http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/top-10-reasons-not-to-re-elect-obama-part-1/
Editor’s note: This is Part 1 of a three-part series by Chuck Norris on why American voters should not re-elect President Obama.)
On Feb. 2, 2009, President Barack Obama explained his chances to fix the economy to host Matt Lauer on NBC’s “Today” show: “I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years. … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
Here are my Top 10 reasons why I believe President Obama shouldn’t stay a single day beyond his one term in the Oval Office:
10) Obama’s economic actions have failed to lower the U.S. unemployment rate below 8 percent for last 42 record months
Four years into his presidency, Reuters has reported on Obama’s economic progress: “Details of the household survey, from which the unemployment rate is drawn, gave a downbeat assessment of the labor market, with the share of the population that has a job falling to near cycle lows. In addition, the labor force participation rate, or the percentage of Americans who either have a job or are looking for one, fell to 63.7 percent last month from 63.8 percent. That is a sign of low confidence in the labor market. Data last week showed the economy grew at an annual pace of 1.5 percent in the second quarter, also far short of the 2.5 percent rate needed to keep the unemployment rate stable.”
9) The Obama administration’s out-of-control spending has led America to the economic brink and destroyed our country’s credit rating
In 2010, President Obama spoke out of one side of his mouth when giving financial advice to the people in New Hampshire: “When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.”
But he then spoke out the other side of his mouth when he informed the American public that he was proposing a record-breaking $3.8 trillion budget for 2011, which equates to spending $7.3 million a minute. (The federal budget was only $1.9 trillion in 2001.)
Tragically, the president expects Americans to live financially one way (fiscally prudent) and the federal government to live another (extravagantly wild). Not surprisingly, Moody’s credit rating agency announced the next day after the president’s 2011 budget proposal release that his fiscal policies “test [America's] AAA boundaries” and now push the U.S. government credit ratings below those of Canada, Germany and even France.
Even the liberal media predicted that Obama’s spending would “leave a string of deficits dwarfing any in the nation’s history.” And they were right.
Obama’s reckless spending and fiscal policies have added more to the
national debt than most U.S. presidents combined: Roughly $6 trillion
during his first term in office (making the total debt nearly $16
trillion and, by White House projections alone, $21.3 trillion by the
end of fiscal 2017, $25 trillion in 2021 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.)In 2007 when I began writing my New York Times best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism,” unemployment was less than 5 percent, the annual federal budget was about $2.9 trillion, the federal deficit was $161 billion and the national debt was $9 trillion.
Today, unemployment is stuck at 8.3 percent, the federal budget at $3.8 trillion, the federal deficit at $1.3 trillion and the national debt is quickly approaching a staggering $16 trillion.
And to add insult to injury, our vassalage to other countries deepens as they bankroll increasing amounts of U.S. debt, with more than one-half of the public debt alone held by private investors in foreign lands.
Even PolitiFact confessed, “U.S. total debt is now about 101 percent of GDP. … The president’s current spending proposal projects the debt will grow to $21.3 trillion by the end of fiscal 2017 – the last year for which a two-term Obama would submit a budget. … The White House projected [its] plan would lead to gross national debts of $25 trillion in 2021 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.”
America, is that really the burden you want to place upon yourselves and your children?
7) Obama has not only detrimentally increased the costs of entitlements but the dependency of citizens upon government subsidies, rather than empowering the people’s autonomy, responsibility and freedom.
President Obama has been called the “food stamp president” because more federal grocery subsidies have been given out under his presidency than most others combined. A record 44.7 million people – or one in seven Americans – were on food stamps last year, up 33 percent from fiscal 2009. But far more than that, this president has radically increased government entitlement expansions.
The Heritage Foundation documented that President Obama’s 2011 budget increased total welfare spending to $953 billion, a 42 percent increase over welfare spending in 2008. And over the next decade, welfare spending is projected to cost taxpayers $10.3 trillion.
The Heritage Foundation reported that not only has the president greatly expanded welfare, “but he has also eliminated a program that aims to reduce the prevalence of single motherhood, one of the greatest contributors to poverty in the United States.”
And who is going to have to pay for all those entitlements? That’s right: you and your posterity. Trust me. That’s a fact you can take all the way to yours and your loved ones’ bank accounts.
6) Obama demeans private enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit – the very heart of America – and, instead, believes “only” government is our savior.
In 2009, right after taking office, President Obama emphatically stated “only government” is our savior, and then he supported his socialistic platform through multiple company and corporate bailouts.
Recently, Obama reiterated his anti-individual and anti-capitalistic beliefs when he defined the “somebody” who’s responsible for the success of your business as being the federal government: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”(Underline added)
The Wall Street Journal even confessed that the president is “subordinating to government the individual enterprise and risk-taking that underlies prosperity.”
(In Part 2 next week, I will continue my Top 10 reasons not to re-elect President Obama.)
ROMNEY
http://www.prisonplanet.com/romney-took-advice-from-obamas-eugenics-enthusiast-science-czar.html
Romney Took Advice From Obama’s Eugenics Enthusiast Science Czar
John P. Holdren’s job looks safe if Romney gets GOP nod
An interesting piece from Investors.com notes that the corporate media darling GOP frontrunner, Mitt Romney, previously sought advice from White House science czar John P. Holdren when crafting carbon tax legislation for Massachusetts five years ago.
Indeed, while other GOP candidates have expressed doubts about the effectiveness and legitimacy of carbon taxes, Romney has managed to attract the praise of Al Gore who stated in June that “While other Republicans are running from the truth, he is sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party.”
Romney’s position on Global warming is clear, in a June 3rd speech he stated “I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that.”
It is Romney’s association with John P. Holdren that should be most concerning for Americans, however.
In 2005, a memo from the Massachusetts governor’s office noted that the new policy on carbon emissions had been in part drawn up with advice and input from “environmental and policy experts” including “John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard University.”
As we have exhaustively documented, Holdren infamously co-wrote a 1977 textbook in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.
Holdren is a Malthusian fanatic in the tradition of the arcane anti-human ideology that originated amongst British aristocracy in the 19th century… and both Obama and Romney have looked to him to form their policies.
Climate change isn’t the only scientific policy area that Romney and Obama share near identical views on. It is a well established fact that the Obama healthcare plan, declared unconstitutional by multiple federal courts, was modelled directly on Romneycare.
M.I.T. economist John Gruber, the architect of Romneycare in Massachusetts recently confirmed this, noting ”The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we’d done in Massachusetts.”
“They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.” Gruber added.
[Continued...]
http://www.prisonplanet.com/16-reasons-why-mitt-romney-would-be-a-really-really-bad-president.html
16 Reasons Why Mitt Romney Would Be A Really, Really Bad President
The American Dream
October 31, 2011
At this point, it appears very likely that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee for president in 2012. He has raised far more money than any of the other candidates, he is leading or is near the lead in all of the early states, the mainstream media have anointed him as the frontrunner and a number of recent polls show that most Republicans fully expect Romney to win the nomination. So will Mitt Romney be the next president of the United States? Well, he certainly fits the part. He looks like a president and he speaks very well. But when you look at what he really stands for that is where things become very troubling. The truth is that Mitt Romney is either very wrong or very “soft” on every single major issue. It would be a huge understatement to refer to Mitt Romney as a RINO (“Republican in name only”). When you closely examine their positions, there is very, very little difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Sure, Romney and Obama will say the “right things” to the voters during election season, but the reality is that a Romney administration would be so similar to an Obama administration that you would hardly know that a change has taken place. What you are about to read about Mitt Romney should alarm you very much. Mitt Romney would be a an absolute disaster for this country, and America cannot afford another disastrous presidency.
The fact that Barack Obama looked sharp and could give inspiring speeches helped him go a long way back in 2008. Well, it is the same thing with Romney. The guy looks very presidential and he sounds very presidential. When backed into a corner, he is extremely slick. He rarely makes mistakes and he is very polished.
Mitt Romney is a “politician” in the worst sense of the word. As his past has demonstrated, he will do and say just about anything in order to get elected. The positions he has taken during this campaign season have been carefully calculated to help him win both the Republican nomination and the general election.
That is why so many call Mitt Romney a “flip-flopper”. Romney will take just about any political position if he thinks that it will help him. Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann Romney, once made the following statement about her husband….
- “He can argue any side of a question. And sometimes you think he’s really believing his argument, but he’s not.”
So keep that in mind while reading the following information. Mitt Romney is trying to claim that he is a “conservative” and that he is looking out for the American people, but those claims simply are not true.
The following are 16 reasons why Mitt Romney would be a really, really bad president….
[Continued...]
http://www.prisonplanet.com/17-reasons-why-a-vote-for-mitt-romney-is-a-vote-for-the-new-world-order.html
17 Reasons Why A Vote For Mitt Romney Is A Vote For The New World Order
The American Dream
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Once again, the Republican Party is being tempted to vote for “the lesser of two evils”. A lot of Republicans are actually considering voting for Mitt Romney because they have bought the lie that he has “the best chance” of defeating Barack Obama in 2012. But just because he is the Republican candidate that is most like Barack Obama does not mean that he has the best chance of defeating him. The truth is that no self-respecting Republican should ever vote for Mitt Romney. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the New World Order. Romney comes from the financial establishment, he is being showered with money from the financial establishment and he supports all of the goals of the financial establishment. This year, millions upon millions of dollars are being funneled into Romney’s campaign and into pro-Romney organizations. The New World Order is literally trying to buy the 2012 election for their dream candidate. Romney would be the ultimate Wall Street puppet, and if you cast a vote for Mitt Romney you are playing right into the hands of the financial elite.
If you do not believe that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the New World Order, just consider Mitt Romney’s positions on the issues….
[Continued...]
http://www.prisonplanet.com/romney-and-obama-share-same-bankster-campaign-contributors.html
Romney and Obama Share Same Bankster Campaign Contributors
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 17, 2012
Like Obama, Mitt Romney is a wind-up doll for Wall Street and the bankers. There is virtually no difference between them despite all the fetid air from the GOP propaganda machine.
Romney’s Bain Capital owns the “conservative” propaganda machine,
Clear Channel.
This is revealed by a quick look at Romney’s top contributors. An Open Secrets page on top Romney contributors reads like a Who’s Who of Wall Street and the financial cartel. The top contributor is Goldman Sachs, followed by Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, UBS, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Barclays – major players in the Wall Street and City of London bankster constellation.
Bain Capital is also on the list. It is a “financial services” and investment firm co-founded by Romney. Bain owns the establishment media propaganda conglomerate Clear Channel, which explains why “conservative” talk show hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin are supporting Romney, especially with the strong showing of Ron Paul in the primaries. Both Savage (real name Weiner) and Levin have gone so far as to call Paul a threat to the country.
In December, Mitt refused to release the identity of his “bundlers,” or people who gather contributions from many individuals in an organization or community and give the cash to the campaign.
In other words, the above list is only the tip of the iceberg. Romney’s lack of transparency about his bundlers indicates he is getting money from sources that want their identity concealed.
In November, it was reported that Jimmy Lee, a veteran Wall Street investment banker, and three other top executives at JPMorgan Chase & Co hosted a $2,500-per-person reception for Romney.
“I am committed to doing all that I can to help his campaign because I also believe he is the strongest challenger to President Obama,” Lee told Reuters. Lee said he has known Romney for almost all of his Wall Street career and that he made one of the first loans to Romney at Bain Capital.
It is not clear why Mr. Lee opposes Obama – his campaign contributors are almost a carbon copy of Mitt’s. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan (where Lee worked), Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, USB and many of the same players donated heavily to Obama’s campaign in 2008.
It should be obvious by now that the dog and pony show known as the “election cycle” in the United States is a musical chairs affair with the same gaggle of bankers and transnational corporations calling the shots.
[Continued...]
http://www.prisonplanet.com/romney-would-sign-ndaa.html
Romney Would Sign NDAA
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 17, 2012
During the latest “debate” in South Carolina, Mitt Romney said that if he were president he would sign the National Defense Authorization Act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1yY3NCiMVQ
Prior to his recent assertion that it is perfectly normal to dispense with the Fourth Amendment and suspend habeas corpus, Romney said he wasn’t up to speed on the law and promised to post an analysis on his website, which he never did.
Romney said you don’t have the “right to join a group that has challenged America” and then mentioned al-Qaeda, the terror group that the FBI admits poses little threat to the nation.
The NDAA, however, is not about indefinitely detaining Muslim cave dwellers. It’s about disappearing American citizens who oppose the bankster cartel now in control of the government.
The law is a “violent and sudden usurpation” of the Constitution of the sort James Madison warned about. The founders considered habeas corpus the most fundamental of rights because it insured that the executive branch could not hold people without cause. It was so important the founders included it in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
Truman tried to veto the Internal Security Act of 1950 that codified indefinite detention without trial but he was overturned by Congress.Truman said it was “the greatest danger to freedom of speech, press, and assembly” since the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 and represented a “mockery of the Bill of Rights” and was a “long step toward totalitarianism.”
In the years after Truman’s warning, the government slowly chipped away at the Fourth Amendment and habeas corpus as it passed the McCartney-Walter Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (following the Oklahoma false flag), the Patriot Act (following the 9/11 false flag), and has finally repealed the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights with the passage of the NDAA.
As Sherwood Ross notes, with the passage of the NDAA, we have returned “to the disgraceful Korematsu Era, when President Roosevelt ordered the military to round up law-abiding Japanese-American citizens and stick them in concentration camps for the duration of World War II.”
World War II, however, had an end, whereas the bogus war on terrorism is designed to last forever, as our leaders have stated on a number of occasions.
Romney has no opinion on the Constitution, Magna Carta, and centuries of common law. He is an empty vessel filled up with nonsense produced by the global elite who run the disgusting dog and pony shows that now pass as elections in the United States.
[Continued...]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Don't Troll, if you can't add anything helpful, don't post.