“…not voting for Romney is a vote for Obama. It’s that simple…” Kurt Schlichter would have us believe that Mitt Romney, while not a perfect candidate, would stop our inevitable slide into collectivism and destruction. He could be right — the current administration certainly has no respect for rule of law, personal rights or initiative, lifestyle choice (other than abortion) or personal property. Romney, we are told, will protect those things. He tells us, “When freedom becomes inconvenient, Democrats drop it like it’s hot.”
He’s right. Here’s the problem with his argument: the Republicans, who brought us the drug and terror war, and who seem poised to continue trying to coerce the Middle East into modernity through perpetual conflict, are no better. A Republican co-wrote the First Amendment assaulting
Incumbent Protection Campaign Finance Reform Act, as well as the onerous indefinite detention clause of the NDAA. They support the efforts to destroy internet commerce and fair use of digital products pushed by the MPAA and RIAA. They love throwing folks in jail for smoking a joint — it keeps the money flowing with the military-law enforcement-industrial complex.
He does have a good point, however, when he says “There are exactly zero “libertarian-liberals.” Nor can there be; Democrats embrace everything libertarians oppose.” But like all conservatives and Democrats he misuses the “liberal” label — Democrats are not liberals…they are Progressives. And so are the Republican leadership. They are a group of “elites” — educated experts who know better than you how you should live your lives, and who expect obedience and great wodges of your money in taxes and government fees so they can live very very well.
So let me respond to this useful idiot for the GOP aristocracy and speak to the disaffected Ron Paul voters: Do not vote for the lesser of two evils. “Waste” your vote on Governor Johnson. If enough of us do it, what could happen? (The worst thing for the Progressives of the Democrat and Republican parties…he could win.)
Perhaps this hyperventilating sycophant is right: if Obama wins, we will have chaos in the streets. Obama will try to rule, rather than reign, and try to install himself as president-for-life with all the attendent terrors. If this happens, 1) we will deserve it for having a majority vote for the man, and more importantly 2) the establishment has failed to correct guess why people are arming themselves to the teeth: they haven’t been pushed far enough yet, but if the aristocrats in DC push much farther they will find themselves with open rebellion.
It is tragic when Americans serving their country are murdered, and we both mourn their loss and honor their service.
Part of honoring that service is to ask the obvious question: What U.S. interest is being served by putting our people – and our money – in places where U.S. personnel can be killed by extremists over a video? We launched millions of dollars worth of missiles to bring down Gaddafi, and this is what we get. We hail and encourage the outbreak of an Arab Spring in Egypt, send them billions of dollars we can’t afford, — and our embassy is breached and our flag desecrated.
In Afghanistan, we continue to put our troops in harm’s way 10 years after our post-9/11 mission was complete. Why?
The airwaves are filled today with political chest-pounding and calls for decisive action. The most decisive and prudent action we can take today is to stop trying to manage governments and peoples on the other side of the globe who don’t want to be managed, get our people out of impossible situations that have no direct U.S. interest, and immediately stop sending money to regimes who clearly cannot or will not control their own countries.
Protecting America with a strong national defense and a rational foreign policy is our leaders’ most basic responsibility. But let us not confuse national security with senseless intervention where our interests are clearly not being served.
You now owe almost $38,000 in debt, average American. Since President Obama took office, the government has managed to increase the debt 60% in four years. Take a good look at the following graph — you know the current regime will not slow their spending. Listen to Romney, with his retrenchment on military spending, and look at the Ryan plan, which only slow growth of government (and not by much…)
No matter which of the two you chose, this is going to get worse. The only candidate who has put out a plan (and neither Romney nor Obama have said a peep on what they would do about it…) is Gary Johnson, and it’s a good one.
Obama? Disastrous. Romney? The establishment wants this guy way to badly and are willing to cheat to get him. That suggests the same lack of regard for rule of law we’re already seeing with the current bunch.
How about a guy that did a fantastic job in my state, actually believes in leaving people the hell alone, and being a responsible steward of the People’s money?
For you Ron Paul people, this is the guy who represents you.
I’m hearing the usual “A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama” nonsense from Republicans desperate (as I am) to be rid of our would-be emperor. My response is simple: if the Republican party did half of what it claimed it stood for, economically, I would vote for them. Here’s the problem: you have a guy who created a socialist, statist health program and a guy who voted for eery big ticket POS bill the GOP had during the Bush administration.
I wouldn’t trust them with a nickel.
Is Obama worse? Abso-fucking-lutely: he’s murdering people via drone without due process. His Justice Department is a hotbed of racism, where no black man shall be punished for his deeds. He has passed onerous, blatantly unconstitutional laws like the NDAA, which allows for military policing of the nation and the indefinite detention of people arrested in the US without due process. (I’ve already written on this.) He’s bankrupting the country with idiotic spending sprees — a response to economic depression that even the original American Keynesian, Henry Morganthau (FDR’s Treasury Secretary famously said “didn’t work” in 1937) — but hey! his campaign donors got to raid the treasury without consequence. He’s cut the ability of the nation to produce its own fuel (oil, coal) and has precipitated one of the longest recession/depressions in recent history. His foreign floundering has honked off most of our allies. His meddling in the Middle East has seen an expansion of radical Islam in Egypt and Libya. His Justice Department has broken US, Mexican, and international law and lead to the deaths of at least dozens of Mexican citizens and a few of our own Border Patrol agents.
He needs to go. But Romney is not real choice. He and the rest of the federal government smell the money Obamacare will allow them to “repurpose” and they will not repeal it. He will increase spending so the GOP cronies in the military arms industry can continue their run on the treasury (something Obama has not stopped.)
You can vote for Obamney and continue this slide into statism and national bankruptcy (Even Ryan’s “plan” doesn’t fix the budget problems until 2045. The bankers will be most pleased.) or you can vote for someone who might just be able to negotiate his way through the Washington nonsense to fix things. So I’m voting for Johnson. Not against Obama. Not against Romney. I’m voting for my ideals. I’m voting for the best candidate, not the one most likely to win. Even if he loses, my vote is worth more “wasted” than wasted on terrible choices.
Here’s the governor:
It’s not much, but it could make him a hell of a spoiler this year, depending on where he’s pulling his support from, which — having some idea of Johnson’s cross-party popularity — could be just as bad for Democrats as Republicans. If the Ron Paul fans were smart, they’d jump to Johnson…with their support, he could make that 15% polling necessary to get him on the debate stage, where he could force Obamney to explain their policies (or lack of…)
He was a fantastic governor, effectively joining the parties to make hard choices on fiscal responsibility in one of the most corrupt and dysfunctional states in the Union. He is, quite possibly, the best presidential candidate running in decades.