“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” Thomas Jefferson
In the face of the upcoming presidential election the rallying cry of the GOP has been to “beat Obama at all costs.” However, while the Republican establishment is poised to crown Mitt Romney their champion we must ask ourselves, what, exactly, is the cost of beating Obama if it means a Romney presidency? Obama has accomplished much since 2008: he has expanded the power and breadth of central government and most notably that of the executive branch, he has continued the failed foreign policy of the Bush administration, broken countless promises, given us socialized healthcare, given himself the power to detain without evidence or trial any American citizen if he suspects them of terrorism, and he has gone to war against the Catholic Church in a battle that may see every Catholic hospital and charity shut down and re-opened under the state. That’s just a sampling. But, is Romney’s agenda really all that distinguishable from Obama’s? And if so is it really better enough to justify unifying under him so as to beat Obama “at all costs”?
Obama’s socialist agenda threatens to destroy this country from the inside but Romney’s political policy should be just as abhorrent to the American citizenry. Under Romney we will have corporate fascism in which a powerful, centralized government and giant, politically connected corporations in the private sector cooperate and work hand-in-hand in their own self-interest at the expense of every-day working Americans. Below is an analysis on Romney regarding certain key issues and how a Romney presidency would affect America.
Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected. That is not a matter of personal opinion but a fact: he has, at one time or another, publicly endorsed opposing stances on virtually every major issue. It seems that Romney will say or do anything as long as it is politically expedient and will serve to advance his political career. If you don’t believe me just watch him, in his own words, repeatedly flip-flop, contradict himself and lie:
More on Romney’s history as a flip-flopper here.
Romney’s top six donors are banks – and every single one of them has received millions if not billions of the taxpayer’s money in bailouts. Washington, in its corruption, perpetually props up these failed, but politically connected, corporations – they are not too big to fail, just too greedy to succeed. Those same failed banks who cooperate with government to bleed honest-working Americans of their wealth support Romney because they know that he will support them. A Romney presidency guarentees another TARP bailout not if, but when, the next giant corporation with political connections fails. The money trail speaks for itself:
FIRST number: Top donors to Romney 2012.
SECOND number: How much bailout money those companies received in 2008:
Goldman Sachs $574 K $13 Billion
Bank of America $399 K $15 Billion
JP Morgan Chase $394 K $25 Billion
Morgan Stanley $374 K $107 Billion
Credit Suisse $318 K $500 Million
Citigroup $302 K $25 Billion
Kirkland & Ellis $249 K
(Lobbying firm whos clients include Big Pharma, Big Energy, Big Medical, and yes, you guessed it: Morgan Stanley, UBS, etc.)
Barclays $229 K $48 Billion
Coopers $209 K
(Accounting firm darling of Wall Street)
Wells Fargo $205 K $25 Billion
HIG Capital $191K
UBS AG $191 K $75 Billion
Blackstone Group $183 K
Bain Capital $149 K
Marriot International $133 K
EMC Corp $129 K
Group $128 K $1 Billion
Elliot Management $118 K
Deloitte LLP $125 K
(Accounting firm with clients such as Morgan Stanley and Monsanto)
Bain & Co $123 K
These numbers should come as no surprise since Romney considered the 2010 700 billion Wall Street bailout “the right thing to do.”
Romney supports the NDAA which allows the executive branch to indefinitely detain any American citizen without trial or evidence based entirely on “suspicion of terrorism” effectively stripping all Americans of their right to Habeas Corpus. He also supports the drone strikes that, to date, have killed hundreds of innocent bystanders and claims that Pakistan is “comfortable” with the United States using drone strikes against their people. Additionally, Romney supports the Patriot Act and “enhanced interrogation.” In no way does Romney’s agenda regarding these issues of freedom vary from Obama’s own.
“Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney chose Veterans Day to proclaim to the American people his conviction that the world is a dangerous place, and the United States must remain its most formidable military power.” – Reuters
Romney is in favor of the same kind of military interventionism that led us into two unnecessary and expensive decade-long wars in the Middle East that have crippled Afghanistan and Iraq, made the Middle East even more volatile, made the world less safe, resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and cost billions in national treasure. The Congressional Budget Office projects ObamaCare’s cost to be about $1.76 trillion. Most conservatives rightly recognize we can’t afford this. President Obama’s current military spending is about $1.2 trillion. Mitt Romney’s proposed plan calls for $2.1 trillion in military spending. Romney’s military budget alone dwarfs ObamaCare. The only ones to have benefited from the kind of foreign policy endorsed by Romney is the military-industrial complex. Meanwhile, Romney gives Obama an “F” on foreign policy – yet how Romney’s policy abroad significantly differs from Obama’s own, other than throwing more money at the problem, remains a mystery.
According to the U.S. National Debt Clock our nation’s total liability per taxpayer is $1,039,057. That’s right, over one million dollars per individual. Our national debt accrues an annual interest of $11,971 per citizen. That’s how much you’d have to pay every year just to cover our debt’s interest. Foreigners own 32% of America’s total debt. Even more alarming is that all of this out-of-control spending is not being invested in long-term ventures that will benefit present and future generations but it is spent almost entirely on maintaining the massive welfare-warfare state that provides only short-term benefits to present taxpayers while our children will be left to foot the bill and nothing to show for it. We are experiencing an unprecedented debt crisis. Romney’s solution is to reduce our debt without raising taxes, eliminating any cabinet departments, reducing military spending, or cutting Social Security, Medicare, or any other popular program. How he intends to pull off this miracle, however, remains a mystery because he refuses to share the specifics of his plan until after he is elected. The one intervention that he has declared to implement is to bolster “free enterprise.” However, keep in mind that “free enterprise” coming from Romney means getting rid of all of those federal regulations that are smothering small businesses like Goldman Sachs.
We’ve accrued this debt and its our responsibility to start paying it off. Today. Otherwise we pass this yoke on to our children, and their children, and on and on. What short-term benefits our out-of-control spending habits may yield to us now is nothing in comparison to the blow to future Americans’ very livelihoods when they must pay off their parents’ reckless use of the “federal credit card”. Under a Romney presidency our debt will continue to rise and with nothing to show for it.
Romney has promised to repeal Obamacare – just like every other GOP candidate. Yet, Romney was the mastermind behind the universal healthcare mandate in Massachusetts that made Obamacare even possible in the first place. He is quite literally the least qualified person in all of politics to criticize a universal healthcare plan so how he intends to sell this to the American people is unclear.
With years of experience in business in the private sector Romney says he “understands economics.” However, his history speaks for itself:
If Romney’s strategy utterly failed at the state level then we can only expect the same should he implement his savvy “understanding” of economics at the national level. Perhaps he should take a word of advice from the late economist Friedrich Hayek who said, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
One notable difference between Romney and Obama is on abortion. Obama is easily the most pro-abortion president in the history of our country, but can we really expect Romney to reverse this trend or just sit on his hands making empty promises? Abortion is possibly the most emotional and controversial issue facing our country today and, given Romney’s history of bending with the wind, doing whatever is most politically expedient and never taking a firm stance on anything (at least, not for longer an election cycle), we can expect Romney to do absolutely nothing in defense of the unborn.
During his 1994 Senate Run, Mitt Romney argued that he was more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy: “When Kennedy called him ‘multiple choice,’ Romney demanded an extra rebuttal. He revealed that a close relative died of an illegal abortion years ago and said, ‘Since that time, my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see me wavering on that.’” (Joan Vennochi, “Romney’s Revolving World,” The Boston Globe, 3/2/06). “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.” (Joan Vennochi, “Romney’s Revolving World,” The Boston Globe, 3/2/06)
Then he started thinking of national office as a Republican. That’s when he claims to have had his conversion. “Romney said he had a change of heart on the issue after speaking with a stem-cell researcher, Dr. Douglas Melton. Romney claims Melton said ‘Look, you don’t have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days.’‘It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life,’ Romney says.” (Karen Tumulty, “What Romney Believes,” Time, 5/21/07)
Keep in mind, however, that after his pro-life conversation he appointed pro-abortion judges, stated that he will “maintain the status quo” regarding abortion laws (see the above video under consistency), attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in 2004 despite his claims to de-fund the organization, and invested in two different companies involved in embryonic stem cell research – all of this occurring after his publicly recognized the sanctity of life and personhood of every unborn child.
And less than a month ago lifesitenews.com reported the following:
MIAMI, FLORIDA, May 17, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney scheduled a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, the executive of the company that makes the Morning After Pill, on Wednesday night. Plan B One-Step is produced by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frost’s company.
Pro-lifers, is this our champion? Are we really going to step into line for such scraps? If we are so easily manipulated into rallying behind such a lukewarm candidate, making every concession along the way then we can only expect the same complacency from the GOP, as well as the continued degradation of our liberty and our spiritual and material prosperity, for years to come. Meanwhile, over three thousand unborn children are killed every day in the US by government-endorsed abortion. Roe v. Wade took place nearly four decades ago; if we continue to settle for candidates like Romney who cater to the pro-life crowd based on political expedience then we are guaranteed another four decades before we see it overturned.
Throughout his political career Romney has stood for everything – and therefore nothing – and in his capacity as a public servant the one that he has sought to serve has been himself, and the special interest groups that buy him off. Romney has a long history of increasing the power of government and then using that power to benefit his financial backers at the expense of the American public. Crooked banks like Goldman Sachs donate millions to Romney and in return he pushes an agenda of giving hundreds of billions of dollars to his friends in Wall Street, lifting regulations that prevent giant corporations from taking advantage of people and creating corporate-run bureaucracies. That is the classic definition of corporate fascism. Additionally, under a Romney presidency we can expect more unnecessary and expensive warfare abroad that only benefits the military-industrial complex, more national debt, a larger welfare-warfare state, a faltering economy, the continued stripping away of our constitutional rights and little to no progress on the issues of healthcare and abortion. Obama’s election was a direct reaction of the failed Bush presidency; I would hate to see what kind of man the American people would be desperate enough to elect in response to four years under the debacle of a Romney presidency.
The GOP’s siren song has been to “beat Obama at all costs” but the price that the GOP demands for the promise of such a “success” is monumental. To vote for Romney in an attempt to get Obama out of the White House is to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. I, for one, will dig in my heels and vote third-party rather than grant my support to either a corporate fascist on the right or a socialist on the left – because the very integrity of our nation truly is too great a cost to pay. With that in mind, I leave you with the words of Carrol Quigley from Tragedy and Hope that so aptly sums up the current state of politics in America and, especially, this election cycle:
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.”