There is no democracy in the United States.
American political life is dominated by one party with two heads, often called the “Republicrats”.
Republicans and Democrats agree on core issues and only argue on technicalities. Obama, who was portrayed as a peaceful saviour in the last presidential elections, has demonstrated during his four years in office that he is not much different from his predecessor.
Nobel “Peace” Prize Laureate Barack Obama’s “war record” is worse than that of George W. Bush; the civil rights of Americans have shrunk further in the last four years and President Obama has shown that he is closer to Wall Street than to Main Street.
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are more of the same on key issues as Glen Ford explains:
To any objective observer, the consensus that exists between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on the fundamental issues of war and peace, Wall Street’s dominance of American life, and fiscal austerity, has been made crystal clear in the two “debates.” In the absence of effective popular resistance to the duopoly of money, the economic and social crisis fails to create a corresponding political crisis for the rulers. As a result, there is nothing important for them to debate. (Glen Ford, Obama-Romney: The Duopoly Debates Itself)
But how are Presidential debates regulated? The history of the Commission on Presidential Debates sheds light on how and why other parties are excluded from the political debate and kept away from the public’s eyes and ears:
The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including moderators, debate format and even participants. The result is a travesty riddled with sterile, non-contentious arguments which consistently exclude alternative voices that Americans want to hear. (VIDEO : SpartacusMoriarty, The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates)
In 2008, while the Republicrats agreed on bailing out Wall Street, ALL other presidential candidates were against this massive institutionalized fraud. Thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates, Americans were led to believe that the bank bailout was not only inevitable but in the public interest. Americans were prevented from hearing the dissenting political voices, who were opposed to this odious debt. The same goes for the Republicrats’ Imperial design fueled by “the war on terrorism” and regime change, defended by both Romney and Obama as a legitimate “humanitarian” undertaking.
This excerpt of the last debate shows the extent to which American tyranny around the world is trivialized by the two major parties. The only two presidential candidates allowed to “debate” can casually declare on national television that their country is superior to all others, that they wish to arm foreigners in order to remove a foreign head of state and replace him with a “friendly” leader instead, all of this, oddly enough, for the benefit of the values America advocates with all its might: “human rights […], freedom of expression, elections […]”
Romney: Well I — I absolutely believe that America has a — a responsibility, and theprivilege of helping defend freedom and promote the principles that — that make the world more peaceful. And those principles include human rights, human dignity, free enterprise, freedom of expression, elections. Because when there are elections, people tend to vote for peace. They don’t vote for war. So we want to promote those principles around the world.
Obama: America remains the one indispensable nation. And the world needs a strong America, and it is stronger now than when I came into office.
Romney: As I indicated, our objectives are to replace Assad and to have in place a new government which is friendly to us, a responsible government, if possible. And I want to make sure they get armed and they have the arms necessary to defend themselves, but also to remove — to remove Assad.
As you hear from intelligence sources even today, the — the insurgents are highly disparate. They haven’t come together. They haven’t formed a unity group, a council of some kind. That needs to happen. America can help that happen. And we need to make sure they have the arms they need to carry out the very important role which is getting rid of Assad.
Obama: What you just heard Governor Romney said is he doesn’t have different ideas. And that’s because we’re doing exactly what we should be doing to try to promote a moderate Syrian leadership and a — an effective transition so that we get Assad out. That’s the kind of leadership we’ve shown. That’s the kind of leadership we’ll continue to show. (FoxNews, Transcript: October 22 Presidential Debate, October 22, 2012)
It is mind-boggling to see how both candidates in chorus “promote democracy”, while calling for the removal of a head of state by arming terrorist gangs to do the job. And whoever is in office in the wake of the November elections, “that’s the kind of leadership [they]’ll continue to show”.
For Bill van Auken the debate was a “filthy political spectacle”:
In what can only be described as a degrading and filthy political spectacle, both the questions posed by the moderator and the answers provided by the candidates of the two major capitalist parties began with the premise that US imperialism has the unassailable right to defend its interests by inflicting death and destruction on anyone or any country that is deemed an obstacle.
No attempt was made to probe the broader interests of American capitalism underlying the wars, occupations and assassination campaigns that have dominated world affairs over the past decade. The impression was promoted that opposing these policies is beyond the pale of American politics, at once forbidden and futile. (Bill Van Auken, Obama and Romney concur on War, Assassination and Reaction)
Even if the two parties are two sides of the same coin, fraudulent behaviour is not ruled out of the Presidential equation. Reminiscent of the 2004 election fraud, a new controversy surrounding voting machines has arisen. Do the Romneys “own your vote”?
Through a closely held equity fund called Solamere, Mitt Romney and his wife, son and brother are major investors in an investment firm called H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. in turn holds a majority share and three out of five board members in Hart Intercivic, a company that owns the notoriously faulty electronic voting machines that will count the ballots in swing state Ohio November 7. Hart machines will also be used elsewhere in the US. (Gerry Bello, Bob Fitrakis, and Harvey Wasserman, United States. Does the Romney Family now Own your E-Vote?)
[T]he Romney family, namely Mitt, Ann, G Scott and Tagg Romney, along with Mitt’s “6th son” and campaign finance chair have a secretive private equity firm called Solamere Capital Partners. This firms ties to Romney’s campaign and bundlers is already well documented, along with its connection to the manufacture and distribution of voting machines. What is not as well documented is a subsidiary of that private equity firm hiring employees of a failed firm tied to a Ponzi scheme that has a long history of money laundering for Latin American drug cartels and to the Iran-Contra scandal. (Gerry Bello and Bob Fitrakis, Employees of Romney family’s secret bank tied to fraud, money laundering, drug cartels and the CIA)