Netanyahu, is trying to do during the US national election process. See Israel-US spat: A public row between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Obama administration.

How did London’s new Dubya-like clown mayor get elected?

London, Great Britain has just recently elected a new Dubya-like clown for mayor. How did this city go from having a relatively liberal mayor like Ken Livingston, to a neo-con stooge for its highest office? The answer has some sad lessons for the US, a country that is once again desperately trying to throw its most corrupt corporate clowns out of DC. But will they return once again, just as has been the case in the past? Sadly, the answer is YES they will return. Why is that? The answer once again is pretty simple to figure out. Just like in Britain, when a population allows another group of marginally less corrupt corporate clowns in, the worst do get back in after a short while. And in Britain, just like in the US, the corporate world totally controls the main electoral options. There simply is no electoral choice of worth. The Hindu has a great analysis of what happened in London's election that allowed a Tory fool to get back in as mayor there. See Extreme swings for a great analysis of how the "two party system" works in Great Britain. Yeah, I know that there are now actually three main parties, like in Mexico, but still the similarities with the US Tweedle Dee- Tweedle Dum con are chilling. So we may well be back to having a Clintonite figure get elected into the presidency once again, but it will only be prep for returning the worst of the worst corrupt corporate Klan back later. You can bet on that. The Democrats are what make the Republicans possible, and until we get fed up as a people with both of these gangs, we will just get more of both of them in the future. Ugh, what an ugly world. You really have to work to make it better, and just 'voting' in elections run by the corporate world, just will not produce any real change.

A soulless candidate- Barack Obama

Anybody but McCain? Why? ...McCain is liable to collapse The Empire and that would be a good thing. Still, it is rather bad politically to push for collapse of one's own nation even if it might benefit the rest of the world. So we turn to Barack Obama and see what the man offers up to us for our possible votes? Would we be doing better to vote for Obama or cast a vote for one of the marginalized non-candidates instead? Or to not even 'vote'? OK, so we agree that McCain is a bad vote, right? To vote for McCain is to vote for Incompetent Imperialism, Incompetent Empire, to vote for an Empire without future. But what are we voting for if we vote for Barack Obama? Obama himself offers up the answer, but is it really the case, this 'CHANGE' he talks about? We have some recent history to offer US some insight to this question. We have the 12 years of Reagan-Bush and the arrival of the Clinton team offering up the same mantra of 'hope'. Clinton promised us something different than the Reagan Era but instead gave us only a minor and insipidly weak gap time between Reaganism and Dubya. In fact, he was prep for getting us to Dubya. So along comes the new 'Blacker' version of Clintonism which is Barack Obama, and we have to have some parameters and guidelines to evaluate him with. These parameters must at least include race, sex, labor, immigration, health environment, and war. What is Obama planning for us in these areas of policy? What is this 'CHANGE' he talks about? Sadly, he only seems to be talking changing the incompetence level of the Dubya clique in governing The Empire. Of the issues noted above, the question of war is by far the most dominant and important one. Bush gave us war, McCain is a continuation of that, but is Obama a negation of what the other 2 stand for concerning war and peace? Or is Barack Obama a soulless candidate who promises change, yet will do the exact same imperialist aggressions in a stealth manner? The key to evaluating Barack Obama's positions of war and peace can be summed up in the name of one country- IRAN. Sadly, the news is bad. Barack Obama has clearly signed himself and the Democratic Party as a whole on to a planned war with this country Iran. He has signed himself up to an extension of the Iraq war into yet more neighboring lands! Let's face it, the time to speak out against this planned US-Israeli aggression is now, not tomorrow. Barack Obama has done quite the opposite though. Barack Obama has made it entirely clear that he supports going to war with

Tortured election

The presidential elections will decide if The Empire continues to openly advocate and use torture against POWs or not. All the 3 candidates support continuing the occupations of Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan in one form or another, and they all agree on starting a future war against Iran and any of its allies still around. None of our 3 pre-arranged choices has any compunctions about allowing Israel to tear up Lebanon yet once again, or allowing them to continue their slow moving genocide of the Palestinians, or allowing them to bomb away against Syria without condemnation or opposition. But the use of torture? That makes the US look kind of bad, doesn't it? That's where there is some slight disagreement between the 3. See Chris Floyd's blog, Empire Burlesque, and read his commentary The Torture Election to see an interesting take on the meaning of the 2008 US elections.

Top