Commentators continually draw attention to the “steadiness” that Mitt Romney has shown vis-à-vis the GOP presidential primary contest. Romney, they point out, has “steadily” maintained his first place position. Yet never do these same commentators point out that while most of the race’s “frontrunners” have come and gone — Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain — Ron Paul has steadily remained fourth place or better, depending on the polls.
In this “An Honest Look At…” series, I have sought to show that in spite of their protestations to the contrary, each of the GOP presidential candidates exhibits a penchant for the ideology of Big Government. Each is either ignorant of or indifferent to the secret of American liberty, a secret that lies within the fact that our national government is supposed to be a federal government, a government to which our Constitution assigns but a few specific “powers.”
As this final edition of the series establishes, it is in the person of Ron Paul alone that the Republican Party’s rhetoric of liberty becomes incarnate.
Let’s begin by examining Paul’s positions on domestic policy.
In the midst of allegations of police brutality and police aggression at the OWS protests, the U.S. Senate approved a bill that is said to “explicitly create a police state”: the National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA, passed by a vote of 93 to 7, virtually stated that all of the United States may be considered a battlefield, and therefore the American military is permitted to indefinitely detain any American perceived to be a threat.
Several amendments were proposed by both Democrats and Republican Senators, which would have deleted the dangerous provisions that would allow the indefinite detention of American citizens. While most of those amendments were overwhelming voted down, a single compromise amendment was passed that was intended to quell fears that American citizens may be imprisoned indefinitely, though skeptics remain uncomfortable with the final outcome.
In an interview Thursday night with CNN’s Piers Morgan, Herman Cain’s lawyer repeatedly dodged questions as to whether his client had carried on 13-year affair with a woman the candidate describes as a “friend.” Earlier that day, the influential New Hampshire daily, the Union Leader, reported that the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO had paid money to a woman claiming to have carried on a long-term extramarital affair with Cain.
The Ron Paul for President campaign has released a withering two-minute video entitled Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy. The video chronicles Newt Gingrich's hypocrisy on the issue of the housing bubble and lobbying, as well as his advocacy of an individual health care mandate and cutting a pro-global warming legislation television advertisement with Democrat Nancy Pelosi.
CNBC Host Larry Kudlow noted on his show December 1 that the video "has gone completely viral. Completely viral. It's running everywhere." Indeed, the video received some 250,000 views on YouTube.com within the first full day of its release. More importantly, the video has received coverage on most of the national television networks and newspapers across the nation, bringing the real number of views into the millions. In addition, it has received the attention of television stations in early primary states such as New Hampshire.
When Newt Gingrich was asked in the November 9 CNBC presidential debate what he did to earn $300,000 from mortgage giant Freddie Mac, Gingrich claimed: "I said to them at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible." But the Wall Street Journal reported December 1 that Gingrich had not only praised the Freddie Mac model in a 2007 interview on the mortgage giant's website but said that "these are results I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as possible."
The interview with Gingrich is no longer available on the Freddie Mac website, but it is available on several Internet archive websites that capture what websites used to post.
The Wall Street Journal story noted that "The interview was published by Freddie Mac as part of a regular campaign to educate the public — and Washington — about its brand." And by "educate the public," the Wall Street Journal meant promote the continuance of its policy of accelerating the housing bubble.
In the April 24, 2007 interview with Gingrich, the former House Speaker had the following praise for Freddie Mac and the whole GSE (Government-Sponsored Enterprise) concept:
A recent Pew Research Center study proved that there was in fact truth to assertions made by Ron Paul’s supporters that he was being “blacked out” by the media. That study compiled a list of 52 mainstream news sources and discovered that Paul received significantly less media coverage than all of the other candidates, including Tim Pawlenty, who dropped out of the race because of his campaign’s lack of progress. That blackout continues it seems, as the Republican Jewish Coalition’s GOP 2012 panel, set to take place on December 7, will not include Ron Paul.
“As Mike Allen previewed in Playbook, the event will allow the seven candidates taking part — Ron Paul is not attending — 35 minutes each to speak,” writes Maggie Haberman for Politico.
Currently, it’s unknown whether Paul was not invited or declined the invitation, but Adam Kredo of Washington Jewish Week said of Paul’s absence, “Note that Texas Rep. Ron Paul, no good friend of Israel, will not be in the house.” That statement appeared on the Republican Jewish Coalition’s website.
Kredo’s assertion that Paul is “no good friend of Israel” is based on Paul’s philosophy that the United States should be less involved in Israel’s affairs.
Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman has just barely been able to have his voice heard in the Republican Party’s presidential primary race, so low are his polling numbers. Yet, still, he is a candidate that, not unlike every other such candidate, proudly proclaims his commitment to liberty and, hence, “limited government.”
But is Huntsman really who he claims to be?
This is the question with which we must concern ourselves. As we will see, just a brief look at Huntsman’s utterances and deeds discloses in no time that, in his case, appearance is eons apart from reality.
To Huntsman’s credit, as Governor of Utah he presided over tax cuts — sales taxes especially — and a simplification of the overall tax code. For this, the Cato Institute lavished praise upon him. Yet lest we hastily exploit this fact as proof of his commitment to smaller government, we would be well served to note that the very same libertarian-friendly think tank criticized Huntsman for having “completely dropped the ball on spending, with per capita spending increasing at about 10 percent annually during his tenure.”
It’s rare that a contender for his party’s presidential nomination calls for his own execution, but Newt Gingrich did exactly that on Monday.
This congenital hypocrite was prattling about limited government 15 years ago while his infamous “Contract With America” manicured Leviathan’s claws. Far be it from him to abolish unconstitutional programs when he could tinker with and “improve” them instead! Nor have the passing years dampened his fascism and faith in policy: witness Mr. Wonk’s proposal earlier this year to replace — not eradicate — the tyrannical EPA “with a new agency that would work with industry.”
Predictably, Mr. Wonk also endorses the police-state. Whether we’re talking non-governmental terrorism or drugs Our Rulers dislike, the politician with two divorces, numerous infidelities, and other scandals to his credit lusts to “protect” us by running our lives for us.
So when a reporter asked him, “In 1996, you introduced a bill that would have given the death penalty to drug smugglers. Do you still stand by that?”, Mr. Wonk responded, "If you are, for example, the leader of a cartel, sure. Look at the level of violence they've done to society. You can either be in the Ron Paul tradition and say there's nothing wrong with heroin and cocaine or you can be in the tradition that says, 'These kind [sic] of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship”
It’s no secret that Christmas has been under attack by secular groups for the past several years, with court challenges to nativity scenes becoming nearly as much a seasonal tradition as the crèches that have graced cathedrals, churches, and chapels for more than a century throughout America.
This year two national religious organizations, the Christian Defense Coalition and Faith and Action, decided to take the fight for Christmas all the way to the Supreme Court — not with a legal challenge, but with a live nativity scene set up for all to see in front of the nation’s judicial building.
The November 30 display, which included live animals along with actors in key roles from the biblical account of Christ’s nativity, was actually a parade of sorts that wended its way past the U.S. Capitol building before arriving in front of the Supreme Court building before noon.
A press release by the groups explained that the display was part of the “Nativity Project,” a nationwide campaign designed “to share the message of Christmas and also to confront the erosion and hostility toward public expressions of faith, especially during the Christmas season.”
While Congress abides in gridlock, as Republicans and Democrats debate tax policy, and the SuperCommittee admits failure over deciding how to tame the mounting federal deficit, the fight against American liberty remains a bipartisan war. Conservative and liberal elites seem to share a common theme: The American people are too free for their own good.
Indeed, for those in the elite ranks of Washington politics, the concept of liberty is regrettably similar: Those on both the Left and the Right continue to stomp on the Founders’ vision of a free America.