PDA

View Full Version : 10 Questions Separating Liberty Candidates From Counterfeits




FrankRep
09-30-2010, 06:44 AM
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/US_9_10/2620-coverstory.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3368-10-questions-separating-liberty-candidates-from-counterfeits)
The New American Magazine on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/TheNewAmerican)



While there is no sure-fire way to tell which candidates for Congress are telling the truth when they say they are constitutionalists, and which are counterfeit, vigilant citizens can separate many of the phonies with tough questions.


10 Questions Separating Liberty Candidates From Counterfeits (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3368-10-questions-separating-liberty-candidates-from-counterfeits)


Thomas R. Eddlem | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
30 September 2010


Every election campaign politicians promise change, yet despite the promises the general trajectory and the final destination that trajectory will ultimately take us remain unchanged regardless if the Democrats or Republicans are dominant in Washington — more and more government spending and indebtedness leading to economic collapse, and more and bigger government leading to total government. It is, of course, true that the Republican Party has positioned itself as the party of conservatives while the Democratic Party has appealed to liberals. But the difference between the two major parties has been much more rhetoric than substance. Consider the last presidential race, when Senators John McCain and Barack Obama appeared to take opposite positions on the question of whether the government should redistribute wealth (remember Obama’s response to “Joe the Plumber” and McCain’s embracement of Joe?). Yet during the heat of the fall campaign both voted for, and lobbied fellow Senators to vote for, the now-infamous $700 billion TARP bailout.

It is also true that liberal Democrats also seem to outdo “conservative” Republicans in the amount of government they recommend. This may make less-liberal Republicans look conservative by comparison, but it doesn’t change the fact that both establishment Republicans and Democrats are headed in the same general direction leading ultimately to national suicide. It is as if Democrats want to plunge the country into an abyss — and the molten lava below — while Republicans are content to climb down the mouth of the volcano and into the lava. Either way, although Republicans may be considered “the lesser of two evils,” the country’s fate is the same. Which begs the question: Why vote for either Republicans or Democrats?

One reason to consider such a vote is the fact that not all Republicans and Democrats follow the establishment script. But among those who deviate from the script, how many really mean it? And how would they vote if elected?

Many tea partiers — and even constitutionalists — were hoping for a better Capitol Hill performance from Scott Brown, the Massachusetts Republican who took Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat in a special election earlier this year in the first nationally covered “Tea Party” victory. Election of Brown promised a radical change from the liberalism of Teddy Kennedy, but Brown actually had a liberal voting record as a Massachusetts State Senator. Once he became a U.S. Senator, Brown voted to kill the “Audit the Fed” provisions of Obama’s financial regulatory bill before voting to pass the final, disastrous bill. Brown also voted against requiring a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan, extending the once-important retribution against al-Qaeda nine years ago into an open-ended and pointless U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. In fairness, Brown also voted against the ObamaCare healthcare reconciliation bill (a key part of his campaign) and voted against confirming Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. But it is far from clear that Brown will actually work to reverse our present plunge into the volcano, as opposed to simply supporting a slower rate of descent.

One need not back a perfect candidate in order to help restore the freedoms and economic prosperity of American citizenry, but when deciding whom to vote for it should be kept in mind that the “lesser of two evils” is still “evil.” It is this writer’s view that the appropriate question to consider in the coming election is not “Are they better than the Democrats?” or “Are they better than the Republican?” but “will they move us in the right direction?” For most candidates, Republican and Democrat, the answer to the last question is “no.”

But a new movement is afoot, the “Constitution” candidates (or “Liberty candidates”) movement that has arisen out of the Tea Party movement. All candidates recently seem to be claiming they favor the Constitution, a movement first popularized in the 2008 presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. But how can a voter be sure these new liberty candidates would lead us in the right direction? Is there a “litmus test” battery of questions for candidates to separate constitutionalists from the warmongering neocon phonies and establishment Republican toadies?

While there is no sure-fire way to tell which candidates are telling the truth, vigilant citizens can separate many of the phonies with tough questions. The real questions to ask are those regarding issues that will take the citizens away from the precipice of the volcano and back down the mountain, i.e., questions about issues that will move the nation in the right direction. The following questions should separate the genuine liberty candidates from the counterfeits:



1. When should the federal budget be balanced? (If they have a deadline any time later than the next two-year election cycle — the term for which representatives are currently seeking election — suggest that the candidates should suspend their current campaign and run for office later when they’d fight for a balanced budget. They’re as phony as a $3 bill.)

2. How would you balance the federal budget? Other than cutting “waste” and “pork,” something even liberals claim they want to do, what programs costing more than $1 billion per year would you vote to eliminate entirely in order to balance the budget? (This is an especially relevant question if the candidate says he or she is for tax cuts, as many Republicans do. If a candidate cannot name a single program of $1 billion or more he’d cut out entirely — such as foreign aid — in the face of an annual deficit of $1,400 billion, he is lying when he says he wants a balanced budget or that he wants to reduce the size of government.)

3. Would you balance the budget based on the current level of federal revenue — or reduce taxes while also cutting spending? Congressman Ron Paul says he would eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with nothing. Do you think this could be done, and if so, how?


Budget issues are not the only questions relevant to the liberty movement. In addition there are some other relevant questions, the majority of which the candidate should affirm if he would indeed move the nation in the right direction:



4. Would you vote to abolish the Federal Reserve and replace it with a gold standard?

5. Do you believe the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade abortion decision, which took the issue of abortion out of the hands of states, was a direct assault on the Constitution’s 10th Amendment?

6. Would you pull U.S. military forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan?

7. Would you also pull U.S. military forces out of South Korea and Germany, and in general support a non-interventionist, mind-our-own-business foreign policy?

8. Would you end all foreign aid, including aid to Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

9. Would you insist that the NSA and the rest of the federal government abolish all warrantless wiretapping and honor the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that all searches have a warrant and probable cause? Would you seek to get the executive branch to punish violators with prison sentences?

10. Would you insist that the federal government not engage in torture, which violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and vote for a law banning waterboarding and extraordinary rendition? Would you insist that the Fifth Amendment be vindicated and the right to trial by jury be upheld, even for terrorism suspects?


As noted above, no battery of questions is perfect proof of candidate honesty. The best policy is to ask tough questions, weigh the answers, and vote accordingly. And just as important, the next step is to monitor how candidates actually vote when they reach congressional office, with voting guides such as The New American’s “Freedom Index (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/).”


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3368-10-questions-separating-liberty-candidates-from-counterfeits

dean.engelhardt
09-30-2010, 06:54 AM
Thanks for the link. (Rep added.)

I like these questions better than the CFL survey questions.

wormyguy
09-30-2010, 07:23 AM
1. Now.
2. Nearly everything; the list is just too long.
3. Y
4. Y, N
5. Y, personally pro-choice
6. Y
7. Y
8. Y
9. Y
10. Y

Promontorium
09-30-2010, 09:27 AM
I don't like half these questions.

osan
09-30-2010, 10:39 AM
The New American Magazine on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-New-American-Magazine/146909368666979)





10 Questions Separating Liberty Candidates From Counterfeits (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4707-10-questions-separating-liberty-candidates-from-counterfeits)


1. When should the federal budget be balanced?

2. How would you balance the federal budget?


3. Would you balance the budget based on the current level of federal revenue — or reduce taxes while also cutting spending? Congressman Ron Paul says he would eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with nothing. Do you think this could be done, and if so, how?
4. Would you vote to abolish the Federal Reserve and replace it with a gold standard?

5. Do you believe the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade abortion decision, which took the issue of abortion out of the hands of states, was a direct assault on the Constitution’s 10th Amendment?

6. Would you pull U.S. military forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan?

7. Would you also pull U.S. military forces out of South Korea and Germany, and in general support a non-interventionist, mind-our-own-business foreign policy?

8. Would you end all foreign aid, including aid to Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

9. Would you insist that the NSA and the rest of the federal government abolish all warrantless wiretapping and honor the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that all searches have a warrant and probable cause? Would you seek to get the executive branch to punish violators with prison sentences?

10. Would you insist that the federal government not engage in torture, which violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and vote for a law banning waterboarding and extraordinary rendition? Would you insist that the Fifth Amendment be vindicated and the right to trial by jury be upheld, even for terrorism suspects?
As noted above, no battery of questions is perfect proof of candidate honesty.

This list is WAY short, IMO, and #5 is a pure bullshit non-issue. The rest are good, but there is SO much more.

osan
09-30-2010, 10:53 AM
How about these:



Do you believe in private property rights?
Do you believe in self-ownership?
Can you state the meaning of "equality" as it applies politically to people?
Can you list five rights that derive from 1, 2, and 3 above?
Do you believe in a nation based on principles rather than law?
Do you believe in the non-aggression principle? If so, what exceptions are there in your mind?
What is the difference between government and governance?
What is the single legitimate function of governance? <- note the big hint!
Do you believe in the "commons"?
Do you believe in corporate personhood?
Can you describe "the state" - what it is in reality?
Can you list the order of precedence of the valence, rights, and powers of the federal government, people, and the states?
When is "government" legitimately empowered to violate the rights of individuals?

I could go on for a while longer, but here are 13 lucky questions to throw at candidates in an interview. If they cannot come up with the goods, they should get the deep six.

THESE are relevant quesitons - far more so than the original ten posted above. I generally look on JBS favorably, but this article fails notably, IMO. I an, frankly, more than a bit surprised.

fgd
09-30-2010, 11:07 AM
Stopped reading at "gold standard" A gold standard is worse than the system we have now. Private currencies and repeal taxes on barter. A gold standard only serves the banksters' purposes.

Travlyr
09-30-2010, 11:14 AM
How about these:



Do you believe in private property rights?
Do you believe in self-ownership?
Can you state the meaning of "equality" as it applies politically to people?
Can you list five rights that derive from 1, 2, and 3 above?
Do you believe in a nation based on principles rather than law?
Do you believe in the non-aggression principle? If so, what exceptions are there in your mind?
What is the difference between government and governance?
What is the single legitimate function of governance? <- note the big hint!
Do you believe in the "commons"?
Do you believe in corporate personhood?
Can you describe "the state" - what it is in reality?
Can you list the order of precedence of the valence, rights, and powers of the federal government, people, and the states?
When is "government" legitimately empowered to violate the rights of individuals?

I could go on for a while longer, but here are 13 lucky questions to throw at candidates in an interview. If they cannot come up with the goods, they should get the deep six.

THESE are relevant quesitons - far more so than the original ten posted above. I generally look on JBS favorably, but this article fails notably, IMO. I an, frankly, more than a bit surprised.

13 is a good number, and questions like these will "separate the wheat from the chaff."

JoshLowry
09-30-2010, 11:20 AM
Stopped reading at "gold standard" A gold standard is worse than the system we have now. Private currencies and repeal taxes on barter. A gold standard only serves the banksters' purposes.

Same. The gold standard had many of it's own problems.

Legalize competing currencies and let's see how well that Federal Reserve Note holds up.

Pericles
09-30-2010, 02:57 PM
Good questions + Rep for you.

Travlyr
10-01-2010, 08:23 AM
Do you intend to purchase the "penal bond (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=249886)" that binds your actions to the Constitution?
Do you support UN's Agenda 21?
Are you a member of the CFR?
Are you a member of the Trilateral Commission?

paulitics
10-01-2010, 08:36 AM
Do you intend to purchase the "penal bond (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=249886)" that binds your actions to the Constitution?
Do you support UN's Agenda 21?
Are you a member of the CFR?
Are you a member of the Trilateral Commission?


These are actually more important than empty promises about being conservative. I have yet to see a true conservative belong to these groups, although they sure pretend to be. These questions become a lie detector test.

idirtify
10-01-2010, 09:05 AM
A search for the words “drug” and “prohibition” and “DEA” turned up zero for these two pages of posts. That is extremely disappointing. Decades of drug prohibition could possibly be the main cause of the build up of big/corrupt/unconstitutional government. If it’s not the main cause, it’s right up there with the top few culprits. Now I only scanned the posts, so maybe someone listed a question that would automatically include drug prohibition; but I don’t think any set of ten questions that leaves out a mention of drug prohibition is an honest attempt to separate liberty candidates from counterfeits. It’s a counterfeit attempt.

:mad:

osan
10-01-2010, 10:37 AM
A search for the words “drug” and “prohibition” and “DEA” turned up zero for these two pages of posts. That is extremely disappointing. Decades of drug prohibition could possibly be the main cause of the build up of big/corrupt/unconstitutional government. If it’s not the main cause, it’s right up there with the top few culprits. Now I only scanned the posts, so maybe someone listed a question that would automatically include drug prohibition; but I don’t think any set of ten questions that leaves out a mention of drug prohibition is an honest attempt to separate liberty candidates from counterfeits. It’s a counterfeit attempt.

:mad:

Instead of complaining about it, post the questions you would ask so we can get better ideas. We're all learning here.

idirtify
10-01-2010, 02:45 PM
Instead of complaining about it, post the questions you would ask so we can get better ideas. We're all learning here.

Oh. OK.

Number one:
“Will you eliminate all drug prohibitions and all related agencies?”

RedStripe
10-01-2010, 02:49 PM
Not even Ron Paul is for establishing a gold standard.

Also, #5 is stupid.

Otherwise decent.

FrankRep
10-01-2010, 02:50 PM
This list is WAY short, IMO, and #5 is a pure bullshit non-issue. The rest are good, but there is SO much more.

States Rights & Sovereignty is not a Bullshit issue.

RedStripe
10-01-2010, 02:57 PM
States Rights & Sovereignty is not a Bullshit issue.

You're right, state's rights and "sovereignty" is an issue of local tyranny.

wormyguy
10-01-2010, 03:03 PM
Indeed. "States' rights" is not an inherently desirable concept in and of itself, it's merely a useful legal tool to hopefully reverse the worst of the federal government tyranny in the courts. Of course, if states implement the same tyrannical ideas, it's just as bad and should be fought just as vigorously.

Southron
10-01-2010, 03:07 PM
Good list, especially number 5.

osan
10-01-2010, 06:11 PM
States Rights & Sovereignty is not a Bullshit issue.

But abortion is. States' rights may be discussed in a far more clear and relevant manner than by couching it in the abortion question, IMO.

osan
10-01-2010, 06:36 PM
You're right, state's rights and "sovereignty" is an issue of local tyranny.

Well said. The ONLY sovereignty that counts is that of the INDIVIDUAL. Everything else is, in fact, bullshit.

I do NOT believe that we need to live as 50 (or whatever number) independent sovereign states from the standpoint of HUMAN RIGHTS. In that respect, we are far and away better off as one nation, united in LIBERTY where the rights of the individual are guaranteed through strict, stern, utter, and uncompromising adherence to the principle of non-aggression. In all other things let the individual states knock themselves out. I don't care - but tyranny at the state level is every bit the equal threat to that of the federal government. HELLO.

How do some people hold such mutually exclusive ideas in their heads and not see the inconsistency? The concept of sovereign states necessarily implies the prerogative to do what they want - to respect individual rights or trample them into the dust. How in hell can anyone claiming to be a champion of liberty subscribe to such a contrary notion?

The member states comprising the USA are supposed to toe a line of basic metes and bounds precisely so that we don't have NAZI Germany or Stalinist Russia recreated somewhere within our borders. The reason for limiting state sovereignty is the same as the reason for limiting federal power. Like anything else, state sovereignty is a two-edged blade. It can be used to counter the federal government when the latter goes off the rails, but conversely it must be limited to prevent tyranny from arising at the state level. In this particular respect, our Constitution is very poorly constructed with the supremacy clause on the one hand and the tenth amendment contradicting it on the other. I say "contradicting" because the metes and bounds of Federal power v. those of the state are, AFAICS, nowhere defined with any clarity, precision, or completeness. That leaves us in deep shit.

RedStripe
10-01-2010, 06:55 PM
Yea it's a problem because the 10th is essentially just a truism. It doesn't actually identify any particular issues that the states can regulate without federal interference. And as far as I'm concerned, the 10th amendment itself is a problem insofar as it mandates that those areas beyond the power of congress to regulate are necessarily areas in which the states can regulate.

In other words, even if we were lucky enough to get a SCOTUS ruling that limits the federal governments power over our lives, the 10th basically rushes in to fill the void of federal tyranny with it's state cousin. Umm, how is that a good thing? How is it a good thing to say "Just in case you thought you were free from interference with respect to X, you're not!"

Add to this the fact that 1) "states rights" as an argument of constitutional construction has been used to support a variety of disgustingly anti-liberty causes including segregation, state crackdowns on free speech, etc and 2) the 10th amendment has been repeatedly cited as evidence of state sovereignty (even though that concept is not mentioned anywhere in the document) which has been used to justify the doctrine of sovereign immunity - perhaps one of the most disgusting legal concepts borrowed from the English.

The state governments are no better than the federal government. The states regulate us just as much, and, in 99% of cases, are the ones actually enforcing rules on us that we don't like.

Bottom Line: The people who prattle on about the 10th Amendment and state sovereignty tend to also be the same people who like to pretend that we can just interpret the text of the Constitution literally - but wait! There's NOTHING in the text of the Constitution or the 10th Amendment that creates such a thing as "state sovereignty". States are repeatedly restricted and laden with duties by that document - they are not recognized as co-equals, and never really were.

osan
10-02-2010, 09:30 AM
Do you intend to purchase the "penal bond (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=249886)" that binds your actions to the Constitution?
Do you support UN's Agenda 21?
Are you a member of the CFR?
Are you a member of the Trilateral Commission?



I didn't even think of these. We should build a list of real questions to serve as part of a core litmus test for candidates. Add to that some questions relevant to current issues and use these to grill those who would presume to bear the mantle of public trust. I'd hold their feet to the fire and make them work for it as nothing they ever imagined. I'd make the process brutally unpleasant. Anyone coming out the other end in one piece would be at least reasonably vetted for trustworthiness. We should make it clear to them that breaking their vows will be met with grim consequences including expulsion, shunning, prison, and possibly execution for treason. I am deadly serious when I say that we must make them quake with fear at the merest hint of violating the public trust.

Onus rests with US to hold THEM accountable. It is our laziness and willful ignorance and stupidity that has gotten us where we are. It is up to us to get out of the corner. Trusting in THEM to do it for us it the ultimate stupidity. Their balls need to be placed in a vise and we must make them acutely aware that we have no compunction to apply great crushing power. We must master them or be mastered. That is the simple and clear choice.

Brett
10-02-2010, 09:34 AM
My personal favorite is "Would you support suspending aid to Israel until the budget is balanced?"

Awkward answers ensue. It's a favorite of mine to ask around campus to people campaigning for Republicans + Interventionism (while calling themselves Conservatives)

acptulsa
10-02-2010, 09:51 AM
Can you list five rights that derive from 1, 2, and 3 above?

Very good one. Nothing seperates the wheat from the chaff like an essay question.


Do you believe in corporate personhood?

Another winner, though they (being politicians) will reveal their true colors more readily if you make it the right kind of semi-trick question. Such as, perhaps, 'Was BP innocent until proven guilty in the Gulf disaster?'

Travlyr
10-02-2010, 01:06 PM
We should build a list of real questions to serve as part of a core litmus test for candidates. Add to that some questions relevant to current issues and use these to grill those who would presume to bear the mantle of public trust.
A "LibertyPAC" could be set-up to help fund candidates who are committed to liberty. This "Liberty Political Action Committee" could determine who qualifies for support by sending these questions to candidates and reviewing their responses. Then the "PAC could monitor their actions while in office to verify that they walk-the-talk and out them if they don't.

I'd hold their feet to the fire and make them work for it as nothing they ever imagined. I'd make the process brutally unpleasant. Anyone coming out the other end in one piece would be at least reasonably vetted for trustworthiness. We should make it clear to them that breaking their vows will be met with grim consequences including expulsion, shunning, prison, and possibly execution for treason. I am deadly serious when I say that we must make them quake with fear at the merest hint of violating the public trust.
The "penal bond (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=249886)" is our ace-in-the-hole for removing them from office if they do not honor their Oath of Office. If they just turn out to be crappy representatives, then the "PAC" could use funds to defeat them when their term expires.

Onus rests with US to hold THEM accountable. It is our laziness and willful ignorance and stupidity that has gotten us where we are. It is up to us to get out of the corner. Trusting in THEM to do it for us it the ultimate stupidity. Their balls need to be placed in a vise and we must make them acutely aware that we have no compunction to apply great crushing power. We must master them or be mastered. That is the simple and clear choice.
It is the only way... except the balls in the vice... ouch! ... that's "cruel & unusual punishment."

Rancher
10-03-2010, 01:05 PM
Lots of good questions here.