How Obama won re-election … When looking for the keys to victory, one should not overlook the candidate himself. Obama, enjoying the advantages of incumbency, remained a powerful speaker, with star power on the stump. President John F. Kennedy said that "victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan" – though President Obama and his aides cited a single reason for their re-election success. Turnout. Obama campaign officials said their get-out-the-vote organization – the people who make calls, knock on doors, micro-target potential voters and drive supporters to the polls – was more than three years in the making, building on their record-breaking effort in 2008. – USA Today
Dominant Social Theme: We all won today.
Free-Market Analysis: We are not surprised by Barack Obama's re-election. We believe the vote was probably rigged, as voting machines across the country now provide opportunities to do just this sort of thing.
Not all machines even offer paper tallies anymore. Why would states put machines in place that lacked a paper trail? In Columbus, Ohio, a lawsuit was filed on Monday charging the secretary of state's office with placing untested software on voting systems to help create a potential digital "back door."
Nonetheless, the larger dominant social theme will roll along merrily when it comes to these elections: They were a valid expression of the people's will. A subdominant theme – by implication – is that whatever Obama does over the next four years will have been blessed by his re-election.
Supposedly, 130 million people turned out to vote in the 2008 presidential elections with over 60 million voting for Obama. But if this was over 60 percent of the electorate, that means that another 100 million-plus who were eligible to vote did not. And in 2012, the turnout has been pegged at far lower than in 2008.
Obama reigned with the approval of about 25 percent of the entire electorate, if we can believe the numbers, and we don't. This doesn't stop the march of what we call directed history, however. Already the post mortems are pouring in. USA Today (see article above) identifies factors that propelled Obama to a win.
Let's examine them and comment on them, each in turn, from the point of view of validity. The first was turnout, as mentioned above. Even if we believe that Obama was elected with about 55 million votes, that's still about 10 million fewer than he supposedly won with the first time, hardly a convincing vote of confidence.
Another factor that USA Today cites is "one big policy decision with a big impact on a big state – the auto bailout in Ohio." This may be true but it is nothing to be proud of from the standpoint of electoral policy. What USA Today is saying here is that Obama basically bribed the good people of Ohio to vote for him and used federal tax dollars to do so.
USA Today also cites "nature's version of the October Surprise, Hurricane Sandy." We've written about how Hurricane Sandy was used to reinforce the meme of global warming but we remain generally suspicious of the timing and violence of Sandy – and its sudden, 90 degree turn that took it in over New York and environs. (And yes, of course we know that there is no such thing as climate control and HAARP is just an upper atmosphere "experiment" … )
Obama himself is cited as an advantage in terms of his re-election, and his supposed ability to "define Romney." … "For many voters, the Obama campaign successfully portrayed Romney as a plutocrat businessman out of touch with the concerns of middle-class Americans."
This is a funny one. We've been reading about Obama for four years in feedback trails online. We can say that even Bush never received quite the kind of vituperative commentary that Obama regularly receives. People literally hate the guy – and not just a fringe, either. Obama may have "defined" Mitt, but Mitt didn't have to define Obama. For tens of millions, Obama has defined himself, and many despise the man and what he stands for.
We learn from USA Today that Obama still escaped credit for the current economic disaster and the various wars. He is given credit for "ending" wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and people seem to feel the economy is getting better.
We don't see how either of these points is true to any great degree. About 20 to 30 percent of the US work force is OUT of work and last time we looked Iraq was still having trouble with suicide bombers and no significant troop reductions in Afghanistan had yet taken place.
The final issue being mentioned is the "daring" raid that "killed the al-Qaeda founder bolstered Obama's national security credentials, often a weak spot for Democratic candidates." But there's plenty of reason to believe that bin Laden died in the early 2000s. He was already a very sick man whose kidneys had apparently failed. He was also, supposedly, a CIA asset. Just search the 'Net using "bin Laden dead again" and "Daily Bell" for more.
The article concludes by revisiting Obama's "organization" and speculating that this was really the key factor. Enough voters turned out to "give Obama a new lease on White House life." Again, we don't believe the numbers. If an administration (and a controlled mainstream press) can lie about the death of a supposed terrorist in an elaborate promotional scheme, why can't the same powers-that-be orchestrate a phony election count?
You won't read any of this in the mainstream press, and these speculations are even extreme for the alternative media these days. But it needs to be said (and we don't mind saying it as self-appointed monitors of the dying republic).
Even Obama's popularity is likely a myth. How is it possible that he still inspires confidence? The US is some US$200 trillion in debt, all in, and Obama is responsible for fairly large tax hikes as well as a fundamental and costly reshaping of health care that has left millions apoplectic – and facing increased taxes besides.
He hasn't really ended any wars but is instead responsible for building up drone attacks overseas and bringing the same potential violence home to US skies. US citizens are among the most spied-upon, tasered and searched people on the planet. A Constitution-free zone has been declared between Canada and the US. US tax authorities are now spreading around the globe to harass émigrés.
When it comes to war, Obama may be seen as a peacemaker but the reality is that the CIA and State Department are behind a string of wars in the Middle East and Africa. The US has actually built a Gulag of prisons throughout the Middle East that it maintains and operates behind the scenes.
In this election, as in past ones in the US and throughout the West, truth is the first casualty. This election, like others, is an unfortunate sham. Obama, like George Bush before him, works for Money Power. He's a dedicated globalist and every one of his policies increases the encroaching power of one-world government and decreases US sovereignty.
A previous editorial penned by Anthony Wile pointed out the actuality of Obama's sympathies. You can see it here: "Best Way to Make a Difference in Today's Vote."
In his second term, Obama will continue to inflict authoritarian policies on the US, making citizens even more afraid of the federal government (the agencies of which continue to buy millions of hollow-point bullets).
Obama will continue to pursue monetary polices that are bankrupting the middle class and turning senior citizens into paupers. He will further expand the military-industrial complex, start more wars, pursue more US citizens abroad, spy on tens of millions at home and continue to weaken the social, moral and monetary fabric of the US.
What is going on now is a wholesale "takedown" of US exceptionalism, apparently to so weaken the US and the West generally that living standards eventually shall approximate those of a developing country.
At this point, West shall begin to merge with East. That's the ultimate point of this whole exercise. It has little to do with the re-election of Obama and everything to do with the further construction of globalism.
Romney's election would not have changed a thing. He would have perpetuated the same policies as Obama. The real hope for people – as we've long pointed out – is what we call the Internet Reformation.
Information, education and a return to limited government, real free markets and a pursuit of trade over warfare (perhaps via secession) will legitimately benefit the West and help do away with current regime and its endless depredations of civil society.
REAL progress has little to do with presidential elections and less to do with the now re-elected President Barack Obama.