Capitalism Could Suffer Most Under Romney (Bear With Me)

Bear with me here. I am not here to tell you that Mitt Romney is more anti-capitalist than Barack Obama. They are both anti-capitalism, but that is beside the point. The bottom line is that nothing will change over the next four years regardless of which guy wins. Mitt Romney is a crony-capitalist. This means that he advocates for government subsidies and bailouts to certain corporations. Barack Obama borders on a socialist, which means that he would like the government to posses most of your money and distribute it how they see fit. Both of these philosophies are anti-free market. Neither is worse than the next. However, I am here today to show you why a Mitt Romney presidency would be worse for the free market. I am not telling you to vote for Obama. I suggest you vote neither. Like I said, bear with me, and I will show you.

I was listening to the most recent episode of the Peter Schiff Show on iTunes yesterday. Peter, whom I consider the second most intelligent man on economics, right behind Doctor Paul, was talking about the differences between the two candidates. He was talking about how each candidate brands their economic theory differently, but in practice they are both anti-free market. Of course, Romney repeats the term "free markets" over and over again. Then, it dawned on me (and Peter as well) that a Romney presidency is the worst case scenario.

You see, a President Romney would be similar to a President Bush. Bush expanded the size and scope of government. He increased regulations, bailed out the banks, an increased the deficit. This is all under the name of conservative economic theory. However, it isn't conservative economic theory, as I have pointed out. It is a progressive economic theory that is similar to President Obama's. In 2008, Obama ran for President calling for more government intervention in the economy. His reason for this: capitalism caused the collapse. Capitalism didn't cause the collapse. Crony-capitalist socialism caused the collapse. 2008 was a bad year for capitalism because it was wrongly blamed for the collapse.

Now, fast forward to 2012. Our economy is sure to continue to slouch. Everyone knows that the next four years are going to be a rough time for the economy. If Obama wins re-election, this will happen under his watch. This will prove that socialism does not work in fixing the economy. If Romney is President, it will happen under his watch. It will happen because he, too, is a crony-capitalist socialist. However, what did he promise in the debates? Capitalism. So in 2016 everyone will once again blame the situation on capitalism, despite the situation being caused by the attack on free markets. Do you see it now?

This is a hazardous scenario that we are in. We have the two main parties, neither practicing free markets, destroying the economy. It's almost like a Broadway show. One guy comes in, screws everything up under a guise, and then the guy who admits he is a bad guy (as opposed to the disguised guy) is able to triumph the screwing as the solution.

Now, imagine a different scenario. Imagine a scenario in which everyone is honest. Imagine a scenario in which you have two parties: Austrians vs. Keynesians. The Keynesians come in and wreck everything, and then people turn to capitalism, like they are now. This time, though, the Austrians, real capitalists, come in and fix everything. Now, the country is prosperous and capitalism can no longer be blamed as a bad thing. This is why an Obama victory would be better. If the collapse is coming, which we all know it is, wouldn't it be better to have people blaming it on what it really is?

Thank you for sticking with me. If you read this far, you listened to my "bear with me" message. I hope you can see this idea. Indeed, this year is a "critical election," as the media calls it. But, this is not a critical choice between Obama and Romney or socialism and capitalism. It is a critical choice between our course and a different course. It is a choice between what we have now, two crony-capitalist socialists, or a new day. A day in which our two choices represent real differences. Join with me this year, regardless of your political affiliation, in condemning the lack of choice. Again, thank you for bearing with me.

The "Wipe Israel Off The Map" Hoax

Today, I am not writing about a recent event, but rather an issue that is plaguing our great nation. I am choosing to write about this because it involves some of the most horrendous misreporting that I have seen in awhile. Let's start with the basics. Iran is currently under sanctions and threats from around the world for two reasons: 1) they do not like Israel, and 2) they are developing nuclear weapons. Several politicians are rallying the American people for a war with Iran, and the people are agreeing chiefly because of one phrase, "Iran has stated that they will wipe Israel off the map." This makes sense to the American people, seeing that they do not like Israel and could be developing nuclear weapons. However, this is not true and the American people need to know that to avoid submitting to another major war.

First of all, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's Prime Minister, never even said it. Professors and Arabic translators have agreed that the proper translation is not, "wipe Israel off the map," but rather, "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Now, while this is not exactly "friendly" language, it is starkly different from what has been presented. First of all, they are saying that they are opposed to the Israeli regime rather than the Israeli people. They would like the Israeli regime removed from power, not the Jews removed from Israel.

When asked to clarify these comments, Ahmadinejad said that he has no plans to violently remove the regime or kill any Israeli people. Rather, he has said that the regime, he believes, will collapse on its' own. What this boils down to is that Iran is simply choosing not to recognize the Israeli government as legitimate. While that is not a good thing, it is not new. In fact, 27 countries do not recognize Israel as legitimate. So why are we treating Iran differently? It has nothing to do with Ahmadinejad statements, actually. We have been targeting Iran for years. Ahmadinejad only took power in 2005, yet we have had a trade embargo on Iran since 1995. The reason that we are targeting Iran is the same reason that we targeted Iraq: they questioned our legality in interfering with Middle Eastern politics and they have access to a lot of oil.

So, what do I suggest we do about this? First, we must reevaluate our position. While I agree that Iran is a shady regime, they do have a right to uranium enrichment. They are a part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows them to enrich uranium in small amounts. We must accept this, or we are breaking one of the most significant treaties in our history. We must address the issue diplomatically. Regardless of the Santorum talking points, we must sit down with Iran and discuss this. We must make it clear to them that we are willing to allow them to enrich as long as they let the world know exactly what they are doing and why. The only way that we can fix this problem is through this kind of diplomatic action. Hostile sanctions and eventually another war will do nothing but make the situation much worse.

Cruz Defeats Dewhurst In Texas Runoff

Liberty will be on the Lone Star ballot in November. This is thanks to a huge victory in the Texas Senate run-off election by Tea Party-backed Ted Cruz. Cruz is a Cuban-American and is originally from Canada, but he is as American as they come. He was backed by members from all coroners of the Republican Party, including our very own Ron Paul, as well as Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, and even anti-Paul leader of Red State, Eric Erickson. But do not worry. Cruz's beliefs align more with Doctor Paul's than any of the other endorsements that he received. Cruz is pro-free markets, pro-Audit the Fed, anti-NDAA, and has called for an exit strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cruz took down his Republican opponent David Dewhurst, Texas' Lt. Governor backed by the big government Texas Republican establishment, including Rick Perry. Cruz's campaign came mostly from the grassroots, while Dewhurst spent millions of his own money and outspent Cruz 3:1.

There is some concern over Cruz within the Ron Paul and liberty movement. This concern stems from Cruz's refusal to endorse Ron Paul despite many of their similar beliefs. This could mean that Cruz may pander to the establishment for political gain despite his principals opposing them. Or, it could simply mean that he was in the midst of election season and wanted to focus on his own election instead of doing anything to isolate any of his supporters. His non-endorsement did not concern me, but I do have some concerns going forward. My main concern moving forward is the pressure he will be under. The Republican establishment in Texas is large and influential, and he will be under pressure to vote their way even if he doesn't want to.

Nonetheless, I am optimistic about Cruz. If elected to the Senate, which he most likely will be, he would be a close ally of Senator Rand Paul in fighting things like NDAA and the Patriot Act, issues which members of both sides have isolated Rand on. He will lead the charge for fiscal responsibility and an auditing of the Federal Reserve, issues Dewhurst would have rolled over on. This article is not a Cruz endorsement, but as we move forward and I start endorsing the many liberty candidates we have this year, I plan on including Cruz on my list.