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 The parts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which affect the rights of U.S. citizens should be repealed.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.
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.