Romney-and-Obama Supporters Are Good Germans

 I am voting for Johnson not because he is not the lesser of two evils.  I am voting for Johnson because he stands for freedom, while Romney and Obama stand for totalitarianism.  Romney favors tariffs, a significant increase in government.  If your aim is to reduce government, Romney is the greater, not the lesser, of two evils.  

The same was true of Reagan in 1980.  He claimed to be for small government, but he did not reduce government, and he opened the door for massive increases in local taxes through his new federalism, whereby he downloaded programs to the states. Carter had stopped inflation by appointing Paul Volcker as Fed chairman (who implemented monetarist policies starting in 1979); he had deregulated the airlines and trucking.  Reagan reignited inflation and a 25-year stock bubble through supply-side economics, instituted new regulation in areas like human resource management, and did NOT reduce the federal government.  Can you  claim that Reagan was the lesser of two evils?  With the Republican-conceived $29 trillion bailout of banks, the Republicans' bunkum has grown old.   There has been no bigger expansion of the state than the Republican-conceived $29 trillion bailout of 2009. To support Romney is to support socialism.

Choosing between Romney and Obama is choosing between two candidates who support the Federal Reserve Bank’s swap of $29 trillion in real assets for banks’ failed investments. The Fed’s printed money comes out of my pocket--it is stolen.  

I oppose both thieving gangsters:  Romney and Obama.  Neither Romney nor Obama are the lesser of two evils. They both represent significant, direct harm to me and to this country;  their supporters participate in their national socialism, just as the good Germans did under Hitler.

Presidential Debate II: With Bums Like These, America Will Lose

Tuesday night's presidential debate frightened me. Two big goverment losers, neither in touch with the ideas of freedom on which the country was founded, advocated extremist, crackpot ideas. Two friends of banks avoided any discussion of any issue that mattered. Romney, with his China bashing and advocacy of tariffs, opposes freedom.  Obama, with his ignorance of the history of and reason for the Second Amendment, is a clown.  What is especially striking about Obama is that he went through three years of Harvard Law School, claims to have specialized in constitutional law, and is ignorant about the Constitution.  With these two clowns, America is in trouble. Making matters worse, the organizers of the debate, reflecting an increasingly totalitarian America, excluded the only worthwhile candidate: Gary Johnson

Johnson Threatens Romney's Viability

Gary Johnson may prevent Mitt Romney's election in November. Real Clear Politics says that Johnson aims to utilize increasingly important social media; if the strategy is successful and Johnson wins 15% in three national polls, he will participate in the national debates. This will be an important step to ending the two-party system, which has led to increasing corruption and ever bigger government.  Politico notes that an Arizona survey found that Johnson will receive nine percent. The poll, published by Public Policy Polling on May 23, notes that, in a head-to-head race, Romney leads Obama by 50 to 43 percent in Arizona. Although 80% of Arizona voters say that they are not sure of their opinion of Gary Johnson, question 11 indicates this:

11. If the candidates for President this year were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Libertarian Gary Johnson, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 41%
Mitt Romney................................................... 45%
Gary Johnson ................................................. 9%
Undecided....................................................... 6%

According to The New Mexico Watchdog, also based on a Public Policy Polling poll, Johnson was polling at seven percent in a three-way race among himself, Obama, and Romney. Obama wins against Romney in a two-way race, but wins by a 75 percent larger margin (48-44 versus 46-39) if Johnson is included. 

Johnson says that he has an eight percent support level nationally.  Public Policy Polling is a Democratic poll.  Unfortunately, the Republican Rasmussen poll so far has excluded Johnson.  Its results may therefore be distorted in Romney's favor.  If Johnson is polling more than five percent, polling firms should include him. Their margin of error (confidence interval in percentage terms) is smaller than Johnson's support.  In other words, they can't argue that Johnson's effect will be overwhelmed by random noise. It is bigger than random noise, and it will hurt Romney.

It is unfortunate that the GOP has chosen to pursue a big-government strategy.  I would like to see Obama unseated, but the cycle of pitting a corrupt, big-government Republican against a corrupt, socialist Democrat needs to end. Those who oppose the expansive state that Romney advocates will be drawn to Johnson.  His name recognition is still low, so six to eight percent may be significantly less than his ultimate support. The law suits being planned against the Romney campaign by Lawyers for Ron Paul (h/t Mike Marnell) may add to Johnson's support. Lawyers for Ron Paul alleges significant voter fraud and criminality in the Romney campaign.  If these allegations are extended over the next five months, they may raise the support level for Johnson.   The 15 percent target means that anyone who favors less government wastes their vote by supporting Romney.

New Gary Johnson Commercial

The other day, I was speaking to a waitress who supports Obama. She said that she dislikes the Republicans because they pander to special interests.  I suggested that Obama has overseen $29 trillion in swaps and other subsidies to global banks.  He has overseen bigger subsidies to Wall Street and banking than all of the preceding presidents in history combined contributed to all other special interests combined.  The waitress did not reply.  Mike Marnell, with whom I was having lunch, suggested that she would not change her vote. The American voter is a mindless drone. Voting for continuing the current system is a matter of habit. It is not going well; Americans are not doing well; the real hourly wage has not increased in four decades.  The conservative (in the European sense) philosopher Joseph de Mistre said: "Oute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite," that is, "Every nation gets the government it deserves."  Perhaps America deserves Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I hope that Gary Johnson proves that possibility wrong.

Obama's Dishonest & Uncivil Discourse

I picked this up on Mitt Romney's campaign site.

Republican Presidential Debate: Where Was Gary Johnson?

I was underwhelmed with the candidates on tonight's GOP presidential debate. The candidates have a high degree of professionalism.  The only legitimate limited government candidate is Ron Paul.  The format of the debate prohibited intelligent discussion about issues, which worked against Paul.

I was disappointed that Gary Johnson was not invited; Paul was the best candidate there. I don't agree with him about Iran and the Middle East,  although a broad reduction in military intervention around the world, say 50%,  is an excellent idea.  I dislike the federal marriage amendment to which only Paul objected.  The Republicans thereby revealed themselves as equal to the Democrats in favoring extension of federal power.  Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are big government guys, and Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann are hardly better than they are.   Gingrich's claim that Reagan fostered sound money is a nonsensical lie. None of the candidates other than Paul will address the country's underlying problems.

I like Herman Cain, but he lacks experience. He should serve in Congress for a few years.   Mitt Romney is also a big government guy, and I don't like him, but he may be the only one capable of defeating Obama. I'm not sure that a Romney presidency would be great, but perhaps his credentials in establishing a health care plan in Massachusetts would enable him to repeal Obamacare and Sarbanes Oxley.  I think I heard him say that he would. I'm still not sure I can vote for him. If the polls are predicting a Republican Congress, I think I will vote for the Libertarian Party rather than Romney.

Several of the candidates claimed that states' rights would lead to polygamy. I don't think it would, but if it did, so what?  Heck, I'll move to Utah and give Freda some competition.  Nothing like a ménage à trois (better make sure Freda doesn't read this).  This pompous junk makes me ill. Polygamy is in the Bible. Who says it requires a constitutional amendment? And why are these big government Republicans looking for ever new ways to bug people who have tastes that are different from theirs?   

I am going to vote for Ron Paul.  Absent his victory I will probably vote for Romney in the election if it's not clear that the GOP is winning Congress.  If it is, I will vote for the Libertarian Party presidential candidate.  If Santorum, Gingrich or Huntsman gain the nomination I will not vote for them.  If Gary Johnson, Ron Paul or another libertarian ran on a third party ticket, they would have my vote regardless of what the GOP is doing at the congressional level.

Ron Paul needs a better platform to discuss the Fed. It's great he's raising the issue on national TV, but most of the knuckleheads watching probably don't know what he's talking about.

Can Paul and Johnson Save the GOP?

In recent days Congressman Ron Paul (R-T) announced that he is establishing an exploratory committee for his presidential bid and Governor Gary Johnson (R-NM) announced his own candidacy. These two reformers, who advocate elimination of Fed power or its reduction, have to contend with Wall Street Progressivism, which is likely to defeat them within the GOP.

Two days ago, The Wall Street Journal carried a front page story announcing "Financiers Switch to GOP." Three years ago I had suspected that Wall Street, which had heavily supported Obama, would dump Obama after his granting them trillions in subsidies and his supporting Fed policies that will, over time, cause inflation and ever greater transfers of wealth from people who work and are on retirement pensions to hedge fund managers and America's non-productive financial class. During 2008, Wall Street supported Obama because a Republican could not have achieved the massive wealth transfers that they required, for the Republicans by then had been associated with excessive support for the super-rich. To obtain the massive subsidization Wall Street required the left's support. Obama presented the image of a Black activist, a "progressive" socialist who would fight the rich. Many Republicans naively believed this. In fact, Wall Street had contributed to Obama two to one over McCain, who was associated with Bush.

Obama's supporters, New York Times readers and college students, believed that Obama would redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Obama's opponents believed that Obama would redistribute wealth from the middle class to the poor. In fact, Obama has redistributed wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

He has done his job well. During Obama's administration the transfers from the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury to banks and global financial institutions amounted to $12.8 trillion according to Bloomberg, but are likely much more. Three years ago I predicted that by now Wall Street would have thrown Obama under the bus because he would no longer be needed. His alliance with the left is inconvenient to Wall Street. The progressive left will continue to attack Wall Street while Republican Progressives will not. Thus, The Wall Street Journal reports that hedge fund managers, "who made a big bet on Barack Obama...have turned their backs...and are actively supporting Republicans." The article cites Daniel Loeb, who had raised $200,000 for Obama and who, Democratic Underground.com reports, earned $250 million in 2007 alone. The Journal reports that Loeb is a long time Democratic Party supporter, but he has switched to the GOP this year.

The Journal reported a few weeks ago that Mitt Romney had met with 100 Wall Street bigwigs to obtain financing and to offer to do their bidding. Clearly, Wall Street will aim to push for a Progressive GOP in 2012. If rank-and-file GOP members go along with it, they will elect another George W. Bush, probably worse.

There are three strategies for pro-freedom Republicans. The first is to vote for Paul or Johnson in the primaries. If they lose, option two is to support a third party. Option three would be to support Obama as the lesser of two evils in 2012.

Like Obama, Romney Reports to Goldman Sachs

The most significant economic event of the past 20 years was the Bush-Obama Wall Street bailout. In 2008 I noticed that Wall Street contributions were flowing 2-1 to Obama, and the 2008-2009 bailout was the reason. Today, the Wall Street Journal informs us that Romney is securing commitments from bundlers, or big fundraisers, and that Romney is meeting with 100 Wall Street donors at the Harvard Club today. During the past three years the Fed may have provided Wall Street and the global banking system with dollar reserves and subsidies, along with the TARP and other bailouts, that amount to $100,000 per American or more.

One thing is for sure, if you vote for Romney or Obama you know what you are going to get. You are going to be on the hook for plenty of subsidies to the super-rich. If you vote for either one, hope you enjoy paying donations to Lloyd Blankenfein and his organization of welfare mothers on Wall and Broad.

Governor Tim Pawlenty

Marty Siegel, a childhood friend who now lives in Minnesota, mentioned Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) as a presidential possibility.  I did my one second barometer test for GOP candidates (did he support the bailout) and he passed. He apparently did not support the bailout.  Esquire ran an interview with Pawlenty on February 12 in which he states:

"Whether the threats or doomsday scenarios that were painted were real or partially real or not real at all. We won't know the answer to that, but we do know that some very bright people said that we faced doomsday, and there were other very bright people who said that, at the very least, the danger was overstated, and this notion that they were too big to fail was untested or untrue."

This does not amount to a strong position on the gold standard or elimination of the Fed, but it is the closest I've seen in the GOP among the major candidates except for Ron Paul.

Sarah Palin supported the bailout and so she is off my list.  Mitt Romney, whom I've never trusted (his support for the health plan in Massachusetts and his background as a consultant to the military industrial complex make me uncomfortable) is slippery about his position in a Glenn Beck interview in September 2008.  First, Beck says that he (Beck) opposes the bailout (a point on which I've had to correct myself) then Romney makes this vague reply:

"Well, there's no question no one has any interest in bailing out the guys on Wall Street who caused this problem. In many respects the term 'Bailout' is a misnomer. The people who caused this problem ought to lose jobs, ought to lose wealth and are going to face some hard times by virtue of their mistakes but what we want to make sure is that the people on Main Street and the homes all over America, that these folks aren't the ones who are suffering and if we had a meltdown of our financial system where banks and financial institutions couldn't make loans, where your life insurance policy was suddenly worthless, where awful these kind of dramatic changes occurred, you'd hurt a lot of people. A lot of people would lose jobs. You could even throw the country into, well, a very severe recession or even the D word which I don't want to use, but it's that which the treasury secretary and the Federal Reserve are worried about and that's why they are taking such extraordinary action."


Romney does not get clearer as he proceeds, which leads me to conclude that he was a de facto bailout supporter. There were plenty of ways to avoid a depression besides throwing trillions at the New York financial institutions.  His opposition at that time might have mattered psychologically but it would not have changed the Paulson-Bush-McCain-Obama position.  Nevertheless, his waffling is over political fear that he might be blamed for supporting subsidies to Wall Street, which was the de facto effect of his position.

Thus, compared to Palin or Romney, Pawlenty is closer to the libertarian one. He is certainly not a libertarian. The Moderate Voice blog describes him:
 
"Tim Pawlenty is a mainstream conservative governor in a traditionally liberal state. When I use the term 'mainstream,' I mean simply that he is in the mainstream of Minnesota conservatism – decidedly less conservative than the heart of Republicanism in the south, but conservative enough for most of the rest of the GOP. This alone gives him a decent shot as an alternative to either Palin or Romney in the 2012 primaries."

Pawlenty's website gives some useful information:

"As Governor, he has balanced Minnesota's budget three times without raising taxes, despite facing record budget deficits. Governor Pawlenty's most notable accomplishments include proposing and signing into law significant new benefits for veterans and members of the military; enacting a property tax cap, eliminating the marriage penalty and cutting taxes; toughening the state's education standards; reforming the way teachers are paid through a nation-leading performance pay plan; instituting free-market health care reforms that increase accountability and provide tax credits to encourage the use of health savings accounts; and implementing a plan to Americanize our energy sources by generating 25% of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2025."

As mainstream Republicans go, Pawlenty seems like a good choice.  Unless you think that the GOP is going to abolish the Fed tomorrow (ha, ha) the best strategy is to work with a minimax candidate (minimize the maximum possible loss). Pawlenty seems to fall into this category.  

Repeal Obamacare (and Lots More Too)

A flurry of e-mails are in my inbox calling for a repeal of Obamacare, law suits against it and efforts to unseat Blue Dog Democrats and other vulnerable Congressional flunkies who voted for it. I certainly hope these efforts, one and all, come to fruition. But if repeal is in the air, perhaps a few additional things can be repealed. Such as the Bush prescription drug plan; the bailout; the Department of Energy; the Department of Labor; and the Department of Education. As well, how about a 15% across the board cut in government payroll and a rescinding of 15 laws? Which laws? Heck, there are thousands to choose from. It shouldn't be hard. Pick the 15 most expensive.

David Horowitz

David Horowitz writes:

"You know the problem - the arrogant assault on our constitution by Barack Obama and his minions in the House and Senate. The way they forced the national takeover of our health care system is the greatest threat to our democracy since Russia placed nuclear missiles on Cuba.

"Yes! It's that serious. But as a longtime supporter of the Freedom Center, I'm certain you understand this.

"What I need today is for you to help me print more of the two most powerful and popular booklets the Center has ever published. I'm talking about Obama's Rules for Revolution and The Art of Political War for Tea Parties.

If you want to help David H. go to this link: https://secure.donationreport.com/donation.html?key=OMG7PRA9EQQA

American Center for Law and Justice

The ACLJ is a Christian rights organization. Jay Sekulow writes:

"I'm sorry to say, Congress and the President have let you down.

"The worst part is that this law includes a mandate that FORCES Americans to participate - meaning you could be forced to buy a health care policy that funds abortions!

"But let me assure you: THIS IS NOT OVER.

"If you want to join their efforts to fight the abortion provisions in the law click here.

Mitt Romney writes:

"President Obama's healthcare bill is unhealthy for America. Without a single Republican vote in the House or the Senate, he pushed through a bill that millions of Americans do not want, and for which we cannot conceivably pay.

"Health care reform shouldn't mean higher taxes, cuts to our seniors on Medicare, insurance price controls or greater federal involvement in our lives. But unfortunately that's just what we're getting.

"America has been taken down the wrong path by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, which is why it's critical we elect fiscally-responsible conservative leaders in November who will repeal this bill and restore commonsense principles to healthcare.

"That is why I am writing to you today to announce a new initiative at my Free and Strong America PAC called "Prescription for Repeal." Over the coming weeks and months, my PAC will be providing GOP candidates with the support and funding they need to defeat Democrats who supported ObamaCare."

If you want to contribute to Mr. Romney's Prescription for Repeal PAC click here.

Americans for Limited Government

Robert Romano of Americans for Limited Government sent out a press release supporting Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (remember from last fall?) who is filing a law suit against the law's individual mandates. Romano writes:

"March 22nd, 2010, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today condemned the House of Representatives for enacting what he termed "the government takeover of health care that will ration treatment, increase the cost of premiums, and force Americans onto government-run insurance.

"Last night, the House passed the Senate version of "ObamaCare" 219 to 212. Wilson encouraged states, like Virginia, to pursue their plans to sue against the constitutionality of the federal mandate that individuals purchase health insurance.

"Wilson said that the "Constitution does not permit Congress to enact any mandate for individuals to purchase anything, let alone health insurance.

"Wilson said that the "Constitution does not permit Congress to enact any mandate for individuals to purchase anything, let alone health insurance."

Amazingly Romano does not have a link asking for a donation.

Campaign For Liberty

John Tate of C4L writes:

"Late Sunday night, the U.S. House of Representatives abandoned the Constitution, made a mockery of the words of the Founders, and drew a line in the sand as it passed the Senate’s health care bill 219-212.

"The morning after the federal government acted yet again to increase its control over our lives, the freedom movement has two clear options.

"Option #1 is to give President Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid exactly what they want by throwing in the towel, surrendering any hopes of free market health care reform, and taking the pressure off an exhausted Congress.

"Option #2 is to rededicate our efforts, work harder than ever to spread the message, turn up the heat, and give them the fight of their political careers.

"You see, our elected officials are used to enduring knockdown, drag-out battles over controversial issues, and the one thing they always count on after a contentious vote is that the phone lines will go silent and their inboxes will slowly be whittled down. After all, they know our side lost, and the bill will soon be signed into law.

"That may have been true about the legislative fights of old, but our Revolution must not allow this dangerous relic of past political thinking to continue.

"Read the roll call of the House vote here. Get contact information for your representative here.

"If your congressman voted for Nancy Pelosi’s power grab, contact him right away today by phone and email and let him know what you think of his failure to uphold his oath to the Constitution.

"Remind him that you’re watching and will do everything in your power to hold him accountable for his vote and to make sure his constituents know he believes they should either carry government-approved insurance or answer to the IRS.

"Tell him his actions have made you more committed than ever to fighting for free market health care reforms like those contained in C4L’s Operation Health Freedom.

"And make sure he knows this will be the first of many calls, emails, and faxes he can expect in the coming days and months.

"If you are able, please help Campaign for Liberty spread the word, hold our elected officials accountable, and carry on the battle for health freedom by donating today.

"Only your continued support will keep us at the forefront of the fight to push back against the statists’ advances and reclaim our liberties.

"I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of being lectured on responsibility and fairness by reckless politicians who think money can be generated out of thin air forever and who believe the Declaration’s statement concerning “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” means we have to bow the knee to their every whim.

"They’ve staked their claim and left no doubt about where they stand.

"Now it’s our turn to prove we will never give up on our principles.

Principles that don’t include forcing your neighbor to buy whatever good or service you think they should have under penalty of IRS action. Principles that reaffirm the fundamental right of each American to live their life and pursue their dreams without constant government interference.

Please, contact your representative today and clearly state your independence from politics as usual.

Get Liberty.org

Get Liberty.org
writes:

"The die has been cast. Last night, despite overwhelming opposition by the American people to the government taking over the nation’s entire health care system, the House of Representatives voted 219 to 212 to do just that, adopting the Senate version of ObamaCare.

"Despite the victory lap House Democrats took on Capitol Hill last night, and Barack Obama at the White House, the American people should not be disheartened. It was for their efforts alone that this process divided the Congressional majority for a year, making it long, bloody, and costly.

"34 Democrats joined with 178 Republicans to cast bipartisan opposition to the measure. That is no mistake. Without the tenacity of the American people, expressed in the tea parties, at the town halls, and in hundreds of thousands of phone calls, emails, letters, and faxes sent to Washington and district-level offices, this bill would have surely passed a year ago.


George Phillips (Congressional Candidate NY 22nd CD)

"Despite widespread opposition from the American people and being brokered through a series of back room deals, Congress passed the Democrats' health care legislation yesterday.

"My opponent Maurice Hinchey came down in favor of the bill, and in a close vote, was one of the deciding voices.

"Hinchey refused to hold Health Care Town Hall meetings last summer, and in doing so I believe he refused to listen to the concerns of his constituents.

"I've signed a pledge stating I'll vote to repeal this bill when elected and fight for solutions that truly lower health care costs without a massive government take over.

"We're approaching an important March 31st fundraising deadline where a public report will be filed with the FEC.

"Send a message to Maurice Hinchey about your opposition to the bill by donating to our campaign today.

"Donate through clicking on our website or sending donations to our PO Box below.

"Thank you for your support.

"Sincerely,

"George Phillips"

Let us repeal health reform and file law suits. Let us go further and aim to repeal all of the legislation passed since 1970.

Republicans Talk the Talk

I am watching the Republican presidential debate and am favorably impressed. I was especially impressed with Mike Huckabee's thoughts on the Bible and his claim that he favors abolition of the Internal Revenue Service. I continue to be frustrated with Ron Paul's inability to distance himself from the Populist fringe of the Libertarian movement and his views on Iraq. I support him because of his position on the Fed, but he has not introduced the monetary issue into the debate, which is a major loss. Instead, Giuliani mentioned a nonsensical claim that budget cuts would strengthen the dollar. This dumb remark is a mark against him. The dollar is a monetary issue, not a government spending issue. Nevertheless, Giuliani is a convincing candidate as is Mitt Romney. I am also impressed with John McCain's thoughts on waterboarding and on militay strategy. As well, I liked Romney's remarks about "one America" in reference to the American flag.

Overall the quality of the Republicans is above the quality of the Democratic candidates (whom I insist are space aliens).

One of my favorite moments of the debate was when McCain mentioned that Hillary wants to spend $1 million on a Woodstock Concert museum. I live about 15 miles from where the concert was (down Ulster County 42/Peekamoose, turn left on NY 42 toward Monticello).

The most telling moment was when the young man in California asked whether the candidates would oppose farm subsidies. While they all said that they favored lower taxes and Huckabee said that he wanted to abolish the IRS, none of the candidates seemed enthusiastic about eliminating farm subsidies.

Republicans talk the talk, but I'm not exactly convinced that, besides Ron Paul, they walk the walk.