Freedom Rider: Why Romney Beat Obama


by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

It is true that Barack Obama didn’t have his act together when he went up against Mitt Romney, last week. In fact, he seemed to drop his Democratic act entirely, showing his true political self: a corporate politician who is in general agreement with his corporate Republican challenger. “Obama was caught unprepared and unable to state plainly how he differs from his opponent, mostly because he doesn’t differ very much.”


Freedom Rider: Why Romney Beat Obama

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

He forgot that his audience wasn’t made up of the Republicans he is so anxious to please.”

The first presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney proved a very simple fact about human nature. Most people will reveal their truest, most fundamental self when in the midst of a stressful situation. Both the president and his challenger did just that.

Mitt Romney is an ambitious businessman but not a very good politician. The so-called gaffes and misstatements that have characterized his campaign result from his lack of political acumen but aren’t an indication of lack of intelligence or capability. Romney’s greatest success in life was his tenure as CEO of the Bain Capital hedge fund, which is not the best experience to have when campaigning for voters whose lives have been ruined by the actions of corporate America.

Romney famously said that he liked to fire people. After all, what CEO doesn‘t? During the debate he told the moderator, Jim Lehrer, that if president, he would fire him and all of his colleagues at public broadcasting. He then made it clear that he planned to fire Barack Obama too. The aggressive Romney crammed for the test and found a sureness and confidence by behaving as the CEO in charge of the presidential campaign.

Unlike Romney, Obama is a very good politician. He excels at garnering support from voters by telling them what they want to hear while simultaneously doing things those same people wouldn’t want him to do. The public and pundits alike were surprised that the president’s performance veered between being lackadaisical and flat-footed or strangely discordant with boring anecdotes about his grandparents which didn‘t even answer the questions being asked. The president momentarily forgot the source of his popularity. He has spent so much time agreeing with Republicans in private that he forgot he was in public with more than 60 million viewers who were under the naive impression that the two parties are very different.

The president momentarily forgot the source of his popularity.”

Obama is the king of trying to reconcile what cannot be reconciled. He calls this process consensus, but in stark political terms it is nothing but capitulation. Obama cannot even muster support for Democratic low-hanging fruit like Social Security. When the moderator asked the president if he saw a difference with his opponent on Social Security he happily replied, “You know, I suspect that on Social Security we’ve got a somewhat similar position.” Those words may have been shocking but they were true. It is Obama who appointed a deficit reduction commission which called for cuts to entitlement programs. Only intransigence from Republicans prevented him from further double dealing with the people he is supposed to be working against.

The president floundered uncharacteristically because he forgot that his audience wasn’t made up of the Republicans he is so anxious to please, but voters who dared to think they were going to hear why he should remain in the Oval Office instead of Romney. As the Democrats have moved ever more to the right and become more dependent upon corporate largesse, Obama and other Democrats have gone along with their program even as they pretend to be an opposition. Obama was caught unprepared and unable to state plainly how he differs from his opponent, mostly because he doesn’t differ very much.

It was Romney who took the supposedly populist, progressive Obama to task for bailing out the banks, calling it the “biggest kiss to New York banks I’ve ever seen.” As with other Romney rejoinders the president was silenced, furiously scribbling notes as he tried to compose himself.

The Obama who stood on stage is the real Obama.”

Unfortunately, most Democrats still refuse to admit what happened right before their eyes. While criticizing the president’s debate performance they were not willing to admit that the Obama who stood on stage is the real Obama. Stripped of a script he was laid bare before the world, an empty suit devoid of any conviction except the desire to stay in office.

The debate allowed the previously bumbling Romney to suddenly look capable and gave many people new reason to give him serious consideration. Obama needed only to look presidential in order to live up to expectations but is now facing a serious challenge because he isn’t as slick as he thought.

It is unlikely that Barack Obama will allow himself to be bested more than once. No one with a small ego becomes president of the United States. But the question isn’t really whether or not he will turn in a better performance. Instead it is whether Democrats will believe their eyes and ears and accept that the real Barack Obama is in fact the man they saw on stage.

Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)



Reality ought to be a B****tch

But sometimes it aint.

Well written Ms. Kimberly, here's what you said:

Unfortunately, most Democrats still refuse to admit what happened right before their eyes. While criticizing the president’s debate performance they were not willing to admit that the Obama who stood on stage is the real Obama. Stripped of a script he was laid bare before the world, an empty suit devoid of any conviction except the desire to stay in office. 

Frankly, being the incorrigible contrarian that I am, I'm actually toying with the idea of voting for Obama, adding one more vote to ensure he's re-elected so that WHEN he cuts entitlements during the Lame Duck Session to avoid the US falling off the "fiscal cliff" I can be entertained immensely by the swiftness and crudeness with which he breaks (especially Blacks) and the rest of his groupies little hearts.  The dejection and teeth gnashing will be priceless-- but perhaps the wake-up call desperately needed.

Because as you accurately state we're all asleep, and until there is a palpable, grand betrayal, one whose scope and depth is irrefutable and painful as hell, the Democrats (and Blacks in particuar) will refuse to admit what they see.  If Romney gets elected and does what Obama deigns to do, the impact will be negligible.

My twisted nature (and visionary insight LOL) tells me that only a grand betrayal by Obama will be impactful, hopefully revolutionary.


yes but I like it because we all know that just whats going to happen and the rest of the corp. demdogs will fall in line.

wake-up call

In the 1980 election, a comrade said he hoped Reagan would win so it would provide a "wake-up call" to the American people. He did, and it didn't.

If people have not woke-up to Obama after 4 years of drone attacks onverseas and national security attacks at home, then 4 more years is not going to do s**t to wake up the people.

The Moral of the Story(telling)

Indulge me.  Years ago I worked at a job at a local university along with a co-worker and frat brother who became a good friend.  We'd have spirited and intense debates (I'm surprised we both weren't fired for the loud voices emanating from our offices).  LOL

I will never forget the time he said that he hoped one day Black folks would wake up and find that all social programs had disappeared.  He was trying to make a point about personal responsibility, self-help, and the self-inflicted woes of the "Welfare State" and accompanying mentality that he felt imprisoned African Americans in their status quo condition.  He was articulating in his own words what White conservatives and their ilk now call the "Entitlement Mentality."  I didn't cotton to his comments well given my political predilections.

Now, fast forward and he might just get his wish.  And despite my protestations at what I then considered harsh and insensitive comments... I now somewhat "get it."  We will see if the "thought revolution" he hoped would transpire from the absence of social programs will occur.

Yes, the Democrap apparatchtiks will indeed fall in line, their 6 figures incomes won't be threatened.  But cuts to food stamps, Section 8, Title 19, Pell Grants, Head Start (among other programs) will engender a hell of a lot of hurt and pain.

But that hurt, pain and dejection are precisely what are needed to (hopefully) awaken the sleeping giant.  Obama's militarism and drone terror warfare certainly hasn't.  His continuation of Bush civil liberty attachs hasn't.  Cuts are going to happen regardless of who gets elected, but will only be potentially revolutionary if they occur under Obama's watch.  And while the status quo Demogods will obfuscate and propagandize to their little hearts content it will offer little comfort to the affected parties.

It will hurt like hell but it will be priceless... I hope.

We are on the cusp of a true litmus test.  Will the Obama groupies finally come to their senses when COLAs disappear, when "means tests" drop millions into poverty, when vouchers replace entitlements, when a new full blown recession/depression occurs?

Only time will tell, but trust me, the time will be a short see if the epiphany occurs or not.  If it doesn't happen, we've clearly hit the bottom of the barrel and the introduction of 21st century mental slavery will be in full bloom.  Wonder what my buddy is thinking now?  That's the moral of the story(telling).

p.s.  If Obama wins and I hope he does for reasons stated, I hope you political correctness wimps and police get your bearings because you will need to weather one hell of a storm.  Never mind that Limpnuts, Savage and Fox News and State reps in Fox News Territories tell it like it is NOW, put David Duke to shame during his era.  In the words of the song, "Ba Ba Ba Baaaby, You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet."  LOL  I don't know who will lose their cookies first, the not so closeted racists or the Obama groupies.  Yeah,  I am twisted and reality is indeed a bitch.  LOL

I think the ones that will lose it first

will be the not-so-closeted racists who can't bear to envision another four years of a president with more melanin in his skin than they have, not that his melanin has done any of us any good so far. Though his idea of caring about the African-American community is putting nuclear power plants in poor black neighborhoods to the racists he may as well be Malcolm X. But once the axe falls on social programs then I think we'll see the litmus test for black folks. Will the majority of the community continue to make excuses for Obama and blame the mean old nasty Republicans or whoever? Or will most finally accept the reality that Obama offers African-Americans absolutely nothing more than the vicarious pleasure of seeing a black face in a high place?

I think a second Obama term will have the potential to produce results that are (hopefully) revolutionary for a couple of reasons. For one, when we come to a point four years from now when minimum wage is still far too low to live on, when workers still have basically no leverage to unionize, when we still don't have single-payer health care for everyone, when we still have a foreign policy that is nothing more than Bush-Cheney 2.0 it will be pretty hard for people to keep saying "Just give Obama more time, he'll come around and start governing like a progressive" because he will have had eight years of badly-disguised conservatism under his belt with nothing worthwhile to show for it at the end of it. It should make even the most naive progressives in this country have to face reality, that American elections are a sham because the choices are controlled. That no meaningful change can come from working within the established electoral framework because that framework has been built the way it is precisely to prevent meaningful change and only offer the illusion of the citizen having a choice in what governs them. The effects of this cold, bitter realization shouldn't be underestimated.

Secondly, (and this has less to do with Obama himself) because Obama will keep on doing what he's been doing, acting as a handmaiden for the billionaire ruling elite who can't seem to help themselves from steadily pushing the middle class down into poverty because of their myopic and bottomless greed for short-term profits, matters are eventually going to be coming to a head no matter who is in office. I give the middle class in America another generation, maybe two generations tops before it is 100% extinct and we have a country that is literally nothing more than a very small sliver of the population at the top of the heap, the wealthy 3% or 4% who own all the capital, and then everyone else who will be living in poverty. The elite is unwittingly destroying the only real bulwark preventing a worker ownership classless society. When there no longer is a soul left who can honestly say "Yes, I was born in a tiny roach-infested apartment and we ate out of dumpsters but I slaved away and worked my way up and now I have a two-story home with a two-car garage in a middle-class neighborhood" then there will be nobody left but the wealthy elite themselves who will be willing or able to defend such a one-sided exploitative economic model as capitalism. Workers will have no choice but to see that they are daily and hourly getting exploited and the only ones benefiting from it are the exploiters. When the only ones telling every poor sap out there to work harder, work faster, work more productively are the wealthy, the ones who reap all the benefits from increases in productivity, the average working person is going to tell them to get f**ked.

Like the old saying goes, people are only three good meals away from a revolution. As capitalism is a system that cannot survive without mass exploitation this economic model by its very nature makes that revolution inevitable. All the elite can do is try to forestall it for as long as possible but sooner or later, and as I said it looks like within the next two generations at the latest, it is going to come unraveled. We're already seeing signs that its foundational illusion is starting to fail.  

Obama will most likely be seen

in the future by objective, honest historians as not only a very effective tool for the covert destruction of progressivism in America from the inside but also as the last gasp of a frustrated bourgeoisie desperate to restore some semblance of (perceived) legitimacy to the American political process in the eyes of the average voter.

Think about it: after seeing election after election with embarrassingly low voter turnout (due to so many potential voters either being astute enough to see that it doesn't matter who wins because both candidates are pawns of the Wall Street elite or simply having a gut feeling that voting in America is pointless) they must have decided it was time to play the First African-American President card to restore enthusiasm about the process. And for a brief time it worked (and in some ways is continuing to work if one considers the near-religious blind devotion of so much of the black community to Obama despite his repeated sellouts), voter turnout was way up in 2008 and the country got to give itself a collective, if false, pat on the back for supposedly putting its history of race prejudice and injustice behind it. Moving into a "post-racial era" whatever that means. Yes, the U.S. of A. practically broke its arm in patting itself on the back so much over electing Barack Obama. He put a new and friendlier face on the same old American imperialism and exploitation and for a while it managed to falsely reduce antipathy towards the U.S. abroad.

But there are two problems with this gambit: one is that they can only play the First Black President card once. A second black president or a first female president etc. just won't have nearly the same psychological effect as swearing in Barack Obama.

Secondly, we the average non-wealthy people, are smarter than they give us credit for. Sometimes not by much but still smarter than they think we are. Some, like the good folks here at Black Agenda Report, already have Obama's number and know exactly what he's about. Sometimes I think part of the elite's problem is that all of them that are making the decisions grew up in the pre-Internet age and haven't grasped just how much easier it is now to get opinions, facts, evidence etc. that hasn't been thoroughly filtered and censored. Another problem is contempt for their enemy which leads them to underestimation of us.

Yes, I think that future historians will look back and see Obama as the last desperate gamble of a flailing bourgeoisie and a dying social order.


Bev, I don't discount the significance of what you say at all.  I think I've written here in the past couple weeks that we are witnessing the effects/manisfestations of 400+ years of racism and the failed "Civil Rights" movement and the sellout of the Black cultural class and Black Misleadership Class on the collective psyche of Black folks-hence my comment about 21st Century Mental Slavery.

This is why, tragically, the pain has to be bone deep and the evidence has to clearly point to Obama.  I'm not saying whether or not Blacks will pass the litmus test I'm simply saying it will be one.  If Black folks don't pass.... well... then... I hate to say it but f***k em, because they are going to be clearly f**ked anyway and the possibility of a new mass movement likely doesn't exist.

But that's part of the grand design and it's working to perfection:  "God bless the Child who Got his Own," and "Every M***ther F***er for his/her self and God for us All."

Individualism and greed is what this country was built on, so I suppose its only poetic justice that it becomes what we fail on.

After all, I might just be "discovered" and become a hit on a reality tv show in 2013, or "drop" my first CD.  I can take my lead from Jersey Shore and instead of being "The Situation," we can call it my new show "The F**ked Up Situation."  What do yall think, a star is born??

RE 2012's 1st POTUS Debate The Real News' Paul Jay Said:

'A Masterful Liar Defeats a Man without Convictions.' - I would say- 'A Blatant Bold-face LIAR Whupped a Guy w NO Convictions'. Raw-Money told a series of bold-face lies & Obama didn't call him out on even one of them. Why? Because as he kept saying [like Dr Mike Dyson did in his debate w Bro Glen Ford] 'I think Gov RMoney & I basically agree on that.' Obama could NOT effectively challenge Raw-Money's blatant lies because he's been to busy implementing many RMoney like idea's [IE: Obama{RMoney}Care], & if he did he likely would have ended up making promises on nation-wide [& world-wide] TV- To The People [vs the power elites], that he might be forced to keep! IMO He thus played it overly cautious & ended up looking like a 'Deer caught in RMoney's head-lites'.

Even now Obama hasn't challenged RawMoney's Lies [Slick-Willie has to some extent]. Obama's resorted to the juvenille tactic of parodying RawMoney's dumb-ass quote about balancing the budget by cutting PBS' 'Big Bird' Prog 


Speaking of The Real News' Paul Jay & Debates: If you want to see the difference between a real [Black] progressive view viv-a-vis a so-called mainstream [= white] liberal view, watch Paul Jay's interview w BAR's Sis Kimberly along w Jennifer Taub [Prof at Vermont's law School], for their views on the VP debate [Joe Biden vs Paul Ryan]. Jay asked Sis Kimberly about O-Bomb-er's foreign policy [she especially critiqued O-Bomb-er's role in over-throwing & murdering Khadaffi last yr, & also O-Bomb-er's regime's hand in Syria's on-going turmoil & the economic warfare on Iran for Iran's {falsly}alleged {non}weapons nuke prog] & Ms Taub about Obama's domestic policy. But then Paul Jay posed the following question to both women- 'If you were in a swing state where your vote really mattered, what would you do?' [IE: would you vote for Obama or not {it was understood that neither would vote for RawMoney under any circumstance].

Sis Kimberly's Response:  'I'm still a registered Democrat, but I no longer vote for Democratic presidential candidates anymore. If I lived in Ohio where I was born, I would do the same thing. I can no longer justify going along with the empire building, in fact the criminality of the United States abroad, because of the smaller and smaller number of issues where there is a material difference [between Dims & Repugs]. The only clear differences left are on issues of personal freedom & liberalism- on gay marriage or abortion. But I no longer feel that they are worth giving up principles on the many other issues of foreign policy, the bailing out of the banks, which has continued under Obama. So for me it does not matter any longer, and I think it's time for people on the left to stop allowing themselves to be so frightened of those few issues where there are differences that we keep supporting the same terrible policies.

Ms Taub's Response: 'I think it really does matter who you vote for, even though there may be a whole list of things that one is disappointed about. To elect a Republican president right now who would put Roe v. Wade in jeopardy. A woman's right to choose I think is really at risk right now.

But we tend to overemphasize just the election of presidents. Obviously, the Congress is really important, and right now the senate isn't filibuster-proof for Democrats [BUT the Dims had a filibuster-proof senate in 2008 thru the end of 2010- plus the Dims had firm control of the House of Reps & had/have Obama as POTUS, YET the Dims failed to deliver], and now there's a possibility the Senate could also turn over to the Republicans. Important confirmations, including judicial confirmation, depend upon getting those through the Senate.

It would be by far easier to push a Democratic administration for more progressive goals than it would be to be a progressive on the outside when there's a Republican administration in office [don't we keep hearing this over & over & over again like a tired-ass rerun - SOS Thrice warmed-over]. 

For example, Paul Ryan has said something incredible like the Affordable Care Act was a government takeover of health care, which is crazy [NOTE Obama-Care IS RMoney-Care Rolled-out nationally- IE: Obama{RMoney}Care: DUHH! It's effectively a Gov't bail-out of the {un}Health {un}Insurance Corps]. Obviously, it wasn't a single-payer plan. But, if there is a Republican president and Republicans take control of the Congress, it's not that we're going to get single-payer; it's that things will be rolled back more. I think there'll be more deregulation of Wall St, not less [Obama & Holder's DoJ has made it clear that they're letting Wall St Banksters off the hook because Obama has filled his cabinet w Wall St types]. And so I think that the idea is to accept imperfection, then keep pushing toward those issues we support, not to sit out the election [Sis Kimberly didn't say she would sit out the election- she said she wasn't voting for Obama {nor RawMoney]—I think that's a mistake...' 

Paul Jay didn't ask but I wonder what [liberal Dim] Ms Taub's take on Libya, Syria & Iran are?


I ain't disagreeing with you my friend, no more than I disagreed with Beverly.  Which is why I say with no regrets and unabashedly: "F***k em, no... "Double F**k em."

Like I told my co-worker the other day, name me one religious belief system or philosophy that predicts that shit will end up hunky dory?   If Malcolm, Martin and Gandhi can't change the world, then who am I (we)??

Hence my continuing motto:  "Get in where you fit it."  Despite my belief that things will end badly for US ALL, I do what I do and try to make a difference where I can.  But I won't be marching on Washington DC when peckawoods say what they really want and call Barack a nigga or Michelle a ho. Or us, collectively, a bunch of lazy niggas.  And our collective "pain" and disgust is plastered on the pages of Essence, Jet and Ebony and through the air of talk-shows.  After all we can see how the "Black Outrage" at the other cracker's "Nappy-headed Ho" comments made a world of a difference, right?  Ask Skip Gates about police-profiling and Obama's reaction to it.  (Is Skip even on PBS anymore?)

No.  I don't lift a goddamn finger for symbolic bullshit.  And the only integration I will spend my time on is economic integration.  Where are all the "Post-Racial Pimps and Hos" by the way?"  Stupid M***F**kers couldn't see the real ugly side of America coming out after Obama's election?  What kind of shallow intellect is that?  Or were they simply hoping to cash in on some more bullshit? 

If Black folks want to feel "empowered" because they "punish" the Imus's (NOT!!!) or keep Limpnuts from obtaining an NFL interest, or stage community marches to protest some racist cop's actions, but don't do shit to stop Black on Black Crime, AIDS epidemic, incarceration of non-violent offenders,  and public corruption thievery (See, Detroit and East St. Louis), then they can kiss my coppered-colored ass and be left to their own devices.  I ain't got time for it.

The fact of the matter is some of us will get a grip and some won't.  Those that don't or won't can go buy a copy of the "Left Behind" series, give $$ to the pulpit pimps, and read that shit at their leisure.

New book

"Just Too Weird"

Bishop Romney and the Mormon Takeover of America: Polygamy, Theocracy and Subversion

By Webster Griffin Tarpley Ph.D.

Category: Biography, History, Religion.

Available to ship by mid-October 2012. E-book available now.

Researcher warns against the horrors of Mormonism.

Tarpley reveals that Mormonism, Mitt Romney's tradition, is not actually a religion but a synthetic ideology sponsored by British intelligence, as part of their campaign of covert warfare against the United States.

The first Civil War took place in 1857 when the Mormons in Utah attempted to secede.

Utah was selected as a strategic location which would break the United States in two between east and west.

The Romney family later moved to Mexico to avoid the ban on polygamy in the US.

To their credit most Americans believe in religious tolerance and separation of church and state. They find it unseemly to attack a candidate based on his religion. However, Mormonism is not actually a religion but a subversive political party that has donned the disguise of a religion for protection.

Even if it is a religion, a Mormon should not be holding high political and ecclesiastical offices at the same time.

Mitt Romney's loyalties are first and foremost to the Mormon cult, which is also fundamentally Zionist. Romney and Netanyahu are old friends.

Romney spent years attempting to recruit for the cult, in which black Americans were regarded as inferior. Although Romney demands an aggressive foreign policy, nobody in his family ever served this country in uniform – although at least one ancestor fought against the Union in the attempted 1857 Mormon secession of Utah.

As president, Romney would rely on and build up the Mormon Mafia in the intelligence community. He might try to carry out Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith’s apocalyptic White Horse Prophecy, which calls for a Mormon takeover of the United States, followed by a campaign to conquer the world for their theocracy.

Every voter needs to read this book.

Pages:  278


















Obama's Debate Failure

We agree 100%. I was reluctant to vote for him because he said early in his nomination campaign in 2007, that he would also probably rehire Blackwater. But the prospect of the lovely, if dippy VP candidate of Sen. McCain was looming large as a possible president, was too scary. This time I will vote third party.

"What's The Matter with Harlem???"

Listen folks.  In addition to being a singular and unique “visionary” I accept that I can be a singular, and unique ass and mind you, political correctness is not my forte. I abhor it.  I love my people, in fact I love ALL PEOPLE.  And lest you all misinterpret my polemics, allow me to put my point into context. 

I purchased Thomas Frank’s book “What’s the Matter with Kansas,” years ago though I confess I’ve never read it cover to cover.  It purports to be an attempt by a regular, (left-leaning) Middle-Class, Midwestern White guy (I’m a regular, left-leaning Middle-Class, Mid-Western Black guy-- from Iowa by way of Miss.) to try to understand why his ilk (working-class Whites) voted AGAINST THEIR SELF-INTERESTS.  I discern that Mr. Franks used Kansas as his landscape/tapestry because of its (heretofore) radical working class history in America's historical pantheon. 

To his considerable credit and ours, Mr. Frank attempts to explain why regular, working/Middle-Class White folks became… “ugghhh”…. shit-head, stupid Reagan Democrats.  Given the dyslexia going on today, I’d say Mr. Frank is due for a book redoux.  And despite my overt capitalistic tendencies, I’m willing to default to allow others to capitalize and write the Black version of this tome.

I say what I say because I don’t have any luxuries to sell books or capitalize off of blogs, despite my fantastic reality t.v. concept. (It’s a F**ked up Situation”).  Consequently, my “double f***k em” attitude is a reflection of my equanimity

In short folks, I will spend as much time wondering why Blacks VOTE AGAINST their interests today as I will try to understand why regular, working/Middle-Class Whites vote against theirs since the advent of Reagan.  Fair is fair.

Hopefully this will blunt the easily acceptable conclusions that I’m an insufferable ass and incapable of emotions.  “Can yall feel me on this?”  Do I get a slight reprieve? 

Be patient with me I’m a (piece of) work in progress.  I simply ask of yall:  “What (the f***k) is the Matter with Harlem?” 

I'm willing to bet that what lies at the heart of both is empty symbolic bullshit, that emotes mythologies of the past and present versus harsh reality.

Why Romney Beat Obama

Obama showed himself to be the inately conservative person he always ways.  He saw in Romney a member of the 1% and raised the white flag.  He agreed with Romney numerous times; on social security and the corporate tax rate. He did not know whether to debate Romney or hang out with him.   To me they are brothers from different mothers.  I refer to them as Mittrack Obamney.

Black Agenda report was right about warning us about Obam six years ago. Remember?


My Patience has run out...

As it relates to the false dichotomy of "The Lesser of Evils." There is a question I posed back in 2008, to the Obama and Dem Party sycophants that no one has answered, then or now, and it goes to the heart of why Romney won the Debate.  (Not a dimes worth of difference).

The question is: "How was GWB II capable of doing whatever the hell he desired, passing whatever Draconian and undemocratic laws he wanted, able to engage in warmongering unchecked, DESPITE DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF THE HOUSE & SENATE and Bush polling at 31/32% popularity?

How was one of the most "hated" or disliked Presidents in the history of the Republic able to achieve his goals absent his party controlling either the House or the Senate, whereas one of the most popular and well-loved Presidents of all time, voted in on an unparalleled historical mandate, (with control of both legislative branches) is supposedly unable to achieve his agenda?

Trust me, I believe I have an answer, and it ain't got a damn thing to do with race.  I simply wonder what yall's answer is? 

When you arrive at the same or similar answer as mine, perhaps then you'll understand how Romney won the debate.  One more thing, in this false dichotomy of the "Lesser of Evils" why is there an UNCHALLENGED assumption that the Dems cannot block the GOP's insane policies? I've never heard the same logic from the Tea Party or the GOP, i.e. "You must vote for our (GOP/Tea Party) candidate as if your life and welfare depended upon it.  Why are progressives faced or allegedly faced with a DEFAULT POSITION that Right Wingers never even articulate?

The answer to THAT question, I believe, will illumine two sad truths.  First, the Dems are feckless, back-bone-less wonders, and second, they secretly believe in the Republican agenda. I realize I've cheated myself and given yall the answers to the first question.  But it is what it is. 

Real Lesson RE Dims vis-a-vis Bush Jr: Capitulation & Complicity

The Dims capitulated [or were in cahoots] from the very beginning vis-a-vis Bush Jr. First they 'conveniently' scape-goated Nader in 2000 because the Dims let Bush Jr get away w hi-jacking the 2000 election in broad day-lite [so Bush Jr did it again in 2004] & because Gore failed to win his own [& Slick Willie's]  home states of TN & AR. They then confirmed their capitualtion / complicity when the CBC tried a last ditch effort to challenge Bush's thievery in 2000 yet could NOT GET not even ONE so-called 'liberal / progressive' white Dim senator to sign on. In fact the CBC members were MOCKED by the senate. IMO this set the stage for the 9-11 'New Pearl Harbor' event including the Anthrax Home-Grown [via Fort De-trick MD] {false-flag}Terrorist Attacks on the Bush Jr / Cheney / NeoCON watch.

But the modern fore-runner to Dims' capitulation to Repug skull-duggery RE: Bush Jr- was the Iranian Oct [thru Jan] surprise 1980-81 w Skippy-Jiff Carter vis-a vis Holly-weird Ray-Gun. Word is that Carter refused to even listen to those who tried to tell him how Mr CIA / Skull{duggery}& Bones Bush Sr, Bill Casey & Bob Gates [all were top Ray-gun_Repug type CIA Guys] sabotaged his efforts to negotiate w the Iranians to end the hostage crisis. 

My patience Has Run Out

I agree. The Democtarcts and so called progressives secretly agree with the Right Wing Agenda.  As we saw Obam agreeing with Romney during the debate.  The so called American Left is just another set of gate keepers. 

In my own case I left the Left because I found out that the Left and the editorial board of the Wall St Journal agree on some points.  Both support mass immigration and open borders without any concern of the impact on the working class here.   Both support the corporate state over the nation state.  The Left agrees with Obam's wars but pretended to oppose the wars of Bush.  Neither the Left or the Right fight out sourcing or work visas in any meaningful way.

I believe it is essential that the working class in this country be politically independent.   Do not be tied to any political pary or ideology.  One's polical activity should be based upon how policy effects your daily life.



At this point, Obama is the devil we know.

What about the devil we don't know?

It's pretty clear that the illuminati I.e. The ruling class or oligarchy (whatever you wanna call it) is toying with the idea of letting Mitt in:

We got the "2016: Obama America" movie green lighted by Salt Lake city, UT based "Rocky Mountain" Pictures.

This book should be passed on to someone like Spike Lee or somebody.

I just don't want to see another 9/11

Next time they might set off a nuke or bio-weapon. Or they might hit our own infrastructure with a cyber attack, to be blamed on Iran (or Russia, check out Romney and Joseph Smith's 'White Horse Prophecy' in the book).

"Debate(s)"? Really?

It always kills me how arrogant, ignorant and drunken with hubris are Americans, most of whom delusionally believe they are the greatests at everything on the planet.  This delusion of the Greatest Democracy is one of those items.  Someone please explain to me how a 2 party system, one less pluralistic that what you'd find in so-called third world or undeveloped nations, let alone so-called modern ones is "democratic?"

There is more political diversity in Iran than there is in the USA.  Out of curiousity I just googled:  "major political parties in Kazakhastan and here's what I found: 

Here's Findland: 

And here's Iran: 

Are we aiding and abetting the process by referrring to the charades, the corporate-scripted discussions as "debates" when they are little more than coffee house conversation between 1 percenters?  These "debates" are no more than cocktail conversations that likely take place every summer in the Hamptons on in swanky 5th Ave. digs when Jay Z meets Clint Eastwood, or P Diddy shares a laugh with Ted Nugent. 

And let's not even insult intelligent people with blustering of "free and fair" elections in America, when year in year out Republicans across this nation exert maximum effort to suppress and or steal votes.  We all witnessed an election stolen in Florida and sanctioned by the highest court in the land, or witnessed Diebold chicanery in Ohio.

These M**ther F****ers here DON'T EVEN WANT YOU TO VOTE if your black, brown, poor, or White and liberal.  When will we at least acknowledge the contradictions?, I have no hope that we will come to terms with them.  Hypocrites R US.(of A). 

Glenn Greenwald has written an excellent piece over at the Common Dreams that delves into the farce we called "debates."

The Lame Rules for Presidential Debates: A Perfect Microcosm of US Democracy

Secret collusion between the two parties, funded by corporations, run by lobbyists: all the ingredients are there 

Here's a slice of the article:

He (George Farah appearing on Democracy Now with Greenwald) described how the two political parties in the 1990s joined forces to wrest control over the presidential debates away from the independent League of Women Voters, which had long resisted the parties' efforts to shield their presidential candidates from genuine surprise or challenge. Now run by the party-controlled Commission on Presidential Debates, these rituals are designed to do little more than " eliminate spontaneity" and "exclude all viable third-party voices". Citing a just-leaked 21-page "memorandum of understanding" secretly negotiated by the two campaigns to govern the rules of the debates, Farah recounted:

"We have a private corporation that was created by the Republican and Democratic parties called the Commission on Presidential Debates. It seized control of the presidential debates precisely because the League was independent, precisely because this women's organization had the guts to stand up to the candidates that the major-party candidates had nominated. And instead of making public these contracts and resisting the major-party candidates' manipulations, the commission allows the candidates to negotiate these 21-page contracts that dictate all the fundamental terms of the debates."

Gawker's John Cook has an excellent breakdown of the 21-page memo. In his piece, entitled "Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Sniveling Cowards", Cook details how the rules imposed on these debates demonstrate that, above all else, "both campaigns are terrified at anything even remotely spontaneous happening." 

HA!!! We ain't just slipping in science and math

Just happened upon this at Common Dreams in a piece that cited Huffington Post:

World's Top Democratic Governments: Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index 2010 

Now in its third edition, the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index 2010 aims to provide a snapshot of the state of democracy for 165 countries and two territories based on electoral process, political culture and civil liberties. The poll groups nations into four types of regimes: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes.

Norway came in at #1 as a "full democracy," while the U.S. is ranked at #17, just ahead of the U.K. (#19) to come in on the lower end of the "full democracy" spectrum. Designated as a "flawed democracy," France follows at #31, while Belarus, Qatar and North Korea are positioned toward the bottom of the poll as "authoritarian regimes."

The report also pinpoints what is described as a "democratic recession," with only 12.3% of the world's citizens enjoying access to a "full democracy," an overall decline reportedly sparred by political malaise in light of the global economic crisis.

View more details about the report here.  

I personally think the ranking at 17 is suspect.  Just because we can flash our genitalia on Facebook, or "moon" a politician without getting shot in the ass doesn't make us more democratic.

Right now, IMO, democracy is but an illusion that exists in our minds.  The propagandists and mind-massagers know that if we Americans have our little space of personal, social deviancy, where we can get all "tatted" up and "act up," we believe we are "free."  Ain't nothing but a mind f**k in reality.  Jill Stein gets arrested at the "debates" and remember that college kid that got escorted out during remarks by Kerry when he was running for Prez, not to mention the media's suppression of hundreds of people arrested for encroaching on the (Orwellian) "free speech zones" constructed to shield politicians from agitators and critics.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, isn't it?  LOL