Moving Past the Election, a Better Perspective

Some have been dramatically proclaiming that America is dead, liberty is dead, and so on.  While I can understand having such feelings at the spur of the moment after an election like that which we just witnessed, to dwell on those feelings and buy into them is self destructive and just plain wrong.

The reality is much more positive.  Liberty is not defeated.  We are alive.  We will fight on for the cause of liberty for ourselves, our children, our grandchildren, and beyond.

Please see the following posts by my good friend Chris Littleton…

This post (“America Is Not Dead”) is excellent in and of itself and includes a link to a prior post, titled “Obama Won, What Now?” which, itself, has a link to another great post titled “Obama Isn’t the Enemy”, from prior to the election.  I highly recommend reading all three.

Are there reasons to Vote for Romney over Obama?

I’m constantly deluged, from my Libertarian leaning friends, with lists of things that Obama and Romney have in common.

Okay fine.  I won’t argue against the point that they have more in common than I’d like.  But, I remind them that while apples and oranges are generally round-ish, have seeds, grow on trees, and may have many more things in common, it is the differences I focus on when choosing between them.

Obama vs RomneyBefore I go further, for perspective, I want readers to know I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and, years ago, voted for Ross Perot, so I know what it is to support a 3rd party candidate.

Here are what I consider the top 4 reasons to vote for Romney over Obama even if, like me, you think Romney is far more of a Big Government Republican than you’re comfortable.

1. Supreme court justices:  Even if you’re deeply disappointed with the bottom line decision supported by Roberts in the Obamacare case, a read of the opinions by Roberts as compared to Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, within that ruling, make it crystal clear that we can’t afford more Obama appointed justices.

Here are a couple quotes from Ginsburg, who’s opinion was joined by Sotomayor and Kagan;  for examples:

  1. “at the time the Constitution was framed, to ‘regulate’ meant, among other things, to require action.”
  2. “the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to enact the minimum coverage provision”

In short, Ginsburg supports the notion that the Federal government really should have no bounds where it perceives need to act.

We truly cannot afford more Liberal justices like Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

2) Debt: Even with all the spending Bush did at the end, he “only” (there’s an ironic word) added about half a trillion per year to the debt. As awful as that was, Obama has added at over twice that rate (about 1.25 Trillion per year). Obama has added more in 4 years than Bush did in 8.  While there can be no guarantee, I just don’t believe Romney will spend at anywhere near the rate Obama has.

Our country desperately needs to slow the rate at which we’re taking on debt until we can implement real and major reforms.

Did you know that if we completely eliminated the military and the government, the entitlements plus interest on the debt is still more than we take in with taxes each year?  See here.. that’s a scary fact!

3) Obamacare:  Simply put, constitutional or not, Obamacare is bad law.  Key issues like tort reform and common sense solutions for pre-existing conditions have been proposed and can be put in place upon the repeal of Obamacare… which we simply can’t afford.

4) Energy:  I’m all for alternative energy but there’s no reason to kill our economy by attacking coal and oil before alternative energy solutions are more mature.  Obama will continue to attack American oil producers, even while supporting drilling for oil in Brazil.  If he cared about the environment, why is drilling for oil to be supported in Brazil?  Romney will support American energy production which will help our economy and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The bottom line…

If everything else is the same between Obama and Romney, the above are reason enough to vote Obama out this year by voting for Romney.  Even if you don’t agree with all of the above, if you agree with some of it, a vote for Romney is the logical choice.

To be clear, a Romney win is a small step in the right direction but is not the end of the fight.  Everyone should be contacting your local liberty groups like Libertas, Tea Parties, Ohio Liberty Coalition, etc. to learn about how to get involved in your local precincts to reform the Republican party from within and work toward a future where small-government candidates have a chance.

Please help remove Obama from office and give fledgling liberty groups a chance to grow, hopefully with your help, before we are buried in debt and unbridled government growth.. vote Romney.

Ohioans not voting for Romney better be sure…

Even though Ohio is now reportedly in a dead heat, many Ohio Libertarians and Libertarian Leaning Conservatives are still planning to either not vote, vote for Gary Johnson, or even write in Ron Paul.

Like them, I agree that Romney was not my first, second, or even third choice for the GOP candidate.  And, like them I’m upset about how Ron Paul supporters were, and are, treated by the GOP.  But, unlike them, I’m voting for Romney.

When I say I’m voting for Romney, many argue that I’m betraying my principles, ignoring the abuses of the GOP, and even allowing myself to be used, like a pawn, by Romney and the GOP.

But, I see it this way, point by point;

1) Ignoring My Principles:  Not Hardly.  To pretend that Gary Johnson can still win this year is beyond naïve.  Even more so for Ron Paul.   The reality is that Obama or Romney will win.  (I’ll buy the most annoying Libertarian I know (he knows who he is), lunch weekly for a year if Johnson or Paul win on November 6, 2012.)  So, when faced with the two actual choices, how am I abandoning my principles to vote against the person I see as farthest from them?  If Obama and Romney were identically bad on 99 points but Romney was better on 1 of 100, Romney is still the logical choice.

2) Ignoring the abuses of the GOP:  Seriously?  I’m just stunned by the people who reference being angry with the GOP as if that’s something new.  Duh!  Of course we don’t like the establishment GOP!  That’s exactly why we formed Tea Parties back in 09.  In fact, I helped organize the first very Tea Party rally on Cincinnati’s Fountain Square in 2009 and have been active in the Tea Party ever since.  If I liked the GOP or expected good things from them, I wouldn’t bother with the Tea Party.  Folks need to check their expectations and get real.

3) Romney and the GOP are using people like me:  Sorry, but they have it backwards when they say this.  It is I and people like myself who are using Romney and the current GOP establishment.  We have no illusions that Romney is the ultimate answer.  We just want to slow the bleeding while we continue to build liberty groups to the point where we can install the more liberty minded candidates we all want instead of these big government solution Keynesian types we’ve always been stuck with.  It is we who will discard the GOP old-guard big government types when they no longer represent the best available option.

For those wanting to make a statement vote, I ask you this:  What was the impact of those who made a statement vote in 2000, 04, or 08? (insert the sound of crickets here)

And, for those in Ohio, where we have a 50% chance of determining the election outcome (or in any battleground state): Are you really sure you’re willing for your individual vote to be the one that gives us four more years of Obama and 1 or 2 more Liberal Supreme court justices that we could have to live with for decades?  Better be sure…

The Obama “Foodstamp President” label is about economics, not race!

Recently Chris Matthews, on the Maximum Slant News Broadcasting Company (MSNBC), tangled with Newt Gingrich and insisted that referring to Obama as the “Foodstamp President” is racist.  See a clip here.

Do you think Chris is unaware that most foodstamp recipients, and most of the new foodstamp recipients, are white, as Newt points out?

And, do you think Chris was blind-sided by yesterday’s news that Food-Stamp usage has recently set new records as described here by Bloomberg?

Newsflash for Chris, sometimes a reference to foodstamps is just a reference to foodstamps and the economic realities that lead to their use!


MARK THIS DAY: US National Debt Exceeds $16 TRILLION

Mark THIS DAY!: We passed the $16 TRILLION mark in National Debt today!


(Latest debt data here)

Now for some “fun facts”:

The debt increased $4.899 TRILLION under 8 years of the Bush presidency.

As if that weren’t bad enough, the Debt was at $10.626 TRILLION when Obama Took Office and it has increased $5.374 TRILLION in UNDER 4 years of Obama, to the $16 TRILLION mark passed today.  That’s right, Obama is coming up on having added a half a TRILLION more debt in 4 years than Bush added in 8.

And remember, if the Obamacare policies (i.e. taxes) all kicked in when passed, this number would already be much higher.

The Bring Jobs Home Act… Really?

You will no doubt hear big news about how Republicans supposedly don’t care about American workers because they blocked the “Bring Jobs Home”act.

But, I believe this legislation was poorly written and never really intended to pass.  There’s a very common formula for making your opponents look bad on a popular issue and it goes as follows.

1)      Craft some legislation with a title that clearly supports a popular issue.  Near everyone would like to see less outsourcing, so let’s have a bill titled “Bring Jobs Home”.  What American could oppose that, unless he was some greedy jerk, right?

2)      Next, make sure the legislation is poorly written with obvious downsides, loop holes, and ways it can be abused

3)      Next, count on the fact that your opponents will oppose the legislation, re step 2, and ensure that your side all votes for it even though they know it will fail (foreknowledge of failure means they won’t be blamed later when the legislation is proven to have been poorly crafted).

4)      Conduct the vote in such a way as to ensure the failure.

5)      Blame your opponents for not wanting to “Bring Jobs Home”, or whatever the item of the day.

How many times have we seen this?

By the way, people often confuse outsourcing with off-shoring.  Outsourcing is when a company, say Dell, contracts with another company, say in Arizona, to hire US employees to perform their call center activities.  Off-shoring is when that call center is in another country.  Another way to remember this is that when you send your kids to daycare, you have chosen to outsource childcare.  If you shipped the kiddies overseas for this, that would be off-shoring.

Like it or not, many of our companies have to compete globally.  Their global competitors have no obstacles to being able to hire cheaper waged employees in other countries.  You can easily do the math and figure out what happens to an American company that must pay 3 times the wage of their foreign competitors.  For many global companies, their choice is to off-shore some jobs and stay in business or go out of business and lose all the jobs.

I’m not going to argue here that all off-shoring saves American jobs as in the example above.  But, I will say that people should be careful not to paint all off-shoring with the same brush and assumptions of padding profits.  Legislation like the so-called “Bring Jobs Home” act could easily have forced some American companies out of business… and that’s bad legislation.  It appears that the Republicans did the right thing here.

For the record, I was laid off from a job of 20 years when my assignment was moved to India.  So please don’t tell me I have no perspective on this.

Meanwhile, as typical, the AFL-CIO and Democrats keep their blinders on and only advocate for their own individual interests without looking at the bigger picture.

The fact remains that if Democrats cared about employing American citizens over non-American citizens, they’d work on deporting illegal immigrants.  But, since they think that would cost them votes, they vilify and grandstand regarding off-shoring while ultimately really doing nothing about it.

And, if Democrats really cared about poor non-American citizens (their supposed reason for not enforcing immigration laws), they wouldn’t mind off-shoring, much of which provides good (in relative terms) income opportunities to poorer people in other countries.

Where’s My Secret Decoder Ring When I Need It?

This has to fall under some sort of too stupid to be believable category… except I provide the link.

Just days ago, Obama and Biden both made speeches in which they were clearly making racial overtones. No “code words” required.

Never mind Biden’s obvious reference to putting people “back in chains”.  Someone please tell me what Obama was referring to if not race when saying he is needed to provide a world in which you can make it “no matter what your last name is.”

So now, in a lame and ridiculous attempt to make it look like Romney is the one trying to make the campaign about race, we have an Obama supporting co-host on MSNBC trying to claim Romney is using racist code words because he used the word “anger” twice to describe Obama’s campaign (see this).  Are you kidding me???

Never mind what all we’ve heard about “Angry White Men”, apparently “anger” is, in this deluded pundit’s mind, a clear and unambiguous reference to “Angry Black Men.”

Where’s my secret decoder ring when I need it???

The Libertarian vs. Romney/Ryan Vote Debate

Framing the Debate

Debates are raging on numerous Facebook groups and other sites regarding whether Tea Partiers and other Conservatives should support the Romney/Ryan ticket.  This blog attempts a detailed exploration of the common arguments in an effort to exhaust the point so we can all move on.

Most Tea Party supporters and other Conservatives are voicing support for Romney/Ryan over Obama/Biden and are unwilling to consider a vote for Gary Johnson (Libertarian party) or to write in Ron Paul.

Strict Libertarians, on the other hand, insist that a vote for Romney/Ryan is wrong and that Tea Party people and Conservatives should vote for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul.. or no one at all.  The more radical among these actually say they’ll vote for Obama if Paul doesn’t emerge from the GOP convention as the nominee, in order to punish the GOP and maybe even hasten the collapse to some unknown benefit.  The rest of this blog purposely ignores the latter group as outliers, outside the scope of the mainstream argument.

In most cases, though at times heated, these arguments boil down to a point of strategy among people who share primarily the same goals.  All those involved in these debates would do well to remember that.

The Common Reasons Among Those Supporting Romney/Ryan

1. A Romney/Ryan administration, while not ideal, is better than a 2nd term of Obama/Biden.  Some believe the difference is great while others small… but better is still better.

2. A Romney/Ryan win doesn’t fix our problems but it is still better to slow the country’s momentum in the wrong direction as we continue our work in the Tea Party and other liberty groups.

3. Neither Johnson or Paul have a chance of winning (assuming Paul doesn’t pull off a convention miracle and get the GOP nomination).

In short, there are no illusions that a Romney/Ryan win is any great victory or “cure all” solution (so attacking them is truly futile).  It is just one small tactical battle in a much greater, long term, “war” for the restoration of liberty in this country.

Romney = Obama

For many, the first argument against the above reasoning is that Romney is no better, at all, than Obama.  I’m not going to attempt a side-by-side comparison.  But, to them I say, do you really think a 2nd term Obama is no more dangerous than a 1st term Romney?  Obama himself has said that he anticipates “more flexibility” after he wins his 2nd term and, presumably, will no longer need to worry about what voters think.

To me, this is like the trump card.  It is all the argument I need to support Romney/Ryan over Obama/Biden.  No more arguments are required.  But, for the rest, I will continue.

Still Evil

Those who will agree Romney may not be quite as bad as Obama still say that “Voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.”  That may be true but allowing the greater evil to win is still the greater evil.

Tea Party Values

Libertarians next attack Romney and Ryan as not being examples of Tea Party values and even as being part of the problem.  Therefore, to vote for them is to betray our principles.

Regarding Romney/Ryan not embodying Tea Party values, in short, we know!  Chris Littleton, in a blog about the Ryan selection, recently quoted Corie Whalen, political director of Campaign for Primary Accountability, as saying, “I am not saying vote against Romney/Ryan.  Go ahead and support them.”  But, she rightly goes on to say “I think its bad when a national tea party organization acts like the Ryan pick is an embodiment of Tea Party values.”  I completely agree.

Romney/Ryan support over Obama/Biden is a strategic choice, not a statement of endorsement for all Romney/Ryan stand for.  Make no mistake, this is a “lesser of two evils” selection for the specific purpose of slowing the demise of the US and its economy as we continue to build Liberty groups, etc.

This is also an acknowledgement that change takes time.  We didn’t get here overnight and the many 3 to 4 year old Liberty groups will require more time to counter the effects of Liberal political activism dominance.  This might be hard for the hard for the “microwave generation” to accept.

As for betraying our values, it is not a betrayal if we believe the move slows the digression away from our values as we work toward a future where more positive progress is possible.


Conservatives have been voting for Republicans for a very long time and have been continually let down by them.  Doing the same thing, and expecting different results, is commonly referred to as the definition of insanity.

That would be true.  However in the past, Conservatives only voted for the lesser evil and then just hoped for the best, assuming that if the Republican won, they could relax and count on a more conservative approach to be taken by our government.  They were wrong!  Only the first part (i.e. vote for the lesser evil) remains the same, for now.  But no longer will we assume that a Republican win means time to relax.  We will continue to grow the Liberty movement, gain greater influence over the GOP from within through the precinct process, and be active in building coalitions to address important political issues.  We will continue to raise awareness, fight against whoever violates Tea Party principles, be they Republican, Democrat, or otherwise.  In truth, the strategy has changed.

I respectfully point out that, most of the Libertarians making this argument, asking us to vote 3rd party, have been doing this same thing for the last several election cycles, though it is clear they can not and will not win.  So who is it that’s doing the same thing and expecting different results?

Voting Equals Consent

Some say voting Romney/Ryan “equals consent.”  The implication is that we are to blame for the faults of the two primary parties, and their faulty candidates, if we continue to vote for them.  I’m reminded, however, that in-action can also be construed as consent.  If the “greater evil” wins, due to Libertarian in-action (not voting or voting for those who cannot win), they are as complicit in the results as anyone who voted.

Earn the Vote

The best argument I think I’ve ever heard in favor of not voting for any candidate you disagree with (e.g. sticking with the Libertarian candidate even when they can’t win) is that by sticking to your principles, you force the Dem/Rep candidate to respect and earn your vote.  Unfortunately, I see two problems with this.  First, it simply hasn’t worked in all this time and there’s no indication this time would be different.  Refer back to the “insanity” argument.  Second, many of us, locally, have seen a close-up example of where a Libertarian, and his supporters, were so stuck in this approach that they ran against Mike Wilson (founder of the Cincinnati Tea Party) and earned more votes than the margin of Mike’s loss in that election.  If Mike Wilson isn’t good enough to get Libertarians to vote GOP then, in my opinion, no one is.  So what’s to be earned?

Our Strategy Fails Because of Your Strategy

When describing the strategy of continuing to vote for the “lesser evil” while also working on taking over the GOP from within, building liberty groups, etc. Many Libertarians and 3rd party supporters claim that they only fail because of myself and others like me.  While the two are related, I think the above argument gets cause and effect confused.  Or, at the very least, we’re stuck in a chicken-and-egg conundrum.

The counter perspective is that Tea Partiers and others like me refuse to vote 3rd party because Libertarians have long failed to win, or even come close to winning, Presidential elections.  This seems to turn the cause and effect on its head.

The fact is that whether I vote for Gary Johnson or not, he’ll lose… and lose big. The same goes for writing in Ron Paul.  Those who blame the Tea Party and Tea Partiers for the impending loss of Gary Johnson are conveniently forgetting that 3rd parties have been losing for long before the Tea Party came along.

And, we all remember Perot.  Short of a situation involving runoff laws (see section below), I estimate a roughly … hmmm… let’s just call it a 0% chance that Libertarians will get enough people to take a chance on a 3rd party vote to actually win.

The Tea Party people represent an excellent example.  Here we have the most politically frustrated group of people you could ever hope to meet, dissatisfied with Democrats and Republicans alike and, yet, Libertarians have still failed to make substantial inroads in convincing Tea Partiers to vote 3rd party.  What chance do you have with the general public?

Unfortunately, Libertarians bear the burden of needing to prove, first, that they can even come close to winning before momentum could turn in their favor for a 3rd party candidate.  Tilt at windmills all you like but this is a reality and all the … again, short of the following.

Runoff Laws

All the above said, I think runoff laws change everything.  Those who live in states where a candidate cannot win without a majority of the vote, the absence of which leads to a runoff between the top two candidates (or something to that effect), have the luxury of simply “voting their hearts and minds” and I encourage them to do so.  That’s right.  I encourage those in these states to vote Johnson or Paul (ironically, another example of splitting the vote).

Meanwhile, I suggest that Libertarians look to the results of votes in such states.  Have any Libertarian candidates ever won in those states for a Presidential election?  Have they come close?  I don’t think so.  If a 3rd party can’t win in a state with runoff laws, it has no chance… wouldn’t you say?

If I could change one thing about the Presidential election process, it would be to get all states to have runoff laws so 3rd parties could really stand a chance.  If Ohio was such a state, I’d vote Paul over Romney as I did in the primary.

Some Concluding Points…

Taking over the GOP vs. Attempting to Win the Presidency with 3rd Party Runs

This really just comes down to numbers.  A party is just people.  The number of people active in the Republican party is far far fewer than the number of people you must convince to vote 3rd party in order to win a Presidency.

I hope that Libertarians will join us in working to take over the GOP from within.  Keep in mind two things.  First, this is the Ron Paul approach.  And, second, this approach is not mutually exclusive to you continuing to vote Libertarian if that is your inclination.  I happen to know that many Libertarians are already joining in this effort.

Biggest Risk of a Romney/Ryan Win

To me, the biggest risk of a Romney/Ryan win is complacency.  Simply put, many people who see Obama as the enemy may be lulled to sleep by a Romney/Ryan win, erroneously thinking “Mission Accomplished.”  I believe that it is a given that we’ll lose some “weaker” Tea Partiers who will see such a “victory” as a reason to “take a breath” and back off.  However, on the whole, I don’t think this will be a major problem.  I, personally, haven’t met any Romney “disciples” who are claiming that a Romney/Ryan win solves our problems.  I think people really have woken up and realize that the Republican party (pre-re-creation in the Tea Party’s image) is not the answer.

Other Benefits of a Romney/Ryan Win

Even if there were no difference between Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden there are benefits to a Romney/Ryan win:

First, I’ve already made the point about a 1st term Romney vs. a 2nd term Obama.  Enough said.

Second, no longer will the Tea Party, Libertarians, and other liberty groups be accused of being racist for opposing the President’s views.  These movements could expand significantly when more people see that we’re willing to be just as critical of Romney/Ryan, when they screw up, as we were of Obama.


At best, it is an unproductive distraction to continue to argue over whether a vote for Romney/Ryan is the right thing to do in today’s circumstance.  At worst, continuing to argue about this can tear a rift in the Tea Party between it’s more or less Libertarian leaning members.

Libertarians continuing to attack Romney and Ryan to try to convince Tea Partiers to vote 3rd party is a waste of time.  You may as well rent billboards that say 2+2=4.  We already know Romney/Ryan are not who we want.  However, unless you can convince us they’re worse than Obama/Biden (beyond unlikely), you will not sway us given all of the above arguments.  The only thing Libertarians have to gain by arguing against voting for Romney/Ryan is to further alienate the best political allies they have ever had… their fellow Tea Party members.  Oh… and to waste time and effort.

If you’ve made it through this lengthy blog, you’ve given the situation serious thought and will either vote Romney/Ryan or not.  In any event, I strongly encourage all to either agree or agree to disagree on this point, then get past the in-fighting so we can all get back to the more important work of building Liberty groups, educating the public, and working on the important issues of our day.

If we can all agree that a Romney/Ryan win does not fix our problems, and I think we can, then we should at least agree to stop arguing about it and get on with more important work.

Best regards

Obama and Biden pile on with thinly veiled class and race baiting…

Just a day after I posted about an Obama supporting pundit doing her part to perpetuate class warfare and racism, Obama and Biden are both on the record with statements that are clearly intended to do more of the same.

The implications of Biden’s comment are obvious.  But, make no mistake, when Obama references people being able to get a job “no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, and no matter what your last name is”, “you can make it here”, as he does here, he is clearly insinuating that without him to protect minorities, racism will be allowed to prevent them from succeeding.

This is a shameful example of stoking and leveraging class and race “warfare” to be coming from the “first black President” who was suppose to help end racism.

Are we seeing a theme?  I think so.

All of this is in addition to the fact that Obama made another statement, in the above linked article on Real Clear Politics, openly touting his collectivist views as he says “Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?”  Um… I thought prosperity was something to be earned, given only the freedom to try without interference.  Obama’s recent statements are making it crystal clear that he wants to remake America in his Collectivist vision.

Do you believe government should ensure equal opportunity or equal outcomes?  Obama and Biden believe in the latter.