The Freedom Bulletin

Today (Sunday, January 17) I attended a demonstration by Scott Brown supporters at President Obama’s speech endorsing Martha Coakley at Northeastern University in Boston. It was totally awesome. There were about 100 (or maybe more) Scott Brown supporters holding sings and chanting “Make Obama frown, vote Scott Brown” and “Don’t do coke” (as in Coakley ). We definitely outnumbered the Coakley supporters. We spread out all along Huntington Ave and then marched across the street to the massive line of (mostly pro-Coakley) people waiting to get in to see Obama’s speech. At least 3 cars covered in Scott Brown signs passed by, and we got lots of honks and thumbs up from passing cars, including a fire truck. We even got free hot chocolate from people who I think worked in the Northeastern cafeteria. Many of the Boston cops who were keeping order at the protest indicated that they supported Scott, too!

When we crossed to the side where the Coakley supporters were, one guy kept going on and on about how Scott Brown supporters are defending sex offenders and want them walking around on the streets. Apparently he was referring to the case of Gerald Amirault, who was falsely convicted of child molestation but was kept in prison due to Coakley’s lobbying, even though there was no evidence supporting the charges. A couple of Scott supporters and I pointed out that actually, opposing the jailing of innocent people is not the same as wanting sex offenders out on the streets, and that putting innocent people behind bars is not so great. He replied, “She was a prosecutor; that’s her job.” Oh, yeah. Putting innocent people in jail, that’s a prosecutor’s job, all right!

Here are some photos I took at the rally. Enjoy!

I also made some videos of the Scott Brown rally, which I have uploaded to Youtube and which you can see here.

For some mainstream media coverage of Obama’s appearance and the protests, check out:

• Boston Globe
• Boston Herald

Image credits: Kennedy, Brown

In the U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts, there are many good reasons to vote for Scott Brown and many good reasons to vote for Joe Kennedy.

I like Kennedy’s positions on the issues better. He is stronger in his opposition to excessive taxes and spending than Brown is. According to the Center for Small Government, Brown expressed opposition to Question 1, the 2008 ballot initiative which would have abolished the Massachusetts income tax. Even more disturbingly, he supports the state law that requires all people to have health insurance. I completely believe everything in the Center for Small Government’s statement about Brown’s failure to support tax cuts and spending cuts, and I strongly dislike those things about Brown…

But I will still be voting for Brown. Why? Because unfortunately, Kennedy has no chance of winning. It would be totally awesome if Kennedy won, but it would still be pretty awesome if Brown won. Although Brown is not a great candidate, to have a Republican Senator from Massachusetts would be great. It’s something that I used to believe could never happen, or even come close to happening. Additionally, and most importantly, Brown would be the 41st vote against the health “reform” bill. He would not vote the bill down because of philosophical objections to the individual mandate, but he would vote it down nonetheless. So although I don’t agree with Brown on all – or even most – of the issues, this bill needs to be voted down, and electing Brown would do that. For a Republican to win Ted Kennedy’s old seat and vote down the Democratic health bill would rock.

Don’t get me wrong – I really, really wish Kennedy had a chance of winning. It is unjust that he doesn’t. But I would rather vote in support of something awesome that has a chance of happening than something really, really awesome that has no chance of happening. My heart is torn about this. The Center for Small Government makes great points, and I have absolutely no ill will toward them or toward Kennedy, who is a great man and whom I fully support. Also, in most elections I would simply vote for the candidate I like best. But in most elections in Massachusetts, the choice is between a Libertarian or Independent who has no chance of winning and a Republican who has no chance of winning. A Republican candidate in Massachusetts who has a chance of winning is something special, and I want to do everything I can to help him win.

I like Joe Kennedy better, but I am going to vote for Scott Brown, and I encourage people to do the same.

According to this Boston Globe opinion piece by Dan Payne, the ideal Republican candidate for U.S. Senate…

“would be antiwar; prochoice; an outspoken advocate for civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights; willing to challenge a president of his or her party; a voice for the poor; a conciliator; someone who had seen war.”

So basically, the ideal Republican would be…a Democrat!

Being in favor of women’s rights and civil rights, and being a conciliator, those things aren’t really associated with either party. But if by gay rights, you mean gay marriage, then that’s not so Republican. Neither is being a voice for the poor if by that you mean a supporter of welfare, WIC, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other programs that steal from people who have money in order to give it to those who have less money. And although I am pro-choice and not a huge supporter of the war, I differ from most of the GOP on these issues.

This description that Payne gives refers to Edward Brooke, the last Republican Senator elected in Massachusetts. I don’t know much about Brooke, but judging from Payne’s description of him, he seems like a Democrat who for some reason decided to call himself a Republican. Payne brings this up in order to criticize Scott Brown for his JFK-inspired TV ad, his choice of role models, his positions on the issues, and especially his emphasis on cutting taxes.

“Brown’s candidacy rests on one plain notion: lower taxes… For a man who absurdly televises himself as President John F. Kennedy incarnate, he offers no idealism, no great challenge, no call to sacrifice.”

I don’t see how it’s absurd for Brown to compare himself to JFK. I also don’t see why lowering taxes is so unappealing to Payne. It is idealistic, principled, and in my opinion right, to believe that the government has no right to take money from people simply because they have a lot and give things to people simply because they don’t have a lot. Redistribution of wealth, sadly, is popular among a lot of people today, and it takes guts and ideological purity to oppose it. Standing up for small government and private ownership of property is brave, principled, and all of the things that Payne says it’s not.

Also, Payne concludes by saying that Brooke would have voted “yes” on the health socialism bill, and “if Scott Brown wins and keeps his promise to vote ‘no,’ he would give Massachusetts the damning distinction of supplying the vote that kills health care reform.”

I think it would be great if Brown won and killed the bill! While Brooke (according to Payne) would want to force all Americans to buy health insurance, Brown would actually vote to allow people to make their own decisions. If Payne’s characterization of Brooke is correct, that’s certainly one respect in which Brown would be a better senator than Brooke.

PS: My apologies for the downtime the last couple of days. Apparently Imperial Kingdom was hacked Everything is fixed now though!

I didn’t forget – as I have done in some form every year that this blog has been in existence, here is my roundup of the 10 most important / courageous / unique / influential people of the past year, in no particular order. This list is by no means scientific and is based merely on my own (arguably weird) opinions. Enjoy!

1. Ed and Elaine Brown – This New Hampshire couple refused to pay the federal income tax, arguing that it is unconstitutional. They went on trial this year and were convicted but remained as defiant as ever. They broke the law but did so in the name of liberty. Go, Ed and Elaine!
2. Jason Chaffetz – This freshman Congressman from Utah introduced HR 2027, a bill which would prohibit the government from forcing all airline passengers to be strip-searched. We desperately need this bill to be passed, now more than ever.
3. Neda Agha-Soltan – She was the young woman killed by the Iranian government in the streets of Tehran during this June’s protests against the rigged election. She became a symbol of freedom as the people of Iran fought against their oppressive government.
4. Scott Brown – The Republican candidate in the special election for the Massachusetts Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy. A former model and current Lt. Colonel in the National Guard, he’s a pretty cool guy, and wouldn’t it be cool if Massachusetts finally had a Republican in the Senate?
5. Joe Kennedy – Not the nephew of Ted Kennedy, but the independent / libertarian candidate for Ted’s old Senate seat. Although he doesn’t have much chance of winning, his libertarian ideas are something Massachusetts really needs to hear more of.
6. John Ensign – No, I’m not including him because of his extramarital affair but because he had the courage and the sense to argue against the individual mandate in the Senate’s health bill and introduce a motion to examine its constitutionality. He is completely right!
7. Simone Davis – She is a 17-year-old girl who was denied permanent residency in the US because she refused to receive the HPV vaccine, which is only beneficial to people who have sex. I salute her for standing up for the rights of asexual and/or celibate people.
8. Joe Wilson – He infamously shouted “you lie” when President Obama said that his health bill would not cover illegal immigrants. Although criticized by liberals as rude, I think that what he said rang true and took guts.
9. Taylor Swift – She’s one of my favorite musical artists and was named AP’s entertainer of the year, as well as winning CMA, VMA, and AMA awards, among many others. Although not directly related to politics/liberty, she has so much talent that she belongs on this last.
10. Michael Jackson - I couldn’t leave the King of Pop off of my list. In addition to being an undoubtedly iconic artist, he was also undoubtedly quirky. Unfairly plagued by child molestation allegations, he is a unique person, for better or for worse.  

Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate in the MA Senate special election, might not debate her rival, Republican Scott Brown, unless the Libertarian candidate, Joe Kennedy, is included as well.

I have mixed feelings about this. I agree with Coakley that voters should hear the ideas of all the candidates, and I am no fan of the two-party system, which severely limits voters’ choices. However, I don’t think that’s what Coakley actually thinks. It’s pretty obvious that she just wants Brown and Kennedy to split the conservative/libertarian vote.

If you know anything about my politics, you’d know that I like both Brown and Kennedy much better than Coakley. But right now I’m undecided which to vote for. When it comes to their political views, I think I like Kennedy better. He thinks that the welfare system should be abolished, that the government shouldn’t license marriages, and lots of other great libertarian things.

Brown is a good candidate, too. He is (mostly) pro-choice and anti-gay-marriage, like me, but he supports the Massachusetts law requiring everyone to have health insurance, and I am extremely reluctant to vote for anyone who supports that.

But since Kennedy is a third-party candidate, Brown almost definitely has a better chance of winning. I am torn between voting for the candidate I like best and the one I like best out of those who have a chance to win. Massachusetts (and all of the USA) should adopt instant-runoff voting. Then no one would have this dilemma, and people would have a wide range of viable candidates to choose from, instead of having to choose from the unintuitively thrown-together collections of views of the two major parties.

Check out this verbal goof-up by Steve Pagliuca, who is running for Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat. During a radio debate yesterday, he said…

“I would support a military draft because I think it talks about equality, so I’d support a draft.”

He then issued a statement clarifying his stance:

“I incorrectly interpreted the question to be asking if I would support a mandatory draft in the event we needed additional troops and my answer was yes. I now realize that was not the question posed to me, and I want to be clear that I do not support reinstating the military draft at this time.”

This mess-up is worse than anything George W. Bush has said. From Pagliuca’s answer to the question, it seems he didn’t even know what a draft is. It looks like he thought it was some sort of report or publication. Bush often got his words confused, but at least everyone knew what he meant, and what he meant made sense, although his words didn’t always capture it perfectly.

Another reason to vote for Scott Brown for Senate!

Congratulations to State Senator Scott Brown, who officially announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. With Kerry Healey, Andrew Card, and probably Christy Mihos out of the Senate race, it seems like he’s going to be the GOP frontrunner.

Check out BrownForUSSenate.com!

Further reading:

• WCVB: Scott Brown Making Run At Kennedy’s Seat
• NECN: State Sen. Brown enters U.S. Senate race
• Boston Globe: GOP’s rising star: Party sees signs of hope in Wrentham’s Scott Brown
• CNN Political Ticker: Brown vies for Kennedy’s seat