The hate machine, and lie machine, and the money machine is on full blast with intent to kill any chance liberals have standing-especially Obama. The President had better find a fighter within himself because he is being challenged in a awfully big way. Americans are angry across the divide. "Many" republicans are angry as well. They know that Mitt Romney did not truly win the nomination. Rather they well realize he was foisted on the party by the sophisticated propaganda machine, the mainstream media and people like Karl Rove and billionaire donors like Sheldon Adelson. We Americans need to be reminded, again and again, in loud and bold terms, of Karl Rove's last protégé. Another disaster in the making, with Rove's knack for choosing people who don't understand moral ethics, despite rhetoric to the contrary. "Karl Rove Is Back With HIS New Choice*!*!*" ought be the clarion call for today's Paul Revere. Which brings us to an important question, if lying to the public like a psychopath, were the criteria to judge those who work in the capital who would be left standing? Certainly not Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan?

Enter Karl Rove-Need One Say More?

By Nick Neil

President Barack Obama is not running against a mediocre man named George W., or at a time most people of all parties, are finally fed up the Bush legacy; and yet it is amazing how Bush's name, or record or real legacy is seldom brought to light this election season?  The Republican strategy has been one of denial, ignore, deceive, and attack.  Despite how vehemently Republicans want to deny it-many of the current problems of this country are due more to Bush's White House years.  Obama should argue far more strenuously that this is in fact the case.

Instead their case is since bungling Bush a President, as a supposed leader, can magically change almost any set of circumstances, and is thus completely, or substantially, responsible for his or her own fate-just pull up those bootstraps boy.  The economy has taken a very long time in its making.  Even Americans, if given adequate sound bite explanation, can understand magic thinking and simplistic rhetoric is politics over substance.

Nevertheless the hate machine, and the lie machine, and the money machine are all on full blast with intent to kill any chance liberals have standing-especially Obama.  The President had better find a fighter within himself because he is being challenged in an awfully big way.  And if truth be told his record is not good-if anything he acted like a naïve amateur (and yet much of his problems come from the Democratic Party itself).

As everyone ought to know by now both major parties are corrupt.  But what is also becoming known, since there is now not a viable alternative, is that Romney/ Ryan will likely be a huge disaster in the making for the majority of Americans.  So despite the fact that President Obama doesn't really deserve to be president any longer, at this point, We The People need to protect ourselves from worse calamity and calumny with Karl Rove and his company (to actually think it could get worst).

Alienated, apathetic, disappointed, disheartened, angry, resentful, confused, Americans, and all independent minds must get out and vote in huge numbers this election-despite what a letdown the American Empire has become.  Romney already clearly knows how disappointed Obama's voters are as will play that card to the max.  So the only choice we currently have is bad or terrible.

As an independent mind and voter, who previously voted for Obama (really wanting Dennis Kucinich) I resent plenty things about this current White House staff performance.  There is little that needs elaboration, but just say bitter disappointed in the suck up to the Clinton group, to Wall Street, and to Israel, etc.  The fact is that Republicans already have one-of-their-own in the White House (on several fronts). 

Many Americans, resent not having any real choice for something truly new and different.  Americans are angry across the divide.  Many Republicans are angry as well.  They know Romney did not truly win the nomination.  Rather they well realize he was foisted on their party by a sophisticated propaganda machine, including the mainstream media, and people like Karl Rove and billionaire donors like Sheldon Adelson and Koch brothers.  Whereas mainstream Republicans loved Ron Paul, and know full well he was illegally deprived on real market share and likely would have been the real nominee (but too much threat to their status quo). 

Karl Rove decided Romney was the most electible of the group that his ilk considered acceptable (which wasn't saying much).  But that is exactly the point.  Americans need to be reminded, again and again, in loud and bold terms, about Karl Rove's last protégé.  Both Karl Rove and George Bush's names should haunt these debates as deservingly the nightmare apparitions they are.  Rove has a knack for choosing people who don't understand moral ethics, despite rhetoric to the contrary.  But here is part of the problem-both Democrats and Republicans have not been able to indict their own kind, as part of the Neo-Con-Artist, post-9/11, illegal war, doubling Pentagon/Police State budget, spy on Americans, corporate crime racket, etc., that controls too much of Washington D.C. to this very day.  With both parties, the American people don't have much of a government, per se, instead it seems more like organized crime (that now includes all fascist possibilities). 

And yet we are about to go back to the stuff of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, etc.?  9/11 happened on their watch.

"Karl Rove Is Back With HIS New Choice*!*!*" ought be the clarion call for today's Paul Revere.

"Karl Rove Is Back With HIS New Choice*!*!*" should strike terrorism in the heart of any truth-seeking American. 

And yet what should equally scare people is how too many Americans are won over with blind ideology, romantic schmaltz fests, and a truly reprehensible level of media control.  The whole reality show, the whole Allegory of the Cave by Plato's in which shadows are projected on a cave wall from a fire for those chained to see as pretense reality, is really about re-electing Karl Rove (a man who should be either in a straight jacket taking medications or a prison cell reading comic books).

How did you like Ann Romney's convention speech with sales-lady polish?  That pause for articulate perfection to announce: "...tonight I want to talk to you from my heart, about our hearts..." delivered with a mommy-heave-and-gush, with tinge of oleaginous giddy, yes big-oh-fatuous smile, to discuss the "one" thing that unites the American family, that had you wondering what televangelist holy-roller she might have studied)?  Blonde bimbo or not she talked straight from her heart about "love", and love for her husband Mitt, the man who "will not fail the American people!" (how's that for confidence).  Sane people don't even want to be President of the United States.  But as all America's major news empires know, it doesn't hurt to have a Teutonic doll, that is blonde female anchor on your TV show to make it look more patriotically American and to sell anything and snake oil.

If I were Obama's official trainer/coach I would literally take him into a boxing ring, and beat him up (several times if necessary) until he learned how to stand up and defend himself.  I would at least hit him once or twice for everything I was mad at him (but maybe 20 times for not closing gulag gitmo) until the SOB learned some common sense and gained some fighting fiber.  "Take that for compromising on way too much."  "Take that for giving away the farm."  You'd think this guy had some street smarts?  This is not about being nice and getting along.  This is war and you are fighting the devil.  Wake up and die right.  "To be furious is to be frightened out of fear" Shakespeare.

Republicans sense they are dealing with a lightweight.  (This guy won't even get better advisors so afraid to go outside the Democratic club).  The fact is Democrats deserve to be clobbered even if Republicans deserve it even more so.  Both these parties have allowed the police state to continue to grow its tentacles and tax dollars to feed this new industry. 

But what we, the American people, do not deserve is anything Karl Rove tries to breathe life into.  And it is not just Rove, it is a huge war chest and many forms of smear campaign, with plenty diverse motive.  If Obama wins a second term it will be more than miracle (given how nasty and resourceful his opponent gaming bastards are-including their capacity to steal elections and rig electronic vote counting-something else neither the democratic party or progressives bothered to press for investigation too much).  Suddenly the issue reappears in Craig Unger's new book Boss Rove: Inside Rove's Secret Kingdom of Power and the controversy of Michael Connell mysteriously dying in an airplane crash (like Senator Paul Wellstone).  You can see interview at DemocracyNow.Org August 31st show about 25 minutes into video).  Why did not progressives not challenge how votes secretly counted by private corporations since 2008?

Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky were right-you can't trust the powers at be to substantially change anything (including faux Pogressives).  Occupy!  Occupy the voting machines.

And speaking of propaganda, take the pundit peacock of all time-George W. Will.  He is another pumped with pride and glee bundle of self-conceit-after all he publicly recommended Paul Ryan several months ago as Romney's President (I mean V.P.!)  He knew Romney could not carry the ticket and needed someone who seemed to have clout, credibility, and promise.  But what is striking is the way in which George Will first attacked President Obama and then introduced his choice list for V.P. (see article "Does George F. Will Argue Like A Weasel"?  You'd think he had learned a lesson after that rebuttal but then he came out recently and used the same terminology as accusations again!)

The brunt of Will's first salvo back in April against Barack Obama began in his first sentence, with choice epithets of "intellectual sociopathy" and "loutish indifference to truth..." Later he specifically referred to Obama's "meretricious" claims and dereliction of duty.

Then recently in this hot hellhole of August he uses the same word choice of sociopath and meretricious again, but this time very insufficiently claiming these epithets are used because of Obama's do-nothingness against steal worker Joe Soptic's claims against Romney, that is his selling out workers at a business Romney reorganized and consequential death of his wife from cancer due to not having medical insurance (little if anything Obama had anything to do with).

Instead now in August Mr. Wayward Will is enamored with Barry Goldwater's 1964 Convention statement "...extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..." and "...moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue..." It's all about becoming Presidential.  (Note that some at the Washington Post Writers Group and institution could learn a great deal if they actually lived the rhetoric they so willing bestow on the masses.)  We too should live such words Will uses to ignore George W. Bush's legacy (you just know he is all about being radical).

Which brings up an important question: "If lying to the public like a psychopath were criteria to judge who should work in the capital who would be left standing?  Certainly not Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan?  But apparently candidate Romney took Will's bait and has now made Obama's supposed deceit a central theme for his campaign.  (Seems a little risky wouldn't you way?)  Only double agents are expected to be that dubious.

How much did George Will suggest Bush or Republicans psychopathic or meretricious?  And the M-word is such a nerd word.  Meretricious.  Where does that Ivy League word come from?  It must be a Yale word?  But apparently it originally meant something cheap in a gaudy kind of way (nothing the mainstream media ever exemplifies) or alluring with false charms (nothing insiders in the beltway and political hacks could understand) and very much in the way of the prostitute (nothing media pundits like George Will and Ann Coulter could be proud-but then prostitutes don't pretend they are not whores?), and yes, these aspects of the word go on to achieve public merit (at least in some circles) so as to pass for at least theatre.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines meretricious as 1) relating to a prostitute, 2) tawdrily and falsely attractive, and 3) superficially significant.  So if most people already know many politicians and pundits are whores than the very notion of fopping a fanciful word like meretricious on the public is itself a meretricious act-isn't it?

On this same wavelength we can't ignore the in-your-face, protest groups like Pussy Rage blatantly attacking, at least psychologically, an Orthodox church in Russia with utmost of frontal assault to church members sensibilities so as to attack Putin?  Supposedly this was media worthy for western sympathy (as if the means justifies the ends and this band obviously had no other creative alternative)?  How would it have been played if the same sort of game happened in Jewish Synagogues?

And as headlines go, can you think of anything more egregious than a man swimming naked after dark, and after a night of partying?  Well no if swimming nude in Israel and if you happen to be a U.S. Congressperson visiting Israel with a multitude of other U.S. Congresspersons for the purpose of their special relation of working for Israel's purposes at U.S. taxpayer expense?  Heck only animals and women like Marilyn Monroe get a pass on that that kind of naughtiness?  If Americans haven't already become the laughing stock of the world enough by constantly getting worked up about trivial sex scandal events while not facing really important issues?  Trivial things affect trivial minds-even in the tabloids.

The Paul Ryan announcement for Vice President took away any media heat (there wasn't any in MSM) off the story about Mitt Romney taking money from death squad leaders in Central American in the 1980s to get Bain Capital off the ground (see DemocracyNow.Org story on "Romney's Death Squad Ties: Bain Launched with Millions from Oligarchs Behind Salvadoran Atrocities).  But that probably wouldn't bother columnists at the Washington Post all that much since it's beyond acting prostitute all gaudy and such?

Then there was the leaked video on YouTube forced to close it down: Romney admits to using Chinese slave labor at Bain Capital (still can be found elsewhere)?  Or Mitt going overseas to accept donations from foreigners (which is illegal) such as to Israel (and a few suggested might include blood diamond money)?  But surely the eminent George will say something about the anger of Maine delegates at this convention?

And yet what is especially pernicious now is Paul Ryan's capacity to bring on well-crafted allegations in deceitful manner, and to speak to the American public with the kind of seemingly rational slogans they love to hear.  Given the levels of ideological distortion built up in this country Ryan he is serious threat to anything less than candid.

So we need way deeper thinking on some so-called libertarian assumptions related to concepts like freedom and liberty, including and especially freedom of business operation and property rights of business shareholders.  There are values besides personal freedom and the sanctity of property rights that must be recognized in any society.

Ron Paul is very correct in his instinctual distrust of big government.  But he is very wrong in his all-too-trusting fondness for unfettered freedom for corporate America and the investor class (little did he criticize business enterprise).  Corporations, or especially big business, are as potentially dangerous as are Governments.  Equally so too Religions, as dogmas, are also as potentially dangerous as are Governments or Corporations.  So Ron Paul made a big step for mankind when he took it as axiomatic that too much government is steeped in corrupt possibility (which we all clearly see).  Thank you Ron Paul for all your service and integrity (and please do continue on-most Americans are on YOUR side).

Absolutist lovers of Ayn Rand, true believers of real individualism, admirers of pulling up one's bootstraps and making one's own bed, are people also deluded to simple ideology.  Surely people have capacity to determine, to some extent, their own fate-and this responsibility is very important.  And yet the majority of people accept that as common sense.  But Ayn Rand was an extremist reaction to the collectivist notions of Stalin's authoritarianism.  She was not, nor can ever likely be, some middle of the road form of centric sanity.  This is not to say her notions are not importance-they especially are-but they must equally be weighed against other considerations of larger realities than her ego perspective.  She was not a God.  She was mere mortal like all who argue to persuade.  Due to naiveté on the part of many Americans have a tendency to become fanatical about one form of ideology or another).

In fact we should recognize that not only was she, as a Jewish émigré atheist, she was radically so (and feminist).  How ironic for so many so-called Christians to believe in her absolutism and still think they know everything there is to know about economics and public policy and social responsibility?  (No narrow-minded fanaticism here?)  This proves that being wealthy doesn't mean one is a genius.  Obviously some wealthy PAC donors still have some new learning to do? 

Likely, if Ayn Rand was the lover of the individualist she claimed, she could agree with the following statement:

At this point in history, given man's inherent evil, ignorance, fear and constant anxiety, as well as his greed, capacity for crime and evil, and given man's inherent limitations, such as he gloms onto deceit and self-deceit, it would be sane to suggest the human race has proved itself a failure.  Maybe all future birth be negated to zero until the human population of mankind extinguishes itself.

This is what the individualist does-speaks like an iconoclast.  He or she goes against the grain of conformity, he is contrarian that can little be accepted by the herd mentality of the  majority.  This is what Ayn Rand is supposed to represent-not some religio-collectivist notion that all embryos are sacred and must be lived out in any crazy culture even if that culture would be diagnosed as schizophrenic.

And even if she would not exactly agree with the idea of Homo sapient failure, she certainly would believe the individual had the right to differ from the majority with free speech (something Republicans find hard to tolerate).  In this time of slicing and dicing concepts on abortion as murder or date rape versus other types of rape-who is asking questions like:  "What truly sane child, given some magic ability to choose before actually being conceived and born, would want to be born in this world with so many social and political troubles?"  How many kids today really want to contemplate the plate they have been so duly handed by their parents?

Instead we have a generation who "worships" the notion the individual (no matter how mediocre and conforming) is the supreme entity of the universe.  Personal striving, achievement, satisfaction becomes the new religion.  We can all be self-centered and focused on what-is-in-it-for-me.  It is all about personal glory of individualism?  Instead of a God and duty we have satisfying the unlimited demands of the ego and id.

Steve Jobs deserved all his billions.  Those Chinese workers didn't build any company market share.  No it was strictly his cunning intellect and the fact he provided very few American jobs that paid anything. 

So let's have a Hate Dolly Parton Day!  How dare her suggest in that song Working Nine to Five some office workers felt they were not getting compensated fairly.  Didn't she know it was strictly the top inner circle of managers and its stock owners that build companies to what they are and are worth.  Its all about property rights of investors to move money any and everywhere, free from all fetters, governments, and ethical considerations.  Dolly Parton was a cryto-Communist with her song whining about drinking a cup of ambition and never getting credit.  Call in to Rush Limbaugh!  Call the Un-American Activities Committee and tell Ryan's Wisconsin ghost Joseph McCarthy!

No body lives in vacuum.  All civil realities are social realities.  All people and activities people engage are affected by other cultural realities-including the many tax dollars that give businesses incentives and breaks. 

Meanwhile to advocate for freedom from business regulation is to advocate for no, or few, laws for business, which is more or less the equivalent to advocating anarchy (but their word is less regulation).  How many of these freedom fighters are arguing for less laws or regulations for personal liberty?  Why should human people have to obey rules and regulations set to harmonize society?  Obviously this goes against the ideal of freedom-people should have to be regulated?  Maybe Jane want to drive her car 100 miles an hour?  Maybe she doesn't want to follow the rules of the road?  Maybe Harry wants to destroy his neighbor's broken fence as eyesore?  Lets argue there is too much regulation (read law) controlling people who are deemed worthy of sacrosanct "natural rights"!  (How many caterpillars and nematodes argue about "natural rights" while being sprayed with pesticides?)   Still you have Republicans who don't believe in the rule of law.

Ron Paul is absolutely correct in pointing out the deep tendency of over-regulation and intrusion on freed and personal liberty, but this cockamamie notion business people should be able to do whatever they want is ludicrous-more importantly it is criminal.  We need to again watch Mark Achbar' excellent and highly worthy documentary The Corporation to reacquaint ourselves to a Corporation's incapacity to care about human ethics.  We need to rediscover the definition of a psychopath as defined in this movie from professional classification criteria.

Obama has an obligation to explain his statement, somewhat paraphrased: "...If you have been successful you didn't get there on your own..." (or "...You didn't build that...").   Ayn Rand followers live in a urban myth: they want to believe that whatever happens to me in my life is solely because of what I decide to do about it and how I operate.  As if one is solely responsible.  Equally they are ready to blame the individual as worthy of being on the streets or in prison (and never society or some circumstances beyond personal control).

And this is why Ryan can blame Obama for the current economy.  Obama should miraculously turn around the massive habits of millions of people, and billions of dollars of investment money around the world, and decades of business trends and infrastructure, and all such related traditions of assumption in a mere few years?  That is what true Ayn Rand believer Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney say.  (If you can be convinced in the power of miracles than nothing more needs be expressed.  Amen.)

Still Ayn's hostility toward the bleeding heart liberal, perhaps from a Judeo-Christian tradition, as concern for other, such as love they neighbor, etc., does not take into account a kind of terrorism no one wants to talk about-a terrorism that more and more people are competing for less and less resource.  It is all well and good to argue for individual rights, such as various forms of human rights, like a living wage, etc., but when progressives shirk responsibility to address that more and more babies equals more and more demand for resource and energy the world can hardly afford, this is a major form of dishonesty.  And yet no one want to challenge the idea that people have unlimited right to procreate-because we are handicapped by religious and dogmatic presumptions.

Many of today's problems directly or indirectly relate to over-population and fear of how societies, irrespective of economic style and regulation, are going to continue to feed demand.  Don't worry.  Be Happy.  But even some very wealthy people get it-we are all likely doomed unless we drastically change our paradigms-and this is not something politicians and political parties are good at (or the American people).  Maybe the wealthy will get to live some years or decades longer but this is really ecological insanity on a grand scale, and fiat money ain't going to make much of a difference.  Even gold coins can't stop drought and starvation.

Finally, we need to avoid Mitt Romney because Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks he is the king who will decide our next president.  And with such conceit and such holier-than-thou pressure this is reason enough to vote for Obama.  Existential threat you say-welcome to the rest of humanity.

P.S.  If you found this worth reading feel free to share with others, email and post, etc.