Much like many Americans, I was looking forward to observing the presidential debates taking place this Fall between President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. I’m more than certain the average American voter tuned into the debates for informational purposes. Some are tuned in to finalize their voting decisions while others, already having made their choice, watched to cheer on their candidate of choice. As for myself, I tuned in as a journalist and quite frankly, to be entertained.
When they discussed domestic policy, neither of them dared touch on the restoration of the U.S. constitution which has been systematically dismantled with bills such as the Patriot Act and the NDAA 2012 (section 10:21). President Obama could have vetoed the NDAA bill in the form it was written, but he chose not to. During the GOP debates, Romney could have come out against this unconstitutional invasive bill, be he honestly stated that he supports the bill as it was written. President Obama is a constitutional law professor, yet as a U.S. Senator he has voted to renew the Patriot Act and as P.O.T.U.S. he signed the extension of it into law. To no surprise of mine, Gov. Romney supports the Patriot Act as well which was first introduced into law by former Pres. George W. Bush. (Republican)
In regard to foreign policy, both the candidates argued among one another on who could be the war drums the loudest. Both Obama and Romney tout about how sanctions on Iran should be tough. Obama wanting to sound tough says that he’s glad Romney agrees the United States should place heavy sanctions on countries like Iran and makes an emphasis on noting that his administration has done the very thing Romney suggested. Romney’s only response to this was that he’d make the sanctions the Obama administration placed upon Iran even tighter, even though Obama has already stated that due to his current sanctions in place, Iran’s economy supply have been crippled. Just hearing that come from the mouth of anyone sounded quite cruel. Now I’m going to go off and defend whatever sinister deeds the Iranian government may or may not be up to. I will, however, ask if the U.S. really supports citizens of other sovereign nations around the world being left without an adequate food supply due to staggering inflation, leaving them with a stifled economy? I’m more than certain the Iranian government and its various leaders will be just fine with or without the sanctions, as they’re already wealthy, while the average civilians of these nations will multiply their hatred for the United States of America. Don’t worry though, because according to Bush, Obama, Romney, and countless other politicians, the people of the Middle East hate us for our freedoms. We never provoke their anger or hatred.
When it comes to more domestic policy issues such as the 2nd Amendment, Romney and Obama somehow steered the conversation over to the arming and financing of our U.S. military. Romney says the military to needs to expand be given a lot more money! Obama claims to have increased financing under his term as Commander-in-Chief. Romney then goes on to claim our Navy is the smallest it’s ever been since before or after WWII. (I forget which comparison he made here) What many refer to as a zinger, Obama fires back and says “Well Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets.” At this point, the President goes on to talk about how technology has changed how we arm and finance the military and mentions things like air craft carriers, jets, and etc., but almost accidentally mentions the big elephant in the room: Drone Attacks. The President claims that America goes after those who attack us, yet there have been several reports published of how our drone attacks have killed dozens of innocent civilians in various other countries. We’ve also been involved in bombing countries who haven’t done anything to us, but I guess drone attacks aren’t an art of war when you’re dealing with neoconservatives and so-called liberals.
As expected, the presidential debates were nothing more than a formality for the masses of undecided voters to base their decisions from. In today’s world, we have a tool in the internet which is really good for fact checking the rhetoric and claims of candidates. All one has to do is conduct the research and they would clearly see that most candidates running for public office, including the current presidential race, only serve the interest of those who finance their political campaigns. I’m not speaking of the ones who donate a few hundred here or a couple thousand there. I’m speaking of the professionals. The lobbying groups who consistently fork over 10’s of millions of dollars each election cycle. quintessentially, these characters run the show behind the scenes. At this point, it’s not hard to figure this out. If politicians truly cared about the will of the people and wanted their voices to be heard, no amount of money in the world would ever be enough to compromise their principles when it comes to upholding and defending our U.S. Constitution. As I’ve written in several posts, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not some old relic sitting in a museum as though it doesn’t wield any sort of power.
The writing is on the walls and is plain to see. There was no debate in domestic, foreign, or monetary policy. All we had were 2 people on stage trying to out talk the other with charisma and zingers. On major issues that matter, both candidates support the furthered destruction of the U.S. Constitution and the evisceration of what remains of our civil liberties. President Obama’s side, the democrats aka the blue team want to promote more socialistic policies, yet covertly promote fascistic policy as well. Governor Romney’s teams, the republicans aka the red team, proudly promotes the fascistic policy, while covertly promoting more socialistic policy. In short order, this election is all about welfare vs corporate welfare. On 6 November 2012, one of these men will be named the winner of and President of the United States. Regardless of whoever wins between the 2 candidates, America loses.
A Valente Journal,