ObamaVRomney_USA_Debate2


















































































 
Obama the Kitty-Cat Who Roared
By Victor Davis Hanson October 22, 2009
President Obama keeps roaring out deadlines like a lion - only later to meow like a little kitty.
Remember, for example, how he bellowed to cheering partisan crowds that he would close down the detainment facility at Guantanamo within a year? The clock ticks -- and Guantanamo isn't close to being shut down. It once was easy for candidate Obama to deplore George W. Bush's supposed gulag. Now it proves harder to decide between the bad choice of detaining non-uniformed terrorist combatants and the worse ones of letting them go, giving them civilian trials or deporting them to unwilling hosts. Going back further to September 2007, candidate Obama postured about Iraq that he wanted "to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now!" That "now!" sure sounded macho. On Iraq, candidate Obama also railed that "the American people have had enough of the shifting spin. We've had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet." Talk about "unmet" deadlines and "spin"- here we are in October 2009, and there are still 120,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The reason why Obama fudged on his promised deadline is that the surge in 2007 worked. American deaths plummeted. The theater is quiet. Iraqi democracy is still there after six years. Obama cannot quite admit these facts, but on the other hand he does not want to be responsible for undermining them. This July, our president roared out another impending deadline. He warned Iran that it had to prove its compliance with non-proliferation protocols by September - or face new consequences since the U.S. was not going to "wait indefinitely." Now it's October, and even the French are exasperated that Obama still sounds like the king of the jungle but acts like a purring house kitten. And no wonder that Iran and its patron Russia seem to be calculating that Obama will figure that a nuclear Iran is less troubling for him than the consequences of offending Vladimir Putin, spiking oil prices or using force in the volatile Middle East. The list of what a melodramatic Obama threatens or promises to do and what he actually does is endless. Health care: The president once warned Congress that it had to pass comprehensive reform by the August congressional recess. August came and went, and now we're still waiting, waiting, waiting . . . . Afghanistan: This was once Obama's promised war to win - the one we had to refocus on after supposedly taking our eye off the ball to fight in Iraq. Now, instead, we are suddenly blaming the eight-year-old Karzai government for not being the stable partner we need to finish the job. Ethics reform: During the campaign, Obama vowed to end lobbyists in government, post legislation on the Internet five days before a presidential signing, and air health-care negotiations and discussion on C-SPAN. In short, just imagine if Obama were to warn Congress to get health-care done by Nov. 15 -- or else; or to give Iran one last chance until the first of the year to stop enriching uranium; or to promise that Guantanamo really, really will close on March 1, 2010. Would anyone take him seriously, much less fret about the consequences of ignoring those vows? Obama ran on the accusation that Bush missed promised targets and deadlines. Yet when the loud reformer Obama himself proves even emptier in his promises than Bush, he suffers an additional wage of theatrical hypocrisy.
But there is an even greater problem. Overheated rhetoric got Obama into these jams - and he seems to expect that his dramatic flair can always get him out as well. So we all await more of the empty hope-and-change hocus-pocus - as Obama explains how he never really promised to get out of Iraq "now!" or to "take further steps" against Iran in September 2009.
When Jan. 1, 2010, comes and goes, I expect the president to say that, "I can no more shut down Guantanamo than I can . . . . "
Well, by now you know the rest of what follows.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.


































































































































Ex BBC Reporter and BBC Television Host David Icke Speaks out on...INLNews.com



 
Ex BBC Reporter and BBC Television Host David Icke Speaks out on...INLNews.com


Obama is a monumental fraud who talks a good story
  '...I'm hungry, mum, can I have some hope please?....
         .. why I say Obama is far more dangerous to freedom than Bush..
The CAP will fit and Obama will wear it...
Obama is a monumental fraud who talks a good story 
...David Icke..ex BBC Journalist and TV Presenter
Obama is a monumental fraud who talks a good story, but lives a very different one. He won his first political office as a state senator in Chicago in 1996, not through the power of politics, but by coldly abusing
 the electoral process. Instead of running against his opponents and letting the people decide, he had his cronies challenge hundreds of names on the nomination papers of his democratic primary rivals until they were forced off the ballot by technicalities. Obama then ran unopposed. One of
 them, Gha-is Askia, says, that Obama's behaviour belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights:
'...Why say you're for new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? Obama talks about honour and democracy, but what honour is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?....'

Barack Obama Net Worth

Net Worth: Stats $11.8 Million As of 2012 Source of Wealth: Books, Politics (Annual Salary: $400,000)
Barack Obama Net Worth

 














Barack Hussein Obama II Age: 51 Years Old

Barack Hussein Obama II Date of Birth: August 4, 1961

Barack Hussein Obama II Birth Place: Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.

Barack Hussein Obama II Nationality:  United States

Barack Hussein Obama II Ethnicity: African, Irish, English

Barack Hussein Obama II Height: 6' 1" (1.85 m)

Barack Hussein Obama II Weight: 176 lbs (80 kg)

Barack Hussein Obama II Full Name: Barack Hussein Obama II

Barack Hussein Obama II Marital Status: Married (Michelle Obama)

Barack Hussein Obama II Children: 2 (Malia, Sasha)

Barack Hussein Obama II Education: J.D./Harvard Law School,B.A./Columbia University

Barack Hussein Obama II Occupation: Politician (Current U.S. President ), Author

Annual Salary: $400,000

Barack Obama and family 
 Barack Obama with supporters and left...Mitt Romney right with a baby
 Ohio Election Rally 2012 USA presidential elections

The 44th president of the United States, author and the most popular person in the world,  Barack Hussein Obama II, has a net worth between $2,801,012 and $11,830,000, according to analysis of his 2012 financial disclosure forms. Excluding the $1.4 million in Nobel Prize money he donated to charity and his primary home. His historic run for the presidency helped him sell millions of copies of his two books, Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope, during the campaign. He sold another 100,000 copies the week following his election. In 2009, the president earned an advance for an abridged version of Dreams for young adults; the deal made him the first sitting president in recent memory to receive a book advance while in office. The real money will be made years from now: Obama could certainly earn tens of millions of dollars a year giving speeches full time. President Barack Obama’s base salary is $400,000 a year. He also has access to a $150,000 expense account as well as a $100,000 tax free travel account and $20,000 entertainment budget. Obama served three terms in the Illinois Senate, and is the first African American President of the United States. Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, and is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School.




Here is one Brzezinski (Obama's and all previous presidents going back to Carter's Security advisor) quote you might recognise and it was made before Obama ran for president:

'.... Need social reassessment...can be encouraged by deliberate civic education that stresses the notion of service to a higher cause than oneself. As some have occasionally urged, a major step in that direction would be the adoption of an obligatory period of national service for every young adult, perhaps involving a variety of congressionally approved domestic or foreign good works...'
Now where have I heard that before?
As an Illuminati operative, Brzezinski's aim is to create a world government, central bank, current and army - a global dictatorship - underpinned by a micro-chipped population connected to a global computer'satellite system.  He wrote a book in 1970,  Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, in which he described the global society that he and the Illuminati seek to impose:
'..The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional value. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. There files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities...'
He also said in the same book nearly 40 year ago:
'..Today we are witnessing the emergence of transnational elites...(Whose) ties cut across national boundaries... It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook.... The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty ...Further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with soeme consequent risk to the present relatively favourable American position....'



Obama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men"

Jeffrey Smith

Jeffrey Smith

Posted: November 30, 2008





Biotech "Yes Men" on Obama's team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic "group think" that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations—where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology.
Clinton's agriculture secretary Dan Glickman saw it first hand:
"It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"
When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he "got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration."
By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist.
  • The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data show that the opposite is true.
  • We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average reduction in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers.
  • George H. W. Bush fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants.
  • Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigiousInternational Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger.
Food Safety Lies
Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA's 1992 GMO policy, which stated:
"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."
The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists that GM foods were substantially different, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public.
Their concerns stayed hidden until 1999, when 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports were made public due to a lawsuit. According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, the documents showed how their warnings and "references to the unintended negative effects" of genetic engineering "were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement," in spite of scientists' protests.
"What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?" wrote FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the policy. "It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."
Who flooded the market with dangerous GMOs
Thanks to the FDA's "promote biotech" policy, perilously few safety studies and investigations have been conducted on GMOs. Those that have, including two government studies from Austria and Italy published just last month, demonstrate that the concerns by FDA scientists should have been heeded. GMOs have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions in humans, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. GMOs are unsafe.
At the highest level, the responsibility for this disregard of science and consumer safety lies with the first Bush White House, which had ordered the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry and get GM foods on the market quickly. To accomplish this White House directive, the FDA created a position for Michael Taylor. As the FDA's new Deputy Commissioner of Policy, he oversaw the creation of GMO policy.
Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC.
Michael Taylor is on the Obama transition team.
Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk
Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1—a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see www.YourMilkonDrugs.com.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling.
As more and more consumers here learn about the health risks of the drug, they shift their purchases to brands that voluntarily label their products as not using rbGH. Consumer rejection of rbGH hit a tipping point a couple of years ago, and since then it has been kicked out of milk from Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Subway, and at least 40 of the top 100 dairies. In 2007, Monsanto desperately tried to reverse the trend by asking the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as free from rbGH. Both agencies flatly refused the company's request.
But Monsanto turned to an ally, Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. Wolff used his position to single-handedly declare rbGH-free labels illegal in his state. Such a policy would make it impossible for national dairy brands to declare their products rbGH-free, since they couldn't change packaging just for Pennsylvania. Wolff's audacious move so infuriated citizens around the nation, the outpouring caused the governor to step in and stop the prohibition before it took effect.
Dennis Wolff, according to unbossed.com, is being considered for Obama's USDA Secretary.
Although Pennsylvania did not ultimately ban rbGH-free labels, they did decide to require companies who use the labels to also include a disclaimer sentence on the package, stating that the according to the FDA there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rbGH and those not treated. In reality, this sentence contradicts the FDA's own scientists. (Is this sounding all too familiar?) Even according to Monsanto's own studies, milk from treated cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and IGF-1. Blatantly ignoring the data, a top FDA bureaucrat wrote a "white paper" urging companies that labeled products as rbGH-free to also use that disclaimer on their packaging. The bureaucrat was Michael Taylor.
Betting on biotech is "Bad-idea virus"
For several years, politicians around the US were offering money and tax-breaks to bring biotech companies into their city or state. But according to Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a 2004 report on this trend, "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable. This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials." He said it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."
One politician who caught a bad case of the bad-idea virus was Tom Vilsack, Iowa's governor from 1998-2006. He was co-creator and chair of the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year.
Tom Vilsack was considered a front runner for Obama's USDA secretary. Perhaps the outcry prompted by Vilsack's biotech connections was the reason for his name being withdrawn.
Change, Truth, Hope
I don't know Barack Obama's position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, "Obama, like Bush, may be Ag biotech ally", there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist's full court spin.
- His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000. - [Obama] said biotech crops "have provided enormous benefits" to farmers and expressed confidence "that we can continue to modify plants safely."
On the other hand, Obama may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants "stringent tests for environmental and health effects" and "stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice."
There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors.
President Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.
Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration.
(I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.)
Please sign a petition asking President Obama to make his GMO labeling plan comprehensive and meaningful.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.


You're Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It's Not So!

Jeffrey Smith

Jeffrey Smith

Posted: July 23, 200







The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.
Here's the back story.
When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods --secret documents now reveal that the experts werevery concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.
But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn't going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies
When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to "different risks" than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.
This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them -- companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.
GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled -- from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.
In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.
In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation
In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies "systematically overlook the side effects" and significantly underestimate "the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others."
The Fox Guarding the Chickens
If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.
This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. What have we done?
The Milk Man Cometh
While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90's, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto'sgenetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) -- injected into cows to increase milk supply.
The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitalshave taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk -- unless it was organic and therefore untreated.
Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA's approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.
Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.
Taylor's disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto's own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor's white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.
Will Monsanto's Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?
As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania -- Dennis Wolff. As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn't afford to create separate packaging for just one state.
Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff's madness. But Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor's FDA disclaimer on the package.
President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!
Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania's governor is supporting Wolff's appointment is to get him out of the state -- after he "screwed up so badly" with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.
Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus
Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania's lead by requiring Taylor's FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size. This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio. Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland's office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.
Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration.

To hear what America is saying about GMOs and to add your voice, go to our new non-GMO Facebook Group.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.
INDEX: 
KEY FDA DOCUMENTS REVEALING 
(1) HAZARDS OGENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS--AND 
(2) FLAWS WITH HOW THE AGENCY MADE ITS POLICY
About the Documents 
You will see scanned reproductions (exact copies) of some of the Food & Drug Administration's (FDA) internal memoranda about the hazards of genetically engineered foods.  These documents became available through the Alliance for Bio-Integrity's lawsuit (Alliance for Bio-Integrity et al., vs. Shalala, et al.) to gain mandatory safety testing and labeling of these foods.  The large numbers on the bottom of each page (i.e. 18952) are the Administrative Record (A.R.) numbers affixed by the FDA.
How to View and Print 
In order to make these documents easily accessible, we've saved each page in two different formats: one intended for viewing on your monitor using your internet browser (click on "View Document"), and one formatted in PDF suitable for printing onto a  8 1/2X 11" sheet of paper (click on "Print Document").
To print the PDF files you will need free software called Adobe Acrobat Reader.  If you don't already have Adobe Acrobat Reader, you can download it here.  Depending on your computer and internet connection, downloading Adobe Acrobat Reader may take up to fifteen minutes.  You may find that the best way to view and read the documents on your monitor is to select the PDF files; they are larger files and therefore may take slightly longer to download, but the Acrobat Reader enables you to enlarge or reduce the image size to fit your monitor. 
 
 A.  FDA Scientists Discuss Various Safety Concerns
  1. Comments from Dr. Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer, to Dr. James Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator, about the Federal Register document "Statement of Policy: Foods from Genetically Modified Plants."  Dated January 8, 1992. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document Print Document

  2.  
  3. Memorandum from Dr. Edwin J. Mathews to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology Working Group. Subject: "Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants."  Dated October 28, 1991. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  4.  
  5. Memorandum from Dr. Samuel I. Shibko to Dr. James Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Revision of Toxicology Section of the Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Plants." Dated January 31, 1992. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  6.  
  7. Comments from Dr. Louis J. Pribyl re: the "Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92." Dated March 6, 1992. (5 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  8.  
  9. Comments from Dr. Louis J. Pribyl re: "... the March 18, 1992 Version of the Biotechnology Document." Dated March 18, 1992. (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document 
  10. Comments from Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of Contaminants Chemistry. Subject: "Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods.  Supplemental Information."  Dated November 1, 1991. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  11.  
  12. Memorandum from Dr. Mitchell Smith, Head, Biological and Organic Chemistry Section, to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Comments on Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology, Dec. 12, 1991 draft."  Dated January 8, 1992. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  13.  
  14. Letter from Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator, to Dr. Bill Murray, Chairman of the Food Directorate, Canada.  Subject: the safety assessment of foods and food ingredients developed through new biotechnology.  Dated October 23, 1991. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  15.  
  16. Comments from Dr. Carl B. Johnson on the "draft statement of policy 12/12/91."  Dated January 8, 1992. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  17.  
  18. Memorandum from Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Regulation of Transgenic Plants--FDA Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology."  Dated February 5, 1992. (4 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document
  19.  
    B.  Specific Objections to Use of Antibiotic-Resistant Marker Genes
  20. Memorandum from Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator, to Dr. Murray Lumpkin.  Subject: "Use of Kanamycin Resistance Marker Gene in Tomatoes."  (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  21.  
  22. Memorandum from Dr. Murray Lumpkin to Dr. Bruce Burlington.  Subject: "The tomatoes that will eat Akron." Dated December 17, 1992. (7 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  23.  
  24. Memorandum from Dr. Albert Sheldon to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Use of Kanamycin Resistance Markers in Tomatoes."  Dated March 30, 1993.  (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  25.  
    C.  Safety Questions Raised by Tests on the Flavr Savr Tomato--the Most Thoroughly Tested      Bioengineered Food
  26. Memorandum from Dr. Fred Hines to Dr. Linda Kahl.  Subject: "FLAVR SAVR Tomato:" ... "Pathology Branch's Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies" ... "and an Expert Panel's Report."  Dated June 16, 1993. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document
  27. Memorandum from Robert J. Scheuplein, Ph.D. to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and others. Subject: "Response to Calgene Amended Petition." Dated October 27, 1993. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  28.  
  29. Memorandum from Dr. Carl B. Johnson to Dr. Linda Kahl & Others.  Subject: "Flavr Savr(TM) tomato; significance of pending DHEE question." Dated Dec 7, 1993. (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  30.  
  31. Memorandum from Dr. Fred Hines to Dr. Linda Kahl.  Subject: "FLAVR SAVR Tomato"... "Pathology Branch's Remarks to Calgene Inc.'s Response to FDA Letter of June 29, 1993."  Dated December 10, 1993. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  32.  
    D.  Additional Evidence of Improprieties In The Formation Of FDA Policy On 
        Bioengineered Foods
  33. Note from Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator, to Mr. Michael Taylor.  Subject: "Food Biotechnology Policy Development."  Dated October 7, 1993. (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document
  34.  
  35. Document titled "FDA REGULATION OF FOOD PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM GENETICALLY ALTERED PLANTS: POINTS TO CONSIDER"  Not dated. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  36.  
  37. Memorandum from Dr. James Maryanksi, Biotechnology Coordinator, to the Director of the Center for Applied Nutrition.  Subject: "FDA Task Group on Food Biotechnology: Progress Report 2." Dated August 15, 1991. (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  38.  
  39. Memorandum from David Kessler, Commissioner of Food & Drugs.  Subject: "FDA Proposed Statement of Policy Clarifying the Regulation of Food Derived from Genetically Modified Plants--DECISION." Dated March 20, 1992. (4 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  40.  
  41. Letter from Terry Medley, J.D. (of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Comments on FDA Draft Statement of Policy on foods derived from new plant varieties, including plants derived by recombinant DNA techniques. Dated April 2, 1992. (5 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  42.  
  43. Note from Eric Katz (Dept. of Health & Human Services) to John Gallivan.  Subject: "Food Biotechnology Policy Statement."  Dated March 27, 1992. (2 pages) View Our Summary -View Document - Print Document
  44. Memorandum from James B. MacRae, Jr. (of the Office of Management and Budget), for C. Boyden Gray (President Bush’s White House counsel).  Subject: "FDA Food Biotechnology Policy."  Dated March 21, 1992. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document






US Election: Romney To Campaign To The Wire

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign has announced he will make two new stops in Ohio and Pennsylvania on Election Day. The surprise move comes as he and President Barack Obama make one last push for votes in one of the closest battles for the White House in decades. Mr Romney, currently at a rally in Fairfax, Virginia, was scheduled to end his campaigning with a late-night rally Monday in New Hampshire, but is now set to campaign in Cleveland and Pittsburgh as America goes to the polls. "We are only one day away from a fresh start, one day away from the start of a new beginning ... to start putting the past four years behind us and start building a new future, Mr Romney said at his second rally of the day in Lynchburg, Virginia. "This is not just a choice between two candidates or two parties. It is a choice between two visions," Mr Obama told nearly 20,000 people in Wisconsin, before heading to Ohio for a rally in Columbus with rapper Jay-Z Both candidates are hitting the skies to squeeze in as much campaigning as possible ahead of Tuesday's election - covering six key swing states between them in 14 hours. Mr Romney was the first to touch down earlier, and once again, put the focus on the economy and his own track record in business. "The President promised change, but he couldn't deliver change," he told a crowd at an airport hangar in Sanford, outside Orlando. "I not only promised change, but I've a record of achieving it. "I actually built a business. I helped turn around another business. I helped get the Olympics back on track. And then with a democrat legislature - 85% democrat - I helped turn my state from deficit to surplus, from job losses to job growth, and from lower take home pay to higher take home pay." He continued: "We have one job left. We need every single vote in Florida. "We ask you to stay at it all the way to victory on Tuesday night," he added, calling on supporters to make last-ditch phone calls and door knocks. As Mr Romney addressed crowds in Florida, Mr Obama arrived in Madison, Wisconsin, for his first campaign stop of the day at a rally with rock legend Bruce Springsteen. "We've made progress these last four years, but the reason we're all gathered here - in addition to listening to Bruce - is because we know we've got more work to do," Mr Obama said to a crowd chanting "four more years". He told voters they had a choice to make of "returning to the top-down policies that crashed our economy, or a future that's built on providing opportunity to everybody, and growing a strong middle-class". The candidates have attended hundreds of rallies, fundraisers and town hall events, spent billions on advertising and ground campaigns, and squared off in three intense televised debates. Nationwide polls show the pair level-pegging with just over 47% of the vote each. A majority of polls in the battleground states - including Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio - show Mr Obama with a slight advantage, giving him an easier path to the 270 electoral votes needed for victory. Sky's Dominic Waghorn in Madison, said: "At the end of this process America remains pretty much as it was half a year ago - divided down the middle, neck-and-neck. "The polls give the President a slight edge - but he has got to get the vote out to be sure he can win." The Obama campaign is scheduled to make a further stop in Des Moines, Iowa, while Mr Romney is also visiting Columbus, Ohio and Manchester, New Hampshire.


General Election: Romney vs. Obama

Polling Data

Poll Date Sample MoE Obama (D) Romney (R) Spread
RCP Average 10/22 - 11/4 -- -- 47.8 47.4 Obama +0.4
Rasmussen Reports 11/2 - 11/4 1500 LV 3.0 48 49 Romney +1
CNN/Opinion Research 11/2 - 11/4 693 LV 3.5 49 49 Tie
Pew Research 10/31 - 11/3 2709 LV 2.2 50 47 Obama +3
Politico/GWU/Battleground 10/29 - 11/1 1000 LV 3.1 48 48 Tie
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 11/1 - 11/3 1475 LV 2.6 48 47 Obama +1
ABC News/Wash Post 10/31 - 11/3 2069 LV 2.5 49 48 Obama +1
FOX News 10/28 - 10/30 1128 LV 3.0 46 46 Tie
CBS News/NY Times 10/25 - 10/28 563 LV 4.0 48 47 Obama +1
National Journal 10/25 - 10/28 713 LV 4.4 50 45 Obama +5
Gallup 10/22 - 10/28 2700 LV 2.0 46 51 Romney +5
NPR 10/23 - 10/25 1000 LV 3.1 47 48 Romney +1
IBD/TIPP 10/22 - 10/27 930 LV 3.5 45 44 Obama +1

All General Election: Romney vs. Obama Polling Data

Race 4 Years Ago vs. Today2012 vs. 2008 | Race 8 Years Ago vs. Today2012 vs. 2004

Intrade Market Prices for General Election: Romney vs. Obama

  Obama Romney  
Intrade Real Time Quotes (See More Data)
RCP POLL AVERAGE 
General Election: Romney vs. Obama
47.8 Obama (D)+0.4
47.4 Romney (R)
APPLYRESET
43444546474849
JulSepNov024
FROM:  TO: 
Embed

Recent Commentary & News Stories

See All Commentary & News Stories

Polling Data

Poll Date Sample MoE Obama (D) Romney (R) Spread
RCP Average 10/22 - 11/4 -- -- 47.8 47.4 Obama +0.4
Rasmussen Reports 11/2 - 11/4 1500 LV 3.0 48 49 Romney +1
CNN/Opinion Research 11/2 - 11/4 693 LV 3.5 49 49 Tie
Pew Research 10/31 - 11/3 2709 LV 2.2 50 47 Obama +3
Politico/GWU/Battleground 10/29 - 11/1 1000 LV 3.1 48 48 Tie
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 11/1 - 11/3 1475 LV 2.6 48 47 Obama +1
ABC News/Wash Post 10/31 - 11/3 2069 LV 2.5 49 48 Obama +1
FOX News 10/28 - 10/30 1128 LV 3.0 46 46 Tie
CBS News/NY Times 10/25 - 10/28 563 LV 4.0 48 47 Obama +1
Pew Research 10/24 - 10/28 1495 LV 2.9 47 47 Tie
National Journal 10/25 - 10/28 713 LV 4.4 50 45 Obama +5
Gallup 10/22 - 10/28 2700 LV 2.0 46 51 Romney +5
NPR 10/23 - 10/25 1000 LV 3.1 47 48 Romney +1
IBD/TIPP 10/22 - 10/27 930 LV 3.5 45 44 Obama +1
Politico/GWU/Battleground 10/22 - 10/25 1000 LV 3.1 49 48 Obama +1
Associated Press/GfK 10/19 - 10/23 839 LV 4.2 45 47 Romney +2
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 10/18 - 10/21 1402 LV 2.6 45 48 Romney +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/17 - 10/20 816 LV 3.4 47 47 Tie
CBS News 10/17 - 10/20 790 LV 4.0 48 46 Obama +2
WashTimes/JZ Analytics* 10/18 - 10/20 800 LV 3.5 50 47 Obama +3
Politico/GWU/Battleground 10/15 - 10/18 1000 LV 3.1 47 49 Romney +2
Hartford Courant/UConn 10/11 - 10/16 1023 LV 3.0 48 45 Obama +3
ABC News/Wash Post 10/10 - 10/13 923 LV 3.5 49 46 Obama +3
Politico/GWU/Battleground 10/7 - 10/11 1000 LV 3.1 49 48 Obama +1
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 10/8 - 10/10 1360 LV 2.7 46 47 Romney +1
FOX News 10/7 - 10/9 1109 LV 3.0 45 46 Romney +1
Gallup Tracking 10/4 - 10/10 2700 LV 2.0 47 48 Romney +1
Gallup Tracking 10/4 - 10/10 3050 RV 2.0 48 46 Obama +2
Pew Research 10/4 - 10/7 1112 LV 3.4 45 49 Romney +4
Rasmussen Tracking 10/4 - 10/6 1500 LV 3.0 47 49 Romney +2
WashTimes/JZ Analytics* 10/5 - 10/7 800 LV 3.5 45 45 Tie
Politico/GWU/Battleground 10/1 - 10/4 1000 LV 3.1 49 48 Obama +1
Rasmussen Tracking 10/1 - 10/3 1500 LV 3.0 49 47 Obama +2
Gallup Tracking 9/27 - 10/3 3050 RV 2.0 49 45 Obama +4
CNN/Opinion Research 9/28 - 9/30 783 LV 3.5 50 47 Obama +3
National Journal 9/27 - 9/30 789 LV 4.2 47 47 Tie
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 9/26 - 9/30 832 LV 3.4 49 46 Obama +3
NPR 9/26 - 9/30 800 LV 4.0 51 44 Obama +7
ABC News/Wash Post 9/26 - 9/29 813 LV 4.0 49 47 Obama +2
Quinnipiac 9/25 - 9/30 1912 LV 2.2 49 45 Obama +4
WashTimes/JZ Analytics* 9/27 - 9/29 800 LV 3.5 50 41 Obama +9
Politico/GWU/Battleground 9/24 - 9/27 1000 LV 3.1 49 47 Obama +2
FOX News 9/24 - 9/26 1092 LV 3.0 48 43 Obama +5
Bloomberg 9/21 - 9/24 789 LV 3.5 49 43 Obama +6
Politico/GWU/Battleground 9/16 - 9/20 1000 LV 3.1 50 47 Obama +3
National Journal 9/15 - 9/19 1055 LV 3.0 50 43 Obama +7
Associated Press/GfK 9/13 - 9/17 807 LV 4.3 47 46 Obama +1
Hartford Courant/UConn 9/11 - 9/18 1186 LV 3.0 46 43 Obama +3
Rasmussen Tracking 9/14 - 9/16 1500 LV 3.0 45 47 Romney +2
Reason-Rupe/PSRAI 9/13 - 9/17 787 LV 4.3 52 45 Obama +7
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 9/13 - 9/16 1344 LV 2.7 48 45 Obama +3
Gallup Tracking 9/11 - 9/17 3050 RV 2.0 47 46 Obama +1
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 9/12 - 9/16 736 LV 3.6 50 45 Obama +5
Pew Research/PSRAI 9/12 - 9/16 2268 LV 2.4 51 43 Obama +8
FOX News 9/9 - 9/11 1056 LV 3.0 48 43 Obama +5
CBS News/NY Times 9/8 - 9/12 1162 LV 3.0 49 46 Obama +3
Democracy Corps (D) 9/8 - 9/12 1000 LV 3.1 50 45 Obama +5
Esquire/Yahoo! News 9/7 - 9/10 724 LV 5.0 50 46 Obama +4
Reuters/Ipsos 9/7 - 9/10 873 LV 3.4 48 45 Obama +3
Gallup Tracking 9/5 - 9/11 3050 RV 2.0 50 43 Obama +7
Rasmussen Tracking 9/7 - 9/9 1500 LV 3.0 50 45 Obama +5
ABC News/Wash Post 9/7 - 9/9 710 LV 4.5 49 48 Obama +1
CNN/Opinion Research 9/7 - 9/9 709 LV 3.5 52 46 Obama +6
IBD/CSM/TIPP 9/4 - 9/9 808 RV 3.5 46 44 Obama +2
CNN/Opinion Research 8/31 - 9/3 735 LV 3.5 48 48 Tie
Democracy Corps (D) 8/23 - 8/27 1000 LV 3.1 49 47 Obama +2
CBS News 8/22 - 8/26 1051 RV 3.0 46 45 Obama +1
Gallup Tracking 8/21 - 8/27 3050 RV 2.0 46 47 Romney +1
Rasmussen Tracking 8/23 - 8/25 1500 LV 3.0 47 45 Obama +2
ABC News/Wash Post 8/22 - 8/25 857 RV 4.0 46 47 Romney +1
CNN/Opinion Research 8/22 - 8/23 719 LV 3.5 49 47 Obama +2
FOX News 8/19 - 8/21 1007 LV 3.0 44 45 Romney +1
Resurgent Republic (R) 8/16 - 8/22 1000 LV 3.1 46 45 Obama +1
Associated Press/GfK 8/16 - 8/20 885 RV 4.1 47 46 Obama +1
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 8/16 - 8/20 1000 RV 3.1 48 44 Obama +4
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 8/15 - 8/19 1149 LV 2.9 46 45 Obama +1
LA Times/USC 8/13 - 8/19 954 LV 3.2 48 46 Obama +2
Rasmussen Reports 8/8 - 8/10 1500 LV 3.0 44 46 Romney +2
Gallup 8/6 - 8/12 3050 RV 2.0 46 46 Tie
CNN/Opinion Research 8/7 - 8/8 911 RV 3.5 52 45 Obama +7
Politico/GWU/Battleground 8/5 - 8/9 1000 LV 3.1 48 47 Obama +1
FOX News 8/5 - 8/7 930 RV 3.0 49 40 Obama +9
IBD/CSM/TIPP 8/3 - 8/10 828 RV 3.5 46 39 Obama +7
Reuters/Ipsos 8/2 - 8/6 1014 RV 3.4 49 42 Obama +7
Rasmussen Reports 7/29 - 7/31 1500 LV 3.0 44 47 Romney +3
Gallup 7/24 - 7/31 3050 RV 2.0 47 45 Obama +2
Democracy Corps (D) 7/21 - 7/25 700 LV 3.7 50 46 Obama +4
Pew Research 7/16 - 7/26 1956 RV 3.2 51 41 Obama +10
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 7/18 - 7/22 1000 RV 3.1 49 43 Obama +6
FOX News 7/15 - 7/17 901 RV 3.0 45 41 Obama +4
CBS News/NY Times 7/11 - 7/16 942 RV 3.0 46 47 Romney +1
Rasmussen Reports 7/12 - 7/14 1500 LV 3.0 45 45 Tie
Gallup 7/8 - 7/14 3050 RV 2.0 47 45 Obama +2
NPR 7/9 - 7/12 1000 LV 3.1 47 45 Obama +2
McClatchy/Marist 7/9 - 7/11 849 RV 3.5 48 46 Obama +2
WashTimes/JZ Analytics* 7/6 - 7/8 800 LV 3.5 42 43 Romney +1
Reuters/Ipsos 7/5 - 7/9 885 RV 3.4 49 43 Obama +6
ABC News/Wash Post 7/5 - 7/8 RV 4.0 47 47 Tie
Quinnipiac 7/1 - 7/8 2722 RV 1.9 46 43 Obama +3
Rasmussen Reports 7/2 - 7/6 1500 LV 3.0 45 45 Tie
Gallup 7/1 - 7/8 3050 RV 2.0 47 45 Obama +2
Pew Research 6/28 - 7/9 2373 RV 2.3 50 43 Obama +7
CNN/Opinion Research 6/28 - 7/1 1390 RV 2.5 49 46 Obama +3
Newsweek/Daily Beast 6/28 - 6/28 600 LV 4.0 47 44 Obama +3
Democracy Corps (D) 6/23 - 6/27 1000 LV 3.1 49 46 Obama +3
FOX News 6/24 - 6/26 912 RV 3.0 45 40 Obama +5
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 6/20 - 6/24 819 RV 3.4 47 44 Obama +3
Rasmussen Reports 6/18 - 6/20 1500 LV 3.0 43 47 Romney +4
Gallup 6/14 - 6/20 3050 RV 2.0 45 47 Romney +2
Bloomberg 6/15 - 6/18 734 LV 3.6 53 40 Obama +13
Associated Press/GfK 6/14 - 6/18 878 RV 4.2 47 44 Obama +3
Pew Research 6/7 - 6/17 1563 RV 2.9 50 46 Obama +4
Reuters/Ipsos 6/7 - 6/11 848 RV 3.4 45 44 Obama +1
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 6/4 - 6/6 1152 LV 2.9 47 46 Obama +1
Rasmussen Reports 6/4 - 6/6 1500 LV 3.0 46 46 Tie
Gallup 6/2 - 6/8 3050 RV 2.0 46 45 Obama +1
FOX News 6/3 - 6/5 907 RV 3.0 43 43 Tie
IBD/CSM/TIPP 6/1 - 6/8 841 RV 3.5 46 42 Obama +4
CNN/Opinion Research 5/29 - 5/31 895 RV 3.5 49 46 Obama +3
ABC News/Wash Post 5/17 - 5/20 874 RV 4.0 49 46 Obama +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 5/16 - 5/20 RV -- 47 43 Obama +4
Pew Research 5/9 - 6/3 2388 RV 2.3 49 42 Obama +7
Rasmussen Reports 5/14 - 5/16 1500 LV 3.0 45 46 Romney +1
Gallup 5/11 - 5/17 3050 RV -- 45 46 Romney +1
FOX News 5/13 - 5/15 913 RV 3.0 46 39 Obama +7
IBD/CSM/TIPP 5/9 - 5/16 778 RV 3.6 43 40 Obama +3
Mason-Dixon 5/10 - 5/14 1000 LV 3.0 44 47 Romney +3
CBS News/NY Times** 5/11 - 5/13 562 RV 4.0 43 46 Romney +3
WashTimes/JZ Analytics* 5/11 - 5/12 800 LV 3.5 43 44 Romney +1
Gallup 5/3 - 5/9 3000 RV 2.0 44 47 Romney +3
Associated Press/GfK 5/3 - 5/7 871 RV 4.2 50 42 Obama +8
Reuters/Ipsos 5/3 - 5/7 959 RV 3.2 49 42 Obama +7
Rasmussen Reports 5/4 - 5/6 1500 LV 3.0 45 47 Romney +2
Resurgent Republic (R) 4/30 - 5/3 1000 RV 3.1 49 42 Obama +7
Politico/GWU/Battleground 4/29 - 5/3 1000 LV 3.1 47 48 Romney +1
IBD/CSM/TIPP 4/27 - 5/4 856 RV 3.3 46 43 Obama +3
Democracy Corps (D) 4/28 - 5/1 1000 LV 4.0 47 47 Tie
Gallup 4/23 - 4/28 2200 RV 3.0 47 46 Obama +1
Rasmussen Reports 4/25 - 4/27 1500 LV 3.0 47 45 Obama +2
FOX News 4/22 - 4/24 915 RV 3.0 46 46 Tie
National Journal 4/19 - 4/22 1004 A 3.7 47 39 Obama +8
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/13 - 4/17 RV -- 49 43 Obama +6
CBS News/NY Times 4/13 - 4/17 852 RV 3.0 46 46 Tie
Quinnipiac 4/11 - 4/17 2577 RV 1.9 46 42 Obama +4
Gallup 4/12 - 4/16 2200 RV 3.0 43 48 Romney +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/13 - 4/15 910 RV 3.5 52 43 Obama +9
Rasmussen Reports 4/13 - 4/15 1500 LV 3.0 44 47 Romney +3
Reuters/Ipsos 4/12 - 4/15 891 RV 3.3 47 43 Obama +4
PPP (D) 4/12 - 4/15 900 RV 3.3 49 46 Obama +3
Pew Research 4/4 - 4/15 2373 RV 2.3 49 45 Obama +4
FOX News 4/9 - 4/11 910 RV 3.0 44 46 Romney +2
Rasmussen Reports 4/6 - 4/8 1500 LV 3.0 46 44 Obama +2
ABC News/Wash Post 4/5 - 4/8 RV -- 51 44 Obama +7
IBD/CSM/TIPP 3/30 - 4/5 816 RV 3.3 46 38 Obama +8
USA Today/Gallup 3/25 - 3/26 901 RV 4.0 49 45 Obama +4
CNN/Opinion Research 3/24 - 3/25 925 RV 3.0 54 43 Obama +11
Rasmussen Reports 3/23 - 3/25 1500 LV 3.0 46 43 Obama +3
McClatchy/Marist 3/20 - 3/22 846 RV 3.5 46 44 Obama +2
PPP (D) 3/15 - 3/17 900 RV 3.3 48 44 Obama +4
Reason-Rupe 3/10 - 3/20 1200 A 3.0 46 40 Obama +6
FOX News 3/10 - 3/12 912 RV 3.0 46 42 Obama +4
Reuters/Ipsos 3/8 - 3/11 937 RV 3.3 52 41 Obama +11
Bloomberg 3/8 - 3/11 746 LV 3.6 47 47 Tie
Pew Research 3/7 - 3/11 1188 RV 3.5 54 42 Obama +12
Rasmussen Reports 3/8 - 3/10 1500 LV 3.0 42 48 Romney +6
CBS News/NY Times 3/7 - 3/11 878 RV 3.0 47 44 Obama +3
ABC News/Wash Post 3/7 - 3/10 RV -- 47 49 Romney +2
IBD/CSM/TIPP 3/4 - 3/11 807 RV 3.3 46 41 Obama +5
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 2/29 - 3/3 RV -- 50 44 Obama +6
Politico/GWU/Battleground 2/19 - 2/22 1000 LV 3.1 53 43 Obama +10
USA Today/Gallup 2/20 - 2/21 881 RV 4.0 47 47 Tie
Associated Press/GfK 2/16 - 2/20 1000 A 4.1 51 43 Obama +8
USA Today/Gallup 2/16 - 2/19 898 RV 4.0 46 50 Romney +4
Rasmussen Reports 2/16 - 2/18 1500 LV 3.0 47 43 Obama +4
Quinnipiac 2/14 - 2/20 2605 RV 1.9 46 44 Obama +2
Democracy Corps (D) 2/11 - 2/14 1000 LV 3.1 49 45 Obama +4
CNN/Opinion Research 2/10 - 2/13 937 RV 3.0 51 46 Obama +5
CBS News/NY Times 2/8 - 2/13 1604 RV 3.0 48 42 Obama +6
PPP (D) 2/9 - 2/12 1200 RV 2.8 49 42 Obama +7
Pew Research 2/8 - 2/12 1172 RV 3.5 52 44 Obama +8
Rasmussen Reports 2/7 - 2/9 1500 LV 3.0 50 40 Obama +10
FOX News 2/6 - 2/9 1110 RV 3.0 47 42 Obama +5
Reuters/Ipsos 2/2 - 2/6 881 RV 3.3 48 42 Obama +6
ABC News/Wash Post 2/1 - 2/4 879 RV 4.0 51 45 Obama +6
IBD/CSM/TIPP 1/29 - 2/4 852 RV 3.3 47 41 Obama +6
Rasmussen Reports 1/31 - 2/2 1500 LV 3.0 45 45 Tie
USA Today/Gallup 1/27 - 1/28 907 RV 4.0 48 48 Tie
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 1/22 - 1/24 RV -- 49 43 Obama +6
Rasmussen Reports 1/19 - 1/21 1500 LV 3.0 46 43 Obama +3
PPP (D) 1/13 - 1/16 700 RV 3.7 49 44 Obama +5
CBS News/NY Times 1/12 - 1/16 1021 RV 3.0 45 45 Tie
ABC News/Wash Post 1/12 - 1/15 RV -- 46 48 Romney +2
Pew Research 1/11 - 1/16 1207 RV 3.5 50 45 Obama +5
FOX News 1/12 - 1/14 906 RV 3.0 46 45 Obama +1
CNN/Opinion Research 1/11 - 1/12 928 RV 3.0 47 48 Romney +1
Democracy Corps (D) 1/8 - 1/11 1000 LV 3.1 47 46 Obama +1
Rasmussen Reports 1/9 - 1/10 1000 LV 3.0 44 41 Obama +3
Reuters/Ipsos 1/5 - 1/9 896 RV 3.2 48 43 Obama +5
CBS News 1/4 - 1/8 1247 RV 3.0 45 47 Romney +2
Rasmussen Reports 1/3 - 1/4 1000 LV 3.0 42 42 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 12/27 - 12/28 1000 LV 3.0 39 45 Romney +6
Rasmussen Reports 12/20 - 12/21 1000 LV 3.0 44 41 Obama +3
CNN/Opinion Research 12/16 - 12/18 928 RV 3.0 52 45 Obama +7
PPP (D) 12/16 - 12/18 700 RV 3.7 45 47 Romney +2
ABC News/Wash Post 12/15 - 12/18 RV -- 47 47 Tie
USA Today/Gallup 12/15 - 12/18 898 RV 4.0 50 48 Obama +2
Rasmussen Reports 12/14 - 12/15 1000 LV 3.0 42 43 Romney +1
Reuters/Ipsos 12/8 - 12/12 921 RV 3.2 48 40 Obama +8
Associated Press/GfK 12/8 - 12/12 1000 A 4.0 47 46 Obama +1
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 12/7 - 12/11 RV -- 47 45 Obama +2
Rasmussen Reports 12/8 - 12/9 1000 LV 3.0 42 45 Romney +3
USA Today/Gallup 12/6 - 12/7 883 RV 4.0 47 46 Obama +1
FOX News 12/5 - 12/7 911 RV 3.0 44 42 Obama +2
Rasmussen Reports 11/30 - 12/1 1000 LV 3.0 42 40 Obama +2
Rasmussen Reports 11/21 - 11/22 1000 LV 3.0 44 38 Obama +6
Quinnipiac 11/14 - 11/20 2552 RV 1.9 45 44 Obama +1
FOX News 11/13 - 11/15 914 RV 3.0 42 44 Romney +2
CNN/Opinion Research 11/11 - 11/13 925 RV 3.0 47 51 Romney +4
Pew Research 11/9 - 11/14 1576 RV 3.0 49 47 Obama +2
PPP (D) 11/10 - 11/13 800 RV 3.5 46 43 Obama +3
Rasmussen Reports 11/9 - 11/10 1000 LV 3.0 43 42 Obama +1
McClatchy/Marist 11/8 - 11/10 872 RV 3.5 48 44 Obama +4
Politico/GWU/Battleground 11/6 - 11/9 1000 LV 3.1 49 43 Obama +6
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 11/2 - 11/5 RV -- 49 43 Obama +6
ABC News/Wash Post 10/31 - 11/3 RV -- 46 47 Romney +1
Reuters/Ipsos 10/31 - 11/3 937 RV 3.2 43 44 Romney +1
Rasmussen Reports 11/1 - 11/2 1000 LV 3.0 42 41 Obama +1
Quinnipiac 10/25 - 10/31 2294 RV 2.1 47 42 Obama +5
USA Today/Gallup 10/26 - 10/27 908 RV 4.0 47 47 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 10/24 - 10/25 1000 LV 3.0 42 44 Romney +2
Democracy Corps (D) 10/15 - 10/18 1000 LV -- 45 45 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 10/16 - 10/17 1000 LV 3.0 43 42 Obama +1
Associated Press/GfK 10/13 - 10/17 1000 A 4.0 48 45 Obama +3
Time 10/9 - 10/10 838 LV -- 48 44 Obama +4
PPP (D) 10/7 - 10/10 700 RV 3.7 45 45 Tie
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/6 - 10/10 RV -- 46 44 Obama +2
Rasmussen Reports 10/8 - 10/9 1000 LV 3.0 43 41 Obama +2
Quinnipiac 9/27 - 10/3 2118 RV 2.1 42 46 Romney +4
ABC News/Wash Post 9/29 - 10/2 RV -- 46 48 Romney +2
Pew Research 9/22 - 10/4 1901 RV 3.0 48 48 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 9/28 - 9/29 1000 LV 3.0 42 44 Romney +2
FOX News 9/25 - 9/27 925 RV 3.0 45 42 Obama +3
CNN/Opinion Research 9/23 - 9/25 917 RV 3.0 49 48 Obama +1
Rasmussen Reports 9/18 - 9/19 1000 LV 3.0 44 41 Obama +3
USA Today/Gallup 9/15 - 9/18 889 RV 4.0 47 49 Romney +2
McClatchy/Marist 9/13 - 9/14 825 RV 3.5 46 44 Obama +2
Bloomberg 9/9 - 9/12 997 A 3.1 48 43 Obama +5
Reuters/Ipsos 9/8 - 9/12 932 RV 3.1 49 43 Obama +6
Rasmussen Reports 9/10 - 9/11 1000 LV 3.0 40 43 Romney +3
PPP (D) 9/8 - 9/11 665 RV 3.8 49 45 Obama +4
ABC News/Wash Post 8/29 - 9/1 RV -- 45 49 Romney +4
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 8/27 - 8/31 RV -- 46 45 Obama +1
Rasmussen Reports 8/25 - 8/26 1000 LV 3.0 43 39 Obama +4
Quinnipiac 8/16 - 8/27 2730 RV 1.9 45 45 Tie
PPP (D) 8/18 - 8/21 700 RV 3.7 45 45 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 8/17 - 8/21 1000 LV 3.0 46 38 Obama +8
Gallup 8/17 - 8/18 879 RV 4.0 46 48 Romney +2
Democracy Corps (D) 8/6 - 8/10 1000 LV 3.0 48 46 Obama +2
CNN/Opinion Research 8/5 - 8/7 930 RV 3.0 49 48 Obama +1
McClatchy/Marist 8/2 - 8/4 807 RV 3.5 46 41 Obama +5
FOX News 7/17 - 7/19 904 RV 3.0 47 41 Obama +6
ABC News/Wash Post 7/14 - 7/17 RV -- 49 47 Obama +2
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 7/14 - 7/17 RV -- 48 41 Obama +7
PPP (D) 7/15 - 7/17 928 RV 3.2 45 45 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 7/14 - 7/15 1000 LV 3.0 42 43 Romney +1
Quinnipiac 7/5 - 7/11 2311 RV 2.0 47 41 Obama +6
McClatchy/Marist 6/15 - 6/23 390 RV 5.0 46 42 Obama +4
Democracy Corps (D) 6/18 - 6/21 1000 RV 3.0 47 45 Obama +2
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 6/9 - 6/13 RV 3.1 49 43 Obama +6
PPP (D) 6/9 - 6/12 520 RV 4.3 47 45 Obama +2
FOX News 6/5 - 6/7 912 RV 3.0 48 41 Obama +7
Reuters/Ipsos 6/3 - 6/6 1132 A 3.0 51 38 Obama +13
ABC News/Wash Post 6/2 - 6/5 RV 3.5 46 49 Romney +3
Quinnipiac 5/31 - 6/6 1946 RV 2.2 47 41 Obama +6
PPP (D) 5/23 - 5/25 600 RV 4.0 49 42 Obama +7
Democracy Corps (D) 5/21 - 5/25 1000 LV 3.0 48 44 Obama +4
Politico/GWU/Battleground 5/8 - 5/12 1000 LV 3.1 52 40 Obama +12
Reuters/Ipsos 5/5 - 5/9 600 A -- 51 38 Obama +13
PPP (D) 5/5 - 5/8 814 RV 3.4 47 42 Obama +5
Newsweek/Daily Beast 5/2 - 5/3 600 A 3.0 42 36 Obama +6
Newsweek/Daily Beast 4/30 - 5/1 600 A 3.0 44 44 Tie
CNN/Opinion Research 4/29 - 5/1 964 RV 3.0 54 43 Obama +11
ABC News/Wash Post 4/14 - 4/17 1001 A 3.5 49 45 Obama +4
McClatchy/Marist 4/10 - 4/14 532 RV 4.5 46 45 Obama +1
Democracy Corps (D) 4/10 - 4/12 1000 LV 3.1 46 48 Romney +2
PPP (D) 4/7 - 4/10 532 RV 4.3 47 41 Obama +6
PPP (D) 3/10 - 3/13 642 RV 3.9 47 42 Obama +5
Rasmussen Reports 3/6 - 3/9 2000 LV 2.0 45 40 Obama +5
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 2/24 - 2/28 RV -- 49 40 Obama +9
Newsweek/Daily Beast 2/12 - 2/15 918 LV 3.5 49 47 Obama +2
PPP (D) 2/11 - 2/14 600 RV 4.0 46 41 Obama +5
FOX News 2/7 - 2/9 911 RV 3.0 48 41 Obama +7
PPP (D) 1/14 - 1/16 632 RV 3.9 48 43 Obama +5
Democracy Corps (D) 1/9 - 1/12 1000 LV 3.0 48 46 Obama +2
McClatchy/Marist 1/6 - 1/10 827 RV 3.5 51 38 Obama +13
Rasmussen Reports 1/3 - 1/6 2000 LV -- 42 44 Romney +2
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 12/9 - 12/13 1000 A 3.1 47 40 Obama +7
McClatchy/Marist 12/2 - 12/8 873 RV 3.5 44 46 Romney +2
PPP (D) 11/19 - 11/21 707 RV 3.7 47 46 Obama +1
Quinnipiac 11/8 - 11/15 2424 RV 2.0 44 45 Romney +1
CNN/Opinion Research 10/27 - 10/30 921 RV 3.0 45 50 Romney +5
FOX News 9/28 - 9/29 900 RV 3.0 41 40 Obama +1
PPP (D) 9/10 - 9/13 590 RV 4.0 46 43 Obama +3
PPP (D) 8/6 - 8/9 606 RV 4.0 45 42 Obama +3
PPP (D) 7/9 - 7/12 667 RV 3.8 43 46 Romney +3
PPP (D) 6/4 - 6/7 650 RV 3.8 45 42 Obama +3
PPP (D) 5/7 - 5/9 707 RV 3.7 46 44 Obama +2
PPP (D) 4/9 - 4/11 622 RV 3.9 44 45 Romney +1
CNN/Opinion Research 4/9 - 4/11 907 RV 3.5 53 45 Obama +8
PPP (D) 3/12 - 3/14 1403 RV 2.6 44 44 Tie
PPP (D) 2/13 - 2/15 743 RV 3.6 45 43 Obama +2
PPP (D) 1/18 - 1/19 1151 RV 2.8 44 42 Obama +2
FOX News 1/12 - 1/14 900 RV 3.0 47 35 Obama +12
PPP (D) 12/4 - 12/7 1253 RV 2.8 47 42 Obama +5
Rasmussen Reports 11/24 - 11/24 800 LV 3.5 44 44 Tie
PPP (D) 11/13 - 11/15 1066 RV 3.0 48 43 Obama +5
PPP (D) 10/16 - 10/19 766 RV 3.5 48 40 Obama +8
PPP (D) 9/18 - 9/21 621 RV 3.9 48 39 Obama +9
PPP (D) 8/14 - 8/17 909 RV 3.3 47 40 Obama +7
Rasmussen Reports 7/16 - 7/17 1000 LV 3.0 45 45 Tie
PPP (D) 7/15 - 7/16 577 RV 4.1 49 40 Obama +9
PPP (D) 6/12 - 6/16 638 RV 3.9 48 40 Obama +8
PPP (D) 5/14 - 5/18 1000 RV 3.1 53 35 Obama +18
PPP (D) 4/17 - 4/19 686 RV 3.7 50 39 Obama +11




http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html





http://www.diffen.com/difference/Barack_Obama_vs_Mitt_Romney

Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney

This is an unbiased comparison of the policies and positions of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties respectively in the 2012 election for President of the United States.

In most cases, their political positions and are aligned with the typical liberal and conservative ideologies in the U.S.

Comparison chart

Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney

This is an unbiased comparison of the policies and positions of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties respectively in the 2012 election for President of the United States.

In most cases, their political positions and are aligned with the typical liberal and conservative ideologies in the U.S.

Comparison chart

Barack Obama
  • Currently 4.03/5

Rating: 4.0/5 (9310 votes)

Mitt Romney
  • Currently 3.43/5

Rating: 3.4/5 (8288 votes)

Political Party: Democratic Republican
Alma Mater: Occidental College, Columbia University (BA), Harvard Law School (JD) Stanford University, Brigham Young University (BA), Harvard University (MBA, JD)
Position on the Economy: Repeal Bush tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000. Lower taxes on manufacturing industry. Stimulus spending and tax cuts to grow the economy (short term). Cut spending and raise taxes on wealthy to reduce deficit (long term). Make Bush tax cuts permanent. Lower corporate tax rate across the board to 25%. Cut taxes and regulations to encourage business. Cut "non-security discretionary [government] spending" by 5% to reduce deficit.
Position on Healthcare: Signed the 2010 healthcare overhaul bill. Calls for patient protections like allowing coverage for pre-existing conditions, not letting insurers cancel policies when patients get sick, and requiring individuals to buyhealth insurance or pay a fine. Created similar legislation in Mass. but believes it's not appropriate for all of USA and wants to repeal. Proposes encouraging individuals to purchase their own health insurancerather than via employers, and allowing insurance across state lines.
Position on Immigration: Supports path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English & paying fines; toughen penalties for hiring illegal immigrants; voted for fence along Mexican border. Issued exec order to not deport certain undocumented immigrants Would make English the official language of the US and "turn off themagnets like tuition breaks or other breaks that draw people into this country illegally". In favor of promoting legal immigration.
Position on Iraq: Opposed invasion from the beginning; opposed troop increase; ended military operations in Iraq(on previously negotiated Bush timeline). Made no effort to keep promise to exit in 2009. Troops moved to Afghanistan and Iranian border. Romney says that keeping the U.S. in Iraq is the best option for minimizing casualties and maintaining a democratic government in Iraq.
Position on Iran: Engage in direct diplomacy; tighten economic sanctions with international cooperation; military option not off the table. Failed to deliver on 2008 campaign promise to meet with the Iranian president without preconditions. Tighten economic sanctions; Military option not off the table.
Position on Global Warming and Environment: Supports a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions. Delayed decision on northern leg of Keystone XL pipeline due to environmental concerns. Opposes cap and trade legislation. Supports Keystone XL pipeline. Exporting carbon emissions to China hurts US and planet. (Aug 2007), Humans contribute to world getting warmer. (Nov 2011), $20 billion package for energy research & new car technology
Position on Indefinite detention: Publicly opposed but debate on Congressional floor revealed that his Administration asked for language excluding American citizens. Would have signed NDAA as is.
Position on Military Intervention: Publicly opposed wars and intervention but has recently admitted to expanding Afghan conflict into Pakistan. Says Congressional approval not required if UN gives approval. Consult with lawyers on legality but believes President has the right to do what he believes makes the country safer.
Position on Gay rights: Supports same-sex marriage; pushed Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, allowing gays to serve openly in the military Opposes same-sex marriage; supports legal unions; supports Don't Ask, Don't Tell but favors gays serving openly in the military(Govwatch 1994), supported ENDA to ban anti-gay employer discrimination
Position on Abortion: Supports Roe v. Wade; criticized Supreme Court decision that upheld ban on partial-birth abortions. Opposes Roe v. Wade; believes states should be allowed to ban abortions., 1994: Supported abortion rights but personally opposed, No punishment for women who have partial birth abortions, change of heart in 2005 when preparing to run for President
Full name: Barack Hussein Obama Willard Mitt Romney
Profession: Lawyer, politician, author Businessman, politician, author
Place of Birth: Honolulu, Hawaii Detroit, Michigan
Children: Malia Ann (b July 4, 1998) and Natasha (known as Sasha) (b June 10, 2001) Tagg (b. 1970), Matt (b. 1971), Josh (b. 1975), Ben (b. 1978), Craig (b. 1981)
Spouse(s): Michelle Obama Ann Romney (m. 1969–present)
Website: http://www.barackobama.com http://www.mittromney.com
Religion: Christian (United Church of Christ) Christian (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a.k.a. Mormon)
Residence: Washington, D.C. Belmont, Massachusetts
Running mate: Joseph "Joe" Biden Paul Ryan
Date of Birth: August 4,1961 March 12, 1947
Books Authored: Dreams from My Father: A story of Race and Inheritance; and The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts of Reclaiming the American Dream. No Apology: The Case for American Greatness; and Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games
Obama vs romney caricature by DonkeyHotey
Obama vs romney caricature by DonkeyHotey

Contents

Differences in Economic Policy

Tax Policy

Highlights of Mitt Romney's tax plan include:

  • Individual taxes
    • Maintain current marginal tax rates; make the Bush tax cuts permanent (Romney's website is inconsistent on this issue as of Apr 13, 2012. The summary indicates he is proposing a 20% across-the-board cuts in marginal tax rates while the policy PDF file summary indicates he wants to maintain marginal tax rates at current levels.)
    • Eliminate estate (inheritance) tax
    • Eliminate taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains for individuals with incomes below $200,000
    • Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
  • Corporate taxes
    • Cut the corporate tax rate to 25%
    • Make the R&D tax credit permanent
    • Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
    • Move to a territorial tax system where US companies will not have to pay U.S. taxes on income earned overseas even when repatriated.

In order to pay for these tax cuts, Romney has proposed eliminating certain tax deductions, such as mortgage interest deduction for second homes, state income tax deduction and state property tax deduction. Romney has also said he would look to the Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for budget cuts.[1]

Highlights of Barack Obama's tax policy include:

  • Individual taxes
    • Let Bush-era tax cuts expire for households where income is more than $250,000
    • A "Buffett rule" where individuals with incomes more than $1 million are required to pay a certain minimum tax rate (30%) regardless of the source of their income
  • Corporate taxes
    • Tax credits for manufacturing firms
    • "Eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas"

Stimulus Spending and Bailouts

As President, Barack Obama supported the bailouts for banks and other financial services firms like AIG, as well as the auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler. Romney opposed the auto bailouts and had proposed that the companies should have been allowed to file for bankruptcy.

Obama also passed a stimulus bill that included tax cuts as well as government spending, including programs like the "cash for clunkers" program. Romney opposes stimulus spending by the government because it adds to the deficit. Instead, he favors cutting taxes on individuals and businesses to stimulate growth.

Regulation

Obama believes the 2008 financial crisis was a result of excessive deregulation of the banking industry and that government regulation is needed for when markets fail[2]. But he has called for a review of regulations to eliminate ones that "don't make sense". Romney favors deregulation to foster a more business-friendly environment.[3]

Trade

Mortgage Modification and Housing Policy

Social Security

Healthcare Policy

See also:Obamacare vs Romneycare

Healthcare is a contentious issue in the 2012 election because of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare). President Obama signed the bill into law and is a strong supporter of universal healthcarecoverage. Several provisions of the plan, including the controversial mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance, were modeled after the bill passed by Romney in Massachusetts when he was governor. However, Romney has said the bill is wrong at the federal level. Romney has promised to repeal the bill via an executive order if he gets elected president. Trying to differentiate between the Massachusetts law he signed and the federal law, Romney said:[4]

I would repeal Obamacare, if I were ever in a position to do so. My experience has taught me that states are where healthcare programs for the uninsured should be crafted, just as the Constitution provides. Obamacare is bad law, bad policy, and it is bad for America's families.

On Medicare

Obama favors a government-run Medicare program while Romney believes that the federal government does a poor job of running Medicare and has embraced Paul Ryan's plan of overhauling Medicare. Highlights of Ryan's planinclude:

  • No changes for seniors currently already on Medicare or those over 55
  • For future Medicare recipients, a voucher-based system that provides a fixed amount of money to seniors so they can buy health insurance on their own. The amount of money would increase every year to account for inflation (general inflation, which may be different from the inflation rate in healthcare costs). The amount of money would depend upon income so that high-income seniors would receive less assistance than the poor.
  • The option to stay on Medicare in lieu of private insurance based on the voucher system.

Supporters of the Republican plan say that the private sector is likely to administer health insurance better than the government does with Medicare. They also predict that seniors will benefit from increased competition in the marketplace, which will drive down costs and improve quality. Critics have argued that Ryan's plan would weaken Medicare because private insurers will cherry-pick customers and only provide insurance to the relatively healthy, leaving sicker, higher-cost patients in the Medicare pool. They also say that seniors may be too old or too ill to make informed choices and deal with problems (such as billing errors, pre-authorization requirements) that may arise with private insurance. Finally, critics believe that if the value of the voucher does not keep pace with the rising healthcare costs, then seniors will be unable to afford health insurance.

On Medicaid

Romney supports greater state control of the Medicaid program. The New York Times has argued that while Obama wants to greatly expand the number of people covered by Medicaid, Romney wants to greatly reduce the reach of the program.

 The president envisions adding as many as 17 million people to the rolls by allowing everyone with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level to enroll, including many childless adults.
 Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan would take Medicaid in the opposite direction. They would push for the repeal of the health care law and replace the current Medicaid program with block grants, giving each state a lump sum and letting them decide eligibility and benefits. (Currently, the federal government sets minimum requirements, like covering all children under the poverty level, which some states surpass. It also provides unlimited matching funds.) The grants would grow at the rate of inflation, with adjustments for population growth.
 As chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan has proposed cutting federal spending on Medicaid by $810 billion over 10 years, largely from repealing the health care law. Mr. Obama’s expansion plan, by contrast, would cost an additional $642 billion over the same period, according to the most recent estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.

Quotes

Social Issues

On Gay Rights

Marriage equality (aka Gay Marriage)

In the 2008 election, Obama's stand was that he supported civil unions and according gay couples all the legal rights that married couples had. However, he did not support same-sex marriage. In May 2012, he revised his stand and said that he supports the right of gay couples to get married.

Mitt Romney holds a more conservative position on the issue. He wants to enact federal legislation outlawing gay marriage.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

President Obama repealed the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that prevented gays from serving openly in the military. Romney was not in favor of the repeal.

On Abortion

Obama supports Roe v. Wade while Romney has called for the landmark Supreme Court decision to be overturned. When contesting in Massachusetts elections (both for Governor in 2002 and for the U.S. Senate seat in 1994), Romney's position was different. He had said that while he was personally opposed to abortion on moral grounds, he agreed with the Supreme Court decision. He has said he had a change of heart in 2005.

When Obama was Illinois state senator, he opposed the Induced Infant Liability Act and repeatedly voted against requirements and restrictions intended to stop what opponents label "born alive" abortions. Obama said his opposition was because Illinois law already required medical care in such situations where the child is alive and because of technical language he felt might have "interfered with a woman's right to choose".

Obama voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, saying "On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that." Obama voted against a bill that would have made it a federal crime for anyone other than a parent to accompany a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion. Obama has, however, expressed support of bans on some late-term abortions, provided they include exemptions for the mental and physical health of the mother.

Quotes

On Immigration

Under President Obama's term, the Department of Homeland Security has carried out more deportations than the Bush administration. However, in June 2012, President Obama announced a shift in immigration policy via an executive order. The new policy would stop deportations of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children (under 16), have finished high school, have no criminal record and are under 30 years of age.[5]

The policy is similar to the DREAM Act but does not offer amnesty or a path to citizenship. It merely gives young immigrants a two-year work visa.

While voters approved of Obama's decision 2-to-1[6], Romney criticized it saying it was not a long-term solution because it was not a legislation but a Presidential executive order that could be overturned.[7]

Romney's stated policy during the Republican primaries was to allow undocumented immigrants to "self-deport" by making it impossible for them to find work. Romney has said he is in favor of legal immigration, including giving green cards to international students who graduate from U.S. colleges and have the skills that the U.S. needs.

Women's Rights

  • Romney Oct 1994 Help women through glass ceiling by requiring annual reporting
  • Obama Aug 2008 Keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work

Education Policy

From the Washington Post reporting on the issues:

Obama has approved waivers to states for some of the most onerous requirements of the No Child Left Behindlaw. The Obama administration's Race to the Top competition has rewarded winning states with billions of dollars for pursuing education policies Obama supports. Won approval from Congress for a $10,000 college tax credit over four years and increases in Pell grants and other financial aid.
Mitt Romney supported the federal accountability standards of the No Child Left Behind law. He has said the student testing, charter-school incentives and teacher evaluation standards of Obama’s “Race to the Top” competition “make sense” although the federal government should have less control of education. Says increases in federal student aid encourage tuition to go up, too. Wants to see private lenders return to the federal student loan program.

Quotes

  • Romney April 2012: Mr. Romney said he would either consolidate the education department with another agency or make it "a heck of a lot smaller." "I'm not going to get rid of it entirely," he said.
  • Obama Jan 2012 Make community colleges into community career centers

Gun Control

Civil Liberties and Homeland Security

Differences in Foreign Policy

In an interview with NPR's All Things Considered, Susan Glasser, editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy magazine said that policy specifics from the two candidates were not dramatically different. She added that:

There is, at heart, an assertion across all of Mitt Romney's critiques of Barack Obama in the course of this campaign on foreign policy that comes down to America can be a shaper of events and not merely a passive reactor. He equates shaping events with proving or disproving American decline.

In an article for the Washington Post, Jackson Diehl outlined several foreign policy differences between the two candidates.

Russia

Obama wants to strike a new deal with Vladi­mir Putin to significantly cut the U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles. In what he thought was a private aside, Obama told then-President Dmitry Medvedev that “after my election, I have more flexibility” on that, referring to compromises with Russia on U.S. and NATO plans for missile defense. In contrast, Romney strongly opposed Obama’s New Start treaty with Russia, which made a small reduction in nuclear warheads, and has promised to boost spending on missile defense.

Afghanistan

Both candidates support NATO’s plan to withdraw combat forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. While some analysts say this means Obama and Romney's views are similar, Diehl has conjectured that Obama is more likely to reduce combat troops there in 2013 while Romney is more likely to follow the advice of U.S. generals who will advocate that combat troops not be cut.

A notable highlight of Obama's strategy against Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan is the use of drones. Although his administration claims the attacks are carefully targeted at major terrorists, they frequently kill civilians.[8]

Syria

President Obama is opposed to arming the rebel forces in Syria and has repeatedly rejected proposals that the United States help establish safe zones for civilians. On the other hand Romney has voiced support for arming the Syrian opposition.

Iran

Romney and Obama have both said that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. Diehl has suggested that Obama
probably would use force only if Iran actually tried to build a bomb, while a Romney attack could be triggered if Iran were merely close to acquiring all the means for a weapon — which it is.

Israel-Palestine Conflict

Obama supports a two-state solution with statehood for Palestine. Romney has not indicated that Palestinian statehood is among his top priorities. He has also expressed pessimism about there ever being peace in the region, calling the possibility "unthinkable". [9]

Position on Iraq

Global Popularity

When Barack Obama was sworn in as President in 2009, he was immensely popular abroad. American popularity had waned during the Bush presidency but with Obama's election attitudes had begun to change. Expecting a major shift in foreign policy, the Nobel Peace Prize committee even chose Obama as the winner of the prize in 2009. However, his popularity abroad has decreased significantly since then.[10]

Mitt Romney made some blunders on his foreign tour just ahead of the London Olympics when he made remarks about the under-preparedness of the city for the Olympics. This did not go over very well in the U.K. His fared better during his visit to Israel, whose Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has had a tenuous relationship with Obama.

Energy Policy

The Obama administration has supported clean energy projects, some of which have failed like Solandra. He has postponed the final decision on the Keystone XL extension, the northern leg of the Keystone pipeline, until an environmental review is completed.[11] In the aftermath of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the Obama administration forced BP to create a $20 billion spill response fund, announced a moratorium on announced a moratorium on permits for new offshore oil wells and ended the policy of granting environmental waivers to oil companies. However, these announcements did not prevent new permits from being issued.[12][13] Read more aboutObama's energy policy.

Mitt Romney announced his energy policy in August 2012 and proposed giving states the power to determine whether drilling and mining should occur on federal lands within their borders. Romney’s policy also calls for opening more offshore drilling options, including off the coast of Virginia and the Carolinas.[14] He is in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline. Read more about Mitt Romney's energy policy.

Impact

A recent Congressional Budget Office report suggested that opening nearly all federal lands to drilling would yield just $7 billion in government revenue over the next decade—a vast difference from "trillions of dollars" estimated by the Romney campaign. Asked about the disparity, Oren Cass, Romney's domestic policy director, said the campaign was including revenues from both onshore and offshore drilling on federal lands and suggested the CBO had produced lower numbers by not including lease payments, royalties and taxes certain to be earned in coming "years and decades."[15]

Oil companies

Romney has been criticized for favoring large oil and gas companies in his policies after they donated to his campaign.

Environmental Policy

  • Romney Jan 2008 States should be able to have their own emissions standards
  • Obama Aug 2007 Protect the Great Lakes & our National Parks and Forests
  • Romney Oct 2011 Replace "green jobs" program with American competitiveness
  • Obama April 2008 Genesis teaches stewardship of earth: sacrifice for future

Debates

All Presidential debates begin at 9:00pm Eastern time (6pm Pacific).

First Debate

The first presidential debate was held on October 3, 2012 at the University of Denver and was moderated by Jim Lehrer. Most analysts and viewers were of the opinion that Romney won the debate.[16][17][18]

An analysis of the claims made during the debate is available on factcheck.org.

Here's the full debate video:

Ahead of the debate, the Wall Street Journal published on Facebook this analysis contrasting the positions of the two candidates:

Contrasting the positions of Obama and Romney (via WSKJ)

Second Debate

The second debate was held on October 16, 2012 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. It was a town-hall style debate where ordinary people will ask questions to the two candidates. It was a tense debate and the exchange became testy on several occasions, with both candidates being aggressive and attacking each other's record and policies. The full video is presented below and analysis of the debate can be found herehere and here.

Fact Checking for the Second Debate

Several organizations published analyses after the debate fact-checking the claims made by the two candidates, including:

Third Debate

The third and final presidential debate was held on October 22 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. Although billed as a foreign policy debate, the discussion often veered into domestic issues such as the economy and education. The debate was moderated by Bob Schieffer. Here's the full video of the final debate:

Recent News

Chances of winning

The key battleground states are Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Hampshire. Three weeks before the election, John Cassidy analyzed the opinion polls and dissected them state-wise to determine the probability of Obama winning another term:

 For the sake of argument, let’s assume Romney carries Florida and Virginia. According to my map, that would leave him with 248 votes, still twenty-two short of victory. If he also wins Colorado and New Hampshire, both of which I have listed as toss-ups, he would get to 261 votes, leaving him needing nine more to reach 270. That means he would have to win Ohio or Wisconsin, or Iowa and Nevada. The good news for Democrats is that Obama appears to be holding onto his leads in all four of these states. That’s his firewall.

Opinion polls

Chart of Barack Obama (D) vs Mitt Romney (R) in Opinion Polls
Poll source Date(s) administered Barack Obama (D) Mitt Romney (R)
Fox News August 19—21, 2012 44% 45%
RCP Average August 7—21, 2012 47.0% 45.5%
Rasmussen Tracking August 19—21, 2012 44% 46%

Prediction markets

These charts show the chances for Obama and Romney in the 2012 presidential election, as predicted by the market on Intrade.com.[19][20] While opinion polls showed a dead heat, the prediction markets almost always gave Obama a more than even chance of winning. By election day, his chance of winning as predicted by Intrade prices, was close to 2 in 3.

Charts showing the chances for Obama and Romney in the 2012 presidential election, as predicted by the market on Intrade.com

Nomination Acceptance Speeches

Other notable speeches included Clint Eastwood at the Republican National Convention and Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.

Books Authored








Ex BBC Reporter and BBC Television Host David Icke Speaks out on...INLNews.com



 
Ex BBC Reporter and BBC Television Host David Icke Speaks out on...INLNews.com


Obama is a monumental fraud who talks a good story
  '...I'm hungry, mum, can I have some hope please?....
         .. why I say Obama is far more dangerous to freedom than Bush..
The CAP will fit and Obama will wear it...
Obama is a monumental fraud who talks a good story 
...David Icke..ex BBC Journalist and TV Presenter
Obama is a monumental fraud who talks a good story, but lives a very different one. He won his first political office as a state senator in Chicago in 1996, not through the power of politics, but by coldly abusing
 the electoral process. Instead of running against his opponents and letting the people decide, he had his cronies challenge hundreds of names on the nomination papers of his democratic primary rivals until they were forced off the ballot by technicalities. Obama then ran unopposed. One of
 them, Gha-is Askia, says, that Obama's behaviour belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights:
'...Why say you're for new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? Obama talks about honour and democracy, but what honour is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?....'

Barack Obama Net Worth

Net Worth: Stats $11.8 Million As of 2012 Source of Wealth: Books, Politics (Annual Salary: $400,000)
Barack Obama Net Worth

 














Barack Hussein Obama II Age: 51 Years Old

Barack Hussein Obama II Date of Birth: August 4, 1961

Barack Hussein Obama II Birth Place: Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.

Barack Hussein Obama II Nationality:  United States

Barack Hussein Obama II Ethnicity: African, Irish, English

Barack Hussein Obama II Height: 6' 1" (1.85 m)

Barack Hussein Obama II Weight: 176 lbs (80 kg)

Barack Hussein Obama II Full Name: Barack Hussein Obama II

Barack Hussein Obama II Marital Status: Married (Michelle Obama)

Barack Hussein Obama II Children: 2 (Malia, Sasha)

Barack Hussein Obama II Education: J.D./Harvard Law School,B.A./Columbia University

Barack Hussein Obama II Occupation: Politician (Current U.S. President ), Author

Annual Salary: $400,000

Barack Obama and family 
 Barack Obama with supporters and left...Mitt Romney right with a baby
 Ohio Election Rally 2012 USA presidential elections

The 44th president of the United States, author and the most popular person in the world,  Barack Hussein Obama II, has a net worth between $2,801,012 and $11,830,000, according to analysis of his 2012 financial disclosure forms. Excluding the $1.4 million in Nobel Prize money he donated to charity and his primary home. His historic run for the presidency helped him sell millions of copies of his two books, Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope, during the campaign. He sold another 100,000 copies the week following his election. In 2009, the president earned an advance for an abridged version of Dreams for young adults; the deal made him the first sitting president in recent memory to receive a book advance while in office. The real money will be made years from now: Obama could certainly earn tens of millions of dollars a year giving speeches full time. President Barack Obama’s base salary is $400,000 a year. He also has access to a $150,000 expense account as well as a $100,000 tax free travel account and $20,000 entertainment budget. Obama served three terms in the Illinois Senate, and is the first African American President of the United States. Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, and is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School.




Here is one Brzezinski (Obama's and all previous presidents going back to Carter's Security advisor) quote you might recognise and it was made before Obama ran for president:

'.... Need social reassessment...can be encouraged by deliberate civic education that stresses the notion of service to a higher cause than oneself. As some have occasionally urged, a major step in that direction would be the adoption of an obligatory period of national service for every young adult, perhaps involving a variety of congressionally approved domestic or foreign good works...'
Now where have I heard that before?
As an Illuminati operative, Brzezinski's aim is to create a world government, central bank, current and army - a global dictatorship - underpinned by a micro-chipped population connected to a global computer'satellite system.  He wrote a book in 1970,  Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, in which he described the global society that he and the Illuminati seek to impose:
'..The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional value. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. There files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities...'
He also said in the same book nearly 40 year ago:
'..Today we are witnessing the emergence of transnational elites...(Whose) ties cut across national boundaries... It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook.... The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty ...Further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with soeme consequent risk to the present relatively favourable American position....'



Obama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men"

Jeffrey Smith

Jeffrey Smith

Posted: November 30, 2008





Biotech "Yes Men" on Obama's team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic "group think" that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations—where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology.
Clinton's agriculture secretary Dan Glickman saw it first hand:
"It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"
When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he "got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration."
By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist.
  • The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data show that the opposite is true.
  • We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average reduction in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers.
  • George H. W. Bush fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants.
  • Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigiousInternational Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger.
Food Safety Lies
Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA's 1992 GMO policy, which stated:
"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."
The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists that GM foods were substantially different, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public.
Their concerns stayed hidden until 1999, when 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports were made public due to a lawsuit. According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, the documents showed how their warnings and "references to the unintended negative effects" of genetic engineering "were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement," in spite of scientists' protests.
"What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?" wrote FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the policy. "It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."
Who flooded the market with dangerous GMOs
Thanks to the FDA's "promote biotech" policy, perilously few safety studies and investigations have been conducted on GMOs. Those that have, including two government studies from Austria and Italy published just last month, demonstrate that the concerns by FDA scientists should have been heeded. GMOs have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions in humans, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. GMOs are unsafe.
At the highest level, the responsibility for this disregard of science and consumer safety lies with the first Bush White House, which had ordered the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry and get GM foods on the market quickly. To accomplish this White House directive, the FDA created a position for Michael Taylor. As the FDA's new Deputy Commissioner of Policy, he oversaw the creation of GMO policy.
Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC.
Michael Taylor is on the Obama transition team.
Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk
Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1—a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see www.YourMilkonDrugs.com.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling.
As more and more consumers here learn about the health risks of the drug, they shift their purchases to brands that voluntarily label their products as not using rbGH. Consumer rejection of rbGH hit a tipping point a couple of years ago, and since then it has been kicked out of milk from Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Subway, and at least 40 of the top 100 dairies. In 2007, Monsanto desperately tried to reverse the trend by asking the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as free from rbGH. Both agencies flatly refused the company's request.
But Monsanto turned to an ally, Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. Wolff used his position to single-handedly declare rbGH-free labels illegal in his state. Such a policy would make it impossible for national dairy brands to declare their products rbGH-free, since they couldn't change packaging just for Pennsylvania. Wolff's audacious move so infuriated citizens around the nation, the outpouring caused the governor to step in and stop the prohibition before it took effect.
Dennis Wolff, according to unbossed.com, is being considered for Obama's USDA Secretary.
Although Pennsylvania did not ultimately ban rbGH-free labels, they did decide to require companies who use the labels to also include a disclaimer sentence on the package, stating that the according to the FDA there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rbGH and those not treated. In reality, this sentence contradicts the FDA's own scientists. (Is this sounding all too familiar?) Even according to Monsanto's own studies, milk from treated cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and IGF-1. Blatantly ignoring the data, a top FDA bureaucrat wrote a "white paper" urging companies that labeled products as rbGH-free to also use that disclaimer on their packaging. The bureaucrat was Michael Taylor.
Betting on biotech is "Bad-idea virus"
For several years, politicians around the US were offering money and tax-breaks to bring biotech companies into their city or state. But according to Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a 2004 report on this trend, "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable. This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials." He said it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."
One politician who caught a bad case of the bad-idea virus was Tom Vilsack, Iowa's governor from 1998-2006. He was co-creator and chair of the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year.
Tom Vilsack was considered a front runner for Obama's USDA secretary. Perhaps the outcry prompted by Vilsack's biotech connections was the reason for his name being withdrawn.
Change, Truth, Hope
I don't know Barack Obama's position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, "Obama, like Bush, may be Ag biotech ally", there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist's full court spin.
- His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000. - [Obama] said biotech crops "have provided enormous benefits" to farmers and expressed confidence "that we can continue to modify plants safely."
On the other hand, Obama may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants "stringent tests for environmental and health effects" and "stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice."
There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors.
President Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.
Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration.
(I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.)
Please sign a petition asking President Obama to make his GMO labeling plan comprehensive and meaningful.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.


You're Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It's Not So!

Jeffrey Smith

Jeffrey Smith

Posted: July 23, 200







The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.
Here's the back story.
When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods --secret documents now reveal that the experts werevery concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.
But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn't going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies
When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to "different risks" than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.
This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them -- companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.
GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled -- from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.
In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.
In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation
In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies "systematically overlook the side effects" and significantly underestimate "the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others."
The Fox Guarding the Chickens
If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.
This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. What have we done?
The Milk Man Cometh
While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90's, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto'sgenetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) -- injected into cows to increase milk supply.
The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitalshave taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk -- unless it was organic and therefore untreated.
Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA's approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.
Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.
Taylor's disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto's own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor's white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.
Will Monsanto's Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?
As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania -- Dennis Wolff. As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn't afford to create separate packaging for just one state.
Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff's madness. But Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor's FDA disclaimer on the package.
President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!
Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania's governor is supporting Wolff's appointment is to get him out of the state -- after he "screwed up so badly" with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.
Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus
Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania's lead by requiring Taylor's FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size. This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio. Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland's office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.
Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration.

To hear what America is saying about GMOs and to add your voice, go to our new non-GMO Facebook Group.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.
INDEX: 
KEY FDA DOCUMENTS REVEALING 
(1) HAZARDS OGENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS--AND 
(2) FLAWS WITH HOW THE AGENCY MADE ITS POLICY
About the Documents 
You will see scanned reproductions (exact copies) of some of the Food & Drug Administration's (FDA) internal memoranda about the hazards of genetically engineered foods.  These documents became available through the Alliance for Bio-Integrity's lawsuit (Alliance for Bio-Integrity et al., vs. Shalala, et al.) to gain mandatory safety testing and labeling of these foods.  The large numbers on the bottom of each page (i.e. 18952) are the Administrative Record (A.R.) numbers affixed by the FDA.
How to View and Print 
In order to make these documents easily accessible, we've saved each page in two different formats: one intended for viewing on your monitor using your internet browser (click on "View Document"), and one formatted in PDF suitable for printing onto a  8 1/2X 11" sheet of paper (click on "Print Document").
To print the PDF files you will need free software called Adobe Acrobat Reader.  If you don't already have Adobe Acrobat Reader, you can download it here.  Depending on your computer and internet connection, downloading Adobe Acrobat Reader may take up to fifteen minutes.  You may find that the best way to view and read the documents on your monitor is to select the PDF files; they are larger files and therefore may take slightly longer to download, but the Acrobat Reader enables you to enlarge or reduce the image size to fit your monitor. 
 
 A.  FDA Scientists Discuss Various Safety Concerns
  1. Comments from Dr. Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer, to Dr. James Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator, about the Federal Register document "Statement of Policy: Foods from Genetically Modified Plants."  Dated January 8, 1992. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document Print Document

  2.  
  3. Memorandum from Dr. Edwin J. Mathews to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology Working Group. Subject: "Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants."  Dated October 28, 1991. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  4.  
  5. Memorandum from Dr. Samuel I. Shibko to Dr. James Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Revision of Toxicology Section of the Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Plants." Dated January 31, 1992. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  6.  
  7. Comments from Dr. Louis J. Pribyl re: the "Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92." Dated March 6, 1992. (5 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  8.  
  9. Comments from Dr. Louis J. Pribyl re: "... the March 18, 1992 Version of the Biotechnology Document." Dated March 18, 1992. (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document 
  10. Comments from Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of Contaminants Chemistry. Subject: "Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods.  Supplemental Information."  Dated November 1, 1991. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  11.  
  12. Memorandum from Dr. Mitchell Smith, Head, Biological and Organic Chemistry Section, to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Comments on Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology, Dec. 12, 1991 draft."  Dated January 8, 1992. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  13.  
  14. Letter from Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator, to Dr. Bill Murray, Chairman of the Food Directorate, Canada.  Subject: the safety assessment of foods and food ingredients developed through new biotechnology.  Dated October 23, 1991. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  15.  
  16. Comments from Dr. Carl B. Johnson on the "draft statement of policy 12/12/91."  Dated January 8, 1992. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  17.  
  18. Memorandum from Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Regulation of Transgenic Plants--FDA Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology."  Dated February 5, 1992. (4 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document
  19.  
    B.  Specific Objections to Use of Antibiotic-Resistant Marker Genes
  20. Memorandum from Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator, to Dr. Murray Lumpkin.  Subject: "Use of Kanamycin Resistance Marker Gene in Tomatoes."  (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  21.  
  22. Memorandum from Dr. Murray Lumpkin to Dr. Bruce Burlington.  Subject: "The tomatoes that will eat Akron." Dated December 17, 1992. (7 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  23.  
  24. Memorandum from Dr. Albert Sheldon to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Use of Kanamycin Resistance Markers in Tomatoes."  Dated March 30, 1993.  (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  25.  
    C.  Safety Questions Raised by Tests on the Flavr Savr Tomato--the Most Thoroughly Tested      Bioengineered Food
  26. Memorandum from Dr. Fred Hines to Dr. Linda Kahl.  Subject: "FLAVR SAVR Tomato:" ... "Pathology Branch's Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies" ... "and an Expert Panel's Report."  Dated June 16, 1993. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document
  27. Memorandum from Robert J. Scheuplein, Ph.D. to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and others. Subject: "Response to Calgene Amended Petition." Dated October 27, 1993. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  28.  
  29. Memorandum from Dr. Carl B. Johnson to Dr. Linda Kahl & Others.  Subject: "Flavr Savr(TM) tomato; significance of pending DHEE question." Dated Dec 7, 1993. (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  30.  
  31. Memorandum from Dr. Fred Hines to Dr. Linda Kahl.  Subject: "FLAVR SAVR Tomato"... "Pathology Branch's Remarks to Calgene Inc.'s Response to FDA Letter of June 29, 1993."  Dated December 10, 1993. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  32.  
    D.  Additional Evidence of Improprieties In The Formation Of FDA Policy On 
        Bioengineered Foods
  33. Note from Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator, to Mr. Michael Taylor.  Subject: "Food Biotechnology Policy Development."  Dated October 7, 1993. (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document
  34.  
  35. Document titled "FDA REGULATION OF FOOD PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM GENETICALLY ALTERED PLANTS: POINTS TO CONSIDER"  Not dated. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  36.  
  37. Memorandum from Dr. James Maryanksi, Biotechnology Coordinator, to the Director of the Center for Applied Nutrition.  Subject: "FDA Task Group on Food Biotechnology: Progress Report 2." Dated August 15, 1991. (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  38.  
  39. Memorandum from David Kessler, Commissioner of Food & Drugs.  Subject: "FDA Proposed Statement of Policy Clarifying the Regulation of Food Derived from Genetically Modified Plants--DECISION." Dated March 20, 1992. (4 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  40.  
  41. Letter from Terry Medley, J.D. (of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Comments on FDA Draft Statement of Policy on foods derived from new plant varieties, including plants derived by recombinant DNA techniques. Dated April 2, 1992. (5 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  42.  
  43. Note from Eric Katz (Dept. of Health & Human Services) to John Gallivan.  Subject: "Food Biotechnology Policy Statement."  Dated March 27, 1992. (2 pages) View Our Summary -View Document - Print Document
  44. Memorandum from James B. MacRae, Jr. (of the Office of Management and Budget), for C. Boyden Gray (President Bush’s White House counsel).  Subject: "FDA Food Biotechnology Policy."  Dated March 21, 1992. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document



Ex BBC Reporter and BBC Television Host David Icke Speaks out on...INLNews.com

Barrack Obama: the naked emperor-by David Icke
I  added this appendix to my book  '..The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy ( and how to fix it)....' about Barrack Obama in November 2008 as I watched with dismay as vast numbers of people across the world, including many who should know better, have been duped by the Mind-game called Operation Obama. Even people with some understanding of the conspiracy have said things like: '...Well, at least it's great to see such a new spirit of hope'. No, he's not Bush - he's potentially far more dangerous; and what is the use of a spirit of 'hope' if it's based on a lie? In fact, what use is 'hope' at all?
Obama's wife, Michelle, who I wouldn't trust to tell me the date in a calender factory, said that 'everything begins and ends with hope'. Utter nonsense. Hope is a meaningless emotion because its fruits are always in the future and. by definition, never in the NOW. Hope is like riding a carousel horse; no matter how fast you go you never get closer to the one at the front. The idea, however, is to persuade you to stay on the horse, despite the inevitable disappointment, in the 'hope' that things will change. But they don't because the very system is designed to prevent it. That's the way 'hope' is employed by the dastardly and devious - take the crap we are giving you 
now in the 'hope' that thinks will get better (but we know they won't). Barrack Obama is a purveyor of 'hope' because his masters want the people to accept what they are given now in the 'hope that good times will come' ( just a fairy tale).
Just do what we demand, oops, sorry. Barrack demands, and in return he'll inspire you to hope that it is all leading to the Promised Land. It isn't, but, by the time you realise that, it's too late. What terrifies the manipulators is that people will abandon hope, as a future, sometime-never projection, and start to demand fairness, justice and freedom now. To avoid this nightmare they need to keep those desires as something to aspire to. not to actually have. Thus, their man, Obama, sells 'hope' as a diversion technique, a holding position, to keep the masses from truly rebelling. We have no job, no food on the table and our home has been foreclosed, but at least we have 'hope'. Phew, thank goodness for that.
                                                                                             
                               
'....I'm hungry, mum, can I have some hope please?....'
                                       '...I'm so sorry, darling, you can't have hope today. only tomorrow - hope is always tomorrow...'

                '...So will I eat tomorrow, mum?......'
 '....We can hope so now, dear, but when we get to tomorrow, we cam only hope it;s the next day...'

          ...... on and on it goes. That's how 'hope'works. Or rather doesn't....


Obama's predominant mantra is 'change'. Indeed, his massively-funded, record breaking campaign was based on that one word - 
change.

This is a technique used by Bill Clinton and many others and it is highly effective because, at any point, the system ensures that most people are not happy with the way life is. So, when you don't like the status quo, 'change' cam be a potent message, even if, like Obama, you don't say what it means. It has been vital to his success and that of his controllers, that he has never specified what his 'hope', 'change', and that other mind-control trigger-word, 'believe',  were referring to in terms of policy and the way society in general will be effected. Hope for 
what? Change what? Believe in what? to answer those questions with specifics would have been fatal to Obama's appeal.
I studied the military/government mind-controlled programmes and techniques in great detail for many years during the late- 1990's and across 2000, and the Obama 'phenomenon' is the most blatant mass-mind control operation you could wish to see. At its core the plan has been to make Obama the focus of everything you hope for, believe in, and want to change. This is why it has been crucial for him not to specify and detail what is meant in the context of the Obama mind-game. They mean whatever 
you decide they mean or want them to mean.
The idea is for you to project all that you stand for onto him and so he becomes the symbol of you and how you see the world. Specifics would destroy that 'I am whatever you want me to be' scenario and so you don't get any detail, just 'hope', 'change', and 'believe'.
They don't want him to be seen only as 'the messiah', they also want him to be Abraham Lincoln, JFK, or Buddha - anyone you choose to project on him, for he is a blank page, blank screen and empty suit. Obama is a make-your-own, do it-yourself leader, a projection of your own mind. ( If you are still asleep, that is. If you are in any way awake, he's an open book.)
There is no more powerful way of stimulating people than to tell them what they want to hear and keep shtum about anything they wouldn't like. Double-glazing salesmen are trained to pick up in general conversation what their target likes and dislikes and to respond accordingly in the way the product is sold. The technique is simply to respond accordingly in the way the product is sold. the technique is simply to tell the potential buyer what you have gleaned they want to be told. Obama, comes from the same stable, but on a massively bigger scale and with a whole network of advisors and controllers steeped in the art of manipulating minds, opinions and actions. Obama's written-for-him speeches are not from the heart, but from the autocue. The 'heart' bit comes from expensive training and his Bill Clintoneque ability to '...mean it when he says it...', a state of delivery that goes beyond mere acting. 
      Tony Blair was trained in the same way, But if you take a step back and look at these people dispassionately you can clearly see the techniques they consciously employ. 
Blair is the most blatant fraud in the way he delivers a line, stops in mid-sentence for emphasis and looks down for fake emotional effect. Obama is a little more slick, but, from where I have been looking this past year, not much. You can see his mind working, turning between autocue screens to his left and right, then straight down the camera for his key messages. From-the-heart orators don't do that; they are too immersed in what they are feeling and saying to give even a passing thought to where they are looking or how the line is delivered. I worked in television for more than a decade, often reading autocue while a director spoke in my ear telling me what cameras to look at.  I have, since the early 1990's, spoken my truth on public stages across the world. I know, therefore, the difference between artificial autocue delivery and body language and talking from the heart without a script. Obama, I repeat, is coming from the autocue, not the heart. Obama's speeches are a mass of mind-control techniques and Neuro-Linquistic Progamming, or NLP, and they are carefully constructed to implant beliefs and perceptions into the mind of the viewer.
As I keep emphasising, the whole Obama circus is an exercise in mass mind control and it has been so successful because so many people live their lives in a permanent state of trace. All of which brings me to the parallels with Nazi-Germany, fascist Italy and similar regimes throughout history (actually in reality a Hi-Story written by the Illuminati Script Writers that have written the Hi-Story the way their master have told them to write the Hi-Story).
Obama will not look like Hitler, nor sound like Hitler, but the themes are just the same. Germany was in a terrible state economically and militarily in the 1930's in the aftermath of the First World War and the reparations inflicted on the country by the Rothschild/illuminati-controlled Versailles 'Peace' Conference in 1919. From amid the chaos came the man that Germans saw then in much the same way that so many see Obama today. His name was Adolph Hitler and his oratory and rhetoric, again supported by the ritualistic presentation founded on mind-control techniques, made him appear to be the German 'messiah', the German Obama. Hitler promised 'change', 'hope' and something to 'believe in' amidst the consequences of war and financial collapse. He spoke to vats rallies of adoring followers. As the writer Webster Traply points out, fascism in its true sense is not just a police state imposed by a tiny hierarchy. It might end up like that, but first it is brought to power by a mass movement from within the people who have no understanding of what the 'change', 'hope' and 'believe' they are being offered in reality means. they just know that they want some,. because, as with Obama, they make it mean what they want it to mean. Only later to they see, to their horror, what they have signed up for.
    Obama is far more dangerous than Boy Bush because he can sell a line to those who are in the trance while Boy Bush could not do that on anything like the same scale. Bush was a transparent idiot with no communication skills who need massive fraud at the polls to get officially 'elected' He could never be the figurehead to inspire a mass movement of the people to support some vacuous 'hope', 'change' and'believe' when they don't even know what those words are supposed to mean. But Obama clearly can, because he has. One of 'his' (his controllers') prime targets are the young, just as they were with the Nazis and the Hitler Youth Movement, In line with this time, the WorldNetDaily website reported:
...'....the official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would 'require' all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs, but after the flurry of bloggs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website;s wording was softened... Originally, under the tab "America Serves", Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under serviced schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps...."Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.'

Obama said in a speech in July 2008 in Colorado Springs that he wanted to see a 'civilian national security force' that would be as powerful and well-funded as the Marine, Navy and Air Force. As Joseph Farah, founder of WorldNetDaily, wrote:

'..If we're going to create some kind of national police force as bib, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal? I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military, How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy. Marines and Air Force put together? Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive that that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?...'
Obama meant, amid the flowery words, that he's not in favour of either peace or freedom. He is a front-man demagogue for the same force that controlled Boy Bush, Clinton, Father Bush, Regan, Carter ad infinitum; but the difference is that he has been hyped to such hysterical proportions that he will be allowed to get away with far more that they were, at least until reality dawns on the mass ranks of his hypnotised supporters. And, clearly, that could take some time. When I was a journalist 30 year ago, I cam across a technique that some tabloid newspaper reporters would use to get someone to speak with them. They would work in pairs with the first one knocking on the door of some distressed family who didn't want to talk with the media. He would tell them he was from a newspaper he didn't really work for and treat them with aggression and contempt to make  them even more upset. He would then leave and his colleague would knock on the door, tell them the real newspaper he was from, and act like Mr. Nice Guy. He would say that he understood completely how upsetting the other man must have been, but 'if you will only speak to me exclusively I will make sure that the other man, nor anyone like him, will bother you again'. They usually agreed and the scam was complete. Much the same think is happening with regard to Bush and Obama. The Neoconservative 'Republican' wing of the Illuminati controlled Bush for 8 years and led the country into foreign wars and financial chaos ( bad guy/problem); now the "Domocratic' wing, led by the infamous Zbigniew Brzezinski has brought forth the 'saviour', Barack Obama, to lead us into the sunshine with 'hope' and 'change' (good guy/solution). Hence even some more aware people say: 'At least he's not Bush'.

Apart from the unspecified 'hope', 'change' and 'believe', few have any idea what Obama's policies will be. Public perception comes from having an 'image' of him, or a self-projection, not the fine print because Obama doesn't do fine print until the votes are cast and even then he will hide it in his windbag words. There is an 'image' that Obama is against war, but no he's not.  Obama says he's against the invasion of Iraq, though we'll see what he does about that in office. How can a man calling for more troops, including European troops, to be sent to Afganistan be against war? Obama has also said he is prepared to bomb Pakistan and use military force to stop Iran building nuclear weapons. Obama isn't against war at all and. If Obama's controllers have their way, Obama will engage the US in even more foreign conflicts with the troops sent to their deaths, and the deaths of their targets, on a waive of oratory from the dark suit with the black face who would never go where Obama's sending them. Obama claims to be a uniter, which is exactly what Bush said about himself before he came to office, but unity in and of itself is not the issue. Nazi Germany had unity in the early years of the war, but was that a good thing? What matters is what the unity is designed to achieve and Obama's much-vaunted 'unity' is to 'inspire' a mass movement to support the Orwellian plans of the Illuminati. Obama's constant rhetoric about 'bringing people together' can be used to justify the 'coming together' of the United States, Canada and Mexico in the North American Union; it can be used to unite the believers in their opposition and condemnation of non-believers, which is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany with the book burning and violent suppression of those who challenged the Hitler regime. The potential of Obama Mania is endless when it comes to selling fascism as 'hope', 'change', 'freedom' and a 'New America', or 'New World' (Order). Bush and Cheney were transparent warmongers and would always have struggled to bring in the draft, the compulsory community service fro middle school, high school and college students and creating a people's army in America. 
That's why I say Obama is far more dangerous to freedom than Bush.....David Icke
                                                  In the last eight years Bush could only get part of the way to fascism - Obama has the potential to finish the job, for all the reasons I have mentioned. 

You only have to look at the cabal behind Obama, and those he has already appointed to his administration team, to see what Obama's 'change' is truly planned to be. Obama's mentor, svengali and main controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, and the co-founder, with David Rockefeller, of the Illuminati's Tirlateral Commission, Brzezinski has admitted publicly that he began to fund and train what he would call today terrorists in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet-controlled government in the capital, Kabul, in the late 1970's. The idea, he said, was to entice the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan to protect the Kabul Regime and thus give the rival superpower 'their Vietnam'. The plan worked at the cost of a million Afghan lives during the Soviet occupation from 1979 to 1989, a consequence that troubles Brzezinski not at all. Brzezinski's 'freedom fighters' would become known as the 'Mujahideen' and later the Taliban and what is claimed to be 'Al-Qaeda'. This is the man behind 'anti-war', Barack Obama, It was common knowledge that President Carter would do nothing involving foreign policy without the okay from Brzezinski, the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission which chose Carter for president. The Trilateral Commission and the wider Brzezinski network, including Illuminati fronts like the Ford Foundation, have chosen Obama and the situation will be the same. Brzezinski will call the shots; Obama's job is simply to sell them to the people. this is rather alarming when you think that Brzezinski wants to trigger a war involving Russia and China. 'Obama's' policies come straight from Brzezinski's books. Here is one Brzezinski quote you might recognise and it was made before Obama ran for president:

'.... Need social reassessment...can be encouraged by deliberate civic education that stresses the notion of service to a higher cause than oneself. As some have occasionally urged, a major step in that direction would be the adoption of an obligatory period of national service for every young adult, perhaps involving a variety of congressionally approved domestic or foreign good works...'
Now where have I heard that before?
As an Illuminati operative, Brzezinski's aim is to create a world government, central bank, current and army - a global dictatorship - underpinned by a micro-chipped population connected to a global computer'satellite system.  He wrote a book in 1970,  Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, in which he described the global society that he and the Illuminati seek to impose:

'..The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional value. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. There files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities...'

He also said in the same book nearly 40 year ago:

'..Today we are witnessing the emergence of transnational elites...(Whose) ties cut across national boundaries... It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook.... The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty ...Further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with soem consequent risk to the present relatively favourable American position....'
And what does his puppet, Obama, now say that Americans have to bring about 'change'? 'Make sacrifices'. As Mrs Demagogue, Michelle, said:

' We need a different leadership because our souls are broken. We need to be inspired ...to make the sacrifices that are needed to push us to a different place..'

You can bet that this will include sacrificing more sovereignty and freedom on the road to the global dictatorship described by Brzezinski for decades. Brzezinski's son, Mark, was an 'advisor' to the Obama campaign (doing what his father told him) and, in line with the American one-party-state, his other son, Ian, was foreign policy advisor to the McCain campaign (doing what his father told him). Brzezinski's daughter, Mika, reported the campaign for MSNBC television. Obama has been the chosen one for a long time, a fact known only to a few in the deep inner circle, and his relationship with Brzezinski almost certainly goes back to the start of the 1980's when he attended the Ivy League, and long-time Illuminati, Columbia University where Brzezinski was head of the Institute for Communist Affairs. Obama simply will not talk in any detail about this period. And a question: Does anyone really believe that someone, 'a man of the people', would simply appear from apparently nowhere to run the slickest and best-funded presidential campaign in American history ( Hi-Story) ? Obama was chosen long ago by those who wish to enslave the very people that Obama says he wants to 'set free'

Then there is the Jewish financier, George Soros, the multi-billionaire associate of  Brzezinski and closely  involved with the funding and marketing of Obama. Soros is a former board member of the Illuminati's Council on Forign Relations. In short, he is a major insider. You can certainly see the Soros/Brzezinski techniques in the Obama 'revolution' in the United States. It was the complex and secretive network of Soros foudations and organisations, connected to the intelligence agencies of the USA and Israel, that trained and funded students in the Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere in the art of mass protest and overthrowing governments. these manufactured protests were sold to the world as 'people' revolutions', but it just happened that when they were over and the old regime was removed the new leaders were those waiting in the wings all along - the puppets of Soros, Brzezinski and their associated networks.
Obama is just more of the same, a big smile with strings attached, and controlled completely by the Illuminati networks that chose him, sold him and provided his record funding. It was they who kept Obama's many skeletons under wraps and will continue to do so as long as Obama jumps to their bidding. Obama;s just another Banker's moll prostituting himself for fame and power, and that's why Obama supported the grotesque bail-out of the banking system and why he will always put their interests before the people. Obama's financial advisors are straight from Wall Street 'A' list, including Paul Voker (Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group), the head of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987 and Illuminati to his fingertips. Another, the Zionist Biderberger Tomothy Geithner, was appointed by Obama to be his Treasury Secretary, Geithner was the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the most powerful in the private 'Federal' Reserve cartel that masquerades as America's 'central bank', and he is a former emplyee of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the notorious Kissinger Associates. Obama's Treasury team locks into the inner circle around the Zionist Robert Rubin, the Director and senior Counselor of Citi-Group and co-chairman of the Counsel of Foreign relations. Rubin was treasury Secretary to Bill Clinton and was followed in that post by Larry Summers - another appointed to Obama's team of 'change'. Summers is a fanatical supporter of 'free trade' (freedom to exploit) and 'globalisation' (global dictatorship) and he wrote a memo in 1991, while chief economist to the World Bank, saying that the bank should dump toxic waste in poor countries because the costs of ensuing ill-health and death would be lower. When the memo was made public, Brazil's then Secretary of the Environment, Jose Lutzenburger, told Summers: ' Your reasoning is perfectly logical but totally insane.... Your thoughts (provide) a concrete example of the arrogant ignorance of many conventional 'economists' concerning the nature of the world we live in.... If the World bank keeps you as vice president it will lose all creditability. To me it would confirm what I often said ... the best thing that could happen would be for Bank to disappear.' Lutzenburger was dismissed shortly after writing this letter while the horrific Summers was made US Treasury Secretary by Bill Clinton and now he has been appointed to head the National Economic Council by Mr. 'change', 'hope' and 'believe' Obama. It's all a fairy story. Bloomberg.com reported that the Center for American Progress (CAP), housed just three blocks from the White House, has become a major source for policy initiatives for the Obama Democratic Party. Who funds the Center for American progress? George Soros. It is simply the Neocon Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute  under another name. Those two organisations developed and dictated the Bush policy of war and suppression and the 'CAP' and other like it will do the same for Obama. The CAP will fit and Obama will wear it.

In fact, except in name and rhetoric, there is no difference in them between the regimes of Bush and Obama. Bush was dictated through Illuminati 'think tanks' and so is Obama. Bush was sorrounded by slavish pursuers of Israel interests and so is Obama. Mr. 'change' has pledged his unquestioning support for Israel to the point of 'pass the sick bag' and his vice-president, Joe Biden, is a vehement Zionist who makes a virtue of saying he will support Israel in all circumstances. Obama has appointed the arch Zionist Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff and another super Zionist Jew, Dennis Ross, to be his Middle East Policy advisor. God help the Palestinians. Ross also served in the Bill Clinton and father George Bush administrations. Oh, plenty of 'change' there, then. Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago-born Congressman, is the son of Benjamin M. Emanuel, who was a member of the murderous Jewish terrorist organisation, Irgun, which helped to bomb and terrorise Israel into existence. The Open Secrets website reports that Emanuel was to top House recipient in 2008 for election contributions form 'hedge funds, private equity firms and large securities/investment industry', Emanuel was also appointed by Bill Clinton tot he board of the mortgage giant Freddie Mac in 2000 and his tenure coincided with a stream of scandals and finacial irregularities. It famously had to be bailed out by the taxpayer amid the sub-prime mortgage debacle.
A close friend of Emanuel is the Chicago-based Zionist, David Axelrod, who ran Obama's election campaign and will no doubt be highly influential in the Obama administration. Axelron is a veteran of Chicago politics, one of the most corrupt political systems in the world. David Axelrod worked for many Chicago mayors in the 1990's and on Obama's senate campaign in 2004. Bill Clinton took his Arkansas cabal to Washington when Clinton became president in 1993 and Obama is uploading his chicago mob and handing them key positions of national power and influence. And these guys don't take prisoners. All of this may be many things, none of them pleasant, but 'change' it isn't. 
Obama is a monumental fraud who talks a good story, but lives a very different one. He won his first political office as a state senator in Chicago in 1996, not through the power of politics, but by coldly abusing
 the electoral process. Instead of running against his opponents and letting the people decide, he had his cronies challenge hundreds of names on the nomination papers of his democratic primary rivals until they were forced off the ballot by technicalities. Obama then ran unopposed. One of them, Gha-is Askia, says, that Obama's behaviour belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights:

'...Why say you're for new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? Obama talks about honour and democracy, but what honour is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?....'

Why? Because Obama would probably have lost and Obama isn't interested in losing by playing fair. Obama wants to win by any means necessary. the only voter-right he's interested in is the right to vote for Obama. Obama is a classically corrupt main-chancer spawned from the Chicago political cesspit. His close connections, therefore, to seriously dodgy 'businessmen' and fraudsters like the now-jailed slum landlord Tony Rezko are exactly what you would expect. But for now no scale of evidence will stop swooning Obama zombies from believing the hype or burst their reality bubble. That is going to take hard experience and it could take some time and a lot of disappointment before they are released from the clutches of cognitive dissonance and have to admit to themselves they have been had. It is the same for all the black people who voted for what they thought was the first black president when, in truth, he is a man in a black mask representing the interests of the white-faced Illuminati cabal, the very families and networks that ran the salve trade. I don't want to be the bringer of bad news or the thwarter of dreams, but honesty demands it. The man is a trickster controlled by super-tricksters. A sock puppet controlled by bigger sock puppets who serve an even greater and darker evil. To Obama's masters, Obama is just a means to an end and it it suits them to assassinate Obama to trigger civil war and upheaval in the United States, then that is what they will do.

OH dear Oprah, how will you cope when reality dawns? but, then will it ever?
I can understand the appeal of Obama because people want Obama to be what Obama claims to be, but Obama isn't. They are sick of the conflict, the corruption, the struggle we call 'life' and they want it all to change. But Obama's 'change' is illusory and represents only the continued transformation of society in the image envisaged by Orwell, We will see some apparently good things announced, like the closing of Guantanamo, to give the impression that Obama means what he says. But keep your eye on the ball and you'll see how the agenda of the global tyranny is introduced under the guise of Obama's 'Hope',  'change; 'believe', 'sacrifice' and 'coming together' . It could take two years, maybe much more, before cognitive dissonance ( lying to yourself) loses it;s current grip on the minds of the Obama faithful. Until then they will make endless excuses for Obama (lie to themselves) to keep the 'dream' alive.
But one day they will have to admit, by the power of the evidence before thee, that they bought a dream and got a nightmare. What a pity they can't see the obvious now and save themselves such painful disappointment.

The Question has now been asked......
Could HAARP have been used to help Obama win the 2012 USA Elections? 


Hurricane Sandy: Does it help President Obama politically?

By The Week's Editorial Staff | The Week
The deadly storm has upended the presidential race — and given the incumbent a potential advantage just a week before Election Day
With Hurricane Sandy barreling toward the East Coast, the presidential campaign has been virtually put on hold. President Obama and Mitt Romney have both canceled appearances in the heavily contested swing state of Virginia, as well as in other states, and early voting pushes in eastern states will likely grind to a halt. There's a very real possibility that Sandy, a mutant Frankenstorm of seemingly epic proportions, could "warp an election two years and $2 billion in the making," says Peter Baker at The New York Times. And as the campaigns pause to readjust under the storm's shadow, there could be some huge political benefits for the one candidate who actually has a job: The incumbent. Does Sandy help Obama politically?
Yes. Natural disasters are in the president's wheelhouse: "The beauty of being a president and a candidate is that when a monster storm stalks up the East Coast you can run over to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and be seen as a president on the job," says Candy Crowley at CNN. "Which also works if you are reapplying." Romney, on the other hand, can't be seen campaigning amidst so much uncertainty, since "just the forecast of a potential disaster can make politics look small." Romney is "not in power," and "can't really do much" but wait and watch. 
"Sandy introduces big unknown into campaign"
But the storm could easily backfire on Obama: "Does Obama have a natural advantage because he's president? The short answer: Yes," says Jonathan Allen at Politico. "The longer answer: Not if he makes an unforced error." George W. Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina "ranks among the worst blunders in modern presidential history," and a similarly incompetent reaction from Obama could doom him in the final days of the race. "As president, Obama's best politics are to simply do his job well." 
"Hurricane Sandy: 5 political questions"
Either way, the storm is already hurting Romney: "As Hurricane Sandy looms and flooding begins, the Republican presidential candidate's primary remarks are getting a second look," says Garance Franke-Ruta at The Atlantic. During a GOP debate, Romney "said America shouldn't be in the business of providing federal disaster relief and that it would be better for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's functions to be handled by individual states or even the private sector." That comment looks immensely short-sighted right about now. 
"Mitt Romney in 2011: 'We cannot afford' federal disaster relief"
View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week
Other stories from this topic:
Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

Obama And Romney Hit Key US Swing States

Sky News 

Obama seems to have early vote lead in key states

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER | Associated Press 

Associated Press/David Goldman - Supporters spell out "Ohio" as they cheer for Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov.
Mitt Romney, not pictured, as he speaks during a campaign event at
 The Square at Union Centre, Friday, Nov. 2, 2012, in West Chester, Ohio. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama heads towardElection Day with an apparent lead over Republican Mitt Romneyamong early voters in key states that could decide the election. Obama's advantage, however, isn't as big as the one he had overJohn McCain four years ago, giving Romney's campaign hope that the former Massachusetts governor can erase the gap when people vote on Tuesday. More than 27 million people already have voted in 34 states and the District of Columbia. No votes will be counted until Election Day but several battleground states are releasing the party affiliation of people who have voted early. So far, Democratic voters outnumber Republicans in Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio — five states that could decide the election, if they voted the same way. Republicans have the edge in Colorado, which Obama won in 2008.
Obama dominated early voting in 2008, building up such big leads in Colorado, Florida, Iowa and North Carolina that he won each state despite losing the Election Day vote, according to voting data compiled by The Associated Press. "In 2008, the McCain campaign didn't have any mobilization in place to really do early voting," said Michael McDonald, an early voting expert at George Mason University who tallies voting statistics for the United States Elections Project. "This time around the Romney campaign is not making the same mistake as the McCain campaign did." McDonald said he sees a shift toward Republicans among early voters, which could make a difference in North Carolina, which Obama won by the slimmest of margins in 2008, only 14,000 votes. The Republican shift, however, might not be enough to wipe out Obama's advantage in Iowa and Nevada, which Obama won more comfortably in 2008. In Colorado, Florida and Ohio, get ready for a long night of vote counting on Tuesday. Romney's campaign aides say they are doing so much better than McCain did four years ago that Romney is in great shape to overtake Obama in many of the most competitive states.
"They are underperforming what their 2008 numbers were and we are overperforming where we were in 2008," said Rich Beeson, Romney's political director. "We feel very good heading into the Tuesday election." Obama's campaign counters that Romney can't win the presidency simply by doing better than McCain.
"It's not about whether or not they're doing better than John McCain did," said Jeremy Bird, Obama's national field director. "It's about whether or not they're doing better than us." About 35 percent of voters are expected to cast ballots before Tuesday, either by mail or in person. Voters always can cross party lines when they vote for any office, and there are enough independent voters in many states to swing the election, if enough of them vote the same way. Still, both campaigns are following the early voting numbers closely, using them to gauge their progress and plan their Election Day strategies. A look at early voting in the tightest states:
Colorado:  About 1.6 million people have voted, and Republicans outnumber Democrats 37 percent to 35 percent. Those numbers are a reversal from four years ago at this time. Inevitably, Obama won the early vote by 9 percentage points in 2008, giving him a big enough cushion to win the state, despite narrowly losing the Election Day vote. Early voting in Colorado is expected to account for about 80 percent of all votes cast, giving it more weight than in other states.
Florida: About 3.9 million people have voted, and 43 percent were Democrats and 40 percent were Republicans. For years ago at this time, Democratic early voters had a 9 percentage point lead over Republicans. Obama won Florida's early vote by 10 percentage points in 2008, getting 400,000 more early votes than McCain, enough to offset McCain's advantage on Election Day. In Florida, Republicans have historically done better among people who vote by mail, while Democrats have done better among people who vote early in person. For 2012, Florida's Republican-led Legislature reduced the number of in-person early voting days from 14 to eight. The Obama campaign responded by encouraging more supporters to vote by mail, and Democrats were able to narrow the gap among mail ballots. Democrats quickly took the lead among all early voters, once in-person early voting started. But the margins are slim. The Obama campaign acknowledges it must do better among Florida's Election Day voters than Obama did on 2008, when McCain won the Election Day vote by 5 percentage points.
Iowa: About 614,000 people have voted, already exceeding Iowa's total number of early votes in 2008. So far this year, 43 percent of early voters were Democrats and 32 percent were Republicans. Four years ago, Obama won the early vote in Iowa by a whopping 27 percentage points, 63 percent to 36 percent. McCain, meanwhile, won the Election Day vote by about 1,800 votes — less than a percentage point. Together, they added up to a 10-point victory for Obama. Romney's campaign argues that Democrats always do better among early voters in Iowa while Republicans do better among Election Day voters, even when President George W. Bush narrowly carried the state in 2004. Obama's campaign counters that with early voting on the rise, Romney will be left with fewer Election Day voters to make up the difference.
Nevada: About 628,000 people have voted, and 44 percent were Democrats and 37 percent were Republicans. Four years ago, Obama won Nevada's early vote big, 59 percent to 39 percent. Obama also won Nevada's Election Day vote on his way to a comfortable 13-point win over McCain. The Romney campaign argues that Obama isn't doing nearly as well among early voters in Nevada as he did in 2008. The Obama campaign argues that it doesn't have to.
North Carolina: About 2.5 million people have voted, and 48 percent of them were Democrats and 32 percent of them were Republicans. Four years ago at this time, Democrats had a slightly larger lead over Republicans, and Obama won the early vote by 11 percentage points.
Obama lost the Election Day Vote by 17 percentage points in 2008. But the early vote was much bigger than the Election Day vote, resulting in Obama's narrow win.
Obama's campaign cites the big lead for Democrats among early voters, while Romney's campaign argues that even a small shift toward the Republicans could flip the state to Romney.
Ohio: More than 1.6 million people have voted, and 29 percent were Democrats and 23 percent were Republicans. Forty-seven percent were unaffiliated, more than enough voters to swing the state to either candidate. Ohio may once again be pivotal in the race for the presidency. Unfortunately, Ohio's early voting data is limited. Party affiliation in Ohio is based on the last primary in which a voter participated, so new voters and those who don't vote in primaries are listed as unaffiliated. In 2008, Obama won Ohio by 5 percentage points.
Associated Press Senior Elections Research Coordinator Cliff Maceda contributed to this report.

Obama And Romney Hit Key US Swing States

Sky News 
Follow Stephen Ohlemacher on Twitter: http://twitter.com/stephenatap
President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney have criss-crossed the US visiting the handful of battleground states that could swing the presidential election in their favour. Opinion polls put the two men neck-and-neck in the popular vote with just two days left before polling, but the US electoral college system means the race will be decided in less than 10 states. The key battlegrounds are Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Hampshire. On Saturday both candidates were in the same Iowa town as they attempted to get out as many supporters as possible for Tuesday's vote, with the Republican candidate appealing to wavering voters by pledging to work with the Democrats to get things done. "I want you to reach across the street to the neighbour, who has that other sign in his front yard. And I'm going to reach across the aisle in Washington DC, to the politicians who are working for the other candidate," Mr Romney told about 2,000 supporters in Dubuque. Six hours later the president appeared, highlighting his successes while acknowledging that there was still work to be done to rebuild the economy. "After two years of campaigning and after four years as president, you know me by now," Mr Obama said. "You may not agree with every decision I made, you may have sometimes been frustrated with the pace of change. But you know that I say what I mean and I mean what I say." Earlier in the day in Ohio, Mr Obama again hammered his rival for opposing his bailout of the car industry and said his challenger tried to scare workers by saying inaccurately that Chrysler planned to shift jobs to China. About 12% of jobs in the key state are tied to vehicle manufacturing and the bailout has helped Mr Obama win over some of the white-working class voters who are backing Mr Romney elsewhere. He added the election was "not just a choice between two candidates or two parties, it's a choice between two different visions for America". Mr Romney will have a hard time winning the White House if he does not carry Ohio but a Reuters/Ipsos poll on Saturday showed him trailing by a statistically meaningless margin of just 1%. However, other polls in recent days have put him slightly further behind. Polls in the other key states also show there is little to separate the pair. The president started the day at the federal government's disaster-relief headquarters in Washington DC, where he received an update on the efforts to help the US East Coast recover from superstorm Sandy. He also visited Milwaukee and Wisconsin before ending the day in Bristow, Virginia – where he was joined by former president Bill Clinton. Mr Romney began on Saturday with a morning rally on the New Hampshire seacoast. He then headed to Iowa, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. In New Hampshire, he mocked Mr Obama for telling supporters a day earlier that voting would be their "best revenge".
"Vote for 'revenge?'" the Republican candidate asked. "Let me tell you what I'd like to tell you: Vote for love of country. It is time we lead America to a better place."
Click on the below link for more on this subject
http://inlnews.com/JapaneseEarthquakeDebate.html 

High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program HAARP

described on the HAARP Website as a Premier Facility for the Study of  Ionosperic Physics and Radio Science
Questions of a technical nature may be submitted via e-mail to: 
by Nicholas Jones, nicholasjones99@yahoo.com
Earth is wrapped in a donut shaped magnetic field. Circular lines of flux continuously descend into the North Pole and emerge from the South Pole. The ionosphere, an electromagnetic-wave conductor, 100 kms above the earth, consists of a layer of electrically charged particles acting as a shield from solar winds. Natural waves are related to the electrical activity in the atmosphere and are thought to be caused by multiple lightning storms. Collectively, these waves are called ‘The Schumann Resonance´, the current strongest at 7.8 Hz. These are quasi-standing extremely low frequency (ELF) waves that naturally exist in the earth´s ‘electromagnetic´ cavity, the space between the ground and the ionosphere. These ‘earth brainwaves´ are identical to the spectrum of our brainwaves.
(1 hertz = 1 cycle per second, 1 Khz = 1000, 1 Mhz =1 million. A 1 Hertz wave is 186,000 miles long, 10 Hz is 18,600 miles. Radio-waves move at the speed of light.)
The Creator designed living beings to resonate to this natural frequency pulsation in order to evolve harmoniously. The ionosphere is being manipulated by US govt. scientists using an Alaskan transmitter called HAARP, (High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) which sends focused radiated power to heat up sections of the ionosphere, which bounces power down again. ELF waves from HAARP when targeted on areas can weather-engineer and create mood changes affecting millions. The intended wattage is 1,700 billion watts of power. A former govt. insider deduced they want to flip the world upside down. 64 elements in the ground modulate, with variation, the geomagnetic waves naturally coming from the ground.
The ‘earth´s natural brain rhythm´ above is balanced with these. These are the same minerals as the red blood corpuscles. There is a relation between the blood and geomagnetic waves. An imbalance between Schumann and geomagnetic waves disrupts biorhythms. These natural geomagnetic waves are being replaced by artificially created very low frequency (VLF) ground waves coming from GWEN Towers.
GWEN (Ground Wave Emergency Network) transmitters placed 200 miles apart across the USA allow specific frequencies to be tailored to the geomagnetic-field strength in each area, allowing the magnetic field to be altered. They operate in the VLF range, with transmissions between VLF 150 and 175 KHz. They also emit UHF waves of 225 - 400 MHz. The VLF signals travel by waves that hug the ground rather than radiating into the atmosphere. A GWEN station transmits circularly up to 300 miles, the signal dropping off sharply with distance. The entire GWEN system consists of, (depending on source of data), from 58 to an intended 300 transmitters spread across the USA, each with a tower 299-500 ft high. 300 ft copper wires in spoke like fashion fan out from the base of the system underground, interacting with the earth like a thin shelled conductor, radiating radio wave energy for very long distances through the ground. USA bathes in this magnetic field which rises to 500 ft, even going down to basements, so everyone is mind-controlled. The whole artificial ground-wave spreads out over USA like a web. It is easier to mind-control and hypnotize people who are bathed in an artificial electromagnetic-wave. (Covering the entire floor with aluminum and buying a CET cylinder from Nordic Living Water Systems helps.) GWEN transmitters have many different functions including controlling the weather, mind, behavior and mood control.
These work in conjunction with HAARP and the Russian Woodpecker transmitter, similar to HAARP. The Russians openly market a small version of their weather-engineering system called Elate, which can fine-tune weather patterns over a 200 mile area and have the same range as the GWEN unit. One operates at Moscow airport. The GWEN Towers shoot enormous bursts of energy into the atmosphere in conjuction with HAARP. The website www.cuttingedge.org wrote an expose of how the major floods of the Mid-West USA occurred in 1993.
Invisible enormous rivers of water, consisting of vapors that flow, move towards the poles in the lower atmosphere. They rival the flow of the Amazon River and are 420 to 480 miles wide and up to 4,800 miles long. They are 1.9 miles above the earth and have volumes of 340 lbs of water per second. There are 5 atmospheric rivers in each Hemisphere. A massive flood can be created by damming up one of these massive vapor rivers, causing huge amounts of rainfall to be dumped.
The GWEN Towers positioned along the areas north of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers were turned on for 40 days and 40 nights, probably mocking the Flood of Genesis. (This was in conjunction with HAARP, that creates a river of electricity flowing thousands of miles through the sky and down to the polar ice-cap, manipulating the jet-stream , like The Woodpecker.) These rivers flooded, causing agricultural losses of $12-15 billion. HAARP produces earthquakes by focusing on the fault lines. GWEN Towers are on the fault lines and volcanic areas of the Pacific Northeast.
http://inlnews.com/CovertDepopulationTactic.html 

1. INTERVIEW 1: GLOBAL DEPOPULATION AGENDA 5
2. INTERVIEW II: FUKUSHIMA, NO ACCIDENT 15
A New World Order Watch Media Publication (www.visionreportwatch.com) July 2012: Issue 25GLOBAL DEPOPULATION STRATEGY INTERVIEWhttp://WWW.VISIONREPORTWATCH.COM
Leuren Moret was an expert witness at the International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan At Tokyo. She is an independent scientist and international expert on
radiation and public health issues. She is on the organizing committee of the World Committee on Radiation Risk, an organization of independent radiation
specialists, including members of the Radiation Committee in the EU parliament, the European Committee on Radiation Risk. She has been an environmental
commissioner for the City of Berkeley. Ms. Moret earned her BSc in geology at U.C. Davis in 1968 and her MA in Near Eastern studies from U.C. Berkeley.
She has travelled and conducted scientific research in 42 countries. She contributed to a scientific report on depleted uranium for the United Nations sub commission investigating the illegality of depleted uranium munitions. She has also conducted research concerning the impact on the health of the
environment and global public health from atmospheric testing, nuclear power plants, and depleted uranium. She has helped collect and measure radiation in 6000 baby teeth from children living around nuclear power plants, and helped The State of Louisiana (USA) pass the first state depleted uranium bill for mandatory testing of soldiers.
Her article "Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War" in the June 2004 World Affairs Journal was translated at the request of the Kremlin for distribution throughout the Russian government.
Moret describes herself as a whistle-blower on nuclear weapon research and states that her 2000 visit to the Peace Museums at Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed her life. Her efforts are focused on educating people about the negative impact of radiation on health and advocates against testing of nuclear
weapons.
 
However one of her most controversial conclusions was where she declared on March 21, 2011 that the “Japan Earthquake" and “accidents” that occurred March 11, 2011, were deliberate acts of tectonic nuclear warfare.
Known as the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, it was the most powerful known earthquake ever to have hit Japan, and one of the five most powerful earthquakes in the world since modern record-keeping began in 1900.The earthquake triggered powerful tsunami waves that reached heights of up to 40.5 metres (133 ft) in Miyako and which, in the Sendai area, travelled up to 10 km (6 mi) inland. The earthquake moved Honshu 2.4 m (8 ft) east and shifted the Earth on its axis by estimates of between 10 cm and 25
cm.
Moret claimed further that the "attack" was carried out using High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) technology by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the United States Department of Energy, and British Petroleum on behalf of London banking interests.
Without her esteemed history and credibility within the scientific arena many would have dismissed her views as wild conspiracy theories yet her views are more and more raising questions within the scientific field regarding a global agenda to depopulate the earth through the use of radiation.
In 2008 she wrote an article in which she said,
“The international bankers located within the ancient Roman “City of London” have decided that: if you   
control the food, you control the nation, if you control the energy, you control a region, and if you control 
  
 
money, you control the whole world.
The City of London international bankers are the descendants of the Merchants of Venice, who are   
descended from those who controlled the Roman, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian empires. They invented 
  
 
the concept of a corporation to relieve themselves of any liability for their actions. 
  
 
Maurice Strong, more than anyone else in the world, has written the rules for the global takeover of land, 
  
 
resources and people by these international bankers. Strong began working for the Rockefellers when 
  
 
he was 18 and he continues to work for and with the Wall Street-City of London bankers today. And 
  
 
under the terms of globalization set up by Strong and others, private corporations have no responsibility 
  
 
or liability.
Jacob Rothschild and the Rothschild Family own 80% of the world's uranium. Individual property owners   
now typically own only the top 6 inches of soil on their land. Everything else, presumably down to the 
  
 
center of the earth, is owned by the City of London. Today, this global land grab is comprised of
countless local land grabs.
Governments such as the US government are creating Wildlands and National Heritage Sites. And this   
is proceeding under the justification of environmental protection. Meanwhile, people are being squeezed 
  
 
off their land. The environmental movement and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have tricked
us into relinquishing our private property rights guaranteed to us by the US Constitution. Agenda 21- the   
UN Agenda for the Twenty-First Century, also created by Maurice Strong- is proceeding at triple speed 
  
 
under Bush II.”
In this edition of the Vision Report Watch she unveils a deep insight into her research in two monumental interviews with the Media Conscious Network.
Reece Woodstock Chief Editor, Vision Report Watch

Violence again on streets of Belfast -15 police hurt as riots flare again

Armed police officers patrol in North Belfast (PA)


15 police hurt as riots flare again

  Do all the above USA politicians all work for the same bosses?
It is fairfly public knowledge that George Bush and Bill Clintoin are connected toi the powerfu l and rich Freemason-Builderberger Group.. However, a female can not be a Freemason, but can be brought into the inner circle of the Builderberger Group.. We have all seen video footage on the
www.inlnews.com website at

http://www.inlnews.com/End_
Game_NewWorldOrder.html


showing Hillary Clinton attending a Builderberger meeting..the question remains...how does Barrack Obama fit into all this......would the Freemason and Buiderberger Group who have unlimited power, money and influence.. have allowed Barrack Obama to win the USA Presidential Election so easily if Barrack Obama isn't  either knowingly and/or unwittnngly, doing what they want him to do.. and/or will not let him do what he wants to do....as their obviously preferred presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton lost the right to run for president of the USA to Barrack Obama, the next best thing was to insure Hillary Clinton was in the most powerful public service position in the USA Government ,as Sectretary of State...In fact it may now suit them to have Hillary Clinton not to be President  of the USA, as what ever happens will be blamed on Barack Obama, when in fact it may well be that his right hand woman, Hillary Clinton, may in fact be making the effective decisions and/or influencing Barrack Obama's thoughts on a day to day basis  so that in the end Barrack Obama does exactky what Hillary Clinton's supervisors want, as far as the overall direction onfthe USA in domestic and foreign affairs.




Obama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men"

Jeffrey Smith

Jeffrey Smith

Posted: November 30, 2008





Biotech "Yes Men" on Obama's team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic "group think" that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations—where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology.
Clinton's agriculture secretary Dan Glickman saw it first hand:
"It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"
When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he "got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration."
By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist.
  • The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data show that the opposite is true.
  • We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average reduction in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers.
  • George H. W. Bush fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants.
  • Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigiousInternational Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger.
Food Safety Lies
Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA's 1992 GMO policy, which stated:
"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."
The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists that GM foods were substantially different, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public.


Mitt Romney
Dave Weaver for The New York Time
Oct. 23, 2012
Mitt Romney, a former private equity investor and governor of Massachusetts, secured the Republican presidential nomination on May 29, 2012, by winning a final batch of necessary delegates in the Texas primary. He was nominated on Aug. 28 as the Republican candidate for president at the party’s national convention in Tampa, Fla.

Having lost the Republican nomination to Senator John McCain in 2008, Mr. Romney had been campaigning steadily since then, raising money and building a formidable political operation. As the nominee, Mr. Romney is presenting himself as a ready-to-lead executive, seizing on the weak state of the economy as a central criticism of President Barack Obama.
With Mr. Romney’s selection of Paul D. Ryan as his running mate, his campaign shifted. The size and role of the federal government moved to the center of the debate. It was a choice intended to galvanize the Republican base and represented a clear tactical shift.
For Mr. Romney, the decision was one of the boldest moves of his presidential candidacy. It promised to energize conservatives, who had been eagerly lobbying for Mr. Ryan and who see his budget as the key to unlocking the economy’s potential for growth.
Throughout the campaign, Mr. Romney has been struggling to win the heart of an increasingly conservative party. Conservatives have never been drawn to Mr. Romney, who in Massachusetts supported abortion rights, and whose capstone achievement as governor there was the creation of a health care plan that to many Republicans looks distressingly similar to the federal law signed in 2010 by Mr. Obama.
In his convention speech in late August, Mr. Romney attempted to redefine the race around his business background, which the Democrats had spent the summer attacking. He delivered a pointed critique of Mr. Obama’s domestic and foreign policy, saying that he had “thrown Israel under the bus.”
Mr. Romney also used the speech to make a case for himself. He recalled his childhood in Michigan, talked about his Mormon faith and aimed a steady stream of messages at women.
But Mr. Romney’s central message was one that focused on the weak economic recovery and harked back to the 1980 campaign of Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. “This president,’' Mr. Romney said, “cannot tell us that you are better off today than when he took office.”
Presidential Debates
During the month of October, Mr. Romney participated in three televised presidential debates against Mr. Obama. In the first one, on Oct. 3, the immediate reaction to the debate was a torrent of criticism directed at Mr. Obama, with Republicans, and as well as many Democrats, accusing him of delivering a flat, uninspired and defensive performance. The second debate, on Oct. 16, was strikingly different, as Mr. Obama pressed an attack that allowed him to often dictate the terms of the debate. But an unbowed Mr. Romney was there to meet him every time, and seemed to relish the opportunity to challenge a sitting president.
In the final round, on Oct. 22, focusing on foreign policy, Mr. Obama picked up where he left off in the second debate, going on the offense from the start, lacerating Mr. Romney for articulating a set of “wrong and reckless” policies that he called incoherent. While less aggressive, Mr. Romney pressed back, accusing the president of failing to assert American interests and values in the world to deal with a “rising tide of chaos.”  For more on the presidential debates, click here.
Campaign Thrown Off Balance
In September, a few weeks before the debates, the Romney campaign was thrown off balance, first by rioting in the Middle East incited by an anti-Islamic video, and then by the release of a video clip of Mr. Romney speaking at a high-end fundraiser.
The deadly attack on an American diplomatic post in Libya on Sept. 11 propelled foreign policy to the forefront of an otherwise inward-looking presidential campaign and presented an unexpected test not only to Mr. Obama, but also to Mr. Romney, whose response quickly came under fire
While President Obama dealt with the killings of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and deflected questions about his handling of the Arab world, Mr. Romney wasted little time going on the attack, accusing the president of apologizing for American values and appeasing Islamic extremists.
“They clearly sent mixed messages to the world,” Mr. Romney told reporters during a campaign swing through Florida.
But Mr. Romney came under withering criticism for distorting the chain of events overseas and appearing to seek political advantage from an attack that claimed American lives. A statement he personally approved characterized an appeal for religious tolerance issued by the American Embassy in Cairo as sympathy for the attackers even though the violence did not occur until hours after the embassy statement. Mr. Romney on Sept. 12 said the embassy statement, which was disavowed by the administration, was “akin to apology, and I think was a severe miscalculation.”
The harsh exchanges had their origins the night before as Mr. Romney’s team was following the increasingly volatile developments in the Middle East. The embassy statement, issued hours before protests in Cairo and the attack in Libya began, had tried to mollify Muslims upset at an American-made anti-Islam video. “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others,” the statement said.
For Mr. Romney, whose 2010 book, “No Apology,” assailed Mr. Obama for what he saw as trying to placate America’s enemies, the embassy statement rankled. When aides showed it to him, they said he reacted strongly to the notion of “hurt” religious feelings. In his mind, they said, the Obama administration was aligning itself with those who would do harm to the United States. Already on the defensive for not mentioning Afghanistan in his convention speech and losing some ground in recent polls, Mr. Romney saw an opportunity to draw a stark contrast.
On Sept. 13, Mr. Romney sought to move beyond his criticism of President Obama’s response to the turmoil in Libya and Egypt and instead broadly paint the president as weak on foreign policy. At a rally in Northern Virginia, he criticized Mr. Obama for imposing cuts on the military budget, saying, “As we watch the world today, sometimes it seems that we’re at the mercy of events, instead of shaping events, and a strong America is essential to shape events. And a strong America, by the way, depends on a strong military.” 
Leaked Video Shows Blunt Talk
Just a few days later, Mr. Romney faced an escalating torrent of criticism over a video that surfaced of him at a fundraiser. Speaking to a group of wealthy donors, Mr. Romney described almost half of Americans as “people who pay no income tax” and are “dependent upon government.” Those voters, he said, would probably support  President Obama because they believe they are “victims” who are “entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”
In a brief and hastily called news conference the night of Sept. 17, Mr. Romney acknowledged having made the blunt political and cultural assessment, saying it was “not elegantly stated,” but he stood by the substance of the remarks, insisting that he had made similar observations in public without generating controversy.
Democrats quickly condemned the remarks as insensitive, and Mr. Obama’s campaign accused Mr. Romney of having “disdainfully written off half the nation.”
The video surfaced as Mr. Romney sought to restart his campaign with new ads and new messaging, in response to calls in his campaign and from outside for him to be more specific about how his policies would fix the nation’s economy and help the middle class.
Once again, the video raised the possibility that Mr. Romney’s campaign would be sidetracked, with attention focused on his proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, the release of his personal tax returns and his ability to connect with middle-class voters. With its unvarnished language, the video seemed to undermine what aides have argued is an enduring attribute that would appeal to independent voters: a sense that Mr. Romney is, at base, an empathetic and caring man.
In the video, Mr. Romney also discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the wealthy donors, telling them that resolving the conflict between the warring neighbors is unlikely to happen. “We sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it,” Mr. Romney said.
Snippets of the video were posted online Sept. 17 by Mother Jones, a liberal magazine, which said it had obtained the recording and had confirmed its authenticity. The author of the Mother Jones article, David Corn, said on MSNBC that the video was shot on May 17 at the Boca Raton, Fla., home of Marc Leder, a financier, who held a $50,000-a-person fund-raiser for Mr. Romney that night.
Addressing the video in the news conference, Mr. Romney said his comments about America aimed to answer “a question about direction for the country: Do you believe in a government-centered society that provides more and more benefits? Or do you believe instead in a free-enterprise society where people are able to pursue their dreams?”
Background
Willard Mitt Romney’s father was George W. Romney, an automobile executive and moderate Republican who was governor of Michigan before losing a presidential bid in 1968.
Mr. Romney and his family are devout Mormons — Mr. Romney spent two years working as a missionary in France. His family is a cornerstone of his political image, and Ann, his wife of 39 years, and five adult sons were fixtures at his campaign stops in 2008. His wife received a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in 1998.
After earning both law and business degrees at Harvard, Mr. Romney went into corporate consulting. At the leveraged buyout firm Bain Capital, he developed a reputation as someone who could turn failing companies into profitable enterprises – a skill that helped him amass his fortune, but has also brought questions about job cuts and investments that fared poorly.
He reinforced his image of competence by stepping in to help manage the 2000 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, which had been plagued by budget shortfalls and accusations of scandal.
Mr. Romney’s political fortunes have been mixed, but no one can accuse him of choosing easy races. He ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts in 1994 (a race he lost) and for governor of the state in 2002 (a race he won). Indeed, those early campaigns would compromise his efforts to win the Republican primary in 2008. After taking moderate stances on issues including gay rights and abortion, (he said he experienced a “conversion” on the issue in 2004 and now opposes abortion rights), some conservatives are skeptical of his convictions, as well as of his Mormon faith.
Twin Crises Show How Romney Reacts to Challenges
One element that has been conspicuously missing from the Romney campaign is a crisis narrative — the kind of biographical story of overcoming hardship that other politicians have used to define themselves and inspire other Americans.
It is not that a crisis narrative does not exist. In 1968, Mr. Romney, then a Mormon missionary in France, was at the wheel of a tiny Citroën, cruising along a country road, when a Mercedes rounded a curve and crashed into his car, head on. One of his passengers — the wife of the French mission president — was killed. Mr. Romney, by all accounts not at fault, was knocked unconscious and mistakenly pronounced dead at the scene.
Thirty years later, in 1998, at the height of Mr. Romney’s high-flying career as a private equity executive, his wife, Ann, was not well. She was exhausted, and having difficulty walking; her right foot was dragging. When a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital arrived at a diagnosis — multiple sclerosis — the couple “just held each other in their arms,” their son Josh said, “and just cried.”
These are dark moments — bookends of sorts — in what otherwise has seemed a charmed existence. Both offer clues into Mr. Romney’s character, and the way he reacts to challenges. He is both forward-looking and inward-looking, practical and deeply private, with a consultant’s instinct for identifying solutions even in the most personally trying times.
After the shock of Ann Romney’s diagnosis, he immersed himself in research about multiple sclerosis. He read scientific papers and called medical experts. And he began focusing on practical ways he might make his wife’s life easier. He contemplated installing an elevator in their home and moved the master bedroom downstairs.
After the car crash in France, Mr. Romney returned to his mission duties with a broken arm and renewed zeal; along with another 21-year-old, he was left in charge of the mission. In an early hint of his executive abilities, he concentrated on motivating his peers to win more converts.
Dogged by Record in Massachusetts
During his single term in the governor’s mansion, Mr. Romney was a vocal opponent of the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s ruling allowing gay marriage, and he also presided over the passage of the state’s mandatory health care coverage law.
More even than his faith and his social-conservative credentials, questions about the health insurance plan he signed into law in Massachusetts have left him open to criticism from his party. And the White House has joined in, showering unhelpful praise on the plan, which, like the federal law, includes a mandate for residents to carry insurance.
In a speech in Ann Arbor, Mich., and in an article in USA Today on May 12, 2011, Mr. Romney proposed a state-by-state solution to health care combined with federal action that would cap medical malpractice awards, allow insurance to be sold across state lines and use the tax code to subsidize the purchase of health insurance. He defended his decision to insist on a mandate that all citizens buy insurance or face penalties as ensuring that they take personal responsibility for the costs of their own care rather than passing it on to taxpayers by showing up at emergency rooms that have to treat them by law.
Mr. Romney said that as president, he would advocate a different approach for the nation. He laid out an approach that resembled past Republican plans, including those proposed by former President George W. Bush in his second term. It includes providing tax breaks to individuals who buy insurance on their own, resembling those that benefit people who buy it through their employers; limiting the amounts of some damages in malpractice suits; and financingMedicaid through block grants to the states.
Romney’s Economic Plan
In September 2011, Mr. Romney offered a detailed economic proposal that included repealing President Obama’s health care law, cutting the corporate tax rate, placing sanctions on China as a currency manipulator and immediately reducing taxes on savings and investment by the middle class — and promised to push many of these policies on his first day in the Oval Office. In the plan, whose stated goal is to “restore America to the path of robust economic growth necessary to create jobs,” he promised to immediately cut the corporate income tax rate, currently topping out at 35 percent, to 25 percent. Although he did not outline any specific proposals for closing loopholes or otherwise simplifying the tax code, he also promised to make permanent the tax cuts on individuals enacted under President George W. Bush and to eliminate taxes on dividends, interest and capital gains for anyone making less than $200,000 a year. In an effort to stimulate American exports, Mr. Romney said he would push free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, as well as officially place sanctions on China for keeping its currency artificially low, a move that makes Chinese imports cheap to American consumers and has led to trade imbalances.
Mr. Romney also vowed to make it easier for American companies to drill for oil in the United States and to cut federal discretionary spending on anything other than security measures by 5 percent — or $20 billion. He said he would consolidate government training programs and order that any new regulations add no new costs to the economy. The plan was criticized by Democrats, who said it would require deep cuts in non-defense discretionary spending while lowering taxes sharply for the rich.
In the fall, a wide range of economists, including some conservatives, say that it would be impossible to raise enough money from closing loopholes to cover the lost revenue from rate cuts without raising taxes on the middle class. Democrats, including President Obama, seized on one study that put that cost at $2,000 per middle class household. Mr. Romney has said that it is “just not true” that he would raise taxes on middle-income earners, with his campaign hitting the Obama campaign for playing “class warfare.” But it is simply not clear how the Romney campaign would fill the holes.
A Drawn-Out Slog for Delegates
Where Mr. Romney had hoped to drive his opponents out and quickly claim the mantle of the “inevitable” nominee, he instead found himself in a drawn-out slog for delegates. Mr. Romney was initially described as the winner of the Iowa caucuses, but a recount handed the win to Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator who was increasingly gaining conservative support. Mr. Romney won handily in New Hampshire, then was beaten in South Carolina by Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House. After a bitter and highly negative contest in Florida, in which the Republican establishment almost desperately rallied around him, Mr. Romney emerged the winner and appeared to regain his frontrunner status. But two weeks later, Mr. Santorum swept the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses and won a nonbinding primary in Missouri.
In Michigan, Mr. Romney narrowly carried his native state, while fending off a vigorous challenge from Mr. Santorum. He also won the Arizona primary. On Super Tuesday, Mr. Romney pulled off a narrow victory in Ohiobut lost several other states to Mr. Santorum, a split verdict that overshadowed Mr. Romney’s claim of collecting the most delegates and all but ensured another round of intense infighting on the road to the nomination. When Mr. Romney came in third in Alabama and Mississippi, in the heart of the party’s Southern base, in mid-March, it appeared that conservative opposition to his candidacy was coalescing around Mr. Santorum. But a sweep by Mr. Romney of primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia on one night in early April gave a clear sense that he was tightening his grip on the nomination. When Mr. Santorum suspended his campaign on April 10, Mr. Romney’s nomination was essentially assured. He formally secured the delegates needed in the Texas primary in late May.
After that, Mr. Romney sought to step up his attack on Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy, while softening his tone on some issues like immigration. The Supreme Court’s decision in June to uphold Mr. Obama’s health care law gave the president a victory, but also gave Mr. Romney a chance to fire up the Republican base by vowing to repeal it.
Summer Challenges for the Campaign
Heading into the summer, Mr. Romney’s highly disciplined campaign was thrown uncharacteristically off-balance by attacks against his record at the private equity firm he co-founded, Bain Capital. In June 2012, President Obama gleefully went after Mr. Romney and Bain Capital, declaring that “we do not need an outsourcing pioneer in the Oval Office.” The president was citing an article inThe Washington Post reporting that Bain had invested in companies that specialized in the practice of relocating American jobs to low-wage nations like China and India.
Mr. Romney’s campaign questioned that article, saying that when those investments occurred, Mr. Romney had left Bain in 1999 to run the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. But that defense led to a new round of charges, when news reports focused on dozens of federal filings between 1999 and 2001 in which Mr. Romney had described himself as the owner or chief executive of the firm.
In July 2012, Mr. Romney made a highly anticipated overseas trip, the centerpiece of which was a visit to Israel. He offered a strong defense of Israel’s right to protect itself against the threat of a nuclear IranWhile he was there, Mr. Romney found himself on the defensivewith Palestinian leaders after making comments suggesting that cultural differences were the reasons that Israelis were so much more economically successful than the Palestinians. He did not mention the impact that deep trade restrictions imposed by the Israeli government have had on the Palestinian economy. He also vastly understated the income disparities between the two groups. The summer also saw Mr. Romney under pressure to release more of his tax returns. Mr. Romney released his full return for the 2010 tax year and a short summary of taxes he paid in 2011. He claims that every year, he has paid at least 13 percent, referring to his effective federal income tax rate. Mr. Romney’s fortune is estimated at $250 million.
Ryan a Bold But Risky Choice for V.P.
On Aug. 11, Mr. Romney introduced Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate at a campaign rally, bringing to his side one of the party’s young conservative leaders in a move that altered the contours of the campaign and sharpened the choice facing the voters in November. The selection of Mr. Ryan, the chief architect of the Republican Party’s plan for tax and spending cuts and an advocate of reshaping the Medicare program of health insurance for retirees, was an effort to reset the race with President Obama after a withering assault on Mr. Romney by Democrats. The decision instantly made the campaign seem bigger and more consequential, with the size and role of the federal government squarely at the center of the debate. It was a choice intended to galvanize the Republican base and represented a clear tactical shift by Mr. Romney, who until that point had been singularly focused on weak job growth since Mr. Obama took office.
For Mr. Romney, the decision was one of the boldest moves of his presidential candidacy, which had been guided by a do-no-harm strategy. It promised to energize conservatives, who had been eagerly lobbying for Mr. Ryan and who see his budget as the key to unlocking the economy’s potential for growth.
Mr. Obama’s campaign and the Democratic Party seized on the choice and sought to define the Republican ticket in stark terms, as two men who would strip health coverage for retirees and favor the wealthy.
A Party Convention That Did Not Follow the Script
On Aug. 28, Mr. Romney was nominated as the Republican candidate for president at the party’s national convention in Tampa, Fla.
The 4,400 delegates nominated Mr. Romney just six hours after he arrived in Tampa and just as Hurricane Isaac was getting ready to strike the Gulf Coast.
The Republican National Convention did not play out according to the script written by Mr. Romney’s advisers. The storm scrambled the convention schedule, while grass-root elements of the party loudly expressed their disapproval on the convention floor, threatening the images of a party united.
Mr. Romney’s supporters passed new rules governing future primaries over the loud boos of Ron Paul supporters and other conservative activists who had objected to what they said was a power grab by the party’s establishment leaders.
The vote to approve the rules came after aides to Mr. Romney said they had reached a compromise with conservative activists who had rebelled against efforts by the Republican establishment to make it harder for candidates outside the mainstream to collect national delegates at the next convention.
More on the Presidential Debates
During the month of October, Mr. Romney participated in three televised presidential debates against Mr. Obama.
After the first debate, on Oct. 3, the immediate reaction was a torrent of criticism directed at Mr. Obama, with Republicans, and as well as many Democrats, accusing him of delivering a flat, uninspired and defensive performance.
But the second debate, on Oct. 16, was strikingly different. The two men engaged in an intensive clash, with tensions between them spilling out in interruptions, personal rebukes and accusations of lying as they parried over the last four years under Mr. Obama and what the next four would look like under a President Romney. Mr. Obama’s broadsides started with a critique of Mr. Romney for his opposition to his administration’s automobile bailout in his first answer and ended more than 90 minutes later with an attack on Mr. Romney’s secretly taped comments about the “47 percent” of Americans who he said did not take responsibility for their own lives. But an unbowed Mr. Romney was there to meet him every time, and seemed to relish the opportunity to challenge a sitting president.
In the final round, on Oct. 22, which focused on foreign policy, Mr. Obama picked up where he left off in the second debate, going on the offense from the start, lacerating Mr. Romney for articulating a set of “wrong and reckless” policies that he called incoherent. Issues ranged from turmoil in the Middle East to a resurgent Russia to an emerging China. While less aggressive, Mr. Romney pressed back, accusing the president of failing to assert American interests and values in the world to deal with a “rising tide of chaos.” Topics ranged from turmoil in the Middle East to a resu