Have we completely and totally failed an entire generation of young men?  Have we failed to equip them with the tools that they need?  Have we raised an entire generation of young men that do not know how to be men?  Today, young adult men are nearly twice as likely to live with their parents as young adult women are, and young adult men are much less likely to go to college than young adult women are.  Now I want to make something perfectly clear before we proceed.  The point of this article is not to slam women or drag them down.  Not at all.  Rather, the goal of this article is to point out that we have a real problem with our young men and that they are lagging way behind.  Vast numbers of them don’t want to go to college, don’t want to pursue careers, don’t want to get married and don’t want to take on any serious responsibilities.  Of course there are always exceptions.  In fact, there are some young men out there that are absolutely outstanding.  However, what this article is trying to say is that the overall trends all point to the fact that our system has raised up a crop of young men that are generally weak, directionless, wimpified and unwilling to take responsibility.  This is not a good thing.

What comes to your mind when you think of men under the age of 30 in America today?  Does an image of an irresponsible, sex crazed, beer swilling slacker come to mind?

Unfortunately, that stereotype is way too true.  We have failed our young men.  We did not teach them how to be men.  Yes, as I noted earlier, there are definitely exceptions to this, but in general we have a real problem on our hands.

Let take a look at some of the hard numbers.

As a recent CNN article noted, young men between the ages of 25 and 34 are almost twice as likely to live with their parents as young women the same age are….

The number of adult children who live with their parents, especially young males, has soared since the economy started heading south. Among males age
25 to 34, 19% live with their parents today, a 5 percentage point increase from 2005, according to Census data released Thursday. Meanwhile, 10% of women in that age group live at home, up from 8% six years ago.

Among the college-aged set, the 18- to 24-year-olds, 59% of males and 50% of females lived with their parents, up from 53% and 46%, respectively.

So what in the world is causing this?

Men that are between 25 and 34 should be in their prime working years.  Instead, almost one out of every five of them is living with mommy and daddy.

This is a major problem.  Rather than working hard, taking responsibility and building their own lives, we have way too many young men that are living in our basements and that spend much of their time watching television or playing video games.

The lack of ambition among many of our young men is absolutely appalling.  Today, young women are far more likely to pursue a college education than young men are.  According to the New York Times, approximately 57 percent of all young people enrolled at U.S. colleges are women.  That means that only about 43 percent are men.

As I have written about previously, unemployment is also rampant among our young people.

Only 55.3% of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 were employed last year.  That was the lowest level that we have seen since World War II.

Today, there are millions of young men that are sitting around with no job, no hope and no direction in life.

But even many of those that do have jobs are not making much money.  The number of the “working poor” in America is rapidly increasing, and this is especially true among young adults.  Since the year 2000, incomes for U.S. households led by someone between the ages of 25 and 34 have fallen by about 12 percent after you adjust for inflation.

In the past, women always complained about the “gender gap” when it came to wages, but today we are actually seeing that reversed among our young people.  In fact, author Guy Garcia says that women in their twenties now earn more money than men of the same age in the ten largest cities in the United States.

This current generation of men also seems to be extremely hesitant to take on the responsibilities of marriage and family.  Today, an all-time low 44.2% of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 are married.

Instead, most young men seem to want to run around “hooking up” with as many women as possible without any consequences.

But there are consequences.  The irresponsible behavior of our young men is putting an incredible amount of strain on our young women.

For example, in 2010 42 percent of all single mothers in the United States were on food stamps.

So what is causing all of this?

Well, certainly there are a lot of factors, but it certainly does not help that men are almost always portrayed as weak, irresponsible, sex-crazed idiots on television and in our movies.

This point was made very well in a recent article in The Washington Times….

If the fall TV season is any guide, the sexual revolution that was supposed to liberate men and women from traditional sex roles seems to have
resulted instead in a straight-up role reversal. The male characters are messes — insecure, jobless, barely able to dress themselves without a wife or
girlfriend and/or living in mom’s proverbial basement. Their female counterparts, meanwhile, are flaunting the same selfish, boorish ways that once
got men called “chauvinist pigs.”

Today, our society generally does not teach young men that they should be strong, noble, ambitious and eager to take responsibility.

Instead, we are constantly sending our young men the message that we expect them to act like idiots, drink lots of beer, chase women and pretty much be as lazy as possible.

I fear that we have failed this entire generation of young men.  Yes, there are many that have turned out great, but in general we have a real mess on our hands.

So what can we do about all of this?

FCC cracks down on religious broadcasters

Watchwoman: FCC  cracks down on religious broadcasters by forcing them to comply with a rule that  they have to provide closed captioning on their TV broadcasts.  Here’s the  danger in that.  The problems never begin with the extremist of measures — they end there.  They come incrementally.  How do you eat an elephant?   One bite at a time.  How do you get religious broadcasting off the  air?  One rule at a time.  The FCC has no business telling churches  they have to have closed captioning on their TV broadcasts.  It’s fascism.  In fact, the government has no business of any kind interfering with  the Church of Jesus Christ at all.  The reason that Churches are tax exempt  is because they are thought of as a foreign embassy.  The Church’s home is  NOT on planet earth.  It has a heavenly home and the only Head of the  Christian Church is Jesus Christ!  No man-made government official,  politician or the FCC.  The government saying anything to the church to  rule over it is the same as if the government tried to tell the Russian  diplomats how to run their Russian embassy in Washington DC.  The Russian  embassy’s grounds are considered Russian territory and the US  government has no jurisdiction there.  It’s the same with the Christian  Church and it’s grounds.  The US government and all it’s rule makers have  no jurisdiction there.  It comes under the Heading of Jesus Christ  only — like a foreign embassy.  The FCC may try to bring it’s wrath on the  Christian Church of Jesus Christ, but the FCC will incur the wrath of  God!  God is not going to like anyone dictating to His Church, His Property  and His Dominion on Planet Earth.  The FCC better look out!  They have  God’s wrath coming upon them!  God wins every argument.  So the FCC  better rethink it’s stupid and dictatorial position quickly! Don’t  be deceived for a moment that it is about the government  (FCC) being a nice-guy so that the deaf will have more access, it’s about  Christians having less!  Like Ronald Reagan said, government is not the  solution, government is the problem!  ▬  Donna  Calvin

::~:~::

By BROOKS BOLIEK

If a church broadcasts the word of God on TV without closed captions, it  risks incurring the wrath of the FCC.

Some 300 small- to medium-sized churches can expect letters from the  commission within the next few days explaining why their closed captioning  exemptions were lifted for TV shows like “Power in the Word” and “Producing  Kingdom Citizens.”

The FCC has been mailing the letters for the past few days to churches from  Maine to California, explaining that the hundreds of exemptions are now  rescinded and giving the programmers 90 days to reapply.

The churches were granted FCC exemptions from the closed captioning  requirement under a 2006 commission decision known as the “Anglers Order” for  the Anglers for Christ Ministries program that had argued for exemption from the  rules.

While the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau used the Anglers  Order as the model to grant at least 298 other exemptions, the full commission  overturned that decision Oct. 20 after objections were raised from a coalition  of organizations for the deaf and hard of hearing.

The churches may still be eligible to win an exemption from the rules if they  can prove they can’t afford closed captioning, but they now have to make their  case individually.

“This was a process that went awry,” said Craig Parshall, senior vice  president of the National Religious Broadcasters, an international association  of Christian communicators. “Now, we are going back to Square One.”

Advocacy groups for the deaf contend that the bureau erred when it granted  the exemptions en masse because that created a virtual blanket exemption for  nonprofit organizations. Under the closed captioning law, programmers can win an  exemption if they can prove that the cost of the captioning will cause an undue  economic hardship.

The groups wrote to the FCC asking commissioners to overrule the bureau order  arguing that the order “improperly and unilaterally established a new class of  exempt programming.”

While the commission’s decision has an immediate impact on churches across  the country, it isn’t directed at religious organizations in particular,  Parshall said. Small- and medium-sized churches just happened to apply for  exemptions under the closed captioning law’s exception for TV shows where paying  for captioning is an undue economic burden, Parshall explained.

Advocates for the deaf said they were pleased the commission was taking  action on the issue, and hoped that it would make more programming accessible to  the deaf and hearing impaired.

“Now, we look forward to viewing more TV shows that were not captioned  before,” said Jim House, spokesman for Telecommunications for the Deaf Inc. “It  is our hope that those producers affected by the decision would see the positive  benefits of making their shows accessible to more and more viewers and find that  it is the right thing to do.”

Religious broadcasters want to reach the deaf community, but requiring  churches across the country to close caption their TV programs could force the  programming off the air, Parshall said.

“We believe our message needs to get out to the deaf and disabled  communities,” Parshall explained. “All we want is a sensible regulatory  structure that recognizes the plight of the small Christian broadcaster.”

Read more:  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67260.html#ixzz1cOlO3a6f

By Wes Vernon

Hollywood’s revolutionary left apparently is willing to shed its fig leaf of respectability to produce a movie glorifying a violent pro-communist terrorist group.

We are not talking here about some “on the cheap” Grade C movie filmed in someone’s basement. The coming “mainstream” flick intends to paint the anti-American Weather Underground as an organization worthy of approval and support.

Big names

The film is to be produced by Robert Redford, whose Sundance Institute has received $5 million from the George Soros-funded open Society Institute. Leading actors reportedly considered for starring roles in the production include Susan Sarandon, Julie Christie, Nick Nolte, and Redford himself.

Mr. Soros’s $5 million largesse was bestowed “for its documentary program to help raise awareness on human rights.” (And we all know how to translate that from Marxist to English, don’t we?) Aryeh Neier, a Soros mouthpiece, reportedly added, “Films can play a role in inspiring action.” (Ah, yes. “Action.” Didn’t Sarandon cheer on the pro-communist Occupy Wall Street movement?) Such action, the Soros group hopes, will focus “on human rights, justice, accountability, and other open society issues.”

The movie is to be based on the Neil Gordon novel The Company You Keep.

Some background

This latest in a long parade of Hate America propaganda attacks in the major media elicits indignation from Larry D. Grathwohl, defined by Weather Underground icon Mark Rudd as “the only known infiltrator ever exposed in the [Weather Underground] organization.”

The issue

This column supports any citizen’s right to the protections of speech (or its concomitant political activism) embodied in the First Amendment. That most assuredly also
applies to the right of fact-checking citizens to speak out and blow the whistle on propaganda disguised as entertainment, an issue that distinguishes between the blatant propaganda blowhard (Michael Moore) and the “respectable” movie producer (Redford), who intersperses one with the other for the movie-goer whose political guard is down. You see, I’m sorry, but I grew up with the naïve notion that movies are for entertainment, not indoctrination.

In that respect, Grathwohl agreed to go undercover — not so much because of the wacky ideas of the Weather Underground activists, but because of “their propensity to violence” and because their “ultimate goals” were “to destroy the United States and the imposition of a totalitarian socialism.”

Fiction as fact

Grathwohl finds it interesting that Neil Gordon’s “fiction” includes remarkable similarities to the real life “bombings and other criminal acts committed by the Weather Underground, who together with the Black Liberation Army, robbed a Brinks truck in New Jersey, and a guard and two police officers were murdered.”

Let it never be forgotten — as the White House hopes it will be — that the Weather Underground’s leading figures included the husband and wife terrorist team Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who in more recent times launched Barak Obama’s career.

Let it never be forgotten — notwithstanding ongoing corrupt media efforts to airbrush facts out of historical memory — that Dohrn, according to Ayers, was the person who placed a bomb at a San Francisco police station that resulted in the death of police sergeant Brian McDonnell, a husband and father of small children.

Let the above be forever recalled each and every time Ayers and Dohrn today — from their “respectable” academic perches — repeat the lie that the Weather Underground never killed or harmed anyone. Presumably we are also expected to overlook numerous other bombings by the group, including those at New York City police headquarters, the U.S. Capitol, and the Pentagon.

Undercover informant calls out Redford

Appearing last week here in Washington at a seminar sponsored by America’s Survival, Inc., Grathwohl said it appears “that Robert Redford is going to make a movie [on the Weather Underground] that not only downplays the acts of terrorism committed [by terrorists in the] group, but also makes them appear to be heroes and good Americans.”

He then cited several examples of the movie’s planned depiction of the Weather Underground and its acts of terrorism against life and property. “Somehow,” he added, “terrorists and murderers are transformed into real Americans who stood for their beliefs…defending their country’s ideals.”

Don’t confuse Redford with the facts?

Grathwohl has made several attempts to contact Robert Redford to share with him some information as to the real purposes and goals of the Weather Underground. As of this writing, the movie director prefers not to be bothered. Politicians have been known not to want to know facts related to unsavory (or criminal) happenings. That way, they acquire “plausible deniability.”

 It would mess up a good storyline, for example, if Mr. Redford had to admit that he was credibly informed of the murder in San Francisco or that Bernadine Dohrn, in her first communication from the Weather Underground, boasted, “This is a declaration of war against the United States.”

Pity the famed motion picture icon asked to explain what part of that threat he does not understand.

Heaven forbid that his tender ears would be on the receiving end of information imparted by a witness who “sat in meetings with many members of the Weather Underground (including Bill Ayers) and discussed plans to bomb places and buildings with the sole purpose of causing as much death and destruction as possible.”

A “holocaust” in America?

Think “it can’t happen here?” The Weather Underground’s “peace” angels sat around casually discussing how — when the U.S. government is overthrown — about 100 million Americans would have to be sent to “re-education camps.” After an envisioned several steps of weeding out multiple groups deemed sufficiently brainwashed, the question came down to a final estimated 25 million unreconstructed patriots.

At that point, educated people — some with PHDs who would fit in at your typical faculty lounge — casually talked about doing away with the holdout resisters. What? All 25 million? Well, we’ll “work them to death,” or “starve them to death.” Whatever. Long live the “communist or socialist society” of Weather Underground fantasies! The only thing missing, apparently, was the suggestion of gas ovens. (Oh, but the Soviet system of starvation was so much easier to finesse. Gas ovens gave the Nazis such a beastly public relations black eye, you know!)

That is what those revolutionaries really think. These are people who today have helped populate academia (Ayers and Dohrn). If anything, they do not believe the Weather
Underground, in its pursuit of violence, went “far enough” (as Ayers was quoted in the New York Times as saying).

George Soros, who has bestowed money on a movie producer who wants to glorify these violent America-haters, also publicly backs the Occupy Wall Street movement, whose violent anti-American antics and more extreme threats are smoothed over by a sympathetic media.

And here is the most frightening fact: People with these backgrounds launched the political career of the man who is now President of the United States.

Congress should act

Grathwohl wound up his talk to ASI with a plea for congressional action to revive the House Internal Security Committee (originally named the House Committee on Un-American Activities).

That would be the ideal approach. This was the committee whose 1947 hearings 64 years ago this week (with follow-ups in later years) led to the exposure of the infamous “Hollywood Ten,” whose directing and producing included movies that contained pro-Soviet messages aimed at an unsuspecting public. The committee confronted the ten witnesses with copies of their Communist Party membership cards. (The Communist Party, remember, advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.)

So why doesn’t the House — overwhelmingly elected because of popular anti-administration outrage — simply bring back the committee to deal with far more violent subversives glorified today? Where are the Tea Party people on this issue? They sent a lot of House lawmakers to this 112th Congress. Perhaps those congressmen and women need to hear from Tea Party folks back home.

© Wes Vernon

Republicans Aid Obama Transparency Effort With Subpoenas

House Republicans appear determined to help President Obama keep his promise to conduct the most open and transparent administration in history, even if they have to subpoena his subordinates every step of the way.

Two House panels this week are issuing the orders to force the administration to come clean on what it knew about the Solyndra bankruptcy scandal, and to disclose its list of 300,000 criminal illegal aliens it has refused to deport.

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday authorized a subpoena for the immigration documents at the Homeland Security Department (DHS) that chairman Lamar Smith (R.-Tex.) has been asking for since August.

“The administration is obviously not acting in good faith, and is wrongfully trying to keep crucial information from the American people,” Smith said.  “They are on the verge of obstructing the legitimate role of Congress.”

The measure passed 7 to 4 along party lines, and over Democrat objections that the subpoena was a “witch hunt.”

Rep. Pedro Pierluisi (D.-P.R.) said resorting to subpoenas would give the appearance that there is a “clash” between the committee and the administration.

“All I’m saying is, I’m concerned about sending that message.  It doesn’t serve anyone’s interest [and] this committee does not look good,” Pierluisi said.  But Rep. Louie Gohmert (R.-Tex.) said that it’s time the committee showed the administration they are serious about their inquiry into the enforcement of immigration laws.

“Since the answers have not been forthcoming … we need to make sure the administration knows these are serious issues to us,” Gohmert said.

“It is time to quit fooling around and do our obligation of oversight.  If Congress doesn’t do oversight, it doesn’t get done,” Gohmert said.  “We’re the only protection the American public has when the government is not doing its job.”

Smith said the public has a right to know what crimes the 300,000 illegal immigrants committed and why Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials “intentionally chose not to detain them.”

“Why does DHS want to hide this information?  Why won’t they provide Congress with these documents?  Are administration officials afraid that the information will show that illegal immigrants intentionally released by ICE have committed crimes that could have been prevented?” Smith asked.

“The administration has a decision to make:  Will they be open and honest, or will they continue to hide information crucial to the health and safety of the American people?” Smith asked.

On Thursday the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee investigating Solyndra will vote on whether to subpoena the White House for Obama’s BlackBerry messages and other internal documents.

Republican Representatives Fred Upton of Michigan and Cliff Stearns of Florida said the documents they are seeking do not affect issues of national security, and there is no basis for the administration to object to their request.

“Subpoenaing the White House is a serious step that, unfortunately, appears necessary in light of the Obama administration’s stonewall on Solyndra,” the lawmakers said in a statement.

Earlier this year, Republican lawmakers subpoenaed documents relating to the National Labor Relations Board​ decision on the South Carolina Boeing plant, and Attorney General Eric Holder has also been subpoenaed to appear before Congress in the coming weeks to answer questions about the Operation Fast and Furious debacle that left one Border Patrol agent dead.

Obama’s campaign promise to hold government accountable by making his administration transparent has faltered to the point of absurdity, critics say.

Privacy advocates were miffed when Obama accepted their award earlier this year for his efforts in making government more transparent in a most untransparent manner—behind closed doors.

Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, told the Huffington Post that Obama’s decision to bar the public and press from the ceremony was “the height of irony.”

“How absurd can that be?” Bass said.

When the White House agreed to release its visitor logs, privacy advocates cheered, until it was discovered that top administration officials were meeting with lobbyists at a nearby coffee shop to avoid their registration in the logs.

Just last month, the Homeland Security Department raised eyebrows when it refused a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the Federal Times to make public the phone numbers of its public affairs staff.

And last week it was revealed that the Justice Department is pursuing new regulations that would allow it to deny that documents sought under the Freedom of Information Act even exist.

Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades — on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court.  Follow Audrey on Twitter and Facebook

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….

#1 Obamacare was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed by the U.S. Congress.  Mitt Romney says that he would repeal Obamacare, but the reality is that Romneycare was what Obamacare was based on.  In fact, a recent MSNBC article brought to light some new information about the relationship between Romneycare and Obamacare….

Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in
Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as “Obamacare.”

The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three
health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was
governor of Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney continues to defend Romneycare, but the reality is that it really is a total nightmare for Massachusetts.  The following is how one blogger summarized some of the key points of Romneycare….

• Punitive To Individuals. Everyone must buy health insurance or face tax penalties equal to 50% of cost of standard policy.
• Hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on free hospital care were converted into subsidies to help the needy buy insurance.
• A health insurance
“exchange” was established to help connect the uninsured with private health plans at more affordable rates.
• Health plans can offer consumers higher deductibles and more restrictive physician and hospital networks in order to lower costs.
• Punitive to Businesses with 11 or more workers that do not offer insurance must pay a $295 per employee fee.
• Established payment policy advisory board; one Board member must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization represented.
• Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions for copay of $50.

So what have been the results of Romneycare in Massachusetts?  According to the Daily Caller, health care costs and health insurance premiums have gone up dramatically in Massachusetts….

Since the bill became law, the state’s total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 percent. Medicaid spending has gone from less
than $6 billion a year to more the $9 billion. Many consumers have seen double-digit percentage increases in their premiums.

All of that certainly sounds a whole lot like Obamacare.

Unfortunately, the other Republican candidates have not taken advantage of this weakness.  According to one brand new poll, 6 times as many Republicans view Romneycare unfavorably as view it favorably.  This is something that the other candidates should be jumping on big time.

#2 During his time as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney significantly raised taxes. The following is an excerpt from a CBS News article….

Mitt Romney’s Harvard MBA and gold-plated resume convinced many business leaders he would follow in the tradition of corporate-friendly Republicans when he was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002.

Within three years, some had a vastly different opinion, after Romney’s efforts raised the tax bill on businesses by $300 million

The same article also notes that Romney jacked up “fees and fines” on Massachusetts taxpayers substantially….

Romney and lawmakers also approved hundreds of millions in higher fees and fines during his four years in office.

Many in the Massachusetts business community were quite disgusted with Romney by the end of his tenure.  Peter Nicholas, the chairman of Boston Science Corporation, says that “tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney.”

#3 Government spending in Massachusetts increased significantly under Mitt Romney.  An advocate of smaller government he most definitely is not.

This was especially true for the last two budgets passed under Romney.  In fiscal year 2006, government spending in Massachusetts increased by 7.6 percent.  In fiscal year 2007, government spending in Massachusetts increased by a whopping 10.2 percent.

#4 It turns out that Mitt Romney is a believer in the theory of man-made global warming.  In fact, Al Gore recently praised on Mitt Romney on his blog. In a post entitled “Good for Mitt Romney — though we’ve long passed the point where weak lip-service is enough on the Climate Crisis“, Al Gore lavished the following praise on the former Massachusetts governor….

“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”

Not only that, it is also very important to remember that while Mitt Romney was governor, Massachusetts became the very first state to pass a law to regulate carbon emissions.

#5 If Mitt Romney becomes president, we may actually have “cap and trade” shoved down our throats.  While campaigning for president in 2007, Mitt Romney said that he would support a “cap and trade” carbon tax scheme for the entire world….

“I support Cap-and-Trade on a global basis but not the USA going alone. I want to do it with other nations involved and on a global scale.”

#6 Mitt Romney had a horrible record of creating jobs while governor of Massachusetts.  According to Boston Herald business reporter Bret Arends, only one state in the entire country was worse at creating jobs while Romney was in office….

“During the four years Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, it had the second worst jobs record of any state in America…it wasn’t a regional issue.
The rest of New England created nearly 200,000 jobs.”

#7 Mitt Romney was a very enthusiastic supporter of the Wall Street bailouts.  When the time comes for more Wall Street bailouts it seems almost certain that Mitt Romney will bail them out again.

#8 If Romney becomes president, get ready for a flood of liberal judges.  While he was governor of Massachusetts, there were actually significantly more Democrats among his judicial appointments than there were Republicans.

#9 Mitt Romney is incredibly soft on illegal immigration.  Back in 2007, Mitt Romney made the following statement….

“But my view is that those 12 million who’ve come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here”

#10 While he was governor, Mitt Romney received advice on global warming and carbon emissions from the man who is now the top science adviser to Barack Obama.  His name is John P. Holdren, and he has some very, very disturbing ideas.  For example, he once wrote the following….

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional
possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number
of births.”

Holdren also believes that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution….

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the
existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

So if this is the kind of person that Mitt Romney relied on for “scientific advice” while he was governor, what kind of people would Romney bring in to his administration once he is president?

#11 Mitt Romney has been a huge supporter of gun control laws.  When he was running for governor in Massachusetts, he made the following statement….

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts- I support them…I believe they help protect us, and provide for our safety.”

#12 Mitt Romney once claimed that he was more “pro-choice” than Ted Kennedy, but now he claims that he is pro-life.  In a recent article for WorldNetDaily, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt explained why so many voters are still skeptical….

This year he’s the only major Republican presidential candidate who has yet to sign the Susan B. Anthony List pledge to defend life and defund Planned
Parenthood nationwide. Candidates Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty and Santorum all signed the pledge, although it should be noted Herman Cain supports everything in the pledge except the Fetal Pain Act. (Cain is not fully pro-life, either.) And who can forget Mitt’s famous 2002 campaign debate bragging repeatedly that he’s more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy?

#13 During this campaign season, Mitt Romney has stated that he only supports partnership agreements for gay couples and not gay marriage, but what Romney actually did while governor of Massachusetts suggests otherwise.  In the WorldNetDaily article referenced above, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt detailed how Mitt Romney aggressively implemented gay marriage in the state of Massachusetts….

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided in 2003 to recognize homosexual “marriage,” ignoring the voters and the Constitution, the
court admitted it did not have power to issue licenses or force participation by justices of the peace to solemnize the weddings. But as governor, Romney didn’t
wait for the legislature to act, he just ordered the marriage licenses and weddings to go forward, all by himself. Earlier this month, Romney said in New
Hampshire, “What I would support [nationwide] is letting people who are of the same gender form – if you will – partnership agreements.”

#14 As late as 2007, Mitt Romney was a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership.  The following is what romneyexposed.com says about this organization….

They often work in conjunction with the pro-abortion group, Republicans for Choice, and the Republican homosexual group, the Log Cabin Club.  They also
opposed the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and set up a 527 campaign committee that received funding from far left funder George
Soros.

#15 According to the Huffington Post, Mitt Romney has raised more money from lobbyists than all of the other Republican candidates combined.

So if Mitt Romney becomes president, who do you think he is going to listen to – the American people or the lobbyists?

#16 Mitt Romney is a big time Wall Street insider.  It is estimated that Romney has a personal fortune of approximately a quarter of a billion dollars, and Wall Street money is being absolutely showered on his campaign.

In a recent article entitled “The Big Wall Street Banks Are Already Trying To Buy The 2012 Election“, I detailed how numbers compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show that Mitt Romney is getting far more money from the “too big to fail” Wall Street banks than all of the other Republican candidates combined.  The following is an excerpt from that

article that shows how much money employees of those banks (and their wives) have been giving to Romney so far this year….

*****

Goldman Sachs

Mitt Romney: $352,200
Barack Obama: $49,124
Tim Pawlenty:
$25,000
Jon Huntsman: $6,750
Rick Perry: $5,500
Ron Paul: $2,500

Morgan Stanley

Mitt Romney: $184,800
Tim Pawlenty: $41,715
Barack Obama:
$28,225
Rick Perry: $20,750
Jon Huntsman: $9,750
Newt Gingrich:
$1,000
Ron Paul: $1,000
Herman Cain: $500

Bank of America

Mitt Romney: $112,500
Barack Obama: $46,699
Tim Pawlenty:
$12,750
Jon Huntsman: $4,250
Ron Paul: $3,451
Rick Perry:
$2,600
Thad McCotter: $2,000
Herman Cain: $750
Michele Bachmann:
$500
Newt Gingrich: $250

JPMorgan Chase

Mitt Romney: $107,250
Barack Obama: $38,039
Rick Perry: $27,050
Tim
Pawlenty: $16,750
Jon Huntsman: $7,500
Ron Paul: $5,451

Citigroup

Mitt Romney: $56,550
Barack Obama: $36,887
Tim Pawlenty: $5,300
Rick
Perry: $3,000
Herman Cain: $1,465
Michele Bachmann: $1,000
Ron Paul:
$702

As you can see, no other Republican candidate even comes close to Romney at any of these big Wall Street banks.

In fact, of the candidates that are left in the Republican race, Mitt Romney has raised 13 times as much Wall Street money as anyone else has.

The following are the overall donation numbers from employees of the big Wall Street banks and their wives….

Mitt Romney: $813,300
Barack Obama: $198,874
Tim Pawlenty:
$101,515
Rick Perry: $58,900
Jon Huntsman: $28,250
Ron Paul:
$13,104
Herman Cain: $2,715
Michelle Bachmann: $1,500
Newt Gingrich:
$1,250

These numbers paint a very disturbing picture.  Even though Romney’s poll numbers are in the mid to low 20s most of the time, employees of the big Wall Street banks gave him $813,300 during the first 9 months of this year and they only gave $105,719 to the rest of the Republican candidates combined.

*****

It is quite obvious that the “establishment” is in love with Mitt Romney.

But if the American people elect Mitt Romney, they will get someone who believes in big spending, big government, bank bailouts, health care mandates, climate change legislation, liberal judges, gun control laws, amnesty for illegal aliens and making things as comfortable for the fatcats on Wall Street as possible.

Yes, Barack Obama has been absolutely horrible, but the answer is most definitely not Mitt Romney.

Look, the truth is that another four years of Barack Obama would be a complete and total nightmare.

But so would four years of Mitt Romney.

America deserves better than the “lesser of two evils”.

Unfortunately, the American people have been dead asleep and have been sending incompetents, con men and charlatans to Washington D.C. for decades.

Right now it looks like the Republican Party is going to nominate yet another establishment “politician” in 2012.

Hopefully people will wake up to the truth about Mitt Romney while there is still time.