Matt Miller's Political Blog

Precinct Executive Matthew Miller

2010-03-19T17:38:00.010-04:00

My name is Matthew Miller and I have been elected to the Central Committee of the Hamilton County Republican Party as a Precinct Executive for Precinct G, Miami Township, Hamilton County, Ohio.

The precinct executives get to vote on who becomes the Chairman of the county party as well as endorsements of candidates (including judges) and how the Party's money is used.

The reason why I ran is because our nation needs a turn around. The Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 for a reason. They did not accomplish what the voters had elected them for. I do not want this to happen again. But so, far it has been frustrating.

My basic platform is:

Pro-Life

Pro-Peace

Pro-Constitution

Pro-Family Values

Click here for more or scroll down.

Welcome to Matt Miller's Political Blog

2007-03-01T19:26:00.010-05:00

Here are the issues...

INTRODUCTION
My Basic Political Philosophy
Overview of Specific Issues
Libertarianism vs Theonomism
For Clarification

NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
Foreign Policy
War
Other Uses of Military Force
Defense
Veterans
Immigration

ECONOMY
Federal Budget
Trade and Tariffs
Taxes
Wage and Price Control
Protecting our Oceans and Fishing Rights
Money and Banking
Bankruptcy Protection Laws

MORAL ISSUES
Sanctity of Life
Cloning and Genetic Manipulation
Parental Primacy (updated 4/15/07)
Education
AIDS
Character and Morality
Drug Abuse
Marriage
Guardianship Rights and Responsibilities
Religious Freedom/Religious Expression/Free Speech
Gambling
Pornography

RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL
Privacy Rights vs. Security
Rights of Private Property Owners vs. the Environment
Health Care and Government
Social Security
Workers’ Rights
Conscription
Copyrights and Patents
The 2nd Amendment/Gun Control
Welfare
Racism/Civil Rights
Rights of Foreign Detainees
Tort Reform
Census

BALANCE OF POWER IN OUR GOVERNMENT
Separation of Powers
Secession and State's Rights
Congressional Reform
Crime
Domestic Federal Aid
Executive Orders
Due Process of Law (new post, 6/28/07, having to do with jury duty)
The Judiciary/Judicial Activism

ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL ETHICS
Eliminate Special Interest Budget Influence
Government Ethics
Conspiracy Theories
Campaign Finance Reform
Redistricting
Election Reform

My Basic Political Philosophy

2007-02-13T10:44:00.000-05:00

My political philosophy is the same as my philosophy about any other subject. The Bible is the guide to what is right. The Bible says that governing authorities are “agents of God’s wrath” (Romans 13:1-5) sent by God to punish people for evil, “not bear[ing] the sword in vain”. This is the primary (if not the only) legitimate function of government. God is sovereign above all and governments should not assume power that is not given to them by God. Any commandment from God in the Bible should be assumed to be universal unless otherwise stated. God’s directives concerning the punishment of criminals are not exceptions. Psalm 2 talks about how God will pour out his wrath on nations whose rulers want to “cast off the fetters and chains” of God’s laws. Throughout the Bible, minimum requirements of fairness and justice are given by God for the nations to follow, such as the punishment of all murderers, thieves, and the sexually immoral. In addition, there is much wisdom and advice given for rulers in the Bible. These principles do not include exacting justice on foreign nations (unless they violate the attacking nation’s sovereignty). They do not include punishing people for things in their thoughts and hearts (such as hate) because only God is qualified to judge these things. I am not trying to create a theocracy in which people are coerced into joining a particular religion, but only to uphold principles of justice and fairness that come from God and oppose any system that advertises sin, teaches people how to sin, gives people incentives to sin, or hinders Christians from obeying God’s word (particularly in regard to evangelism).

Man-made systems of justice are always flawed because of selfishness. If godly principles are abandoned, the default is “economic benefit”. That is to say, anything is acceptable as long as it benefits the nation as a whole economically. This is based ultimately on selfishness, so any such economic gain is only temporary.

The Bible says that we should obey the laws of the land that we live in, and it condemns lawlessness. The Constitution is the highest law in our land and must be obeyed above all other laws (I am talking about what the Constitution really says, not opinions of courts.) No President, congressman, or judge is above the law. Our elected officials must be held accountable for their actions. Our rights and freedoms are granted to us by God, not government.

Overview of Specific Issues

2007-02-09T19:24:00.000-05:00

No one can receive true freedom or true rights by taking them away from someone else. When people start demanding rights that are not given by God, such as abortion rights, it ruins things for everyone. Women who have abortions and doctors who perform them and those who wish to secure the possibility of doing so in the future are in the bondage of sin, until they repent. Unless they repent, they have no freedoms or rights because they are rejecting the freedoms and rights given by God.

God will not tolerate this rebellion against him any more than he would tolerate people sacrificing infants to idols. God did not tell the kings of Israel and Judah to tolerate the murder of babies. He commanded them to tear down those idols. He never said, “Murdering babies is wrong, but there should be no laws against it”.

As long as this goes on, the United States will move closer and closer to a Nazi style government. 45 million babies have been brutally butchered in this country. Compare that to the number of Jews who were killed in Nazi Germany. Jesus prophesied that the hearts of most would grow cold because of lawlessness. This is it. If any form of child abuse should be illegal, abortion should be. Abortion is the ultimate child abuse.

How can you expect anyone to take any of our laws seriously if they are so unjust and inconsistently enforced? It seems like every time someone breaks the law, we have to beg the courts to enforce it. I believe in rule by law, not rule by men. Murder is against the law and it should be enforced in every case. The “legalization” of abortion weakens all of our other laws. If a law is not being consistently enforced, then the greater the penalty for breaking that law, the greater the injustice. (Think about this for illegal aliens also.)

Legalizing homosexual marriage is tantamount to subsidizing sodomy and lesbian sex. The government should not encourage people to commit sin. The definition of marriage is also beginning to lose its meaning in this country.

Why should we even think of going to war to with a country like Iraq that is not much worse than we are? Why would we expect God to be on our side?

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that governments can take away property from anyone as long as they can justify it economically. This is the new definition of “public use”. Governments are already using this power to take homes and even churches to sell to businesses because they are more economically profitable. The same Supreme Court Justices who allowed this are also the very same ones in favor of preventing the States from punishing the murderers of the unborn. Thou shalt not murder and thou shalt not steal are beginning to lose their meaning in this country.

Taxation should be mainly for purposes of funding law enforcement. Any other taxation which forces taxpayers to fund programs that they don’t want or don’t use is a form of theft.

It is interesting that the Beast will require that his mark be placed in the same places (on the hand or forehead) that God commanded his commandments to be placed. (Read this article and Revelation 13). He will “think to change times and laws” (Daniel 7:25) as opposed to Christ whose laws are unchangeable because God does not change. (Matthew 5:17-19, Malachi 3:7, James 1:17) The Beast will come on a platform of peace, safety, and economic prosperity. Then he will take away the property rights (the ability to buy or sell) and eventually even the right to life of anyone who refuses to take his mark. How much closer do we have to get to this before liberal Christians change their minds and start opposing this lawlessness? When real Christians stand up and oppose the Beast and the taking of his mark, will the liberals still be accusing them of “mixing religion and politics”? Make a good choice and commit every part of your life to Jesus Christ, uncompromisingly condemning sin whenever and wherever it’s found. Obey God and leave all the consequences to him.

Libertarianism vs Theonomism

2007-02-07T18:19:00.001-05:00

There are two schools of thought which have influenced my political views and I have gone back and forth in my mind about whether one is the correct view or if some middle ground position is best.

It is obvious that not all forms of evil are to be judged by civil authorities. They are not in the proper position to judge merely sinful attitudes (the heart, 1 Samuel 16:7, Proverbs 25:2-3). (This is why I am against hate crimes legislation.) In the end God will punish all sins (Psalm 5:6, Proverbs 17:15, 18:5, 24:12, Ecclesiastes 12:14), but common sense says that government cannot punish someone every time they get “angry without cause” (Matthew 5:21-26).

When Romans 13:1-6 and 1 Peter 2:14 speak of governing authorities as being “agents of God’s wrath” who are “ordained of God” to “punish evildoers”, it is in our interest as Christian statesmen to study the Scriptures revealing which forms of evil the governing authorities are charged with the authority to judge.

The Libertarian View

The libertarian philosophy is that government should simply protect our rights and not interfere with anything “between consenting adults”. Under this philosophy, the government should enforce the terms of any contract between two parties as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of a third party. The rights we have are the right to life (to be protected against physical violence) and the right to property. Therefore, the only acts of evil which the civil authorities are charged with judging are acts of violence and theft (which would include violations of the terms of a contract between agreeing parties).

The biblical basis for such a philosophy is that the Old Testament laws have passed away (e.g. Colossians 2:14) and all authority now comes from Christ (Matthew 28:18). The conclusion drawn in this school of thought is that civil government does not have the authority to regulate other things since the New Testament does not specifically give it this authority.

The problem with strict libertarianism (from a biblical point of view) is that you can’t point to a place in Scripture where is specifically says that all but the authority to punish violence and theft has passed away. There could be other things like prostitution, illicit drugs, and pornography that should be prosecuted. The Christian libertarian does not advocate doing these things, but says government should not get involved. There is no regard (with respect to government) for the principle that one should go to extreme lengths to keep oneself from temptations (especially sexual, read Matthew 5:27-30). This is a view that is embraced by both Christians and secularists as well because it doesn’t advocate prohibition of various forms of immorality, but at the same time it advocates the protections and freedoms that most everyone agrees is necessary.

The Theonomist View

When many people say that they believe that the laws of our land should be based on the Law of Moses, they aren’t really thinking through what they are saying. But a theonomist really does believe it (or at least they try harder). According to the theonomistic view, the laws of the Old Testament can be classified as ceremonial, moral, and civil. The ceremonial laws have passed away, and the moral laws do not necessarily concern government, but civil laws should be enforced by government today the same way they were under the Old Covenant (see Matthew 5:18). Unlike the libertarian view, theonomism advocates stoning people to death for adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), witchcraft (Leviticus 20:27), and other sins which are “between consenting adults”.

The problem with strict theonomism is that even theonomists make exceptions to the rule. The Law says that death is a punishment even for doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14) which even includes picking up sticks (Numbers 15:32). Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and say that this was abolished in the New Testament (Colossians 2:16, which would seem to contract their interpretation of Matthew 5:18), there are other things they take out that are not explicitly rescinded in the NT such as the commandment to marry the widow of one’s brother (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

Conclusion

So which, if either of these views is correct? As Christian statesmen, we need to develop a coherent apologetic so that we can uphold biblical principles of righteousness and justice as God would have us do, but in a way that no one can accuse us of picking and choosing what parts of the Bible we want to obey. This apologetic does not have to answer every question that one might pose. We need to start with an open-minded humbleness that allows us to be guided by God through both the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. We need to not allow one principle to guide all of our thinking if this principle isn’t contained in Scripture.

Both Christian libertarianism and theonomism assume that all of our laws should come from the Bible. The Bible does say that God establishes the rulers of the nations (Romans 13:1) and that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Christ (Matthew 28:18), but it doesn’t necessarily mean that this authority always comes through the Bible—and it certainly doesn’t mean that all civil authorities always make the decisions that God would have them make. I have come to the conclusion that there is no exact blueprint for government contained in the Scriptures, but that God rules, at least to some extent, through authorities extra-biblically. The author of Proverbs 21:1 said that God directs the rulers of the nations at a time when most rulers had never heard of the Bible.

I believe that our Constitution was given to us by God (even though I don’t agree with everything in it—we have corrupted it with the 16th and 17th amendments, for example), but yet the Bible says nothing about most of what is contained in either the Articles of Confederation or the misnamed Bill of Rights. For example, there is no place in the Bible where it says that nations should have a President, a House of Representatives, and a Senate, but yet I am strongly inclined believe that God had a hand in establishing these institutions for our benefit.

To illustrate this point further, I have used Matthew 28:18 to say that there shouldn’t be laws restricting the so-called “payday lenders”. Even though I think I would still vote no on Ohio issue 5, I realize now that this Scripture does not really prohibit such a law. I now think those who commented on my post gave more relevant points than the actual content of that article. Maybe God really did allow us to have this law (it did pass) so that poor people would be protected from unscrupulous lenders who would take advantage of them.

We need to be humble, know that we don’t always have all the answers, realize that God is wiser than we are, and that, while the Bible contains instructions that guide us in our choices concerning legislation, it doesn’t always tell us why God does the things that He does in realm of politics. Some laws will certainly have some good effects and some bad effects. We should thank God for the good effects.

For Clarification

2007-02-05T18:42:00.000-05:00

When I speak of homosexuals, I mean those who commit or intend to commit homosexual acts. I am not advocating laws that discriminate against people because of how they were born, but I advocate that when these acts are committed it should be at the risk of the homosexual; taxpayers should not have pay for the consequences of this sin. It is not unreasonable for homosexual acts to be criminalized.

Some parts of this blog may sound contradictory, but it is not really. I may say that I am against some law in one instance, and in another, I may say that it should be enforced. What I mean to say is that I am in favor of repealing a particular law, but as long as that law is on the books it should be enforced consistently. I am against judicial activism even when judges are ignoring a law that I am against. A law should be ignored (but should not be stricken from the books by judges) when it is being used in a way that contradicts higher laws (the Bible being the highest law, then the Constitution).

NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

2007-01-22T18:06:00.003-05:00

Foreign Policy

2007-01-21T19:50:00.004-05:00

The US should get out of the U.N., all of its subsidiaries, NATO, and all other such world organizations that would impose unconstitutional restrictions on the Federal government. The U.N. should be forced to relocate its headquarters and all of its other operations out of the U.S. Terminate all government funding to such organizations. No treaty, alliance, or agreement should be held above the Constitution, and should not take effect unless approved by the Senate by a two-thirds vote. The U.S. should not belong to any world organization that could potentially require taking part in some action that would sacrifice the freedoms its citizens. No decision made by a world organization should ever be binding on Americans without approval of Congress and the President, or with enough votes in Congress to override a veto. The U.S., likewise, should not impose its will on other countries. Any kind of agreement between the U.S. and another country should have to be an official treaty subject to constitutionality.

The U.S. should avoid getting involved in foreign conflicts. Congress should have the sole authority to declare war. This is the only way that the U.S. should ever use military force outside our borders. This is also the only way that taxpayer’s dollars should ever be used to fund a use of force involving U.S. troops. The President should be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces when war is declared. U.S. troops should never serve under foreign commanders. No weapons should ever be sold by the U.S. government to any country without a peace agreement, and they should never be sold to any non-nation groups, such as the Contras or any other revolutionary group trying to overthrow a government. The U.S. should never negotiate with terrorists.

The U.S. should remove its military presence from all nations where it is not welcomed or where this would cause the U.S. to become involved in unnecessary foreign conflicts. The United States should no longer support foreign despots who utilize torture, murder and genocide to control their people. Rather than supporting these regimes we should utilize pressure through international cooperation, including volunteer boycotts. Tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it should be imposed. If nations do not respond, they should be shut out of the U.S. financial system.

All government subsidies, tax preferences, and investment guarantees to encourage U.S. businesses to invest in foreign lands should be immediately terminated. I am against all foreign aid and lending. Debts currently owed to the U.S. should be collected in full as soon as possible. Under no circumstances should such foreign debt ever be forgiven. No foreign entity should be allowed to tax U.S. citizens. The U.S. should get out of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, WTO, NAFTA, GATT, etc. Substantial penalties, civil and/or criminal, must be imposed upon any corporation or government entity, to include those personally responsible, found to jeopardize national security as a result of technology transfer or other actions.

Americans traveling abroad should be subject to the laws in the nations they are visiting. But no non-national organization such as the World Court should ever be allowed to enforce laws against the U.S. or its citizens.

Ambassadors should be approved on merit, not quid pro quo for political donations. They should be recalled if they do not act on behalf of American citizens or are profiteering from their position.

War

2007-01-20T13:08:00.010-05:00

I hold to the Monroe Doctrine. Here are my conditions for going to war. The United States should not go to war unless at least one of the following conditions hold:

1. Another country attacks us on our soil. In this case, we should only go to war against the country that attacked us and those who join in the fighting against us, once the war has begun. The attack must have been sanctioned by the official government of the nation that attacked us.
2. Another country officially declares war on us.
3. When we are required to, by treaties that were passed by a 2/3 vote in the Senate. We should avoid such treaties, unless they are vital to our national interest and would be temporary during times of war. Any agreement between the U.S. and any other country or foreign governing body should be ignored if it has not been passed by a 2/3 vote in in the Senate or if the other parties do not live up to the agreement. Any treaty can be rescinded by a simple majority vote in both houses and the President’s signing.

Before going to war, both houses of Congress must pass a resolution to officially declare war, not just an approval and budgeting of the use of force. Undeclared wars are illegal (Article I section 8 of the U.S. Constitution). Every war and conflict that the U.S. has gotten involved in after World War II has been illegal. I agree with FDR’s decision to get involved in World War II (but not the aftermath and his alleged inaction to prevent the Pearl Harbor attacks). Our involvement in World War I was a mistake, and our involvement in wars before that were justified and proper for the most part. The war in Afghanistan is the only other modern war that has any moral justification. Even though I don’t believe that God would be on our side in a war when we have homosexuals in the military, it would be wrong not to bring Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen to justice since they are responsible for attacks on our soil. It would have been better if we had issued letters of Marque and Reprisal instead of getting into an all out (undeclared) war.

When a country violates the sovereignty of another nation or of its people, or violates an international agreement, the U.S. should not automatically be obligated restore order and justice. However, if this occurs, we should take appropriate precautions which would include supplying affected or nearby nations with armaments and intelligence when appropriate, only if we are allied with these nations and they share our values of freedom and human rights. Supplying armaments and intelligence in this way should only be part of a treaty which would forbid the use of them for purposes other than defense. We should never supply weapons to revolutionaries, even if they are fighting against terrorists, Communists, or Fascists. We should never even negotiate with terrorists.

I favor a Neutrality Act which would prevent the U.S. from getting involved in wars or supplying armaments except under the conditions stated above. We should impose taxes sufficient to nullify any war profits obtained by manufacturing corporations in the military-industrial complex, oil companies, and other war profiteers in order to take away their incentive to lobby for unjust wars.

When we do get involved in a war, it must be sustained until the enemy surrenders unconditionally, or victory is total. This does not necessarily mean overthrowing the government of the nation with which we are at war. For example, if we were to declare war on Afghanistan (for not cooperating in handing over Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda), we should have given the military orders to capture or kill Al Qaeda only and make every effort not to engage the Taliban government or the general populace to minimize the loss of innocent life.

We should only get involved in establishing a new government if the majority of the nation’s population is (at least nominally) Christian or if instability was our own fault because of our involvement in an unjustified war. I don’t believe that real democracy can work in nations that are dominated by other religions. This is why our own Republic is crumbling. Regarding the U.S. involvement in Iraq specifically, my view on the subject can be found in the first four verses of the 18th chapter of the book of Revelation (the Apocalypse).

Other Uses of Military Force

2007-01-18T21:28:00.005-05:00

The U.S. should not participate in nation building or "peacekeeping" operations. The best way to promote peace in the world is through diplomacy and exercising restraint, rather than through force. We should remove our military presence from all countries where we are not welcomed. It is prudent for the U.S. to keep strategically placed military bases and intelligence operations around world for our protection, but we need to get rid of most of these because the Cold War is over and they have become a source of entanglement. Members of the U.S. military should never serve under the command of foreign or world government commanders. I would put a stop to the use of non-military "mercenaries" such as Blackwater for military purposes as they are not held accountable for their actions under Iraqi law, U.S. law or military law.

There may be times when the use of force on foreign soil is necessary without officially declaring war. This should only occur when American civilians or facilities are attacked unprovoked. When any group (such as Al Qaeda), which does not represent the government of a nation, makes such an attack upon people of the United States, letters of Marque and Reprisal should be issued. Our military should defend itself and American installations abroad. We should not order our military to violate the laws of the country hosting us, or international law when in international waters. If we cannot do this without violating our own laws then we should not be in that country. American citizens should travel to foreign countries at their own risk. Our military should not be obligated to protect them.

Defense

2007-01-15T16:27:00.003-05:00

The main purpose of the Federal Government is to provide our national defense, and this should be its main focus. I am against any treaty, pact, or arrangement with any foreign nation or organization that would require any type of disarmament. I believe that all defense expenditures should be directly related to the protection of our nation, and that every item of expenditure must be carefully reviewed to eliminate foreign aid, waste, fraud, theft, inefficiency, and excess profits from all defense contracts and military expenditures. Congress has the power “To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years” (Article I section 8). I am in favor of the Strategic Defense Initiative and other cutting-edge advances in defense technology.

I am against the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the office of National Director of Intelligence. The last thing we need to do is create more bureaucracy and take away power from the directors of the CIA, FBI, and other agencies and give it to one man. We have enough corruption as it is.

The main source of defense for our nation should be the long forgotten Militia. Most people know that the 2nd amendment protects our right to bear arms, but they forget the first part:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

It is sad to see that most people don't even know what the Militia is! It is a requirement that ALL able-bodied males should receive firearms training and military discipline, to be carried out by the States, not the Federal Government. Only a portion of the Militia is to be in "service of the United States", so the National Guard does not fulfill the requirement. The Militia is necessary to repel invasions and insurrections, and act as a check against Federal power. It does this all without the dangers associated with the standing armies we have now, which are condemned by our state constitution.

Veterans

2007-01-11T19:55:00.000-05:00

I support increasing pensions for veterans so that they can serve and live with dignity without the aid of public assistance. All veteran's current spouses and widows should be treated equally, in accordance with Federal law. All deceased veterans should be buried with honor. There should be no reduction of military pay in combat areas. By law the County Commissioners have oversight of veteran health care benefits. They sign off on the assurances that each veteran in the county has received proper services. If such officials are found to be misusing public monies or falsifying federal documents, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (code title 38 USC & 38 CFR) Veterans, including those with permanent and total disabilities, are entitled to complete health care at any medical facility licensed to provide health services. Veterans’ Universal Insurance by law provides these services and does not stipulate that they must only occur at a VA Hospital. As a contract this cannot be changed until all the members of the class are deceased. I am against any attempt to reduce any veteran’s benefits from their current levels.

Immigration

2007-01-04T20:58:00.001-05:00

America has been greatly enriched by immigration. I agree with the “Give me your tired, your poor, your weary, yearning to be free...” statement. However, immigration must be done in a lawful manner, not just anyone should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S., and immigrants should have to fulfill some reasonable requirements. We need a temporarily halt to immigration, and fix this badly broken system first. I have nothing against the Mexicans or any other ethnicity or race, but we are not doing them any favors if we encourage them to become criminals.

For clarification, when I say “illegal immigrant”, I mean anyone who knowingly, willingly, and illegally came into the United States from another country. If someone overstays a legal visa for a short time, this is a crime, but it is not as serious. I would exclude young children who were smuggled across the border from my definition of “illegal immigrant”.

I am against amnesty for illegals. I define amnesty as being the elimination or reduction of penalties or punishments required by law for a crime, after the crime has been committed. They should not be given Driver’s licenses, State IDs. This or another verifiable form of ID (but not Social Security Card or Number or any National form of ID) should be required in order to get a job in the U.S. Non-citizens should never receive welfare or any other taxpayer-supported benefits. All law enforcement agencies should be required to promptly deport illegals in their custody. I agree with the efforts of the Minutemen to stop illegals from entering this country. If the government won’t do its job, then the people should rise up to do it!

Tariff rates on a foreign country and suspension of visa privileges should be partially tied to their willingness to take measures to stop illegal immigration into the U.S. from said country. I call for the use of U.S. troops (National Guard or Army) to protect the states against invasion. This would have been a much better use of our military than going to war with Iraq (remember the first Gulf War also).

Some of the land bordering Mexico is owned by private citizens. The U.S. Government should make efforts to purchase portions of this land in order to beef up security. This would be one of the few cases where the use of eminent domain would be legal and beneficial. I call on the president to stop blocking the implementation of bills passed to build a fence to keep out illegal aliens.

All laws concerning legal naturalization should be approved by Congress (Article I section 8), and subject to Constitutionality.

Anyone born to parents who are already U.S. citizens or who marries a U.S. citizen should receive free citizenship in the U.S. regardless of where they are born. If someone receives U.S. citizenship by a marriage which ends in divorce, then he/she should be required to be naturalized again in order to remain a citizen. When someone receives citizenship, this does not automatically grant citizenship to his/her spouse or children. They must also be naturalized. Someone should not automatically become a citizen just because they are born on U.S. soil. The 14th Amendment applies only to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and should not include those who have already been made a citizen of or who are automatically eligible for citizenship in another country. I favor a federal law to clarify this point.

I support a moratorium on immigration to the United States, except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens or in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration. After these conditions are met, I would not be in favor limiting the yearly number of immigrants to the U.S. Instead I would require that immigrants pay for their citizenship, an amount equal to at least that which would cover any possible financial benefits (from the government) they would receive by becoming a citizen, less what they would pay in taxes.

I call for the federal government restore immigration policies based on the practice that potential immigrants will be disqualified from admission to the U.S. if, on the grounds of health, criminality, morals, or financial dependence, they would impose an improper burden on the United States, any state, or any citizen of the United States. Immigrants should have to pay a fee which would cover the cost of screening potential immigrants on this basis. If an immigrant has citizenship in another country, and their citizenship makes requirements of them that are inconsistent with U.S. laws, then that citizenship must be voided before they can become a U.S. citizen. I am against the idea of prohibiting immigration based on race, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin, as the Constitution states that naturalization laws must be uniform.

The idea of using charity donations to pay for the cost of an immigrant to come to this country is a good one, especially for an immigrant who is being mistreated by his/her government on the basis of race, religion, or political beliefs. I want U.S. citizens to help people from other countries to able to experience the freedoms that we have in this country. It is not a good idea to use tax dollars for this purpose.

I would reform the visa preference system to give priority to reuniting nuclear family members such as spouses and minor children, and ending the chain migration of extended family relatives.

I insist that those who wish to take part in the electoral process and governance of this nation be required to read and comprehend basic English as a precondition of citizenship. I support English as the official language for all governmental business by the United States. They should also be required to learn about American History and U.S. laws, especially the Constitution.

I also insist that every individual group and/or private agency which requests the admission of an immigrant to the U.S., on whatever basis, be required to commit legally to provide housing and sustenance for such immigrants, bear full responsibility for the economic independence of the immigrants, and post appropriate bonds to seal such covenants.

I would bar the importation of temporary foreign workers. They reduce the wages, working conditions, and incomes of American workers. However, there is nothing unbiblical or unconstitutional about this concept. It is an economic issue. I would be willing to compromise and support a bill containing a guest worker program (or expansion thereof) only if it would contain the following provisions:

1. There would be no amnesty for illegal immigrants (see my above definitions).
2. Criminals, including illegal immigrants, would not be allowed to participate in the program.
3. The program would be open to any corporation or citizen who wished to participate and was willing to follow the guidelines of the program. The participants would not be hand-picked (pardon the pun) as they are now.
4. The workers and the corporations would be subject to all the same laws as any other employers and employees. These laws would be enforced equally.
5. Local law enforcement officials would at least be allowed to turn over illegal immigrants to the proper authorities who would then deport them.
6. Corporations would be given stiff fines for hiring illegal immigrants. There would be no acceptable excuses for not knowing that someone was illegal.
7. There would be no “pathway to citizenship” or any possibility of legal reentry for illegal immigrants until they have paid the full penalty of their crimes and have been "sent to the back of the line".
8. All government benefits (including ID cards, voting rights, education, and Social Security benefits) for illegal immigrants would be cut off.
9. There would be increased border patrols and/or a wall built at the border to stop illegal immigration.

ECONOMY

2006-12-13T18:15:00.001-05:00

Federal Budget

2006-12-10T17:27:00.005-05:00

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.)

Trade and Tariffs

2006-12-09T10:33:00.002-05:00

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.

Taxes

2006-12-07T20:15:00.001-05:00

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.

Wage and Price Control

2006-12-05T20:05:00.002-05:00

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

2006-12-04T18:58:00.002-05:00

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

2006-12-03T18:47:00.005-05:00

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

2006-12-02T11:48:00.001-05:00

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.

MORAL ISSUES

2006-11-30T18:19:00.001-05:00

Sanctity of Life

2006-11-28T18:33:00.003-05:00

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

2006-11-27T18:52:00.001-05:00

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

Cloning and Genetic Manipulation

2006-11-26T20:49:00.001-05:00

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

2006-11-25T15:19:00.001-05:00

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.

Education

2006-11-24T17:04:00.001-05:00

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.

AIDS

2006-11-23T08:06:00.001-05:00

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

2006-11-22T20:25:00.001-05:00

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

2006-11-18T09:49:00.007-05:00

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

2006-11-16T18:57:00.007-05:00

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

2006-11-12T20:21:00.001-05:00

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

2006-11-10T18:23:00.001-05:00

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

2006-11-09T18:43:00.004-05:00

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.

Pornography

2006-11-08T20:02:00.003-05:00

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.

RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL

2006-10-31T18:21:00.000-05:00

Privacy Rights vs. Security

2006-10-30T11:11:00.003-05:00

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

2006-10-28T14:44:00.004-04:00

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.

Social Security

2006-10-25T14:46:00.002-04:00

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

2006-10-25T14:45:00.002-04:00

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

2006-10-22T14:47:00.004-04:00

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.

Conscription

2006-10-19T14:47:00.001-04:00

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

2006-10-16T14:48:00.003-04:00

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

2006-10-13T14:49:00.006-04:00

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.

Click here to read about the Militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment.

Welfare

2006-10-10T14:50:00.004-04:00

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.

Racism/Civil Rights

2006-10-07T14:51:00.002-04:00

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.

Rights of Foreign Detainees

2006-10-04T14:52:00.004-04:00

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.

Tort Reform

2006-10-01T14:53:00.002-04:00

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.

BALANCE OF POWER IN OUR GOVERNMENT

2006-09-30T18:23:00.000-04:00

Separation of Powers

2006-09-07T19:30:00.004-04:00

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.

Secession and State's Rights

2006-09-06T20:08:00.004-04:00

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.

Congressional Reform

2006-09-05T19:28:00.002-04:00

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.

Crime

2006-09-04T19:28:00.003-04:00

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.

Domestic Federal Aid

2006-09-03T22:35:00.001-04:00

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

2006-09-02T19:28:00.002-04:00

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

2006-09-01T20:59:00.005-04:00

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.

The Census

2006-09-01T20:41:00.001-04:00

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

2006-09-01T18:18:00.002-04:00

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).

ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL ETHICS

2006-08-31T18:26:00.000-04:00

Eliminate Special Interest Budget Influence

2006-08-29T20:19:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-28T19:19:00.001-04:00

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

2006-08-27T21:08:00.001-04:00

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

2006-08-24T20:18:00.002-04:00

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.

Redistricting

2006-08-23T18:50:00.001-04:00

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

2006-08-20T19:55:00.002-04:00

“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.

Why Christians Should be Against the War in Iraq

2006-06-14T18:53:00.000-04:00

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!

An Open Letter to the AFA

2006-06-13T18:57:00.000-04:00

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 ActionAlert Sent: 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)

Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney

2006-06-12T22:42:00.000-04:00

3/14/08

Below are reasons why it is our duty to ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The first four reasons were written by former US rep Elizabeth Holtzman. The last seven were written by me. Click here to send these to your congressman and senators. Then you can paste my other reasons or your own where it says "Add your own personal message to your Congress:"

Here are the reasons for impeachment:

1) The Offense of Lying and Inducing America to Support a War
President Bush and Vice President Cheney intentionally misled the Congress and the American people regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, and intentionally conspired with others to defraud the United States in connection with the war against Iraq in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371.

2) The Offense of Reckless Indifference to the Lives and Welfare of American Troops
President Bush and Vice President Cheney failed to provide US soldiers with bulletproof vests or appropriately-armored vehicles and had no serious plan for the aftermath of the war, thus demonstrating a complete disregard for the welfare of the troops and the need for proper governance of a country after occupation. The result has been a never-ending war that will cost U.S. taxpayers over $1 trillion with over 3,000 U.S. soldiers killed and over 21,000 wounded.

3) The Offense of Torture in Violation of U.S. Laws and Treaties
President Bush and Vice President Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act," Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention.

4) The Offense of Wiretapping Surveillance in Defiance of the Law
President Bush and Vice President Cheney admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805.

These provisions are detailed in "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens," by former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman.

Torture is also a violation of the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I would also include the following offenses:

5) The Offense of authorizing the use of military force in Iraq without official declaration of war by Congress as required by the Constitution

The Offense of the use of non-military forces (such as Blackwater) for military purposes which are not accountable under Iraqi law, U.S. law or military law

7) The Offense of the arrest and detention of Jose Padilla, in violation of his constitutional right to trial by jury under the fifth amendment
The vice president also illegally initiated kidnappings, secret detentions, and torture in Eastern European prisons of suspected international terrorists.

8) The Offense of authorizing, approving, and signing into law the Patriot Act because it unconstitutionally allows nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight, which is a violation of the fourth amendment

9) The Offense of illegally blocking the implementation of legislation voted into law by Congress for the building of a wall or fence to protect America from terrorists, illegal aliens, and drug smugglers

10) The Offense of not pardoning U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean and for not holding the Department of Homeland Security accountable for lying to Congress about this case

11) The Offense of pardoning Lewis Libby

What a Black Columnist has to say about Obama

2006-06-11T15:03:00.000-04:00

3/29/08

A friend wrote this to me:

Will you read this and tell me what you think; mostly because the end, which is not part of the editorial states some "facts" about "the" anti-christ from Revelation. I did not think those details are in the Bible. I looked this up on Snopes and it says this is still being researched, so.............

Subject: What a Black Columnist has to say about Obama

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first
frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps
to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential front runner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without
Preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadine jad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but
emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it Unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francis co-values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

_____

Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn't you think

Remember--God is good, and is in time, on time--every time.

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:

The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??

I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it!

If you think I am crazy..Im sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the "unknown" candidate _____

My response to this is:

Here is more about that note about Obama that you sent me.

As I mentioned, I am not aware of any passage of scripture that says that the Beast will be a Muslim, and also I am certain that there is nothing that says that he will be in his forties. There are some prophecies in the Bible that were fulfilled by Muslims, but none of them that I am aware of mention a specific religion of those would fulfill it. There are prophecies concerning Arabs, but none of these prophecies that I am aware of are connected to the Beast. Not all Arabs are Muslims. Only a small fraction of Muslims are Arabs. Barack Obama is half black (Kenyan) and half white, not an Arab.

The Beast is not the devil (Revelation 20:10).

Snopes debunks the claim that Obama ever was a Muslim here. Since Muslims who follow the Koran are just as much against homosexuality as Christians, what Obama says about homosexuality being acceptable disqualifies him from being a true Muslim. He seems to be just another Christian “in name only” to me. Even Hillary voted for the “born alive” bill which banned the killing of babies who are born alive after an unsuccessful abortion attempt. Obama voted against it. The Koran specifically demands justice for those who commit infanticide.

But I guess the article is technically correct in saying that he is of “Muslim desent” since his father had been raised a Muslim. And Daniel 11:37 (KJV) says, “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.” (I believe the word “God” is incorrectly pluralized in the NIV in this passage.) What about the “nor the desire of women” part?

The argument that many scholars use to say that the Beast will be a Roman is based on the prophecy of the Seventy “Sevens” in Daniel 9. Verse 26 says, “…the people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” The Romans were the ones who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. The scholars argue that the pronoun “he” in verse 27 refers to “the ruler” and that it describes end time events. I am open-minded about this.

The article you sent said:

“And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago.”

Not all free trade deals are bad, but some of these trade agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT) have set up international governing bodies which are given power to dictate the terms of our trade policy. It is unconstitutional to take this power out of the hands of Congress and it is a dangerous step towards a “New World Order”. The U.S. should get out of the World Trade Organization.

John McCain and Hillary Clinton are members of an organization called Council on Foreign Relations, which supports these trade deals and other “globalization” schemes. Barak Obama’s wife Michelle is on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which is a similar organization. The CCGA denies that they are affiliated with the CFR, even though they used to be called the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and were formed at about the same time (late 1910s to early 1920s). I saw a video in which Barack Obama addressed the CCGA in which he talked about “solving problems without boundaries” and made other “New World Order” remarks.

There is some Biblical basis for saying that the Beast “will deceive the nations with persuasive language, have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything.”

But this could apply to any of the candidates.

I John 2:22 says that the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ is the antichrist. I John 2:18 says that many antichrists have already come.

By the way, I would be interested to know, is the columnist who wrote this article the same Ken Blackwell we know (former Cincinnati mayor, former Ohio Secretary of State, and Republican candidate for governor in 2006)?

Matt

The Limits of How Far From the Mainstream a Candidate Should be Allowed to Go

2006-06-10T10:58:00.000-04:00

OK. I guess I should put my two cents worth on this. I have read the Book of Mormon AND Doctrine and Covenants AND The Pearl of Great Price AND the first two Official Declarations. I can tell you that The Book of Mormon contains very little of the doctrine that makes the LDS different from mainstream Protestantism, and the other books contain less than half. These differences are not just “petty ----”. The LDS say that “a living prophet is better than a dead one”. In other words their doctrine is always changing. It doesn’t seem to matter if there is a contradiction. So I say that you are right in saying that most people don’t know what the LDS church teaches. They change their teachings so much, you have to be a very studious student of the LDS in order to always keep up with what they are they are saying. (Does this sound like someone you know?) Even most Mormons don’t know some of the crucial doctrines taught by the LDS church. I should note that there are other sects of Mormonism besides the LDS that are not as far away from mainstream Protestantism. The RLDS, for example, does not believe in polytheism, and denies (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that the Mormon Church ever sanctioned the practice of polygamy.

Despite the major problems I with LDS theology (it is not doctrine unto salvation), I don’t think that Mormons should be discriminated against in the party just because they are Mormons. However, given the recent controversy, and the fact that the current President (prophet) of the LDS has made statements that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape, incest, AND birth defects, any LDS members in the party should have to make it clear that they believe that these statements do not imply that they must take a certain political position on this issue, but are statements which only apply to personal conduct of LDS members. They must be 100% pro-life. This standard should be the same regardless of religious affiliation.

http://www.constitutionpartyoregon.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=109&newlang=eng

I believe that the CP and the CP of Ohio should adopt a policies (if they have not already) against racism and religious discrimination. That is, no member can be in favor of a law (or interpretation of the Law) which would explicitly deny rights to a person based on the persons race or religion, and that there cannot be any bylaws within the party which would deny a person a position in the party based on race or religion. This does not mean that people can be thrown out of the party for having racist beliefs or preferences for people of a certain religion, because that is a witch-hunt.

Similarly, no member should be allowed to be in favor of a law which would explicitly deny a person’s rights based on whether or not the person is born (this should be worded in such a way to protect all portions of the unborn such as those conceived by rape or incest). Requiring members to be in favor of God-given rights (the ones contained in the Constitution, at least) for all human beings seems like reasonable requirement for membership to me. We all have our beliefs about what scriptures and prophets we hold up above the Constitution (for mainline Protestants, the Bible, for Catholics, the Pope, and for the LDS, their prophets). We may not agree on theology and we may not even agree on whether certain amendments to the Constitution should be in it, but if we are to be called the Constitution Party, all members should all have to at least be in favor of a strict, constructionist’s interpretation of it. Now it is a fact that either unborn babies are persons under the 14th amendment or they are not. If they are, then all members should be required to be 100% pro-life. If they are not, then there is no reason to have any restriction on what a member can believe about abortion. (I guess this is what the National CP has “virtually” done.) It is unreasonable for there to be two totally different ways of interpreting the Constitution in the same party, in this party anyway. This is not just “petty ----”. If what a person holds highest is not allowed under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, then that person should join another party (there is a Mormon party in Utah) or start a new one. This does not mean, for example, that a member should not be allowed to believe that the IRS should be done away with (because of the 16th amendment) because it does not say that there has to be income taxes--only that they are allowed.

It is reasonable for the CP of Ohio to withdraw over this issue. If the abortion issue is that important to us, then we should be allowed to keep money that we contribute to our party from getting into the hands of candidates who we wouldn’t vote for.

We should pray that God would use our example of consistency and resolve to be a good witness to people who are “tossed by every wind and wave of doctrine”.

Crisis in the Constitution Party

2006-06-07T20:14:00.000-04:00

There have been many issues that have divided the Constitution Party of late. It has gotten to the point that party is at a crisis point. In light of recent events, I wish to express my opinion on these issues.

1. Rape/Incest Abortion Exception

I did not attend the last National Committee Meeting in Tampa, but I have been hearing about this “Nevada Compromise”. I don’t know exactly what this compromise entails. The abortion issue is one of main reasons why I became interested in the CP. I heard Howard Phillips in his 2000 presidential campaign say how wrong it was that the Republicans were compromising on this issue. So for a CP candidate to say that he/she believes that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest is unthinkable. How then is the CP any different from the Republicans? If the National CP is allowing this, then I would be in favor of having my state affiliate, the CP of Ohio, disaffiliate itself from the National CP. The latest news on this is that the Oregon affiliate is considering disaffiliating itself from the National CP. I would like to know more about what the compromise was and who was in favor of it. For more go to http://www.constitutionpartyoregon.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=109&newlang=eng

2. Life of Mother Abortion Exception

I agree with the positions of Dr. Patrick Johnston on this issue. This is a difficult issue. It would be unreasonable to say that a woman’s doctor should always be able to make the final decision as to whether or not a procedure is necessary to save a woman’s life. Then doctors could lie and say that it is necessary when it isn’t. In that case any law against abortion would be totally ineffective. There has to be some standard. I don’t think that anyone should be thrown out of the party for disagreeing with what that standard should be, but everyone in the party should agree that ending the life of an infant shouldn’t be criminalized only when the death of the infant is unintentional and unavoidable. The same laws that apply to the born, should also apply to the unborn. God does not show favoritism with respect to birth or how a person was conceived, so we shouldn't either.

3. The LDS

There are some Mormons in the CP who say that they are being discriminated against in the party. I don’t know whether or not this is true. I strongly disagree with the doctrines taught in the LDS church, but I do not think there should be any policies allowed that bar the Mormons from participating in any way in the party. As long as a person’s beliefs and actions are consistent with Constitutional and certain moral principles, they should be allowed to participate in any capacity. But I do believe in discriminating against people who believe that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest.

4. Gay Marriage

Everyone in the CP believes that the government should not recognize same-sex relationships as marriages. There is some disagreement in the CP about why the government should not make such recognitions. More importantly, there is disagreement about how to go about preventing the government from making such recognitions. The 2004 CP presidential nominee, Michael Peroutka said in his campaign that he was against the Federal Marriage Amendment because the government should not “define marriage”. He thinks that the real solution is to get rid of activist judges (that is, of course, part of the solution). As a result of this, many people who listened to him have also decided to be against the various state constitutional amendments of 2004 which were designed to protect marriage. The CP of Ohio was, however, officially in favor of Ohio’s 2004 constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

The language of the state amendment, called “vague” by many liberal republicans, does seem vague because it protects Ohio from having to recognize anything having the “qualities of marriage” between same sex couples. The proposed Federal amendment contains no language that would disallow civil unions or anything else that is an attempt to mimic gay marriage, but called by a different name. It is precisely this added language that Republicans Petro, Governor Taft, Senator Mike DeWine (up for U.S. Senate this year), and Senator George Voinovich have called “vague” in the State Amendment that is what makes it effective. They say that they fear that the state amendment will provoke lawsuits. Of course it will. Any effective law would.

DOMA is like the Federal Amendment proposal. It is useless. Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law.

So my position is in favor of the state amendment and against the current Federal amendment proposal, but for a different reason than Peroutka’s. Other people may say that the Federal Amendment would be effective because it would prevent liberals from using the clause in the constitution that says that a state has to recognize another state’s records. But if a state has gay civil union records, then there is nothing stopping them from using the same argument to force other states to recognize their civil unions and all of the privileges that come with it. We shouldn’t amend the Constitution if the amendment is ineffective. I would be in favor of a stronger Federal amendment. Such amendments don’t have to “define marriage”; they can merely codify the Biblical concept of it or disallow unbiblical concepts of it from being recognized.

5. Neoconfederalism

This last issue is one that I seem to be the only one who is speaking out about. Michael Peroutka is a member of an organization, the League of the South, which is calling for a revival of the Southern Confederacy. During his 2004 campaign, Peroutka had a link on his campaign website to another website which had a picture of the Capitol Building with a Confederate flag sticking out of it.

I don’t believe that Peroutka is a racist, but I think he has bitterness about the soldiers who died in the Civil War, which has been passed down from generation to generation. This bitterness, I fear, clouds his judgment and could cause a national crisis if the CP were to ever become a major party.

Make no mistake about it—the Constitution of the Southern Confederacy contains explicit statements which establish ownership of Negro slaves as a right. It says that this slavery is to “remain as it has been”. Slavery is not forbidden in scripture, but certain God-given rights were not granted to the slaves (such as the right to marry) or even free blacks. In the document, other states are explicitly barred from entering the Confederacy if they don’t accept these terms. My fear is that Peroutka, if elected, would push to have this document reestablished.

I do believe that states do have a right to secede from the many states. (Read the first line of the Declaration of Independence.) I do not believe that the Confederate Flag should be censored. I don’t have anything against southerners or their heritage. But what Michael Peroutka is doing is not prudent. Even if my fears are unwarranted, Peroutka is doing something that is totally unnecessary and which is likely to hold back the CP from being a more successful party.

Some people in the party I have talked to say that they would rather have a different nominee for the 2008 presidential election, but they say that they would still vote for Peroutka if he were the nominee. I will not unless he changes his position on this issue. Other people either don’t care at all or agree with Peroutka on this issue.

Ohio Primary 2006

2006-06-01T08:33:00.000-04:00

Candidates Summary

D-Merrill Keiser is very pro-life. He clearly spells out his views on abortion and many other issues on his blog.

Links to all of the candidates websites can be found at http://www.politics1.com/oh.htm.

Abortion

R-Ken Blackwell (Governor) – “Ken Blackwell has always been pro-life. The first obligation of government is to protect innocent life. As Governor, Ken Blackwell would advance a culture of life, just as he has for 30 years, as Mayor of Cincinnati, Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Commission and in statewide office. Ken Blackwell's grandmother made it clear to him when he was young when she said birth is but a change of address. All children in the womb or outside should be guaranteed the right to life. We must promote a culture of life, and we start doing so by defending defenseless unborn children.”

R-Jim Petro (Governor) – “Jim Petro is pro-life. He firmly believes we must respect the value of life from conception. As Attorney General, Jim Petro successfully defended Ohio’s law banning Partial Birth Abortion. As a result, Ohio has the only court tested Partial Birth Abortion law in the country. As Governor, Jim Petro will fight for a culture of life in Ohio.”

R-William Pierce (U.S. Senate) – “I am a pro-life conservative who believes strongly in the sanctity of life and that it begins at conception. Abortion at any and all stages is wrong, with the rare and documented exception when the life of the mother is at risk.”

R-David Smith (U.S. Senate) – “Our government was instituted to protect the life of its citizens. The practice of abortion is in conflict with the purpose of government. We must protect the life of the unborn child. With certain exceptions with respect to the life of the mother, we must eliminate the practice of abortion in America.” But the Cincinnati Enquirer reported (4/21/06) that U.S. Senate candidate David R. Smith said, “I am pro-life and am opposed to abortion with the exception of certain extreme cases with respect to rape, incest, and the life of the mother.” Smith did not mention the rape and incest exception on the Citizens for Community Values survey or on his website.

R-Mike DeWine (U.S. Senate) – “I am pro-life.”

“Sandra (O’Brien, Republican for Treasurer) is Pro Life. She believes that life begins at conception and that abortion is an act that has two victims, the child and the mother. All voters in the May 2nd Republican Primary should know that they have a clear choice on the issue of abortion. Sandra’s opponent in the May Primary, Jeanette Bradley is pro-choice (Columbus Dispatch Feb. 2, 2002)”

R-Tim Grendell (for Attorney General) – “I hope to have your support as I continue to defend our traditional family values and definition of marriage, our right to life, and our right to bear arms.”

R-Betty Montgomery (for Attorney General) is against legalizing partial-birth abortion, government funding of abortion, and is for parental consent laws and two murder charges when a pregnant woman is murdered, but says, ” …beyond these restrictions, I do not believe that the awesome power of government should intrude into the personal life of Ohioans to make any further mandates.” www.bettymontgomery.com/assets/leadership/leadership_pdf_1.pdf

R-Mary Taylor (for State Auditor, unopposed in the primary) is a cosponsor of Ohio HB 228, which if passed, would ban abortion in Ohio.

Homosexual rights, Gay Marriage/Civil Unions

I have not verified the following claim that Blackwell has made about Jim Petro:

“On the issue of defending traditional marriage, Jim Petro not only opposed the 2004 Ohio Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),…”

But this much is true…

On his website, Petro says he supports a Federal Marriage Amendment, but he did oppose Issue 1 (of 2004), the Ohio Marriage Amendment that passed with overwhelming voter support. Petro says that the reason why he supports the Federal Amendment and not the State Amendment is because the language of the State Amendment is vague, and subjects the State of Ohio to potential lawsuits. But the reason why the language is vague is because it protects Ohio from having to recognize anything having the “qualities of marriage” between same sex couples. The proposed Federal amendment contains no language that would disallow civil unions or anything else that is an attempt to mimic gay marriage, but called by a different name. It is precisely this added language that Republicans Petro, Governor Taft, Senator Mike DeWine (up for U.S. Senate this year), and Senator George Voinovich have called “vague” in the State Amendment that is what makes it effective. The reasons why they were against it were fear of losing businesses to other states. DOMA is like the Federal Amendment proposal. It is useless. Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law.

See the Citizens for Community Values survey for the other candidates’ responses on this question.

Senate Filibusters of Judicial Nominees

Mike DeWine is one of the seven Republican senators who compromised against the proposal to change the rules of the Senate to disallow filibusters of the President’s judicial nominees. Both of DeWine’s opponents, William Pierce and David R. Smith, say they would vote to end this type of filibuster.

Education

Jim Petro supports expanding vouchers and charter schools in Ohio.

William Pierce believes that the Federal government’s involvement in education is against Constitution. He would get rid of the Department of Education and the No Child Left Behind Program and all other Federal interference in education, giving control of it back to the States and local school districts.

David R. Smith “I support greater local control of education. I feel increased competition between public, private and home schools will improve education. Free markets will drive education to a higher level of performance. Voucher-type programs that permit parental choice in education will strengthen education in America. Strong families, not overbearing government programs, are the key to improving education.”

2nd Amendment rights

Jim Petro “was an early and public supporter of Ohio’s Concealed Carry Law.”

William Pierce (U.S. Senate) “Although I am not a gun owner, my strong belief and support of the Constitution says I must not, and will not, challenge your right to own and bear arms.”

David Smith (U.S. Senate) “I strongly support the Second Amendment and am opposed to unconstitutional restrictions on the rights of citizens to bear arms. I feel that individuals, not guns, are responsible for crimes and that strengthening families, improving education, and fostering higher morals among citizens are the real keys to reducing gun-related crimes.”

Sandra (O’Brien) is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. She believes that law abiding citizens have the right to own firearms for hunting, sport shooting, or personal protection. Sandra supports concealed carry. She is a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Any voters in the May 2nd Republican Primary should know that they have a clear choice on the issue of the Second Amendment. How does Sandra’s opponent, Jeannette Bradley, stand? “Both Taft and Bradley oppose a proposal to allow law abiding Ohioans to carry concealed weapons” (Columbus Dispatch, Feb. 2, '02)

O’Brien is in favor of requiring trigger locks to be sold with guns (Blackwell and Grendell are not, Christian Coalition Survey ).

Death Penalty

Pierce is against the death penalty in all cases.

National Defense/War in Iraq

David Smith, “National Security is the primary responsibility of the federal government. I support spending to develop new technologies and to strengthen intelligence operations to fight the war on terror as well as protect us against the larger threats of nuclear, chemical and biological attacks. I believe freedom in Iraq will bring stability to the region. We must not allow our experience in Iraq to deter us from fighting the war on terror by allowing other radical nations to complete development on weapons of mass destruction before we react. We must act before it is too late.” David Smith is also for free trade.

Immigration

William Pierce, “With the threat of terrorism, it is more critical than ever that we protect our borders from illegal entry. It is estimated there are currently 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, and this total is growing at a rate greater than 1 million undocumented aliens each year. Many are in search of a job, some are in search of crime, and some are crossing the border to import terrorism. Applications for work permits should be available for those looking for employment and willing to fill the jobs many Americans overlook. The remaining must be turned away in a reliable manner to ensure they do not gain entry. To do otherwise, provides an intolerable weak link in homeland security.” Pierce is in favor of building a fence to keep out illegal immigrants.

David Smith, “Illegal immigration is both a security and economic threat to our nation. I support increases in border security in efforts to halt the large influx of illegal aliens into America. I am opposed to amnesty programs that offer citizenship or some form of legal status to those who unlawfully reside in our country. Our emigration laws must be enforced. Those seeking citizenship must follow the legal steps required for becoming a United States Citizen.”

More on Blackwell

In this hotly contested Gubernatorial race, Jim Petro has run ads saying that Blackwell invested in stocks which included gambling, electronic voting machines, radio stations which use vulgar language, and even a pharmaceutical company that makes abortion pills. Blackwell says that he had been unaware of the investments because he doesn’t manage his finances himself. He has already sold the voting machine stock at a loss, and is working with the Ohio Right to Life to clean up the rest of his portfolio.

“…he is opposed to the expansion of state-sponsored gambling because it does more harm than good.”

From the Toledo Blade June 5, 2005:

Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell was not initially concerned or even shocked that the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation had invested $50 million in rare coins.

In fact, Mr. Blackwell told The Blade on April 5 (2005) that "most people" wouldn't find it "unreasonable" that the state had invested in rare coins with Tom Noe, who has said through his attorneys that at least $10 million of the state's assets are missing.
"When you run a fund the size of $18 billion and you're looking at $50 million, beyond what one's disposition might be, is that an irresponsible amount of risk? Most people would say no," Mr. Blackwell said on April 5 (2005) - two days after The Blade's initial report on the coin investment.

Sunday, January 09, 2005

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The state's chief elections officer, accused of mishandling the presidential vote in Ohio, sent a fund-raising letter for his own 2006 gubernatorial campaign that was accompanied by a request for illegal contributions.

A pledge card with the letter from Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (search), a Republican who co-chaired the Bush-Cheney election campaign in Ohio, said "corporate & personal checks are welcome."

Corporate donations are illegal in Ohio. His spokesman, Carlo LoParo, said Saturday that any corporate donations would be returned. Blackwell said the request sent to GOP donors and activists was an oversight. His campaign's fund-raising coordinator, Jeff Ledbetter, blamed a printer for the mistake, saying it used a template for an issue committee, which is allowed to accept corporate donations. Ledbetter told The Columbus Dispatch that no corporate donations had been received in response to the letter.
Blackwell's letter also praises Republicans for helping deliver Ohio to President Bush. U.S. Rep. John Conyers (search), D-Mich., who prepared a report on election problems in Ohio, said the letter supports suspicions that Blackwell's actions as secretary of state during the election "stemmed from partisan political motivations" to help Bush.

No fault absentee voting

Issue 2 (of 2005): This proposed amendment would allow anyone to be able to vote absentee without providing a reason. Secretary Blackwell has supported no fault absentee voting since 1999. However, this proposed amendment goes too far by placing an amendment in the Ohio Constitution. This is an issue that the legislature should have to address so that it can provide Ohioans the flexibility to adjust and enhance the provision. This amendment allows voters to vote absentee, then requires that someone who voted absentee be allowed to vote provisionally, while leaving it up to the board to catch it. This gives the chance for people to vote twice if the county board of elections misses it.

Their amendment also does not set statewide standards of times and locations for early voting, which would allow the rules to dramatically vary from county to county.

Social Security info on Blackwell Web site (Dayton Daily News)
COLUMBUS A furor erupted Wednesday over the disclosure that Ohioans' Social Security numbers are included on some business documents posted on Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell's Web site, raising the potential for identity theft.

Political Parties

2005-02-08T20:00:00.000-05:00

2/8/07

I consider myself an independent. More than ever, one should closely examine each candidate and vote based on what he/she has done and what they say they will do, rather than blindly voting based on political party. I always vote my conscience, even if it means voting for third-party and independent candidates. If there is no sound candidate running for a particular office, then you should run for that office yourself or not vote for any candidate in that particular race. The party that has had a Presidential candidate on the ballot in recent elections that I identify most with is the Constitution Party, but I even have some problems with them. I especially have problems with their 2004 Presidential candidate and their recent compromise on abortion (which is not nearly as bad as the compromising of the Republican Party on this issue). I think most CP candidates are still worth voting for. The Libertarian Party is mostly pro-abortion rights, but it does have a pro-Life wing.