United Liberty

The upcoming primaries are going to be just as important as the general election. Voters in many congressional districts will have to choose between “business as usual” or for candidates that will shake up the status quo. FreedomWorks PAC has been on the frontlines of this battle. And yesterday, they released the first round of endorsements for House candidates in the upcoming election:

After a year of intensive research, countless candidate interviews, and input from thousands of FreedomWorks activists, including many in these districts, FreedomWorks PAC is pleased to endorse its first slate of candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Each of these candidates is a clear choice for those who want to rein in the government’s reckless spending and out-of-control growth.

• Florida 22nd: Adam Hasner
• Georgia 9th: Martha Zoller
• Illinois 8th: Rep. Joe Walsh
• Indiana 2nd: Jackie Walorski
• Indiana 5th: David McIntosh
• Iowa 4th: Rep. Steve King
• Kentucky 6th: Andy Barr
• Louisiana 3rd: Rep. Jeff Landry
• Missouri 2nd: Ann Wagner
• Pennsylvania 12th: Keith Rothfus

FreedomWorks PAC Executive Director Max Pappas commented, “Through extensive personal interviews, detailed research of their records, and feedback from activists in their districts, we are confident these candidates will expand the freedom caucus in the House and lead the fight for economic freedom and constitutionally limited government.”

Existing House endorsements for FreedomWorks PAC include Evan Feinberg (Pennsylvania 18th) and Rep. Don Manzullo (Illinois 16th).

During George W. Bush’s presidency, Democrats often complained that deficits were too high and that the national debt was growing out of control. Even Barack Obama, then a Senator from Illinois complained of the growing deficit. During a debate over raising the debt ceiling in 2008, Obama slammed Bush, calling the deficits under Bush “unpatriotic”:

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

There is no denying that Bush was a big spender, not just on defense, but also domestic programs. However, Obama’s preaching hasn’t translated into any action. And now, just in his first term, the national debt has increased more than under Obama the full eight years of Bush, as CBS News notes:

The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama’s three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

Yesterday, I laid out some reasons why most young voters don’t cast their ballots for Republicans. This was a response of sorts to Mitt Romney’s statement on Monday while campaigning in Illinois. Like I said in my post, it’s a valid question, but one that goes over the heads of many traditional conservatives and Republicans.

But over at the American Enterprise Institute’s blog, Henrik Temp shows data from Pew Research relating to social issues and foreign policy that really drives home why young Americans, or “millennials,” vote for Democrats:

Social Issues. As the chart below shows, millennials are significantly more liberal than older Americans on issues of the family, homosexuality, and civil liberties. My generation has been hearing about the benefits of tolerance, inclusion, and acceptance since we were children, both from popular culture and our teachers. These values are often as fundamental to us as religious values were to our parents and grandparents. They aren’t going to change anytime soon, and so long as the GOP is popularly perceived as being against those values (I disagree with that perception, but that’s the way it is), millennials will keep pulling the Democratic lever.

Over the weekend, some friends asked my opinion possibilities of an alliance between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, so I thought I’d take the time to detail my thoughts on that idea.

First, it’s not Paul’s goal to help Mitt Romney. His plan is to win the nomination at a brokered convention in Tampa by having the most delegates on the floor of the convention. Any rumored alliance of Paul to Romney assumes Paul doesn’t win the nomination at convention or that Romney wins the nomination outright before convention. Maybe this won’t matter in the end, but it’s worth mentioning that Paul’s goal is not to be Romney’s sidekick.

The next thought I have about this possible alliance is that Paul would have to concede too much, and he’s not much for compromises. Paul’s message, save his stance on foreign policy, resonates well with most Republican voters. Lower taxes, reduce spending, balance the budget…these are all items that will be on Romney’s checklist anyway, so Romney shouldn’t have to concede too much on those points. He would have to get very specific about his plan; vague promises won’t sit well with Dr. Paul.

My bet is that Paul would have to give in on foreign policy – or, at the very least, agree to keep quiet about it. Maybe he can do that as long as the movement to war comes from the legislature instead of the executive branch (like it’s supposed to). That might be enough for Romney, but, like I said, Paul isn’t known for his willingness to compromise.

(The interesting piece to that thought is that if we have a sound fiscal policy, continuing our current foreign policy would be all but impossible. How many people do you know that would support a huge tax hike to fund ongoing war efforts?)

Why would Paul, who is nothing if he’s not consistent, agree to some sort of alliance with Romney if Romney wins the nomination? Here are a few possibilities:

As expected, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the House Budget Committee, unveiled his budget for FY 2013 yesterday. The proposal obviously carries over some familiar themes, but it shows that House Republicans aren’t backing down from their goal to get spending down to sustainable levels and deal with entitlements.

You can find the details here, but here is the video that Ryan released with his budget that outlines many of the policy items found therein:

We’re seeing a mixed to positive reaction on the right. Some Republican strategists are apparently nervous about the GOP putting forward a significant proposal. They think it’s bad politics. But Ryan is committed to leading the way, offering a stark contrast to what President Barack Obama and Democrats are putting forward.

We’ve been constantly told by Barack Obama and his apologists in Congress that government spending is good to get the economy growing again. It’s not. In fact, as Ramesh Ponnuru notes, that the 2009 stimulus bill really only grew the national debt, not the economy.

But in a new video from Economic Freedom, Professor Antony Davies of Duquesne University explains the reason why so-called “stimulus” spending only contracts the economy by taking dollars away, either by borrowing or taxing, from the private sector and individuals:

We’ve constantly pointed out that Rick Santorum isn’t a friend to Tea Party voters and advocates of limited government. Unfortunately, the dislike for Mitt Romney has led many conservatives to vote for the former Pennsylvania Senator.

Santorum’s record doesn’t quite stand up to scrutiny. As we’ve noted before, he’s voted to expand entitlements, backed earmarks, and cast votes for bloated budgets. Despite this, he still claims to be a fiscal conservative and worthy of Tea Party support. If you’re not going to believe those of us that has been calling Santorum out for what he really is, another big government Republican, just listen to him in his own words.

In an interview in 2008, Santorum said, “Republicans, to our credit, have morphed away form the Goldwater idea that government just needs to be small”:

It’s been a really bad month for Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN). He was ruled to be ineligble to vote last week in Indiana, and now new polling, though from a Democratic firm, shows that he is not just vulnerable in the Republican primary; but also the general election:

Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) is barely leading his primary opponent, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, less than two months before the primary, according to a Democratic poll released today.

The numbers showed the six-term Senator in rough shape but still ahead of Mourdock, 45 percent to 39 percent.

Lugar faces the toughest re-election campaign of his career in the May 8 primary. Since the start of this cycle, Republicans viewed him as vulnerable in a primary, but polling of his race has been scarce in part because Indiana law restricts automated calls, including polling.

Rep. Joe Donnelly (D) will run against the winner of the GOP primary, and Democrats view Lugar as a more competitive candidate in the general election. Donnelly’s campaign released the GOP primary poll numbers in a memo from his pollster, Global Strategy Group.

The pollster also noted that Lugar’s lead has been cut in half from a similar poll in October, which showed Lugar leading Mourdock by 12 points, 48 percent to 36 percent.

Lugar isn’t going well right now. The residency issues aren’t the only thing that have voters skeptical of him. He’s record in the Senate is terrible. He’s been almost assured to do the wrong thing, including backing TARP, Medicare Part D, and expanding other big government programs.

Conventional wisdom has been that if Newt Gingrich drops out of the race for the Republican nomination, most of his support would go to Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney. It seems only logical given the sizable anti-Romney faction in the GOP. But a new poll from Gallup shatters that thought, showing that Romney is actually the second-choice of Gingrich voters:

So while Santorum is talking about the likelihood of a brokered convention, the math still doesn’t add up. Not that it did anyway.

We’ve all seen the videos of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers searching seniors and small children, but a video from O’Hare International Airport in Chicago is about as disgusting as it gets.

While going through the security checkpoint, TSA apparently felt the need to screen a 3-year old, who was in a wheelchair due to a broken leg, to make sure that he wasn’t some sort of terrorist.

The video is from 2010, but it’s absurd nonetheless:

The father of the boy, who apparently uploaded the video to YouTube, writes, “My little boy wanted me to come over to hold his hand and give him a hug. He was trembling with fear. I was told I could NOT touch him or come near him during this process. Instead we had to pretend this was ‘ok’ so he didn’t panic.”

Incidents like this most likely happen everyday, but we don’t see them. This is insane, yet the TSA insists that they are doing this for our protection. It’s sickening, and unfortunately, it’s not going to stop anytime soon.

H/T: Reason