Posted on 09/25/2010 5:26:56 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
WASHINGTON--Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney--eyeing a 2012 presidential race--headlines a lunch fund-raiser in Chicago today for GOP Senate candidate Mark Kirk--and I'm told Romney is coming to talk about jobs and Kirk.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.suntimes.com ...
Reminds me of the hacks pushing McCain down our throats.
The Senate race is on the very top of the ballot, listed twice. All Illinois conservatives should take the opportunity to vote AGAINST Kirk BOTH times, to tell the socialist turd HELL NO. My ballot will read as follows:
U.S. Senator - IL (6-Year Term)
[ ] Mark Kirk (Republican)
[ ] Alexi Giannoulias (Democratic)
[ ] LeAlan Jones (Green)
[X] Mike Labno (Libertarian)
U.S. Senator - IL (Unexpired Term of Barack Obama)
[ ] Mark Kirk (Republican)
[ ] Alexi Giannoulias (Democratic)
[ ] LeAlan Jones (Green)
[X] Mike Labno (Libertarian)
I wouldn’t vote for Labno, even in protest. Like most Libertarians, he seems like a pacifist. His web site calls our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “unconstitutional”.
“America can not only save soldiers’ lives and trillions of dollars, but make our country more secure by ending our two unconstitutional wars and bringing our troops home. “
Well, if you can’t vote for Labno as a protest, then leave that particular office without a vote. In IL, getting Brady elected Governor is of paramount importance.
When it comes to Labno, I do agree with 80% of his positions and that's why he's getting my vote. I don't agree with him on EVERY issue, and there are certainly some notably differences like the one you mentioned. But he is still vastly better than any of the other choices on the ballot, including Kirk.
Finally, Kirk claims to be a "hawk" on the military but his record hardly justifies that claim. Kirk is a finger-to-the-wind guy on the WOT. His campaign team put on a big dog-and-pony show about how "important" it was to re-elect him in 2006 because he "supported President Bush on the WOT", then after getting re-elected he promptly turned around and lead the fight AGAINST the surge, and marched to the White House to lead a group of 11 "moderate" Republicans demanding Bush exit Iraq immediately. He's also flip-flopped on Gitmo at least 4 times.
Labno's position on war may not be my cup of tea but at least I know what I'm getting unlike the backstabber Kirk. Randy Stufflebeam was my preferred candidate but he was kicked off the ballot. We have to deal with the hand we're dealt. The choice is Labno vs. three socialists. I know who I'm supporting with those options.
All persons are created--not simply born--equal and the 5th and 14th Amendments state that all persons shall not be denied the right to life without due process of law. Roe v Wade wrongfully ignores this right.
I personally oppose abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in mortal danger. At a minimum, we can return abortion law to the states, so citizens can have an active voice on this issue.
Mike Labno.
Entitlement programs not only cause this contention, but also encourage dependency in all people, resulting in a downward economic and moral spiral.
We can solve these problems by transitioning government poverty, education, and health programs to private and charitable organizations.
Mike Labno.
Politicians have been elected who ignore our natural rights as defined in the Declaration of Independence and more specifically to this case, in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
We can strike down laws prohibiting peaceful people from the ownership and use of firearms for self-defense. This would result in a more peaceful society better protected from predators.
Mike Labno.
“Randy Stufflebeam was my preferred candidate but he was kicked off the ballot.”
Stufflebeam is fighting in court and will probably be put back on the ballot within a few days. On Friday a judge put the Constitution Party within 80 votes of being on the ballot, and they can get those 80 votes with affidavits.
“Many Americans are concerned that illegal immigrants are draining resources that belong to US citizens.”
Labno doesn’t say that he is going to stop illegals from entering the country. Like many Libertarians, he probably supports open borders.
His idea of cutting off benefits is great, but it won’t happen any time soon. So we’ll end up with Labno supporting open borders like a Democrat, without ever getting them cut off food stamps, etc.
That’s one of the problems with libertarianism: it’s a impossible dream, so that in the real world libertarians behave the same as Democrats.
Second amendment is very important, which is why I am happy that it is safe. Since 9/11, even Democrats have been afraid to propose national gun bans. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment prevents them from doing so. This Congress has been pro-gun, afraid to vote against guns.
So there is no chance that Kirk or any Republican congress is going to vote against guns.
Heading to church, talk when I get back. Best to you and yours.
Vote against him twice? Haven’t you heard that we “need” him for the doomsday lame duck session where he could single handedly save the Republic? ;-p
do not mistake pro-second amendment with afraid to vote against the second amendment.
There are more than enough slimes on both sides that would gladly abolish the second amendment if given a chance.
Siegfried, with fairness given to the candidate, me, I think you should know where I stand on illegal immigration, just so we are clear:
Secure Borders – I am in favor of securing our borders. The ease with which immigrants can slip across our borders is an international joke and our economic system certainly cannot handle the overload. But our system cannot handle another overgrown, inefficient bureaucratic department either. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year around the world via our military budget, and this creates a plethora of problems. Subsidizing other countries’ social programs by providing a military for them is not right for American taxpayers to endure, and since we have this budget established already, I would like to see our troops at home defending our own borders rather than those of other nations.
Amnesty – I am completely opposed to amnesty.
Language Barriers – The diversity of Americans is what makes us the great “melting-pot” of the world and has allowed culture to flourish amongst us. But it is important that we have a common bond when it comes to politics and the public at large, and agreeing to use the English Language as our official language is paramount to the stability of our governmental operations.
Enforce Our Laws – Our existing laws needs to be clarified; there exists too much ambiguity. More importantly we have to deal with illegal immigrants properly when they are found, and, ultimately, the officials that refuse to deal with them in the manners prescribed by law. As recently as August, 2010, the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) refused to deport any “non-violent” illegal immigrants. This policy by ICE means de facto amnesty, which is unacceptable. Those responsible for this direction, no matter what level, should be removed from office and replaced with officials whose interests lie with the American people. Finally, we have to clean-up our process for dealing with immigrants remaining here beyond their visa limits.
States’ Rights and the Constitution – When the federal government fails to enforce its laws I fully support the rights of states to legislate their own laws to fill the void. The cost of illegal immigration is immense on taxpayers, but it is significantly more costly at a state than federal level and states should be allowed to protect themselves. However, I would never support any legislation, federal or otherwise, that supersedes our due process of law, particularly the 4th Amendment in our Bill of Rights.
Economics – The cost of securing our borders and properly acquiring, detaining, deporting illegal immigrants will be very expensive if we want the process to be anywhere near effective. As stated earlier, I do support using already appropriated funds via our military to assist with the process, but we also have to be realistic. We’ve always been the land of opportunity for those who want to work and the land of freedom for those who are oppressed, and nobody wants that to change. But in order for the U.S. to ultimately be successful at controlling illegal immigration, it is imperative that we also attack the source of the problem: social services that encourage immigrants to join our ranks looking for government handouts. Americans are the most generous people in the world and have always been willing to help out when people find themselves in a tight spot by giving to charities and churches…it is our welfare system that must be fixed. By way of the government’s central banking monopoly, they have systematically provided great wealth to the Big-Banksters and have slowly eroded the American dream for the rest of us. Central banking also allows politicians to act as if they are benevolent by providing various social services at taxpayer expense. And as time goes on, what little money we have continues to decline in value while great sums of money continue to be created for the corporate conglomerates that lobby for special favors. When central banking is eliminated…and it must be in order to fix a whole slew of other problems in this country…illegal immigration will become a non-issue as people will only join our ranks with the intent of surviving on their own rather than relying on free services.
Siegfried X says I am a pacifist - that’s pretty funny considering I grew up on the West Side...I enjoy a good fight.
Given that however, I believe in smart foreign policy. I love our troops so much that I want them to return to the safety of our borders as quickly as possible...I have friends there, and I understand what they are going through - and they are all displeased with our policies (they are hardcore Republicans by the way, though I think that is changing).
I don’t understand how constitutionality is an issue. Congress NEVER declared war as required in Article I, Section 8, clause 11; period. Furthermore our goals and objectives were long abandoned; where is Osama and his cohorts? He is the only reason we should be there and we squandered every opportunity to get him.
Our nation is falling apart and we are on the verge of complete economic collapse, illegal immigration is still a major problem and all anyone can talk about is more spending.
Bring the troops home now. Defend our borders from illegals AND terrorists...the one main job Congress has completely failed. Keep our Navy active and well equipped. Spend money on missile defense and screw any country that has a problem with that.
I am about America. 234 years ago our country’s citizens chose to die on their own feet rather than live on their knees...and that’s what others need to do for themselves...that’s when their Liberty will be appreciated, and earned.
China is about to win an economic war without firing a single shot. We need to get things under control here before we become a destitute nation.
Pacifist? No way...I am fighting for our lives...
I agree entirely and what does one man who disagrees with nation building hurt the Senate? I’ve talked to Mike Labno and he would never do anything to defund or place the troops at risk in the time of war no matter whether he disagreed with the way we got into it. He isn’t a truther he doesn’t blame America for 9-11. He just believes that “nation building” hasn’t worked so well and truthfully it hasn’t. I do believe in finishing the job but I’d like to get people elected like Labno who will vote to let our soldiers fight a war like a war.
I can support a Jeffersonian Libertarians like Mike Labno and Rand Paul its the other Liberal-tarian anarchists that I can’t support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.