Reasons NOT to vote for Obama OR Romney
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.
A few weeks ago, the International Business Times reported, “China overtook Japan as the largest holder of U.S. national debt in 2009. As of December (the most recent data available), it held about 23.1 percent, or $1.15 trillion, of all foreign investment in U.S. privately held federal debt, according to a newly released report by the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. … Without monetary policy change, the CBO warned in its 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook on June 5, the U.S. federal debt could be twice the size of the U.S. gross domestic product by 2037.”
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 the Congressional Budget Office recently released updated figures that reveal how Obamacare will cost twice as much as the original price tag first soft-lobbed at the American public, from $900 billion then to $1.76 trillion between now and 2022.
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.
Under Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts became the first state in the country to pass legislation to regulate carbon emissions, in 2006. This is “something the Obama administration is trying to do to all states through the Environmental Protection Agency’s draconian job-killing regulations and mandates.” notes the Investors editorial.
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….
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...]
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...]
A Word About The Elections Chuck Baldwin
11/1/12
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5229
A Word About The Elections
With the 2012 Presidential election just a few days away, it is almost superfluous for me to engage in any kind of in depth discussion, as most people cannot, for the life of them, get past the political theater that is currently crescendoing to a climax. Therefore, I will simply provide readers with a few passing thoughts regarding the elections next week.
I think Mitt Romney will somewhat comfortably win the Presidential election. This will cause “conservatives,” Christians, and most Republicans to go into a state of deep hibernation, which will allow Romney to wreak havoc upon the Constitution and liberties of the people. In 2012, Barack Obama is the “Boogeyman” that must defeated at all costs. But the fact is, with the exception of Romney’s more business-friendly approach to economics, the differences between Obama and Romney are negligible.
As I have noted in previous columns, the differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are miniscule on virtually every salient issue. They both supported TARP; they both supported Obama’s economic stimulus package; they both supported so-called assault weapons bans and other gun control measures; Obama has an “F” rating from Gun Owners of America, while Romney has a “D-” rating from GOA; neither man supports a balanced budget; neither man opposes foreign aid; they both supported the bailout of the auto industry; they both have a track record of being big spenders; they both fully support the Federal Reserve; they both oppose a full audit of the Fed; they are both supporters of universal health care; both men are showered with campaign contributions from Wall Street; neither of them wants to eliminate the IRS or the direct income tax; both men are on record as saying the TSA is doing a “great job”; they both supported the NDAA, including the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law; they both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act; they both believe that the President has “executive power” to assassinate and kill; both support the “free trade” agenda of the global elite; they are both soft on illegal immigration; they both support NAFTA and CAFTA; they both have a history of appointing liberal judges; they both believe the President has the authority to take the nation to war without the approval of Congress; and neither of them has any qualms about running up more public debt to the already gargantuan debt of 16 trillion dollars.
Judge Andrew Napolitano nailed it when he said, “Barack Obama loves Big Labor; Mitt Romney loves Big Business; but they both love Big Government.”
Steve Baldwin (no relation) agrees. Steve is a former California State legislator and former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy. He said:
“As someone who was asked by one of the presidential candidates to investigate Romney’s gubernatorial record,I can assure you there is little in Romney’s background to suggest he will be a Reagan-type president willing to undertake bold action to save our economy and restore our culture. I know every bill he signed and every statement he made as Governor. I know who his appointees were and the liberal vision that governed his actions. As Massachusetts Governor, he sided with the big government types in every crisis he faced. Indeed, he repeatedly sold out constitutional rights–freedom of religion, the 2nd amendment, etc., every time he had the opportunity to do so.
“He raised taxes on the private sector, destroyed job creation when he implemented RomneyCare, and came out in support of amnesty for illegal aliens. Most of his judicial appointees were to the left of Obama’s two appointments to the Supreme Court. As governor, he led the country in advancing three of the left’s most sacred issues: Cap and Trade, socialized medicine and gay marriage. Romney even supported Obama’s bailouts and the useless $8 billion stimulus. And he’s hostile to the notion of engaging in serious budget cuts, telling one reporter, ‘I’m not going to cut $1 trillion in the first year.’
“Let’s not also forget that Romney’s advisors actually met with Obama’s advisors on a dozen occasions to assist them with designing ObamaCare! It’s no surprise that Romney is refusing to call ObamaCare a tax, even though it’s the largest middle class tax hike in American history. The reason for this is because, while governor, his RomneyCare plan–the model for ObamaCare–was attacked as a tax and he argued it wasn’t.
“In other words, ObamaCare has been taken off the table as a campaign issue because Romney is afraid of being portrayed as a hypocrite for his past statements on this issue. This is reason number 167 why Romney should never have become our nominee.
“I don’t care how his campaign portrays him today, his record as Governor is far more indicative of how he will govern than his campaign sound bites. If you’re not familiar with what I am disclosing about Romney, it’s because the truth about Romney was kept from Republican voters. Yes, the conservative movement sold out to Romney. Starting in 2004, Romney created a slew of PACS and foundations that funneled thousands of dollars to hundreds of conservative groups, think tanks, grass roots leaders and GOP entities.
“In return, many of these entities that normally would have attacked Romney during the presidential primary went silent or even promoted him. I’ve tracked all of Romney contributions to conservative and GOP groups and it’s disgusting. It means that the leadership of our own conservative movement is up for the highest bidder and cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Even National Review, the nation’s leading conservative publication, took money from Romney and for the last six years blocked all articles critical of Romney. Instead, they published a slew of articles portraying him to be a conservative superstar. It was all phony and I can prove it.”
Even though Romney will promote at least 85% of the Obama agenda, conservatives have no fear or trepidation of Romney because he is a Republican, whereas Obama scares the pants off of them because he is a Democrat. Ah, don’t you just love partisan politics?
Therefore, as I said, absent massive vote-fraud, Romney will be our next President. But he will do NOTHING to stem the tide of coming disaster. Romney will be a military hawk of the highest order. And while corporations doing business with the military-industrial complex will reap huge profits, America’s continued foreign interventionism is going to bring us to the brink of World War III. Furthermore, it is the “we are at war” mantra that is used to justify a burgeoning police state in America, which Romney will enthusiastically continue to implement. And unlike the Democrat Barack Obama, the Republican Mitt Romney will have little resistance–except from a Democrat-controlled Senate.
Republicans will maintain control of the House of Representatives, which is probably a good thing; Democrats will probably control the Senate. Between the two, I had much rather have Republicans control the House, because trying to find honest-to-God freedomists among Republican US senators (you could count them on two hands) is like trying to find hen’s teeth. Again, Romney isn’t going to appoint freedomist judges anyway, so that argument is moot. But if the first six years of this century proved anything, it proved that neither major party in Washington, D.C., can be trusted with control of both chambers of Congress and the White House. That is a recipe for disaster!
At this point, I must remind readers that the reason Barack Obama was elected to begin with was due to the eight years of the phony-conservative G.W. Bush administrations. Americans were disillusioned and angry over Bush’s huge spending habits at home and his military adventurism overseas. I predict a Mitt Romney presidency will have the same effect. As with G. W. Bush, Mitt Romney will disappoint and anger the American electorate, which will pave the way for another leftist (Hillary Clinton?) to prevail in 2016.
“And the beat goes on.”
At some point–maybe toward the end of Romney’s first term–the chickens are going to come home to roost. Neither major party has the guts to do what it takes to put America on a solid financial footing. They are both beholden to too many parasites that are sucking the life’s blood out of our country. And neither party will do a darn thing to stop this fascination with empire that is putting our troops in killing fields all over the world. The result: it’s only a matter of time before the inevitable happens. And just about anybody with half a brain knows it!
11/1/12
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5229
A Word About The Elections
With the 2012 Presidential election just a few days away, it is almost superfluous for me to engage in any kind of in depth discussion, as most people cannot, for the life of them, get past the political theater that is currently crescendoing to a climax. Therefore, I will simply provide readers with a few passing thoughts regarding the elections next week.
I think Mitt Romney will somewhat comfortably win the Presidential election. This will cause “conservatives,” Christians, and most Republicans to go into a state of deep hibernation, which will allow Romney to wreak havoc upon the Constitution and liberties of the people. In 2012, Barack Obama is the “Boogeyman” that must defeated at all costs. But the fact is, with the exception of Romney’s more business-friendly approach to economics, the differences between Obama and Romney are negligible.
As I have noted in previous columns, the differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are miniscule on virtually every salient issue. They both supported TARP; they both supported Obama’s economic stimulus package; they both supported so-called assault weapons bans and other gun control measures; Obama has an “F” rating from Gun Owners of America, while Romney has a “D-” rating from GOA; neither man supports a balanced budget; neither man opposes foreign aid; they both supported the bailout of the auto industry; they both have a track record of being big spenders; they both fully support the Federal Reserve; they both oppose a full audit of the Fed; they are both supporters of universal health care; both men are showered with campaign contributions from Wall Street; neither of them wants to eliminate the IRS or the direct income tax; both men are on record as saying the TSA is doing a “great job”; they both supported the NDAA, including the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law; they both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act; they both believe that the President has “executive power” to assassinate and kill; both support the “free trade” agenda of the global elite; they are both soft on illegal immigration; they both support NAFTA and CAFTA; they both have a history of appointing liberal judges; they both believe the President has the authority to take the nation to war without the approval of Congress; and neither of them has any qualms about running up more public debt to the already gargantuan debt of 16 trillion dollars.
Judge Andrew Napolitano nailed it when he said, “Barack Obama loves Big Labor; Mitt Romney loves Big Business; but they both love Big Government.”
Steve Baldwin (no relation) agrees. Steve is a former California State legislator and former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy. He said:
“As someone who was asked by one of the presidential candidates to investigate Romney’s gubernatorial record,I can assure you there is little in Romney’s background to suggest he will be a Reagan-type president willing to undertake bold action to save our economy and restore our culture. I know every bill he signed and every statement he made as Governor. I know who his appointees were and the liberal vision that governed his actions. As Massachusetts Governor, he sided with the big government types in every crisis he faced. Indeed, he repeatedly sold out constitutional rights–freedom of religion, the 2nd amendment, etc., every time he had the opportunity to do so.
“He raised taxes on the private sector, destroyed job creation when he implemented RomneyCare, and came out in support of amnesty for illegal aliens. Most of his judicial appointees were to the left of Obama’s two appointments to the Supreme Court. As governor, he led the country in advancing three of the left’s most sacred issues: Cap and Trade, socialized medicine and gay marriage. Romney even supported Obama’s bailouts and the useless $8 billion stimulus. And he’s hostile to the notion of engaging in serious budget cuts, telling one reporter, ‘I’m not going to cut $1 trillion in the first year.’
“Let’s not also forget that Romney’s advisors actually met with Obama’s advisors on a dozen occasions to assist them with designing ObamaCare! It’s no surprise that Romney is refusing to call ObamaCare a tax, even though it’s the largest middle class tax hike in American history. The reason for this is because, while governor, his RomneyCare plan–the model for ObamaCare–was attacked as a tax and he argued it wasn’t.
“In other words, ObamaCare has been taken off the table as a campaign issue because Romney is afraid of being portrayed as a hypocrite for his past statements on this issue. This is reason number 167 why Romney should never have become our nominee.
“I don’t care how his campaign portrays him today, his record as Governor is far more indicative of how he will govern than his campaign sound bites. If you’re not familiar with what I am disclosing about Romney, it’s because the truth about Romney was kept from Republican voters. Yes, the conservative movement sold out to Romney. Starting in 2004, Romney created a slew of PACS and foundations that funneled thousands of dollars to hundreds of conservative groups, think tanks, grass roots leaders and GOP entities.
“In return, many of these entities that normally would have attacked Romney during the presidential primary went silent or even promoted him. I’ve tracked all of Romney contributions to conservative and GOP groups and it’s disgusting. It means that the leadership of our own conservative movement is up for the highest bidder and cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Even National Review, the nation’s leading conservative publication, took money from Romney and for the last six years blocked all articles critical of Romney. Instead, they published a slew of articles portraying him to be a conservative superstar. It was all phony and I can prove it.”
Even though Romney will promote at least 85% of the Obama agenda, conservatives have no fear or trepidation of Romney because he is a Republican, whereas Obama scares the pants off of them because he is a Democrat. Ah, don’t you just love partisan politics?
Therefore, as I said, absent massive vote-fraud, Romney will be our next President. But he will do NOTHING to stem the tide of coming disaster. Romney will be a military hawk of the highest order. And while corporations doing business with the military-industrial complex will reap huge profits, America’s continued foreign interventionism is going to bring us to the brink of World War III. Furthermore, it is the “we are at war” mantra that is used to justify a burgeoning police state in America, which Romney will enthusiastically continue to implement. And unlike the Democrat Barack Obama, the Republican Mitt Romney will have little resistance–except from a Democrat-controlled Senate.
Republicans will maintain control of the House of Representatives, which is probably a good thing; Democrats will probably control the Senate. Between the two, I had much rather have Republicans control the House, because trying to find honest-to-God freedomists among Republican US senators (you could count them on two hands) is like trying to find hen’s teeth. Again, Romney isn’t going to appoint freedomist judges anyway, so that argument is moot. But if the first six years of this century proved anything, it proved that neither major party in Washington, D.C., can be trusted with control of both chambers of Congress and the White House. That is a recipe for disaster!
At this point, I must remind readers that the reason Barack Obama was elected to begin with was due to the eight years of the phony-conservative G.W. Bush administrations. Americans were disillusioned and angry over Bush’s huge spending habits at home and his military adventurism overseas. I predict a Mitt Romney presidency will have the same effect. As with G. W. Bush, Mitt Romney will disappoint and anger the American electorate, which will pave the way for another leftist (Hillary Clinton?) to prevail in 2016.
“And the beat goes on.”
At some point–maybe toward the end of Romney’s first term–the chickens are going to come home to roost. Neither major party has the guts to do what it takes to put America on a solid financial footing. They are both beholden to too many parasites that are sucking the life’s blood out of our country. And neither party will do a darn thing to stop this fascination with empire that is putting our troops in killing fields all over the world. The result: it’s only a matter of time before the inevitable happens. And just about anybody with half a brain knows it!
Every day, our government works less and less the way it’s supposed to; the way your school civics class told you it works. The reason: it’s corrupted by money.
Politicians spend huge amounts of time raising money for their election campaigns. They incur serious obligations to individuals and institutions whose narrow interests are often contrary to the common good. You and I increasingly understand that this is a problem. Nearly two thirds of Americans oppose the Supreme Court’s Citizens United and other decisions that, in effect, legalized unlimited secret contributions to political campaigns. Eight out of every ten Americans agree there’s too much money in politics. Here’s how we can try to fix it.
Shrinking support gets legislators’ attention like nothing else, and history shows that even though third parties regularly lose, over the long term they generate pressure on the major parties to address important issues.
This November, don’t do what big money expects you to do. Let’s make our votes count for real change.
According to The Columbia Encyclopedia, “the existence of only two major parties, as in most English-speaking countries, presupposes general public agreement on constitutional questions and on the aims of government.” The reason for two parties is that each might keep a check on the other in order that neither party exceeds its constitutional bounds. The competitive two-party system, so it was thought, would assure a continuum of moral as well as political rectitude. The competition would expose and thus rid the public offices of charlatans; only statesmen would hold down the jobs.
Certainly the two-party system aimed at, if it did not presuppose, honest candidates contending for office; that is, each office seeker fairly presenting his own beliefs, leaving to the voters the matter of choosing. In respectable two-party theory the candidate tries to persuade the voters that his views are the ones they should support. Clearly, the theory did not include the idea that vying candidates should be nothing but mere responses to voter opinion polls. That would be senseless. Were this the case, we could now feed all voter opinions into an electronic computer and, within a few seconds, have all legislation written for us!
Regardless of how respectable the theory, its practice has come a cropper. Today, trimming is so much in vogue that often a voter cannot cast a ballot except for one of two trimmers. Heard over and over again is the apology, “Well, the only choice I had was to vote for the lesser of two evils.” Implicit in this confession are a moral tragedy and a political fallacy which, in combination, must eventually lead to economic disaster.
. The Moral Tragedy
It is morally tragic whenever a citizen’s only choice is between two wrongdoers—that is, between two trimmers.
The above are severe charges, and I do not wish to be misunderstood. One of countless personal experiences will help clarify what is meant: A candidate for Congress sat across the desk listening to my views about limited government. At the conclusion of an hour’s discussion he remarked, “I am in thorough accord with your views; you are absolutely right. But I couldn’t get elected on any such platform, so I shall represent myself as holding views other than these.” He might as well have added, “I propose, in my campaign, to bear false witness.”
No doubt the candidate thought, on balance, that he was justified, that righteousness would be better served were he elected regardless of how untruthfully he represented his position—than were he to stand for his version of the truth and go down to defeat.
This candidate is “a mixed-up kid.” His values are topsy-turvy, as the saying goes. In an egotism that has no parallel, he puts his election to office above honesty. Why, asks the responsible voter, should I endorse dishonesty by voting for such a candidate? He has, on his own say-so, forsworn virtue by insisting on bearing false witness. Does he think his ambition for office is right because he needs a job? Then let him seek employment where want of principle is less harmful to others. Or, is his notion of rightness based on how much the rest of us would benefit by having him as our representative? What? A person without moral scruple representing us in Congress! The role of the legislator is to secure our rights to life, liberty, and property—that is, to protect us against fraud, violence, predation, and misrepresentation (false witness). Would our candidate have us believe that “it takes a crook to catch a crook”?
Such righteousness or virtue as exists in the mind of a man does not and cannot manifest itself in the absence of integrity—the honest, accurate reflection in deeds of one’s real beliefs. Without this virtue the other virtues must lie dormant and unused. What else remains? It is doubtful if anything contributes more to the diseased condition of society than the diminishing practice of integrity.
Those who attach this much importance to integrity must perforce construe trimming as evil. Therefore, when both candidates for public office are judged to be trimmers, the one who trims less than the other is often regarded as “the lesser of two evils.” But, is he really? It must be conceded that there are gradations of wrongdoing: killing is worse than stealing, and perhaps stealing is worse than covetousness. At least, if wrongdoing is not comparative, then it is self-evident that the best of us are just as evil as the worst of us; for man is fallible, all men!
Principles Will Not Bend
While categories of wrongdoing are comparative, it does not follow that wrong deeds within any given category of evil are comparative. For instance, it is murder whether one man is slain, or two. It is stealing whether the amount is ten cents or a thousand dollars. And, a lie is a lie whether told to one person or to a million. “Thou shalt not kill”; “Thou shalt not steal”; “Thou shalt not bear false witness” are derived from principles. Principles do not permit of compromise; they are either adhered to or surrendered.
If the only relevant question at issue is whether or not a candidate will trim at all, then trimming is not comparative and, thus, it would be incorrect to report, “I cast my ballot for the lesser of two evils.” Accuracy would require, “I felt there was no choice except to cast a ballot for one of two men, both of whom have sacrificed integrity for the hope of votes.”
Irresponsible Citizenship
We must not, however, heap all our condemnation on candidates who trim. There would be no such candidates were it not for voters who trim. Actually, when we find only trimmers to vote for, most of us are getting what we deserve. The trimmers who succeed in offering themselves as candidates are, by and large, mere reflections of irresponsible citizenship—that is, of neglected thinking, study, education, vigilance. Candidates who trim and voters who trim are each cause and each effect; they feed on each other.
To repeat, when one must choose between men who forsake integrity, the situation is tragic, and there is little relief at the polling level except as candidates of integrity may be encouraged by voters of integrity. Impractical idealism? Of course not! Read Edmund Burke, one of the great statesmen of all time, addressing his constituency:
But his [the candidate's] unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
II. The Political Fallacy
Is it fallacious to believe that responsible citizenship requires casting a ballot for one or the other of two candidates, regardless of how far the candidates have departed from moral rectitude?
Before trying to arrive at an answer, let us reflect on the reason why the so-called duty of casting a ballot, regardless of circumstance, is so rarely questioned. Quite obviously, the duty to vote is one of those sanctified institutions, such as motherhood, which is beyond criticism. The obligation to vote at any and all elections, whatever the issues or personalities, is equated with responsible citizenship. Voting is deeply embedded in the democratic mores as a duty, and one does not affront the mores without the risk of scorn. To do so is to “raise the dead”; it is to resurrect questions that have been settled once and for all; it is to throw doubt on custom, tradition, orthodoxy, the folkways!
Yet any person who is conscious of our rapid drift toward the omnipotent state can hardly escape the suspicion that there may be a fault in our habitual way of looking at things. If the suspicion be correct, then it would be fatal never to examine custom. So, let us bring the sanctity of voting in to the open and take a hard look at it, not in the spirit of advocating something but of exploring it.
Hitler vs. Stalin
Now for the hard look: Where is the American who will argue that responsible citizenship requires casting a ballot if a Hitler and a Stalin were the opposing candidates? “Ah,” some will complain, “you carry the example to an absurdity.” Very well, let us move closer to home and our own experience.
Government in the U.S.A. has been pushed far beyond its proper sphere. The Marxian tenet, “from each according to ability, to each according to need,” backed by the armed force of the state, has become established polity. This is partly rationalized by something called “the new economics.” Within this kind of political framework, it is to be expected that one candidate will stand for the coercive expropriation of the earned income of all citizens, giving the funds thus gathered to those in groups A, B, and C. Nor need we be surprised that his opponent differs from him only in advocating that the loot be given to those in groups X, Y, and Z. Does responsible citizenship require casting a ballot for either of these political plunderers? The citizen has no significant moral choice but only an immoral choice in the event he has joined the unholy alliance himself and thinks that one of the candidates will deliver some of the largess to him or to a group he favors. In the latter case, the problem is not one of responsible citizenship but of irresponsible looting.
Registering a Protest
What would happen if we adopted as a criterion: Never vote for a trimmer! Conceding a generous liberality on the part of the electorate, millions of us would not cast ballots. Would the end result of this substantial, nonviolent protest, this large-scale demonstration of “voting by turning our backs,” worsen our situation? It is difficult to imagine how it could. For a while we would continue to get what we now have: a high percentage of trimmers and plunderers in public office, men who promise privileges in exchange for ballots—and freedom. In time, however, with this silent but eloquent refusal to participate, the situation might, conceivably, improve. Men of integrity and high moral quality—statesmen—might show forth and, if so, we could add their numbers to the few now in office.
Would a return to integrity by itself solve our problem? No, for many men of integrity do not understand freedom; or, if they do, are not devoted to it. But it is only among men of integrity that any solution can begin to take shape. Such men, at least, will do the right as they see the right; they tend to be teachable. Trimmers and plunderers, on the other hand, are the enemies of morality and freedom by definition; their motivations are below the level of principles; they cannot see beyond the emoluments of office.1
Here is a thought to weigh: If respect for a candidate’s integrity were widely adopted as a criterion for casting a ballot, millions of us, as matters now stand, would not cast ballots. Yet, in a very practical sense, would not those of us who protest in this manner be voting? Certainly, we would be counted among that growing number who, by our conscious and deliberate inaction, proclaim that we have no party. What other choice have we at the polling level? Would not this encourage men of statesmanlike qualities to offer themselves in candidacy?
A Sacd Institutioren
Why is so much emphasis placed upon voting as a responsibility of citizenship?2 Why the sanctity attached to voting? Foremost, no doubt, is a carry-over from an all-but-lost ideal in which voting is associated with making choices between honest beliefs, between candidates of integrity. We tend to stick with the form without regard to what has happened to the substance. Further, it may derive in part from the general tendency to play the role of Robin Hood, coupled with a reluctance to acknowledge this practice for what it is. Americans, at least, have some abhorrence of forcibly taking from the few and giving to the many without any sanction whatsoever. That would be raw dictatorship. But few people with this propensity feel any pangs of conscience if it can be demonstrated that “the people voted for it.” Thus, those who achieve political power are prone to seek popular sanction for what they do. And, as government increases its plundering activities, more and more citizens “want in” on the popular say-so. Thus it is that pressures increase for the extension of the franchise. Time was when only property holders could vote or, perhaps, even cared to vote. In 1870 the franchise was extended to Negroes and in 1920 to women. Now the drive is on to lower the age from 21 to 18, and this has already been achieved in some places.
Frédéric Bastiat gave us some good thoughts on this subject:
“If law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self-defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder—is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?
“Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege?
“If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?”3
An Alternative
We can, it seems to me, glean from the foregoing that there is no moral or political or social obligation to vote merely because we are confronted with ballots having names and/or issues printed thereon. Has this so-called obligation of a citizen to vote, regardless of the ballot presentations, any more to support it than political madness on the rampage? And, further, does this not deny to the citizen the only alternative left to him—not to endorse persons or measures he regards as repugnant? When presented with two trimmers, how else, at this level, is he to protest? Abstinence from ballot-casting would appear to be his only way to avoid being untrue to himself.
To rob this get-out-the-vote myth of its glamour, no more is required than to compare ballot-casting as a means of selecting representatives with a method devoid of all voter judgment: selection by lot. Politically unthinkable as it is, reflect, just for example, on your own congressional district. Disqualify all under 21, all of the insane, all illiterates, all convicts.4 Write the names of the balance on separate cards to put into a mixing machine, and let some blindfolded person withdraw one card. Presto! Here is your next representative in Congress, for one term only. After all, how can a person qualify to vote if he is not qualified to hold the office himself? And, further, it is assumed, he will feel duty-bound to serve, as when called for jury duty.
Wanted: An “Ordinary Citizen”
The first reaction to such a procedure is one of horror: “Why, we might get only an ordinary citizen.” Very well. Compare such a prospect with one of two wrongdoers which all too frequently is our only choice under the two-party, ballot-casting system. Further, I submit that there is no governmental official, today, who can qualify as anything better than an “ordinary citizen.” How can he possibly claim any superiority over those upon whose votes his election depends? And, it is of the utmost importance that we never ascribe anything more to any of them. Not one among the millions in officialdom is in any degree omniscient, all-seeing, or competent in the slightest to rule over the creative aspects of any other citizen. The recognition that a citizen chosen by lot could be no more than an ordinary citizen would be all to the good. This would automatically strip officialdom of that aura of almightiness which so commonly attends it; government would be unseated from its master’s role and restored to its servant’s role, a highly desirable shift in emphasis.
Reflect on some of the other probable consequences:
a. With nearly everyone conscious that only “ordinary citizens” were occupying political positions, the question of who should rule would lose its significance. Immediately, we would become acutely aware of the far more important question: What should be the extent of the rule? That we would press for a severe limitation of the state seems almost self-evident.
c. No more campaign speeches with their promises of how much better we would fare were the candidates to spend our income for us.
d. An end to campaign fundraising.
e. No more self-chosen “saviors” catering to base desires in order to win elections.
f. An end to that type of voting in Congress which has an eye more to re-election than to what’s right.
g. The mere prospect of having to go to Congress during a lifetime, even though there would be but one chance in some 10,000, would completely reorient citizens’ attention to the principles which bear on government’s relationship to society. Everyone would have an incentive to “bone up,” as the saying goes, if for no other reason than not to make a fool of himself, just in case! There would be an enormous increase in self-directed education in an area on which the future of society depends. In other words, the strong tendency would be to bring out the best, not the worst, in every citizen.
It would, of course, be absurd to work out the details, to refine, to suggest the scope of a selection-by-lot design, for it hardly falls within the realm of either probability or possibility—at least, not for a long, long time. Further, only folly would be heaped on absurdity were one to advocate any meddling with the present machinery.
Reform Follows Understanding
Why, if one believes mass voting to be inferior to selection by lot, should one not urge immediate reform? Let me slightly rephrase an explanation by Gustave Le Bon:
The reason is that it is not within our power to force sudden transformations in complex social organisms. Nature has recourse, at times, to radical measures, but never after our fashion, which explains how it is that nothing is more fatal to a people than the mania for great reforms, however excellent these reforms may appear theoretically. They would only be useful were it possible suddenly to change a whole nation of people. Men are ruled by ideas, sentiments, customs—these are of men’s essence. Institutions (social organisms) and laws are but the outward manifestation or outcome of the underlying ideas, sentiments, customs, in short, character. To urge a different outcome would in no way alter men’s character—or the outcome.5
Why, then, should selection by lot be so much as mentioned? Merely to let the mind dwell on this intriguing alternative to current political inanities gives all the ammunition one needs to refrain from casting a ballot for one of two candidates, neither of whom is guided by integrity. Unless we can divorce ourselves from this unprincipled myth, we are condemned to a political competition that has only one end: the omnipotent state. This would conclude all economic freedom and with it, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship. And even freedom to vote will be quite worthless—as it is under any dictatorship.
Responsible citizenship demands, first of all, a personal attention to and a constant re-examination of one’s own ideas, sentiments, customs. Such scrutiny may reveal that voting for candidates who bear false witness is not required of the good citizen. At the very least, the idea merits thoughtful exploration.
Notes
- If it be conceded that the role of government is to secure “certain unalienable rights, that among them are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” by what stretch of the imagination can this be achieved when we vote for those who are openly committed to unsecuring these rights?
- Responsibilities of citizenship involve a host of personal attributes, first and foremost a duty to one’s Maker, duty to self, to family, to neighbors, and so on. Is it not evident, therefore, that voting is a mere formality after the fact? It’s much too late to be a responsible citizen if the responsibility hasn’t been exercised before election day. Everybody voted for Khrushchev in the last Russian election! Clearly, that was no evidence of responsible citizenship.
- See The Law by Frédéric Bastiat, pp. 16–17. Obtainable from the Foundation for Economic Education.
- One might like to disqualify everybody who receives governmental aid but, then, who would remain? The very bread we eat is subsidized. Those who ride on planes or use the mails, and so on, would be disqualified.
- See The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon (New York: The Viking Press, 1960), p. 4.
Are Christians content to vote for the lesser of two evils? The Republican Party sure seems to think so. Their battle cry of “Anyone but Obama” has been reverberating across the land for nearly two years now, but is that really the kind of philosophy that should determine the leader of our nation? John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, said that “it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” This election may be the very first election in the history of America in which neither of the presidential candidates from the two major parties can legitimately claim to be a Christian. Should the Christians of America be willing to vote for the lesser of two evils?
No! We should not. In Romans 3:7, Paul asks a question that has been the focus of countless debates throughout the whole of human history. If we know for sure that telling a lie would accomplish more for the Lord than telling the truth, would the lie be justified by the good that it could accomplish? Verse 8 of the same chapter gives us the answer to that question in saying that we are not to do evil that good may come. The answer of Romans 3:8 stands in stark contrast to the prevailing philosophy of our day which is based on Voltaire’s pragmatic doctrine of “the best is the enemy of the good.” This philosophy is often reflected in the political dogma of the major parties, but the answer of God’s Word is very clear. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught.” (II Thessalonians 2:15)
Consider the instruction given to us in Romans 16:17-20:
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
Let’s apply this to the particular topic of politics. In this passage, God tells us to mark certain politicians and avoid them – don’t follow them – don’t vote for them. Which ones? The ones who cause Christians to either divide or offend in a manner contrary to God’s Word. Notice that he doesn’t speak of all those who cause divisions and offenses, for even the Word of God causes division (Hebrews 4:12). It is only those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to God’s Word that we are to avoid. This could be someone who says: “We don’t need to be divided over the issue of whether abortion is right or wrong. We all agree that there should be fewer abortions, so let’s just join together to accomplish that goal. Let’s limit our divisions to things like who we want to win the Super Bowl.” This kind of politician is to be avoided. He serves not our Lord Jesus Christ, but his own belly, and he uses good works and fair speeches to deceive the people into following him.
Now, verse 19 has direct application to today’s conservatives. Notice that God begins by praising them for being obedient and having a great testimony, but He said that He would yet have them do something more. He wanted them to be wise unto that which is good and simple concerning evil. Notice that the contrast is between wisdom and simplicity not between knowledge and ignorance. The Bible tells us that a wise man “useth knowledge aright.” (Proverbs 15:2) Therefore, God’s desire for us is that we will use our knowledge of the candidates correctly by casting our vote unto that which is good. We are to be simple concerning evil in that we refuse to use our knowledge in a manner that helps these men who are causing divisions and offenses contrary to the Word of God.
Then notice verse 20. What will be the result of rejecting those politicians who cause us to go against the Word of God? When we do this, God gives us victory not over our political opponents but over Satan himself, which brings me to I Peter 5:8-9.
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
What is Satan’s desire for this country? Is it not the same thing that he desires for every country? Is it not to turn us away from following God and to cause us to be more and more wicked until God Himself is forced to destroy us? As Christians, we must remember that Satan is our real enemy, not the other political party. Perhaps to defeat our political opponents it would be wise to compromise and permit a little bit of evil into our ranks in exchange for more votes, but that tactic will never work against Satan. This enemy can only be defeated by standing firm and without compromise on what we believe to be true.
Many say that this philosophy is all well and good but that it will never work in the “real” world. Of course, my first question is which world is more real, the world created by God and subject to His laws or a world governed by the imaginations of mere men? But I have also asked these people to explain why it will not work, and I always get an answer along the lines of, “He can’t get enough votes” or “He doesn’t have enough money.” I have never once received the answer of, “Because God will not bless him with a victory.” In fact, God is left completely out of their explanation as if He doesn’t even exist. But we know that God does exist. He does govern the affairs of men, and He never loses. Therefore, His side of the issue is always the winning side.
I am reminded of the passage in Isaiah 46:9-10:
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.
However, we must keep in mind that as Christians, sometimes our victory comes in spite of a loss. According to I Peter 3:14-16, sometimes God asks the righteous to suffer a loss so that He can put the wicked to shame.
But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled … Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
At first, this may seem counter intuitive, but let’s consider two opposing scenarios. Imagine for a moment that the Republican National Convention has concluded, and a very liberal contender has been announced as the Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States. There are two possible responses that the Christians of America could have to this decision by the Republican Party. They could choose to fall in line and vote for the Republican candidate regardless of his anti-biblical positions, or they could reject the decision of the Republican Party and vote for a candidate who has committed to govern our nation in a way that agrees with God’s Word.
Each of these two responses would produce a different result within the Republican Party. If the Christians of America choose the first option of supporting whichever candidate bears the Republican title, then the leaders of the Republican Party will have once again confirmed their presumption that the Christians will never abandon the Republican Party. If they have no fear of losing the Christian vote, then they will continue to seek out and support candidates who appeal to the vote which they are afraid of losing – the vote of the moderates and liberals. On the other hand, if the Christians of America choose the latter option and the Republican Party loses the upcoming presidential election, then the response of the party leaders will be very different. They will have learned that their abandonment of biblical principles is unacceptable to Christian voters, and in the future, they will seek out and support candidates who appeal to the vote which they are afraid of losing – the vote of their Christian base. As long as the Republican Party believes that the Christian base will simply fall in line and vote for whatever candidate they put forth, they will continue to seek candidates that appeal directly to voters that are more liberal.
This analysis brings us to the conclusion that pragmatism is self-perpetuating. Each time that the Christians of our nation give in to Voltaire’s pragmatic approach of choosing the lesser of two evils, we make our plight more difficult. I am reminded of the nations which occupied the land of Israel after it was conquered by the king of Assyria. At first, these nations had no fear of the God of Israel, and they suffered major setbacks as a result, but then they came up with a compromise. They decided to learn about God and tell everyone that they feared Him while at the same time continuing to actually serve their own gods. II Kings 17:40-41 reveals to us the long-term results of that decision:
Howbeit they did not hearken, but they did after their former manner. So these nations feared the LORD, and served their graven images, both their children, and their children's children: as did their fathers, so do they unto this day.
The people of those nations chose a pragmatic compromise, and their descendants were never able to turn back from the course which had been set.
It is imperative that we remember the warning given in Hebrews 3:12-14.
Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
Now, perhaps you are wondering why I skipped verse 15 in my quote from II Peter chapter 3. Verse 15 of this chapter provides us with a response to those Republicans who insist that we would do more harm than good if we refuse to vote for a liberal Republican candidate. This verse states:
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Here we see the true genius in deciding to vote according to God’s Word regardless of the consequences. A Christian who publicly refuses to vote for any candidate that does not adhere to biblical principles will have many people ask him how he can have any hope for the future of our nation when he chooses to vote in such a manner. What better opportunity could there be for teaching others that our hope is in the Lord? I have a friend who is an atheist, and he is a very difficult man to witness to; but when I told him that I would not vote for a liberal Republican, he immediately wanted to know why. My simple stand on the principles of the Bible opened the door for a discussion on the work of God throughout the course of human history.
As we enter the general election season, let us remember that our hope for the future of our nation is not found in a political party but rather in our submission to the Word of God. It is God who controls the heart of the king (Proverbs 21:1) and the course of the nation. Let us cast our vote in His favor, and marvel at the work of His hand. Regardless of the political outcome, we cannot possibly fail as long as we seek to follow Him (Psalm 37:18-20).
In I Chronicles 19:13, Joab decided that he would stand his ground and fight for the Lord regardless of the consequences. In doing so, he gave his brother the following exhortation:
Be of good courage, and let us behave ourselves valiantly for our people, and for the cities of our God: and let the LORD do that which is good in his sight.
