Repost: 2012 US Elections: Obamney vs. Rombama

War, economic collapse, and personal devastation await Americans no matter who they vote for – and what we should do instead.

by Tony Cartalucci

Editor’s Note: There is absolutely no difference between Romney and Obama – as illustrated in detail below, the very same policy makers will be handing the same script to the “president” no matter who wins in November. Beware of the retrenched false left-right paradigm run in concert by convicted criminal George Soros and Neo-Con media projects like Glenn Beck and World Net Daily (WND). They are desperately trying to keep Americans interested, invested, and involved in this false paradigm so that we do not start getting involved in creating a paradigm of our own

October 17, 2012 (Originally posted on August 25, 2012) -A vote for Obama will bring war with Syria,
Iran, and eventually Russia and China. The economy will continue to
suffer in order to bolster the interests of off-shore
corporate-financier interests, while  the collective prospects of
Americans continue to whither and blow away. A vote for Romney, however,
will also bring war with Syria, Iran, and eventually Russia and China.
The economy will also continue to
suffer in order to bolster the interests of off-shore
interests, while the collective prospects of Americans continue to
whither and blow away. Why?

Because the White House is but a public relations front for the corporate-financier interests of Wall Street and London.
A change of residence at the White House is no different than say,
British Petroleum replacing its spokesman to superficially placate
public opinion when in reality the exact same board of directors,
overall agenda, and objectives remain firmly in place. Public perception
then is managed by, not the primary motivation of, corporate-financier

It is the absolute folly to believe that multi-billion dollar
corporate-financier interests would subject their collective fate to the
whims of the ignorant, uninformed, and essentially powerless voting
masses every four years. Instead, what plays out every four years is
theater designed to give the general public the illusion that they have
some means of addressing their grievances without actually ever changing
the prevailing balance of power in any meaningful way.

The foreign policy of both Obama and Romney is written by the exact same
corporate-financier funded think-tanks that have written the script for
America’s destiny for the last several decades.

Bush = Obama = Romney

As was previously reported, while the corporate media focuses on non-issues, and political pundits
accentuate petty political rivalries between the “left” and the “right,”
a look deeper into presidential cabinets and the authors of domestic
and foreign policy reveals just how accurate the equation of “Bush = Obama = Romney” is.

Image: Professional spokesmen, representative not of the
American people but of Fortune 500 multinational corporations and banks.
Since the time of JP Morgan 100 years ago, the corporate-financier
elite saw themselves as being above government, and national sovereignty
as merely a regulatory obstacle they could lobby, bribe, and manipulate
out of existence. In the past 100 years, the monied elite have gone
from manipulating the presidency to now reducing the office to a public
relations functionary of their collective interests.


George Bush’s cabinet consisted of representatives from FedEx, Boeing, the Council on Foreign Relations, big-oil’s Belfer Center at Harvard,
the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Circuit
City, Verizon, Cerberus Capital Management, Goldman Sachs, and the RAND
Corporation, among many others.

Image: The Henry Jackson Society is just one of many
Neo-Conservative think-tanks, featuring many of the same people and of
course, the same corporate sponsors. Each think-tank puts on a different
public face and focuses on different areas of specialty despite
harboring the same “experts” and corporate sponsors. 


His foreign policy was overtly dictated by “Neo-Conservatives” including
Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Paul
Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Richard Armitage, Zalmay Khalilzad, Elliot
Abrams, Frank Gaffney, Eliot Cohen, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, Francis
Fukuyama, William Kristol, and Max Boot – all of whom hold memberships
within a myriad of Fortune 500-funded think-tanks that to this day still
direct US foreign policy – even under a “liberal” president. These
include the Brookings Institution, the International Crisis Group, the
Foreign Policy Initiative, the Henry Jackson Society, the Council on
Foreign Relations, and many more.

Image: A visual representation of some of the Brookings
Institution’s corporate sponsors. Brookings is by no means an exception,
but rather represents the incestuous relationship between US foreign
and domestic policy making and the Fortune 500 found in every major
“think-tank.” Elected US representatives charged with legislative
duties, merely rubber stamp the papers and policies drawn up in these


Obama’s cabinet likewise features representatives from JP Morgan,
Goldman Sachs, the Council on Foreign Relations, Fortune 500
representatives Covington and Burling, Citi Group, Freedie Mac, and
defense contractor Honeywell. Like Bush’s cabinet, foreign policy is not
penned by Obama sitting behind his desk in the Oval Office, but rather
by the very same think-tanks that directed Bush’s presidency including
the Council on Foreign Relations, RAND Corporation, the Brookings
Institution, the International Crisis Group, and the Chatham House. There
are also a myriad of smaller groups consisting of many of the same
members and corporate sponsors, but who specialize in certain areas of

Image: Obama, not a Marxist. A visual representation of current US President Barack
Obama’s cabinet’s corporate-financier ties past and present. As can be
plainly seen, many of the same corporate-financier interests represented
in Obama’s administration were also represented in Bush’s


And with Mitt Romney, “running for president” against Obama in 2012, we see already his foreign policy advisers,
Michael Chertoff, Eliot Cohen, Paula Dobrainsky, Eric Edelman, and
Robert Kagan, represent the exact same people and corporate-funded
think-tanks devising strategy under both President Bush and President

While Presidents Bush and Obama attempted to portray the West’s global
military expansion as a series of spontaneous crises, in reality, since at least as early as 1991, the nations of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,
Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and many others that previously fell under
the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence, were slated either for
political destabilization and overthrow, or overt military intervention.
While the public was fed various narratives explaining why Bush
conducted two wars within the greater global “War on Terror,”
and why Obama eagerly expanded these wars while starting new ones in
Libya and now Syria, in reality we are seeing “continuity of agenda,”
dictated by corporate-financier elite, rubber stamped by our elected
representatives, and peddled to us by our “leaders,” who in reality are
nothing more than spokesmen for the collective interests of the Fortune

Image: The International Crisis Group’s corporate sponsors
reveal a pattern of mega-multinationals intertwined with not only
creating and directing US, and even European foreign policy, but in
carrying it out. ICG trustee Kofi Annan is in Syria now carrying out a ploy
to buy time for NATO-backed terrorists so they can be rearmed,
reorganized, and redeployed against the Syrian government for another
Western-backed attempt at regime change – all done under the guise of
promoting “peace.” 


No matter who you vote for in 2012 – until we change the balance of
power currently tipped in favor of the Fortune 500, fed daily by our
money, time, energy, and attention, nothing will change but the rhetoric
with which this singular agenda is sold to the public. Romney would
continue exactly where Obama left off, just as Obama continued exactly
where Bush left off. And even during the presidencies of Bill Clinton
and Bush Sr., it was the same agenda meted out by the same
corporate-financier interests that have been driving American, and
increasingly Western destiny, since US Marine General Smedley Butler
wrote “War is a Racket” in 1935.

What Should We Do About It?

1. Boycott the Presidential Election: The first immediate course
of action when faced with a fraudulent system is to entirely
disassociate ourselves from it, lest we grant it unwarranted legitimacy.
Boycotting the farcical US elections would not impede the
corporate-financier “selection” process and the theatrical absurdity
that accompanies it, but dismal voter turnout would highlight the
illegitimacy of the system. This in many ways has already happened, with
voter turnout in 2008 a mere 63%, meaning that only 32% of America’s
eligible voters actually voted for Obama, with even fewer voting for
runner-up John McCain.

Ensuring that this mandate is even lower in 2012 – regardless of which
PR man gets selected, and then highlighting the illegitimacy of both the
elections and the system itself is the first step toward finding a
tenable solution. People must divest from dead-ends. Presidential
elections are just one such dead-end.

Focusing on local elections and governance first, not only emphasizes
the primacy of local self-determination, but affords us a grassroots-up
approach to transforming our communities, and collectively our nation
back into something truly representative of the people. 

2. Boycott and Replace the Corporate Oligarchy: The corporate-financier interests
that dominate Western civilization did not spring up overnight. It is
through generations of patronage that we the people have granted these
corporate-financier interests the unwarranted influence they now enjoy.
And today, each day, we collectively turn in our paychecks to the global
“company store,” providing the summation of our toil as fuel for this
oligarchy’s perpetuation. 

By boycotting the goods, services, and institutions of this oligarchy,
we steal the fire out from under the proverbial cauldron – the very
source of the current paradigm’s power. While it is impractical to
commit overnight to a full-spectrum boycott, we can begin immediately by
entirely boycotting corporations like Coca-Cola and Pepsi,
Kraft, Unilever and others by simply supporting local businesses and
our local farmers market. This “voting with one’s wallet” is a form of
democracy that unlike elections, will undoubtedly shift the balance of
power toward a system more representative of the people’s interests.

By creating self-reliant communities
independent of the machinations of corporate-financier interests, we
provide ourselves with the greatest form of insurance against
instability and uncertainty – an insurance policy placed solely in our
own hands.

3. Get Educated, Get Organized: Leveraging
technology is a necessary step in eliminating dependency on other
corporate-financier interests – such as big oil, big defense, big-agri,
big-pharma, and the telecom monopolies. To leverage technology, people
at a grassroots level must get organized, educate themselves, and
collaborate to create local business models and solutions to
systematically replace large multinational holdings.

A recent interview by geopolitical analyst Eric Draitser with Seth Rutledge,
featured on Stop Imperialism, explored the possibilities of developing
local broadband networks. Community spaces dedicated to technological
education, collaboration, and resource pooling are also an emerging
phenomenon. Called “maker spaces” or sometimes “hacker spaces,” these
grassroots initiatives serve as incubators for innovative, local small

Technology will eventually provide solutions to problems
generally “solved” by government subsidies. Medicare, for instance, is a
government subsidy to address the expenses and subsequent
inaccessibility of medical care. Medical care, in turn, is expensive
because the means to provide it are scarce. The supply of doctors,
hospitals, treatments, biomedical technology, and many other aspects of
modern health infrastructure are vastly outnumbered by demand. 

Until technology can better balance this equation, people must organize
to either defend as temporary stopgap measures, national programs that
provide care to those who can’t afford it, or create local alternatives.
To cut programs people depend on for the sake of saving an economy
plundered by special interests, to specifically preserve these same
special interests is unconscionable.

An organized political front that demands the preservation/reformation
of these programs as well as investment in the development of permanent
technological solutions, needs not pass the hat around to the working or
even productive entrepreneurial classes of society, but rather level
taxes on parasitic financial speculation and market manipulation – thus
solving two problems in a single stroke. Geopolitical analyst and
historian Dr. Webster Tarpley has already enumerated such an approach in
his 5 point plan for international economic recovery (.pdf) by specifically calling for resistance to austerity and a 1% Wall Street tax.


Undoubtedly people realize something is wrong, and that something needs
to be done. To ensure that the corporate-financier elite remain in
perpetual power, a myriad of false solutions have been contrived or
created out of co-opted movements, to indefinitely steer people away
from influencing the current balance of power and achieving true

By recognizing this and seizing the reins of our own destiny, we can and
must change the current balance of power. In the process of doing so,
we must recognize and resist attempts to derail and distract us by way
of the incessant political minutia now on full display during the 2012
US Presidential Election. For every problem faced by society, there is a
permanent, technological solution. For hunger there was agriculture,
for lack of shelter, there was architecture, and no matter how daunting
today’s problems may seem, there lies similar solutions.

We must realize that by endeavoring to solve these problems, we
jeopardize monopolies as insidious as they are monolithic, constructed
to exploit such problems. If we fail to recognize and undermine these
interests through pragmatic activism, we will be resigned to whatever
fate these special interests determine for us, no matter how cleverly
they sell us this fate as one of our own choosing.