Continuing Just Don't Vote #VRWC

"Supreme Court is Another Reason to Vote Romney This November"

[T]he prospect of Obama getting TWO MORE Supreme Court appointments, shifting the court even further to the left should frighten all freedom loving Americans into action.

Imagine four Obama Supreme Court Appointees blocking conservative reforms while rubber stamping every left-wing agenda item for the next 25 years.

If this happens, Obama will have succeeded in fundamentally transforming America.

Mitt Romney's own campaign website confirms "Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts …" Hmmmm … Roberts, a "conservative" justice appointed by "conservative" El Presidente George W. Bush, voted with "left-wing lunatic[s]" Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to uphold ObamaCare by making the absurd argument that a mandate enforced via penalty is somehow (by magic?) a tax.

Strike one.

In her mostly concurring opinion, "liberal" Justice Ruth Ginsburg pointed to Mitt Romney's role in fathering ObamaCare:

By requiring most residents to obtain insurance, see Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 111M, §2 (West 2011), the Commonwealth ensured that insurers would not be left with only the sick as customers … See Brief for Commonwealth of Massachusetts as Amicus Curiae in No. 11–398, p. 3 (not­ing that the Commonwealth's reforms reduced the number of uninsured residents to less than 2%, the lowest rate in the Nation, and cut the amount of uncompensated care by a third); 42 U. S. C. §18091(2)(D) (2006 ed., Supp. IV) (noting the success of Massachusetts' reforms). In cou­pling the minimum coverage provision with guaranteed­ issue and community-rating prescriptions, Congress followed Massachusetts' lead.

Strike two.

Republicans have appointed 12 of the last 15 justices, yet "the court's rulings have remained left of the center of general public opinion on most … of the biggest issues." Why? Because they appoint left-leaning (defer to power) justices. Romney will be no different.

Governor Romney (D-MA), appointed radical "constitutional 'living document' poster children" according to Liberty Counsel Action Vice President Matt Barber:

Many of Romney's appointments were not only liberal, not only Democrats, but were radical counter-constitutionalists. How on earth can we expect that, as president, he would be any different?

Actions speak louder than words, and Mitt Romney's actions as governor scream from the rooftops that he cannot be trusted with this most important of presidential responsibilities.

Strike three.

As important as the appointment of justices may be, neither Mitt Romney nor the Republican Party has any credibility on the issue whatsoever. Richard Nixon appointee Harry Blackmun gave us Roe v. Wade. Gerald Ford appointee John Paul Stevens became "the senior leader of [the Supreme Court's] liberal wing."

Ronald Reagan appointees Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy aren't exactly stalwarts of "conservatism" or "originalism." Antonin Scalia, another Reagan appointee, recently said that "the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility of gun-control legislation." George H.W. Bush appointee David Souter advocated for judicial power based on the "living document" nonsense thesis. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. have been mixed-bags at best, but far from reliable.

Judges are appointed for their loyalty to the party, not their loyalty to the Constitution. You're simply rolling the dice by supporting a candidate based on the faith he'll appoint good judges. And considering Romney's track-record of judicial appointments in Massachusetts, it's safe to say the dice are loaded against you.

"Barack Hussein Obama & The Race Card"

Barack Hussein Obama was swept into office by a wave of voters willing to give the new guy a shot …

Four years later, we know … that Obama was either not ready for the task he was given or his prescriptions did not work as advertised. In fact, if they were meant to heal a nation of its economic malaise and draw the political parties together in some magical union of left and right then the cure was worse than the disease.

Too many also, voted for Obama under the premise that he would close the supposed divide between the races … Indeed, the subject of Obama's race is ever in play by the media and that too has had the opposite effect than what Americans were promised, namely, more division, not less.

Sooner or later Barack Hussein Obama must lose his pigment to be judged by actions and results … Americans must look at the man without the rainbow goggles and flowery rhetoric to discern … if we are pleased with the results of Obama's Transformational Vision for America …

Of course he didn't live up to his "flowery rhetoric," no president ever does (or even can for that matter).

When judging a politician, rhetoric should be the last thing on anyone's mind. Despite Reagan's rhetoric, government grew in size, scope and power during his administration. George W. Bush was the biggest welfare-monger since LBJ (and thanks for the police state you schmuck!). Nixon, it could be argued (quite easily), was more liberal than Barack Obama. FDR "campaigned on a limited government platform in 1932." I could carry on, of course, but the case for political rhetoric has already been destroyed.

The left believes the rhetoric of the two dysfunctional parties because they see in Washington a Golden Calf, and in the president a messiah. But the right is guilty of this civic religion too, as witnessed by their deference to power, cries for "leadership," and thirst for a "unifying American creed" in pursuit of "National Greatness." Hey, who's more likely to recite the socialist pledge? Just sayin' …

Hayek was right. In politics the worst really do get on top, as Radley Balko aptly explains:

Our politicians are clownish, ridiculous people. Even if you're the die-hardest of die-hard blue- or red-staters, in your most honest moments you have to concede that Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner are absurd human beings. If they didn't hold positions of power, you'd want nothing to do with these people.

Politics — the quest for power because you're sure that you, more than others, know what's best for everyone else — has always been a profession worth ridiculing, going back to the satirists who found plenty to ridicule in the earliest democratic institutions in Rome and Greece. But here in America we have a political process — another institution subject to 236 years of fine-tuning—that's particularly cartoonish. The set of skills it takes to get elected and achieve success in politics are not only the sorts of traits you'd never want in the people who govern you, they're actually character flaws. They're the sorts of traits decent people try to teach out of their children. To be successful at politics, you need to be deceitful, manipulative, conniving, and mostly devoid of principle.

So those of us who question authority do so … because we recognize that human beings, ourselves included, are flawed. And we'll always be flawed. Which means that we will build flawed institutions and produce flawed leaders. We question authority because we recognize that not only is authority (another word for power) inherently corrupting, but also because we recognize the perverse values, priorities, and notions of merit upon which authority is generally granted.

Romney isn't going to "save America" anymore than the Man in the Moon. He certainly isn't trustworthy ("flip-flop" is just another way of saying 'lie'). Romney is a typical politician — a psychopath — bent on accumulating power. Combine the character flaws that allowed Romney to rise to the top with his Mormon belief that he may become a god, and you've got yourself one helluva scary dude.

Race … For all his faults (they are legion), Obama is not responsible for the endless charade of race-baiters. These cheap hustlers will remain no matter what.

Policy … Of course Obama's policies are disastrous. Ludwig von Mises put this argument to rest way back in 1920, by irrefutably demonstrating that central planning is always doomed to fail. Only a fool could believe otherwise. Yet both Romney and Obama continue to insist on the "magical" powers of Big Government.

Like Obama, Romney is beholden to the strange cult of John Maynard Keynes. Like Obama, Romney hearts the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security. You can meet the voyeurs and perverts of the TSA at a Romney political event yourself. Like Obama, Romney even desires the unaccountable power to imprison and execute American citizens without due process. As Thomas Mullen points out,

At any previous time in American history, a summary execution by the executive without due process would have been considered cold blooded murder and an act of tyranny.

Given Romney's endorsement of the president's action, there is a well-worn term that applies to both candidates for president. "Unfit for office" has been wasted in the past on extramarital affairs or scandals involving some misappropriation of funds in private business. Like the cry of "wolf!" its impact has been eroded by overuse.

However, it is a gravely serious charge. It denotes a fundamental moral failing that puts a candidate completely beyond consideration.

Both President Obama and Mitt Romney are unfit for office due to their support for the presidential kill list. Regardless of where they stand on economic policy, foreign policy or social issues, this position alone should disqualify them in any civilized society.

Same as it ever was … the worst really do rise to the top.

"US Relations With Islamic Countries — Another Reason To Vote For Romney"

Mitt Romney, of course, has no foreign affairs experience. But, we know that he has been a very successful businessman. So, we can expect him, like a good businessman, to surround himself with the most capable people in foreign affairs that he can find.

A President Romney may not be able to bring peace to the Muslim nations, not after the mess Barack Obama has made of our relations there; but we can know that he would deal with those nations from a position of strength and not of weakness, as Obama has done. Because of Obama, the Muslim world is a more dangerous place. Ask yourself, if trouble breaks out in that region, who would you rather have as the US president?

Who would I rather have as US president? Nobody. Or at least Ron Paul.

Sorry, but when I hear conservative arguments about foreign policy, all I hear is "blah blah, blah." Or more like, "bomb, bomb, bomb."

The last two presidents alone — Republican and Democrat — are responsible for countless deaths, trillions of dollars spent, and lost liberty at home in the name of war. After a decade plus of perpetual war, how many more lives are "pro-lifers" willing to sacrifice in this Trotskyite permanent revolution to immanetize the global eschaton? At some point even the most hardcore advocates must come to admit what an utter disaster the wars have turned out to be … right?

Mitt Romney will "surround himself with the most capable people in foreign affairs that he can find"? Don't make me laugh. As I briefly covered here, Romney has surrounded himself with the same neocon Bush flunkies who got us into this mess in the first place. You can't bomb your way to good relations with anyone, yet another war (oh glorious war) is exactly what we could expect with a President Mitt Romney.

Do you like Chris Christie's ignorantly induced gas shortage? Then you'll love the price of oil after Romney bombs Iran … and the countless deaths, maiming, broken families, debt, draconian laws, and complete degradation of society war brings.

Enough for now, hopefully I can finish in the morning.

Just Don't Vote!