Tags

We have Barrack Obama — who has continued (until it was politically convenient) two wars. Who has continued indefinite detention at Guantanamo and upped the ante by signing the onerous National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which allows for the use of military force inside the United States (a breech of posse comitatus) and enshrines indefinite detention with some hazy language that would allow for the redefinition of “terrorism” for government convenience. Who has spend three times as much as the not-thrifty Geore W Bush. Who has systematically created a regulatory state that abuses small and medium sized businesses at the expense of his big banking/entertainment/green energy buddies. Who has allowed (at the very least) rampant corruption in the Departments of Energy and Justice. But hey — he does a mean Al Green.

There’s Mitt Romney — a robotic establishment hack that is just as big government progressive as Obama, but with half the black. Worse, he can’t get through a debate without apparently running a pre-recorded set of responses. But I guess that’s needed when you’re animatronic. he’s very proud of his budget busting health care boondoggle in Massachusetts – the model for the so-to-be disastrous Obamacare. But like Obama, he’ll throw our tax money to those big money folks that anointed him, but with more to the military-industrial complex.

There’s Newt Gingrich — a man so unlikable and corrupt that the Democrats are salivating for his nomination. He might be good at throwing down on debate moderators, but that gets old; his response on the merits of work over welfare are brilliant and spot on…but his tendency to authoritarian statements about executing marijuana users, firing federal employees who don’t express his lordship’s opinion, and his desire to bankrupt the nation on space exploration (and I like space exploration — I just want the FAA out of the private developers’ way) all make him not just a terrible choice, but a truly terrible choice. And you know why? Because he’s obviously a terrible choice. Here’s a bit more: he was tossed out of Congress by his own party for corruption.  His contracts from Fannie Mae show he was a lobbyist for the most ineffective government secured business in history, and one of those responsible for the collapse of the economy. He talks a big game about balancing budgets and cut deficits, but this guy couldn’t even spend wisely with his own credit…how’s he going to handle ours?

And just in case these three weren’t intrusively meddlesome for you, there’s the petulant sweater vest model from Pennsylvania — a man who voted for every big budget item the Bush administration tossed their way, who wanted to insert the Congress into the life and death choices of a family not even in his state, and who is wholly unelectable outside of Iowa and a few places in the deep south.

That leaves the “crazy” candidate: Ron Paul wants to end our overseas adventurism (which would save money and lives.) That doesn’t sound too crazy to me. He wants to downsize our military commitment in Europe and South Korea — both fully capable of funding and mustering their own defenses. That doesn’t sound crazy to me. He wants to downsize government, and hold legislation to constitutional mandates — something the Congress oath requires them to do. That doesn’t sound crazy to me. He wants to stop spying on other nations. I think that’s naive. It’s not crazy. Most point to his blaming the US for the 9/11 attacks, and I agree it has a “you shouldn’t have been wearing such provocative clothes” sort of feel to it…but he’s not entirely incorrect. We’ve been meddling in the Middle East since the 1950s with little to show for it. He’s being accused of racism…and maybe, personally, he is. But he’s held to constitutional governance and budgetary and monetary policies that are solid and move power out of the hands of unelected and quasi-treasonous bankers at the Federal Reserve. That’s not crazy. And unlike the others, it’s consistent and in keeping with American principles regarding the danger of big, powerful government.

On the Libertarian Party side, there’s Gary Johnson — who has all the best ideas of Paul, but without the naivety on foreign policy.

So who’s the crazy choice? Paul or Johnson…or voting for yet another progressive thief looking to take your rights and money like Obama or the other Republicans?

Advertisement