Search This Blog

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.

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.


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.


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.


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.

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 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.

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.

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).


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.

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.


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.

About Me

My photo
I am born again Christian with a strong interest in politics, doctrine, science, and how these relate to one another.