Dangerous Demagogue

Mad Dog Nitwit-Yahoo

The Israeli Prime Minister never fails to shock anyone with his rabid lunacy. 

Today at the UN, he let loose a diatribe of covert anti-Arab racism, looney dooms-day predictions and classic vengeful and mean-spirited rhetoric which is a hallmark of sick Zionist ideology.

He scared the world with tales of imaginary Iranian nuclear capability and a slew of false assumptions and accusations WITH ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to back up any of it. 

The only thing he had to show was a pathetic bomb shaped chart which supposedly represented the Iranian nuclear weapon break-out capability. 

When I first saw him holding the chart, I thought that someone just doctored the picture up to make Nitwit-yahoo look cartoonish, but to my shock, the chart was indeed real!

If I was a Jew and an Israeli, I’d be embarrassed as hell to see the leader of my country stand in front of the world and froth at the mouth while uttering insane predictions and hopeless lies.

Nitwit-yahoo is a first-rate con-man and liar. He thrives on dishonesty and hubris. 

But this time even Israel’s long-time slaves are having a bit of a hard time trying to stomach this twit from Tel-Aviv.

Cleary Nitwit-yahoo has gone overboard. His dangerous predictions and arm-twisting countries to set “red lines” on Iran and his arrogant demands have caused people to distance themselves from him.

You know you’re really fucked up in the head when the supreme war criminal Barack Obummer does not want to meet with you! That right there says it all.

Nitwit-yahoo has told spectacular fibs before. Ten years ago, he was warning of a world-wide catastrophe and impending doom if Saddam Hussein was not taken out. 

Now he just dusted off his old diatribes, replaced the word Iraq with Iran, and here he goes again.

This is what he has been/is now saying :

Benjamin Netanyahu, September 12, 2002:

"[I]t is simply not reflecting the reality to assume that Saddam isn’t feverishly working to develop nuclear weapons, as we speak."

Benjamin Netanyahu, April 18, 2012:

"Today, the regime in Iran openly calls and determinedly works for our destruction. And it is feverishlyworking to develop atomic weaponsto achieve that goal."

Benjamin Netanyahu, September 12, 2002:

"How imminent is it [the threat from Iraq]? Look, do you want to wait and find out? The answer is no."

Benjamin Netanyahu, September 11, 2012:

"The world tells Israel, 'Wait, there's still time,' and I say, ' Wait for what, wait until when?'...The fact is that every day that passes, Iran gets closer and closer to nuclear bombs."

Benjamin Netanyahu, September 12, 2002:

"[Iraq] happens to be one of the two - now, as we know, one of the three - regimes that is racing to build nuclear weapons."

Benjamin Netanyahu, September 16, 2012:

"And for me, the issue is, as the prime minister of a country that is threatened with annihilation by a brutal regime in Tehran that is racing to develop nuclear bombs for that and, obviously, we cannot delegate the job of stopping Iran if all else fails to someone else."

Benjamin Netanyahu, September 12, 2002:

"Today the United States must destroy the same regime because a nuclear-armed Saddam will place the security of our entire world at risk."

Benjamin Netanyahu, March 5, 2012:

"For fifteen years, I’ve been warning that a nuclear-armed Iran is a grave danger to my country and to thepeace and security of the world."

Benjamin Netanyahu, September 12, 2002:

"Every indication we have is that he [Saddam] is pursuing, pursuing with abandon, pursuing with every ounce of effort, the establishment of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons."

Benjamin Netanyahu, September 16, 2012:

"Come on. We know that they're working towards a weapon. We know that. It's not something that we surmise. We have absolutely certainty about that. And they're advancing towards that nuclear program."

Benjamin Netanyahu, September 12, 2002:

"There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons— no question whatsoever."

During a March 7, 2012 interview on Fox News, Greta Van Susteren asked Netayahu about the case for illegally attacking Iran in light of what the world now knows about the lies that led to the invasion of Iraq. "Do you have any doubt they [Iran] have a nuclear weapons program?," Van Susteren wondered. The Israeli Prime Minister replied: "I think there is no question."

Van Susteren continued, "[I]n 2003, with weapons ofmass destruction in Iraq, there was so much certainty and it turned out, our intelligence was wrong on that. So I am trying to balance the two."

The response from Netanyahu was immediate. It was also confounding, considering his testimony to Congress ten years ago. 

He told Van Susteren:

"First of all, there is no question. There is no comparison. In the case of Iraq, I was on the Israeli cabinet when we discussed this issue. We didn't know. We couldn't say that they didn't have a nuclear weapons program, we couldn't say if they did. In the case of Iran there is absolutely no question."

That all sixteen US intelligence agencies have come to the unanimous conclusion that Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is not working on them does not matter to Nitwit-yahoo.

He just goes on puking up the same old tired canards and scary stories of Iranian nuclear weapons, without bothering to present any facts to support his assertions…because he does not have any.

What have been the consequences of Nitwit-yahoo’s lies? 

-Thousands of US soldiers dead and injured
-Record number of US military suicide rates

-Over a million Iraqis dead

-Iraq war spending has played a key role in bankrupting the US

-The world is more dangerous

Nitwit-yahoo's apocalyptic tirades are a distraction from the real problems. In his UN speech, this damn idiot said nothing about the Palestinians, nothing about the protests and disillusion happening in Israel, nothing about peace. None of these real and serious problems matter to him; only Iran, Iran, Iran, a manufactured threat being used to distract and mislead people about who the real global troublemakers are!

Compare that with the speech given by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who spoke about reforming toe global system to be more cooperative and thoughtful. He talked about the end of arrogance and military threats and a more peaceful world. 

His optimism contrasted greatly with Nitwit-yahoo's morally repugnant, discredited and failed stench of zionist chauvinism, deceit, and an unchecked aggressive paranoia driven by the most selfish of self-interest and by utter contempt and total lack of concern for enemy and ally alike.

How much more lying and threatening will the world tolerate from this dangerous and demented Zionist mad dog of the Middle East? How much more blood and treasure will the rest of the world have to squander by listening to this paranoid leech? Hasn’t he done more than enough damage? How much more death and misery does the world have to endure to satisfy this Zionist subhuman’s blood-lust? How many more have to die for Zionist lies? 

What will happen the next time the world realizes that they've been had by Bibi's bullshit? Will there be anything left of the world?

Any politician anywhere who listens to, and buys Nitwit-yahoo’s Iranian nuclear threat lunacy is a dangerous nutcase and need to be voted out of office or wheeled out of their residence in a wheel-barrow and dumped on the nearest dung hill. 

Dangerous ideologues like Nitwit-yahoo and the morons who support him (Mitt Romney) are the biggest threats to national security. It is people like them that have a "medieval" mindset of war-killing and retribution.

What is more medieval than massacring thousands of Palestinians, chasing them off at gunpoint, stealing large swathes of their land, and then occupying, repressing and holding them hostage and under siege in their own land for 40+ years? If the Arabs are "medieval", then Israel is utterly dark-age!

It is clear that Nitwit-yahoo is emotionally and psychologically unstable. Someone needs to give him a rabies shot, some Prozac and a week off.

Blowback in Benghazi

Because it is a Presidential election year, I was going to write another post about the pathetically corrupt US electoral system and the current crappy crop of candidates it produced.

But due to recent developments in Benghazi, Libya, I decided to postpone another election-year post and devote today’s time to covering the event which has left the US  government, diplomatic corps, EU and NATO with a huge egg on their faces.

On Wednesday, US Ambassador to Libya died of suffocation when the US consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi was torched. Two marine guards also died with him.

What sparked this incident?

Recently, a film produced by a US Zionist Jew, named Sam Bacile, which insulted the Prophet Mohammed was released. The film caused an angry uproar in Muslim countries, resulting in US embassy compounds in some countries being stormed in protest. 

One of the places where protests were held was at the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The protesters denounced the US for the insulting film. 

To avenge the insult, RPGs were fired into the compound, setting it ablaze and killing four people, including the US Ambassador.

This event is blowback for the murderous and criminal war which the US and NATO unleashed on Libya in 2011. The Libyan religious fanatics whom the US and NATO armed and helped to overthrow Gaddafi and put in power ended up turning on their benefactors in Washington.

This is the result of the disgusting scheming and lies which the US used to get rid of a nationalist and patriotic government and replace them with compliant and corrupt puppets.

Col. Gaddafi warned the West last year that the people they are helping are dangerous fanatics, and he was right. But the US did not want to listen. It saw an opportunity to get what it wanted NOW, and it disregarded the consequences.

The fanatics which the US helped arm are now killing US officials, probably with the same weapons that the US gave them! 

Christopher Stevenson and the US government are to blame for this. They helped these rebel fanatics come to power. Christopher Stevens was a fervent supporter of regime change in Libya. By helping to bring these fanatics to power, he signed his own death warrant. 

The blood is on the hands of Obama, Hillary, Cameron, Sarkozy, NATO and every single soldier, spook and airman who took part in the Libyan war crime last year. It was they who set the stage for this event.

The bombing of Libya and the overthrow of Gaddafi is stupidity and callousness on steroids!

And the ironic thing is that the US Ambassador would still be alive if the US/NATO would have left Gaddafi and Libya alone.

If there was any doubt that US policy is totally demented and hypocritical, that doubt has been laid to rest in Benghazi. 

Once again, the US has still not learned its lesson. It supported religious zealots in Afghanistan and is suffering the results there today.

It supported religious fanatics in Iraq and is suffering the results. It supported fanatics in Libya and now is suffering the results. The US is also supporting fanatics in Syria, and the outcome will undoubtedly be the same for them. 

But if the US thought that it would get away with bringing religious fanatics to power in Libya and not suffer any consequences, then they were very naïve and foolish to think so. After all, the warning signs were there for years.

During the last decade when the Iraqi insurgency raged on, a significant amount of Al Qaeda-affiliated fighters and suicide bombers came from Benghazi and other Eastern Libyan cities which were the hotbeds of Ant-Gaddafi forces for a long time.

Earlier in 2012, the Libyan fanatics whom the US helped bring to power stormed a WW2 allied cemetery and vandalized it as revenge for the burning of Korans in Afghanistan by US forces.

A captured Al Qaeda fighter in Iraq with US blood on his hands, who was extradited back to Libya some years ago, now serves as a local militia leader. He was also part of the rebel forces whom the US helped last year.

So the US set itself up for this latest debacle. Making up ridiculous lies and spinning the death of the US State Dept. apparatchik Christopher Stevens as the work of Al Qaeda using the protest as a diversion to attack the embassy is laughable. The US government is trying to hide the truth and their guilt, for they know that the people who did this were the same ones the US helped bring to power.

All this begs the question of what is Al Qaeda? The US seems to blame Al Qaeda when US interests suffer a terrorist attack, but then turns around and calls the Syrian Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels “freedom fighters” and “activists.” US behavior towards Al Qaeda is rife with contradictions and hypocrisy.

Al Qaeda is either a US enemy or asset, it can’t be both; unless the US government has completely lost their mind and are fighting and funding the same enemy for whatever demented reason. 

The US will most likely try to avenge the death of Amb. Stevens by killing those who were responsible. In the process, they will end up killing innocent people once again.

 But even if those who were responsible for the ambassador’s death are killed, it will not do any good. It will only inflame tensions.

By trying to kill those people, instead of bringing them in to face trial, the US is no better than those who it is looking for, and by wanting to avenge one death by killing those whom it aided last year just shows the startling level of US hypocrisy.

But the US cannot kill the Frankenstein monster it created. This monster is now running amok and has turned Libya into a ramshackle, corrupt and failed state with no real authority or stability.

What happened  in Benghazi is payback for the murder and destruction which the US/NATO unleashed in Libya last year. Ambassador Stevens wasn’t killed! He committed suicide by bringing to power his killers. He was a miserable imperial mule from the US State Dept. stable, and got his just desserts. The death and suffering he helped unleash on Libya ended up killing him.

It is also payback for the savage way which the rebels dealt with Gaddafi after he was captured. It was also payback for the inhuman gloating which Hillary Clinton displayed last October after she learned of Gaddafi’s death.

More of these events are sure to come.

Let’s not forget what caused this chaos: the release of the anti-Islamic screed by a wealthy Jew who himself admitted that he hates Islam and made the movie as a provocation. 

It is quite a coincidence that this movie was released on the 11^th anniversary of 9/11 by a Muslim-hating, pro- Zionist Israeli Jew. The timing is very suspect, and I think that this may have been a deliberate Israeli psyops operation in order to provoke Muslims, use any resulting violence to demonize Islam, manipulate public opinion against Muslims and anyone who the Israelis do not like, and hopefully force the US to go along with bombing Iran and anyone else the Zionists want.

This recent violence only benefits Israel and PM Nitwit-yahoo. Was this anti-Islamic movie a desperate propaganda gamble by the Zionists to get out of the corner which they painted themselves into?

This presents many questions about Israel and what their real aims are. It shows how easily they can provoke violent acts and manipulate the public. No wonder there are people who think that the Mossad helped plan the attacks of 9/11. 

As far as the US/NATO Libya misadventure goes, “They went, they bombed, they were wrong.”

Rotten Choices

 

You go to a supermarket to buy a carton of milk. Once in the dairy aisle, you locate the shelves where the milk is and walk up to it.

Upon closer examination, you notice that there are only two types of milk, one which has been expired for two weeks and one which has been expired for four weeks.

You look around frantically to find milk that is still fresh but to no avail. The expired milk is all there is to choose from.

Out of these two choices, which one would you pick; the milk that has been expired for two weeks, or the milk which has been expired for four weeks?

Would you relent and choose the two-week expired milk since it’s a little fresher, even though it will still make you sick?

If you pick either one, you’ll get sick, or at least have a bad smell in your fridge.

Or would you not risk it and pick neither?

This analogy illustrates the choices facing Americans in the presidential election of 2012.
Like the two cartons of outdated milk, Americans only have two choices for president.

The two-week expired milk is Barack Obama and the four-week expired milk is Mitt Romney.

These are the only choices people have been offered by the powers-that-be.
Like the milk, both candidates are rotten choices, and whichever one gets picked will end up making America sick.

There are people on both sides of the political aisle who out of desperation have allowed themselves to fall for the “lesser evil” paradigm. They don’t like either candidate but will vote for the “less evil” one. Which candidate is the “less evil” one depends on the ideological spectrum to which the voter belongs.

For Republicans the “lesser evil” is Romney. For the Democrats it is Obama.

By allowing themselves to be suckered into this “lesser evil” nonsense, these people end up voting for evil regardless. After all, aren’t both candidates the lesser evil and a greater evil to each side? So both Romney and Obama actually end up cancelling each other out if you carefully look at this “lesser evil” mentality.

This sort of futile exercise in desperate wishful thinking and false optimism directs peoples’ energies into supporting bad choices which end up doing more harm than good.

Both Republicans and Democrats create the false illusion that there is a world of difference between the two parties. In order to convince the American electorate of this, they distract them with their stances on wedge issues like abortion, gun rights, religion, gay marriage, etc.

Both parties deliberately focus on these issues because they know that these issues bring out strong emotional responses in people. Politicians know that if they can highjack peoples’ emotions and exploit it for their own gain they go it made.

Appeal to emotion is a very powerful tactic which politicians have learned to use to get people to support, and vote for, them.

Another important reason why they focus on these wedge issues to garner support, is because that is where the greatest amount of difference in the Democrats and Republicans ideology lies. 

As a matter of fact, their opposing views on these key wedge issues comprise virtually all the difference between both parties.

But examine the Republican and Democratic stance on any foreign policy and key economic issues (which are the most important to the country) and both sides are surprisingly unanimous.

Both parties view the US as the greatest country in the world. Both parties think that the US must be #1 in all things. Both parties support war, foreign intervention, bombings, regime changes, Israeli genocide against Palestinians and the domination of both friend and ally for America’s military and economic benefit, by hook or crook.

Both parties also favor big capital and big corporate interests instead of the general population. This is why BOTH parties were complicit in bailing out with huge sums of taxpayer money the Wall St. criminal banks as well as inept car manufacturers. It is why none of the financial criminals have faced any prosecution or jail time.

So in reality, there is no significant difference between the two political parties. But they sure spend a lot of time fooling the US electorate into thinking that there is by calling peoples' attention to the few minuscule issues where there are disagreements.

If anyone looks at American history objectively, then they will find a litany of dispossession and repression of the average citizen and the protection and coddling of wealthy interests by successive governments, regardless of their political stripes.
This dysfunctional tradition continues to this day and seems likely to go on.

Both parties hold the average voter in contempt. Both Romney and Obama stand there and lie and manipulate people with the crudest exaggerations and outright lies imaginable.

They do so because they know that most people are too lazy to fact-check anything they say. Again, bringing out wedge issues to stir the emotions comes in handy in order to sedate the people from finding out the facts.

And it unfortunately seems to work, since people still seem to want to support both of these rotten parties.

Romney and Obama lie and manipulate in order to distract people from, and cover up, the simple fact that neither of them has any plan, let alone vision, to fix anything. This is because they don’t want to fix anything. Indeed, they cannot fix it.

The job of Obama, Romney and their successors is one: to keep the current political and socioeconomic system in place, because this system benefits them and their friends. Their money and careers were made in this current political, social and economic system, so why the hell would they want change? Real change goes against their interests.

If a president came along who was honest, selfless, caring, and truly wanted to help the bottom 99% of the people, he would not live to see their one-hundredth day in office.

Watching Romney and Obama take cheap shots at one another, it is plain to see how they are trying to avoid the real issues. They constantly fill peoples’ heads about “change,” and “different way,” or how one candidate has failed and how that one will make everything better.

This is just a bunch of PR rhetoric and tired-old hyperbole which we hear at every election, but which never translates into anything.

Why do the candidates not talk about foreign policy, or allow it to be questioned or challenged? I have never heard Obama or Romney talk in-depth about the wars, the outrageous military spending, and other international diplomatic embarrassments and the self-evident hypocrisy which are the hallmarks of US foreign policy, even in the wake of the on-going US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one dares question or criticize these failures.

It’s as if the topic of US foreign policy is strictly off-limits to the general public; it cannot be questioned because it is beyond the understanding of the average American. This is the feeling that I get.

As arrogant and condescending as the US government’s refusal to engage the public on foreign policy is, nevertheless it sort of makes sense for the simple reason that Americans are quite ignorant of their own history, so how are they expected to understand the history of another nation?

This sad situation was deliberately created by a dumbed-down education system which teaches US students nothing of other countries and cultures. This ensures that Americans will not sympathize and relate to people in another part of the world, see others as “evil terrorists” per the US government/media propaganda, and thereby allowing the US government to bomb with impunity.

Another important reason why foreign policy is not openly discussed is that many Americans will become disgusted at the evil and mayhem that has been done in their name, and would demand an immediate change.

This is something which the war profiteers and their whores in congress greatly fear, for it would mean the loss of immense profits for the former and loss of campaign dollars for the latter. War is a very profitable racket, and the powers-that-be do not want anyone to derail their war-making gravy train.

The pathetic US mass media has totally abdicated any shred of journalistic integrity and now serves as a cheer leader for US wars of aggression and foreign meddling. This is another major reason why Americans do not talk about foreign policy and remain ignorant of their government’s homicidal policies.

Americans are told to vote. They are told it is their civic responsibility, and that if they do not vote, then they cannot complain.

But there is no logic in this argument. The opposite is actually true. If people vote, and vote in a bad leader who ends up screwing everything up, then they do not have a right to complain since they voted that candidate in. They should have known better! They should have done their homework before casting their vote.

Those who did not vote, have all the right to complain since they are not responsible for the leader’s irresponsible actions.

This all comes down to what a vote really is.

The common view on voting is that the citizen gives the candidate the approval and the authority to act on their behalf to fulfill the promises he made.

The elected representative in return for a person’s vote is supposed to do what that person wants.

But it is clear that this is not the case judging by the constant stream of broken promises from both parties over the decades.

But there is another way to look at the act of voting which explains this discrepancy.
By voting for a candidate, you CEDE the authority to make decisions for yourself according to your best interests, to the candidate. That candidate then makes decisions which they think are best.

You basically give up the right to think for yourself and give the candidate the right and authority to think for you. The candidate will do what they want, and any promises they made to the voter are annulled, because by voting the voter gave up their right of decision and thought to the president. This is just a power of attorney that the entire country gives to one person.

Seeing the act of voting in this way puts it in a much less glamorous light.

This is the intent in the corrupt and surreal American electoral system. The vote therefore becomes nothing but a veil which the political criminal class needs to give their crimes and transgressions the veneer of popular support.

This also traps the populace when they get angry at the person they elected who ends up making a mess. That candidate can then say “You gave me your vote, so you are responsible.”

This is a spectacular con on the American electorate. But this con can be easily neutralized if Americans educate themselves about the candidates’ backgrounds and where they stand on issues. A healthy dose of skepticism also would be welcome.

Like the absence of the alternative fresh milk at the supermarket, the US electoral system precludes any true opposition party from challenging the two-party status-quo of Democrat vs. Republican.

People are mistakenly led to believe that these two parties are the best, and only ones competent of making decisions, and that whatever their errors, anyone else would be much worse and therefore unacceptable as a contender.

This is electoral terrorism which forces people to make bad choices election cycle after election cycle.

And in case the voting rabble decide that they will not buy the fake Democrat vs. Republican paradigm, then the powers-that-be start scaring them by both direct and subtle threats of taking away their government carrots, like Medicare, Medicaid, social security.
But these threats are empty and are employed to intimidate people into voting against their best interests and for the two establishment business parties.

The elites will not take these carrots away, because they rely on these carrots to keep the voting populace docile, scared and quiet.

The electoral laws in the US have been deliberately rigged by the Republicans and the Democrats to prevent any other candidate from challenging them. A 3 ^rd party candidate must have 15% support in EACH state to get on the ballot. Even then, the Republican and Democratic control of the presidential debates prevents the any 3^rd party candidate from offering their point of view.

Now get this: even if a 3 ^rd party candidate gets on the ballot of enough states to be considered as a choice for president in the voting booth, people still cannot vote for them if they live in a state in which that 3^rd party candidate did not get the 15% of support to allow them on the ballot!

To add insult to injury, or more accurately more injury to injury, Americans cannot vote beyond their designated district. This prevents people from voting for a 3 ^rd party candidate who is on the ballot in the next state over, but not on the ballot in the voter’s state of residence.

This cuts the 3 ^rd party candidate off from a huge source of support.

Let’s look at this by example:

John lives in North Dakota. He wants to vote for a 3^rd party candidate for president. Unfortunately, the 3^rd party candidate did not get enough support to get on the ballot in N. Dakota. But fortunately, that 3^rd party candidate did get on the ballot in South Dakota.
John wants to travel to South Dakota to cast his vote for the 3^rd party presidential candidate there. But unfortunately, the election law does not allow him to vote outside his local designated area, let alone outside his state. Therefore, John cannot vote for a 3^rd party candidate.

In this way, the 3 ^rd party candidate ends up losing a lot of votes, which creates the false image that they have no support and that the only parties which are “viable” are the democrats and republicans.

Yeah, you could write the candidate in, but that still does not make the process anymore fair. When it comes to voting for president, Americans should be able to vote for them ANYWHERE in America. This would undoubtedly create a lot more support for 3 ^rd party candidates if people were allowed to cross state lines to vote for them, in case the voter’s home state does not have the 3^rd party candidate on the ballot.

But should this one day become reality, the good-old Electoral College, which is the group of unelected party representatives in each state, has the final say on who becomes president.

If the people end up electing the "wrong" candidate, the Electoral College can nullify the decision by giving their vote for the establishment party candidate, effectively going against the wishes of the majority of the state’s electorate.

This is an unfair system which betrays any real democracy. Its proponents and defenders excuse any criticism of it by stating that it prevents the people from electing a monster.

Well, if this was the intent of the Electoral College, then that institution has failed a long time ago, for it has ushered in monster after monster into the oval office.

The real reason for the existence of the Electoral College is to make sure that the people do not end up electing a president who is not friendly to private banking and corporate interests.  And wouldn’t you have it, all the Electoral College representatives are either Republican or Democrat...

Add to that the whole sinister technology of electronic voting, and the chance for fraud that it creates, and you got another firewall in the corrupt US electoral system which prevents the “wrong” candidate from winning. The ruling financial/corporate oligarchy truly has all the bases covered!

Another sad fact concerns the true support which the president-elect actually has.

The fact is that a lot of Americans do not vote at all, actually over 40% of them.  So if, say, out of 100 million eligible voters, only 52 million vote, and out of that 52 million only 30% elect the winner, it means that the elected president's percentage of support is in the low double-digits. That president does not actually represent the country, far from it

That is why things keep on getting worse. These candidates don't owe the majority of the people anything and only have to worry about pleasing the small percentage which voted them in.

Too bad that the US electoral system does not have the same law of frequency as Europe does, where a minimum of 52% of all eligible voters have to vote, and one party has to get a certain amount of votes or else there is a run-off election. If there is also no majority winner, then coalitions are formed. This results in a system more attuned to the concerns of the average citizen, since clear majorities or compromises are sought.

But just like that proverbial milk in the supermarket, both the republican and democratic candidates stink, are spoiled, and way past their shelf life.

This November, use common sense and avoid buying spoiled milk.

Remember, if you vote for Romney or Obama, the chaos the cause, and the blood they spill will be on YOUR hands.