It’s perfectly understandable to question who I am and what my beliefs are. After all, I’m not a well-known name and I have no voting record. Please feel free to ask me questions via email. Both the question and answers will be posted here for everyone to see.

 

Q: What is your stance on the health care bill?

A: While I understand the need for something to be done regarding health care and the costs associated with it, the bill that was passed is completely unconstitutional. Why not allow the purchase of health care across state lines for starters? It makes me wonder what our government is going to force us to purchase next. Cars to help their bailout plan? Require all direct deposit funds to be deposited in banks rather than credit unions? The fact that this bill passed with nobody reading it, Pelosi saying “pass the bill so we can see what’s in it“, and Obama promising to fix it with Executive Orders (that can later be reversed quite easily) after it gets passed has me very worried about where our government is headed.

Q: What is your stance on global warming/climate change?

A: Personally, I find that too many independent scientists (read: non-government or limited-government funded research) do not support the idea of global warming. Even in my own studies, in addition to Wikipedia, I have read that volcanoes are bigger polluters than humans. I can see that as volcanoes, such as Laki in Iceland, have been known in the past to cause some climate change. For some reason, I don’t think cap and trade will stop volcanoes from erupting. In fact, cap and trade has to be one of the most elaborate scams I’ve heard of in a long time. If you want to do well for the environment, “be green”, save energy, or plant some trees, that’s wonderful! Do so with pride – I applaud you! But I don’t think it’s right for our government to force that will on the American people as a carbon tax ends up taxing everyone and everything under the sun…and it won’t solve anything – it’s just another way to tax the American people.

Q: Would you raise taxes?

A: Economics 101 – if you tax everyone more:

  • Businesses stop hiring and/or pay less because they have less to spend while making “stuff”.
  • Less in taxes are being paid in to the government because people don’t have a job or are making less.
  • Fewer people buying “stuff” because they don’t have jobs and have less to spend.
  • Businesses hire less and/or lay off because people aren’t buying their “stuff”.
  • …and the cycle continues every time you raise taxes. Everyone loses.

Personally, I can’t raise or lower taxes on my own as it takes both Congress and Senate to do that. Anyone who claims they can isn’t telling you the truth. Any bill that is introduced to raises taxes, I will vote against.

Q: Who are your biggest political influences?

A: Ron Paul and Justin Amash. They both have inspired me to enter the political arena to limit the size and scope of government, to promote free market economic policies, to preserve personal liberties, and bring more transparency in government. In fact, I plan on doing exactly what Justin Amash does – post every vote on Facebook with the reason I voted the way I did.

Q: Banker bail outs – what would you have done?

A: Simple – DENIED! No business or corporation is too big to fail. Period. In addition, no business should EVER be bailed out with taxpayer dollars. Now the Federal Reserve (a private entity ran by private bankers) is in full control of the hundreds of billions of dollars that were supposed to go to the failing banks. Instead of allowing a private entity to reward failure with taxpayer funds (that subsequently funded a lot of bank takeovers), let them fail and/or get bought up through attrition. I certainly don’t see any credit unions on this list…do you? So why did publicly-traded corporate entities get money hurled at them blindly for failing? Campaign contributions have anything to do with it? You decide.

Q: Do you think anything can be done at the Federal level regarding airport security? Trying to fly is getting ridiculous!

A: The Transportation Security Administration has become disgustingly Orwellian in their practices since 9/11. First off, the list of things you can’t take with you on a plane is absolutely ignorant. Some make sense like a handgun in your carry-on bag. Sure, I understand that rule, even though they should be allowed in a checked bag. No hand grenades, another no-brainer. But no gel shoe inserts? No cue sticks (I like to play pool)? No snow globes?! On the bright side, you can still bring on your gun lighter as long as there’s no fluid in it. Then there is also the No-Fly List that you may nor may not be on…but that information is classified. You’ll have to find out if you’re on “the list” after you’ve bought your ticket and they’ve already poked and prodded you for security purposes. Currently the TSA are in the process of installing and using full body scanners (WARNING: some nudity due to the nature of the scanners), which allow TSA officials to see through your, your spouse, or your children’s clothing.

The TSA was created in 2001 during a knee-jerk reaction in response to 9/11, just as the USA PATRIOT Act was. The TSA needs to be abolished as it is only contributing to a security theater that does nothing to improve the safety of the American people.

Q: Why are you going to run for government?

A: Both Lansing and Washington D.C. has been running our state and country into the ground since the Clinton years when he signed on to NAFTA. He also signed into law the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which severely limited legitimate usage of media by consumers. Then during the Bush years we had the USA PATRIOT Act, the bank bailouts, and cash for clunkers – all very unconstitutional acts. Now we have Obama forcing people to purchase health care and breaking his promise of open government (CSPAN coverage, 5 days for the public to view before he signs a bill into law, etc) among a myriad of other issues he’s broken promises on. I’ve simply had enough of the lies and unconstitutional bills being introduced and passed into law…and nobody doing anything about it. I plan on reigning in big government, preventing taxes from rising, letting the free market work, and continuing to promote liberty and prosperity at the state level.

Q: What are your thoughts on gun control and the 2nd Amendment?

A: We have enough gun laws for those that purchase guns legally. Criminals aren’t likely to purchase guns legally, register a gun, and then commit a crime. If the criminal did purchase a gun legally then it’s the criminal’s fault for breaking the law and it isn’t up to the government to create laws that punish many for the actions of the few. The laws for illegally obtaining, or possessing, a firearm needs to be enforced rather than have laws added on top of more laws, which end up punishing law abiding citizens. Every person has a right to protect themselves. Period.

Q: What do you have to say about the donotcall.gov government exemption?

A: This is a touchy subject for most Americans. Personally, I see a recording, person trying to sell me something, or someone asking for a donation on the phone as an invasion of privacy into my home. The fact that our government leaders allowed themselves to be exempt from phone solicitation makes them appear to perceive themselves as “above the law”. For my campaign I will not encourage or support anyone performing the mass phone solicitation that the other politicians take part in.

Q: PACs – political action committees, what is your take?

A: PACs, to me, are nothing more than a front for corporations to purchase politicians. I realize that it’s not always corporations who form the PACs or run the PACs, but it allows corporations to do just that. If corporations are able to purchase politicians, then who does that politician really work for? I believe that PACs should be severely limited on what they can do. I would love to see all campaign contributions severely limited in general – even more so than they are now. At what point do people believe it’s acceptable to spend  hundreds of millions (or billions) of dollars for a position that pays $400,000 per year and not think something shady is going on in the background? Politicians should be paid ONLY by the people to assure they are working for – the people. I would love to see a day where the only entity that can contribute to a person’s campaign is the individual themselves. After all, individuals can physically vote – PACs and corporations can’t. At the most, only allow registered individual voters to contribute and nobody else.

Q: Do you think the Supreme Court Justices are politically biased? If so… left, right, or center?

A: I believe that each Supreme Court Justice likely has their own political beliefs and, based on some of the previous split rulings, don’t always have the Constitution or society’s best interests as their priority. When a President assigns a Supreme Court Justice, they generally align the Justice’s political stance with their own (or their party’s). It also shouldn’t take months or years for a significant case affecting the lives of many (Health Care Reform and the 10th Amendment) to make it to the Supreme Court and be ruled on swiftly.

Q: What is your take on the following Supreme Court decision… corporations/companies can endorse candidates, even though they are based in another country (i.e subsidiaries).

A: If they want to verbally endorse a candidate, that’s one thing. To provide a monetary endorsement or pay for campaign expenses including advertising, that’s something completely different. Referring back to PACs, this is the type of abuse that could potentially happen with “global” corporations and the vulnerability PACs contribute to politicians. I don’t like the idea of campaign contributions from another country being able to have anything to do with America’s elections. To me, that’s a huge conflict of interest that’s even worse than domestic corporations contributing to a politician’s campaign.

Q: If the IRS is reduced in size, who will make the corporations pay when they try to get out of paying taxes?

A: Currently, there are already laws regarding not paying taxes – they just need to be enforced. However, if a simpler tax is implemented (Fair Tax, Flat Tax, etc), we simply wouldn’t need as many IRS enforcement agents to search for obscurities in the tax code to punish someone. If the Health Care Law that recently passed is any indication of how many IRS enforcement agents there are out there (16,500 new hires just for the Health Care Law itself), I’m sure there’s a lot of fat that can be trimmed.

Q: What should we do with illegal aliens (a.k.a undocumented workers) - should immigration reform be changed?

A: We have laws regarding illegal aliens and the current laws are not enforced like they should be. I certainly don’t think amnesty should be given to those who have broken the law by coming to the United States illegally. What kind of example does that set for those jumping through the immigration hoops to get here legally? It would be a huge slap in the face. In a nutshell – enforce the laws that are already in place and put border patrol on the border (not 50 miles inside the border like in some spots in Arizona).

Q: How do you address a person that states “we should do away with lawyers by replacing them with members of justice”.

A: Well, as the joke goes – what do you call 1,000 layers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start. Seriously though, what would you consider a “member of justice”? Police officer? Judge? Jury? Yes, lawyers can put their own self-interests in front of their clients on occasion and that’s truly a terrible thing. There is a system of checks and balances in place to prevent abuse of the justice system. Unfortunately, we are still seeing abuse. However, removing any aspect of allowing a person to properly defend themselves, the right to face their accuser, or the right not to incriminate themselves would prove detrimental to our justice system even as flawed as it may currently be.