Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Israel and Palestine

Despite Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu having recently told Congress that the State of Israel can defend itself – and although the U.S. has no formal alliance with that country – the influence of Israeli- and Jewish-interest organizations (such as AIPAC, ADL, JDL, AJC, CPMAJO, JINSA, MEF, and ZOA), and the disproportionately high numbers of Jewish-Americans in the banking industry and high political office has produced a climate in which $3 billion goes to Israel as military and economic aid, in addition to another $12 to $27 billion in taxpayer funds which evade mention in the official federal budget.

Aiding Israel (and thereby giving ideological support to its policies) simply cannot be reconciled with American values. How permitting the imprisonment of those who wish to have academic discussions of the facts surrounding the Holocaust supports the freedom of speech; how regulating mosques’ calls to prayer and dictating what is and is not Judaism through a corrupt, centralized institution supports the freedom of worship and religious tolerance; how routinely regimenting of Palestinian movement supports the freedom of travel; how bombing schools, hospitals, and mosques, massacring families, and then calling them terrorists for responding with a relatively minuscule amount of violence supports the protection of the innocent; and how murdering Americans in the Lavon Affair, the Kennedy assassination, the attacks on the U.S.S. Liberty and the U.S.S. Cole, and September 11th supports the safety of the United States is beyond me.

With Israel’s occupation of Palestine, deprivation of the natural and human rights of its people, and labeling of the Gazans’ democratically-elected Hamas government as a terrorist organization (as well as Israel's jailing and assassination of their elected representatives), it seems evident that Israel’s main reason for supporting democratic elections in the Palestinian territories is to exploit its own radicalization of the Palestinians in order to avoid peace negotiations, that Israel desires to retain its much-lauded status as “the only democracy in the Middle East”, and that the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for the people of the West Bank and Gaza to have their own State – alongside and recognized by Israel – and with full membership in the United Nations, having access to its human rights agencies and courts.

But this is no thoughtful and humane solution to the greater Israeli-Arab conflict as a whole. Those who advocate for Palestinian nationhood and recognition as a State by the international community should be cautioned that this may cause the self-determination of the Palestinian people to be subordinated to the power of their elected officials and the supranational U.N. governance, and that the acceptance of the continued existence of the State of Israel may cause an even more widespread conceptualization of Jewish freedom which excuses their rebellion against G-d and the nations of the Earth by exercising military and political sovereignty prior to the arrival of Mashiach (the Jewish Messiah) and without authorization of the rabbinic authorities of the communities.

If elected to the 113th Congress, I would vote against all federal aid to the State of Israel – as well as to the Palestinian authorities – saving $3 billion of the official budget annually, and eliminating between $12 and $27 billion in fraud each year. Additionally, I would urge members of the Senate to refrain from introducing, drafting, and supporting any and all agreements with the State of Israel which do not require the peaceful dismantlement of its political agencies to be completed within the next 220 years.

For more entries on Judaism, the State of Israel, and the Israeli-Arab conflict, please visit:

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Against Pocan, Roys, Worzala, and Silverman

      Four Democrats have stated an interest to seek the Democratic Party nomination for the seat for which I am running. They are Wisconsin State Assemblymen Mark Pocan and Kelda Helen Roys, Dane County Treasurer Dave Worzala, and veteran and attorney Matt Silverman.

State Representative Mark Pocan voted against protecting the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship regarding abortion, and the individual right to bear arms. Despite having claimed that he would like to help small businesses obtain the capital they need in order to grow, Pocan opposed a small business tax credit bill in the Wisconsin state legislature. He also opposed legislation amending the Wisconsin State Constitution to limit government spending.
 State Representative Kelda Helen Roys joined Mark Pocan in his support of the ban on smoking in public places and private places of employment throughout Wisconsin, and in opposition the sale of alcohol to supervised 18- to 20-year-olds. Assemblymen Pocan and Roys have also voiced opposition to concealed-carry laws, and opposed civil liability immunity for homeowners using deadly force against intruders in order to prevent imminent death.
Dane County Treasurer Dave Worzala has stated that he does “not believe in the rhetoric of no new taxes”, and he believes that raising levels of spending and taxation (including a repeal of the Bush tax cuts) will solve the federal budget crisis. Worzala would also support continued federal investment in infrastructure.
Veteran and attorney Matt Silverman has stated that he would support the increase of federal taxes, incorrectly believes that the United States is a democracy, and describes himself as a “pragmatic Democrat”.

I join Mr. Silverman in his opposition to big-budget campaign finance by business interests. I join Treasurer Worzala in his desire to curb federal spending and end the deficit. I join Assemblywoman Roys in her staunch support of freedom of choice. I join Assemblyman Pocan in his support of a sensible policy on illicit drugs, and gay rights in Wisconsin’s public sector.
I’m running for Congress because I support free-market and Constitutionalist policies which none of my Democratic opponents support. But I’m also running because I support a combination of left-wing policies which I am fairly confident that neither candidate would fully support.

If elected to the 113th Congress from Wisconsin’s 2nd district, I would be an outspoken voice supporting American national sovereignty coupled with a non-interventionist foreign policy; the restoration of the civil liberties including the freedom of speech, the press, assembly, the rights of the accused, and the right to bear arms; the absolute freedom of choice in regards to abortion, public-sector rights for women and minorities, amnesty for all undocumented immigrants who have not been convicted of harming persons or their property; and real fiscal restraint.

Additionally, I would be an ardent critic of the current federal monetary, budgetary, taxation, and wage policies; the political influence of all types of lobbies from Wall Street to Israel; a loose interpretation of the General Welfare Clause which excuses unconstitutional federal spending on military and economic aid to foreign governments, spending on the development of national infrastructure, and social and corporate welfare; and the secret ballot system; that practice of contractually-irresponsible absolute dominion by which our unduly-elected officials – including three of my four Democratic opponents – govern and control us, once described by a great American thinker as “political slavery… indistinguishable from the right of private property”.

If I am elected, my voting record will reflect the people’s desire to have a limited, republican form of government which supports amending the law to support social justice reforms, the restoration of individual rights, and the embrace of free-market principles, and all this in a manner that adheres to the letter of Constitutional law the way its framers intended.
I will support the freedom of – and from – association; voluntary exchange and compliance; and a system of contract law which is the basis of – not limited by – all legitimate governance.

For more entries on Wisconsin politics, please visit:

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Against Tammy Baldwin

      Wisconsin’s 2nd district is currently represented by seven-term Democrat Tammy Baldwin, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Rather than seeking re-election to the House, Congresswoman Baldwin is instead seeking election to the U.S. Senate in 2012, replacing four-term Democratic Senator Herb Kohl.
      Congresswoman Baldwin is to be commended for her consistent opposition to wars and foreign entanglement, and her consistent support of First Amendment rights, a sensible drug policy, and the freedom of choice. However, her short-sighted stances on the economy and her tendency to tow the Democratic Party line prompt a closer examination of her voting record.

      In 2011, Miss Baldwin voted with the Democratic Party 94% of the time, and since 2007, she has voted with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 93% of the time.
      From 2009 to 2011 – facing heated criticism over the individual insurance mandate and the assertion that the federal courts have repeatedly upheld the rights of the states to regulate health care – Miss Baldwin helped the House pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as “Obamacare”) health insurance reform act, the implementation of which will end up costing taxpayers approximately $1 trillion.
      In 2009 – in the face of claims that Former Vice President Al Gore, former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and President Obama himself have personal financial stake in the carbon emissions exchange industry, and assertions that the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to regulate the environment – Miss Baldwin supported “cap-and-trade” carbon emissions trading legislation. A complete adoption of similar “cap-and-trade” policies may potentially cost taxpayers as much as $200 billion a year.
      Additionally, Congresswoman Baldwin has voted many times in favor of gun control measures, and received an “F” rating from the N.R.A. for her lifetime support of the 2nd Amendment.

      Tammy Baldwin has also demonstrated an inclination towards irresponsible spending.
      In 2010, she voted against the Cut-Cap-and-Balance budget control measure, which would have cut more than $110 billion out of the 2012 federal budget. Although I agree with the few conservatives who opposed the bill because its cuts would not have been deep enough, this vote is not the only instance of Baldwin’s weakness in regards to fiscal restraint.
      Despite assertions that the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution prohibits federal spending to benefit particular areas of the country, Miss Baldwin casts her having obtained $200 million for Wisconsin’s 2nd district as the “secur[ing]” of funds for “worthwhile projects”.
      In 2006, Congresswoman Baldwin supported the expenditure of nearly $5 billion in military and economic foreign aid to the governments of Israel and other Middle Eastern nations. She also voted to bail out General Motors and Chrysler, which – despite its original projected cost of $14.3 billion – has recently been estimated to cost taxpayers $85 billion.
      In 2009 – in the face of claims that it would not noticeably stimulate private-sector job growth but rather only serve to increase the size and payroll of the federal bureaucracies, and that the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to provide corporate welfare, nor to invest in national infrastructure, science, or energy efficiency – Baldwin supported the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the “Stimulus Package”), whose cost to taxpayers is $78.9 billion over ten years, but may be as high as nearly $3.3 trillion were its major provisions to be permanently extended and its effects on debt service to be factored in.
      In late 2008 and early 2009, Miss Baldwin supported numerous economic stimulus and recession prevention and relief measures, which authorized the implementation of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), and the immediate expenditure of nearly $1.1 trillion, but which added long-term Major Fiscal Exposure commitments of about $12.2 trillion.

      Tammy Baldwin’s voting record has shown her deficiencies in discerning the true costs of large emergency spending bills, and in judging whether such legislation will cause Congress to either become capable of exercising oversight of responsible spending by – and regulation power over – the relevant industries, or else become powerless to confront the financial influence which such spending will cause banks and big businesses to exert over the political process stemming from the levels of monetary favors which this spending has conditioned them to expect in the future.
      Baldwin’s record represents a troubling precedent for the trajectory of a continued Democratic Party representation of Wisconsin’s 2nd. This is why Democratic 2nd district voters who respect the Constitution and value individual civil liberties would do well to avoid nominating Assemblywoman Kelda Helen Roys – Miss Baldwin’s endorsed candidate – in the primary, but also remain wary that Roys’s opponents – Mark Pocan, Dave Worzala, and Matt Silverman – may make the same mistakes as Congresswoman Baldwin did should either of them be elected to the House.

      I am running for Congress because – if elected – I would carry on Tammy Baldwin’s legacy of promoting peace, free speech, the freedom of choice, and a sensible drug policy, while additionally taking a stricter stance supporting the Constitution, including gun liberties, the rights of the states, fiscal restraint, and the freedom of the marketplace.

For more entries on Wisconsin politics, please visit: