Thursday, December 22, 2011

16 Reasons Why Mitt Romney Would Be A Terrible President



Well, there are certainly many reasons not to support, Mitt, the bankers best friend.
This article, that I came across, pretty much sums up why Romney would be a terrible choice for POTUS:
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.
...

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.
...

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.”
...

#2 During his time as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney significantly raised taxes. ... Romney and lawmakers also approved hundreds of millions in higher fees and fines during his four years in office.
...
#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"
...

#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.
...

#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.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Here is my problem with the GOP candidates. Most or all of them would not do those things we must do to prevent or mitigate our economic and social collapse. Romney for example, would be a Obama light. He probably would not actively try to repeal Obama care and would probably continue to bail out failing banks/industries and borrow and print money. He would probably not touch the union problem with a 10 foot pole. He would not do anything to secure our borders or rid this country of the illegal aliens that are draining our coffers and destroying our health care system. What he and the rest of the candidates would do from day one is begin running for re-election. The result of a Romney or Gingrich would be more of the same, perhaps at a modestly slower speed but still downhill towards the destruction of our constitutional republic.
If, on the other hand, Obama is re-elected he will continue to loot the treasury, borrow us into irreversible bankruptcy, destroy our military and put the nail in the coffin of our constitutional government. This "might" wake up the vast majority of Americans who have tuned out politics and never learned anything in high school history or civics classes and "maybe" create a revolution that would bring us back to the original intent of the framers of the constitution. Much like with a crack addict attempts at intervention are always unsuccessful until they hit rock bottom. Think about it; a solid 43% or so of Americans when polled, like Obama and want four more years! How could that be? Simple, they are Democrats/liberals and believe they will get some of the "Obama dollars" and want the party to roll on "Laissez les bons temps rouler". These are the crack heads (and arguably the 20% or so who call themselves independents) who must hit rock bottom before they will wake up. Sadly we are all on the same roller coaster and will all take the same ride.
But the choice as I see it is either a generation or two or three generations of slow/fast decline with no hope of a turn around anytime soon until we go the way of the Romans: Or a national version of tough love where the left/liberal philosophy is tried and fails dramatically followed by a French style revolution where politicians are jailed/guillotined until they are all gone and we start again with the original intent of our constitution.
I am aware of the risks but I argue that any belief that the status quo is not riskier proves that we are in denial.
Let me give you a simple and succinct proof of the senseless and incomprehensible risk we face with the status quo: Our congress is about to vote to give BILLION$ to unemployment payments. Certainly everyone reading this knows someone or has a brother-in-law etc. who is unemployed, has been for a year or two and has no intent of working as long as the government continues to send him checks. At the same time the same congress is going to cut national defense. I'm not just saying to stop spending on wars in foreign countries (which makes sense) but to cut the muscle and bone of our defense to do what??? To pay people to not work in unemployment, food stamps, section 8, welfare, Medicaid, etc., etc. There is no end of the trillions they will spend to buy votes but they will cut national defense!!! Do you still believe the status quo is a good idea?

Judy Aron said...

No, I do not believe the Status Quo is a good idea - which is one reason why I support Ron Paul for president.

SonofSaxon said...

Judy,

I agree. Romney, as well as every one of the republican candidates besides Ron Paul, is just going to be 'status quo' and a continuation of the nightmare situation our country is in right now. If the votes were actually counted, I believe Ron Paul would win both the nomination and the general election in a landslide. But I am afraid that the truth is that the "voting" process is completely rigged with the electronic "voting" machines.

By the way, I am the author of the TruthSeeker Archive blog, if you would like to check out my site.

I would also like to make you aware of a new message board and forum a friend of mine and I have just recently started, which is dedicated to COMPLETE freedom of speech and geared towards those of the "truthseeker" point of view. We would love to have you join.

Here is link to forum:

Knowledge is Power - The Uncensored Free Speech Forum

All the best,
SonofSaxon