Liberty Planet Weblog

Archive for the ‘Mitt Romney’ Category

I am amazed at how many Christians I read about and hear of that are planning to vote for Romney because he is a Republican or the lesser of two evils. Voting for Romney is evil. It doesn’t matter who is running for the Democrats. Voting for Romney is still evil. If Hitler himself were the Democratic nominee, voting for Romney would still be evil. Even if Romney is less evil than Obama (a very dubious assertion), voting for Romney would still be evil. As a Christian, I won’t vote for evil because the Bible says: “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil” (Exodus 23:2).

Source: LRC Blog


By Ralph Forbes

In 1984, when Willard “Mitt” Romney launched Bain Capital—split off from Bain & Company—more than a third of the $37M “start-up” money came from wealthy foreigners—hidden behind corporations registered in Panama, notorious for tax advantages and unusual banking secrecy. International high finance was always behind the profiteering from off-shoring and exporting American jobs—but even more sinister are the allegations of narco-banksterism, narco-terrorism, illegal black-ops, organized crime, looting of pensions—and the conspiracies that culminated in the great crash of 2008.

Romney’s first investor was London financier, Sir Jack Lyons, who made a $2.5M investment through a Panama shell company set up by a slick Swiss money manager, further shielding his identity. Lyons was later convicted in an unrelated stock market fraud scandal.

Another early investor was Robert Maxwell—Mossad agent, thief of Promis spying software, international organized crime boss, arms dealer and British publishing baron—who invested $2M. He mysteriously drowned at sea in 1991 after he tried to shake down his Mossad bosses to cover the hundreds of millions of dollars he stole from his employees’ pension funds.

Harry Strachan, a Bain Capital partner knew Central American businessmen. Strachan told The Boston Globe in August 1994, Bill Bain and Romney were “terrified of bringing in Central Americans . . . They were afraid of drug money.” Not so afraid to stop Romney from flying to Miami to meet the Central Americans in 1984. Romney raised $9M from these rich Latin Americans, including the powerful Salvadoran families accused of torturing and killing tens of thousands of civilians.

Other early investors were of the ilk of Jack Hanley, former head of Monsanto Co., who put in $1M. Monsanto is heavily involved in genetically modified seeds and poisons as well as cornering the market on global water supplies.

Partners in Romney’s dirty business also included convicted swindler Mike Milken. Bain put up $10M and took out $175M leaving Bealls Brothers and Palais Royal bankrupt under $444Mn in debt. Milken’s case was heard by federal district judge Milton Pollack, whose wife, Moselle, was the chairwoman of Palais Royal. One of Romney’s first takeover deals was financed by dirty money—and one of the corporate chiefs about to receive a big payout from Bain was married to the judge hearing the case.

Romney holds his hands out for government Wall Street welfare and bailouts every chance he gets: $2.7B for pork from U.S. taxpayers; $10M from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; untold billions in tax loopholes and exporting jobs to cheap slave labor camps ad nauseam. 

Source: American Free Press

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney talks tough when it comes to foreign policy. He has slammed President Obama for bringing U.S. troops home and recently gave the greenlight to Israel if they wanted to launch a preemptive attack on Iran, under his presidency.

But what about Romney’s own military service or lack of?

Romney supported the Vietnam War, but did not enlist. Instead, he got draft deferments and worked as a missionary [“minister of religion”] for 31 months, for the Mormon church, in France, one of those “European countries” that he often tries to tie President Obama to.

The Associated Press reports that after Romney completed his missionary service in 1969, but he asked for and got more deferments, a total of four, successfully staying out of the war that claimed over fifty thousand American lives.

However, when he got into politics, Romney gave dual recollections of those days.

According to the Maddow Blog:

Many years later, in 1994, Romney said, “It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft.” That wasn’t true — he took several steps to remove himself from the eligibility pool.

By 2007, Romney, a presidential candidate, argued. “I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there, and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.”

While some criticize Romney’s lack of military service or even call it draft dodging, it’s worth noting that President Bush did not serve in Vietnam either, but joined the texas National Guard, and he still defeated Vietnam veteran Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

Vice President Dick Cheney got five deferments to stay out of Vietnam and Republican advisor and SuperPac founder Karl Rove got three.

Source: Opposing Views

Paul Joseph Watson
October 8, 2012

Mitt Romney will vow to arm Syrian rebels today during a major foreign policy speech, illustrating once again how there is virtually no difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to serving the interests of the military-industrial complex.

“Mitt Romney will call for an escalation of the conflict in Syria by arming rebels with the heavy weapons needed to confront president Bashar al-Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets,” reports the London Guardian.

“Romney is to make the proposal on Monday in what his campaign team has billed as a major foreign policy speech in Lexington, Virginia.”

In promising to arm the “Syrian” rebels – the majority of whom are not even Syrian – Romney has pledged to send taxpayer money to Al-Qaeda militants who have been responsible for carrying out terrorist attacks which have killed hundreds of people.

The Obama administration has already sent over $200 million dollars in “humanitarian” and non-lethal aid to the rebels, while the CIA has helped the likes of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar funnel heavy arms to rebel groups in the region.
As the London Guardian reported in July, rebels in Syria are admittedly being led by Al-Qaeda terrorists, who meet with them “every day” and train them how to make bombs.

Continue reading at Infowars

by Jacob G. Hornberger

I don’t understand why Mitt Romney doesn’t offer to replace Joe Biden as President Obama’s running mate. Wouldn’t that save everyone a lot of time, money, and energy? After all, is there any real fundamental difference between Obama and Romney?

Of course there isn’t. This was most recently demonstrated in an interview Romney gave on “Meet the Press.” According to today’s New York Times, Romney said that Obamacare isn’t all bad and that while he has his own healthcare reform plan in mind, he would certainly retain portions of Obamacare if he were elected president.

Romney also praised Obama’s killing of Osama bin Laden, which Democrats are hoping will show Americans that Democrats can be as tough in foreign affairs as Republicans.

As the campaign develops, voters are sure to come to the realization that when it comes to political and economic philosophy, there is absolutely no difference between Romney and Obama, just as there isn’t any fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.

On healthcare, Romney and Obama both believe that it is the government’s role to provide healthcare to people. That’s why they both ardently believe in Medicare and Medicaid, a socialistic program that was brought into existence during the regime of arch-liberal Lyndon Johnson.

Sure, they’ll battle over whose healthcare reform should be adopted, but necessarily it will be a fight that avoids any discussion over whether government intervention into healthcare is why the system always is breaking down and constantly needs to be “reformed.”

The last thing these guys are ever going to do is to question whether the provision of healthcare is a legitimate function of government. That would be much too frightening.

It’s the same all across the board.

Social Security? For these guys, it’s a given that this socialistic program is now a permanent part of American life, notwithstanding the fact that it was adopted during the Great Depression, when people were suffering the economic effects of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies. Given that the Depression ended more than 70 years ago, how come Social Security has never been repealed? Alas, that’s not a question that Obama and Romney are going to ask. They both believe that it’s the government’s job to provide people’s retirement and to force people to be good and caring to the elderly.

Education? They’ll both agree that public education is an absolute mess, and Romney might even point out that Obama doesn’t even send his own children to public school. But their fight will be over which of them will be the better reformer. The last thing they’re going to do is question whether the government should be in the education business.

The drug war? They are both fiercely committing to fighting it for the indefinite future, no matter its manifest failure after decades of warfare. They will both support the use of the military and the CIA in foreign lands to fight the drug lords. Why, they might even support the same thing here in the United States, especially if the military and the CIA need some new justification for their existence.

There will be no discussion of drug-war corruption within law enforcement and the judiciary, the massive stealing of money by public officials with asset-forfeiture laws, the violence that comes with drug prohibition, the high jail sentences, the racism of the drug war, and the long trail of ruined lives. All that we will hear from both candidates is a long rendition of good intentions and expositions as to who will be the tougher drug-warrior-in-chief.

Of course, they’ll battle over who will be the better manager of the economy and the better job-creator-in-chief. Romney will blame Obama for not cutting the deficit, restoring economic prosperity, and creating more jobs. Obama will blame it all on George W. Bush. The candidates who run in 2016 will say much the same things.

Neither Romney nor Obama will dare suggest that managing the economy and producing jobs are not a legitimate function of government. Their mindsets are the same: that the government must manage the economy and produce jobs and that it’s the job of the president to lead and oversee the process.

In fact, neither candidate will think for a moment that it is the federal government itself — and specifically its massive paternalistic state — that is one of the root causes of America’s economic and financial woes. That’s why they both keep looking to reform the system and both keep claiming to be the better reformer.

It’s no different with foreign policy. Once he assumed the presidency, Obama turned his back on most everything he had said during his 2008 campaign and embraced the Republican philosophy favoring imperialism, interventionism, torture, civil liberties, privacy, and the war on terrorism. In so doing, he cleverly outmaneuvered the GOP, leaving Romney to essentially run on one issue: that he’ll be a better manager of the economy and job-creator-in-chief than Obama.

Immigration? Romney will argue that he’ll be tough on immigration, but he’ll have a difficult time showing that he’d be a tougher immigration deporter than Obama, given the record number of people deported by Obama during the past four years.

Meanwhile, the federal government continues to hurl toward bankruptcy, spending a trillion dollars more per year than what it raises with taxes. And everyone knows that it doesn’t really matter who gets elected because both candidates have made it clear that the last thing they’re going to do is to drastically reduce welfare expenditures or warfare expenditures.

Moreover, everyone knows that neither the welfare sector nor the national-security state sector will permit any major reductions in their respective doles. Equally important, the mainstream media, both liberal and conservative, would never permit such reductions anyway.

So, that means that federal spending will continue soaring through the roof regardless of who is elected. It also means that massive amounts of debt will continue to be piled onto the backs of the hard-pressed American people. Federal Reserve inflation will come, as it has decade after decade, ensuring continued monetary debauchery and plunder.

So, why not an Obama-Romney ticket? Sure, it wouldn’t solve America’s woes, but neither will electing one or the other of them. At least it would spare the country the boredom, anguish, and expense of the next two months of the campaign.

Source: Hornberger’s Blog

The New York Times recently made a less than half-hearted attempt to summarize the similarities between President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican Party nominee, Mitt Romney. As New York Magazine reports, the Times wasn’t able to do much better than: They both like Star Trek, Modern Family, and Chicken. Here at IVN, I thought we could find just a few more similarities of just a little more substance.

The following list isn’t just a bunch of opinions, but documented facts that together draw a compelling picture: Far from being polar opposites, the two “choices” offered as presidential candidates by this country’s two main parties are nearly indistinguishable on the substantive public policy challenges Americans face. Using the New York Times piece as a starting point, here are 100 ways Mitt Romney is just like Barack Obama:

1. Star Trek

2. Modern Family

3. Chicken

4. The signature legislative accomplishment of the man that Republicans have chosen to repeal and replace “ObamaCare” was “RomneyCare,” which was the blueprint and model for The Affordable Care Act.

5. The most controversial aspect of “ObamaCare” for its critics, was the individual mandate. Mitt Romney, like Barack Obama, believes individual mandates can be a good ingredient of public policy.

6. Mitt Romney reminds critics that he believed “RomneyCare” was good for the state of Massachussetts, but shouldn’t be implemented nationwide, and that’s how he’s substantively different from Barack Obama. In 2007, however, Romney said: “I’m proud of what we’ve done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation,” suggesting that, like Obama, he is not opposed to federal mandates either– just controversial ones that his partisan opponents pass.

(Items 7 – 9) As Jon Stewart points out on The Daily Show, Mitt Romney’s proposed legislative replacement for “ObamaCare” would keep everything in it other than the individual mandate, according to Mitt Romney’s own words:

7. Like Obama and the Democrats provided for in the Affordable Care Act, Romney’s legislative alternative would make sure people who want to keep their current insurance can do so.

8. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney wants to expand federal spending on Medicaid to help each state cover residents who cannot afford health insurance.

9. Also like Obama, Romney’s “alternative” would make sure people with preexisting conditions will be covered.

10. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama flip flopped on whether “ObamaCare” is or is not a tax when it was politically suitable.

11. The same Wall Street recipients of TARP bailout money that were top Obama donors in 2008 are top Romney donors in 2012.

12. The Obama Administration has failed to prosecute a single Wall Street executive for malfeasance related to the 2007 – 2008 financial crash. Wall Street’s aforementioned donation patterns make for a compelling conclusion: A Romney Administration would be no different.

13. Setting aside the justice system, legislative fixes for perverse incentives on Wall Street have likewise been underwhelming. Dodd-Frank has been impotent to prevent risky trading and stress tests for federally insured banks only anticipate another housing crash, not a catastrophic hit to America’s very monetary system itself. Instead of a substantive alternative to Obama and the Democrats, Romney’s solution seems to be to do even less: he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank.

14. Like Obama, Romney supports taxpayer bailouts of struggling corporations– handouts that go from hardworking Americans to wealthy companies with irresponsible management.

15. The most controversial bailout for Republicans and one of the motivators behind the Tea Party protest movement that began in 2009 was the TARP bailout of big Wall Street financials. Like Obama– who voted for it as a US Senator and continues to support and defend it as President, Mitt Romney supported and continues to support TARP.

16. Not only does Mitt Romney approve of Barack Obama’s federal management of auto industry bankruptcies, he takes credit for it.

17. Republicans criticize Obama for his role in getting Solyndra’s hands dirty with federal money, but at his own big financial company, Bain and Co., Mitt Romney secured millions in a federal bailout of his corporation’s own struggling finances.

18. Though he’s flip-flopped on this issue along with so many others, Mitt Romney has also supported the federal stimulus package passed by the Democrats and signed by Barack Obama, writing that the “‘all-Democrat’ stimulus that passed in early 2009 will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.”

19. Another thing that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have in common is that the numbers strongly suggest they were both wrong about the 2009 economic stimulus package.

20. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama oppose a full, yearly, public, top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve’s finances and activities, citing the need for “Fed independence” from Congress.

21. On monetary policy, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama do not see any urgent need to change the status quo and any reform of the Federal Reserve system is not a public policy priority for either candidate.

22. Like Barack Obama, who reappointed Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Mitt Romney has approved of Ben Bernanke’s handling of the financial crisis and monetary policy in America.

23. Mitt Romney approves of Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner’s record on economic policy as well.

24. Like Barack Obama, economic stimulus via federal spending on infrastructure development is a policy priority for Mitt Romney.

25. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama favor the extension of Bush’s deficit-funded tax cuts for the middle class.

Continue reading at: IVN

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog Stats

  • 32,295 hits


Top Clicks

  • None