Chuck Baldwin tells it straight

Oh, boy, does he ever.  If one reads this article and still insists on voting for Romney as the “lessor of two evils”, or whatever, then one has the comprehension capacity of a turnip.

An excerpt:
“As I have noted in previous columns, the differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are miniscule on virtually every salient issue. They both supported TARP; they both supported Obama’s economic stimulus package; they both supported so-called assault weapons bans and other gun control measures; Obama has an “F” rating from Gun Owners of America, while Romney has a “D-” rating from GOA; neither man supports a balanced budget; neither man opposes foreign aid; they both supported the bailout of the auto industry; they both have a track record of being big spenders; they both fully support the Federal Reserve; they both oppose a full audit of the Fed; they are both supporters of universal health care; both men are showered with campaign contributions from Wall Street; neither of them wants to eliminate the IRS or the direct income tax; both men are on record as saying the TSA is doing a “great job”; they both supported the NDAA, including the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law; they both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act; they both believe that the President has “executive power” to assassinate and kill; both support the “free trade” agenda of the global elite; they are both soft on illegal immigration; they both support NAFTA and CAFTA; they both have a history of appointing liberal judges; they both believe the President has the authority to take the nation to war without the approval of Congress; and neither of them has any qualms about running up more public debt to the already gargantuan debt of 16 trillion dollars.”

Answering Reason.com’s questionnaire

Reason.com has posed its questionnaire concerning the upcoming election to a variety of folk.  Here are my answers:

1.  Which presidential candidate are you voting for and why?
I’m leaning toward Gary Johnson, now, although I was ready to vote for Virgil Goode a couple of weeks ago, because of the antepartum infanticide issue.  Well, since millions of  “pro-life” Christians are quite willing to vote for Romney, who is effectively pro-choice, then no one can really say anything against a pro-life Christian who is voting for Gary Johnson.  I’m unsure how committed he is to non-interventionism, while I’m pretty sure that Goode is solidly opposed to the “War on Terror.”  On the other hand, Goode is clearly insane when it comes to that police state-creating initiative popularly known as the “War on Drugs.”  I care not one whit for narcotics, and advise anyone who considers using them to “just say no.”  But the “War on Drugs” is not about ending drug use.  It is, rather, the gov’t's way to implement the legal and logisitical framework for martial law.
Free Trade is also another major issue where G. Johnson is superior to Goode.  The Constitution Party incredibly believes that free trade leads to socialism, and so they oppose it vociferously.  This means that Constitution Party candidates are in reality in favor of government control of people’s purchasing decisions.  Just like Mitt “I’m a buffoon when it comes to economics” Romney.

2a.  Between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding economic freedom, including such things as industrial policy, free trade, regulation, and taxes?
It’s really hard to say.  Romney has a bit of the rhetoric on his side, but his China-bashing shows he has very little understanding of the free market.  Obama is a thorough moron on the subject.  If one could trust a candidate’s rhetoric, I’d say that Romney is better, but one must remember that Romney thought that the government forcing people to purchase health insurance (which his Massachussetts health care plan did) was a “free market solution” to the “problem” of people not having health insurace (regardless whether or not they actually needed it.)  AND Romney thinks that trade is a zero-sum game.  The man’s a buffoon.  He’ll get into office, and try the same Keynesian nonsense that George “I had to violate free market principles in order save the free market” Bush did, resulting in more monetary inflation (which will, at some point, turn into price inflation with a vengeance), more regulation, lower production of goods and services, and a lower quality of life for any and everyone who does not work in an industry favored by the FedGov.

2b.  Between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding social freedom issues such as gay marriage, free speech, school choice, and reproductive rights?
Both of them have openly stated a desire for (and in Obama’s case actually took action to effect) the power to throw American citizens in prison without a trial.  What is so astounding to me is so many so-called conservatives aren’t in any way upset about this.  If Romney came out and said that he believes that the FedGov has the authority to go into people’s homes without a warrant and confiscate their firearms, I would at least hope that “conservatives” would be up in arms, demanding that Romney retract that position.  Well, his support for the NDAA of 2012 is actually worse than such a supposed attack on the 2nd amendment.  If the president can throw you in prison without a trial, then he can take your firearms away at a whim; he can, in fact, do any variety of unConstitutional activities with impunity.
As to the social issues, Obama is openly for child-murder, Romney is secretly for it (when he says he supports the right of a woman to get an abortion for “health reasons”, that includes “mental health”, which means basically anything.  If a woman feels depressed about having a baby, then she can go to the doctor and get permission to kill the child to “protect her mental health.”)  Antepartum infanticide is a clear violation of the “non-aggression principle”, so it’s hypocritical for self-describe libertarians to support the heinous practice.  On the other hand, the crime of murder is a state matter; Federal Authorities rarely investigate murders, and it’s better for liberty generally that murder be prosecuted by state and local authorities.
There’s no such thing as “gay marriage”, as marriage, by definition, is a heterosexual union.  I don’t care if two men (or two women) want to hold out the preposterous idea that they’re married to each other, what I’m opposed to is them getting the government to use violence to try to force me to say the same thing.

2c. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding foreign policy, military interventions, and the global war on terror (including domestic restrictions on civil liberties)?
As I mentioned before, both loonies are in support of the NDAA of 2012, which should be a deal-breaker for anyone who considers himself a devotee of the Constitution.  On the war itself, Obama is clearly Bush’s third term; if he were a Republican, then you would hear no end of praise for him from the likes of Muttonhead Limbaugh and Snotnoggin Hannity with regard to his foreign policy.  This is the opposite of the economics question, in which both are approximately equally bad though Romney has better rhetoric.  Obama’s 2008 anti-war rhetoric is better than Romney’s insane proposals to continue the puerile, counterproductive, stupid policy of perpetual war, but Obama never even tried to live up to his campaign rhetoric.  It’s a bit ironic, but had Obama followed through with his campaign promises, then the economy would be doing quite a bit better than it is currently doing; the wars are destroying the American economy more quickly than even “Obamacare” will when it gets fully implemented.

3.  Who did you vote for in 2000, 2004, and 2008?  Bush, Bush, and McCain.  What a hideous thing to have to live down, too.

4.  Apart from the presidency, what do you think is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall?  There are various state initiatives that seek to legalize marijuana.  While I oppose marijuana use, I support state governments trying to thwart the will of the Federalis in every issue that they can. 

5.  Reason’s libertarian motto is “Free Minds and Free Markets.”  In contemporary America, is that notion a real possibility or a pipe dream?  Well, when the Federal Government eventually collapses under its own weight, then the free market, at least, will become a reality posthaste.  Until that time, it will grow in power whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in charge.

“True Conservatives” should fear a Romney/Ryan win next month

This is an idea I derived from an article over at lewrockwell.com.  The economy is on the verge of distruction.  Obama, doubling down on the economic policies of President Bush, has driven it there.  If Romney/Ryan had any sort of a clue at all how the economy works, then getting them into office might result in some benefit.  But Romney/Ryan are as absolutely clueless about how the economy works as Obama ever was.  How can they not be, when both supported TARP?  Both men think that government spending is a necessary element to economic growth.  Plus, both Romney and Ryan are warmongers, so expect their administration to continue to waste resources that could be used productively.
The problem is, as the article above argued, that the narrative about these guys is that they are pro-free market, so that when they get into office and follow their pro-gov’t, anti-market policies which will inevitably fail, then the free market will get the blame for big-gov’t-style policies, and the need to “return” to big-gov’t-style policies will be loudly proclaimed.

Remember, a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, since they have the same policy prescriptions for “fixing” the economy, national security, et al.  If you truly want to get back to a limited government, then vote third party.

Romney the unstable, insecure, high school captain of the cheerleader squad

Seriously, this guy had the nomination pretty well sewed up for a long time, yet still felt the need to change the rules in the middle of the game, just to make sure that no one else got nominated.  This election is all about him, you understand.  What sort of president does a guy so insecure that he can’t brook any opposition whatsoever?  Considering that he’s just fine with the NDAA of 2012, such an attitude is chilling.

I side 91% with Ron Paul

In this quiz.  I’m pretty sure that it didn’t score me 100% because it asked questions like “should abortion be made illegal in America?” to which I answered “Yes”, but that doesn’t mean that I think that the Federal Government should be the institution to implement laws against abortion.  Like any other type of murder, antepartum infanticide should be handled by state governments.

A write-in vote for Ron Paul is a vote for…

Ron Paul, obviously.  Unless, of course, one is a hopelessly ignorant conservative, who thinks that Romney has a substantially different worldview from Obama.  “But Obama’s a Marxist, and Romney is a Capitalist!”  Seriously?  The guy who is the godfather of Obamacare, who claimed that the government forcing someone to purchase health insurance is a “free market idea”?

Romney and Obama are both Progressives; they both believe in a huge, powerful state that organizes society for the better.  They may have different visions what that better society should ultimately be, but the problem isn’t in the vision, but in the methods each find acceptable.  Romney very clearly stated he supports the President’s having the power to throw Americans in prison without a trial (NDAA of 2012, and don’t let a bunch of lying, ignorant state-worshippers persuade you otherwise).  People are worried about Obamacare’s forcing one to purchase insurance, but totally unconcerned about the government’s baldly stating it has the right to “disappear” people?  Contemptible buffoons.  I’ll vote my conscience; no more voting for evil, even that of the “lesser” variety.

Bryan Fischer has been having conniptions over the possibility that Romney might pick Rice as his running mate (there’s good evidence to suggest he won’t pick her, though).  I asked more than once in comments on Facebook whether a Rice VP pick would induce Fischer (or any of his followers) to consider voting third party.  No response, of course.  It would mean taking a hard look at their professed philosophy of liberty.  They would vote for the ticket, of course, because “anybody’s better than Obama.”  I think Romney will probably win, but if and when he does, we liberty lovers will get to enjoy a little schaedenfreude over the conservatives’ inevitable grief over Romney’s perpetually stabbing them in the back.  Or, not.  Most conservatives don’t seem to really have a clue that they are being stabbed in the back whenever it happens.

Did CJ Roberts do the right thing after all?

There’s a meme starting to spread around the Internet that Chief Justice Roberts actually did conservatives a favor by declaring Obamacare Constitutional.  The reasoning goes: “By declaring that the ‘fine’ is really a ‘tax’, CJ Roberts ensured that Obamacare will be so unpopular that people will demand that their Congressman vote to repeal it.”  Brilliant, no?

Um…he could also have simply voted with the four “right-wing” justices, and declared the whole thing unConstitutional.  Much simpler than trying to rely on 1. the populace to get the good sense to vote for Congressmen who will repeal it and 2. traditionally squishy Congressmen to suddenly grow spines to take on Obamacare.

Bush Appointee puts final nail in Constitution’s Coffin

So the “brilliant” Chief Justice John Roberts says that a fine for doing nothing is basically a tax, and therefore Obamacare is Constitutional.  Great!  Now, the FedGov has a wide array of methods open to it to fix the economy, end the abortion debate, etc.  If the Government wants you to do something, it merely has to pass a law and assign some sort of fine for noncompliance.  Don’t worry, the “fine” is actually a Constitutionally acceptable form of tax, which is clearly within Congress’ authority.  So, to help the housing market, the FedGov passes a law to purchase a house or pay a fine.

Also, Congress now has a massive new tax-raising authority that will please both sides of the aisle.  If you haven’t had an abortion this year, then get one, or pay a fine (that one’s for the Dems).  If you don’t own a gun, then buy one, or pay a fine! (for the GOP).  They don’t really care whether you actually get an abortion or buy a gun; in fact, they probably would rather you pay the fine, since that would mean gravy for them.

Thanks, President Bush, for appointing this ninny to be our Chief Justice!

Thanks, Governor Romney, for inspiring Obama with a dictatorial health care plan!

Thanks, Republicans, for looking out for our freedom!

GOP Base has trouble with logic

So we have this story over at RedState.com, in which Erik Erikson whines about Republicans who really would like to keep part of Obamacare.  Dude, for almost a year, now, you’ve been discounting the one guy who would actually do something substantial about the unrestrained growth of government, because he doesn’t share your silly belief that there are scary Muslims hiding under your bed.  Grow up, Erikson.  The government hates you for your freedoms, and is actually doing something to “correct” the situation.

I’m sure Erikson would recommend we all get behind Romney at the very same time he’s pointing out that Republicans like Romney are guaranteed to stab “conservatives” in the back–politically speaking–by adopting whatever big-government policies suits their fancy and furthers their own power.  Romney wouldn’t effect a return to Constitutionally limited government.  “But he’s better than Obama!” cry the logically-impaired right.  No, not really.  Not when, as Erikson points out, the Republican Congress is already geared toward greater growth of government (as long as it remains in GOP hands).  Right now, Repubs in Congress have some political incentive to oppose the growth of government, because the guy in the White House has a “D” by his name.  Switch it to an “R” guy, and all restraints on gov’t growth disappear.