The former presidential candidate observes that it is bad strategy to attack Mitt Romney on his record at Bain. “When you restructure companies to save them, sometimes you eliminate jobs…I would not have gone there.”
Read more at
Here’s a description of the video:
Capitalism made America great – free markets, innovation, hard work – the building blocks of the American Dream. But in the wrong hands some of those dreams can turn into nightmares. This film is about one raider and his firm and how they destroyed that dream for thousands of Americans and their families – Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.
Mitt Romney. Was he a job creator or a corporate raider?
That’s the question this film answers.
And it’s not pretty.
Mitt Romney was not a capitalist during his reign at Bain. He was a predatory corporate raider. His firm didn’t seek to create value. Instead, like a scavenger, Romney looked for businesses he could pick apart. Indeed, he represented the worst possible kind of predator, operating within the law but well outside the bounds of what most real capitalists consider ethical.
He is exhibit number one the left wants to use in the coming election to give capitalism a bad name.
He and his friends at Bain were bad guys. Any real capitalists should disavow Romney’s ‘creative destruction’ model that made him wealthy at the expense of thousands of American jobs.
Mitt Romney and his cronies pioneered ‘deindustrialization,’ a process by which they searched out vulnerable companies, took them over, loaded them with debt, and collected obscene fees while doing so. He sent jobs overseas or killed them altogether, and then picked apart the remains – including pension funds – before the companies went bankrupt.
Some might call that the free market. Most of us think its just plain wrong.
If you wonder why America has lost so many manufacturing jobs overseas, look no further than Mitt Romney – the King of Bain.
Think you know Mitt?
Think again . . .
Watch the video here.
Originally posted @ Center for Security Policy | Jan 09, 2012 By Frank Gaffney, Jr.
Listening to Barack Obama laying out what he calls his new defense strategy, my first reaction was, “Here we go again.” Having basically written off the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr. Obama is falling prey to a temptation several of his predecessors found irresistible in peacetime: Cut defense expenditures. Shrink the military. And hope the rest of the world will neither notice nor take advantage of our weakness.
Something is decidedly different, however. This is the first time in memory that a president has voluntarily eviscerated the armed forces of the United States and redeployed what remains so as to create acute vacuums of power in time of war. Unfortunately, I am referring not just to the war in Afghanistan that we continue to be engaged in, for the time being at least.
There is also the war now developing as what might best be described as “Shariah Spring” metastasizes into grave new perils for America’s allies and interests in the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. All other things being equal, “beyond” may include: the Far East, where China and North Korea are responding to domestic turmoil with outward truculence; Russia, where Vladimir Putin has already blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for demonstrations against his kleptocracy; and our own hemisphere, where a dying Venezuelan dictator blames us for his cancer and is working feverishly with our adversaries in Latin America and the rest of the world to turn our front-yard into a staging area for a greatly expanded “axis of evil.”
Under such circumstances Mr. Obama’s “revised defense strategy” is a formula for disaster. If even the defense reductions, downsizing and disengagement that it envisions come to pass – let alone those in prospect if the cuts associated with the pending sequestration legislation are imposed, the United States will not simply expose its people, allies and vital interests to attack. It will invite such attack.
While the details of the Obama unilateral disarmament program remain to be fully fleshed out, the broad outlines are bad enough:
Our military will be cut sharply in size.
It will be denied vital modernization programs – the absence of which ensures the remaining force will be ill-equipped to contend with present dangers, letalone those in the offing.
The retrofitting of existing equipment, much of it badly degraded in the course of a decade of war, will be stretched out or abandoned altogether. This willexacerbate the risks associated with the Obama failure to modernize the armed forces’ kit.
The United States will no longer be present in the places and/or numbers necessary to safeguard our interests around the world. It is predictable that the resulting power vacuums will be filled as such “peace dividend”-induced vacuums have in the past: at our expense and to our detriment.
The administration risks breaking faith with the men and women in uniform by reneging on commitments made in the way of health care, pensions and other benefits. When combined with other assaults on the culture of the military, pursued in furtherance of the administration’s domestic political agenda (and without regard for the impact on readiness, recruitment or retention), these changes may make a continuedreliance on an all-volunteer force unsustainable.
The nation’s nuclear forces will be allowed to atrophy further through 1) a failure to modernize, test and properly maintain them and 2) as a result of further cuts in their numbers. The latter will probably include the elimination of an entire “leg” of the Strategic Triad. The result will be not the President’s publicly stated goal, namely of “ridding the world of nuclear weapons.” Rather, it will simply be to rid the United States of its deterrent forces at a time when they are likely to be more needed than ever.
This potentially disastrous aspect of the Obama program for unilateral disarmament is being compounded by one other phenomenon: the President’s continuing and deeply ideological hostility towards missile defenses that might mitigate the danger posed by ballistic missiles now proliferating among states – and even terrorist groups like Hezbollah – that are virulently hostile to this country and our friends. Worse yet, the administration is reportedly determined to flout a statute governing the sharing of missile defense-related information and technology with the Russians. In the process, Team Obama will almost surely compromise what little there is of our capabilities to provide defenses against missiles delivering electro-magnetic and other weapons of mass destruction.
We shouldn’t kid ourselves. We can walk away from conflicts, but that does not mean they are over. We can hollow out our military but that does not mean that others won’t see it as an invitation to pursue their interests – at our expense.
In the past, our so-called “peace dividends” have proven illusory. And we paid not just in national treasure but lives. We literally can’t afford to do that again.
The American people and their elected representatives – and those who seek to represent them – must categorically reject the plan for unilateral U.S. disarmament espoused last week by President Obama. If ever there were a time for “peace through strength,” this is it.
Washington, DC January 11, 2012: The decision earlier this week by a federal appeals court to not reverse a federal judge’s order blocking implementation of a constitutional amendment passed in Oklahoma to prohibit courts from enforcing shariah law in the state, albeit unfortunate, was predictable. However, the decision need not hinder the effort to protect constitutional rights from the encroachment of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, such as shariah, into American state courts.
The well-meaning Oklahoma amendment appeared reasonable on its face, and was hailed as a step in the right direction to preserve American sovereignty and prevent the incorporation of shariah law into American courts and institutions. The bill’s supporters wanted, rightly, to prevent the European mistake of allowing parallel shariah court systems, which have denied legal rights to Muslim citizens and prevented full integration of immigrants into Western society. Over 70% of the Oklahoma electorate supported the bill’s principle of preventing “foreign laws in general, and Islamic Sharia law in particular, from overriding state or U.S. laws.”
Unfortunately, the Oklahoma amendment may have been a distraction from more carefully researched and drafted bills designed to prevent the entry of unconstitutional foreign laws such as shariah in American jurisprudence.
There is an effective alternative to the Oklahoma amendment and its various copycats around the country– the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation, backed by the American Public Policy Alliance (http://publicpolicyalliance.org).
ALAC has already been passed into law in three states — Tennessee (April 2010), Louisiana (June 2010), and Arizona (May 2011) — and has not suffered any legal challenges, because there is simply no legitimate basis on which to challenge ALAC. In contrast, the Oklahoma amendment was attacked by the ACLU and CAIR in federal court within days of passage. ALAC remedies any technical or legal flaws in the Oklahoma amendment.
The American Laws for American Courts Act is now progressing through legislatures in dozens of states.
Critics, such as the ACLU and CAIR, have claimed that any legislation to protect Americans from the imposition of foreign law, including shariah, is unnecessary. However, research by the Center for Security Policy published in the report, “Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases” (http://shariahinamericancourts.com/) uncovered dozens of cases across 23 states in which litigants attempted to invoke shariah–sometimes successfully, and often to the detriment of women and children.
ALAC, which prevents foreign law and proceedings from violating fundamental constitutional rights, has been endorsed by Muslim Americans, Jewish faith leaders and Christian religious leaders, as well as several prominent national security professionals.
ALAC will succeed where the Oklahoma Amendment has not.
For more information visit http://www.publicpolicyalliance.org
Well, whaddya know?! While the Ricksters and the Newtonians gang up on the Mittster, look who collected the most in political contributions from the infamous Bain organization - Barack Obama! As in over twice as much!
Rush Limbaugh, thank you for making my day by finding this!
Read more at the one and only Rush!
The 2012 Republican presidential candidates have a rich target when it comes to the disastrous economic policies of President Obama. Even the recent upturn in the economy is extremely slow by historic standards. We haven’t had such a pitiful recovery from a severe economic downturn since the 1930s.
But there is one target conservatives should avoid and that is going after General Motors and Chrysler in this election cycle.
Conservatives were right to criticize the White House’s handling of the GM/Chrysler bailout, a decision that began with the Bush administration in the fall of 2008. A short-term bailout could have been justified to cushion the rapidly declining economy, especially since the government helped contribute to Detroit’s woes with its cheap dollar policy that killed sales of profitable SUVs and a series of very damaging regulations. But Washington should have let GM and Chrysler reorganize under existing bankruptcy laws. Instead the White House orchestrated a reorganization that reeked of payoff politics to its union supporters.
Thankfully the two companies are now surviving Washington’s unwarranted meddling.
GM is making a real comeback but not due to anything that the president’s economic team has done. Conservatives should take a moment to really get under the hood of GM and learn why this company’s year-long successes have nothing to do with the Obama Administration and everything to do with a free market based business model that is leading the company back to permanent profitability.
GM is now taking in billions in profits and has done so quarter after quarter. Why? Because the company started building better cars, trucks and SUVs.
On January 10th, Project Veritas reporters walked into New Hampshire Polling Locations during the Presidential Primaries, saying dead people’s names. We stated the name of a dead person we got from the NH obituaries. The names of the deceased were both Registered Republican and Democrats And in almost every case, saying a dead person’s name, we were handed a ballot to cast a vote. We used no misrepresentation and no false pretenses. in fact, in almost every case, we insisted we show ID and they insisted that we vote without showing ID.
From National Journal Hotline:
Treas. Josh Mandel (R), “whose cross-country fundraising jaunts have provoked criticism from opponents, has a top-dollar, hometown fundraiser on his calendar this month. … A Jan. 27 luncheon at the downtown Union Club is billed as Mandel’s ‘first Cleveland event of 2012′ in an invitation signed by” Eaton Corp. CEO Sandy Cutler. For $1K, supporters “can receive a general admission ticket for the lunch.” For $2.5K, “donors can also attend a private, pre-lunch reception with Mandel and Cutler.”
Cutler “is well-known in civic circles. He is a past” chair of the Greater Cleveland Partnership, “the region’s chamber of commerce. And he was a leader in the successful effort three years ago to replace” the Cuyahoga Co. commissioners with a charter government.
Cutler, in the letter: “He honorably served two tours in Anbar Province, Iraq, and is now serving as our state treasurer. … Under Josh’s conservative leadership, his $4 billion local government investment fund received the highest possible credit rating from Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch recently issued their highest rating for Ohio’s short-term general obligation bonds.”
Mandel, Cutler writes, “was drafted into this race by a strong mix of Republicans, Democrats and independents, and we are proud that he is stepping forward to once again serve his country.”
Cutler “does not directly attack” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) in the letter. “But he closes, with the assistance of another military metaphor, by encouraging recipients to ‘join me in supporting Josh in this next mission to steer Ohio and America in a starkly better direction’” (Gomez, Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1/10).
From Sunshine State News:
Former state House Majority Leader Adam Hasner issued a statement on Wednesday after a poll from Quinnipiac University found him taking 2 percent in the Republican primary to challenge Democrat U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson — putting him in fourth place, far behind U.S. Rep. Connie Mack who leads with 39 percent.
“We know this is a long campaign and a tough uphill battle,” Hasner said before taking a shot at Nelson, Mack and another Republican rival, former U.S. Sen. George LeMieux. “We’re up against three Washington politicians who have no trouble raising money from Washington special interests. But we’re in this race to stay because we know that replacing Bill Nelson with another Washington politician isn’t enough. We need limited-government conservatives in Washington who will stand up to the establishment in both parties and fight to save our country.”