When We Wake Up November 7th... Nothing Will Have Changed
The Dollar Vigilante
by Jim Karger: MF'ing
is often cathartic for the writer. Indeed, it is often what causes
the pen to move, although few writers will admit creating material
for publication as an outlet for the pain they suffer. I confess
at the outset that what follows is more for me than for you. I need
to write this to deal with the angst associated with debating, or
trying to debate, those who, for no good or apparent reason, are
ready to sacrifice their credibility on the altars of the campaign
rhetoric of mainstream candidates. What they are apparently not
willing to sacrifice is the time it takes to read anything substantive
on the history and stated policies of the Bobbsey twins, Obama and
latest frustration began with a post on Facebook and the soliloquy
that followed (name changed to protect a friendship):
is the illusion of influence in exchange for the loss of freedom.
So, what would be the alternative to voting for what a person feels
will improve the situation in their arena?
Traditional thought that assumes a large parliamentary democracy
is the only alternative, one that has failed, would necessitate
a revolution of some kind with a view to beginning again, which
ultimately would fail again due to the dynamic of the tyranny of
the majority. To wit, no document or contract can (over the longer
term) stop the majority from becoming the dictator in a large democracy.
But there are alternatives. "Democracy is by definition a collectivist
system. It"s socialism through the backdoor. The basic idea
behind it is that it is desirable and right that all important decisions
about the physical, social and economic organization of society
are taken by the collective, the people. And the people authorize
their representatives in parliament - in other words, the State
- to take these decisions for them. In other words, in a democracy
the whole fabric of society is geared towards the State. Clearly
then it is misleading to claim that democracy is, somehow, the inevitable
climax of the political evolution of mankind. That"s just propaganda
to disguise that democracy represents a very specific political
orientation, for which there are indeed plenty of reasonable alternatives."
Take a look at Beyond
Democracy by Karel Beckman and Frank Karsten. It
is available as a book or an e-book at amazon.com.
That being said, there is no "reasonable" alternative
(with any hope of success) to voting for a candidate that a person
feels will improve the current situation.
If there were such a candidate, perhaps, assuming the nation was
not too far gone, which it is. That aside, the core beliefs
and policies of both mainstream candidates are remarkably similar.
A good read on this can be found here.
Jim, but there is NO comparison between Obama and "anyone else"!
With due respect, that offers nothing except an opinion backed by
no facts, evidencing you have fallen for the false distinctions
based on the sound bytes of Fox. Feel free to come back when you
have something of substance to offer, something that illustrates
significant policy differences between the two major party candidates
and then we can discuss.
With due respect... "there is NO comparison between Obama and
is the problem with the so-called "debate." Most are too
lazy or too disinterested to spend any time in basic research and
this reflects the quality of their responses.
years of Obama is about all of the "basic research" I
need. Suggest you might want to take in the movie 2016... which
I believe is VERY CLOSE to identifying Obama's "Core Beliefs".
Jim: I rest
my case. America is going to, once again, get what it so richly
And we will
know what America gets when we wake up November 7, 2012. There will
be celebration and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
And it will
all be for nothing.
material will change, regardless who is elected. On the economy,
foreign policy and civil liberties, you could put the differences
between Obama and Romney in a thimble and have plenty of room to
spare. Their positions on the most critical issues in America
are not materially different but equally devastating.
The U.S. is
flat broke, to put it generously. Even using the government's
own numbers, it is apparent that without massive cuts to Defense,
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, economic
survival is impossible. Even if we eliminated government, all
of it, tax revenues do not even cover the cost of entitlement programs,
defense and interest on the federal debt. If you don't believe
it (and even if you do) watch this:
nor Romney acknowledge this stark reality. Obama"s budget is,
in a word, disastrous. Even increasing tax revenues by a third
over the next four years and donning rose-colored glasses of government,
his budget will result in an annual deficit of $650 billion in 2016.
Applying the 100% "miss" on his estimated 2012 budget,
Obama's plan will continue to add more than a trillion dollars
to the deficit each year, which is totally unsustainable and will
lead to a crash of the bond market. This in turn will lead to the
monetization of more debt by the Fed, leading to the absolute and
total destruction of the dollar, leading to The End.
budget is no better. He makes assumptions that would make
an acid-freak blush. His growth assumptions are
laughable. His other "$500 billion in cuts" are pure
smoke and mirrors. His budget, in fact, cuts nothing, but
only slows the rate of the government juggernaut in its race to
and dangerous is Romney's insistence that the US (a country
that already spends more on Defense than the next 17
largest spending countries combined) increase the Defense budget
(read: war budget). Net-net, Romney would not substantially
cut federal spending, would spend any cuts on Defense and spending
would remain at the 24 percent of GDP level into, well, forever,
or until it all comes tumbling down. Combined with across the board
tax cuts, Romney's plan would put America in the poor house
quickly, if it wasn't already there.
and Romney preach balancing the budget but neither has a plan
to actually do it. And, to be fair, neither has the ability to do
it. Government depends on working Americans paying taxes to fund
its programs, and regardless who becomes President, the US will
continue to bleed good jobs while adding more baristas and maids
to serve the ever-wealthier class. There is nothing government can
do about it. This is the result of a global economy in which
the US can no longer compete against its (much) lower wage competitors.
In the US today
there are few good jobs to be had and there will be even less in
the future. Indeed, "only three
of the 30 occupations with the largest projected number of job openings
by 2020 will require a Bachelor"s degree or higher to fill
the position. Most job openings will be in professions such as retail
sales, fast food and truck driving, jobs which aren"t easily
replaced by computers" and difficult or impossible to ship
with the absence of higher paying manufacturing jobs which have
already been moved offshore or are now being performed by robots,
cannot be resolved politically. The market, not the government,
will have the final say on jobs. Government cannot squeeze
blood from a turnip, and neither Obama nor Romney can squeeze taxes
from the unemployed.
As for the
US"s unsustainable Healthcare system, ObamaCare is the child
of Romneycare, a child that Romney now wants to abort, at least
the individual mandate provision, a distinction disingenuous at
best. Without an individual mandate, the young and healthy
will not insure, causing premiums to skyrocket for the rest.
version of national healthcare will work.
Obama has been
a profound disappointment to those who believe the Bill of Rights
should be used for something more than toilet paper. In three
years, he has signed an extension of the Patriot Act that gives
government power to engage in warrantless surveillance, and ordered
drone strikes against Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia,
just to name a few. His foreign policy accomplishments include the
violation of Pakistani sovereignty and the murder of Osama bin Laden
without so much as a thought to capture and trial, and the cold
blooded murder of at least at least 168 children, at least
one of whom was a natural born US citizen. He keeps a "kill
on sight" list and has a meeting every Tuesday with advisors
to determine who is next to be assassinated without charges or trial.
Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, a law that
vaporizes the protections of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to
It is ironic
that, except for their racial bigotry, ethnocentrism, fear of vaginas,
wild fantasies of American Exceptionalism, and their steadfast collective
belief in Fox News, the neocons would bronze Obama's man-part
and erect it (no pun intended) in front of the Pentagon.
Romney believes Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution
states that only Congress has the power to "declare war."
But both interpret that mandate as a recommendation, meaning the
President can dispense with a declaration of war at will. Romney
has expressed an intention of doing just that in order to prevent
Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The problem is the truth:
the White House, the Pentagon, U.S. intelligence, as well as the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) all have reached the same
conclusions about Iran's nuclear program: "1)
Iran does not have a nuclear weapon-it only has a civilian nuclear
program at this point, 2) Iran is not building a nuclear weapon,
and 3) Iran has not made the decision of whether or not to
build a nuclear weapon in the future." But, like his warmonger
buddy Netanyahu, Romney has made it clear that he intends to bomb
Iran, regardless of the facts which also include these facts: Russia
and China have made it clear that in so doing he
may start World War III.
concluded cogently and correctly regarding the candidates' stated
foreign policies: "No
substantial difference. Romney"s bellicosity against Iran is
marginally worse than that of Obama, who nevertheless ranks as the
worst president in American history on foreign policy."
you see something, say something," to DHS electronic strip
searches, to federal agencies purchasing enough ammunition to kill
every US citizen three times, Obama has operated government more
like the Stasi than a free democratic republic. It appears the old
liberals inside the Democratic Party in favor of peace and free
speech have been fully silenced.
Romney, a retrofitted
neocon chicken hawk, like Obama, supports the devolution of the
country into a full-bore Police State. Both have supported
extension of the Patriot Act, including its warrantless surveillance
provisions, and the NDAA:
he, as President, has the right to order the death of any U.S. citizen
"suspected" of terrorism, as does Obama since he has already
done it. They both believe in extraordinary rendition and
Romney not only doesn't want to close Guantanamo Bay as Obama
promised he would do (and then reneged), but says he wants to double
Obama is pro-choice,
just as Romney was when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in
2002. Now, as he has on so many other issues including gun control
and immigration, Romney has done a 180 and now claims to be 100
to have any problem with spying on Americans. Wikileaks revealed
that former senior intelligence officials have created a detailed
surveillance system called Trapwire
that is more accurate than modern facial recognition technology
and have installed it across the US. Obama obviously
knows about it and approves, and Romney has signaled his assent
by remaining silent.
they can ignore legislation and the will of Congress with "signing
statements," and that the Executive Branch itself can legislate
around Congress with Executive Orders.
Both are unmitigated
disasters to civil liberties.
Who Wins? Or the Better Question, Who Loses?
and Romney are men of privilege, Romney born with a silver spoon
in his mouth, and Obama gifted power. Romney is the poster child
of the power elite and Obama is clearly acceptable after four years
of doing their bidding.
Obama has clearly
enjoyed his four years of high rolling, playing at least 100 rounds
in 3 1/2 years of being POTUS, while his wife has imitated the
rich and famous, sporting a personal staff of 22 and taking extravagant
vacations on the taxpayers' dime with not a hint of embarrassment.
Romney is equally
unsympathetic. Michael Cohen, a good friend and political
observer, summarizes Romney as follows: "Romney"s
father was a CEO, a governor, and a candidate for President. He
was born to great wealth and status and privilege. He attended
the poshest private schools, where he was a bully. At Stanford,
he demonstrated publicly in favor of the Vietnam War while he sat
it out as a missionary in the steamy jungles of Paris, France. He
got filthy rich by starting a fund that bought companies and, for
the most part, ran them into the dirt, and the seed money for this
noble venture came from immensely wealthy Central and South American
families who supported right-wing death squads but also needed to
park some substantial money in the US.
rules that Romney thinks apply to him are the rules of rich-people
etiquette how to use snail tongs for escargot, how to talk
quietly while your partner is teeing off or putting, how to refer
to African Americans without calling them "niggers" or
"darkies," which people you can screw (literally and figuratively)
and get away with it, and which you can"t. Other rules,
especially the rule of law, do not apply to him. The law is
for little people. Romney has no need for rules or the law;
he is guided by his unerring internal moral compass and incorruptible
choice, indeed, but who will get the nod from the sheeple?
Obama is my
odd's on favorite to win in November, if only because half of
the US receives a check from the government and intends to continue
are seen as the party of the rich, mostly because they are. Romney
is an empty suit, unlikable, and reminds me of the mildly-retarded
George W., but without the childlike qualities. He is of the elite.
He is not Main Street. He is Wall Street, brought to the general
public by the same elites that have and continue to rape and pillage
what is left of the markets and violate the law with impunity. He
was an absurd choice by a party that has been absconded with by
tax return issue won't go away and there is speculation that
the reason he won't release more tax returns is because he hid
millions in Switzerland believing he wouldn't get caught. When
the Swiss rolled over, he figured he better take advantage of the
amnesty because his name would certainly have stood out on a list
of US tax cheats turned over by the Swiss government. No one
knows, but if that turns out to be the case and is revealed, he
is history. Even the
rumor is taking a toll.
blatant attempt to silence Ron Paul at the Republican convention
by refusing to seat his delegates ensures he will lose the vast
majority of Libertarians, estimated
to constitute at least 12% of the Republican Party. They will
either vote for Gary Johnson in protest or not vote at all. Romney's
pathetic attempt to appear open by offering Paul a place on the
podium was rejected after Romney insisted that he have an advance
review Paul's remarks. Dr. Paul would rather be silenced
This is politics
and shit does happen, and it may happen to Obama if the bottom
falls out of the stock market and Joe Lunchbucket sees what's
left of his investments. After having suffered through the dot-com
and real estate bubbles, he might just vote for anyone but Obama.
Likewise, if Israel decides to bomb Iran before the election, Obama
will be in a tough spot. If he sits it out, he will lose a lot of
the rich Northeastern support and look like a sissy to the chicken
hawks in the Democratic party, and if he involves the US militarily,
he will lose many of those Democrats and Independents who are, understandably,
But it really
cabal and the military-industrial complex doesn't care who wins
because they win either way. As Tony
Cartalucci observed, "It is 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."
A little research
would have made that clear to those interested in more than repeating
TV sound bites. Behind both candidates you find Wall Street,
media, the Fortune 500, and of course the lawyers who, in the words
of Hunter S. Thompson, intend to be around long enough to haggle
over the ruins.
on the "winning" side of this faux campaign will celebrate
their "freedom," if for no other reason that they got
to choose their dictator.
except the elite, will be the losers. Again. They will remain
debt slaves, tax donkeys and work mules for the owners. They will
watch their dollars become more worthless than they already are,
become poorer and more dependent, and sooth their pain with the
bread and circuses provided by those in control alcohol and
sport. They will cheer on their gladiators, their teenage sons dying
in foreign lands, and not even notice they are being strip-searched
daily and their phone calls, email and Facebook feeds monitored.
While the spokesman
for the owners will change, the owners will not, mostly because
most voters on both sides are too lazy, ignorant or disinterested
to go further than campaign rhetoric.
Your Gold Out of Dodge" is available here. It is free
to TDV and TDV
Golden Trader subscribers or for a one-time price of $44.95
USD. It may be the best use of your fiat Federal Reserve Notes
you've ever spent. Reprinted with permission from The
August 29, 2012
Karger is a lawyer, and frequent contributor to The
Dollar Vigilante, who has represented American businesses against
incursions by government and labor unions for 30 years. In 2001,
he left Dallas and moved to San Miguel de Allende in the high desert
of central Mexico where he sought and found a freer and simpler
life for he and his wife, Kelly, and their 10 dogs. Karger's website
© 2012 The