I decided to try and make it compact and as short as possible.
The 2012 Presidential race between Mitt Romney (Republican Party), Barack Obama (Democratic Party), Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party), Jill Stein (Green Party), Virgil Goode (Constitution Party), and Rocky Anderson (Justice Party) is quite a compelling race, to say the least.
However, only the Republican and Democratic candidates, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, are being publicized by the main stream media.
The perpetuation of the false left/right paradigm has climbed to new levels of deception, to the point where people have no clue that there are other candidates running.
Therefore, since the majority of people think they have only two voting options this year, and since they think the two voting options they have differ policy wise, this article's intent is to reveal that the Obama's policies hardly differ from Romney's.
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney pride themselves on their campaign rhetoric of moving "forward" and being America's "comeback team."
This could not be any further from the truth.
In the four years of Obama's presidency we have seen a lot of change, but not for the better of this nation or its people.
He said he would protect whistleblowers that expose government atrocities, but his administration has launched an agonizing assault against Julian Assange.
Another example of this failed promise to protect whistle blowers would be the Bradley Manning case.
Bradley Manning is a 24-year-old Army intelligence analyst who was a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize and was arrested in Iraq for handing over classified information to WikiLeaks.
He has been detained unconstitutionally for a lengthy amount of time. The Obama administration has violated nearly every right he has, as a detainee, to obtain legal justice.
President Obama has also signed off on a plethora of unconstitutional legislation, executive orders, and presidential directives.
The following is a list of just some of the many jaw dropping bills and executive orders he has signed:
- TARP
- H.R. 347
- NDAA
- Executive Order - National Defense Resources Preparedness
- Affordable Care Act
This banking cartel (Merriam Webster's dictionary defines a cartel as: a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices), however, has caused nothing but economic problems, coupled with the fact that they have been using the TARP bailout funds for their own astronomical bonuses.
House Resolution (H.R.) 347, or the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011," is known by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as the "criminalizing protest" bill. H.R. 347 makes it illegal to protest on federal buildings and/or grounds even though your tax money funds these operations and the resolution, itself, is unconstitutional.
On top of this, the federal employees who occupy these buildings or grounds are public servants and are supposed to represent you, thus we have a right to protest our grievances on the buildings/grounds we pay for.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows for the indefinite detention of any American citizen based on the premise of "suspected terrorism."
It suspends your right to the Writ of Habeas Corpus and due process. It is interesting to note that Obama stated he would not use the NDAA against American's, but his actions say otherwise.
United States District Court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled Section 1021 of the Act unconstitutional.
Obama then appealed Forrest's court decision a few days later revealing his desire to indefinitely detain any citizen without probable cause.
The National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order, to summarize, federalized everything.
The Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) socialized medicine, forcing you to buy from insurance companies, whether you want to or not.
Obama has also waged numerous unconstitutional wars and has placed troops in Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Afghanistan.
Let's now shift to Romney and compare a few of his policies with Obama's. Romney openly stated early on in the debate season that he supports the NDAA.
He openly supports war and he is on the same page with Obama in regard to socialized medicine.
In one of January's presidential debates Romney was asked by the moderator "Governor Romney, would you have, as president, signed the National Defense Act," followed with a reply from Romney saying, "Yes, I would've. "
He then went on to insinuate that it is an appropriate bill to detain people who are a "threat" to this country and are affiliated with al Qaeda.
Romney would have to indefinitely detain himself, on the basis of his new proposal, which calls for an escalation of the conflict in Syria by arming the rebels.
What do the Syrian rebels have to do with al Qaeda? A lot; CBS News reported that "rebels ally with al Qaeda group to take Syrian Base." The Daily Mail also reported that "fighters linked to al Qaeda join rebels in bid to take over Syrian air defense base in Aleppo."
To reiterate, Romney would have to indefinitely detain himself based on his open comments on arming the Syrian rebels who are associated with al Qaeda.
Romney also supports defense spending and war, as stated in the previous paragraph. Accordingly, his press release illustrates this and other actions made by Romney.
In an interview with The American Legion, Romney stated "I will not cut the military budget. I will instead expand our essential weapons programs and our (number of) active-duty personnel. I do these things not so that we have to fight wars, but so that we can prevent wars."
Romney was the creator of "Romney Care" in Massachusetts during his tenure as governor. Romney Care is nearly a carbon copy of "Obama Care" in the sense that it is socialized medicine.
Oh, and one last thing before we move on; Romney has flip flopped on the TARP bailout issue, but in a Republican primary debate, October 2011, he seems to support it.
There you have it; within the latter paragraphs I have shown you how these two candidates do not differ on much. They do not differ on health care, war, defense, bailouts, and civil liberty policies, as well as an array of other issues not discussed in this article.
We must now take a basic look at Romney's and Obama's vice presidential picks to see if they have any differences.
Joe Biden and Paul Ryan began to argue in the vice presidential debate that took place on October 11, 2012, about cutting defense spending.
Biden stated that he would cut defense spending and of course Ryan followed suit. Their voting records say otherwise.
Biden voted on October 11, 2002, for House Joint (H.J.) Resolution 114, which called for the use of military force against Iraq. H.J. Resolution 114 passed the House.
He also voted for Senate Joint (S.J.) Resolution 23 - Military Force Authorization, and on May 22nd, 2008, he voted for Senate Amendment (S. Amdt) 4818 Funding for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On May 17, 2012, Ryan voted no for House amendment (amdt) 1103 that limits funding for the war in Afghanistan to the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
Interestingly enough, on June 3, 2011, he voted for House Resolution (H. Res) 292, which called for the president to not deploy ground forces in Libya.
However, he still favors military action. On March 17, 2011, he voted no on House Concurrent (H. Con) Resolution 28 calling for the removal of troops from Afghanistan.
On July 27, 2010, he voted no on House Concurrent (H. Con) Resolution 301 - directing the president to remove armed forces from Pakistan.
On October 10, 2002, he voted for House Joint (H.J.) Resolution 114, just as Biden did, for the use of military force against Iraq.
Biden has a bad track record with civil liberties. CNET reported in 2008 that:
"Months before the Oklahoma City bombing took place, Biden introduced another bill called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995.Ryan and Biden both voted yes on the Patriot Act. They also both voted for TARP.
It previewed the 2001 Patriot Act by allowing secret evidence to be used in prosecutions, expanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and wiretap laws, creating a new federal crime of "terrorism" that could be invoked based on political beliefs, permitting the U.S. military to be used in civilian law enforcement, and allowing permanent detention of non-U.S. citizens without judicial review.*
The Center for National Security Studies said the bill would erode"constitutional and statutory due process protections" and would "authorize the Justice Department to pick and choose crimes to investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and associations."
Biden himself draws parallels between his 1995 bill and its 2001 cousin.
"I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill," he said when the Patriot Act was being debated, according to the New Republic, which described him as "the Democratic Party's de facto spokesman on the war against terrorism."
This is why Republicans and Democrats are called the false left/right paradigm. These establishment candidates will say one thing even though their voting records contradict their statements.
I hope this article has illustrated to you how these candidates do not differentiate policy-wise. I hope it revealed how they are nearly on the same page.
Long live the Republic.
Alec Scheer is the founder of WeAre1776.org and frequent contributor to theintelhub.com.
Contributed by WeAre1776.org
Edited by Ian Crossland.
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter