Federal Budget
The federal government should not be allowed to enact laws that require the spending of taxpayer’s dollars unless its purpose is specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution. The following forms of spending should be eliminated: military force without official declaration of war, foreign aid, funding to world organizations such as the U.N., the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Center For Disease Control, educational grants, the FDA, FEMA, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Department of Energy, the redundant Department of Homeland Security, and all subsidies.
Whenever possible, government services should funded by user fees, rather than taxes.
All federal spending should be periodically reviewed every five years for effectiveness and waste. Each appropriations bill should consist of only one item. A separate vote in Congress should be required for renewal of each individual spending measure every five years. Every department and every government agency should be audited annually. I agree with President Bush’s proposal for the creation of a Sunset Commission.
The national debt is an issue of great concern, which is largely ignored by the two major parties. The budget deficits should not be allowed to occur. There should only be so much that the Congress can spend, after that, any further spending should be illegal. I favor a balanced budget amendment. The actual federal debt should be reported not just the “on budget” debt. The Congress should not be allowed to commit to future spending without already having the funds to spend it, except for national security. The government should not write any blank checks--all spending should be required to be definite. Congress should not authorize spending for a war unless war has been officially declared. Most federal lands and property should be sold to pay down the national debt. The priorities of the budget should be first national defense, then reducing the national debt, then reducing taxes. Some of the National Debt should be declared null and void. (Read my Money and Banking section.)
Whenever possible, government services should funded by user fees, rather than taxes.
All federal spending should be periodically reviewed every five years for effectiveness and waste. Each appropriations bill should consist of only one item. A separate vote in Congress should be required for renewal of each individual spending measure every five years. Every department and every government agency should be audited annually. I agree with President Bush’s proposal for the creation of a Sunset Commission.
The national debt is an issue of great concern, which is largely ignored by the two major parties. The budget deficits should not be allowed to occur. There should only be so much that the Congress can spend, after that, any further spending should be illegal. I favor a balanced budget amendment. The actual federal debt should be reported not just the “on budget” debt. The Congress should not be allowed to commit to future spending without already having the funds to spend it, except for national security. The government should not write any blank checks--all spending should be required to be definite. Congress should not authorize spending for a war unless war has been officially declared. Most federal lands and property should be sold to pay down the national debt. The priorities of the budget should be first national defense, then reducing the national debt, then reducing taxes. Some of the National Debt should be declared null and void. (Read my Money and Banking section.)
Trade and Tariffs
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." I am in favor of restoring this power to the Congress alone. Therefore, I am against the existence of the Office of Special Trade Representative, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the WTO. I am against the "fast track" and "Trade Promotion Authority" that has been given to the President. Trade agreements should be considered treaties, and therefore should require a 2/3 vote of the senate to be approved. An agreement should be considered void if they violate the Constitution or if the other party violates its terms. If this is the case, Congress can and should revoke it by a simple majority without consent of the other party.
It should be illegal to import a product into America if the methods by which that product was produced violate American laws. This would include safety standards, child labor laws, health standards, environmental standards, minimum wage and all other labor laws. At the very least, a tariff equal to the difference in cost of production due to less stringent laws should be paid to avoid unfair competition and protect American jobs. Foreign entities operating within the United States must comply with all national, state, and local laws as they apply. American companies or their subsidiaries that operate internationally should be required to comply with these laws and all laws in the country in which they are operating at all of their facilities in that country.
Under no circumstances should there be any subsides or tax exemptions given to corporations for outsourcing American jobs. No subsides or tax exemptions should ever be given to any foreign or multinational cooperation. The government should not insure investments made abroad.
In the area of national security, foreign interests have been abetted in gaining access to America's high-tech secrets under the guise of commercial enterprise. Technology transfers which compromise national security should be made illegal, and I want all violators to be prosecuted. I demand that all weapons systems, military uniforms and equipment purchased for the American military be domestically produced in their entirety along with all their component parts.
I oppose the practice of any officer of the United States government, or spouse thereof, who, subsequent to Federal government employment is employed to represent a foreign government or other foreign entity, public or private, for purposes of influencing public opinion or policy on matters affecting U.S. trade with such foreign government or entity.
Foreign companies whose governments subsidize their exports to the U.S. should pay compensating U.S. taxes on goods imported to the U.S. for sale. Countries conducting any other unfair trade practices must be required to provide compensating benefits to the U.S. on the import of those products.
All products imported into the U.S. should be inspected to ensure that no U.S. laws are being violated. Importers should have to pay fees that would cover the cost of these inspections.
It should be illegal to import a product into America if the methods by which that product was produced violate American laws. This would include safety standards, child labor laws, health standards, environmental standards, minimum wage and all other labor laws. At the very least, a tariff equal to the difference in cost of production due to less stringent laws should be paid to avoid unfair competition and protect American jobs. Foreign entities operating within the United States must comply with all national, state, and local laws as they apply. American companies or their subsidiaries that operate internationally should be required to comply with these laws and all laws in the country in which they are operating at all of their facilities in that country.
Under no circumstances should there be any subsides or tax exemptions given to corporations for outsourcing American jobs. No subsides or tax exemptions should ever be given to any foreign or multinational cooperation. The government should not insure investments made abroad.
In the area of national security, foreign interests have been abetted in gaining access to America's high-tech secrets under the guise of commercial enterprise. Technology transfers which compromise national security should be made illegal, and I want all violators to be prosecuted. I demand that all weapons systems, military uniforms and equipment purchased for the American military be domestically produced in their entirety along with all their component parts.
I oppose the practice of any officer of the United States government, or spouse thereof, who, subsequent to Federal government employment is employed to represent a foreign government or other foreign entity, public or private, for purposes of influencing public opinion or policy on matters affecting U.S. trade with such foreign government or entity.
Foreign companies whose governments subsidize their exports to the U.S. should pay compensating U.S. taxes on goods imported to the U.S. for sale. Countries conducting any other unfair trade practices must be required to provide compensating benefits to the U.S. on the import of those products.
All products imported into the U.S. should be inspected to ensure that no U.S. laws are being violated. Importers should have to pay fees that would cover the cost of these inspections.
Taxes
There shall be no excise taxes imposed on any goods produced within the United States if all of its components are produced within the United States by American-owned producers. Tariffs, excise taxes, and corporate revenue taxes shall be the source of at least fifty percent of the total taxes collected by the Federal Government of the United States. I believe that the remainder of federal receipts should be from usage fees and sales taxes, which shall be uniform among all citizens. If after these taxes have been spent, there is a remaining budget deficit, this deficit should be divided up among the States according to population, and the States should be responsible for meeting the obligation of their portion of the debt.
The IRS should be eliminated and the 16th amendment should be repealed. Many legal experts believe that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified in the first place. I support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts." I shall also work toward the effectual elimination of all state and local income taxes by immediately and unceasingly reducing the tax in an aggressive, structured, and responsible manner until the tax is nonexistent. I am against taxing inheritances.
I tend to think that property taxes are an unfair invasion of a person’s privacy. However, it seems like this could be the fairest way for local governments to fund their law enforcement and fire fighting operations. Under no circumstances should property taxes be used to fund public schools.
Automobile fuel taxes above the normal sales tax rate should only be used for building and maintaining roads. I am against all tax incentives, subsides, tax abatements, etc. I am against the use of taxpayer’s dollars for building sports stadiums or any other economic developments.
The government should stop giving people tax incentives to buy certain things while at the same time they give them tax incentives not to buy anything (i.e. to save for retirement). What a foolish self-defeating policy! People should be allowed to spend their money on whatever they please and whenever they please. The government should not take your money away and then promise to give it back to you if you spend it the way that they want you spend it. This is a form of theft.
It is unconstitutional to tax the transport of goods across state lines (Article I section 9). People making purchases though catalogs or over the Internet should have to pay the sales tax rate of the state from which the goods are being purchased. This should be charged to them by the seller, just as a store purchase. Law-abiding citizens should not have to worry about reporting such purchases on income tax forms, while others do not and get away with it, since this way of taxing so poorly enforced.
The IRS should be eliminated and the 16th amendment should be repealed. Many legal experts believe that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified in the first place. I support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts." I shall also work toward the effectual elimination of all state and local income taxes by immediately and unceasingly reducing the tax in an aggressive, structured, and responsible manner until the tax is nonexistent. I am against taxing inheritances.
I tend to think that property taxes are an unfair invasion of a person’s privacy. However, it seems like this could be the fairest way for local governments to fund their law enforcement and fire fighting operations. Under no circumstances should property taxes be used to fund public schools.
Automobile fuel taxes above the normal sales tax rate should only be used for building and maintaining roads. I am against all tax incentives, subsides, tax abatements, etc. I am against the use of taxpayer’s dollars for building sports stadiums or any other economic developments.
The government should stop giving people tax incentives to buy certain things while at the same time they give them tax incentives not to buy anything (i.e. to save for retirement). What a foolish self-defeating policy! People should be allowed to spend their money on whatever they please and whenever they please. The government should not take your money away and then promise to give it back to you if you spend it the way that they want you spend it. This is a form of theft.
It is unconstitutional to tax the transport of goods across state lines (Article I section 9). People making purchases though catalogs or over the Internet should have to pay the sales tax rate of the state from which the goods are being purchased. This should be charged to them by the seller, just as a store purchase. Law-abiding citizens should not have to worry about reporting such purchases on income tax forms, while others do not and get away with it, since this way of taxing so poorly enforced.
Wage and Price Control
I am against all domestic wage and price controls. But as long as we have them, all foreign and multinational corporations that do business with America should have to also abide by these controls, or else their products and services should be banned in the U.S. Otherwise, American companies are put at an unfair disadvantage.
Taxes on tips should be eliminated to help lower income workers instead of enacting minimum wage laws.
Protecting our Oceans and Fishing Rights
I am against excessive regulations on the American fishing industry. The American fishing industry has been decimated by treaties and regulations which give away fishing rights to foreign nations, and which reduce fish quotas unnecessarily. Many Americans have been put out of work for these reasons, and I want to put a stop to this! I am against the existence of the U.S. Oceans Commission. The oceans should be protected from pollution which reduces the quality and quantity of seafood and fish. I am against the Law of the Sea Treaty. The fishing industry has also be decimated as a result of caps on damages for oil spills. I oppose these caps.
Money and Banking
Our current monetary system is unconstitutional because only Congress has the authority to coin money, not a cartel of private banks.
Here is my plan:
1. Immediately repeal or nullify all legal tender laws except for gold and silver coins at the state level.
2. All contracts made in Federal Reserve Notes, past, present and future would remain legally valid except securities purchased from the Federal Government and currently held by the Federal Reserve Banks would be immediately declared void.
3. Abolish the Federal Reserve and its Board of Governors by repealing the Federal Reserve Act.
4. It may be necessary to temporarily fold portions of the Federal Reserve System into the Treasury Department. Federal Reserve notes will continue to pass out of existence as bank loans are paid off.
5. Increase the Federal production of gold and silver coins.
Bankruptcy Protection Laws
I call for an end to the current bankruptcy protection laws. The authority to make bankruptcy laws rests solely with the Congress and these laws must be uniform throughout the country (Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution). It is therefore illegal for states or local governments to enact any bankruptcy laws, and these should not be enforced. Those who cannot or will not meet their financial obligations should go to jail or be ordered to perform services to those owed at a judge’s discretion.
If a corporation cannot meet obligations made to creditors (including employee benefits), then the owners and/or stockholders of the corporation should liable to pay these obligations out their own pockets, in proportion to how much of the corporation they own. The PBGC should be abolished. CEOs should be held criminally responsible for bad accounting practices. I am against any form of corporate bailout or buyout by the government.
To help ease the financial burden of those who prone to over-borrow, I favor usury laws that would limit the amount of interest and fees that can be charged against a debtor. I need to do more research on what the interest and fee limits should be and how to make the laws so that they don’t violate Constitutional principles. All debts should be cancelled every seven years by federal law as Deuteronomy 15:1-6 says. The states should have the right to prosecute national banks in cases where they defraud or deceive their debtors. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency should only get involved in cases where constitutional federal laws concerning commerce are not being enforced by state or local law enforcement.
If a corporation cannot meet obligations made to creditors (including employee benefits), then the owners and/or stockholders of the corporation should liable to pay these obligations out their own pockets, in proportion to how much of the corporation they own. The PBGC should be abolished. CEOs should be held criminally responsible for bad accounting practices. I am against any form of corporate bailout or buyout by the government.
To help ease the financial burden of those who prone to over-borrow, I favor usury laws that would limit the amount of interest and fees that can be charged against a debtor. I need to do more research on what the interest and fee limits should be and how to make the laws so that they don’t violate Constitutional principles. All debts should be cancelled every seven years by federal law as Deuteronomy 15:1-6 says. The states should have the right to prosecute national banks in cases where they defraud or deceive their debtors. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency should only get involved in cases where constitutional federal laws concerning commerce are not being enforced by state or local law enforcement.
Sanctity of Life
I believe that life begins at conception and the intentional taking of innocent human life should always be legally prohibited. This is the most important issue to me. I only support candidates who are 100% pro-life (no exceptions). I support them regardless of how they believe that abortion should be ended as long as they are doing what they say they believe in on this issue. Abortion could be ended by overturning Roe v Wade, constitutional amendment, congressional legislation, or executive action. I support all of the above.I believe that the first duty of government is to protect the innocent. The Bible says in many places that it is wrong to deny justice to the innocent. Women who murder their children should only be found guilty if it could be proven that she was in fact guilty and that it was not a miscarriage. The doctors who perform the abortions should also be found guilty if proven in a court of law. There should be no legal distinction between abortion and any other kind of murder. There should be no exceptions in cases of rape or incest. I am against the recent federal partial birth abortion legislation because it declares that personhood begins sometime during the delivery process. I don’t believe in this or any other incremental abortion legislation such as this. In vitro fertilization should be banned because it endangers the life of potential embryos. I will never knowingly support a candidate who believes that the intentional killing of an innocent baby is somehow a crime less than murder, that the punishment for it should less than it is for intentionally killing any other innocent person, or that some persons involved should be exempt from such punishment.
As for so called right-to-die cases:
Any non-dependent person of age should have the right to refuse any medical treatment (even if the person would die without it) except if such refusal would result in the endangerment of others (mental illness cases). But no medical procedure should ever be done that would intentionally end the life of an innocent person. If a person is mentally incapacitated, then, in general, every effort should be made to keep the person alive. However, if a person’s wishes have been notarized and specifically prohibit the use of any or all possible medical treatments needed to continue that person’s life, then those wishes should be respected. Also someone should be designated to make medical decisions for the incapacitated person. If no legally notarized selection had been made by the patient, then a spouse should be the first default. But if the spouse commits adultery, then the spouses’ right to make these decisions should be terminated. Under no circumstances should necessary medical treatments on an incapacitated patient be discontinued once they have been started. All these things should be codified into state law. The discontinuation of medical treatments necessary to live without a patient’s consent and using medical treatments to end a person’s life should be prosecuted even if there is no such specific law in the state, because this is murder. The Governor and/or the President should have intervened to save Terri Schiavo’s life, sending state troops or federal marshals if necessary to stop her murder, instead of passing unconstitutional ex post facto laws for purely political reasons, knowing that they would not save Terri’s life.
I am undecided about what to do in cases where the continuation of necessary medical treatment cannot be afforded by the patient or those responsible for the patient’s care.
Another right-to-life issue that is seldom talked about is the enforcement of murder charges on Indian reservations. U.S. Attorneys are turning a blind eye to these cases and Indian criminals are getting away murder and other crimes at the expense of innocents (both Indians and non-Indians). For more on the solution to this problem, click here.
Any non-dependent person of age should have the right to refuse any medical treatment (even if the person would die without it) except if such refusal would result in the endangerment of others (mental illness cases). But no medical procedure should ever be done that would intentionally end the life of an innocent person. If a person is mentally incapacitated, then, in general, every effort should be made to keep the person alive. However, if a person’s wishes have been notarized and specifically prohibit the use of any or all possible medical treatments needed to continue that person’s life, then those wishes should be respected. Also someone should be designated to make medical decisions for the incapacitated person. If no legally notarized selection had been made by the patient, then a spouse should be the first default. But if the spouse commits adultery, then the spouses’ right to make these decisions should be terminated. Under no circumstances should necessary medical treatments on an incapacitated patient be discontinued once they have been started. All these things should be codified into state law. The discontinuation of medical treatments necessary to live without a patient’s consent and using medical treatments to end a person’s life should be prosecuted even if there is no such specific law in the state, because this is murder. The Governor and/or the President should have intervened to save Terri Schiavo’s life, sending state troops or federal marshals if necessary to stop her murder, instead of passing unconstitutional ex post facto laws for purely political reasons, knowing that they would not save Terri’s life.
I am undecided about what to do in cases where the continuation of necessary medical treatment cannot be afforded by the patient or those responsible for the patient’s care.
Another right-to-life issue that is seldom talked about is the enforcement of murder charges on Indian reservations. U.S. Attorneys are turning a blind eye to these cases and Indian criminals are getting away murder and other crimes at the expense of innocents (both Indians and non-Indians). For more on the solution to this problem, click here.
Sexual Education
You can either help get people into heaven or help people satisfy the lusts of their flesh. You cannot do both.
Teaching children how to commit fornication is not a legitmate function of government. Parents should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to teach their children about sex and when they want to teach it to them without any interference, coercion, or incentive from the government.
more
Teaching children how to commit fornication is not a legitmate function of government. Parents should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to teach their children about sex and when they want to teach it to them without any interference, coercion, or incentive from the government.
more
Cloning and Genetic Manipulation
I favor legislation banning the cloning of human beings and of other mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. The practice of creating human-animal hybrids should be banned. I favor legislation banning the modification of the human genome to eliminate undesirable traits, to enhance existing abilities or traits, or to create new abilities or traits. It should be required that all human genetic material used in research or in the production of medications be obtained and given without coercion and without duress, deception, or relief of criminal responsibility. I oppose the coerced collection and use of genetic information as a factor in hiring, the issuance of life or health insurance, housing, or access to public places. Not only should the Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research be discontinued without compromise, but the practice itself should be banned even in the private sector.
Parental Primacy
I support the rights for parents to decide how to discipline their children, what their children are allowed to do, and with whom their children are allowed to associate. I oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. No family should ever be threatened with the taking of their child if they do not conform to government rules and regulations. The government of the United States of America should never interfere with how a family decides to rear one's child. Every child should be allowed to have prayer at school, during recess, lunch, or after school on school property. They should be allowed to have religious classes on their own time. These schools are paid for by "We the People."
Parents must be notified if their child asks for an abortion, or birth control pills at school. The diagnosing, prescribing and dissemination of medication and medical procedures are not legitimate functions of our schools, and should be discontinued immediately. There should never be any type of sexual examination at school or on school time. An examination must be done with the parent's consent, and at their physician's office, or in extreme cases where abuse can and will be proved, by court order. If a child is really being abused, government involvement should revert to the county where the child lives, and then only with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I would define real abuse as anything that is a permanent or debilitating physical injury or abuse of a sexual nature.
Parents must be notified if their child asks for an abortion, or birth control pills at school. The diagnosing, prescribing and dissemination of medication and medical procedures are not legitimate functions of our schools, and should be discontinued immediately. There should never be any type of sexual examination at school or on school time. An examination must be done with the parent's consent, and at their physician's office, or in extreme cases where abuse can and will be proved, by court order. If a child is really being abused, government involvement should revert to the county where the child lives, and then only with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I would define real abuse as anything that is a permanent or debilitating physical injury or abuse of a sexual nature.
Education
My public education reform plan:
1. Get rid of the Department of Education and all Federal regulation and funding of the public education system.
2. The States should get rid of their state boards of education, and any regulation (including compulsory attendance laws) and funding of the public education system.
3. Local communities could then be in complete control of their schools and could even chose to close them. At the very least they should not fund the schools with any form of tax, but require that parents pay tuition for their own child’s education. The tuition could of course be reduced by scholarships, private donations, etc.
Private schools are a better option. As long as the public schools exist, people at every level of government will try to manipulate them to push some political, religious, or social agenda on children. It's wrong for one’s tax dollars to be used to teach something that one does not approve of, regardless of whether it is federal, state, or local taxes. Each parent, not taxpayers, should have to pay for their own children’s education however they see fit. In particular, it galls me when parents cannot even find out what their child is being taught in sex education classes in public schools, they cannot exempt their child from it, or they cannot opt out of paying taxes which support such a program.
Schools should be free to teach whatever they want without fear being punished for some non-existent “separation of church and state” law. If a public school board or owners of private school want disallow the use of the name of God and of Jesus in their particular school, they should be allowed to. On the other hand, if they want to teach Christianity straight out of the Bible, or any other religion, they should be allowed to do this also. However, parents should always have the right to know what their child is being taught any school, public or private.
I would recommend that all schools and those who chose to educate their children at home teach the English language, the Constitution, and American History and Culture so that all children can meet the same requirements as immigrants do when they apply for citizenship. Even a natural-born citizen should have to meet these requirements in order to get a job, except in extreme cases of mental handicap.
Public universities and colleges should be privatized. The federal government should be allowed to fund various types of research and research institutions, but this should be separate from educational institutions--though they can be associated. The overriding principle should be that government should not force taxpayers to pay for someone else’s education, but only for cutting-edge research that is vital for maintaining our liberty and culture--such as research that is necessary for our national security. The only reasonable exceptions would be programs in which the government is providing education as a form of compensation for services or duties performed for the country such as the ROTC program and government funded education for veterans.
1. Get rid of the Department of Education and all Federal regulation and funding of the public education system.
2. The States should get rid of their state boards of education, and any regulation (including compulsory attendance laws) and funding of the public education system.
3. Local communities could then be in complete control of their schools and could even chose to close them. At the very least they should not fund the schools with any form of tax, but require that parents pay tuition for their own child’s education. The tuition could of course be reduced by scholarships, private donations, etc.
Private schools are a better option. As long as the public schools exist, people at every level of government will try to manipulate them to push some political, religious, or social agenda on children. It's wrong for one’s tax dollars to be used to teach something that one does not approve of, regardless of whether it is federal, state, or local taxes. Each parent, not taxpayers, should have to pay for their own children’s education however they see fit. In particular, it galls me when parents cannot even find out what their child is being taught in sex education classes in public schools, they cannot exempt their child from it, or they cannot opt out of paying taxes which support such a program.
Schools should be free to teach whatever they want without fear being punished for some non-existent “separation of church and state” law. If a public school board or owners of private school want disallow the use of the name of God and of Jesus in their particular school, they should be allowed to. On the other hand, if they want to teach Christianity straight out of the Bible, or any other religion, they should be allowed to do this also. However, parents should always have the right to know what their child is being taught any school, public or private.
I would recommend that all schools and those who chose to educate their children at home teach the English language, the Constitution, and American History and Culture so that all children can meet the same requirements as immigrants do when they apply for citizenship. Even a natural-born citizen should have to meet these requirements in order to get a job, except in extreme cases of mental handicap.
Public universities and colleges should be privatized. The federal government should be allowed to fund various types of research and research institutions, but this should be separate from educational institutions--though they can be associated. The overriding principle should be that government should not force taxpayers to pay for someone else’s education, but only for cutting-edge research that is vital for maintaining our liberty and culture--such as research that is necessary for our national security. The only reasonable exceptions would be programs in which the government is providing education as a form of compensation for services or duties performed for the country such as the ROTC program and government funded education for veterans.
AIDS
The government should stop protecting and subsidizing activities which are self-destructive. We need morals, not condoms and safe-sex education. Anyone who puts someone else in danger of contracting a serious disease such as this should be criminally prosecuted.
I am against the notion that it is the responsibility of the United States Government to eradicate AIDS from the face of the earth. Only God can do that, and only when people obey his word.
I am against the notion that it is the responsibility of the United States Government to eradicate AIDS from the face of the earth. Only God can do that, and only when people obey his word.
Character and Morality
I will only support the election of candidates who believe in justice, upholding God given rights, tough love, and treating others as they would want to be treated. They must be honest, morally upright, good stewards, patient, slow to anger, compassionate, and faithful. They must believe in godly principles over and above pragmatism.
Drug Abuse
The war on drugs has failed. There are many drugs (such as oxycontin) that the FDA has approved which are more addictive and toxic than marijuana or even cocaine. Local law enforcement should not be required by the Federal Government to enforce a "victimless crime" law whenever there is no Biblical precedent for that particular law. Federal laws regulating or banning drugs or the selling thereof within this country are unconstitutional by the 10th Amendment. States should be permitted to have or not have whatever laws against harmful drugs they choose.
I do think that it should be illegal to sell addictive or otherwise harmful drugs to minors. Anyone who commits a crime while under the influence of a drug which they took of their own volition should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law just as if they were completely sober and in their right mind when they committed the crime.
As long as some drugs are illegal:
The Federal Government should exercise its right to ban the importation of drugs which are currently listed as controlled substances. I support efforts to stop the flow of illegal drugs into this country by beefing up border security. However, I am against violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved.
Judges should at times, when the law allows and under certain conditions, have the discretion of allowing certain criminals, particularly illicit drug users, to be turned over to private treatment facilities not funded by taxpayer dollars, instead of prison. There are some excellent examples of such treatment programs, such as Teen Challenge, which changes lives both physically and spiritually. These programs should always be an option for nonviolent possession-related offenders. Programs that are funded by taxpayers are not as effective, as they will always have strings attached about what can and can’t be said to the recovering drug addict.
Marriage
Marriage is not primarily a legal matter, but a personal and often religious commitment made between one man and one woman. However, government (especially at the state level) should recognize marriage as a legal contract for purposes of legally establishing parental authority, custody of children, and responsibility for them. The government should generally stay out of the affairs of the family, except in cases of divorce, if a crime has been committed, a question of custody arises, or an issue concerning an additional voluntary agreement.
Voluntary associations should not be criminalized, but I oppose any efforts to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. I support efforts to forbid joint custody of children by same-sex couples or by any other group besides a real married couple (one man, one woman). Any other rights which are held exclusively by married couples should not be extended to any other groups. I support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the Marriage Protection Act which protect states from having to recognize a “gay marriage” from another state. I would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution containing the language of the DOMA.
The federal government should stop giving states funding and mandates for how much child support they collect. This gives the states incentives to enact policies which encourage imprudent marriages and divorces.
It is within the right of every state to enact laws against sodomy. It is within the right of every state to prohibit certain couples from marrying, based on age or age difference, closeness of relation, medical condition such as the contraction venereal disease, and criminal record.
Christians should have only monogamous marriages, but it is within the right of every state to choose whether or not to recognize polygamous marriages (limited to one man married to more than one woman). Polygamous marriages were recognized as legitimate and were not forbidden by God in the Old Testament.
I am against the creation of another type of marriage, such as the recent “covenant marriage”. All marriage laws within a state should apply uniformly to all married couples residing in that state. But it is within the right of every state to allow such additional legally binding agreements (i.e. prenuptial agreements). We need to have mandates that Christian marriages conform to Biblical standards from the Church, not government.
I favor the recognition by the State of common law marriages. I am against marriage licenses. The laws concerning marriage should return to what they were before there were licenses. There should be no tax consequences of marrying or having children. Common law is mentioned in the 7th amendment, and this should be interpreted as being law which applies to all marriages unless otherwise legislated by the states.
I am NOT against the legalization of “no fault” divorce. I believe that Jesus’ statement forbidding divorce except in cases of fornication (Matthew 19:9) is a teaching generally for Christians (those to whom it has been given, Matthew 19:11) only, but...
...if it can be proven in a court of law that a man and an unmarried woman have had consensual sexual intercourse, a judge should have the discretion, with permission of the father of the woman, to legally declare them to married under Common Law and bind upon them the responsibilities thereof (which must include child support at the very least). In this case divorce should not be allowed.
Voluntary associations should not be criminalized, but I oppose any efforts to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. I support efforts to forbid joint custody of children by same-sex couples or by any other group besides a real married couple (one man, one woman). Any other rights which are held exclusively by married couples should not be extended to any other groups. I support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the Marriage Protection Act which protect states from having to recognize a “gay marriage” from another state. I would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution containing the language of the DOMA.
The federal government should stop giving states funding and mandates for how much child support they collect. This gives the states incentives to enact policies which encourage imprudent marriages and divorces.
It is within the right of every state to enact laws against sodomy. It is within the right of every state to prohibit certain couples from marrying, based on age or age difference, closeness of relation, medical condition such as the contraction venereal disease, and criminal record.
Christians should have only monogamous marriages, but it is within the right of every state to choose whether or not to recognize polygamous marriages (limited to one man married to more than one woman). Polygamous marriages were recognized as legitimate and were not forbidden by God in the Old Testament.
I am against the creation of another type of marriage, such as the recent “covenant marriage”. All marriage laws within a state should apply uniformly to all married couples residing in that state. But it is within the right of every state to allow such additional legally binding agreements (i.e. prenuptial agreements). We need to have mandates that Christian marriages conform to Biblical standards from the Church, not government.
I favor the recognition by the State of common law marriages. I am against marriage licenses. The laws concerning marriage should return to what they were before there were licenses. There should be no tax consequences of marrying or having children. Common law is mentioned in the 7th amendment, and this should be interpreted as being law which applies to all marriages unless otherwise legislated by the states.
I am NOT against the legalization of “no fault” divorce. I believe that Jesus’ statement forbidding divorce except in cases of fornication (Matthew 19:9) is a teaching generally for Christians (those to whom it has been given, Matthew 19:11) only, but...
...if it can be proven in a court of law that a man and an unmarried woman have had consensual sexual intercourse, a judge should have the discretion, with permission of the father of the woman, to legally declare them to married under Common Law and bind upon them the responsibilities thereof (which must include child support at the very least). In this case divorce should not be allowed.
Guardianship Rights and Responsibilities
No one should ever be allowed to sell a child whether born or pre-born or even as embryo. I call for an end to legal surrogate motherhood, in vitro fertilization, and test tube babies. The birth mother of a child and her husband (if she is married) should have custody and responsibility for the child except in extreme cases where she (or they) is legally unfit because of past abuse, extreme mental incompetence, or other extreme circumstances. A mother may give up a baby for adoption, but only after the baby is born, and within 90 days after the birth except in extreme circumstances. Once a child is given up for adoption, the adopting parent(s) should have all rights and responsibilities to the child. Adopting parents should only be allowed to pay for the mother’s hospital bill associated with the pregnancy. There should never be a prearranged agreement in which the custody of a child is to be transferred at some future date except as a result of the death of the child’s guardians or extreme circumstances. Under no circumstances should the government pay anyone to take care of someone else’s child (except as compensation for service to the government). I oppose unreasonable restrictions on who can adopt a child, such as restrictions based on race or religion. However, I affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and I oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.
If a woman conceives as a result of rape, then the rapist should have to pay full child support and the medical costs for the pregnancy.
If a woman conceives as a result of rape, then the rapist should have to pay full child support and the medical costs for the pregnancy.
Religious Freedom/Religious Expression/Free Speech
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
There is no such thing as separation of church state in the Constitution or any law in the United States. The above amendment applies only to laws passed by Congress, not other actions or other government bodies or officials. I don’t believe that states or local governments should pass such laws either, but if this happened it would not be unconstitutional. The posting of the Ten Commandments or other religious text in a courtroom or school is not an establishment of religion, and even if it were, it would not be a violation of amendment one because this does not involve Congress or making law. These things are also not against any other part of the Constitution or any other U.S. law. If there were such a law at the federal level, it would be unconstitutional by the first amendment. I call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised. Military chaplains should be allowed to pray and preach in the name of Jesus.
In the beginning, each colony had its own “established” religion. Virginia had the Church of England, Maryland had the Catholic Church, Massachusetts had Puritanism, etc. There was nothing wrong or unconstitutional about this because Congress was not involved in the establishment. They even had programs to evangelize the Indians at taxpayer’s expense. It was wrong of Massachusetts, however, to persecute people who did not believe in the Puritan doctrine.
Although I hate seeing people desecrating the American flag, but I do not support the idea of amending the Constitution just to prevent this. Flag burning is not free speech, and should not be construed as being protected by any part of the Constitution, but efforts at legislation against it are not wise, and are inconsistent with uncodified American ideals of freedom of expression. If someone burns a flag, that does not violate anyone else’s rights. There are so many more important things that we need to worry about.
I don’t believe that people should be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. However, the government has no obligation to protect people from hearing it just because they are offended by it. I personally think it’s wrong to pledge my allegiance to a piece of cloth, even if it is an American or Christian flag. I will only pledge my allegiance to Christ, and to obeying and defending the laws of this land as long they don’t contradict God’s laws.
I would encourage churches not incorporate--to be “free” churches, so that they don’t fall under government rules about what they can and can’t say (about politics or any other subject).
There is no such thing as separation of church state in the Constitution or any law in the United States. The above amendment applies only to laws passed by Congress, not other actions or other government bodies or officials. I don’t believe that states or local governments should pass such laws either, but if this happened it would not be unconstitutional. The posting of the Ten Commandments or other religious text in a courtroom or school is not an establishment of religion, and even if it were, it would not be a violation of amendment one because this does not involve Congress or making law. These things are also not against any other part of the Constitution or any other U.S. law. If there were such a law at the federal level, it would be unconstitutional by the first amendment. I call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised. Military chaplains should be allowed to pray and preach in the name of Jesus.
In the beginning, each colony had its own “established” religion. Virginia had the Church of England, Maryland had the Catholic Church, Massachusetts had Puritanism, etc. There was nothing wrong or unconstitutional about this because Congress was not involved in the establishment. They even had programs to evangelize the Indians at taxpayer’s expense. It was wrong of Massachusetts, however, to persecute people who did not believe in the Puritan doctrine.
Although I hate seeing people desecrating the American flag, but I do not support the idea of amending the Constitution just to prevent this. Flag burning is not free speech, and should not be construed as being protected by any part of the Constitution, but efforts at legislation against it are not wise, and are inconsistent with uncodified American ideals of freedom of expression. If someone burns a flag, that does not violate anyone else’s rights. There are so many more important things that we need to worry about.
I don’t believe that people should be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. However, the government has no obligation to protect people from hearing it just because they are offended by it. I personally think it’s wrong to pledge my allegiance to a piece of cloth, even if it is an American or Christian flag. I will only pledge my allegiance to Christ, and to obeying and defending the laws of this land as long they don’t contradict God’s laws.
I would encourage churches not incorporate--to be “free” churches, so that they don’t fall under government rules about what they can and can’t say (about politics or any other subject).
Gambling
Gambling is addictive, causes crime, and immorality. I call for an end to all state and multi-state lotteries and all other government involvement in gambling.
However, gambling itself is a victimless crime and government should not waste its efforts trying to prevent it. We live in a free country and your money is your money. You can throw it away if you want to. The government should not be obligated to enforce the payment of gambling debts or regulate gambling devices (to make sure that they are "fair"). Its not right to force taxpayers to enable sinful and stupid behavior. The gambler and the gaming establishments should have to gamble at their own risk of being cheated.
However, gambling itself is a victimless crime and government should not waste its efforts trying to prevent it. We live in a free country and your money is your money. You can throw it away if you want to. The government should not be obligated to enforce the payment of gambling debts or regulate gambling devices (to make sure that they are "fair"). Its not right to force taxpayers to enable sinful and stupid behavior. The gambler and the gaming establishments should have to gamble at their own risk of being cheated.
Casting lots is a legitimate and biblical way of settling disputes (and is not gambling). The right to do this should be protected for those who believe in it.
Pornography
I do not consider public displays of pornography to be a victimless crime (read Matthew 5:27-30). I am against the legalization of any form of pornography in public. Words in written or spoken form are speech, which is protected under the First Amendment. Pictures and images are not. I would consider any pictures showing any portion of genitalia or cleavage to be pornography.
Laws against pornography and the corrupting of minors should be enforced against public schools that have sex education programs and the publishers of textbooks. I support the right of local governments to determine their own community standards.
The government should not, however, interfere with what adults choose to look at in the privacy of their own homes. But I would consider television and the Internet to be public places, since TVs and computers exist in public places. Therefore I am in favor of regulations at the state and local level against pornography in these mediums. (The federal government has no legitimate authority in such matters. I would get rid of the FCC.)
If a woman shows any cleavage in public, even if it is because of breast feeding, she is a pornographer. Women who need to breast feed in public should do so in a restroom. There should be no law that prevents the owners of an establishment from insisting that a woman to leave for breastfeeding or any other illicit exposure on the premises of the establishment.
Laws against pornography and the corrupting of minors should be enforced against public schools that have sex education programs and the publishers of textbooks. I support the right of local governments to determine their own community standards.
The government should not, however, interfere with what adults choose to look at in the privacy of their own homes. But I would consider television and the Internet to be public places, since TVs and computers exist in public places. Therefore I am in favor of regulations at the state and local level against pornography in these mediums. (The federal government has no legitimate authority in such matters. I would get rid of the FCC.)
If a woman shows any cleavage in public, even if it is because of breast feeding, she is a pornographer. Women who need to breast feed in public should do so in a restroom. There should be no law that prevents the owners of an establishment from insisting that a woman to leave for breastfeeding or any other illicit exposure on the premises of the establishment.
Privacy Rights vs. Security
I believe that law-abiding people should be able to feel secure in their persons, property, and effects. There should be no searches or seizures of person’s private property or person without a warrant signed by a judge of proper jurisdiction who has been given evidence of probable cause. This process should always be publicly disclosed. I stand against the use of secret evidence in the attaining of search warrants or as cause for detaining citizens. I am against wire-tapping and all other forms of communications monitoring without a publicly issued warrant. I am against national ID cards. I am against the Patriot Act because it unconstitutionally allows nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight. The parts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which affect the rights of U.S. citizens should be repealed. The 4th amendment disallows “unreasonable searches and seizures”. A reasonable definition for a reasonable search would be that the person in question was caught in the act of committing a crime, has made threats to commit a felony, or if there is evidence that someone’s life is in immediate danger. Even a reasonable search should require a warrant. Law enforcement officers, however, have the right to apprehend a person without a warrant. I believe in innocence until proven guilty. I favor laws that would protect financial, medical, and other nonpublic records of U.S. citizens even if those records are not in the possession of said citizen. I am against asset forfeiture unless the person has been convicted of a crime first. Social Security numbers should by law be used only for Social Security.
I stand steadfastly against all forms of biometric identification and tracking of innocent Americans. These include fingerprinting, facial and retina scans, implant chips and DNA sampling. I oppose the forced or voluntary fingerprinting of American citizens to obtain drivers licenses. God-given rights guarantee us protection from being forced or coerced to receive drugs or technological devices. However, the right to privacy cannot be used as a justification for any government or individual to perform criminal acts or violate the fundamental rights of any other person. I support the right of all our citizens to face our accusers and to know the evidence against them in a court of law.
Transferring control of the law enforcement apparatus to our federal government and the threat of transfer to unelected transnational overseers increases the likelihood of more violations of human rights. Perhaps national law enforcement agencies should be restricted to protective services, local and state resource agencies, and investigative agencies, to the limitation that arrest and search powers rest with local and state authorities.
Rights of Private Property Owners vs. the Environment
The right of people to own property and to use it however they see fit should be upheld. It should be recognized, however, that if someone’s use of their property damages someone else’s health or property, then they should be held criminally and monetarily liable. Such claims should have to be proven in a court of law. There should be no legislation which places limits on restitution for such damages as this creates the moral hazard which has led to an increase in unsafe practices causing more of these incidents (e.g. oil spills). I favor the use of zoning regulations to protect the people’s health and property from pollutants. I am not in favor of regulations designed to protect against global warming or atmospheric ozone depletion. I am not in favor of zoning regulations to control sprawl.
I would apply the cautionary principle to our food supply and hold liable the users of potentially harmful Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) spread by cross-pollination via wind and/or insects, even if it happens inadvertently. The introduction of GMOs would in this way causes the devaluation of other farmers’ crops. Examples include terminator genes which render the next generation of seeds sterile thus eliminating seed crops and the bacteria BT. It is a naturally occurring bacterium and has been a mainstay of organic farmers to control insects. The insecticidal genes from BT have now been spliced into the genomes of food crops. This will lead to more resistant insects thus permanently eliminating one of the few measures organic farmers can take to control pests. I assert the right of the States (but not the Federal Government) to ban GMOs and other environmental hazards.
The Congress should not pass environmental laws because this is beyond its proper scope. The States should be allowed to make such laws, and Congress should not interfere with it. If California or any other state wants have tough emission standards, then let them have it.
I call for end to the use of eminent domain by all levels of government. No one should be deprived of their property without due process of law. I oppose any form of government issued insurance policies, such as the federal flood insurance program.
I would apply the cautionary principle to our food supply and hold liable the users of potentially harmful Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) spread by cross-pollination via wind and/or insects, even if it happens inadvertently. The introduction of GMOs would in this way causes the devaluation of other farmers’ crops. Examples include terminator genes which render the next generation of seeds sterile thus eliminating seed crops and the bacteria BT. It is a naturally occurring bacterium and has been a mainstay of organic farmers to control insects. The insecticidal genes from BT have now been spliced into the genomes of food crops. This will lead to more resistant insects thus permanently eliminating one of the few measures organic farmers can take to control pests. I assert the right of the States (but not the Federal Government) to ban GMOs and other environmental hazards.
The Congress should not pass environmental laws because this is beyond its proper scope. The States should be allowed to make such laws, and Congress should not interfere with it. If California or any other state wants have tough emission standards, then let them have it.
I call for end to the use of eminent domain by all levels of government. No one should be deprived of their property without due process of law. I oppose any form of government issued insurance policies, such as the federal flood insurance program.
Social Security
Social security should be only for Federal employees. State employees should have the option of a state retirement plan or an alternative private retirement plan. Private employers can, but should not be required to, provide retirement plans. No level of government should give corporations incentives to provide retirement plans.
Health Care and Government
Working men and women who are paying the full cost of their health care, have the right to make their own health care choices. Tax codes should not be used to manipulate decisions which limit employee control of medical and health care choices.
I am against caps on malpractice awards, but the standards for proving that a doctor is liable for malpractice should be increased. There must be proof that the doctor misled the patient about what procedures would be performed or misrepresented his or her credentials. A doctor should not be penalized for an honest mistake. (What if you were financially penalized for every honest mistake that you made at your job?)
The right to medical records privacy is absolute. No patient should be forced to put their medical records into any kind of database, even if promises are made that no one may view them except the patient. I denounce any civil government entity using age or any other reason to preclude people and insurance firms from freely contracting for medical coverage. I am against genetic discrimination legislation.
I am against all income taxes, but as long as we have them, we should have tax free medical savings accounts to create incentives to stay healthy, reduce costs, and support personal control over one's health and medical decisions. The free enterprise system, competition, free choice in health care including alternative health care methods, and the elimination of Medicare and all other government health care programs will improve efficiency, reduce costs, waste and fraud, and, restore sanity to the present economically and morally bankrupt health care system. Recently, Medicaid paid for some sex offenders’ Viagra. These programs will always have this type of corruption, and this must come to end.
Those who have already paid into the Medicare system should, however, get all the benefits that they were promised. Private companies should not be required to provide general health care to their workers, but they should in cases where hazards associated with a job caused the worker’s need for treatments. Corporations who fail to live up to their obligations to provide health care, which they themselves had promised to their retired workers, should be criminally punished to fullest extent of the law.
I oppose government subsidies and regulation of health care. Patients should be allowed to sue their HMO. I would get rid of mandatory workman’s compensation.
I would get rid of the FDA and all of its regulations as they are unconstitutional. The FDA is an arm of the pharmaceutical industry and is not protecting consumers. Many harmful drugs make it past FDA regulations, and many safe and effective drugs have been taken off the market by the FDA in favor of newer drugs which are not as effective, are addictive, or have worse side effects. I am against price controls for drugs, but I affirm the right of the States to determine if certain drugs are to be criminalized or regulated due to addictiveness or other harmful properties.
Workers’ Rights
I affirm the time-honored right of individuals to voluntarily participate in labor organizations and to bargain collectively. I also believe that no American should be coerced into an association they do not wish to join. No one should be kept out of a job for which they are qualified simply because they choose to remain independent of labor unions. I therefore support the right of states to enact Right-to-Work laws.
Workers who pay dues through their workplace deserve to know how their dues are being used – especially when the money is being used to support political activity. I support enhanced financial disclosure requirements for political campaigns, corporations, and pension funds in order to bring about more transparency and accountability in the political system. When labor unions donate money to political causes, they should be subject to the same laws which govern any other PAC. Severe penalties should be enforced against labor unions who use money for political purposes which was designated for some other purpose such as pensions.
As the Federal Government has no legitamate authority in these matters, I favor the repeal of the National Labor Relations Act. Government workers hold their jobs as a privilege, not a right, and essential government services must not be interrupted by strikes by public employees. Collective bargaining by public employees must therefore be made illegal.
Workers who pay dues through their workplace deserve to know how their dues are being used – especially when the money is being used to support political activity. I support enhanced financial disclosure requirements for political campaigns, corporations, and pension funds in order to bring about more transparency and accountability in the political system. When labor unions donate money to political causes, they should be subject to the same laws which govern any other PAC. Severe penalties should be enforced against labor unions who use money for political purposes which was designated for some other purpose such as pensions.
As the Federal Government has no legitamate authority in these matters, I favor the repeal of the National Labor Relations Act. Government workers hold their jobs as a privilege, not a right, and essential government services must not be interrupted by strikes by public employees. Collective bargaining by public employees must therefore be made illegal.
Conscription
I oppose the Draft, the law requiring people to register with selective service, and all other forms of compulsory government service. This is a clear violation of the 13th Amendment which prohibits law-abiding citizens from being forced into servitude.
Copyrights and Patents
I affirm the right of Congress to establish copyright and patent laws, but only when they meet the Constitution requirements. They should only apply to scientific discoveries and useful arts, not aesthetics or entertainment. They should apply only to explicit methods, devices, or findings, not abstract ideas. And the original inventor, not the first to file the invention with the U.S. Patent Office, should be given all the rights to the invention.
Such laws should be vigorously enforced, and this power should not be transferred to any other body of government, foreign or domestic. Likewise, the U.S. should prosecute or extradite those who violate reasonable foreign copyright and patent laws.
The 2nd Amendment/Gun Control
I had once said this:
I believe that the 2nd Amendment should only apply to weapons that are comparable to those that were available at the time of that this amendment was added to Constitution. The Framers did not envision some of the weapons that we have today. Recall that the amendment uses the word “arms”, which Webster’s dictionary says means, “Instruments or weapons of offense or defense”. This would include nuclear bombs and biological weapons. It would be ridiculous to interpret this in terms of modern weaponry.
I am against any form of national identification system, but the States should be allowed to require a license, permit, and/or registration of the weapon to be owned and/or to be carried concealed. They should also have the right to restrict possession of firearms and other weapons on the basis of age, criminal record, and location (such as airport, government buildings, etc.). They should have the right to ban certain types of weapons. I am against all federal gun legislation. I am in favor of requiring criminal background checks. People should be allowed carry and keep guns for the protection of themselves and for the protection of their property. The right to bear arms should not just be limited to hunters and sportsmen.
But now I can see that what is really ridiculous is to try ban everything that could kill a lot of people. Timothy McVeigh used ammonium nitrate fertilizer, nitromethane, and diesel fuel to make his bomb. What are we going to do, ban fertilizer and gasoline? The right to bear arms should be absolute. As modern technology increases, the need for government to narrow its focus on those who are committing actual violent crimes and theft becomes even more imperative. But I still think that anyone who commits a serious crime, especially a violent crime, gives up their right to bear arms, but I think that if the crime is that serious, that criminal should either be executed or put in jail for life anyway.
And as far as age is concerned, that is an issue for which parents bear responsibility. (If a parent does not allow his/her child to have a weapon, this is not a violation of the 2nd amendment because it is superseded by parental rights found in the Bible. The government should stay out of this issue.) The inclusion of trigger locks should be decided by the purchaser, not government.
And as far as airports are concerned, their security rules should be decided by the proprietors of the airlines, not government. There is no need to require a special permit to carry a concealed weapon.
I am against all executive orders and treaties which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms. Even the rights of other nations should be respected so that they can defend their own people according to their discretion. Only a formal and just declaration of war would authorize us to deprive another nation of this absolute right.
I believe that the 2nd Amendment should only apply to weapons that are comparable to those that were available at the time of that this amendment was added to Constitution. The Framers did not envision some of the weapons that we have today. Recall that the amendment uses the word “arms”, which Webster’s dictionary says means, “Instruments or weapons of offense or defense”. This would include nuclear bombs and biological weapons. It would be ridiculous to interpret this in terms of modern weaponry.
I am against any form of national identification system, but the States should be allowed to require a license, permit, and/or registration of the weapon to be owned and/or to be carried concealed. They should also have the right to restrict possession of firearms and other weapons on the basis of age, criminal record, and location (such as airport, government buildings, etc.). They should have the right to ban certain types of weapons. I am against all federal gun legislation. I am in favor of requiring criminal background checks. People should be allowed carry and keep guns for the protection of themselves and for the protection of their property. The right to bear arms should not just be limited to hunters and sportsmen.
But now I can see that what is really ridiculous is to try ban everything that could kill a lot of people. Timothy McVeigh used ammonium nitrate fertilizer, nitromethane, and diesel fuel to make his bomb. What are we going to do, ban fertilizer and gasoline? The right to bear arms should be absolute. As modern technology increases, the need for government to narrow its focus on those who are committing actual violent crimes and theft becomes even more imperative. But I still think that anyone who commits a serious crime, especially a violent crime, gives up their right to bear arms, but I think that if the crime is that serious, that criminal should either be executed or put in jail for life anyway.
And as far as age is concerned, that is an issue for which parents bear responsibility. (If a parent does not allow his/her child to have a weapon, this is not a violation of the 2nd amendment because it is superseded by parental rights found in the Bible. The government should stay out of this issue.) The inclusion of trigger locks should be decided by the purchaser, not government.
And as far as airports are concerned, their security rules should be decided by the proprietors of the airlines, not government. There is no need to require a special permit to carry a concealed weapon.
I am against all executive orders and treaties which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms. Even the rights of other nations should be respected so that they can defend their own people according to their discretion. Only a formal and just declaration of war would authorize us to deprive another nation of this absolute right.
Click here to read about the Militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment.
Welfare
I am against any kind of welfare (including corporate) on any level of government. I am against the President’s Faith-Based initiative, which puts church charitable giving programs under Federal Government guidelines. The government should get out of the business of charity, and eliminate unfair taxes, so that people can of their own freewill, give more money to their church’s benevolence programs, instead of forcing taxpayers to do it. People should buy their own insurance, and if they don’t then the government should not bail them out when something happens, especially wealthy beachfront property owners. Government should instead put more effort into forcing insurance companies pay their claims and to make their policies easier to understand.
The concept of contributing to the welfare of the poor is not, however, one that should be condemned in any and all situations (see Deuteronomy 14:28, 29). This is different from the modern concept of welfare and redistribution of wealth in several ways. First of all, it was only food that was given, not money or housing. The poor were not defined by yearly income but by being aliens, fatherless, or widows. People who make themselves poor by their own choices should not be included with those who are truly needy. The food was collected locally and stored in the towns; it was not a federal or state program. The people who received the food were probably known personally by the people who were distributing it. Finally, under the Law of Moses, people lived under God’s laws and everyone was required to participate in religious ceremonies. So this is more of a guide of what the church should be and not civil government.
The concept of contributing to the welfare of the poor is not, however, one that should be condemned in any and all situations (see Deuteronomy 14:28, 29). This is different from the modern concept of welfare and redistribution of wealth in several ways. First of all, it was only food that was given, not money or housing. The poor were not defined by yearly income but by being aliens, fatherless, or widows. People who make themselves poor by their own choices should not be included with those who are truly needy. The food was collected locally and stored in the towns; it was not a federal or state program. The people who received the food were probably known personally by the people who were distributing it. Finally, under the Law of Moses, people lived under God’s laws and everyone was required to participate in religious ceremonies. So this is more of a guide of what the church should be and not civil government.
Racism/Civil Rights
I am strongly opposed to racism in any form. I am against all laws that even mention the concept of race, except those which only have the effect of preventing the making of laws which contain this concept, such as the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I don’t believe that people should hate anyone because of their race (or any other reason), but I am against hate or thought crime legislation. Only God can judge someone’s heart. This legislation serves only to turn state control of criminal cases over to the federal government to give it more power.
I favor a Constitutional Amendment or a least a federal law that would prevent any laws from being made that contain the concept of race. The decision in the Rosa Parks case was incorrect. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects someone from being discriminated against (even by the government itself) on the basis of race (except in voting rights, which is the 15th amendment and the prohibition of Bills of Attainder). Well-intentioned people have set a dangerous precedent in this case. Judicial activism harms our nation. If my proposed amendment were to become law, then this would bring legitimacy to efforts on the federal level to protect people from racist segregation and other discriminatory laws.
I am against measures that attempt to equal the playing field between races or between men and women. Men and women naturally have different abilities and weaknesses and it is not necessary to try to have 50% of each in everything all the time. There should be no laws that ensure that women are paid just as much as a man for doing the same job. I am against Title IX. Their should never be any laws protecting people from the consequences of foolish, immoral, and physically dangerous behavior such as homosexuality. I am against reparations.
People use laws against discrimination to unfairly threaten employers, and they are protected from being fired (even when they deserve to be) or are unfairly promoted because of such threats. This only causes more racist attitudes. Eliminating all such laws is the best way to prevent racism. If an employer really is bigoted against a particular group to which one belongs, why would that person want to work for such an employer anyway? If the owner of an establishment does not want to serve blacks because he is racist, why would you want to give him the business anyway? I favor the use of boycotts against corporations and other institutions which practice racism and other practices that are condemned in Scripture. Affirmative action also causes more racism because it discriminates against people who are not at fault for things that have happened in the past. It should be phased out (should apply only to those who lived before the Civil Rights act of 1964). However, in agreement with my earlier statements, I don’t believe that there should be any law against affirmative action. Corporations, universities, and other institutions should be allowed to have any policy that they want concerning race or other attributes. It would be best if they did not consider race in hiring, promotions, etc.
I would call on the public to cease the use of the rebel (Confederate) flag. There should be no law against this, but this flag is definitely a symbol of oppression, bigotry, and rebellion against true American ideas of equality and freedom. People should not bend over backwards to not offend people, but on the other hand, should consider all the consequences of their actions. There are other ways to express one’s pride in their Southern heritage or belief in States’ rights. I call for Mississippi and Georgia to voluntarily redesign their state flags so as not to include this symbol on their flags. I will never vote for a candidate who is bigoted against any human being (including the unborn), or uses symbols of bigotry (such as the rebel flag), or who belong to organizations which are amenable to such things, such as the League of the South.
I favor a Constitutional Amendment or a least a federal law that would prevent any laws from being made that contain the concept of race. The decision in the Rosa Parks case was incorrect. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects someone from being discriminated against (even by the government itself) on the basis of race (except in voting rights, which is the 15th amendment and the prohibition of Bills of Attainder). Well-intentioned people have set a dangerous precedent in this case. Judicial activism harms our nation. If my proposed amendment were to become law, then this would bring legitimacy to efforts on the federal level to protect people from racist segregation and other discriminatory laws.
I am against measures that attempt to equal the playing field between races or between men and women. Men and women naturally have different abilities and weaknesses and it is not necessary to try to have 50% of each in everything all the time. There should be no laws that ensure that women are paid just as much as a man for doing the same job. I am against Title IX. Their should never be any laws protecting people from the consequences of foolish, immoral, and physically dangerous behavior such as homosexuality. I am against reparations.
People use laws against discrimination to unfairly threaten employers, and they are protected from being fired (even when they deserve to be) or are unfairly promoted because of such threats. This only causes more racist attitudes. Eliminating all such laws is the best way to prevent racism. If an employer really is bigoted against a particular group to which one belongs, why would that person want to work for such an employer anyway? If the owner of an establishment does not want to serve blacks because he is racist, why would you want to give him the business anyway? I favor the use of boycotts against corporations and other institutions which practice racism and other practices that are condemned in Scripture. Affirmative action also causes more racism because it discriminates against people who are not at fault for things that have happened in the past. It should be phased out (should apply only to those who lived before the Civil Rights act of 1964). However, in agreement with my earlier statements, I don’t believe that there should be any law against affirmative action. Corporations, universities, and other institutions should be allowed to have any policy that they want concerning race or other attributes. It would be best if they did not consider race in hiring, promotions, etc.
I would call on the public to cease the use of the rebel (Confederate) flag. There should be no law against this, but this flag is definitely a symbol of oppression, bigotry, and rebellion against true American ideas of equality and freedom. People should not bend over backwards to not offend people, but on the other hand, should consider all the consequences of their actions. There are other ways to express one’s pride in their Southern heritage or belief in States’ rights. I call for Mississippi and Georgia to voluntarily redesign their state flags so as not to include this symbol on their flags. I will never vote for a candidate who is bigoted against any human being (including the unborn), or uses symbols of bigotry (such as the rebel flag), or who belong to organizations which are amenable to such things, such as the League of the South.
Rights of Foreign Detainees
I believe that unqualified uses of the word “person” or “people” in the Constitution apply to all human beings, not just citizens. It is not, however, to be interpreted that the United States has an obligation to ensure the rights of every person in world. This would be totally unreasonable.
Article I section 9 of the U.S. Constitution says, "The writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it." Since the 5th Amendment was enacted after this, it supersedes this by narrowing the powers of Congress even more to the protection of the accused. It clearly indicates that no person should be held without an indictment of grand jury. The only exception given in the 5th is in war time (it must be a declared war) and it only applies to those serving in the (OUR) military who commit crimes against the United States. Congress has authority over this according to Article 3 section 3. There should be no secret courts, secret evidence, or special military courts outside of these provisions.
The torture of prisoners is in violation of the "Federal Torture Act," Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention, the Geneva Convention, and most importantly the 8th Amendment.
Article I section 9 of the U.S. Constitution says, "The writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it." Since the 5th Amendment was enacted after this, it supersedes this by narrowing the powers of Congress even more to the protection of the accused. It clearly indicates that no person should be held without an indictment of grand jury. The only exception given in the 5th is in war time (it must be a declared war) and it only applies to those serving in the (OUR) military who commit crimes against the United States. Congress has authority over this according to Article 3 section 3. There should be no secret courts, secret evidence, or special military courts outside of these provisions.
The torture of prisoners is in violation of the "Federal Torture Act," Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention, the Geneva Convention, and most importantly the 8th Amendment.
Tort Reform
There was a time in this nation when, if a litigant brought a frivolous lawsuit against someone, the judge would always throw out the case immediately. Such cases were rare because of the prudence we once had in our justice system. Now we have courts full of these slip-and-fall type cases. The answer to this problem is not more government regulatory agencies. The answer is to pass tough laws that prevent judges from hearing such cases in the first place.
Separation of Powers
The Constitution, itself, in Articles I through VI, enumerates the powers which may be exercised by the federal government. Article I, Section 8 which delineates the authority of the Congress. The Tenth Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I support the Enumerated Powers Act.
I do not believe that Constitution is being followed in our government today. I call for a restoration of the balance of power that was originally intended in the Constitution. We must rescind all Executive Orders and Presidential Directives and deny "Fast Track" authority since it is a clear violation of the separation of powers.
We must end judicial activism. Article 3 section 2 clearly gives Congress the authority to override almost any decision made by the Supreme Court.
We must restore to the States and to the people their rightful control over legislative, judicial, executive, and regulatory functions which are not constitutionally delegated to the federal government. Government agencies and institutions having no basis in the Constitution must be promptly terminated or transferred to the respective states.
We must repeal all Emergency Powers thus ensuring power is returned to the Congress, the states and the people in accordance with the original intentions of the U.S. Constitution. I stand opposed to any regionalization of governments, at any level, which results in removal of decision-making powers from the people or those directly elected by the people.
I do not believe that Constitution is being followed in our government today. I call for a restoration of the balance of power that was originally intended in the Constitution. We must rescind all Executive Orders and Presidential Directives and deny "Fast Track" authority since it is a clear violation of the separation of powers.
We must end judicial activism. Article 3 section 2 clearly gives Congress the authority to override almost any decision made by the Supreme Court.
We must restore to the States and to the people their rightful control over legislative, judicial, executive, and regulatory functions which are not constitutionally delegated to the federal government. Government agencies and institutions having no basis in the Constitution must be promptly terminated or transferred to the respective states.
We must repeal all Emergency Powers thus ensuring power is returned to the Congress, the states and the people in accordance with the original intentions of the U.S. Constitution. I stand opposed to any regionalization of governments, at any level, which results in removal of decision-making powers from the people or those directly elected by the people.
Secession and State's Rights
The federal government should stop making unconstitutional mandates on the States. It should only have the powers that have been specifically given to it under the Constitution.
Any land taken by the federal government from a state with out the consent of its state legislature should be returned to it immediately as this is a violation of Article I section 8 paragraph 17. I oppose any restrictions placed by the federal government concerning the use of land not legally purchased by the federal government. State attorneys general should sue the federal government to regain control of these illegally taken or regulated lands.
Concerning Indians, the right of the tribesmen to enforce their own law on their own land should be respected. The Federal government has unlawfully usurped this right which has resulted in lawlessness. If the residents of an Indian reservation no longer wish to be separate and would willing to come under the jurisdiction of Federal, State and local governments, then this would be an acceptable course of action. But if this is not what they want, then we should honor all past treaties with the Indian tribes and repeal all laws which have taken away their sovereignty.
States have the right to secede from the United States. The Declaration of Independence says:
When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
Under no circumstances should the Confederacy of the South ever be revived. If seceding states wish to join to together to form a new union, this would be acceptable, but it would be wise not use the Confederate flag or to exclude states from the new union because of racial or ethnic considerations. I would rather have the President use U.S. attorneys to bring the murderers of unborn children to justice, and then if some states don’t like this, let them be the ones to secede. The Constitution of the Southern Confederacy is unacceptably racist, denying blacks the basic, God-given rights that we tend to take for granted today.
In a previous edition of this blog, I wrote:
I believe in “one nation under God”. States should not consider secession from the union--not yet. If it ever got to the point that people would be jailed by the federal government for having certain religious beliefs or for speaking about their religious beliefs, then I would be in favor of it. If women would ever be forced to have abortions by the federal government, then the citizens of states who appreciate the sanctity of life should attempt to secede.
Since then I have heard of a case in the U.S. where a retarded teenager who was raped was forced to have an abortion. The abortion doctor was not prosecuted. That’s the last straw.
Any land taken by the federal government from a state with out the consent of its state legislature should be returned to it immediately as this is a violation of Article I section 8 paragraph 17. I oppose any restrictions placed by the federal government concerning the use of land not legally purchased by the federal government. State attorneys general should sue the federal government to regain control of these illegally taken or regulated lands.
Concerning Indians, the right of the tribesmen to enforce their own law on their own land should be respected. The Federal government has unlawfully usurped this right which has resulted in lawlessness. If the residents of an Indian reservation no longer wish to be separate and would willing to come under the jurisdiction of Federal, State and local governments, then this would be an acceptable course of action. But if this is not what they want, then we should honor all past treaties with the Indian tribes and repeal all laws which have taken away their sovereignty.
States have the right to secede from the United States. The Declaration of Independence says:
When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
Under no circumstances should the Confederacy of the South ever be revived. If seceding states wish to join to together to form a new union, this would be acceptable, but it would be wise not use the Confederate flag or to exclude states from the new union because of racial or ethnic considerations. I would rather have the President use U.S. attorneys to bring the murderers of unborn children to justice, and then if some states don’t like this, let them be the ones to secede. The Constitution of the Southern Confederacy is unacceptably racist, denying blacks the basic, God-given rights that we tend to take for granted today.
In a previous edition of this blog, I wrote:
I believe in “one nation under God”. States should not consider secession from the union--not yet. If it ever got to the point that people would be jailed by the federal government for having certain religious beliefs or for speaking about their religious beliefs, then I would be in favor of it. If women would ever be forced to have abortions by the federal government, then the citizens of states who appreciate the sanctity of life should attempt to secede.
Since then I have heard of a case in the U.S. where a retarded teenager who was raped was forced to have an abortion. The abortion doctor was not prosecuted. That’s the last straw.
Congressional Reform
I am in favor of cutting the salaries and perks of Congressmen. I am against Congressional pensions. All laws concerning taxes, Social Security, Medicare, and all other financial restrictions should apply to the general population, should also apply to congressmen. They should not be exempt from anything. The size of Congress should be expanded to its Constitutional limit of one representative for every 30,000 people (Article I, section 2). This would make them more accountable to the people.
Congress must repeal all laws that delegate legislative powers to regulatory agencies, bureaucracies, private organizations, the Federal Reserve Board, international agencies, the President, and the judiciary. I would repeal the seventeenth amendment, restoring to the States legislatures the right to elect U.S. Senators. This would help restore a proper balance of power and would help to prevent corruption, overspending, and unconstitutional usurpation of States’ rights.
I support legislation to prohibit the attachment of unrelated riders to bills. Any amendments must fit within the scope and object of the original bill. I am against line-item veto legislation, but every spending bill should be limited by law to only one item.
I would require that for all legislation brought to the floor of Congress, the portion of the U.S. Constitution that grants its authority to enact such legislation be cited. Any legislation currently in effect that cannot meet that strict criterion must be rescinded.
Penalties can and should be given to Congressmen for missing votes (Article I section 5). However, a congressman should not be punished for abstaining from a vote if there was not enough time given to him to decide how to vote on an inch thick bill that has had earmarks added to it at the last minute. Congressmen should be allowed 3 full business days to decide after the final version of bill was drafted except in cases in which the bill addresses a state of emergency declared by the President.
Congress must repeal all laws that delegate legislative powers to regulatory agencies, bureaucracies, private organizations, the Federal Reserve Board, international agencies, the President, and the judiciary. I would repeal the seventeenth amendment, restoring to the States legislatures the right to elect U.S. Senators. This would help restore a proper balance of power and would help to prevent corruption, overspending, and unconstitutional usurpation of States’ rights.
I support legislation to prohibit the attachment of unrelated riders to bills. Any amendments must fit within the scope and object of the original bill. I am against line-item veto legislation, but every spending bill should be limited by law to only one item.
I would require that for all legislation brought to the floor of Congress, the portion of the U.S. Constitution that grants its authority to enact such legislation be cited. Any legislation currently in effect that cannot meet that strict criterion must be rescinded.
Penalties can and should be given to Congressmen for missing votes (Article I section 5). However, a congressman should not be punished for abstaining from a vote if there was not enough time given to him to decide how to vote on an inch thick bill that has had earmarks added to it at the last minute. Congressmen should be allowed 3 full business days to decide after the final version of bill was drafted except in cases in which the bill addresses a state of emergency declared by the President.
Crime
Crime, in most cases, is to be dealt with by state and local governments. To the degree that the federal government, in its legislation, in its judicial actions, in its regulations, and in its executive branch activities, interferes with the ability of the people in their communities to apprehend, judge, and penalize accused lawbreakers, it bears responsibility for the climate of crime, which has grown more destructive with each passing year. I applaud the Congress for repealing the portion of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 which gave the President the authority to use the military as a police force in place of federal, state, and local authorities.
I favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals convicted of capital crimes and to require restitution for the victims of criminals. Criminals who are unable to make restitution should be forced into labor to defray the cost of any damage they have caused. Federal involvement in state and local criminal justice processes should be limited to that which is constitutionally required.
All (including non-citizens) who are accused of crimes, petty to capital, shall have a trial by jury upon request, and the jury shall be fully informed of its right to nullify the law. Furthermore, I oppose defendants being charged and tried by both state and federal jurisdictions under different laws for the same alleged criminal act, thus violating the constitutionally secured prohibition against double jeopardy.
I recognize that a real reason for the designation of "hate crime" is to extend federal jurisdiction to crimes which would otherwise be in the province of the states. Less emphasis should placed on victimless crimes.
I favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals convicted of capital crimes and to require restitution for the victims of criminals. Criminals who are unable to make restitution should be forced into labor to defray the cost of any damage they have caused. Federal involvement in state and local criminal justice processes should be limited to that which is constitutionally required.
All (including non-citizens) who are accused of crimes, petty to capital, shall have a trial by jury upon request, and the jury shall be fully informed of its right to nullify the law. Furthermore, I oppose defendants being charged and tried by both state and federal jurisdictions under different laws for the same alleged criminal act, thus violating the constitutionally secured prohibition against double jeopardy.
I recognize that a real reason for the designation of "hate crime" is to extend federal jurisdiction to crimes which would otherwise be in the province of the states. Less emphasis should placed on victimless crimes.
Domestic Federal Aid
I am against domestic federal "aid" not authorized by the Constitution. The States should decline to accept all monies from the federal government for any purpose not specifically and clearly articulated in the Constitution, and reject all federal mandates and regulations which are unconstitutional, thus restoring the intended balance of power between the states and their creation. Examples include the “No Child Left Behind” Act.
Executive Orders and Presidential Powers
I am against the National Security Act. The President should not make any executive orders if the power to do so is not specifically stated in the Constitution. Congress should repeal any such orders. I oppose the use of "signing statements" which the President (George W. Bush) has used to nullify laws passed by Congress. This is de facto line item veto and is unconstitutional.
Jury Duty
I believe in the principle of jury nullification. A juror has the right to judge both the fact and the law. If a law is unconstitutional, jurors should ignore it and they do not have to follow instructions given by the judge if they believe them to be unfair. Lawyers should not be punished for mentioning that jurors have this right.
I think that it is unfair to force potential jurors to answer such personal questions that have nothing to with the case. I think that all Voir Dire questions should limited to those which determine if a juror or someone the juror knows would stand to gain anything by a certain result in the case. Attorneys should not be allowed to choose or reject jurors based on their experiences, occupation, or beliefs. I think it is especially unfair to remove jurors because they have knowledge of some subject, such as science, so that this will be to their advantage if the preponderance of scientific evidence is in favor of the opposing side. I think that peremptory challenges should be limited to one for criminal cases and none for civil cases.
Jury duty should be strictly voluntary for law-abiding citizens. Compulsory service is banned by the 13th amendment. Jurors should be paid at least minimum wage as long as such laws exist.
I think that it is unfair to force potential jurors to answer such personal questions that have nothing to with the case. I think that all Voir Dire questions should limited to those which determine if a juror or someone the juror knows would stand to gain anything by a certain result in the case. Attorneys should not be allowed to choose or reject jurors based on their experiences, occupation, or beliefs. I think it is especially unfair to remove jurors because they have knowledge of some subject, such as science, so that this will be to their advantage if the preponderance of scientific evidence is in favor of the opposing side. I think that peremptory challenges should be limited to one for criminal cases and none for civil cases.
Jury duty should be strictly voluntary for law-abiding citizens. Compulsory service is banned by the 13th amendment. Jurors should be paid at least minimum wage as long as such laws exist.
The Census
I affirm the constitutional role of the Census Bureau in enumerating the citizens of the United States for purposes of reapportionment of congressional districts. Non-citizens should not be included in the numeration as this is irrelevant to the constitutional purpose of a census. Census takers should not ask personal questions which invade the privacy of our citizens. Congress should cut off all funding of the Census Bureau beyond what is constitutional required. In a census, there should not be any numbers generated by statistical sampling, but every citizen should actually by counted.
The Judiciary/Judicial Activism
I don’t agree that the Congress has the authority to impeach Supreme Court justices for any reason. The “good behavior” clause is only for criminal behavior, and this should not be used because one disagrees with a judge’s decision. I do, however, favor the impeachment of judges who cannot cite clauses of the Constitution to defend their decisions. Congress shall have the power to overturn federal judicial decisions that misinterpret the laws Congress has passed. Congress must exert the power it possesses to prohibit all federal courts from hearing cases which Congress deems to be outside federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III, § 2 of the Constitution. They have the authority to restructure the Federal Judiciary including the elimination any federal judicial seat (except on the Supreme Court). They should use this power to get rid of activist judges.
Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court was wrongfully removed from office for displaying the Ten Commandments in his court. I commend him for his brave, uncompromising stand. I support legislation such the Constitution Restoration Act, which would prohibit federal judges from reviewing cases involving matters of religion in politics.
I deny the validity of judicial rulings that use foreign court rulings or foreign laws except British common law to overturn U.S. precedent. British common law should only be used when there is no U.S. law that can resolve a case. The judiciary is forbidden from making or striking down laws. If a judge strikes down a law, then the appropriate governing bodies should simply ignore the ruling. Countries which do not observe the rules of evidence of U.S. courts should not be allowed to introduce evidence into U.S. trials.
Judges should never be given any authority to determine how a region should be districted or redistricted. Judges should never be given the power to appoint individuals to positions of power in the government or to oversee elections (unless contested).
Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court was wrongfully removed from office for displaying the Ten Commandments in his court. I commend him for his brave, uncompromising stand. I support legislation such the Constitution Restoration Act, which would prohibit federal judges from reviewing cases involving matters of religion in politics.
I deny the validity of judicial rulings that use foreign court rulings or foreign laws except British common law to overturn U.S. precedent. British common law should only be used when there is no U.S. law that can resolve a case. The judiciary is forbidden from making or striking down laws. If a judge strikes down a law, then the appropriate governing bodies should simply ignore the ruling. Countries which do not observe the rules of evidence of U.S. courts should not be allowed to introduce evidence into U.S. trials.
Judges should never be given any authority to determine how a region should be districted or redistricted. Judges should never be given the power to appoint individuals to positions of power in the government or to oversee elections (unless contested).
Eliminate Special Interest Budget Influence
Congress should make no law that grants financial, political or social benefit to a specific foreign or domestic group or business interest. All current laws that fall in this category should hereby be abolished.
Government Ethics
I would limit gifts, favors and outside sources of income while in office and after leaving. I would eliminate the franking privilege. I would require all legislation to be read by the appropriate officials before debates or votes are cast. I would require all spending bills to address one issue only. I would require all legislation and regulation that applies to businesses to apply to federal government institutions and require all legislation and regulation that applies to citizens to apply to federal government officials. Only the people may decide, in a general election, if public servants have earned a raise in compensation.
Conspiracy Theories
Some people make outrageous claims that the President, the FBI, the CIA, other government bodies, and/or Jews caused the JFK assassination, the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, the 911 attacks, or even the Tsunami. These claims are completely unfounded, and even if true, there would be nothing that we could do about it except what we are already doing. What a waste of time to argue about such things when there are so many wicked things going on in government that everyone knows about and that we can still do something to stop.
Campaign Finance Reform
All election laws should be vigorously enforced, and the penalties should serve as a deterrent. All political organizations shall have equal access to all forms of advertisement.
The Voting Rights Act, the Federal Election Campaign Act, and the Help America Vote Act should be abolished. Federal Election Commission should be abolished. I call for an end to all government funding of political campaigns. I am against any qualifications for candidate eligibility except for those that are already in the U.S. and the state constitutions. There should be no limits placed on amounts that law-abiding U.S. citizens can contribute to a campaign. Corporate and non-citizen contributions should be banned on the federal level. A political committee may contribute to another political committee. Those convicted of felonies should be barred from making campaign contributions.
Any candidate who has a ballot line and a theoretical chance of winning shall be admitted to any and all televised or published debates; otherwise the cost of the media coverage shall be treated as an in-kind contribution to each of the participating candidates. Any media outlet receiving Federal funding (e.g. PBS, NPR) shall be required to give equal time to all such candidates.
The Voting Rights Act, the Federal Election Campaign Act, and the Help America Vote Act should be abolished. Federal Election Commission should be abolished. I call for an end to all government funding of political campaigns. I am against any qualifications for candidate eligibility except for those that are already in the U.S. and the state constitutions. There should be no limits placed on amounts that law-abiding U.S. citizens can contribute to a campaign. Corporate and non-citizen contributions should be banned on the federal level. A political committee may contribute to another political committee. Those convicted of felonies should be barred from making campaign contributions.
Any candidate who has a ballot line and a theoretical chance of winning shall be admitted to any and all televised or published debates; otherwise the cost of the media coverage shall be treated as an in-kind contribution to each of the participating candidates. Any media outlet receiving Federal funding (e.g. PBS, NPR) shall be required to give equal time to all such candidates.
Redistricting
Under no circumstances should judges or any unelected officials be given the power to redistrict. To prevent gerrymandering, I favor a plan by which redistricting would be done, as needed, by a mathematical algorithm. The parameters that would determine the district boundaries would include population equity and already existing permanent borders, such as county, school district, and precinct. The diameter (the maximum distance between two points) of the districts would be minimized. Such a plan would be objective, and free from the whims of corrupt politicians who would redistrict to their own advantage. I am a mathematician. I could implement this plan. The accuracy of the calculations could be easily verified.
Election Reform
“The times, places and manner of holding elections, for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof: But the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.” (Article I section 4). I got most of these ideas from the America First Party. They have a lot of good ideas. (I hope they don’t mind me plagiarizing their platform!)
Keep the Electoral College. Get rid of the general ticket. Each congressional district would elect its own elector, instead of the statewide, winner-take-all system. The two statewide electors in a state should be elected by the winning district electors in that state, with a separate pool of elector candidates for each of the two statewide electoral seats. Each district elector’s vote (for a statewide elector) should be weighted according to the number of votes that that elector had received. (The purpose being that the voter should only cast one vote for President, instead of having to vote for 3 different electors.)
I favor a repeal of the 17th amendment which allows for direct election of U.S. Senators. The state legislatures should elect U.S. Senators. I am against all term limits. I favor a repeal of the 22nd amendment.
Judicial candidates may be endorsed by any party or political organization, but they should never appear on primary ballots. The name of a political party should never appear next to a judicial candidate’s name on any ballot.
When candidates are running for two or more identical seats in the same election, such as in a county commissioner or State Supreme Court race, then the voters should get to vote for any combination of candidates that they want, with the top vote getters of all the candidates winning the seats, as opposed to having to vote on each seat separately.
I urge voters to carefully consider how public opinion polls can influence public opinion, and the ways in which opinion polls can be manipulated by the choice of respondents, and by the phrasing of questions to get a desired response. While it is the first amendment right of pollsters to publish their conclusions, voters would do well to disregard opinion and exit polls and vote their conscience.
I favor the repeal of all laws which enable non-US citizens to register to vote and fraudulent voter rolls to be created. I favor laws that make casting of a ballot by an illegal alien a felony resulting in immediate deportation with no possibility of return.
I call for an end to use of provisional ballots. The last precinct that a voter had lived in before its voter registration deadline should be the precinct in which he/she votes. If it is not possible for one to vote in this precinct on Election Day, then he/she should vote absentee. If someone is to vote in a precinct in a county other than the one that they live in on Election Day (because they have recently moved), then he/she should always vote absentee. If one shows up on Election Day in the correct county, but wrong precinct, election officials should direct such a person to the correct precinct. Absentee ballots should contain a paper ballot to be processed with other paper ballots. I call for an end to early-return ballot casting. I am against laws that would allow anyone to vote absentee for any reason.
The Federal government shall not require any other language besides English for voting materials. I favor easily read and marked paper ballots.
In each race or ballot issue the voter should be able to mark a specific option to abstain from voting for that race or ballot issue. This reduces the potential of partially blank ballots being tampered with. States should have the option of whether or not they want to include the abstain votes from the overall totals. For races except for the President, they could also require another election for a particular race with all different candidates if there are more abstain votes than votes for any one candidate in that race, with an appropriately chosen temporary replacement holding the office until a winner is declared. I favor the use of recall elections, when this is the will of the people.
I oppose any voting system that gives a voter a receipt, which can be abused by facilitating the sale of votes. I oppose any voting system that does not generate a permanent, easily human-readable artifact that can be used to verify a proper vote count. These ballots shall be hand-counted at the precinct immediately upon the polls closing, and before being transferred to the county elections office.
Except for military voters, all ballots in a Federal election must be received by election officials by the close of the final Election Day. Military votes shall be given to an appropriate designated officer by close of Election Day, sealed and certified by the officer and sent via expedited channels, to arrive no later than 5 days after the final Election Day. Requests for absentee military ballots shall be sent via designated expedited channels. Election results may not be announced until either all eligible military ballots have been counted or it is determined that the margin of victory exceeds the number of outstanding military ballots.
Each state should be able to choose their own poll opening and closing time, as long as it is no earlier than 12:01 AM Hawaii time and no later than 11:59 PM Eastern Time. The polls should be open at least 5 minutes for each registered voter divided by number of usable voting booths in a particular precinct. If unforeseen events occur so that this is not possible, the polls can be kept open past midnight Eastern Time, but only those who got in line to vote before the scheduled poll closing time may vote.
I favor prohibiting all exit polls announcements until all voting has been completed in Hawaii. In the case of contested elections, exit poll results will not be announced until that election is decided by the proper authorities. I call for a congressional investigation into Voter News Service (VNS) out of New York City. This investigation should focus on the role of VNS in calling past elections.
All election return results shall be posted at each local polling place after counting takes place. Consolidated final vote tallies for multiple polling places shall be announced only by a designated election official having jurisdiction over all relevant polling places. Under no circumstances shall intermediate tallies be announced prior to announcing the overall totals. Disclosure of intermediate tallies by election workers or by media prior to official announcement of the final vote result shall be a felony.
I favor administrative changes to be enacted by county elections officials:
1. Every Ballot cast in an election, henceforth will be hand-counted immediately upon the polls closing, at the ballot box by the named poll watcher/officer and witnessed by any resident acting as agents of any Candidate, or any Issue on that ballot. No ballots may be removed from the respective polling/counting site until a public posting, no smaller than 100 pt type has been made on a wall in the election location after poll closing
2. All Ballot Boxes shall be constructed of clear or translucent material. This will enable citizens to see that no ballots have been fraudulently created and placed in a ballot box before or during an election.
3. All absentee ballots shall be delivered by the United States Postal Service directly into a clear receptacle, kept in public view at all times until the election is over. With current technology, a web-video camera should be made available for and monitoring by Internet inspection. No ballots shall be removed from this box until counted. Counting will take place on a table immediately adjacent to the absentee ballot box, also viewed by the web-video camera.
4. Recognizing that computers can be easily manipulated and programmed for a pre-determined outcome, computer generated tabulation of Vote Totals in any election shall only be done as a point of confirmation, and only after all hand-counting has been completed.
5. Assure there will always be verifiable, transparent elections by never allowing Computer Touch-Screen Vote Marking Machines to be utilized, and that Paper Ballots will always be employed in every election.
6. Where these vote marking machines are already in use, if counties refuse to replace them with a verifiable paper ballot counted system, a printer shall be attached so at the time of the vote, the voter can print out a paper document to verify his vote and deposit it into the clear box to be counted on site when the polls close.
7. County Clerks shall recuse themselves from presiding over their own election. It is recognized as a gross conflict of interest for them to be anywhere near the handling of a ballot involved in their race. The County Clerk shall be mandated to hire a neutral third party, approved by a 2/3 vote of the people, by Initiative Process in the off election year.
Keep the Electoral College. Get rid of the general ticket. Each congressional district would elect its own elector, instead of the statewide, winner-take-all system. The two statewide electors in a state should be elected by the winning district electors in that state, with a separate pool of elector candidates for each of the two statewide electoral seats. Each district elector’s vote (for a statewide elector) should be weighted according to the number of votes that that elector had received. (The purpose being that the voter should only cast one vote for President, instead of having to vote for 3 different electors.)
I favor a repeal of the 17th amendment which allows for direct election of U.S. Senators. The state legislatures should elect U.S. Senators. I am against all term limits. I favor a repeal of the 22nd amendment.
Judicial candidates may be endorsed by any party or political organization, but they should never appear on primary ballots. The name of a political party should never appear next to a judicial candidate’s name on any ballot.
When candidates are running for two or more identical seats in the same election, such as in a county commissioner or State Supreme Court race, then the voters should get to vote for any combination of candidates that they want, with the top vote getters of all the candidates winning the seats, as opposed to having to vote on each seat separately.
I urge voters to carefully consider how public opinion polls can influence public opinion, and the ways in which opinion polls can be manipulated by the choice of respondents, and by the phrasing of questions to get a desired response. While it is the first amendment right of pollsters to publish their conclusions, voters would do well to disregard opinion and exit polls and vote their conscience.
I favor the repeal of all laws which enable non-US citizens to register to vote and fraudulent voter rolls to be created. I favor laws that make casting of a ballot by an illegal alien a felony resulting in immediate deportation with no possibility of return.
I call for an end to use of provisional ballots. The last precinct that a voter had lived in before its voter registration deadline should be the precinct in which he/she votes. If it is not possible for one to vote in this precinct on Election Day, then he/she should vote absentee. If someone is to vote in a precinct in a county other than the one that they live in on Election Day (because they have recently moved), then he/she should always vote absentee. If one shows up on Election Day in the correct county, but wrong precinct, election officials should direct such a person to the correct precinct. Absentee ballots should contain a paper ballot to be processed with other paper ballots. I call for an end to early-return ballot casting. I am against laws that would allow anyone to vote absentee for any reason.
The Federal government shall not require any other language besides English for voting materials. I favor easily read and marked paper ballots.
In each race or ballot issue the voter should be able to mark a specific option to abstain from voting for that race or ballot issue. This reduces the potential of partially blank ballots being tampered with. States should have the option of whether or not they want to include the abstain votes from the overall totals. For races except for the President, they could also require another election for a particular race with all different candidates if there are more abstain votes than votes for any one candidate in that race, with an appropriately chosen temporary replacement holding the office until a winner is declared. I favor the use of recall elections, when this is the will of the people.
I oppose any voting system that gives a voter a receipt, which can be abused by facilitating the sale of votes. I oppose any voting system that does not generate a permanent, easily human-readable artifact that can be used to verify a proper vote count. These ballots shall be hand-counted at the precinct immediately upon the polls closing, and before being transferred to the county elections office.
Except for military voters, all ballots in a Federal election must be received by election officials by the close of the final Election Day. Military votes shall be given to an appropriate designated officer by close of Election Day, sealed and certified by the officer and sent via expedited channels, to arrive no later than 5 days after the final Election Day. Requests for absentee military ballots shall be sent via designated expedited channels. Election results may not be announced until either all eligible military ballots have been counted or it is determined that the margin of victory exceeds the number of outstanding military ballots.
Each state should be able to choose their own poll opening and closing time, as long as it is no earlier than 12:01 AM Hawaii time and no later than 11:59 PM Eastern Time. The polls should be open at least 5 minutes for each registered voter divided by number of usable voting booths in a particular precinct. If unforeseen events occur so that this is not possible, the polls can be kept open past midnight Eastern Time, but only those who got in line to vote before the scheduled poll closing time may vote.
I favor prohibiting all exit polls announcements until all voting has been completed in Hawaii. In the case of contested elections, exit poll results will not be announced until that election is decided by the proper authorities. I call for a congressional investigation into Voter News Service (VNS) out of New York City. This investigation should focus on the role of VNS in calling past elections.
All election return results shall be posted at each local polling place after counting takes place. Consolidated final vote tallies for multiple polling places shall be announced only by a designated election official having jurisdiction over all relevant polling places. Under no circumstances shall intermediate tallies be announced prior to announcing the overall totals. Disclosure of intermediate tallies by election workers or by media prior to official announcement of the final vote result shall be a felony.
I favor administrative changes to be enacted by county elections officials:
1. Every Ballot cast in an election, henceforth will be hand-counted immediately upon the polls closing, at the ballot box by the named poll watcher/officer and witnessed by any resident acting as agents of any Candidate, or any Issue on that ballot. No ballots may be removed from the respective polling/counting site until a public posting, no smaller than 100 pt type has been made on a wall in the election location after poll closing
2. All Ballot Boxes shall be constructed of clear or translucent material. This will enable citizens to see that no ballots have been fraudulently created and placed in a ballot box before or during an election.
3. All absentee ballots shall be delivered by the United States Postal Service directly into a clear receptacle, kept in public view at all times until the election is over. With current technology, a web-video camera should be made available for and monitoring by Internet inspection. No ballots shall be removed from this box until counted. Counting will take place on a table immediately adjacent to the absentee ballot box, also viewed by the web-video camera.
4. Recognizing that computers can be easily manipulated and programmed for a pre-determined outcome, computer generated tabulation of Vote Totals in any election shall only be done as a point of confirmation, and only after all hand-counting has been completed.
5. Assure there will always be verifiable, transparent elections by never allowing Computer Touch-Screen Vote Marking Machines to be utilized, and that Paper Ballots will always be employed in every election.
6. Where these vote marking machines are already in use, if counties refuse to replace them with a verifiable paper ballot counted system, a printer shall be attached so at the time of the vote, the voter can print out a paper document to verify his vote and deposit it into the clear box to be counted on site when the polls close.
7. County Clerks shall recuse themselves from presiding over their own election. It is recognized as a gross conflict of interest for them to be anywhere near the handling of a ballot involved in their race. The County Clerk shall be mandated to hire a neutral third party, approved by a 2/3 vote of the people, by Initiative Process in the off election year.
Why Christians Should be Against the War in Iraq
by Matt Miller 1/20/08
The President has given many reasons for going to war with Iraq, but none of them are Biblically or constitutionally valid. Some people have said that we have good reasons to continue to occupy Iraq, but these aren’t Biblically or constitutionally valid either.
1. There was some talk in the beginning about connections between Sadaam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission made the determination that this is not the case. Colon Powell admitted that this was not the case. Even the President has abandoned this claim. Iraq has never participated in any terrorist attack against the United States. General Petraeus has admitted that there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the war.
2. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Should every nation that has WMD be violently overthrown? Is this a Biblical or constitutional mandate? Psalm 37:7-9 says, “Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.” Read also I Peter 3:10-14.
3. Iraq violated U.N. resolutions. But the corrupt and hypocritical U.N. violates its own resolutions all the time (e.g. the oil for food program). Let their “peacekeeping forces” be the ones to enforce their rules at the expense of their citizens. The United States should have gotten out of this wicked organization a long time ago. The American people should decide what America does, not some conglomeration of nations.
4. There is the idea that the war in Iraq makes the U.S. safer. A GOP slogan was, “If we don’t fight them over there then we will have to fight them over here.” Is that a Christian thing to say? Does only the fear that a nation will attack the U.S. justify a preemptive attack? That sounds like the same justification that a terrorist would use to attack the U.S. The Bible teaches that we should not rely on military might for our protection, but the Lord (Psalm 118:8, 9, Ephesians 6:12). This not to say that we should never bring lawbreakers to justice (because the Bible authorizes and even commands this), but military force should only be used against those who have violated U.S. laws.
5. There is the idea that it was good to bring down Sadaam Hussein because he was a brutal dictator who killed his own people. I reject the idea that U.S. should be the policeman of the world. I find in Scripture no Biblical mandate for this. This is a matter that, as far as military force goes, should be left up to God and the Iraqi people. How bad does a nation have to get before it becomes justifiable to attack it? What Sadaam Hussein has done is a drop in the bucket compared to what we are doing in the U.S., which is brutally murdering 3500 innocent unborn babies per day. Would you advocate a violent overthrow our government because of this? We should remove the planks from our own eyes first.
6. There is the idea that a democracy would bring stability to the region. Does the U.S. have a mandate from God in the Scriptures to take down governments and set up democracies? Our nation was founded on Christian principles by Christians. We are a strong nation because God gave the Founding Fathers the wisdom to establish our Republic (it is not actually a democracy). We are losing our strength because we have turned our backs on God. Do you really think that this “democracy” will work in a nation which is mostly Muslim and contains three warring factions? Jeremiah 51:9 says, “We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed: forsake her, and let us go every one into his own country: for her judgment reacheth up to heaven, and is lifted up even to the skies.”
7. There is the idea that it is unpatriotic or disrespectful to say things against the people who are fighting in Iraq for our freedom to dissent. Being against the war in Iraq is in no way disrespecting the people who are fighting in Iraq and trying to make the best of a bad situation. People fighting in Iraq are not giving us the freedom to dissent, but Almighty God is. It is true that there are times in which the sacrifice of lives is necessary for freedom, but that doesn’t mean that all wars that America has engaged in were justified or helped the cause of freedom. I have relatives and friends in the military who are in Iraq and I don’t want them to die unnecessarily. Is that wish unpatriotic or disrespectful in any way? The distraction of Iraq has left us powerless to accomplish the real patriotic mission which is to capture Osama Bin Laden and the top Al Qaeda leaders. Being against the war in Iraq does not disrespect the families of those who died on September 11th. Dividing our forces and not going all out with all our military might to capture Osama Bin Laden is what has denied justice to them. God has allowed our government to make foolish choices because we have turned our backs on Him.
8. There is the idea that we should be for the war in Iraq because the Democrats and the news media are against it or because Republicans are for it. These are ridiculous arguments. Each person should think for himself. If the Democrats were really steadfastly against the war, they could have withdrawn funding for it and it would be over. But instead they have attempted to bargain with the Bush administration about this to get the goodies that they want, while fooling their anti-war constituency into thinking that they are really doing something to stop it.
The Bible specifically warns God’s people to stay away from Babylon. There are evil spirits there. The reason given for one to stay away is so that one does not share in its sins (Revelation 18:4).
Remember that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and most of the prominent Democrats voted in favor of the war in Iraq in the beginning. They only changed their position (or tried to take both sides) when it became politically advantageous for them to do so. But Ron Paul has always voted against the war in Iraq for the same reason he is against legalized abortion—he doesn’t want innocent people to die unnecessarily. He stood on his convictions and went against his own party.
Ron Paul is running on the Republican ballot. If you agree with him, join the revolution!
The President has given many reasons for going to war with Iraq, but none of them are Biblically or constitutionally valid. Some people have said that we have good reasons to continue to occupy Iraq, but these aren’t Biblically or constitutionally valid either.
1. There was some talk in the beginning about connections between Sadaam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission made the determination that this is not the case. Colon Powell admitted that this was not the case. Even the President has abandoned this claim. Iraq has never participated in any terrorist attack against the United States. General Petraeus has admitted that there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the war.
2. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Should every nation that has WMD be violently overthrown? Is this a Biblical or constitutional mandate? Psalm 37:7-9 says, “Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.” Read also I Peter 3:10-14.
3. Iraq violated U.N. resolutions. But the corrupt and hypocritical U.N. violates its own resolutions all the time (e.g. the oil for food program). Let their “peacekeeping forces” be the ones to enforce their rules at the expense of their citizens. The United States should have gotten out of this wicked organization a long time ago. The American people should decide what America does, not some conglomeration of nations.
4. There is the idea that the war in Iraq makes the U.S. safer. A GOP slogan was, “If we don’t fight them over there then we will have to fight them over here.” Is that a Christian thing to say? Does only the fear that a nation will attack the U.S. justify a preemptive attack? That sounds like the same justification that a terrorist would use to attack the U.S. The Bible teaches that we should not rely on military might for our protection, but the Lord (Psalm 118:8, 9, Ephesians 6:12). This not to say that we should never bring lawbreakers to justice (because the Bible authorizes and even commands this), but military force should only be used against those who have violated U.S. laws.
5. There is the idea that it was good to bring down Sadaam Hussein because he was a brutal dictator who killed his own people. I reject the idea that U.S. should be the policeman of the world. I find in Scripture no Biblical mandate for this. This is a matter that, as far as military force goes, should be left up to God and the Iraqi people. How bad does a nation have to get before it becomes justifiable to attack it? What Sadaam Hussein has done is a drop in the bucket compared to what we are doing in the U.S., which is brutally murdering 3500 innocent unborn babies per day. Would you advocate a violent overthrow our government because of this? We should remove the planks from our own eyes first.
6. There is the idea that a democracy would bring stability to the region. Does the U.S. have a mandate from God in the Scriptures to take down governments and set up democracies? Our nation was founded on Christian principles by Christians. We are a strong nation because God gave the Founding Fathers the wisdom to establish our Republic (it is not actually a democracy). We are losing our strength because we have turned our backs on God. Do you really think that this “democracy” will work in a nation which is mostly Muslim and contains three warring factions? Jeremiah 51:9 says, “We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed: forsake her, and let us go every one into his own country: for her judgment reacheth up to heaven, and is lifted up even to the skies.”
7. There is the idea that it is unpatriotic or disrespectful to say things against the people who are fighting in Iraq for our freedom to dissent. Being against the war in Iraq is in no way disrespecting the people who are fighting in Iraq and trying to make the best of a bad situation. People fighting in Iraq are not giving us the freedom to dissent, but Almighty God is. It is true that there are times in which the sacrifice of lives is necessary for freedom, but that doesn’t mean that all wars that America has engaged in were justified or helped the cause of freedom. I have relatives and friends in the military who are in Iraq and I don’t want them to die unnecessarily. Is that wish unpatriotic or disrespectful in any way? The distraction of Iraq has left us powerless to accomplish the real patriotic mission which is to capture Osama Bin Laden and the top Al Qaeda leaders. Being against the war in Iraq does not disrespect the families of those who died on September 11th. Dividing our forces and not going all out with all our military might to capture Osama Bin Laden is what has denied justice to them. God has allowed our government to make foolish choices because we have turned our backs on Him.
8. There is the idea that we should be for the war in Iraq because the Democrats and the news media are against it or because Republicans are for it. These are ridiculous arguments. Each person should think for himself. If the Democrats were really steadfastly against the war, they could have withdrawn funding for it and it would be over. But instead they have attempted to bargain with the Bush administration about this to get the goodies that they want, while fooling their anti-war constituency into thinking that they are really doing something to stop it.
The Bible specifically warns God’s people to stay away from Babylon. There are evil spirits there. The reason given for one to stay away is so that one does not share in its sins (Revelation 18:4).
Remember that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and most of the prominent Democrats voted in favor of the war in Iraq in the beginning. They only changed their position (or tried to take both sides) when it became politically advantageous for them to do so. But Ron Paul has always voted against the war in Iraq for the same reason he is against legalized abortion—he doesn’t want innocent people to die unnecessarily. He stood on his convictions and went against his own party.
Ron Paul is running on the Republican ballot. If you agree with him, join the revolution!
An Open Letter to the AFA
2/7/08
I Thessalonians 5:21 (NIV) says, “Test everything. Hold on to the good.”
I decided to send this message to everyone who ***** sent this to because I believe that the American Family Association has (possibly mistakenly) misrepresented one of the candidates positions on some of the issues in its Voter’s Guide (see the link below in the original email). I’m sorry that this is so long, but it is very important.
ABORTION ISSUE
In regards to the statement “Supports a national Human Life Amendment”, under Ron Paul’s name it says, “NO”. This is factually incorrect.
Dr. Paul has introduced several pieces of legislation which, if passed, would have nullified Roe v. Wade. Read the Sanctity Life Act of 2007. In Dr. Paul’s opinion, this type legislation is a better and easier way of bringing about criminalization of abortion than a constitutional amendment. Read more about this here and here.
Nowhere on his website does he say that he is opposed to a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. In fact, this statement appears:
“The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.”
The other candidates take compromising positions on the abortion issue. (See here, and here, and here.) You don’t have to worry about Rudy anymore. He is out of the race now.
Dr. Paul believes that abortions should ALWAYS be ILLEGAL (no exceptions). I can’t find any place where it specifically says what he thinks the punishment for abortion should be, but if you take the Sanctity Life Act of 2007 (it didn’t pass) together with the 14th amendment, a proper interpretation of law would be that the punishment for murdering an unborn baby should be the same as what it is for murdering any other person (this depends on what the laws for murder are in a particular state).
MARRIAGE ISSUE
In regards to the statement, “Supports a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman only”, this is factually correct, but not the whole story. I highly recommend carefully reading the link they give as a source for this information. It is very enlightening. The Marriage Protection Act which Ron Paul co-sponsored was in fact signed into law by President Bush.
WAR IN IRAQ
The AFA voters guide is correct about Dr. Paul’s position on the war in Iraq. He doesn’t want anymore American children to needlessly lose their fathers in this war. I can’t think of anything more pro-family than this. Read my article on why Christians should be against the war in Iraq.
TAX EXEMPTIONS
The AFA is a 501(c)(3) organization. This is a completely voluntary agreement (called incorporation) which churches and other organizations can make with the government to receive tax exemptions. But there are restrictions on how much an organization can get involved with politics under 501(c)(3). Some of these restrictions are vaguely worded and subject to interpretation. My church (the Anderson Ferry Church of Christ) has this statement in its own constitution:
“No substantial part of the activities of the Church shall be in the attempting to influence legislation, and the Church shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”
I agree that the tax code is very, very, unfair. But we should be careful to not violate the law in this matter. We need to hold ourselves to better standards than the world. Read more here.
If Ron Paul and enough like-minded congressmen and senators were elected, we would never have worry about the IRS “getting after” us. It (the IRS) would be gone immediately. Churches and organizations like the AFA would no longer have to worry about walking the fine line between “religious” and “political” organization. Donations to organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund could go to other important cases.
RON’S FAITH
Ron Paul is a Christian. This article contains his statement of faith.
If you have read this far, thanks for helping me set the record straight.
Matt
----- Forwarded Message ----From: AFA ActionAlertSent: Friday, February 1, 2008 11:06:40 PM
Subject: AFA will not bow down to a threat from a liberal left-wing group
Dear *****,
The Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has asked that the Internal Revenue Service investigate the American Family Association. Lynn says that AFA has violated IRS rules by distributing a voter’s guide. For years, Rev. Lynn and his Americans United, along with groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way, have used threats to silence Christians in an attempt to take away their First Amendment rights. The tragedy is that he has been successful in silencing thousands of ministers. Let me make one thing clear to Rev. Lynn and his cohorts. We have no intention of bowing down to his threatening demands. Rev. Lynn is mistaken if he thinks his threat will scare this minister from exercising his First Amendment rights. Lynn has also included a threat to churches. Trying to scare ministers from exercising their rights, Lynn said: "Any church that distributes these biased guides is risking its tax exemption and casting aside its integrity." The AFA Voters Guide was developed by three constitutional lawyers and reviewed by three more constitutional lawyers following Rev. Lynn's threat. All agreed that the voters guide is perfectly legal. The Alliance Defense Fund has offered to represent (free of charge) churches or organizations which distribute the voter's guide and encounter opposition from either Lynn or the IRS.
Take Action!
Show Rev. Lynn that his threats don't scare you by printing and distributing the AFA Voter's Guide. Click here.
Forward this to family and friends.
Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution? Click here to make a donation.
Sincerely, Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman American Family Association
Donate with confidence to AFA
(gifts are tax-deductible)
I Thessalonians 5:21 (NIV) says, “Test everything. Hold on to the good.”
I decided to send this message to everyone who ***** sent this to because I believe that the American Family Association has (possibly mistakenly) misrepresented one of the candidates positions on some of the issues in its Voter’s Guide (see the link below in the original email). I’m sorry that this is so long, but it is very important.
ABORTION ISSUE
In regards to the statement “Supports a national Human Life Amendment”, under Ron Paul’s name it says, “NO”. This is factually incorrect.
Dr. Paul has introduced several pieces of legislation which, if passed, would have nullified Roe v. Wade. Read the Sanctity Life Act of 2007. In Dr. Paul’s opinion, this type legislation is a better and easier way of bringing about criminalization of abortion than a constitutional amendment. Read more about this here and here.
Nowhere on his website does he say that he is opposed to a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. In fact, this statement appears:
“The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.”
The other candidates take compromising positions on the abortion issue. (See here, and here, and here.) You don’t have to worry about Rudy anymore. He is out of the race now.
Dr. Paul believes that abortions should ALWAYS be ILLEGAL (no exceptions). I can’t find any place where it specifically says what he thinks the punishment for abortion should be, but if you take the Sanctity Life Act of 2007 (it didn’t pass) together with the 14th amendment, a proper interpretation of law would be that the punishment for murdering an unborn baby should be the same as what it is for murdering any other person (this depends on what the laws for murder are in a particular state).
MARRIAGE ISSUE
In regards to the statement, “Supports a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman only”, this is factually correct, but not the whole story. I highly recommend carefully reading the link they give as a source for this information. It is very enlightening. The Marriage Protection Act which Ron Paul co-sponsored was in fact signed into law by President Bush.
WAR IN IRAQ
The AFA voters guide is correct about Dr. Paul’s position on the war in Iraq. He doesn’t want anymore American children to needlessly lose their fathers in this war. I can’t think of anything more pro-family than this. Read my article on why Christians should be against the war in Iraq.
TAX EXEMPTIONS
The AFA is a 501(c)(3) organization. This is a completely voluntary agreement (called incorporation) which churches and other organizations can make with the government to receive tax exemptions. But there are restrictions on how much an organization can get involved with politics under 501(c)(3). Some of these restrictions are vaguely worded and subject to interpretation. My church (the Anderson Ferry Church of Christ) has this statement in its own constitution:
“No substantial part of the activities of the Church shall be in the attempting to influence legislation, and the Church shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”
I agree that the tax code is very, very, unfair. But we should be careful to not violate the law in this matter. We need to hold ourselves to better standards than the world. Read more here.
If Ron Paul and enough like-minded congressmen and senators were elected, we would never have worry about the IRS “getting after” us. It (the IRS) would be gone immediately. Churches and organizations like the AFA would no longer have to worry about walking the fine line between “religious” and “political” organization. Donations to organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund could go to other important cases.
RON’S FAITH
Ron Paul is a Christian. This article contains his statement of faith.
If you have read this far, thanks for helping me set the record straight.
Matt
----- Forwarded Message ----From: AFA ActionAlert
Subject: AFA will not bow down to a threat from a liberal left-wing group
Dear *****,
The Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has asked that the Internal Revenue Service investigate the American Family Association. Lynn says that AFA has violated IRS rules by distributing a voter’s guide. For years, Rev. Lynn and his Americans United, along with groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way, have used threats to silence Christians in an attempt to take away their First Amendment rights. The tragedy is that he has been successful in silencing thousands of ministers. Let me make one thing clear to Rev. Lynn and his cohorts. We have no intention of bowing down to his threatening demands. Rev. Lynn is mistaken if he thinks his threat will scare this minister from exercising his First Amendment rights. Lynn has also included a threat to churches. Trying to scare ministers from exercising their rights, Lynn said: "Any church that distributes these biased guides is risking its tax exemption and casting aside its integrity." The AFA Voters Guide was developed by three constitutional lawyers and reviewed by three more constitutional lawyers following Rev. Lynn's threat. All agreed that the voters guide is perfectly legal. The Alliance Defense Fund has offered to represent (free of charge) churches or organizations which distribute the voter's guide and encounter opposition from either Lynn or the IRS.
Take Action!
Show Rev. Lynn that his threats don't scare you by printing and distributing the AFA Voter's Guide. Click here.
Forward this to family and friends.
Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution? Click here to make a donation.
Sincerely, Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman American Family Association
Donate with confidence to AFA
(gifts are tax-deductible)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Matt
- I am born again Christian with a strong interest in politics, doctrine, science, and how these relate to one another.