I hate to stay on the topic of Mitt Romney, there are plenty of bad things about most of the other presidential candidates too.
But... Mitt makes it so damn easy for me to pick on him: the official Romney contribution page now offers you a tiered selection of Christmas
gifts bribes in exchange for your donation:
Obviously Romney doesn't need the money; he has plenty of his own to do with as he pleases. Ever wonder why he has so many supporters at all the rallies he goes to? Because they are the same supporters at every rally. He buses them from place to place at his own cost.
To win though, Romney needs more than just his own money. He needs individual contributions so he doesn't get slaughtered by you know who when it comes time to report real donations to the FEC.
Instead of getting random SWAG for my donation, I'd rather give my money to Ron Paul and get a much greater gift: a president who will restore the constitutional boundaries of this great, but fallen country.
What does Mitt Romney really believe in? Does he support the sovereignty of We the People of this constitutional republic? On at least a few occasions he has. When asked about abortion, Romney has recently said that he wants individual states to decide for themselves. Despite Romney's floundering on the issue in the past, he has come to the correct and constitutional stance on the issue. Kudos, Mitt. The federal government has strict constitutional duties, and legislating on abortion is not one of them.
But does Romney actually believe that the federal government should generally be held accountable to these restrictions, or only when it's convenient for him?
Here are five examples that I was able to quickly find that show that he definitely will not protect the limitations that we have imposed on our federal government:
He supports ALL of Mass. gun laws
Sure, Massachusetts is not held accountable to the second amendment, but they have some of the most oppressive gun laws around. Romney also says that he supports all of these laws personally. Does Romney think critically enough to not support these same laws on the federal level? It's a scary prospect, at best.
He doesn't believe in a States' authority to enact drug laws
Nowhere in the constitution do We the People grant the federal government the privilege to regulate "drugs". The states have implicit authority in this regard by virtue of the 10th amendment. Now listen carefully to this guy's question:
He didn't ask Mitt for his opinion on marijuana. He didn't ask Mitt whether or not marijuana should be illegal. He asked Mitt what he would do if a state were to exert its sovereignty and to democratically decide that marijuana will not be illegal in said state. Romney clearly shows in his response that he would disregard the state's clear right to do just that. He believes that marijuana should be made illegal in every state of this country. Period.
He would put someone in jail for prescribed medical marijuana use
No, he doesn't say so. Instead, he decides to run away like a kid that just got punched in the face... by a guy in a wheelchair... with muscular dystrophy. By default, this says to me that Romney would indeed put someone in jail for using medical marijuana. If he would not, then why is he not sure enough of himself to say so?
Ron Paul is sure of himself. He tells the same guy that he will never use federal power to put ANYONE in jail for marijuana use. Ron Paul understands his strict constitutional duties as president and is not afraid to declare them:
He wants to federally require VChips in all new computers
There are literally hundreds of existing methods to block pornography on computers. These are cheap and highly available to parents. There is simply no need for the federal government to step in and save the day. Even if this were not the case, there is no federal authority to control private companies in this way.
And yet Romney feels he can legislate his own morals on everyone else:
He supports legally defining Marriage.
You want a definition of marriage? I have one. Marriage is a voluntary contract between people defining whatever relationship responsibilities and privileges they desire. The government is neither a party to this contract, nor do they get to dictate or "define" any of its terms. Romney says that he believes that 1-Man, 1-Woman and one (silent) government together form a marriage and that this definition should be reflected in our laws. Sorry, but We the People have not explicitly given you that authority.
He thinks Obama is Osama
This is #6 of 5. #6 because this one doesn't have to do with the constitution at all, but really shows how blatantly stupid Romney can be.
I mean come on, you can here him say "Osa.." right before he corrects himself and says "Barack Obama" instead .... twice. It's almost as if Romney is concentrating so hard on reciting something rather than actually critically thinking about his statements.
By all means, vote for Romney if you sincerely like him, but have no delusions that he supports your own or your fellow humans' sovereign rights.
I know a few people who want to vote for Mitt Romney because they believe he's very efficient and that every program he touches "turns to gold." But Mitt Romney is no panacea, in fact he's just like the rest of the neocons in Washington.
Last week, Governor Romney released one of the most horrifying campaign videos I've ever seen. Most political commercials are so diluted that they make just about anyone feel good. You know the ones I'm talking about -- the ones with the sounds of trumpet and dialog like "he's an honest man, caring, he has a plan that will increase jobs." When you make a video with such a supreme lack of substance, there's not a lot to disagree with. This is not that video:
This is the most blatant fear and war mongering video I've ever seen. Sure, the neocons have been making these points for years. But when have you ever seen them in such a recorded and rehearsed fashion?
There was a lot of information in such a short video, so let's take it point-by-point:
Violent, Radical, Islamic Fundamentalism is this "century's nightmare".
I won't deny that there are violent, radical groups (some of which are Islamic) that are menacing and terrorizing. But by no means do these groups hold a monopoly on this stigma. Even our own government supports these same philosophies when it suits their fancy. In a previous age, when the bad-guy-de-joeur wore a red star on his uniform, the U.S. funded Afghan mujahudeen guerrillas to fight against the USSR. This wasn't the U.S. simply coming to the aid of an ally; this was a provocation that started with the U.S. funding the mujahudeen a full six months prior to any USSR invasion of Afghanistan. We were in the Cold War with the USSR, and we saw the efforts of jihadists in Afghanistan as a means to an end. It was in the U.S.' interest to promote these jihadists then. What's so different today?
All throughout history, the U.S. (and a few other countries) have been far more violent and radical than any small terror cell.
Jihadists want a world-wide Khalifah
Update: My friend gandhi pointed out that I indeed heard the wrong word here. My apologies. The word Romney used was Caliphate not Khalifah. I'm not an expert on the etymology here, but I believe the two words are linked.
Nice big word there Mitt. I'm sure most of your future constituency understands what that means (ha!). When you say that word along with other mean sounding words it's easy to think it's derogatory without even knowing the definition of the word.
Basically, every single muslim is supposed to be a Khalifah, a representative / steward of god on this earth. A Khalifah is roughly the same as a missionary in the christian sense -- someone who upholds the principles of god and spreads his message. The Khalifah Institute does propose a plan to spread islamic principles throughout the world, they even go as far as to call for jihad. They specifically mention however, that "this is not to be a jihad of the sword, or of guns, bombs [nor] violence... that would be wrong."
Maybe Mitt is talking about some other Khalifah movement. However, for something so important as to require offensive wars I require my elected public servants to be specific. To simply say we need to fight Jihadist Khalifahs is not only insulting, but dangerous.
The U.S. is a country of Freedom Lovers
Oh, I wish this one were true. The truth of the matter is that this hasn't been the case for a very long time. If Americans love freedom, then it would follow that Americans would keep their government accountable to the very Constitution that incorporates it. If Americans were free, then they should be able to demonstrate the basic, timeless, qualities of free men and women.
Can you build on your land without a permit? Can you educate your own children without mandated curriculum and permit? Can you drive from one city to the next in a car without a permit? Can you acquire a gun without a permit (filling out the NICS is a permit!)? Can you marry the one you love without a permit? Can you die and have your body buried without a permit? Can you stay out of jail if you consume a prohibited substance? Can you stay out of jail if you tell your government that you will not fight their wars? Can you stay out of jail if you tell your government that you will not pay for something you find abhorrent? I submit to the casual observer of current events that every single facet of life in this country is subverted and has been made unfree.
Permits are permission. If you need permission you are not free. Taxes and the draft are involuntary, and equate to slavery.
Jihadists hate us for our freedoms
It's true that many jihadists (and Muslims in general) hate secularism and materialism. Did they destroy four planes and three buildings on 9/11 because of this? No. Blowback is real. The countries that have experienced terrorist bombings in the past decade are not arbitrary. They have been selected. All of these countries have had a military presence in the middle east. Switzerland has a strict non-interventionist policy and you don't see them being a target.
Republican Congressman Ron Paul has spoken very clearly about the issue of blowback. Listen to his calm, yet sobering words accompanied by this short PBS documentary confirming the reality of blowback:
Romney will increase Intelligence spending
Romney wants to increase funding of our intelligence agencies but he won't listen to them in the first place! The CIA has numerous times talked about the concept of blowback. After the Iran coup d'etat in 1953, the CIA produced a (now declassified) memo describing how blowback can be a massive consequence of what the CIA was trying to accomplish (a complete overthrow of an existing government) warning CIA operatives that "few, if any, operations are as explosive as this type."
Romney will increase military personnel by at least 100,000
The U.S. has over 1.5 Million troops deployed worldwide. We have the strongest military presence of any country in all of history. We are Pax-Americana -- a bona-fide Empire. 70% of Americans want out of Iraq. We need to support our troops by bringing them home!
Romney will monitor all telephone calls
Romney says he wants to monitor all calls Al-Qaeda makes coming into America. I say he wants to monitor all calls whatsoever. If his source of information on Al-Qaeda is coming from monitoring telephones, how can he know where Al-Qaeda is calling from before he listens to them? It's the classic chicken or the egg problem. If you want to listen to all calls Al-Qaeda is making, you have to listen to all the calls. If you know where Al-Qaeda is calling from, then what the hell are you doing sitting on your ass listening to their phone calls?
This isn't about listening to Al-Qaeda at all. This is about increasing control.
Romney will make sure the U.S. stops Iran from acquiring Nuclear weapons
Gah. At least he's forthcoming about it this time. Last week he said he'd have to consult his lawyers to see if pretty please, maybe, possibly, he could bomb the shit out of them without having to ask Congress for permission. Romney, real patriots protect the Constitution!
Even if Iran had the capability, let alone the desire, to build nuclear weapons (I doubt they do), what's the difference between Iran having nuclear weapons and the 10 or so other countries that have them? What is intrinsically wrong with having nuclear weapons? Whatever that answer is, it should be applied equally to us as well as to them.
Ron Paul is the only moral choice
The people that believe in Romney's War on Jihadists would call Dr. Ron Paul an isolationist and that this makes him somehow irresponsible. This is so very wrong on many accounts. First of all, Dr. Paul is in no way an isolationist. Is it an isolationist view to think that we should not fuck with the rest of the world by establishing military coups around the world, displacing legally and democratically elected leaders? Is it an isolationist perspective to think that we should be cultivating friends throughout the world by trading and having open dialog with them instead of provoking war by subverting their governments? How would Americans feel if another country were to do the same here? Wouldn't we too feel a little retaliatory? War is avoidable, because blowback is avoidable: just mind your own business and make friends in the process.
Ron Paul is your only moral choice for a conservative president, no matter if you're anti-war or even if you believe in "Just War" theory. Mitt Romney's war theory, just as any modern neoconservative, is fear-based. It lacks any historical perspective and is entirely unjust.