Recently Bob Barr has been seen cozying up to left leaning bloggers and everyone’s favorite environmentalist, nobel prize winner Al Gore. He has released statements and been quoted in articles saying things that have upset the Libertarian apple cart. The radical and purist among us seem to have implanted Barr with an ultra sensitive warning device that triggers anytime potential non-libertarian words leave his mouth. Requesting anyone labeled “radical” to relax is like asking a starving man to “eat that cracker slowly”, but in this case calm is what is required.
First, Bob Barr issued a press release “clarifying” his stance on federal government bailing out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The release was entitled, “Privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, End Government Subsidies.” That certainly sounds rather libertarian, but some found decidedly non-libertarian rhetoric within the article.
UPDATE: Chuck Baldwin’s Communications Director posted a comment clarifying his position on a few of the issues. This has modified Baldwin’s overall score. Read the comments for more details.
It is now Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin’s turn to be spun through the Paul-O-Meter. So far we have rated Barack Obama, John McCain, and Bob Barr. Will Chuck Baldwin beat Bob Barr’s current high score of 88? Read on to find out.
It is now Libertarian candidate Bob Barr’s turn to be spun through the Paul-O-Meter. We rate the candidates on 20 criteria to see how closely they match up with Ron Paul on the issues. Thus far we have rated Barack Obama and John McCain. Read all about the Paul-O-Meter here.
In the next installment of our Ron Paul Paul-O-Meter effort to rate the Presidential candidates we hold John McCain to the Ron Paul liberty fire. Previously, we rated Barack Obama. For details about the Paul-O-Meter see the description.
Today we begin rating the Presidential candidates with our rating for Barack Obama. The Paul-O-Meter will give us a total score on 20 criteria. The closer a candidate gets to 100 points the more that candidate is like Ron Paul. For each criteria we will give the score and a short justification for that score. Read the results for Barack Obama below.
Who needs a Ron Paul endorsement when you have the Paul-O-Meter?
Everyone knows the perfection of Ron Paul. He is already a living legend. All future candidates are damaged goods simply because they are not Ron Paul. There is only one Ron Paul. So to see how other candidates measure up to his perfection we are introducing the “Paul-O-Meter”.
The Paul-O-Meter ranks candidates on a scale from 0 to 100 depending on how closely they are in agreement with Ron Paul on chosen criteria. Since no candidate can possibly equal Ron Paul, the highest score on the Paul-O-Meter attainable for candidates other than Ron Paul is 99. To simplify the ranking, each candidate will be graded from 1 to 5 on each of the 20 criteria. The 20 criteria are listed below, along with a short description for each.
NEW: Now you can submit your own ratings using our new Paul-O-Meter web polling service. Check it out here.
Here is some rhetoric from the past, as in before today. Who said it?
The currently favored instrument of collectivization is the Welfare State. The collectivists have not abandoned their ultimate goal– to subordinate the individual to the State– but their strategy has changed. They have learned that Socialism can be achieved through Welfarism quite as well as through Nationalization. They understand that private property can be confiscated as effectively by taxation as by expropriating it. They understand that the individual can be put at the mercy of the State– not only by making the State his employer– but by divesting him of the means to provide for his personal needs and by giving the State the responsibility of caring for those needs from cradle to grave. Moreover, they have discovered– and here is the critical point– that Welfarism is much more compatible with the political processes of a democratic society. Nationalization ran into popular opposition, but the collectivists feel sure the Welfare State can be erected by the simple expedient of buying votes with promises of “free” hospitalization, “free” retirement pay and so on….
I do not welcome this shift of strategy. Socialism-through-Welfarism poses a far greater danger to freedom than Socialism-through-Nationalization precisely because it is more difficult to combat. The evils of Nationalization are self-evident and immediate. Those of Welfarism are veiled and tend to be postponed.
No it’s not Ron Paul. It was Barry Goldwater from his 1960 classic, “The Conscience Of A Conservative”.
Here is the 6 part (full hour) interview of Glenn Beck interviewing Bob Barr from tonight (06/06/2008). Good stuff. Note that without the commercials it is not a full hour.
Bob Barr is interviewed here by Glenn Beck on his TV show. They discuss energy independence, McCain’s support of cap and trade, and Barr even sucks up to Glenn a bit saying he would make him Energy Czar in a Barr administration. This is a small taste of what tonight’s hour long interview will be like when Barr and Beck meet again.
Quote of the Day:I love to go to Washington, if only to be near my money.
~Bob HopeSubject: Urgent danger from “cap and trade” bill in the Senate
The U.S. Senate is debating a bill to impose a “cap and trade” system on the U.S. economy. This bill, S. 3036, the “Climate Security Act” would . . .
Place a cap on the level of CO2 emissions
Sell permits to businesses that would allow them to emit CO2 in amounts equal to the cap
Allow businesses to trade and/or sell these permits to each other — allegedly creating a market to encourage innovations that would reduce CO2 emissions
Use the proceeds from the sale of these permits to create a vast new research bureaucracy designed to help corporations cope with the cap
As a practical matter, S. 3036 will . . .
Raise your electricity and gasoline bills
Provide politicians with new tools to control the economy, hand out favors, and punish enemies
Be as ineffective in doing “research” as the Energy Department has been
Probably (if the example of Europe is a reliable guide) have little impact on the over-all level of CO2 emissions
Even if you accept that human CO2 emissions are causing problematic global warming, a government run “cap and trade” system is not the way to deal with this problem. There is a better way. Here are some points to consider . . .
Fossil fuels create massive amounts of air pollution, quite apart from CO2.
This pollution causes massive health problems, none of which are reflected in the price of fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels enjoy a “free ride” in terms of pollution costs that make it hard for alternative sources of energy to compete.
Air pollution is a form of trespass, and a case can certainly be made that dealing with such trespasses is a legitimate function of government.
The federal government could do this by . . .
Taxing fossil fuels
Cutting other taxes so that your overall financial burden would remain unchanged
Your energy costs would rise, but your taxes would fall by an equal amount. Doing this would . . .
Eliminate the justification for a “cap and trade” boondoggle
Make fossil fuels reflect more of their true costs
Provide an incentive for everyone to reduce their use of fossil fuels
Make other sources of energy cost competitive
Limit the financial impact on you and the economy
Help reduce air pollution, including CO2 emissions
We know that most Americans are concerned about pollution and the environment, and for those who feel this way, a carbon tax combined with tax cuts in other areas would be a better approach. But THIS CAMPAIGN is about stopping the “cap and trade” boondoggle, because if you really care about the environment, this proposal has only symbolic value.
Liberty Maven
Recently Bob Barr has been seen cozying up to left leaning bloggers and everyone’s favorite environmentalist, nobel prize winner Al Gore. He has released statements and been quoted in articles saying things that have upset the Libertarian apple cart. The radical and purist among us seem to have implanted Barr with an ultra sensitive warning device that triggers anytime potential non-libertarian words leave his mouth. Requesting anyone labeled “radical” to relax is like asking a starving man to “eat that cracker slowly”, but in this case calm is what is required.
