Liberty Maven

In one of the more interesting exchanges in last night’s GOP Debate on FOX News, Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann found some time to disagree with each other. Without checking on the facts of what each said, one could walk away believing something that was just not true. Which candidate lied? Here is your answer from “FACT CHECK” via the AP:

MICHELE BACHMANN: “We have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said literally Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that (a nuclear) weapon.”
RON PAUL: “There is no U.N. report that said that. It’s totally wrong, what you just said.”
Bachmann: “It’s the IAEA report.”
THE FACTS: As Paul said, the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency does not state that Iran is within months of having nuclear arms. The U.N. agency report does suggest that Iran conducted secret experiments whose sole purpose is the development of nuclear weapons but did not put a time frame on when Iran might succeed in building a bomb, and it made no final conclusion on Tehran’s intent.
Bachmann also erred by arguing that Iran has “stated they will use it (a nuclear weapon) against the United States.”
Iran vehemently rejects that it is developing a nuclear bomb, let alone that it plans to drop one on the U.S.

Yes, unsurprisingly it was Michelle Bachmann who lied or I guess if you are a supporter of hers, “stretched the truth”. Bachmann also appears to have lied about what is in the Iranian Constitution, claiming it “states unequivocally” to stretch “jihad across the world”. Well, unless the Wikipedia interpretation of the Iranian Constitution is wrong I see no mention of “jihad” or “caliphate”. In fact, it directly mentions foreign policy in section X, saying in part:

Article 152 The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based upon the rejection of all forms of domination, both the exertion of it and submission to it, the preservation of the independence of the country in all respects and its territorial integrity, the defence of the rights of all Muslims, non-alignment with respect to the hegemonic superpowers, and the maintenance of mutually peaceful relations with all non-belligerent States.

There is certainly no “unequivocal” mention of jihad against the world. Hopefully voters will see through Bachmann’s and Santorum’s melodramatic horse-hockey.

Here are all of Ron Paul’s moments in the debate, totaling over 18 minutes:

DONATE TODAY! It’s Tea Party ’11 Money Bomb Time.

I’ve watched Ron Paul over the course of several years, drinking in his comments and positions. At times I actually find myself bored with him because I already know what his answer will be. Of course this also demonstrates just how consistent Paul is. In the ABC GOP debate last night I’m not sure I saw him perform better. I don’t know if I would have said this a year ago, as I tend to be realistic about things, but he could win Iowa. He could win New Hampshire. Hell, he could even be the GOP nominee. I’ll discuss that more in a future article. For now, watch Ron Paul’s answer’s during the debate below and marvel at how he’s transformed himself into a more polished, calm, and charming candidate to go along with his life-long love of liberty.

Quote of the Day: “I have always believed that government had a limited capacity to do good and a virtually infinite capacity to do harm…” — Neil Hamilton, Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom (Source: House of Commons debates, 8 February 1994)

Earlier this year, we thought we’d be willing to trade an increase in the debt ceiling for something of lasting value — like a balanced budget amendment. We now think that’s a strategic mistake.

The real strategic opportunity lies in the debt ceiling itself. As long as we maintain THAT, then nothing else needs to be done to balance the budget.

We’ve started a permanent new campaign to promote this idea called, “Cap the Debt.”

Here’s what I wrote in my first letter to Congress using this new campaign . . . Read More »

Ron Paul is on fire. That is my opinion of his performance in this first GOP debate. Of course, I’m biased. Feel free to make your own judgement after watching the entire debate below. There were a few stellar moments from Ron Paul, including his answer when asked about legalizing drugs, and his answer about being the “Founding Father” of the Tea Party movement regarding Michele Bachmann.

I don’t agree with a lot of what Herman Cain says, but I have to admit he has charisma that will give him a lot of support. Expect the other candidates to start attacking him if his poll numbers go up. I think they will.

Gary Johnson did very well with a few odd moments. If I’m looking at him through social-con or neo-con eyes voting for him would likely be impossible. He did come off as a very honest “make the hard choices” candidate. Sort of like Cain without the charisma.

Pawlenty seems to be channeling John McCain a bit too much and Santorum just comes off as angry. Both seem to be going after the George W. Bush voting block; however small that is these days.

Enjoy the entire debate below.

Marriage is and has long been a cultural, social and wedge issue in American politics. One of the more dramatic turns of defining marriage came in the landmark 1967 Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia in which the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Some forty years later, interracial marriage inspires little debate and has mostly been seen as an acceptable definition of marriage. However, as the twenty-first century dawned and developed, the issue of marriage definition has again come into American politics.

In 1996, President Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA into law. DOMA, which President Obama has recently (and unconstitutionally) declared unconstitutional, said that the United States federal Government recognized marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. It also said that no state would have to recognize the gay marriage of another state. Thus, an Alabama gay couple could not be married in Massachusetts and return home as newlyweds.

In 2008, Californians passed Proposition Eight, a measure barring gays from marrying in the Golden State. The proposition had passed narrowly in the general election and was later struck down by federal judge Vaughn Walker. A similar measure had previously been declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court.

Still, all the talk about how government defines marriage begs another question: should the government define marriage?

In several interviews, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has expressed the idea that “love is bigger than government” and argues that government should recognize civil unions between any two consenting adults and that the term “marriage” should be saved for churches and the private sector.

This is an idea that Libertarians should embrace. Americans have become hung up on the term “marriage”. Still, public opinion poll has showed time and time again that the vast majority of Americans support basic rights for gay and lesbian individuals including legal and sometimes financial benefits. Granting every adult, consenting couple a civil union would allow all citizens the rights they deserve as far as their partners are concerned. Additionally, it would continue the support of separation between church and state.

For too long, the American People have allowed their government to define what is and what is not marriage. A couple who love each other shouldn’t need the State’s permission to bind themselves legally and equivalently together. Civil Unions would grant equality to law abiding citizens and would promote freedom for all individuals regardless of their political, professional or marital positions.

Once again Jim DeMint and Ron Paul have formed a coalition. They have worked hard on getting a full Federal Reserve audit and share many commonalities on economic issues. Now they come together for a campaign fund raiser for Ron Paul’s son, Rand Paul in Kentucky. Hmmm I wonder if DeMint and Ron Paul discussed any plans of forming another coalition for 2012 as suggested in our recent poll.

The local media focused on the small number of protesters at the event rather than the event itself.

In less than one hour from the time of this writing, Rand Paul and Jack Conway will appear together with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday for a nationally televised debate. The debate has no rules and will comprise the first half-hour of the show. It airs at 9am Eastern on most local Fox affiliates. The latest polls still show Rand Paul with a lead in the race.

Just about now you, as an American voter, are reaching critical political mass. Pummeled by incessant TV, radio, and newspaper ads, and deluged by dinnertime taped phone calls you want to kill the next person who brings up the election.

Then, again, you may have crossed over into that Zombieland of voting in which you can’t seem to get enough of the heady stuff. While the former state is normal, here’s how to tell if you’ve really had too much politics for the season and are badly in need of a vacation or at least electroshock therapy:

1) You know Sarah Palin’s dog’s favorite color.
2) You can recite the Hatch Act from memory.
3) You call polling companies and beg to be polled.
4) You can’t wait for TV shows to end so you can start enjoying the campaign commercials.
5) You’ve come to believe that Rand Paul is a type of gold coin.
6) You can spell Ben Bernanke’s name forward AND backwards.
7) Your shirt has color-coded campaign buttons with Republicans on the right side, Democrats on the left, and Libertarians down the middle.
You agree with every political view no matter who holds it yet become irritated when someone refuses to have an opinion.
9) Your Favorites menu on your computer browser is full of campaign websites.
10) You can’t be reached on the Internet because your e-mail account is glutted with campaign spam.
11) You’ve got a space reserved in front of the early voting place so that you can get there before midnight.
12) You’ve got a tattoo of your favorite candidate on your shoulder and you were the tattoo artist.
13) You’ve painted half your car red and the other half blue.
14) You invite campaign flyer distributors into your house for coffee and cookies and to have a heart-to-heart.
15) You’ve removed the heads from your bobblehead collection and replaced them with leading candidates.
16) You straighten up campaign signs at intersections.
17) Your alarm clock has campaign ads to awaken you.
18) You call radio talk shows just to hear them breathe.
19) Instead of Fantasy Football, you play Fantasy Politics.
20) Your friends avoid you because all you want to talk about is the latest polling numbers.
21) When you dream, it’s of filling out your ballot.
22) Your iPod is full of recorded campaign speeches.
23) You’re disappointed when, after the phone rings, it’s only your mother calling and not a pre-recorded message from a local candidate.
24) You burned out your TIVO recording late-night political shows.
25) Your car has so many campaign stickers on it, it makes two miles less per gallon.

This looks like fun. There’s a pretty cool new iPhone app that liberty-lovers can use to help “educate” the government-loving statists out there. Maybe you can even debate well enough to get them to see that the Constitution should apply in all cases rather than only when it is convenient.

Here are the details from the VingTalk Press Release:

ParTea America gives you the opportunity to debate friends or your political arch-nemesis during this political season

(September XX, 2010) LOS ANGELES – Argue politics and debate the critical issues affecting your community and nation with the ParTea America iPhone and iTouch Application. ParTea America brings the Battle to Politics and is available RIGHT NOW in the AppStore and iTunes. ParTea America is brought to you by VingTalk Inc.

Sign in and start a new battle. Record your opinion and argue back and forth with a friend or rival! Listen to other public battles and leave text or voice comments. Cast your vote for the best ideas, debates and arguments.

Any number of recordings may be added to the battle at anytime – allowing for an infinite amount of retorts and responses between the two users. The best battles are then selected for the Featured Section of the application.

ParTea America is available for FREE for a limited time through iTunes and the iPhone App Store. Go to: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/partea/id389300035?mt=8 or search ‘ParTea’.

Recently, Martin Heinrich, the man who purports to represent me and the rest of my New Mexico district in the House of Representatives, refused to debate his Republican challenger Jon Barela on KOAT-TV. In this case, Mr. Heinrich was trying to confine the debate to questions he could honestly answer, which these days seems to be limited to his name and age.

This is rather typical of New Mexico’s Democrat politicians and from what I read on Liberty Maven, the Internet, and in newspapers, about what you can expect of them wherever you live in our wonderful country. While adroit at stabbing us in the back with every tax and regulation they dream up, darn if you can find them whenever you want them to explain their actions.

So if your congressional representative is like Mr. Heinrich (and he or she can be of either party as I see them these days), may I proffer a few questions you might ask if you suddenly run into yours in a restaurant, an elevator, or an airport candy shop:

Why did you pass Obamacare without reading it (and if you say you read it, why did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi say “it had to be passed to see what was in it”)?

Why, under  Obamacare, after being told Americans could keep the insurance they like, are seniors being forced to switch Medicare prescription coverage because the federal government is eliminating choices for them?

Why did you lie to us about the real cost of Obamacare which changes with every CBO report?

Why did you pass a near-trillion dollar stimulus package that, instead of being used to create jobs, has been used to prop up bloated governments across the country?

Why, before the stimulus was passed, were we promised, cross-my-heart-or-hope-to-die, that unemployment would absolutely, positively stop at eight percent?

Why have U.S. tax dollars (actually, more American debt on our children’s backs) been used to rebuild Islamic mosques in foreign countries?

Why is the Justice Department being used as a political truncheon to harass and silence any state or person who disagrees with the Obama administration?

Why do you even want to consider passing job-killing cap-and-trade legislation?

And, finally, Mr. Representative-who-I-never-ever-see-in-this-state-unless-you’re-running-for-re-election, could you please explain to me how trillion dollar deficits are going to help this country?

Remember these simple queries, my friends, because running into elected officials by accident may be the only way we ever come into contact with the gods of Washington.

Like many free Americans who want to stay that way, I was at a Tea Party rally on April 15th. I’m not a card-carrying member of that group but I agree with them wholeheartedly on the bad direction this country is taking under the Obama regime. So I picked a spot on the sidewalk on Menaul Boulevard at 4 in the afternoon, brandished my sign, yelled a bit, waved a bit, and said what had to be said. For the most part, the event was very, very peaceful except for a young lady who stopped at the light and tried to share the water she had with her in her environmentally-friendly and recyclable water bottle. I was deeply dismayed for it appeared she was far more in need of a shower than any of us.

But it is the difference between conservatives and those on the Left that we tend not to make horse’s rear ends of ourselves at rallies and protests. I don’t think I’ve ever read of a single conservative riot, no angry mobs of grown-ups running down the street overturning cars, setting fire to buildings, breaking windows, pillaging, and looting. But every time I see rallies on the Left, there they are obstructing traffic, breaking things, making their presence known through obscene gestures and foul language. None of that was in evidence at this day’s Tea Party protest.

We voiced our opinions on Mr. Obama, federal spending, politicians who won’t listen to us, liberty, freedom, the Constitution, you name it, we wrote it on out signs and discussed it with one another as the time passed. A finer group of people I could never find myself around. Thoughtful, opinionated, and, most importantly, intelligent.

We came, we made our point, and if the powers that be still won’t take notice of what we have to say, they’ll hear from us again this November.