If you listen to this youtube clip, you may not think so…..
What to Do About the Scott Brown Issue?
After a recent post about Scott Brown being far from a liberty-oriented candidate, many responded that it’s important to live in reality, and that we cannot have a perfect candidate. Especially not one who lives in Massachusetts. Â
I agree that it’s important to live within the means of reality, and I believe that is exactly what I’m doing – and what others should do as well. Â Scott Brown is nowhere near the ideal candidate. However, as I argued in another post, it isn’t only about electing the right candidates. Â Because I live in reality and I know that many out there wouldn’t vote for a truly liberty-oriented candidate, I argue that rather than focus all of our efforts on electing the “right” candidate, we focus a good amount of our time on informing people and discussing the ideals of liberty. Â If we choose not to do this and to simply continue trying to elect candidates, we will always be given choices like Scott Brown. Â Not just in Massachusetts, but in other places as well. Â I must admit that I don’t have much hope for Colorado in 2010, and the reason is because I don’t believe enough voters in the state truly believe in liberty. Â And so long as that is the case, we will never have a truly pro-liberty man or woman in office.
Remember, it is about us! The people elect those in office. Â And while those in office often try to lead the people where they want them to go, most will not be elected or get into office by going completely against an extreme majority in this country. Â Therefore, I argue that we must spread the ideals of liberty to everyone and everywhere. And yes, Scott Brown being elected was no surprise, and I didn’t see it happening any other way. Â He was elected, and we must understand that, but the goal must now be to showcase the example of Scott Brown, and to KEEP talking about this until we are able to get a liberty-oriented consensus in this country. Â All lovers of liberty and freedom must take on the responsibility of selling the principles of liberty if they ever wish to have a better reality.
I’m Glad Scott Brown Voted for the Jobs Bill…
…early on that is. Â At least everyone was paying attention. Â
While myself and others recognized that Scott Brown was not a liberty-loving fellow and were expecting this kind of behavior, it hasn’t been seen that way across the country (until now, hopefully).  All most people knew was that he was running against a Democrat and he said he wouldn’t vote for Obama’s healthcare bill.  But did many listen when he mentioned he wouldn’t vote for it because he thought he could instead make it better? Â
What I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t be surprised by his vote to advance this bill.  His stance is that government can and should help people better their lives. He stated that he “…came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside and to do everything in [his] power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families.”  [emphasis mine]  If we wanted a truly liberty-oriented candidate who believes in the constitution, it would have been someone who would never claim that the government is the answer to our problems, rather that they are the problem themselves. Not only should the government not be in the business of bettering anyone’s lives, they are unable to! If you frequent the post office, DMV or pay any attention to politics whatsoever, it should have been clear long ago that the government does not run things well and should be limited to the strict confinements of the constitution. Scott Brown let us down by advancing government rather than diminishing it.
I am glad that Scott made his move when people were watching. All I can hope is that as a nation we are learning our lessons, and it seems that we are. I have been quite pleased with the outrage today by those on the “center-right”, and am happy to see that very few are sticking up for him. However, we still have a long way to go and cannot stop now. Â For those of us who truly care about restoring liberty to this republic, there is plenty of hard work ahead.
Is Medina Out?
Debra Medina has made fantastic strides in her run for governor of Texas, jumping from 4% in the Rasmussen poll in November to 12% in January. Compared with her opponents, she seems to be the most liberty-oriented candidate in the race. While Kay Bailey Hutchinson voted for the $700 billion bailout bill, Governor Rick Perry supports the NAFTA Superhighway, or Trans-Texas Corridor, which will no doubt utilize eminent domain to force people from their homes and businesses.  According to her website, Medina claims to be a major proponent of property rights, state sovereignty, cutting taxes and spending and ensuring an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
But according to Hot Air, The Right Scoop and some others on the center-right, her campaign is now dead in the water. Why is that? Because she did not give a yes or no answer to Glenn Beck when he asked, “Are you a 9/11 truther?” Here was her response:
“I don’t have all the evidence there, Glenn,” Medina replied. “So I’m not in a place – I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There’s some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there so I’ve not taken a position there.”
He then asked if she would disavow people on her campaign team that held such a theory.
“I’m certainly not into mind control or thought policing people,” Medina said. “I don’t see us having a team of radical individuals, if you will.”
I personally do not believe the government is smart enough or capable enough to have pulled off what many of the so-called “truthers” claim they have. Although that’s not to say I’d put it past them. I also think the “truthers” tend to scare people away from the liberty movement and detract from important things we should be talking more about, such as the need for having much less government. But while Medina didn’t claim not to be a “9/11 truther”, she didn’t say she was one either. And while she may not be the perfect candidate, she is definitely the best candidate in the race for Governor of Texas, by far. Just take a look at her opposition.
Since the interview on Beck’s show this morning, she has since come out and tried to better explain herself:
I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.
The question surprised me because it’s not relevant to this race or the issues facing Texans. This campaign has always been about private property rights and state sovereignty. It is focused on the issues facing Texans. It is not a vehicle for the 9-11 truth movement or any other group.
The real underlying question here, though, is whether or not people have the right to question our government. I think the fact that people are even asking questions on this level gets to the incredible distrust career politicians have fostered by so clearly taking their direction from special interests instead of the people, whether it’s Rick Perry and his HPV mandate or Kay Hutchison and voting for the bank bailout. It is absolutely the right and duty of a free people to question their government. Texas does not need another politician who tells you what you want to hear, then violates your liberties and steals your property anyway. I fully expect to be questioned and to be held accountable as Governor, and that’s the underlying issue here: should people be questioning their government. And the answer is yes, they should be.
Ok, so she may have made a blunder with her answer on Glenn Beck. But it seems to me that she was just trying to be honest, and she’s most likely not used to having to play politician. She should have just said “no”. But considering the fact that she represents the ideals of liberty more than her two opponents, should we really be so quick to write her off?
Jon Stewart vs. O’Reilly
This past week, Fox News viewers were given the opportunity to watch Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly go at it. I couldn’t bring myself to watch the entire episode, as it wasn’t more than five minutes into it that I was already fed up with both of them. I was, shall we say, dismayed with Jon for making ridiculous claims, and with Bill for saying nothing to correct him.
When discussing the topic of compromise, Jon lambasted the Republicans for not appreciating Obama’s efforts when it came to tax cuts. First he brought up the president’s stimulus plan, and how a third of it was in tax cuts. He then went on to say he had expected the Republicans to applaud during the State of the Union when Obama mentioned that he had cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He clearly assumes that they stayed seated because it was Obama up there, never mind if he was cutting taxes. The fact is, he may be right. I believe many of them would have stood up had it been John McCain announcing the same. Either way, it’s ridiculous to think that anyone should have stood up to clap for these so-called “tax cuts”.
What many realized back in 2008 was that Obama’s claim that he would be cutting taxes for almost all Americans was just another way of saying “I’m going to spend, spend, spend”. As this Wall Street Journal article points out, some have a different idea of what a tax cut is. The way they see it, “…a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.”" I mean, how on earth can anyone say they are cutting taxes for 95% of Americans, when there aren’t even that many who pay taxes? An article by CBS News brings up a study which finds only 43% of individuals pay taxes. So if taxes are “cut” for 95%, what does that mean? Could it be that the so-called tax “cuts” are actually subsidies to those who don’t pay taxes?
No, Jon. The Republicans should not have stood up and applauded Barack, nor should they have applauded if it was McCain doing something similar. Rather than changing the subject, Bill should have discussed this issue further, and made sure it was understood by the audience (which most likely was made up of a good number of Democrats supporting Jon) that these so-called “tax cuts” were nothing of the sort.
