• Category Archives News and Politics

  • Ron Paul Rips Romney and Obama For Debating Petty Issues

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    “It’s a shame. The important issue is [what] the two candidates seem to agree on,” Paul said. “They don’t really disagree with militarism overseas, they don’t disagree with the Federal Reserve system and the bailouts, and they don’t disagree on basically whether the role of federal government is wealth redistribution through welfare. So instead, they’re talking about tax returns and that to me is so disappointing.”

    “It’s all a charade, I think it’s all contrived to not have a debate,” Paul said.

    It is a shame that out of all the vital issues that America faces, this is what the Romney vs. Obama campaign is currently occupied with. And Paul is absolutely right. Romney is someone that is vying for perhaps the most powerful political position in world history and the head of a government that has absolutely no problems violating the privacy and liberties of the American people, especially when it comes to filing taxes. The least Romney could do is do the same that is asked of us.

    But while I agree that Romney, and all politicians, should be put under the deepest of magnifying glasses, President Obama’s attacks on Romney as some vulture-capitalist outsourcer are an absolute disgrace. It shouldn’t be surprising, however, that Obama is attacking Romney in this way. On every substantive issue of importance, they are in complete agreement. Although their rhetoric may be different, they both favor heavy interventionism at home and abroad. It is much easier for Obama to appeal to his left-wing base and invoke phony populism than discuss his disastrous record on war, civil liberties, and the economy.

    Because Romney knows little about free market economics, it appears that for now, Obama’s attacks on him, his tax records, and his time at Bain Capital are working. If Romney knew a fraction of what, say, libertarian Congressman Paul knows about economics, Romney would respond concisely and clearly on how venture capital firms like Bain risk money when banks are afraid to and have developed ways for smaller companies to acquire capital, grow, and create jobs. Outsourcing, too, is part of a sound economy in certain industries, freeing up individuals and capital for more productive uses, spreading peaceful trade between countries, and providing cheaper goods.

    But all Romney manages to say are empty platitudes about “free enterprise” and basically appealing to voters as the guy with the nice suit and slick hair who isn’t Obama.

    Full article: http://www.policymic.com/articles/11374/ron-paul-rips-romney-and-obama-for-debating-petty-issues


    News and Politics 📎and tagged

  • The rule of law

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    The greatest distinguishing factor between countries in which there is some freedom and those where authoritarian governments manage personal behavior is the Rule of Law. The idea that the very laws that the government is charged with enforcing could restrain the government itself is uniquely Western and was accepted with near unanimity at the time of the creation of the American Republic. Without that concept underlying the exercise of governmental power, there is little hope for freedom.

    The Rule of Law is a three-legged stool on which freedom sits. The first leg requires that all laws be enacted in advance of the behavior they seek to regulate and be crafted and promulgated in public by a legitimate authority. The goal of all laws must be the preservation of individual freedom. A law is not legitimate if it is written by an evil genius in secret or if it punishes behavior that was lawful when the behavior took place or if its goal is to solidify the strength of those in power. It also is not legitimate if it is written by the president instead of Congress.

    The second leg is that no one is above the law and no one is beneath it. Thus, the law’s restraints on force and fraud need to restrain everyone equally, and the law’s protections against force and fraud must protect everyone equally. This leg removes from the discretion of those who enforce the law the ability to enforce it or to afford its protections selectively. This principle also requires that the law enforcers enforce the law against themselves. Of course, this was not always the case. In 1628, the British Parliament spent days debating the question “Is the king above the Rule of Law, or is the Rule of Law above the king?” Thankfully, the king lost — but only by 10 votes out of several hundred cast.

    The third leg of the Rule of Law requires that the structures that promulgate, enforce and interpret law be so fundamental — Congress writes the laws, the president enforces the laws, the courts interpret the laws — that they cannot be changed retroactively or overnight by the folks who administer them. Stated differently, this leg mandates that only a broad consensus can change the goals or values or structures used to implement the laws; they cannot be changed by atrophy or neglect or crisis.

    The values in America are set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and the governmental structures in America are set forth in the Constitution. The former — that our rights are inalienable and come from our Creator and not from the government — is not merely a recitation of Thomas Jefferson’s musings. The Declaration is the articulation of our values then and now, and it, too, is the law of the land.

    The Constitution was written — largely by James Madison — to define and to limit the federal government, and it was quickly amended by adding the Bill of Rights so as to be sure that natural rights would be respected by the government. This tension between the power of the majority — at the ballot box or in Congress — and the rights of the minority — whether a discrete class of persons or a minority of one — is known as the Madisonian dilemma. Stated differently, the Constitution provides for protection against the tyranny of the majority.

    In our system, the power to resolve the dilemma is reposed into the hands of the judiciary, and those who have that power are to resolve it without regard to popularity or politics. Their oath is to the Constitution. They have the final say on what the laws mean. If they follow the Rule of Law, they will invalidate that which the government has done and which is properly challenged before them and which is not authorized by the Constitution. Their very purpose is to be anti- democratic, lest the popular majority takes whatever lives, liberties or property it covets. In return for life tenure, we expect judicial modesty, and we demand constitutional fidelity — not political compromise.

    In our era, the violations of the Rule of Law have become most troublesome when the government breaks its own laws. Prosecute Roger Clemens for lying to Congress? What about all the lies Congress tells? Prosecute John Edwards for cheating? What about all the cheating in Congress when it enacts laws it hasn’t read? Bring the troops home from the Middle East? What about all the innocents killed secretly by the president using CIA drones? Can’t find a way to justify ObamaCare under the Constitution? Why not call it what its proponents insisted it isn’t — a tax?

    Full article: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/19/rule-law/


    News and Politics 📎and tagged

  • The Revolution After Ron

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    After two long years of speculating, campaigning, hoping, and voting the Ron Paul presidential campaign has come to an end. At the end of this year, Ron Paul’s bid for the presidential ticket will be eclipsed by his retirement, after the completion of his four decades as a congressman. At the dignified age of 76 it seems unlikely that Ron Paul will make a fourth attempt for the presidency in 2016. And with Ron Paul’s certain departure from political life there stands a looming question of whether the Gen Y libertarian/populist movement can move beyond his legacy.

    The Ron Paul Revolution or Liberty Movement is younger, more tech savvy, more enthusiastic, and steadfast in their principles than typical conservatives. These differentiating qualities that separate the Liberty Movement from the average go-along-to-get-along establishment Republicans gives the Movement the potential moxie to create a significant and enduring effect in both the Republican Party and American politics as a whole. The youth, which make up the majority though not entirety of the Liberty movement, switches the longstanding paradigm of right-left politics in America, in which the liberal was always the enthusiastic college student and the conservative was always middle aged.

    Full article:http://townhall.com/columnists/ryanjamesgirdusky/2012/07/11/the_revolution_after_ron


    News and Politics 📎and tagged