San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, August 31, 2012

Delegates To The RNC Are All Dupes

I don't know if they are ignorant or stupid.  I don't know if they really know the truth and are denying it or if they are too deluded to see what is really going on.  What I do know is that, whether willingly or unwillingly,  every single delegate present at the Republican National Convention is a dupe of the power brokers at the top of the party.  It is a very sad state of affairs, but it is true.  How can I make such a crazed assertion? Because the top power broker in the Republican party said so.
Every four years the two major political parties gather together to nominate a candidate for the presidency.  A big part of what they do during the week they are at the convention is hammer out the particulars of what is called the party "platform".  "Planks" are added to the party platform, with each plank representing, ostensibly, a goal that will be sought after by the new president and, if possible, the new Congress.  Each issue is vigorously debated by the delegates from the individual states as they feverishly work to create the philosophy of government their candidate is expected to live by for the next four years.  A certain patriotic frenzy falls over the participants as they come to believe that they are actually making a difference in the political process.  They actually come to believe that their platform will impact the behavior of those who get elected.  Poor fools, if only they knew the truth.
Well, the truth has been told.  In a moment of rare truthfulness, none other than John Boehner let the cat out of the bag this past week.  In an article found on The New American, Michael Tennent writes that "Amid all the cheers and jeers for the 2012 Republican Party platform, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) let slip the truth about that document: He hasn’t read it, and he doesn’t know anyone who’s ever read it or any other platform."  At a Christian Science Monitor breakfast on August 27, Boehner was asked about his opinion of the new Republican platform.  Here is what he said:  "Well, I have not seen the platform, but from every indication that I’ve heard I don’t see any major changes in this platform from what we have had in the past. And if it were up to me I would have the platform on one sheet of paper. Have you ever met anybody who read the party platform? I’ve not met ever anybody."  So there you have it.  The document that is supposed to guide the political decisions of the anointed and elected leaders of the Republican party into the future, is a document that is systematically ignored by those who are elected to represent the Republican party.  Does this surprise anybody?
Tennant goes on to point out that, "For example, every GOP platform since 1980 has called for the passage of a human life amendment to the Constitution and the restriction of taxpayer funding of abortion. Yet no such amendment has ever come close to passing Congress in the last 32 years; and Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, continues to receive generous federal subsidies, including $2.5 billion during the presidency of 'pro-life' Republican George W. Bush, six years of which coincided with GOP control of one or both houses of Congress."  It should not come as a big surprise to any of us that there is an extreme disconnect between what the politicians say and what they do.  How long does it take to figure out that a politician will say whatever he has to say to get a vote?  No politician that I am aware of ever speaks the truth about what he believes and wants to accomplish.  To do so would be embarrassing.  Imagine a political candidate telling the truth.  He would say something like this:  "Yes, I will tell you exactly what you want to hear and hope that by doing so you will vote for me.  I want your vote so I can have all of the power, status and wealth that is associated with this office.  My goal is to become famous and rich.  I have no moral principles.  I operate entirely according to the utilitarian principle of  saying whatever I have to say to get elected.  Once elected I will make every decision based upon how it affects my chances for re-election."  That is the truth about politics and politicians in the SDA.
So, if the delegates to the RNC are not really involved in determining the future of their party, just what exactly are they doing there?  This is where the story becomes very sad.  I suspect that most of the delegates really believe they are doing something in service to the country. It takes a serious amount of self-delusion to come to that conclusion but I believe they are seriously deluded. Looking at the excitement on their faces, as they shout and clap and jump for joy when their candidate makes an appearance, leads me to believe that they actually think they are somehow involved in directing the political process.  How naive. Delegates are present at the national conventions for only one reason....they provide an enthusiastic base of fans for the nationally televised speeches made by the politicians.  That is it my friends.  That is it.  They are, every last one of them, dupes for the party. How sad.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

The Socialist Democracy Of America Is A Police State

The passing of the Patriot Act and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security have ensured that the Socialist Democracy of America is eventually going to become a police state, if it is not already.  Of course, it does not have to be this way.  It is possible that US citizens could take personal responsibility for their lives and politely ask the federal government to go away.  It is possible that US citizens will stop believing the lies being told to them about terrorist threats and the need for an expansionist state to protect them.  It is possible that US citizens will develop the attitude that they wish to be allowed to pursue their own individual interests without the interference of government laws designed to control their behavior and bring about the desired social outcomes.  It is possible that US citizens will exercise their right to vote in a manner that elects statesmen who oppose the expansion of the welfare and warfare states, thus returning America to some semblance of decency.  Those things are all possible.  I am not taking any bets on how likely they are.
Meanwhile, homeland security procedures continue unabated.  Citizens of the SDA stand by and passively watch as their neighborhoods become militarized.  We have all become accustomed to the daily threatening we receive from roadside signage informing us that various police groups are watching our behavior and are prepared to incarcerate us for non-compliance.  While sitting at a Rockies game a week or two ago I was accosted by a commercial on the jumbo-tron informing me that the police were watching me and I could be arrested and imprisoned if I did not do precisely what they told me to do on my way home from the ballgame.  Why, I wondered, should I be subjected to oppressive statist propaganda while attending a baseball game?  I wrote it off as simply another example of the ever intrusive nature of our police state.
Today I opened the Denver Post and read that some citizens of the fair city of Tampa are upset at what has happened to their town as a result of the presence of an inordinate number of politicians this week.   The article, written by Tamara Lush of the AP, was entitled "Security blanket irritating visitors, business owners."  A picture accompanying the article shows seven officers of the "law" standing on a street corner wearing riot gear, communications devices, weaponry and body armor.  Two of the officers are not wearing hats or helmets and it is possible to see that they are both skin heads.  In addition to being a skin head, the officer in the center of the photograph is sporting a giant tattoo on his right arm.  His arm sleeve is rolled up to display his menacing symbol of authority and power.  Lastly, the expression on the faces of the two officers that can be seen can best be described as defiant smirks.  These people are in Tampa to serve and protect the citizens of Tampa?  I am not that stupid.  These people are the paid mercenaries of the political class.  Every politician in every country in the world has his own security/police squad.  The US is now no different than all of the other countries in the world we used to make fun of for their petty dictatorships and military juntas.
As it turns out, the federal government gave Tampa police $50 million of taxpayer money to purchase military gear and supplies for their force.  Here is how Ms. Lush describes the situation, "They seem to be on every street corner.  Police officers riding bicycles, horses and golf carts that look like baby Humvees.  Metal barricades surround all of Tampa's government buildings.  State police, the FBI, the Secret Service -- some in riot gear -- fill the city's streets surrounding the Republican National Convention....Helicopters fly overhead, and packs of police cruise by on bicycles.  Fast boats whiz by the region's three bridges, looking for unseen threats.  Tall chain-link fences shield the parks along the Hillsborough River from view.  The main library is closed....City officials maintain the massive show of force -- more than 3,000 officers -- is needed to ward off possible violent protests....The 3000 officers represent 59 state law enforcement agencies."  What is wrong with this picture?  So many things are wrong with this picture it is hard for me to determine where to start.
First, why are the quasi-military units only protecting government buildings?  If my experience with unruly mobs is any indication (and it is fairly limited), the first thing people in this country begin to loot when a riot breaks out is the local electronics store.  Nobody goes after the county building or the local courthouse.  If the officers of the "law" are really concerned about maintaining order and protecting property in a riot, they should be sealing off the business and commercial district, not the government buildings.  The mere fact that they would make the decision to protect government buildings reveals a tremendous amount about their mind-set.  They believe that government is the supreme institution in society and must be protected at all costs.  Furthermore, they believe that the first thing unruly citizens will attack is government buildings.  They see the citizens of Tampa as nothing more than potential criminals.  Whatever happened to the principle of innocent until proven guilty?  The militaristic mind-set of the police against a population they deem to be hostile combatants is a huge part of the reason why we have a police state in Tampa this week.
Second, since when has the constitutional right to lawful assembly been abolished?  This all started, as most of you will recall, with the "free speech zones" established at prior political conventions.  Since people who would assemble at conventions tended to shout nasty things at politicians, it was determined by the politicians that they should not be subject to hearing such distasteful speech.  So they created an unconstitutional law establishing a "zone" in which the right to free speech could be exercised.  Those zones were, not surprisingly, well away from any place where contact with other human beings might actually take place.  Now, with the provisions of the Patriot Act and the ability to classify every negative comment by a member of the electorate as an act of terrorism, the politicians and their complicit military entourages have simply made themselves into such a presence that no reasonable citizen would even think about going into an area where politicians are present, much less say anything negative to or about them.
This week, inside the buildings of the RNC, all you will witness is the worship of the state and acts of personal devotion to the politicians who command it.  Outside the buildings of the RNC you will witness a scene eerily reminiscent of the Soviet Union of the 1960s.  There will be no dissent.  There will be no assembly of citizens.  There will just be a queasy calm and the presence of thousands of militarized police officers. Welcome to the Socialist Democracy of America, where everyone has a right to his opinion, provided it is pre-approved by a politician.  As a Russian friend of mine once told me, "So you really are crazy or stupid enough to think you won the Cold War?  HA HA HA."

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Aurora Movie Massacre Money Madness

After the movie massacre took place in Aurora on July 20th, a fund was established for those who wanted to make cash donations to help the victims.  It was called the "7/20 Recovery Committee" and it has taken in approximately $5 million to date.  Yesterday a group of victims and survivors met with the media to complain that they are not receiving any of the money.  How completely predictable. What I write here will probably make the two or three people who read this blog angry with me.  Still, I am compelled to write it.  There are several things that need to be written about this money madness associated with the Aurora movie massacre.
First, the definition of "victim" needs to be elucidated.  It should be obvious to everyone that a victim is somebody who is victimized.  It is extremely important to distinguish between a victim and a person who suffers the necessary consequences of somebody else being victimized.  For example.  If I was murdered, I would be a murder victim.  My wife would be a person who would suffer the consequences of my murder, but she would not be a victim of murder.  If I was shot I would be a victim of being shot.  The person standing beside me at the time I was shot would not be a victim of my being shot.  He would be a person who suffered the consequences of my being shot (blood splatter on a nice suit, having to listen to my screams, etc).  Most people these days make no distinction between true victims and folks who suffer the consequences of someone else being victimized.  In the case of the Aurora movie massacre, the victims were those who were murdered and those who were shot.  There is nothing that can be done for those who were murdered.  Those who were shot can be helped by paying for their medical bills and rehabilitation.  Those who were shot and survived are the only ones that should be receiving compensation from a victims compensation fund.  Those who are suffering the necessary consequences of having been there that night, but who were not shot, are not victims in this affair.  That is not, however, the way the alleged victims see it.
A spokesman for the group of victims by the name of Teves was quoted in the Denver Post as saying, "The group of victims should include anyone inside the movie theater that night or those living at suspect James Holmes' apartment, which was booby-trapped with explosives.  It should include anyone harmed physically or emotionally, directly or indirectly by the coward's actions."  Now that is an interesting definition of 'victim'.  It raises many questions.  Is the person who lived at Holmes' apartment complex while he was assembling his bombs but moved out prior to the massacre a victim?  How about anyone who moved into the apartment complex between the building of the bombs and the shootings?  What if I bought a ticket to the movie but was not there at the time of shooting?  What if I was standing in line at the concession stand when the shooting took place?  What if I was in the theater next to the theater in which the shooting took place?  What if I was in the parking lot at the time the shooting started?  Am I a victim?  Am I entitled to cash?  I can see a lot of "victims" showing up to claim their "fair share" of the money.
I understand the "anyone physically harmed" by Holmes.  I do not understand "anyone emotionally harmed" by Holmes.  Dozens of articles after the shooting described how the entire city of Aurora was emotionally harmed by Holmes.  Some reports went so far as to say that all of Colorado was emotionally harmed, although the writer never explained how a geo-political entity could suffer emotional harm.  If I became emotionally upset after hearing news reports about the shootings (which I did not), do I qualify for cash payments?  If somebody has a dream about a movie massacre that causes him to wake up in the middle of the night, is he entitled to money?  You see the problem.  How can anyone possibly determine who is a victim of the movie massacre if the definition of victim is expanded beyond those who were actually shot?
Certainly, I can hear you saying, I would not deny some cash payment to the grieving widow of a man who was shot, would I?  Yes, I would.  That is why the free market has a thing called life insurance.  That is why everyone should have life insurance.  That is why responsible adults purchase life insurance policies. The man who was shot would be a victim but, as somebody who is no longer alive, he would not be able to claim any of the cash available for victims.  His wife is not a victim and she is not entitled to compensation for victims. She is a person suffering the consequences of her husband's murder.  Her condition is unfortunate and sad, but that is life in the real world.  The only victims in this situation who are qualified to receive any of the cash from the 7/20 Recovery Committee are those who were shot during the massacre and survived.  In the case where the shooting victim is a minor, his parents should receive the compensation.  The compensation should extend to cover all of the costs associated with the repair, rehabilitation, and recovery from the shooting.  That should then be the end of it. Any money that is left over could either be given back to the donors or given to some other charitable organization.
Whenever there is free money to be distributed, people of all stripes will crawl out of the woodwork to make their claim for it.  Whenever there is privileged status associated with being classified as a victim, suddenly everyone will become a victim.  It is the nature of sinful human beings.  Men want something for nothing.  The Aurora movie massacre is an opportunity for people to display their sinfulness and play the victim.  There are many pseudo-victims coming forward and making demands for cash.  I do not deny that some of them have real emotional pain in regards to the massacre.  I just deny that they classify as victims.  I affirm that many of them have no pain at all and are seizing this opportunity to try and get free cash.  Those folks are reprehensible.  They should be permanently socially ostracized.
Although the 7/20 Recovery Committee has not made any direct distributions to the victims in this affair, it inexplicably made a donation of $350,000 to the Colorado Organization for Victims Assistance.  This appears to be nothing more than a tacit admission that the folks at 7/20 have no idea what to do with the money.  Rather than making the hard decisions about who to give it to, they have foisted some of the money upon another 501c3 organization with the apparent expectation that they will know what to do.  Not surprisingly, the folks at COVA do not know what to do.  They claim that checks for $5000 have been mailed to every person who was shot or killed (in that case the checks are payable to the next of kin) in the massacre but many of those people are claiming that they have not seen them.  Adding another layer of bureaucratic intervention to the process will not make the funds be distributed any more efficiently or properly.  The folks at 7/20 need to stop soliciting additional funds and pay out what they have received as I described above. 
Other parasites are lining up to receive some of the largess.  A special adviser from the Mile High United Way has been hired to help with the distribution.  He immediately asserted that "many people in the community suffered trauma as a result of the shooting....the long term needs of the community will require significant investment in mental health agencies."  Ah, so there you have it.  The high priests of the state, state licensed psychiatrists and psychologists, are lining up to get their fair share of the cash in exchange for their services as head-shrinkers.  I wonder how much of the money originally given to support the victims will eventually end up in the bank account of psychiatrists who happen to be lucky enough to get some of the movie massacre business?  Imagine this scenario:  somebody visits his shrink allegedly because he is feeling sad about the massacre.  After the visit the shrink bills the 7/20 Recovery Committee for the services on the grounds that it is directly related to the massacre.  Do you think the shrink will charge his standard rate?  Neither do I.
Another completely predictable outcome of the massacre and the political activity that was associated with it is the complaint of some of the members of the victims group.  Teves said, "Gov. Hickenlooper, you came and grieved with our families.  We allowed you into our innermost circle at the worst time in our lives.  We didn't do that lightly.  You pledged 12 times that 'We will remember'. Are you a man who is true to his word, or were they just words?"  Surprise!  Surprise!  A politician shows up at a mass tragedy and makes all sorts of promises to "remember", whatever that means.  Then, once the cameras are gone, nothing happens.  And this is supposed to surprise us?  Even worse, is Teves, speaking on behalf of the group of alleged victims,  now making a moral claim upon taxpayer funds?  He has $5 million in the bank for a group of just 58 people.  Does he really expect the Governor to tap the state treasury to pay their bills?  Does he really expect us to believe that to "remember" means "to give away public funds?"  What a mess.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Only A Fool Would Believe A Politician

How many times have you been fooled?  How many times have you been fooled by the same person?  Although the answer to the first question is probably, "many times", hopefully the answer to the second question is, "one time".  Most of us, I think, have enough smarts to know who the fellow is that loves to fool us.  After he has fooled us the first time we figure him out and do not fall for his shenanigans again.  It is all a big game and lots of fun.  Enter the politicians.
How many times have you been fooled by the politicians?  More precisely, how many times have you believed a promise made by a politician only to find out later that he would not deliver on that promise?  Remember when the mid-term Republicans who were swept into office promised that they would never vote for any legislation that was not specifically authorized by the Constitution?  Remember how they promised to cite the exact section of Constitution in each piece of legislation in order to prove it was constitutional?  How long did that last?  A day, maybe two.  Remember when George Bush senior told us to read his lips?  "No new taxes", he said.  How long did that promise last?  A month, maybe two.  Remember when the Republicans had control of the House, Senate and the White House (2002-2005) and had a plank in their platform in which they promised to outlaw abortion?  How many pieces of legislation did they introduce to make abortion illegal?  Right, none.  Remember how every single president since Eisenhower has promised to make the US energy independent?  (I can understand if you do not remember this.  It is true however.)  How did that work out?  Did any of them do anything to bring about that state of affairs?  Nope.  Remember how every president in recent history has promised to change the tax code to make it more "fair"?  Who today believes that the tax code is fair?  Nobody that I know.  Remember how every president in recent times has promised to eliminate financial recessions?  How successful have they been at delivering on that promise?  Remember how every president in recent times has promised to deliver rising incomes and full employment?  We all know how the politicians have done in delivering on that promise.  The list is endless.  I could drone on and on with a long litany of political promises that have never been delivered.  It is true for all politicians, whether they be liberal or conservative.  They all consistently promise the sky and deliver nothing but more of the same.  Despite all of the promises that things will change, and change for the better, the fact of the matter is that political life never changes.
So, that brings me to my question.  Why do people continually fall for their promises?  Why do people continually think that this time it will be different?  Why do people get all excited about their candidate and actually appear to believe that their man (or woman) will actually deliver the political goods?  Why, after being fooled over and over again, do they allow themselves to be fooled another time?   I look at the faces of the people who attend the political conventions.  They appear as if they are having a religious experience.  Their faces denote rapture and extreme joy when their politician is taking the stage.  They shed tears of joy.  They shout screams of pleasure.  They look upon their politician as the savior of the country.  They really believe that their politician will do something that no politician in the history of the United States has ever done.  They believe that their politician will deliver on a series of promises that will make the lives of all of the citizens of the United States better than they were prior to his election.  Has everyone gone stark, raving mad?
Here is the percentage of eligible voters who have actually voted in each general election since 2000:
2000 - 55%, 2002 - 41%,  2004 - 61%, 2006 - 41%, 2008 - 62%, 2010 - 42%.  The higher percentages that show up every other period are due to the fact that it is a presidential election year.  Still, the average voter turnout for the past six general elections is exactly 50%.  Now I know the arguments usually presented at this point.  We are told that the 50% that do not show up to vote are "apathetic" and "unpatriotic" and too lazy or stupid to perform their patriotic duty to vote.  We are told that the members of that 50% should all be cast into political purgatory for their sin of not voting.  I don't buy that argument for one second.  Is it possible that the 50% of eligible voters who decided to not vote did so because they were unwilling to be fooled one more time?  Is it possible they were tired of playing the fool and the dupe for the politicians?  Is it possible they have seen through the game and no longer want to play?  It sure seems possible to me.
Here is something you might want to try, if you have the stomach for it (and doing this does require an extremely strong stomach).  Turn on your television with the sound down. Tune into the Republican National Convention and simply observe the appearances on the faces of the participants.  Then, after you have observed them for a while, change channels and pick up a Christian TV station with some sort of faith-healer on the stage.  Anything by Benny Hinn would be good.  While keeping the sound turned off, observe the faces of the participants at the faith-healing service.  Do you see any difference between the looks on the faces at the political convention and the faith-healing service?  If I am right, you will notice the amazing similarity between the two.  National political conventions are little more than statist religious services designed to hype up the poor suckers in attendance and steal their money and their vote.  In the same way, faith healing services are little more than pseudo religious services designed to hype up the poor suckers in attendance and steal their money.  In both cases the participants are enthralled and enraptured by men who are experts at telling lies and fooling the religiously and politically naive.
I am absolutely amazed that, year after year, my neighbors get all excited about the election season.  As election day approaches the feverish pitch comes to a pinnacle of religious ecstasy. Then, usually just a few short months after the end of the election cycle, those same people are complaining about how all politicians are bums!  How many times are they going to fool themselves?  Don't be a dupe.  Have the wisdom to discern when a politician is lying to you in order to try and get your vote.  It is anytime his lips are moving.  There will be a lot of lips moving in Florida this week.  Therefore, I conclude, there will be a whole lot of lying going on.  Don't be fooled again.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Why Does Government Exist?

I saw a Romney ad on the television the other night that took me by surprise.  It featured Mitt talking about how he will support and maintain government benefits paid under Social Security and Medicare.  It struck me as strangely ironic that the type of ad his campaign had produced to try and get him elected is exactly the type of ad many Democrats would have produced to try and get themselves elected twenty years ago.  How things have changed.  The Republicans are now making campaign promises that the Democrats made just a short time ago.  In light of the fact that Republicans are now making the same campaign promises as Democrats, why are we expected to believe there are substantive differences between the two parties?  I am not that stupid.
As I pondered the Romney ad my mind moved on to a more basic question.  According to the commercial,  Romney would have me believe that one of the major purposes for civil government in our land is to take money from those who are working and pay that money to retirees.  As I remembered commercials I have seen by the Obama camp, I realized that Obama would have me believe that exact same thing.  Both Romney and Obama fall over themselves trying to tell me how much they are in support of forcibly extracting money from those who work and giving it, less a fee for government handling, to those who do not.  Both call their actions progressive and compassionate. Neither one of them consider their support for hegemonic appropriation and redistribution of wealth to be immoral.   Neither one of them has ever produced a commercial that asks the more basic question about the role of government and morality in general.  Neither one of them has ever laid out a systematic argument that explains his political philosophy with respect to the purpose for, and morality of, civil government.  I guess we are just expected to assume that since whichever one of them wins will be swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, that the Constitution contains the framework of their political philosophies.  That, of course, is an amazingly stupid assumption.  The political philosophies of Romney and Obama are as far removed from the political philosophy of the Constitution as I am from the moon.  Allow me to compare the answers of the Constitution and Romney/Obama (because they are essentially the same) to the essential moral question, why does government exist?
The Constitution says that civil government is instituted among men for the expressed purpose of defending the life, freedom and property of those who live in the country.  According to the founding fathers, and the original writers of the Constitution, the federal government has no power whatsoever if it is not directly related to protecting the life, freedom and property of US citizens.  As a result, the founding fathers recognized that government has the right to tax its citizens in order to pay for those institutions that are necessary to protect the life, freedom and property of its citizens. Taxes were levied to pay for the military, which was used to defend citizens from foreign aggression, thus protecting life, freedom and property.  Tax dollars were used to pay for the judicial system that was created to adjudicate disputes between citizens and thus defend lives, freedom, and property.  Besides those two items, the federal government did not have much more to do. Despite what JFK would have had us believe, civil government did not exist for the citizenry to serve.  Civil government existed to serve the citizenry.  As Jefferson made abundantly clear, when civil government ceases to serve its citizens it is time to replace it with another.  Fast forward a couple of hundred years.  My how things have changed.
Romney/Obama believe just the opposite of the founding fathers.  Romney/Obama believe that the federal government has the right to tax you like a slave in order to increase the size of the state.  Both desperately want the state to exercise tyrannical control over your life.  Although the US military is fighting wars around the world, it is questionable whether the execution of those wars has actually reduced the risk to your life by foreigners intent upon your destruction.  A strong argument can be made that our prosecution of recent wars has increased the risks associated with preserving your life.  If that is true, the government has done the exact opposite of what it was intended to do when it was commissioned to defend your life.  Furthermore, Romney/Obama believe that free citizens are dangerous citizens.  As a result, both of them support the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act, if you are not aware already, essentially strips you of all of the rights acknowledged in the Bill of Rights.  Under the terms of the Patriot Act, the state is supreme and you are a pawn.   Both of them support Sarbanes/Oxley and Dodd/Frank, two of the most business destructive pieces of legislation in recent times. Both of them support the exponential growth of government regulations that are designed to control the lives of the citizens in this country down to the most mundane details.  Romney/Obama believe they have the right to regulate which type of food you eat, which type of car you drive, which type of toilet you flush and which type of light bulb you use.  Your personal freedom, that is guaranteed under the Constitution they swear an oath to defend, is something that Romney/Obama care absolutely nothing about.
When it comes to your property Romney/Obama are both totally dedicated to the principle that they have the right to take what is yours and give it to somebody else.  Both support all government wealth and income transfer programs that are presently in existence.  Both believe that they have the right to make decisions about who wins and who loses in government wealth transfer schemes.  Both hide behind the shield of "democracy" to defend their immoral actions.  Both believe in theft by majority vote.  Both believe in the rule of the mob.  Both believe in legalized plunder.  Both have no respect whatsoever for your private property.  Being political animals, both of these men recognize that the key to being elected president is to pander to the envy, laziness and greed of the electorate in exchange for a vote.  Promising to take the property of one person and give it to a special interest group is the tried and true method that both men realize can be the key to their political success. 
Civil government exists, ostensibly, to defend your life, freedom and property.  Today, in reality, civil government exists to endanger your life, enslave you, and steal your property by majority vote.  Romney/Obama support today's political system.  Whichever one wins the upcoming election will then swear an oath to defend the Constitution.  That will then prove that whichever of them wins the election is also a hypocrite and a liar.  What a country!