Posts Tagged ‘Goldman Sachs’

It continues to amaze me how many Republicans continue to support Mitt Romney. I’m not sure whether its naivete or if they are just that far gone. I think it could be a little of both. It may just be that they like to view the election as the big game and want to put someone in that has the best chance of winning. You got to love those folks, principles are high on their list of positive qualities (dripping sarcasm).

The more I read on Romney the more I am convinced that nothing will improve if he’s elected. I personally think that the only difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney is not a Marxist. It’s like replacing one piece of crap car with another. They both run for a little while, but eventually you’ll end up on the side of the road. Romney reminds me of Nixon in many ways, and once again we are seeing the same fight we saw in the Republican party in the 1970s.

This brings me to the point of my post. I came across this yesterday. It seems that Romney is the darling of the bailout banks and people that helped destroy the economy the first time around. This is his most recent top donor list from the last reporting cycle.

Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Citigroup! Now mind you, these contributions come from the organizations members. Remember though, a corporation is not some monolithic entity, but it’s run by human beings with personal values, so it’s not a stretch to say that these donations are coming from the company.

Now Romney has a lot in common with Obama when it comes to this issue. Here is his final list of top donors from 2008.

Now I realize money alone is not enough to disqualify the guy. Positions on issues are. Romney has been inconsistent on global warming, the second amendment, abortion, and marriage. Now the last two really don’t mean much to me in terms of the big picture and choosing a candidate, but the first two sure do. I can’t stand people that won’t own their positions and say what is politically expedient to get elected. I have read in several places that this is exactly how people describe Romney, there is no political position he would stand by if it meant sacrificing voters.

From here on out Mitt Romney will be known as Obamney on Political Meanderings in Clay County Missouri. Furthermore, I am officially on record as saying that I will not support Romney if he is the Republican candidate. I’m fully aware of what that statement means, so save me the trouble of having to approve your comment. The good news is that may not be an issue once Bachmann and Santorum figure out that they’re done. Those supporters will not go to Obamney. He is still struggling to get above 25% nationally, which means that 75% of Republicans don’t like him, so there is some hope. Perry is another candidate that I don’t think is going to make it, too many slip-ups. Perry can’t stand Obamney, so I would expect him to support Cain as well.

Here’s my current order of preference of the Presidential nominees.

Herman Cain

Ron Paul

Newt Gingrich

Gary Johnson

Michelle Bachmann

Rick Santorum

Rick Perry

A Cheese Sandwich

Jon Huntsman


Mitt Obamney

For those that have been reading my recent posts on corruption with Obama, Goldman Sachs and friends this is the next piece in the saga. You can get caught up here and here. I am now going to start referring to this as Crime, Inc. as Glenn Beck is currently doing, because that’s about what this all boils down to.

We last left off introducing a new character, Joel Rogers. Joel is an interesting man and yet another self-avowed socialist who seems to support our current President. Coincidence, I’m sure.

Joel recently admitted that Cap and Trade would do nothing to help the environment and that it’s sole purpose is to redistribute wealth.

From a video: “You will be well on your way to actually green the American economy. And you will grow the wealth and GE and CISCO and the other people who are announcing great plans should be relatively happy with that and any environmentalist who’s not concerned about the distribution of that wealth should be relatively happy. I hope you all realize that you could eliminate every power plant in America today and you can stop every car in America. Take out the entire power generation sector. Take out all of the transportation sector. And you still wouldn’t be anywhere near 80% below 1990 levels. You’d be closer to 60%, you’d be around 68% and that’s bringing the economy to a complete halt. Basically.”

From another video: “The profit seeking business essentially owns our political system, it owns the political parties, it funds their conventions, it provides the lions share of the one billion dollars in private cash that will decide this year who even gets to play the electoral game, much less decides who wins it. It owns the major media and a lot of the minor ones too. We must become you in the sense of organized, independent, in the the economy and on the street if business power is to be checked. So let’s check it with some muscle, but also, always beneath the muscle, hear the beating of the heart.”

Hmmm…. Well, last I checked, in the free-market system, we are the muscle. You control where you spend your money and the companies in turn either benefit, or shrivel up and die. Anyone curious why GE and Cisco are going to be the ones to benefit from Cap and Trade? Oh, wait, I know, they are both politically connected. GE political donations to Democrats in the 2008 political cycle $2.5 million dollars, to Republicans $1.43 million. Donations to Barack Obama alone, $499,130. Lobbying spending, brace yourself, $39 million dollars. Cisco political donations: $974,084 to Democrats and $547,056 to Republicans. Cisco spent $2.8 million in lobbying. Now let’s not forget who owns MSNBC. It’s GE. Ever wonder why MSNBC likes Barry so much? Let’s not forget how much Goldman Sachs has invested in the whole Cap and Trade scheme.

The Cap and Trade bill was just proposed yesterday by John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. Keep your eyes on it.

The news is all a buzz about Elena Kagan, the new Supreme Court nominee. I believe that she should be opposed simply because we cannot trust Obama. But I of course need more reasons than that.

I accidentally came across this online on The #3 contributor to Barack Obama’s campaign this year was none other than Harvard University to the tune of…wait for it…$854,747, the only two bigger donors were the University of California and Goldman Sachs. Elena Kagan was a dean of Harvard Law School from 2003-2009.  Hmmm….

Then there is this. Apparently Kagan has strong socialist leanings. In her underground thesis at Princeton she said that she thought the decline of socialism was “sad” for those who still wish to “change America.” I’m sorry, unless she has recently disavowed her ideological leanings, she should not be voted onto the highest court in the land. You know she hasn’t, neither has Obama,and the 11 other people that surround the President that have no problem with socialism and/or communism.