Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and media criticism

David K. Williams, Jr. — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:39:00 +0000

Mitt, Newt and Rick: Let’s end the myth that the GOP believes in limited government.

David K. Williams, Jr. — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:03:00 +0000

The 2012 campaign for the GOP presidential nomination should, once and for all, end the myth that the GOP is the party of limited government, free markets and personal liberty. I submit it is instructive to look at the records of the three remaining GOP candidates not named "Paul."

The following bullet points were excerpted verbatim from Reason.com's candidate profiles. Yes, I have cherry picked items inconsistent with limited government, free markets and personal liberty. Yes, these same profiles mention positions of each candidate that are consistent with limited government, free markets and personal liberty.

The point of this post, however, is to show that none of these three candidates believe, as a first principle, in limited government, free markets and personal liberty. They each are more than willing to make exceptions when expedient. Therefore, any claim that they believe in limited government, free markets or personal liberty must be prefaced by the qualifier "when convenient."

Mitt Romney:

Defends the mandate-and-regulate approach to health care he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts
He favors strong government surveillance powers to combat terrorism, and has praised the PATRIOT Act as a useful information gathering tool.
previously backed ... No Child Left Behind.
He's conveniently in favor of subsidies for corn-based ethanol.

Newt Gingrich:

Opposes Obamacare but in 2005 joined Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in "appearing to endorse proposals to require all individuals to have some form of health coverage."
Gingrich joined Obama's "Race to the Top" in 2009, calling Education Secretary Arne Duncan “a serious innovator."
Gingrich likes ethanol subsidies and has accused "big cities" and "big urban newspapers" of trying to hurt the farmers who benefit from them. Also likes fossil fuel subsidies and said in 2010 that "a low-cost energy regime is essential to our country." Supported cap and trade in 2007,

Rick Santorum:

While he was in office ... his record was, in the Club for Growth's words, "plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006." He was a strong supporter of dairy subsidies, voted for Medicare Part D and the 2005 highway bill
Sen. Santorum voted for the Sarbanes-Oxley law that he now wants to repeal. He also backed steel tariffs and was a player in the GOP's corporatist K Street Project. After initial opposition to the program, he became a big AmeriCorps booster.
"This idea that people should be able to go and do whatever they want and it doesn't really matter as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, that's not our founders' view of freedom."
He joined Hillary Clinton's crusade against violent video games, used campaign finance regulations to threaten critics' freedom of speech, and favors a porn crackdown.
... he has warned against "the 10th amendment run amok."
He also has a history of supporting national schooling standards. He voted for the No Child Left Behind bill in 2001.
... he has an on-again, off-again history of support for energy subsidies as well. In 2008 he called for Washington to "mandate that all cars sold in the United States...be 'flex-fuel vehicles'—that is, they should be able to run on a blend that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline."

Can we quit pretending? The GOP loves government programs. One might be able to make the case that the GOP loves government programs less than Democrats, but that is damning with faint praise.

BlueCarp

Join Congressman Bob Beauprez at the Relaunch of LOTR DTC!

amanda — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:14:15 +0000

Start off 2012 right by attending the re-launch of LOTR-DTC at our new location the Chinook Tavern! You’ll be hangin’ out with our guest speaker and former gubernatorial candidate, Congressman Beauprez, who will share his thoughts on the upcoming 2012 election.

We’ll also have information as to how you can get involved with helping build the grassroots liberty movement. Please contact Orin at Orin @ libertyontherocks.org if you have any questions or concerns.

Where: Chinook Tavern | 6380 S Fiddlers Green Circle in Greenwood Village
When: Tuesday, January 31 from 5:30-8:30 pm

Disclaimer: Speakers/Guests/Articles do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Liberty On The Rocks (Denver Tech Center).

Liberty on the Rocks Happy Hour: Discussing the Financial Crisis

amanda — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:22:24 +0000

Join fellow liberty enthusiasts this Wednesday night at Choppers Sports Grill for happy hour, networking, and a brief discussion about the economic recession and the economy.

We will be joined by special guest Brian Ochsner, a political activist with an extensive financial background. He will provide a short presentation on the topic: “What Caused The Financial/Economic Crisis… What We Can Do to Get Out of It… and How Liberty Activists Can Protect Themselves From an Economic Downturn.”

During this brief discussion, Brian will reveal the causes of the financial recession, and share his insights on the only two options currently available to the federal government to fix our economic problems; explaining which option is the best, and which one is the most dangerous (guess which option our government has taken?!). Finally, he will provide tips and strategies for what liberty-minded people can do to protect their wealth and weather this ‘perfect financial storm.’

When: Wednesday, February 1st from 6-9pm
Where: Choppers Sports Grill | 80 S. Madison Street in Denver

Calling Ron Paul “isolationist” is either ignorant or dishonest.

David K. Williams, Jr. — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 02:03:00 +0000

Words have meanings, people.

There are many legitimate criticisms of Ron Paul, but calling him "isolationist" is simply a misuse of the word. It is either done purposefully to misrepresent and impugn him or out of ignorance. From Merriam-Webster:

Isolationism - a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations.

(emphasis added).

Any statement that Paul wants the U.S. to refuse to trade with or engage in economic relations with other countries is nonsense. He is the furthest possible thing from a mercantilist. He is more of a free-trader than any of the other three remaining Republican presidential candidates.

Paul's position is clear: "Free trade with all and entangling alliances with none has always been the best policy in dealing with other countries on the world stage." This belief is a rarity in modern politics. Criticize it as dangerous if you wish. Call it foolish. Call it naive. Call it something accurate, but don't call it "isolationist."

You may think him an unelectable dogmatic kook. That is an opinion and you can have it. But when you describe actual policy, try not to make yourself look foolish. Use the actual meanings of words.

BlueCarp

The U.S. Constitution applies to citizens and non-citizens alike. Check the text.

David K. Williams, Jr. — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:30:00 +0000

The notion that the U.S. Constitution only protects U.S. citizens is palpably false. It is an indictment of our education system that any American could think such an outrageous thing.

The drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were educated men. They chose their words carefully. They debated over precise word choice. One can assume every word they chose was done with a purpose.

The Constitution and the first ten amendments distinguish between the concept of "people/persons" and the concept of "citizen." For example, Article I, Section 3, says "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States...".

A "person" is therefore different from a "citizen." Everyone is a person, but only some are citizens.

This distinction is seen again in Article II, Section 1: "No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President." Again, you may be a person, but you can't be President unless you are also a citizen. The drafters of the Constitution knew when they wanted it to apply to people and when they wanted it to apply only to citizens.

The first two paragraphs of Article IV, Section 2, clearly distinguish between "citizen" and "person." It reads:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Therefore, only citizens are entitled to "privileges and immunities" but all persons charged with a crime who then cross state lines shall "be delivered up." It does not matter if you are a citizen or not if you are a fugitive. Of course that makes sense.

The point, however, is that the Constitution and its Amendments clearly distinguish between "citizen" and "persons." "Citizen" means those either born in the United States (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) or naturalized. "Persons" and "people" mean everyone.

For instance, the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble...". The First Amendment therefore grants to all people the same protection against certain congressional action, regardless of citizenship status.

The Fourth Amendment, likewise, applies to the "people," and not just citizens. It reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ...".

Likewish, the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, ... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused [not just citizens] shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The notion that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to non-citizens is incorrect. It even applies to those in the country illegally. For instance, the government cannot keep an illegal alien locked up indefinitely. An undocumented worker will still get an attorney appointed to him if charged with a crime. I hope this little blog post helps alleviate that misconception.

In light of the War on Terror, the Patriot Act and the recently passed NDAA, among other legislation, it appears the Constitution doesn't even apply to citizens any longer.

And that is sad.

The flawed, short old man isn’t the answer. But his message is.

David K. Williams, Jr. — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:07:00 +0000

Ron Paul's success in the Republican nomination process has very little to do with Ron Paul the candidate. It has everything to do with ideas. It has everything to do with a mission. After wandering in the big government political wilderness for over a century, Paul is leading us to the land of freedom promised in the Constitution. He probably won't make it there himself, but like Moses, he'll show it to us across the river. (OK, the Moses comparison is a bit much. I got carried away. Sue me.)

Paul would never be picked by central casting for the role of political leader. He's old. He's short. He's far from charismatic. He's far from perfect.

But those imperfections are of the man, not of the ideas. People are starting to realize that government, indeed, is not the answer. Free markets and voluntary action is the answer. Less government is a start. Unfortunately, neither half of the two-party duopoly has ever - ever! - made the federal government smaller.

Voting for the same-ol' same-ol' results in ..... more of the same. At the very least, Ron Paul is not more of the same. A libertarian philosophy may never win over a majority of voters. That makes it no less correct. But without someone spreading the message - even a flawed, short old man - we know for certain the philosophy will never win over a majority of voters.

And what if those that understand and believe in a constitutionally limited government actually vote for it? They might actually get it.

You want to throw away a vote? Keep voting like you have, America.

Santorum v. Reagan

David K. Williams, Jr. — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:01:00 +0000

"I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I don't think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution's all about. I don't think they have it right as to what our history is."

Rick Santorum

“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals . . . The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

Ronald Reagan

Ring in the New Year with Liberty on the Rocks in Denver !

amanda — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:36:45 +0000

Get ready to start the new year off right with Liberty on the Rocks happy hour at Choppers in Cherry Creek! Join fellow liberty enthusiasts as we gather to toast to liberty and freedom, while sharing ideas and strategies for winning the war of ideas in 2012 and beyond.

We will also be joined by special guests Stephen Bailey and Anders Ingemarson, who will be delivering brief talks discussing some of Ayn Rand’s novels as part of the national Free Books for Teachers Project.

When: Wednesday, January 4 from 6-9 pm
Where: Choppers Sports Grill | 80 S. Madison Street in Denver
What: Happy Hour + Discussions on Ayn Rand!

Stop by any time between 6 and 9 pm to grab a drink, enjoy great conversation, and make new liberty-loving friends in Denver!

Specials:

$5 Burger & Fries
$1 off Dry Dock pints, $3 off Dry Dock Pitchers

Ayn Rand Book Talks
Mr. Bailey will be talking about Ayn Rand’s Anthem. The main them will
be how Anthem, although written before, is a logical sequel to Atlas
Shrugged and illustrates one, non-political and non-economic, thread common
to all of Ayn Rand’s works.

Mr. Ingemarson’s topic will be “Friends and Foes of Atlas Shrugged.” Based
on personal experience, Anders will discuss different responses to the
novel, if there is a way to predict an individual’s reaction to reading the
book, and how to use Atlas in your activism.

Join Professor John Cochrane @ LOTR (RR) in January!
LOTR (Red Rocks) will be kicking-off their 2012 Austrian Economics
programming with an “intro” segment on January 16, featuring Dr. John P.
Cochran, former Dean of the Business School and a current professor of
economics at the Metropolitan State College of Denver. Dr. Cochran is a
Senior Scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is the co-author of The
Hayek-Keynes Debate: Lessons for Current Business Cycle Research. Additional
details about this distinguished speaker may be found here.

The most important election ever? Nope. Not even the most important in the last four years.

David K. Williams, Jr. — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 02:31:00 +0000

The 2012 presidential election is being called "The Most Important Election Ever!"

Wrong.

Even the election of 2008 was more important. Unfortunately the GOP gave us John McCain as the only viable option against the disaster that is Obama. And yet, four years later, it is the same group that is going to give us the only viable option against that same disaster.

Mitt Romney? Really? Mitt is McCain without the war resume.He's Bob Dole without the charisma.

If you ran a business and your hiring manager kept choosing poorly, would you let him keep making those decisions? If you did, whose fault would the next bad choice belong to?

If you keep hiring the same contractor to work on your house and each addition has a leaky roof, you get exactly what you deserve.

Mitt is pretty leaky.

Liberty on the Rocks™ Denver » PPC