Posts Tagged ‘Ron Paul’

Waylon’s Revolution has been dormant for a while – since October of 2013, in fact.  I’ve taken a hiatus from politics and conspiracy theories, but that doesn’t mean that I haven’t paid attention to the news.  If the news isn’t always depressing, it certainly makes for good entertainment.  Don’t get used to this, though.  I’m not sure when I’ll be back.  With that being said, I would like to give just a few of my opinions of recent events.  Note: Opinions are not always fact based.

Gov. Chris Christie
A lot of people like this guy, I don’t.  And not because he worked with President Obama after Super Storm Sandy to rebuild, but for a far more fundamental reason: he’s a belligerent blabbermouth.  Just take for example when he told a heckler to “sit down and shut up”.

Again, some people like this guy.  They look at his obstinacy and think that he would make a good president.  “He’ll get the job done!”  If the last six years have been a do-nothing Congress and White House, what makes anyone think that a president telling members of Congress to “sit down and shut up” will get anything done?

Hillary Clinton
The media is already a buzz over the possibility of another Bush-Clinton standoff in ’16 (which I’ll get to Jeb in a minute).  Not only do I abhor Hillary for her politics: same-sex marriage, abortion, etc., I just don’t like her as a person.  Have you ever had a jar of pennies and silver and they’re all shiny and clean, but you dig down and you find one that is corroded and nasty; a coin that not even a change cashing machine would take – that’s the Clintons.

How is it that in the last twenty-six years of this nation’s history, two families have been able to inhabit the White House?  My father lost his job at General Electric due to the NAFTA agreement.  So, one day, I decided to do some research.  And I found that not only did George Sr. support the bill – he tried to fast-track it, but sadly, ran out of time when the “American people spoke”.  Bill Clinton supported it, too.  In fact, while signing the bill on January 1, 1994, Clinton said,   “NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement.”

People back then – like my father – would’ve believed that Clinton was meaning that the American people would be a glutton on jobs like Santa Claus on Christmas, but look at the aftermath; jobs were lost, families and livelihoods ruined.  It isn’t any wonder that a year before my father died, Congress sent him a letter stating that since he lost his job due to NAFTA, they were willing to send him back to school.  Bill Clinton, Hillary and the entire Clinton administration knew what that egregious bill would do, and it is my belief that is what Bill was referring to.

You may be wondering what NAFTA has to do with who runs for the Oval Office.  Well, like in the case of the 1992 election, where the top candidates shared the same view, where did the American people have a choice?  Likewise, if two prominent political families constantly run for office, where does that open the door to fresh candidates and new ideas?  In the final analysis of Hillary Clinton, she should ride off into the sunset.  Let the people have a new ray of hope.

Jeb Bush
 As I stated in the case of Hillary Clinton, the same can be said for Jeb.  But, hell, the American people have become so used to seeing the same thing over and over again, it’s like a bad movie; meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The Political Arena
I liken politics today to this: let’s say that a door-to-door salesman comes to your door and he is peddling a new shoe that has come out onto the market.  You listen to his pitch and decide to try it.  But once you get the shoe on, you find that the shoe doesn’t quite fit right, so you send him away.  A little while later, a new salesman comes to the door, peddling the same crappy shoe; but where the shoe lacks in quality, the salesman is an expert orator.  You buy the shoe, but after the peddler is gone, you regret spending your hard-earned money on a shoddy piece of work.

Only an astounding 36% of Americans went to the polls this year.  That is the lowest numbers since WWI or WWII?  And people look down on those who don’t vote ever, or wait for the Presidential election.  But where is their incentive to vote when someone has lasted in politics for decades and a new comer is shrouded in obscurity and a pall of inexperience looms over their heads like yesterday’s hangover?  (By the way, before you ask, I am a voter.)

Should Hillary not heed my advice, and decide to run, she will face a plethora of questions and scrutiny regarding prior knowledge of Benghazi.  Not that I don’t think that concerns should be probed, but where were the concerns of prior knowledge to 9/11?  Like the Warren Commission, the spurious and over lauded 9/11 Commission failed to delve deep into the Bush administration’s actions before and after the most tragic event in U.S. history since Pearl Harbor.  With a Bush insider at its helm in Philip Zelikow, the Commission’s investigation was skewed into waters that were more tolerable.

Does this mean that Clinton and President Obama should get off Scott free?  No.  But it’s a simple illustration of the circus that has become Washington D.C.

And, of course, I cannot leave you without an address from Ron Paul.

Advertisements

Madeline Albright had this to say about Iraq in regards to “sanctions” that were supposed to “punish the Hussein regime”.

Here is what former Congressman Ron Paul had to say about the impeachment process of Bill Clinton and the asinine bombings of Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan.

Notice how Ron Paul said that waging “unchecked war” like this invites attacks on the United States?  Here’s George W. Bush.

Bush, Jr. admits that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, 2001.

Iraqi testimony in Congress.

Iraq seems like a distant memory, doesn’t it?  The “Mission Complete” banner that hung above the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln as President Bush called an end to combat operations in Iraq sort of immortalized his presidency.  Then all hell broke loose.

But, then again, what was “Mission Complete”?  Saddam Hussein’s poorly assembled military barely put up a fight as U.S.-led forces marched their way to Baghdad.  It didn’t take long for the American people (or at least those who didn’t need neocons inside the Bush White House and Fox News to tell them what to think) to see that the Bush administration had thought as far as the invasion and nothing more.  No clear defined enemy.  No clear defined victory.  No objective.  Just “stay the course”.  Horrors stories from Abu Graib that smeared the name of the United States.

So what have we learned from our experiences in Iraq?  I like to think nothing.  The left’s attacks during the Bush administration’s handling of the war was all for posturing.  They have their own wars they’d like to fight.  You know those untold millions the Obama administration is giving to the rebels is Syria?  The U.S. taxpayer will be paying that back.  How does a rebel pay back money that they don’t have?

In 1997, a neoconservative think-tank was created – The Project for the New American Century.  Comprising of Bush insiders such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Dick Cheney – to make a long story short – the goal of PNAC was to lead the world militarily.  From the outset, Saddam Hussein’s regime seemed to be in the cross hairs of the PNAC members and attached conservatives.  (Please click the hyperlink to learn more.)

On September 20,2001, PNAC sent a letter to President Bush urging regime change in Iraq.

…even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.

What’s the meaning?  The United States was invading Iraq regardless.  A quote from PNAC’s manifesto that draws more questions than answers was this:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor.

That “new Pearl Harbor” came on September 11, 2001.  And with it, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden, who seems until recently, was forgotten.

In serving their own interests, the neoconservatives have placed both the sanctity and security of the United States in jeopardy.  I hope we have learned our lesson.  But I doubt it.

‘Treason doth never prosper’, wrote an English poet.  What’s the reason?  If it prosper then none dare call it treason.
– Kevin Costner, JFK

This image was selected as a picture of the we...

This image was selected as a picture of the week on the Malay Wikipedia for the 26th week, 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

During this year, you have heard such stories of President Obama leaving out the word “Creator” from the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.  I was watching a box set to the Looney Tunes one day, and an episode of Porky Pig and Uncle Sam taking a stroll through Washington D.C. came on.  At the end, they recited the Preamble; however, they left out the word “Creator”.

I have looked through YouTube and cannot find it.  But what I did find was Porky reciting the Pledge of allegiance and leaving out “One nation under God”.  So, Porky did it first!

I chose this year not to give the two-party system the satisfaction of having my television tuned into a superfluous debate; although, I did read about them.  I have friends on Facebook putting up things such as “we want our country back” and little pictures of Mitt Romney with “so-and-so likes Mitt Romney”.  Change will not come until we change the idea of government, and government changes its philisophical idea of why it was created.  So many bureaucrats.  So much red tape.  Do you actually think that one man who is a flip-flopper can change all of this?

I read the transcript of the foreign policy debate and it was so superficial, it was ridiculous!  They aren’t discussing different ideas of foreign policy – only technicalities.  Two issues were never brought up in the debates – and thus far, haven’t been – that I wish were:

One, is that President Obama seems to think he has the authority to assassinate American citizens.  And Mitt Romney doesn’t disagree.

“Those who would sacrafice essential liberty and freedom for temporary safety, deserve neither.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Another is that the Pentagon authorized the flying of drones over U.S. soil.  And since it isn’t brought up in the debates, no American thinks another thought of the matter.

“The truth is the most important value we have.  If the truth does not endure – if the government murders truth – if we cannot trust the hearts of these people, then this is not the country I was born in, and it is certainly not the country that I want to die in.”
– Kevin Costner, JFK

I’ve learned after a long time of harsh words, bruised egos, and clenched fists – you cannot change the opinions of others; particularly family members.  Suffice it to say – I go out of my way to avoid politics with those close to me.  I was over at my sister’s house yesterday when my brother-in-law and sister started talking of Romney.  And all the things he was “going to do”.

Now I don’t have cable, which means I was spared the temptation and agony of watching the Republican Convention, but apparently, Romney supports the freedom of religion.  Cool!  He knows what the First Amendment says!  He’ll repeal Obamacare, lower taxes, and create jobs.  The same rhetoric that every politician spouts.

“Yeah, even the gays are getting behind Romney!” my brother-in-law said.  (This is all true.  It’s too stupid to make up.)

“Really?!” my sister asked incredulously.  At this point, my face was contorted in a tight grimace.  I was trying very hard to keep out of this.

My personal oath not with standing, I took the bait.

“That’s because he supported same-sex marriage while he was Governor of Massachusetts,” I informed.  My brother-in-law’s face looked like Forrest Gump standing at a black-board trying to compute algebra.

“He was governor of Massachusetts?” he asked.

That’s when I realized – I give up!  If people aren’t going to know enough to know what state the Republican Presidential Candidate was governor of, then you won’t believe the facts about Romney.

Romney and President Obama are like those two cars in a used car lot.  You look at the outside.  Look at the inside.  Take it for a test drive.  But even still, you can tell that something just isn’t right.

Oh, and was that a “teleprompter” I saw the the RNC?  So when Romney starts to use one, can we blast him for it?

Brain-dead twitt Sarah Palin says Todd Akin has to go.  Bless her heart!  (Not really!)

I am a third-party voter.  And not because I believe that I am somehow going to score some huge victory that will upset the establishment, it’s my principle and my freedom that so many Americans take for granted.

I’ve taken the political affiliation tests.  One says that I’m a moderate Democrat, another says that I am a Republican, and there is still that other one that emphasizes that I am a libertarian.  If the latter be the case, let me just say that I am not a purist libertarian.  And with that being said, I don’t put much stock in political tests.

Confessing that you are a third-party voter is much like proclaiming you are a nondenominational Christian (I take my teaching from the word of God and not by what some sect says).  It never seems to amaze me the reaction I get from those who are Baptists, Nazarene, Methodist – whatever.  It is like they get a constipated look on their faces.  Like they are trying to compute what they have just heard but their brain is saying, “system overload.”

Likewise, it is the same thing – or almost the same thing – when I say that come November 8, 2012, I will be voting for a third-party.  Only, this time, the reaction I get is much more visceral.

While I am here I would like to add my two cents worth about something else: The disgruntled voters are the ones who don’t vote.  I love it when I here, “Why vote?  The guy I wanted to win didn’t win anyway, so why bother?”  For those long-time non-participants – if you don’t vote, then your candidate doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

I also support the Electoral College.  Thus far I have not seen sufficient evidence to convince me otherwise.  Only twice in American history has a President lost the popular vote and won the Electoral vote.

Earlier this year I posted and article I found that I titled Why Mitt Romney would make a horrible President!  Read the information below, and you tell me how he would be a better President than Barack Obama.

Many people I know find that my inclination towards the little credited third-party is folly.  It is not whether you believe in a politician, but whether that politician is believable.  Mitt Romney’s past speaks for himself.  And with a past like that, how can anyone believe what he says?

We as Americans are charged with the duty not to vote for the unscrupulous types like Mitt Romney for the sake of ousting the President; rather, we are charged with the duty to vote for what is right.  And often times, what is right isn’t right in the eyes of the world.

Whye Mitt Romney would make a horrible President!

 

America beware if Romney should get elected.

“You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what’s in the best interest of the United States against a potential threat.” –on whether he would consult Congress about invading Iran

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….

#1 Obamacare was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed by the U.S. Congress.  Mitt Romney says that he would repeal Obamacare, but the reality is that Romneycare was what Obamacare was based on.  In fact, a recent MSNBC article brought to light some new information about the relationship between Romneycare and Obamacare….

Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as “Obamacare.”

The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney continues to defend Romneycare, but the reality is that it really is a total nightmare for Massachusetts.  The following is how one blogger summarized some of the key points of Romneycare….

• Punitive To Individuals. Everyone must buy health insurance or face tax penalties equal to 50% of cost of standard policy. • Hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on free hospital care were converted into subsidies to help the needy buy insurance. • A health insurance “exchange” was established to help connect the uninsured with private health plans at more affordable rates. • Health plans can offer consumers higher deductibles and more restrictive physician and hospital networks in order to lower costs. • Punitive to Businesses with 11 or more workers that do not offer insurance must pay a $295 per employee fee. • Established payment policy advisory board; one Board member must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization represented. • Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions for copay of $50.

So what have been the results of Romneycare in Massachusetts?  According to the Daily Caller, health care costs and health insurance premiums have gone up dramatically in Massachusetts….

Since the bill became law, the state’s total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 percent. Medicaid spending has gone from less than $6 billion a year to more the $9 billion. Many consumers have seen double-digit percentage increases in their premiums.

All of that certainly sounds a whole lot like Obamacare.

Unfortunately, the other Republican candidates have not taken advantage of this weakness.  According to one brand new poll, 6 times as many Republicans view Romneycare unfavorably as view it favorably.  This is something that the other candidates should be jumping on big time.

#2 During his time as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney significantly raised taxes. The following is an excerpt from a CBS News article….

Mitt Romney’s Harvard MBA and gold-plated resume convinced many business leaders he would follow in the tradition of corporate-friendly Republicans when he was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002.

Within three years, some had a vastly different opinion, after Romney’s efforts raised the tax bill on businesses by $300 million

The same article also notes that Romney jacked up “fees and fines” on Massachusetts taxpayers substantially….

Romney and lawmakers also approved hundreds of millions in higher fees and fines during his four years in office.

Many in the Massachusetts business community were quite disgusted with Romney by the end of his tenure.  Peter Nicholas, the chairman of Boston Science Corporation, says that “tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney.

#3 Government spending in Massachusetts increased significantly under Mitt Romney.  An advocate of smaller government he most definitely is not.

This was especially true for the last two budgets passed under Romney.  In fiscal year 2006, government spending in Massachusetts increased by 7.6 percent.  In fiscal year 2007, government spending in Massachusetts increased by a whopping 10.2 percent.

#4 It turns out that Mitt Romney is a believer in the theory of man-made global warming.  In fact, Al Gore recently praised on Mitt Romney on his blog. In a post entitled “Good for Mitt Romney — though we’ve long passed the point where weak lip-service is enough on the Climate Crisis“, Al Gore lavished the following praise on the former Massachusetts governor….

“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”

Not only that, it is also very important to remember that while Mitt Romney was governor, Massachusetts became the very first state to pass a law to regulate carbon emissions.

#5 If Mitt Romney becomes president, we may actually have “cap and trade” shoved down our throats.  While campaigning for president in 2007, Mitt Romney said that he would support a “cap and trade” carbon tax scheme for the entire world….

“I support Cap-and-Trade on a global basis but not the USA going alone. I want to do it with other nations involved and on a global scale.”

#6 Mitt Romney had a horrible record of creating jobs while governor of Massachusetts.  According to Boston Herald business reporter Bret Arends, only one state in the entire country was worse at creating jobs while Romney was in office….

“During the four years Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, it had the second worst jobs record of any state in America…it wasn’t a regional issue. The rest of New England created nearly 200,000 jobs.”

#7 Mitt Romney was a very enthusiastic supporter of the Wall Street bailouts.  When the time comes for more Wall Street bailouts it seems almost certain that Mitt Romney will bail them out again.

#8 If Romney becomes president, get ready for a flood of liberal judges.  While he was governor of Massachusetts, there were actually significantly more Democrats among his judicial appointments than there were Republicans.

#9 Mitt Romney is incredibly soft on illegal immigration.  Back in 2007, Mitt Romney made the following statement….

“But my view is that those 12 million who’ve come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here”

#10 While he was governor, Mitt Romney received advice on global warming and carbon emissions from the man who is now the top science adviser to Barack Obama.  His name is John P. Holdren, and he has some very, very disturbing ideas.  For example, he once wrote the following….

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Holdren also believes that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution….

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

So if this is the kind of person that Mitt Romney relied on for “scientific advice” while he was governor, what kind of people would Romney bring in to his administration once he is president?

#11 Mitt Romney has been a huge supporter of gun control laws.  When he was running for governor in Massachusetts, he made the following statement….

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts- I support them…I believe they help protect us, and provide for our safety.”

#12 Mitt Romney once claimed that he was more “pro-choice” than Ted Kennedy, but now he claims that he is pro-life.  In a recent article for WorldNetDaily, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt explained why so many voters are still skeptical….

This year he’s the only major Republican presidential candidate who has yet to sign the Susan B. Anthony List pledge to defend life and defund Planned Parenthood nationwide. Candidates Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty and Santorum all signed the pledge, although it should be noted Herman Cain supports everything in the pledge except the Fetal Pain Act. (Cain is not fully pro-life, either.) And who can forget Mitt’s famous 2002 campaign debate bragging repeatedly that he’s more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy?

#13 During this campaign season, Mitt Romney has stated that he only supports partnership agreements for gay couples and not gay marriage, but what Romney actually did while governor of Massachusetts suggests otherwise.  In the WorldNetDaily article referenced above, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt detailed how Mitt Romney aggressively implemented gay marriage in the state of Massachusetts….

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided in 2003 to recognize homosexual “marriage,” ignoring the voters and the Constitution, the court admitted it did not have power to issue licenses or force participation by justices of the peace to solemnize the weddings. But as governor, Romney didn’t wait for the legislature to act, he just ordered the marriage licenses and weddings to go forward, all by himself. Earlier this month, Romney said in New Hampshire, “What I would support [nationwide] is letting people who are of the same gender form – if you will – partnership agreements.”

#14 As late as 2007, Mitt Romney was a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership.  The following is what romneyexposed.com says about this organization….

They often work in conjunction with the pro-abortion group, Republicans for Choice, and the Republican homosexual group, the Log Cabin Club.  They also opposed the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and set up a 527 campaign committee that received funding from far left funder George Soros.

#15 According to the Huffington Post, Mitt Romney has raised more money from lobbyists than all of the other Republican candidates combined.

So if Mitt Romney becomes president, who do you think he is going to listen to – the American people or the lobbyists?

#16 Mitt Romney is a big time Wall Street insider.  It is estimated that Romney has a personal fortune of approximately a quarter of a billion dollars, and Wall Street money is being absolutely showered on his campaign.

In a recent article entitled “The Big Wall Street Banks Are Already Trying To Buy The 2012 Election“, I detailed how numbers compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show that Mitt Romney is getting far more money from the “too big to fail” Wall Street banks than all of the other Republican candidates combined.  The following is an excerpt from that article that shows how much money employees of those banks (and their wives) have been giving to Romney so far this year….

*****

Goldman Sachs

Mitt Romney: $352,200 Barack Obama: $49,124 Tim Pawlenty: $25,000 Jon Huntsman: $6,750 Rick Perry: $5,500 Ron Paul: $2,500

Morgan Stanley

Mitt Romney: $184,800 Tim Pawlenty: $41,715 Barack Obama: $28,225 Rick Perry: $20,750 Jon Huntsman: $9,750 Newt Gingrich: $1,000 Ron Paul: $1,000 Herman Cain: $500

Bank of America

Mitt Romney: $112,500 Barack Obama: $46,699 Tim Pawlenty: $12,750 Jon Huntsman: $4,250 Ron Paul: $3,451 Rick Perry: $2,600 Thad McCotter: $2,000 Herman Cain: $750 Michele Bachmann: $500 Newt Gingrich: $250

JPMorgan Chase

Mitt Romney: $107,250 Barack Obama: $38,039 Rick Perry: $27,050 Tim Pawlenty: $16,750 Jon Huntsman: $7,500 Ron Paul: $5,451

Citigroup

Mitt Romney: $56,550 Barack Obama: $36,887 Tim Pawlenty: $5,300 Rick Perry: $3,000 Herman Cain: $1,465 Michele Bachmann: $1,000 Ron Paul: $702

As you can see, no other Republican candidate even comes close to Romney at any of these big Wall Street banks.

In fact, of the candidates that are left in the Republican race, Mitt Romney has raised 13 times as much Wall Street money as anyone else has.

The following are the overall donation numbers from employees of the big Wall Street banks and their wives….

Mitt Romney: $813,300 Barack Obama: $198,874 Tim Pawlenty: $101,515 Rick Perry: $58,900 Jon Huntsman: $28,250 Ron Paul: $13,104 Herman Cain: $2,715 Michelle Bachmann: $1,500 Newt Gingrich: $1,250

These numbers paint a very disturbing picture.  Even though Romney’s poll numbers are in the mid to low 20s most of the time, employees of the big Wall Street banks gave him $813,300 during the first 9 months of this year and they only gave $105,719 to the rest of the Republican candidates combined.

*****

It is quite obvious that the “establishment” is in love with Mitt Romney.

But if the American people elect Mitt Romney, they will get someone who believes in big spending, big government, bank bailouts, health care mandates, climate change legislation, liberal judges, gun control laws, amnesty for illegal aliens and making things as comfortable for the fatcats on Wall Street as possible.

Yes, Barack Obama has been absolutely horrible, but the answer is most definitely not Mitt Romney.

Look, the truth is that another four years of Barack Obama would be a complete and total nightmare.

But so would four years of Mitt Romney.

America deserves better than the “lesser of two evils”.

Unfortunately, the American people have been dead asleep and have been sending incompetents, con men and charlatans to Washington D.C. for decades.

Right now it looks like the Republican Party is going to nominate yet another establishment “politician” in 2012.

Hopefully people will wake up to the truth about Mitt Romney while there is still time.

 

Ron Paul possibly has raised more money than any other GOP candidate.  His supporters are among the most enthusiastic.  And yet, he still cannot win a primary.  Newt Gingrich’s campaign is floundering like a fish out of water, and by the way, for a fifty dollar fee you can get a picture taken with the man.  It remains to be seen as to what side Mitt Romney really is on.

And then there was Rick Santorum!  And Sarah Palin!

By now you have heard of Santorum’s “bullshit” comment and how New York Times journalist Jeff Zeleny asked Santorum if Romney “was the worst Republican in the country to run against Obama.”  By now you’ve heard of little Ricky’s tirade and how Zeleny was “distorting” Ricky’s words.  “That’s bullshit!”  And you can quote him on that.

However, in Racine, Wisconsin Santorum had this to say:  “Why would we put someone up who is uniquely – pick any other Republican in the country. He is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama. Why would Wisconsin want to vote for someone like that?”

Sounds pretty close to me.

There’s a couple of reasons why Santorum would characterize Zeleny’s question as “bullshit”.  1. Bad press is better than no press.  2. Fearing a loss to the GOP frontrunner, after his inflammatory comments, maybe Santorum felt he had to get on Romney’s good side.  You know, the best chance for the V.P. nomination.

Enter Sarah Palin with the obligatory ‘don’t cha know’ persona.

The former half-term governor of Alaska took to Fox News (where else) to voice her opinion.  Which brings me to another point: Do you know why Sarah Palin never goes to any other network other than Fixed News?  She would have to answer some real questions.

“It was good and it was strong and it was about time because he’s saying enough is enough of the liberal media twisting conservative’s words (Zeleny’s words were not ‘twisting’.  If Ms. Palin could read Santorum’s words verbatim – oh, that’s right, she doesn’t know what that word means),” Palin said on Fox News late Monday night. “I was like welcome to my world Rick. And good on ya, (‘don’t cha know’ moment) don’t retreat (this is as overplayed as Git-R-Done).”

Meanwhile, Santorum said that a conservative that doesn’t take on a journalist from the New York Times isn’t “worth your salt” – as far as he’s concerned.

No, Ricky, a conservative that wants to tackle the real issues – by this I mean the Party of No for the sake of saying “No” when it comes to party lines – and sticking to real conservatism (unlike George W. Bush) makes you a conservative.

Taking on a liberal journalist from the New York Times doesn’t make you a conservative, it makes you – well, I don’t know what it makes you, but not conservative.

“I was glad that he called out this reporter,” Palin said. “He and the other candidates, all of them, they need to do more of this because believe me the American people are tired of what the leftist media continues to do to conservatives.”

Wrong again, Sarah.  The American people don’t know what their tired of.  You want to label something as bullshit?  How about a foreign policy that props up despots all in the name of “freedom”?  How about turning a once secular nation into a civil war zone?  How about excluding evidence that the United States gave Iraq it’s biological weapons and nuclear technology?  How about the sacrifice of American’s right all in the name of a bogus ‘war on terrorism’?

Santorum couldn’t aim for the toilet bowl unless the Republican establishment was holding it for him.