RSS

Tag Archives: President

Santorum: Assassinating Scientists is a “Wonderful Thing”

Rick Santorum claims to be pro-life. I am extremely pleased that he puts value on the life of the unborn. However, apparently his respect for life does not extend past US borders. In this remarkable video, Santorum hopes we are behind the assassinations of Iranian scientists, says their deaths are wonderful, and says we have even assassinated US citizens. So there is no right to life or right to trial for non-combatant Iranian scientists in a so far peaceful nuclear program in a country we are not yet fighting. This is one reason I cannot support “prolife” politicians. They fail to see that human value knows no borders. Iranian scientists are created in the image of God. They are under the sovereignty of the Iranian government. They are innocent of any crime against the US or anyone else, for that matter. Whether under natural rights, Christian principles, or simply good foreign policy, this is irresponsible rhetoric.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 21, 2012 in Government, Justice, libertarianism, liberty, News

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Ranking Presidential Candidates: Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum is currently enjoying a huge surge in popularity. Due mainly to continued reluctance among many to vote for Romney, many are turning to Santorum.

How does he fare under my system for analyzing political positions?

(Disclaimer: I am a libertarian, and an extremely idealistic one. Don’t be surprised if my posititions and rating systems seem to support libertarian positions and candidates.)

In the area of foreign policy, I am looking at issues like a constitutional understanding of war. We cannot have a President who is willing to go to war without congressional approval and without formally declaring war. We also need presidents who understand that the United States should mind its own business overseas unless our citizens are attacked. A foreign policy that emphasizes peace and trade with all and entangling alliances with none is an essential part of a good candidate’s political platform. 

This is going to be rough. Santorum supports continued foreign aid, a ratcheting up of the war machine against Iran, continued presence in Afghanistan, huge military budgets, and a general continuation of all the failed policies that have stirred up terrorism. Not only are these policies dangerous, they are unconstitutional. and against the vision of the Founding Fathers. In this category, on a scale of 0 to 5, I give Santorum a 0. He will continue the assault on human life and national sovereignty across the globe.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/317118

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/rick_santorum/profile

http://www.ricksantorum.com/issues

The second area is that of economic freedom. A good president would realize that our tax system, regulatory system, and welfare system only serve to distort market forces and hurt our nation’s prosperity and freedom. We need to systematically dismantle these programs, and free businesses to react to market forces. The government should only get involved in cases of fraud or contract enforcement.

Santorum fares better here. He proposes stopping funding to ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, so on the regulatory issues he has at least made some big promises. He proposes cutting 5 trillion in five years. While I am extremely pessimistic about this, I believe that he has at least made some big promises, and if he actually kept them, he would be a better president here than our last few. However, he still accepts the premises of legalized plunder, welfare, and regulation, and just favors shrinking them. I will give him a generous 3.

http://www.ricksantorum.com/spending-cuts-and-entitlements-reform

The third area is trade and immigration. Our president should realize that free trade is vital to our economy and that economic freedom will give our businesses a competitive advantage. In the area of immigration, the president should realize that our current system of allowing illegal immigration and giving welfare to immigrants is unworkable. We should first dismantle welfare and then open up legal immigration and allow market forces to manage the labor market.

Santorum frequently refers to himself as the son of an immigrant. Not surprisingly, he has a lot of good things to say about legal immigration. On the positive side, he favors streamlining the system and opening a guestworker program. However, he supports stronger border control before solving the actual problems that cause illegal immigration. Massive welfare reform (elimination) and an opening up of the border to allow the labor market to work would solve this problem. I will give him a 2 for limited support of legal immigration, and the consistency to want to enforce a law he supports.

http://www.ricksantorum.com/immigration-reform-securing-and-strengthening-america

Fourth, a president needs to defend civil liberties. No torture or holding “enemy combatants” without trial or without formal charges. A candidate should not support the Patriot Act, which vastly increases the surveillance power and authority of the federal government. Essentially, a good candidate must support ethical treatment of citizens and enemies.

On the good side, Santorum opposed the National Defense Authorization Act. He still supported the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and torture, but at least he draws the line somewhere. He supports indefinite detention and torture of “enemy combatants,” and spying on Americans. However, he at least does not support indefinite detention of Americans. This would be an improvement on the current president. Also, I don’t think he’ll change his position like the current president. I’ll give him a 1.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/republican-debate-ndaa-indefinite-detention_n_1209581.html

http://santorum.on-the-issues.org/Guantanamo.php

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/Views/Homeland_Security/

Finally, a candidate must take a principled stand on social issues. He must oppose the murder of millions of unborn human beings, while recognizing that ideally abortion would be controlled by local governments, as with almost all murders. Marriage is another important issue. While it would be preferable if a candidate understood marriage as between a man and a woman, it is just as important for candidates to realize that the government is not the solution to our societal marriage problems. Government should get out of the marriage licensing business and allow churches to recognize marriages.

While I happen to agree with him on social issues, I don’t agree with how he proposes to solve them. He is pro-life, but he wants federal regulation of abortion. Life is a tremendous issue, but liberty is as well. I don’t think he could actually achieve a savings in the number killed, but he could achieve a limitation of liberty. He also opposes gay marriage. I believe we should have government get out of the issue all together. Because life is such an important issue, and he wants to defend it, I will give him a 2. At least he will try to stop federal funding of abortion. He wants to overturn Roe, but I do not believe he has a plan to do so.

In summary, Santorum gets an 8. That seems extremely harsh. However, Santorum still believes the 3 big lies: that the American military can police the world without causing blowback, that redistribution of wealth is not stealing, and that the government can help solve our social and cultural problems. His strongest area is the economy, where he favors decreased regulation and spending cuts. His worst area is foreign policy, where he would almost certainly start a war and send America’s young men and women off to fight and die in another area of the globe.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 15, 2012 in Government, liberty, News

 

Tags: , , ,

Mitt vs. Mitt

 

2 things about this video:

First, this may be the greatest thing I have ever seen from the Democratic National Committee. I am pleased to see an ad that actually exposes factual inconsistencies in a candidate’s message and history.

Second, to those who think pointing out the flaws in a Republican candidate is somehow tearing down a friend or ally, consider this: to hide the fact that a candidate for president does not seem to be acting with integrity or consistency is to betray the truth. If a candidate is dangerous to our country, it does not matter whether there is a D or an R in front of his name. I think the R’s are not anywhere near as pro-liberty as they want people to believe.

Now to the video exposing how Mitt Romney has changed his views. I’ll leave it up to you to decide why he would choose to change all his positions at a time when the Republicans are moving “right” (whatever that means.)

 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 29, 2011 in Government, Media, News

 

Tags: , , , ,

Ranking Presidential Candidates

The presidential election of 2012 is just around the corner, and candidates are gearing up for their campaigns. I have been wondering if I can construct a template or paradigm to numerically grade candidates that are important to me. After some thought, I have decided to divide policy into five areas: foreign policy, economic freedom, trade and immigration, civil liberties, and social issues. In each category, candidates are rated from 0 to 5. I will run down some of the specifics in a minute.

In the area of foreign policy, I am looking at issues like a constitutional understanding of war. We cannot have a President who is willing to go to war without congressional approval and without formally declaring war. We also need presidents who understand that the United States should mind its own business overseas unless our citizens are attacked. A foreign policy that emphasizes peace and trade with all and entangling alliances with none is an essential part of a good candidate’s political platform. 

The second area is that of economic freedom. A good president would realize that our tax system, regulatory system, and welfare system only serve to distort market forces and hurt our nation’s prosperity and freedom. We need to systematically dismantle these programs, and free businesses to react to market forces. The government should only get involved in cases of fraud or contract enforcement.

The third area is trade and immigration. Our president should realize that free trade is vital to our economy and that economic freedom will give our businesses a competitive advantage. In the area of immigration, the president should realize that our current system of allowing illegal immigration and giving welfare to immigrants is unworkable. We should first dismantle welfare and then open up legal immigration and allow market forces to manage the labor market.

Fourth, a president needs to defend civil liberties. No torture or holding “enemy combatants” without trial or without formal charges. A candidate should not support the Patriot Act, which vastly increases the surveillance power and authority of the federal government. Essentially, a good candidate must support ethical treatment of citizens and enemies.

Finally, a candidate must take a principled stand on social issues. He must oppose the murder of millions of unborn human beings, while recognizing that ideally abortion would be controlled by local governments, as with almost all murders. Marriage is another important issue. While it would be preferable if a candidate understood marriage as between a man and a woman, it is just as important for candidates to realize that the government is not the solution to our societal marriage problems. Government should get out of the marriage licensing business and allow churches to recognize marriages.

A candidate who scores well in these categories is very hard to find. However, examining candidates on a variety of issues instead of one pet issue allows one to gain a better understanding of who would best lead our country.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 21, 2011 in Government

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.