REASONS TO QUESTION YOUR SUPPORT OF MITT ROMNEY

Numbers 1-10 are cited from a book entitled Mitt Romney: The Man, His Values, and His Vision by Lisa Ray Turner and Kimberly Field, published in 2007. Their purpose in writing the book is shown by their statement in their introduction: “We feel a responsibility to participate in the marketplace of ideas. We took one presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, and learned for ourselves who he is and what he is likely to do if elected president of the United States…we [mostly] let Mitt Romney speak for himself.” (page xi)


1. He “idolizes” President Dwight Eisenhower. (page 14)
-Mitt needs to read about “Operation Keelhaul,” Dwight’s legacy from World War II.


2. He said, “Any time government puts waste and excessive burdens of regulation and unnecessary taxation on its citizens, it’s putting us behind in [the global economic] race.” (page 22)
-Apparently the FAILURE of a health care scheme he made law in Massachusetts IS NOT this? He said this in September 2005. The Massachusetts 2006 Health Reform Statute took effect July 2007. See #4.


3. “Under his watch [as governor of Massachusetts], property taxes rose to their highest level in twenty-five years.” (page 32)


4. He “masterminded” a healthcare plan in Massachusetts much like Obamacare on the federal level. He is “proud” of it. Rather than call it universal healthcare, he prefers to call it an “individual responsibility” system. Quoting the book: “Here’s a crash course in the 2006 Health Reform Statute. Every person in Massachusetts is now required to buy health insurance. Young, healthy people—who ordinarily wouldn’t buy health insurance—have to get it, even if they feel like they don’t need it. People in middle-age with arthritis or high cholesterol have to get it, as well as elderly citizens with a myriad of health concerns.” (pages 34-35)
-Where do you begin with how philosophically unsound this is regarding individual liberty and the rights of man? See #2 and decide for yourself if he even knows what he believes.


5. “Romney’s record on education bodes well for his potential focus as president. He made it a top concern and made strides toward changing the face of public education in Massachusetts. Logic tells us he will do the same as president.” (page 36)
-Public education is socialistic/communistic and infringes on man’s right and control of property. See the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.


6. His state of Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage…during his watch. He “says homosexuals should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts.” He wrote to the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans (a grass roots organization for gay Republicans) on October 17, 1994 saying he would be a stronger advocate of gay rights than Senator Edward Kennedy. He received their endorsement. (pages 58-59) He appointed openly gay people to key positions in his administration and encouraged members of the state lesbian and gay bar associations to apply for positions on the bench. (page 63) These claims are also corroborated by The New American magazine, October 18, 2004, page 5.
-Where is that good, Mormon, moral emphasis with those who occupy places and positions? Does he disbelieve Alexis de Tocqueville ‘s(Democracy in America, 1835) statement on the reason for America’s greatness, often quoted by general authorities in his church? In addition, his view that gays should participate in Boy Scouts shows either utter disrespect for what that organization stands for or sheer ignorance of the same.


7. Romney joined the NRA as a Life Member in August 2006 much like George W. Bush did shortly before running for president. (page 71)
-Trying to look good to your target voters? Typical politician’s game…


8. Romney is not philosophically sound regarding the 2nd amendment. He permanently banned assault weapons in Massachusetts “as well as clarified and insured other rights and responsibilities for gun owners.” (page 73) Also corroborated by The New American magazine, October 18, 2004, page 5.
-Mitt, read the 2nd amendment’s wording VERY carefully, especially the last four words.


9. Back on healthcare, quoting from the book: “Governor Romney when asked to compare his program with that proposed by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton: ‘Perhaps the biggest difference between our two plans was that mine got passed and hers didn’t.’” (page 114)
-And he’s proud of that? And he’s a “conservative” Republican who wants us to believe he is a patriot?


10. Romney appears to have little problem with fascism. When discussing investment in technologies, he said, “We have to recognize that where we invest as a nation, both from a government standpoint but also from a private standpoint, those are the areas we’ve been most successful.” (page 115)
-Free markets and private enterprise have EASILY and ALWAYS been MOST successful, Mitt.


11. Looking at Mitt Romney’s record as governor, he:
-issued an executive order forcing justices of the peace to perform homosexual weddings, or resign.
-ordered marriage licenses changed to read “party A” and “party B” – instead of “husband” and “wife.”
-appointed a board member of the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association to the bench, and appointed more Democrat judges than Republicans.
-authored and signed a mandatory health insurance plan backed by Ted Kennedy – including taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.
-overruled his own health department and forced Catholic hospitals to distribute the morning after abortion pill.
(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59931)


12. Planned Parenthood’s website states:
“In 2002, as a candidate for Governor of Massachusetts, Romney submitted a candidate questionnaire to the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts stating his support for the Roe v. Wade decision, as well as increased access to emergency contraception and comprehensive sex education in the public schools. He has since reversed his position on all of these issues as he seeks the Republican nomination for President.”
-As you can see, Romney is a “flip-flopper” to Planned Parenthood.


13. A January 17, 2008 Accuracy in Media column by Cliff Kincaid entitled “Romney Surrounded by Pro-U.N. Lobbyists” spoke of his close associations with Ron Kaufman and Vin Weber, both supporters of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and U.N. (United Nations). Weber is a “Romney advisor and lobbyist” and “a former congressman and member of the board of the CFR.” Weber, Kaufman and his firm, Dutko Global Advisors, “have worked to put more American taxpayer dollars into the coffers of the corrupt United Nations and other international agencies.” There were questions whether Kaufman “runs or advises [Romney’s] campaign for president.”
-In case there are any questions, the CFR and U.N. do NOT have the U.S.A.’s best interests in mind. The interests they have in mind deal with the establishment of world government which necessitates destroying U.S. sovereignty and undermining the Constitution. Why, if Romney is such a good, conservative patriot is he allowing himself to be advised by these men?


14. As if proximity to CFR and U.N. supporters was bad enough, Romney authored an article that was published in the CFR publication Foreign Affairs when seeking the Republican nomination for president. It was entitled “Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges.” There was no apparent interest in being a president that acted under constitutional roles. In fact, if you can find the word “constitution” you’ll be lucky. (Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges. By: Romney, Mitt, Foreign Affairs, 00157120, Jul/Aug2007, Vol. 86, Issue 4)
-Mitt Romney doesn’t have much interest in returning the nation to its original, constitutional ways, as envisioned by the founding fathers. It’s just more of the same…more interventionism, more policing the world, and more strengthening and forming of alliances. Who’s payroll would he be on? The world’s? Or the United States of America’s?


15. He endorsed Bob Bennett (R-UT) and tried to rally support for him to get re-elected to the U.S. Senate.
-The people of Utah have already shown they do not want Bennett working for them. Bennett’s been in office for a long time and voted for TARP. That alone shows incompetence supporting incompetence.

16. He campaigned for the RINO (quite arguably) John McCain in Arizona. Really Mitt?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/mitt-romney-campaigning-f_n_593435.html

17. Ask yourself this question:
-How does a supposedly conservative, Mormon Republican get elected governor in a state that is highly liberal and vastly Democrat? I think by now you can see how that happened.

SIDE WITH REASON, SUPPORT SOMEONE ELSE.

Connor Boyack formulated an even better, more thorough, article along these lines. Visit:

http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-chameleon-like-qualities-of-mitt-romneys-conservatism

The Odd Realm of Law: Keeping Us Safe from Ourselves

It bugs me when laws exist (or attempts are made to pass them) that are essentially there to keep us safe from ourselves.

The classic example is seatbelt law. What is the principle behind seatbelt laws? My understanding is that those laws are in place to minimize injury to those wearing one in an automobile accident. Don’t these laws primarily protect the individual who chooses to buckle up or not? If government is going to be in the business of keeping individuals safe from themselves shouldn’t we have many more laws than we now have? If one favors seatbelt laws shouldn’t they also applaud Felix Ortiz’s “no salt” law in New York state? Shouldn’t they approve of trans fat bans? Wouldn’t they also like to see candy and other tasty consumables that have a high sugar content prohibited amidst the rise in the incidences of obesity and diabetes? It seems that ANY food prohibition dealing with high calorie/low nutrition items ought to be favored by these individuals. Shouldn’t a certain amount of physical activity be mandated by law? High risk activities such as rock climbing, sky diving, canoeing or kayaking in wild rapids, four-wheeling, cave diving, motorcycle riding, etc. should be illegal or heavily regulated; serious injury or death is much more likely engaging in such activities. The list of potentially regulated or banned behaviors could go on and on and on in the interest of individual safety. What would people think if laws became such? Can government really pass just a few laws based on the principle of keeping us safe from ourselves without passing the myriad of others that can have the same end? Wouldn’t the objective undertaken be incomplete and inconsistent if they did not pass them all?

Now, the argument is made that seat belts not only protect the person buckled but they also protect anyone in the car with them (since bodies can be flung around the car in the event of an accident). While this may be true, why can’t it be up to whoever enters the car whether they want exposure to this risk if others are not buckled? Regardless, it still sounds to me like an issue between the people in the vehicle and not an issue government should stick its nose in.

One thing to add: I realize this isn’t quite as simple as I make it sound. Complexity and sensitivity regarding this concern is heightened when children are involved while being less educated and observant about these potential dangers in the first place. I believe the driver (or the responsible adult) of the vehicle may need to take responsibility, as the operator of the vehicle, in some form for whatever may happen to children or whoever has a lessened ability to make sound judgments in this matter as a passenger in the car.

Nonetheless, do we really need laws that penalize a single person, while pulled over, for not wearing his or her seat belt? They did NOTHING to harm anyone else. Someone who is OK with the added risk to themselves if they don’t wear a seatbelt is OK in my book. I ALWAYS wear my seat belt but I in no way agree with the government citing people who do not.

This is the same with drug prohibition. Do we really need drugs to be illegal? Does prohibition really
work anyway? The answer is no and I defy anyone to prove otherwise. Besides, if someone wants to shoot up heroin in the privacy of their own home…I have no problem with that. Only in the event that something someone does affects another person or party in an undesired way do I think government may have a role.

Like I said, I think laws should NEVER be passed that are engineered to keep people safe from their own decisions. I think it is a clear violation of individual liberty for government to choose what we will do with our bodies and what we will put INTO our bodies. Whatever happened to individual responsibility? When does government become responsible for something we should be responsible for? What do you think? Please comment below.

Some Illegal Immigration Solution

As I have thought about illegal immigration recently, in the wake of the uproar over Arizona’s laws, it seems to me that we have created the immigration issue/problem ourselves. WE have created the demand for workers from the south because of the laws we have, collectively, allowed or WANTED to be passed and retained. This has been on my mind lately.

I mention only two which I believe have a significant impact on this issue: minimum wage law and child labor law.

How do these have anything to do with the influx of immigrants from Mexico?

Think about it.

Illegal Mexican immigrants aren’t too concerned about United States laws (after all they are here illegally right?...and they KNOW they are). This is also supported by statistics which show the percentage of crimes committed by illegals. But that’s an issue for another day, or, if you want, Google it yourself. Why do I mention this? To show that they are willing to do anything to subsist, even break laws. Understandably so! Mexico is a mess, and has been for some time. Mexicans “vote with their feet” by coming HERE. Things are better! There is more opportunity.

I just wanted to give some background by stating some of the obvious. Another quick point I need to make to assist placing my views in the context I want is that the argument is often made that Mexicans take jobs that Americans won’t take. I think this is completely wrong and that many Americans WOULD take these jobs but are PREVENTED from doing so by our own laws.

Now, when our own law prevents you from getting a job until you are 15 or 16 years old, that is a large labor force that would and could otherwise work but now cannot. What kind of jobs would these kids and early teens take? Jobs with limited skills required, obviously (something sound familiar about that job description?). I remember when I was even 12 years old. I loved the opportunity to work for money! Employment was often with neighboring farmers who needed extra hands and would just pay cash at the end of the day. This was an ILLEGAL arrangement! Nonetheless, I wanted money! I would work for it! Were these farmers paying me the minimum wage? NO! Did I care? NO! I was OK with even a few bucks an hour. It was an agreed upon wage and both parties benefited or we would not have entered into the agreement to employ me in the first place. This leads me into my next point: minimum wage requirements.

As you can already see from my previous paragraph (I hope) is that it creates problems when governments require a minimum wage. If my position with my neighbors was an official one, it would be illegal to hire me at just a few bucks an hour. Essentially the government is saying that I can’t work at all unless I get enough money. What does the farmer do? He isn’t compelled to employ me so he determines it isn’t worth it to hire me at the mandated minimum wage (or he MAY hire me, who knows…but then he’d likely be engaging in charity but he may not be too interested in that). What most likely happens then? Vacant positions are created that otherwise could be filled. Filling them at AGREED UPON terms is still illegal! How just our laws are…puke.

Thus, these laws in combination create a low (or you could even say “lower”) skill market that is now illegal to employ people in. It is illegal to officially hire someone and pay them at an agreed upon wage below the minimum…even though it would otherwise be agreed to by both parties! In addition, hiring commensurate, low-skill Americans, ideal to fill these vacancies, which often would be below 15 or 16 years old, is additionally ILLEGAL.

What are the options of those who need the labor for low skilled work but can’t quite justify paying the minimum wage? Hire those who aren’t too concerned about the laws in the first place, those who often just need to subsist! This is often additionally cheaper for the “employer” because he avoids all the employee and payroll taxes that burden those who would otherwise provide work for others more freely. He could just pay cash at the end of the day. Mexicans who engage in this employment can then “write home” and tell family and friends, “Jobs are in America!” Here come the Mexicans!

Now, I realize I may be criticized by what I have said and be accused of making things too simple. Perhaps so. I recognize that this may be the case but how can one deny the simple, logical results I have tried to describe clearly, results that come from our own laws? However, I see no significant problems or omissions with what I have described in how these laws actually affect our country. If you do, feel free to comment.

Minimum wage law as Nobel laureate Milton Friedman sees it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

Could America Be Waking Up!?

http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=markristaino

The concept of non-rule

I view our constitutional government as an attempt at non-government. Just barely enough government to survive in a world of states where those without the “protection” of a state will be taken over by other states. The trouble is that those running it don’t understand the vision of non-government.

It is obvious that most people today don’t understand the vision of non-government. It’s not just our federal and state governments that are the problem. Even many local city governments wish to control everything within the boundaries of their unit of government.

Ultimately, if you give any group a monopoly on the power to tax, fine, and punish crime; the definition of what is taxable and the definition of crime will be ever expanding until you, the citizen, become a slave paying tribute for the right to barely scratch out a living in a land of plenty. Why do we accept such a generous offer from the state? First, because the state claims that without it we would all die in the primitive conditions of nature. Second, because the state isn’t making an offer. If you wish to live you will submit to the state’s rule.

The question in my mind is whether or not it is moral for the state or it’s agents (governors, state legislators, police, employees, contractors, etc.) to tell any of its subjects what they can and can not do with their bodies, goods, or real estate. Many accept the current state of government because they simply can not imagine a world that is any other way. I posit that there is a way of living that can result in greater happiness and prosperity than we enjoy today. As I write here I hope to convey the vision of what that means and how it can be done through reducing government control in all of our lives.

About the author:
Shaun Kruger is running as a Libertarian for House district 52. You can view his campaign website at votekruger.com.