Rehashed Fashion

Site menu:

Categories

Tags

1984 2012 election aca AP audit the fed austrian school of economics awakening bazaar berkner bernanke bill o'reilly brave new world BRICs bush bush sr chemtrail chris brown constitution corruption creativity cspan david icke debt democrat depression domestic violence Dresses economic collapse Economic Commentary Education election empire endless war end the fed executive order existential fascism fashion federal reserve fiat currency flint foreign policy fox news freedom free market funny gold gun control gw bush hemp homeland security honest money hyperinflation ice storm illuminati indefinite detention inflation katrina pierson language legalization libertarian liberty lookadoo lv berkner m3 Macroeconomics marijuana monetary policy money mr. mackey ndaa obama obama. 2012 election obamacare Original Political Cartoons paul krugman peace pete sessions political cartoon Political commentary Political Satire preparedness prepper propaganda protest Public education qe rehashed fashion reptilian republican republican governors association rga rights rihanna role model Romney ron paul second amendment silver society collapse south park Student Showcase stupid tranco couture united states vaccines Vermin supreme war on drugs water

My Take on the Presidential Debate: Do you want some soma with your police state?

By Brittany Yurkovitch on 10/7/2012

<3 STEM <3

While I was beyond unenthusiastic about Wednesday night’s debate, I am very impressed with my government students. The overwhelming majority of them watched the first presidential debate, took notes on what they saw, and had lots to say in class Thursday. I am shocked that many students watched more than an hour of these guys as I found it to be one of the most boring debates I have ever seen. Despite the snoozefest, many students were enthusiastically unimpressed with the president’s ability to defend himself and strongly disliked the manner in which the candidates treated the moderator. While I agree with many of my students and with the mainstream opinion that Romney “won” the debate, his aggressive interruptions and Orwellian abuse of language left much to be desired.

At this stage in the game, we should not expect that one politician, no matter how well intentioned, could pull us out of this hole unscathed. With the warmongers beating the drums over Iran and the Federal Reserve pumping money into the economy indefinitely, our nation will undoubtedly face further economic and political woes in the foreseeable future. Given this reality, most Americans are rightfully concerned about the economy and yet neither candidate addressed the most significant economic issues  like the Federal Reserve, the worsening global financial crisis and the extreme drought affecting the United States. But do we really expect these two guys to call out the banksters who fund much of their campaigns?

Americans really need to wake up from their mainstream media induced sheeple-sleep and assess what their two-party system choice really means. Do we want to live in a 1984 police state or a Brave New World Order of chemical madness? Do we want a president who passes martial law decrees via executive order? Or should we choose a leader whose first bankster pet project involved helping Monsanto revamp their image after creating the chemical weapon, Agent Orange?

While Romney would certainly love a world controlled by corporate chemists, he might get a thrill for abusing language like in George Orwell’s dystopian classic, 1984. Although individual liberty was never mentioned during the debate, the viewers can certainly detect Romney’s beliefs about free market communities:

“Regulation is essential. You can’t have a free-market work if you don’t have regulation,” Romney said at the debate Wednesday night. “You couldn’t have people opening up banks in their garage and making loans.” -Mitt Romney

I fail to understand the fear associated with decentralized living. Many communities successfully operate local money loaning programs and many small business owners struggle most with complying with the complicated regulations that only the wealthiest can afford to negotiate.  We the people should be able to see through the lies of people like Mitt Romney who assume that we the tiny people cannot survive without their paternal regulations. In fact, we should embrace a deregulated market that was truly free and managed by the people. It is the fascist corporate overlords that fear us not needing them or their regulations anymore.

As for Obama, he really has taken a page out of the 1984 playbook. Despite the month by month decline in jobs, somehow the BLS calculates a dramatic decline in the unemployment rate to 7.8%. Wow! That would mean almost a million jobs were added last  month. That’s convenient timing, Obama style!  Must be nice to have such a great soundbite for the upcoming November media blitz. In all seriousness, nobody believes these numbers. Even the Obama apologists on MSNBC discussed it on their Sunday morning programming.

What does this mean when we lived in a world led by people who invent facts to convince you of their brand of big government hell? How can we choose leadership with a media who allows the government puppets to dictate the structure of the debate? But most importantly how can we use our knowledge to create a better functioning government that protects individual liberty?

Here is a great piece by Ben Swann discussing one of the many problems that structurally enables a two party system to thrive:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>