Awhile ago I signed up for Rep. Frank Wolf’s (10th District VA) email newsletter. I used to support this guy. Today I received an email that perfectly represents why I no longer support him. As a libertarian leaning conservative I take offense to more government spending. When the government spends what it doesn’t have, as it has been doing for many years now we suffer. It is this kind of behavior that helped give us the economic calamity we are now facing.
Frank Wolf is trying to have his cake and eat it too. In the very same email he advocates cutting spending and using those cuts for more spending. He, like many other elected officials, is trying to gain support for the projects he feels are most important. He advocates moving money from one area in to another, rather than actually cutting spending. It’s obvious to this 10th district voter he doesn’t really care about curbing spending overall. He puts a few good key words in this statement but in the end he’s not really advocating cutting anything. Here is the relevant quote:
Although we have been successful in raising awareness of the need for a strong STEM workforce and in authorizing innovative programs, we now face a serious challenge in funding these initiatives. As you will read, I believe that we must rein in explosive mandatory spending in order to ensure sufficient funding is available for this critical competitiveness initiative, among other programs. (Source: Wolf Email)
I don’t care how “good” the programs may or may not be. The point is Congressman Wolf is NOT interested in cutting spending. He’s only interested in continuing the budgeting shell game of typical establishment DC politicians. We need to replace him with someone with a fresh perspective on spending and government programs. Someone who will actually practice what he preaches. That person is Vern McKinley who is challenging him in the Republican Primary on June 10th in Virginia’s 10th District.
Ron Paul, following his 16% finish in Pennsylvania’s Republican Primary, seems to be headed for a similar finish in Oregon. With 38% of the precincts reporting Paul has 14% of the vote. Oregon is a closed primary and it looks like Ron Paul will be able to claim some delegates from Oregon if the numbers hold up.
And no I’m not saying he’s headed for the GOP nomination. This just shows that there is certainly a foundation for a potential freedom movement. Only time will tell if the foundation grows into something special. After all, in Kentucky today Ron Paul received 7% of the vote and was beat by dropout Huckabee. “Uncommitted” had 5%, about 3,000 votes less than Paul.
Three recent cases illustrate the ever downward spiraling psyche of responsibility in America. Perhaps, just this once, I’ll let the cases speak for themselves. Make your own judgments about them and comment if you feel the need.
Case 1:
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) — A Missouri mom was indicted Thursday for her alleged role in the death of a teen who killed herself over a failed Internet romance that turned out to be a hoax.
A federal indictment accuses Lori Drew, 49, of O’Fallon, Missouri, of using the social networking Web site MySpace.com to pose as a 16-year-old boy and feign romantic interest in the girl.
The girl, Megan Meier, committed suicide after her online love interest spurned her, according to prosecutors, telling her the world would be a better place without her.
Drew faces up to 20 years in prison on charges of conspiracy and accessing protected computers to obtain information to inflict emotional distress. (Source: CNN)
Case 2:
WAYNE, N.J. — A New Jersey couple, whose son was struck in the chest with a line drive, is planning to sue the maker of a metal baseball bat used in the game.
Two years ago, Steven Domalewski was pitching when the ball slammed into his chest and stopped his heart. He was resuscitated but now has brain damage and is severely disabled.
The family contends metal baseball bats are inherently unsafe for youth games because the ball comes off them much faster than from wooden bats. The lawsuit will also be filed against Little League Baseball and a sporting goods chain that sold the bat. (Source: FOX News)
Case 3:
WASHINGTON – Close your eyes, reach into your wallet and try to distinguish between a $1 bill and a $5 bill. Impossible? It’s also discriminatory, a federal appeals court says.
Since all paper money feels pretty much the same, the government is denying blind people meaningful access to the currency, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday. The decision could force the Treasury Department to make bills of different sizes or print them with raised markings or other distinguishing features. (Source: AP via Yahoo News)
In his latest article about Ron Paul, Doug Wead goes inside the minds of Ron Paul’s opponents and tells us all what they are thinking. As usual for Wead, it is an excellent read.
Here it is, the one Ron Paul You Tube that captures it all, Mike Huckabee’s innocence, Mitt Romney’s regret and John McCain’s cynicism. Here are all the dynamics that have made the Republican nomination process for this 2008 cycle a fascinating exercise in futility.
The cast:
Of course there is Ron Paul himself, incredulous at the irrelevant, tactical conversations swirling around him when the grand strategic policies upon which those conversations are built is virtually ignored. It is as if we are all in Alice and Wonderland. He is speaking truth and no one else on the panel, including the media hosts – especially the media hosts – seem to get it.
Thank God for the spontaneous audience outbursts of applause for Ron Paul. That’s what helps me keep my bearings and realize that I am not losing it in my old age. Having been a shill in practice debates for George Herbert Walker Bush, I know full well how the tickets are apportioned at these events and I can tell you that a good hunk of those applauding Congressman Paul are actually McCain-Romney supporters. They just can’t resist applauding arguments that make sense, even if the comments are coming from the opposition. You can be sure, based on the previous debates, that all of them have been given strict instructions, “Now whatever you do, don’t applaud Ron Paul.” And still they can’t control it.
Also please note that “Doug Wead is a presidential historian and New York Times bestselling author. He has been an advisor to two American presidents and served in the White House as special assistant to the president under George Herbert Walker Bush.”
Here is an excellent interview with Bob Barr in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review dated May 17th, 2008. I naturally include the portion of the interview where Barr is asked about Ron Paul below.
Q: Ron Paul’s run as a libertarian Republican earned his ideas a lot of free media time. He attracted a surprisingly strong Internet following, especially by the young, and he raised lots of money. Did Congressman Paul’s relative success encourage you in any way?
A: It certainly encourages us. It indicates that there is a significant reservoir of both participatory and financial support for a libertarian message. I think Ron Paul provides a road map — not the only one — as how to successfully tap into those resources out there. The young people, particularly, the use of the Internet to organize and raise money I think provide very valuable lessons that we intend to use.
Q: Ron Paul’s initial success came because his stand against the war on Iraq in the early debates attracted a lot of attention to him. Nobody knew who he was, and then all of a sudden Ron Paul became a hero. Then people seemed to like his message of limited government and weaker government and lower taxes. Does that make sense to you?
A: It does. Even though the Iraq issue was one that caught people’s attention, it simply caused them to take a harder look at Ron and recognize that there actually are a number of issues that he is very adept at and very knowledgeable about, even though it was Iraq that caught their attention. His notion of the artificiality of the current economic situation; his focus, occasionally, on the massive trade deficits that we run, and the investment and borrowing from foreign nations that’s mortgaging our future and reducing our influence abroad — these are very complex, very substantive issues that Ron would talk about.I think it caused people to realize that there really was some substance and real ideas there that need to be addressed far and above just Iraq.
Q: Ron Paul is a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate (1988) and still a favorite son of the LP, I think. Is there any major difference between you and him that libertarians will find unfavorable?
A: I’m not really sure. I’m sure there are differences, but I’ll leave that up to other folks to make the comparison. Ron is a good friend of mine. I knew him very well while in Congress together and I consider him a friend and a mentor.
“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’”
This is decidedly a Ron Paul like statement from Obama and I applaud him for making it. Naturally, John McCain attacked him for it.
A video clip of Obama making the comments was distributed Monday by McCain’s campaign.
McCain listed the dangers he sees from Iran: It provides deadly explosive devices used to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq, sponsors terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and is committed to the destruction of Israel.
“The threat the government of Iran poses is anything but tiny,” McCain said.
I’m confused. I thought John McCain was running for President of the United States, not Israel? If we would just bring the troops home from Iraq and declare victory for having ousted Saddam Hussein the Iranians would have no Americans to attack in their backyard. We make it easy for them. We meddled in Iraq and now the repercussions are coming back to bite us. Unless we switch to a Ron Paul style non-interventionist foreign policy the biting will continue.
Every day that goes by cements my disapproval for John McCain. Of course, I’d never vote for Obama because of his socialist economic policies, but the chances of my vote going for McCain are equally nil. Thank gods, there will be a Libertarian candidate on the ballot for me to support. I hope it’s Bob Barr.
Civil Libertarianism – a strain of political thought that emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority.
Some ardent libertarian minded Ron Paul enthusiasts have chosen to not support Bob Barr in his effort to attain the Libertarian nomination for President. For the most part this seems to be about a lack of trust. Comparing every candidate to Ron Paul is like comparing an HDTV signal to a standard definition signal. No matter how much you fiddle about with the TV settings the picture will never look as rosy, crystal clear, and 3D-like as Ron Paul. I respect those purist Ron Paul supporters, but give Barr a break.
It is certainly true that Barr has a bit of a checkered past. Assuming he gets the Libertarian nomination (which is apparently not a foregone conclusion), he will be on the ballot. Ron Paul will not. On the issues in 2008 Bob Barr and Ron Paul are twins. Not many will argue that. The arguments are all about Barr’s congressional voting history and the fact that he once worked for the CIA. I can understand those that point to his voting history on such gems as the Patriot Act and the Iraq war authorization. Not supporting Barr solely because he once worked for the CIA befuddles me. That is merely reaching for an excuse.
I regularly entreat or is it beg? the lucky people on my Facebook contact list to take a gander at my Antiwar-themed Freedom articles and reply with their thoughts. You could say that it’s a random cross-section of Americans mostly in their late-twenties. What happens? Usually I receive no reply of any sort. I recently published a ‘shocking’ expose of Rumsfeld wistfully wishing there was another 9/11 terrorist attack to galvanize support for Bush and increase American Military funding. (And I write ‘shocking’ not because of what he said, but the fact that this conversation was recorded and released to the public at the DoD website.) I have more to say, but let me jump to the links before you close this window.
Please entertain yourself by checking out any of the 1- or 2-minute satirical videos from www.TheOnion.com below that center on poking fun at our current Foreign and War Policies. Laugh or Cry, if you have any type of reaction, I would love to listen to your thoughts or comments, which you can certainly add below if you so wish (hint, hint).
A newly released audiotape by the Department of Defense of a December 12th, 2006 Luncheon taped Rumsfeld telling a group of military analysts that the American public needs another 9/11 Attack to wake up. Please listen here at dod.mil and read below, but decide for yourself please. The Huffington Post beat your author to the punch and released an article here as well.
To the clatter and din of dinner knives and forks, Rumsfeld also blathers on about attacking Iran, jokingly infers to a “stroke of lightning” (aka assassination) of Moqtada al-Sadr and that he would reward the killer with a bottle of champagne. Perhaps topping everything is a statement that the US will win the actual military fighting, but can’t win a War of Occupation against guerilla warfare in Iraq, etc., etc.
Liberty Maven
Loading ...
