The Republican National Convention has been nothing short of a complete overthrow of any pretensions of justice, as Dana Milbank of the Washington Post explains. “The Romney campaign had taken pains to stifle the Paul rebellion, by denying him a speaking role, expediting the roll call, changing party rules and even unseating Paul delegates from Maine.”
I haven’t even bothered to follow the events because it sickens me to think of the utter lack of principles, the blatant disregard for integrity, and the deep animosity against the libertarian movement. And regardless of the Republican Party, the presidential and vice-presidential candidates have no merits of their own. Why?
This article from LRC details Romney’s background on various issues. Let me quote, “The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003. When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took “off budget.” But let’s not forget about the healthcare plan either, “But soon after he was elected, Romney started the drumbeat for socialized medicine. Three years later, he signed RomneyCare into law.”
Mitt Romney was recently asked if he thought “it would be appropriate for the American president on the president’s say-so alone to order the death of an American citizen suspected of terrorism.” His response? “Absolutely.”
My facebook friends have heard this before and they’ll hear it again. To me, it is morally unacceptable to support a candidate who believes he has the right to take the life of someone who is suspected of terrorism. Why? 1) No single individual ought to be able to make this choice. Human life is too important. By electing this man, Americans will be giving him the power of life and death over them. Do you want that? I certainly don’t. 2) We’re talking about someone “suspected” of a crime. What happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? I guess I don’t need to ask what happened, I know. This principle of liberty and human rights was abandoned when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus back in the Civil War and imprisoned thousands of people, without a trial. But I digress. 3) What is “terrorism”? This is like “hate crimes.” It can mean anything to anyone. It could be be a thought crime. Hello, 1984. Terrorism is such a broad term that it could be used against an anti-war activist, a homeschooler protesting new education regulations, a family wanting to be self-sufficient by growing their own (organic) food, a concerned citizen wanting to return to the values of the Founding Fathers, this could be used against anyone. So you think Romney, and all future presidents, should be able to have someone killed because they are suspected of terrorism?
This is enough for me to know with 100% certainty I will never be able to support Mitt Romney in any way, shape, or form. I don’t care if he is “pro-market” or a smart business-owner. I don’t care if he thinks he can reduce federal spending, save the economy, or do any number of other good things. Human life means so much more than the condition of our economy. The right to life, liberty, and property, and the right to due process of law before those rights are encroached upon, matters so much more than numbers or graphs or charts.
But then there’s Paul Ryan, the darling of the conservatives. Doesn’t he redeem the campaign? Yep, the guy who voted for TARP, the stimulus bill, and all the following bailouts. Who voted to make the Patriot Act permanent. Who voted for No Child Left Behind. And the list goes on. The guy who has a budget plan that will balance the budget in 2040. Nice. What a drastic measure. Must be a pretty tough budget plan.
Ok, so maybe they are both losers, but at least it isn’t Obama. But some brilliant person has put together a list of 100 ways that Romney and Obama are essentially the same. End of discussion.
But even if he is like Obama, maybe he’s less like Obama than Obama. Huh? I guess what I’m try to say is that if voting for Obama will be evil, then maybe somehow voting for Romney would be voting for less evil. Because we don’t have another choice. Because we live in an imperfect world and must make choices we don’t necessarily like. Because the only way to promote integrity is to compromise. Because to stand for truth we must fall for a lie.
Really? Can you truly agree with that? I know I can’t. Maybe the way to make a difference is to escape the mold. To declare that we won’t accept these false choices. To call the state what it is: a scam. To refuse to choose who will steal our money and our freedoms for the next 4 years.
People will say, “oh, if you don’t vote you can’t complain.” Why not? I didn’t vote because I never believed the lies, I didn’t vote because I never thought these scoundrels would keep their promises, I didn’t vote because I will not support slavery, I didn’t vote because I refused to compromise. So why can’t I complain? And only voters can supposedly complain? Why? Because they believed the lies? Because they decided to be pragmatic rather than principled? Because they were fooled? Voters can complain about evil because they voted for the lesser of two evils, when others refused to support evil at all?
Pingback: In Defense of Liberty « Christianity « Veritas et Libertas