Earlier, I wrote of his bill to give the president the power to shutdown the Internet in the event of a “cyber-attack”. Here he attempts to assuage the public by crying, but “it’s for national security!”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1caZvxMUWk

And yes… the climax of his argument is that having the power to shutdown the Internet has worked so well for China that it should be done in the United States.

Joe, if you like China so much, just go there and leave us freedom-lovers the hell alone.

A new U.S. Senate bill would grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or shut down portions of the Internet.

I wish this surprised me. I wish I didn’t just nod and say, “of course”, when I read this.

It appears that  “national security” ranks right up there with the Constitution’s Commerce Clause as the top two excuses given by the U.S. government to bend you over and forcibly extract freedom from your nether-region.

Apparently, our elected masters aren’t happy with just killing humans in no-win wars. Now they want to be able to “kill” the Internet, whatever that means.

The idea of an Internet “kill switch” that the president could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to “declare a cybersecurity emergency,” and another from senators Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to “order the disconnection” of certain networks or Web sites.

How can anyone support something like this? Apparently it’s something to “laud” and “commend”.

On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman’s bill, which is formally titled the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said “I commend” the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up as a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that “we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber resources.”

I’d much rather our lawmakers laud, commend, and follow the Constitution. You know, that document that they swore an oath to defend, but apparently is now so dangerous that it must come with a warning label.

I hope for a timely mass awakening before the alarm clock sounds signifying the end of freedom. Remember, there is no snooze button on this alarm clock.

When lawmakers think it is perfectly fine to propose liberty-sucking bills such as this isn’t it time to realize that they firmly believe this is their world and we just live in it?

Make no mistake. It is not us and them.

It is us or them.

The strategy is threefold: nullify, repeal, and vote them out.

Originally published February 12, 2010 at http://towneforcongress.com/economy/open-letter-to-congressman-charlie-dent-on-hr-4061-the-cybersecurity-enhancement-act-of-2009-1

Dear Congressman Dent,

A fellow citizen contacted me this morning concerning your recent vote to approve the spending of $503 million in HR 4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009, last week with a 422-5 vote. This individual was distraught that Congress intends in the future to restrict the freedom of the internet, and after further review I believe her concerns are not unwarranted.

This $503 million-dollar bill enlarges and expands the funding of the existing Cyber Security Research and Development program in a time where overspending is a key concern. Section 105 tags $395 million for ‘Computer and Network Security Research Grants’ for the building of new buildings and research grants dedicated to subsidizing education and post-doctoral research. Another $108 million is tagged in Section 107 for the ‘Federal Cyber Scholarship for Service’ program which doles out free tuition in exchange for requiring recipients to work for the federal government.

HR 4061 copies section 11 and 12 of the highly controversial S 773 bill sponsored by Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. This draconian bill, in section 18, gives broad executive power to the President to “declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network.” I see HR 4061 as part of a slow, stepwise progression to the possible licensing, regulation, seizure, and censuring of the internet.

Another HR 4061 supporter, Congressman Arcuri stated, “Investing in cybersecurity is the Manhattan Project of our generation, but this time around we are facing far greater threat.” However, this bill has nothing to do with NSA or military encryption; the subsidizing of spread-the-work schemes to place restrictions and cybersecurity on the internet is hardly a comparable threat to, say, a collapse in the dollar currency or the blowback from our ineffective interventionist foreign policy where 5,362 American troops have died in over 8 years in “nation-building” wars of occupation intermingled with the tribal warfare of three countries.

While Congress and yourself blindly continue the wars and pay the dollar threat no heed, I am not amused by your recent votes to waste Congress’s time with meaningless resolutions like H.Res. 784, the 2560th anniversary of Confucius’s birthday, H.Res. 1020, the 95th anniversary of the signing of the Rocky Mountain National Park Act, and let’s not forget your recent tanning salon bill.  A far better use of your time, for example, would be spent revoking unconstitutional legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act (which you have voted FOR) which authorizes the federal government to commit warrantless searches and seizures against any citizen among many more civil liberty violations.

As you have made no public statement on your website or elsewhere to my knowledge on HR 4061, let me list the points which I would appreciate your response, as my public servant, to.  Once I am elected to replace you, I will remedy this situation with the novel-yet-simple “Our Open Office” plan for transparent and accountable government, an idea you ignored last summer.

1. There is no basis in the United States Constitution that delegates power to yourself to approve HR 4061.  As you swore an oath to support the Constitution, please cite and defend the constitutionality of HR 4061.
2. Cybersecurity spending has been increased to $503 million from prior years. Please defend the increase in spending you have authorized here, remembering to include tangible benefits to the public from the funds spent in previous years.  I suggest listing past departmental reports, as I have been unable to locate them, nor were they cited in the bill. Obviously, every time the government spends, it taxes the citizens.
3. Will you support, now or at any time in the future, the unconstitutional granting of powers to the President or any governmental body to declare a “cybersecurity” emergency and limit, restrict, or license internet access? From my time spent abroad, it is blatantly obvious that a free and open society cannot exist under such tyranny. Please reread the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which states ”Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
4. While the May 2009 Cyberspace Policy Review claims that “hundreds of millions of dollars” have been stolen from the government, but there are no further details provided. Obviously, these criminals should be prosecuted in a court of law, but this obviously brings up the questions such as what corrective actions have been taken on the prior thefts? I doubt expanding a bureaucracy with more “hundreds of millions of dollars” and subsidizing cybersecurity students and research will prove to be an effective solution. As a member of the House, please procure these details on citizens’ tax dollars being stolen.
5. Not to be flippant, but speaking of theft from the people, do you have any idea yet what the Federal Reserve did with over $2 trillion dollars in unapproved, off-balance sheet transactions during the Banker Bailout (which you DID approve) in 2008 yet? I would support the creation of a congressional committee to audit and achieve a smooth transition period before abolishing America’s third failed central bank fiasco. The cost and future savings of such a committee is a more productive use of time than throwing $503 million dollars down a black hole. Plus, since most of dollars are electronic and not backed by anything (even scraps of linen) restoring fully-backed, constitutional sound money will eliminate a massive existing cybersecurity threat – which is that the government, Federal Reserve, and other malicious parties are actively devaluing the currency by creating dollars out of thin air.

As seen by the utter failures of economic central planning, Congress’s attempts to institute centralized cybersecurity will also eventually fail, but probably not before taxing and hampering the liberties of each American. Government should strive to provide full transparency and accountability to the people - not act like an Orwellian Big Brother.

Last year, the Director of the National Cybersecurity Center, Rod Beckstrom, resigned citing that government cybersecurity was “effectively controlled” by the National Security Agency. In his resignation letter, he stated “the threats to our democratic process are significant if all top level government network security and monitoring is handled by any one organization (either directly or indirectly.)”

The idea of access to all government data controlled by a single spy agency is disturbing and since the mission of the NSA remains to “dominate global cryptology” and “secure national security systems” these two bureaucracies are in conflict with their opposing missions. Billions of dollars spent on intelligence did not prevent the 9/11 attacks, and to assume that blindly spending billions more on new buildings, research and tuition subsidies will improve cybersecurity is incredibly naive. Instead, Congress needs to reevaluate checks and balances, reduce redundancies, and eliminate entire agencies, especially in the spy community.

The federal subsidizing of the cybersecurity industry is completely unnecessary – private companies will react to hacker threats to their business by employing workers or outsourcing to other firms to provide data security. Without any impetus from government, this industry already exists, and if the government needs to hire employees for data security, well, we have about 20% unemployment in our country due to government interventions, so finding professionals will not be difficult. (By the way, you can fix the whole unemployment mess almost overnight by following my recommendations here.)

However, perhaps a better question is why the government would be keeping private and secret information on individuals who have committed no criminal acts in the first place.

Your fellow citizen,

Jake Towne

February 12, 2010

P.S. -  While your comments clarified our severe differences on government spending and the threat of a dollar collapse, thank you for answering this question last year.  I remain highly concerned that your approval of the Banker Bailout of 2008, by your inaction to salvage the dollar currency, and by your Big Government spending during the past decade in Congress, you have played an unwitting role in the eventual and likely demise of our monetary system.

I have yet to receive any reply to my offer to debate from November 2009.

I have yet to receive any reply to the Open Letter addressed to you on September 4, 2009, where I requested you to explain why you voted for HR 2749 which would, in my opinion, serve only to extend the government-sponsored cartelization of over our food supply.

I have yet to receive any reply to the Open Letter addressed to you on August 9, 2009, where I pointed out that health care legislation you support will have the same end effect as the current Democratic plan.

I have yet to receive any reply to the Open Letter addressed to you on July 21st, 2009, asking why you voted to give away $50 Billion in foreign aid, including $2 billion in military aid to Israel.  I believe almost everyone in our district would agree with me that spending our tax dollars domestically would be better than frittering away them on economic and military aid abroad.

I have yet to receive any reply to the Open Letter addressed to you on July 7th, 2009, in regards to your thoughts on sponsoring a bill that would require Congress to read the bills before voting to pass them.

I have yet to receive any reply to the Open Letter addressed to you on June 26th, 2009, in regards to your thoughts on sponsoring a bill that would require Congress to only pass bills that address just ‘One Subject at a Time.’

On June 4th, I sent you a note concerning the constitutionality of using of taxpayer funds on the nation’s health care and asked a simple question in regards to HR 2516, the Medical Rights Act, a bill you co-signed. Could you please reply to this question?

On May 7th, I sent you a note requesting your thoughts on the Federal Reserve (specifically whether you would support abolishing it, and if not, why) and our nation’s monetary policy.

Pledge to donate now! Then be sure to DONATE on August 20th.

Yesterday a new scientific poll was released showing that Rand Paul trails the establishment GOP candidate by only 11 percentage points. Rand showed up with 26% to Trey Grayson’s 37%. This is a very strong showing for an anti-establishment candidate challenging a career politician. There are still 9 months to go before the May 2010 GOP primary in Kentucky. This poll proves the viability of Paul. Grayson now has to prepare himself for a dogfight. A lot can happen in 9 months.

Here is our short interview with Rand Paul from earlier this week.

LM: Starting off with a bit of a personal question, what was it like growing up in the Ron Paul household? Was he as strict with his children as he is with following the Constitution?

Rand Paul: All the kids were into sports. My older brother was a nationally ranked swimmer and my younger brother played baseball in college. I swam for a non-scholarship program at Baylor. My earliest memories are of discussing politics with my father’s friends. I always gravitated to the adult conversation.

LM: Who is your favorite Founding Father and why?

Rand Paul: Jefferson. Of all the founders, he seemed to be able to articulate the message of liberty and limited government best. Like many of us he was imperfect and I wish he had been more committed to liberty for all without regard to race. Jefferson also, was personally not so fiscally sound with his own finances. While I am repelled by Adams support for the Alien and Sedition Acts, I do admire his New England work ethic and personal frugality.

LM: Who is your favorite American President and why?

Rand Paul: same (as above)

LM: You’ve mentioned that you support term limits in recent interviews. Does this mean you support a Constitutional amendment to institute term limits or are you of the opinion that term limits should be a personal decision for each office holder? If you get elected, how many terms will you serve?

Rand Paul: I support both a Constitutional amendment and/or legislation if it could be done Constitutionally. Voluntary term limits have not worked because the good Congressmen kept the pledge and went home and the creeps broke their pledges and stayed. Also, only a very small percentage, maybe ten to fifteen, ever were elected with a voluntary pledge.

LM: Health care reform is the latest fight on Capitol Hill. Recently, the Obama administration has modified its position a bit on the “public option” by suggesting they’d be open to non-profit health insurance cooperatives. Is this compromise something you could vote for as a Senator?

Rand Paul: No

LM: Why or why not?

Rand Paul: I am opposed to the government deciding what kind of insurance policies are legal. I have a Health Savings Account, presumably this policy will not be approved by the government coop.

LM: What can you say to your potential constituents to ease their minds about the potential for Washington corrupting you as it has done to so many in the past?

Rand Paul: I am not a career politician. I will vote against pork barrel spending and happily return to my job as a physician if the electorate tires of that stance.

LM: On your web site’s issues page, you have some very strong words favoring gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. Would you vote for any kind of restriction on guns such as trigger locks, waiting periods, background checks, or closing the “gun loophole”?

Rand Paul: No

LM: Are you a gun owner?

Rand Paul: Yes.

LM: Your father has signed on to a bill (HR.2267) sponsored by Barney Frank. This bill, in essence, makes online poker legal, but regulates/licenses it at the federal level. Do you support such bills? What is your view on this bill and Internet regulation in general?

Rand Paul: I am opposed to Federal regulation or taxation of the Internet.

————–

If you are a liberty-loving American supporting Rand Paul truly is a no-brainer. With the publication of this interview we at Liberty Maven officially endorse his candidacy in the 2010 Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky.

With a little luck and a lot of money (please donate to his campaign!) we hope to be endorsing him in the general election this time next year.

But given the overreaching federal government we currently have, there have been numerous attempts to limit and/or ban the playing of the game, whether it be live or over the Internet.  Often, such bills are passed by slipping them into “must-pass” bills, like when the UIGEA was snuck into the otherwise unrelated SAFE Port Act at the last minute.

In response, the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) was created.  And several high-profile players, for whom I have great respect, such as Howard Lederer, Chris Ferguson, Andy Bloch, and Victor Ramdin got involved by campaigning and testifying in Congress on the subject.  When the PPA was first created, I was happy to join, and I paid to become a registered member.

The main argument that the PPA should be making, from my point of view, is twofold:

1. Poker is  primarily a game of skill, not a game of chance.  Therefore, many of the “gambling” laws (which have language specifically referring to “games of chance”) do not apply.
2. The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority over games adults play, period.  And prohibiting businesses of any kind on moral (or any other) grounds is blatantly unconstitutional and immoral.

The PPA does a great job arguing the first point.  Even some state courts, such as Pennsynvlania and Colorado have agreed.

However, with respect to the second point, the PPA is decidedly not taking a libertarian stance.  Indeed, their main strategy seems to be to cozy up to government and appeal to its instinct for control to convince it to regulate poker instead of banning it, because, heck, a lot of money can be made by doing so.

Indeed, in talking with proponents of the PPA’s approach, the general consensus is that the choice is between prohibition and regulation.  But I don’t see either as a positive choice long-term.  What about freedom?

In elections we often hear about voting for the “lesser of two evils”, and I always remind people that when you do that, you will get evil. Regulation and prohibition are both evil, and neither should be tolerated.

The PPA is basically saying to the government, “It really sucks that you’re sticking your fat nose into a private industry and interfering with our revered pastime.  But to satisfy your hunger for power and control, we will agree to let you regulate and tax us if you agree to keep it legal here.”  From my point of view, the PPA is selling out.

Some will say that that argument really boils down to the age-old libertarian “purist” vs. “pragmatic” viewpoints.  My view is “purist” in that I am not willing to compromise on liberty.  And some say PPA’s view is “pragmatic” because in the real world the government isn’t likely to suddenly become hands-off.

But I disagree that the PPA’s stance is pragmatic, or even smart, and here’s why.  If we push for regulation (which is not a legitimate function of the Federal Government), then we are condoning government’s intrusion into private enterprise.  If we allow them to tax online poker sites, it will only allow the government to become bigger.  That’s the absolute last thing we need.

And everyone knows that once you open the door to regulation, it will never be closed.  I cannot fathom how regulation could net anything truly positive.

I cannot help but to be turned off when I see headlines such as It’s Time to Insist on Placing Online Poker Within the Reach of U.S. Law.  The federal government is not your friend.  It is the enemy here.  Stop inviting them in.

U.S. licensing and regulation of the online poker industry are needed to mandate age and identity verification, to require providing of services and self-exclusion lists for those with excessive gaming habits, and to provide consumer protections. Poker sites comply voluntarily now, but licensing and regulation would give U.S. laws the teeth needed for enforcement. Licensing and regulation would also provide for collection of taxes and licensing fees from sites, as well as income taxes from winning American players. Most importantly, licensing and regulation would move a significant part of the industry onshore, bringing jobs and revenue with it.

Online poker sites do not need regulation!  They’ve been doing a fine job regulating themselves over the past decade or so.  Besides, why would anyone think that bureaucrats would do a better job?  Consumer protections? There’s no reason to believe they would “regulate” any better than they have in the financial world.  If we invited them into control us, we’d end up paying through the nose for additional red tape that will have zero positive benefits in the long run.  That’s how it works every time.

Proponents of the PPAs strategy will argue that if we don’t encourage the Feds to regulate, they will move forward with an outright ban.  But then they often say things like:

Even if prohibition were attempted, it would be guaranteed to fail. There are too many motivated poker players who would find ways to play.

Regulators, legislators and financial institutions are all warning that UIGEA is unenforceable.

Indeed, when the UIGEA attempted to make it difficult to fund online poker accounts, motivated players found ways to make it happen.  If a ban would be doomed to failure, why push so hard for the Feds to come in and impose rules and collect taxes?

Here are a few more bullets from proponents of the PPA’s stance:

Only through meaningful regulation, not prohibition, can we ensure fairness of the game, provide protections for children, and provide services for problem gamblers. And if taxed, significant revenue could be raised for federal and state governments without increasing taxes on citizens.

Are we really so worried about the “fairness” of the game right now?  Sure there have been scandals on lesser-known poker sites, but the main sites such as Full Tilt Poker, PokerStars, and others are all audited by third-party services such as BMM International.  And as previously mentioned, the government certainly doesn’t have a very good track record of providing “consumer protection” (nor should it be in the business of doing so).

U.S. licensing and regulation will mandate verification of the ages of the participants. Sites comply voluntarily now, but regulation will give U.S. laws the teeth needed for enforcement. It will also provide protections for those with excessive gaming habits, including mandated use of self-exclusion lists.

Do we really need the nanny state to watch over those who may have a gambling problem?  No, this is just more more of what the government should have no role in.

Licensing and regulation will provide for consumer protections while stimulating the American economy and generating tax revenue and licensing fees.

Stimulating the American economy? There’s certainly not enough room in this article to point out the Keynesian fallacies of stimulating the economy through government action.  Quite simply, it doesn’t work.

U.S. licensing and regulation of online poker will allow American companies to participate in the world’s Internet gaming market, bringing needed business and jobs to America. All a prohibition can do is send U.S. jobs and money abroad.

I agree that prohibition has sent business overseas, and that’s a bad thing.  So we should argue against this travesty, not inviting more government control.  Two wrongs do not make a right.

Here are a few more items from a FAQ by a strong PPA proponent who calls himself TheEngineer:

2. If online poker is regulated, won’t the government just tax us too much?

The way to get taxed too much is to NOT stand up for our rights. After all, U.S. based B&M casinos aren’t going to just watch offshore competition compete against them. Surely they will push for entry into the market, and their typical way in is via promises of tax revenue.

PPA promises revenue too, but that revenue stream is primarily driven by increased business in the U.S. plus improved tax compliance, and is a byproduct of giving us our rights.

First of all, we’re already taxed too much.  How is begging to be regulated standing up for our rights?  What about our right not to be regulated, to be free of government interference?  To “promise tax revenue” is to get involved in dirty politics.  It’s disgusting.

3. Aren’t we better off without government involvement?  Shouldn’t we just stay quiet?

When we followed that strategy, we lost votes in Congress by 317-93 (HR 4411, the bill that became UIGEA) and 90-10 (an earlier Senate vote). Congressmen acted like no one in America supported the right to play.  It’s likely that they heard from only a few Americans who did.  Many poker players feared clear legalization and stayed quiet, hoping things would remain as they were then, IMO.

I have bad news. Things cannot stay as they are today. If they could, sites wouldn’t be funding and lobbying for clear legalization. There is absolutely no way our government will continue to permit offshore sites to offer services in America while barring U.S. based ones from doing the same. Something will give.  If offshore sites continue to serve Americans and poker players remain quiet on purpose, IMO either an effective prohibition will be passed or U.S. based interests will be allowed access.  The status quo is simply unstable.

The reason we can access these sites today is not due to people staying quiet, hoping things will stay the same. Rather, the status quo exists because a bunch of people stood up for their rights, stopping the banners in their tracks.

I recommend we keep telling Congress that we want our rights. Fighting back has let Congress know that many Americans want their freedom. It has also resulted in greatly improved media coverage.

Again, I’m all about telling Congress that we demand our rights.  But playing politics and begging to be controlled in lieu of having a complete ban passed is not the path to freedom.

4. I like things the way they are now.  Why change?

Again, the status quo is unstable. The U.S. simply has no incentive to allow offshore sites to offer online poker while prohibiting onshore sites. Something will have to give. Hopefully it will give in our direction.

There’s really no way U.S. gaming interests will wish for the status quo to continue. They’ll want either a piece of the pie or a real prohibition to stop the competition. If they have to get clear legalization without our help, they may use their tried-and-true model of buying in with excessive taxation. With the grassroots efforts of poker players, we can all fight for this on the basis of Internet freedom, and have tax revenue act as an additional benefit only.

Dirty, disgusting politics.  I, for one, will not fight for regulation, for more government control.  We should be fighting for our rights, yes — for our rights to be free from government meddling.  Internet freedom doesn’t include any form of government regulation.

Regulated, legal online poker beats no (or very limited) online poker, which is what the 317-93 HR 4411 vote told us was coming if we didn’t come up with an alternative. Otherwise, why would a libertarian like Ron Paul cosponsor these bills?

Ron Paul expressed it best when he said regulation is preferable to prohibition. Like Dr. Paul, I prefer no government interference to regulation on general principle, but that’s not the world in which we live.

Ron Paul is about as close to a libertarian as you can get in an elected representative.  But he’s still a politician.  And I vehemently disagree with Dr. Paul’s stance on this.  Supporting government regulation is not a libertarian stance, period.  Even if it’s a more palatable outcome than prohibition, the PPA’s stance is playing with fire.  We should not be condoning government interference, and enabling government’s growth through additional taxation.

So what should the Poker Player Alliance be doing?  It  should be standing up for our right to be free from unconstitutional and immoral taxation and interference by the Federal Government.

There’s no provision in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to be the Moral Police, or control private business in any way.  The PPA should campaign the federal government on these grounds to completely repeal the UIGEA (and replace it with nothing).  To encourage federal regulation would only be reinforcing the fallacy the Feds have the right to do so.

Since some states may choose to regulate, ban, or prosecute poker players, the PPA should then focus its resources on combating these immoral acts, and work to overturn bad laws using the “poker is a game of skill” argument.

I have seen the PPA put up excellent fights against ridiculous  state laws and come to the aid of those who have been caught up in raids on home games, and for this I’m quite appreciative.  But I’m quite disheartedned when I see them get ensnared in the federal government quagmire and push for government intervention into private business as a “solution”.

Below you will discover the Liberty Maven rankings for BJ Lawson on the Paul-O-Meter, where candidates and current lawmakers can be rated on how closely they are in line with Dr. Ron Paul on the issues. To learn about the Paul-O-Meter methodology please see this article. You may also assign your own rankings or request a candidate be added to the system.

Continue reading to see if BJ Lawson truly deserves the moniker “Ron Paul Jr.”

1. Liberty-based Voting Record – Lawson does not have a voting record; therefore per guidelines the score is a 3. Score: 3
2. The Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy – Lawson supports instituting competing currencies, and badmouths the Federal Reserve any chance he gets. He doesn’t advocate abolishing it, like Ron Paul, but does advocate more transparency and accountability. Score: 4
3. Foreign Policy and Iraq – Lawson is a non-interventionist and advocates a safe and immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  Score: 5
4. Taxes – Supports efforts to transition to a point when income taxes are unnecessary. Supports some flavor of consumption tax, but has concerns about the Fair Tax. Score: 4
5. Government Spending – Lawson supports a balanced budget amendment and ending deficit spending. Score: 5
6. Privacy and Civil Liberties – Lawson says “no thanks” to the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Real ID, and FISA just like Ron Paul. Score: 5
7. Immigration – Lawson is against amnesty for illegal aliens and points out that we need to end the welfare/economic incentives that encourage illegal immigration. Score: 5
8. Gun Control and Second Amendment – Lawson is very close to Ron Paul here. He supports the 2nd Amendment and concealed carry laws, but is not completely explicit on ancillary gun control issues like trigger locks, background checks, and waiting periods. Score: 4
9. Internet Regulation – Lawson does not support federally regulating Internet gambling. Lawson has stated that he supports Net Neutrality which is not something Ron Paul supports because he views it as more regulation. Score: 2
10. Adherence To The Constitution – Lawson calls the Constitution the “rule book” for our country. Score: 5
11. Religion vs. Public Policy – Lawson rarely, if ever, invokes religion in his rhetoric and policy positions. Score: 5
12. Environment – Lawson advocates utilizing the court system and property rights as a defense for the environment just like Ron Paul. However, he also favors a Carbon tax which Ron Paul does not support. Score: 4
13. Energy Policy – Lawson supports drilling wherever necessary and also recognizes that it isn’t the only solution. He does not speak out against Nuclear power and suggests we use all means to obtain more energy. Score: 5
14. U.S. Sovereignty – Lawson does not seem to ever mention the NAU, but does mention protecting U.S. sovereignty. That is not good enough to score points though due to the stringent guidelines for this item. UPDATE: We received word from the Lawson campaign that he is 100% opposed to the NAU, therefore we update his score. Score:5
15. War On Drugs – Lawson advocates ending the war on drugs, leaving drug regulation to the states, and pardoning non-violent drug offenders just like Paul. Score: 5
16. Education – Lawson advocates getting rid of the Department of Education and advocates more choice and home schooling. Score: 5
17. Welfare Programs – Lawson advocates gracefully reducing welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He also advocates ending corporate welfare. Score: 5
18. Abortion – Lawson is pro-life and will leave the decision of legalizing or prohibiting abortion to the states per the Constitution. Score: 5
19. Health Care – Lawson is a Ron Paul twin on health care. He is against any nationalized plan and advocates free market approaches and returning medical decisions back to doctors and patients rather than health insurance companies. Score: 5
20. Ability To Spread The Liberty Message – Lawson hands out pocket Constitutions during his campaign events. He is a very visible candidate campaigning throughout his district in North Carolina. There is no questioning his dedication to the liberty message. Score: 5

William “BJ” Lawson’s final Paul-O-Meter Score: 91 out of 99 possible points.

It is hardly surprising that Lawson achieved such a high score. It is certainly safe to say that BJ Lawson can be honestly called “Ron Paul Jr.”. There were a handful of issues where Lawson could score higher, but the information was either not out there or was too difficult to find. NOTE: We have updated Lawson’s score by +5 (giving him a 91 instead of an 86) because his campaign has informed us that he is 100% against the NAU.

Lawson is a Ron Paul supporter’s best bet to get a liberty-loving Constitutionalist into Congress. We should all pretend we live within Lawson’s district and do everything in our power to help get him elected.

If you disagree with our ratings or would like to rate other candidates and lawmakers feel free to do so on the Paul-O-Meter site. All current representatives (both Senate and House) are in the system, as well as many user-submitted candidates running for office throughout America. Each candidate now also has their very own Paul-O-Meter rating page that can be linked to from all around the web.

Sarah Palin In The Land Of McCain's Oz

It is now time to rate the vice presidential candidates on the Paul-O-Meter. We start with John McCain’s VP pick Sarah Palin. The perfect strategic pick for McCain, Palin has little history. She’s been Governor of Alaska for less than two years, but now that McCain’s handlers are pulling Palin’s puppet strings it is difficult to see a difference between the two.

Here we examine Palin on 20 issues to see how she stacks up to Ron Paul. Hopefully this will help some see the lips through the lipstick.

If you’d like to see more ratings or rate Palin or any other candidate or lawmaker head on over to Paul-O-Meter.com and explore the possibilities.

If you want to delve into the question of whether Palin truly is similar to Ron Paul read onward.

1. Liberty-based Voting Record – Palin is a bit wishy washy on her liberty voting record. She supported the infamous “Bridge To Nowhere” first and then changed her position when it became the popular thing to do. She does to a certain extent try to follow the Constitution, for instance she refused to sign a bill from the Alaskan state legislature stating that the Real ID will not be funded in Alaska. She let the signing period expire which ended up making the law pass. So she didn’t exactly stand up for liberty in that case. Score: 3
2. The Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy – Palin hasn’t mentioned this issue thus far. She seems to be taking the same position as McCain so it is hard to tell where she stands on the issue. In any case, she is certainly not like Ron Paul who calls for abolishing the Fed and legalizing competing currencies. Score: 0
3. Foreign Policy and Iraq – Palin has stated several times her support of going into Iraq before even being chosen as VP. She now has adopted John McCain’s foreign policy of intervention, the polar opposite of Ron Paul. Score: 0
4. Taxes – She supported lowering taxes in Alaska, but did raise the sales tax. As VP she’s taken John McCain’s promise to lower taxes on businesses to promote job growth. This is tinkering from a Ron Paul perspective. She does not support repealing the 16th amendment nor a consumption tax. Score: 1
5. Government Spending – She was a champion of curbing spending in Alaska and is continuing the same lines as VP. She hasn’t mentioned reducing the national debt, but has echoed John McCain on earmark reform. Score: 2
6. Privacy and Civil Liberties – Palin is not quite a friend to Privacy and Civil Liberties. She created “FBI Day” in Alaska to “support fighting global crime”. No word from her on FISA or the Patriot Act. Similar to Ron Paul, she has stated that she doesn’t support hate crime. Because she allowed Alaska to vote to not fund the Real ID she deserves at least a point or two. Score: 2
7. Immigration – It’s very difficult to find Palin’s stance on immigration. According to Laura Ingraham though who talked with Palin, she disagrees with McCain on “comprehensive immigration reform” which supports amnesty. If true, she is more like Ron Paul on illegal immigration than John McCain. Score: 3
8. Gun Control and Second Amendment – She is a large advocate of the Second amendment and supporting the repeal of the DC gun ban. Score: 5
9. Internet Regulation – Palin hasn’t stated anything publicly about internet regulation specifically. There is conjecture that she may support Net Neutrality based on other legislative actions, but that is unreliable. She has promised to not expand “gambling” in Alaska saying it is harmful to society so it is certainly probably she would be for UIGEA which virtually bans online gambling. Given the lack of information we must guess at the score. Score: 2
10. Adherence To The Constitution – She has voted against her own personal views in Alaska because the bill was unconstitutional. At least with respect to Alaska and her view on gun rights she seems to be a Constitutionalist. Her statements on privacy and civil liberties, though, call into question her stance on the Fourth Amendment. Score: 3
11. Religion vs. Public Policy – Palin publicly declared that U.S. involvement in the Iraq war was the “will of God”. She also has injected religion into her speeches and statements quite regularly. This is quite opposite to Ron Paul. Score: 0
12. Environment – She has spoken out against John McCain’s “cap and trade” proposal. She has voted against endangered species legislation in Alaska. She seems to be closer to Ron Paul on this issue than John McCain. Score: 4
13. Energy Policy – She is a strong advocate for drilling in ANWR and off the U.S. coastlines. She seems to be right in line with Ron Paul here. Score: 5
14. U.S. Sovereignty – Palin doesn’t seem to have ever mentioned the NAU nor the threat to U.S. Sovereignty. Score: 0
15. War On Drugs – Palin is a drug warrior like McCain. She doesn’t support legalizing medical marijuana. Score: 0
16. Education – She doesn’t support abolishing the Department of Education, but she does support school choice and home schooling. Score: 3
17. Welfare Programs – Palin supports Social Security reform, but is quite short on specifics. It seems she refuses to give a straight answer on this topic. Score: 0
18. Abortion – She is a mirror of Ron Paul on the abortion issue. Score: 5
19. Health Care – She seems to echo Ron Paul on health care. She supports competition and putting decisions back in the hands of doctors, not bureaucrats. Score: 5
20. Ability To Spread The Liberty Message – Palin doesn’t have a liberty message on most topics, revealing that her being a “libertarian” is a complete misnomer. Therefore she doesn’t deserve much of a score here. Score: 1

Sarah Palin’s final Paul-O-Meter Score: 44 out of 99 points.

Those that call Palin “libertarian leaning” are simply mischaracterizing her positions. She’s no libertarian, leaning or otherwise. She is a low fat neo-conservative. She always supported the Iraq War. She is a drug warrior. Obama’s much criticized statement that John McCain in choosing Palin was trying to put “lipstick on a pig” therefore has another meaning. McCain is trying to put “libertarianism” on a “neo-conservative”.

Hopefully, the mindless masses will see what’s behind McCain’s curtain before the end of the movie.

You can get in the action too by rating the candidates using our Paul-O-Meter polling application here.

Listed below is our own ratings for Cynthia McKinney.

1. Liberty-based Voting Record – McKinney has voted in a Ron Paul “way” on three issues: foreign policy, the drug war, and free trade. On almost every other issue she borders on complete socialism. Score: 1
2. The Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy – McKinney would like to “nationalize” the Federal Reserve and “taking the economic middleman out of coinage and currency”. This is the opposite of the free market ideas Ron Paul espouses. Score: 0
3. Foreign Policy and Iraq – McKinney may be more like Ron Paul on this issue than any other candidate. She wants to get our troops out of Iraq, switch to a non-interventionist foreign policy, and remove our troops from bases overseas. Score: 5
4. Taxes – McKinney is very much in favor of a progressive tax system. She would institute new taxes across the board. This is the opposite of the Ron Paul approach. Score: 0
5. Government Spending – McKinney is for dramatically expanding the role of government with numerous new programs to “take care of us.” Again, this is the opposite of the Ron Paul approach. Score: 0
6. Privacy and Civil Liberties – McKinney is pretty close to Ron Paul here but in some cases like same sex marriage she doesn’t support leaving it to the states. She prefers federally recognized marriage. Score: 4
7. Immigration – She supports amnesty and voted against the border fence. Score: 1
8. Gun Control and Second Amendment – McKinney supports all possible and potential gun control laws. This is the opposite of Ron Paul. Score: 0
9. Internet Regulation – McKinney supports Net Neutrality and regulating the Internet. Score: 0
10. Adherence To The Constitution – With all of the new federal programs, taxes, and departments McKinney is pretty far from adhering to the Constitution. Score: 0
11. Religion vs. Public Policy – McKinney is catholic, but never seems to mention it within her rhetoric. She successfully divorces her religion and policy. Score: 5
12. Environment – McKinney is the opposite of Ron Paul here. She supports new government programs to help with global warming and other environment problems. Score: 0
13. Energy Policy – McKinney doesn’t support drilling off of our coasts. She has said, “Leave the oil in the soil.” She wants to regulate energy prices. She is against nuclear energy. This is decidedly not like Ron Paul. Score: 0
14. U.S. Sovereignty – We could not find any statement from McKinney on the NAU or U.S. Sovereignty. Score: 0
15. War On Drugs – McKinney is mostly like Ron Paul here. She wants to end the war on drugs and free non-violent drug offenders, but she doesn’t support just leaving drug enforcement to the states. Score: 4
16. Education – McKinney fully supports the Dept. of Education and federally funding education programs unlike Dr. Paul. Score: 0
17. Welfare Programs – McKinney advocates for increasing many of the federal welfare programs instead of ending them like Ron Paul. Score: 0
18. Abortion – McKinney is pro-choice and is completely the opposite of Ron Paul here. Score: 0
19. Health Care – McKinney supports nationalized health care. Score: 0
20. Ability To Spread The Liberty Message – McKinney doesn’t have a liberty message like that of Ron Paul and furthermore she doesn’t get much media attention at all. Score: 0

Cynthia McKinney’s final Paul-O-Meter score: 20 out of a possible 99 points.

McKinney finished about where we expected. What we found most interesting is how extreme she is on certain issues, almost like she is Barack Obama’s own liberal conscience. Yet she is very much in line with Ron Paul on foreign policy and free trade, and maybe drug policy, but little else.

That concludes our Presidential candidate ratings. Stay tuned for an upcoming article with our own summation of the results of both our own ratings and of your ratings submitted via the Paul-O-Meter web polling application.

You can join in the rating fun by using our web based Paul-O-Meter application here. Feel free to check it out and submit your own ratings for all the Presidential candidates.

Find our own ratings for Ralph Nader below.

1. Liberty-based Voting Record – Nader doesn’t have a voting record so per the guidelines he gets a 3. Score: 3
2. The Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy – Nader wants to reform the Federal Reserve to become more transparent, but he doesn’t support competing currencies nor the gold standard. Score: 2
3. Foreign Policy and Iraq – Nader is quite close to Ron Paul here. He advocates a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and regularly speaks out against a preemptive war strategy. He also advocates for closing military bases overseas. Score: 5
4. Taxes – Nader loves taxes it seems. He advocates for a progressive tax and would like to add a bunch of new taxes to our existing ones. This is nothing like Ron Paul’s anti-tax position. Score: 0
5. Government Spending – Nader is quite opposite from Ron Paul on government spending. He wants to create many new government programs and increase spending domestically. He does however agree with Ron Paul on one thing: Reducing the military budget in many areas, especially overseas. Score: 1
6. Privacy and Civil Liberties – Nader is against Real ID, the Patriot Act, and FISA. He is not for leaving same sex marriage to the states though. Score: 4
7. Immigration – Nader has stated support for specific provisions that could be termed amnesty. He also has said that immigrants do not come here for welfare, which is the opposite of Ron Paul. They do agree on one point though: The border fence is a bad idea. Score: 1
8. Gun Control and Second Amendment – Nader supports the Brady Bill, trigger locks, banning certain weapons, and the strict enforcement of existing gun laws. You can’t get more unlike Ron Paul than that. Score: 0
9. Internet Regulation – Nader has called for instituting a UN like organization for regulating the Internet in an effort to “protect” consumers. Ron Paul’s position could not be further away. Score: 0
10. Adherence To The Constitution – Nader’s new programs rarely meet the Constitutional test. Score: 0
11. Religion vs. Public Policy – Nader rarely if ever mixes religion with his rhetoric and policies. Score: 5
12. Environment – Nader and Paul are on opposing sides on this issue. Nader believes the Kyoto treaty doesn’t go far enough. He supports higher taxes for environmental abusers rather than letting the free market and court system weed polluters out. Score: 0
13. Energy Policy – Nader is against more drilling of our own natural resources. He is also against building more nuclear power plants. Score: 0
14. U.S. Sovereignty – We could find nothing suggesting Nader is against the North American Union nor if he ever even mentioned it. Score: 0
15. War On Drugs – Nader is almost exactly like Ron Paul here. He supports ending the war on drugs, freeing non-violent drug offenders from prison, and decriminalizing marijuana. Unfortunately, he also advocates for new federal programs for prevention so we can only give him a 4. Score: 4
16. Education – Nader supports more federal intervention in education, not less like Ron Paul. Score: 0
17. Welfare Programs – Nader is the opposite of Ron Paul on federal welfare programs. Score: 0
18. Abortion – Nader is pro-choice, unlike Dr. Paul. He is also expressly against leaving abortion to the states. Score: 0
19. Health Care – Nader advocates for a socialized national health care system. Score: 0
20. Ability To Spread The Liberty Message – Nader does not have a proper liberty message equal to Ron Paul, but he does almost own one on a few select issues. He also tends to get an decent share of media attention when compared to the other third party/independent candidates. Score: 1

Ralph Naders final Paul-O-Meter score: 26 out of a possible 99 points

The final rating surprised one of our raters because the score was higher than John McCain’s score of 25. Another one of us thought Nader’s score would be up in the 30′s. As it turns out Ralph Nader is quite supportive of many new government programs and is about as anti-business as they come. In our opinion his policies would be horrible for the one issue that is shaping up to be the most important of this election: the economy. Ralph Nader is no Ron Paul, that is for sure.

Tune in next time when we rate our final Presidential candidate, Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney. We can barely contain our excitement.

It is now Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin’s turn to be spun through the Paul-O-Meter. So far we have rated Barack Obama, John McCain, and Bob Barr. Will Chuck Baldwin beat Bob Barr’s current high score of 88? Read on to find out.

For a detailed description of the Paul-O-Meter look here.

NEW: If you’d like to rate the candidates on the Paul-O-Meter please do so on our Paul-O-Meter user rating application here.

Continue reading to see our ratings for Chuck Baldwin.

1. Liberty-based Voting Record – Baldwin does not have a voting record so by default he gets a 3. Score: 3
2. The Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy – Baldwin wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and has advocated for a return to the gold standard. Baldwin’s Communications Director states that Chuck supports competing currencies. Score has been modified to a 5 (see comments for details). Score:5
3. Foreign Policy and Iraq – Baldwin calls for an immediate return from Iraq and switching to a non-interventionist foreign policy just like Ron Paul. Baldwin’s Communications Director states that Baldwin has advocated for bringing our troops home from military bases stationed overseas. Score has been modified to a 5 (see comments for details). Score:5
4. Taxes – Baldwin is perfectly in line with Ron Paul on tax policy. He wants to repeal the 16th amendment and replace it with nothing. No flat tax and no consumption tax. Score: 5
5. Government Spending – Baldwin is exactly like Ron Paul on government spending. He mentions specific departments he would abolish and continually advocates returning our government to its Constitutionally limited size. Score: 5
6. Privacy and Civil Liberties – Baldwin is identical to Ron Paul here. He is against FISA, Real ID, and the Patriot Act. He would leave the definition of marriage to the states. Score: 5
7. Immigration – Baldwin mimics Ron Paul on this issue. He speaks about removing incentives and lashes out against amnesty. He allows for the possibility of a border fence, but isn’t that keen on the idea. Score: 5
8. Gun Control and Second Amendment – Baldwin echoes Ron Paul here as well just about perfectly. Score: 5
9. Internet Regulation – He is against Net Neutrality and has said he opposes federal regulation of the Internet. However, he was given an ‘F’ by the Poker Player’s Alliance for his stance on online gambling and he was not forthright with his answer in a recent interview about regulating online gambling. Score: 4
10. Adherence To The Constitution – Baldwin speaks regularly of restoring the Constitution and obeying the rule of law. Score: 5
11. Religion vs. Public Policy – Being a member of the Constitution Party it is difficult for Baldwin to score high here. Baldwin being a pastor also doesn’t help. In most of his writings and speeches he mentions religion or relates policy to it. This is unlike Ron Paul. Ron Paul rarely mentions religion on the campaign trail. Score: 1
12. Environment – Baldwin is directly in line with Dr. Paul here. He believes global warming is a cyclical act of nature and he advocates using property rights and the court system to handle environment disputes. Score: 5
13. Energy Policy – Baldwin advocates for drilling in ANWR and off our coastlines. He advocates building more Nuclear Power plants. Score: 5
14. U.S. Sovereignty – Baldwin regularly speaks out against the North American Union and advocates for strong U.S. Sovereignty. Score: 5
15. War On Drugs – Baldwin says we need to “rethink” the war on drugs, but he hasn’t advocated ending it. Instead he suggests sealing the border as the solution to our perceived drug problems. He hasn’t advocated freeing all non-violent drug offenders either. These are not in line with Ron Paul. He has however, suggested that medicinal marijuana use be best regulated by the states. Score: 3
16. Education – Baldwin is perfectly in line with Ron Paul here. He advocates abolishing the Department of Education and advocates for school choice and home schooling. Score: 5
17. Welfare Programs – Baldwin advocates for phasing out of Social Security just like Ron Paul. Score: 5
18. Abortion – Baldwin is a twin of Ron Paul on this issue. Even though he is personally pro-life he would support Ron Paul’s “Sanctity Of LIfe” act which would overturn Roe vs. Wade and leave all abortion regulation to the states. Score: 5
19. Health Care – Baldwin is exactly like Ron Paul here. Wants to leave medical decisions to doctor’s and patients. He does not support any kind of government run national health care system. He wants to restore free market competition to health care. Score: 5
20. Ability To Spread The Liberty Message – Baldwin certainly has a liberty message; however, his ability to spread it by getting coverage on main stream media outlets is severely lacking. Score: 2

Chuck Baldwin’s final Paul-O-Meter Score: 88 out of 99 possible points

It was extremely difficult to find Baldwin’s positions on some of the issues. His new web site doesn’t have an “issues” page and many of his columns do not outline his positions in detail. We were surprised to learn he has not come out as a strong advocate for ending the “war on drugs” like Ron Paul has done. We could have easily given him a 2 on that issue. He has criticized the drug war so that earned him some points there. Likewise, we could have given him a ’0′ or a ’1′ on his ability to spread the liberty message, but he has such a strong message that earned him some points there.

If our readers can point us to direct quotes that refute some of the things we were able to find through our research we will happily adjust the score accordingly. For instance, with monetary policy we could find nothing about Baldwin advocating for competing currencies like Ron Paul. Also, on the foreign policy issue we could not find any direct quotes from Baldwin on removing our troops from our bases stationed overseas. (NOTE: Baldwin’s Communication Director responds to these questions in the comments. We have adjusted his score accordingly.)

Stay tuned for next time when we measure stalwart independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader.

NEW: Now you can submit your own ratings using our new Paul-O-Meter web polling service. Check it out here.

Our rankings for Bob Barr are below.

1. Liberty-based Voting Record – Barr voted for the Patriot Act and for the Iraq War Authorization back in his days in Congress. Those two votes alone should earn him a zero here, however he has denounced those votes and worked towards repealing portions of the Patriot Act almost immediately after passage. Score: 1
2. The Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy – Barr was interviewed on Glenn Beck’s radio show and denounced the Fed and stated that if he could wave a magic wand and make it go away he would. He says nothing of competing currencies like Ron Paul. Score: 4
3. Foreign Policy and Iraq – Barr is virtually identical to Ron Paul on this issue. He advocates for a safe immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and switching to a non-interventionist foreign policy. He also advocates bringing our troops home from South Korea, Europe, and Japan. Score: 5
4. Taxes – Barr advocates radical tax reform similar, but not quite exactly in line with Ron Paul. Barr advocates for repealing the 16th amendment and replacing the income tax with either a low flat tax or perhaps a consumption tax (like the FairTax), but he has made clear he has reservations about a consumption tax. Score: 4
5. Government Spending – Barr is identical to Ron Paul on limiting government spending. He advocates for getting rid of earmarks. He also details federal departments he would phase out or abolish such as the Department Of Education and the Department of Commerce. He always couples his lower taxes rhetoric with also cutting spending. Score: 5
6. Privacy and Civil Liberties – Barr is a Ron Paul twin on this issue. He supports repealing the Patriot Act. He is against the recent FISA bill. He is against the Real ID Act. He is for leaving same-sex marriage to the states. Score: 5
7. Immigration – Barr is against any kind of fence on the border. He is for reducing government incentives for illegal immigrants to come to the U.S. He has a voting record of being against amnesty, but lately he has been non-committal regarding amnesty. Score: 4
8. Gun Control and Second Amendment – Barr is almost perfect on gun rights. He lauded the recent Supreme Court Heller decision and has a very pro-Second amendment voting record. He has wavered though, on a limited number of gun control provisions. Score: 4
9. Internet Regulation – There is not much out there about Barr on this issue, but he has worked with the ACLU on protecting data privacy. He has a record of voting against specific internet regulations.  Due to his record it is likely that he is against Net Neutrality like Ron Paul. Score: 4
10. Adherence To The Constitution – Barr has transformed from a compassionate conservative to a Libertarian. He advocates federalism on issues he personally disagrees with. His continued criticism of the Patriot Act and FISA along with his fight for bringing back habeus corpus suggest he is now identical to Ron Paul on Constitutional issues. Score: 5
11. Religion vs. Public Policy – Barr rarely mixes religion with his politics. He has been critical of those who do. Score: 5
12. Environment – Barr is identical to Ron Paul here. He is skeptical of global warming and advocates utilizing the courts and property rights rather than government regulation to handle environmental disagreements. Score: 5
13. Energy Policy – Barr advocates for allowing drilling both in ANWR and off our coastlines. He is a strong supporter of nuclear power. Score: 5
14. U.S. Sovereignty – Barr spoke out against the potential for the NAU during his interview with Glenn Beck on television. He sounded just like Ron Paul on the issue. Score: 5
15. War On Drugs – Barr has been criticized for his drug warrior past by some Libertarians, however; he now is a strong advocate for ending the war on drugs and decriminalizing marijuana. However, he has only hinted at pardoning non-violent drug prisoners. Score: 4
16. Education – Barr advocates abolishing the Department of Education. He promotes the idea of school choice and is an advocate for home schooling. Score: 5
17. Welfare Programs – Barr does not directly advocate ridding ourselves of Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. He does promote the idea of strong reforms and allowing for private accounts. Much of what he has directly said about welfare programs could be construed as “tinkering”. Score: 3
18. Abortion – Barr is similar to Ron Paul on abortion. He’d like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned. He wants to leave it up to the states though he is personally pro-life. Score: 5
19. Health Care – Barr is against socialized national health care. He would like to get government regulation out of the health care industry and return the free market. He believes this will lower costs and put health care decisisons back into the hands of doctors and patients. This is exactly like Ron Paul. Score: 5
20. Ability To Spread The Liberty Message – Bob Barr is alone at the top among the third party/independent candidates at spreading the liberty message. He has been on CNN, ABC, FOX News, The Colbert Report, countless radio stations, and the media appearances keep coming. He also actually has a liberty message to spread. Score: 5

Bob Barr’s final Paul-O-Meter Score: 88 out of 99 possible points

It is true we at Liberty Maven are Bob Barr supporters and we even had some disagreements on how to rate Barr on certain criteria. In one case we marked him down (Welfare Programs) and in another we marked him up (Health Care). In all cases we tried to solely focus on how close his current positions are in line with Ron Paul’s current positions. We could not overlook his poor voting record where he earned a 1. In the end when one looks squarely at the issues, Bob Barr is about as close to Ron Paul as you can get.

The next candidate has a chance at scoring even higher than Barr on the Paul-O-Meter. He fully and officially endorsed Ron Paul and has take a very similar stance on many of the issues. He is Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin. Look for his rating next week.

Read on for John McCain’s scores on the issues.

1. Liberty-based voting record – McCain certainly has some horribly anti-liberty votes, but he’s been “ok” on both gun rights and health care. Certainly not perfect but the case can be made that he’s fairly similar to Ron Paul on those issues. Score: 1
2. Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy – McCain’s view of the Fed is at complete odds with Ron Paul’s view. McCain has praised the Fed for it’s rate cuts and suggests the institution is doing a good job regulating the “markets”. Score: 0
3. Foreign Policy and Iraq – John McCain’s now infamous ’100 years’ comment says all we need to know about this issue. Score: 0
4. Taxes – McCain proposes more “tinkering” tax proposals than the outright repeal Ron Paul proposes. He doesn’t have a good record on lowering taxes. He voted against the Bush tax cuts twice even though he now says he is for making them permanent. Score: 2
5. Government Spending – McCain preaches for cutting “pork barrel spending” and earmarks continually, but he rarely gets specific about what departments and programs he would eliminate. He has said he would balance the budget and reform certain programs, but there is simply no details on how he would do such things. He purposefully stays away from cutting military and defense spending. Because of his lack of specifics it is difficult to believe he will actually reduce spending much, if at all. Score: 2
6. Privacy and Civil Liberties – McCain supports FISA, fully supports the Patriot Act, and fully supports the Real ID Act. Even though during the primary campaign he spoke out against torture, he voted for allowing it to continue. His score here is painfully obvious. Score: 0
7. Immigration – McCain was a main proponent of the immigration bill that angered so many Americans in early 2007. It instituted a form of amnesty for illegal immigrants. That is completely at odds with Ron Paul. These days McCain has backtracked a little on his immigration position. He, at least, is calling for securing the borders like Ron Paul, but he does so in a very generic fashion. One wonders if he actually believes in doing so. Score: 1
8. Gun Control and Second Amendment – Like Ron Paul, McCain supported repealing the DC gun ban and believes it is an individual’s right to bear arms. However, he has continually led efforts to undermine those rights by regulating gun shows, requiring trigger locks, and supporting extending Brady Bill restrictions to pawn shops and gun repair shops. He’s far from a pure Second Amendment proponent like Ron Paul. Score: 2
9. Internet Regulation – McCain is against Net Neutrality like Ron Paul. He also says he will ban Internet taxes permanently. He does not seem to much care to talk about online gambling. The Poker Player’s Alliance gave him a grade of ‘D’ on the issue. Score: 3
10. Adherence To The Constitution – McCain has an unconstitutional voting record. He rarely references the document in his speeches. He votes against the principles of the Constitution all the time. He voted for the Iraq war authorization, Patriot Act, and FISA. Score: 0
11. Religion vs. Public Policy – McCain actually shines on this one. In fact, on the campaign trail he sometimes changes his own religion on the fly, as has been documented. He rarely utilizes religious sentiments in his speeches. He effectively separates religion and policy like Ron Paul. However, he has sought relationships in the past with John Hagee and Jerry Falwell in efforts to garner support from the religious right. Score: 4
12. Environment – McCain is a huge proponent of more government regulation over environmental issues. He strongly supports implementing a “cap and trade” system. This runs completely counter to Ron Paul’s position. Score: 0
13. Energy Policy – McCain is against drilling in ANWR, and used to be against drilling off of the U.S. coastlines. He now supports drilling off the coastlines. Like Ron Paul he wants to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to reduce demand. He previously was an outspoken critic of ethanol subsidies, but during his primary campaign in Iowa he spoke favorably of them. Score: 2
14. U.S. Sovereignty – Like most candidates McCain doesn’t talk about the North American Union. Score: 0
15. War on Drugs – McCain regularly ignores questions about the decriminalization of marijuana during his town hall meetings. He does not advocate for ending the war on drugs nor for releasing non-violent drug offenders from prison as Ron Paul does. Score: 0
16. Education – McCain is wishy-washy on No Child Left Behind. He seems to believe that it doesn’t go far enough. He certainly doesn’t advocate getting rid of the Department of Education. He is the opposite of Ron Paul on this issue. Score: 0
17. Welfare Programs – He is not advocating phasing out Social Security or other welfare programs. He is calling for reforms though. He supports personal accounts for Social Security. He supports changing the medicare prescription drug benefit to only cover low income beneficiaries. Still, this is a far cry from being like Ron Paul. Score: 1
18. Abortion – McCain believes in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. He also believes abortion should be left up to the states. This is in line with Ron Paul. Score: 5
19. Health Care – John McCain is against socialized medicine at the national level. However, a quick glance at his health care issue page reveals he’s not too close to Ron Paul on government intervention in the health care industry. McCain lists all sorts of federal government programs and incentives to further meddle in the health care industry. Score: 2.
20. Ability To Spread The Liberty Message – Simply put, John McCain doesn’t have a liberty message to spread no matter how much media attention he gets. Score: 0

John McCain’s final Paul-O-Meter Score: 25 out of 99 possible points

After Barack Obama’s score of 17, this is about where we expected McCain to end up. What was most eye opening to us was that his health care plan is a clear attempt to win over people that believe that everyone has a right to health care. Also his perceived strength on cutting government spending is unfounded. On many of his positions he tries to play both sides and it is difficult to know where he actually stands on the issue. This is not a shock coming from a life long politician. In the end it is no surprise that McCain doesn’t hold a candle to Ron Paul on the issues.

Tune in next time when we light up the Paul-O-Meter for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr.