Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton?

Of course, I would pick neither. Hillary Clinton is obviously out of the question due to extreme corruption and a desire to increase the size and scope of the federal government in every conceivable manner. She uses violence and fraud (taxes, war, inflation, regulations, etc) to make the world conform to her desires.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump is no different. He was a very successful businessman, making the world a better place by providing products and services that people wanted and paid money for. He acquired his wealth (for the most part) through mutually beneficial, voluntary interactions with customers. He did not use the "political means" as described by Franz Openheimer in The State. Instead, he used the "economic means" - peaceful interactions between consenting parties.

However this was not enough for Donald Trump.  The temptation and ease of using violence and fraud will often "trump" the more difficult means of using hard work, superior products, voluntary interactions, etc.  Why go through all the trouble and risk of finding services and products that people want when you can just run for political office and take what you want from the masses without consequence?

I understand the frustration of Trump supporters.  They are sick of the status quo and angry at the political establishment.  I usually go for the "nonpolitician", but in this case it appears that Donald Trump may be the rare case in which the nonpolitician is just as bad as the establishment politicians.  Does anyone really believe that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton are really motivated by a desire to serve the citizens of the United States?  It is obvious that both are concerned primarily by personal ambition, and an insatiable quest for power, control and fame.  This will inevitably lead to corruption and tyranny regardless of which one is ultimately elected.

Senators who need to be voted out

I have compiled a list of "Republican" senators whom I think need to be replaced by more principled candidates the next time they are up for re-election. Here they are, in no particular order:

Mitch McConnell
John McCain
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Lindsey Graham
Scott Brown
Judd Gregg

Other "Republican" leaders who are part of the problem:
Mitt Romney
Trey Grayson
Dick Cheney
Charlie Crist
Rudy Giulianni

Of course I also think that almost all of the Democrats in government should be replaced, but only by principled conservatives rather than neocons or RINOs. Did I miss anyone? Is there anyone on the list who does not belong there?

Why I am not voting for Scott Brown

I hate to be a wet blanket but I am not excited about Scott Brown, I am not voting for him and if he wins, any relief that we escaped Martha Coakley will be minimized by my fear that we have not escaped Big Government. It is with deep regret that I will have to stay home for the party if he wins.

For all the negative attack adds, vicious debates, "this race is about differences"'s, anger with incumbents and hacks and money pouring into both campaigns, I am shocked at how little difference there is between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. I recently heard Jay Severn (self-proclaimed independent/libertarian talk show host) calling on Joe Kennedy (Independent/Libertarian) to step down and support Scott Brown. Now I am all about candidates stepping down if there is already a similar candidate running. There is no use in being a redundant candidate. It is mutually assured destruction. However in this particular Senatorial race it appears that Scott Brown and Martha Coakley are the similar candidates. The views of Joe Kennedy are radically different than those of Scott Brown/Martha Coakley. Lets compare the candidates on many of the crucial issues of the day:

Healthcare:

~Martha Coakley supports President Obama's nationalized universal healthcare.

~Scott Brown proudly helped develop universal mandated health care here in Massachusetts and said in a recent debate, "Everyone deserves healthcare... I will go to Washington and show them how WE did it."

~Joe Kennedy is ideologically opposed to all forms of government-sponsored/mandated healthcare and wants to work to reduce the current level of government involvement in the system - which is causing the problem in the first place.

Military:

~Martha Coakley states that she is uncomfortable with Obama's recent troop escalations in Afganistan, however does anyone really think she will defy the Democratic majority when it comes to this issue? No one has ever heard her say anything about bringing our troops home from WWII (Germany and Japan), Korea, or the other 130 bases around the world in order to defend our own borders.

~Scott Brown supports Obama's troop escalations and has been strongly endorsed by John McCain and Rudy Guliani due to his pro-war, neoconservative stance. He supports keeping our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely and has never mentioned the other 130 bases throughout the world. And, oh yeah, he plans to do this without raising taxes...

~Joe Kennedy calls for immediate and orderly troop withdrawal from all of our foreign entanglements so that these brave men and women can do what they signed up to do: defend OUR borders.

Taxes:

~Martha Coakley openly admits that the social and foreign policies that she and Scott Brown advocate for will result in an increase in taxes. At least she is honest.

~Scott Brown claims that he has never voted for a tax increase. This may or may not be true, but what we do know is that he consistently voted against reducing taxes. He was outspoken against the ballot initiative to eliminate the state income tax.* He voted against rolling the state income taxes back to 3% and he voted against a property tax decrease in his district. At best we can be assured that Scott Brown is comfortable with the current tax level - although in the future he might make a token tax cut here and there when it is politically expedient.

~Joe Kennedy wants to completely eliminate the income tax and will work hard to reduce all other forms of taxation. Of course this will require a serious decrease in federal spending, something neither Scott Brown nor Martha Coakley are willing to consider.

Monetary Policy/Economy:

~I cannot find any information on where Martha Coakley stands on auditing the Federal Reserve which means, to me, that she is fine with the status quo of easy money and secretive operations of the Fed.**

~I also cannot find any information on where Scott Brown stands on this issue which means, to me, that he is also fine with the status quo of easy money and secretive operations of the Fed.** Also, since he wants to continue spending money like a drunken sailor without raising taxes, he will need the Fed to print the money so that the people don't know they are taxed by a reduction in the purchasing power of their dollars.

~Joe Kennedy wants to bring an end the Federal Reserve System since he understands that it is nothing more than a secret tool used by corrupt politicians of both parties to tax Americans via inflation and that it causes bubbles such as the dot-com bubble and the real estate bubble.

Abortion:

~Martha Coakley initially stated that she wants your tax dollars to pay for abortions, but then quickly compromised on this issue since "ObamaCare" will not pass if tax-payer funded abortions are included (although we certainly have to watch out for vague and ambiguous language in the bill). She generally supports the "woman's right to choose."

~Scott Brown wants to restrict abortions (i.e. no federal funding, no partial-birth abortion, no mandate for hospitals to perform abortions).

~Joe Kennedy wants this issue decided on the state level, meaning that pro-life citizens can completely outlaw abortion in their state via ballot initiative or state legislation. Forcing doctors to perform abortions or forcing tax payers to pay for them is, of course, completely out of the question.

Incumbants:

~Martha Coakley is part of the Democratic machine in Massachusetts. She is a career politician currently running for Senate while bringing home a tax-payer funded salary for a job she cannot perform while campaigning.

~Scott Brown is also an ambitions career politician. He is also running for Senate while bringing home a tax-payer funded salary for a job that he cannot perform while he is campaigning. He is certainly not representing us on Beacon Hill nowadays.

~Joe Kennedy is a businessman who took an unpaid leave of absence from his company to run for Senate. He is sacrificing his job and his own personal finances in order to campaign in an uphill battle against big government.

It breaks my heart to see genuinely conservative citizens who are justifiably angry at the size of government, oppressive taxation, plunging value of the dollar, etc voting for more of the same just because he has an "R" after his name (didn't we do this with George Bush and John McCain recently). Even worse, think about the long-term consequences of a Scott Brown win. He will bring the conservative movement even further to the Left, which is exactly the reason that Republicans are so weak right now. In a few years he will be running for president, probably against a true conservative, someone like Rand Paul, perhaps. We will be in the same position we are now, if not worse, and the pundits and talk show hosts will support Scott Brown because "at least he's better than the Democrat." But what's the difference really? Barack Obama and Martha Coakley want to drive our country into bankruptcy at 100 mph. Scott Brown wants to drive us into bankruptcy at at 90 mph. It's lose-lose. Truly conservative candidates such as Joe Kennedy want to stop the car and steer us in the direction of liberty and sound economy. Until conservatives, Republicans and Tea Party activists realize this, we will continue steadily along our "road to serfdom."

Some people tell me I am "throwing my vote away" by voting for Joe Kennedy, or even worse that I am indirectly voting for Martha Coakley. Nothing could be further from the truth. A vote for Scott Brown or Martha Coakley is a vote for Big Government. A vote for Joe Kennedy is a vote for limited government. Even if Joe Kennedy loses, the percentage of the votes that he gets gives a message to future candidates. If he only gets 3% of the vote, then future candidates will be unmotivated to run for office under limited government principles. If Scott Brown or Martha Coakley get 50% of the vote, then future candidates will be motivated to run as Big Government candidates of either party. If Joe Kennedy yields 15% of the vote, the future conservative candidates will be forced to move to the Right in order to get elected. The bottom line is that a vote for Joe Kennedy (regardless of whether or not he wins) WILL result in moving the country in the direction of liberty, sound money and limited government. If there was a lesson learned from the special election debacle in upstate New York this November it is that the RNC better find more conservative candidates or they will risk losing to a 3rd party or the Democrat. Unfortunately the lesson in MA seems to be the opposite (run a conservative and you lose, run a liberal Republican and he/she might win). This has been the trend in politics for the past 20 years and I am, for the first time, voting to reverse this trend. Again, I hate to be a wet blanket, but I have to call it like I see it. In the long run, candidates like Scott Brown will be the death of the Republican party, even though he is creating so much excitement for the time being.

One final reflection: Big Government types always use fear as a means to increase Big Government programs. The earth is warming up, therefore we must impose a cap and trade tax; a terrorist tried to blow up a plane, therefore we must all be subject to "full-body scanners" at the airport. Healthcare costs are rising, therefore we must allow the government to take over the industry. The economy is plummeting, therefore we must enact "sweeping new regulations" and increase the power of the Fed. The list goes on. These are all very valid fears that require a response, however the solutions offered only make the problem worse. Big Government solutions lead to Big Problems which then lead to more Big Government solutions. In the case of Tuesday's special election the (valid) fear is Big Government - a Martha Coakley win. The popular solution (Scott Brown) however is not the right answer. You cannot fight Big Government with Big Government.

I will end this post with a quote from John Quincy Adams, who ironically held this very Senate seat long before anyone with the last name of Kennedy, Brown or Coakley: "Always vote for principle though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

***Note: I do not want this to be a judgmental blog. If you happen to prefer what I call "Big Government" principals (universal/mandated healthcare, interventionist foreign policy, higher spending, etc) then please vote for either Scott Brown or Martha Coakley (whichever one you think can be most effective). If you like "ObamaCare" but don't like "RomneyCare" then vote for Martha Coakley. If you like "RomneyCare" but not "ObamaCare" and this issue trumps all other short-term and long-term issues then vote for Scott Brown. I'll still be your friend. In case you are curious, I slightly prefer "RomneyCare" to "ObamaCare" in the same way that I slightly prefer to drive into the wall at 90 mph rather than 100 mph.

*Note: I have yet to find a youtube video of him making statements against eliminating the income tax in MA, however in a recent debate he refused to deny these statements when asked directly by Joe Kennedy. The group behind the ballot initiative adamantly claims that Scott Brown was outspoken against their proposal and urged people to vote against it on the radio (WTKK, 11/3/2008). If it is not true, then he could certainly produce some video footage of him supporting the elimination of the income tax but there is none that I can find.

**Note: If anyone finds documentation of the position of either Scott Brown or Martha Coakley on this issue I would be very interested. Nowhere on either of their websites do they state a position on this issue. At the very least, Joe Kennedy is the only candidate who is outspoken on this issue - which is ironic because the economy is one of the biggest concerns of the citizens of MA.